,the ,traditional ,text of the ,holy ,gospels ,vindicated and ,established ,by the ,late ,john ,william ,burgon1 ,b4,d4 ,dean of ,chichester ,arranged1 ,completed1 and ,edited by ,edward ,miller1 ,m4,a4 ,late ,rector of ,bucknell1 ,oxon2 ,editor of the ,fourth ,edition of ,dr4 ,scrivener's 8,plain ,introduction to the ,textual ,criticism of the ,new ,testament02 and ,author of 8,a ,guide to the ,textual ,criticism of the ,new ,testament0 ,,phil4 i4 #a ,london ,george ,bell ,and ,sons ,cambridge3 ,deighton1 ,bell and ,co4 #ahif ,,contents ,preface4 ,introduction4 ,chapter ,i4 ,preliminary ,grounds4 ,chapter ,,ii4 ,principles4 ,chapter ,,iii4 ,the ,seven ,notes ,of ,truth4 ,chapter ,,iv4 ,the ,vatican ,and ,sinaitic ,manuscripts4 ,chapter ,v4 ,the ,antiquity of the ,traditional ,text4 ,i4 ,witness of the ,early ,fathers4 ,chapter ,,vi4 ,the ,antiquity ,of ,the ,traditional ,text4 ,,ii4 ,witness of the ,early ,syriac ,versions4 ,chapter ,,vii4 ,the ,antiquity ,of ,the ,traditional ,text4 ,,iii4 ,witness of the ,western or ,syrio-,low-,latin ,text4 ,chapter ,,viii4 ,alexandria and ,caesarea4 ,chapter ,,ix4 ,the ,old ,uncials4 ,the ,influence ,of ,origen4 ,chapter ,x4 ,the ,old ,uncials4 ,codex ,d4 ,chapter ,,xi4 ,the ,later ,uncials ,and ,the ,cursives4 ,chapter ,,xii4 ,conclusion4 ,appendix ,i4 ,honeycomb-- 4 ,appendix ,,ii4 --,vinegar4 ,appendix ,,iii4 ,the ,rich ,young ,man4 ,appendix ,,iv4 ,st4 ,mark i4 #a4 ,appendix ,v4 ,the ,sceptical ,character ,of ,b ,and 4 ,appendix ,,vi4 ,the ,peshitto ,and ,curetonian4 ,appendix ,,vii4 ,the ,last ,twelve ,verses ,of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,appendix ,,viii4 ,new ,editions ,of ,the ,peshitto-,syriac ,and ,the ,harkleian-,syriac ,versions4 ,general ,index4 ,index ,,ii4 ,passages ,of ,the ,new ,testament ,commented ,on4 ,footnotes 8,tenet ecclesia nostra1 tenuitque semper firmam illam et immotam ,tertulliani regulam #8,id verius quod prius1 id prius quod ab initio4' ,quo propius ad veritatis fontem accedimus1 eo purior decurrit ,catholicae doctrinae rivus40--,,cave',s ,proleg4 p4 xliv4 8,interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona1 et ambulate in e40--,jerem4 vi4 #af4 8,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 sacrosanctum40--,,tertull4 adv4 ,marc4 l4 iv4 c4 #e4 ,,preface4 ,the death of ,dean ,burgon in #ahhh1 lamented by a large number of people on the other side of the ,atlantic as well as on this1 cut him off in the early part of a task for which he had made preparations during more than thirty years4 ,he laid the foundations of his system with much care and caution1 discussing it with his friends1 such as the late ,earl of ,selborne to whom he inscribed ,the ,last ,twelve ,verses1 and the present ,earl of ,cranbrook to whom he dedicated ,the ,revision ,revised1 for the purpose of sounding the depths of the subject1 and of being sure that he was resting upon firm rock4 ,in order to enlarge the general basis of ,sacred ,textual ,criticism1 and to treat of the principles of it scientifically and comprehensively1 he examined manuscripts widely1 making many discoveries at home and in foreign libraries2 collated some himself and got many collated by other scholars2 encouraged new and critical editions of some of the chief ,versions2 and above all1 he devised and superintended a collection of quotations from the ,new ,testament to be found in the works of the ,fathers and in other ecclesiastical writings1 going far beyond ordinary indexes1 which may be found in sixteen thick volumes amongst the treasures of the ,british ,museum4 ,various events led him during his life-time to dip into and publish some of his stores1 such as in his ,last ,twelve ,verses of ,st4 ,mark1 his famous ,letters to ,dr4 ,scrivener in the ,guardian ,newspaper1 and in ,the ,revision ,revised4 ,but he sedulously amassed materials for the greater treatise up to the time of his death4 ,he was then deeply impressed with the incomplete state of his documents2 and gave positive instructions solely for the publication of his ,text of the ,gospels as marked in the margin of one of ,scrivener's editions of the ,new ,testament1 of his disquisition on 8honeycomb0 which as exhibiting a specimen of his admirable method of criticism will be found in ,appendix ,i of this volume1 and perhaps of that on in ,appendix ,,ii1 leaving the entire question as to publishing the rest to his nephew1 the ,rev4 ,w4 ,f4 ,rose1 with the help of myself1 if ,i would undertake the editing required1 and of others4 ,the separate papers1 which were committed to my charge in ,february1 #ahhi1 were contained in forty portfolios1 and according to my catalogue amounted to #b1chc4 ,they were grouped under various headings1 and some were placed in one set as 8,introductory ,matter0 ready for the printer4 ,most had been copied out in a clear hand1 especially by 8,m4,w40 mentioned in the ,preface of the ,revision ,revised1 to whom also ,i am greatly indebted for copying others4 ,the papers were of lengths varying from fourteen pages or more down to a single sentence or a single reference4 ,some were almost duplicates1 and a very few similarly triplicates4 ,after cataloguing1 ,i reported to ,mr4 ,rose1 suggesting a choice between three plans1 viz41 #a4 ,publishing separately according to the ,dean's instructions such papers as were judged to be fit for publication1 and leaving the rest3-- #b4 ,to put together a ,work on the ,principles of ,textual ,criticism out of the ,,mss41 as far as they would go3-- #c4 ,to make up what was ready and fit into a ,book1 supplying from the rest of the materials and from elsewhere what was wanting besides filling up gaps as well as ,i could1 and out of the rest 7as well as from the ,dean's published works7 to construct brief notes on the ,text which we had to publish4 ,this report was sent to ,dr4 ,scrivener1 ,dean ,goulburn1 ,sir ,edward ,maunde ,thompson1 and other distinguished scholars1 and the unanimous opinion was expressed that the third of these plans should be adopted4 ,not liking to encounter ,tot et tanta negotia solus1 ,i invited at the opening of #ahij the ,rev4 ,g4 ,h4 ,gwilliam1 ,fellow of ,hertford ,college1 and the ,rev4 ,dr4 ,waller1 ,principal of ,st4 ,john's ,hall1 ,highbury--a man of mathematical accuracy--to read over at my house the first draft of a large portion of ,volume ,i4 ,to my loss1 ,dr4 ,waller has been too busy since that time to afford me any help1 except what may be found in his valuable comparison of the texts of the ,peshitto and ,curetonian printed in ,appendix ,,vi3 but ,mr4 ,gwilliam has been ready with advice and help all along which have been of the greatest advantage to me especially on the ,syriac part of the subject1 and has looked through all the first proofs of this volume4 ,it was afterwards forced upon my mind that if possible the ,indexes to the ,fathers ought to be included in the work4 ,indeed no book could adequately represent ,dean ,burgon's labours which did not include his apparatus criticus in that province of ,textual ,criticism1 in which he has shewn himself so facile princeps1 that no one in ,england1 or ,germany1 or elsewhere1 has been as yet able to come near him4 ,with ,sir ,e4 ,maunde ,thompson's kind help1 ,i have been able to get the part of the ,indexes which relates to the ,gospels copied in type-writing1 and they will be published in course of time1 ,god willing1 if the learned world evinces sufficient interest in the publication of them4 ,unfortunately1 when in #ahij ,i had completed a first arrangement of ,volume ,,ii1 my health gave way2 and after vainly endeavouring for a year to combine this severe toil with the conduct of a living1 ,i resigned the latter1 and moved into ,oxford to devote myself exclusively to the important work of turning the unpublished results of the skilful faithfulness and the indefatigable learning of that 8grand scholar0--to use ,dr4 ,scrivener's phrase--towards the settlement of the principles that should regulate the ascertainment of the ,divine ,words constituting the ,new ,testament4 ,the difficulty to be surmounted lay in the fact that after all was gathered out of the ,dean's remains that was suitable for the purpose1 and when gaps of smaller or greater size were filled1 as has been done throughout the series of unfinished and unconnected ,,mss41 there was still a large space to cover without the ,master's help in covering it4 ,time and research and thought were alike necessary4 ,consequently1 upon advice1 ,i accepted an offer to edit the fourth edition of ,scrivener's ,plain ,introduction1 and although that extremely laborious accomplishment occupied far more time than was anticipated1 yet in the event it has greatly helped the execution of my task4 ,never yet1 before or since ,dean ,burgon's death1 has there been such an opportunity as the present4 ,the general apparatus criticus has been vastly increased2 the field of palaeography has been greatly enlarged through the discoveries in ,egypt2 and there is a feeling abroad that we are on the brink of an improvement in systems and theories recently in vogue4 ,on returning to the work1 ,i found that the key to the removal of the chief difficulty in the way of such improvement lay in an inflow of light upon what may perhaps be termed as to this subject the ,pre-manuscriptal ,period1--hitherto the dark age of ,sacred ,textualism1 which precedes what was once 8the year one0 of ,palaeography4 ,accordingly1 ,i made a toilsome examination for myself of the quotations occurring in the writings of the ,fathers before ,st4 ,chrysostom1 or as ,i defined them in order to draw a self-acting line1 of those who died before #djj ,a4,d41 with the result that the ,traditional ,text is found to stand in the general proportion of #c3b against other variations1 and in a much higher proportion upon thirty test passages4 ,afterwards1 not being satisfied with resting the basis of my argument upon one scrutiny1 ,i went again through the writings of the seventy-six ,fathers concerned 7with limitations explained in this book71 besides others who yielded no evidence1 and ,i found that although several more instances were consequently entered in my note-book1 the general results remained almost the same4 ,i do not flatter myself that even now ,i have recorded all the instances that could be adduced3--any one who is really acquainted with this work will know that such a feat is absolutely impossible1 because such perfection cannot be obtained except after many repeated efforts4 ,but ,i claim1 not only that my attempts have been honest and fair even to self-abnegation1 but that the general results which are much more than is required by my argument1 as is explained in the body of this work1 abundantly establish the antiquity of the ,traditional ,text1 by proving the superior acceptance of it during the period at stake to that of any other4 ,indeed1 these examinations have seemed to me1 not only to carry back the ,traditional ,text satisfactorily to the first age1 but to lead also to solutions of several difficult problems1 which are now presented to our readers4 ,the wealth of ,,mss4 to which the ,fathers introduce us at second-hand can only be understood by those who may go through the writings of many of them with this view2 and outnumbers over and over again before the year #ajjj all the contemporaneous ,greek ,,mss4 which have come down to us1 not to speak of the years to which no ,,mss4 that are now extant are in the opinion of all experts found to belong4 ,it is due both to ,dean ,burgon and to myself to say that we came together after having worked on independent lines1 though ,i am bound to acknowledge my great debt to his writings4 ,at first we did not agree thoroughly in opinion1 but ,i found afterwards that he was right and ,i was wrong4 ,it is a proof of the unifying power of our principles1 that as to our system there is now absolutely no difference between us1 though on minor points1 generally outside of this immediate subject1 we do not always exactly concur4 ,though ,i have the ,dean's example for altering his writings largely even when they were in type1 as he never failed to do1 yet in loyalty ,i have delayed alterations as long as ,i could1 and have only made them when ,i was certain that ,i was introducing some improvement1 and more often than not upon advice proffered to me by others4 ,our coincidence is perhaps explained by our having been born when ,evangelical earnestness affected all religious life1 by our having been trained under the ,high ,church movement1 and at least in my case mellowed under the more moderate widening caused by influences which prevailed in ,oxford for some years after #ahdh4 ,certainly1 the comprehensiveness and exhaustiveness--probably in imitation of ,german method--which had before characterized ,dr4 ,pusey's treatment of any subject1 and found an exemplification in ,professor ,freeman's historical researches1 and which was as ,i think to be seen in the action of the best spirits of the ,oxford of #ahdh-ef--to quote my own experience1--lay at the root and constituted the life of ,burgon's system1 and the maintenance of these principles so far as we could at whatever cost formed the link between us4 ,to cast away at least nineteen-twentieths of the evidence on points and to draw conclusions from the petty remainder1 seems to us to be necessarily not less even than a crime and a sin1 not only by reason of the sacrilegious destructiveness exercised thereby upon ,holy ,writ1 but also because such a method is inconsistent with conscientious exhaustiveness and logical method4 ,perfectly familiar with all that can be and is advanced in favour of such procedure1 must we not say that hardly any worse pattern than this in investigations and conclusions could be presented before young men at the critical time when they are entering upon habits of forming judgements which are to carry them through life8 ,has the over-specialism which has been in vogue of late years promoted the acceptance of the theory before us1 because it may have been under specializing influences forgotten1 that the really accomplished man should aim at knowing something of everything else as well as knowing everything of the thing to which he is devoted1 since narrowness in investigation and neglect of all but a favourite theory is likely to result from so exclusive an attitude8 ,the importance of the question at stake is often underrated4 ,dr4 ,philip ,schaff in his well-known 8,companion0 7p4 #agf71--;as ,dr4 ,e4 ,nestle of ,ulm in one of his brochures 78,ein ceterum censeo zur neutestamentlichen ,textkritik07 which he has kindly sent me1 has pointed out1--observes that whereas ,mill reckoned the variations to amount to #cj1jjj1 and ,scrivener supposed that they have since increased to four times as much1 they 8cannot now fall much short of #aej1jjj40 ,this amount is appalling1 and most of them are of a petty character4 ,but some involve highly important passages1 and even ,hort has reckoned 7,introduction1 p4 #b7 that the disputed instances reach about one-eighth of the whole4 ,is it too strong therefore to say1 that we live over a volcano1 with a crust of earth of not too great a thickness lying between8 ,the first half of our case is now presented in this ,volume1 which is a complete treatise in itself4 ,a second will ,i hope follow at an early date1 containing a disquisition on the ,causes of the ,corruption of the ,traditional ,text2 and1 ,i am glad to say1 will consist almost exclusively of ,dean ,burgon's own compositions4 ,i ask from ,critics who may not assent to all our conclusions a candid consideration of our case1 which is rested solely upon argument and reason throughout4 ,this explanation made by the ,dean of his system in calmer times and in a more didactic form cannot1 as ,i think1 fail to remove much prejudice4 ,if we seem at first sight anywhere to leap from reasoning to dogmatism1 our readers will discover1 ,i believe1 upon renewed observation that at least from our point of view that is not so4 ,if we appear to speak too positively1 we have done this1 not from confidence in any private judgement1 but because we are sure1 at least in our own minds1 that we express the verdict of all the ages and all the countries4 ,may the great ,head of the ,church bless our effort on behalf of the integrity of ,his ,holy ,word1 if not according to our plan and purpose1 yet in the way that seemeth ,him best6 ,edward ,miller4 #i ,,bradmore ,,road1 ,,oxford3 ,epiphany #ahif4 ,,introduction4 ,a few remarks at the outset of this treatise1 which was left imperfect by ,dean ,burgon at his unexpected death1 may make the object and scope of it more intelligible to many readers4 ,textual ,criticism of the ,new ,testament is a close inquiry into what is the genuine ,greek--the true text of the ,holy ,gospels1 of the ,acts of the ,apostles1 of the ,pauline and ,apostolic ,epistles1 and the ,revelation4 ,inasmuch as it concerns the text alone1 it is confined to the ,lower ,criticism according to ,german nomenclature1 just as a critical examination of meaning1 with all its attendant references and connexions1 would constitute the ,higher ,criticism4 ,it is thus the necessary prelude of any scientific investigation of the language1 the purport1 and the teaching of the various books of the ,new ,testament1 and ought itself to be conducted upon definite and scientific principles4 ,the object of this treatise is to lead to a general settlement of those principles4 ,for this purpose the ,dean has stripped the discussion of all adventitious disguise1 and has pursued it lucidly into manifold details1 in order that no employment of difficult terms or involved sentences may shed any mystification over the questions discussed1 and that all intelligent people who are interested in such questions--and who is not8--may understand the issues and the proofs of them4 ,in the very earliest times much variation in the text of the ,new ,testament1 and particularly of the ,holy ,gospels--for we shall treat mainly of these four books as constituting the most important province1 and as affording a smaller area1 and so being more convenient for the present inquiry3--much diversity in words and expression1 ,i say1 arose in the ,church4 ,in consequence1 the school of scientific ,theology at ,alexandria1 in the person of ,origen1 first found it necessary to take cognizance of the matter4 ,when ,origen moved to ,caesarea1 he carried his manuscripts with him1 and they appear to have formed the foundation of the celebrated library in that city1 which was afterwards amplified by ,pamphilus and ,eusebius1 and also by ,acacius and ,euzoius7#a71 who were all successively bishops of the place4 ,during the life of ,eusebius1 if not under his controlling care1 the two oldest ,uncial ,manuscripts in existence as hitherto discovered1 known as ,b and 1 or the ,vatican and ,sinaitic1 were executed in handsome form and exquisite calligraphy4 ,but shortly after1 about the middle of the fourth century--as both schools of ,textual ,critics agree--a text differing from that of ,b and advanced in general acceptance2 and1 increasing till the eighth century in the predominance won by the end of the fourth1 became so prevalent in ,christendom1 that the small number of ,,mss4 agreeing with ,b and forms no sort of comparison with the many which vary from those two4 ,thus the problem of the fourth century anticipated the problem of the nineteenth4 ,are we for the genuine text of the ,new ,testament to go to the ,vatican and the ,sinaitic ,,mss4 and the few others which mainly agree with them1 or are we to follow the main body of ,new ,testament ,,mss41 which by the end of the century in which those two were produced entered into possession of the field of contention1 and have continued in occupation of it ever since8 ,this is the problem which the following treatise is intended to solve1 that is to say1 which of these two texts or sets of readings is the better attested1 and can be traced back through the stronger evidence to the original autographs4 ,a few words are now needed to describe and account for the present position of the controversy4 ,after the discovery of printing in ,europe1 ,textual ,criticism began to rise again4 ,the career of it may be divided into four stages1 which may be termed respectively1 ,infancy1 ,childhood1 ,youth1 and ,incipient ,maturity7#b74 ,i4 ,erasmus in #aeaf edited the ,new ,testament from a very small number of manuscripts1 probably only five1 in repute at the time2 and six years afterwards appeared the ,complutensian edition under ,cardinal ,ximenes1 which had been printed two years before that of ,erasmus4 ,robert ,stephen1 ,theodore ,beza1 and the ,elzevirs1 also1 as is well known1 published editions of their own4 ,in the latter edition of the ,elzevirs1 issued in #afcc1 occurred for the first time the widely-used expression 8,textus ,receptus40 ,the sole object in this period was to adhere faithfully to the text received everywhere4 ,,ii4 ,in the next1 evidence from ,manuscripts1 ,versions1 and ,fathers was collected1 chiefly by ,mill and ,wetstein4 ,bentley thought of going back to the fourth century for decisive evidence4 ,bengel and ,griesbach laid stress upon families and recensions of manuscripts1 and led the way in departing from the received standard4 ,collation of manuscripts was carried on by these two critics and by other able scholars1 and largely by ,scholz4 ,there was thus an amplification of materials1 and a crop of theories4 ,much that was vague and elemental was intermingled with a promise of a great deal that would prove more satisfactory in the future4 ,,iii4 ,the leader in the next advance was ,lachmann1 who began to discard the readings of the ,received ,text1 supposing it to be only two centuries old4 ,authorities having already become inconveniently multitudinous1 he limited his attention to the few which agreed with the oldest ,uncials1 namely1 ,l or the ,regius at ,paris1 one or two other fragments of ,uncials1 a few ,cursives1 the ,old ,latin ,manuscripts1 and a few of the oldest ,fathers1 making up generally some six or seven in all upon each separate reading4 ,tischendorf1 the discoverer of 1 the twin-sister of ,b1 and the collator of a large number of ,,mss47#c71 followed him in the main1 as did also ,tregelles4 ,and ,dr4 ,hort1 who1 with ,bishop ,westcott1 began to theorize and work when ,lachmann's influence was at the highest1 in a most ingenious and elaborate ,introduction maintained the cause of the two oldest ,uncials--especially ,b--and their small band of followers4 ,admitting that the ,received ,text dates back as far as the middle of the fourth century1 ,hort argued that it was divided by more than two centuries and a half from the original ,autographs1 and in fact took its rise at ,antioch and should be called 8,syrian10 notwithstanding the predominance which he acknowledged that it has enjoyed since the end of the fourth century4 ,he termed the readings of which ,b and are the chief exponents 8the ,neutral ,text10 and held that that text can be traced back to the genuine ,autographs7#d74 ,,iv4 ,i have placed the tenets of the opposite school last as exhibiting signs of ,incipient ,maturity in the ,science1 not because they are admitted to be so1 that being not the case1 but because of their intrinsic merits1 which will be unfolded in this volume1 and because of the immense addition recently made of authorities to our store1 as well as on account of the indirect influence exercised of late by discoveries pursued in other quarters7#e74 ,indeed1 it is sought to establish a wider stock of ruling authorities1 and a sounder method in the use of them4 ,the leaders in the advocacy of this system have been ,dr4 ,scrivener in a modified degree1 and especially ,dean ,burgon4 ,first1 be it understood1 that we do not advocate perfection in the ,textus ,receptus4 ,we allow that here and there it requires revision4 ,in the ,text left behind by ,dean ,burgon7#f71 about #aej corrections have been suggested by him in ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel alone4 ,what we maintain is the ,,traditional ,,text4 ,and we trace it back to the earliest ages of which there is any record4 ,we trust to the fullest testimony and the most enlightened view of all the evidence4 ,in humble dependence upon ,god the ,holy ,ghost1 ,who we hold has multiplied witnesses all down the ages of the ,church1 and ,whose cause we believe we plead1 we solemnly call upon those many students of the ,bible in these days who are earnest after truth to weigh without prejudice what we say1 in the prayer that it may contribute something towards the ascertainment of the true expressions employed in the genuine ,word of ,,god4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,preliminary ,,grounds4 #a4 ,in the ensuing pages ,i propose to discuss a problem of the highest dignity and importance7#g73 namely1 ,on what principles the true text of the ,new ,testament ,scriptures is to be ascertained8 ,my subject is the ,greek text of those ,scriptures1 particularly of the four ,gospels2 my object1 the establishment of that text on an intelligible and trustworthy basis4 ,that no fixed principles were known to exist before #ahhj is proved by the fact that the most famous critics not only differed considerably from one another1 but also from themselves4 ,till then all was empiricism in this department4 ,a section1 a chapter1 an article1 a pamphlet1 a tentative essay--all these indeed from time to time appeared3 and some were excellent of their kind4 ,but we require something a vast deal more methodical1 argumentative1 and complete1 than is compatible with such narrow limits4 ,even where an account of the facts was extended to greater length and was given with much fullness and accuracy1 there was an absence of scientific principle sufficient to guide students to a satisfactory and sound determination of difficult questions4 ,tischendorf's last two editions differ from one another in no less than #c1egb particulars4 ,he reverses in every page in #ahgb what in #ahei he offered as the result of his deliberate judgement4 ,every one1 to speak plainly1 whether an expert or a mere beginner1 seemed to consider himself competent to pass sentence on any fresh reading which is presented to his notice4 ,we were informed that 8according to all principles of sound criticism0 this word is to be retained1 that to be rejected3 but till the appearance of the dissertation of ,dr4 ,hort no one was so obliging as to tell us what the principles are to which reference is confidently made1 and by the loyal application of which we might have arrived at the same result for ourselves4 ,and ,hort's theory1 as will be shewn further on1 involves too much violation of principles generally received1 and is too devoid of anything like proof1 ever to win universal acceptance4 ,as matters of fact easily verified1 it stands in sharp antagonism to the judgement passed by the ,church all down the ages1 and in many respects does not accord with the teaching of the most celebrated critics of the century who preceded him4 ,i trust ,i shall be forgiven1 if in the prosecution of the present inquiry ,i venture to step out of the beaten track1 and to lead my reader forward in a somewhat humbler style than has been customary with my predecessors4 ,whenever they have entered upon the consideration of principles1 they have always begun by laying down on their own authority a set of propositions1 some of which so far from being axiomatic are repugnant to our judgement and are found as they stand to be even false4 ,true that ,i also shall have to begin by claiming assent to a few fundamental positions3 but then ,i venture to promise that these shall all be self-evident4 ,i am very much mistaken if they do not also conduct us to results differing greatly from those which have been recently in favour with many of the most forward writers and teachers4 ,beyond all things ,i claim at every thoughtful reader's hands that he will endeavour to approach this subject in an impartial frame of mind4 ,to expect that he will succeed in divesting himself of all preconceived notions as to what is likely1 what not1 were unreasonable4 ,but he is invited at least to wear his prejudices as loose about him as he can2 to be prepared to cast them off if at any time he has been shewn that they are founded on misapprehension2 to resolve on taking nothing for granted which admits of being proved to be either true or false4 ,and1 to meet an objection which is sure to be urged against me1 by proof of course ,i do but mean the nearest approach to demonstration1 which in the present subject-matter is attainable4 ,thus1 ,i request that1 apart from proof of some sort1 it shall not be taken for granted that a copy of the ,new ,testament written in the fourth or fifth century will exhibit a more trustworthy text than one written in the eleventh or twelfth4 ,that indeed of two ancient documents the more ancient might not unreasonably have been expected to prove the more trustworthy1 ,i am not concerned to dispute1 and will not here discuss such a question2 but the probabilities of the case at all events are not axiomatic4 ,nay1 it will be found1 as ,i am bold enough to say1 that in many instances a fourteenth-century copy of the ,gospels may exhibit the truth of ,scripture1 while the fourth-century copy in all these instances proves to be the depositary of a fabricated text4 ,i have only to request that1 until the subject has been fully investigated1 men will suspend their judgement on this head3 taking nothing for granted which admits of proof1 and regarding nothing as certainly either true or false which has not been shewn to be so4 #b4 ,that which distinguishes ,sacred ,science from every other ,science which can be named is that it is ,divine1 and has to do with a ,book which is inspired2 that is1 whose true ,author is ,god4 ,for we assume that the ,bible is to be taken as inspired1 and not regarded upon a level with the ,books of the ,east1 which are held by their votaries to be sacred4 ,it is chiefly from inattention to this circumstance that misconception prevails in that department of ,sacred ,science known as 8,textual ,criticism40 ,aware that the ,new ,testament is like no other book in its origin1 its contents1 its history1 many critics of the present day nevertheless permit themselves to reason concerning its ,text1 as if they entertained no suspicion that the words and sentences of which it is composed were destined to experience an extraordinary fate also4 ,they make no allowances for the fact that influences of an entirely different kind from any with which profane literature is acquainted have made themselves felt in this department1 and therefore that even those principles of ,textual ,criticism which in the case of profane authors are regarded as fundamental are often out of place here4 ,it is impossible that all this can be too clearly apprehended4 ,in fact1 until those who make the words of the ,new ,testament their study are convinced that they move in a region like no other1 where unique phenomena await them at every step1 and where seventeen hundred and fifty years ago depraving causes unknown in every other department of learning were actively at work1 progress cannot really be made in the present discussion4 ,men must by all means disabuse their minds of the prejudices which the study of profane literature inspires4 ,let me explain this matter a little more particularly1 and establish the reasonableness of what has gone before by a few plain considerations which must1 ,i think1 win assent4 ,i am not about to offer opinions1 but only to appeal to certain undeniable facts4 ,what ,i deprecate1 is not any discriminating use of reverent criticism1 but a clumsy confusion of points essentially different4 ,no sooner was the work of ,evangelists and ,apostles recognized as the necessary counterpart and complement of ,god's ancient ,scriptures and became the 8,new ,testament10 than a reception was found to be awaiting it in the world closely resembling that which ,he experienced ,who is the subject of its pages4 ,calumny and misrepresentation1 persecution and murderous hate1 assailed ,him continually4 ,and the ,written ,word in like manner1 in the earliest age of all1 was shamefully handled by mankind4 ,not only was it confused through human infirmity and misapprehension1 but it became also the object of restless malice and unsparing assaults4 ,marcion1 ,valentinus1 ,basilides1 ,heracleon1 ,menander1 ,asclepiades1 ,theodotus1 ,hermophilus1 ,apollonides1 and other heretics1 adapted the ,gospels to their own ideas4 ,tatian1 and later on ,ammonius1 created confusion through attempts to combine the four ,gospels either in a diatessaron or upon an intricate arrangement made by sections1 under which as a further result the words of one ,gospel became assimilated to those of another7#h74 ,want of familiarity with the sacred words in the first ages1 carelessness of scribes1 incompetent teaching1 and ignorance of ,greek in the ,west1 led to further corruption of the ,sacred ,text4 ,then out of the fact that there existed a vast number of corrupt copies arose at once the need of ,recension1 which was carried on by ,origen and his school4 ,this was a fatal necessity to have made itself felt in an age when the first principles of the ,science were not understood2 for 8to correct0 was too often in those days another word for 8to corrupt40 ,and this is the first thing to be briefly explained and enforced3 but more than a counterbalance was provided under the overruling ,providence of ,god4 #c4 ,before our ,lord ascended up to ,heaven1 ,he told ,his disciples that ,he would send them the ,holy ,ghost1 ,who should supply ,his place and abide with ,his ,church for ever4 ,he added a promise that it should be the office of that inspiring ,spirit not only 8to bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever ,he had told them7#i710 but also to 8guide0 ,his ,church 8into all the ,truth10 or1 8the whole ,truth7#aj70 7 74 ,accordingly1 the earliest great achievement of those days was accomplished on giving to the ,church the ,scriptures of the ,new ,testament1 in which authorized teaching was enshrined in written form4 ,and first1 out of those many ,gospels which incompetent persons had 8taken in hand0 to write or to compile out of much floating matter of an oral or written nature1 ,he guided them to discern that four were wholly unlike the rest--were the very ,word of ,god4 ,there exists no reason for supposing that the ,divine ,agent1 who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the ,scriptures of ,truth1 straightway abdicated ,his office2 took no further care of ,his work2 abandoned those precious writings to their fate4 ,that a perpetual miracle was wrought for their preservation--that copyists were protected against the risk of error1 or evil men prevented from adulterating shamefully copies of the ,deposit--no one1 it is presumed1 is so weak as to suppose4 ,but it is quite a different thing to claim that all down the ages the sacred writings must needs have been ,god's peculiar care2 that the ,church under ,him has watched over them with intelligence and skill2 has recognized which copies exhibit a fabricated1 which an honestly transcribed text2 has generally sanctioned the one1 and generally disallowed the other4 ,i am utterly disinclined to believe--so grossly improbable does it seem--that at the end of #ahjj years #iie copies out of every thousand1 suppose1 will prove untrustworthy2 and that the one1 two1 three1 four or five which remain1 whose contents were till yesterday as good as unknown1 will be found to have retained the secret of what the ,holy ,spirit originally inspired4 ,i am utterly unable to believe1 in short1 that ,god's promise has so entirely failed1 that at the end of #ahjj years much of the text of the ,gospel had in point of fact to be picked by a ,german critic out of a waste-paper basket in the convent of ,st4 ,catherine2 and that the entire text had to be remodelled after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during fifteen centuries1 and had probably owed their survival to that neglect2 whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces1 and had bequeathed their witness to copies made from them4 ,i have addressed what goes before to persons who sympathize with me in my belief4 ,to others the argument would require to be put in a different way4 ,let it then be remembered1 that a wealth of copies existed in early times2 that the need of zealous care of the ,holy ,scriptures was always felt in the ,church2 that it is only from the ,church that we have learnt which are the books of the ,bible and which are not2 that in the age in which the ,canon was settled1 and which is presumed by many critics to have introduced a corrupted text1 most of the intellect of the ,roman ,empire was found within the ,church1 and was directed upon disputed questions2 that in the succeeding ages the art of transcribing was brought to a high pitch of perfection2 and that the verdict of all the several periods since the production of those two manuscripts has been given till a few years ago in favour of the ,text which has been handed down3--let it be further borne in mind that the testimony is not only that of all the ages1 but of all the countries3 and at the very least so strong a presumption will ensue on behalf of the ,traditional ,text1 that a powerful case indeed must be constructed to upset it4 ,it cannot be vanquished by theories grounded upon internal considerations--often only another name for personal tastes--1 or for scholarly likes or dislikes1 or upon fictitious recensions1 or upon any arbitrary choice of favourite manuscripts1 or upon a strained division of authorities into families or groups1 or upon a warped application of the principle of genealogy4 ,in the ascertainment of the facts of the ,sacred ,text1 the laws of evidence must be strictly followed4 ,in questions relating to the inspired ,word1 mere speculation and unreason have no place4 ,in short1 the ,traditional ,text1 founded upon the vast majority of authorities and upon the ,rock of ,christ's ,church1 will1 if ,i mistake not1 be found upon examination to be out of all comparison superior to a text of the nineteenth century1 whatever skill and ingenuity may have been expended upon the production or the defence of it4 #d4 ,for due attention has never yet been paid to a circumstance which1 rightly apprehended1 will be found to go a great way towards establishing the text of the ,new ,testament ,scriptures on a solid basis4 ,i refer to the fact that a certain exhibition of the ,sacred ,text--that exhibition of it with which we are all most familiar--rests on ecclesiastical authority4 ,speaking generally1 the ,traditional ,text of the ,new ,testament ,scriptures1 equally with the ,new ,testament ,canon1 rests on the authority of the ,church ,catholic4 8,whether we like it1 or dislike it0 7remarked a learned writer in the first quarter of the nineteenth century71 8the present ,new ,testament ,canon is neither more nor less than the probat of the orthodox ,christian bishops1 and those not only of the first and second1 but of the third and fourth1 and even subsequent centuries7#aa740 ,in like manner1 whether men would or would not have it so1 it is a plain fact that the ,traditional ,greek ,text of the ,new ,testament is neither more nor less than the probat of the orthodox ,greek ,christian bishops1 and those1 if not as we maintain of the first and second1 or the third1 yet unquestionably of the fourth and fifth1 and even subsequent centuries4 ,for happily1 the matter of fact here is a point on which the disciples of the most advanced of the modern school are entirely at one with us4 ,dr4 ,hort declares that 8,the fundamental text of late extant ,greek ,,mss4 generally is1 beyond all question1 identical with the dominant ,antiochian or ,graeco-,syrian text of the second half of the fourth century4444 ,the bulk of extant ,,mss4 written from about three or four to ten or eleven centuries later must have had in the greater number of extant variations a common original either contemporary with1 or older than1 our oldest ,,mss47#ab70 ,and again1 8,before the close of the fourth century1 as we have said1 a ,greek text1 not materially differing from the almost universal text of the ninth century and the ,middle ,ages1 was dominant1 probably by authority1 at ,antioch1 and exercised much influence elsewhere7#ac740 ,the mention of 8,antioch0 is1 characteristically of the writer1 purely arbitrary4 ,one and the same ,traditional ,text1 except in comparatively few particulars1 has prevailed in the ,church from the beginning till now4 ,especially deserving of attention is the admission that the ,text in question is of the fourth century1 to which same century the two oldest of our ,sacred ,codexes 7,b and 7 belong4 ,there is observed to exist in ,church ,lectionaries precisely the same phenomenon4 ,they have prevailed in unintermitted agreement in other respects from very early times1 probably from the days of ,st4 ,chrysostom7#ad71 and have kept in the main without change the form of words in which they were originally cast in the unchangeable ,east4 ,and really the problem comes before us 7,god be praised67 in a singularly convenient1 a singularly intelligible form4 ,since the sixteenth century--we owe this also to the good ,providence of ,god--one and the same text of the ,new ,testament ,scriptures has been generally received4 ,i am not defending the 8,textus ,receptus02 ,i am simply stating the fact of its existence4 ,that it is without authority to bind1 nay1 that it calls for skilful revision in every part1 is freely admitted4 ,i do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true ,traditional ,text4 ,its existence1 nevertheless1 is a fact from which there is no escaping4 ,happily1 ,western ,christendom has been content to employ one and the same text for upwards of three hundred years4 ,if the objection be made1 as it probably will be1 8,do you then mean to rest upon the five manuscripts used by ,erasmus80 ,i reply1 that the copies employed were selected because they were known to represent with accuracy the ,sacred ,word2 that the descent of the text was evidently guarded with jealous care1 just as the human genealogy of our ,lord was preserved2 that it rests mainly upon much the widest testimony2 and that where any part of it conflicts with the fullest evidence attainable1 there ,i believe that it calls for correction4 ,the question therefore which presents itself1 and must needs be answered in the affirmative before a single syllable of the actual text is displaced1 will always be one and the same1 viz4 this3 ,is it certain that the evidence in favour of the proposed new reading is sufficient to warrant the innovation8 ,for ,i trust we shall all be agreed that in the absence of an affirmative answer to this question1 the text may on no account be disturbed4 ,rightly or wrongly it has had the approval of ,western ,christendom for three centuries1 and is at this hour in possession of the field4 ,therefore the business before us might be stated somewhat as follows3 ,what considerations ought to determine our acceptance of any reading not found in the ,received ,text1 or1 to state it more generally and fundamentally1 our preference of one reading before another8 ,for until some sort of understanding has been arrived at on this head1 progress is impossible4 ,there can be no ,science of ,textual ,criticism1 ,i repeat--and therefore no security for the inspired ,word--so long as the subjective judgement1 which may easily degenerate into individual caprice1 is allowed ever to determine which readings shall be rejected1 which retained4 ,in the next chapter ,i shall discuss the principles which must form the groundwork of the ,science4 ,meanwhile a few words are necessary to explain the issue lying between myself and those critics with whom ,i am unable to agree4 ,i must1 if ,i can1 come to some understanding with them2 and ,i shall use all clearness of speech in order that my meaning and my position may be thoroughly apprehended4 #e4 ,strange as it may appear1 it is undeniably true1 that the whole of the controversy may be reduced to the following narrow issue3 ,does the truth of the ,text of ,scripture dwell with the vast multitude of copies1 uncial and cursive1 concerning which nothing is more remarkable than the marvellous agreement which subsists between them8 ,or is it rather to be supposed that the truth abides exclusively with a very little handful of manuscripts1 which at once differ from the great bulk of the witnesses1 and--strange to say--also amongst themselves8 ,the advocates of the ,traditional ,text urge that the ,consent without ,concert of so many hundreds of copies1 executed by different persons1 at diverse times1 in widely sundered regions of the ,church1 is a presumptive proof of their trustworthiness1 which nothing can invalidate but some sort of demonstration that they are untrustworthy guides after all4 ,the advocates of the old uncials--for it is the text exhibited by one or more of five ,uncial ,codexes known as ,,ab,,cd which is set up with so much confidence--are observed to claim that the truth must needs reside exclusively with the objects of their choice4 ,they seem to base their claim on 8antiquity02 but the real confidence of many of them lies evidently in a claim to subtle divination1 which enables them to recognize a true reading or the true text when they see it4 ,strange1 that it does not seem to have struck such critics that they assume the very thing which has to be proved4 ,be this as it may1 as a matter of fact1 readings exclusively found in ,cod4 ,b1 or ,cod4 1 or ,cod4 ,d are sometimes adopted as correct4 ,neither ,cod4 ,a nor ,cod4 ,c are ever known to inspire similar confidence4 ,but the accession of both or either as a witness is always acceptable4 ,now it is remarkable that all the five ,codexes just mentioned are never found1 unless ,i am mistaken1 exclusively in accord4 ,this question will be more fully discussed in the following treatise4 ,here it is only necessary further to insist upon the fact that1 generally speaking1 compromise upon these issues is impossible4 ,most people in these days are inclined to remark about any controversy that the truth resides between the two combatants1 and most of us would like to meet our opponents half-way4 ,the present contention unfortunately does not admit of such a decision4 ,real acquaintance with the numerous points at stake must reveal the impossibility of effecting a settlement like that4 ,it depends1 not upon the attitude1 or the temper1 or the intellects of the opposing parties3 but upon the stern and incongruous elements of the subject-matter of the struggle4 ,much as we may regret it1 there is positively no other solution4 ,indeed there exist but two rival schools of ,textual ,criticism4 ,and these are irreconcilably opposed4 ,in the end1 one of them will have to give way3 and1 vae victis6 unconditional surrender will be its only resource4 ,when one has been admitted to be the right1 there can no place be found for the other4 ,it will have to be dismissed from attention as a thing utterly1 hopelessly in the wrong7#ae74 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,principles4 #a4 ,the object of ,textual ,criticism1 when applied to the ,scriptures of the ,new ,testament1 is to determine what the ,apostles and ,evangelists of ,christ actually wrote--the precise words they employed1 and the very order of them4 ,it is therefore one of the most important subjects which can be proposed for examination2 and unless handled unskilfully1 ought to prove by no means wanting in living interest4 ,moreover1 it clearly takes precedence1 in synthetical order of thought1 of every other department of ,sacred ,science1 so far as that rests upon the great pillar of ,holy ,scripture4 ,now ,textual ,criticism occupies itself chiefly with two distinct branches of inquiry4 7#a7 ,its first object is to collect1 investigate1 and arrange the evidence supplied by ,manuscripts1 ,versions1 ,fathers4 ,and this is an inglorious task1 which demands prodigious labour1 severe accuracy1 unflagging attention1 and can never be successfully conducted without a considerable amount of solid learning4 7#b7 ,its second object is to draw critical inferences2 in other words1 to discover the truth of the text--the genuine words of ,holy ,writ4 ,and this is altogether a loftier function1 and calls for the exercise of far higher gifts4 ,nothing can be successfully accomplished here without large and exact knowledge1 freedom from bias and prejudice4 ,above all1 there must be a clear and judicial understanding4 ,the logical faculty in perfection must energize continually3 or the result can only be mistakes1 which may easily prove calamitous4 ,my next step is to declare what has been hitherto effected in either of these departments1 and to characterize the results4 ,in the first-named branch of the subject1 till recently very little has been attempted3 but that little has been exceedingly well done4 ,many more results have been added in the last thirteen years3 a vast amount of additional evidence has been discovered1 but only a small portion of it has been thoroughly examined and collated4 ,in the latter branch1 a great deal has been attempted3 but the result proves to be full of disappointment to those who augured much from it4 ,the critics of this century have been in too great a hurry4 ,they have rushed to conclusions1 trusting to the evidence which was already in their hands1 forgetting that only those conclusions can be scientifically sound which are drawn from all the materials that exist4 ,research of a wider kind ought to have preceded decision4 ,let me explain and establish what ,i have been saying4 #b4 ,it was only to have been anticipated that the ,author of the ,everlasting ,gospel--that masterpiece of ,divine ,wisdom1 that miracle of superhuman skill--would shew ,himself supremely careful for the protection and preservation of ,his own chiefest work4 ,every fresh discovery of the beauty and preciousness of the ,deposit in its essential structure does but serve to deepen the conviction that a marvellous provision must needs have been made in ,god's eternal counsels for the effectual conservation of the inspired ,text4 ,yet it is not too much to assert that nothing which man's inventive skill could have devised nearly comes up to the actual truth of the matter4 ,let us take a slight but comprehensive view of what is found upon investigation1 as ,i hold1 to have been the ,divine method in respect of the ,new ,testament ,scriptures4 ,i4 ,from the very necessity of the case1 copies of the ,gospels and ,epistles in the original ,greek were multiplied to an extraordinary extent all down the ages and in every part of the ,christian ,church4 ,the result has been that1 although all the earliest have perished1 there remains to this day a prodigious number of such transcripts2 some of them of very high antiquity4 ,on examining these with care1 we discover that they must needs have been 7a7 produced in different countries1 7b7 executed at intervals during the space of one thousand years1 7c7 copied from originals no longer in existence4 ,and thus a body of evidence has been accumulated as to what is the actual text of ,scripture1 such as is wholly unapproachable with respect to any other writings in the world7#af74 ,more than two thousand manuscript copies are now 7#ahhh7 known to exist7#ag74 ,it should be added that the practice of reading ,scripture aloud before the congregation--a practice which is observed to have prevailed from the ,apostolic age--has resulted in the increased security of the ,deposit3 for 7#a7 it has led to the multiplication1 by authority1 of books containing the ,church ,lessons2 and 7#b7 it has secured a living witness to the ipsissima verba of the ,spirit--in all the ,churches of ,christendom4 ,the ear once thoroughly familiarized with the words of ,scripture is observed to resent the slightest departure from the established type4 ,as for its tolerating important changes1 that is plainly out of the question4 ,,ii4 ,next1 as the ,gospel spread from land to land1 it became translated into the several languages of the ancient world4 ,for1 though ,greek was widely understood1 the commerce and the intellectual predominance of the ,greeks1 and the conquests of ,alexander having caused it to be spoken nearly all over the ,roman ,empire1 ,syriac and ,latin ,versions were also required for ordinary reading1 probably even in the very age of the ,apostles4 ,and thus those three languages in which 8the title of ,his accusation0 was written above ,his cross--not to insist upon any absolute identity between the ,syriac of the time with the then 8,hebrew0 of ,jerusalem--became from the earliest time the depositaries of the ,gospel of the ,world's ,redeemer4 ,syriac was closely related to the vernacular ,aramaic of ,palestine and was spoken in the adjoining region3 whilst ,latin was the familiar idiom of all the ,churches of the ,west4 ,thus from the first in their public assemblies1 orientals and occidentals alike habitually read aloud the writings of the ,evangelists and ,apostles4 ,before the fourth and fifth centuries the ,gospel had been further translated into the peculiar idioms of ,lower and ,upper ,egypt1 in what are now called the ,bohairic and the ,sahidic ,versions1--of ,ethiopia and of ,armenia1--of ,gothland4 ,the text thus embalmed in so many fresh languages was clearly1 to a great extent1 protected against the risk of further change2 and these several translations remain to this day as witnesses of what was found in copies of the ,new ,testament which have long since perished4 ,,iii4 ,but the most singular provision for preserving the memory of what was anciently read as inspired ,scriptures remains to be described4 ,sacred ,science boasts of a literature without a parallel in any other department of human knowledge4 ,the ,fathers of the ,church1 the ,bishops and ,doctors of primitive ,christendom1 were in some instances voluminous writers1 whose works have largely come down to our times4 ,these men often comment upon1 freely quote1 habitually refer to1 the words of ,inspiration3 whereby it comes to pass that a host of unsuspected witnesses to the truth of ,scripture are sometimes producible4 ,the quotations of passages by the ,fathers are proofs of the readings which they found in the copies used by them4 ,they thus testify in ordinary quotations1 though it be at second hand3 and sometimes their testimony has more than usual value when they argue or comment upon the passage in question4 ,indeed1 very often the manuscripts in their hands1 which so far live in their quotations1 are older--perhaps centuries older--than any copies that now survive4 ,in this way1 it will be perceived that a three-fold security has been provided for the integrity of the ,deposit3--,copies1--,versions1--,father s4 ,on the relation of each of which heads to one another something particular has now to be delivered4 #c4 ,manuscript copies are commonly divided into ,uncial1 i4e4 those which are written in capital letters1 and ,cursive or 8minuscule10 i4e4 those which are written in 8running0 or small hand4 ,this division though convenient is misleading4 ,the earliest of the 8,cursives0 are more ancient than the latest of the 8,uncials0 by full one hundred years7#ah74 ,the later body of the ,uncials belongs virtually1 as will be proved1 to the body of the ,cursives4 ,there is no merit1 so to speak1 in a ,,ms4 being written in the uncial character4 ,the number of the ,uncials is largely inferior to that of the ,cursives1 though they usually boast a much higher antiquity4 ,it will be shewn in a subsequent chapter that there is now1 in the face of recent discoveries of ,papyrus ,,mss4 in ,egypt1 much reason for inferring that ,cursive ,,mss4 were largely derived from ,,mss4 on ,papyrus1 just as the ,uncials themselves were1 and that the prevalence for some centuries of ,uncials took its rise from the local library of ,caesarea4 ,for a full account of these several ,codexes1 and for many other particulars in ,sacred ,textual ,criticism1 the reader is referred to ,scrivener's ,introduction1 #ahid4 ,now it is not so much an exaggerated1 as an utterly mistaken estimate of the importance of the ,textual decrees of the five oldest of these ,uncial copies1 which lies at the root of most of the criticism of the last fifty years4 ,we are constrained in consequence to bestow what will appear to some a disproportionate amount of attention on those five ,codexes3 viz4 the ,vatican ,codex ,b1 and the ,sinaitic ,codex 1 which are supposed to be both of the fourth century3 the ,alexandrian ,codex ,a1 and the fragmentary ,parisian ,codex ,c1 which are assigned to the fifth3 and lastly ,d1 the ,codex ,bezae at ,cambridge1 which is supposed to have been written in the sixth4 ,to these may now be added1 as far as ,st4 ,matthew and ,st4 ,mark are concerned1 the ,codex ,beratinus 1 and the ,rossanensian ,codex 1 both of which are of the early part of the sixth century or end of the fifth4 ,but these two witness generally against the two oldest1 and have not yet received as much attention as they deserve4 ,it will be found in the end that we have been guilty of no exaggeration in characterizing ,b1 1 and ,d at the outset1 as three of the most corrupt copies in existence4 ,let not any one suppose that the age of these five ,,mss4 places them upon a pedestal higher than all others4 ,they can be proved to be wrong time after time by evidence of an earlier period than that which they can boast4 ,indeed1 that copies of ,scripture1 as a class1 are the most important instruments of ,textual ,criticism is what no competent person will be found to deny4 ,the chief reasons of this are their continuous text1 their designed embodiment of the written ,word1 their number1 and their variety4 ,but we make also such great account of ,,mss41 because 7#a7 they supply unbroken evidence to the text of ,scripture from an early date throughout history until the invention of printing2 7#b7 they are observed to be dotted over every century of the ,church after the first three2 7#c7 they are the united product of all the patriarchates in ,christendom4 ,there can have been no collusion therefore in the preparation of this class of authorities4 ,the risk of erroneous transcription has been reduced to the lowest possible amount4 ,the prevalence of fraud to a universal extent is simply a thing impossible4 ,conjectural corrections of the text are pretty sure1 in the long run1 to have become effectually excluded4 ,on the contrary1 the testimony of ,fathers is fragmentary1 undesigned1 though often on that account the more valuable1 and indeed1 as has been already said1 is often not to be found2 yet occasionally it is very precious1 whether from eminent antiquity or the clearness of their verdict3 while ,versions1 though on larger details they yield a most valuable collateral evidence1 yet from their nature are incapable of rendering help upon many important points of detail4 ,indeed1 in respect of the ipsissima verba of ,scripture1 the evidence of ,versions in other languages must be precarious in a high degree4 ,undeniable it is1 that as far as regards ,primitiveness1 certain of the ,versions1 and not a few of the ,fathers1 throw ,manuscripts altogether in the shade4 ,we possess no actual copies of the ,new ,testament so old as the ,syriac and the ,latin ,versions by probably more than two hundred years4 ,something similar is perhaps to be said of the ,versions made into the languages of ,lower and ,upper ,egypt1 which may be of the third century7#ai74 ,reasonable also it is to assume that in no instance was an ancient ,version executed from a single ,greek exemplar3 consequently1 ,versions enjoyed both in their origin and in their acceptance more publicity than of necessity attached to any individual copy4 ,and it is undeniable that on countless occasions the evidence of a translation1 on account of the clearness of its testimony1 is every bit as satisfactory as that of an actual copy of the ,greek4 ,but ,i would especially remind my readers of ,bentley's golden precept1 that 8,the real text of the sacred writers does not now1 since the originals have been so long lost1 lie in any ,,ms4 or edition1 but is dispersed in them all40 ,this truth1 which was evident to the powerful intellect of that great scholar1 lies at the root of all sound ,textual ,criticism4 ,to abide by the verdict of the two1 or five1 or seven oldest ,manuscripts1 is at first sight plausible1 and is the natural refuge of students who are either superficial1 or who wish to make their task as easy and simple as possible4 ,but to put aside inconvenient witnesses is contrary to all principles of justice and of science4 ,the problem is more complex1 and is not to be solved so readily4 ,evidence of a strong and varied character may not with safety be cast away1 as if it were worthless4 #d4 ,we are constrained therefore to proceed to the consideration of the vast mass of testimony which lies ready to our hands4 ,and we must just as evidently seek for principles to guide us in the employment of it4 ,for it is the absence of any true chart of the ocean that has led people to steer to any barren island1 which under a guise of superior antiquity might at first sight present the delusive appearance of being the only safe and sure harbour4 #a4 ,we are all1 ,i trust1 agreed at least in this1--,that the thing which we are always in search of is the ,text of ,scripture as it actually proceeded from the inspired writers themselves4 ,it is never1 ,i mean1 8ancient readings0 which we propose as the ultimate object of our inquiries4 ,it is always the oldest ,reading of all which we desire to ascertain2 in other words1 the original ,text1 nothing else or less than the very words of the holy ,evangelists and ,apostles themselves4 ,and axiomatic as this is1 it requires to be clearly laid down4 ,for sometimes critics appear to be engrossed with the one solicitude to establish concerning the readings for which they contend1 that at least they must needs be very ancient4 ,now1 since all readings must needs be very ancient which are found in very ancient documents1 nothing has really been achieved by proving that such and such readings existed in the second century of our era3--unless it can also be proved that there are certain other attendant circumstances attaching to those readings1 which constitute a fair presumption1 that they must needs be regarded as the only genuine wording of the passage in question4 ,the ,holy ,scriptures are not an arena for the exercise or display of the ingenuity of critics4 #b4 ,i trust it may further be laid down as a fundamental principle that of two possible ways of reading the ,text1 that way which is found on examination to be the better attested and authenticated--by which ,i mean1 the reading which proves on inquiry to be supported by the better evidence--must in every instance be of necessity presumed to be the actual reading1 and is to be accepted accordingly by all students4 #c4 ,i will venture to make only one more postulate1 viz4 this3 ,that hitherto we have become acquainted with no single authority which is entitled to dictate absolutely on all occasions1 or even on any one occasion1 as to what shall or shall not be regarded as the true ,text of ,scripture4 ,we have here no one infallible witness1 ,i say1 whose solitary dictum is competent to settle controversies4 ,the problem now to be investigated1 viz4 what evidence is to be held to be 8the best10 may doubtless be stated in many ways3 but ,i suppose not more fairly than by proposing the following question1--,can any rules be offered whereby in any case of conflicting testimony it may be certainly ascertained which authorities ought to be followed8 ,the court is full of witnesses who contradict one another4 ,how are we to know which of them to believe8 ,strange to say1 the witnesses are commonly1 indeed almost invariably1 observed to divide themselves into two camps4 ,are there no rules discoverable by which it may be probably determined with which camp of the two the truth resides8 ,i proceed to offer for the reader's consideration seven ,tests of ,truth1 concerning each of which ,i shall have something to say in the way of explanation by-and-by4 ,in the end ,i shall ask the reader to allow that where these seven tests are found to conspire1 we may confidently assume that the evidence is worthy of all acceptance1 and is to be implicitly followed4 ,a reading should be attested then by the seven following4 ,,notes ,,of ,,truth4 #a4 ,antiquity1 or ,primitiveness2 #b4 ,consent of ,witnesses1 or ,number2 #c4 ,variety of ,evidence1 or ,catholicity2 #d4 ,respectability of ,witnesses1 or ,weight2 #e4 ,continuity1 or ,unbroken ,tradition2 #f4 ,evidence of the ,entire ,passage1 or ,context2 #g4 ,internal ,considerations1 or ,reasonableness4 #e4 ,the full consideration of these ,tests of ,truth must be postponed to the next chapter4 ,meanwhile1 three discussions of a more general character demand immediate attention4 ,i4 ,antiquity1 in and by itself1 will be found to avail nothing4 ,a reading is to be adopted not because it is old1 but because it is the best attested1 and therefore the oldest4 ,there may seem to be paradox on my part3 but there is none4 ,i have admitted1 and indeed insist upon it1 that the oldest reading of all is the very thing we are in search of3 for that must of necessity be what proceeded from the pen of the sacred writer himself4 ,but1 as a rule1 fifty years1 more or less1 must be assumed to have intervened between the production of the inspired autographs and the earliest written representation of them now extant4 ,and precisely in that first age it was that men evinced themselves least careful or accurate in guarding the ,deposit1--least critically exact in their way of quoting it2--whilst the enemy was most restless1 most assiduous in procuring its depravation4 ,strange as it may sound1--distressing as the discovery must needs prove when it is first distinctly realized1--the earliest shreds and scraps--for they are at first no more--that come into our hands as quotations of the text of the ,new ,testament ,scriptures are not only disappointing by reason of their inexactness1 their fragmentary character1 their vagueness2 but they are often demonstrably inaccurate4 ,i proceed to give one example out of many4 8,my ,god1 ,my ,god1 wherefore hast thou forsaken me80 2 ,so it is in ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #df3 so in ,st4 ,mark xv4 #cd4 ,but because1 in the latter place1 ,b1 one ,old ,latin1 the ,vulgate1 and the ,bohairic ,versions1 besides ,eusebius1 followed by ,l and a few cursives1 reverse the order of the last two words1 the editors are unanimous in doing the same thing4 ,they have yet older authority1 however1 for what they do4 ,justin ,m4 7,a4,d4 #afd7 and the ,valentinians 7,a4,d4 #aej7 are with them4 ,as far therefore as antiquity goes1 the evidence for reading is really wondrous strong4 ,and yet the evidence on the other side1 when it is considered1 is perceived to be overwhelming7#bj74 ,add the discovery that is the established reading of the familiar ,septuagint1 and we have no hesitation whatever in retaining the commonly ,received ,text1 because the secret is out4 ,b were sure to follow the ,septuagint1 which was so dear to ,origen4 ,further discussion of the point is superfluous4 ,i shall of course be asked1--,are we then to understand that you condemn the whole body of ancient authorities as untrustworthy8 ,and if you do1 to what other authorities would you have us resort8 ,i answer3--,so far from regarding the whole body of ancient authorities as untrustworthy1 it is precisely 8the whole body of ancient authorities0 to which ,i insist that we must invariably make our appeal1 and to which we must eventually defer4 ,i regard them therefore with more than reverence4 ,i submit to their decision unreservedly4 ,doubtless ,i refuse to regard any one of those same most ancient manuscripts--or even any two or three of them--as oracular4 ,but why8 ,because ,i am able to demonstrate that every one of them singly is in a high degree corrupt1 and is condemned upon evidence older than itself4 ,to pin my faith therefore to one1 two1 or three of those eccentric exemplars1 were indeed to insinuate that the whole body of ancient authorities is unworthy of credit4 ,it is to ,antiquity1 ,i repeat1 that ,i make my appeal3 and further1 ,i insist that the ascertained verdict of ,antiquity shall be accepted4 ,but then1 inasmuch as by 8,antiquity0 ,i do not even mean any one single ancient authority1 however ancient1 to the exclusion of1 and in preference to1 all the rest1 but the whole collective body1 it is precisely 8the body of ancient authorities0 which ,i propose as the arbiters4 ,thus1 ,i do not mean by 8,antiquity0 either 7#a7 the ,peshitto ,syriac3 or 7#b7 ,cureton's ,syriac3 or 7#c7 the ,old ,latin ,versions3 or 7#d7 the ,vulgate3 or 7#e7 the ,egyptian1 or indeed 7#f7 any other of the ancient ,versions3--not 7#g7 ,origen1 nor 7#h7 ,eusebius1 nor 7#i7 ,chrysostom1 nor 7#aj7 ,cyril1--nor indeed 7#aa7 any other ancient ,father standing alone3 neither 7#ab7 ,cod4 ,a1--nor 7#ac7 ,cod4 ,b1--nor 7#ad7 ,cod4 ,c1--nor 7#ae7 ,cod4 ,d1--nor 7#af7 ,cod4 1--nor in fact 7#ag7 any other individual ,codex that can be named4 ,i should as soon think of confounding the cathedral hard by with one or two of the stones which compose it4 ,by ,antiquity ,i understand the whole body of documents which convey to me the mind of ,antiquity1--transport me back to the primitive age1 and acquaint me1 as far as is now possible1 with what was its verdict4 ,and by parity of reasoning1 ,i altogether decline to accept as decisive the verdict of any two or three of these in defiance of the ascertained authority of all1 or a majority of the rest4 ,in short1 ,i decline to accept a fragment of ,antiquity1 arbitrarily broken off1 in lieu of the entire mass of ancient witnesses4 ,and further than this1 ,i recognize other ,notes of ,truth1 as ,i have stated already2 and ,i shall prove this position in my next chapter4 #f4 ,,ii4 ,the term 8various readings0 conveys an entirely incorrect impression of the grave discrepancies discoverable between a little handful of documents--of which ,codexes ,b- of the fourth century1 ,d of the sixth1 ,l of the eighth1 are the most conspicuous samples--and the ,traditional ,text of the ,new ,testament4 ,the expression 8various readings0 belongs to secular literature and refers to phenomena essentially different from those exhibited by the copies just mentioned4 ,not but what 8various readings10 properly so called1 are as plentiful in sacred as in profane codexes4 ,one has but to inspect ,scrivener's ,full and ,exact ,collation of about ,twenty ,greek ,manuscripts of the ,gospels 7#ahec7 to be convinced of the fact4 ,but when we study the ,new ,testament by the light of such ,codexes as ,b,,dl1 we find ourselves in an entirely new region of experience2 confronted by phenomena not only unique but even portentous4 ,the text has undergone apparently an habitual1 if not systematic1 depravation2 has been manipulated throughout in a wild way4 ,influences have been demonstrably at work which altogether perplex the judgement4 ,the result is simply calamitous4 ,there are evidences of persistent mutilation1 not only of words and clauses1 but of entire sentences4 ,the substitution of one expression for another1 and the arbitrary transposition of words1 are phenomena of such perpetual occurrence1 that it becomes evident at last that what lies before us is not so much an ancient copy1 as an ancient recension of the ,sacred ,text4 ,and yet not by any means a recension in the usual sense of the word as an authoritative revision3 but only as the name may be applied to the product of individual inaccuracy or caprice1 or tasteless assiduity on the part of one or many1 at a particular time or in a long series of years4 ,there are reasons for inferring1 that we have alighted on five specimens of what the misguided piety of a primitive age is known to have been fruitful in producing4 ,of fraud1 strictly speaking1 there may have been little or none4 ,we should shrink from imputing an evil motive where any matter will bear an honourable interpretation4 ,but1 as will be seen later on1 these ,codexes abound with so much licentiousness or carelessness as to suggest the inference1 that they are in fact indebted for their preservation to their hopeless character4 ,thus it would appear that an evil reputation ensured their neglect in ancient times2 and has procured that they should survive to our own1 long after multitudes which were much better had perished in the ,master's service4 ,let men think of this matter as they will1--whatever in fact may prove to be the history of that peculiar ,text which finds its chief exponents in ,codd4 ,b,,dl1 in some copies of the ,old ,latin1 and in the ,curetonian ,version1 in ,origen1 and to a lesser extent in the ,bohairic and ,sahidic ,translations1--all must admit1 as a matter of fact1 that it differs essentially from the ,traditional ,text1 and is no mere variation of it4 ,but why1 it will be asked1 may it not be the genuine article8 ,why may not the 8,traditional ,text0 be the fabrication8 #a4 ,the burden of proof1 we reply1 rests with our opponents4 ,the consent without concert of 7suppose7 #iij out of #ajjj copies1--of every date from the fifth to the fourteenth century1 and belonging to every region of ancient ,christendom1--is a colossal fact not to be set aside by any amount of ingenuity4 ,a predilection for two fourth-century manuscripts closely resembling one another1 yet standing apart in every page so seriously that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which they differ than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree3--such a preference1 ,i say1 apart from abundant or even definitely clear proof that it is well founded1 is surely not entitled to be accepted as conclusive4 #b4 ,next1--,because1--although for convenience we have hitherto spoken of ,codexes ,b,,dl as exhibiting a single text1--it is in reality not one text but fragments of many1 which are to be met with in the little handful of authorities enumerated above4 ,their witness does not agree together4 ,the ,traditional ,text1 on the contrary1 is unmistakably one4 #c4 ,further1--,because it is extremely improbable1 if not impossible1 that the ,traditional ,text was or could have been derived from such a document as the archetype of ,b-3 whereas the converse operation is at once obvious and easy4 ,there is no difficulty in producing a short text by omission of words1 or clauses1 or verses1 from a fuller text3 but the fuller text could not have been produced from the shorter by any development which would be possible under the facts of the case7#ba74 ,glosses would account for changes in the archetype of ,b-1 but not conversely7#bb74 #d4 ,but the chief reason is1--,because1 on making our appeal unreservedly to ,antiquity--to ,versions and ,fathers as well as copies1--the result is unequivocal4 ,the ,traditional ,text becomes triumphantly established1--the eccentricities of ,b,d and their colleagues become one and all emphatically condemned4 ,all these1 in the mean time1 are points concerning which something has been said already1 and more will have to be said in the sequel4 ,returning now to the phenomenon adverted to at the outset1 we desire to explain that whereas 8,various ,readings10 properly so called1 that is to say1 the ,readings which possess really strong attestation--for more than nineteen-twentieths of the 8,various ,readings0 commonly quoted are only the vagaries of scribes1 and ought not to be called 8,readings0 at all--do not require classification into groups1 as ,griesbach and ,hort have classified them2 8,corrupt ,readings10 if they are to be intelligently handled1 must by all means be distributed under distinct heads1 as will be done in the ,second ,part of this work4 ,,iii4 8,it is not at all our design0 7remarks ,dr4 ,scrivener7 8to seek our readings from the later uncials1 supported as they usually are by the mass of cursive manuscripts2 but to employ their confessedly secondary evidence in those numberless instances wherein their elder brethren are hopelessly at variance7#bc740 ,from which it is plain that in this excellent writer's opinion1 the truth of ,scripture is to be sought in the first instance at the hands of the older uncials3 that only when these yield conflicting testimony may we resort to the 8confessedly secondary evidence0 of the later uncials3 and that only so may we proceed to inquire for the testimony of the great mass of the cursive copies4 ,it is not difficult to foresee what would be the result of such a method of procedure4 ,i venture therefore respectfully but firmly to demur to the spirit of my learned friend's remarks on the present1 and on many similar occasions4 ,his language is calculated to countenance the popular belief 7#a7 ,that the authority of an uncial codex1 because it is an uncial1 is necessarily greater than that of a codex written in the cursive character3 an imagination which upon proof ,i hold to be groundless4 ,between the text of the later uncials and the text of the cursive copies1 ,i fail to detect any separative difference3 certainly no such difference as would induce me to assign the palm to the former4 ,it will be shewn later on in this treatise1 that it is a pure assumption to take for granted1 or to infer1 that cursive copies were all descended from the uncials4 ,new discoveries in palaeography have ruled that error to be out of court4 ,but 7#b7 especially do ,i demur to the popular notion1 to which ,i regret to find that ,dr4 ,scrivener lends his powerful sanction1 that the text of ,scripture is to be sought in the first instance in the oldest of the uncials4 ,i venture to express my astonishment that so learned and thoughtful a man should not have seen that before certain 8elder brethren0 are erected into a supreme court of judicature1 some other token of fitness besides that of age must be produced on their behalf4 ,whence1 ,i can but ask--1 whence is it that no one has yet been at the pains to establish the contradictory of the following proposition1 viz4 that ,codexes ,b,,cd are the several depositaries of a fabricated and depraved text3 and that ,b,d1 for ,c is a palimpsest1 i4e41 has had the works of ,ephraem the ,syrian written over it as if it were of no use1 are probably indebted for their very preservation solely to the fact that they were anciently recognized as untrustworthy documents8 ,do men indeed find it impossible to realize the notion that there must have existed such things as refuse copies in the fourth1 fifth1 sixth1 and seventh centuries as well as in the eighth1 ninth1 tenth1 and eleventh8 and that the ,codexes which we call ,b,,cd may possibly1 if not as ,i hold probably1 have been of that class7#bd78 ,now ,i submit that it is a sufficient condemnation of ,codd4 ,b,,cd as a supreme court of judicature 7#a7 ,that as a rule they are observed to be discordant in their judgements3 7#b7 ,that when they thus differ among themselves it is generally demonstrable by an appeal to antiquity that the two principal judges ,b and have delivered a mistaken judgement3 7#c7 ,that when these two differ one from the other1 the supreme judge ,b is often in the wrong3 and lastly 7#d7 ,that it constantly happens that all four agree1 and yet all four are in error4 ,does any one then inquire1--,but why at all events may not resort be had in the first instance to ,codd4 ,b,,acd8--,i answer1--,because the inquiry is apt to prejudice the question1 pretty sure to mislead the judgement1 only too likely to narrow the issue and render the ,truth hopelessly difficult of attainment4 ,for every reason1 ,i am inclined to propose the directly opposite method of procedure1 as at once the safer and the more reasonable method4 ,when ,i learn that doubt exists1 as to the reading of any particular place1 instead of inquiring what amount of discord on the subject exists between ,codexes ,,ab,,cd 7for the chances are that they will be all at loggerheads among themselves71 ,i inquire for the verdict as it is given by the main body of the copies4 ,this is generally unequivocal4 ,but if 7which seldom happens7 ,i find this a doubtful question1 then indeed ,i begin to examine the separate witnesses4 ,yet even then it helps me little1 or rather it helps me nothing1 to find1 as ,i commonly do1 that ,a is on one side and ,b on the other1--except by the way that wherever ,b are seen together1 or when ,d stands apart with only a few allies1 the inferior reading is pretty sure to be found there also4 ,suppose however 7as commonly happens7 there is no serious division1--of course1 significance does not attach itself to any handful of eccentric copies1--but that there is a practical unanimity among the cursives and later uncials3 ,i cannot see that a veto can rest with such unstable and discordant authorities1 however much they may singly add to the weight of the vote already tendered4 ,it is as a hundred to one that the uncial or uncials which are with the main body of the cursives are right1 because 7as will be shown7 in their consentience they embody the virtual decision of the whole ,church2 and that the dissentients--be they few or many--are wrong4 ,i inquire however1--,what say the ,versions8 and last but not least1--,what say the ,fathers8 ,the essential error in the proceeding ,i object to is best illustrated by an appeal to elementary facts4 ,only two of the 8five old uncials0 are complete documents1 ,b and 3 and these being confessedly derived from one and the same exemplar1 cannot be regarded as two4 ,the rest of the 8old uncials0 are lamentably defective4--,from the ,alexandrian ,codex 7,a7 the first twenty-four chapters of ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel are missing3 that is1 the ,,ms4 lacks #hgj verses out of #a1jga4 ,the same ,codex is also without #abf consecutive verses of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel4 ,more than one-fourth of the contents of ,cod4 ,a are therefore lost7#be74--;,d is complete only in respect of ,st4 ,luke3 wanting #aai verses of ,st4 ,matthew1--#e verses of ,st4 ,mark1--#aff verses of ,st4 ,john4--,on the other hand1 ,codex ,c is chiefly defective in respect of ,st4 ,luke's and ,st4 ,john's ,gospel2 from the former of which it omits #fdc 7out of #a1aea7 verses2 from the latter1 #eac 7out of #hhj71 or far more than the half in either case4 ,codex ,c in fact can only be described as a collection of fragments3 for it is also without #bfj verses of ,st4 ,matthew1 and without #aaf of ,st4 ,mark4 ,the disastrous consequence of all this to the ,textual ,critic is manifest4 ,he is unable to compare 8the five old uncials0 together except in respect of about one verse in three4 ,sometimes he finds himself reduced to the testimony of ,a,b3 for many pages together of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 he is reduced to the testimony of ,,bd4 ,now1 when the fatal and peculiar sympathy which subsists between these three documents is considered1 it becomes apparent that the ,critic has in effect little more than two documents before him4 ,and what is to be said when 7as from ,st4 ,matt4 vi4 #bj to vii4 #d7 he is reduced to the witness of two ,codexes1--and those1 ,b8 ,evident it is that whereas the ,author of ,scripture hath bountifully furnished ,his ,church with 7speaking roughly7 upwards of #b1cjj7bf7 copies of the ,gospels1 by a voluntary act of self-impoverishment1 some ,critics reduce themselves to the testimony of little more than one3 and that one a witness whom many judges consider to be undeserving of confidence4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,the ,,seven ,,notes ,,of ,,truth4 #a4 ,antiquity4 ,the more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony4 ,that it is not by any means always so is a familiar fact4 ,to quote the known dictum of a competent judge3 8,it is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound1 that the worst corruptions to which the ,new ,testament has ever been subjected1 originated within a hundred years after it was composed2 that ,irenaeus and the ,african ,fathers and the whole ,western1 with a portion of the ,syriac ,church1 used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by ,stunica1 or ,erasmus1 or ,stephen1 thirteen centuries after1 when moulding the ,textus ,receptus7#bg740 ,therefore ,antiquity alone affords no security that the manuscript in our hands is not infected with the corruption which sprang up largely in the first and second centuries4 ,but it remains true1 notwithstanding1 that until evidence has been produced to the contrary in any particular instance1 the more ancient of two witnesses may reasonably be presumed to be the better informed witness4 ,shew me for example that1 whereas a copy of the ,gospels 7suppose ,cod4 ,b7 introduces the clause 8,raise the dead0 into our ,,saviour',s ministerial commission to ,his ,apostles 7,st4 ,matt4 x4 #h71--;another ,codex1 but only of the fourteenth century 7suppose ,evan4 #fjd 7,hoskier771 omits it2--am ,i not bound to assume that our ,,lord did give this charge to ,his ,apostles2 did say to them1 2 and that the words in question have accidentally dropped out of the sacred ,text in that later copy8 ,show me besides that in three other of our oldest ,codexes 7,,cd7 the place in ,st4 ,matthew is exhibited in the same way as in ,cod4 ,b2 and of what possible avail can it be that ,i should urge in reply that in three more ,,mss4 of the thirteenth or fourteenth century the text is exhibited in the same way as in ,evan4 #fjd8 ,there is of course a strong antecedent probability1 that the testimony which comes nearest to the original autographs has more claim to be the true record than that which has been produced at a further distance from them4 ,it is most likely that the earlier is separated from the original by fewer links than the later3--though we can affirm this with no absolute certainty1 because the present survival of ,uncials of various dates of production shews that the existence of copies is measured by no span like that of the life of men4 ,accordingly as a general rule1 and a general rule only1 a single early ,uncial possesses more authority than a single later ,uncial or ,cursive1 and a still earlier ,version or ,quotation by a ,father must be placed before the reading of the early ,uncial4 ,only let us clearly understand what principle is to guide us1 in order that we may know how we are to proceed4 ,is it to be assumed1 for instance1 that ,antiquity is to decide this matter8 by which is meant only this1--,that1 of two or more conflicting readings1 that shall be deemed the true reading which is observed to occur in the oldest known document4 ,is that to be our fundamental principle8 ,are we1 in other words1 to put up with the transparent fallacy that the oldest reading must of necessity be found in the oldest document8 ,well1 if we have made up our minds that such is to be our method1 then let us proceed to construct our text chiefly by the aid of the ,old ,latin and ,peshitto ,versions1--the oldest authorities extant of a continuous text3 and certainly1 wherever these are observed to agree in respect of any given reading1 let us hear nothing about the conflicting testimony of or ,b1 which are of the fourth century2 of ,d1 which is of the sixth2 of ,l1 which is of the eighth4 ,but if our adversaries shift their ground1 disliking to be 8hoist with their own petard10 and if such a solution standing alone does not commend itself to our own taste1 we must ask1 ,what is meant by ,antiquity8 ,for myself1 if ,i must assign a definite period1 ,i am disposed to say the first six or seven centuries of our era4 ,but ,i observe that those who have preceded me in these inquiries draw the line at an earlier period4 ,lachmann fixes ,a4,d4 #djj3 ,tregelles 7ever illogical7 gives the beginning of the seventh century3 ,westcott and ,hort1 before the close of the fourth century4 ,in this absence of agreement1 it is found to be both the safest and the wisest course to avoid drawing any hard and fast line1 and in fact any line at all4 ,antiquity is a comparative term4 ,what is ancient is not only older than what is modern1 but when constantly applied to the continuous lapse of ages includes considerations of what is more or less ancient4 ,codex ,e is ancient compared with ,codex ,l3 ,cod4 ,a compared with ,cod4 ,e3 ,cod4 compared with ,cod4 ,a3 ,cod4 ,b though in a much lesser degree compared with ,cod4 3 the ,old ,latin and ,peshitto ,versions compared with ,cod4 ,b3 ,clemens ,romanus compared with either4 ,if we had the copy of the ,gospels which belonged to ,ignatius1 ,i suppose we should by common consent insist on following it almost implicitly4 ,it certainly would be of overwhelming authority4 ,its decrees would be only not decisive4 ,this is1 ,i think1 too strong3 there might be mistakes even in that4--,e4 ,m4 ,therefore by ,antiquity as a principle involving more or less authority must be meant the greater age of the earlier ,copies1 ,versions1 or ,fathers4 ,that which is older will possess more authority than that which is more recent3 but age will not confer any exclusive1 or indeed paramount1 power of decision4 ,antiquity is one ,note of ,truth3 but even if it is divorced from the arbitrary selection of ,authorities which has regulated too much the employment of it in ,textual ,criticism1 it cannot be said to cover the whole ground4 #b4 ,number4 ,we must proceed now to consider the other ,notes1 or ,tests3 and the next is ,number4 #a4 ,that 8witnesses are to be weighed--not counted10--is a maxim of which we hear constantly4 ,it may be said to embody much fundamental fallacy4 #b4 ,it assumes that the 8witnesses0 we possess1--meaning thereby every single ,codex1 ,version1 ,father--1 7#a7 are capable of being weighed3 and 7#b7 that every individual ,critic is competent to weigh them3 neither of which propositions is true4 #c4 ,in the very form of the maxim1--8,not to be counted--but to be weighed10--the undeniable fact is overlooked that 8number0 is the most ordinary ingredient of weight1 and indeed in matters of human testimony1 is an element which even cannot be cast away4 ,ask one of ,her ,majesty's ,judges if it be not so4 ,ten witnesses 7suppose7 are called in to give evidence3 of whom one resolutely contradicts what is solemnly deposed to by the other nine4 ,which of the two parties do we suppose the ,judge will be inclined to believe8 #d4 ,but it may be urged--would not the discovery of the one original autograph of the ,gospels exceed in 8weight0 any 8number0 of copies which can be named8 ,no doubt it would1 ,i answer4 ,but only because it would be the original document1 and not 8a copy0 at all3 not 8a witness0 to the fact1 but the very fact itself4 ,it would be as if in the midst of a trial1--turning1 suppose1 on the history of the will of some testator--1 the dead man himself were to step into ,court1 and proclaim what had actually taken place4 ,yet the laws of ,evidence would remain unchanged3 and in the very next trial which came on1 if one or two witnesses out of as many hundred were to claim that their evidence should be held to outweigh that of all the rest1 they would be required to establish the reasonableness of their claim to the satisfaction of the ,judge3 or they must submit to the inevitable consequence of being left in an inconsiderable minority4 #e4 ,number then constitutes ,weight1 or in other words1--since ,i have used 8,weight0 here in a more general sense than usual1--is a ,note of ,truth4 ,not of course absolutely1 as being the sole ,test1 but caeteris paribus1 and in its own place and proportion4 ,and this1 happily1 our opponents freely admit3 so freely in fact1 that my only wonder is that they do not discover their own inconsistency4 #f4 ,but the axiom in question labours under the far graver defect of disparaging the ,divine method1 under which in the multitude of evidence preserved all down the ages provision has been made as matter of hard fact1 not by weight but by number1 for the integrity of the ,deposit4 ,the prevalent use of the ,holy ,scriptures in the ,church caused copies of them to abound everywhere4 ,the demand enforced the supply4 ,they were read in the public ,services of the ,church4 ,the constant quotation of them by ,ecclesiastical ,writers from the first proves that they were a source to ,christians of continual study1 and that they were used as an ultimate appeal in the decision of knotty questions4 ,they were cited copiously in ,sermons4 ,they were employed in the conversion of the heathen1 and as in the case of ,st4 ,cyprian must have exercised a strong influence in bringing people to believe4 ,such an abundance of early copies must have ensured perforce the production of a resulting abundance of other copies made everywhere in continuous succession from them until the invention of printing4 ,accordingly1 although countless numbers must have perished by age1 use1 destruction in war1 and by accident and other causes1 nevertheless #fc ,uncials1 #gcg ,cursives1 and #dad ,lectionaries are known to survive of the ,gospels alone7#bh74 ,add the various ,versions1 and the mass of quotations by ,ecclesiastical ,writers1 and it will at once be evident what materials exist to constitute a ,majority which shall outnumber by many times the ,minority1 and also that ,number has been ordained to be a factor which cannot be left out of the calculation4 #g4 ,another circumstance however of much significance has yet to be stated4 ,practically the ,axiom under consideration is discovered to be nothing else but a plausible proposition of a general character intended to shelter the following particular application of it3--8,we are able0--says ,dr4 ,tregelles--8to take the few documents 444 and safely discard 444 the #hi_/ij or whatever else their numerical proportion may be7#bi740 ,accordingly in his edition of the ,gospels1 the learned writer rejects the evidence of all the cursive ,codexes extant but three4 ,he is mainly followed by the rest of his school1 including ,westcott and ,hort4 ,now again ,i ask1--,is it likely1 is it in any way credible1 that we can be warranted in rejecting the testimony of 7suppose7 #adij ancient witnesses1 in favour of the testimony borne by 7suppose7 ten8 ,granting freely that two of these ten are older by #ej or #ajj years than any single ,,ms4 of the #adij ,i confidently repeat the question4 ,the respective dates of the witnesses before us may perhaps be thus stated4 ,the ten ,,mss4 so confidently relied upon date as follows1 speaking generally3-- #b about ,a4,d4 #ccj-cdj4 #a about #eej4 #a about #gej4 #f 7say7 about #iej to ,a4,d4 #acej4 ,the #adij ,,mss4 which are constantly observed to bear consentient testimony against the ten1 date somewhat thus3-- #a3 ,a4,d4 #djj4 #a3 #dej4 #b3 #ejj4 #af 7say73 #fej to ,a4,d4 #hej4 #adgj3 #hej to ,a4,d4 #acej4 ,and the question to which ,i invite the reader to render an answer is this3--,by what process of reasoning1 apart from an appeal to other authorities1 7which we are going to make by-and-by71 can it be thought credible that the few witnesses shall prove the trustworthy guides1--and the many witnesses the deceivers8 ,now those many ,,mss4 were executed demonstrably at different times in different countries4 ,they bear signs in their many hundreds of representing the entire area of the ,church1 except where versions were used instead of copies in the original ,greek4 ,many of them were written in monasteries where a special room was set aside for such copying4 ,those who were in trust endeavoured with the utmost pains and jealousy to secure accuracy in the transcription4 ,copying was a sacred art4 ,and yet1 of multitudes of them that survive1 hardly any have been copied from any of the rest4 ,on the contrary1 they are discovered to differ among themselves in countless unimportant particulars2 and every here and there single copies exhibit idiosyncrasies which are altogether startling and extraordinary4 ,there has therefore demonstrably been no collusion--no assimilation to an arbitrary standard1--no wholesale fraud4 ,it is certain that every one of them represents a ,,ms41 or a pedigree of ,,mss41 older than itself2 and it is but fair to suppose that it exercises such representation with tolerable accuracy4 ,it can often be proved1 when any of them exhibit marked extravagancy1 that such extravagancy dates back as far as the second or third century4 ,i venture to think--and shall assume until ,i find that ,i am mistaken--that1 besides the ,uncials1 all the cursive copies in existence represent lost ,codexes of great antiquity with at least the same general fidelity as ,ev4 #a1 #cc1 #fi1 which enjoy so much favour in some quarters only because they represent lost ,,mss4 demonstrably of the same general type as ,codd4 ,,bd7#cj74 ,it will be seen that the proofs in favour of ,number being a recognized and powerful ,note of ,truth are so strong1 that nothing but the interests of an absorbing argument can prevent the acknowledgement of this position4 ,it is doubtless inconvenient to find some #adij witnesses contravening some ten1 or if you will1 twenty favourites3 but ,truth is imperative and knows nothing of the inconvenience or convenience of ,critics4 #h4 ,when therefore the great bulk of the witnesses1--in the proportion suppose of a hundred or even fifty to one1--yield unfaltering testimony to a certain reading2 and the remaining little handful of authorities1 while advocating a different reading1 are yet observed to be unable to agree among themselves as to what that different reading shall precisely be1--then that other reading concerning which all that discrepancy of detail is observed to exist1 may be regarded as certainly false4 ,i will now give an instance of the general need of the testimony of ,number being added to ,antiquity1 in order to establish a ,reading4 ,there is an obscure expression in the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1--,alford speaks of it as 8almost a locus desperatus0--which illustrates the matter in hand not unaptly4 ,the received reading of ,heb4 iv4 #b1--8not being mixed viz4 the word preached with faith in them that heard it10--is supported by the united testimony of the ,peshitto and of the ,latin versions7#ca74 ,accordingly1 the discovery that also exhibits determined ,tischendorf1 who however stands alone with ,scholz1 to retain in this place the singular participle4 ,and confessedly the note of ,antiquity it enjoys in perfection2 as well as yields a sufficiently intelligible sense4 ,but then unfortunately it proves to be incredible that ,st4 ,paul can have been the author of the expression7#cb74 ,all the known copies but four7#cc7 read not but -4 ,so do all the ,fathers who are known to quote the place7#cd73--,macarius7#ce71 ,chrysostom7#cf71 ,theodorus of ,mopsuestia7#cg71 ,cyril7#ch71 ,theodoret7#ci71 ,damascene7#dj71 ,photius7#da71 ,theophylactus7#db71 ,oecumenius7#dc74 ,the testimony of four of the older of these is even express3 and such an amount of evidence is decisive4 ,but we are able to add that of the ,harkleian1 ,bohairic1 ,ethiopic1 and ,armenian versions4 ,however uncongenial therefore the effort may prove1 there can be no doubt at all that we must henceforth read here1--8,but the word listened to did not profit them1 because they were not united in respect of faith with those who listened and believed03 or words to that effect7#dd74 ,let this then be remembered as a proof that1 besides even the note of ,variety to some extent super-added to that of ,antiquity1 it must further be shewn on behalf of any reading which claims to be authentic1 that it enjoys also the support of a multitude of witnesses3 in other words that it has the note of ,number as well7#de74 ,and let no one cherish a secret suspicion that because the ,syriac and the ,latin versions are such venerable documents they must be held to outweigh all the rest1 and may be right in this matter after all4 ,it will be found explained elsewhere that in places like the present1 those famous versions are often observed to interpret rather than to reproduce the inspired verity3 to discharge the office of a ,targum rather than of a translation4 ,the sympathy thus evinced between and the ,latin should be observed3 the significance of it will come under consideration afterwards4 #c4 ,variety4 ,i must point out in the next place1 that ,evidence on any passage1 which exhibits in perfection the first of the two foregoing characteristics--that of ,antiquity1 may nevertheless so easily fall under suspicion1 that it becomes in the highest degree necessary to fortify it by other notes of ,truth4 ,and there cannot be a stronger ally than ,variety4 ,no one can doubt1 for it stands to reason1 that ,variety distinguishing witnesses massed together must needs constitute a most powerful argument for believing such ,evidence to be true4 ,witnesses of different kinds2 from different countries2 speaking different tongues3--witnesses who can never have met1 and between whom it is incredible that there should exist collusion of any kind3--such witnesses deserve to be listened to most respectfully4 ,indeed1 when witnesses of so varied a sort agree in large numbers1 they must needs be accounted worthy of even implicit confidence4 ,accordingly1 the essential feature of the proposed ,test will be1 that the ,evidence of which 8,variety0 is to be predicated shall be derived from a variety of sources4 ,readings which are witnessed to by ,,mss4 only2 or by ancient ,versions only3 or by one or more of the ,fathers only3--whatever else may be urged on their behalf1 are at least without the full support of this note of ,truth2 unless there be in the case of ,,mss4 a sufficient note of ,variety within their own circle4 ,it needs only a slight acquaintance with the principles which regulate the value of evidence1 and a comparison with other cases enjoying it of one where there is actually no variety1 to see the extreme importance of this third ,test4 ,when there is real variety1 what may be called hole-and-corner work1--conspiracy1--influence of sect or clique1--are impossible4 ,variety it is which imparts virtue to mere ,number1 prevents the witness-box from being filled with packed deponents1 ensures genuine testimony4 ,false witness is thus detected and condemned1 because it agrees not with the rest4 ,variety is the consent of independent witnesses1 and is therefore eminently ,catholic4 ,origen or the ,vatican and the ,sinaitic1 often stand all but alone1 because there are scarce any in the assembly who do not hail from other parts with testimony different from theirs1 whilst their own evidence finds little or no verification4 ,it is precisely this consideration which constrains us to pay supreme attention to the combined testimony of the ,uncials and of the whole body of the ,cursive ,copies4 ,they are 7a7 dotted over at least #ajjj years3 7b7 they evidently belong to so many divers countries1--,greece1 ,constantinople1 ,asia ,minor1 ,palestine1 ,syria1 ,alexandria1 and other parts of ,africa1 not to say ,sicily1 ,southern ,italy1 ,gaul1 ,england1 and ,ireland3 7c7 they exhibit so many strange characteristics and peculiar sympathies3 7d7 they so clearly represent countless families of ,,mss41 being in no single instance absolutely identical in their text1 and certainly not being copies of any other ,codex in existence1--that their unanimous decision ,i hold to be an absolutely irrefragable evidence of the ,truth7#df74 ,if1 again1 only a few of these copies disagree with the main body of them1 ,i hold that the value of the verdict of the great majority is but slightly disturbed4 ,even then however the accession of another class of confirmatory evidence is most valuable4 ,thus1 when it is perceived that ,codd4 ,,bcd are the only uncials which contain the clause in ,st4 ,matt4 x4 #h1 already spoken of1 and that the merest fraction of the cursives exhibit the same reading1 the main body of the cursives and all the other uncials being for omitting it1 it is felt at once that the features of the problem have been very nearly reversed4 ,on such occasions we inquire eagerly for the verdict of the most ancient of the ,versions3 and when1 as on the present occasion1 they are divided1--the ,latin and the ,ethiopic recognizing the clause1 the ,syriac and the ,egyptian disallowing it1--an impartial student will eagerly inquire with one of old time1--8,is there not here a prophet of the ,lord besides1 that we might inquire of him80 ,he will wish to hear what the old ,fathers have to say on this subject4 ,i take the liberty of adding that when he has once perceived that the text employed by ,origen corresponds usually to a surprising extent with the text represented by ,codex ,b and some of the ,old ,latin ,versions1 he will learn to lay less stress on every fresh instance of such correspondence4 ,he will desiderate greater variety of testimony1--the utmost variety which is attainable4 ,the verdict of various other ,fathers on this passage supplies what is wanted7#dg74 ,speaking generally1 the consentient testimony of two1 four1 six1 or more witnesses1 coming to us from widely sundered regions is weightier by far than the same number of witnesses proceeding from one and the same locality1 between whom there probably exists some sort of sympathy1 and possibly some degree of collusion4 ,thus when it is found that the scribe of ,b wrote 8six conjugate leaves of ,cod4 7#dh710 it is impossible to regard their united testimony in the same light as we should have done1 if one had been produced in ,palestine and the other at ,constantinople4 ,so also of primitive ,patristic testimony4 ,the combined testimony of ,cyril1 patriarch of ,alexandria2--,isidore of ,pelusium1 a city at the mouth of the ,nile2--and ,nonnus of ,panopolis in the ,thebaid1 is not nearly so weighty as the testimony of one of the same three writers in conjunction with ,irenaeus1 ,bishop of ,lyons in ,gaul1 and with ,chrysostom who passed the greater part of his life at ,antioch4 ,the same remark holds true of ,versions4 ,thus1 the two ,egyptian ,versions when they conspire in witnessing to the same singular reading are entitled to far less attention than one of those same ,versions in combination with the ,syriac1 or with the ,latin1 or with the ,gothic4 #d4 ,weight1 or ,respectability4 ,we must request our readers to observe1 that the term 8weight0 may be taken as regards ,textual ,evidence in two senses1 the one general and the other special4 ,in the general sense1 ,weight includes all the notes of truth1--it may relate to the entire mass of evidence2--or else it may be employed as concerning the value of an individual manuscript1 or a single ,version1 or a separate ,father4 ,antiquity confers some amount of ,weight3 so does ,number3 and so does ,variety also1 as well as each of the other notes of truth4 ,this distinction ought not to be allowed to go out of sight in the discussion which is now about to occupy our attention4 ,we proceed then to consider ,weight in the special sense and as attached to single ,witnesses4 ,undeniable as it is1 7a7 that ancient documents do not admit of being placed in scales and weighed2 and 7b7 that if they did1 the man does not exist who is capable of conducting the operation1--there are yet1 happily1 principles of sound reason1--considerations based on the common sense of mankind1 learned and unlearned alike1--by the aid of which something may be effected which is strictly analogous to the process of weighing solid bodies in an ordinary pair of scales4 ,i proceed to explain4 #a4 ,in the first place1 the witnesses in favour of any given reading should be respectable4 8,respectability0 is of course a relative term2 but its use and applicability in this department of ,science will be generally understood and admitted by scholars1 although they may not be altogether agreed as to the classification of their authorities4 ,some critics will claim1 not respectability only1 but absolute and oracular authority for a certain set of ancient witnesses1--which others will hold in suspicion4 ,it is clear however that respectability cannot by itself confer pre-eminence1 much less the privilege of oracular decision4 ,we listen to any one whose character has won our respect3 but dogmatism as to things outside of actual experience or mathematical calculation is the prerogative only of ,revelation or inspired utterance2 and if assumed by men who have no authority to dogmatize1 is only accepted by weak minds who find a relief when they are able 8jurare in verba magistri40 8,to swear whate'er the master says is true40 ,and if on the contrary certain witnesses are found to range themselves continually on the side which is condemned by a large majority of others exhibiting other notes of truth entitling them to credence1 those few witnesses must inevitably lose in respectability according to the extent and frequency of such eccentric action4 #b4 ,if one ,codex 7z7 is demonstrably the mere transcript of another ,codex 7f71 these may no longer be reckoned as two ,codexes1 but as one ,codex4 ,it is hard therefore to understand how ,tischendorf constantly adduces the evidence of 8,e of ,paul0 although he was perfectly well aware that ,e is 8a mere transcript of the ,cod4 ,claromontanus7#di70 or ,d of ,paul4 ,or again1 how he quotes the cursive ,evan4 #ajb2 because the readings of that unknown seventeenth-century copy of the ,gospels are ascertained to have been derived from ,cod4 ,b itself7#ej74 #c4 ,by strict parity of reasoning1 when once it has been ascertained that1 in any particular instance1 ,patristic testimony is not original but derived1 each successive reproduction of the evidence must obviously be held to add nothing at all to the weight of the original statement4 ,thus1 it used to be the fashion to cite 7in proof of the spuriousness of 8the last twelve verses0 of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel7 the authority of 8,eusebius1 ,gregory of ,nyssa1 ,victor of ,antioch1 ,severus of ,antioch1 ,jerome7#ea710--to which were added 8,epiphanius and ,caesarius7#eb710--8;,hesychius of ,jerusalem and ,euthymius7#ec740 ,in this enumeration1 the names of ,gregory1 ,victor1 ,severus1 ,epiphanius and ,caesarius were introduced in error4 ,there remains ,eusebius1--whose exaggeration 7a7 ,jerome translates1 7b7 ,hesychius 7sixth century7 copies1 and 7c7 ,euthymius 7,a4,d4 #aaaf7 refers to7#ed7 and ,eusebius himself neutralizes7#ee74 ,the evidence therefore 7such as it is7 collapses hopelessly3 being reducible probably to a random statement in the lost treatise of ,origen on ,st4 ,mark7#ef71 which ,eusebius repudiates1 even while in his latitudinarian way he reproduces it4 ,the weight of such testimony is obviously slight indeed4 #d4 ,again1 if two1 three1 or four ,codexes are discovered by reason of the peculiarities of text which they exhibit to have been derived1--nay1 confessedly are derived--from one and the same archetype1--those two1 three1 or four ,codexes may no longer be spoken of as if they were so many4 ,codexes ,b and 1 for example1 being certainly the twin products of a lost exemplar1 cannot in fairness be reckoned as #b4 ,whether their combined evidence is to be estimated at #a4ge1 #a4ej1 or #a4be1 or as only #a4j1--let diviners decide4 ,may ,i be allowed to suggest that whenever they agree in an extraordinary reading their combined evidence is to be reckoned at about #a4ej3 when in an all but unique reading1 at #a4be3 when the reading they contain is absolutely unique1 as when they exhibit in ,st4 ,matt4 xvii4 #bb1 they should be reckoned as a single ,codex8 ,never1 at all events1 can they be jointly reckoned as absolutely two4 ,i would have them cited as ,b-4 ,similar considerations should be attached to ,f and ,g of ,st4 ,paul1 as being 8independent transcripts of the same venerable archetype7#eg710 and to ,evan4 #ac1 #fi1 #abd1 #cdf1 #eef1 #efa1 and perhaps #cdh1 #fbd1 #ghh7eh71 as being also the representatives of only one anterior manuscript of uncertain date4 #e4 ,it requires further to be pointed out that when once a clear note of affinity has been ascertained to exist between a small set of documents1 their exclusive joint consent is henceforward to be regarded with suspicion3 in other words1 their evidential ,weight becomes impaired4 ,for instance1 the sympathy between ,d and some ,old ,latin copies is so marked1 so constant1 in fact so extraordinary1 that it becomes perfectly evident that ,d1 though only of the sixth century1 must represent a ,greek or ,latin ,codex of the inaccurate class which prevailed in the earliest age of all1 a class from which some of the ,latin translations were made7#ei74 #f4 ,i suppose it may be laid down that an ancient ,version outweighs any single ,codex1 ancient or modern1 which can be named3 the reason being1 that it is scarcely credible that a ,version--the ,peshitto1 for example1 an ,egyptian1 or the ,gothic--can have been executed from a single exemplar4 ,but indeed that is not all4 ,the first of the above-named ,versions and some of the ,latin are older1--perhaps by two centuries--than the oldest known copy4 ,from this it will appear that if the only witnesses producible for a certain reading were the ,old ,latin ,versions and the ,syriac ,version on the one hand1--,codd4 ,b- on the other1--the united testimony of the first two would very largely overbalance the combined testimony of the last4 ,if ,b or if stood alone1 neither of them singly would be any match for either the ,syriac or the ,old ,latin ,versions1--still less for the two combined4 #g4 ,the cogency of the considerations involved in the last paragraph becomes even more apparent when ,patristic testimony has to be considered4 ,it has been pointed out elsewhere7#fj7 that1 in and by itself1 the testimony of any first-rate ,father1 where it can be had1 must be held to outweigh the solitary testimony of any single ,codex which can be named4 ,the circumstance requires to be again insisted on here4 ,how to represent the amount of this preponderance by a formula1 ,i know not3 nor as ,i believe does any one else know4 ,but the fact that it exists1 remains1 and is in truth undeniable4 ,for instance1 the origin and history of ,codexes ,,ab,c is wholly unknown3 their dates and the places of their several production are matters of conjecture only4 ,but when we are listening to the articulate utterance of any of the ancient ,fathers1 we not only know with more or less of precision the actual date of the testimony before us1 but we even know the very diocese of ,christendom in which we are standing4 ,to such a deponent we can assign a definite amount of credibility1 whereas in the estimate of the former class of evidence we have only inferences to guide us4 ,individually1 therefore1 a ,father's evidence1 where it can be certainly obtained--caeteris paribus1 is considerably greater than that of any single known ,codex4 ,collectively1 however1 the ,copies1 without question1 outweigh either the ,versions by themselves1 or the ,fathers by themselves4 ,i have met--very rarely ,i confess--but ,i have met with cases where the ,versions1 as a body1 were opposed in their testimony to the combined witness of ,copies and ,fathers4 ,also1 but very rarely1 ,i have known the ,fathers1 as a body1 opposed to the evidence of ,copies and ,versions4 ,but ,i have never known a case where the ,copies stood alone--with the ,versions and the ,fathers united against them4 ,i consider that such illustrious ,fathers as ,irenaeus and ,hippolytus1--,athanasius and ,didymus1--,epiphanius and ,basil1--the two ,gregories and ,chrysostom1--,cyril and ,theodoret1 among the ,greeks1--,tertullian and ,cyprian1--,hilary and ,ambrose1--,jerome and ,augustine1 among the ,latins1--are more respectable witnesses by far than the same number of ,greek or ,latin ,codexes4 ,origen1 ,clemens ,alexandrinus1 and ,eusebius1 though first-rate ,authors1 were so much addicted to ,textual ,criticism themselves1 or else employed such inconsistent copies1--that their testimony is that of indifferent witnesses or bad judges4 ,as to the ,weight which belongs to separate ,copies1 that must be determined mainly by watching their evidence4 ,if they go wrong continually1 their character must be low4 ,they are governed in this respect by the rules which hold good in life4 ,we shall treat afterwards of the character of ,codex ,d1 of 1 and of ,b4 #e4 ,continuity4 ,in proposing ,continuous ,existence as another note of a genuine reading1 ,i wish to provide against those cases where the ,evidence is not only ancient1 but being derived from two different sources may seem to have a claim to variety also4 ,i am glad to have the opportunity thus early of pointing out that the note of variety may not fairly be claimed for readings which are not advocated by more than two distinct specimens of ancient evidence4 ,but just now my actual business is to insist that some sort of ,continuousness is requisite as well as ,antiquity1 ,number1 ,variety1 and ,weight4 ,we can of course only know the words of ,holy ,scripture according as they have been handed down to us2 and in ascertaining what those words actually were1 we are driven perforce to the ,tradition of them as it has descended to us through the ages of the ,church4 ,but if that ,tradition is broken in the process of its descent1 it cannot but be deprived of much of the credit with which it would otherwise appeal for acceptance4 ,a clear groundwork of reasonableness lay underneath1 and a distinct province was assigned1 when quod semper was added to quod ubique et quod ab omnibus4 ,so there is a ,catholicity of time1 as well as of space and of people3 and all must be claimed in the ascertainment and support of ,holy ,writ4 ,when therefore a reading is observed to leave traces of its existence and of its use all down the ages1 it comes with an authority of a peculiarly commanding nature4 ,and on the contrary1 when a chasm of greater or less breadth of years yawns in the vast mass of evidence which is ready for employment1 or when a tradition is found to have died out1 upon such a fact alone suspicion or grave doubt1 or rejection must inevitably ensue4 ,still more1 when upon the admission of the ,advocates of the opinions which we are opposing the chasm is no longer restricted but engulfs not less than fifteen centuries in its hungry abyss1 or else when the transmission ceased after four centuries1 it is evident that according to an essential ,note of ,truth1 those opinions cannot fail to be self-destroyed as well as to labour under condemnation during more than three quarters of the accomplished life of ,christendom4 ,how ,churchmen of eminence and ability1 who in other respects hold the truths involved in ,churchmanship1 are able to maintain and propagate such opinions without surrendering their ,churchmanship1 we are unable to explain4 ,we would only hope and pray that they may be led to see the inconsistencies of their position4 ,and to others who do not accept ,church doctrine we would urge that1 inasmuch as internal evidence is so uncertain as often to face both ways1 they really cannot rest upon anything else than continuous teaching if they would mount above personal likings and dislikings to the possession of definite and unmistakable support4 ,in fact all traditional teaching which is not continuous must be like the detached pieces of a disunited chain4 ,to put the question in the most moderate form1 my meaning is1 that although it is possible that no trace may be discoverable in any later document of what is already attested by documents of the fourth century to be the true reading of any given place of ,scripture1 yet it is a highly improbable circumstance that the evidence should entirely disappear at such a very early period4 ,it is reasonable to expect that if a reading advocated by ,codexes and ,b1 for instance1 and the ,old ,latin ,versions1 besides one or two of the ,fathers1 were trustworthy1 there ought to be found at least a fair proportion of the later ,uncial and the ,cursive ,copies to reproduce it4 ,if1 on the contrary1 many of the ,fathers knew nothing at all about the matter2 if ,jerome reverses the evidence borne by the ,old ,latin2 if the later ,uncials1 and if the main body of the ,cursives are silent also3--what can be said but that it is altogether unreasonable to demand acceptance for a reading which comes to us upon such a very slender claim to our confidence8 ,that is the most important inference3 and it is difficult to see how in the nature of the case it can be got over4 ,but in other respects also3--when a smaller break occurs in the transmission1 the evidence is proportionally injured4 ,and the remark must be added1 that in cases where there is a transmission by several lines of descent which1 having in other respects traces of independence1 coincide upon a certain point1 it is but reasonable to conclude that those lines enjoy1 perhaps1 a silent1 yet a parallel and unbroken tradition all down the ages till they emerge4 ,this principle is often illustrated in the independent yet consentient testimony of the whole body of the ,cursives and later ,uncials7#fa74 #f4 ,context4 ,a prevailing fallacy with some critical writers on the subject to which the present volume is devoted1 may be thus described4 ,in the case of a disputed reading1 they seem to think that they do enough if they simply marshal the authorities for and against1 and deliver an oracular verdict4 ,in critical editions of the ,greek text1 such a summary method is perhaps unavoidable4 ,but ,i take leave to point out that in ,sacred ,textual ,criticism there are several other considerations which absolutely require attention besides1 and that those considerations ought to find expression where the space permits4 ,it is to some of these that ,i proceed now to invite the reader's attention4 ,a word1--a phrase1--a clause1--or even a sentence or a paragraph1--must have some relation to the rest of the entire passage which precedes or comes after it4 ,therefore it will often be necessary1 in order to reach all the evidence that bears upon a disputed question1 to examine both the meaning and the language lying on both sides of the point in dispute4 ,we do not at present lay so much stress upon the contextual meaning1 because people are generally not unready to observe it1 and it is often open to much difference of opinion3--we refrain especially1 because we find from experience that there is in the case of the ,new ,testament always enough external evidence of whose existence no doubt can be entertained to settle any textual question that can arise4 ,nevertheless1 it may be as well to give a single instance4 ,in #a ,cor4 xiii4 #e1 ,codex ,b and ,clement of ,alexandria read instead of 1 i4e4 8charity seeketh not what does not belong to her10 instead of 8seeketh not her own40 ,that is to say1 we are invited1 in the midst of that magnificent passage which is full of lofty principles1 to suppose that a gross violation of the eighth commandment is forbidden1 and to insert a commonplace repudiation of gross dishonesty4 ,we are to sink suddenly from a grand atmosphere down to a vulgar level4 ,in fact1 the light shed on the words in question from the context on either side of course utterly excludes such a supposition2 consequently1 the only result is that we are led to distrust the witnesses that have given evidence which is so palpably absurd4 ,but as regards the precise form of language employed1 it will be found also a salutary safeguard against error in every instance1 to inspect with severe critical exactness the entire context of the passage in dispute4 ,if in certain ,codexes that context shall prove to be confessedly in a very corrupt state1 then it becomes even self-evident that those ,codexes can only be admitted as witnesses with considerable suspicion and reserve4 ,take as an illustration of what ,i have been saying the exceedingly precious verse1 8,howbeit1 this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting0 7,st4 ,matt4 xvii4 #ba71 which has met with rejection by the recent school of critics4 ,here the evidence against the verse is confined to ,b and the first reading of amongst the ,uncials1 ,evan4 #cc alone of the ,cursives1 e and ff#a of the ,old ,latin ,versions1 as well as the ,curetonian and the ,lewis1 ,jerusalem1 ,sahidic1 a few ,bohairic copies1 a few ,ethiopic1 and the ,greek of ,eusebius' ,canons3--evidence of a slight and shifty character1 when contrasted with the witness of all the other ,uncials and ,cursives1 the rest of the ,versions1 and more than thirteen of the ,fathers beginning with ,tertullian and ,origen7#fb74 ,it is plain that the stress of the case for rejection1 since being afterwards corrected speaks uncertainly1 rests such as it is upon ,b2 and that if the evidence of that ,,ms4 is found to be unworthy of credit in the whole passage1 weak indeed must be the contention which consists mainly of such support4 ,now if we inspect vv4 #ai1 #bj1 #bb1 and #bc1 to go no farther1 we shall discover that the entire passage in ,b is wrapped in a fog of error4 ,it differs from the main body of the witnesses in ten places2 in four of which its evidence is rejected by ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,westcott and ,hort1 and the ,revisers7#fc72 in two more by the ,revisers7#fd72 and of the remaining four1 it is supported in two by only and severally by one or six ,cursives1 and in the other two by only and ,d with severally four or five ,cursive copies7#fe74 ,inspection of the ,context therefore adds here strong confirmation3--though indeed in this instance to have recourse to such a weapon is to slay the already slain4 ,st4 ,matthew 7xi4 #b1 #c7 relates that ,john ,baptist 8having heard in the prison the works of ,,christ1 sent two of his ,disciples0 7 7 with the inquiry1 8,art ,thou ,he that should come7#ff71 or are we to look for another 7780 ,so all the known copies but nine4 ,so the ,vulgate1 ,bohairic1 ,ethiopic4 ,so ,origen4 ,so ,chrysostom4 ,it is interesting to note with what differences of expression ,st4 ,luke reproduces this statement4 ,having explained in ver4 #ah that it was the ,forerunner's disciples who brought him tidings concerning ,,christ1 ,st4 ,luke 7vii4 #ai7 adds that ,john 8called for certain two0 7 7 of them1 and 8sent them to ,,jesus03 thus emphasizing1 while he repeats1 the record of the earlier ,evangelist4 ,inasmuch however as means1 in strictness1 8the other of two10 in order not to repeat himself1 he substitutes for it4 ,now all this is hopelessly obscured by the oldest amongst our manuscript authorities4 ,it in no wise surprises us to find that has disappeared from ,d1 the ,peshitto1 ,latin1 ,bohairic1 ,gothic1 and ,ethiopic4 ,the word has disappeared from our ,english version also4 ,but it offends us greatly to discover that 7#a7 ,,blrx 7with ,cyril7 obliterate from ,st4 ,luke vii4 #ai1 and thrust into its place1--as clear an instance of vicious assimilation as could anywhere be found3 while 7#b7 for 7in ,st4 ,matt4 xi4 #c7 ,,bcdpz write 3 which is acquiesced in by the ,peshitto1 ,harkleian1 ,gothic and ,armenian ,versions4 ,the ,old ,latin ,versions prevaricate as usual3 two read1 mittens duos ex discipulis suis3 all the rest1--mittens discipulos suos1--which is the reading of ,cureton's ,syriac and the ,dialogus 7p4 #hai71 but of no known ,greek ,,ms47#fg7 ,lastly 7#c7 for in ,st4 ,luke1 ,,blr substitute 4 ,what would be thought of us if we were freely imposed upon by readings so plainly corrupt as these three8 ,but light is thrown upon them by the context in ,st4 ,luke4 ,in the thirteen verses which immediately follow1 ,tischendorf himself being the judge1 the text has experienced depravation in at least fourteen particulars7#fh74 ,with what reason can the same critic straightway insist on other readings which rest exclusively upon the same authorities which the fourteen readings just mentioned claim for their support8 ,this ,note of ,truth has for its foundation the well-known law that mistakes have a tendency to repeat themselves in the same or in other shapes4 ,the carelessness1 or the vitiated atmosphere1 that leads a copyist to misrepresent one word is sure to lead him into error about another4 ,the ill-ordered assiduity which prompted one bad correction most probably did not rest there4 ,and the errors committed by a witness just before or just after the testimony which is being sifted was given cannot but be held to be closely germane to the inquiry4 ,so too on the other side4 ,clearness1 correctness1 self-collectedness1 near to the moment in question1 add to the authority of the evidence4 ,consequently1 the witness of the ,context cannot but be held to be positively or negatively1 though perhaps more often negatively than positively1 a very apposite ,note of ,truth4 #g4 ,internal ,evidence4 ,it would be a serious omission indeed to close this enumeration of ,tests of ,truth without adverting to those ,internal ,considerations which will make themselves heard1 and are sometimes unanswerable4 ,thus the reading of 7masculine or neuter7 which is found in ,cod4 ,b 7,st4 ,luke xix4 #cg7 we reject at once because of its grammatical impossibility as agreeing with 7feminine72 and that of 7#b ,cor4 iii4 #c7 according to the witness of ,a,,bcdeglp on the score of its utter impossibility7#fi74 ,geographical reasons are sufficiently strong against reading with ,codd4 ,,ikn in ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #ac 7i4e4 a hundred and threescore furlongs71 to make it of no manner of importance that a few additional authorities1 as ,origen1 ,eusebius1 and ,jerome1 can be produced in support of the same manifestly corrupt reading4 ,on grounds of ordinary reasonableness we cannot hear of the sun being eclipsed when the moon was full1 or of our ,lord being pierced before death4 ,the truth of history1 otherwise sufficiently attested both by ,st4 ,matthew and ,josephus1 absolutely forbids 7,,bdl7 to be read for 7,st4 ,mark vi4 #bb71 and in consequence the wretched daughter of ,herodias to be taken to have been the daughter of ,herod4 ,in these and such-like instances1 the ,internal reasons are plain and strong4 ,but there is a manifest danger1 when critics forsake those considerations which depend upon clear and definite points1 and build their own inventions and theories into a system of strict canons which they apply in the teeth of manifold evidence that has really everything to recommend it4 ,the extent to which some critics are ready to go may be seen in the monstrous ,canon proposed by ,griesbach1 that where there are more readings than one of any place1 that reading which favours orthodoxy is an object of suspicion7#gj74 ,there is doubtless some reason in the ,canon which asserts that 8,the harder the reading1 the less likely it is to have been invented1 and the more likely it is to be genuine10 under which 7,st4 ,luke vi4 #a7 must receive additional justification4 ,but people are ordinarily so constituted1 that when they have once constructed a system of ,canons they place no limits to their operation1 and become slaves to them4 ,accordingly1 the true reading of passages must be ascertained1 with very slight exception indeed1 from the preponderating weight of external evidence1 judged according to its antiquity1 to number1 variety1 relative value1 continuousness1 and with the help of the context4 ,internal considerations1 unless in exceptional cases they are found in strong opposition to evident error1 have only a subsidiary force4 ,often they are the product of personal bias1 or limited observation3 and where one scholar approves1 another dogmatically condemns4 ,circumstantial evidence is deservedly rated low in the courts of justice3 and lawyers always produce witnesses when they can4 ,the ,text of ,holy ,scripture does not vary with the weathercock according to changing winds of individual or general opinion or caprice3 it is decided by the ,tradition of the ,church as testified by eye-witnesses and written in black and white and gold in all countries of ,christendom1 and all down the ages since the ,new ,testament was composed4 ,i desire to point out concerning the foregoing seven ,notes of ,truth in ,textual ,evidence that the student can never afford entirely to lose sight of any of them4 ,the reason is because although no doubt it is conceivable that any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to establish almost any reading which can be named1 practically this is never the case4 ,and why8 ,because we never meet with any one of these ,tests in the fullest possible measure4 ,no ,test ever attains to perfection1 or indeed can attain4 ,an approximation to the ,test is all that can be expected1 or even desired4 ,and sometimes we are obliged to put up with a very slight approximation indeed4 ,their strength resides in their co-operation4 ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,the ,,vatican ,,and ,,sinaitic ,,manuscripts4 #a4 ,no progress is possible in the department of 8,textual ,criticism0 until the superstition--for we are persuaded that it is nothing less--which at present prevails concerning certain of 8the old uncials0 7as they are called7 has been abandoned4 ,by 8the old uncials0 are generally meant1 #a ,the ,vatican ,codex 7,b71--and #b the ,sinaitic ,codex 771--which by common consent are assigned to the fourth century3 #c the ,alexandrian 7,a71 and #d the ,cod4 ,ephraemi rescriptus 7,c71--which are given to the fifth century3 and #e the ,codex ,bezae 7,d71--which is claimed for the sixth century3 to which must now be added #f the ,codex ,beratinus 771 at the end of the fifth1 and #g the ,codex ,rossanensis 771 at the beginning of the sixth century4 ,five of these seven ,codexes for some unexplained reason1 although the latest of them 7,d7 is sundered from the great bulk of the copies1 uncial and cursive1 by about as many centuries as the earliest of them 7,b7 are sundered from the last of their group1 have been invested with oracular authority and are supposed to be the vehicles of imperial decrees4 ,it is pretended that what is found in either ,b or in or in ,d1 although unsupported by any other manuscript1 may reasonably be claimed to exhibit the truth of scripture1 in defiance of the combined evidence of all other documents to the contrary4 ,let a reading be advocated by ,b and in conjunction1 and it is assumed as a matter of course that such evidence must needs outweigh the combined evidence of all other ,,mss4 which can be named4 ,but when 7as often happens7 three or four of these 8old uncials0 are in accord1--especially if 7as is not unfrequently the case7 they have the support of a single ancient version 7as the ,bohairic71--or a solitary early ,father 7as ,origen71 it seems to be deemed axiomatic that such evidence must needs carry all before it7#ga74 ,i maintain the contradictory proposition1 and am prepared to prove it4 ,i insist that readings so supported are clearly untrustworthy and may be dismissed as certainly unauthentic4 ,but let us in this chapter seek to come to some understanding with one another4 ,my method shall be to ask a plain question which shall bring the matter to a clear issue4 ,i will then 7#a7 invent the best answers ,i am able to that question3 and then 7#b7 to the best of my ability--,i will dispose of these answers one by one4 ,if the reader 7#a7 is able to assign a better answer1--or 7#b7 does not deem my refutation satisfactory1--he has but to call me publicly to account3 and by the rejoinder ,i shall publicly render either he1 or ,i1 must be content to stand publicly discredited4 ,if ,i knew of a fairer way of bringing this by no means recondite matter to a definite issue1 the reader may be well assured ,i should now adopt it7#gb74--,my general question is1--,why throughout the ,gospels are ,b and accounted so trustworthy1 that all but the absolute disposal of every disputed question about the ,text is held to depend upon their evidence8 ,and ,i begin by asking of a supposed ,biblical ,student1--,why throughout the ,gospels should ,codex ,b and be deemed more deserving of our confidence than the other ,codexes8 ,biblical ,student4 ,because they are the most ancient of our ,codexes4 ,dean ,burgon4 ,this answer evidently seems to you to convey an axiomatic truth3 but not to me4 ,i must trouble you to explain to me why 8the most ancient of our ,codexes0 must needs be the purest8 ,b4 ,s4 ,i have not said that they 8must needs be the purest03 and ,i request you will not impute to me anything which ,i do not actually say4 ,the ,dean4 ,thank you for a most just reproof4 ,let us only proceed in the same spirit to the end1 and we shall arrive at important results4 ,kindly explain yourself therefore in your own way4 ,b4 ,s4 ,i meant to say that because it is a reasonable presumption that the oldest ,codexes will prove the purest1 therefore ,b--being the oldest ,codexes of the ,gospels--may reasonably be expected to be the best4 ,the ,dean4 ,so far happily we are agreed4 ,you mean1 ,i presume1 that inasmuch as it is an admitted principle that the stream is purest at its source1 the antiquity of ,b and creates a reasonable presumption in their favour4 ,is that what you mean8 ,b4 ,s4 ,something of the kind1 no doubt4 ,you may go on4 ,the ,dean4 ,yes1 but it would be a great satisfaction to me to know for certain1 whether you actually do1 or actually do not mean what ,i suppose3--viz41 to apply the principle1 id verum esse quod primum1 ,i take you to mean that in ,b and we have the nearest approach to the autographs of the ,evangelists1 and that therefore in them we have the best evidence that is at present within reach of what those autographs actually were4 ,i will now go on as you bid me4 ,and ,i take leave to point out to you1 that it is high time that we should have the facts of the case definitely before us1 and that we should keep them steadily in view throughout our subsequent discussion4 ,now all critics are agreed1 that ,b and were not written earlier than about #cdj1 or say before #ccj ,a4,d4 ,you will admit that1 ,i suppose8 ,b4 ,s4 ,i have no reason to doubt it4 ,the ,dean4 ,there was therefore an interval of not far short of three hundred years between the writing of the original autographs and the copying of the ,gospels in ,b and 7#gc74 ,those two oldest ,codexes1 or the earliest of them1 are thus found to be separated by nearly three centuries from the original writings1--or to speak more accurately1--by about two centuries and three-quarters from three of the great autographs1 and by about #bej years from the fourth4 ,therefore these ,,mss4 cannot be said to be so closely connected with the original autographs as to be entitled to decide about disputed passages what they were or were not4 ,corruption largely infected the several writings7#gd71 as ,i shall shew at some length in some subsequent chapters1 during the great interval to which ,i have alluded4 ,b4 ,s4 ,but ,i am surprised to hear you say this4 ,you must surely recollect that ,b and were derived from one and the same archetype1 and that that archetype was produced 8in the early part of the second century if not earlier7#ge710 and was very close to the autographs1 and that they must be accordingly accurate transcripts of the autographs1 and-- ,the ,dean4 ,i must really pray you to pause3--you have left facts far behind1 and have mounted into cloudland4 ,i must beg you not to let slip from your mind1 that we start with a fact1 so far as it can be ascertained1 viz4 the production of ,b and 1 about the middle of the fourth century4 ,you have advanced from that fact to what is only a probable opinion1 in which however ,i am agreed with you1 viz4 that ,b and are derived from one and the same older manuscript4 ,together therefore1 ,i pray you will not forget1 they only count nearly as one4 ,but as to the age of that archetype--forgive me for saying1 that--unintentionally no doubt but none the less really--you have taken a most audacious leap4 ,may ,i ask1 however1 whether you can quote any ancient authority for the date which you have affixed8 ,b4 ,s4 ,i cannot recollect one at the present moment4 ,the ,dean4 ,no1 nor ,dr4 ,hort either1--for ,i perceive that you adopt his speculation4 ,and ,i utterly deny that there is any probability at all for such a suggestion3--nay1 the chances are greatly1 if not decisively1 against the original from which the lines of ,b and diverged1 being anything like so old as the second century4 ,these ,,mss4 bear traces of the ,origenistic school1 as ,i shall afterwards shew7#gf74 ,they have too much method in their error for it to have arisen in the earliest age3 its systematic character proves it to have been the growth of time4 ,they evince effects1 as ,i shall demonstrate in due course1 of heretical teaching1 ,lectionary practice1 and regular editing1 which no manuscript could have contracted in the first ages of the ,church4 ,b4 ,s4 ,but surely the differences between ,b and 1 which are many1 prove that they were not derived immediately from their common ancestor1 but that some generations elapsed between them4 ,do you deny that8 ,the ,dean4 ,i grant you entirely that there are many differences between them1--so much the worse for the value of their evidence4 ,but you must not suffer yourself to be misled by the figure of genealogy upon points where it presents no parallel4 ,there were in manuscripts no periods of infancy1 childhood1 and youth1 which must elapse before they could have a progeny4 ,as soon as a manuscript was completed1 and was examined and passed1 it could be copied3 and it could be copied1 not only once a year1 but as often as copyists could find time to write and complete their copies7#gg74 ,you must take also another circumstance into consideration4 ,after the destruction of manuscripts in the persecution of ,diocletian1 and when the learned were pressing from all quarters into the ,church1 copies must have been multiplied with great rapidity4 ,there was all the more room for carelessness1 inaccuracy1 incompetency1 and capricious recension4 ,several generations of manuscripts might have been given off in two or three years4--,but indeed all this idea of fixing the date of the common ancestor of ,b and is based upon pure speculation--,textual ,science cannot rest her conclusions upon foundations of sand like that4 ,i must bring you back to the ,rock3 ,i must recall you to facts4 ,b and were produced in the early middle1 so to speak1 of the fourth century4 ,further than this1 we cannot go1 except to say--and this especially is the point to which ,i must now request your attention1--that we are in the possession of evidence older than they are4 ,b4 ,s4 ,but you do not surely mean to tell me that other ,uncials have been discovered which are earlier than these8 ,the ,dean4 ,no3 not yet3 though it is possible1 and perhaps probable1 that such ,,mss4 may come to light1 not in vellum but in papyrus2 for as far as we know1 ,b and mark the emergence into prominence of the 8,uncial0 class of great manuscripts7#gh74 ,but though there are in our hands as yet no older manuscripts1 yet we have in the first place various ,versions1 viz41 the ,peshitto of the second century7#gi71 the group of ,latin ,versions7#hj7 which begin from about the same time1 the ,bohairic and the ,thebaic of the third century1 not to speak of the ,gothic which was about contemporary with your friends the ,vatican and ,sinaitic ,,mss4 ,next1 there are the numerous ,fathers who quoted passages in the earliest ages1 and thus witnessed to the ,,mss4 which they used4 ,to take an illustration1 ,i have cited upon the last twelve verses of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel no less than twelve authorities before the end of the third century1 that is down to a date which is nearly half a century before ,b and appeared4 ,the general mass of quotations found in the books of the early ,fathers witnesses to what ,i say7#ha74 ,so that there is absolutely no reason to place these two ,,mss4 upon a pedestal by themselves on the score of supreme antiquity4 ,they are eclipsed in this respect by many other authorities older than they are4 ,such1 ,i must beg you to observe1 is the verdict1 not of uncertain speculation1 but of stubborn facts4 ,b4 ,s4 ,but if ,i am not permitted to plead the highest antiquity on behalf of the evidence of the two oldest ,uncials1-- ,the ,dean4 ,stop1 ,i pray you4 ,do not imagine for a single instant that ,i wish to prevent your pleading anything at all that you may fairly plead4 ,facts1 which refuse to be explained out of existence1 not myself1 bar your way4 ,forgive me1 but you must not run your head against a brick wall4 ,b4 ,s4 ,well then7#hb71 ,i will meet you at once by asking a question of my own4 ,do you deny that ,b and are the most precious monuments of their class in existence8 ,the ,dean4 ,so far from denying1 ,i eagerly assert that they are4 ,were they offered for sale to-morrow1 they would command a fabulous sum4 ,they might fetch perhaps #ajj1jjj4 ,for aught ,i know or care they may be worth it4 ,more than one cotton-spinner is worth--or possibly several times as much4 ,b4 ,s4 ,but ,i did not mean that4 ,i spoke of their importance as instruments of criticism4 ,the ,dean4 ,again we are happily agreed4 ,their importance is unquestionably first-rate4 ,but to come to the point1 will you state plainly1 whether you mean to assert that their text is in your judgement of exceptional purity8 ,b4 ,s4 ,i do4 ,the ,dean4 ,at last there we understand one another4 ,i on the contrary insist1 and am prepared to prove1 that the text of these two ,codexes is very nearly the foulest in existence4 ,on what1 pray1 do you rely for your opinion which proves to be diametrically the reverse of mine7#hc78 ,b4 ,s4 ,the best scholars tell me that their text1 and especially the text of ,b1 is of a purer character than any other3 and indeed ,i myself1 after reading ,b in ,mai's edition1 think that it deserves the high praise given to it4 ,the ,dean4 ,my dear friend1 ,i see that you have been taken in by ,mai's edition1 printed at ,leipzig1 and published in ,england by ,williams ,norgate and ,d4 ,nutt4 ,let me tell you that it is a most faulty representation of ,b4 ,it mixes later hands with the first hand4 ,it abounds in mistakes4 ,it inserts perpetually passages which are nowhere found in the copy4 ,in short1 people at the time fancied that in the text of the mysterious manuscript in the ,vatican they would find the verba ipsissima of the ,gospels3 but when ,cardinal ,mai was set to gratify them1 he found that ,b would be unreadable unless it were edited with a plentiful correction of errors4 ,so the world then received at least two recensions of ,b mixed up in this edition1 whilst ,b itself remained behind4 ,the world was generally satisfied1 and taken in4 ,but ,i am sorry that you have shared in the delusion4 ,b4 ,s4 ,well1 of course ,i may be wrong3 but surely you will respect the opinion of the great scholars4 ,the ,dean4 ,of course ,i respect deeply the opinion of any great scholars3 but before ,i adopt it1 ,i must know and approve the grounds of their opinion4 ,pray1 what in this instance are they8 ,b4 ,s4 ,they say that the text is better and purer than any other4 ,the ,dean4 ,and ,i say that it is nearly the most corrupt known4 ,if they give no special grounds except the fact that they think so1 it is a conflict of opinion4 ,there is a balance between us4 ,but from this deadlock ,i proceed to facts4 ,take for example1 as before1 the last twelve verses of ,st4 ,mark4 ,on the one side are alleged ,b and 1--of which ,b by the exhibition of a blank space mutely confesses its omission1 and betrays that it is double-minded7#hd72 one ,old ,latin ,,ms4 7k71 two ,armenian ,,mss41 two ,ethiopic1 and an ,arabic ,lectionary2 an expression of ,eusebius1 who elsewhere quotes the passage1 which was copied by ,jerome and ,severus of ,antioch1 saying that the verses were omitted in some copies4 ,l of the eighth century1 and a few ,cursives1 give a brief1 but impossible1 termination4 ,on the other side ,i have referred to7#he7 six witnesses of the second century1 six of the third1 fifteen of the fourth1 nine of the fifth1 eight of the sixth and seventh1 all the other ,uncials1 and all the other ,cursives1 including the universal and immemorial ,liturgical use4 ,here1 as you must see1 ,b and 1 in faltering tones1 and with only an insignificant following1 are met by an array of authorities1 which is triumphantly superior1 not only in antiquity1 but also in number1 variety1 and continuousness4 ,i claim also the superiority as to context1 internal considerations1 and in weight too4 ,b4 ,s4 ,but surely weight is the ground of contention between us4 ,the ,dean4 ,certainly1 and therefore ,i do not assume my claim till ,i substantiate it4 ,but before ,i go on to do so1 may ,i ask whether you can dispute the fact of the four first ,notes of ,truth being on my side8 ,b4 ,s4 ,no3 you are entitled to so much allowance4 ,the ,dean4 ,that is a very candid admission1 and just what ,i expected from you4 ,now as to ,weight4 ,the passage just quoted is only one instance out of many4 ,more will abound later on in this book3 and even then many more must of necessity remain behind4 ,in point of hard and unmistakable fact1 there is a continual conflict going on all through the ,gospels between ,b and and a few adherents of theirs on the one side1 and the bulk of the ,authorities on the other1 and the nature and weight of these two ,codexes may be inferred from it4 ,they will be found to have been proved over and over again to be bad witnesses1 who were left to survive in their handsome dresses whilst attention was hardly ever accorded to any services of theirs4 ,fifteen centuries1 in which the art of copying the ,bible was brought to perfection1 and printing invented1 have by unceasing rejection of their claims scaled for ever the condemnation of their character1 and so detracted from their weight4 ,b4 ,s4 ,still1 whilst ,i acknowledge the justice of much that you have said1 ,i cannot quite understand how the text of later copies can be really older than the text of earlier ones4 ,the ,dean4 ,you should know that such a thing is quite possible4 ,copies much more numerous and much older than ,b and live in their surviving descendants4 ,the pedigree of the ,queen is in no wise discredited because ,william the ,conqueror is not alive4 ,but then further than this4 ,the difference between the text of ,b and on the one side and that which is generally represented by ,a and and on the other is not of a kind depending upon date1 but upon recension or dissemination of readings4 ,no amplification of ,b and could by any process of natural development have issued in the last twelve verses of ,st4 ,mark4 ,but it was easy enough for the scribe of ,b not to write1 and the scribe of consciously7#hf7 and deliberately to omit1 verses found in the copy before him1 if it were determined that they should severally do so4 ,so with respect to the #b1eef omissions of ,b4 ,the original text could without any difficulty have been spoilt by leaving out the words1 clauses1 and sentences thus omitted3 but something much more than the shortened text of ,b was absolutely essential for the production of the longer manuscripts4 ,this is an important point1 and ,i must say something more upon it4 ,first then7#hg71 ,cod4 ,b is discovered not to contain in the ,gospels alone #bcg words1 #deb clauses1 #gdh whole sentences1 which the later copies are observed to exhibit in the same places and in the same words4 ,by what possible hypothesis will such a correspondence of the ,copies be accounted for1 if these words1 clauses1 and sentences are indeed1 as is pretended1 nothing else but spurious accretions to the text8 ,secondly1 the same ,codex throughout the ,gospels exhibits #cid times words in a certain order1 which however is not the order advocated by the great bulk of the ,copies4 ,in consequence of what subtle influence will it be pretended1 that all over the world for a thousand years the scribes were universally induced to deflect from the authentic collocation of the same inspired words1 and always to deflect in precisely the same way8 ,but ,cod4 ,b also contains #icg ,gospel words1 of which by common consent the great bulk of the ,cursive ,copies know nothing4 ,will it be pretended that in any part of the ,church for seven hundred years copyists of ,evangelia entered into a grand conspiracy to thrust out of every fresh copy of the ,gospel self-same words in the self-same places7#hh78 ,you will see therefore that ,b1 and so 1 since the same arguments concern one as the other1 must have been derived from the ,traditional ,text1 and not the ,traditional ,text from those two ,codexes4 ,b4 ,s4 ,you forget that ,recensions were made at ,edessa or ,nisibis and ,antioch which issued in the ,syrian ,texts1 and that that was the manner in which the change which you find so difficult to understand was brought about4 ,the ,dean4 ,excuse me1 ,i forget no such thing2 and for a very good reason1 because such ,recensions never occurred4 ,why1 there is not a trace of them in history3 it is a mere dream of ,dr4 ,hort3 they must be 8phantom recensions10 as ,dr4 ,scrivener terms them4 ,the ,church of the time was not so unconscious of such matters as ,dr4 ,hort imagines4 ,supposing for a moment that such ,recensions1 took place1 they must have been either merely local occurrences1 in which case after a controversy on which history is silent they would have been inevitably rejected by the other ,churches in ,christendom2 or they must have been general operations of the ,universal ,church1 and then inasmuch as they would have been sealed with the concurrence of fifteen centuries1 ,i can hardly conceive greater condemnations of ,b and 4 ,besides1 how could a text which has been in fact ,universal be 8,syrian08 ,we are on terra firma1 let me remind you1 not in the clouds4 ,the undisputed action of fifteen centuries is not to be set aside by a nickname4 ,b4 ,s4 ,but there is another way of describing the process of change which may have occurred in the reverse direction to that which you advocate4 ,expressions which had been introduced in different groups of readings were combined by 8,conflation0 into a more diffuse and weaker passage4 ,thus in ,st4 ,mark vi4 #cc1 the two clauses 1 1 are made into one conflate passage1 of which the last clause is 8otiose0 after occurring immediately before7#hi74 ,the ,dean4 ,excuse me1 but ,i entirely disagree with you4 ,the whole passage appears to me to savour of the simplicity of early narratives4 ,take for example the well-known words in ,gen4 xii4 #e1 8and they went forth to go into the land of ,canaan2 and into the land of ,canaan they came7#ij740 ,a clumsy criticism1 bereft of any fine appreciation of times and habits unlike the present1 might ,i suppose attempt to remove the latter clause from that place as being 8otiose40 ,but besides1 your explanation entirely breaks down when it is applied to other instances4 ,how could conflation1 or mixture1 account for occurrence of the last cry in ,st4 ,mark xv4 #ci1 or of vv4 #dc-dd in ,st4 ,luke xxii describing the ,agony and ,bloody ,sweat1 or of the first ,word from the ,cross in ,st4 ,luke xxiii4 #cd1 or of the descending angel and the working of the cure in ,st4 ,john v4 #c-d1 or of ,st4 ,peter's visit to the sepulchre in ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #ab1 or what would be the foisting of verses or passages of different lengths into the numerous and similar places that ,i might easily adduce8 ,if these were all transcribed from some previous text into which they had been interpolated1 they would only thrust the difficulty further back4 ,how did they come there8 ,the clipped text of ,b and --so to call it--could not have been the source of them4 ,if they were interpolated by scribes or revisers1 the interpolations are so good that1 at least in many cases1 they must have shared inspiration with the ,evangelists4 ,contrast1 for example1 the real interpolations of ,d and the ,curetonian4 ,it is at the least demonstrated that that hypothesis requires another source of the ,traditional ,text1 and this is the argument now insisted on4 ,on the contrary1 if you will discard your reverse process1 and for 8,conflation0 will substitute 8,omission0 through carelessness1 or ignorance of ,greek1 or misplaced assiduity1 or heretical bias1 or through some of the other causes which ,i shall explain later on1 all will be as plain and easy as possible4 ,do you not see that8 ,no explanation can stand which does not account for all the instances existing4 ,conflation or mixture is utterly incapable of meeting the larger number of cases4 ,but you will find before this treatise is ended that various methods will be described herein with care1 and traced in their actual operation1 under which debased texts of various kinds were produced from the ,traditional ,text4 ,b4 ,s4 ,i see that there is much probability in what you say3 but ,i retain still some lingering doubt4 ,the ,dean4 ,that doubt1 ,i think1 will be removed by the next point which ,i will now endeavour to elucidate4 ,you must know that there is no agreement amongst the allies1 except so far as the denial of truth is concerned4 ,as soon as the battle is over1 they at once turn their arms against one another4 ,now it is a phenomenon full of suggestion1 that such a ,concordia discors is conspicuous amongst ,b and and their associates4 ,indeed these two ,codexes are individually at variance with themselves1 since each of them has undergone later correction1 and in fact no less than eleven hands from first to last have been at work on 1 which has been corrected and re-corrected backwards and forwards like the faulty document that it is4 ,this by the way1 but as to the continual quarrels of these dissentients7#ia71 which are patent when an attempt is made to ascertain how far they agree amongst themselves1 ,i must request your attention to a few points and passages7#ib74 #b4 ,st4 ,john v4 #d4 ,when it is abruptly stated that ,,bcd--four out of 8the five old uncials0--omit from the text of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel the account of the angel descending into the pool and troubling the water1--it is straightway supposed that the genuineness of ,st4 ,john v4 #d must be surrendered4 ,but this is not at all the way to settle questions of this kind4 ,let the witnesses be called in afresh and examined4 ,now ,i submit that since these four witnesses omitting ,a1 7besides a multitude of lesser discrepancies17 are unable to agree among themselves whether 8there was at ,jerusalem a sheep-pool0 771 or 8a pool at the sheep-gate03 whether it was 8surnamed0 7,,bc71 or 8named0 7,d71 or neither 773--which appellation1 out of thirty which have been proposed for this pool1 they will adopt1--seeing that ,c is for 8,bethesda02 ,b for 8,bethsaida02 for 8,bethzatha02 ,d for 8,belzetha03--whether or no the crowd was great1 of which they all know nothing1--and whether some were 8paralytics10--a fact which was evidently revealed only to ,d3--to say nothing of the vagaries of construction discoverable in verses #aa and #ab3--when1 you see1 at last these four witnesses conspire to suppress the fact that an ,angel went down into the pool to trouble the water2--this concord of theirs derives suggestive illustration from their conspicuous discord4 ,since1 ,i say1 there is so much discrepancy hereabouts in ,b and and their two associates on this occasion1 nothing short of unanimity in respect of the thirty-two contested words--five in verse #c1 and twenty-seven in verse #d--would free their evidence from suspicion4 ,but here we make the notable discovery that only three of them omit all the words in question1 and that the second ,corrector of ,c replaces them in that manuscript4 ,d retains the first five1 and surrenders the last twenty-seven3 in this step ,d is contradicted by another of the 8,old ,uncials10 ,a1 whose first reading retains the last twenty-seven1 and surrenders the first five4 ,even their satellite ,l forsakes them1 except so far as to follow the first hand of ,a4 ,only five ,cursives have been led astray1 and they exhibit strikingly this ,concordia discors4 ,one 7#aeg7 follows the extreme members of the loving company throughout4 ,two 7#ah1 #cad7 imitate ,a and ,l3 and two more 7#cc1 #acd7 have the advantage of ,d for their leader4 ,when witnesses prevaricate so hopelessly1 how far can you believe them8 ,now--to turn for a moment to the other side--this is a matter on which the translations and such ,fathers as quote the passage are able to render just as good evidence as the ,greek copies3 and it is found that the ,peshitto1 most of the ,old ,latin1 as well as the ,vulgate and the ,jerusalem1 with ,tertullian1 ,ammonius1 ,hilary1 ,ephraem the ,syrian1 ,ambrose 7two71 ,didymus1 ,chrysostom 7eight71 ,nilus 7four71 ,jerome1 ,cyril of ,alexandria 7five71 ,augustine 7two71 and ,theodorus ,studita1 besides the rest of the ,uncials7#ic71 and the ,cursives7#id71 with the slight exception already mentioned1 are opposed to the ,old ,uncials7#ie74 ,let me next remind you of a remarkable instance of this inconsistency which ,i have already described in my book on ,the ,revision ,revised 7pp4 #cd-cf74 8,the five ,old ,uncials0 7,,abcd7 falsify the ,lord's ,prayer as given by ,st4 ,luke in no less than forty-five words4 ,but so little do they agree among themselves1 that they throw themselves into six different combinations in their departures from the ,traditional ,text2 and yet they are never able to agree among themselves as to one single various reading3 while only once are more than two of them observed to stand together1 and their grand point of union is no less than an omission of the article4 ,such is their eccentric tendency1 that in respect of thirty-two out of the whole forty-five words they bear in turn solitary evidence4 #c4 ,i should weary you1 my dear student1 if ,i were to take you through all the evidence which ,i could amass upon this disagreement with one another1--this ,concordia discors4 ,but ,i would invite your attention for a moment to a few points which being specimens may indicate the continued divisions upon ,orthography which subsist between the ,old ,uncials and their frequent errors4 ,and first7#if71 how do they write the 8,mary's0 of the ,gospels1 of whom in strictness there are but three8 8,the ,mother of ,,jesus7#ig710 as most of us are aware1 was not 8,mary0 77 at all2 but 8,mariam0 771--a name strictly identical with that of the sister of ,moses7#ih74 ,we call her 8,mary0 only because the ,latins invariably write her name 8,maria40 ,so complete an obliteration of the distinction between the name of the blessed ,virgin--and that of 7#a7 her sister1 ,mary the wife of ,clopas7#ii71 of 7#b7 ,mary ,magdalene1 and of 7#c7 ,mary the sister of ,lazarus1 may be deplored1 but it is too late to remedy the mischief by full #ahjj years4 ,the question before us is not that2 but only--how far the distinction between 8,mariam0 and 8,maria0 has been maintained by the ,greek copies8 ,now1 as for the cursives1 with the memorable exception of ,evann4 #a and #cc1--which latter1 because it is disfigured by more serious blunders than any other copy written in the cursive character1 ,tregelles by a mauvaise plaisanterie designates as 8the queen of the cursives10--it may be said at once that they are admirably faithful4 ,judging from the practice of fifty or sixty which have been minutely examined with this view1 the traces of irregularity are so rare that the phenomenon scarcely deserves notice4 ,not so the old uncials4 ,cod4 ,b1 on the first occasion where a blunder is possible7#ajj7 7viz4 in ,st4 ,matt4 i4 #bj71 exhibits instead of 3--so does ,cod4 ,c in xiii4 #ee1--;,cod4 ,d in ,st4 ,luke i4 #cj1 #ci1 #ef3 ii4 #e1 #af1 #cd1--;,codd4 ,,cd in ,st4 ,luke by ,,bc1 in ,st4 ,matt4 i4 #cd1 #ch1 #df1--;,codd4 ,b,d1 in ii4 #ai4 ,on the other hand1 the ,virgin's sister 771 is twice written 3 viz4 by ,c1 in ,st4 ,matt xxvii4 #ef2 and by 1 in ,st4 ,john xix4 #be3--while ,mary ,magdalene is written by 8the five old uncials0 no less than eleven times3 viz4 by ,c1 in ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #ef1--;by 1 in ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #aj1 ,st4 ,john xix4 #be1 xx4 #aa1--;by ,a1 in ,st4 ,luke viii4 #b1--;by ,a1 in ,st4 ,john xx4 #a1--;by ,c1 in ,st4 ,matt4 xxviii4 #a1--;by ,b1 in ,st4 ,john xx4 #af and #ah1--;by ,,bc1 in ,st4 ,mark xv4 #dj1--;by ,,bc1 in ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #fa4 ,lastly1 ,mary 77 the sister of ,lazarus1 is called by ,cod4 ,b in ,st4 ,luke x4 #db3 ,st4 ,john xi4 #b3 xii4 #c2--;by ,,bc1 in ,st4 ,luke xi4 #cb2--;by ,c1 in ,st4 ,luke x4 #ci4--;,i submit that such specimens of licentiousness or inattention are little calculated to conciliate confidence in ,codd4 ,b,,cd4 ,it is found that ,b goes wrong nine times3 ,d1 ten 7exclusively in respect of the ,virgin ,mary73 ,c1 eleven3 1 twelve4--,evan4 #cc goes wrong thirteen times3 #a1 nineteen times4--,a1 the least corrupt1 goes wrong only twice4 #d4 ,another specimen of a blunder in ,codexes ,b,l#cc is afforded by their handling of our ,,lord',s words1--8,thou art ,simon the son of ,jona40 ,that this is the true reading of ,st4 ,john i4 #dc is sufficiently established by the fact that it is the reading of all the ,codexes1 uncial and cursive alike1--excepting always the four vicious specimens specified above4 ,add to the main body of the ,codexes the ,vulgate1 ,peshitto and ,harkleian ,syriac1 the ,armenian1 ,ethiopic1 ,georgian1 and ,slavonic versions3--besides several of the ,fathers1 such as ,serapion7#aja71--;,basil7#ajb71--;,epip hanius7#ajc71--;,chrysostom7#ajd71--;,as terius7#aje71--;and another 7unknown7 writer of the fourth century7#ajf73--with ,cyril7#ajg7 of the fifth1--and a body of evidence has been adduced1 which alike in respect of its antiquity1 its number1 its variety1 and its respectability1 casts such witnesses as ,b- entirely into the shade4 ,when it is further remembered that we have preserved to us in ,st4 ,matt4 xvi4 #ag our ,saviour's designation of ,simon's patronymic in the vernacular of ,palestine1 8,simon ,bar-jona10 which no manuscript has ventured to disturb1 what else but irrational is the contention of the modern ,school that for 8,jona0 in ,st4 ,john i4 #db1 we are to read 8,john08 ,the plain fact evidently is that some second-century critic supposed that 8,jonah0 and 8,john0 are identical3 and of his weak imagination the only surviving witnesses at the end of #agjj years are three uncials and one cursive copy1--a few copies of the ,old ,latin 7which fluctuate between 8,johannis10 8,johanna10 and 8,johna071--the ,bohairic ,version1 and ,nonnus4 ,and yet1 on the strength of this slender minority1 the ,revisers exhibit in their text1 8,simon the son of ,john10--and in their margin volunteer the information that the ,greek word is 8,joanes10--which is simply not the fact3 being the reading of no ,greek manuscript in the world except ,cod4 ,b7#ajh74 ,again1 in the margin of ,st4 ,john i4 #bh we are informed that instead of ,bethany--the undoubted reading of the place1--some ancient authorities read 8,betharabah40 ,why1 there is not a single ancient ,codex1--not a single ancient ,father1--not a single ancient ,version1--which so reads the place7#aji74 #e4 ,b4 ,s4 ,but7#aaj71 while ,i grant you that this general disagreement between ,b and and the other old ,uncials which for a time join in their dissent from the ,traditional ,text causes the gravest suspicion that they are in error1 yet it appears to me that these points of orthography are too small to be of any real importance4 ,the ,dean4 ,if the instances just given were only exceptions1 ,i should agree with you4 ,on the contrary1 they indicate the prevailing character of the ,,mss4 ,b and are covered all over with blots7#aaa71-- even more so than ,b4 ,how they could ever have gained the characters which have been given them1 is passing strange4 ,but even great scholars are human1 and have their prejudices and other weaknesses2 and their disciples follow them everywhere as submissively as sheep4 ,to say nothing of many great scholars who have never explored this field1 if men of ordinary acquirements in scholarship would only emancipate themselves and judge with their own eyes1 they would soon see the truth of what ,i say4 ,b4 ,s4 ,i should assent to all that you have told me1 if ,i could only have before me a sufficient number of instances to form a sound induction1 always provided that they agree with these which you have quoted4 ,those which you have just given are enough as specimens3 but forgive me when ,i say that1 as a ,biblical ,student1 ,i think ,i ought to form my opinions upon strong1 deep1 and wide foundations of facts4 ,the ,dean4 ,so far from requiring forgiveness from me1 you deserve all praise4 ,my leading principle is to build solely upon facts1--upon real1 not fancied facts1--not upon a few favourite facts1 but upon all that are connected with the question under consideration4 ,and if it had been permitted me to carry out in its integrity the plan which ,i laid down for myself7#aab71--that however has been withheld under the good ,providence of ,almighty ,,god4--,nevertheless ,i think that you will discover in the sequel enough to justify amply all the words that ,i have used4 ,you will1 ,i perceive1 agree with me in this1--,that whichever side of the contention is the most comprehensive1 and rests upon the soundest and widest induction of facts1--that side1 and that side alone1 will stand4 ,,chapter ,v4 ,,the ,,antiquity ,,of ,,the ,,traditional ,,text7#aac74 ,i4 ,,witness ,,of ,,the ,,early ,,fathers4 #a4 ,involuntary ,evidence of ,dr4 ,hort4 ,our readers will have observed1 that the chief obstacle in the way of an unprejudiced and candid examination of the sound and comprehensive system constructed by ,dean ,burgon is found in the theory of ,dr4 ,hort4 ,of the internal coherence and the singular ingenuity displayed in ,dr4 ,hort's treatise1 no one can doubt3 and ,i hasten to pay deserved and sincere respect to the memory of the highly accomplished author whose loss the students of ,holy ,scripture are even now deploring4 ,it is to his arguments sifted logically1 to the judgement exercised by him upon texts and readings1 upon manuscripts and versions and ,fathers1 and to his collisions with the record of history1 that a higher duty than appreciation of a ,theologian however learned and pious compels us to demur4 ,but no searching examination into the separate links and details of the argument in ,dr4 ,hort's ,introduction to his ,edition of the ,new ,testament will be essayed now4 ,such a criticism has been already made by ,dean ,burgon in the #cjfth number of the ,quarterly ,review1 and has been republished in ,the ,revision ,revised7#aad74 ,the object here pursued is only to remove the difficulties which ,dr4 ,hort interposes in the development of our own treatise4 ,dr4 ,hort has done a valuable service to the cause of ,textual ,criticism by supplying the rationale of the attitude of the ,school of ,lachmann4 ,we know what it really means1 and against what principles we have to contend4 ,he has also displayed a contrast and a background to the true theory2 and has shewn where the drawing and colouring are either ill-made or are defective4 ,more than all1 he has virtually destroyed his own theory4 ,the parts of it to which ,i refer are in substance briefly the following3 8,the text found in the mass of existing ,,mss4 does not date further back than the middle of the fourth century4 ,before that text was made up1 other forms of text were in vogue1 which may be termed respectively ,neutral1 ,western1 and ,alexandrian4 ,the text first mentioned arose in ,syria and more particularly at ,antioch4 ,originally there had been in ,syria an ,old-,syriac1 which after ,cureton is to be identified with the ,curetonian4 ,in the third century1 about #bej ,a4,d41 #8an authoritative revision1 accepted by ,syriac ,christendom1' was made1 of which the locality would be either ,edessa or ,nisibis1 or else ,antioch itself4 #8,this revision was grounded probably upon an authoritative revision at ,antioch' 7p4 #acg7 of the ,greek texts which called for such a recension on account of their #8growing diversity and confusion4' ,besides these two1 a second revision of the ,greek texts1 or a third counting the ,syriac revision1 similarly authoritative1 was completed at ,antioch #8by #cej or thereabouts'2 but what was now #8the ,vulgate ,syriac' text1 that is the ,peshitto1 did not again undergo any corresponding revision4 ,from the last ,greek revision issued a text which was afterwards carried to ,constantinople--#8,antioch being the true ecclesiastical parent of ,constantinople'--and thenceforward became the ,text dominant in ,christendom till the present century4 ,nevertheless1 it is not the true ,text1 for that is the #8,neutral' text1 and it may be called #8,syrian4' ,accordingly1 in investigations into the character and form of the true ,text1 #8,syrian' readings are to be #8rejected at once1 as proved to have a relatively late origin4' 0 ,a few words will make it evident to unprejudiced judges that ,dr4 ,hort has given himself away in this part of his theory4 #a4 ,the criticism of the ,canon and language of the ,books of the ,new ,testament is but the discovery and the application of the record of ,testimony borne in history to those books or to that language4 ,for a proof of this position as regards the ,canon1 it is sufficient to refer to ,bishop ,westcott's admirable discussion upon the ,canon of the ,new ,testament4 ,and as with the ,books generally1 so with the details of those ,books--their paragraphs1 their sentences1 their clauses1 their phrases1 and their words4 ,to put this dictum into other terms3--,the ,church1 all down the ages1 since the issue of the original autographs1 has left in ,copies or in ,versions or in ,fathers manifold witness to the books composed and to the words written4 ,dr4 ,hort has had the unwisdom from his point of view to present us with some fifteen centuries1 and--,i must in duty say it--the audacity to label those fifteen centuries of ,church ,life with the title 8,syrian10 which as used by him ,i will not characterize1 for he has made it amongst his followers a password to contemptuous neglect4 ,yet those fifteen centuries involve everything4 ,they commenced when the ,church was freeing herself from heresy and formulating her ,faith4 ,they advanced amidst the most sedulous care of ,holy ,scripture4 ,they implied a consentient record from the first1 except where ignorance1 or inaccuracy1 or carelessness1 or heresy1 prevailed4 ,and was not ,dr4 ,hort aware1 and do not his adherents at the present day know1 that ,church ,life means nothing arbitrary1 but all that is soundest and wisest and most complete in evidence1 and most large-minded in conclusions8 ,above all1 did he fancy1 and do his followers imagine1 that the ,,holy ,,ghost who inspired the ,new ,testament could have let the true ,text of it drop into obscurity during fifteen centuries of its life1 and that a deep and wide and full investigation 7which by their premisses they will not admit7 must issue in the proof that under ,his care the ,,word of ,,god has been preserved all through the ages in due integrity8--,this admission alone when stripped of its disguise1 is plainly fatal to ,dr4 ,hort's theory4 #b4 ,again1 in order to prop up his contention1 ,dr4 ,hort is obliged to conjure up the shadows of two or three 8phantom revisions10 of which no recorded evidence exists7#aae74 ,we must never forget that subjective theory or individual speculation are valueless1 when they do not agree with facts1 except as failures leading to some better system4 ,but ,dr4 ,hort1 as soon as he found that he could not maintain his ground with history as it was1 instead of taking back his theory and altering it to square with facts1 tampered with historical facts in order to make them agree with his theory4 ,this is self-evident3 no one has been able to adduce1 during the quarter of a century that has elapsed since ,dr4 ,hort published his book1 passages to shew that ,dr4 ,hort was right1 and that his supposed revisions really took place4 ,the acute calculations of ,adams and ,leverrier would have been very soon forgotten1 if ,neptune had not appeared to vindicate their correctness4 ,but ,i shall not leave matters here1 though it is evident that ,dr4 ,hort is confuted out of his own mouth4 ,the fifteen centuries of dominant evidence1 which he admits to have been on our side1 involve the other centuries that had passed previously1 because the ,catholic ,church of ,christ is ever consistent with itself1 and are thus virtually decisive of the controversy2 besides the collapse of his theory when superimposed upon the facts of history and found not to coincide with them4 ,i proceed to prove from the surviving records of the first three or four centuries1 during the long period that elapsed between the copying of the ,vatican and ,sinaitic ,,mss4 and the days of the ,evangelists1 that the evidence of ,versions and ,fathers is on our side4 ,and first of the ,fathers4 #b4 ,testimony of the ,ante-,chrysostom ,writers4 ,no one1 ,i believe1 has till now made a systematic examination of the quotations occurring in the writings of the ,fathers who died before ,a4,d4 #djj and in public documents written prior to that date4 ,the consequence is that many statements have been promulgated respecting them which are inconsistent with the facts of the case4 ,dr4 ,hort1 as ,i shall shew1 has offended more than once in this respect4 ,the invaluable ,indexes drawn up by ,dean ,burgon and those who assisted him1 which are of the utmost avail in any exhaustive examination of ,patristic evidence upon any given text1 are in this respect of little use1 the question here being1 ,what is the testimony of all the ,fathers in the first four centuries1 and of every separate ,father1 as to the ,,mss4 used by them or him1 upon the controversy waged between the maintainers of the ,traditional ,text on the one side1 and on the other the defenders of the ,neologian ,texts8 ,the groundwork of such an examination evidently lies not in separate passages of the ,gospels1 but in the series of quotations from them found in the works of the collective or individual ,fathers of the period under consideration4 ,i must here guard myself4 ,in order to examine the text of any separate passage1 the treatment must be exhaustive1 and no evidence if possible should be left out4 ,the present question is of a different kind4 ,dr4 ,hort states that the ,traditional ,text1 or as he calls it 8the ,syrian10 does not go back to the earliest times1 that is as he says1 not before the middle of the fourth century4 ,in proving my position that it can be traced to the very first1 it would be amply sufficient if ,i could shew that the evidence is half on our side and half on the other4 ,it is really found to be much more favourable to us4 ,we fully admit that corruption prevailed from the very first7#aaf73 and so1 we do not demand as much as our adversaries require for their justification4 ,at all events the question is of a general character1 and does not depend upon a little more evidence or a little less4 ,and the argument is secondary in its nature3 it relates to the principles of the evidence1 not directly to the establishment of any particular reading4 ,it need not fail therefore if it is not entirely exhaustive1 provided that it gives a just and fair representation of the whole case4 ,nevertheless1 ,i have endeavoured to make it exhaustive as far as my power would admit1 having gone over the whole field a second time1 and having employed all the care in either scrutiny that ,i could command4 ,the way in which my investigation has been accomplished is as follows3--,a standard of reference being absolutely necessary1 ,i have kept before me a copy of ,dr4 ,scrivener's ,cambridge ,greek ,testament1 ,a4,d4 #ahhg1 in which the disputed passages are printed in black type1 although the ,text there presented is the ,textus ,receptus from which the ,traditional ,text as revised by ,dean ,burgon and hereafter to be published differs in many passages4 ,it follows therefore that upon some of these the record1 though not unfavourable to us1 has many times been included in our opponents' column4 ,i have used copies of the ,fathers in which the quotations were marked1 chiefly those in ,migne's ,series1 though ,i have also employed other editions where ,i could find any of superior excellence as well as ,migne4 ,each passage with its special reading was entered down in my note-book upon one column or the other4 ,successive citations thus fell on either side when they witnessed upon the disputed points so presented4 ,but all doubtful quotations 7under which head were included all that were not absolutely clear7 were discarded as untrustworthy witnesses in the comparison that was being made2 and all instances too of mere spelling1 because these latter might have been introduced into the text by copyists or editors through an adaptation to supposed orthography in the later ages when the text of the ,father in question was copied or printed4 ,the fact also that deflections from the text more easily catch the eye than undeviating rejection of deflections was greatly to the advantage of the opposite side4 ,and lastly1 where any doubt arose ,i generally decided questions against my own contention1 and have omitted to record many smaller instances favourable to us which ,i should have entered in the other column4 ,from various reasons the large majority of passages proved to be irrelevant to this inquiry1 because no variation of reading occurred in them1 or none which has been adopted by modern editors4 ,such were favourite passages quoted again and again as the two first verses of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 8,i and ,my ,father are one10 8,i am the way1 the truth1 and the life10 8,no man knoweth the ,father but the ,son10 and many others4 ,in ,latin books1 more quotations had to be rejected than in ,greek1 because the verdict of a version cannot be so close as the witness of the original language4 ,an objection may perhaps be made1 that the texts of the books of the ,fathers are sure to have been altered in order to coincide more accurately with the ,received ,text4 ,this is true of the ,ethica1 or ,moralia1 of ,basil1 and of the ,regulae brevius ,tractatae1 which seem to have been read constantly at meals1 or were otherwise in continual use in ,religious ,houses4 ,the monks of a later age would not be content to hear every day familiar passages of ,holy ,scripture couched in other terms than those to which they were accustomed1 and which they regarded as correct4 ,this fact was perfectly evident upon examination1 because these treatises were found to give evidence for the ,textus ,receptus in the proportion of about #f3a1 whereas the other books of ,st4 ,basil yielded according to a ratio of about #h3c4 ,for the same reason ,i have not included ,marcion's edition of ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel1 or ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 in the list of books and authors1 because such representations of the ,gospels having been in public use were sure to have been revised from time to time1 in order to accord with the judgement of those who read or heard them4 ,our readers will observe that these were self-denying ordinances1 because by the inclusion of the works mentioned the list on the ,traditional side would have been greatly increased4 ,yet our foundations have been strengthened1 and really the position of the ,traditional ,text rests so firmly upon what is undoubted1 that it can afford to dispense with services which may be open to some suspicion7#aag74 ,and the natural inference remains1 that the difference between the witness of the ,ethica and the ,regulae brevius ,tractatae on the one hand1 and that of the other works of ,basil on the other1 suggests that too much variation1 and too much which is evidently characteristic variation1 of readings meets us in the works of the several ,fathers1 for the existence of any doubt that in most cases we have the words1 though perhaps not the spelling1 as they issued originally from the author's pen7#aah74 ,variant readings of quotations occurring in different editions of the ,fathers are found1 according to my experience1 much less frequently than might have been supposed4 ,where ,i saw a difference between ,,mss4 noted in the ,benedictine or other editions or in copies from the ,benedictine or other prints1 of course ,i regarded the passage as doubtful and did not enter it4 ,acquaintance with this kind of testimony cannot but render its general trustworthiness the more evident4 ,the habit of quotation of authorities from the ,fathers by ,tischendorf and all ,textual ,critics shews that they have always been taken to be in the main trustworthy4 ,it is in order that we may be on sure ground that ,i have rejected many passages on both sides1 and a larger number of cases of pettier testimony on the ,traditional side4 ,in the examination of the ,greek ,fathers1 ,latin ,translations have generally been neglected 7except in the case of ,st4 ,irenaeus7#aai771 because the witness of a version is secondhand1 and ,latin translators often employed a rendering with which they were familiar in representing in ,latin passages cited from the ,gospels in ,greek4 ,and in the case even of ,origen and especially of the later ,fathers before ,a4,d4 #djj1 it is not certain whether the translation1 such as that of ,rufinus1 comes within the limit of time prescribed4 ,the evidence of the ,father as to whether he used a ,text or ,texts of one class or another is of course much better exhibited in his own ,greek writing1 than where some one else has translated his words into ,latin4 ,accordingly1 in the case of the ,latin ,fathers1 only the clearest evidence has been admitted4 ,some passages adduced by ,tischendorf have been rejected1 and later experience has convinced me that such rejections made in the earlier part of my work were right4 ,in a secondary process like this1 if only the cup were borne even1 no harm could result1 and it is of the greatest possible importance that the foundation of the building should be sound4 ,the general results will appear in the annexed ,table4 ,the investigation was confined to the ,gospels4 ,for want of a better term1 ,i have uniformly here applied the title 8,neologian0 to the ,text opposed to ours4 ,fathers4 ,traditional ,neologian4 ,text4 ,patres ,apostolici and ,didach #aa #d ,epistle to ,diognetus #a #j ,papias #a #j ,justin ,martyr #ag #bj ,heracleon #a #g ,gospel of ,peter #b #j ,seniores apud ,irenaeum #b #j ,athenagoras #c #a ,irenaeus 7,latin as well as ,greek7 #fc #da ,hegesippus #b #j ,theophilus ,antiochenus #b #d ,testament of ,abraham #d #j ,epistola ,viennensium et ,lugdunensium #a #j ,clement of ,alexandria #hb #gb ,tertullian #gd #fe ,clementines #ah #g ,hippolytus #bf #aa ,callixtus 7,pope7 #a #j ,pontianus 7,pope7 #j #b ,origen #dfj #dia ,julius ,africanus #a #a ,gregory ,thaumaturgus #aa #c ,novatian #f #d ,cornelius 7,pope7 #d #a ,synodical ,letter #a #b ,cyprian #ajj #if ,concilia ,carthaginiensia #h #d ,dionysius of ,alexandria #ab #e ,synodus ,antiochena #c #a ,acta ,pilati #e #a ,theognostus #j #a ,archelaus 7,manes7 #aa #b ,pamphilus #e #a ,methodius #ad #h ,peter of ,alexandria #g #h ,alexander ,alexandrinus #d #j ,lactantius #j #a ,juvencus #a #b ,arius #b #a ,acta ,philippi #b #a ,apostolic ,canons and ,constitutions #fa #bh ,eusebius 7,caesarea7 #cae #bad ,theodorus ,heracleensis #b #j ,athanasius #agi #aai ,firmicus ,maternus #c #a ,julius 7,pope7 #a #b ,serapion #e #a ,eustathius #g #b ,macarius ,aegyptius or ,magnus7#abj7 #cf #ag ,hilary 7,poictiers7 #gc #ci ,candidus ,arianus #j #a ,eunomius #a #j ,didymus #ha #cf ,victorinus of ,pettau #d #c ,faustinus #d #j ,zeno #c #e ,basil #bgb #aje ,victorinus ,afer #ad #ad ,lucifer of ,cagliari #ag #bj ,titus of ,bostra #dd #bd ,cyril of ,jerusalem #ed #cb ,pacianus #b #b ,optatus #aj #c ,quaestiones ex ,utroque ,test #ac #f ,gregory of ,nyssa #ia #bh ,philastrius #g #f ,gregory of ,nazianzus #ah #d ,amphilochius #bg #aj ,epiphanius #abc #gh ,ambrose #afi #gg ,macarius ,magnes #aa #e ,diodorus of ,tarsus #a #j ,evagrius ,ponticus #d #j ,esaias ,abbas #a #j ,nemesius #j #a ,philo of ,carpasus7#aba7 #i #b ---- #bfcj #agec ,the testimony therefore of the ,early ,fathers is emphatically1 according to the issue of numbers1 in favour of the ,traditional ,text1 being about #c3b4 ,but it is also necessary to inform the readers of this treatise1 that here quality confirms quantity4 ,a list will now be given of thirty important passages in which evidence is borne on both sides1 and it will be seen that #ecj testimonies are given in favour of the ,traditional readings as against #agj on the other side4 ,in other words1 the ,traditional ,text beats its opponent in a general proportion of #c to #a4 ,this result supplies a fair idea of the two records4 ,the ,neologian record consists mainly of unimportant1 or at any rate of smaller alterations1 such as for 1 for 1 for 1 disarrangements of the order of words1 omissions of particles1 besides of course greater omissions of more or less importance4 ,in fact1 a great deal of the variations suggest to us that they took their origin when the ,church had not become familiar with the true readings1 the verba ipsissima1 of the ,gospels1 and when an atmosphere of much inaccuracy was spread around4 ,it will be readily understood how easily the text of the ,holy ,gospels might have come to be corrupted in oral teaching whether from the pulpit or otherwise1 and how corruptions must have so embedded themselves in the memories and in the copies of many ,christians of the day1 that it needed centuries before they could be cast out4 ,that they were thus rooted out to a large extent must have been due to the loving zeal and accuracy of the majority4 ,such was a great though by no means the sole cause of corruption4 ,but before going further1 it will be best to exhibit the testimony referred to as it is borne by thirty of the most important passages in dispute4 ,they have been selected with care3 several which were first chosen had to be replaced by others1 because of their absence from the quotations of the period under consideration4 ,of course1 the quotations are limited to that period4 ,quotations are made in this list also from ,syriac sources4 ,besides my own researches1 ,the ,last ,twelve ,verses1 and ,the ,revision ,revised1 of ,dean ,burgon have been most prolific of apposite passages4 ,a reference here and there has been added from ,resch's ,ausser-,canonische ,paralleltexte zu den ,evangelien1 ,leipzig1 #ahid-e4 #a4 ,st4 ,matt4 i4 #be4 4 ,on the ,traditional side3-- ,tatian 7,diatessaron74 ,athanasius 7c4 ,apoll4 i4 #bj2 ii4 #ae74 ,basil 7,adv4 ,eunom4 iv4 7#bia72 in ,s4 ,xti4 ,gen4 #e2 i4 #cib2 ii4 #eii1 #fjj74 ,didymus 7,trin4 iii4 #d74 ,cyril ,jerus4 7,cat4 vii4 #i74 ,gregory ,nyss4 7ii4 #bbi74 ,ephraem ,syras 7,commentary on ,diatessaron74 ,epiphanius 7,haer4 ,,ii4 li4 #e2 ,,iii4 lxxxviii4 #ag1 c4--#e times74 ,ambrose 7,de ,fid4 ,i4 xiv4 #hi77abb74 ,against3--,i can discover nothing4 #b4 ,st4 ,matt4 v4 #dd 7some of the clauses74 ,traditional3--,separate clauses are quoted by-- ,didach 7 ,i74 ,polycarp 7x474 ,justin ,m4 7,apol4 i4 #ae74 ,athenagoras 7,leg4 pro ,christian4 #aa74 ,tertullian 7,de ,patient1 vi474 ,theophilus ,ant4 7,ad ,autolycum74 ,clemens ,alex4 7,paed4 i4 #h2 ,strom4 iv4 #ad2 vii4 #ad74 ,origen 7,de ,orat4 i42 ,cels4 viii4 #ce2 #da74 ,eusebius 7,praep4 ,ev4 xiii4 #g2 ,comment1 in ,isai4 #ff2 ,comment4 in ,ps4 #c2 #ajh74 ,athanasius 7,de ,incarnat4 c4 ,arian4 #c2 #ac74 ,apost4 ,const1 7i4 #a1 all the clauses2 vii4 ,i74 ,gregory ,naz4 7,orat4 iv4 #abd74 ,gregory ,nyss4 7,in ,bapt4 ,christ42 ,in ,s4 ,stephanum74 ,lucifer 7,pro ,s4 ,athan4 ii474 ,philo of ,carpasus 7,i4 #g74 ,pacianus 7,epist4 ii474 ,hilary 7,tract4 in ,ps4 cxviii4 #i4 #i2 #aj4 #af74 ,ambrose 7,de ,abrahamo ii4 #cj2 ,in ,ps4 xxxviii4 #aj2 ,in ,ps4 cxviii4 #ab4 #ea74 ,aphraates 7,dem4 ii474 ,apocryphal ,acts of the ,gospels 7p4 #hi74 ,against3-- ,cyprian 7,de ,bono ,patient1 v42 ,de ,zelo xv42 ,test4 ad ,jud4 iii4 #di74 ,irenaeus 7,haer4 ,,iii4 xviii4 #e74 ,origen 7,comment4 on ,st4 ,john ,,xx4 xv42 xxvii474 ,eusebius 7,dem4 ,evan4 xiii4 #g74 ,gregory ,nyss4 7,in ,bapt4 ,christ474 #c4 ,st4 ,matt4 vi4 #ac4 ,doxology4 ,traditional3-- ,didach 7viii1 with variation74 ,apostol4 ,const4 7iii4 #ah2 vii4 #be1 with variation74 ,ambrose 7,de ,sacr4 vi4 #e4 #bd74 ,against 7871 i4e4 generally silent about it3-- ,tertullian 7,de ,orat4 #h74 ,cyprian 7,de ,orat4 ,dom4 #bg74 ,origen 7,de ,orat4 #ah74 ,cyril ,jerus4 7,cat4 xxiii41 ,myst4 #e1 #ah74 ,gregory ,nyss4 is doubtful 7,de ,orat4 ,dom4 end74 #d4 ,st4 ,matt4 vii4 #ac1 #ad4 4 ,traditional3-- ,hippolytus 7,in ,susannam v4 #ah74 ,testament of ,abraham7#e times74 ,origen 7,select4 in ,ps4 xvi42 ,comment4 in ,matt4 xii4 #ab74 ,ambrose 7,epist4 ,i4 xxviii4 #f74 ,esaias ,abbas4 ,philo of ,carpasus 7iii4 #gc74 ,against3-- ,hippolytus 7,philosoph4 v4 #a4 #a--;bis74 ,origen 7,cels4 vi4 #ag2 ,select4 in ,ps4 xlv4 #b2 cxvii42 c4 ,haeres4 v4 #h74 ,cyprian 7,de ,hab4 ,virg4 xxi42 ,test4 ad ,jud4 iii4 #f74 ,eusebius 7,eclog4 ,proph4 iii4 #d2 ,comment4 in ,ps4 #c74 ,clemens ,alex4 7,strom4 ,,iv4 ii42 vi42 v4 #e2 ,cohort4 ad ,gent4 p4 #gi74 ,basil 7,hom4 in ,ps4 xxxiii4 #d2 xlv4 #b74 ,cyril ,jerus4 7,cat4 iii4 #g74 ,gregory ,nyss4 7c4 ,fornicarios74 ,ambrose 7,exposit4 in ,luc4 iv4 #cg74 ,philo of ,carpasus 7i4 #g74 ,macarius ,aegypt4 7,hom4 xxviii474 ,lucifer 7,de ,athan4 ii42 ,moriendum esse74 #e4 ,st4 ,matt4 ix4 #ac4 4 ,mark ii4 #ag4 ,traditional3-- ,barnabas 7#e74 ,justin ,m4 7,apol4 i4 #ae74 ,irenaeus 7,,iii4 v4 #b74 ,origen 7,comment4 in ,joh4 xxviii4 #af74 ,eusebius 7,comment4 in ,ps4 cxlvi474 ,hilary 7,comment4 in ,matt4 ad loc474 ,basil 7,de ,poenitent4 #c2 ,hom4 in ,ps4 xlviii4 #a2 ,epist4 ,class4 ,i4 xlvi4 #f74 ,against3-- ,clemens ,rom4 7ii4 #b74 ,hilary 7in ,mark ii4 #ag74 #f4 ,st4 ,matt4 xi4 #bg4 4 ,traditional3-- ,irenaeus 7c4 ,haeres4 ,,iv4 vi4 #a74 ,archelaus--,manes 7xxxvii474 ,clementines 7,recog4 ii4 #dg2 ,hom4 xvii4 #d2 xviii4 #d2 #ac74 ,athanasius 7,matt4 xi4 #bg--;commenting upon it2 ,de ,incarn4 c4 ,arian4 #g2 #ac2 #dg2 #dh2 c4 ,arianos iii4 #bf2 #di2 c4 ,sabell4 ,greg4 #d74 ,didymus 7,de ,trin4 iii4 #cf74 ,basil 7,adv4 ,eunom4 v4 #cad74 ,victorinus ,afer 7,adv4 ,arium i4 #ae74 ,ambrose 7,de ,fide ,v4 xvi4 #bja2 ,de ,spir4 ,s4 ,,ii4 xi4 #abc74 ,gregory ,nyss4 7c4 ,eunom4 i474 ,hilary 7,comment4 in ,matt4 ad loc42 ,de ,trin4 ii4 #aj2 vi4 #bf2 ix4 #ej2 ,frag4 xv474 ,quaestiones ex ,n4 ,t4 7#abd74 ,against3-- ,irenaeus 7c4 ,haeres4 ,i4 xx4 #c2 ,,ii4 vi4 ,i2 ,,iv4 vi4 #c74 ,clemens ,alex4 7,cohort4 ad ,gent4 i4 end2 ,paed4 i4 #e2 ,strom4 i4 #bh2 v4 #ac2 vii4 #aj2 #ah2 ,quis ,div4 ,salv4 viii474 ,justin ,m4 7,apol4 i4 #fc--;bis2 ,dial4 c4 ,tryph4 #ajj74 ,origen 7,cels4 vi4 #ag2 ,comm4 in ,joh4 i4 #db74 ,synodus ,antiochena4 ,athanasius 7,hist4 ,arian4 xii42 c4 ,arian4 i4 #ab2 #ci2 iv4 #bc2 ,serm4 ,maj4 de ,fide1 #bh74 ,didymus 7,de ,trin4 ii4 #af74 ,eusebius 7,eclog4 ,proph4 i4 #aa2 ,de ,eccles4 ,theol4 ,i4 xv2 xvi474 ,basil 7,adv4 ,eunom4 v4 #caa74 ,cyril ,jerus4 7,cat4 vi4 #f2 x4 #a74 ,epiphanius 7,adv4 ,haeres4 i4 #cd4 #ah2 ii4 #ed4 #d2 iii4 #fe4 #d2 #gf4 #d2 #bi2 ,ancor4 #fg74 #g4 ,st4 ,matt4 xvii4 #ba4 ,the ,verse4 ,traditional3-- ,clement ,alex4 4 xv4 ,origen 7,comment4 in ,matt4 xiii4 #g2 ,hom4 i474 ,athanasius 7,de ,virg4 vii474 ,basil 7,de ,jejun4 ,hom4 i4 #i2 ,reg4 fus4 tract4 xviii42 ,hom1 de ,jejun4 iii474 ,juveneus 7iii4 vv4 #cha-b74 ,ambrose 7,in ,ps4 xlv4 #i2 ,epist4 ,class4 ,i4 xlii4 #aa74 ,hilary 7,comment4 in ,matt4 ad loc74 ,against3--none1 so far as ,i can find4 #h4 ,st4 ,matt4 xviii4 #aa4 ,the ,verse4 ,traditional3-- ,origen 7ii4 #adg2 ,conc4 v4 #fge74 ,tertullian 7,pudic4 #i2 ,resurr4 #i74 ,ambrose 7,de ,interpell4 ,dav4 ,,iv4 ii4 #d2 ,expos4 in ,luc4 vii4 #bji2 ,de ,fid4 ,res4 ,,ii4 #f77abc74 ,against3--none1 so far as ,i can find4 #i4 ,st4 ,matt4 xix4 #af1 #ag4 1 and 4 ,traditional3-- ,clemens ,alex4 7,strom4 v4 #aj74 ,origen-- 7,comment4 in ,matt4 xv4 #aj74 ,eusebius 7,praep4 ,evan4 xi4 #ba74 ,athanasius 7,de ,incarn4 c4 ,arian4 #g74 ,cyril ,jerus4 7,cat4 xviii4 #cj74 ,gregory ,naz4 7i4 #ebi74 ,hilary 7,comment4 in ,matt4 ad loc474 ,epiphanius 7,adv4 ,haeres4 ,i4 iii4 #cd4 #ah74 ,macarius ,magnes 7i4 #i77abd74 ,against3-- ,origen 7,praep4 ,evan4 xi4 #ai2 ,comment4 in ,matt4 xv4 #aj4--;bis74 ,eusebius 7,praep4 ,evan4 xi4 #ba74 ,novatian 7,de ,trin4 xxx474 ,hilary--omits 7,comment4 in loc474 #aj4 ,st4 ,matt4 xxiii4 #ch4 4 ,st4 ,luke xiii4 #ce4 ,traditional3-- ,cyprian 7,test4 ad ,jud4 i4 #f74 ,irenaeus 7c4 ,haeres4 ,,iv4 xxxvi4 #h2 xxxvii4 #e74 ,clemens ,alex4 7,paed4 i4 #i74 ,methodius 7,serm4 de ,simeone et ,anna74 ,origen 7,hom4 in ,jerem4 vii4-- bis2 ,x42 xiii42 ,select4 in ,jeremiam xv42 in ,threnos iv4 #f74 ,apostol4 ,const4 7vi4 #e74 ,eusebius 7,dem4 ,evan4 ,,ii4 iv4 7#ch7--;four times2 ,,iv4 xvi4 7#ahi72 ,,vi4 7#bia72 viii4 7#dja72 x4 7#dha72 ,eclog4 ,proph4 ,,iv4 i42 ,comment4 in ,ps4 #gc--;bis2 #gg2 #gi2 in ,isaiam #g-h2 ,de ,theophan4 vii4--tris74 ,basil 7,comment4 in ,isaiam i4 #bj74 ,cyril ,jerus4 7,cat4 xiii4 #cb74 ,philo of ,carpasus 7iii4 #hc74 ,ambrose 7,in ,ps4 xliii4 #fi2 ,in ,cant4 ,cant4 iv4 #ed74 ,against3-- ,didymus 7,expos4 in ,ps4 #fg74 ,epiphanius 7,adv4 ,haeres4 ,i4 iii4 #dj74 ,zeno 7xiv4 #b74 #aa4 ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #cd4 and 4 ,traditional3-- ,gospel of ,peter 7 #e74 ,acta ,philippi 7 #bf74 ,barnabas 7 #g74 ,irenaeus4 ,tertullian4 ,celsus4 ,origen4 ,eusebius of ,emesa4 ,theodore of ,heraclea4 ,didymus4 ,gregory ,naz4 ,gregory ,nyss4 ,ephraem ,syrus4 ,titus of ,bostra4 ,against3-- ,apocryphal ,acts of the ,apostles4 ,macarius ,magnes 7ii4 #ab74 ,gospel of ,nicodemus7#abe74 #ab4 ,st4 ,matt4 xxviii4 #b4 4 ,traditional3-- ,gospel of ,nicodemus4 ,aeta ,philippi4 ,apocryphal ,acts of the ,apostles4 ,eusebius 7ad ,marinum1 ii4 #d74 ,greg4 ,nyss4 7,de ,christ4 ,resurr4 ,i4 #cij1 #cih77abf78 ,compare also ,acta ,pilati 7 1 and 71 and ,gospel of ,peter 7 -- 74 ,against3-- ,dionysius ,alex4 7,epist4 ,canon4 ad ,basilidem74 ,origen 7c4 ,celsum1 ii4 #gj74 ,apostol4 ,can4 7vii4 #a74 #ac4 ,st4 ,matt4 xxviii4 #ai4 4 ,traditional3-- ,irenaeus 7c4 ,haeres4 ,,iii4 xvii4 #a74 ,hippolytus 7c4 ,haeres4 ,noet4 #ad74 ,apostolic ,canons 7pp4 #bi2 #dc2 #di 7,lagarde72 ,const4 ii4 #bf2 iv4 #a2 vii4 #bb74 ,concilia ,carthaginiensia 7vii4--tris74 ,ps4 ,justin 7,expos4 ,rect4 ,fid4 v474 ,tertullian 7,de ,baptismo xiii474 ,cyprian 7,epist4 ad ,jubaianum v42 xxv4 #b tingentes2 lxiii4 #ah2 ad ,novatianum ,heret4 iii4--#crd cent42 ,testimon4 ,,ii4 xxvi4 tingentes74 ,eusebius 7c4 ,marcell4 ,i4 i474 ,athanasius 7,epist4 ,encycl4 i42 ,epist4 ad ,serap4 i4 #f2 #bh2 ii4 #f2 iii4 #f2 iv4 #e2 de ,syn4 #bc2 ,de ,titulis ,ps4 #adh74 ,basil 7,adv4 ,eunom4 v4 #bii2 ,de ,fide #d2 ,de ,bapt4 ,i4 #a2 ii4 #f2 ,epist4 ,class4 ,i4 viii4 #aa2 ,,ii4 ccx4 #c74 ,didymus 7,de ,trin4 i4 #cj2 #cf2 ii4 #e2 iii4 #bc74 ,cyril ,jerus4 7,cat4 xvi4 #d74 ,hilary 7,comment4 in ,matt4 ad loc42 c4 ,auxentium #ad2 ,de ,syn4 xxix42 ,de ,trin4 ii4 #a74 ,amphilochius 7,epist4 ,synod474 ,gregory ,nyss4 7c4 ,eunom4 xi42 ,in ,bapt4 ,christ42 ,in ,christ4 ,resurr4--bis2 ,epist4 v42 xxiv474 ,victorinus of ,pettau 7,in ,apoc4 i4 #ae74 ,optatus 7,de ,schism4 ,don4 v4 #e74 ,firmicus ,maternus 7,de ,error4 ,profan4 ,relig4 xxv474 ,ambrose 7,de ,joseph4 xii4 #ga74 ,victorinus ,afer 7,adv4 ,arium iv4 #ah74 ,epiphanius 7,adv4 ,haeres4 iii4 #gc4 #c2 #gd4 #e2 1 end74 ,against3--none4 #ad4 ,st4 ,mark i4 #b4 444 4 ,traditional3-- ,titus of ,bostra4 ,origen4 ,porphyry4 ,irenaeus 7,,iii4 xvi4 #c74 ,eusebius4 ,ambrose7#abg74 ,against3-- ,irenaeus 7,,iii4 xi4 #h74 ,origen 7,cels4 ii4 #d2 ,comment4 in ,john i4 #ad74 ,titus of ,bostra 7,adv4 ,manich4 iii4 #d74 ,epiphanius4 ,basil 7,adv4 ,eunom4 ii4 #ae74 ,epiphanius 7,adv4 ,haeres4 ,,ii4 i4 #ea74 ,serapion4 ,victorinus of ,pettau 7,in ,apoc4 ,s4 ,joann474 #ae4 ,st4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj4 ,last ,twelve ,verses4 ,traditional3-- ,papias 7,eus4 ,h4 ,e4 iii4 #ci74 ,justin ,martyr 7,tryph4 #ec2 ,apol4 i4 #de74 ,irenaeus 7c4 ,haer4 ,,iii4 x4 #f2 iv4 #ef74 ,tertullian 7,de ,resurr4 ,carn4 xxxvii42 ,adv4 ,praxeam xxx474 ,clementines 7,epit4 #ada74 ,hippolytus 7c4 ,haer4 ,noet4 ad fin474 ,vincentius 7#bnd ,council of ,carthage--,routh1 ,rell4 ,sacr4 iii4 p4 #abd74 ,acta ,pilati 7xiv4 #b74 ,apost4 ,can4 and ,const4 7can4 #a2 v4 #g2 #ai2 vi4 #ae2 #cj2 viii4 #a74 ,eusebius 7,mai1 ,script4 ,vett4 ,nov4 ,collect4 i4 p4 #a74 ,cyril ,jerus4 7,cat4 xiv4 #bg74 ,syriac ,table of ,canons4 ,macarius ,magnes 7iii4 #af2 #bd74 ,aphraates 7,dem4 i4--bis74 ,didymus 7,trin4 ii4 #ab74 ,syriac ,acts of the ,apostles4 ,epiphanius 7,adv4 ,haer4 ,i4 xliv4 #f74 ,gregory ,nyss4 7,in ,christ4 ,resurr4 ii474 ,apocryphal ,acts of the ,gospel--,wright 7#d2 #ag2 #bd74 ,ambrose 7,hexameron vi4 #ch2 ,de ,interpell4 ii4 #e2 ,apol4 proph4 ,david ,,ii4 iv4 #bf2 ,luc4 vii4 #ha2 ,de ,poenit4 ,i4 viii4 #ce2 ,de ,spir4 ,s4 ,,ii4 xiii4 #aea74 ,against3-- ,eusebius 7,mai1 ,script4 ,vett4 ,nov4 ,collect4 i4 p4 #a77abh74 #af4 ,st4 ,luke i4 #bh4 1 444 ,traditional3-- ,tertullian 7,de ,virg4 ,vel4 vi474 ,eusebius 7,dem4 ,evan4 vii4 #cbi74 ,aphraates 7,dem4 ix474 ,ambrose 7,exposit4 in loc474 ,against3-- ,titus of ,bostra 7,exposit4 in loc42 ,adv4 ,manich4 iii474 #ag4 ,st4 ,luke ii4 #ad4 4 ,traditional3-- ,irenaeus 7,,iii4 x4 #d74 ,origen 7c4 ,celsum i4 #fj2 ,selecta in ,ps4 xlv42 ,comment4 in ,matt4 xvii42 ,comment4 in ,joh4 i4 #ac74 ,apostol4 ,const4 7vii4 #dg2 viii4 #ab74 ,methodius 7,serm4 de ,simeon4 et ,anna74 ,eusebius 7,dem4 ,ev4 iv4 7#afc72 vii4 7#cdb774 ,gregory ,thaumaturgus 7,de ,fid4 ,cap4 #ab74 ,aphraates 7,dem4 ix42 xx474 ,titus of ,bostra 7,expos4 in ,luc4 ad loc74 ,athanasius 7,de ,tit4 ,pss4 ,ps4 cxlviii474 ,didymus 7,de ,trin4 i4 #bg2 ,expos4 in ,ps4 lxxxiv474 ,basil 7,in ,s4 ,christ4 ,gen4 #e74 ,gregory ,naz4 7,or4 xlv4 i474 ,philo of ,carpasus 7iii4 #afg74 ,epiphanius 7,haer4 ,i4 #cj4 #bi2 ,,iii4 #gh4 #ae74 ,gregory ,nyss4 7,in ,ps4 xiv42 ,in ,cant4 ,cant4 xv42 ,in ,diem ,nat4 ,christ4 #aach2 ,de ,occurs4 ,dom4 #aaef74 ,ephraem ,syr47#abi7 7,gr4 iii4 #dcd74 ,against3-- ,irenaeus 7,,iii4 x4 #d74 ,optatus 7,de ,schism4 ,don4 iv4 #d74 ,cyril ,jerus4 7,cat4 xii4 #gb74 ,ambrose 7,exposit4 in ,luc4 ad loc474 ,juvencus 7,,ii4 v4 #agd74 #ah4 ,st4 ,luke x4 #da-b4 1 4 ,traditional3-- ,basil 7,const4 ,monast4 i4 #a74 ,macarius ,aegypt4 7,de ,orat474 ,evagrius ,ponticus4 ,against3-- ,titus of ,bostra 7,exposit4 in ,luc4 ad loc4 ,but 74 #ai4 ,st4 ,luke xxii4 #dc-d4 ,ministering ,angel and ,agony4 ,traditional3-- ,justin ,m4 7,tryph4 #ajc74 ,irenaeus 7,haer4 ,,iii4 xxii4 #b2 ,,iv4 xxxv4 #c74 ,tatian 7,ciasca1 #eef74 ,hippolytus 7c4 ,haer4 ,noet4 #e2 #ah74 ,marcion 7ad loc474 ,dionysius ,alex4 7,hermen4 in ,luc4 ad loc474 ,eusebius 7,sect4 #bhc74 ,athanasius 7,expos4 in ,ps4 lxviii474 ,ephraem ,syrus 7ap4 ,theodor4 ,mops474 ,gregory ,naz4 7xxx4 #af74 ,didymus 7,trin4 iii4 #ba74 ,titus of ,bostra 7,in ,luc4 ad loc474 ,epiphanius 7,haer4 ,,ii4 7#b7 lxix4 #ai2 #ei2 ,ancor4 #ca2 #cg74 ,arius 7,epiph4 ,haer4 lxix4 #ai2 #fa77acj74 ,against3--none4 #bj4 ,st4 ,luke xxiii4 #cd4 ,our ,lord's ,prayer for ,his murderers4 ,traditional3-- ,hegesippus 7,eus4 ,h4 ,e4 ii4 #bc74 ,ps4 ,justin 7,quaest4 et ,respons4 #ajh--;bis74 ,irenaeus 7c4 ,haer4 ,,iii4 xviii4 #e74 ,archelaus 7xliv474 ,marcion 7in loc474 ,hippolytus 7c4 ,noet4 #ah74 ,clementines 7,recogn4 vi4 #e2 ,hom4 xi4 #bj74 ,apost4 ,const4 7ii4 #af2 v4 #ad74 ,athanasius 7,de ,tit4 ,pss41 ,ps4 cv474 ,eusebius 7canon x474 ,didymus 7,trin4 iii4 #ba74 ,amphilochius 7,orat4 in d4 ,sabbati74 ,hilary 7,de ,trin4 i4 #cb74 ,ambrose 7,de ,joseph1 xii4 #fi2 ,de ,interpell4 ,,iii4 ii4 #f2 ,in ,ps4 ,,cxviii4 iii4 #h2 xiv4 #bh2 ,expos4 ,luc4 v4 #gg2 x4 #fb2 ,cant4 ,cant4 i4 #df74 ,gregory ,nyss4 7,de ,perf4 ,christ4 anim4 forma--bis74 ,titus of ,bostra 7,comment4 ,luc4 ad loc4--bis74 ,acta ,pilati 7x4 #e74 ,basil 7,adv4 ,eunom4 iv4 #bij74 ,gregory ,naz4 7,orat4 iv4 #gh74 ,ephraem ,syr4 7ii4 #cba74 ,acta ,philippi 7 #bf74 ,quaestiones ex ,utroque ,test4 7,n4,t4 #fg2 ,mixtae ,,ii4 7#a7 #d74 ,apocryphal ,acts of the ,gospels 7,wright71 #aa2 7#af77aca74 ,against3--none4 #ba4 ,st4 ,luke xxiii4 #ch4 ,the ,superscription4 ,traditional3-- ,marcion 7ad loc474 ,eusebius 7,eclog4 ,proph4 ,,ii4 xiv474 ,gospel of ,peter 7i4 #aa74 ,acta ,pilati 7x4 #a74 ,gregory ,nyss4 7,in ,cant4 ,cant4 vii474 ,titus of ,bostra 7,in ,luc4 ad loc74 ,against3--none4 #bb4 ,st4 ,luke xxiii4 #de4 4 ,traditional3-- ,marcion 7ad loc474 ,gospel of ,peter 7 #e74 ,acta ,pilati4 ,anaphora ,pilati 7 #g74 ,hippolytus 7c4 ,haer4 ,noet4 #ah74 ,tertullian 7,adv4 ,jud4 xiii474 ,athanasius 7,de ,incarn4 ,verb4 #di2 ad ,adelph4 #c2 ap4 ,epiph4 i4 #ajjf74 ,cyril ,jerus4 7,cat4 xiii4 #bd74 ,macarius ,magnes 7iii4 #ag74 ,julius ,africanus 7,chronicon1 v4 #a74 ,apocryphal ,acts of the ,gospels 7,wright1 p4 #af74 ,ephraem ,syrus 7ii4 #dh74 ,against3-- ,origen 7,cels4 ii4 #ce74 ,acta ,pilati4 ,eusebius mentions the reading 1 but appears afterwards to condemn it7#acb74 #bc4 ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #dj4 ,the ,verse4 ,traditional3-- ,marcion 7ad loc474 ,tertullian 7,de ,carne ,christi #e74 ,athanasius 7ad ,epictet4 #g2 quoted by ,epiph4 i4 #ajjc74 ,eusebius 7ap4 ,mai1 ii4 #bid74 ,ambrose 7ap4 ,theodoret1 iv4 #ada74 ,epiphanius 7,haer4 ,,iii4 lxxvii4 #i77acc74 ,against3--none4 #bd4 ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #db4 4 ,traditional3-- ,marcion 7ad loc474 ,justin ,martyr 7bis74 ,clemens ,alex4 ,tertullian4 ,athanasius 7c4 ,arian4 iv4 #ce74 ,cyril ,jerus4 7bis74 ,gregory ,nyss4 ,epiphanius4 ,against3-- ,clemens ,alex4 ,paed4 i4 #e7acd74 #be4 ,st4 ,john i4 #c-d4 ,full stop at the end of the ,verse8 ,traditional3-- ,athanasius 7,serm4 in ,nativ4 ,christ4 iii474 ,eusebius 7,praep4 ,evan4 xi4 #ai74 ,didymus 7,de ,trin4 ,i4 xv474 ,gregory ,nyss4 7c4 ,eunom4 i4 p4 #cdh--;bis2 ii4 p4 #dej2 p4 #dfa2 p4 #dfh2 iv4 p4 #ehd2 v4 p4 #eia74 ,epiphanius 7,haer4 ,i4 7xliii47 #a2 ,,ii4 7li47 #ab2 7lxv47 #c2 7lxix47 #ef2 ,ancoratus lxxv474 ,alexandrians and ,egyptians 7,ambrose ,in ,ps4 #cf74 ,against3-- ,irenaeus 7,i4 viii4 #e 7#b72 ,,iii4 xi4 #a74 ,theodotus 7ap4 ,clem4 ,alex4 vi474 ,hippolytus 7,philosoph4 ,v4 i4 #h2 #ag74 ,clemens ,alex4 7,paed4 ii4 #i74 ,valentinians 7ap4 ,epiph4 ,haer4 ,i4 7xxxi47 #bg74 ,origen 7c4 ,cels4 vi4 #e2 ,princip4 ,,ii4 ix4 #d2 ,,iv4 i4 #cj2 ,in ,joh4 i4 #bb2 #cd2 ii4 #f2 #aj2 #ab2 #ac--;bis2 in ,rom4 iii4 #aj2 #ae2 c4 ,haer4 v4 #aea74 ,eusebius 7de ,eccles4 ,theol4 ,,ii4 xiv474 ,basil 7c4 ,eunom4 ,v4 #cjc74 ,gregory ,nyss4 7,de ,cant4 ,cant4 ,hom4 ii474 ,candidus ,arianus 7,de ,generat4 ,div474 ,victorinus ,afer 7,adv4 ,arium ,i4 iv4 #cc2 #da74 ,hilary 7,de ,trin4 i4 #aj74 ,ambrose 7,in ,ps4 xxxvi4 #ce 7#d72 ,de ,fide ,,iii4 vi4 #da-b--tris77#ace74 #bf4 ,st4 ,john i4 #ah4 4 ,traditional3-- ,irenaeus 7c4 ,haeres4 ,,iii4 xi4 #f2 ,,iv4 xx4 #f74 ,tertullian 7,adv4 ,praxean xv474 ,hippolytus 7c4 ,haeres4 ,noeti #e74 ,synodus ,antiochena4 ,archelaus 7,manes7 7xxxii474 ,origen 7,comment4 in ,joh4 vi4 #b2 c4 ,celsum ii4 #ga74 ,eusebius 7,de ,eccles4 ,theol4 ,i4 ix42 ,,ii4 xi42 xxiii474 ,alexander ,alex4 7,epist474 ,gregory ,naz4 7,orat4 xxix4 #ag74 ,cyril ,jerus4 7,cat4 vii4 #aa74 ,didymus 7,in ,ps4 cix474 ,athanasius 7,de ,decr4 ,nic4 ,syn4 xiii42 xxi42 c4 ,arianos ii4 #fb2 iv4 #bf74 ,titus of ,bostra 7,adv4 ,manichaeos iii4 #f74 ,basil 7,de ,spir4 ,s4 xi42 ,hom4 in ,ps4 xxviii4 #c2 ,epist4 ccxxxiv42 ,sermons xv4 #c74 ,gregory ,nyss4 7c4 ,eunom4 ii4 p4 #ebb74 ,hilary 7,de ,trin4 iv4 #h2 #db2 vi4 #ci2 #dj74 ,ambrose 7,de ,interpell4 ,i4 x4 #cj2 ,de ,benedict1 xi4 #ea2 ,expos4 in ,luc4 i4 #be--;bis2 ii4 #ab2 ,de ,fide ,,iii4 iii4 #bd2 ,de ,spir4 ,s4 ,i4 i4 #bf74 ,eustathius 7,de ,engastr4 #ah74 ,faustinus 7,de ,trin4 ii4 #e--tris74 ,quaest4 ex ,utroque ,test4 7#ga2 #ia74 ,victorinus ,afer 7,de ,generat4 ,verb4 xvi42 xx42 ,adv4 ,arium i4 #b--;bis2 iv4 #h2 #cb74 ,against3-- ,irenaeus 7,,iv4 xx4 #aa74 ,theodotus 7ap4 ,clem4 vi474 ,clemens ,alex4 7,strom4 v4 #ab74 ,origen 7,comment1 in ,joh4 ,,ii4 #bi2 ,,xxxii4 #ac74 ,eusebius 7 or 1 ,de ,eccles4 ,theol4 ,i4 ix-x474 ,didymus 7,de ,trin4 i4 #ae2 ii4 #e2 #af74 ,arius 7ap4 ,epiph4 #gc--,tisch474 ,basil 7,de ,spiritu ,sanct4 vi42 c4 ,eunom4 i4 p4 #fbc74 ,gregory ,nyss4 7c4 ,eunom4 iii4 p4 #egg--;bis2 #eha74 ,epiphanius 7,adv4 ,haeres4 ,,ii4 7lxv47 #e2 ,,iii4 7lxx47 #g74 #bg4 ,st4 ,john iii4 #ac4 4 ,traditional3-- ,hippolytus 7c4 ,haer4 ,noet4 #d74 ,novatian 7,de ,trin4 #ac74 ,athanasius 7i4 #abge2 ,frag4 p4 #abbb1 apud ,panopl4 ,euthym4 ,zyg474 ,origen 7,in ,gen4 ,hom4 iv4 #e2 ,in ,rom4 viii4 #b--;bis74 ,basil 7,adv4 ,eunom4 iv4 #b74 ,amphilochius 7,sentent4 et ,excurs4 xix474 ,didymus 7,de ,trin4 ,,iii4 ix474 ,theodorus ,heracleensis 7,in ,is4 liii4 #e74 ,lucifer 7,pro ,s4 ,athan4 ii474 ,epiphanius 7,haer4 ,,ii4 lvii4 #g74 ,eustathius 7,de ,engastr4 #ah74 ,zeno 7xii4 ,i74 ,hilary 7,tract4 in ,ps4 ii4 #aa2 cxxxviii4 #bb2 ,de ,trin4 x4 #af74 ,ambrose 7,in ,ps4 xxxix4 #ag2 xliii4 #ci2 ,expos4 in ,luc4 vii4 #gd74 ,aphraates 7,dem4 viii474 ,against3--some ,fathers quote as far as these words and then stop1 so that it is impossible to know whether they stopped because the words were not in their copies1 or because they did not wish to quote further4 ,on some occasions at least it is evident that it was not to their purpose to quote further than they did1 e4g4 ,greg4 ,naz4 ,ep4 ci4 ,eusebius 7,eclog4 ,proph4 ii47 is only less doubtful7#acf74 ,see ,revision ,revised1 p4 #acd1 note4 #bh4 ,st4 ,john ,x4 #ad4 4 ,traditional3-- ,macarius ,aegypt4 7,hom4 vi474 ,gregory ,naz4 7orat4 xv4 end2 xxxiii4 #ae74 ,against3-- ,eusebius 7,comment4 in ,isaiam #h74 ,basil 7,hom4 xxi42 xxiii474 ,epiphanius 7,comm4 in ,ps4 lxvi477#acg74 #bi4 ,st4 ,john xvii4 #bd4 7or 74 ,traditional3-- ,irenaeus 7c4 ,haeres4 ,,iv4 xiv4 #a74 ,cyprian 7,de ,mortal1 xxii42 ,test4 ad ,jud4 iii4 #eh77ach74 ,clemens ,alex4 7,paed4 i4 #h74 ,athanasius 7,de ,tit4 ,pss4 ,ps4 iii474 ,eusebius 7,de ,eccles4 ,theol4 iii4 #ag--;bis2 c4 ,marcell4 p4 #bib74 ,hilary 7,tract4 in ,ps4 lxiv4 #e2 ,de ,trin4 ix4 #ej74 ,ambrose 7,de ,bon4 ,mort4 xii4 #ed2 ,de ,fide ,v4 vi4 #hf2 ,de ,spirit4 ,s4 ,,ii4 viii4 #gf74 ,quaestiones ex ,n4 ,t4 7#ge77aci74 ,against3-- ,clemens ,alex4 7#adj--,tisch474 #cj4 ,st4 ,john xxi4 #be4 ,the ,verse4 ,traditional3-- ,origen 7,princ4 ,,ii4 vi42 vol4 ii4 #a #ha2 ,in ,matt4 ,,xiv4 #ab2 ,in ,luc4 ,hom4 xxvii2 xxix2 ,in ,joh4 ,i4 #aa2 ,v4 ap4 ,eus4 ,h4 ,e4 ,,vi4 #be2 ,,xiii4 #e2 ,,xix4 #b2 ,,xx4 #bg2 ,cat4 ,corder4 p4 #dgd74 ,pamphilus 7,apol4 pro ,orig4 ,pref42 iii4 ap4 ,gall4 iv4 pp4 #i1 #ae74 ,eusebius 7,mai1 iv4 #big2 ,eus4 ,h4 ,e4 vi4 #be2 ,lat4 iii4 #ifd74 ,gregory ,nyss4 7c4 ,eunom4 xii4--bis74 ,gregory ,naz4 7,orat4 xxviii4 #bj74 ,ambrose 7,expos4 ,luc4 ,i4 #aa74 ,philastrius 7,gall4 vii4 #dii77adj74 ,against3--none4 ,as far as the ,fathers who died before #djj ,a4,d4 are concerned1 the question may now be put and answered4 ,do they witness to the ,traditional ,text as existing from the first1 or do they not8 ,the results of the evidence1 both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony1 enable us to reply1 not only that the ,traditional ,text was in existence1 but that it was predominant1 during the period under review4 ,let any one who disputes this conclusion make out for the ,western ,text1 or the ,alexandrian1 or for the ,text of ,b and 1 a case from the evidence of the ,fathers which can equal or surpass that which has been now placed before the reader4 ,an objection may be raised by those who are not well acquainted with the quotations in the writings of the ,fathers1 that the materials of judgement here produced are too scanty4 ,but various characteristic features in their mode of dealing with quotations should be particularly noticed4 ,as far as textual criticism is concerned1 the quotations of the ,fathers are fitful and uncertain4 ,they quote of course1 not to hand down to future ages a record of readings1 but for their own special purpose in view4 ,they may quote an important passage in dispute1 or they may leave it wholly unnoticed4 ,they often quote just enough for their purpose1 and no more4 ,some passages thus acquire a proverbial brevity4 ,again1 they write down over and over again1 with unwearied richness of citation1 especially from ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 words which are everywhere accepted3 in fact1 all critics agree upon the most familiar places4 ,then again1 the witness of the ,latin ,fathers cannot always be accepted as being free from doubt1 as has been already explained4 ,and the ,greek ,fathers themselves often work words of the ,new ,testament into the roll of their rhetorical sentences1 so that whilst evidence is given for the existence of a verse1 or a longer passage1 or a book1 no certain conclusions can be drawn as to the words actually used or the order of them4 ,this is particularly true of ,st4 ,gregory of ,nazianzus to the disappointment of the ,textual ,critic1 and also of his namesake of ,nyssa1 as well as of ,st4 ,basil4 ,others1 like ,st4 ,epiphanius1 quote carelessly4 ,early quotation was usually loose and inaccurate4 ,it may be mentioned here1 that the same ,father1 as has been known about ,origen since the days of ,griesbach1 often used conflicting manuscripts4 ,as will be seen more at length below1 corruption crept in from the very first4 ,some ideas have been entertained respecting separate ,fathers which are not founded in truth4 ,clement of ,alexandria and ,origen are described as being remarkable for the absence of ,traditional readings in their works7#ada74 ,whereas besides his general testimony of #hb to #gb as we have seen1 ,clement witnesses in the list just given #h times for them to #ad against them2 whilst ,origen is found #dd times on the ,traditional aide to #bg on the ,neologian4 ,clement as we shall see used mainly ,alexandrian texts which must have been growing up in his days1 though he witnesses largely to ,traditional readings1 whilst ,origen employed other texts too4 ,hilary of ,poictiers is far from being against the ,traditional ,text1 as has been frequently said3 though in his commentaries he did not use so ,traditional a text as in his ,de ,trinitate and his other works4 ,the texts of ,hippolytus1 ,methodius1 ,irenaeus1 and even of ,justin1 are not of that exclusively ,western character which ,dr4 ,hort ascribes to them7#adb74 ,traditional readings occur almost equally with others in ,justin's works1 and predominate in the works of the other three4 ,but besides establishing the antiquity of the ,traditional ,text1 the quotations in the early ,fathers reveal the streams of corruption which prevailed in the first ages1 till they were washed away by the vast current of the transmission of the ,text of the ,gospels4 ,just as if we ascended in a captive balloon over the ,mississippi where the volume of the ,missouri has not yet become intermingled with the waters of the sister river1 so we may mount up above those ages and trace by their colour the texts1 or rather clusters of readings1 which for some time struggled with one another for the superiority4 ,but a caution is needed4 ,we must be careful not to press our designation too far4 ,we have to deal1 not with distinct dialects1 nor with editions which were separately composed1 nor with any general forms of expression which grew up independently1 nor in fact with anything that would satisfy literally the full meaning of the word 8texts10 when we apply it as it has been used4 ,what is properly meant is that1 of the variant readings of the words of the ,gospels which from whatever cause grew up more or less all over the ,christian ,church1 so far as we know1 some have family likenesses of one kind or another1 and may be traced to a kindred source4 ,it is only in this sense that we can use the term ,texts1 and we must take care to be moderate in our conception and use of it4 ,the ,early ,fathers may be conveniently classed1 according to the colour of their testimony1 the locality where they flourished1 and the age in which they severally lived1 under five heads1 viz41 ,early ,traditional1 ,later ,traditional1 ,syrio-,low ,latin1 ,alexandrian1 and what we may perhaps call ,caesarean4 ,i4 ,early ,traditional4 ,traditional4 ,neologian4 ,patres ,apostolici and ,didach #aa #d ,epistle to ,diognetus #a #j ,papias #a #j ,epistola ,viennensium et ,lugdunensium #a #j ,hegesippus #b #j ,seniores apud ,irenaeum #b #j ,justin7#adc7 #ag #bj ,athenagoras #c #a ,gospel of ,peter #b #j ,testament of ,abraham #d #j ,irenaeus #fc #da ,clementines #ah #g ,hippolytus #bf #aa ---- ---- #aea #hd ,,ii4 ,later ,traditional4 ,traditional4 ,neologian4 ,gregory ,thaumaturgus #aa #c ,cornelius #d #a ,synodical ,letter #a #b ,archelaus 7,manes7 #aa #b ,apostolic ,constitutions and ,canons #fa #bh ,synodus ,antiochena #c #a ,concilia ,carthaginiensia #h #d ,methodius #ad #h ,alexander ,alexandrinus #d #j ,theodorus ,heracleensis #b #j ,titus of ,bostra #dd #bd ,athanasius7--except ,contra ,arianos77#add7abb #fc ,serapion #e #a ,basil #bgb #aje ,eunomius #a #j ,cyril of ,jerusalem #ed #cb ,firmicus ,maternus #c #a ,victorinus of ,pettau #d #c ,gregory of ,nazianzus #ah #d ,hilary of ,poictiers #gc #ci ,eustathius #g #b ,macarius ,aegyptius or ,magnus #cf #ag ,didymus #ha #cf ,victorinus ,afer #ad #ad ,gregory of ,nyssa #ia #bh ,faustinus #d #j ,optatus #aj #c ,pacianus #b #b ,philastrius #g #f ,amphilochius 7,iconium7 #bg #aj ,ambrose #afi #gg ,diodorus of ,tarsus #a #j ,epiphanius #abc #gh ,acta ,pilati #e #a ,acta ,philippi #b #a ,macarius ,magnes #aa #e ,quaestiones ex ,utroque ,testamento #ac #f ,evagrius ,ponticus #d #j ,esaias ,abbas #a #j ,philo of ,carpasus #i #b ---- ---- #accb #fji ,,iii4 ,western or ,syrio-,low ,latin4 ,traditional4 ,neologian4 ,theophilus ,antiochenus #b #d ,callixtus and ,pontianus 7,popes7 #a #b ,tertullian #gd #fe ,novatian #f #d ,cyprian #ajj #if ,zeno1 ,bishop of ,verona #c #e ,lucifer of ,cagliari #ag #bj ,lactantius #j #a ,juvencus 7,spain7 #a #b ,julius 7,pope78 #a #b ,candidus ,arianus #j #a ,nemesius 7,emesa7 #j #a ---- ---- #bje #bjc ,,iv4 ,alexandrian4 ,traditional4 ,neologian4 ,heracleon #a #g ,clement of ,alexandria #hb #gb ,dionysius of ,alexandria #ab #e ,theognostus #j #a ,peter of ,alexandria #g #h ,arius #b #a ,athanasius 7,orat4 c4 ,arianos7 #eg #ef ---- ---- #afa #aej ,v4 ,palestinian or ,caesarean4 ,traditional4 ,neologian4 ,julius ,africanus 7,emmaus7 #a #a ,origen #dfj #dia ,pamphilus of ,caesarea #e #a ,eusebius of ,caesarea #cae #bad ---- ---- #gha #gjg ,the lessons suggested by the groups of ,fathers just assembled are now sufficiently clear4 ,i4 ,the original predominance of the ,traditional ,text is shewn in the list given of the earliest ,fathers4 ,their record proves that in their writings1 and so in the ,church generally1 corruption had made itself felt in the earliest times1 but that the pure waters generally prevailed4 ,,ii4 ,the tradition is also carried on through the majority of the ,fathers who succeeded them4 ,there is no break or interval3 the witness is continuous4 ,again1 not the slightest confirmation is given to ,dr4 ,hort's notion that a revision or recension was definitely accomplished at ,antioch in the middle of the fourth century4 ,there was a gradual improvement1 as the ,traditional ,text gradually established itself against the forward and persistent intrusion of corruption4 ,but it is difficult1 if not altogether impossible1 to discover a ripple on the surface betokening any movement in the depths such as a revision or recension would necessitate4 ,,iii4 ,a source of corruption is found in ,low-,latin ,,mss4 and especially in ,africa4 ,the evidence of the ,fathers shews that it does not appear to have been so general as the name 8,western0 would suggest4 ,but this will be a subject of future investigation4 ,there seems to have been a connexion between some parts of the ,west in this respect with ,syria1 or rather with part of ,syria4 ,,iv4 ,another source of corruption is fixed at ,alexandria4 ,this1 as in the last case1 is exactly what we should expect1 and will demand more examination4 ,v4 ,syria and ,egypt1--,europe1 ,asia1 and ,africa1--seem to meet in ,palestine under ,origen4 ,but this points to a later time in the period under investigation4 ,we must now gather up the depositions of the earliest ,versions4 ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,the ,,antiquity ,,of ,,the ,,traditional ,,text4 ,,ii4 ,,witness ,,of ,,the ,,early ,,syriac ,,versions4 ,the rise of ,christianity and the spread of the ,church in ,syria was startling in its rapidity4 ,damascus and ,antioch shot up suddenly into prominence as centres of ,christian zeal1 as if they had grown whilst men slept4 ,the arrangement of places and events which occurred during our ,lord's ,ministry must have paved the way to this success1 at least as regards principally the nearer of the two cities just mentioned4 ,galilee1 the scene of the first year of ,his ,ministry--8the acceptable year of the ,lord0--through its vicinity to ,syria was admirably calculated for laying the foundation of such a development4 ,the fame of ,his miracles and teaching extended far into the country4 ,much that ,he said and did happened on the ,syrian side of the ,sea of ,galilee4 ,especially was this the case when1 after the death of ,john the ,baptist had shed consternation in the ranks of ,his followers1 and the ,galilean populace refused to accompany ,him in ,his higher teaching1 and the wiles of ,herod were added as a source of apprehension to the bitter opposition of ,scribes and ,pharisees1 ,he spent some months between the ,passover and the ,feast of ,tabernacles in the north and north-east of ,palestine4 ,if ,damascus was not one of the 8ten cities7#ade710 yet the report of ,his twice feeding thousands1 and of ,his stay at ,caesarea ,philippi and in the neighbourhood7#adf7 of ,hermon1 must have reached that city4 ,the seed must have been sown which afterwards sprang up men knew not how4 ,besides the evidence in the ,acts of the ,apostles1 according to which ,antioch following upon ,damascus became a basis of missionary effort hardly second to ,jerusalem1 the records and legends of the ,church in ,syria leave but little doubt that it soon spread over the region round about4 ,the stories relating to ,abgar king of ,edessa1 the fame of ,st4 ,addaeus or ,thaddaeus as witnessed particularly by his ,liturgy and 8,doctrine10 and various other ,apocryphal ,works7#adg71 leave no doubt about the very early extension of the ,church throughout ,syria4 ,as long as ,aramaic was the chief vehicle of instruction1 ,syrian ,christians most likely depended upon their neighbours in ,palestine for oral and written teaching4 ,but when--probably about the time of the investment of ,jerusalem by ,vespasian and ,titus and the temporary removal of the ,church's centre to ,pella--through the care of ,st4 ,matthew and the other ,evangelists the ,gospel was written in ,greek1 some regular translation was needed and doubtless was made4 ,so far both ,schools of ,textual ,criticism are agreed4 ,the question between them is1 was this ,translation the ,peshitto1 or was it the ,curetonian8 ,an examination into the facts is required3 neither ,school has any authority to issue decrees4 ,the arguments in favour of the ,curetonian being the oldest form of the ,syriac ,new ,testament1 and of the formation of the ,peshitto in its present condition from it1 cannot be pronounced to be strong by any one who is accustomed to weigh disputation4 ,doubtless this weakness or instability may with truth be traced to the nature of the case1 which will not yield a better harvest even to the critical ingenuity of our opponents4 ,may it not with truth be said to be a symptom of a feeble cause8 ,those arguments are mainly concerned with the internal character of the two texts4 ,it is asserted7#adh7 7#a7 that the ,curetonian was older than the ,peshitto which was brought afterwards into closer proximity with the ,greek4 ,to this we may reply1 that the truth of this plea depends upon the nature of the revision thus claimed7#adi74 ,dr4 ,hort was perfectly logical when he suggested1 or rather asserted dogmatically1 that such a drastic revision as was necessary for turning the ,curetonian into the ,peshitto was made in the third century at ,edessa or ,nisibis4 ,the difficulty lay in his manufacturing history to suit his purpose1 instead of following it4 ,the fact is1 that the internal difference between the text of the ,curetonian and the ,peshitto is so great1 that the former could only have arisen in very queer times such as the earliest1 when inaccuracy and looseness1 infidelity and perverseness1 might have been answerable for anything4 ,in fact1 the ,curetonian must have been an adulteration of the ,peshitto1 or it must have been partly an independent translation helped from other sources3 from the character of the text it could not have given rise to it7#aej74 ,again1 when 7#b7 ,cureton lays stress upon 8certain peculiarities in the original ,hebrew which are found in this text1 but not in the ,greek10 he has not found others to follow him1 and 7#c7 the supposed agreement with the ,apocryphal ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 as regards any results to be deduced from it1 is of a similarly slippery nature4 ,it will be best to give his last argument in his own words3--8,it is the internal evidence afforded by the fact that upon comparing this text with the ,greek of ,st4 ,matthew and the parallel passages of ,st4 ,mark and ,st4 ,luke1 they are found to exhibit the same phenomena which we should1 a priori1 expect certainly to discover1 had we the plainest and most incontrovertible testimony that they are all in reality translations from such an ,aramaic original as this40 ,he seems here to be trying to establish his position that the ,curetonian was at least based on the ,hebrew original of ,st4 ,matthew1 to which he did not succeed in bringing over any scholars4 ,the reader will see that we need not linger upon these arguments4 ,when interpreted most favourably they carry us only a very short way towards the dethronement of the great ,peshitto1 and the instalment of the little ,curetonian upon the seat of judgement4 ,but there is more in what other scholars have advanced4 ,there are resemblances between the ,curetonian1 some of the ,old-,latin texts1 the ,codex ,bezae1 and perhaps ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 which lead us to assign an early origin to many of the peculiar readings in this manuscript4 ,yet there is no reason1 but all the reverse1 for supposing that the ,peshitto and the ,curetonian were related to one another in line-descent4 ,the age of one need have nothing to do with the age of the other4 ,the theory of the ,peshitto being derived from the ,curetonian through a process of revision like that of ,jerome constituting a ,vulgate rests upon a false parallel7#aea74 ,there are1 or were1 multitudes of ,old-,latin ,texts1 which in their confusion called for some recension3 we only know of two in ,syriac which could possibly have come into consideration4 ,of these1 the ,curetonian is but a fragment3 and the ,codex ,lewisianus1 though it includes the greater part of the ,four ,gospels1 yet reckons so many omissions in important parts1 has been so determinedly mutilated1 and above all is so utterly heretical7#aeb71 that it must be altogether rejected from the circle of purer texts of the ,gospels4 ,the disappointment caused to the adherents of the ,curetonian1 by the failure of the fresh ,,ms4 which had been looked for with ardent hopes to satisfy expectation1 may be imagined4 ,noscitur a sociis3 the ,curetonian is admitted by all to be closely allied to it1 and must share in the ignominy of its companion1 at least to such an extent as to be excluded from the progenitors of a ,text so near to the ,traditional ,text as the ,peshitto must ever have been7#aec74 ,but what is the position which the ,peshitto has occupied till the middle of the present century8 ,what is the evidence of facts on which we must adjudicate its claim8 ,till the time of ,cureton1 it has been regarded as the ,syriac ,version1 adopted at the time when the translation of the ,new ,testament was made into that language1 which must have been either the early part of the second century1 or the end of the first1--adopted too in the ,unchangeable ,east1 and never deposed from its proud position4 ,it can be traced by facts of history or by actual documents to the beginning of the golden period of ,syriac ,literature in the fifth century1 when it is found to be firm in its sway1 and it is far from being deserted by testimony sufficient to track it into the earlier ages of the ,church4 ,the ,peshitto in our own days is found in use amongst the ,nestorians who have always kept to it7#aed71 by the ,monophysites on the plains of ,syria1 the ,christians of ,st4 ,thomas in ,malabar1 and by 8the ,maronites on the mountain-terraces of ,lebanon7#aee740 ,of these1 the ,maronites take us back to the beginning of the eighth century when they as ,monothelites separated from the ,eastern ,church2 the ,monophysites to the middle of the fifth century2 the ,nestorians to an earlier date in the same century4 ,hostile as the two latter were to one another1 they would not have agreed in reading the same ,version of the ,new ,testament if that had not been well established at the period of their separation4 ,nor would it have been thus firmly established1 if it had not by that time been generally received in the country for a long series of years4 ,but the same conclusion is reached in the indubitable proof afforded by the ,,mss4 of the ,peshitto ,version which exist1 dating from the fifth century or thereabouts4 ,mr4 ,gwilliam in the third volume of ,studia ,biblica et ,ecclesiastica7#aef7 mentions two ,,mss4 dating about #dej ,a4,d41 besides four of the fifth or sixth century1 one of the latter1 and three which bear actual dates also of the sixth4 ,these1 with the exception of one in the ,vatican and one belonging to the ,earl of ,crawford1 are from the ,british ,museum alone7#aeg74 ,so that according to the manuscriptal evidence the treasures of little more than one library in the world exhibit a very apparatus criticus for the ,peshitto1 whilst the ,curetonian can boast only one manuscript and that in fragments1 though of the fifth century4 ,and it follows too from this statement1 that whereas only seven uncials of any size can be produced from all parts of the world of the ,greek ,text of the ,new ,testament before the end of the sixth century1 no less than eleven or rather twelve of the ,peshitto can be produced already before the same date4 ,doubtless the ,greek ,text can boast certainly two1 perhaps three1 of the fourth century3 but the fact cannot but be taken to be very remarkable1 as proving1 when compared with the universal ,greek original1 how strongly the local ,peshitto ,version was established in the century in which 8commences the native historical literature of ,syria7#aeh740 ,the commanding position thus occupied leads back virtually a long way4 ,changes are difficult to introduce in 8the unchangeable ,east40 ,accordingly1 the use of the ,peshitto is attested in the fourth century by ,ephraem ,syrus and ,aphraates4 ,ephraem 8in the main used the ,peshitto text0--is the conclusion drawn by ,mr4 ,f4 ,h4 ,woods in the third volume of ,studia ,biblica7#aei74 ,and as far as ,i may judge from a comparison of readings7#afj71 ,aphraates witnesses for the ,traditional ,text1 with which the ,peshitto mainly agrees1 twenty-four times as against four4 ,the ,peshitto thus reckons as its supporters the two earliest of the ,syrian ,fathers4 ,but the course of the examination of all the primitive ,fathers as exhibited in the last section of this work suggests also another and an earlier confirmation of the position here taken4 ,it is well known that the ,peshitto is mainly in agreement with the ,traditional ,text4 ,what therefore proves one1 virtually proves the other4 ,if the text in the latter case is dominant1 it must also be in the former4 ,if1 as ,dr4 ,hort admits1 the ,traditional ,text prevailed at ,antioch from the middle of the fourth century1 is it not more probable that it should have been the continuance of the text from the earliest times1 than that a change should have been made without a record in history1 and that in a part of the world which has been always alien to change8 ,but besides the general traces of the ,traditional ,text left in patristic writings in other districts of the ,church1 we are not without special proofs in the parts about ,syria4 ,though the proofs are slight1 they occur in a period which in other respects was for the present purpose almost 8a barren and dry land where no water is40 ,methodius1 bishop of ,tyre in the early part of the fourth century1 ,archelaus1 bishop in ,mesopotamia in the latter half of the third1 the ,synodus ,antiochena in ,a4,d4 #bfe1 at a greater distance ,gregory ,thaumaturgus of ,neocaesarea in ,pontus who flourished about #bdc and passed some time at ,caesarea in ,palestine1 are found to have used mainly ,traditional ,,mss4 in ,greek1 and consequently witness to the use of the daughter text in ,syriac4 ,amongst those who employed different texts in nearly equal proportions were ,origen who passed his later years at ,caesarea and ,justin who issued from the site of ,sychar4 ,nor is there reason1 whatever has been said1 to reject the reference made by ,melito of ,sardis about ,a4,d4 #agj in the words 4 ,at the very least1 the ,peshitto falls more naturally into the larger testimony borne by the quotations in the ,fathers1 than would a text of such a character as that which we find in the ,curetonian or the ,lewis ,codex4 ,but indeed1 is it not surprising that the petty ,curetonian with its single fragmentary manuscript1 and at the best its short history1 even with so discreditable an ally as the ,lewis ,codex1 should try conclusions with what we may fairly term the colossal ,peshitto8 ,how is it possible that one or two such little rills should fill so great a channel8 ,but there is another solution of the difficulty which has been advocated by the adherents of the ,curetonian in some quarters since the discovery made by ,mrs4 ,lewis4 ,it is urged that there is an original ,syriac ,text which lies at the back of the ,curetonian and the ,codex ,lewisianus1 and that this text possesses also the witness of the ,diatessaron of ,tatian3--that those ,,mss4 themselves are later1 but that the ,text of which they give similar yet independent specimens is the ,old ,syriac1--the first ,version made from the ,gospels in the earliest ages of the ,church4 ,the evidence advanced in favour of this position is of a speculative and vague nature1 and moreover is not always advanced with accuracy4 ,it is not 8the simple fact that no purely #8,antiochene' i4e4 ,traditional reading occurs in the ,sinai ,palimpsest7#afa740 ,it is not true that 8in the ,diatessaron ,joseph and ,mary are never spoken of as husband and wife10 because in ,st4 ,matt4 i4 #ai ,joseph is expressly called 8her husband10 and in verse #bd it is said that ,joseph 8took unto him ,mary his wife40 ,it should be observed that besides a resemblance between the three documents in question1 there is much divergence4 ,the ,cerinthian heresy1 which is spread much more widely over the ,lewis ,codex than its adherents like to acknowledge1 is absent from the other two4 ,the interpolations of the ,curetonian are not adopted by the remaining members of the trio4 ,the ,diatessaron1 as far as we can judge1--for we possess no copy either in ,greek or in ,syriac1 but are obliged to depend upon two ,arabic ,versions edited recently by ,agostino ,ciasca1 a ,latin ,translation of a commentary on it by ,ephraem ,syrus1 and quotations made by ,aphraates or ,jacobus ,nisibenus--1 differs very largely from either4 ,that there is some resemblance between the three we admit3 and that the two ,codexes are more or less made up from very early readings1 which we hold to be corrupt1 we do not deny4 ,what we assert is1 that it has never yet been proved that a regular ,text in ,syriac can be constructed out of these documents which would pass muster as the genuine ,text of the ,gospels2 and that1 especially in the light shed by the strangely heretical character of one of the leading associates1 such a text1 if composed1 cannot with any probability have formed any stage in the transmission of the pure text of the original ,version in ,syriac to the pages of the ,peshitto4 ,if corruption existed in the earliest ages1 so did purity4 ,the ,word of ,,god could not have been dragged only through the mire4 ,we are thus driven to depend upon the leading historical facts of the case4 ,what we do know without question is this3--,about the year #agj ,a4,d41 ,tatian who had sojourned for some time at ,rome drew up his ,diatessaron1 which is found in the earlier half of the third century to have been read in ,divine service at ,edessa7#afb74 ,this work was current in some parts of ,syria in the time of ,eusebius7#afc71 to which assertion some evidence is added by ,epiphanius7#afd74 ,rabbla1 bishop of ,edessa1 ,a4,d4 #dab-dce7afe71 ordered the presbyters and deacons of his diocese to provide copies of the distinct or ,mpharrshe ,gospels4 ,theodoret1 ,bishop of ,cyrrhus near the ,euphrates7#aff71 writes in #dec ,a4,d41 that he had turned out about two hundred copies of ,tatian's ,diatessaron from his churches1 and had put the ,gospels of the four ,evangelists in their place4 ,these accounts are confirmed by the testimony of many subsequent writers1 whose words together with those to which reference has just been made may be seen in ,mr4 ,hamlyn ,hill's book on the ,diatessaron7#afg74 ,it must be added1 that in the ,curetonian we find 8,the ,mpharrsha ,gospel of ,matthew7#afh710 and the ,lewis ,version is termed 8,the ,gospel of the ,mpharrshe four books02 and that they were written in the fifth century4 ,such are the chief facts3 what is the evident corollary8 ,surely1 that these two ,codexes1 which were written at the very time when the ,diatessaron of ,tatian was cast out of the ,syrian ,churches1 were written purposely1 and possibly amongst many other ,,mss4 made at the same time1 to supply the place of it--copies of the ,mpharrshe1 i4e4 ,distinct or ,separate7#afi7 ,gospels1 to replace the ,mhallte or ,gospel of the ,mixed4 ,when the sockets are found to have been prepared and marked1 and the pillars lie fitted and labelled1 what else can we do than slip the pillars into their own sockets8 ,they were not very successful attempts1 as might have been expected1 since the ,peshitto1 or in some places amongst the ,jacobites the ,philoxenian or ,harkleian1 entirely supplanted them in future use1 and they lay hidden for centuries till sedulous inquiry unearthed them1 and the ingenuity of critics invested them with an importance not their own7#agj74 ,what was the origin of the mass of floating readings1 of which some were transferred into the text of these two ,codexes1 will be considered in the next section4 ,students should be cautioned against inferring that the ,diatessaron was read in service throughout ,syria4 ,there is no evidence to warrant such a conclusion4 ,the mention of ,edessa and ,cyrrhus point to the country near the upper ,euphrates2 and the expression of ,theodoret1 relating to the ,diatessaron being used 8in churches of our parts10 seems to hint at a circumscribed region4 ,plenty of room was left for a predominant use of the ,peshitto1 so far as we know3 and no reason on that score can be adduced to counterbalance the force of the arguments given in this section in favour of the existence from the beginning of that great ,version4 ,yet some critics endeavour to represent that the ,peshitto was brought first into prominence upon the supersession of the ,diatessaron1 though it is never found under the special title of ,mpharrsha4 ,what is this but to disregard the handposts of history in favour of a pet theory8 ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,the ,,antiquity ,,of ,,the ,,traditional ,,text4 ,,iii4 ,,witness ,,of ,,the ,,western ,,or ,,syrio-,,low-,,latin ,,text4 ,there are problems in what is usually termed the ,western ,text of the ,new ,testament1 which have not yet1 as ,i believe1 received satisfactory treatment4 ,critics1 including even ,dr4 ,scrivener7#aga71 have too readily accepted ,wiseman's conclusion7#agb71 that the numerous ,latin ,texts all come from one stem1 in fact that there was originally only one ,old-,latin ,version1 not several4 ,that this is at first sight the conclusion pressed upon the mind of the inquirer1 ,i readily admit4 ,the words and phrases1 the general cast and flow of the sentences1 are so similar in these texts1 that it seems at the outset extremely difficult to resist the inference that all of them began from the same translation1 and that the differences between them arose from the continued effect of various and peculiar circumstances upon them and from a long course of copying4 ,but examination will reveal on better acquaintance certain obstinate features which will not allow us to be guided by first appearances4 ,and before investigating these1 we may note that there are some considerations of a general character which take the edge off this phenomenon4 ,supposing that ,old-,latin ,texts had a multiform origin1 they must have gravitated towards more uniformity of expression3 intercourse between ,christians who used different translations of a single original must1 in unimportant points at least1 have led them to greater agreement4 ,besides this1 the identity of the venerated original in all the cases1 except where different readings had crept into the ,greek1 must have produced a constant likeness to one another1 in all translations made into the same language and meant to be faithful4 ,if on the other hand there were numerous ,versions1 it is clear that in those which have descended to us there must have been a survival of the fittest4 ,but it is now necessary to look closely into the evidence1 for the answers to all problems must depend upon that1 and upon nothing but that4 ,the first point that strikes us is that there is in this respect a generic difference between the other ,versions and the ,old-,latin4 ,the former are in each case one1 with no suspicion of various origination4 ,gothic1 ,bohairic1 ,sahidic1 ,armenian 7though the joint work of ,sahak and ,mesrop and ,eznik and others71 ,ethiopic1 ,slavonic3--each is one ,version and came from one general source without doubt or question4 ,codexes may differ3 that is merely within the range of transcriptional accuracy1 and has nothing to do with the making of the ,version4 ,but there is no preeminent ,version in the ,old-,latin field4 ,various texts compete with difference enough to raise the question4 ,upon disputed readings they usually give discordant verdicts4 ,and this discord is found1 not as in ,greek ,codexes where the testifying ,,mss4 generally divide into two hostile bodies1 but in greater and more irregular discrepancy4 ,their varied character may be seen in the following ,table including the ,texts employed by ,tischendorf1 which has been constructed from that scholar's notes upon the basis of the chief passages in dispute1 as revealed in the text of the ,revised ,version throughout the ,gospels1 the standard being the ,textus ,receptus3-- ,brixianus1 f #bhf_/ed7agc7 about #af_/c ,monacensis1 q #bee_/ig #e_/b ,claromontanus1 h 7only in ,st4 ,matt47 #df_/bf #e_/c ,colbertinus1 c #afe_/aeb about #ad_/ac ,fragm4 ,sangall4 n #f_/f #a ,veronensis1 b #abd_/ahd #b_/c ,sangermanensis ,,ii1 g#b #bd_/cf #b_/c ,corbeiensis ,,ii1 ff#b #aac_/ahj #b_/c - ,sangermanensis ,i1 g#b #bg_/df #c_/e - ,rehdigeranus1 ,i #ajd_/afd #e_/h ,vindobonensis1 i #cg_/gb #a_/b ,vercellensis1 a #ajj_/bad #a_/b - ,corbeiensis ,i1 ff#a #cg_/gc #a_/b - ,speculum1 m #h_/ah #a_/b - ,palatinus1 e #dh_/acj #a_/c ,frag4 ,ambrosiana1 s #b_/f #a_/c ,bobiensis1 k #be_/ic #a_/d ,looking dispassionately at this ,table1 the reader will surely observe that these ,,mss4 shade off from one another by intervals of a somewhat similar character4 ,they do not fall readily into classes3 so that if the threefold division of ,dr4 ,hort is adopted1 it must be employed as not meaning very much4 ,the appearances are against all being derived from the extreme left or from the extreme right4 ,and some current modes of thought must be guarded against1 as for instance when a scholar recently laid down as an axiom which all critics would admit1 that k might be taken as the representative of the ,old-,latin ,texts1 which would be about as true as if ,mr4 ,labouchere at the present day were said to represent in opinion the ,members of the ,house of ,commons4 ,the sporadic nature of these ,texts may be further exhibited1 if we take the thirty passages which helped us in the second section of this chapter4 ,the attestation yielded by the ,old-,latin ,,mss4 will help still more in the exhibition of their character4 ,traditional4 ,neologian4 ,st4 ,matt4 i4 #be f4 ff#a4 g#b4 q4 b4 c4 g#a4 k4 v4 #dd 7#a7 c4 f4 h4 a4 b4 ff#a4 g#a4b4 k4 l4 7#b7 a4 b4 c4 f4 h4 vi4 #ac f4 g#a4 q4 a4 b4 c4 ff#a4 g#b4 l4 vii4 #ac f4 ff#b4 g#a4b4 q4 a4 b4 c4 h4 k4 m4 ix4 #ac c4 g#a4b4 a4 b4 f4 ff#a4 h4 k4 l4 q4 xi4 #bg ,all4 xvii4 #ba 8,most0 a4 b4 c4 e4 ff#a4 787 g#a4 xviii4 #aa e4 ff#a4 xix4 #ag 7#a7 b4 c4 f4 ff#b4 a4 e4 ff#a4 g#a4b4 h4 q4 7#b7 f4 q4 a4 b4 c4 e4 ff#a4b4 g#a4 h4 l4 7,vulg47 444 7#c7 4 f4 g#a4 m4 q4 b4c4ff#a4b4 g#a4 h4 l4 4 7,vulg47 xxiii4 #ch4 ,all--except ff#b4 7,lk4 xiii4 #ce7 xxvii4 #cd c4 f4 h4 q4 a4 b4 ff#a4b4 g#a4b4 l4 7,vulg47 xxviii4 #b f4 h4 a4 b4 c4 ff#a4b4 g#a4b4 l4 n4 #ai ,all4 ,st4 ,mark i4 #b ,all4 xvi4 #i-bj ,all--except k4 ,st4 ,luke i4 #bh ,all4 ii4 #ad ,all4 x4 #da-db f4 g#a4b4 q4 7,vulg47 a4 b4 c4 e4 ff#b4 i4 l4 xxii4 #dc-dd a4 b4 c4 e4 ff#b4 g#a4b4 i4 f4 l4 q4 xxiii4 #cd c4 e4 f4 ff#b4 l4 a4 b4 d4 #ch ,all--except a4 #de a4 b4 c4 e4 f4 ff#b4 l4 q4 xxiv4 #dj c4 f4 q4 a4 b4 d4 e4 ff#b4 l4 #db a4 b4 f4 ff#b4 l4 q4 e4 ,st4 ,john i4 #c-d c4 7,vulg47 a4 b4 e4 ff#b4 q4 #ah a4 b4 c4 e4 f4 ff#b4 l4 q4 iii4 #ac ,all4 x4 #ad ,all4 xvii4 #bd ,all 7,vulg47 ,vulg4 ,,mss4 xxi4 #be ,all4 ,it will be observed that in all of these thirty passages1 ,old-,latin ,,mss4 witness on both sides and in a sporadic way1 except in three on the ,traditional side and six on the ,neologian side1 making nine in all against twenty-one4 ,in this respect they stand in striking contrast with all the ,versions in other languages as exhibiting a discordance in their witness which is at the very least far from suggesting a single source1 if it be not wholly inconsistent with such a supposition4 ,again1 the variety of synonyms found in these texts is so great that they could not have arisen except from variety of origin4 ,copyists do not insert ad libitum different modes of expression4 ,for example1 ,mr4 ,white has remarked that is translated 8in no less than eleven different ways10 or adding arguere1 in twelve1 viz4 by admonere emendare minari praecipere comminari imperare obsecrare prohibere corripere7#agd7 increpare objurgare arguere 7r74 ,it is true that some of these occur on the same ,,ms41 but the variety of expression in parallel passages hardly agrees with descent from a single prototype4 ,greek ,,mss4 differ in readings1 but not in the same way4 ,similarly 1 which occurs1 as he tells us1 thirty-seven times in the ,gospels1 is rendered by clarifico1 glorifico1 honorem accipio1 honorifico1 honoro1 magnifico1 some passages presenting four variations4 ,so again1 it is impossible to understand how in the phrase 7,st4 ,luke xxi4 #be7 could have been translated by compressio 7,vercellensis1 a71 occursus 7,brixianus1 f71 pressura 7others71 conflictio 7,bezae1 d71 if they had a common descent4 ,they represent evidently efforts made by independent translators to express the meaning of a difficult word4 ,when we meet with possidebo and haereditabo for 7,st4 ,luke x4 #be7 lumen and lux for 7,st4 ,john i4 #i71 ante galli cantum and antequam gallus cantet for 7,st4 ,matt4 xxvi4 #cd71 locum and praedium and in agro for 7xxvi4 #ce71 transfer a me calicem istum and transeat a me calix iste for 7xxvi4 #ci72--when we fall upon vox venit de caelis1 vox facta est de caelis1 vox de caelo facta est1 vox de caelis1 and the like2 or qui mihi bene complacuisti1 charissimus in te complacui1 dilectus in quo bene placuit mihi1 dilectus in te bene sensi 7,st4 ,mark i4 #aa71 or adsumpsit 7autem 444 duodecim71 adsumens1 convocatis 7,st4 ,luke xviii4 #ca7 it is clear that these and the instances of the same sort occurring everywhere in the ,old-,latin ,texts must be taken as finger-posts pointing in many directions4 ,various readings in ,greek ,codexes present1 not a parallel1 but a sharp contrast4 ,no such profusion of synonyms can be produced from them4 ,the arguments which the ,old-,latin ,texts supply internally about themselves are confirmed exactly by the direct evidence borne by ,st4 ,augustine and ,st4 ,jerome4 ,the well-known words of those two great men who must be held to be competent deponents as to what they found around them1 even if they might fall into error upon the events of previous ages1 prove 7#a7 that a very large number of texts then existed1 7#b7 that they differed greatly from one another1 7#c7 that none had any special authority1 and 7#d7 that translators worked on their own independent lines7#age74 ,but there is the strongest reason for inferring that ,augustine was right when he said1 that 8in the earliest days of the faith whenever any ,greek codex fell into the hands of any one who thought that he had slight familiarity 7aliquantulum facultatis7 with ,greek and ,latin1 he was bold enough to attempt to make a translation7#agf740 ,for what else could have happened than what ,st4 ,augustine says actually did take place8 ,the extraordinary value and influence of the sacred ,books of the ,new ,testament became apparent soon after their publication4 ,they were most potent forces in converting unbelievers3 they swayed the lives and informed the minds of ,christians3 they were read in the services of the ,church4 ,but copies in any number1 if at all1 could not be ordered at ,antioch1 or ,ephesus1 or ,rome1 or ,alexandria4 ,and at first no doubt translations into ,latin were not to be had4 ,christianity grew almost of itself under the viewless action of the ,,holy ,,ghost3 there were no administrative means of making provision4 ,but the ,roman ,empire was to a great extent bilingual4 ,many men of ,latin origin were acquainted more or less with ,greek4 ,the army which furnished so many converts must have reckoned in its ranks1 whether as officers or as ordinary soldiers1 a large number who were accomplished ,greek scholars4 ,all evangelists and teachers would have to explain the new ,books to those who did not understand ,greek4 ,the steps were but short from oral to written teaching1 from answering questions and giving exposition to making regular translations in fragments or books and afterwards throughout the ,new ,testament4 ,the resistless energy of the ,christian faith must have demanded such offices on behalf of the ,latin-speaking members of the ,church1 and must have produced hundreds of versions1 fragmentary and complete4 ,given the two languages side by side1 under the stress of the necessity of learning and the eagerness to drink in the ,words of ,life1 the information given by ,st4 ,augustine must have been amply verified4 ,and the only wonder is1 that scholars have not paid more attention to the witness of that eminent ,father1 and have missed seeing how natural and true it was4 ,it is instructive to trace how the error arose4 ,it came chiefly1 if ,i mistake not1 from two ingenious letters of ,cardinal ,wiseman1 then a young man1 and from the familiarity which they displayed with early ,african ,literature4 ,so ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,davidson1 ,tregelles1 ,scrivener1 and ,westcott and ,hort1 followed him4 ,yet an error lies at the root of ,wiseman's argument which1 if the thing had appeared now1 scholars would not have let pass unchallenged and uncorrected4 ,because the ,bobbian text agreed in the main with the texts of ,tertullian1 ,cyprian1 ,arnobius1 and ,primasius1 ,wiseman assumed that not only that text1 but also the dialectic forms involved in it1 were peculiar to ,africa and took their rise there4 ,but as ,mr4 ,white has pointed out7#agg71 8that is because during this period we are dependent almost exclusively on ,africa for our ,latin ,literature40 ,moreover1 as every accomplished ,latin scholar who is acquainted with the history of the language is aware1 ,low-,latin took rise in ,italy1 when the provincial dialects of that ,peninsula sprang into prominence upon the commencement of the decay of the pure ,latin race1 occurring through civil and foreign wars and the sanguinary proscriptions1 and from the consequent lapse in the predominance in literature of the pure ,latin ,language4 ,true1 that the pure ,latin and the ,low-,latin continued side by side for a long time1 the former in the best literature1 and the latter in ever increasing volume4 ,what is most apposite to the question1 the ,roman colonists in ,france1 ,spain1 ,portugal1 ,provence1 and ,walachia1 consisted mainly of ,italian blood which was not pure ,latin1 as is shewn especially in the veteran soldiers who from time to time received grants of land from their emperors or generals4 ,the six ,romance ,languages are mainly descended from the provincial dialects of the ,italian ,peninsula4 ,it would be contrary to the action of forces in history that such and so strong a change of language should have been effected in an outlying province1 where the inhabitants mainly spoke another tongue altogether4 ,it is in the highest degree improbable that a new form of ,latin should have grown up in ,africa1 and should have thence spread across the ,mediterranean1 and have carried its forms of speech into parts of the extensive ,roman ,empire with which the country of its birth had no natural communication4 ,low-,latin was the early product of the natural races in north and central ,italy1 and from thence followed by well-known channels into ,africa and ,gaul and elsewhere7#agh74 ,we shall find in these truths much light1 unless ,i am deceived1 to dispel our darkness upon the ,western text4 ,the best part of ,wiseman's letters occurs where he proves that ,st4 ,augustine used ,italian ,,mss4 belonging to what the great ,bishop of ,hippo terms the 8,itala10 and pronounces to be the best of the ,latin ,versions4 ,evidently the 8,itala0 was the highest form of ,latin ,version--highest1 that is1 in the character and elegance of the ,latin used in it1 and consequently in the correctness of its rendering4 ,so here we now see our way4 ,critics have always had some difficulty about ,dr4 ,hort's 8,european0 class1 though there is doubtless a special character in b and its following4 ,it appears now that there is no necessity for any embarrassment about the intermediate ,,mss41 because by unlocalizing the text supposed to be ,african we have the ,low-,latin ,text prevailing over the less educated parts of ,italy1 over ,africa1 and over ,gaul1 and other places away from ,rome and ,milan and the other chief centres4 ,beginning with the ,itala1 the other texts sink gradually downwards1 till we reach the lowest of all4 ,there is thus no bar in the way of connecting that most remarkable product of the ,low-,latin ,text1 the ,codex ,bezae1 with any others1 because the ,latin ,version of it stands simply as one of the ,low-,latin group4 ,another difficulty is also removed4 ,amongst the most interesting and valuable contributions to ,sacred ,textual ,criticism that have come from the fertile conception and lucid argument of ,mr4 ,rendel ,harris1 has been the proof of a closer connexion between the ,low-,latin ,text1 as ,i must venture to call it1 and the form of ,syrian ,text exhibited in the ,curetonian ,version1 which he has given in his treatment of the ,ferrar ,group of ,greek ,,mss4 ,of course the general connexion between the two has been long known to scholars4 ,the resemblance between the ,curetonian and ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 to which the ,lewis ,codex must now be added1 on the one hand1 and on the other the less perfect ,old-,latin ,texts is a commonplace in ,textual ,criticism4 ,but ,mr4 ,harris has also shewn that there was probably a ,syriacization of the ,codex ,bezae1 a view which has been strongly confirmed on general points by ,dr4 ,chase3 and has further discovered evidence that the text of the ,ferrar ,group of ,cursives found its way into and out of ,syriac and carried back1 according to ,mr4 ,harris' ingenious suggestion1 traces of its sojourn there4 ,dr4 ,chase has very recently shed more light upon the subject in his book called 8,the ,syro-,latin ,element of the ,gospels7#agi740 ,so all these particulars exhibit in strong light the connexion between the ,old-,latin and the ,syriac4 ,if we are dealing1 not so much with the entire body of ,western ,texts1 but as ,i contend with the ,low-,latin part of them in its wide circulation1 there is no difficulty in understanding how such a connexion arose4 ,the ,church in ,rome shot up as noiselessly as the ,churches of ,damascus and ,antioch4 ,how and why8 ,the key is given in the sixteenth chapter of ,st4 ,paul's ,epistle to the ,romans4 ,how could he have known intimately so many of the leading ,roman ,christians1 unless they had carried his teaching along the road of commerce from ,antioch to ,rome8 ,such travellers1 and they would by no means be confined to the days of ,st4 ,paul1 would understand ,syriac as well as ,latin4 ,the stories and books1 told or written in ,aramaic1 must have gone through all ,syria1 recounting the thrilling history of redemption before the authorized accounts were given in ,greek4 ,accordingly1 in the earliest times translations must have been made from ,aramaic or ,syriac into ,latin1 as afterwards from ,greek4 ,thus a connexion between the ,italian and ,syrian ,churches1 and also between the teaching given in the two countries1 must have lain embedded in the foundations of their common ,christianity1 and must have exercised an influence during very many years after4 ,this view of the interconnexion of the ,syrian and ,old-,latin readings leads us on to what must have been at first the chief origin of corruption4 8,the rulers derided ,him03 8the common people heard ,him gladly40 ,it does not1 ,i think1 appear probable that the ,gospels were written till after ,st4 ,paul left ,jerusalem for ,rome4 ,literature of a high kind arose slowly in the ,church1 and the great missionary ,apostle was the pioneer4 ,it is surely impossible that the authors of the ,synoptic ,gospels should have seen one another's writings1 because in that case they would not have differed so much from one another7#ahj74 ,the effort of ,st4 ,luke 7,pref471 made probably during ,st4 ,paul's imprisonment at ,caesarea 7,acts xxiv4 #bc71 though he may not have completed his ,gospel then1 most likely stimulated ,st4 ,matthew4 ,thus in time the authorized ,gospels were issued1 not only to supply complete and connected accounts1 but to become accurate and standard editions of what had hitherto been spread abroad in shorter or longer narratives1 and with more or less correctness or error4 ,indeed1 it is clear that before the ,gospels were written many erroneous forms of the stories which made up the oral or written ,gospel must have been in vogue1 and that nowhere are these more likely to have prevailed than in ,syria1 where the ,church took root so rapidly and easily4 ,but the readings thus propagated1 of which many found their way1 especially in the ,west1 into the wording of the ,gospels before ,st4 ,chrysostom1 never could have entered into the pure succession4 ,here and there they were interlopers and usurpers1 and after the manner of such claimants1 had to some extent the appearance of having sprung from the genuine stock4 ,but they were ejected during the period elapsing from the fourth to the eighth century1 when the ,text of the ,new ,testament was gradually purified4 ,this view is submitted to ,textual students for verification4 ,we have now traced back the ,traditional ,text to the earliest times4 ,the witness of the early ,fathers has established the conclusion that there is not the slightest uncertainty upon this point4 ,to deny it is really a piece of pure assumption4 ,it rests upon the record of facts4 ,nor is there any reason for hesitation in concluding that the career of the ,peshitto dates back in like manner4 ,the ,latin ,texts1 like others1 are of two kinds3 both the ,traditional ,text and the forms of corruption find a place in them4 ,so that the testimony of these great ,versions1 ,syriac and ,latin1 is added to the testimony of the ,fathers4 ,there are no grounds for doubting that the causeway of the pure text of the ,holy ,gospels1 and by consequence of the rest of the ,new ,testament1 has stood far above the marshes on either side ever since those sacred ,books were written4 ,what can be the attraction of those perilous quagmires1 it is hard to understand4 8,an highway shall be there1 and a way02 8the redeemed shall walk there02 8the wayfaring men1 though fools1 shall not err therein7#aha740 ,,chapter ,,viii4 ,,alexandria ,,and ,,caesarea4 #a4 ,alexandrian ,readings1 and the ,alexandrian ,school4 ,what is the real truth about the existence of an ,alexandrian ,text8 ,are there1 or are there not1 sufficient elements of an ,alexandrian character1 and of ,alexandrian or ,egyptian origin1 to constitute a ,text of the ,holy ,gospels to be designated by that name8 ,so thought ,griesbach1 who conceived ,origen to be the standard of the ,alexandrian text4 ,hort1 who appears to have attributed to his ,neutral text much of the native products of ,alexandria7#ahb71 speaks more of readings than of text4 ,the question must be decided upon the evidence of the case1 which shall now be in the main produced4 ,the ,fathers or ancient writers who may be classed as ,alexandrian in the period under consideration are the following3-- ,traditional4 ,neologian4 ,heracleon #a #g ,clement of ,alexandria #hb #gb ,dionysius of ,alexandria #ab #e ,theognosius #j #a ,peter of ,alexandria #g #h ,arius #b #a ,athanasius 7c4 ,arianos7 #eg #ef ---- ---- #afa #aej ,under the thirty places already examined1 ,clement1 the most important of these writers1 witnesses #h times for the ,traditional reading and #ad times for the ,neologian4 ,origen1 who in his earlier years was a leader of this school1 testifies #dd and #bg times respectively in the order stated4 ,the ,version which was most closely connected with ,lower ,egypt was the ,bohairic1 and under the same thirty passages gives the ensuing evidence3-- #a4 ,matt4 i4 #be4 ,omits4 ,one ,,ms4 says the ,greek has 8her first-born son04 #b4 v4 #dd4 ,large majority1 all but #e1 omit4 ,some add in the margin4 #c4 vi4 #ac4 ,only #e ,,mss4 have the doxology4 #d4 vii4 #ac4 ,all have it4 #e4 ix4 #ac4 #i have it1 and #c in margin3 #ab omit1 besides the #c just mentioned4 #f4 xi4 #bg4 ,all have 4 #g4 xvii4 #ba4 ,only #f ,,mss4 have it1 besides #g in margin or interlined3 #aa omit wholly4 #h4 xviii4 #aa4 ,only #d have it4 #i4 xix4 #af4 ,only #g have 8good10 besides a few corrections3 #ab omit4 #ag4 ,only #a has it4 #aj4 xxiii4 #ch4 ,only #f have it4 #aa4 xxvii4 #cd4 ,one corrected and one which copied the correction4 ,all the rest have 7#ahc74 #ab4 xxviii4 #b4 ,all have it4 #ac4 #ai4 ,all have it4 #ad4 ,mark i4 #b4 ,all 7i4e4 #be7 give1 4 #ae4 xvi4 #i-bj4 ,none wholly omit3 #b give the alternative ending4 #af4 ,luke i4 #bh4 ,only #d #b corrected have it3 #ab omit4 #ag4 ii4 #ad4 ,all have 4 #ah4 x4 #da-b4 7#c omit7 3 #a omits 4 #b corrected add 8of them40 #ai4 xxii4 #dc-d4 ,omitted by #ah7ahd74 #bj4 xxiii4 #cd4 ,all omit7#ahe74 #ba4 ,luke xxiii4 #ch4 ,all omit except #e7ahf7 7874 #bb4 #de4 ,all have 7#ahg74 #bc4 xxiv4 #dj4 ,all have it4 #bd4 #db4 ,all omit7#ahh74 #be4 ,john i4 #c-d4 ,all 7except #a which pauses at 7 have it4 ,the ,sahidic is the other way4 #bf4 #ah4 ,all have 7#ahi74 #bg4 iii4 #ac4 ,omitted by #i4 #bh4 x4 #ad4 ,all have 8mine know me40 ,the ,bohairic has no passive3 hence the error7#aij74 #bi4 xvii4 #bd4 ,the ,bohairic could not express 3 hence the error7#aia74 #cj4 xxi4 #be4 ,all have it4 ,the ,,mss4 differ in number as to their witness in each place4 ,no manuscripts can be adduced as ,alexandrian3 and in fact we are considering the ante-manuscriptal period4 ,all reference therefore to manuscripts would be consequent upon1 not a factor in1 the present investigation4 ,it will be seen upon a review of this evidence1 that the most striking characteristic is found in the instability of it4 ,the ,bohairic wabbles from side to side4 ,clement witnesses on both sides upon the thirty places but mostly against the ,traditional text1 whilst his collected evidence in all cases yields a slight majority to the latter side of the contention4 ,origen on the contrary by a large majority rejects the ,neologian readings on the thirty passages1 but acknowledges them by a small one in his habitual quotations4 ,it is very remarkable1 and yet characteristic of ,origen1 who indeed changed his home from ,alexandria to ,caesarea1 that his habit was to adopt one of the most notable of ,syrio-,low-,latin readings in preference to the ,traditional reading prevalent at ,alexandria4 ,st4 ,ambrose 7in ,ps4 xxxvi4 #ce7 in defending the reading of ,st4 ,john i4 #c-d1 8without ,him was not anything made3 that which was made was life in ,him10 says that ,alexandrians and ,egyptians follow the reading which is now adopted everywhere except by ,lachmann1 ,tregelles1 and ,w4-,hort4 ,it has been said that ,origen was in the habit of using ,,mss4 of both kinds1 and indeed no one can examine his quotations without coming to that conclusion4 ,therefore we are led first of all to the school of ,christian ,philosophy which under the name of the ,catechetical ,school has made ,alexandria for ever celebrated in the early annals of the ,christian ,church4 ,indeed ,origen was a ,textual ,critic4 ,he spent much time and toil upon the text of the ,new ,testament1 besides his great labours on the ,old1 because he found it disfigured as he says by corruptions 8some arising from the carelessness of scribes1 some from evil licence of emendation1 some from arbitrary omissions and interpolations7#aib740 ,such a sitting in judgement1 or as perhaps it should be said with more justice to ,origen such a pursuit of inquiry1 involved weighing of evidence on either side1 of which there are many indications in his works4 ,the connexion of this school with the school set up at ,caesarea1 to which place ,origen appears to have brought his manuscripts1 and where he bequeathed his teaching and spirit to sympathetic successors1 will be carried out and described more fully in the next section4 ,origen was the most prominent personage by far in the ,alexandrian ,school4 ,his fame and influence in this province extended with the reputation of his other writings long after his death4 8,when a writer speaks of the #8accurate copies1' what he actually means is the text of ,scripture which was employed or approved by ,origen7#aic740 ,indeed it was an elemental1 inchoate school1 dealing in an academical and eclectic spirit with evidence of various kinds1 highly intellectual rather than original1 as for example in the welcome given to the ,syrio-,low-,latin variation of ,st4 ,matt4 xix4 #af1 #ag1 and addicted in some degree to alteration of passages4 ,it would appear that besides this critical temper and habit there was to some extent a growth of provincial readings at ,alexandria or in the neighbourhood1 and that modes of spelling which were rejected in later ages took their rise there4 ,specimens of the former of these peculiarities may be seen in the table of readings just given from the ,bohairic ,version4 ,the chief effects of ,alexandrian study occurred in the ,caesarean school which now invites our consideration4 #b4 ,caesarean ,school4 ,in the year #bca1 as seems most probable1 ,origen finally left ,alexandria4 ,his head-quarters thenceforward may be said to have been ,caesarea in ,palestine1 though he travelled into ,greece and ,arabia and stayed at ,neo-,caesarea in ,cappadocia with his friend and pupil ,gregory ,thaumaturgus4 ,he had previously visited ,rome3 so that he must have been well qualified by his experience as well as probably by his knowledge and collection of ,,mss4 to lay a broad foundation for the future settlement of the text4 ,but unfortunately his whole career marks him out as a man of uncertain judgement4 ,like some others1 he was a giant in learning1 but ordinary in the use of his learning4 ,he was also closely connected with the philosophical school of ,alexandria1 from which ,arianism issued4 ,the leading figures in this remarkable ,school of ,textual ,criticism at ,caesarea were ,origen and ,eusebius1 besides ,pamphilus who forms the link between the two4 ,the ground-work of the ,school was the celebrated library in the city which was formed upon the foundation supplied by ,origen1 so far as the books in it escaped the general destruction of ,,mss4 that occurred in the persecution of ,diocletian4 ,it is remarkable1 that although there seems little doubt that the ,vatican and ,sinaitic ,,mss4 were amongst the fruits of this school1 as will be shewn in the next chapter1 the witness of the writings of both ,origen and ,eusebius is so favourable as it is to the ,traditional ,text4 ,in the case of ,origen there is as already stated7#aid7 not far from an equality between the totals on either side1 besides a majority of #dd to #bg on the thirty important texts3 and the numbers for ,eusebius are respectively #cae to #bad1 and #da to #aa4 ,palestine was well suited from its geographical position to be the site of the junction of all the streams4 ,the very same circumstances which adapted it to be the arena of the great drama in the world's history drew to its shores the various elements in the representation in language of the most characteristic part of the ,word of ,god4 ,the ,traditional ,text would reach it by various routes3 the ,syrio-,low-,latin across the sea and from ,syria3 the ,alexandrian readings from the near neighbourhood4 ,origen in his travels would help to assemble all4 ,the various alien streams would thus coalesce1 and the text of ,b and would be the result4 ,but the readings of ,,mss4 recorded by ,origen and especially by ,eusebius prove that in this broad school the ,traditional ,text gained at least a decided preponderance according to the private choice of the latter scholar4 ,yet1 as will be shewn1 he was probably1 not the writer of ,b and of the six conjugate leaves in 1 yet as the executor of the order of ,constantine the superintendent also in copying those celebrated ,,mss4 ,was he then influenced by the motives of a courtier in sending such texts as he thought would be most acceptable to the ,emperor8 ,or is it not more in consonance with the facts of the case--especially as interpreted by the subsequent spread in ,constantinople of the ,traditional ,text7#aie7--1 that we should infer that the fifty ,,mss4 sent included a large proportion of ,texts of another character8 ,eusebius1 the ,homoiousian or ,semi-,arian1 would thus be the collector of copies to suit different tastes and opinions1 and his scholar and successor ,acacius1 the ,homoean1 would more probably be the writer of ,b and of the six conjugate leaves of 7#aif74 ,the trimming character of the latitudinarian1 and the violent forwardness of the partisan1 would appear to render such a supposition not unreasonable4 ,estimating the school according to principles of historical philosophy1 and in consonance with both the existence of the ,text denoted by ,b and and also the subsequent results1 it must appear to us to be transitional in character1 including two distinct and incongruous solutions1 of which one was afterwards proved to be the right by the general acceptation in the ,church that even ,dr4 ,hort acknowledges to have taken place4 ,an interesting inquiry is here suggested with respect to the two celebrated ,,mss4 just mentioned4 ,how is it that we possess no ,,mss4 of the ,new ,testament of any considerable size older than those1 or at least no other such ,,mss4 as old as they are8 ,besides the disastrous results of the persecution of ,diocletian1 there is much force in the reply of ,dean ,burgon1 that being generally recognized as bad ,,mss4 they were left standing on the shelf in their handsome covers1 whilst others which were more correct were being thumbed to pieces in constant use4 ,but the discoveries made since the ,dean's death enables me to suggest another answer which will also help to enlarge our view on these matters4 ,the habit of writing on vellum belongs to ,asia4 ,the first mention of it that we meet with occurs in the #ehth chapter of the #eth book of ,herodotus1 where the historian tells us that the ,ionians wrote on the skins of sheep and goats because they could not get 8byblus10 or as we best know it1 papyrus4 ,vellum remained in comparative obscurity till the time of ,eumenes ,,ii1 ,king of ,pergamum4 ,that intelligent potentate1 wishing to enlarge his library and being thwarted by the ,ptolemies who refused out of jealousy to supply him with papyrus1 improved the skins of his country7#aig71 and made the 8charta ,pergamena10 from whence the term parchment has descended to us4 ,it will be remembered that ,st4 ,paul sent to ,ephesus for 8the books1 especially the parchments7#aih740 ,there is evidence that vellum was used at ,rome3 but the chief materials employed there appear to have been waxen tablets and papyrus4 ,martial1 writing towards the end of the first century1 speaks of vellum ,,mss4 of ,homer1 ,virgil1 ,cicero1 and ,ovid7#aii74 ,but if such ,,mss4 had prevailed generally1 more would have come down to us4 ,the emergence of vellum into general use is marked and heralded by the products of the library at ,caesarea1 which helped by the rising literary activity in ,asia and by the building of ,constantinople1 was probably the means of the introduction of an improved employment of vellum4 ,it has been already noticed7#bjj71 that ,acacius and ,euzoius1 successively bishops of ,caesarea after ,eusebius1 superintended the copying of papyrus manuscripts upon vellum4 ,greek uncials were not unlike in general form to the square ,hebrew letters used at ,jerusalem after the ,captivity4 ,the activity in ,asiatic ,caesarea synchronized with the rise in the use of vellum4 ,it would seem that in moving there ,origen deserted papyrus for the more durable material4 ,a word to explain my argument4 ,if vellum had been in constant use over the ,roman ,empire during the first three centuries and a third which elapsed before ,b and were written1 there ought to have been in existence some remains of a material so capable of resisting the tear and wear of use and time4 ,as there are no vellum ,,mss4 at all except the merest fragments dating from before #ccj ,a4,d41 we are perforce driven to infer that a material for writing of a perishable nature was generally employed before that period4 ,now not only had papyrus been for 8long the recognized material for literary use10 but we can trace its employment much later than is usually supposed4 ,it is true that the cultivation of the plant in ,egypt began to wane after the capture of ,alexandria by the ,mahommedans in #fch ,a4,d41 and the destruction of the famous libraries3 but it continued in existence during some centuries afterwards4 ,it was grown also in ,sicily and ,italy4 8,in ,france papyrus was in common use in the sixth century40 ,sir ,e4 ,maunde ,thompson enumerates books now found in ,european ,libraries of ,paris1 ,genoa1 ,milan1 ,vienna1 ,munich1 and elsewhere1 as far down as the tenth century4 ,the manufacture of it did not cease in ,egypt till the tenth century4 ,the use of papyrus did not lapse finally till paper was introduced into ,europe by the ,moors and ,arabs7#bja71 upon which occurrence all writing was executed upon tougher substances1 and the cursive hand drove out uncial writing even from parchment4 ,the knowledge of the prevalence of papyrus1 as to which any one may satisfy himself by consulting ,sir ,e4 ,maunde ,thompson's admirable book1 and of the employment of the cursive hand before ,christ1 must modify many of the notions that have been widely entertained respecting the old ,uncials4 #a4 ,in the first place1 it will be clear that all the ,cursive ,,mss4 are not by any means the descendants of the ,uncials4 ,if the employment of papyrus in the earliest ages of the ,christian ,church was prevalent over by far the greater part of the ,roman ,empire1 and that description is ,i believe less than the facts would warrant--then more than half of the stems of genealogy must have originally consisted of papyrus manuscripts4 ,and further1 if the use of papyrus continued long after the date of ,b and 1 then it would not only have occupied the earliest steps in the lines of descent1 but much later exemplars must have carried on the succession4 ,but in consequence of the perishable character of papyrus those exemplars have disappeared and live only in their cursive posterity4 ,this aspect alone of the case under consideration invests the ,cursives with much more interest and value than many people would nowadays attribute to them4 #b4 ,but beyond this conclusion1 light is shed upon the subject by the fact now established beyond question1 that cursive handwriting existed in the world some centuries before ,christ7#bjb74 ,for square letters 7of course in writing interspersed with circular lines7 we go to ,palestine and ,syria1 and that may not impossibly be the reason why uncial ,greek letters came out first1 as far as the evidence of extant remains can guide us1 in those countries4 ,the change from uncial to cursive letters about the tenth century is most remarkable4 ,must it not to a great extent have arisen from the contemporary failure of papyrus which has been explained1 and from the cursive writers on papyrus now trying their hand on vellum and introducing their more easy and rapid style of writing into that class of manuscripts7#bjc78 ,if so1 the phenomenon shews itself1 that by the very manner in which they are written1 ,cursives mutely declare that they are not solely the children of the ,uncials4 ,speaking generally1 they are the progeny of a marriage between the two1 and the papyrus ,,mss4 would appear to have been the better half4 ,such results as have been reached in this chapter and the last have issued from the advance made in discovery and research during the last ten years4 ,but these were not known to ,tischendorf or ,tregelles1 and much less to ,lachmann4 ,they could not have been embraced by ,hort in his view of the entire subject when he constructed his clever but unsound theory some forty years ago7#bjd74 ,surely our conclusion must be that the world is leaving that school gradually behind4 ,,chapter ,,ix4 ,,the ,,old ,,uncials4 ,,the ,,influence ,,of ,,origen4 #a7bje74 ,codex ,b was early enthroned on something like speculation1 and has been maintained upon the throne by what has strangely amounted to a positive superstition4 ,the text of this ,,ms4 was not accurately known till the edition of ,tischendorf appeared in #ahfg7bjf73 and yet long before that time it was regarded by many critics as the ,queen of the ,uncials4 ,the collations of ,bartolocci1 of ,mico1 of ,rulotta1 and of ,birch1 were not trustworthy1 though they far surpassed ,mai's two first editions4 ,yet the prejudice in favour of the mysterious authority that was expected to issue decrees from the ,vatican7#bjg7 did not wait till the clear light of criticism was shed upon its eccentricities and its defalcations4 ,the same spirit1 biassed by sentiment not ruled by reason1 has remained since more has been disclosed of the real nature of this ,codex7#bjh74 ,a similar course has been pursued with respect to ,codex 4 ,it was perhaps to be expected that human infirmity should have influenced ,tischendorf in his treatment of the treasure-trove by him3 though his character for judgement could not but be seriously injured by the fact that in his eighth edition he altered the mature conclusions of his seventh in no less than #c1egb7bji7 instances1 chiefly on account of the readings in his beloved ,sinaitic guide4 ,yet whatever may be advanced against ,b may be alleged even more strongly against 4 ,it adds to the number of the blunders of its associate3 it is conspicuous for habitual carelessness or licence3 it often by itself deviates into glaring errors7#baj74 ,the elevation of the ,sinaitic into the first place1 which was effected by ,tischendorf as far as his own practice was concerned1 has been applauded by only very few scholars3 and it is hardly conceivable that they could maintain their opinion1 if they would critically and impartially examine this erratic copy throughout the ,new ,testament for themselves4 ,the fact is that ,b and were the products of the school of philosophy and teaching which found its vent in ,semi-,arian or ,homoean opinions4 ,the proof of this position is somewhat difficult to give1 but when the nature of the question and the producible amount of evidence are taken into consideration1 is nevertheless quite satisfactory4 ,in the first place1 according to the verdict of all critics the date of these two ,,mss4 coincides with the period when ,semi-,arianism or some other form of ,arianism were in the ascendant in the ,east1 and to all outward appearance swayed the ,universal ,church4 ,in the last years of his rule1 ,constantine was under the domination of the ,arianizing faction2 and the reign of ,constantius ,,ii over all the provinces in the ,roman ,empire that spoke ,greek1 during which encouragement was given to the great heretical schools of the time1 completed the two central decades of the fourth century7#baa74 ,it is a circumstance that cannot fail to give rise to suspicion that the ,vatican and ,sinaitic ,,mss4 had their origin under a predominant influence of such evil fame4 ,at the very least1 careful investigation is necessary to see whether those copies were in fact free from that influence which has met with universal condemnation4 ,now as we proceed further we are struck with another most remarkable coincidence1 which also as has been before noticed is admitted on all hands1 viz4 that the period of the emergence of the ,orthodox ,school from oppression and the settlement in their favour of the great ,nicene controversy was also the time when the text of ,b and sank into condemnation4 ,the ,orthodox side under ,st4 ,chrysostom and others became permanently supreme3 so did also the ,traditional ,text4 ,are we then to assume with our opponents that in the ,church condemnation and acceptance were inseparable companions8 ,that at first heresy and the pure ,text1 and afterwards orthodoxy and textual corruption1 went hand in hand8 ,that such ill-matched couples graced the history of the ,church8 ,that upon so fundamental a matter as the accuracy of the written standard of reference1 there was precision of text when heretics or those who dallied with heresy were in power1 but that the sacred ,text was contaminated when the ,orthodox had things their own way8 ,is it indeed come to this1 that for the pure and undefiled ,word of ,,god we must search1 not amongst those great men who under the guidance of the ,holy ,spirit ascertained and settled for ever the main ,articles of the ,faith1 and the ,canon of ,holy ,scripture1 but amidst the relics of those who were unable to agree with one another1 and whose fine-drawn subtleties in creed and policy have been the despair of the historians1 and a puzzle to students of ,theological ,science8 ,it is not too much to assert1 that ,theology and ,history know no such unscientific conclusions4 ,it is therefore a circumstance full of significance that ,codexes ,b and were produced in such untoward times7#bab71 and fell into neglect on the revival of orthodoxy1 when the ,traditional ,text was permanently received4 ,but the case in hand rests also upon evidence more direct than this4 ,the influence which the writings of ,origen exercised on the ancient ,church is indeed extraordinary4 ,the fame of his learning added to the splendour of his genius1 his vast ,biblical achievements and his real insight into the depth of ,scripture1 conciliated for him the admiration and regard of early ,christendom4 ,let him be freely allowed the highest praise for the profundity of many of his utterances1 the ingenuity of almost all4 ,it must at the same time be admitted that he is bold in his speculations to the verge1 and beyond the verge1 of rashness2 unwarrantedly confident in his assertions2 deficient in sobriety2 in his critical remarks even foolish4 ,a prodigious reader as well as a prodigious writer1 his words would have been of incalculable value1 but that he seems to have been so saturated with the strange speculations of the early heretics1 that he sometimes adopts their wild method2 and in fact has not been reckoned among the orthodox ,fathers of the ,church4 ,but 7and this is the direction in which the foregoing remarks have tended7 ,origen's ruling passion is found to have been textual criticism7#bac74 ,this was at once his forte and his foible4 ,in the library of his friend ,pamphilus at ,caesarea were found many ,codexes that had belonged to him1 and the autograph of his ,hexapla1 which was seen and used by ,st4 ,jerome7#bad74 ,in fact1 the collection of books made by ,pamphilus1 in the gathering of which at the very least he was deeply indebted to ,origen1 became a centre from whence1 after the destruction of copies in the persecution of ,diocletian1 authority as to the sacred ,text radiated in various directions4 ,copying from papyrus on vellum was assiduously prosecuted there7#bae74 ,constantine applied to ,eusebius for fifty handsome copies7#baf71 amongst which it is not improbable that the manuscripts 77 ,b and were to be actually found7#bag74 ,but even if that is not so1 the ,emperor would not have selected ,eusebius for the order1 if that bishop had not been in the habit of providing copies3 and ,eusebius in fact carried on the work which he had commenced under his friend ,pamphilus1 and in which the latter must have followed the path pursued by ,origen4 ,again1 ,jerome is known to have resorted to this quarter7#bah71 and various entries in ,,mss4 prove that others did the same7#bai74 ,it is clear that the celebrated library of ,pamphilus exercised great influence in the province of ,textual ,criticism2 and the spirit of ,origen was powerful throughout the operations connected with it1 at least till the ,origenists got gradually into disfavour and at length were finally condemned at the ,fifth ,general ,council in ,a4,d4 #eec4 ,but in connecting ,b and with the ,library at ,caesarea we are not left only to conjecture or inference4 ,in a well-known colophon affixed to the end of the book of ,esther in by the third corrector1 it is stated that from the beginning of the book of ,kings to the end of ,esther the ,,ms4 was compared with a copy 8corrected by the hand of the holy martyr ,pamphilus10 which itself was written and corrected after the ,hexapla of ,origen7#bbj74 ,and a similar colophon may be found attached to the book of ,ezra4 ,it is added that the ,codex ,sinaiticus 7 7 and the ,codex ,pamphili 7 7 manifested great agreement with one another4 ,the probability that was thus at least in part copied from a manuscript executed by ,pamphilus is established by the facts that a certain 8,codex ,marchalianus0 is often mentioned which was due to ,pamphilus and ,eusebius2 and that ,origen's recension of the ,old ,testament1 although he published no edition of the ,text of the ,new1 possessed a great reputation4 ,on the books of ,chronicles1 ,st4 ,jerome mentions manuscripts executed by ,origen with great care1 which were published by ,pamphilus and ,eusebius4 ,and in ,codex ,h of ,st4 ,paul it is stated that that ,,ms4 was compared with a ,,ms4 in the library of ,caesarea 8which was written by the hand of the holy ,pamphilus7#bba740 ,these notices added to the frequent reference by ,st4 ,jerome and others to the critical 77 ,,mss41 by which we are to understand those which were distinguished by the approval of ,origen or were in consonance with the spirit of ,origen1 shew evidently the position in criticism which the ,library at ,caesarea and its illustrious founder had won in those days4 ,and it is quite in keeping with that position that should have been sent forth from that 8school of criticism40 ,but if was1 then ,b must have been2--at least1 if the supposition certified by ,tischendorf and ,scrivener be true1 that the six conjugate leaves of were written by the scribe of ,b4 ,so there is a chain of reference1 fortified by the implied probability which has been furnished for us from the actual facts of the case4 ,yet ,dr4 ,hort is 8inclined to surmise that ,b and were both written in the ,west1 probably at ,rome2 that the ancestors of ,b were wholly ,western 7in the geographical1 not the textual sense7 up to a very early time indeed2 and that the ancestors of were in great part ,alexandrian1 again in the geographical1 not the textual sense7#bbb740 ,for this opinion1 in which ,dr4 ,hort stands alone amongst authorities1 there is nothing but 8surmise0 founded upon very dark hints4 ,in contrast with the evidence just brought forward there is an absence of direct testimony3 besides that the connexion between the ,western and ,syrian ,texts or ,readings1 which has been recently confirmed in a very material degree1 must weaken the force of some of his arguments4 #b7bbc74 ,the points to which ,i am anxious rather to direct attention are 7#a7 the extent to which the works of ,origen were studied by the ancients3 and 7#b7 the curious discovery that ,codexes ,b1 and to some extent ,d1 either belong to the same class as those with which ,origen was chiefly familiar2 or else have been anciently manipulated into conformity with ,origen's teaching4 ,the former seems to me the more natural supposition2 but either inference equally satisfies my contention3 viz4 that ,origen1 and mainly ,b,d1 are not to be regarded as wholly independent authorities1 but constitute a class4 ,the proof of this position is to be found in various passages where the influence of ,origen may be traced1 such as in the omission of --8,the ,son of ,god0--in ,mark i4 #a7bbd72 and of --8at ,ephesus0--in ,eph4 i4 #a7bbe72 in the substitution of ,bethabara 7,st4 ,john i4 #bh7 for ,bethany7#bbf72 in the omission of the second part of the last petition the ,lord's ,prayer in ,st4 ,luke7#bbg71 of in ,john i4 #bg7bbh74 ,he is also the cause why the important qualification 78without a cause07 is omitted by ,b from ,st4 ,matt4 v4 #bb2 and hence1 in opposition to the whole host of ,copies1 ,versions7#bbi71 ,fathers1 has been banished from the sacred ,text by ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,w4 ,hort and the ,revisers7#bcj74 ,to the same influence1 ,i am persuaded1 is to be attributed the omission from a little handful of copies 7viz4 ,a1 ,b-1 ,d991 ,f-,g1 and #ag997 of the clause 78that you should not obey the truth07 ,gal4 iii4 #a4 ,jerome duly acknowledges those words while commenting on ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel7#bca72 but when he comes to the place in ,galatians7#bcb71 he is observed1 first to admit that the clause 8is found in some copies10 and straightway to add that 8inasmuch as it is not found in the copies of ,adamantius7#bcc71 he omits it40 ,the clue to his omission is supplied by his own statement that in writing on the ,galatians he had made ,origen his guide7#bcd74 ,and yet the words stand in the ,vulgate4 ,for3-- ,c ,dc ,e ,k ,l ,p1 #df ,cursives4 ,vulg4 ,goth4 ,harkl4 ,arm4 ,ethiop4 ,orig4 ii4 #cgc4 ,cyril ,al4 ii4 #gcg4 ,ephr4 ,syr4 iii4 #bjc4 ,macarius ,magnes 7or rather the heathen philosopher with whom he disputed71--#abh4 ps4-,athanas4 ii4 #ded4 ,theodoret ii4 #dj4 ,j4 ,damascene ii4 #afc4 ,theodorus ,studita1--#dcc1 #aacf4 ,hieron4 vii4 #dah4 c4 ,legitur in quibusdam codicibus1 8,quis vos fascinavit non credere veritati80 ,sed hoc1 quia in exemplaribus ,adamantii non habetur1 omisimus4 ,against3-- ,,abd99,,fg #ag994 d e f g--fu4 ,peshitto1 ,bohairic4 ,chrys4 ,euthal4 cod4 ,exemplaria ,adamantii4 ,cyril #dbi4 ,theodoret i4 #feh 7,mai vii#b #aej74 ,theodorus ,mops4 ,hier4 vii4 #dah4 c4 ,in a certain place ,origen indulges in a mystical exposition of our ,,lord',s two miracles of feeding7#bce72 drawing marvellous inferences1 as his manner is1 from the details of either miracle4 ,we find that ,hilary7#bcf71 that ,jerome7#bcg71 that ,chrysostom7#bch71 had ,origen's remarks before them when they in turn commented on the miraculous feeding of the #djjj4 ,at the feeding of the #ejjj1 ,origen points out that our ,,lord 8commands the multitude to sit down0 7,st4 ,matt4 xiv4 #ai73 but at the feeding of the #djjj1 ,he does not 8command0 but only 8directs0 them to sit down4 7,st4 ,matt4 xv4 #ce7bci77 444 ,from which it is plain that ,origen did not read as we do in ,st4 ,matt4 xv4 #ce1 --but 2 which is the reading of the parallel place in ,st4 ,mark 7viii4 #f74 ,we should of course have assumed a slip of memory on ,origen's part2 but that ,,bd are found to exhibit the text of ,st4 ,matt4 xv4 #ce in conformity with ,origen7#bdj74 ,he is reasoning therefore from a ,,ms4 which he has before him2 and remarking1 as his unfortunate manner is1 on what proves to be really nothing else but a palpable depravation of the text4 ,speaking of ,st4 ,john xiii4 #bf1 ,origen remarks1--8,it is not written #8,he it is to whom ,i shall give the sop'2 but with the addition of #8,i shall dip'3 for it says1 #8,i shall dip the sop and give it4' 0 ,this is the reading of ,,bcl and is adopted accordingly by some ,editors4 ,but surely it is a depravation of the text which may be ascribed with confidence to the officiousness of ,origen himself4 ,who1 at all events1 on such precarious evidence would surrender the established reading of the place1 witnessed to as it is by every other known ,,ms4 and by several of the ,fathers8 ,the grounds on which ,tischendorf reads 1 are characteristic1 and in their way a curiosity7#bda74 ,take another instance of the same phenomenon4 ,it is plain1 from the consent of 7so to speak7 all the copies1 that our ,saviour rejected the ,temptation which stands second in ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel with the words1--8,get thee behind ,me1 ,satan7#bdb740 ,but ,origen officiously points out that this 7quoting the words7 is precisely what our ,,lord did not say4 ,he adds a reason1--8,he said to ,peter1 #8,get thee behind ,me1 ,satan'2 but to the ,devil1 #8,get thee hence1' without the addition #8behind ,me'2 for to be behind ,jesus is a good thing7#bdc740 ,our ,saviour on a certain occasion 7,st4 ,john viii4 #ch7 thus addressed his wicked countrymen3--8,i speak that which ,i have seen with ,my ,father2 and ye likewise do that which you have seen with your father40 ,he contrasts ,his own gracious doctrines with their murderous deeds2 and refers them to their respective 8,fathers10--to 8,my ,father10 that is1 ,,god2 and to 8your father10 that is1 the ,devil7#bdd74 ,that this is the true sense of the place appears plainly enough from the context4 8,seen with0 and 8heard from7#bde70 are the expressions employed on such occasions1 because sight and hearing are the faculties which best acquaint a man with the nature of that whereof he discourses4 ,origen1 misapprehending the matter1 maintains that ,,god is the 8,father0 spoken of on either side4 ,he ,i suspect it was who1 in order to support this view1 erased 8,my0 and 8your02 and in the second member of the sentence1 for 8seen with10 substituted 8heard from02--as if a contrast had been intended between the manner of the ,divine and of the human knowledge1--which would be clearly out of place4 ,in this way1 what is in reality a revelation1 becomes converted into a somewhat irrelevant precept3 8,i speak the things which ,i have seen with the ,father40 8,do ye the things which ye have heard from the ,father10--which is how ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford exhibit the place4 ,cyril ,alex4 employed a text thus impaired4 ,origen also puts ver4 #ci into the form of a precept 7 444 72 but he has all the ,fathers7#bdf7 7including himself71--all the ,versions1--all the copies against him1 being supported only by ,b4 ,but the evidence against 8the restored reading0 to which ,alford invites attention1 7viz4 omitting and substituting for 47 is overwhelming4 ,only five copies 7,,bcltx7 omit 3 only four 7,,blt1 #ac7 omit 3 a very little handful are for substituting with the genitive for 4 ,chrys41 ,apolinaris1 ,cyril ,jerus41 ,ammonius1 as well as every ancient version of good repute1 protest against such an exhibition of the text4 ,in ver4 #ci1 only five read 7,,bdlt73 while is found only in ,cod4 ,b4 ,accordingly1 some critics prefer the imperfect 1 which however is only found in ,,dlt4 8,the reading is remarkable0 says ,alford4 ,yes1 and clearly fabricated4 ,the ordinary text is right4 #c4 ,besides these passages1 in which there is actual evidence of a connexion subsisting between the readings which they contain and ,origen1 the sceptical character of the ,vatican and ,sinaitic manuscripts affords a strong proof of the alliance between them and the ,origenistic ,school4 ,it must be borne in mind that ,origen was not answerable for all the tenets of the ,school which bore his name1 even perhaps less than ,calvin was responsible for all that ,calvinists after him have held and taught4 ,origenistic doctrines came from the blending of philosophy with ,christianity in the schools of ,alexandria where ,origen was the most eminent of the teachers engaged7#bdg74 ,,chapter ,x4 ,,the ,,old ,,uncials4 ,,codex ,d4 #a7bdh74 ,it is specially remarkable that the ,canon of ,holy ,scripture1 which like the ,text had met with opposition1 was being settled in the later part of the century in which these two manuscripts were produced1 or at the beginning of the next4 ,the two questions appear to have met together in ,eusebius4 ,his latitudinarian proclivities seem to have led him in his celebrated words7#bdi7 to lay undue stress upon the objections felt by some persons to a few of the ,books of the ,new ,testament2 and cause us therefore not to wonder that he should also have countenanced those who wished without reason to leave out portions of the ,text4 ,now the first occasion1 as is well known1 when we find all the ,books of the ,new ,testament recognized with authority occurred at the ,council of ,laodicea in #cfc ,a4,d41 if the passage is genuine7#bej71 which is very doubtful2 and the settlement of the ,canon which was thus initiated1 and was accomplished by about the end of the century1 was followed1 as was natural1 by the settlement of the ,text4 ,but inasmuch as the latter involved a large multitude of intricate questions1 and corruption had crept in and had acquired a very firm hold1 it was long before universal acquiescence finally ensued upon the general acceptance effected in the time of ,st4 ,chrysostom4 ,in fact1 the ,nature of the ,divine ,word1 and the character of the ,written ,word1 were confirmed about the same time3--mainly1 in the period when the ,nicene ,creed was re-asserted at the ,council of ,constantinople in #cha ,a4,d42 for the ,canon of ,holy ,scripture was fixed and the ,orthodox ,text gained a supremacy over the ,origenistic ,text about the same time3--and finally1 after the ,third ,council of ,constantinople in #fhj ,a4,d41 at which the acknowledgement of the ,natures of the ,son of ,man was placed in a position superior to all heresy2 for it was then that the ,traditional ,text began in nearly perfect form to be handed down with scarce any opposition to future ages of the ,church4 ,besides the multiplicity of points involved1 three special causes delayed the complete settlement of the ,text1 so far as the attainment was concerned all over the ,church of general accuracy throughout the ,gospels1 not to speak of all the ,new ,testament4 #a4 ,origenism1 going beyond ,origen1 continued in force till it was condemned by the ,fifth ,general ,council in #eec ,a4,d41 and could hardly have wholly ended in that year4 ,besides this1 controversies upon fundamental truths agitated the ,church1 and implied a sceptical and wayward spirit which would be ready to sustain alien variations in the written ,word1 till the censure passed upon ,monothelitism at the ,sixth ,general ,council in #fhj ,a4,d4 #b4 ,the ,church was terribly tried by the overthrow of the ,roman ,empire1 and the irruption of hordes of ,barbarians3 and consequently ,churchmen were obliged to retire into extreme borders1 as they did into ,ireland in the fifth century7#bea71 and to spend their energies in issuing forth from thence to reconquer countries for the ,kingdom of ,christ4 ,the resultant paralysis of ,christian effort must have been deplorable4 ,libraries and their treasures1 as at ,caesarea and ,alexandria under the hands of ,mahommedans in the seventh century1 were utterly destroyed4 ,rest and calmness1 patient and frequent study and debate1 books and other helps to research1 must have been in those days hard to get1 and were far from being in such readiness as to favour general improvement in a subject of which extreme accuracy is the very breath and life4 #c4 ,the ,art of ,writing on ,vellum had hardly passed its youth at the time when the ,text advocated by ,b and fell finally into disuse4 ,punctuation did but exist in the occasional use of the full stop3 breathings or accents were perhaps hardly found3 spelling1 both as regards consonants and vowels1 was uncertain and rudimental4 ,so that the ,art of transcribing on vellum even so far as capital letters were concerned1 did not arrive at anything like maturity till about the eighth century4 ,but it must not be imagined that manuscripts of substantial accuracy did not exist during this period1 though they have not descended to us4 ,the large number of ,uncials and ,cursives of later ages must have had a goodly assemblage of accurate predecessors from which they were copied4 ,it is probable that the more handsome and less correct copies have come into our hands1 since such would have been not so much used1 and might have been in the possession of the men of higher station whose heathen ancestry had bequeathed to them less orthodox tendencies1 and the material of many others must have been too perishable to last4 ,arianism prevailed during much of the sixth century in ,italy1 ,africa1 ,burgundy1 and ,spain4 ,ruder and coarser volumes1 though more accurate1 would be readily surrendered to destruction1 especially if they survived in more cultured descendants4 ,that a majority of such ,,mss4 existed1 whether of a rougher or more polished sort1 both in vellum and papyrus1 is proved by citations of ,scripture found in the ,authors of the period4 ,but those ,,mss4 which have been preserved are not so perfect as the others which have come from the eighth and following centuries4 ,thus ,codex ,a1 though it exhibits a text more like the ,traditional than either ,b or 1 is far from being a sure guide4 ,codex ,c1 which was written later in the fifth century1 is only a fragmentary palimpsest1 i4e4 it was thought to be of so little value that the books of ,ephraem the ,syrian were written over the ,greek3 it contains not more than two-thirds of the ,new ,testament1 and stands as to the character of its text between ,a and ,b4 ,codex ,q1 a fragment of #bce verses1 and ,codex ,i of #ace1 in the same century1 are not large enough to be taken into consideration here4 ,codexes and 1 recently discovered1 being products of the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth1 and containing ,st4 ,matthew and ,st4 ,mark nearly complete1 are of a general character similar to ,a1 and evince more advancement in the ,art4 ,it is unfortunate indeed that only a fragment of either of them1 though that fragment in either case is pretty complete as far as it goes1 has come into our hands4 ,after them succeeds ,codex ,d1 or ,codex ,bezae1 now in the ,cambridge ,library1 having been bequeathed to the ,university by ,theodore ,beza1 whose name it bears4 ,it ends at ,acts xxii4 #bi4 #b4 ,codex ,d7#beb74 ,no one can pretend fully to understand the character of this ,codex who has not been at the pains to collate every word of it with attention4 ,such an one will discover that it omits in the ,gospels alone no less than #c1gjd words2 adds to the genuine text #b1bac2 substitutes #b1aba2 transposes #c1dga1 and modifies #a1ggb4 ,by the time he has made this discovery his esteem for ,cod4 ,d will1 it is presumed1 have experienced serious modification4 ,the total of #ac1bha deflections from the ,received ,text is a formidable objection to explain away4 ,even ,dr4 ,hort speaks of 8the prodigious amount of error which ,d contains7#bec740 ,but the intimate acquaintance with the ,codex which he has thus acquired has conducted him to certain other results1 which it is of the utmost importance that we should particularize and explain4 ,i4 ,and first1 this proves to be a text which in one ,gospel is often assimilated to the others4 ,and in fact the assimilation is carried sometimes so far1 that a passage from one ,gospel is interpolated into the parallel passage in another4 ,indeed the extent to which in ,cod4 ,d interpolations from ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel are inserted into the ,gospel according to ,st4 ,luke is even astounding4 ,between verses #ad and #ae of ,st4 ,luke v4 thirty-two words are interpolated from the parallel passage in ,st4 ,mark i4 #de-;ii4 #a3 and in the #ajth verse of the vith chapter twelve words are introduced from ,st4 ,mark ii4 #bg1 #bh4 ,in ,st4 ,luke iv4 #cg1 1 8the report10 from ,st4 ,mark i4 #bh1 is substituted for 1 8the sound10 which is read in the other manuscripts4 ,besides the introduction into ,st4 ,luke i4 #fd of from ,st4 ,mark vii4 #ce1 which will be described below1 in ,st4 ,luke v4 #bg seven words are brought from the parallel passage in ,st4 ,mark ii4 #ad1 and the entire passage is corrupted7#bed74 ,in giving the ,lord's ,prayer in ,st4 ,luke xi4 #b1 the scribe in fault must needs illustrate the ,lord's saying by interpolating an inaccurate transcription of the warning against 8vain repetitions0 given by ,him before in the ,sermon on the ,mount4 ,again1 as to interpolation from other sources1 grossly enough1 ,st4 ,matt4 ii4 #bc is thrust in at the end of ,st4 ,luke ii4 #ci2 that is to say1 the scribe of ,d1 or of some manuscript from which ,d was copied1 either directly or indirectly1 thought fit to explain the carrying of the ,holy ,child to ,nazareth by the explanation given by ,st4 ,matthew1 but quoting from memory wrote 8by the prophet0 in the singular1 instead of 8by the prophets0 in the plural7#bee74 ,similarly1 in ,st4 ,luke iv4 #ca upon the mention of the name of ,capernaum1 ,d must needs insert from ,st4 ,matt4 iv4 #ac1 8which is upon the sea-coast within the borders of ,zabulon and ,nephthalim0 7 7sic7 74 ,indeed1 no adequate idea can be formed of the clumsiness1 the coarseness of these operations1 unless some instances are given3 but a few more must suffice4 #a4 ,in ,st4 ,mark iii4 #bf1 our ,,lord delivers the single statement1 8,and if ,satan is risen against himself 7 7 and is divided 7 7 he cannot stand1 but hath an end 7 740 ,instead of this1 ,d exhibits1 8,and if ,satan cast out ,satan1 he is divided against himself3 his kingdom cannot stand1 but hath the end 7 740 ,now this is clearly an imitation1 not a copy1 of the parallel place in ,st4 ,matt4 xii4 #bf1 where also a twofold statement is made1 as every one may see4 ,but the reply is also a clumsy one to the question asked in ,st4 ,mark1 but not in ,st4 ,matthew1 8,how can ,satan cast out ,satan80 ,learned readers however will further note that it is ,st4 ,matthew's 1 where ,st4 ,mark wrote 1 which makes the statement possible for him which is impossible according to the representation given by ,d of ,st4 ,mark4 #b4 ,at the end of the parable of the pounds1 the scribe of ,d1 or one of those whom he followed1 thinking that the idle servant was let off too easily1 and confusing with this parable the other parable of the talents1--blind of course to the difference between the punishments inflicted by a 8lord0 and those of a new-made king1--inserts the #cjth verse of ,st4 ,matt4 xxv4 at the end of ,st4 ,luke xix4 #bg4 #c4 ,again1 after ,st4 ,matt4 xx4 #bh1 when the ,,lord had rebuked the spirit of ambition in the two sons of ,zebedee1 and had directed ,his disciples not to seek precedence1 enforcing the lesson from ,his own example as shewn in giving ,his ,life a ransom for many1 ,d inserts the following tasteless passage3 8,but ye seek to increase from a little1 and from the greater to be something less7#bef740 ,nor is this enough3--an addition is also made from ,st4 ,luke xiv4 #h-aj1 being the well-known passage about taking the lowest room at feasts4 ,but this additional interpolation is in style and language unlike the words of any ,gospels1 and ends with the vapid piece of information1 8and this shall be useful to thee40 ,it is remarkable that1 whereas ,d was alone in former errors1 here it becomes a follower in one part or other of the passage of twelve ,old ,latin manuscripts7#beg73 and indeed the ,greek in the passage in ,d is evidently a version of the ,syrio-,low-,latin4 ,the following words1 or forms of words or phrases1 are not found in the rest of the ,n4,t43 7aor4 part4 rogati or vocati71 7recumbite71 7eminentioribus71 7invitator caenae71 7adhuc infra accede71 7loco inferiori71 7inferior71 7collige adhuc superius74 ,these ,latin expressions are taken from one or other of the twelve ,old ,latin ,,mss4 ,outside of the ,latin1 the ,curetonian is the sole ally1 the ,lewis being mutilated1 of the flighty ,old ,uncial under consideration4 ,these passages are surely enough to represent to the reader the interpolations of ,codex ,d1 whether arising from assimilation or otherwise4 ,the description given by the very learned editor of this ,,ms4 is in the following words3--8,no known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations 7six hundred1 it is said1 in the ,acts alone71 countenanced1 where they are not absolutely unsupported1 chiefly by the ,old ,latin and the ,curetonian version7#beh740 ,,ii4 ,there are also traces of extreme licentiousness in this copy of the ,gospels which call for distinct notice4 ,sometimes words or expressions are substituted3 sometimes the sense is changed1 and utter confusion introduced3 delicate terms or forms are ignored3 and a general corruption ensues4 ,i mean for example such expressions as the following1 which are all found in the course of a single verse 7,st4 ,mark iv4 #a74 ,st4 ,mark relates that once when our ,,saviour was teaching 8by the sea-side0 77 there assembled so vast a concourse of persons that 8,he went into the ship1 and sat in the sea10 all the multitude being 8on the land1 towards the sea03 i4e4 with their faces turned in the direction of the ship in which ,he was sitting4 ,was a plain story ever better told8 ,but according to ,d the facts of the case were quite different4 ,first1 it was our ,,saviour who was teaching 8towards the sea0 774 ,next1 in consequence of the crowd1 ,he crossed over1 and 8sat on the other side of the sea0 774 ,lastly1 the multitude--followed ,him1 ,i suppose2 for they also--8were on the other side of the sea0 77 444 ,now ,i forgive the scribe for his two transpositions and his ungrammatical substitution of for 4 ,but ,i insist that a ,,ms4 which circulates incidents after this fashion cannot be regarded as trustworthy4 ,verse #b begins in the same licentious way4 ,instead of1--8,and ,he taught them many things 77 in parables10 we are informed that 8,he taught them in many parables0 774 ,who will say that we are ever safe with such a guide8 #c4 ,all are aware that the two ,evangelical accounts of our ,,lord',s human descent exhibit certain distinctive features4 ,st4 ,matthew distributes the #db names in 8the book of the generations of ,,jesus ,,christ1 the son of ,david1 the son of ,abraham10 into three fourteens2 and requires us to recognize in the of ver4 #aa a different person 7viz4 ,jehoiakim7 from the of ver4 #ab 7viz4 ,jehoiachin74 ,moreover1 in order to produce this symmetry of arrangement1 he leaves out the names of #c kings1--,ahaziah1 ,joash1 ,amaziah3 and omits at least #i generations of ,zorobabel's descendants7#bei74 ,the mystical correspondence between the #db steps in our ,,saviour',s human descent from ,abraham1 and the #db stations of the ,israelites on their way to ,canaan7#bfj71 has been often remarked upon4 ,it extends to the fact that the stations also were1 historically1 far more than #db4 ,and so much for what is contained in ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel4 ,st4 ,luke1 who enumerates the #gg steps of his genealogy in backward order1 derives the descent of 8,,jesus1 the son of ,joseph0 from 8,adam1 the son of ,,god40 ,he traces our ,,lord',s descent from ,david and again from ,zorobabel through a different line of ancestry from that adopted by ,st4 ,matthew4 ,he introduces a second 8,cainan0 between ,arphaxad and ,sala 7ver4 #ce1 #cf74 ,the only names which the two tables of descent have in common are these five1--,david1 ,salathiel1 ,zorobabel1 ,joseph1 ,,jesus4 ,but ,cod4 ,d--7from which the first chapter of ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel has long since disappeared7--in ,st4 ,luke iii4 exhibits a purely fabricated table of descent4 ,to put one name for another1--as when ,a writes 8,shem0 instead of ,seth3 to misspell a name until it ceases to be recognizable1--as when writes 8,balls0 for ,boaz3 to turn one name into two by cutting it in half1--as where writes 8,admin0 and 8,adam0 instead of ,aminadab3 or again1 in defiance of authority1 to leave a name out1--as when ,a omits ,mainan and ,pharez2 or to put a name in1--as when ,verona ,lat4 7b7 inserts 8,joaram0 after ,aram3--with all such instances of licence the 8old ,uncials0 have made us abundantly familiar4 ,but we are not prepared to find that in place of the first #ah names which follow those of 8,,jesus0 and 8,joseph0 in ,st4 ,luke's genealogy 7viz4 ,heli to ,rhesa inclusive71 ,d introduces the #i immediate ancestors of ,joseph 7viz4 ,abiud to ,jacob7 as enumerated by ,st4 ,matthew1--thus abbreviating ,st4 ,luke's genealogy by #i names4 ,next1--8,zorobabel0 and 8,salathiel0 being common to both genealogies1--in place of the #bj names found in ,st4 ,luke between ,salathiel and ,david 7viz4 ,neri to ,nathan inclusive71 ,cod4 ,d presents us with the #ae royal descendants of ,david enumerated by ,st4 ,matthew 7viz4 ,solomon to ,jehoiachin7#bfa7 inclusive72--infelicitously inventing an imaginary generation1 by styling ,jehoiakim 8the son of ,eliakim10--being not aware that 8,jehoiakim0 and 8,eliakim0 are one and the same person3 and1 in defiance of the first ,evangelist1 supplying the names of the #c kings omitted by ,st4 ,matthew 7i4 #h71 viz4 ,ahaziah1 ,joash1 and ,amaziah4 ,only #cd names follow in ,cod4 ,d2 the second 8,cainan0 being omitted4 ,in this way1 the number of ,st4 ,luke's names is reduced from #gg to #ff4 ,a more flagrant instance of that licentious handling of the deposit which was a common phenomenon in ,western ,christendom is seldom to be met with7#bfb74 ,this particular fabrication is happily the peculiar property of ,cod4 ,d2 and we are tempted to ask1 whether it assists in recommending that singular monument of injudicious and arbitrary textual revision to the favour of one of the modern schools of ,critics4 #d4 ,we repeat that the ill treatment which the deposit has experienced at the hands of those who fabricated the text of ,cod4 ,d is only to be understood by those who will be at the pains to study its readings throughout4 ,constantly to substitute the wrong word for the right one2 or at all events to introduce a less significant expression3 on countless occasions to mar the details of some precious incident2 and to obscure the purpose of the ,evangelist by tastelessly and senselessly disturbing the inspired text1--this will be found to be the rule with ,cod4 ,d throughout4 ,as another example added to those already cited3--,in ,st4 ,luke xxii1 ,d omits verse #bj1 containing the ,institution of the ,cup1 evidently from a wish to correct the sacred account by removing the second mention of the ,cup from the record of the third ,evangelist4 ,st4 ,mark 7xv4 #dc7 informs us that1 on the afternoon of the first ,good ,friday1 ,joseph of ,arimathaea 8taking courage went in 77 to ,pilate and requested to have the body 77 of ,jesus03 that 8,pilate wondered 77 at hearing that ,he was dead 77 already3 and sending for the centurion who had presided at the ,crucifixion inquired of him if ,,jesus had been dead long80 7 47 ,but the author of ,cod4 ,d1 besides substituting 8went0 77 for 8went in10--8corpse0 77 for 8body0 7which by the way he repeats in ver4 #de71--;and a sentiment of 8continuous wonder0 77 for the fact of astonishment which ,joseph's request inspired1--having also substituted the prosaic for the graphic of the ,evangelist1--represents ,pilate as inquiring of the centurion 8if indeed ,,jesus was dead already80 7 2 si jam mortuus esset871 whereby not only is all the refinement of the original lost1 but the facts of the case also are seriously misrepresented4 ,for ,pilate did not doubt ,joseph's tidings4 ,he only wondered at them4 ,and his inquiry was made not with a view to testing the veracity of his informant1 but for the satisfaction of his own curiosity as to the time when his ,victim had expired4 ,now it must not be supposed that ,i have fastened unfairly on an exceptional verse and a half 7,st4 ,mark xv4 half of v4 #dc and all v4 #dd7 of the second ,gospel4 ,the reader is requested to refer to the note7#bfc71 where he will find set down a collation of eight consecutive verses in the selfsame context3 viz4 ,st4 ,mark xv4 #dg to xvi4 #g inclusive2 after an attentive survey of which he will not be disposed to deny that only by courtesy can such an exhibition of the original verity as ,cod4 ,d be called 8a copy0 at all4 ,had the genuine text been copied over and over again till the crack of doom1 the result could never have been this4 ,there are in fact but #aag words to be transcribed3 and of these no less than #fg--much more than half--have been either omitted 7#ba71 or else added 7#aa72 substituted 7#aj71 or else transposed 7#aa72 depraved 7#ab1 as by writing for 71 or actually blundered 7#b1 as by writing for 74 ,three times the construction has been altered1--once indeed very seriously1 for the ,angel at the sepulchre is made to personate ,christ4 ,lastly1 five of the corrupt readings are the result of ,assimilation4 ,whereas the evangelist wrote 1 what else but a licentious paraphrase is the following1-- 8 ,this is in fact a fabricated1 not an honestly transcribed text3 and it cannot be too clearly understood that such a text 7more or less fabricated1 ,i mean7 is exhibited by ,codexes ,b,d throughout4 #e4 ,it is remarkable that whenever the construction is somewhat harsh or obscure1 ,d and the ,latin copies are observed freely to transpose1--to supply1--and even slightly to paraphrase1--in order to bring out the presumed meaning of the original4 ,an example is furnished by ,st4 ,luke i4 #fe1 where the ,evangelist1 having related that ,zacharias wrote--8,his name is ,john10 adds1--8and all wondered4 ,and his mouth was opened immediately1 and his tongue1 and he spake praising ,,god40 ,the meaning of course is that his tongue 8was loosed40 ,accordingly ,d actually supplies 1--the ,latin copies1 8resoluta est40 ,but ,d does more4 ,presuming that what occasioned the 8wonder0 was not so much what ,zacharias wrote on the tablet as the restored gift of speech1 it puts that clause first1--ingeniously transposing the first two words 7 72 the result of which is the following sentence3--8,and immediately his tongue was loosed2 and all wondered4 ,and his mouth was opened1 and he spake praising ,,god04444 ,in the next verse it is related that 8fear came upon all who dwelt round about them40 ,but the order of the words in the original being unusual 7 71 ,d and the ,latin copies transpose them3 7indeed the three ,syriac do the same73 but ,d b c gratuitously introduce an epithet1-- 4444 ,in ver4 #gj1 the expression appearing harsh was 7by transposing the words7 altered into this1 which is the easy and more obvious order3 4444 ,so again in ver4 #ga3 the phrase seeming obscure1 the words 7which follow7 were by ,d substituted for 4 ,the result 7 compare ver4 #gd1 7 is certainly easier reading3 but--like every other change found in the same context--it labours under the fatal condemnation of being an unauthorized human gloss4 ,the phenomenon however which perplexes me most in ,cod4 ,d is that it abounds in fabricated readings which have nothing whatever to recommend them4 ,not contented with ,st4 ,luke's expression 8to thrust out a little 77 from the land0 7v4 #c71 the scribe writes 4 ,in ver4 #e1 instead of 8,i will let down the net0 7 7 he makes ,st4 ,peter reply1 8,i will not neglect to obey0 7 74 ,so1 for 8and when they had this done10 he writes 8and when they had straightway let down the nets03 and immediately after1 instead of we are presented with 4 ,it is very difficult to account for this1 except on an hypothesis which ,i confess recommends itself to me more and more3 viz4 that there were in circulation in some places during the earliest ages of the ,church ,evangelical paraphrases1 or at least free exhibitions of the chief ,gospel incidents1--to which the critics resorted2 and from which the less judicious did not hesitate to borrow expressions and even occasionally to extract short passages4 ,such loose representations of passages must have prevailed both in ,syria1 and in the ,west where ,greek was not so well understood1 and where translators into the vernacular ,latin expressed themselves with less precision1 whilst they attempted also to explain the passages translated4 ,this notion1 viz4 that it is within the province of a ,copyist to interpret the original before him1 clearly lies at the root of many a so-called 8various reading40 ,thus for the difficult 7in ,st4 ,mark xiv4 #gb71 8when he thought thereon0 7i4e4 8when in self-abandonment he flung himself upon the thought071 8he wept10 ,d exhibits 1 8and he began to weep10 a much easier and a very natural expression1 only that it is not the right one1 and does not express all that the true words convey4 ,hence also the transposition by ,d and some ,old ,latin ,,mss4 of the clause 8for it was very great0 from xvi4 #d1 where it seems to be out of place1 to ver4 #c where it seems to be necessary4 ,eusebius is observed to have employed a ,,ms4 similarly corrupt4 ,hence again the frequent unauthorized insertion of a nominative case to determine the sense3 e4g4 8the angel10 xvi4 #f1 8,joseph10 xv4 #df1 or the substitution of the name intended for the pronoun1--as 7sic7 for in ,st4 ,luke i4 #da4 ,hence in xvi4 #g1 instead of1 8,he goeth before you into ,galilee1 there shall ye see ,him as ,he said unto you10--,d exhibits1--8,behold1 ,i go before you into ,galilee1 there shall ye see ,me1 as ,i told you40 ,as if it had been thought allowable to recall in this place the fact that our ,,saviour had once 7,st4 ,matt4 xxvi4 #cb1 ,st4 ,mark xiv4 #bh7 spoken these words in ,his own person4 ,and in no other way can ,i explain ,d's vapid substitution1 made as if from habit1 of 8a ,galilean city0 for 8a city of ,galilee1 named ,nazareth0 in ,st4 ,luke i4 #bf4 ,hence the frequent insertion of a wholly manufactured clause in order to impart a little more clearness to the story--as of the words 8his name0 7after 8shall be called07--into ,st4 ,luke i4 #fj4 ,these passages afford expressions of a feature in this ,manuscript to which we must again invite particular attention4 ,it reveals to close observation frequent indications of an attempt1 not to supply a faithful representation of the very words of ,holy ,scripture and nothing more than those words1 but to interpret1 to illustrate1--in a word1--to be a ,targum4 ,of course1 such a design or tendency is absolutely fatal to the accuracy of a transcriber4 ,yet the habit is too strongly marked upon the pages of ,codex ,d to admit of any doubt whether it existed or not7#bfd74 ,in speaking of the character of a ,,ms4 one is often constrained to distinguish between the readings and the scribe4 ,the readings may be clearly fabricated3 but there may be evidence that the copyist was an accurate and painstaking person4 ,on the other hand1 obviously the scribe may have been a considerable blunderer1 and yet it may be clear that he was furnished with an admirable archetype4 ,in the case of ,d we are presented with the alarming concurrence of a fabricated archetype and either a blundering scribe1 or a course of blundering scribes4 ,but then further1--,one is often obliged 7if one would be accurate7 to distinguish between the penman who actually produced the ,,ms41 and the critical reader for whom he toiled4 ,it would really seem however as if the actual transcriber of ,d1 or the transcribers of the ancestors of ,d1 had invented some of those monstrous readings as they went on4 ,the ,latin version which is found in this ,,ms4 exactly reflects1 as a rule1 the ,greek on the opposite page3 but sometimes it bears witness to the admitted truth of ,scripture1 while the ,greek goes off in alia omnia7#bfe74 #f4 ,it will of course be asked1--,but why may not ,d be in every respect an exact copy1--line for line1 word for word1 letter for letter1--of some earlier archetype8 ,to establish the reverse of this1 so as to put the result beyond the reach of controversy1 is impossible4 ,the question depends upon reasons purely critical1 and is not of primary importance4 ,for all practical purposes1 it is still ,codex ,d of which we speak4 ,when ,i name 8,codex ,d0 ,i mean of course nothing else but ,codex ,d according to ,scrivener's reprint of the text4 ,and if it be a true hypothesis that the actual ,codex ,d is nothing else but the transcript of another ,codex strictly identical with itself1 then it is clearly a matter of small importance of which of the two ,i speak4 ,when 8,codex ,d0 is cited1 it is the contents of ,codex ,d which are meant1 and no other thing4 ,and upon this point it may be observed1 that ,d is chiefly remarkable as being the only ,greek ,codex7#bff7 which exhibits the highly corrupt text found in some of the ,old ,latin manuscripts1 and may be taken as a survival from the second century4 ,the genius of this family of copies is found to have been-- #a4 ,to substitute one expression for another1 and generally to paraphrase4 #b4 ,to remove difficulties1 and where a difficult expression presented itself1 to introduce a conjectural emendation of the text4 ,for example1 the passage already noticed about the ,publican going down to his house 8justified rather than the other0 is altered into 8justified more than that ,pharisee0 7 4 ,st4 ,luke xviii4 #ad77bfg74 #c4 ,to omit what might seem to be superfluous4 ,thus the verse1 8,lord1 he hath ten pounds0 7,st4 ,luke xix4 #be7 is simply left out7#bfh74 ,enough has been surely said to prove amply that the text of ,codex ,d is utterly untrustworthy4 ,indeed1 the habit of interpolation found in it1 the constant tendency to explain rather than to report1 the licentiousness exhibited throughout1 and the isolation in which this ,,ms4 is found1 except in cases where some of the ,low-,latin ,versions and ,cureton's ,syriac1 and perhaps the ,lewis1 bear it company1 render the text found in it the foulest in existence4 ,what then is to be thought of those critics who upon the exclusive authority of this unstable offender and of a few of the ,italic copies occasionally allied with it1 endeavour to introduce changes in face of the opposition of all other authorities8 ,and since their ability is unquestioned1 must we not seek for the causes of their singular action in the theory to which they are devoted8 #g4 ,before we take leave of the ,old ,uncials1 it will be well to invite attention to a characteristic feature in them1 which is just what the reader would expect who has attended to all that has been said1 and which adds confirmation to the doctrine here propounded4 ,the clumsy and tasteless character of some at least of the ,old ,uncials has come already under observation4 ,this was in great measure produced by constantly rubbing off delicate expressions which add both to the meaning and the symmetry of the ,sacred ,record4 ,we proceed to give a few examples1 not to prove our position1 since it must surely be evident enough to the eyes of any accomplished scholar1 but as specimens1 and only specimens1 of the loss which the ,inspired ,word would sustain if the ,old ,uncials were to be followed4 ,space will not admit of a full discussion of this matter4 ,an interesting refinement of expression1 which has been hopelessly obscured through the proclivity of ,,bd to fall into error1 is found in ,st4 ,matt4 xxvi4 #ga4 ,the ,evangelist describing the second of ,st4 ,peter's denials notes that the damsel who saw him said to the bystanders1 8,this man too 77 was with ,jesus of ,nazareth40 ,the three ,,mss4 just mentioned omit the 4 ,no other ,,ms41 ,uncial or ,cursive1 follows them4 ,they have only the support of the unstable ,sahidic7#bfi74 ,the loss inflicted is patent3 comment is needless4 ,another instance1 where poverty of meaning would be the obvious result if the acceptance by some critics of the lead of the same trio of ,uncials were endorsed1 may be found in the description of what the shepherds did when they had seen the ,holy ,child in the manger4 ,instead of 8they made known abroad0 771 we should simply have 8they made known0 774 ,we are inclined to say1 8,why this clipping and pruning to the manifest disadvantage of the sacred deposit40 ,only the satellite ,l and and six ,cursives with a single passage from ,eusebius are on the same side4 ,the rest in overwhelming majority condemn such rudeness7#bgj74 #h4 ,the undoubtedly genuine expression 1 7which is the traditional reading of ,st4 ,john ix4 #cf71 loses its characteristic in ,cod4 99,,al1--though it retains it in the rest of the uncials and in all the cursives4 ,the is found in the ,complutensian1--because the editors followed their copies3 it is not found in the ,textus ,receptus only because ,erasmus did not as in cases before mentioned follow his4 ,the same refinement of expression recurs in the ,traditional ,text of ch4 xiv4 #bb 71 71 and experienced precisely the same fate at the hands of the two earliest editors of the printed ,greek ,text4 ,it is also again faithfully upheld in its integrity by the whole body of the cursives1--always excepting 8#cc04 ,but 7as before7 in uncials of bad character1 as ,,bdl 7even by ,,aex7 the is omitted1--for which insufficient reason it has been omitted by the ,revisers likewise1--notwithstanding the fact that it is maintained in all the other uncials4 ,as is manifest in most of these instances1 the ,versions1 being made into languages with other idioms than ,greek1 can bear no witness2 and also that these delicate embellishments would be often brushed off in quotations1 as well as by scribes and so-called correctors4 ,we have not far to look for other instances of this4 ,st4 ,matthew 7i4 #ah7 begins his narrative1-- 4 ,now1 as readers of ,greek are aware1 the little untranslated 7because untranslateable7 word exhibited in capitals7#bga7 stands with peculiar idiomatic force and propriety immediately after the first word of such a sentence as the foregoing1 being employed in compliance with strictly classical usage7#bgb73 and though it might easily come to be omitted through the carelessness or the licentiousness of copyists1 yet it could not by any possibility have universally established itself in copies of the ,gospel--as it has done--had it been an unauthorized accretion to the text4 ,we find it recognized in ,st4 ,matt4 i4 #ah by ,eusebius7#bgc71 by ,basil7#bgd71 by ,epiphanius7#bge71 by ,chrysostom7#bgf71 by ,nestorius7#bgg71 by ,cyril7#bgh71 by ,andreas ,cret47#bgi73 which is even extraordinary2 for the is not at all required for purposes of quotation4 ,but the essential circumstance as usual is1 that is found besides in the whole body of the manuscripts4 ,the only uncials in fact which omit the idiomatic particle are four of older date1 viz4 ,b,c99,z4 ,this same particle 77 has led to an extraordinary amount of confusion in another place1 where its idiomatic propriety has evidently been neither felt nor understood1--viz4 in ,st4 ,luke xviii4 #ad4 8,this man0 7says our ,,lord7 8went down to his house justified rather than0 7 7 8the other40 ,scholars recognize here an exquisitely idiomatic expression1 which in fact obtains so universally in the ,traditional ,text that its genuineness is altogether above suspicion4 ,it is vouched for by #af uncials headed by ,a1 and by the cursives in the proportion of #ejj to #a4 ,the ,complutensian has it1 of course3 and so would the ,textus ,receptus have it1 if ,erasmus had followed his ,,ms43 but 8praefero0 7he says7 8quod est usitatius apud probos autores40 ,uncongenial as the expression is to the other languages of antiquity1 is faithfully retained in the ,gothic and in the ,harkleian ,version7#bhj74 ,partly however1 because it is of very rare occurrence and was therefore not understood7#bha71 and partly because when written in uncials it easily got perverted into something else1 the expression has met with a strange fate4 is found to have suggested1 or else to have been mistaken for1 both 7#bhb7 and 7#bhc74 ,the prevailing expedient however was1 to get rid of the --to turn into 1--and1 for to write 7#bhd74 ,the uncials which exhibit this strange corruption of the text are exclusively that quaternion which have already come so often before us1--viz4 ,b,,dl4 ,but ,d improves upon the blunder of its predecessors by writing1 like a ,targum1 7sic71 and by adding 7with the ,old ,latin and the ,peshitto7 1--an exhibition of the text which 7it is needless to say7 is perfectly unique7#bhe74 ,and how has the place fared at the hands of some ,textual critics8 ,lachmann and ,tregelles 7forsaken by ,tischendorf7 of course follow ,codd4 ,b,,dl4 ,the ,revisers 7with ,dr4 ,hort7--not liking to follow ,b,,dl1 and unable to adopt the ,traditional ,text1 suffer the reading of the ,textus ,receptus 7 7 to stand1--though a solitary cursive 7,evan4 #a7 is all the manuscript authority that can be adduced in its favour4 ,in effect1 may be said to be without manuscript authority7#bhf74 ,the point to be noticed in all this is1 that the true reading of ,st4 ,luke xviii4 #ad has been faithfully retained by the ,,mss4 in all countries and all down the ages1 not only by the whole body of the cursives1 but by every uncial in existence except four4 ,and those four are ,b,,dl4 ,but really the occasions are without number when minute words have dropped out of ,b and their allies1--and yet have been faithfully retained1 all through the centuries1 by the later ,uncials and despised ,cursive copies4 ,in ,st4 ,john xvii4 #b1 for instance1 we read-- 1 3 where is omitted by ,,abcd3 and 7after 7 by ,,bc4 ,some critics will of course insist that1 on the contrary1 both words are spurious accretions to the text of the cursives2 and they must say so1 if they will4 ,but does it not sensibly impair their confidence in to find that it1 and it only1 exhibits 7for 7 in ver4 #a1-- 7for 7 in ver4 #b1 while ,b are peculiar in writing without the article in ver4 #a8 ,enough has surely been said to exhibit and illustrate this rude characteristic of the few ,old ,copies which out of the vast number of their contemporaries are all that we now possess4 ,the existence of this characteristic is indubitable and undoubted3 it is in a measure acknowledged by ,dr4 ,hort in words on which we shall remark in the ensuing chapter7#bhg74 ,our readers should observe that the 8rubbing off0 process has by no means been confined to particles like and 1 but has extended to tenses1 other forms of words1 and in fact to all kinds of delicacies of expression4 ,the results have been found all through the ,gospels3 sacred and refined meaning1 such as accomplished scholars will appreciate in a moment1 has been pared off and cast away4 ,if people would only examine ,b1 and ,d in their bare unpresentableness1 they would see the loss which those ,,mss4 have sustained1 as compared with the ,text supported by the overwhelming mass of authorities3 and they would refuse to put their trust any longer in such imperfect1 rudimentary1 and ill-trained guides4 ,,chapter ,,xi4 ,,the ,,later ,,uncials ,,and ,,the ,,cursives4 #a7bhh74 ,the nature of ,tradition is very imperfectly understood in many quarters2 and mistakes respecting it lie close to the root1 if they are not themselves the root1 of the chief errors in ,textual ,criticism4 ,we must therefore devote some space to a brief explanation of this important element in our present inquiry4 ,tradition is commonly likened to a stream which1 as is taken for granted1 contracts pollution in its course the further it goes4 ,purity is supposed to be attainable only within the neighbourhood of the source3 and it is assumed that distance from thence ensures proportionally either greater purity or more corruption4 ,without doubt there is much truth in this comparison3 only1 as in the case of nearly all comparisons there are limits to the resemblance1 and other features and aspects are not therein connoted1 which are essentially bound up with the subject believed to be illustrated on all points in this similitude4 ,in the first place1 the traditional presentment of the ,new ,testament is not like a single stream1 but resembles rather a great number of streams of which many have remained pure1 but some have been corrupted4 ,one cluster of bad streams was found in the ,west1 and1 as is most probable1 the source of very many of them was in ,syria3 another occurred in the ,east with ,alexandria and afterwards ,caesarea as the centre1 where it was joined by the currents from the ,west4 ,a multitude in different parts of the ,church were kept wholly or mainly clear of these contaminants1 and preserved the pure and precise utterance as it issued from the springs of the ,written ,word4 ,but there is another pitfall hidden under that imperfect simile which is continually employed on this subject either by word of mouth or in writing4 ,the ,tradition of the ,church does not take shape after the model of a stream or streams rolling in mechanical movement and unvaried flow from the fountain down the valley and over the plain4 ,like most mundane things1 it has a career4 ,it has passed through a stage when one manuscript was copied as if mechanically from another that happened to be at hand4 ,thus accuracy except under human infirmity produced accuracy2 and error was surely procreative of error4 ,afterwards came a period when both bad and good exemplars offered themselves in rivalry1 and the power of refusing the evil and choosing the good was in exercise1 often with much want of success4 ,as soon as this stage was accomplished1 which may be said roughly to have reached from ,origen till the middle of the fourth century1 another period commenced1 when a definite course was adopted1 which was followed with increasing advantage till the whole career was fixed irrevocably in the right direction4 ,the period of the two ,gregories1 ,basil1 ,chrysostom1 and others1 was the time when the ,catholic ,church took stock of truth and corruption1 and had in hand the duty of thoroughly casting out error and cleansing her faith4 ,the second part of the ,creed was thus permanently defined2 the third part which1 besides the ,divinity of the ,holy ,ghost1 relates to ,his action in the ,church1 to the ,written ,word1 inclusive both of the several books generally and the text of those books1 to the nature of the ,sacraments1 to the ,ministry1 to the character of the unity and government of the ,church1 was on many points delayed as to special definition by the ruin soon dealt upon the ,roman ,empire1 and by the ignorance of the nations which entered upon that vast domain3 and indeed much of this part of the ,faith remains still upon the battlefield of controversy4 ,but action was taken upon what may be perhaps termed the ,canon of ,st4 ,augustine7#bhi73 8,what the ,church of the time found prevailing throughout her length and breadth1 not introduced by regulations of ,councils1 but handed down in unbroken tradition1 that she rightly concluded to have been derived from no other fount than ,apostolic authority40 ,to use other words1 in the accomplishment of her general work1 the ,church quietly and without any public recension examined as to the written ,word the various streams that had come down from the ,apostles1 and followed the multitude that were purest1 and by gradual filtration extruded out of these nearly all the corruption that even the better lines of descent had contracted4 ,we have now arrived at the period1 when from the general consentience of the records1 it is discovered that the form of the ,text of the ,new ,testament was mainly settled4 ,the settlement was effected noiselessly1 not by public debate or in decrees of general or provincial councils1 yet none the less completely and permanently4 ,it was the ,church's own operation1 instinctive1 deliberate1 and in the main universal4 ,only a few witnesses here and there lifted up their voices against the prevalent decisions1 themselves to be condemned by the dominant sense of ,christendom4 ,like the repudiation of ,arianism1 it was a repentance from a partial and temporary encouragement of corruption1 which was never to be repented of till it was called in question during the general disturbance of faith and doctrine in the nineteenth century4 ,doubtless1 the agreement thus introduced has not attained more than a general character4 ,for the exceeding number of questions involved forbids all expectation of an universal coincidence of testimony extending to every single case4 ,but in the outset1 as we enter upon the consideration of the later manuscripts1 our way must be cleared by the removal of some fallacies which are widely prevalent amongst students of ,sacred ,textual ,criticism4 ,it is sometimes imagined 7#a7 that ,uncials and ,cursives differ in kind2 7#b7 that all ,cursives are alike2 7#c7 that all ,cursives are copies of ,codex ,a1 and are the results of a general ,recension2 and 7#d7 that we owe our knowledge of the ,new ,testament entirely to the existing ,uncials4 ,to these four fallacies must be added an opinion which stands upon a higher footing than the preceding1 but which is no less a fallacy1 and which we have to combat in this chapter1 viz4 that the ,text of the later ,uncials and especially the ,text of the ,cursives is a debased ,text4 #a4 ,the real difference between ,uncials and ,cursives is patent to all people who have any knowledge of the subject4 ,uncials form a ruder kind of manuscripts1 written in capital letters with no space between them till the later specimens are reached1 and generally with an insufficient and ill-marked array of stops4 ,cursives show a great advance in workmanship1 being indited1 as the name suggests1 in running and more easily flowing letters1 with 8a system of punctuation much the same as in printed books40 ,as contrasted with one another1 ,uncials as a class enjoy a great superiority1 if antiquity is considered2 and ,cursives are just as much higher than the sister class1 if workmanship is to be the guiding principle of judgement4 ,their differences are on the surface1 and are such that whoso runs may read4 ,but ,textual ,science1 like all ,science1 is concerned1 not with the superficial1 but with the real2--not with the dress in which the text is presented1 but with the text itself2--not again with the bare fact of antiquity1 since age alone is no sure test of excellence1 but with the character of the testimony which from the nature of the subject-matter is within reach4 ,judging then the later ,uncials1 and comparing them with the ,cursives1 we make the discovery that the texts of both are mainly the same4 ,indeed1 they are divided by no strict boundary of time3 they overlap one another4 ,the first ,cursive is dated ,may #g1 #hce7bij73 the last ,uncials1 which are ,lectionaries1 are referred to the eleventh1 and possibly to the twelfth1 century7#bia74 ,one1 ,codex 1 is written partly in uncials1 and partly in cursive letters1 as it appears1 by the same hand4 ,so that in the ninth1 tenth1 and eleventh centuries both uncials and cursives must have issued mainly and virtually from the same body of transcribers4 ,it follows that the difference lay in the outward investiture1 whilst1 as is found by a comparison of one with another1 there was a much more important similarity of character within4 #b4 ,but when a leap is made from this position to another sweeping assertion that all cursives are alike1 it is necessary to put a stop to so illicit a process4 ,in the first place1 there is the small handful of cursive copies which is associated with ,b and 4 ,the notorious #a1--;handsome outwardly like its two leaders but corrupt in text1--#cc1 #aah1 #aca1 #aeg1 #bje1 #bji7bib71 and others2--the ,ferrar ,group1 containing #ac1 #fi1 #abd1 #cdf1 #eef1 #efa1 besides #cdh1 #fbd1 #ghh2--these are frequently dissentients from the rest of the ,cursives4 ,but indeed1 when these and a few others have been subtracted from the rest and set apart in a class by themselves1 any careful examination of the evidence adduced on important passages will reveal the fact that whilst almost always there is a clear majority of ,cursives on one side1 there are amply enough cases of dissentience more or less to prove that the ,cursive ,,mss4 are derived from a multiplicity of archetypes1 and are endued almost severally with what may without extravagance be termed distinct and independent personality4 ,indeed1 such is the necessity of the case4 ,they are found in various countries all over the ,church4 ,collusion was not possible in earlier times when intercommunication between countries was extremely limited1 and publicity was all but confined to small areas4 ,the genealogies of ,cursive ,,mss41 if we knew them1 would fill a volume4 ,their stems must have been extremely numerous2 and like ,uncials1 and often independently of ,uncials1 they must have gone back to the vast body of early papyrus manuscripts4 #c4 ,and as to the ,cursives having been copies of ,codex ,a1 a moderate knowledge of the real character of that manuscript1 and a just estimate of the true value of it1 would effectually remove such a hallucination4 ,it is only the love of reducing all knowledge of intricate questions to the compass of the proverbial nutshell1 and the glamour that hangs over a very old relic1 which has led people1 when they had dropped their grasp of ,b1 to clutch at the ancient treasure in the ,british ,museum4 ,it is right to concede all honour to such a survival of so early a period3 but to lift the pyramid from its ample base1 and to rest it upon a point like ,a1 is a proceeding which hardly requires argument for its condemnation4 ,and next1 when the notion of a ,recension is brought forward1 the answer is1 ,what and when and how and where8 ,in the absence of any sign or hint of such an event in records of the past1 it is impossible to accept such an explanation of what is no difficulty at all4 ,history rests upon research into documents which have descended to us1 not upon imagination or fiction4 ,and the sooner people get such an idea out of their heads as that of piling up structures upon mere assumption1 and betake themselves instead to what is duly attested1 the better it will be for a ,science which must be reared upon well authenticated bases1 and not upon phantom theories4 #d4 ,the case of the ,cursives is in other respects strangely misunderstood1 or at least is strangely misrepresented4 ,the popular notion seems to be1 that we are indebted for our knowledge of the true text of ,scripture to the existing ,uncials entirely2 and that the essence of the secret dwells exclusively with the four or five oldest of those ,uncials4 ,by consequence1 it is popularly supposed that since we are possessed of such ,uncial ,copies1 we could afford to dispense with the testimony of the ,cursives altogether4 ,a more complete misconception of the facts of the case can hardly be imagined4 ,for the plain truth is that all the phenomena exhibited by the ,uncial ,,mss4 are reproduced by the ,cursive ,copies4 ,a small minority of the ,cursives1 just as a small minority of the ,uncials1 are probably the depositaries of peculiar recensions4 ,it is at least as reasonable to assert that we can afford entirely to disregard the testimony of the ,uncials1 as to pretend that we can afford entirely to disregard the testimony of the ,cursives4 ,in fact of the two1 the former assertion would be a vast deal nearer to the truth4 ,our inductions would in many cases be so fatally narrowed1 if we might not look beyond one little handful of ,uncial ,copies4 ,but the point to which the reader's attention is specially invited is this3--that so far from our being entirely dependent on ,codexes ,b,,cd1 or on some of them1 for certain of the most approved corrections of the ,received ,text1 we should have been just as fully aware of every one of those readings if neither ,b nor 1 ,c nor ,d1 had been in existence4 ,those readings are every one to be found in one or more of the few ,cursive ,codexes which rank by themselves1 viz4 the two groups just mentioned and perhaps some others4 ,if they are not1 they may be safely disregarded2 they are readings which have received no subsequent recognition7#bic74 ,indeed1 the case of the ,cursives presents an exact parallel with the case of the ,uncials4 ,whenever we observe a formal consensus of the ,cursives for any reading1 there1 almost invariably1 is a grand consensus observable for the same reading of the ,uncials4 ,the era of greater perfection both in the outer presentment and in the internal accuracy of the text of copies of the ,new ,testament may be said1 as far as the relics which have descended to us are concerned1 to have commenced with the ,codex ,basiliensis or ,e of the ,gospels4 ,this beautiful and generally accurate ,codex must have been written in the seventh century7#bid74 ,the rest of the later ,uncials are ordinarily found together in a large or considerable majority3 whilst there is enough dissent to prove that they are independent witnesses1 and that error was condemned1 not ignored4 ,thus the ,codex ,regius 7,l1 eighth century71 preserved at ,paris1 generally follows ,b and 3 so does the ,codex ,sangallensis 71 ninth century71 the ,irish relic of the monastery of ,st4 ,gall1 in ,st4 ,mark alone3 and the ,codex ,zacynthius 71 an eighth century palimpsest7 now in the ,library of the ,bible ,society1 in ,st4 ,luke7#bie74 ,the isolation of these few from the rest of their own age is usually conspicuous4 ,the verdict of the later uncials is nearly always sustained by a large majority4 ,in fact1 as a rule1 every principal reading discoverable in any of the oldest ,uncials is also exhibited in one1 two1 or three of the later ,uncials1 or in one or more of the small handful of dissentient ,cursives already enumerated4 ,except indeed in very remarkable instances1 as in the case of the last twelve verses of ,st4 ,mark1 such readings are generally represented3 yet in the later ,,mss4 as compared with the oldest there is this additional feature in the representation1 that if evidence is evidence1 and weight1 number1 and variety are taken into account1 those readings are altogether condemned4 #b7bif74 ,but we are here confronted with the contention that the text of the ,cursives is of a debased character4 ,our opponents maintain that it is such that it must have been compounded from other forms of text by a process of conflation so called1 and that in itself it is a text of a character greatly inferior to the text mainly represented by ,b and 4 ,now in combating this opinion1 we are bound first to remark that the burden of proof rests with the opposite side4 ,according to the laws which regulate scientific conclusions1 all the elements of proof must be taken into consideration4 ,nothing deserves the name of science in which the calculation does not include all the phenomena4 ,the base of the building must be conterminous with the facts4 ,this is so elementary a principle that it seems needless to insist more upon it4 ,but then1 this is exactly what we endeavour to accomplish1 and our adversaries disregard4 ,of course they have their reasons for dismissing nineteen-twentieths of the evidence at hand3 but--this is the point--it rests with them to prove that such dismissal is lawful and right4 ,what then are their arguments8 ,mainly three1 viz4 the supposed greater antiquity of their favourite text1 the superiority which they claim for its character1 and the evidence that the ,traditional ,text was as they maintain formed by conflation from texts previously in existence4 ,of these three arguments1 that from antiquity has been already disposed of1 and illustration of what has been already advanced will also be at hand throughout the sequel of this work4 ,as to conflation1 a proof against its possible applicability to the ,traditional ,text was supplied as to particles and other words in the last chapter1 and will receive illustration from instances of words of a greater size in this4 ,conflation might be possible1 supposing for a moment that other conditions favoured it1 and that the elements to be conflated were already in existence in other texts4 ,but inasmuch as in the majority of instances such elements are found nowhere else than in the ,traditional ,text1 conflation as accounting for the changes which upon this theory must have been made is simply impossible4 ,on the other hand1 the ,traditional ,text might have been very easily chipped and broken and corrupted1 as will be shewn in the second part of this ,treatise1 into the form exhibited by ,b and 7#big74 ,upon the third argument in the general contention1 we undertake to say that it is totally without foundation4 ,on the contrary1 the text of the ,cursives is greatly the superior of the two4 ,the instances which we proceed to give as specimens1 and as specimens only1 will exhibit the propriety of language1 and the taste of expression1 in which it is pre-eminent7#bih74 ,let our readers judge fairly and candidly1 as we doubt not that they will1 and we do not fear the result4 ,but before entering upon the character of the later text1 a few words are required to remind our readers of the effect of the general argument as hitherto stated upon this question4 ,the text of the later ,uncials is the text to which witness is borne1 not only by the majority of the ,uncials1 but also by the ,cursives and the ,versions and the ,fathers1 each in greater numbers4 ,again1 the text of the ,cursives enjoys unquestionably the support of by very far the largest number among themselves1 and also of the ,uncials and ,versions and ,fathers4 ,accordingly1 the text of which we are now treating1 which is that of the later ,uncials and the ,cursives combined1 is incomparably superior under all the external ,notes of ,truth4 ,it possesses in nearly all cases older attestation7#bii73 there is no sort of question as to the greater number of witnesses that bear evidence to its claims3 nor to their variety3 and hardly ever to the explicit proof of their continuousness2 which indeed is also generally--nay1 universally--implied owing to the nature of the case3 their weight is certified upon strong grounds3 and as a matter of fact1 the context in nearly all instances testifies on their side4 ,the course of doctrine pursued in the history of the ,universal ,church is immeasurably in their favour4 ,we have now therefore only to consider whether their text1 as compared with that of ,b,d and their allies1 commends itself on the score of intrinsic excellence4 ,and as to this consideration1 if as has been manifested the text of ,b-1 and that of ,d1 are bad1 and have been shewn to be the inferior1 this must be the better4 ,we may now proceed to some specimen instances exhibiting the superiority of the ,later ,uncial and ,cursive text4 #c4 ,our ,,saviour',s lament over ,jerusalem 78,if thou hadst known1 even thou1 at least in this thy day1 the things which belong unto thy peace607 is just one of those delicately articulated passages which are safe to suffer by the process of transmission4 ,survey ,st4 ,luke's words 7xix4 #db71 1 1 1--and you will perceive at a glance that the vulnerable point in the sentence1 so to speak1 is 1 4 ,in the meanwhile1 attested as those words are by the ,old ,latin7#cjj7 and by ,eusebius7#cja71 as well as witnessed to by the whole body of the copies beginning with ,cod4 ,a and including the lost original of #ac-fi-abd-cdf c41--the very order of those words is a thing quite above suspicion4 ,even ,tischendorf admits this4 ,he retains the traditional reading in every respect4 ,eusebius however twice writes 7#cjb72 once1 7#cjc72 and once he drops entirely7#cjd74 ,origen drops it #c times7#cje74 ,still1 there is at least a general consensus among ,copies1 ,versions and ,fathers for beginning the sentence with the characteristic words1 2 the phrase being witnessed to by the ,latin1 the ,bohairic1 the ,gothic1 and the ,harkleian ,versions2 by ,irenaeus7#cjf71--;by ,origen7#cjg71--;by ps4-,tatian7#cjh71--;by ,eusebius7#cji71--;by ,basil the ,great7#caj71--;by ,basil of ,seleucia7#caa71--;by ,cyril7#cab74 ,what then is found in the three remaining ,uncials1 for ,c is defective here8 ,d exhibits 1 1 3 being supported only by the ,latin of ,origen in one place7#cac74 ,lachmann adopts this reading all the same4 ,nothing worse1 it must be confessed1 has happened to it than the omission of 1 and of the former 4 ,but when we turn to ,b1 we find that they and ,l1 with ,origen once7#cad71 and the ,syriac heading prefixed to ,cyril's homilies on ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel7#cae71 exclusively exhibit1-- 3 thus1 not only omitting 1 together with the first and second 1 but by transposing the words -- 1 obliterating from the passage more than half its force and beauty4 ,this maimed and mutilated exhibition of our ,,lord',s words1 only because it is found in ,b1 is adopted by ,w4-,hort1 who are in turn followed by the ,revisers7#caf74 ,the ,peshitto by the way omits 1 and transposes the two clauses which remain7#cag74 ,the ,curetonian ,syriac runs wild1 as usual1 and the ,lewis too7#cah74 ,amid all this conflict and confusion1 the reader's attention is invited to the instructive fact that the whole body of cursive copies 7and all the uncials but four7 have retained in this passage all down the ages uninjured every exquisite lineament of the inspired archetype4 ,the truth1 ,i say1 is to be found in the cursive copies1 not in the licentious ,b,,dl1 which as usual stand apart from one another and from ,a4 ,only in respect of the first is there a slight prevarication on the part of a very few witnesses7#cai74 ,note however that it is overborne by the consent of the ,syriac1 the ,old ,latin and the ,gothic1 and further that the testimony of ps4-,tatian is express on this head7#cbj74 ,there is therefore nothing to be altered in the traditional text of ,st4 ,luke xix4 #db1 which furnishes an excellent instance of fidelity of transmission1 and of an emphatic condemnation of ,b-4 #d4 ,it is the misfortune of inquiries like the present that they sometimes constrain us to give prominence to minute details which it is difficult to make entertaining4 ,let me however seek to interest my reader in the true reading of ,st4 ,matt4 xx4 #bb1 #bc3 from which verses recent critical ,editors reject the words1 8and to be baptized with the baptism that ,i am baptized with10 4 ,about the right of the same words to a place in the corresponding part of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel 7x4 #ch71 there is no difference of opinion3 except that it is insisted that in ,st4 ,mark the clause should begin with instead of 4 ,next1 the reader is requested to attend to the following circumstance3 that1 except of course the four 7,,bdl7 and ,z which omit the place altogether and one other 7,s71 all the ,uncials together with the bulk of the ,cursives1 and the ,peshitto and ,harkleian and several ,latin ,versions1 concur in reading in ,st4 ,matthew3 all the ,uncials but eight 7,,bcdlw71 together with the bulk of the ,cursives and the ,peshitto1 agree in reading in ,st4 ,mark4 ,this delicate distinction between the first and the second ,gospel1 obliterated in the ,received ,text1 is faithfully maintained in nineteen out of twenty of the ,cursive ,copies4 ,in the meantime we are assured on the authority of ,,bdlz--with most of the ,latin ,copies1 including of course ,hilary and ,jerome1 the ,cureton1 the ,lewis1 and the ,bohairic1 besides ,epiphanius1--that the clause in question has no right to its place in ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel4 ,so confidently is this opinion held1 that the ,revisers1 following ,griesbach1 ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford1 have ejected the words from the ,text4 ,but are they right8 ,certainly not1 ,i answer4 ,and ,i reason thus4 ,if this clause has been interpolated into ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel1 how will you possibly account for its presence in every ,,ms4 in the world except #g1 viz4 #e uncials and #b cursives8 ,it is pretended that it crept in by assimilation from the parallel place in ,st4 ,mark4 ,but ,i reply1-- #a4 ,is this credible8 ,do you not see the glaring improbability of such an hypothesis8 ,why should the ,gospel most in vogue have been assimilated in all the ,copies but seven to the ,gospel least familiarly known and read in the ,churches8 #b4 ,and pray when is it pretended that this wholesale falsification of the ,,mss4 took place8 ,the ,peshitto ,syriac as usual sides with the bulk of the ,cursives3 but it has been shewn to be of the second century4 ,some of the ,latin ,copies also have the clause4 ,codex ,c1 ,chrysostom and ,basil of ,seleucia also exhibit it4 ,surely the preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly one way4 ,but then #c4 ,as a matter of fact the clause cannot have come in from ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1--for the very conclusive reason that the two places are delicately discriminated1--as on the testimony of the ,cursives and the ,peshitto has been shewn already4 ,and #d4 ,i take upon myself to declare without fear of contradiction on the part of any but the advocates of the popular theory that1 on the contrary1 it is ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel which has been corrupted from ,st4 ,mark's4 ,a conclusive note of the assimilating process is discernible in ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel where has intruded1--not in ,st4 ,matthew's4 #e4 ,why ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel was maimed in this place1 ,i am not able to explain4 ,demonstrable it is that the ,text of the ,gospels at that early period underwent a process of ,revision at the hands of men who apparently were as little aware of the foolishness as of the sinfulness of all they did3 and that ,mutilation was their favourite method4 ,and1 what is very remarkable1 the same kind of infatuation which is observed to attend the commission of crime1 and often leads to its detection1 is largely recognizable here4 ,but the ,eye which never sleeps has watched over the ,deposit1 and provided ,himself with witnesses4 #e4 ,singular to relate1 the circumstances under which ,simon and ,andrew1 ,james and ,john were on the last occasion called to ,apostleship 7,st4 ,matt4 iv4 #ag-bb3 ,st4 ,mark i4 #ad-bj3 ,st4 ,luke v4 #a-aa7 have never yet been explained7#cba74 ,the facts were as follows4 ,it was morning on the ,sea of ,galilee4 ,two boats were moored to the shore4 ,the fishermen having 8toiled all the night and taken nothing7#cbb71#8--'were gone out of them and had washed out 77 their nets 7 77#cbc740 ,but though fishing in deep water had proved a failure1 they knew that by wading into the shallows1 they might even now employ a casting-net with advantage4 ,accordingly it was thus that our ,,saviour1 coming by at this very juncture1 beheld ,simon and ,andrew employed 7 77#cbd74 ,thereupon1 entering ,simon's boat1 8,he prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land7#cbe740 ,the rest requires no explanation4 ,now1 it is plain that the key which unlocks this interesting story is the graphic precision of the compound verb employed1 and the well-known usage of the language which gives to the aorist tense on such occasions as the present a pluperfect signification7#cbf74 ,the ,translators of #afaa1 not understanding the incident1 were content1 as ,tyndale1 following the ,vulgate7#cbg71 had been before them1 to render 1--8were washing their nets40 ,of this rendering1 so long as the ,greek was let alone1 no serious harm could come4 ,the ,revisers of #ahha1 however1 by not only retaining the incorrect translation 8were washing their nets10 but1 by making the ,greek tally with the ,english--by substituting in short for 1--have so effectually darkened the ,truth as to make it simply irrecoverable by ordinary students4 ,the only point in the meantime to which the reader's attention is just now invited is this3--that the compound verb in the aorist tense 77 has been retained by the whole body of the ,cursives1 as transmitted all down the ages3 while the barbarous is only found at this day in the two corrupt uncials ,,bd7#cbh7 and a single cursive 7,evan4 #ia77cbi74 #f4 8,how hardly shall they that have riches enter into the ,kingdom of ,heaven10 exclaimed our ,,lord on a memorable occasion4 ,the disciples were amazed4 ,replying to their thoughts1--8,children10 ,he added1 8how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the ,kingdom of ,,god40 7,st4 ,mark x4 #bc1 #bd74 ,those familiar words1 vouched for by #af uncials and all the cursives1 are quite above suspicion4 ,but in fact all the ,versions support them likewise4 ,there is really no pretext for disturbing what is so well attested1 not to say so precious4 ,yet ,tischendorf and ,westcott and ,hort eject from the text1 on the sole ground that the clause in question is omitted by ,b1 one copy of the ,italic 7k71 and one copy of the ,bohairic4 ,aware that such a proceeding requires an apology1--8,i think it unsafe10 says ,tischendorf1 8to forsake in this place the very ancient authorities which ,i am accustomed to follow03 i4e4 ,codexes and ,b4 ,but of what nature is this argument8 ,does the critic mean that he must stick to antiquity8 ,if this be his meaning1 then let him be reminded that ,clemens7#ccj71 a more ancient authority than ,b by #aej years1--not to say the ,latin and the ,syriac ,versions1 which are more ancient still1--recognizes the words in question7#cca74 ,does however the learned critic mean no more than this1--,that it is with him a fundamental principle of ,textual ,criticism to uphold at all hazards the authority of ,b and 8 ,he cannot mean that2 as ,i proceed to explain4 ,for the strangest circumstance is behind4 ,immediately after he has thus 7in ver4 #bd7 proclaimed the supremacy of ,b1 ,tischendorf is constrained to reject the combined evidence of ,,bc4 ,in ver4 #bf those #d copies advocate the absurd reading 2 whereas it was evidently to themselves 7 7 that the disciples said it4 ,aware that this time the 8antiquissimae quas sequi solet auctoritates0 stand self-condemned1 instead of ingenuously avowing the fact1 ,tischendorf grounds his rejection of on the consideration that 8,mark never uses the expression 40 ,just as if the text of one place in the ,gospel is to be determined by the practice of the same ,evangelist in another place1--and not by its own proper evidence2 which in the present instance is 7the reader may be sure7 simply overwhelming6 ,westcott and ,hort erroneously suppose that all the copies but four1--all the versions but one 7the ,bohairic71--may be in error3 but that ,b-1 ,c1 and ,cod4 which is curious in ,st4 ,mark1 must needs be in the right4 #g4 ,there are many occasions--as ,i remarked before1--where the very logic of the case becomes a powerful argument4 ,worthless in and by themselves1--in the face1 ,i mean1 of general testimony1--considerations derived from the very reason of the thing sometimes vindicate their right to assist the judgement wherever the evidence is somewhat evenly balanced4 ,but their cogency is felt to be altogether overwhelming when1 after a careful survey of the evidence alone1 we entertain no doubt whatever as to what must be the right reading of a place4 ,they seem then to sweep the field4 ,such an occasion is presented by ,st4 ,luke xvi4 #i1--where our ,,lord1 having shewn what provision the dishonest steward made against the day when he would find himself houseless1--the ,divine ,speaker infers that something analogous should be done by ourselves with our own money1--8in order0 7saith ,he7 8that when ye fail1 ye may be received into the everlasting tabernacles40 ,the logical consistency of all this is as exact1 as the choice of terms in the ,original is exquisite3 the word employed to designate ,man's departure out of this life 771 conveying the image of one fainting or failing at the end of his race4 ,it is in fact the word used in the ,,lxx to denote the peaceful end of ,abraham1 and of ,ishmael1 and of ,isaac1 and of ,jacob7#ccb74 ,but instead of this1 ,,bdlr with ,,ax present us with or 1--shewing that the author of this reading imagined without discrimination1 that what our ,,lord meant to say was that when at last our money 8fails0 us1 we may not want a home4 ,the rest of the ,uncials to the number of twelve1 together with two correctors of 1 the bulk of the ,cursives1 and the ,old ,latin copies1 the ,vulgate1 ,gothic1 ,harkleian1 and ,ethiopic ,versions1 with ,irenaeus7#ccc71 ,clemens ,alex47#ccd71 ,origen7#cce71 ,methodius7#ccf71 ,basil7#ccg71 ,ephraem ,syrus7#cch71 ,gregory ,naz47#cci71 ,didymus7#cdj71 ,chrysostom7#cda71 ,severianus7#cdb71 ,jerome7#cdc71 ,augustine7#cdd71 ,eulogius7#cde71 and ,theodoret7#cdf71 also ,aphraates 7,a4,d4 #cbe77cdg71 support the reading 4 ,cyril appears to have known both readings7#cdh74 ,his testimony1 such as it is1 can only be divined from his fragmentary remains2 and 8divination0 is a faculty to which ,i make no pretence4 ,in p4 #cdi1 after 1 4 1--,cyril is represented as saying 7#f lines lower down7 1 with which corresponds the ,syriac of ,luc4 #eji4 ,but when we encounter the same passage in ,cramer's ,catena 7p4 #abb71 besides the reference to death1 7lines #ba-c71 we are presented with 1 which clearly reverses the testimony4 ,if ,cyril wrote that1 he read 7like every other ,father7 4 ,it is only right to add that is found besides in pp4 #ebe1 #ebf 7 ,mai ii4 #ceh7 and #egb of ,cyril's ,syriac ,homilies on ,st4 ,luke4 ,this however 7like the quotation in p4 #ejf7 may well be due to the ,peshitto4 ,i must avow that amid so much conflicting evidence1 my judgement concerning ,cyril's text is at fault4 #h4 ,there is hardly to be found a more precious declaration concerning the guiding and illuminating office of the ,holy ,ghost1 than our ,lord's promise that 8when ,he1 the ,spirit of ,truth shall come1 ,he shall guide you into all the ,truth03 7,st4 ,john xvi4 #ac74 ,now1 the six words just quoted are found to have experienced an extraordinary amount of perturbation2 far more than can be due to the fact that they happen to be the concluding words of a lection4 ,to be brief1--every known variety in reading this passage may be brought under one of three heads3-- #a4 ,with the first1--which is in fact a gloss1 not a reading 7 71--we need not delay ourselves4 ,eusebius in two places7#cdi71 ,cyril ,jer47#cej71 copies of the ,old ,latin7#cea71 and ,jerome7#ceb7 in a certain place1 so read the place4 ,unhappily the same reading is also found in the ,vulgate7#cec74 ,it meets with no favour however1 and may be dismissed4 #b4 ,the next1 which even more fatally darkens our ,lord's meaning1 might have been as unceremoniously dealt with1 the reading namely of ,cod4 ,l 7 71 but that unhappily it has found favour with ,tischendorf1--,i suppose1 because with the exception of it is the reading of his own ,cod4 7#ced74 ,it is thus that ,cyril ,alex47#cee7 thrice reads the place3 and indeed the same thing practically is found in ,d7#cef72 while so many copies of the ,old ,latin exhibit in omni veritate1 or in veritate omni7#ceg71 that one is constrained to inquire1 ,how is to be accounted for8 ,we have not far to look4 followed by occurs in the ,,lxx1 chiefly in the ,psalms1 more than #af times4 ,especially must the familiar expression in ,ps4 xxiv4 #e 7 1 ,dirige me in veritate tua71 by inopportunely suggesting itself to the mind of some early copyist1 have influenced the text of ,st4 ,john xvi4 #ac in this fatal way4 ,one is only astonished that so acute a critic as ,tischendorf should have overlooked so plain a circumstance4 ,the constant use of the ,psalm in ,divine ,service1 and the entire familiarity with the ,psalter resulting therefrom1 explains sufficiently how it came to pass1 that in this as in other places its phraseology must have influenced the memory4 #c4 ,the one true reading of the place 7 7 is attested by #ab of the uncials 7,e,g,h,ib,k,m,s,u71 the whole body of the cursives1 and by the following ,fathers1--,didymus7#ceh71 ,epiphanius7#cei71 ,basil7#cfj71 ,chrysostom7#cfa71 ,theodotus1 ,bp4 of ,antioch7#cfb71 ,cyril ,alex47#cfc71 ,theodoret7#cfd72 besides ,tertullian in five places1 ,hilary and ,jerome in two7#cfe74 ,but because the words are found transposed in ,,aby alone of manuscripts1 and because ,peter ,alex47#cff71 and ,didymus7#cfg7 once1 ,origen7#cfh7 and ,cyril ,alex47#cfi7 in two places1 are observed to sanction the same infelicitous arrangement 7viz4 71--,lachmann1 ,tregelles1 ,alford1 ,westcott and ,hort1 adopt without hesitation this order of the words7#cgj74 ,it cannot of course be maintained4 ,the candid reader in the meantime will not fail to note that as usual the truth has been preserved neither by ,a nor ,b nor ,d3 least of all by 3 but comes down to us unimpaired in the great mass of ,,ms4 authorities1 uncial and cursive1 as well as in the oldest ,versions and ,fathers4 #i4 ,it may have been anticipated by the readers of these pages that the ,divine ,author of ,scripture has planted here and there up and down the sacred page--often in most improbable places and certainly in forms which we should have least of all imagined--tests of accuracy1 by attending to which we may form an unerring judgement concerning the faithfulness of a copy of the sacred ,text4 ,this is a discovery which at first astonished me3 but on mature reflection1 ,i saw that it was to have been confidently anticipated4 ,is it indeed credible that ,almighty ,wisdom--which is observed to have made such abundant provision for the safety of the humblest forms of animal life1 for the preservation of common seeds1 often seeds of noxious plants1--should yet have omitted to make provision for the life-giving seed of ,his own ,everlasting ,word8 ,for example1 strange to relate1 it is a plain fact 7of which every one may convince himself by opening a copy of the ,gospels furnished with a sufficient critical apparatus71 that although in relating the healing of the centurion's servant 7,st4 ,matt4 viii4 #e-ac7 the ,evangelist writes in verses #e and #h1 he writes instead of - in ver4 #ac4 ,this minute variety has been faithfully retained by uncials and cursives alike4 ,only one uncial 7viz4 7 has ventured to assimilate the two places1 writing throughout4 ,with the blindness proverbially ascribed to parental love1 ,tischendorf follows 1 though the carelessness that reigns over that ,,ms4 is visible to all who examine it4 ,the matter is a trifle confessedly4 ,but so was the scrap of a ballad which identified the murderer1 another scrap of it being found with the bullet in the body of the murdered man4 #aj4 ,the instances which have been given in this chapter of the superiority of the text exhibited in the later ,uncials and the ,cursives might have been increased in number to almost any extent out of the papers left by ,dean ,burgon4 ,the reader will find many more illustrations in the rest of these two volumes4 ,even ,dr4 ,hort admits that the ,traditional ,text which is represented by them is 8entirely blameless on either literary or religious grounds as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction7#cga710 while 8repeated and diligent study0 can only lead1 if conducted with deep and wide research1 to the discovery of beauties and meanings which have lain unrevealed to the student before4 ,let it be always borne in mind1 that 7a7 the later ,uncials and ,cursives are the heirs in succession of numerous and varied lines of descent spread throughout the ,church2 that 7b7 their verdict is nearly always decisive and clear2 and that nevertheless 7c7 such unanimity or majority of witnesses is not the testimony of mechanical or suborned testifiers1 but is the coincidence1 as facts unquestionably prove1 except in certain instances of independent deponents to the same story4 ,let me be allowed to declare7#cgb7 in conclusion that no person is competent to pronounce concerning the merits or demerits of cursive copies of the ,gospels1 who has not himself1 in the first instance1 collated with great exactness at least a few of them4 ,he will be materially assisted1 if it has ever fallen in his way to familiarize himself however partially with the text of vast numbers4 ,but nothing can supply the place of exact collation of at least a few copies3 of which labour1 if a man has had no experience at all1 he must submit to be assured that he really has no right to express himself confidently in this subject-matter4 ,he argues1 not from facts1 but from his own imagination of what the facts of the case will probably be4 ,those only who have minutely collated several copies1 and examined with considerable attention a large proportion of all the ,sacred ,codexes extant1 are entitled to speak with authority here4 ,further1 ,i venture to assert that no conviction will force itself so irresistibly on the mind of him who submits to the labour of exactly collating a few ,cursive copies of the ,gospels1 as that the documents in question have been executed with even extraordinary diligence1 fidelity1 and skill4 ,that history confirms this conviction1 we have only to survey the elaborate arrangements made in monasteries for carrying on the duty1 and perfecting the art1 of copying the ,holy ,scriptures4 ,if therefore this body of ,manuscripts be thus declared by the excellence of its text1 by the evident pains bestowed upon its production1 as well as by the consentience with it of other evidence1 to possess high characteristics2 if it represents the matured settlement of many delicate and difficult questions by the ,church which after centuries of vacillation more or less1 and indeed less rather than more1 was to last for a much larger number of centuries2 must it not require great deference indeed from all students of the ,new ,testament8 ,let it always be remembered1 that no single ,cursive is here selected from the rest or advanced to any position whatsoever which would invest its verdicts with any special authority4 ,it is the main body of the ,cursives1 agreeing as they generally do with the exception of a few eccentric groups or individuals1 which is entitled to such respect according to the measure of their agreement4 ,and in point of fact1 the ,cursives which have been collated are so generally consentient1 as to leave no doubt that the multitude which needs collation will agree similarly4 ,doubtless1 the later ,uncials and the ,cursives are only a class of the general evidence which is now before us3 but it is desirable that those ,textual ,students who have been disposed to undervalue this class should weigh with candour and fairness the arguments existing in favour of it1 which we have attempted to exhibit in this chapter4 ,,chapter ,,xii4 ,,conclusion4 ,the ,traditional ,text has now been traced1 from the earliest years of ,christianity of which any record of the ,new ,testament remains1 to the period when it was enshrined in a large number of carefully-written manuscripts in main accord with one another4 ,proof has been given from the writings of the early ,fathers1 that the idea that the ,traditional ,text arose in the middle of the fourth century is a mere hallucination1 prompted by only a partial acquaintance with those writings4 ,and witness to the existence and predominance of that form of ,text has been found in the ,peshitto ,version and in the best of the ,latin ,versions1 which themselves also have been followed back to the beginning of the second century or the end of the first4 ,we have also discovered the truth1 that the settlement of the ,text1 though mainly made in the fourth century1 was not finally accomplished till the eighth century at the earliest2 and that the later ,uncials1 not the oldest1 together with the cursives express1 not singly1 not in small batches or companies1 but in their main agreement1 the decisions which had grown up in the ,church4 ,in so doing1 attention has been paid to all the existing evidence3 none has been omitted4 ,quod semper1 quod ubique1 quod ab omnibus1 has been the underlying principle4 ,the foundations of the building have been laid as deeply and as broadly as our power would allow4 ,no other course would be in consonance with scientific procedure4 ,the seven notes of truth have been made as comprehensive as possible4 ,antiquity1 number1 variety1 weight1 continuity1 context1 and internal evidence1 include all points of view and all methods of examination which are really sound4 ,the characters of the ,vatican1 ,sinaitic1 and ,bezan manuscripts have been shewn to be bad1 and the streams which led to their production from ,syrio-,old-,latin and ,alexandrian sources to the temporary school of ,caesarea have been traced and explained4 ,it has been also shewn to be probable that corruption began and took root even before the ,gospels were written4 ,the general conclusion which has grown upon our minds has been that the affections of ,christians have not been misdirected2 that the strongest exercise of reason has proved their instincts to have been sound and true2 that the ,text which we have used and loved rests upon a vast and varied support2 that the multiform record of ,manuscripts1 ,versions1 and ,fathers1 is found to defend by large majorities in almost all instances those precious words of ,holy ,writ1 which have been called in question during the latter half of this century4 ,we submit that it cannot be denied that we have presented a strong case1 and naturally we look to see what has been said against it1 since except in some features it has been before the ,world and the ,church for some years4 ,we submit that it has not received due attention from opposing critics4 ,if indeed the opinions of the other ,school had been preceded by1 or grounded upon1 a searching examination1 such as we have made in the case of ,b and 1 of the vast mass of evidence upon which we rest1--if this great body of testimony had been proved to be bad from overbalancing testimony or otherwise1--we should have found reason for doubt1 or even for a reversal of our decisions4 ,but ,lachmann1 ,tregelles1 and ,tischendorf laid down principles chiefly1 if not exclusively1 on the score of their intrinsic probability4 ,westcott and ,hort built up their own theory upon reasoning internal to it1 without clearing the ground first by any careful and detailed scrutiny4 ,besides which1 all of them constructed their buildings before travellers by railways and steamships had placed within their reach the larger part of the materials which are now ready for use4 ,we hear constantly the proclamation made in dogmatic tones that they are right3 no proof adequate to the strength of our contention has been worked out to shew that we are wrong4 ,nevertheless1 it may be best to listen for a moment to such objections as have been advanced against conclusions like these1 and which it may be presumed will be urged again4 #a4 8,after all it cannot be denied that ,b and are the oldest manuscripts of the ,new ,testament in existence1 and that they must therefore be entitled to the deference due to their age40 ,now the earlier part of this allegation is conceded by us entirely3 prima facie it constitutes a very strong argument4 ,but it is really found on examination to be superficial4 ,fathers and ,versions are virtually older1 and1 as has been demonstrated1 are dead against the claim set up on behalf of those ancient manuscripts1 that they are the possessors of the true text of the ,gospels4 ,besides which antiquity is not the sole note of truth any more than number is4 ,so much has been already said on this part of the subject1 that it is needless to enter into longer discussion here4 #b4 8,the testimony of witnesses ought to be weighed before it is reckoned40 ,doubtless3 this also is a truism1 and allowance has been made for it in the various 8notes of truth40 ,but this argument1 apparently so simple1 is really intended to carry a huge assumption involved in an elaborate maintenance of the 7supposed7 excellent character of ,b and and their associates4 ,after so much that has been brought to the charge of those two ,,mss4 in this treatise1 it is unnecessary now to urge more than that they appeared in strange times1 when the ,church was convulsed to her centre2 that1 as has been demonstrated1 their peculiar readings were in a very decided minority in the period before them2 and1 as all admit1 were rejected in the ages that passed after the time of their date4 #c4 ,it is stated that the ,traditional is a conflate text1 i4e4 that passages have been put together from more than one other text1 so that they are composite in construction instead of being simple4 ,we have already treated this allegation1 but we reply now that it has not been established3 the opinion of ,canon ,cooke who analysed all the examples quoted by ,hort7#cgc71 of ,scrivener who said they proved nothing7#cgd71 and of many other critics and scholars has been against it4 ,the converse position is maintained1 that the text of ,b and is clipped and mutilated4 ,take the following passage1 which is fairly typical of the large class in question3 8,for we are members of ,his ,body0 7writes ,st4 ,paul7#cge77 8of ,his flesh and of ,his bones0 7 74 ,but those last #i words are disallowed by recent editors1 because they are absent from ,b-1 ,a1 #h1 and #ag1 and the margin of #fg1 besides the ,bohairic version4 ,yet are the words genuine4 ,they are found in ,,dfgklp and the whole body of the cursives3 in the ,old ,latin and ,vulgate and the two ,syriac versions3 in ,irenaeus7#cgf71--;in ,theodorus of ,mopsuestia7#cgg71--;in ,nilus7#cgh71--;in ,chrysostom7#cgi7 more than four times1--in ,severianus7#chj71--;in ,theodoret7#cha71--;in ,anastasius ,sinaita7#chb71--;and in ,john ,damascene7#chc74 ,they were probably read by ,origen7#chd7 and by ,methodius7#che74 ,many ,latin ,fathers1 viz4 ,ambrose7#chf71--,pacian7#chg71--;,esaia s abb47#chh71--,victorinus7#chi71--;,jerom e7#cij71--;,augustine7#cia7--;and ,leo ,p47#cib7 recognise them4 ,such ample and such varied attestation is not to be set aside by the vapid and unsound dictum 8,western and ,syrian10--or by the weak suggestion that the words in dispute are an unauthorized gloss1 fabricated from the ,,lxx version of ,gen4 ii4 #bc4 ,that ,st4 ,paul's allusion is to the oracular utterance of our first father ,adam1 is true enough3 but1 as ,alford after ,bengel well points out1 it is incredible that any forger can have been at work here4 ,such questions however1 as we must again and again insist1 are not to be determined by internal considerations3 no1--nor by dictation1 nor by prejudice1 nor by divination1 nor by any subjective theory of conflation on which experts and critics may be hopelessly at issue3 but by the weight of the definite evidence actually producible and produced on either side4 ,and when1 as in the present instance1 ,antiquity1 ,variety of testimony1 ,respectability of witnesses1 and ,number are overwhelmingly in favour of the ,traditional ,text1 what else is it but an outrage on the laws of evidence to claim that the same little band of documents which have already come before us so often1 and always been found in error1 even though aided by speculative suppositions1 shall be permitted to outweigh all other testimony8 ,to build therefore upon a conflate or composite character in a set of readings would be contrary to the evidence3--or at any rate1 it would at the best be to lay foundations upon ground which is approved by one school of critics and disputed by the other in every case4 ,the determination of the text of ,holy ,scripture has not been handed over to a mere conflict of opposite opinions1 or to the uncertain sands of conjecture4 ,besides1 as has been already stated1 no amount of conflation would supply passages which the destructive school would wholly leave out4 ,it is impossible to 8conflate0 in places where ,b and their associates furnish no materials for the supposed conflation4 ,bricks cannot be made without clay4 ,the materials actually existing are those of the ,traditional ,text itself4 ,but in fact these questions are not to be settled by the scholarly taste or opinions of either school1 even of that which we advocate4 ,they must rest upon the verdict found by the facts in evidence3 and those facts have been already placed in array4 #d4 ,again1 stress is laid upon ,genealogy4 ,indeed1 as ,dean ,burgon himself goes on to say1 so much has lately been written about 8the principle0 and 8the method0 8of genealogy10 that it becomes in a high degree desirable that we should ascertain precisely what those expressions lawfully mean4 ,no fair controversialist would willingly fail to assign its legitimate place and value to any principle for which he observes an opponent eagerly contending4 ,but here is a 8principle0 and here is a 8method0 which are declared to be of even paramount importance4 8,documents 444 are all fragments1 usually casual and scattered fragments1 of a genealogical tree of transmission1 sometimes of vast extent and intricacy4 ,the more exactly we are able to trace the chief ramifications of the tree1 and to determine the places of the several documents among the branches1 the more secure will be the foundations laid for a criticism capable of distinguishing the original text from its successive corruptions7#cic740 ,the expression is metaphorical2 belonging of right to families of men1 but transferred to ,textual ,science as indicative that similar phenomena attend families of manuscripts4 ,unfortunately the phenomena attending transmission1--of ,natures on the one hand1 of ,texts on the other1--are essentially dissimilar4 ,a diminutive couple may give birth to a race of giants4 ,a genius has been known to beget a dunce4 ,a brood of children exhibiting extraordinary diversities of character1 aspect1 ability1 sometimes spring from the same pair4 ,nothing like this is possible in the case of honestly-made copies of ,,mss4 ,the analogy breaks down therefore in respect of its most essential feature4 ,and yet1 there can be no objection to the use of the term 8,genealogy0 in connexion with manuscripts1 provided always that nothing more is meant thereby than derivation by the process of copying3 nothing else claimed but that 8,identity of reading implies identity of origin7#cid740 ,only in this limited way are we able to avail ourselves of the principle referred to4 ,of course if it were a well-ascertained fact concerning three copies 7,,xyz71 that ,z was copied from ,y1 and ,y from ,x1 ,,xyz might reasonably be spoken of as representing three descents in a pedigree2 although the interval between ,z and ,y were only six months1--the interval between ,y and ,x1 six hundred years4 ,moreover1 these would be not three independent authorities1 but only one4 ,such a case1 however1--7the fact cannot be too clearly apprehended71--is simply non-existent4 ,what is known commonly lies on the surface3--viz4 that occasionally between two or more copies there exists such an amount of peculiar textual affinity as to constrain us to adopt the supposition that they have been derived from a common original4 ,these peculiarities of text1 we tell ourselves1 cannot be fortuitous4 ,taking our stand on the true principle that 8identity of reading implies identity of origin10 we insist on reasoning from the known to the unknown3 and 7at our humble distance7 we are fully as confident of our scientific fact as ,adams and ,le ,verrier would have been of the existence of ,neptune had they never actually obtained sight of that planet4 ,so far are we therefore from denying the value and importance of the principle under discussion that we are able to demonstrate its efficacy in the resolution of some textual problems which have been given in this work4 ,thus ,e1 the uncial copy of ,st4 ,paul1 is 8nothing better10 says ,scrivener1 8than a transcript of the ,cod4 ,claromontanus0 ,d4 8,the ,greek is manifestly worthless1 and should long since have been removed from the list of authorities7#cie740 ,tischendorf nevertheless1 not ,tregelles1 quotes it on every page4 ,he has no business to do so1 ,codexes ,d and ,e1 to all intents and purposes1 being strictly one ,codex4 ,this case1 like the two next1 happily does not admit of diversity of opinion4 ,next1 ,f and ,g of ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles1 inasmuch as they are confessedly derived from one and the same archetype1 are not to be reckoned as two authorities1 but as one4 ,again1 the correspondence between the nine ,,mss4 of the ,ferrar group--,evann4 #ac at ,paris1 #fi at ,leicester1 #abd at ,vienna1 #cdf at ,milan1 #eef in the ,british ,museum1 #efa at ,bank ,house1 ,wisbech1--and in a lesser degree1 #cdh at ,milan1 #fbd at ,crypta ,ferrata1 #ghh at ,athens1--is so extraordinary as to render it certain that these copies are in the main derived from one common archetype7#cif74 ,hence1 though one of them 7#ghh7 is of the tenth century1 three 7#cdh1 #efa1 #fbd7 are of the eleventh1 four 7#ac1 #abd1 #cdf1 #eef7 of the twelfth1 and one 7#fi7 of the fourteenth1 their joint evidence is held to be tantamount to the recovery of a lost uncial or papyrus of very early date1--which uncial or papyrus1 by the way1 it would be convenient to indicate by a new symbol1 as ,fr4 standing for ,ferrar1 since which was once attributed to them is now appropriated to the ,codex ,beratinus4 ,if indicated numerically1 the figures should at all events be connected by a hyphen 7#ac-fi-abd-cdf-;c472 not as if they were independent witnesses1 as ,tischendorf quotes them4 ,and lastly1 ,b and are undeniably1 more than any other two ,codexes which can be named1 the depositaries of one and the same peculiar1 all but unique1 text4 ,i propose to apply the foregoing remarks to the solution of one of the most important of ,textual problems4 ,that a controversy has raged around the last twelve verses of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel is known to all4 ,known also it is that a laborious treatise was published on the subject in #ahga1 which1 in the opinion of competent judges1 has had the effect of removing the 8,last ,twelve ,verses of ,st4 ,mark0 beyond the reach of suspicion4 ,notwithstanding this1 at the end of ten years an attempt was made to revive the old plea4 ,the passage1 say ,drs4 ,westcott and ,hort1 8manifestly cannot claim any ,apostolic authority2 but is doubtless founded on some tradition of the ,apostolic age10 of which the 8precise date must remain unknown40 ,it is 8a very early interpolation0 7pp4 #ea1 #df74 ,in a word1 8the last twelve verses0 of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 according to ,drs4 ,westcott and ,hort1 are spurious4 ,but what is their ground of confidence8 for we claim to be as competent to judge of testimony as they4 ,it proves to be 8the unique criterion supplied by the concord of the independent attestations of and ,b0 7p4 #df74 8,independent attestations06 ,but when two copies of the ,gospel are confessedly derived from one and the same original1 how can their 8attestations0 be called 8independent08 ,this is however greatly to understate the case4 ,the non-independence of ,b and in respect of ,st4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj is absolutely unique3 for1 strange to relate1 it so happens that the very leaf on which the end of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel and the beginning of ,st4 ,luke's is written 7,st4 ,mark xvi4 #b-,luke i4 #ef71 is one of the six leaves of ,cod4 which are held to have been written by the scribe of ,cod4 ,b4 8,the inference10 remarks ,scrivener1 8is simple and direct1 that at least in these leaves ,codd4 ,b make but one witness1 not two7#cig740 ,the principle of ,genealogy admits of a more extended and a more important application to this case1 because ,b and do not stand quite alone1 but are exclusively associated with three or four other manuscripts which may be regarded as being descended from them4 ,as far as we can judge1 they may be regarded as the founders1 or at least as prominent members of a family1 whose descendants were few1 because they were generally condemned by the generations which came after them4 ,not they1 but other families upon other genealogical stems1 were the more like to the patriarch whose progeny was to equal the stars of heaven in multitude4 ,least of all shall ,i be so simple as to pretend to fix the precise date and assign a definite locality to the fontal source1 or sources1 of our present perplexity and distress4 ,but ,i suspect that in the little handful of authorities which have acquired such a notoriety in the annals of recent ,textual ,criticism1 at the head of which stand ,codexes ,b and 1 are to be recognized the characteristic features of a lost family of 7once well known7 second or third-century documents1 which owed their existence to the misguided zeal of some well-intentioned but utterly incompetent persons who devoted themselves to the task of correcting the ,text of ,scripture2 but were entirely unfit for the undertaking7#cih74 ,yet ,i venture also to think that it was in a great measure at ,alexandria that the text in question was fabricated4 ,my chief reasons for thinking so are the following3 7#a7 ,there is a marked resemblance between the peculiar readings of ,b and the two ,egyptian ,versions1--the ,bohairic or ,version of ,lower ,egypt especially4 7#b7 ,no one can fail to have been struck by the evident sympathy between ,origen1--who at all events had passed more than half his life at ,alexandria1--and the text in question4 7#c7 ,i notice that ,nonnus also1 who lived in the ,thebaid1 exhibits considerable sympathy with the text which ,i deem so corrupt4 7#d7 ,i cannot overlook the fact that ,cod4 was discovered in a monastery under the sway of the patriarch of ,alexandria1 though how it got there no evidence remains to point out4 7#e7 ,the licentious handling so characteristic of the ,septuagint ,version of the ,o4 ,t41--the work of ,alexandrian ,jews1--points in the same direction1 and leads me to suspect that ,alexandria was the final source of the text of ,b-4 7#f7 ,i further observe that the sacred ,text 77 in ,cyril's ,homilies on ,st4 ,john is often similar to ,b-2 and this1 ,i take for granted1 was the effect of the school of ,alexandria1--not of the patriarch himself4 7#g7 ,dionysius of ,alexandria complains bitterly of the corrupt ,codexes of his day3 and certainly 7#h7 ,clemens habitually employed copies of a similar kind4 ,he too was of ,alexandria7#cii74 ,such are the chief considerations which incline me to suspect that ,alexandria contributed largely to our ,textual troubles4 ,the readings of ,b- are the consequence of a junction of two or more streams and then of derivation from a single archetype4 ,this inference is confirmed by the fact that the same general text which ,b exhibits is exhibited also by the eighth-century ,codex ,l1 the work probably of an ,egyptian scribe7#djj73 and by the tenth-century ,codex #cc3 and by the eleventh-century ,codex #a3 and to some extent by the twelfth-century ,codex #fi4 ,we have already been able to advance to another and a very important step4 ,there is nothing in the history of the earliest times of the ,church to prove that vellum manuscripts of the ,new ,testament existed in any number before the fourth century4 ,no such documents have come down to us4 ,but we do know1 as has been shewn above7#dja71 that writings on papyrus were transcribed on vellum in the library of ,caesarea4 ,what must we then conclude8 ,that1 as has been already suggested1 papyrus ,,mss4 are mainly the progenitors of the ,uncials1 and probably of the oldest ,uncials4 ,besides this inference1 we have seen that it is also most probable that many of the ,cursives were transcribed directly from papyrus books or rolls4 ,so that the ,genealogy of manuscripts of the ,new ,testament includes a vast number of descendants1 and many lines of descent1 which ramified from one stem on the original start from the autograph of each book4 ,the ,vatican and the ,sinaitic do not stand pre-eminent because of any great line of parentage passing through them to a multitudinous posterity inheriting the earth1 but they are members of a condemned family of which the issue has been small4 ,the rejected of the fourth century has been spurned by succeeding centuries4 ,and surely now also the fourth century1 rich in a roll of men conspicuous ever since for capacity and learning1 may be permitted to proclaim its real sentiments and to be judged from its own decisions1 without being disfranchised by critics of the nineteenth4 ,the history of the ,traditional ,text1 on the contrary1 is continuous and complete under the view of ,genealogy4 ,the pedigree of it may be commended to the examination of the ,heralds' ,college4 ,it goes step by step in unbroken succession regularly back to the earliest time4 ,the present printed editions may be compared for extreme accuracy with the text passed by the ,elzevirs or ,beza as the text received by all of their time4 ,erasmus followed his few ,,mss4 because he knew them to be good representatives of the mind of the ,church which had been informed under the ceaseless and loving care of mediaeval transcribers3 and the text of ,erasmus printed at ,basle agreed in but little variation with the text of the ,complutensian editors published in ,spain1 for which ,cardinal ,ximenes procured ,,mss4 at whatever cost he could4 ,no one doubts the coincidence in all essential points of the printed text with the text of the ,cursives4 ,dr4 ,hort certifies the ,cursive ,text as far back as the middle of the fourth century4 ,it depends upon various lines of descent1 and rests on the testimony supplied by numerous contemporary ,fathers before the year #ajjj ,a4,d41 when co-existing ,,mss4 failed to bear witness in multitudes4 ,the acceptance of it by the ,church of the fifth century1 which saw the settlement of the great doctrinal controversies either made or confirmed1 proves that the seal was set upon the validity of the earliest pedigrees by the illustrious intellects and the sound faith of those days4 ,and in the fifth chapter of this work1 contemporary witness is carried back to the first days4 ,there is thus a cluster of pedigrees1 not in one line but in many parallel courses of descent1 not in one country but in several1 ranging over the whole ,catholic ,church where ,greek was understood1 attested by ,versions1 and illustrated copiously by ,fathers1 along which without break in the continuity the ,traditional ,text in its main features has been transmitted4 ,doubtless something still remains for the ,church to do under the present extraordinary wealth of authorities in the verification of some particulars issuing in a small number of alterations1 not in challenging or changing like the other school anything approaching to one-eighth of the ,new ,testament7#djb73 for that we now possess in the main the very ,words of the ,holy ,gospels as they issued from their inspired authors1 we are taught under the principle of ,genealogy that there is no valid reason to doubt4 ,to conclude1 the system which we advocate will be seen to contrast strikingly with that which is upheld by the opposing school1 in three general ways3 ,i4 ,we have with us width and depth against the narrowness on their side4 ,they are conspicuously contracted in the fewness of the witnesses which they deem worthy of credence4 ,they are restricted as to the period of history which alone they consider to deserve attention4 ,they are confined with regard to the countries from which their testimony comes4 ,they would supply ,christians with a shortened text1 and educate them under a cast-iron system4 ,we on the contrary champion the many against the few3 we welcome all witnesses1 and weigh all testimony3 we uphold all the ages against one or two1 and all the countries against a narrow space4 ,we maintain the genuine and all-round ,catholicism of real ,christendom against a discarded sectarianism exhumed from the fourth century4 ,if we condemn1 it is because the evidence condemns4 ,we cling to all the precious ,words that have come down to us1 because they have been so preserved to our days under verdicts depending upon overwhelming proof4 ,,ii4 ,we oppose facts to their speculation4 ,they exalt ,b and and ,d because in their own opinion those copies are the best4 ,they weave ingenious webs1 and invent subtle theories1 because their paradox of a few against the many requires ingenuity and subtlety for its support4 ,dr4 ,hort revelled in finespun theories and technical terms1 such as 8,intrinsic ,probability10 8,transcriptional ,probability10 8,internal evidence of ,readings10 8,internal evidence of ,documents10 which of course connote a certain amount of evidence1 but are weak pillars of a heavy structure4 ,even conjectural emendation7#djc7 and inconsistent decrees7#djd7 are not rejected4 ,they are infected with the theorizing which spoils some of the best ,german work1 and with the idealism which is the bane of many academic minds1 especially at ,oxford and ,cambridge4 ,in contrast with this sojourn in cloudland1 we are essentially of the earth though not earthy4 ,we are nothing1 if we are not grounded in facts3 our appeal is to facts1 our test lies in facts1 so far as we can we build testimonies upon testimonies and pile facts on facts4 ,we imitate the procedure of the courts of justice in decisions resulting from the converging product of all the evidence1 when it has been cross-examined and sifted4 ,as men of business1 not less than students1 we endeavour to pursue the studies of the library according to the best methods of the world4 ,,iii4 ,our opponents are gradually getting out of date3 the world is drifting away from them4 ,thousands of manuscripts have been added to the known stores since ,tischendorf formed his system1 and ,hort began to theorize1 and their handful of favourite documents has become by comparison less and less4 ,since the deaths of both of those eminent critics1 the treasures dug up in ,egypt and elsewhere have put back the date of the science of palaeography from the fourth century after the ,christian era to at least the third century before1 and papyrus has sprung up into unexpected prominence in the ancient and mediaeval history of writing4 ,it is discovered that there was no uncial period through which the genealogy of cursives has necessarily passed4 ,old theories on those points must generally be reconstructed if they are to tally with known facts4 ,but this accession of knowledge which puts our opponents in the wrong1 has no effect on us except to confirm our position with new proof4 ,indeed1 we welcome the unlocking of the all but boundless treasury of ancient wealth1 since our theory1 being as open as possible1 and resting upon the visible and real1 remains not only uninjured but strengthened4 ,if it were to require any re-arrangement1 that would be only a re-ordering of particulars1 not of our principles which are capacious enough to admit of any addition of materials of judgement4 ,we trust to the ,church of all the ages as the keeper and witness of ,holy ,writ1 we bow to the teaching of the ,,holy ,,ghost1 as conveyed in all wisdom by facts and evidence3 and we are certain1 that1 following no preconceived notions of our own1 but led under such guidance1 moved by principles so reasonable and comprehensive1 and observing rules and instructions appealing to us with such authority1 we are in all main respects ,,standing ,,upon ,,the ,,rock4 ,,appendix ,i4 ,,honeycomb-- 4 ,the ,dean left positive instructions for the publication of this ,dissertation1 as being finished for ,press4 ,i propose next to call attention to the omission from ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #db of a precious incident in the history of our ,lord's ,resurrection4 ,it was in order effectually to convince the ,disciples that it was ,himself1 in ,his human body1 who stood before them in the upper chamber on the evening of the first ,easter ,day1 that ,he inquired1 ver4 #da 8,have ye here any meat8 ver4 #db and they gave ,him a piece of a broiled fish1 ,,and ,,of ,,an ,,honeycomb40 ,but those four last words 7 7 because they are not found in six copies of the ,gospel1 are by ,westcott and ,hort ejected from the text4 ,calamitous to relate1 the ,revisers of #ahha were by those critics persuaded to exclude them also4 ,how do men suppose that such a clause as that established itself universally in the sacred text1 if it be spurious8 8,how do you suppose10 ,i shall be asked in reply1 8if it be genuine1 that such a clause became omitted from any manuscript at all80 ,i answer1--,the omission is due to the prevalence in the earliest age of fabricated exhibitions of the ,gospel narrative2 in which1 singular to relate1 the incident recorded in ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #da-dc was identified with that other mysterious repast which ,st4 ,john describes in his last chapter7#dje74 ,it seems incredible1 at first sight1 that an attempt would ever be made to establish an enforced harmony between incidents exhibiting so many points of marked contrast3 for ,st4 ,luke speaks of 7#a7 8broiled fish and honeycomb10 7#b7 which 8they gave ,him10 7#c7 8and ,he did eat0 7#d7 on the first ,easter ,day1 7#e7 at evening1 7#f7 in a chamber1 7#g7 at ,jerusalem3--whereas ,st4 ,john specifies 7#a7 8bread1 and fish likewise10 7#b7 which ,he gave them1 7#c7 and of which it is not related that ,himself partook4 7#d7 ,the occasion was subsequent3 7#e7 the time1 early morning3 7#f7 the scene1 the sea-shore3 7#g7 the country1 ,galilee4 ,let it be candidly admitted on the other hand1 in the way of excuse for those ancient men1 that 8broiled fish0 was common to both repasts2 that they both belong to the period subsequent to the ,resurrection3 that the same parties1 our ,,lord namely and ,his ,apostles1 were concerned in either transaction2 and that both are prefaced by similar words of inquiry4 ,waiving this1 it is a plain fact that ,eusebius in his #ith ,canon1 makes the two incidents parallel2 numbering ,st4 ,luke 7xxix4 #da-c71 #cda2 and ,st4 ,john 7xxi4 #i1 #aj1 #ab1 first half1 and #ac71 severally #bba1 #bbc1 #bbe4 ,the ,syriac sections which have hitherto escaped the attention of critical scholars7#djf7 are yet more precise4 ,let the intention of their venerable compiler--whoever he may have been--be exhibited in full4 ,it has never been done before3-- 87,,st4 ,,luke xxiv47 87,,st4 ,,john xxi470 8 #cig4 ,jesus said unto them1 8 #bee4 ,jesus saith unto them1 ,have ye here any meat8 7ver4 #da47 ,children1 have ye any meat8 ,they answered ,him1 ,no4 7ver4 #e47 8,id4 444 8 #bei 444 ,as soon then as they were come to land1 they saw a fire of coals there1 and fish laid thereon1 and bread4 7ver4 #i47 8 #cih4 ,and they gave ,him a piece 8 #bfd4 ,jesus then cometh and of a broiled fish and of an taketh bread1 and giveth them1 and honeycomb4 7ver4 #db47 fish likewise4 7ver4 #ac47 8 #cii4 ,and ,he took it and did eat 8 #bfb4 ,jesus saith unto them1 ,come before them4 7ver4 #dc470 and dine4 7ver4 #ab470 ,the intention of all this is unmistakable4 ,the places are deliberately identified4 ,but the mischief is of much older date than the ,eusebian ,canons1 and must have been derived in the first instance from a distinct source4 ,eusebius1 as he himself informs us1 did but follow in the wake of others4 ,should the ,diatessaron cf ,ammonius or that of ,tatian ever be recovered1 a flood of light will for the first time be poured over a department of evidence where at present we must be content to grope our way7#djg74 ,but another element of confusion ,i suspect is derived from that lost ,commentary on the ,song of ,solomon in which ,origen is said to have surpassed himself7#djh74 ,certain of the ancients insist on discovering in ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #db the literal fulfilment of the ,greek version of ,cant4 v4 #a1 8,i ate my bread with honey40 ,cyril of ,jerusalem remarks that those words of the spouse 8were fulfilled0 when 8they gave ,him a piece of a broiled fish and of an honeycomb7#dji703 while ,gregory ,nyss4 points out 7alluding to the same place7 that 8the true ,bread10 when ,he appeared to ,his ,disciples1 8was by honeycomb made sweet7#daj740 ,little did those ,fathers imagine the perplexity which at the end of #ae centuries their fervid and sometimes fanciful references to ,scripture would occasion6 ,i proceed to shew how inveterately the ancients have confused these two narratives1 or rather these two distinct occasions4 8,who knows not10 asks ,epiphanius1 8that our ,,saviour ate1 after ,his ,resurrection from the dead8 ,as the holy ,gospels of ,truth have it1 #8,there was given unto ,him' which is a reference to ,st4 ,luke1 #8bread and part of a broiled fish4' but it is ,st4 ,john who mentions the bread2--#8and ,he took and ate' but only according to ,st4 ,luke1 #8and gave to ,his disciples1' but only according to ,st4 ,john4 ,and yet the reference must be to ,st4 ,luke's narrative1 for ,epiphanius straightway adds1 #8as ,he also did at the sea of ,tiberias2 both eating1' although no eating on ,his part is recorded concerning that meal1 #8and distributing7#daa74' 0 ,ephraem ,syrus makes the same mis-statement4 8,if ,he was not flesh10 he asks1 8who was it1 at the sea of ,tiberias1 who ate7#dab780 8,while ,peter is fishing10 says ,hesychius7#dac71 7with plain reference to the narrative in ,st4 ,john71 8behold in the ,,lord',s hands bread and honeycomb7#dad703 where the 8honeycomb0 has clearly lost its way1 and has thrust out the 8fish40 ,epiphanius elsewhere even more fatally confuses the two incidents4 8,,jesus0 7he says7 8on a second occasion after ,his ,resurrection ate both a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb7#dae740 ,one would have set this down to sheer inadvertence1 but that ,jerome circumstantially makes the self-same assertion3--8,in ,john we read that while the ,apostles were fishing1 ,he stood upon the shore1 and ate part of a broiled fish and honeycomb4 ,at ,jerusalem ,he is not related to have done anything of the kind7#daf740 ,from whom can ,jerome have derived that wild statement7#dag78 ,it is certainly not his own4 ,it occurs in his letter to ,hedibia where he is clearly a translator only7#dah74 ,in another place1 ,jerome says1 8,he sought fish broiled upon the coals1 in order to confirm the faith of ,his doubting ,apostles1 who were afraid to approach ,him1 because they thought they saw a spirit1--not a solid body7#dai703 which is a mixing up of ,st4 ,john's narrative with that of ,st ,luke4 ,clemens ,alex41 in a passage which has hitherto escaped notice1 deliberately affirms that 8the ,,lord blessed the loaves and the broiled fishes with which ,he feasted ,his ,disciples7#dbj740 ,where did he find that piece of information8 ,one thing more in connexion with the 8broiled fish and honeycomb40 ,athanasius--and ,cyril ,alex47#dba7 after him--rehearse the incident with entire accuracy2 but ,athanasius adds the apocryphal statement that 8,he took what remained over1 and gave it unto them7#dbb703 which tasteless appendix is found besides in ,cureton's ,syriac not in the ,lewis1--in the ,bohairic1 ,harkleian1 ,armenian1 and ,ethiopic ,versions2 and must once have prevailed to a formidable extent1 for it has even established itself in the ,vulgate7#dbc74 ,it is witnessed to1 besides1 by two ninth-century uncials 77 and ten cursive copies7#dbd74 ,the thoughtful reader will say to himself1--8,had only ,cod4 ,b joined itself to this formidable conspiracy of primitive witnesses1 we should have had this also thrust upon us by the new school as indubitable ,gospel3 and remonstrances would have been in vain60 ,now1 as all must see1 it is simply incredible that these many ,fathers1 had they employed honestly-made copies of ,st4 ,luke's and of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 could have fallen into such frequent and such strange misrepresentations of what those ,evangelists actually say4 ,from some fabricated ,gospel--from some 8,diatessaron0 or 8,life of ,christ10 once famous in the ,church1 long since utterly forgotten1--from some unauthentic narrative of our ,saviour's ,death and ,resurrection1 ,i say1 these several depravations of the sacred story must needs have been imported into ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel4 ,and lo1 out of all that farrago1 the only manuscript traces which survive at this distant day1 are found in the notorious ,b-1 with ,a1 ,d1 ,l1 and 1--one copy each of the ,old ,latin 7e7 and the ,bohairic and the ,lewis1--which exclusively enjoy the unenviable distinction of omitting the incident of the 8honeycomb03 while the confessedly spurious appendix1 8,he gave them what remained over10 enjoys a far more ancient1 more varied1 and more respectable attestation1--and yet has found favour with no single ,editor of the ,sacred ,text3 no1 nor have our ,revisers seen fit by a marginal note to apprize the ordinary ,english reader that 8many uncial authorities0 are disfigured in this particular way4 ,with this latter accretion to the inspired verity1 therefore1 we need not delay ourselves3 but that1 so many disturbing influences having resulted1 at the end of seventeen centuries1 in the elimination of the clause from six corrupt copies of ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel1--a fixed determination or a blundering tendency should now be exhibited to mutilate the ,evangelical narrative in respect of the incident which those four words embody1--this may well create anxiety4 ,it makes critical inquiry an imperative duty3 not indeed for our own satisfaction1 but for that of others4 ,upon ourselves1 the only effect produced by the sight of half a dozen ,evangelia1--whether written in the uncial or in the cursive character we deem a matter of small account1--opposing themselves to the whole body of the copies1 uncial and cursive alike1 is simply to make us suspicious of those six ,evangelia4 ,shew us that they have been repeatedly tried already and as often have been condemned1 and our suspicion becomes intense4 ,add such evidence of the operation of a disturbing force as has been already set before the reader2 and further inquiry in our own minds we deem superfluous4 ,but we must answer those distinguished ,critics who have ruled that ,codexes ,b-1 ,d1 ,l1 can hardly if ever err4 ,the silence of the ,fathers is really not of much account4 ,some critics quote ,clemens ,alexandrinus4 ,but let that ,father be allowed to speak for himself4 ,he is inveighing against gluttony4 8,is not variety consistent with simplicity of diet80 7he asks72 and he enumerates olives1 vegetables1 milk1 cheese1 c4 ,if it must be flesh1 he proceeds1 let the flesh be merely broiled4 8 #8,have ye here any meat8' said our ,lord to ,his disciples after ,his ,resurrection4 ,whereupon1 having been by ,him taught frugality in respect of diet1 #8they gave ,him a piece of a broiled fish4' 444 ,yet may the fact not be overlooked that those who sup as ,the ,word approves may partake besides of #8honeycomb4' ,the fittest food1 in a word1 we consider to be that which requires no cooking3 next1 as ,i began by explaining1 cheap and ordinary articles of diet7#dbe740 ,shall ,i be thought unreasonable if ,i insist that so far from allowing that ,clemens is 8silent0 concerning the 8honeycomb10 ,i even regard his testimony to the traditionary reading of ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #db as express8 ,at the end of #agjj years1 ,i am as sure that 8honeycomb0 was found in his copy1 as if ,i had seen it with my eyes4 ,origen1 who is next adduced1 in one place remarks concerning our ,,saviour--8,it is plain that after ,his ,resurrection1 ,he ate of a fish7#dbf740 ,the same ,father elsewhere interprets mystically the circumstance that the ,disciples 8gave ,him a piece of a broiled fish7#dbg740 ,eusebius in like manner thrice mentions the fact that our ,,lord partook of 8broiled fish7#dbh70 after ,his ,resurrection4 ,and because these writers do not also mention 8honeycomb10 it is assumed by ,tischendorf and his school that the words cannot have existed in their copies of ,st4 ,luke7#dbi74 ,the proposed inference is plainly inadmissible4 ,cyril1 after quoting accurately ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #cf to #dc 78honeycomb0 and all77#dcj71 proceeds to remark exclusively on the incident of the 8fish07#dca74 ,ambrose and ,augustine certainly recognized the incident of 8the honeycomb03 yet the latter merely remarks that 8to eat fish with the ,,lord is better than to eat lentiles with ,esau7#dcb720 while the former draws a mystical inference from 8the record in the ,gospel that ,,jesus ate broiled fishes7#dcc740 ,is it not obvious that the more conspicuous incident1--that of the 8broiled fish10--being common to both repasts1 stands for all that was partaken of on either occasion8 in other words1 represents the entire meal8 ,it excludes neither the 8honeycomb0 of the upper chamber1 nor the 8bread0 which was eaten beside the ,galilean lake4 ,tertullian7#dcd71 intending no slight either to the 8broiled fish0 or to the 8bread10 makes mention only of our ,lord's having 8eaten honeycomb0 after ,his ,resurrection4 ,and so ,jerome1 addressing ,john1 bishop of ,jerusalem1 exclaims--8,why did the ,lord eat honeycomb8 ,not in order to give thee licence to eat honey1 but in order to demonstrate the truth of ,his ,resurrection7#dce740 ,to draw inferences from the rhetorical silence of the ,fathers as if we were dealing with a mathematical problem or an ,act of ,parliament1 can only result in misconceptions of the meaning of those ancient men4 ,as for ,origen1 there is nothing in either of the two places commonly cited from his writings7#dcf71 where he only mentions the partaking of 8fish10 to preclude the belief that ,origen knew of the 8honeycomb0 also in ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #db4 ,we have but fragments of his ,commentary on ,st4 ,luke7#dcg71 and an abridged translation of his famous ,commentary on ,canticles4 ,should these works of his be hereafter recovered in their entirety1 ,i strongly suspect that a certain scholium in ,cordier's ,catena on ,st4 ,luke7#dch71 which contains a very elaborate recognition of the 8honeycomb10 will be found to be nothing else but an excerpt from one or other of them4 ,at foot the learned reader will be gratified by the sight of the original ,greek of the scholium referred to7#dci71 which ,cordier so infelicitously exhibits in ,latin4 ,he will at least be made aware that if it be not ,origen who there speaks to us1 it is some other very ancient father1 whose testimony to the genuineness of the clause now under consideration is positive evidence in its favour which greatly outweighs the negative evidence of the archetype of ,b-4 ,but in fact as a specimen of mystical interpretation1 the passage in question is quite in ,origen's way7#ddj7--;has all his fervid wildness1--in all probability is actually his4 ,the question however to be decided is clearly not whether certain ancient copies of ,st4 ,luke were without the incident of the honeycomb2 but only whether it is reasonable to infer from the premisses that the ,evangelist made no mention of it4 ,and ,i venture to anticipate that readers will decide this question with me in the negative4 ,that1 from a period of the remotest antiquity1 certain disturbing forces have exercised a baneful influence over this portion of ,scripture is a plain fact3 and that their combined agency should have resulted in the elimination of the incident of the 8honeycomb0 from a few copies of ,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #db1 need create no surprise4 ,on the other hand1 this ,evangelical incident is attested by the following witnesses3-- ,in the second century1 by ,justin ,m47#dda71--;by ,clemens ,alexandrinus7#ddb71--;by ,tertullian7#ddc71--;by the ,old-,latin1--and by the ,peshitto ,version3 ,in the third century1 by ,cureton's ,syriac1--and by the ,bohairic3 ,in the fourth century1 by ,athanasius7#ddd71--;by ,gregory of ,nyssa7#dde71--;by ,epiphanius7#ddf71--;by ,cyril of ,jerusalem7#ddg71--;by ,jerome7#ddh71--;by ,augustine7#ddi71--;and by the ,vulgate3 ,in the fifth century1 by ,cyril of ,alexandria7#dej71--;by ,proclus7#dea71--;by ,vigilius ,tapsensis7#deb71--;by the ,armenian1--and ,ethiopic ,versions3 ,in the sixth century1 by ,hesychius and ,cod4 ,n7#dec73 ,in the seventh century1 by the ,harkleian ,version4 ,surely an ,evangelical incident attested by so many1 such respectable1 and such venerable witnesses as these1 is clearly above suspicion4 ,besides its recognition in the ancient scholium to which attention has been largely invited already7#ded71 we find the incident of the 8honeycomb0 recognized by #ac ancient ,fathers1--by #h ancient ,versions1--by the unfaltering ,tradition of the universal ,church1--above all1 by every copy of ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel in existence 7as far as is known71 uncial as well as cursive--except six4 ,that it carries on its front the impress of its own genuineness1 is what no one will deny7#dee74 ,yet was ,dr4 ,hort for dismissing it without ceremony4 8,a singular interpolation evidently from an extraneous source1 written or oral10 he says4 ,a singular hallucination1 we venture to reply1 based on ideal grounds and 8a system of ,textual ,criticism hopelessly self-condemned7#def720 seeing that that ingenious and learned critic has nothing to urge except that the words in dispute are omitted by ,b-1--by ,a seldom found in the ,gospels in such association1--by ,d of the sixth century1--by ,l of the eighth1--by of the ninth4 ,i have been so diffuse on this place because ,i desire to exhibit an instance shewing that certain perturbations of the sacred ,text demand laborious investigation1--have a singular history of their own1--may on no account be disposed of in a high-handed way1 by applying to them any cut and dried treatment1--nay ,i must say1 any arbitrary shibboleth4 ,the clause in dispute enjoys in perfection every note of a genuine reading3 viz4 number1 antiquity1 variety1 respectability of witnesses1 besides continuity of attestation3 every one of which notes are away from that exhibition of the text which is contended for by my opponents7#deg74 ,tischendorf conjectures that the 8honeycomb0 may have been first brought in from the 8,gospel of the ,hebrews40 ,what if1 on the contrary1 by the ,valentinian 8,gospel of ,truth10--a composition of the second century1--the 8honeycomb0 should have been first thrust out7#deh78 ,the plain statement of ,epiphanius 7quoted above7#dei77 seems to establish the fact that his maimed citation was derived from that suspicious source4 ,let the foregoing be accepted as a specimen of the injury occasionally sustained by the ,evangelical text in a very remote age from the evil influence of the fabricated narratives1 or ,diatessarons1 which anciently abounded4 ,the genuineness of the clause 1 it is hoped1 will never more be seriously called in question4 ,surely it has been demonstrated to be quite above suspicion7#dfj74 ,,appendix ,,ii4 --,,vinegar4 ,the ,dean thought this to be one of his most perfect papers4 ,when ,he had reached the place called ,golgotha1 there were some who offered to the ,son of ,man 7 8were for giving0 ,him7 a draught of wine drugged with myrrh7#dfa74 ,he would not so much as taste it4 ,presently1 the soldiers gave ,him while hanging on the ,cross vinegar mingled with gall7#dfb74 ,this ,he tasted1 but declined to drink4 ,at the end of six hours1 ,he cried1 8,i thirst03 whereupon one of the soldiers ran1 filled a sponge with vinegar1 and gave ,him to drink by offering the sponge up to ,his mouth secured to the summit of the reed of aspersion3 whereby 7as ,st4 ,john significantly remarks7 it covered the bunch of ceremonial hyssop which was used for sprinkling the people7#dfc74 ,this time ,he drank2 and exclaimed1 8,it is finished40 ,now1 the ancients1 and indeed the moderns too1 have hopelessly confused this pathetic story by identifying the 8vinegar and gall0 of ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #cd with the 8myrrhed wine0 of ,st4 ,mark xv4 #bc2 shewing therein a want of critical perception which may reasonably excite astonishment2 for 8wine0 is not 8vinegar10 neither is 8myrrh0 8gall40 ,and surely1 the instinct of humanity which sought to alleviate the torture of crucifixion by administering to our ,saviour a preliminary soporific draught1 was entirely distinct from the fiendish malice which afterwards with a nauseous potion strove to aggravate the agony of dissolution4 ,least of all is it reasonable to identify the leisurely act of the insolent soldiery at the third hour7#dfd71 with what 8one of them0 7evidently appalled by the darkness7 8ran0 to do at the ninth7#dfe74 ,eusebius nevertheless1 in his clumsy sectional system1 brackets7#dff7 together these three places 7,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #cd1 ,st4 ,mark xv4 #bc1 ,st4 ,john xix4 #bi73 while moderns 7as the excellent ,isaac ,williams7 and ancients 7as ,cyril of ,jerusalem77#dfg7 alike strenuously contend that the two first must needs be identical4 ,the consequence might have been foreseen4 ,besides the substitution of 8wine0 for 8vinegar0 7 for 7 which survives to this day in nineteen copies of ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #cd1 the words 8and gall0 are found improperly thrust into four or five copies of ,st4 ,john xix4 #bi4 ,as for ,eusebius and ,macarius ,magnes1 they read ,st4 ,john xix4 #bi after such a monstrous fashion of their own1 that ,i propose to invite separate attention to it in another place4 ,since however the attempt to assimilate the fourth ,gospel to the first 7by exhibiting in ,st4 ,john xix4 #bi7 is universally admitted to be indefensible1 it need not occupy us further4 ,i return to the proposed substitution of for in ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #cd1 and have only to point out that it is as plain an instance of enforced harmony as can be produced4 ,that it exists in many copies of the ,old-,latin1 and lingers on in the ,vulgate3 is the reading of the ,egyptian1 ,ethiopic1 and ,armenian ,versions and the ,lewis ,cod42 and survives in ,b,,dkl1 besides thirteen of the cursives7#dfh72--;all this will seem strange to those only who have hitherto failed to recognize the undeniable fact that ,codd4 ,b- ,,dl are among the foulest in existence4 ,it does but prove how inveterately1 as well as from how remote a period1 the error under discussion has prevailed4 ,and yet1 the great and old ,peshitto ,version1--,barnabas7#dfi71--;,irenaeus7 #dgj71--,tertullian7#dga71--;,celsus7#dg b71--,origen7#dgc71--the ,sibylline verses in two places7#dgd7 7quoted by ,lactantius71--and ps4-,tatian7#dge71--;are more ancient authorities than any of the preceding1 and they all yield adverse testimony4 ,coming down to the fourth century1 7to which ,b- belong17 those two ,codexes find themselves contradicted by ,athanasius7#dgf7 in two places1--by another of the same name7#dgg7 who has been mistaken for the patriarch of ,alexandria1--by ,eusebius of ,emesa7#dgh71--;by ,theodore of ,heraclea7#dgi71--;by ,didymus7#dhj71--;by ,gregory of ,nyssa7#dha71--;and by his namesake of ,nazianzus7#dhb71--;by ,ephraem ,syrus7#dhc71--;by ,lactantius7#dhd71--;by ,jerome7#dhe71--;by ,rufinus7#dhf71--;by ,chrysostom7#dhg71--;by ,severianus of ,gabala7#dhh71--;by ,theodore of ,mopsuestia7#dhi71--;by ,cyril of ,alexandria7#dij71--;and by ,titus of ,bostra7#dia74 ,now these are more respectable contemporary witnesses to the text of ,scripture by far than ,codexes ,b- and ,d 7who also have to reckon with ,a1 1 and --,c being mute at the place71 as well as outnumber them in the proportion of #bd to #b4 ,to these 7#h #af 7 #bd are to be added the ,apocryphal 8,gospel of ,nicodemus7#dib710 which ,tischendorf assigns to the third century2 the 8,acts of ,philip7#dic710 and the ,apocryphal 8,acts of the ,apostles7#did710 which ,dr4 ,wright claims for the fourth2 besides ,hesychius7#die71 ,amphilochius7#dif71 ps4-,chrysostom7#dig71 ,maximus7#dih71 ,severus of ,antioch7#dii71 and ,john ,damascene7#ejj71--nine names which far outweigh in antiquity and importance the eighth and ninth-century ,codexes ,,kl4 ,those critics in fact who would substitute 8wine0 for 8vinegar0 in ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #cd have clearly no case4 ,that1 however1 which is absolutely decisive of the question against them is the fact that every uncial and every cursive copy in existence1 except the very few specimens already quoted1 attest that the oldest known reading of this place is the true reading4 ,in fact1 the ,church has affirmed in the plainest manner1 from the first1 that 7not 7 is to be read here4 ,we are therefore astonished to find her deliberate decree disregarded by ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,westcott and ,hort1 in an attempt on their part to revive what is a manifest fabrication1 which but for the ,vulgate would long since have passed out of the memory of ,christendom4 ,were they not aware that ,jerome himself knew better8 8,usque hodie0 7he says7 8,judaei et omnes increduli ,dominicae resurrectionis1 aceto et felle potant ,jesum2 et dant ei vinum myrrhatum ut eum consopiant1 et mala eorum non videat7#eja730--whereby he both shews that he read ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #cd according to the traditional text 7see also p4 #bcc c71 and that he bracketed together two incidents which he yet perceived were essentially distinct1 and in marked contrast with one another4 ,but what most offends me is the deliberate attempt of the ,revisers in this place4 ,shall ,i be thought unreasonable if ,i avow that it exceeds my comprehension how such a body of men can have persuaded themselves that it is fair to eject the reading of an important place of ,scripture like the present1 and to substitute for it a reading resting upon so slight a testimony without furnishing ordinary ,christian readers with at least a hint of what they had done8 ,they have considered the evidence in favour of 8wine0 7in ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #cd7 not only 8decidedly preponderating10 but the evidence in favour of 8vinegar0 so slight as to render the word undeserving even of a place in the margin4 ,will they find a sane jury in ,great ,britain to be of the same opinion8 ,is this the candid and equitable action befitting those who were set to represent the ,church in this momentous business8 ,,appendix ,,iii4 ,,the ,,rich ,,young ,,man4 ,the eternal ,godhead of ,,christ was the mark at which1 in the earliest age of all1 ,satan persistently aimed his most envenomed shafts4 ,st4 ,john1 in many a well-known place1 notices this2 begins and ends his ,gospel by proclaiming our ,saviour's ,eternal ,godhead7#ejb72 denounces as 8deceivers10 8liars10 and 8antichrists10 the heretical teachers of his own day who denied this7#ejc72--which shews that their malice was in full activity before the end of the first century of our era2 ere yet1 in fact1 the echoes of the ,divine ,voice had entirely died out of the memory of very ancient men4 ,these ,gnostics found something singularly apt for their purpose in a famous place of the ,gospel1 where the blessed ,speaker seems to disclaim for ,himself the attribute of 8goodness10--in fact seems to distinguish between ,himself and ,,god4 ,allusion is made to an incident recorded with remarkable sameness of expression by ,st4 ,matthew 7xix4 #af1 #ag71 ,st4 ,mark 7x4 #ag1 #ah7 and ,st4 ,luke 7xviii4 #ah1 #ai71 concerning a certain rich young ,ruler4 ,this man is declared by all three to have approached our ,,lord with one and the same question1--to have prefaced it with one and the same glozing address1 8,good ,master60--and to have been checked by the object of his adulation with one and the same reproof2--8,why dost thou who takest me for an ordinary mortal like thyself7#ejd7 call me good8 ,no one is good essentially good7#eje7 save one10 that is 8,,god40 444 ,see1 said some old teachers1 fastening blindly on the letter1--,he disclaims being good3 ascribes goodness exclusively to the ,father3 separates ,himself from very and eternal ,god7#ejf74444 ,the place was accordingly eagerly fastened on by the enemies of the ,gospel7#ejg73 while1 to vindicate the ,divine utterance against the purpose to which it was freely perverted1 and to establish its true meaning1 is found to have been the endeavour of each of the most illustrious of the ,fathers in turn4 ,their pious eloquence would fill a volume7#ejh74 ,gregory of ,nyssa devotes to this subject the eleventh book of his treatise against ,eunomius7#eji74 ,in order to emphasize this impious as well as shallow gloss the heretic ,valentinus 7,a4,d4 #abj71--with his disciples1 ,heracleon and ,ptolemaeus1 the ,marcosians1 the ,naassenes1 ,marcion 7,a4,d4 #aej71 and the rest of the ,gnostic crew1--not only substituted 8,one is good0 for 8,no one is good but one10--but evidently made it a great point besides to introduce the name of the ,,father1 either in place of1 or else in addition to1 the name of 8,,god7#eaj740 ,so plausible a depravation of the text was unsuspiciously adopted by not a few of the orthodox4 ,it is found in ,justin ,martyr7#eaa71--;in pseudo-,tatian7#eab71--;in the ,clementine homilies7#eac74 ,and many who1 like ,clemens ,alex41--,origen1--the ,dialogus1--and pseudo-,tatian 7in five places71 are careful to retain the ,evangelical phrase 8,no one is good but one that is ,,god10--even they are observed to conclude the sentence with the heretical addition 8,,the ,,father7#ead740 ,i am not of course denying that the expression is theologically correct3 but only am requesting the reader to note that1 on the present occasion1 it is clearly inadmissible2 seeing that it was no part of our ,saviour's purpose1 as ,didymus1 ,ambrose1 ,chrysostom1 ,theodoret point out1 to reveal ,himself to such an one as the rich young ruler in ,his own essential relation to the ,eternal ,father7#eae71--to proclaim in short1 in this chance way1 the great mystery of the ,godhead3 but only 7as the ancients are fond of pointing out7 to reprove the man for his fulsomeness in addressing one of his fellows 7as he supposed7 as 8good7#eaf740 ,in the meantime1 the extent to which the appendix under discussion prevails in the ,patristic writings is a singular illustration of the success with which1 within #fj or #gj years of its coming into being1 the text of ,scripture was assailed2 and the calamitous depravation to which it was liable4 ,surprising as well as grievous to relate1 in every recent critical recension of the ,greek text of ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel1 the first four words of the heretical gloss 7 7 have been already substituted for the seven words before found there 7 1 72 and 7more grievous still7 now1 at the end of #agjj years1 an effort is being made to establish this unauthorized formula in our ,english ,bibles also4 ,this is done1 be it observed1 in opposition to the following torrent of ancient testimony3--viz41 in the second century1 the ,peshitto ,version1--,justin ,martyr7#eag71--ps4-,tatian 7#e times77#eah71--;,clemens ,alex4 7twice77#eai73--;in the third century1 the ,sahidic ,version1--ps4-,dionysius ,areopag47#ebj73--;in the fourth century1 ,eusebius 7#c times77#eba71 ,macarius ,magnes 7#d times77#ebb71--;,basil7#ebc71--;,chrysos tom7#ebd73--;,athanasius7#ebe71--;,grego ry ,nyss4 7#c times77#ebf71--;and ,didymus apparently 7twice77#ebg73--;in the fifth century1 ,cod4 ,c1--,augustine in many places7#ebh71--;,cyril ,alex47#ebi71--;and ,theodoret 7#h times77#ecj73--;in the sixth century1 ,antiochus mon47#eca71--the ,opus imperf47#ecb7--with the ,harkleian and the ,ethiopic ,version4 444 ,when to these #ba authorities have been added all the known copies1 except six of dissentients1--an amount of ancient evidence has been adduced which must be held to be altogether decisive of a question like the present7#ecc74 ,for what1 after all1 is the proper proof of the genuineness of any reading1 but the prevailing consent of ,copies1 ,fathers1 ,versions8 ,this fundamental truth1 strangely overlooked in these last days1 remains unshaken4 ,for if the universal consent of ,copies1 when sustained by a free appeal to antiquity1 is not to be held definitive1--what in the world is8 ,were the subject less solemn there would be something diverting in the navet of the marginal note of the revisers of #ahha1--8,some ancient authorities read 444 #8,none is good save one even ,god4' 0 ,how many 8ancient authorities0 did the ,revisers suppose exhibit anything else8 ,but all this1 however interesting and instructive1 would have attracted little attention were it not for the far more serious corruption of the ,sacred ,text1 which has next to be considered4 ,the point to be attended to is1 that at the very remote period of which we are speaking1 it appears that certain of the ,orthodox1--with the best intentions doubtless1 but with misguided zeal1--in order to counteract the pernicious teaching which the enemies of ,christianity elicited from this place of ,scripture1 deliberately falsified the inspired record7#ecd74 ,availing themselves of a slight peculiarity in ,st4 ,matthew's way of exhibiting the words of the young ,ruler1--7namely1 8,what good thing shall ,i do107--they turned our ,,lord',s reply1 8,why callest thou me good80 in the first ,gospel1 into this1--8,why askest thou me concerning the good80 ,the ensuing formula which the heretics had devised1--8,one there is that is good10 with some words of appendix concerning ,god the ,father1 as already explained1--gave them no offence1 because it occasioned them no difficulty4 ,it even suited their purpose better than the words which they displaced4 ,on the other hand1 they did not fail to perceive that the epithet 8good10 8,good ,master10 if suffered to remain in the text1 would witness inconveniently against them1 by suggesting our ,,lord',s actual reply1--viz4 8,why callest thou me good80 ,accordingly1 in an evil hour1 they proceeded further to erase the word from their copies4 ,it is a significant circumstance that the four uncial ,codexes 7,b,,dl7 which exclusively exhibit 2 are exclusively the four which omit the epithet 4 ,the subsequent history of this growth of error might have been foreseen4 ,scarcely had the passage been pieced together than it began to shew symptoms of disintegration2 and in the course of a few centuries1 it had so effectually disappeared1 that tokens of it here and there are only to be found in a few of the earliest documents4 ,first1 the epithet 77 was too firmly rooted to admit of a sentence of perpetual banishment from the text4 ,besides retaining its place in every known copy of the ,gospels except eight7#ece71 it survives to this hour in a vast majority of the most ancient documents4 ,thus1 is found in ,justin ,martyr7#ecf7 and in ps4-,tatian7#ecg73--;in the remains of the ,marcosian7#ech71--;and of the ,naassene7#eci7 ,gnostics2--as well as in the ,peshitto1--and in the ,old ,latin versions3--in the ,sahidic1--and the ,bohairic version1--besides in the ,clementine ,homilies7#edj71 in ,cureton and ,lewis1--and in the ,vulgate3--in ,origen7#eda71--;in ,athanasius7#edb71--;and in ,basil7#edc71--;and in ,cyril of ,jerusalem7#edd73--;in ,ephraem ,syrus7#ede71 and in ,gregory of ,nyssa7#edf73 in ,macarius ,magnes7#edg71--;and in ,chrysostom7#edh73--;in ,juvencus7#edi71--;,hilary7#eej71--;,gau dentius7#eea71--;,jerome7#eeb71--;and ,augustine7#eec72--lastly in ,vigilius ,tapsensis7#eed73--;in ,cyril ,alex47#eee71--;in ,theodoret7#eef71--;in ,cod4 ,c1--in the ,harkleian ,version1--and in the ,opus imperfectum7#eeg74 ,so that1 at the end of #agjj years1 #f witnesses of the second century1--#c of the third1--#ad of the fourth1--#d of the fifth1--#b of the sixth1 come back from all parts of ,christendom to denounce the liberty taken by the ancients1 and to witness to the genuineness of the traditional text4 ,so much then1--7#a7 ,for the unauthorized omission of 1 and--7#b7 ,for the heretical substitution of in the room of 4 ,we have still to inquire after the fate of the most conspicuous fabrication of the three3 viz4--7#c7 ,the substitution of 2 for 2 ,what support do the earliest witnesses lend to the inquiry1--8,why askest thou me concerning the good80 444 ,that patent perversion of the obvious purport of our ,saviour's address1 ,i answer1 is disallowed by ,justin ,martyr7#eeh7 7,a4,d4 #adj71--;by the ,marcosians7#eei71--;and the ,naassenes7#efj7 7,a4,d4 #aej71--;by the ,clementine homilies7#efa71--;and ps4-,tatian7#efb7 7third century72--by the ,peshitto and the ,thebaic version2--by ,macarius ,magnes7#efc71--;,athanasius7#efd71--;an d ,basil7#efe72--;by ,hilary7#eff71--;,gregory of ,nyssa7#efg72--;by ,chrysostom7#efh71--;by ,cyril ,alex47#efi71--;by ,theodoret7#egj71--;by the ,opus imperfectum7#ega71--;by the ,harkleian1--and the ,armenian versions4 ,i have produced #ah witnesses1--#d belonging to the second century3 #c to the third3 #f to the fourth3 #e to the fifth4 ,moreover they come from every part of ancient ,christendom4 ,such an amount of evidence1 it must be again declared1 is absolutely decisive of a question of this nature4 ,whether men care more for ,antiquity or for ,variety of testimony2 whether ,respectability of witnesses or vastly preponderating ,numbers1 more impresses the imagination1--they must needs admit that the door is here closed against further debate4 ,the traditional text of ,st4 ,matt4 xix4 #af1 #ag is certainly genuine1 and must be allowed to stand unmolested4 ,for it is high time to inquire1--,what1 after all1 is the evidence producible on the other side8 ,the exhibition of the text1 ,i answer1 which recommends itself so strongly to my opponents that they have thrust it bodily into the ,gospel1 is found in its entirety only with that little band of witnesses which have already so often come before us2 and always with false testimony4 ,i am saying that ,origen7#egb7 in the third century1--,codd4 ,b- in the fourth1--,cod4 ,d in the fifth1--,cod4 ,l in the eighth1--besides a couple of cursive ,codexes 7,evann4 #a and #bb71--;are literally the whole of the producible evidence for the ,revisers' text in its entirety4 ,not that even these seven so-called consentient witnesses are in complete accord among themselves4 ,on the contrary4 ,the discrepancy between them is perpetual4 ,a collation of them with the traditional text follows3-- 7,d not ,orig4 ,b,l 7 7,b not ,orig4 ,,dl 71 7,orig4 ,b,,dl--7 7,l not ,orig4 ,,bd 7 7,orig4 ,,bd not ,l 7 7,orig4 #ffd;b ,l not ,orig4 #ffd;a ,,bd 72 1 7,orig4 #ffd-e ,b,,dl ,orig4 #fff;b 7,orig4 #ffd;c ,d not ,orig4 #ffe;c #fff;b ,b,l--7 72 7,b,,dl 7,d not ,orig4 ,b,l--7 74 ,can it be possibly reasonable to avow that such an amount of discrepancy between witnesses which claim to be consentient1 inspires confidence rather than distrust in every one of them8 ,the reader is next to be told that there survive1 as might have been expected1 traces in sundry quarters of this threefold ancient fraud 7as it seems to be rather than blunder72--as in ,justin7#egc71 and the ,marcosian7#egd71 and ,naassene heretics7#ege72 the ,latin ,versions7#egf72 the ,bohairic7#egg72 the ,cureton and ,lewis7#egh72 pseudo-,dionysius7#egi71 the ,clementine homilies7#ehj7 and ,eusebius7#eha72 ,cyril ,alex47#ehb7 and ,antiochus the monk7#ehc7 7,a4,d4 #fad72 ,hilary7#ehd71 ,jerome7#ehe71 and ,augustine7#ehf72 besides in ,evann4 #dgi and #fjd1 and ,evst4 #e4 ,but the point to be attended to is1 that not one of the foregoing authorities sanctions the text which ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,w4-,hort1 and the ,revisers of #ahha unanimously adopt4 ,this first4 ,and next1 that no sooner are these sixteen witnesses fairly confronted1 than they set about hopelessly contradicting one another3 so that it fares with them as it fared with the ,philistines in the days of ,saul3--8,behold1 every man's sword was against his fellow1 and there was a very great discomfiture7#ehg740 ,this will become best understood by the reader if he will allow 87,i710 to represent the omission of the epithet 3--87,,ii710 the substitution of 3--and 87,,iii710 the substitution of with or without appendix4 ,for it will appear that1-- 7a7 ,evan4 #dgi and ,evst4 #e1 though they witness in favour of 7,i71 yet witness against 7,,ii7 and 7,,iii73--and that1 7b7 ,the ,latin and the ,bohairic ,versions1 with ,jerome and ,evan4 #fjd1 though they witness in favour of 7,,ii7 and 7,,iii71 yet witness against 7,i74 ,note1 that ,cureton and ,lewis do the same3 but then the ,cureton stultifies itself by omitting from the introductory inquiry the underlined and clearly indispensable word1--8,what good thing must ,i do80 ,the same peculiarity is exhibited by the ,thebaic ,version and by ,cyril of ,jer47#ehh7 ,now this is simply fatal to the testimony of ,cureton's ,syr4 concerning 87,,ii710--seeing that1 without it1 the proposed reply cannot have been spoken4--,it appears further that1 7c7 ,augustine1 though he witnesses in favour of 7,,ii71 yet witnesses against both 7,i7 and 7,,iii73--and that1 7d7 ,hilary1 though he witnesses in favour of 7,,iii71 and yields uncertain testimony concerning 7,i71 yet witnesses against 7,,ii73--and that1 7e7 ,justin ,m4 7in one place7 and the ,marcosian and ,naassene heretics1 together with the ,clementine homilies1 though they witness in favour of 7,,iii71 yet witness against 7,i7 and 7,,ii73--and that1 7f7 ps4-,dionysius1 ,eusebius1 and ,antiochus mon4 7,a4,d4 #fad71 though they witness in favour of 7,,ii71 yet witness against 7,,iii74 7g7 ,cyril also1 though he delivers uncertain testimony concerning 7,i7 and 7,,ii71 yet witnesses against 7,,iii74 ,the plain fact is that the place before us exhibits every chief characteristic of a clumsy fabrication4 ,no sooner had it with perverse ingenuity been pieced together1 than the process of disintegration set in4 ,the spurious phrases 1 and 1 having no lawful dwelling-place of their own1 strayed out of the first ,gospel into the third as soon as they were invented4 ,cureton in ,st4 ,luke xviii4 #ai has both phrases1 ,lewis neither1--,marcion1 in his heretical recension of ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel 7,a4,d4 #aej71 besides the followers of ,arius1 adopt the latter7#ehi74 8,the key of the whole position10 as ,scrivener points out1 8is the epithet #8good' before #8,master' in ver4 #af3 for if this be genuine1 the only pertinent answer is contained in the ,received ,text7#eij740 ,precisely so3 and it has been proved to be genuine by an amount of continuous attestation which is absolutely overwhelming4 ,we just now analyzed the inconsistent testimony of sixteen ancient authorities2 and found that only the two cursive copies favour the omission of 1 while nine of the oldest witnesses are for retaining it4 ,concerning the expression 1 these inconsistent witnesses are evenly divided1--seven being for it1 seven against it4 ,all1 in fact1 is error1 confusion1 discord1 the instant we get outside the traditional text4 ,the reason of all this contrariety has been assigned already4 ,before ,christianity was a hundred years old1 two opposite evil influences were at work here3 one1 heretical--which resulted in 7,,iii73 the other1 orthodox1--which resulted in 7,,ii7 and 7,i74 ,these influences1 proceeding from opposite camps1 were the cause that copies got independently propagated of two archetypes4 ,but the ,church1 in her corporate capacity1 has declined to know anything of either4 ,she has been careful all down the ages that the genuine reading shall be rehearsed in every assembly of the faithful on the #abth ,sunday after ,pentecost2 and behold1 at this hour it is attested by every copy in the world--except that little handful of fabricated documents1 which it has been the craze of the last fifty years to cry up as the only authentic witnesses to the truth of ,scripture1 viz4 ,codd4 ,b,,dl and ,origen4 ,now1 as to the first two of these1 ,dr4 ,scrivener has pronounced7#eia7 that 7,b71 8subsequent investigations have brought to light so close a relation as to render it impossible to regard them as independent witnesses20 while every page of the ,gospel bears emphatic witness to the fact that ,codd4 ,b,,dl are1 as has been said1 the depositaries of a hopelessly depraved text4 ,but how about ,origen8 ,he1 in ,a4,d4 #bej1 commenting on the present place of ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel1 has a great deal to say concerning the grievously corrupt condition of the copies hereabouts4 ,now1 the copies he speaks of must have been older1 by at least #ajj years1 than either ,cod4 ,b or ,cod4 4 ,he makes this admission casually in the course of some remarks which afford a fair sample of his critical method and therefore deserve attention3--,he infers from ,rom4 xiii4 #i that if the rich young ruler really did 8love his neighbour as himself10 which1 according to the three ,evangelists1 he virtually said he did7#eib71 he was perfect7#eic76 ,yet our ,saviour's rejoinder to him is1--8,if thou wilt be perfect10 go and do such and such things4 ,having thus invented a difficulty where none exists1 ,origen proposes1 as a way out of it1 to regard the precept 7in ,st4 ,matt4 xix4 #bj1--8,thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself07 as an unauthorized accretion to the ,text1--the work of some tasteless scribe7#eid74 ,the reasonableness of suspecting its genuineness 7he says7 is heightened by the fact that neither in ,st4 ,mark's nor yet in ,st4 ,luke's parallel narrative1 are the words found about 8loving one's neighbour as oneself40 ,as if that were not rather a reason for presuming it to be genuine6 ,to be sure 7proceeds ,origen7 it would be monstrous to regard these words1 8,thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself10 as an interpolation1 were it not for the existence of so many other discrepancies hereabouts4 ,the copies of ,st4 ,matthew are in fact all at strife among themselves4 ,and so are the copies of the other ,gospels4 ,vast indeed1 and with this he concludes1 is the discrepancy in ,st4 ,matthew7#eie73 whether it has proceeded from the carelessness of the scribes2--or from criminal audacity on the part of correctors of ,scripture2--or whether1 lastly1 it has been the result of licentiousness on the part of those who1 pretending to 8correct0 the text1 have added or omitted according to their own individual caprice7#eif74 ,now all this is very instructive4 ,here is the most famous ,critic of antiquity estimating the genuineness of a clause in the ,gospel1 not by the amount of external attestation which it enjoys1 but by his own self-evolved fancies concerning it4 ,as a matter of fact1 no extant copy1 ,father1 or ,version is without the clause under discussion4 ,by proposing therefore that it shall be regarded as spurious1 ,origen does but convict himself of rashness and incompetency4 ,but when this same ,critic1--who1 by his own shewing1 has had the evil hap to alight on a collection of singularly corrupt documents1--proceeds to handle a text of ,scripture which has demonstrably had a calamitous history from the first days of the ,gospel until now2--two inconvenient questions force themselves on our attention3--,the first1--,what confidence can be reposed in his judgement8 ,the second--,what is there to conciliate our esteem for the particular ,codex from which he happens to quote8 ,on the other hand1 the reader has been already shewn by a more open appeal to antiquity than has ever before been attempted1 that the reading of ,st4 ,matt4 xix4 #af1 #ag which is exclusively found in ,b,,dl and the copy from which ,origen quotes1 is deficient in external attestation4 ,now1 when it is considered that ,b confessedly represent one and the same archetype1 which may very well have been of the date of ,origen himself1--how is it possible to resist the conviction that these three are not independent voices1 but echoes of one and the same voice8 ,and1 ,what if certain ,codexes preserved in the library of ,caesarea in ,palestine7#eig72--;,codexes which were handled in turn by ,origen1 by ,eusebius1 by ,jerome1 and which also furnished the archetype from which ,b and were derived2--what1 ,i say1 if it shall some day come to be generally admitted1 that those ,caesarean ,codexes are most probably the true fons et origo of much of our past perplexity and of our present trouble8 ,since 8coincidence of reading infallibly implies identity of ancestry7#eih710 are we not even led by the hand to see that there must have existed in the famous library of ,caesarea a little nest of copies credited1 and justly so1 with containing every 8last new thing0 in the way of ,textual ,criticism1 to which ,critics of the type of ,origen and ,jerome1 and perhaps ,eusebius1 must have been only too fond of resorting8 ,a few such critically corrected copies would furnish a complete explanation of every peculiarity of reading exhibited exclusively by ,codexes ,b and 1 and fondled1 perhaps with some critical cynicism1 by those three ,fathers4 ,yet it is to be remembered1 7with reference to the place before us17 that 8,origen1 ,eusebius1 and ,jerome0 are not in accord here1 except in reading 8--for ,eusebius differs from ,origen and ,jerome in proceeding with the traditional text 3 while ,jerome and even ,origen concur with the traditional text in recognizing the epithet 1--a circumstance which1 as already explained1 may be regarded as fatal to the formula 444 which follows4 ,this however by the way4 ,that so ill-supported a fraud should have imposed upon ,griesbach1 ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford1 ,westcott and ,hort1 and the ,revisers of #ahha1 including ,scrivener1--is to me unintelligible4 ,the substituted reading is an impossible one to begin with1 being inconsistent with its context4 ,and although ,i hold the introduction of intrinsic probability into these inquiries to be unlawful1 until the truth has been established on grounds of external evidence2 yet1 when that has been accomplished1 not only do internal considerations claim a hearing1 but their effect is often1 as in the present case1 entirely to sweep the field4 ,it is impossible1 so at least it seems to me1 to survey the narrative by the light of internal probability1 without being overcome by the incoherence and essential foolishness of the reading before us4 ,this is a point which deserves attention4 #a4 ,that our ,,lord actually did remonstrate with the young ruler for calling ,him 8good10 is at least certain4 ,both ,st4 ,mark 7x4 #ag1 #ah7 and ,st4 ,luke 7xviii4 #ah1 #ai7 record that fact1 and the text of neither is disputed4 ,how grossly improbable then is the statement that ,he also reproved the young man for inviting ,him to a philosophical discussion concerning 1--which yet the young man clearly had not done4 ,according to two out of the three ,evangelists1 if not to the third also1 his question had not been about the abstract quality2 but concerning the concrete thing1 as a means to an end3--8,what good work must ,i do in order that ,i may inherit eternal life80--a purely practical question4 ,moreover1 the pretended inquiry is not touched by the proposed rejoinder1--8,one there is who is good10--or 8,there is none good but one1 that is ,,god40 ,does not the very wording of that rejoinder shew that it must needs have been preceded by the inquiry1 8,why callest thou ,me good80 ,the young man is told besides that if he desires to 8inherit eternal life0 he must keep ,god's commandments4 ,the question and the answer in the genuine text are strictly correlative4 ,in the fabricated text1 they are at cross purposes and inconsistent with one another in a high degree4 #b4 ,let it however be supposed for an instant that our ,,lord',s reply actually was1--8,why askest thou ,me concerning abstract goodness80 ,note what results4 ,since it cannot be thought that such an interrogation is substantially equivalent to 8,why callest thou ,me good80 the saying1--if uttered at all1--must have been spoken in addition4 ,was it then spoken to the same man8--8,yes10 replies the author of ,cureton's ,syriac3 8the rejoinder ran thus1--#8,why callest thou ,me good8' and1 #8,why askest thou ,me respecting the good7#eii78' 0--8,not exactly10 remarks the author of ,evan4 #bea1 8,the second of those two inquiries was interposed after the word #8,which8' in ver4 #ah40--8,not so10 cries the author of the ,gospel to the ,hebrews4 8,the men who came to our ,lord were two in number7#fjj740 ,there is reason for suspecting that certain of the early heretics were of the same opinion7#fja74 ,will not every candid reader admit that the more closely we look into the perplexed tangle before us1 the more intolerable it becomes1--the more convinced we feel of its essential foolishness8 ,and--,is it too much to hope that after this deliberate exposure of the insufficiency of the evidence on which it rests1 no further efforts will be made to bolster up a reading so clearly indefensible8 ,nothing more1 ,i suppose1 need be added4 ,i have been so diffuse concerning the present place of ,scripture because ,i ardently desire to see certain of the vexatae quaestiones in ,textual ,criticism fairly threshed out and settled4 ,and this is a place which has been famous from the earliest times1--a as ,macarius ,magnes 7p4 #ab7 calls it1 in his reply to the heathen philosopher who had proposed it as a subject for discussion4 ,it is 7in the opinion of modern critics7 8quite a test passage7#fjb740 ,tischendorf made this the subject of a separate dissertation in #ahdj7fjc74 ,tregelles1 who discusses it at great length7#fjd71 informs us that he even 8relies on this one passage as supplying an argument on the whole question0 which underlies his critical ,recension of the ,greek ,text4 ,it has caused all the ,critics--,griesbach1 ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford1 ,w4-,hort1 the ,revisers1 even ,scrivener7#fje71 to go astray4 ,critics will spend their strength in vain if they seek any further to establish on a rational basis alterations made on the strength of testimony which is both restricted and is at variance with itself4 ,let it be noted that our persistent appeal concerning ,st4 ,matt4 xix4 #ag1 #ah has been made to ,antiquity4 ,we reject the proposed innovation as undoubtedly spurious1 because of the importance and overwhelming number of the witnesses of the second1 third1 and fourth centuries which come forward to condemn it2 as well as because of the plain insufficiency and want of variety in the evidence which is adduced in its support4 ,whenever a proposed correction of the ,sacred ,text is insufficiently attested1 and especially when that attestation is destitute of ,variety1--we claim that the traditional reading shall stand4 ,,appendix ,,iv4 ,,st4 ,,mark ,i4 #a4 ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel opens as follows3--8,the beginning of the ,gospel of ,jesus ,christ1 ,,the ,,son ,,of ,,god40 ,the significancy of the announcement is apparent when the opening of ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel is considered1--8,the book of the generation of ,jesus ,christ1 the ,son of ,david40 ,surely if there be a clause in the ,gospel which carries on its front the evidence of its genuineness1 it is this7#fjf74 ,but in fact the words are found in every known copy but three 71 #bh1 #bee72 in all the ,versions2 in many ,fathers4 ,the evidence in its favour is therefore overwhelming4 ,yet it has of late become the fashion to call in question the clause-- 4 ,westcott and ,hort shut up the words in brackets4 ,tischendorf ejects them from the text4 ,the ,revisers brand them with suspicion4 ,high time is it to ascertain how much of doubt really attaches to the clause which has been thus assailed4 ,tischendorf relies on the testimony of ten ancient ,fathers1 whom he quotes in the following order1--,irenaeus1 ,epiphanius1 ,origen1 ,basil1 ,titus1 ,serapion1 ,cyril of ,jerusalem1 ,severianus1 ,victorinus1 ,jerome4 ,but the learned critic has to be reminded 7#a7 that pro hac vice1 ,origen1 ,serapion1 ,titus1 ,basil1 ,victorinus and ,cyril of ,jerusalem are not six fathers1 but only one4 ,next 7#b71 that ,epiphanius delivers no testimony whatever on the point in dispute4 ,next 7#c71 that ,jerome7#fjg7 is rather to be reckoned with the upholders1 than the impugners1 of the disputed clause3 while 7#d7 ,irenaeus and ,severianus bear emphatic witness in its favour4 ,all this quite changes the aspect of the ,patristic testimony4 ,the scanty residuum of hostile evidence proves to be ,origen and three ,codexes1--of which two are cursives4 ,i proceed to shew that the facts are as ,i have stated them4 ,as we might expect1 the true author of all the mischief was ,origen4 ,at the outset of his commentary on ,st4 ,john1 he writes with reference to ,st4 ,mark i4 #a1--8;,either the entire ,old ,testament 7represented by ,john ,baptist7 is here spoken of as #8the beginning' of the ,new2 or else1 only the end of it 7which ,john quotes7 is so spoken of1 on account of this linking on of the ,new ,testament to the ,old4 ,for ,mark says1--#8,the beginning of the ,gospel of ,jesus ,christ1 as it is written in ,isaiah the prophet1 ,behold1 ,i send my messenger1 c4 ,the voice of one1 c4' ,i can but wonder therefore at those heretics10--he means the followers of ,basilides1 ,valentinus1 ,cerdon1 ,marcion1 and the rest of the ,gnostic crew1--8who attribute the two ,testaments to two different ,gods2 seeing that this very place sufficiently refutes them4 ,for how can ,john be #8the beginning of the ,gospel1' if1 as they pretend1 he belongs to another ,god1 and does not recognize the divinity of the ,new ,testament80 ,presently1--8,in illustration of the former way of taking the passage1 viz4 that ,john stands for the entire ,old ,testament1 ,i will quote what is found in the ,acts viii4 #ce #8,beginning at the same ,scripture of ,isaiah1 ,he was brought as a lamb1 c41 ,philip preached to the eunuch the ,lord ,jesus4' ,how could ,philip1 beginning at the prophet1 preach unto him ,jesus1 unless ,isaiah be some part of #8the beginning of the ,gospel7#fjh78' 0 ,from the day that ,origen wrote those memorable words ,a4,d4 #bcj1 an appeal to ,st4 ,mark i4 #a-c became one of the commonplaces of ,theological controversy4 ,st4 ,mark's assertion that the voices of the ancient ,prophets1 were 8the beginning of the ,gospel0--of whom ,john ,baptist was assumed to be the symbol1--was habitually cast in the teeth of the ,manichaeans4 ,on such occasions1 not only ,origen's reasoning1 but often ,origen's mutilated text was reproduced4 ,the heretics in question1 though they rejected the ,law1 professed to hold fast the ,gospel4 8,but0 7says ,serapion7 8they do not understand the ,gospel2 for they do not receive the beginning of it3--#8,the beginning of the ,gospel of ,jesus ,christ1 as it is written in ,isaiah the prophet7#fji74' 0 ,what the author of this curt statement meant1 is explained by ,titus of ,bostra1 who exhibits the quotation word for word as ,serapion1 following ,origen1 had exhibited it before him2 and adding that ,st4 ,mark in this way 8connects the ,gospel with the ,law2 recognizing the ,law as the beginning of the ,gospel7#faj740 ,how does this prove that either ,serapion or ,titus disallowed the words 8 ,the simple fact is that they are both reproducing ,origen3 and besides availing themselves of his argument1 are content to adopt the method of quotation with which he enforces it4 ,next1 for the testimony of ,basil4 ,his words are1--8,mark makes the preaching of ,john the beginning of the ,gospel1 saying1 #8,the beginning of the ,gospel of ,jesus ,christ 444 as it is written in ,isaiah the prophet 444 ,the voice of one crying in the wilderness7#faa74' 0 ,this certainly shews that ,basil was treading in ,origen's footsteps2 but it no more proves that he disallowed the three words in dispute in ver4 #a1 than that he disallowed the sixteen words not in dispute in ver4 #b4--;from which it is undeniable that he omits them intentionally1 knowing them to be there4 ,as for ,victorinus 7,a4,d4 #bij71 his manner of quoting the beginning of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel is identical with ,basil's7#fab71 and suggests the same observation4 ,if proof be needed that what precedes is the true account of the phenomenon before us1 it is supplied by ,cyril of ,jerusalem1 with reference to this very passage4 ,he points out that 8,john was the end of the prophets1 for #8,all the prophets and the ,law were until ,john2' but the beginning of the ,gospel dispensation1 for it says1 #8,the beginning of the ,gospel of ,jesus ,christ1' and so forth4 ,john was baptizing in the wilderness7#fac740 ,cyril has therefore passed straight from the middle of the first verse of ,st4 ,mark i4 to the beginning of ver4 #d3 not1 of course1 because he disallowed the eight and thirty words which come in between2 but only because it was no part of his purpose to quote them4 ,like ,serapion and ,titus1 ,basil and ,cyril of ,jerusalem are in fact reproducing ,origen3 but unlike the former two1 the two last-named quote the ,gospel elliptically4 ,the liberty indeed which the ancient ,fathers freely exercised1 when quoting ,scripture for a purpose1--of leaving out whatever was irrelevant2 of retaining just so much of the text as made for their argument1--may never be let slip out of sight4 ,little did those ancient men imagine that at the end of some #aejj years a school of ,critics would arise who would insist on regarding every irregularity in such casual appeals to ,scripture1 as a deliberate assertion concerning the state of the text #aejj years before4 ,sometimes1 happily1 they make it plain by what they themselves let fall1 that their citations of ,scripture may not be so dealt with4 ,thus1 ,severianus1 bishop of ,gabala1 after appealing to the fact that ,st4 ,mark begins his ,gospel by styling our ,saviour 1 straightway quotes ver4 #a without that record of ,divine ,sonship1--a proceeding which will only seem strange to those who omit to read his context4 ,severianus is calling attention to the considerate reserve of the ,evangelists in declaring the eternal ,generation of ,jesus ,christ4 8,mark does indeed say #8,son of ,god'2 but straightway1 in order to soothe his hearers1 he checks himself and cuts short that train of thought2 bringing in at once about ,john the ,baptist3 saying1--#8,the beginning of the ,gospel of ,jesus ,christ 444 as it is written in ,isaiah the prophet1 ,behold1' c4 ,no sooner has the ,evangelist displayed the torch of ,truth1 than he conceals it7#fad740 ,how could ,severianus have made his testimony more emphatic8 ,and now the reader is in a position to understand what ,epiphanius has delivered4 ,he is shewing that whereas ,st4 ,matthew begins his ,gospel with the history of the ,nativity1 8the holy ,mark makes what happened at ,jordan the introduction of the ,gospel3 saying1--,the beginning of the ,gospel 444 as it is written in ,isaiah the prophet 444 ,the voice of one crying in the wilderness7#fae740 ,this does not of course prove that ,epiphanius read ver4 #a differently from ourselves4 ,he is but leaving out the one and twenty words 7#e in ver4 #a3 #af in ver4 #b7 which are immaterial to his purpose4 ,our ,lord's glorious designation 78,jesus ,christ1 the ,son of ,god107 and the quotation from ,malachi which precedes the quotation from ,isaiah1 stand in this writer's way3 his one object being to reach 8the voice of one crying in the wilderness40 ,epiphanius in fact is silent on the point in dispute4 ,but the most illustrious name is behind4 ,irenaeus 7,a4,d4 #agj7 unquestionably read in this place4 ,he devotes a chapter of his great work to the proof that ,jesus is the ,christ1--very ,god as well as very ,man2 and establishes the doctrine against the ,gnostics1 by citing the ,evangelists in turn4 ,st4 ,mark's testimony he introduces by an apt appeal to ,rom4 i4 #a-d1 ix4 #e1 and ,gal4 iv4 #d1 #e3 adding1--8,the ,son of ,god was made the ,son of ,man1 in order that by ,him we might obtain the adoption3 ,man carrying1 and receiving1 and enfolding the ,son of ,god4 ,hence1 ,mark says1--#8,the beginning of the ,gospel of ,jesus ,christ1 the ,son of ,god1 as it is written in the prophets7#faf74' 0 ,irenaeus had already1 in an earlier chapter1 proved by an appeal to the second and third ,gospels that ,jesus ,christ is ,god4 8,quapropter et ,marcus10 7he says7 8interpres et sectator ,petri1 initium ,evangelicae conscriptionis fecit sic3 #8,initium ,evangelii ,jesu ,christi ,filii ,dei1 quemadmodum scriptum est in ,prophetis1' c47#fag70 ,this at all events is decisive4 ,the ,latin of either place alone survives3 yet not a shadow of doubt can be pretended as to how the man who wrote these two passages read the first verse of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel7#fah74 ,even more interesting is the testimony of ,victor of ,antioch2 for though he reproduces ,origen's criticism1 he makes it plain that he will have nothing to say to ,origen's text7#fai74 ,he paraphrases1 speaking in the person of the ,evangelist1 the two opening verses of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 as follows6--8,i shall make #8the beginning of the ,gospel' from ,john3 of the ,gospel1 ,i say #8of the ,son of ,god3' for so #8it is written in the prophets1' viz4 that ,he is the ,son of ,god4444 ,or1 you may connect #8as it is written in the prophets' with #8,behold1 ,i send my messenger'3 in which case1 ,i shall make #8the beginning of the ,gospel of the ,son of ,god' that which was spoken by the prophets concerning ,john40 ,and again1--8,mark says that ,john1 the last of the prophets1 is #8the beginning of the ,gospel'3 adding1 #8as it is written in the prophets1 ,behold1' c41 c47#fbj70 ,it is therefore clear how ,victor at least read the place4 ,it is time to close this discussion4 ,that the ,codexes which ,origen habitually employed were of the same type as ,cod4 1--and that from them the words were absent1--is undeniable4 ,but that is the sum of the evidence for their omission4 ,i have shewn that ,serapion and ,titus1 ,basil and ,victorinus and ,cyril of ,jerusalem1 do but reproduce the teaching of ,origen3 that ,epiphanius delivers no testimony either way3 while ,irenaeus and ,severianus bear emphatic witness to the genuineness of the clause in dispute4 ,to these must be added ,porphyry 7,a4,d4 #bgj77fba71 ,cyril of ,alexandria7#fbb71 ,victor of ,antioch1 ps4-,athanasius7#fbc71 and ,photius7#fbd71--with ,ambrose 7#fbe71 and ,augustine7#fbf7 among the ,latins4 ,the clause is found besides in all the ,versions1 and in every known copy of the ,gospels but three2 two of which are cursives4 ,on what principle ,tischendorf would uphold the authority of and ,origen against such a mass of evidence1 has never been explained4 ,in the meantime1 the disappearance of the clause 7 7 from certain of the earliest copies of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel is only too easily accounted for4 ,so obnoxious to certain precursors of the ,gnostic sect was the fundamental doctrine which it embodies1 that ,st4 ,john 7xx4 #ca7 declares it to have been the very purpose of his ,gospel to establish 8that ,jesus is the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god40 ,what is more obvious than that the words at some very remote period should have been fraudulently removed from certain copies of the ,gospel8 ,,appendix ,v4 ,,the ,,sceptical ,,character ,,of ,b ,,and 4 ,the sceptical character of the ,vatican and ,sinaitic ,,mss4 affords a strong proof of the alliance between them and the ,origenistic school4 ,instances found in these ,codexes may be classed thus3-- ,note #a4 ,the following instances are professedly taken from the ,gospels4 ,only a few are added from elsewhere4 ,note #b4 ,other ,uncials are also added1 to indicate by specimens how far these two ,,mss4 receive countenance or not from other sources1 and also in part how far the same influence enter them4 ,i4 ,passages detracting from the ,scriptural acknowledgement of the ,divinity of our ,lord3-- omitted--,st4 ,mark i4 #a 79974 444 omitted--,st4 ,john vi4 #fi 7,,bc99,,dl74 omitted--,st4 ,mark ix4 #bd 7,,abc99,,dl74 omitted--,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #c 7,d74 changed into --,acts xx4 #bh 7,,ac99,,des74 ,omission of faith in ,,christ4 --,st4 ,john vi4 #dg 7,,bl74 ,slur on efficacy of prayer through ,,christ3 ,insert --,st4 ,john xiv4 #ad 7,,behu74 ,transfer --,st4 ,john xxi4 #bc 7,,bc99,,lxv74 ,omission of in the cure--,st4 ,mark vii4 #ce 7,b,d,l,wd7 ,cf4 ,st4 ,mark ii4 #ab4 ,judgement-seat of ,,god instead of ,,christ--,rom4 xiv4 #aj 799,,abc99,d c474 omitted--,st4 ,john iii4 #ac 7,,blb74 ,omission of in penitent thief's prayer--,st4 ,luke xxiii4 #db 7,,bc99,,dlm9974 the ,ascension in ,st4 ,luke1 --,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #ea 799,d74 ,insertion of from ,st4 ,mark xiii4 #cb in ,st4 ,matt4 xxiv4 #cf4 ,cf4 ,basil to ,amphilochius1 iii4 #cfj-b 7,revision ,revised1 p4 #baj1 note74 ,omission of in reference to the creation of man--,st4 ,mark x4 #f 7,,bci74 ,cf4 ,st4 ,matt4 xii4 #cj 7,,bd74 --,st4 ,john iii4 #ca 799,d74 --,st4 ,john viii4 #ce 7,x74 1 --,st4 ,john viii4 #ei 7,,bd74 for 4 4 4 --,st4 ,john ix4 #ce 7,,bd74 for --#b ,pet4 i4 #a 774 ,omission of --,st4 ,john xvi4 #f 7,,bd74 --#a ,cor4 xv4 #dg 799,,bcd99,,efg74 for --#a ,tim4 iii4 #af 71 ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #dca-dc74 for --,col4 ii4 #aj1 making the ,fulness of the ,,godhead the head of all principality and power 7,,bdefg74 ,,ii4 ,generally sceptical tendency3-- ,n4,b4--,omission is in itself sceptical4 instead of --,matt4 iii4 #af 7,b74 ,cf4 ,acts xvi4 #g1 for --,,abc#b;,,de#b7fbg74 for 1 slurring the ,divine ,birth--,matt4 i4 #ah 7,,bcpsz74 ,omission of the title of 8good0 applied to our ,,lord--,matt4 xix4 #af1 #ag 7,,bdl74 the necessity of our ,,lord to suffer4 --,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #df 7,,bc99,,dl74 last ,twelve ,verses of ,st4 ,mark 7,b74 ,omission of passages relating to ,everlasting ,punishment 7closely ,origenistic73 for 4 --,st4 ,mark iii4 #bi 7,,bl74 7,d7--ibid4 1 --,st4 ,mark ix4 #dd1 #df 7,,bcl74 the danger of rejecting our ,lord--,st4 ,matt4 xxi4 #dd 7,d74 --,st4 ,mark ix4 #di 7,,bl74 the condemnation of ,pharisaic treatment of widows--,st4 ,matt4 xxiii4 #ad 7,,bdlz74 --,st4 ,matt4 xx4 #bb1 #bc 7,,bdlz74 --,st4 ,matt4 i4 #be 7,,bz74 the verse about prayer and fasting--,st4 ,matt4 xvii4 #ba 799,b74 the words giving authority to the ,apostles to heal diseases--,st4 ,mark iii4 #ae 7,,bc9974 the forgiveness of sins to those who turn--,st4 ,mark iv4 #ab 7,,bcl74 condemnation of cities and mention of the ,day of ,judgement--,st4 ,mark vi4 #aa 7,,bcdl74 fasting--,st4 ,mark ix4 #bi 799,b74 taking up the ,cross--,st4 ,mark x4 #ba 7,,bcd74 the danger of riches--,st4 ,mark x4 #bd 7,b74 the danger of not forgiving others--,st4 ,mark xi4 #bf 7,,bls74 --,st4 ,luke i4 #bh 7,,bl74 --,st4 ,luke iv4 #d 7,,bl74 --,st4 ,luke iv4 #e 7,,bl74 1 --,st4 ,luke iv4 #h 7,,bdl74 reference to ,elijah's punishment1 and the manner of spirit--,st4 ,luke ix4 #ee1 #ef4 the saving effect of faith--,st4 ,luke xvii4 #ai 7,b74 the day of the ,son of ,man--,st4 ,luke xvii4 #bd 7,,bd74 the descent of the ,angel into ,bethesda--,st4 ,john v4 #c1 #d 7,,bc99,d74 --,st4 ,john vi4 #ea 7,,bcl74 ,,iii4 ,evincing a 8philosophical0 obtuseness to tender passages3-- ,omissions in the records of the ,institution of the ,holy ,sacrament3 thus-- 444 444 --,st4 ,mark xiv4 #bb-bd 7,,bcd74 --,st4 ,matt4 xxvi4 #bg 7,b74 1 444 --#a ,cor4 xi4 #b-d 7,,abc9974 ,omission of ,agony in the ,garden and strengthening ,angel--,st4 ,luke xxii4 #dc1 #dd 7,,abrt1 first corrector74 ,first ,word from the ,cross--,st4 ,luke xxiii4 #cd 7a,b,d9974 ,mutilation of the ,,lord',s ,prayer--,st4 ,luke xi4 #b-d3 i4e4 ,omission of 7,,bl74 1 1 7,,bl74 799,,bl74 ,omission of --,matt4 v4 #bb 7,b74 the verse telling of our ,,lord',s coming to save what was lost--,st4 ,matt4 xviii4 #aa 7,,bl9974 --,st4 ,matt4 v4 #dd 7,b74 the prophecy of being numbered with the transgressors--,st4 ,mark xv4 #bh 7,a,b,cet #c;,,dx74 --,st4 ,matt4 vi4 #f 7,,bdz74 reference to the last cry--,st4 ,mark xv4 #ci 7,,bl74 striking on the face--,st4 ,luke xxii4 #fd 7,,blmt74 triple superscription 74 4 4 4 4 47--,st4 ,luke xxiii4 #ch 7,,bcl74 ,so 99 in ,st4 ,john xix4 #bj-ba4 --,st4 ,luke xxiv4 #db 7,,abdl74 --,st4 ,john v4 #ae 7,,bcdl74 for --,rev4 i4 #e 7,,ac74 for --,matt4 vi4 #a 799et b,b,d74 ,,iv4 ,shewing attempts to classicize ,new ,testament ,greek4 ,these attempts have left their traces1 conspicuous especially for omissions1 all over ,b and in a multiplicity of passages too numerous to quote4 ,their general character may be gathered in a perusal of ,dr4 ,hort's ,introduction1 pp4 #bbc-bbg1 from which passage we may understand how these ,,mss4 may have commended themselves at periods of general advancement in learning to eminent scholars like ,origen and ,dr4 ,hort4 ,but unfortunately a ,thucydidean compactness1 condensed and well-pruned according to the fastidious taste of the study1 is exactly that which does not in the long run take with people who are versed in the habits of ordinary life1 or with scholars who have been exercised in many fields1 as was shewn by the falling into disuse of ,origen's critical manuscripts4 ,the echoes of the fourth century have surely been heard in the nineteenth4 ,,appendix ,,vi4 ,,the ,,peshitto ,,and ,,curetonian4 ,the ,rev4 ,c4 ,h4 ,,waller1 ,d4,d41 ,principal of ,st4 ,john's ,hall1 ,highbury4 ,a careful collation of the ,curetonian ,syriac with the ,peshitto would ,i think leave no doubt on the mind of any one that the ,curetonian as exhibited by ,cureton himself is the later version4 ,but in order to give full effect to the argument it would be necessary to shew the entire ,curetonian fragment side by side with the corresponding portions of the ,peshitto4 ,otherwise it is scarcely possible to realize 7#a7 how entirely the one version is founded upon the other--7#b7 how manifestly the ,curetonian is an attempt to improve upon the other2 or 7#c7 how the ,curetonian presupposes and demands an acquaintance with the ,gospels in general1 or with views of ,gospel history which belong to the ,church rather than to the sacred text4 ,even in those brief passages exhibited by ,dr4 ,scrivener from both editions this can be made out4 ,and it is capable of still further illustration from almost every page of ,dr4 ,cureton's book4 ,to take the fragments exhibited by ,dr4 ,scrivener first4 7a7 ,in ,st4 ,matt4 xii4 #a-d1 where the ,peshitto simply translates the ,textus ,receptus 7not altered by our ,revisers71 saying that the disciples were hungry 8and began to pluck ears of corn and to eat10 the ,curetonian amends thus3--8and the disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears of corn1 and break them in their hands1 and eat10 introducing 7as it frequently does1 e4g4 ,st4 ,matt4 iv4 #aa1 8for a season02 ,st4 ,matt4 iv4 #ba1 8laying his hand02 ,st4 ,matt4 v4 #ab1 8your fathers02 ,st4 ,matt4 v4 #dg1 8what thank have ye807 words borrowed from ,st4 ,luke vi4 #a4 ,but in the next verse of the passage1 where the words 8on the ,sabbath10 are absolutely required in order to make the ,pharisees' question intelligible to the first readers of ,st4 ,matthew1 8,behold1 thy disciples do what is not lawful to do on the ,sabbath0 7,textus ,receptus and ,peshitto2 not altered by our ,revisers71 the ,curetonian must needs draw on the common knowledge of educated readers by exhibiting the question thus1 8,why are thy disciples doing what is not lawful to do80 an abbreviated reading which leaves us ignorant what the action objected to might be2 whether to pluck ears in another man's field1 or to rub the grain from them on the ,sabbath day8 ,on what possible ground can such emendations as this have the preference of antiquity in their favour8 ,again1 the shewbread in ver4 #d of this passage is1 not as we have it in the ,peshitto1 8the bread of the table of the ,lord10 ,syriac letters1 a simple phrase which everyone can understand1 but the ,old ,testament expression1 8face-bread10 ,syriac letters1 which exhibits the translator's knowledge of the earlier ,scriptures1 as do his emendations of the list of names in the first chapter of ,st4 ,matthew1 and1 if ,i mistake not1 his quotations also4 7b7 ,or1 to turn to ,st4 ,mark xvi4 #ag-bj 7the other passage exhibited by ,dr4 ,scrivener74 ,both the ,peshitto and ,curetonian shew their agreement1 by the points in which they differ from our received text4 8,the ,lord ,jesus then1 after ,he had commanded ,his disciples1 was exalted to heaven and sat on the right hand of ,,god0--is the ,curetonian phrase4 ,the simpler ,peshitto runs thus4 8,jesus the ,lord then1 after ,he had spoken with them1 ascended to heaven1 and sat on the right hand of ,,god40 ,both alike introduce the word 8,jesus0 as do our ,revisers3 but the two slight touches of improvement in the ,curetonian are evident1 and belong to that aspect of the matter which finds expression in the ,creed1 and in the obedience of the ,church4 ,who can doubt which phrase is the later of the two8 ,a similar slight touch appears in the ,curetonian addition to ver4 #ag of 8them that believe on ,me0 instead of simply 8them that believe40 ,the following points ,i have myself observed in the collation of a few chapters of ,st4 ,matthew from the two versions4 ,their minuteness itself testifies to the improved character of the ,curetonian4 ,in ,st4 ,matt4 v4 #cb we have been accustomed to read1 with our ,text ,received and ,revised and with all other authorities1 8,whosoever shall put away his wife1 except for the cause of fornication40 ,so reads the ,peshitto4 ,but whence comes it that the ,curetonian ,syriac substitutes here adultery for fornication1 and thereby sanctions1--not the precept delivered by our ,lord1 but the interpretation almost universally placed upon it8 ,how is it possible to contend that here the ,curetonian ,syriac has alone preserved the true reading8 ,yet either this must be the case1 or else we have a deliberate alteration of a most distinct and precise kind1 telling us1 not what our ,lord said1 but what ,he is commonly supposed to have meant4 ,not less curious is the addition in ver4 #da1 8,whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile1 go with him two others40 ,our ,lord said 8go with him twain10 as all ,greek ,,mss4 except ,d bear witness4 ,the ,curetonian and ,d and some ,latin copies say practically 8go with him three40 ,is this again an original reading1 or an improvement8 ,it is no accidental change4 ,but by far the most striking 'improvements' introduced by the ,curetonian ,,ms4 are to my mind1 those which attest the perpetual virginity of our ,lord's ,mother4 ,the alterations of this kind in the first chapter form a group quite unique4 ,beginning with ver4 #ah1 we read as follows3-- ,in the ,peshitto and our ,greek ,in the ,curetonian4 ,text without any variation4 ,ver4 #af4 8,jacob begat ,joseph the 8,jacob begat ,joseph to whom was husband of ,mary of whom was born espoused ,mary the virgin1 which ,jesus1 who is called ,messiah40 bare ,jesus the ,messiah40 ,ver4 #ah4 8,now the birth of ,jesus 8,the birth of the ,messiah was ,christ was on this wise 7,peshitto1 thus40 and ,textus ,receptus3 ,revised also1 but with some uncertainty740 ,ver4 #ai4 8,joseph her husband ,ver4 #ai4 8,joseph1 because he was being a just man10 c4 a righteous man10 c4 there is no ,greek or ,latin authority with ,cn4 here4 ,ver4 #bj4 8,fear not to take unto 444 8,mary thine espoused0 7,cn4 thee ,mary thy wife40 seems to be alone here74 ,ver4 #bd4 8,joseph 444 did as the 444 8and took ,mary0 7,cn4 seems ,angel of the ,lord had bidden him1 alone in omitting 8his wife074 and took unto him his wife40 ,ver4 #be4 8,and knew her not until 8,and purely dwelt with her until she brought forth her firstborn a she bare the son0 7,cn4 here is son40 not alone except in inserting the article74 ,the absolute omission from the ,curetonian ,syriac of all mention of ,joseph as ,mary's husband1 or of ,mary as his wife is very remarkable4 ,the last verse of the chapter has suffered in other authorities by the loss of the word 8firstborn10 probably owing to a feeling of objection to the inference drawn from it by the ,helvidians4 ,it seems to have been forgotten 7#a7 that the fact of our ,lord's being a 8firstborn0 in the ,levitical sense is proved by ,st4 ,luke from the presentation in the temple 7see ,neh4 x4 #cf72 and 7#b7 that ,his being called a 8firstborn0 in no way implies that his mother had other children after him4 ,but putting this entirely aside1 the feeling in favour of ,mary's perpetual virginity on the mind of the translator of the ,curetonian ,syriac was so strong as to draw him to four distinct and separate omissions1 in which he stands unsupported by any authority1 of the word 8husband0 in two places1 and in two others of the word 8wife40 ,i do not see how any one can deny that here we have emendations of the most deliberate and peculiar kind4 ,nor is there any family of earlier readings which contains them1 or to which they can be referred4 ,the fact that the ,curetonian text has some readings in common with the so-called western family of text 7e4g4 the transposition of the beatitudes in ,matt4 v4 #d1 #e7 is not sufficient to justify us in accounting for such vagaries as this4 ,it is indeed a 8,western0 superstition which has exalted the ,virgin ,mary into a sphere beyond the level of all that rejoice in ,god her ,saviour4 ,but the question here suggested is whether this way of regarding the matter is truly ancient2 and whether the ,,ms4 of an ancient version which exhibits such singular phenomena on its first page is worthy to be set above the common version which is palpably its basis4 ,in the first sentence of the ,preface ,dr4 ,cureton states that it was obtained from a ,syrian ,monastery dedicated to ,st4 ,mary ,deipara4 ,i cannot but wonder whether it never occurred to him that the cultus of the ,deipara1 and the taste which it indicates1 may partly explain why a ,,ms4 of a certain character and bias was ultimately domiciled there4 ,see note at the end of this ,chapter4 ,shall ,i be thought very disrespectful if ,i say that the study which ,i have been able to devote to ,dr4 ,cureton's book has impressed me with a profound distrust of his scholarship8 8,she shall bare for thee a son10 says he on the first page of his translation2--which is not merely bald and literal1 but absolutely un-,english in many places4 ,in ,matt4 vi4 in the first verse we have alms and in the third and fourth righteousness4 ,an explanation4 ,in ver4 #ac the ,cn4 has the doxology1 but with power omitted1 the ,peshitto not4 ,in ver4 #ag4 ,cn4 wash thy face and anoint thy head instead of our text4 ,in ver4 #ai4 ,cn4 leaves out 8rust0 and puts in 8where falleth the moth40 ,in x4 #db4 ,the discipleship instead of disciple4 ,in xi4 #b4 ,of ,jesus instead of ,christ4 ,in xiii4 #f4 ,parable of ,sower1 a ,targum-like alteration4 ver4 #ac a most important ,targum4 ver4 #cc a wise woman took and hid in meal4 xiv4 #ac leaves out 8by ship10 and says 8on foot10 where the ,peshitto has 8on dry land10 an odd change1 of an opposite kind to some that ,i have mentioned4 ,in ,st4 ,john iii4 #f1 ,cn4 has3 8,that which is born of the flesh is flesh1 because of flesh it is born2 and that which is born of the ,spirit is spirit1 because ,god is a spirit1 and of ,god it is born40 ,and in ver4 #h3 8,so is every one that is born of water and of the ,spirit40 ,this is a ,targum-like expansion3 possibly anti-,arian4 ,see ,tischendorf's ,gr4 ,test4 in loco4 ,all the above changes look like deliberate emendations of the text4 ,it is curious that the ,lewis ,codex and the ,curetonian both break off from the ,traditional account of the ,virgin-birth1 but in opposite directions4 ,the ,lewis ,codex makes ,joseph our ,lord's actual ,father3 the ,curetonian treats the question as described above4 ,that there were two streams of teaching on this subject1 which specially characterized the fifth century1 is well known3 the one exaggerating the ,nestorian division of the two ,natures1 the other tending in a ,eutychian direction4 ,that two fifth-century ,,mss4 should illustrate these deviations is but natural2 and their survival not a little remarkable4 ,,appendix ,,vii4 ,,the ,,last ,,twelve ,,verses ,,of ,,st4 ,,mark',s ,,gospel4 ,it would be a manifest defect1 if a book upon ,textual ,criticism passing under the name of ,dean ,burgon were to go forth without some reference to the present state of the controversy on the subject1 which first made him famous as a ,textual critic4 ,his argument has been strengthened since he wrote in the following ways3-- #a4 ,it will be remembered that the omission of the verses has been rested mainly upon their being left out by ,b and 1 of which circumstance the error is mutely confessed in ,b by the occurrence of a blank space1 amply sufficient to contain the verses1 the column in question being the only vacant one in the whole manuscript4 ,it has been generally taken for granted1 that there is nothing in to denote any consciousness on the part of the scribe that something was omitted4 ,but a closer examination of the facts will shew that the contrary is the truth4 ,for-- i4 ,the page of on which ,st4 ,mark ends is the recto of leaf #bi1 being the second of a pair of leaves 7#bh and #bi71 forming a single sheet 7containing ,st4 ,mark xiv4 #ed-xvi4 #h1 ,st4 ,luke i4 #a-ef71 which ,tischendorf has shewn to have been written not by the scribe of the body of the ,new ,testament in this ,,ms41 but by one of his colleagues who wrote part of the ,old ,testament and acted as diorthota or corrector of the ,new ,testament--and who is further identified by the same great authority as the scribe of ,b4 ,this person appears to have cancelled the sheet originally written by the scribe of 1 and to have substituted for it the sheet as we now have it1 written by himself4 ,a correction so extensive and laborious can only have been made for the purpose of introducing some important textual change1 too large to be effected by deletion1 interlineation1 or marginal note4 ,thus we are led not only to infer that the testimony of is here not independent of that of ,b1 but to suspect that this sheet may have been thus cancelled and rewritten in order to conform its contents to those of the corresponding part of ,b4 ii4 ,this suspicion becomes definite1 and almost rises to a certainty1 when we look further into the contents of this sheet4 ,its second page 7#bh vo7 exhibits four columns of ,st4 ,mark 7xv4 #af-xvi4 #a72 its third page 7#bi ro71 the two last columns of ,st4 ,mark 7xvi4 #b-h7 and the first two of ,st4 ,luke 7i4 #a-ah74 ,but the writing of these six columns of ,st4 ,mark is so spread out that they contain less matter than they ought2 whereas the columns of ,st4 ,luke that follow contain the normal amount4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that the change introduced by the diorthota must have been an extensive excision from ,st4 ,mark3--in other words1 that these pages as originally written must have contained a portion of ,st4 ,mark of considerable length which has been omitted from the pages as they now stand4 ,if these six columns of ,st4 ,mark were written as closely as the columns of ,st4 ,luke which follow1 there would be room in them for the omitted twelve verses4--,more particularly1 the fifth column 7the first of page #bi ro7 is so arranged as to contain only about five-sixths of the normal quantity of matter1 and the diorthota is thus enabled to carry over four lines to begin a new column1 the sixth1 by which artifice he manages to conclude ,st4 ,mark not with a blank column such as in ,b tells its own story1 but with a column such as in this ,,ms4 is usual at the end of a book1 exhibiting the closing words followed by an 8arabesque0 pattern executed with the pen1 and the subscription 7the rest being left empty74 ,but1 by the very pains he has thus taken to conform this final column to the ordinary usage of the ,,ms41 his purpose of omission is betrayed even more conclusively1 though less obviously1 than by the blank column of ,b7#fbh74 iii4 ,a further observation is to be noted1 which not only confirms the above1 but serves to determine the place where the excision was made to have been at the very end of the ,gospel4 ,the last of the four lines of the sixth and last column of ,st4 ,mark 7the second column of leaf #bi ro7 contains only the five letters 7 71 and has the rest of the space 7more than half the width of the column7 filled up with a minute and elaborate ornament executed with the pen in ink and vermilion1 the like of which is nowhere else found in the ,,ms41 or in the ,new ,testament part of ,b1 such spaces being invariably left unfilled7#fbi74 ,and not only so1 but underneath1 the usual 8arabesque0 above the subscription1 marking the conclusion of the text1 has its horizontal arm extended all the way across the width of the column1--and not1 as always elsewhere1 but halfway or less7#fcj74 ,it seems hardly possible to regard these carefully executed works of the pen of the diorthota otherwise than as precautions to guard against the possible restoration1 by a subsequent reviser1 of a portion of text deliberately omitted by him 7the diorthota7 from the end of the ,gospel4 ,they are evidence therefore that he knew of a conclusion to the ,gospel which he designedly expunged1 and endeavoured to make it difficult for any one else to reinsert4 ,we have1 therefore1 good reason to believe that the disputed ,twelve ,verses were not only in an exemplar known to the scribe of ,b1 but also in the exemplar used by the scribe of 2 and that their omission 7or1 more properly1 disappearance7 from these two ,,mss4 is due to one and the same person--the scribe1 namely1 who wrote ,b and who revised 1--or rather1 perhaps1 to an editor by whose directions he acted4 #b4 ,some early ,patristic evidence has been added to the stores which the ,dean collected by ,dr4 ,taylor1 ,master of ,st4 ,john's ,college1 ,cambridge4 ,this evidence may be found in a book entitled 8,the ,witness of ,hermas0 to the ,four ,gospels1 published in #ahib1 of which #ab in the ,second ,part is devoted to 8,the ending of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel10 and includes also quotations from ,justin ,martyr1 and the ,apology of ,aristides4 ,a fuller account is given in the ,expositor of ,july #ahic1 and contains references to the following passages3--,irenaeus iii4 #aa4 #f 7quoting xvi4 #ai72 ,justin ,martyr1 ,trypho1 #ach2 ,apol4 i4 #fg2 ,trypho1 #he2 ,apol4 i4 #de2 ,barnabas1 xv4 #i2 xvi4 #g2 ,quarto-deciman ,controversy 7,polycarp78 and ,clement of ,rome1 i4 #db4 ,the passages from ,hermas are1 #a4 7xvi4 #ab-ac7 ,sim4 ii4 #a1 ,vis4 i4 #a1 iii4 #a1 iv4 #a1 and v4 #d2 #b4 7xvi4 #ad7 ,sim4 ix4 #ada and #bj4 #d1 ,vis4 iii4 #h4 #c1 iii4 #g4 #f2 #c4 7xvi4 #ae-af7 ,vis4 iii1 ,sim4 ix4 #af1 #be2 #d4 7xvi4 #ag-ah7 ,vis4 iv1 ,mand4 i1 xii4 #b4 #b-c1 ,sim4 ix4 #a4 #i1 iii4 #g1 ix4 #bf1 ,mand4 xii4 #f4 #b2 #e4 7xvi4 #ai-bj7 ,vis4 iii4 #a4 ,some of the references are not apparent at first sight1 but ,dr4 ,taylor's discussions in both places should be read carefully4 #c4 ,in my own list given above1 p4 #aji1 of the writers who died before ,a4,d4 #djj1 ,i have added from my two examinations of the ,ante-,chrysostom ,fathers to the list in ,the ,revision ,revised1 p4 #dba1 the ,clementines1 four references from the ,apostolic ,canons and ,constitutions1 ,cyril of ,jerusalem1 ,gregory of ,nyssa1 the ,apocryphal ,acts of the ,apostles1 and two references to the four of ,st4 ,ambrose mentioned in 8,the ,last ,twelve ,verses10 p4 #bg4 ,to these ,dr4 ,waller adds1 ,gospel of ,peter1 #g 7 71 and #ab 7 71 referring to the 1 as regards the attitude of the ,twelve at the time1 in xvi4 #aj4 #d4 ,on the other hand1 the recently discovered ,lewis ,codex1 as is well known1 omits the verses4 ,the character of that ,codex1 which has been explained above in the sixth chapter of this work1 makes any alliance with it suspicious1 and consequently it is of no real importance that its testimony1 unlike that of ,b and 1 is claimed to be unswerving4 ,for that manuscript is disfigured by heretical blemishes of the grossest nature1 and the obliteration of it for the purpose of covering the vellum with other writing was attended with circumstances of considerable significance4 ,in the first chapter of ,st4 ,matthew1 ,joseph is treated as the father of our ,lord 7vers4 #af1 #ba1 #bd7 as far as ,his body was concerned1 for as to ,his soul even according to teaching of ,gnostic origin ,he was treated as owing ,his nature to the ,holy ,ghost 7ver4 #bj74 ,accordingly1 the blessed ,virgin is called in the second chapter of ,st4 ,luke ,joseph's 8wife10 being left with no equivalent7#fca73 and at ,his baptism1 ,he is described as 8being as ,he was called the son of ,joseph0 7,st4 ,luke iii4 #bc74 ,according to the heretical tenet that our ,lord was chosen out of other men to be made the ,son of ,god at the baptism1 we read afterwards1 8,this is ,my ,son1 ,my chosen0 7,st4 ,luke ix4 #ce71 8the chosen of ,god0 7,st4 ,john i4 #cd71 8,thou art ,my ,son and ,my beloved0 7,st4 ,matt4 iii4 #ag71 8,this is ,my ,son ,who is beloved0 7,st4 ,mark ix4 #g72 and we are told of the ,holy ,ghost descending like a dove 7,st4 ,matt4 iii4 #af71 that ,it 8abode upon ,him40 ,various smaller expressions are also found1 but perhaps the most remarkable of those which have been left upon the manuscript occurs in ,st4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #ej1 8,and ,jesus cried with a loud voice1 and ,his ,spirit went up40 ,after this1 can we be surprised because the scribe took the opportunity of leaving out the ,last ,twelve ,verses of ,st4 ,mark which contain the most detailed account of the ,ascension in the ,gospels1 as well as the of ,st4 ,luke8 ,again1 at the time when the manuscript was put out of use1 and as is probable in the monastery of ,st4 ,catherine so early as the year #ggh ,a4,d4 7,introduction by ,mrs4 ,lewis1 p4 xv71 the old volume was pulled to pieces1 twenty-two leaves were cast away1 the rest used in no regular order1 and on one at least1 as we are told1 a knife was employed to eradicate the writing4 ,five of the missing leaves must have been blank1 according to ,mrs4 ,lewis3 but the seventeen remaining leaves contained passages of supreme importance as being expressive of doctrine1 like ,st4 ,john i4 #a-bd1 ,st4 ,luke i4 #af-ci1 ,st4 ,mark i4 #a-aa1 ,st4 ,matt4 xxviii4 #h-;end1 and others4 ,reading the results of this paragraph in connexion with those of the last1 must we not conclude that this manuscript was used for a palimpsest1 and submitted to unusual indignity in order to obliterate its bad record8 ,it will be seen therefore that a cause1 which for unchallenged evidence rests solely upon such a witness1 cannot be one that will commend itself to those who form their conclusions judicially4 ,the genuineness of the verses1 as part of the second ,gospel1 must1 ,i hold1 remain unshaken by such opposition4 #e4 ,an ingenious suggestion has been contributed by ,mr4 ,f4 ,c4 ,conybeare1 the eminent ,armenian scholar1 founded upon an entry which he discovered in an ,armenian ,,ms4 of the ,gospels1 dated ,a4,d4 #ihf1 where 8,ariston ,eritzou0 is written in minioned uncials at the head of the twelve verses4 ,mr4 ,conybeare argues1 in the ,expositor for ,october1 #ahic1 that 8,ariston ,eritzou0 is not the copyist himself1 who signs himself ,johannes1 or an ,armenian translator1 ,ariston or ,aristion being no ,armenian name4 ,he then attempts to identify it with ,aristion who is mentioned by ,papias in a passage quoted by ,eusebius 7,h4 ,e4 iii4 #ci7 as a disciple of the ,lord4 ,both the words 8,ariston ,eritzou0 are taken to be in the genitive1 as 8,eritzou0 certainly is1 and to signify 8,of or by ,aristion the presbyter10 this being the meaning of the latter word4 ,the suggestion is criticized by ,dr4 ,ad4 ,harnack in the ,theologische ,literaturzeitung1 #gie1 where ,dr4 ,harnack pronounces no opinion upon the soundness of it3 but the impression left upon the mind after reading his article is that he is unable to accept it4 ,it is remarkable that the verses are found in no other ,armenian ,,ms4 before #aajj4 ,mr4 ,conybeare traces the version of the passage to an old ,syrian ,codex about the year #ejj1 but he has not very strong grounds for his reasoning2 and even then for such an important piece of information the leap to the sub-,apostolic age is a great one4 ,but there is another serious difficulty in the interpretation of this fragmentary expression4 ,even granting the strong demands that we may construe over the expression of ,papias1 1 and take ,aristion to have been meant as a presbyter1 and that according to the parallel of ,aristion in ,eusebius' history having been transliterated in an ,armenian version to ,ariston1 ,aristion 8the disciple0 may be the man mentioned here1 there is a formidable difficulty presented by the word 8,aristn0 as it is written in the place quoted4 ,it ought at least to have had a long according to ,dr4 ,harnack1 and it is not in the genitive case as 8,eritzou0 is4 ,altogether1 the expression is so elliptical1 and occurs with such isolated mystery in a retired district1 and at such a distance of years from the event supposed to be chronicled1 that the wonder is1 not that a diligent and ingenious explorer should advocate a very curious idea that he has formed upon a very interesting piece of intelligence1 but that other ,critics should have been led to welcome it as a key to a long-considered problem4 ,are we not forced to see in this incident an instance of a truth not unfrequently verified1 that when people neglect a plain solution1 they are induced to welcome another which does not include a tenth part of the evidence in its support8 ,of course the real difficulty in the way of accepting these verses as the composition of ,st4 ,mark lies in the change of style found in them4 ,that this change is not nearly so great as it may appear at first sight1 any one may satisfy himself by studying ,dean ,burgon's analysis of the words given in the ninth chapter of his 8,last ,twelve ,verses of ,st4 ,mark40 ,but it has been the fashion in some quarters to confine ancient writers to a wondrously narrow form of style in each case1 notwithstanding ,horace's rough ,satires and exquisitely polished ,odes1 and ,cicero's ,letters to his ,friends and his ,orations and ,philosophical ,treatises4 ,perhaps the recent flood of discoveries respecting early ,literature may wash away some of the film from our sight4 ,there seems to be no valid reason why ,st4 ,mark should not have written all the ,gospel that goes by his name1 only under altered circumstances4 ,the true key seems to be1 that at the end of verse #h he lost the assistance of ,st4 ,peter4 ,before 1 he wrote out ,st4 ,peter's story3 after it1 he filled in the end from his own acquired knowledge1 and composed in summary4 ,this very volume may supply a parallel4 ,sometimes ,i have transcribed ,dean ,burgon's materials with only slight alteration1 where necessary imitating as ,i was able his style4 ,in other places1 ,i have written solely as best ,i could4 ,i add two suggestions1 not as being proved to be true1 because indeed either is destructive of the other1 but such that one or other may possibly represent the facts that actually occurred4 ,to meet the charge of impossibility1 it is enough to shew what is possible1 though in the absence of direct evidence it may not be open to any one to advocate any narrative as being absolutely true4 ,i4 ,taking the story of ,papias and ,clement of ,alexandria1 as given by ,eusebius 7,h4 ,e4 ii4 #ae71 that ,st4 ,mark wrote his gospel at the request of ,roman converts1 and that ,st4 ,peter1 as it seems1 helped him in the writing1 ,i should suggest that the pause made in 1 so unlike the close of any composition1 of any paragraph or chapter1 and still less of the end of a book1 that ,i can recollect1 indicates a sudden interruption4 ,what more likely than that ,st4 ,peter was apprehended at the time1 perhaps at the very moment when the ,,ms4 reached that place1 and was carried off to judgement and death8 ,after all was over1 and the opportunity of study returned1 ,st4 ,mark would naturally write a conclusion4 ,he would not alter a syllable that had fallen from ,st4 ,peter's lips4 ,it would be the conclusion composed by one who had lost his literary illuminator1 formal1 brief1 sententious1 and comprehensive4 ,the crucifixion of the leading ,apostle would thus impress an everlasting mark upon the ,gospel which was virtually his4 ,here the ,master's tongue ceased3 here the disciple took up his pen for himself4 ,,ii4 ,if we follow the account of ,irenaeus 7,eus4 ,h4 ,e4 v4 #h7 that ,st4 ,mark wrote his ,gospel--and did not merely publish it--after ,st4 ,peter's death1 ,dr4 ,gwynn suggests to me that he used his notes made from ,st4 ,peter's dictation or composed with his help up to xvi4 #h1 leaving at the end what were exactly ,st4 ,peter's words4 ,after that1 he added from his own stores1 and indited the conclusion as ,i have already described4 ,whether either of these descriptions1 or any other solution of the difficulty1 really tallies with the actual event1 ,i submit that it is clear that ,st4 ,mark may very well have written the twelve verses himself2 and that there is no reason for resorting to ,aristion1 or to any other person for the authorship4 ,i see that ,mr4 ,conybeare expresses his indebtedness to ,dean ,burgon's monograph1 and expresses his opinion that 8perhaps no one so well sums up the evidence for and against them0 as he did 7,expositor1 viii4 p4 #bda74 ,i tender to him my thanks1 and echo for myself all that he has said4 ,,appendix ,,viii4 ,,new ,,editions ,,of ,,the ,,peshitto-,,syriac ,,and ,,the ,,harkleian-,,syriac ,,versions4 ,a book representing ,dean ,burgon's labours in the province of ,sacred ,textual ,criticism would be incomplete if notice were not taken in it of the influence exercised by him upon the production of editions of the two chief ,syriac ,versions4 ,through his introduction of the ,rev4 ,g4 ,h4 ,gwilliam1 ,b4,d4 to the late ,philip ,e4 ,pusey1 a plan was formed for the joint production of an edition of the ,peshitto ,new ,testament by these two scholars4 ,on the early and lamented death of ,philip ,pusey1 which occurred in the following year1 ,mr4 ,gwilliam succeeded to his labours1 being greatly helped by the ,dean's encouragement4 ,he has written on the ,syriac ,canons of the ,gospels2 and the nature of his work upon the ,peshitto ,gospels1 now in the press1 may be seen on consulting his article on 8,the ,materials for the ,criticism of the ,peshitto ,new ,testament0 in the third volume of ,studia ,biblica et ,ecclesiastica1 pp4 #dg-ajd1 which indeed seems to be sufficient for the ,prolegomena of his edition4 ,a list of his chief authorities was also kindly contributed by him to my ,scrivener1 and they are enumerated there1 vol4 ,,ii4 pp4 #ab-ac4 ,the importance of this work1 carried on successively by two such accomplished ,syriacists1 may be seen from and will illustrate the sixth chapter of this work4 ,in connexion with the ,dean1 if not on his suggestion1 the late ,rev4 ,henry ,deane1 ,b4,d41 when ,fellow of ,st4 ,john's ,college1 ,oxford1 began to collect materials for a new and critical edition of the ,harkleian4 ,his work was carried on during many years1 when ill-health and failing eyesight put a stop to all efforts1 and led to his early death--for on leaving ,new ,college1 after having been ,tutor there for five years1 ,i examined him then a boy at the top of ,winchester ,college4 ,mr4 ,deane has left the results of his work entered in an interleaved copy of ,joseph ,white's 8,sacrorum ,evangeliorum ,versio ,syriaca ,philoxeniana0--named1 as my readers will observe1 from the translator ,mar ,xenaias or ,philoxenus1 not from ,thomas of ,harkel the subsequent editor4 ,a list of the ,,mss4 on which ,mr4 ,deane based his readings was sent by him to me1 and inserted in my ,scrivener1 vol4 ,,ii4 p4 #bi4 ,mr4 ,deane added 7in a subsequent letter1 dated ,april #af1 #ahid73--8,my labours on the ,gospels shew that the ,harkleian text is much the same in all ,,mss4 ,the ,acts of the ,apostles must be worked up for a future edition by some one who knows the work40 ,since his lamented death1 putting a stop to any edition by him1 his widow has placed his collation just described in the ,library of ,st4 ,john's ,college1 where by the permission of the ,librarian it may be seen1 and also used by any one who is recognized as continuing the valuable work of that accomplished member of the ,college4 ,is there no capable and learned man who will come forward for the purpose8 ,,general ,,index4 ,a4 ,a or ,alexandrian ,,ms41 #bd1 #ca1 #eg1 #gf1 #age1 #bja1 #bac note #b4 or ,sinaitic ,,ms41 #b1 #bd1 #ca1 #cb1 #di1 #eg1 #agd1 #bai1 #bce2 six conjugate leaves1 #eb1 #afe1 #bcc2 value1 ,b-1 #ee1 #fh-i2 history and character1 #aec1 #afj c1 #bcc-e2 sceptical character1 ,app4 ,v4 #bhg4 ,acacius1 #b1 #aee2 probably the scribe of ,b1 #aed4 ,acta ,philippi1 #ajj-bj4 ,acta ,pilati1 #ajj-bj4 ,adamantius1 copies of1 #afg4 ,see ,origen4 ,alexander ,alexandrinus1 #ajj1 #aac1 #aai4 ,alexandria1 school of1 #b1 #abb1 #bcd4 ,alexandrians and ,egyptians1 #aac4 ,alford1 #aga4 ,ambrose1 ,st41 #aja-bj4 ,ammonius1 #aa1 #bdb4 ,amphilochius1 ,st41 #aja-bj4 ,anaphora ,pilati1 #aab4 ,antioch1 early ,church at1 #abc-d4 ,antiquity1 #bi-ca4 ,aphraates1 #ajc-ad1 #bac note #d2 witnesses to ,peshitto1 #acj4 ,apocryphal ,acts of the ,gospels1 #ajc-ae1 #acb4 ,apollonides1 #aj4 ,apostolic ,canons and ,constitutions1 #ajj1 #ajc-ae1 #aai4 ,apostolic ,fathers1 #ii1 #aah4 ,archelaus1 #ajj1 #aje-ac1 #aai1 #acj4 ,arius1 #aaj1 #aaa1 #aad1 #aba4 ,armenian ,version1 #bc1 #di1 #acf4 ,asclepiades1 #aj4 ,athanasius1 #ajj1 #ajc-ae1 #aai1 #aba1 #adh1 #bce note #a1 #bdd4 ,athenagoras1 #ii1 #ajc1 #aae1 #aai4 ,augustine1 ,st41 on ,old-,latin ,texts1 #adj-c2 canon of1 #fa note1 #aih4 ,b4 ,b or ,vatican ,,ms41 #b1 #bd1 #ca1 #cb1 #di1 #eg1 #agd2 number of omissions1 #gh2 history and character1 #aec1 #afj c41 #bcc-e2 sceptical character of1 ,app4 ,v4 #bhg2 ,b and 1 their value1 #ee1 #fh-hi4 ,barnabas1 ,st41 #ajd1 #ajg4 ,bartolocci1 #aeg4 ,basil1 ,st41 #ig1 #aja1 #ajg-ae1 #aag1 #aig1 #bha-b4 ,basilides1 #c4 ,bengel1 #c4 ,beratinus1 ,codex 771 #be1 #bf1 #age4 ,bethabara or ,bethany1 #hh4 ,beza1 #c4 ,bigg1 ,dr41 #aea4 ,birch1 #aeg4 ,bobiensis 7k71 #acg4 ,bohairic ,version1 #bc1 #cj1 #di1 #acf1 #adi-ej1 and passim4 ,brixianus 7f71 #acg4 ,burgon1 ,dean1 ,indexes of1 ,preface1 #id2 addition by1 to ,greek ,,mss41 #ba note #b4 ,burkitt1 ,mr4 ,f4 ,c1 #abi note #a4 ,c4 ,c or ,parisian ,,ms41 #bd1 #ca1 #ea1 #eg1 #gf1 #age4 ,caesarea 7,turris ,stratonis71 library of1 #b1 #aeb1 #afc-e1 #bbe1 #bgd4 ,see ,b and 4 ,caesarea1 ,school of1 #aba1 #aeb-h4 ,caesarea ,philippi1 our ,lord's stay at1 #abd4 ,callixtus1 #ii1 #abj4 ,candidus ,arianus1 #aja1 #aac1 #abj4 ,canon of the ,n4,t41 #aj1 #ac-ad1 #afa1 #agb2 settlement of the ,canon followed by that of the ,text1 #agc4 ,celsus1 #ajg4 ,chase1 ,dr4 ,f4 ,h41 #add4 #agf note4 ,chrysostom1 ,st41 #ca1 #afa1 #aig4 ,ciasca1 ,agostino1 #acb4 ,claromontanus 7h71 #acg4 ,clemens ,alex41 #eh1 #fb1 #ii1 #ajc-ae1 #aag1 #aba1 #adh1 #adi1 #aej1 #bcd1 #bda1 #bdf4 ,clemens ,rom41 #aje4 ,clementines1 #ii1 #aje1 #aji1 #aaa1 #aai4 ,colbertinus 7c71 #acg4 ,complutensian edition1 #c4 ,concilia ,carthaginiensia1 #ajj1 #ajh1 #aai4 ,concordia discors1 #ag1 #ha-h4 ,conflation1 #hj-a1 #bjf-g1 #bbg-i4 ,consent without ,concert1 #ag4 ,constans1 #afc note #c4 ,constantine ,i1 #afj1 #afc note #c4 ,constantinople1 ,councils of1 #agc4 ,constantius ,,ii1 #afj1 #afa note #a4 ,context1 #fa-e4 ,continuity1 #eh-fa4 ,conybeare1 ,mr4 ,f4 ,c41 #cjd-e1 #cjg4 ,cook1 ,canon1 #afc note #d1 #bbg4 ,corbeiensis ,i1 ,,ii1 7ff#a1 ff#b71 #acg4 ,cornelius1 #ajj1 #aai4 ,corruption1 pre-,evangelistic1 #adf4 ,crawford1 the ,earl of1 #abi4 ,critical copies1 #cf note4 ,curetonian ,version1 #ca1 #ia2 date of1 #abc-cd2 origin of text1 #add c1 #ahb note #b2 #bah note #aa1 and passim4 ,curetonian and ,peshitto1 ,app4 ,,vi4 #bib4 ,cursive ,,mss41 #bd1 #ea1 #aef-h1 #aif-bbc2 in relation to later ,uncials1 #aii-bjc2 main body of1 not a single copy1 #bbc2 copied in part from papyrus1 #bce2 the first extant1 #bjj4 ,cyprian1 ,st41 #ajj1 #ajc-ae1 #abj4 ,cyril of ,alexandria1 ,st41 #ca1 #aai1 #bdg4 ,cyril of ,jerusalem1 ,st41 #aja1 #ajc-ae1 #bhb4 ,d4 ,d or ,cod4 ,bezae1 #bd1 #ca1 #ea1 #gf1 #abf1 #add1 #age-ie2 sympathy with ,old-,latin ,,mss41 #ef4 ,d and ,e1 ,codd4 of ,st4 ,paul1 #ed1 #bca4 1 ,cod4 ,sangallensis1 in ,st4 ,mark1 #bjd4 ,damascus1 ,early ,church at1 #abb-d4 ,deane1 the late ,rev4 ,h41 and ,harkleian1 ,app4 ,,viii4 #cji4 ,decapolis1 #abc note4 ,delicate expressions rubbed off in the old ,uncials1 #aij4 ,diatessarons1 formerly abounded #beb4 ,didach1 #ii1 #ajc1 #ajd4 ,didymus1 #aja1 #ajc-ae1 #aai1 #abj4 ,diez1 ,fried41 #adc note4 ,diodorus 7,tarsus71 #aja1 #abj4 ,diognetus1 ,epistle to1 #ii1 #aah4 ,dionysius ,alex41 #ajj1 #ajg1 #aaj1 #aba1 #adh1 #bcd4 ,doctrine and the ,text of ,n4,t41 connexion between1 #agc4 ,e4 ,e1 ,cod4 of ,gospels4 #bjc4 ,e of ,paul ,d of ,paul1 #ed1 #bca4 ,edessa1 #acd4 ,egyptian ,versions1 #ca4 ,elzevirs1 #c4 ,ephraem ,syrus1 ,st41 #ajc1 #ajg1 #aaj1 #aab1 #acb1 #bdc2 witnesses to ,peshitto1 #acj4 ,epiphanius1 ,st41 #aja1 #ajc-ae1 #aag1 #abj1 #acc1 #bdc1 #bhc-d4 ,erasmus1 #c1 #ae4 ,esaias ,abbas1 #aja1 #ajd4 #abj4 ,ethiopic ,version1 #bc1 #di1 #ea1 #acf4 ,eumenes ,,ii1 #aee4 ,eunomius1 #aja4 ,eusebian ,canons1 #bdb4 ,eusebius 7,caesarea71 #b1 #cj1 #ca1 #ajj1 #ajc-ae1 #aba1 #acc1 #aeb1 #afb2 personally favoured the ,traditional ,text1 #ajj1 #aba1 #aec2 probably not the scribe of ,b1 #aed2 latitudinarian1 #aed1 #agb2 on ,st4 ,mark xvi41 #ee1 #eh1 #aji1 #bdb4 ,eusebius 7,emesa71 #ajg4 ,eustathius1 #ajj1 #aad1 #abj4 ,euthalius 7,sulci71 #afd note #b4 ,evagrius ,ponticus1 #ajj1 #aaj1 #abj4 ,evan41 #ajb ,b1 #ed4 ,f4 ,f of ,st4 ,paul1 like ,g1 #ef4 ,fathers1 #ai1 #bc1 #bf1 #ej1 #eb2 value of quotations by1 #eg-h1 #ig-h2 early1 witness of1 #id-abb2 indexes to quotations in1 by ,dean ,burgon1 ,pref41 #id-e4 ,faustinus1 #aja1 #aad1 #abj4 ,ferrar group1 #ef1 #aad1 #bjj1 #bce-f4 ,firmicus ,maternus1 #ajj1 #ajh1 #aai4 ,g4 ,g of ,st4 ,paul1 like ,f1 #ef4 ,genealogy1 #bbi-cg4 ,genealogy1 the1 in ,st4 ,luke iii41 #aha-b4 ,giles1 ,mr4 ,h4 ,a41 #aef note4 ,gothic ,version1 #bc1 #acf4 ,gregory1 ,dr4 ,c4 ,r41 prolegomena1 #afj4 ,gregory ,nas41 ,st41 #aja1 #ajc-ae1 #aag1 #aai1 #aig4 ,gregory ,nyss41 ,st41 #aja1 #ajc-ae1 #aag1 #abj1 #bdi note1 #bfj4 ,gregory ,thaumaturgus1 ,st41 #ajj1 #aaj1 #aai1 #acj1 #aeb4 ,griesbach1 #c1 #aag1 #adh4 ,gwilliam1 ,rev4 ,g4 ,h41 ,pref42 in ,studia ,biblica1 #abh1 #abi note #a1 #bda note2 editor of ,peshitto1 ,app4 ,,viii4 #cjh4 ,gwynn1 ,rev4 ,dr41 ,app4 ,,vii4 #bih-cja1 #cjf4 ,h4 ,h of ,st4 ,paul1 #afd4 ,haddan1 ,a4 ,w41 #agd note4 ,harkleian ,version1 #di1 #acc-d2 new ed41 ,app ,,viii4 #cji4 ,harnack1 ,dr41 #cjd-e4 ,harris1 ,mr4 ,j4 ,rendel1 #add note #a1 #agf4 ,hedybia1 #bdd4 ,hegesippus1 #ii1 #aaa1 #aah4 ,heracleon4 #aj1 #ii1 #aba1 #adh4 ,hermophilus1 #aj4 ,herodotus1 #aee4 ,hesychius1 #bdc4 ,hilary1 ,st4 7,poictiers71 #ajd-ae1 #aag1 #aai1 #afi4 ,hill1 ,rev4 ,j4 ,hamlyn1 #acc4 ,hippolytus1 ,st41 #ii1 #ajd-ae1 #aag1 #aai4 ,hort1 ,dr41 #d1 #g1 #ie1 #aeh1 #agf1 #bea1 #bia1 and passim2 admissions of1 #ad2 involuntary witness of1 #ij-d2 inaccurate upon the early ,fathers1 #aag1 #aba2 fancies of1 #abi note #b2 ,b and written at ,rome1 #afe2 ,w4-,hort1 #bjh note #aa2 on the ,traditional ,text1 #bba-b1 #bcf2 on ,genealogy1 #bcj4 ,see ,conflation4 ,i4 ,internal ,evidence1 #fe-g1 #bad-e4 ,interpolations1 #ha4 ,irenaeus1 ,st41 #ih1 #ii1 #ajc-ae1 #aag1 #aai1 #bhd4 ,isaias4 ,see ,esaias4 ,itala1 #adc4 or 1 #hg4 ,j4 ,jacobites1 #acc4 ,jacobus ,nisibenus1 #acb4 ,jerome1 ,st41 on ,old-,latin ,texts1 #adj-b1 #bdd4 ,jona and ,jonah1 #hg4 ,julius 7,pope71 #ajj1 #abj4 ,julius ,africanus1 #ajj1 #aab1 #aba4 ,justin ,martyr1 ,st41 #cj1 #ii1 #ajc-ae1 #aag1 #aai2 ps4 ,justin1 #ajh1 #aaa4 ,juveneus1 #ajj1 #aje1 #aaj1 #abj4 ,l4 ,l or ,regius1 #d1 #cj1 #cb1 #bjd4 ,lachmann1 #d1 #ij1 #aeh1 #bbe4 ,lactantius1 #ajj1 #abj4 ,laodicea1 ,council of1 #agb4 ,last ,twelve ,verses1 i4e4 of ,st4 ,mark1 #ee1 #ajb1 #bcb1 ,app4 ,,vii4 #bih4 ,latin ,,mss41 ,old1 #d1 #cj1 #ca1 #di1 #ea1 #fd1 #abf2 do not fall strictly into three classes1 #acf-i2 ,wiseman's theory of1 false1 #adb2 did not come from one stem1 #ace-df2 influenced by ,low-,latin dialects1 #ace-adf2 derived much from ,syrian pre-,evangelistic corruption1 #add-f4 ,lectionaries1 #bb and note4 ,letters in ,guardian1 ,dean ,burgon's1 #bjj note #c4 ,lewis ,codex1 #aca-b1 #acd note1 #add1 #cjb-c1 and passim4 ,libraries1 destruction of1 #agd4 ,library at ,caesarea4 ,see ,caesarea4 ,low-,latin ,,mss41 #abb4 ,see ,latin ,,mss4 ,lucifer 7,cagliari71 #aja1 #ajc1 #ajd1 #aad1 #abj4 ,m4 ,macarius ,alexandrinus1 #ajj note4 ,macarius ,magnes1 #aja1 #ajf-ab1 #abj4 ,macarius ,magnus or ,aegyptius1 #ajj1 #ajd1 #aaj1 #aae1 #abj4 ,mai1 ,cardinal1 editions of ,b1 #ge1 #aei4 ,manuscripts1 multitude of1 #bd-g1 #ai1 #ba and note #b2 six classes of1 #bb note2 kinds of1 #bd2 value of1#ec-f2 in profane authors1 #ba note #a4 ,see ,papyrus1 ,vellum1 ,uncial1 ,cursive4 ,marcion1 #aj1 #ig1 #aaj1 #aaa1 #aab4 ,mariam and ,mary1 #hd-f4 ,maries1 the1 in ,n4 ,t41 #hd-f4 ,mark1 ,st4 ,see ,last ,twelve ,verses4 ,maronite use of the ,peshitto1 #abh4 ,maunde ,thompson1 ,sir ,e41 ,pref41 #aee-f1 #aeh4 ,melito1 #aca4 ,menander1 #aj4 ,methodius1 #ajj1 #ajf1 #aaj1 #aag1 #aai1 #aca4 ,mico1 #acg4 ,migne's edition of the ,fathers1 #if4 ,mill1 #c4 ,miller's ,textual ,guide1 #c note1 #ia note4 ,miller's ,scrivener 7,plain ,introduction1 ed4 #d71 passim4 ,ministry1 our ,lord's1 in the ,north and ,north-,west1 #abc4 ,monacensis 7#i71 #acg4 ,monophysite use of the ,peshitto1 #abh4 ,monothelitism1 condemned in #fhj ,a4,d41 #agc4 ,n4 ,nemesius1 #aja1 #abj4 ,neologian ,text1 #ii1 #ajc4 ,nestorian use of ,peshitto1 #abh4 ,neutral ,text 7so-called71 #d1 #ib4 ,nicodemus1 ,gospel of1 #ajg1 #beg4 ,notes of ,truth1 seven1 #bi1 #dj-fg4 ,novatian1 #ajj1 #ajf1 #aad4 ,o4 ,omissions1 #ha1 #bhj-a1 #bia4 ,optatus1 #ajj1 #ajh1 #aaj1 #abj4 ,origen1 #b1 #aj1 #ca1 #ej1 #ea1 #eh1 #ajj1 #ajd-ae1 #aag1 #aba1 #abb1 #acj1 #afb1 #afi1 #bdb1 #bdg1 #bee note #f1 #bgb1 #bhj-a1 #bia2 his great influence1 #afb2 a ,textual ,critic1 #adi-ed2 founder of the ,caesarean school1 #aeb-c1 #afb-e2 character1 #aeb2 fancies1 #afi note #b2 critical copies1 #bgd-e4 ,origenism1 condemned in #eec ,a4,d41 #agc4 ,orthodox1 the1 #bfd4 ,p4 4 ,see ,beratinus4 ,pacianus1 #ajj1 #ajc1 #abj4 ,palatinus 7e71 #acg4 ,pamphilus1 #b1 #ajj1 #aae1 #aba1 #aeb1 #afc-d4 ,paper1 first made in ,china1 #aef note4 ,papias1 #ii1 #aji1 #aah4 ,papyrus ,,mss41 #bd1 #aed-h1 #afc1 #bja2 copying from1 #b1 #age1 #bce4 ,parisian ,codex4 ,see ,c4 ,paul1 ,st41 #ade4 ,peshitto ,version1 #ca1 #ia1 #abc2 antiquity of1 #abe-acd1 #baj1 #bbd2 ,peshitto and ,curetonian1 texts of1 ,app4 ,,vi4 #bib4 ,peter 7,alexandria71 #ajj1 #aba1 #adh4 ,peter1 ,gospel of1 #ii1 #ajg1 #aaa1 #aai4 ,peter1 ,st41 ,app4 ,,vii4 #cjf4 ,philastrius1 #aja1 #ajc1 #abj4 ,phillips1 ,cod41 #abi note4 ,philo 7,carpasus or ,carpasia71 #aja1 #ajc1 #ajd1 #ajg1 #aaj1 #abj4 ,philoxenian4 ,see ,harkleian4 ,polycarp1 #ajc4 ,pontianus1 #ii1 #abj4 ,porphyry1 #ajh4 ,prior1 ,dr4 ,alexander1 #aef note4 ,pusey1 ,p4 ,e41 ,pref4 and #abi4 ,q4 ,q1 ,cod41 #age4 ,quaestiones ex ,utroque ,testamento1 #aja1 #aje-ae1 #abj4 ,r4 ,r1 ,cod4 of ,st4 ,luke 7,cod4 ,nitriensis71 #bjd note4 ,rabbla1 #acc4 ,recensions1 phantom1 #gi1 #ia1 #ic1 #aba4 ,rehdigeranus 7#a71 #acg4 ,respectability4 ,see ,weight4 ,revision ,revised1 the1 #ia1 #ajb1 passim4 ,revisers1 #bjh note #aa1 #bab1 #bde4 ,romance languages1 origin of1 #adc4 ,rossanensian ,codex4 ,see 4 ,rulotta1 #aeg4 ,s4 7,rossanensian71 ,cod41 #be1 #gf1 #age4 ,sachau1 ,dr41 #abi note4 ,sahidio 7,thebaic7 ,version1 #bc1 #acf4 ,sangallensia ,fragmenta 7n71 #acg4 ,sangermanensis ,i 7g#b71 #acg4 ,scholz1 #d4 ,scrivener1 ,dr1 ,pref41 #e1 #cb1 #ace1 #bbg1 #bca1 #bcc1 #bgb4 ,seniores apud ,irenaeum1 #ii1 #aah4 ,serapion1 #ajj1 #aji1 #aai4 ,sinaitic ,,ms4 ,see 4 ,slavonic ,version1 #acf4 ,stephen1 ,rob41 #c4 ,synodical ,letter1 #ajj1 #aai4 ,synodus ,antiochena1 #ajj1 #aje1 #aac1 #aai1 #acj4 ,synoptic problem1 #adf4 ,syria1 rapid spread of the ,church in1 #abc-d4 ,syriac ,canons1 #aji1 #bed note4 ,syriac ,sections1 #bia4 ,syriac ,versions1 #di1 #abc-cd4 8,syrian10 an audacious nick-name1 #ia-b4 ,syrio-,low-,latin ,text1 #ace-dg1 #bbe2 intercommunication between ,syria and ,italy1 #ade-f4 ,t4 ,t1 ,cod41 #bjd note4 ,tatian1 #ig1 #ajc1 #aaj4 ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 #abf1 #acb-d1 #bdb1 #cjb note4 ,taylor1 ,rev4 ,dr41 #cjj4 ,tertullian1 #ii1 #ajd-ae1 #abj4 ,testament of ,abraham1 #ii1 #ajd1 #aai4 ,tests of ,truth1 seven1 #bd1 #dj-fg4 ,textual ,criticism1 #a-e2 importance of1 ,pref41 #f note4 ,textus ,receptus1 origin of the name1 #c2 character of1 #e1 #ae-af1 #cj2 imperfect1 #e4 ,theodoret 7,cyrrhus71 #acc1 #acd4 ,theodoras ,heracleensis1 #ajj1 #ajg1 #aad1 #aai4 ,theodotus1 #aj1 #aac1 #aad4 ,theognotus1 #ajj1 #aba1 #adh4 ,theophilus ,antiochenus1 #ii1 #abj4 ,theophylact1 #di note #a4 ,tischendorf1 #d1 #e note1 #g1 #i1 #di note1 #ih1 #ii1 #acf1 #aeh1 #afj note #b2 curious reasoning1 #afi and note #a1 #bbe4 ,titus of ,bostra1 #aja1 #ajd-ae1 #aai4 ,tradition1 nature of1 #aif-i1 #bbd4 ,traditional ,text1 character of1 #e1 #aif-i2 founded upon the vast majority of authorities1 #ac2 relation to the ,canon1 #ac-ad1 #cb1 #agb-c1 #aig2 variously attested1 #bi1 #dj-g2 dates back to the earliest time1 #ij-adg2 settled first1 #agc2 finally1 #agc2 mode of settlement1 #aih2 continuity of1 #bbd2 history of1 #bcf-g2 incontrovertible as a fact1 #bcf4 ,u4 ,uncials1 #bd1 #ea4 ,uncials1 later1 #aif-bbc4 ,see ,cursives4 ,v4 ,valentinians1 #aj1 #cj1 #aac4 ,valentinus1 #bfj4 ,variety1 #di-ec4 ,vatican ,,ms4 ,see ,b4 ,vellum1 #aed-h1 #agd4 ,vercellensis 7a71 #acg4 ,veronensis 7b71 #acg4 ,versions1 #ai1 #bb1 #bf1 #ej1 #eb2 value of1 #ef4 ,victor of ,antioch1 #bhd4 ,victorinus 7,afer71 #aja1 #aje1 #ajh1 #aac1 #aad1 #abj4 ,victorinus 7,pettau71 #aja1 #ajh1 #aji1 #aai4 ,viennensium et ,lugdunensium ,epistola1 #ii1 #aah4 ,vincentius1 #aji4 ,vindobonensis 7i71 #acg4 ,vulgate1 #cj1 #ca1 and passim4 ,w4 ,waller1 ,rev4 ,dr4 ,c4 ,h41 ,pref41 ,app4 ,,vi4 #bib-g1 ,app4 ,,vii4 #cjb4 ,weight1 #ec-h1 #gg1 #bbf4 ,westcott1 ,bp4 of ,durham1 #d2 on the ,canon1 #ib4 ,westcott and ,hort1 #bbf1 #bcb4 ,western ,text1 #ace-dg4 ,see ,syrio-,low-,latin4 ,wetstein1 #c4 ,white1 ,rev4 ,h4 ,j41 #aci1 #adb4 ,wiseman1 ,cardinal1 #ace1 #adc4 ,woods1 ,rev4 ,f4 ,h41 #acj4 ,wright1 ,dr4 ,w41 #abi note #b4 ,x4 1 ,cod4 ,zacynthius1 #bjd ,ximenes1 ,cardinal1 #c1 #bcf4 ,z4 ,z1 ,cod4 ,dublinensis1 #bjd note #a4 ,zeno1 #aja1 #ajg1 #aad1 #abj4 ,,index ,,ii4 ,,passages ,,of ,,the ,,new ,,testament ,,commented ,,on4 ,st4 ,matthew3 i4 #b-af #ahj-b #af1 #ah1 #ai1 #bj1 #bd1 #be #bie #ah #aib-c1 #bhh #be #ajc1 #ach1 #adi1 #bhi ii4 #bc #agg iii4 #af #bhh iv4 #aa #bic #ac #agg #ag-bb #baa-c #ba #bic v4 #ab #bic #bb #bij #cb1 #da #bid #dd #ajc1 #ach1 #adi1 #bij #dg #bic vi4 #a #bij #f #bij #ac #ajd1 #ach1 #adi #ac1 #ag1 #ai #big vii4 #ac-d #ajd1 #ach1 #adi viii4 #e-ac #bai-bj ix4 #ac #ajd1 #ach1 #adi x4 #h #ea-b #db #big xi4 #b #big #b-c #fc-d #bg #aje1 #ach1 #adi xii4 #a-d #bib #cj #bhh xiii4 #f1 #ac1 #cc #big #cf #cd n4 #b xiv4 #ac #big #ai #afh xv4 #ce #afh xvii4 #ba #fb-c1 #aje1 #ach1 #adi1 #bhi #bb #ee xviii4 #aa #ajf1 #ach1 #adi1 #bij xix4 #af-g #gh1 #ajf1 #ach1 #adi1 #bei1 #bhh xx4 #bb-c #bji-aa1 #bhi #bh #agh #dd #bhi xxiii4 #ad #bhi #ch #ajf1 #ach1 #adi xxiv4 #cf #bhh xxvi4 #cb #ahg #cd #adj #ce #adj #ci #adj #ga #aij-a xxvii4 #cd #bec-h #df #cj xxviii4 #b #ajg1 #ach1 #adi #ai #ajh1 #ach1 #adi1 #bac n4 ,st4 ,mark3 i4 #a #aff1 #bgi-hf1 #bhg #b #ajh1 #ach1 #adi #aa #adj #ad-bj #baa-ac #bh #agf #de-;ii4 #a #agf ii4 #ab #bhg #ac #agg #ag #ajd #bg-h #agf iii4 #af #bhi #bf #agg-h #bi #bhi iv4 #a #agi-hj #ab #bhi vi4 #aa #bhi #bb #ff #cc #hj vii4 #ce #bhg viii4 #f #afh #g #hb n4 ix4 #bd #bhg #bi #bhi #dd-f #bhi #di #bhi x4 #f #bhh #ag-h #bei-gh #bc-d #bac-ad #bd #bhi #ch #bji-aa xi4 #bf #bhi xiii4 #cb #bhh xiv4 #bb-d #bij #bh #ahg #gb #ahg xv4 #bc #bec-d #bh #bij #ci #hj1 #bij #dc #aij #df #ahg #dg-xvi4 #g #ahd xvi4 #c1 #d1 #f #ahg xvi4 #g #ahg #i-bj #aji1 #ach1 #adi1 #bhh1 #bic1 #bih-cjg ,,st4 ,,luke3 i4 #bf #ahg #bh #aji1 #ach1 #adi1 #bhi #da #ahg #fj #ahg #fd #agf-g #fe1 #gj1 #ga #agd1 #ahe ii4 #b #ahh n4 #ad #aaj1 #ach1 #adi #ci #agg iii4 #bc-ch #ahj-b iv4 #d #bhi #e #bhi #h #bhi #ca #agg #cg #agf v4 #a-aa #baa-ac #c #ahf #ad-ae #agf #bg #agg vi4 #a #bic #aj #agf vii4 #ah #fd #ce #agg ix4 #ee-f #bhi x4 #ab #agf #be #adj #da-b #aaj1 #ach1 #adi xi4 #b #agg #b-d #hd1 #bij #d #aff xiv4 #h-aj #agh #bb #aia xvi4 #i #bae-f xvii4 #b #aid-e #ai #bhi #bd #bhi xviii4 #ad #ahi1 #aic-d #ah-ai #bei-gh xix4 #be #ahi #bg #agh #cg #fe #db #bag-i xxi4 #be #adj xxii4 #dc-d #aaj1 #ach1 #adi1 #bij #dd #hj #fd #bij xxiii4 #cd #aaa1 #ach1 #adi1 #bij #ch #aaa1 #ach1 #aej1 #bij #db #bhh #de #aab1 #ach1 #aej xxiv4 #c #bhg #ac #ff #dj #aab1 #aci1 #aej #da-c #bci-eb #db #aab1 #aci1 #aej1 #bij #df #bhh #ea #bhh ,,st4 ,,john3 i4 #c-d #aac1 #aci1 #aej #i #adj #ah #aac-d1 #aci1 #aej #bg #aff #bh #hh1 #aff #dc #hg iii4 #f #big #ac #aad1 #aci1 #aej1 #bhh #ca #bhh v4 #c-d #hj1 #hb1 #bhi #ae #bij vi4 #dg #bhg #ea #bhi #fi #bhg viii4 #ce #bhh #ch-i #agj-a #ei #bhh ix4 #ce #bhh #cf #aia x4 #ad #aae1 #aci1 #aej xiv4 #ad #bhg xvi4 #f #bhh xvii4 #bd #aae1 #aci1 #aej xix4 #bj-a #bij #be #he n4 #c #bi #bec-d xxi4 #e-ac #bda-d #bc #bhg #be #aae1 #aci1 #aej ,,acts3 xvi4 #g #bhh xx4 #bh #bhg xxiv4 #bc #adf ,,romans3 xiv4 #aj #bhh #a ,,cor43 xi4 #b-d #bij xvi4 #dg #bhh #b ,,cor43 iii4 #c #fe ,,gal43 iii4 #a #aff-g ,,eph43 i4 #a #aff v4 #bj #bbg-h ,,col43 ii4 #aj #bhh #a ,,tim43 iii4 #af #bhh ,,heb43 iv4 #b #dh-i #b ,,pet43 i4 #a #bhh ,,rev43 i4 #e #bij ,,footnotes #a ,see ,jerome1 ,epist4 #cd 7,migne1 xxii4 p4 #ddh74 ,cod4 ,v4 of ,philo has the following inscription3-- 1 i4e4 transcribed on vellum from papyrus4 ,leopold ,cohn's edition of ,philo1 ,de ,opiticiis ,mundi1 ,vratislaw1 #ahhi4 #b ,see my ,guide to the ,textual ,criticism of the ,new ,testament1 pp4 #g-cg4 ,george ,bell and ,sons1 #ahhf4 #c ,for an estimate of ,tischendorf's great labour1 see an article on ,tischendorf's ,greek ,testament in the ,quarterly ,review for ,july1 #ahie4 #d ,dr4 ,hort's theory1 which is generally held to supply the philosophical explanation of the tenets maintained in the school of critics who support ,b and as pre-eminently the sources of the correct text1 may be studied in his ,introduction4 ,it is also explained and controverted in my ,textual ,guide1 pp4 #ch-ei2 and has been powerfully criticized by ,dean ,burgon in ,the ,revision ,revised1 ,article ,,iii1 or in ,no4 #cjf of the ,quarterly ,review1 without reply4 #e ,quarterly ,review1 ,july #ahie1 8,tischendorf's ,greek ,testament40 #f ,see ,preface4 #g ,it is remarkable1 that in quarters where we should have looked for more scientific procedure the importance of the ,textual ,criticism of the ,new ,testament is underrated1 upon a plea that theological doctrine may be established upon passages other than those of which the text has been impugned by the destructive school4 ,yet 7a7 in all cases consideration of the text of an author must perforce precede consideration of inferences from the text--,lower ,criticism must be the groundwork of ,higher ,criticism2 7b7 confirmatory passages cannot be thrown aside in face of attacks upon doctrine of every possible character2 7c7 ,holy ,scripture is too unique and precious to admit of the study of the several words of it being interesting rather than important2 7d7 many of the passages which ,modern ,criticism would erase or suspect--such as the last ,twelve ,verses of ,st4 ,mark1 the first ,word from the ,cross1 and the thrilling description of the depth of the ,agony1 besides numerous others--are valuable in the extreme2 and1 7e7 generally speaking1 it is impossible to pronounce1 especially amidst the thought and life seething everywhere round us1 what part of ,holy ,scripture is not1 or may not prove to be1 of the highest importance as well as interest4--,e4 ,m4 #h ,see below1 ,vol4 ,,ii4 throughout1 and a remarkable passage quoted from ,caius or ,gaius by ,dean ,burgon in ,the ,revision ,revised 7,quarterly ,review1 ,no4 #cjf71 pp4 #cbc-cbd4 #i ,st4 ,john xiv4 #bf4 #aj ,st4 ,john xvi4 #ac4 #aa ,rev4 ,john ,oxlee's sermon on ,luke xxii4 #bh-cj 7#ahba71 p4 #ia 7,three ,sermons on the power1 origin1 and succession of the ,christian ,hierarchy1 and especially that of the ,church of ,england74 #ab ,westcott and ,hort1 ,introduction1 p4 #ib4 #ac ,ibid4 p4 #adb4 #ad ,scrivener1 ,plain ,introduction1 ed4 #d1 ,vol4 ,i4 pp4 #ge-gf4 #ae ,of course this trenchant passage refers only to the principles of the school found to fail4 ,a school may leave fruits of research of a most valuable kind1 and yet be utterly in error as to the inferences involved in such and other facts4 ,dean ,burgon amply admitted this4 ,the following extract from one of the many detached papers left by the author is appended as possessing both illustrative and personal interest3-- 8,familiar as all such details as the present must of necessity prove to those who have made ,textual ,criticism their study1 they may on no account be withheld4 ,i am not addressing learned persons only4 ,i propose1 before ,i lay down my pen1 to make educated persons1 wherever they may be found1 partakers of my own profound conviction that for the most part certainty is attainable on this subject-matter2 but that the decrees of the popular school--at the head of which stand many of the great critics of ,christendom--are utterly mistaken4 ,founded1 as ,i venture to think1 on entirely false premisses1 their conclusions almost invariably are altogether wrong4 ,and this ,i hold to be demonstrable2 and ,i propose in the ensuing pages to establish the fact4 ,if ,i do not succeed1 ,i shall pay the penalty for my presumption and my folly4 ,but if ,i succeed--and ,i wish to have jurists and persons skilled in the law of evidence1 or at least thoughtful and unprejudiced persons1 wherever they are to be found1 and no others1 for my judges1--if ,i establish my position1 ,i say1 let my father and my mother's son be kindly remembered by the ,church of ,christ when he has departed hence40 #af ,there are1 however1 in existence1 about #bjj ,,mss4 of the ,iliad and ,odyssey of ,homer1 and about #aej of ,virgil4 ,but in the case of many books the existing authorities are but scanty4 ,thus there are not many more than thirty of ,aeschylus1 and they are all said by ,w4 ,dindorf to be derived from one of the eleventh century3 only a few of ,demosthenes1 of which the oldest are of the tenth or eleventh century3 only one authority for the first six books of the ,annals of ,tacitus 7see also ,madvig's ,introduction73 only one of the ,clementines3 only one of the ,didach1 c4 ,see ,gow's ,companion to ,school ,classics1 ,macmillan ,co4 #ahhh4 #ag 8,i had already assisted my friend ,prebendary ,scrivener in greatly enlarging ,scholz's list4 ,we had1 in fact1 raised the enumeration of #8,evangelia' copies of ,gospels to #fba3 of #8,acts and ,catholic ,epistles' to #bci3 of #8,paul' to #bha3 of #8,apocalypse' to #ajh3 of #8,evangelistaria' ,lectionary copies of ,gospels to #bii3 of the book called #8,apostolos' ,lectionary copies of ,acts and ,epistles to #ha--making a total of #afbi4 ,but at the end of a protracted and somewhat laborious correspondence with the custodians of not a few great continental libraries1 ,i am able to state that our available #8,evangelia' amount to at least #gci3 our #8,acts and ,cath4 ,epp4' to #bfa3 our #8,paul' to #cch3 our #8,apoc4' to #abb3 our #8,evst4' to #dae3 our copies of the #8,apostolos' to #abh--making a total of #bjjc4 ,this shews an increase of three hundred and seventy-four40 ,revision ,revised1 p4 #eba4 ,but since the publication of ,dr4 ,gregory's ,prolegomena1 and of the fourth edition of ,dr4 ,scrivener's ,plain ,introduction to the ,criticism of the ,new ,testament1 after ,dean ,burgon's death1 the list has been largely increased4 ,in the fourth edition of the ,introduction 7,appendix ,f1 p4 #cig7 the total number under the six classes of 8,evangelia10 8,acts and ,catholic ,epistles10 8,st4 ,paul10 8,apocalypse10 8,evangelistaria10 and 8,apostolos10 has reached 7about7 #c1hbi1 and may be reckoned when all have come in at over #d1jjj4 ,the separate ,,mss4 7some in the reckoning just given being counted more than once7 are already over #c1jjj4 #ah ,evan4 #dha is dated ,a4,d4 #hce2 ,evan4 ,s4 is dated ,a4,d4 #idi4 #ai ,or1 as some think1 at the end of the second century4 #bj ,,ac 7 in ,st4 ,matt47 with fourteen other uncials1 most cursives1 four ,old ,latin1 ,gothic1 ,st4 ,irenaeus1 c4 c4 #ba ,see ,vol4 ,,ii4 #bb ,all such questions are best understood by observing an illustration4 ,in ,st4 ,matt4 xiii4 #cf1 the disciples say to our ,lord1 8,explain to us 7 7 the parable of the tares40 ,the cursives 7and late uncials7 are all agreed in this reading4 ,why then do ,lachmann and ,tregelles 7not ,tischendorf7 exhibit 8 ,only because they find in ,b4 ,had they known that the first reading of exhibited that reading also1 they would have been more confident than ever4 ,but what pretence can there be for assuming that the ,traditional reading of all the copies is untrustworthy in this place8 ,the plea of antiquity at all events cannot be urged1 for ,origen reads four times4 ,the ,versions do not help us4 ,what else is but a transparent ,gloss8 7elucidate7 explains 1 but 7tell7 does not explain 4 #bc ,plain ,introduction1 ,i4 #bgg4 #dth edition4 #bd ,it is very remarkable that the sum of ,eusebius' own evidence is largely against those uncials4 ,yet it seems most probable that he had ,b and executed from the or 8critical0 copies of ,origen4 ,see below1 ,chapter ,,ix4 #be ,viz4 #iif verses out of #c1ghj4 #bf ,miller's ,scrivener 7#dth edition71 ,vol4 ,i4 ,appendix ,f4 p4 #cig4 #acbf #gc #ihj #bcgi4 #bg ,scrivener's ,introduction1 ,ed4 iv 7#ahid71 ,vol4 ,,ii4 pp4 #bfd-bfe4 #bh ,but see ,miller's edition of ,scrivener's ,introduction1 ,i4 #cig4 ,app4 ,f1 where the numbers as now known are given as #gc1 #acbf1 #ihj respectively4 #bi ,account of the ,printed ,text1 p4 #ach4 #cj ,this general position will be elucidated in ,chapters ,,ix and ,,xi4 #ca ,so also the ,georgian and ,sclavonic versions 7the late ,dr4 ,malan74 #cb ,the ,traditional view of the authorship of the ,epistle to the ,hebrews is here maintained as superior both in authority and evidence to any other4 #cc 1 #ca1 #da1 #aad4 #cd ,tischendorf wrongly adduces ,irenaeus4 ,read to the end of ,,iii4 c4 #ai1 #a4 #ce ,ap4 ,galland4 vii4 #agh4 #cf xii4 #fd c1 #fe b4 2 1 1 1 4 ,see by all means ,cramer's ,cat4 p4 #dea4 #cg ,ap4 ,cramer1 ,cat4 p4 #agg4 2 1 8 40 #ch vi4 #ae d4 1 1 444 ,after this1 it becomes of little moment that the same ,cyril should elsewhere 7i4 #cid7 read 4 #ci iii4 #eff4 ,after quoting the place1 ,thdrt4 proceeds1 444 444 4 #dj ii4 #bcd4 #da ,ap4 ,oecum4 #db ii4 #fgj4 #dc ,from ,dr4 ,malan1 who informs me that the ,bohairic and ,ethiopic exhibit 8their heart was not mixed with03 which represents the same reading4 #dd ,so ,theophylactus 7ii4 #fgj71 who 7with all the more trustworthy authorities7 writes 4 ,for this sense of the verb1 see ,liddell and ,scott's ,lex41 and especially the instances in ,wetstein4 #de ,yet ,tischendorf says1 8,dubitare nequeo quin lectio ,sinaitica hujus loci mentem scriptoris recte reddat atque omnium sit verissima40 #df ,see below1 ,chapter ,,xi1 where the character and authority of ,cursive ,manuscripts are considered4 #dg ,the evidence on the passage is as follows3--,for the insertion3-- 99 etc4 ,,bc99,,dp1 #a1 #ac1 #cc1 #ajh1 #aeg1 #cdf1 and about ten more4 ,old ,latin 7except f71 ,vulgate1 ,bohairic1 ,ethiopic1 ,hilary1 ,cyril ,alex4 7#b71 ,chrysostom 7#b74 ,against3-- ,,efgklmsuvx4 ,the rest of the ,cursives1 ,peshitto 7,pusey and ,gwilliam found it in no copies71 ,sahidic1 ,eusebius1 ,basil1 ,jerome1 ,chrysostom1 in loc41 ,juvencus4 ,compare ,revision ,revised1 p4 #ajh1 note4 #dh ,by the ,editor4 ,see ,miller's ,scrivener1 ,introduction 7#dth ed471 ,vol4 ,i4 p4 #if1 note #a1 and below1 ,chapter ,,ix4 #di ,miller's ,scrivener1 ,i4 p4 #agf4 #ej ,ibid4 p4 #bjh4 #ea ,tregelles' ,printed ,text1 c41 p4 #bdg4 #eb ,tischendorf1 ,n4 ,t41 p4 #cbb4 #ec ,tischendorf and ,alford4 #ed ,burgon's ,last ,twelve ,verses1 c41 pp4 #ch-fi2 also p4 #bfg4 #ee ,ad ,marinum4 ,ibid4 p4 #bfe4 #ef ,ibid4 pp4 #bce-f4 #eg ,miller's ,scrivener1 ,i4 p4 #aha4 #eh ,ferrar and ,abbott's ,collation of ,four ,important ,manuscripts1 ,abb ,martin1 ,quatre ,,mss4 importants1 ,j4 ,rendel ,harris1 ,on the ,origin of the ,ferrar ,group 7,c4 ,j4 ,clay and ,sons71 #ahic4 ,miller's ,scrivener1 ,i4 p4 #cih1 ,app4 ,f4 #ei ,see below1 ,chapter ,x4 ,also ,mr4 ,rendel ,harris' 8,study of ,codex ,bezae0 in the ,cambridge ,texts and ,studies4 #fj ,last ,twelve ,verses of ,st4 ,mark1 p4 #ba1 c42 ,revision ,revised1 p4 #big4 #fa ,see more upon this point in ,chapters ,v1 ,,xi4 ,compare ,st4 ,augustine's ,canon3 8,quod universa tenet ,ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est1 non nisi auctoritate ,apostolica traditum rectissime creditur40 ,c4 ,donatist4 iv4 #bd4 #fb ,see ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #ia1 #bjf1 and below1 ,chapter ,v4 #fc 1 1 1 4 #fd 4 #fe 1 2 omission of 1 4 #ff 1 for which ,d absurdly substitutes 1 8he that worketh40 #fg ,so1 as it seems1 the ,lewis1 but the column is defective4 #fh ,viz4 ,ver4 #bj1 for 1 ,b2 for 1 ,,dlx4 ,ver4 #bb1 omit 1 ,,blx2 insert before 1 ,,bdf992 insert before 1 ,,fx4 ,ver4 #bc1 for 1 ,d4 ,ver4 #bd1 for 1 ,d and eight others2 for 1 ,,abdl4 ,ver4 #be1 for 1 ,,abdl4 ,ver4 #bf1 for 1 ,,bdl4 ,ver4 #bh1 insert before 1 ,,lx2 omit 1 ,,bklmx4 ,ver4 #cj1 omit 1 ,d4 ,ver4 #cb1 for 1 99,b4 ,see ,tischendorf1 eighth edition1 in loco4 ,the ,concordia discors will be noticed4 #fi ,the explanation given by the majority of the ,revisers has only their ,english ,translation to recommend it1 8in tables that are hearts of flesh0 for 4 ,in the ,traditional reading 7a7 answers to 2 and therefore would agree with 1 not with 4 7b7 ,the opposition between and would be weak indeed1 the latter being a mere appendage in apposition to 1 and would therefore be a blot in ,st4 ,paul's nervous passage4 7c7 ,the apposition is harsh1 ill-balanced 7contrast ,st4 ,mark viii4 #h71 and unlike ,greek3 ,dr4 ,hort is driven to suppose to be a 8primitive interpolation40 ,the faultiness of a majority of the ,uncials is corrected by ,cursives1 ,versions1 ,fathers4 #gj 8,inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspecta merito habetur1 quae orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifeste prae ceteris favet40 ,n4,t4 ,prolegomena1 ,i4 p4 lxvi4 #ga ,see ,hort's ,introduction1 pp4 #baj-bgj4 #gb ,i have retained this challenge though it has been rendered nugatory by the ,dean's lamented death1 in order to exhibit his absolute sincerity and fearlessness4--,e4 ,m4 #gc ,here the ,dean's ,,ms4 ceases1 and the ,editor is responsible for what follows4 ,the ,,ms4 was marked in pencil1 8,very rough--but worth carrying on40 #gd ,see a passage from ,caius quoted in ,the ,revision ,revised1 p4 #cbc4 ,eusebius1 ,hist4 ,eccles4 v4 #bh4 #ge ,hort1 ,introduction1 p4 #bbc4 #gf ,see ,appendix ,v1 and below1 ,chapter ,,ix4 #gg ,as a specimen of how quickly a ,cursive copy could be written by an accomplished copyist1 we may note the following entry from ,dean ,burgon's ,letters in the ,guardian to ,dr4 ,scrivener1 in a letter dated ,jan4 #bi1 #ahgc4 8,note further1 that there is 444 another copy of the ,o4,t4 in one volume 444 at the end of which is stated that ,nicodemus 1 the scribe1 began his task on the #hth of ,june and finished it on the #aeth of ,july1 ,a4,d4 #accd1 working very hard--as he must have done indeed40 #gh ,see below1 ,chapter ,,viii4 #b4 #gi ,see ,chapter ,,vi4 #hj ,see ,chapter ,,vii4 #ha ,see next ,chapter4 #hb ,another fragment found in the ,dean's papers is introduced here4 #hc ,here the fragment ends4 #hd ,see ,dr4 ,gwynn's remarks which are quoted below1 ,appendix ,,vii4 #he ,the ,revision ,revised1 p4 #dbc4 ,add a few more2 see ,appendix ,,vii4 #hf ,dr4 ,gwynn1 ,appendix ,,vii4 #hg ,another ,,ms4 comes in here4 #hh ,the ,,ms4 ceases4 #hi ,hort1 ,introduction1 pp4 #ie-ii4 #ij - #ia ,an instance is afforded in ,st4 ,mark viii4 #g1 where 8the ,five ,old ,uncials0 exhibit the passage thus3 ,a4 4 994 4 #a4 4 ,b4 4 ,c4 4 ,d4 4 ,lachmann1 and ,tischendorf 7#ahei7 follow ,a2 ,alford1 and ,tischendorf 7#ahfi7 follow 2 ,tregelles and ,westcott1 and ,hort adopt ,b4 ,they happen to be all wrong1 and the ,textus ,receptus right4 ,the only word they all agree in is the initial 4 #ib ,after this the ,,mss4 recommence4 #ic ,s mark the place with asterisks1 and with an obelus4 #id ,in twelve1 asterisks3 in two1 obeli4 #ie ,the ,,ms41 which has not been perfect1 here ceases4 #if ,in the ,syriac one form appears to be used for all the ,marys 7,syriac characters ,mar-yam1 also sometimes1 but not always1 spelt in the ,jerusalem ,syriac ,syriaic characters ,mar-yaam71 also for ,miriam in the ,o4 ,t41 for ,mariamne the wife of ,herod1 and others2 in fact1 wherever it is intended to represent a ,hebrew female name4 ,at ,rom4 xvi4 #f1 the ,peshitto has ,syriaic characters obviously as a translation of the ,greek form in the text which was followed4 7,see ,thesaurus ,syriacus1 ,payne ,smith1 coll4 #bbbe1 #bbbf47 ,in ,syriac literature ,syriac characters ,maria occurs from time to time as the name of some ,saint or ,martyr--e4g4 in a volume of ,acta ,mart4 described by ,wright in ,cat4 ,syr4 ,,mss4 in ,b4 ,m4 p4 #ajha1 and which appears to be a fifth-century ,,ms4 ,on the hypothesis that ,hebrew-,aramaic was spoken in ,palestine 7pace ,drs4 ,abbot and ,roberts71 ,i do not doubt that only one form 7cf4 ,pearson1 ,creed1 ,art4 iii4 and notes7 of the name was in use1 8,maryam10 a vulgarized form of 8,miriam02 but it may well be that ,greek ,christians kept the ,hebrew form for the ,virgin1 while they adopted a more ,greek-looking word for the other women4 ,this fine distinction has been lost in the corrupt ,uncials1 while observed in the correct ,uncials and ,cursives1 which is all that the ,dean's argument requires4--7,g4 ,h4 ,g47 #ig ,the ,,mss4 continue here4 #ih ,,lxx4 #ii ,st4 ,john xix4 #be4 ,as the passage is syndeton1 the omission of the which would be necessary if were different from could not be justified4 ,compare1 e4g41 the construction in the mention of four in ,st4 ,mark xiii4 #c4 ,in disregarding the usage requiring exclusively either syndeton or asyndeton1 even scholars are guided unconsciously by their ,english experience4--7,,ed47 #ajj ,the genitive is used in the ,textus ,receptus in ,matt4 i4 #af1 #ah2 ii4 #aa2 ,mark vi4 #c2 ,luke i4 #da4 is used in the ,nominative1 ,matt4 xiii4 #ee2 ,luke i4 #bg1 #cd1 #ci1 #df1 #ef2 ii4 #e1 #ai4 ,in the ,vocative1 ,luke i4 #cj4 ,the ,accusative1 ,matt4 i4 #bj2 ,luke ii4 #af4 ,dative1 ,luke ii4 #e2 ,acts i4 #ad4 occurs for another ,mary in the ,textus ,receptus1 ,rom4 xvi4 #f4 #aja ,serapion1 ,bp4 of ,thmuis 7on a mouth of the ,nile7 ,a4,d4 #cdj 7ap4 ,galland4 v4 #fj a74 #ajb ,basil1 i4 #bdj d4 #ajc ,epiphanius1 i4 #dce c4 #ajd ,chrysostom1 iii4 #abj d e2 vii4 #ahj a1 #edg e quat42 viii4 #aab a c 7nine times74 #aje ,asterius1 p4 #abh b4 #ajf ,basil ,opp4 7i4 ,append47 i4 #ejj e 7cf4 p4 #cgg ,monitum74 #ajg ,cyril1 iv4 #aca c4 #ajh ,a gives 2 1 2 ,c and ,d are silent4 ,obvious it is that the revised text of ,st4 ,john i4 #dc and of xxi4 #ae1 #af1 #ag1--must stand or fall together4 ,in this latter place the ,vulgate forsakes us1 and ,b are joined by ,c and ,d4 ,on the other hand1 ,cyril 7iv4 #aaag71--;,basil 7ii4 #bih71--;,chrysostom 7viii4 #ebe c d71--,theodoret 7ii4 #dbf71--;,jo4 ,damascene 7ii4 #eaj e71--and ,eulogius 7,a4,d4 #ehj4 ap4 ,photium1 p4 #afab71 come to our air4 ,not that we require it4 #aji 8,araba0 7instead of 8abara07 is a word which must have exercised so powerful and seductive an influence over ancient ,eastern scribes1--7having been for thirty-four centuries the established designation of the sterile ,wady1 which extends from the ,southern extremity of the ,dead ,sea to the ,north of the ,arabian ,gulf7--that the only wonder is it did not find its way into ,evangelia4 ,see ,gesenius on 7 in the ,,lxx of ,deut4 ii4 #h1 c4 ,so in the ,revised ,o4 ,t474 #aaj ,the ,,mss4 have ceased4 #aaa ,see ,appendix ,v4 #aab ,see ,preface4 #aac ,this chapter and the next three have been supplied entirely by the ,editor4 #aad ,see also ,miller's ,textual ,guide1 chapter ,,iv4 ,no answer has been made to the ,dean's strictures4 #aae ,see ,dr4 ,scrivener's incisive criticism of ,dr4 ,hort's theory1 ,introduction1 edit4 #d1 ii4 #bhd-bif4 #aaf ,the ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #cbc-cbd1 #ccd4 #aag ,yet ,marcion and ,tatian may fairly be adduced as witnesses upon individual readings4 #aah ,e4g4 8,many of the verses which he ,origen quotes in different places shew discrepancies of text that cannot be accounted for either by looseness of citation or by corruption of the ,,mss4 of his writings40 ,hort1 ,introduction1 p4 #aac4 ,see also the whole passage1 pp4 #aac-d4 #aai ,see ,hort4 ,introduction1 p4 #afj4 ,the most useful part of ,irenaeus' works in this respect is found in the ,latin ,translation1 which is of the fourth century4 #abj ,or ,magnus1 or ,major1 which names were applied to him to distinguish him from his brother who was called ,alexandrinus1 and to whom some of his works have been sometimes attributed4 ,macarius ,magnus or ,aegyptius was a considerable writer1 as may be understood from the fact that he occupies nearly #ajjj pages in ,migne's ,series4 ,his memory is still1 ,i am informed1 preserved in ,egypt4 ,but in some fields of scholarship at the present day he has met with strange neglect4 #aba ,the names of many ,fathers are omitted in this list1 because ,i could not find any witness on one side or the other in their writings4 ,also ,syriac writings are not here included4 #abb ,see ,the ,revision ,revised1 p4 #abc4 #abc ,the ,revision ,revised1 p4 #ib4 #abd ,i have mentioned here only cases where the passage is quoted professedly from ,st4 ,matthew4 ,the passage as given in ,st4 ,mark x4 #ag-ah1 and in ,st4 ,luke xviii4 #ah-ai1 is frequently quoted without reference to any one of the ,gospels4 ,surely some of these quotations must be meant for ,st4 ,matthew4 #abe ,for the reff4 see below1 ,appendix ,,ii4 #abf ,compare ,the ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #afb-c4 #abg ,for reff4 see ,vol4 ,,ii4 viii4 ,for ,mark i4 #a1 1 see ,appendix ,,iv4 #abh ,the ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #dbc-ddj4 ,last ,twelve ,verses1 pp4 #db-ea4 ,the latitudinarian ,eusebius on the same passage witnesses on both sides4 #abi ,the ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #dbj-a2 ,last ,twelve ,verses1 pp4 #db-c4 #acj ,the ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #gi-hb4 ,the ,dean alleges more than forty witnesses in all4 ,what are quoted here1 as in the other instances1 are only the ,fathers before ,st4 ,chrysostom4 #aca ,ibid4 pp4 #hb-e4 #acb ,the ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #fa-fe4 #acc ,ibid4 pp4 #ij-a4 #acd ,see below1 ,appendix ,i4 #ace ,many of the ,fathers quote only as far as 4 ,but that was evidently a convenient quotation of a stock character in controversy1 just as was even more commonly4 ,st ,epiphanius often quotes thus1 but remarks 7,haer4 ,,ii4 7lxix47 #ef1 ,ancor4 lxxv471 that the passage goes on to 4 #acf ,see ,the ,revision ,revised1 p4 #acc4 #acg ,ibid4 pp4 #bbj-a4 #ach ,tischendorf quotes these on the wrong side4 #aci ,the ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #bag-h4 #adj ,ibid4 pp4 #bc-d4 ,see also an article in ,hermathena1 ,vol4 ,,viii41 ,no4 ,,xix41 #ahic1 written by the ,rev4 ,dr4 ,gwynn with his characteristic acuteness and ingenuity4 #ada ,hort1 ,introduction1 pp4 #abh1 #abg4 #adb ,ibid4 p4 #aac4 #adc ,it may perhaps be questioned whether ,justin should be classed here3 but the character of his witness1 as on ,matt4 v4 #dd1 ix4 #ac1 and ,luke xxii4 #dc-dd1 is more on the ,traditional side1 though the numbers are against that4 #add ,athanasius in his 8,orationes ,,iv contra ,arianos0 used ,alexandrian texts4 ,see ,,iv4 #ade ,according to ,pliny 7,n4 ,,ii4 v4 #ah71 the towns of ,decapolis were3 #a4 ,scythopolis the chief1 not far from ,tiberias 7,joseph4 ,b4 ,j4 ,,iii4 ix4 #g72 #b4 ,philadelphia2 #c4 ,raphanae2 #d4 ,gadara2 #e4 ,hippos2 #f4 ,dios2 #g4 ,pella2 #h4 ,gerasa2 #i4 ,canatha 7,otopos1 ,joseph472 #aj4 ,damascus4 ,this area does not coincide with that which is sometimes now marked in maps and is part of ,galilee and ,samaria4 ,but the ,gospel notion of ,decapolis1 is of a country east of ,galilee1 lying near to the ,lake1 starting from the south-east1 and stretching on towards the mountains into the north4 ,it was different from ,galilee 7,matt4 iv4 #be71 was mainly on the east of the sea of ,tiberias 7,mark v4 #bj1 ,eusebius and ,jerome ,,os#b4 pp4 #bea1 #hi--8;around ,pella and ,basanitis10--,epiphanius ,haer4 i4 #abc71 extended also to the west 7,mark vii4 #ca71 was reckoned in ,syria 7,josephus1 passim1 8,decapolis of ,syria071 and was generally after the time of ,pompey under the jurisdiction of the ,governor of ,syria4 ,the ,encyclopaedia ,britannica describes it well as 8situated1 with the exception of a small portion1 on the eastern side of the ,upper ,jordan and the sea of ,tiberias40 ,smith's ,dictionary of the ,bible1 to which ,i am indebted for much of the evidence given above1 is inconsistent4 ,the population was in a measure ,greek4 #adf 4 ,what a condensed account of ,his sojourn in various 8towns06 #adg ,see ,ancient ,syriac ,documents relative to the ,earliest ,establishment of ,christianity in ,edessa and the neighbouring countries1 c4 edited by ,w4 ,cureton1 ,d4,d41 with a ,preface by the late ,dr4 ,wright1 #ahfd4 #adh ,cureton's ,preface to 8,an ,antient ,recension1 c40 #adi ,philip ,e4 ,pusey held that there was a revision of the ,peshitto in the eighth century1 but that it was confined to grammatical peculiarities4 ,this would on general grounds be not impossible1 because the art of copying was perfected by about that time4 #aej ,see ,appendix ,,vi4 #aea ,this position is demonstrated in full in an article in the ,church ,quarterly ,review for ,april1 #ahie1 on 8,the ,text of the ,syriac ,gospels10 pp4 #abc-e4 #aeb ,the ,text of the ,syriac ,gospels1 pp4 #aac-d3 also ,church ,times1 ,jan4 #aa1 #ahie4 ,this position is established in both places4 #aec ,yet some people appear to think1 that the worse a text is the more reason there is to suppose that it was close to the ,autograph ,original4 ,verily this is evolution run wild4 #aed ,encyclopaedia ,britannica1 #ith ed41 8,syriac ,literature10 by ,dr4 ,w4 ,wright1 now published separately under the same title4 #aee ,dr4 ,scrivener1 ,introduction 7#dth ,edition71 ,,ii4 #g4 #aef ,see also ,miller's ,edition of ,scrivener's ,introduction 7#dth71 ,,ii4 #ab4 #aeg ,another very ancient ,,ms4 of the ,peshitto ,gospels is the ,cod4 ,philipp4 #achh1 in the ,royal ,library1 ,berlin 7in ,miller's ,scrivener the name is spelt ,,phillipps74 ,dr4 ,sachau ascribes it to the fifth1 or the beginning of the sixth century1 thus making it older than the ,vatican ,tetraevangelicum1 ,no4 #c1 in ,miller's ,scrivener1 ,,ii4 #ab4 ,a full description will be found in ,sachau's ,catalogue of the ,syr4 ,,mss4 in the ,berlin ,library4 ,the second was collated by ,drs4 ,guidi and ,ugolini1 the third1 in ,st4 ,john1 by ,dr4 ,sachau4 ,the readings of the second and third are in the possession of ,mr4 ,gwilliam1 who informs me that all three support the ,peshitto text1 and are free from all traces of any pre-,peshitto text1 such as according to ,dr4 ,hort and ,mr4 ,burkitt the ,curetonian and ,lewis ,,mss4 contain4 ,thus every fresh accession of evidence tends always to establish the text of the ,peshitto ,version more securely in the position it has always held until quite recent years4 ,the interesting feature of all the above-named ,,mss4 is the uniformity of their testimony to the text of the ,peshitto4 ,take for example the evidence of ,no4 #aj in ,miller's ,scrivener1 ,,ii4 #ac1 ,no4 #c1 in ,miller's ,scrivener1 ,,ii4 #ab1 and ,cod4 ,philipp4 #achh4 ,the first was collated by ,p4 ,e4 ,pusey1 and the results are published in ,studia ,biblica1 vol4 i1 8,a fifth century ,,ms40 #aeh ,dr4 ,w4 ,wright's article in ,encyclopaedia ,britannica4 ,dr4 ,hort could not have been aware of this fact when he spoke of 8the almost total extinction of ,old ,syriac ,,mss403 or else he lamented a disappearance of what never appeared4 #aei p4 #ajg4 #afj ,see ,patrologia ,syriaca1 ,graffin1 ,p4 ,i4 vol4 ii4 ,paris1 #ahie4 #afa ,see in ,st4 ,matt4 alone 7out of many instances7 v4 #bb 7the translation of 71 ix4 #ac 7of 71 xi4 #bc 78which art exalted071 xx4 #af 7of 1 71 xxvi4 #db 771 #bh 772 besides ,st4 ,luke ii4 #ad 771 xxiii4 #de 771 ,john iii4 #ac 7though 8from heaven071 xxi4 #be 7the verse74 #afb ,doctrine of ,addai1 xxxv4 #ae-ag4 #afc ,h4 ,e4 iv4 #bi4 #afd ,haer4 xlvi4 #a4 #afe ,canons4 #aff ,haer4 i4 #bj4 #afg ,the ,earliest ,life of ,christ1 ,appendix ,,viii4 #afh ,the ,,ms4 is mutilated at the beginning of the other three ,gospels4 #afi ,it appears almost1 if not quite1 certain that this is the true meaning4 ,payne ,smith's ,thesaurus ,syriacus1 coll4 #ccjc-d4 #agj ,the ,lewis ,codex was in part destroyed1 as not being worth keeping1 while the leaves which escaped that fate were used for other writing4 ,perhaps others were treated in similar fashion1 which would help to account for the fact mentioned in note #b1 p4 #abi4 #aga ,plain ,introduction1 ,,ii4 #dc-dd4 #agb ,essays on ,various ,subjects1 i4 ,two ,letters on some parts of the controversy concerning #a ,john v4 #g1 pp4 #bc1 c4 ,the arguments are more ingenious than powerful4 ,africa1 e4g41 had no monopoly of ,low-,latin4 #agc ,the numerator in these fractions denotes the number of times throughout the ,gospels when the text of the ,,ms4 in question agrees in the selected passages with the ,textus ,receptus3 the denominator1 when it witnesses to the ,neologian ,text4 #agd ,once in k by comperire probably a slip for corripere4 ,old ,latin ,texts1 ,,iii4 pp4 xxiv-xxv4 #age 8,tot sunt paene 7exemplaria71 quot codices10 ,jerome1 ,epistola ad ,damascum4 8,latinorum interpretum infinita varietas10 8interpretum numerositas10 8nullo modo numerari possunt10 ,de ,doctrina ,christiana1 ii4 #af1 #ba4 #agf ,de ,doctr4 ,christ4 ii4 #af4 #agg ,scrivener's ,plain ,introduction1 ,,ii4 #dd1 note #a4 #agh ,see ,diez1 ,grammatik der ,romanischen ,sprachen1 as well as ,introduction to the ,grammar of the ,romance ,languages1 translated by ,c4 ,b4 ,cayley4 ,also ,abel ,hovelacque1 ,the ,science of ,language1 ,english ,translation1 pp4 #bbg-i4 8,the ,grammar of ,frederick ,diez1 first published some forty years ago1 has once for all disposed of those ,iberian1 ,keltic1 and other theories1 which nevertheless crop up from time to time40 ,ibid4 p4 #bbi4 ,brachet1 ,grammar of the ,french ,language1 pp4 #c-e2 ,whitney1 ,language and the ,study of ,language1 pp4 #afe1 c41 c4 #agi 8,syro-,latin0 is doubtless an exact translation of 8,syro-,latinus03 but as we do not say 8,syran0 but 8,syrian10 it is not idiomatic ,english4 #ahj ,this is purely my own opinion4 ,dean ,burgon followed ,townson in supposing that the ,synoptic ,evangelists in some cases saw one another's books4 #aha ,isaiah xxxv4 #h1 #i4 #ahb ,introduction1 pp4 #abg1 c4 #ahc ,probably ,alexandrian reading4 #ahd ,probably ,alexandrian reading4 #ahe ,probably ,alexandrian reading4 #ahf ,probably ,alexandrian reading4 #ahg ,probably ,alexandrian reading4 #ahh ,probably ,alexandrian reading4 #ahi ,probably ,alexandrian reading4 #aij ,probably ,alexandrian reading4 #aia ,probably ,alexandrian reading4 #aib ,in ,matt4 xv4 #ad1 quoted and translated by ,dr4 ,bigg in his ,bampton ,lectures on ,the ,christian ,platonists of ,alexandria1 p4 #abc4 #aic ,burgon1 ,last ,twelve ,verses1 p4 #bcf1 and note z4 #aid ,above1 p4 #ajj4 #aie ,hort1 ,introduction1 p4 #adc4 #aif ,eusebius suggested the ,homoean theory1 but his own position1 so far as he had a position1 is best indicated as above4 #aig ,sir ,e4 ,maunde ,thompson1 ,greek and ,latin ,palaeography1 p4 #ce4 ,plin4 at4 ,hist4 xiii4 #aa4 #aih 1 1 #b ,tim4 iv4 #ac4 #aii ,palaeography1 p4 #cf4 #bjj ,see above1 p4 #b4 #bja ,palaeography1 pp4 #bg-cd4 ,paper was first made in ,china by a man named ,ts'ai ,lun1 who lived about ,a4,d4 #ij4 ,he is said to have used the bark of a tree2 probably ,broussonetia papyrifera1 ,vent4 from which a coarse kind of paper is still made in northern ,china4 ,the better kinds of modern ,chinese paper are made from the bamboo1 which is soaked and pounded to a pulp4 ,see ,die ,erfindung des ,papiers in ,china1 von ,friedrich ,hirth4 ,published in ,vol4 ,i4 of the ,t'oung ,pao 7,april1 #ahij74 ,s4 ,j4 ,brille3 ,leide4 7,kindly communicated by ,mr4 ,h4 ,a4 ,giles1 ,h4 ,b4 ,m4 ,consul at ,ningpo1 author of 8,a ,chinese-,english ,dictionary40 c41 through my friend ,dr4 ,alexander ,prior of ,park ,terrace1 ,n4 ,w41 and ,halse ,house1 near ,taunton47 #bjb 444 8the science of palaeography1 which now stands on quite a different footing from what it had twenty1 or even ten1 years ago4 ,instead of beginning practically in the fourth century of our era1 with the earliest of the great vellum codices of the ,bible1 it now begins in the third century before ,christ44440 ,church ,quarterly ,review for ,october1 #ahid1 p4 #ajd4 #bjc 444 8it is abundantly clear that the textual tradition at about the beginning of the ,christian era is substantially identical with that of the tenth or eleventh century manuscripts1 on which our present texts of the classics are based4 ,setting minor differences aside1 the papyri1 with a very few exceptions1 represent the same texts as the vellum manuscripts of a thousand years later40 ,church ,quarterly1 pp4 #ih1 #ii4 ,what is here represented as unquestionably the case as regards ,classical manuscripts is indeed more than what ,i claim for manuscripts of the ,new ,testament4 ,the ,cursives were in great measure successors of papyri4 #bjd ,introduction1 p4 #af4 ,he began it in the year #ahec1 and as it appears chiefly upon ,lachmann's foundation4 #bje ,by the ,editor4 #bjf ,tischendorf's fourteen brief days' work is a marvel of accuracy1 but must not be expected to be free from all errors4 ,thus he wrongly gives instead of 1 as ,vercellone pointed out in his ,preface to the octavo ed4 of ,mai in #ahei1 and as may be seen in the photographic copy of ,b4 #bjg ,cf4 ,scrivener's ,introduction1 7#dth ed47 ,,ii4 #bhc4 #bjh ,see ,kuenen and ,cobet's ,edition of the ,vatican ,b1 ,introduction4 #bji ,gregory's ,prolegomena to ,tischendorf's #hth ,ed4 of ,new ,testament1 7,i7 p4 #bhf4 #baj ,see ,appendix ,v4 #baa ,constantine died in #ccg1 and ,constantius ,,ii reigned till #cfj4 #bab ,in his ,last ,twelve ,verses of ,st4 ,mark1 pp4 #bia-d1 ,dean ,burgon argued that a lapse of about half a century divided the date of from that of ,b4 ,but it seems that afterwards he surrendered the opinion which he embraced on the first appearance of in favour of the conclusion adopted by ,tischendorf and ,scrivener and other experts1 in consequence of their identifying the writing of the six conjugate leaves of with that of the scribe of ,b4 ,see above1 pp4 #df1 #eb4 #bac ,the ,revision ,revised1 p4 #bib4 #bad ,the above passage1 including the last paragraph1 is from the pen of the ,dean4 #bae ,see above1 ,introduction1 p4 #b4 #baf ,it is remarkable that ,constantine in his ,semi-,arian days applied to ,eusebius1 whilst the orthodox ,constans sent a similar order afterwards to ,athanasius4 ,apol4 ad ,const4 #d 7,montfaucon1 ,vita ,athan4 p4 xxxvii71 ap4 ,wordsworth's ,church ,history1 ,vol4 ,,ii4 p4 #de4 #bag ,see ,canon ,cook's ingenious argument4 ,those ,,mss4 are handsome enough for an imperial order4 ,the objection of my friend1 the late ,archdeacon ,palmer 7,scrivener's ,introduction1 ,i4 #aai1 note71 which ,i too hastily adopted on other grounds also in my ,textual ,guide1 p4 #hb1 note #a1 will not stand1 because cannot mean 8collections of writings10 but simply1 according to the frequent usage of the word in the early ages of the ,church1 8vellum manuscripts40 ,the difficulty in translating 8of three or four columns in a page0 is not insuperable4 #bah ,scrivener1 ,vol4 ,,ii4 #bfi 7#dth ed474 #bai ,scrivener1 ,vol4 ,i4 #ee 7#dth ed474 #bbj ,the colophon is given in full by ,wilhelm ,bousset in a number of the well-known 8,texte und ,untersuchungen10 edited by ,oscar von ,gebhardt and ,adolf ,harnack1 entitled 8,textkritische ,studien zum ,neuen ,testament10 p4 #de4 ,,ii4 ,der ,kodex ,pamphili1 #ahid1 to which my notice was kindly drawn by ,dr4 ,sanday4 #bba ,miller's ,scrivener1 ,i4 #ahc-d4 ,by ,euthalius1 the ,deacon1 afterwards ,bp4 of ,sulci4 #bbb ,introduction1 p4 #bfg4 ,dr4 ,hort controverts the notion that ,b and were written at ,alexandria 7not ,caesarea71 which no one now maintains4 #bbc ,by the ,dean4 #bbd ,see ,appendix ,,iv1 and ,revision ,revised1 p4 #acb4 ,origen1 c4 ,celsum1 ,praef4 ii4 #d2 ,comment4 in ,john ix4 ,followed here only by 994 #bbe ,see ,last ,twelve ,verses1 pp4 #ic-ii4 ,also pp4 #ff1 note1 #he1 #ajg1 #bce4 #bbf ,migne1 viii4 #if d4 4 1 1 2 1 2 4 ,this speedily assumed the form of a scholium1 as follows3-- 1 2 1 3--which is quoted by the learned ,benedictine editor of ,origen in ,m4 iv4 #dja 7at top of the left hand column71--evidently from ,coisl4 #bc1 our ,evan4 #ci1--since the words are found in ,cramer1 ,cat4 ii4 #aia 7line #a-c74 #bbg ,origen1 i4 #bfe2 coll4 #a4 #bbg1 #bef4 #bbh ,origen1 ,comment4 in ,john vi4 #bbi ,the word is actually transliterated into ,syriac letters in the ,peshitto4 #bcj ,see ,the ,revision ,revised1 pp4 #ceh-fa4 #bca vii4 #eb4 #bcb vii4 #dah4 #bcc ,a name by which ,origen was known4 #bcd ,imbecillitatem virium mearum sentiens1 ,origenis ,commentarios sum sequatus4 ,scripsit ille vir in epistolam ,pauli ad ,galatas quinque proprie volumina1 et decimum ,stromatum suorum librum commatico super explanatione ejus sermone complevit4--,praefatio1 vii4 #cgj4 #bce iii4 #eji-aj4 #bcf #fhf-g4 #bcg vii4 #aag-bj4 #bch vii4 #ecg seq4 #bci ,i endeavour in the text to make the matter in hand intelligible to the ,english reader4 ,but such things can scarcely be explained in ,english without more words than the point is worth4 ,origen says3-- 7,matt4 xiv4 #ai71 4 7 7ix4 #ad7 1 2 7vi4 #ci71 1 1 27 1 4 iii4 #eji f1 #eaj a4 #bdj ,the only other witnesses are from ,evan4 #a1 #cc1 and the lost archetype of #ac1 #abd1 #cdf4 ,the ,versions do not distinguish certainly between and 4 ,chrysostom1 the only ,father who quotes this place1 exhibits 444 7vii4 #eci c74 #bda ,lectio ab omni parte commendatur1 et a correctore alienissima3 ab usu est ,johannis1 sed elegantius videbatur vel 4 #bdb ,luke iv4 #h4 #bdc 2 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 iii4 #edj4 ,i believe that ,origen is the sole cause of the perplexity4 ,commenting on ,matt4 xvi4 #bc 7the words addressed to ,simon ,peter71 he explains that they are a rebuke to the ,apostle for having for a time at ,satan's instigation desisted from following ,him4 ,comp4 7he says7 these words spoken to ,peter 74 4 47 with those addressed to ,satan at the temptation without the 8for to be behind ,christ is a good thing40 444 ,i suppose he had before him a ,,ms4 of ,st4 ,mat41 without the 4 ,this gloss is referred to by ,victor of ,antioch 7#agc ,cat4 ,poss41 i4 #cdh ,cramer74 ,it is even repeated by ,jerome on ,matt4 vii4 #ba d e3 ,non ut plerique putant edem ,satanas et ,apostolus ,petrus sententi condemnantur4 ,petro enim dicitur1 8,vade retro me1 ,satana20 id est 8,sequere me1 qui contrarius es voluntati meae40 ,hic vero audit1 8,vade ,satana30 et non ei dicitur 8retro me10 ut subaudiatur1 8vade in ignem aeternum40 ,vade ,satana 7,irenaeus1 #gge1 also ,hilary1 #fbj a74 ,peter ,alex1 has 1 1 ap4 ,routh1 ,reliqq4 iv4 #bd 7on p4 #ee74 ,audierat diabolus a ,domino1 ,recede ,sathanas1 scandalum mihi es4 ,scriptum est1 ,dominum ,deum tuum adorabis et illi soli servies1 ,tertullian1 ,scorp4 c4 #ae4 2 2 2 1 4--,epist4 ad ,philipp4 c4 xii4 ,ignat4 ,interpol4 ,according to some ,critics 7,tisch41 ,treg41 ,w4-,hort7 there is no 4 in ,lu4 iv4 #h1 and only 4 in ,matt4 iv4 #aj1 so that occurs in neither accounts of the temptation4 ,but ,i believe 4 is the correct reading in both places4 ,justin ,m4 ,tryph4 ii4 #ceb4 ,origen interp4 ii4 #acb b 7,vade retro71 so ,ambrose1 i4 #fga2 so ,jerome1 vi4 #hji e2 redi retro ,s41 ,aug4 iv4 #dg e2 redi post me ,s41 ,aug4 iii4 #hdb g4 ,theodoret1 ii4 #afjh4 ,so ,maximus ,taur41 ,vigil4 ,tapa4 ,vade retro ,s4 ap4 ,sabattier4 8,vade post me ,satana4 ,et sine dubio ire post ,deum servi est40 ,et iterum quod ait ad ilium1 8,dominum ,deum tuum adorabis1 et ipsi soli servies40 ,archelaus et ,man4 disput4 7,routh1 ,reliqq4 v4 #abj71 ,a4,d4 #bgg4 ,st4 ,antony the monk1 apud ,athanas4 8,vita ,ant40 i4 #hbd c d 7 ,galland4 iv4 #fdg a74 ,a4,d4 #cjj4 ,retro vade ,satana1 ps4-,tatian 7,lu471 #di4 ,athanasius1 i4 #bgb d1 #ecg c1 #ehi f4 ,nestorius ap4 ,marium ,merc4 7,galland4 viii4 #fdg c7 ,vade retro ,s4 but only ,vade ,s4 viii4 #fca c4 ,idatius 7,a4,d4 #che7 apud ,athanas4 ii4 #fje b4 ,chrys4 vii4 #agb bis 7,matt47 ,j4 ,damascene1 ii4 #dej4 ps4-,chrys4 x4 #gcd1 #gcg4 ,opus ,imperf4 ap4 ,chrys4 vi4 #dh bis4 ,apocryphal ,acts1 ,tisch4 p4 #bej4 #bdd ,see ver4 #dd4 #bde ,st4 ,john viii4 #dj2 xv4 #ae4 #bdf ,orig41 ,euseb41 ,epiph41 both ,cyrils1 ,didymus1 ,basil1 ,chrysostom4 #bdg ,for the sceptical passages in ,b and see ,appendix ,v4 #bdh ,by the ,editor4 #bdi ,eusebius 7,hist4 ,eccles4 iii4 #be7 divides the writings of the ,church into three classes3-- #a4 ,the ,received ,books 771 i4e4 the ,four ,gospels1 ,acts1 the ,fourteen ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul1 #a ,peter1 #a ,john1 and the ,revelation 7874 #b4 ,doubtful 771 i4e4 ,james1 #b ,peter1 #b and #c ,john1 ,jude 7cf4 ii4 #bc fin474 #c4 ,spurious 771 ,acts of ,st4 ,paul1 ,shepherd of ,hermas1 ,revelation of ,st4 ,peter1 ,epistle of ,barnabas1 the so-called 1 ,revelation of ,st4 ,john 7874 ,this division appears to need confirmation1 if it is to be taken as representing the general opinion of the ,church of the time4 #bej ,see ,westcott1 ,canon1 c4 pp4 #dca-i4 #bea ,see particularly ,haddan's ,remains1 pp4 #beh-bid1 ,scots on the ,continent4 ,the sacrifice of that capable scholar and excellent churchman at a comparatively early age to the toil which was unavoidable under want of encouragement of ability and genius has entailed a loss upon sacred learning which can hardly be over-estimated4 #beb ,the reader is now in the ,dean's hands4 ,see ,mr4 ,rendel ,harris' ingenious and suggestive 8,study of ,codex ,bezae0 in the ,cambridge ,texts and ,studies1 and ,dr4 ,chase's 8,the ,old ,syriac ,element in the ,text of ,codex ,bezae40 ,but we must demur to the expression 8,old ,syriac40 #bec ,introduction1 p4 #adi4 #bed ,the same wholesale corruption of the deposit prevails in what follows1 viz4 the healing of the paralytic borne of four 7v4 #ag-bf71 and the call of ,st4 ,matthew 7#bg-cd73 as well as in respect of the walk through the cornfields on the ,sabbath day 7vi4 #a-e71 and the healing of the man with the withered hand 7#f-aa74 ,indeed it is continued to the end of the call of the ,twelve 7#ab-ai74 ,the particulars are too many to insert here4 #bee 1 instead of 4 #bef 1 4 #beg ,i4e4 a b c d e ff#a4b g#a4b h m n4 #beh ,scrivener's ,introduction1 ,i4 #acj 7#dth ed474 ,the reader will recollect the suggestion given above in ,chapter ,,vii that some of these corruptions may have come from the earliest times before the four ,gospels were written4 ,the interpolation just noticed may very well have been such a survival4 #bei ,the number of the generations in ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel is #ah4 #bfj ,num4 xxxiii4 coll4 xxi4 #ah1 #ai and ,deut4 x4 #f1 #g4 #bfa ,note1 that whereas the of ,st4 ,matt4 i4 #aa is ,jehoiakim1 and the of ver4 #ab1 ,jehoiachin1--,cod4 ,d writes them respectively and 4 #bfb ,cureton's ,syriac is the only known copy of the ,gospels in which the three omitted kings are found in ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel3 which1 ,i suppose1 explains why the learned editor of that document flattered himself that he had therein discovered the lost original of ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel4 ,cureton 7,pref41 p4 viii7 shews that in other quarters also 7e4g4 by ,mar ,yakub the ,persian1 usually known as ,aphraates7 #fc generations were reckoned from ,adam to ,,jesus exclusive3 that number being obtained by adding #bd of ,st4 ,matthew's names and #cc of ,st4 ,luke's to the #c names common to both ,evangelists 7viz4 ,david1 ,salathiel1 and ,zorobabel72 and to these1 adding the #c omitted kings4 ,the testimony of ,,mss4 is not altogether uniform in regard to the number of names in the ,genealogy4 ,in the ,textus ,receptus 7including our ,,saviour',s name and the name of the ,divine ,,author of ,adam's being7 the number of the names is #gg4 ,so ,basil made it2 so ,greg4 ,naz4 and his namesake of ,nyssa2 so ,jerome and ,augustine4 #bfc 7,d--7 7,d 7 7,d 7 7,d 7 7,d 74 1 7,d omits the foregoing thirteen words7 7,d 7 1 7,d--7 7,d 4 47 7,d 7 7,d--7 7,d--7 7,d 7 7,d see above7 1 7,d 7 4 7,d 71 7,d 47 7,d 7 8 7,d 74 7,d 7 7,d 74 4 7,d see above47 444 7,d 4 47 4444 7,d 74 7,d 7 7,d 74 7,d 7 7,d 7 7,d-- 47 444 7,d 7 7,d 7 4 7,d 7 7,d 7 444 7,d 7 7,d 7 2 7,d 7 1 7,d 7 4 ,st4 ,mark xv4 #dg-xvi4 #g4 #bfd ,so for example at the end of the same passage in ,st4 ,luke1 the difficult 7ii4 #b7 becomes 2 is changed into the simpler 2 7ii4 #i7 after into 2 7ii4 #aj7 is inserted before 4 #bfe ,yet not unfrequently the ,greek is unique in its extravagance1 e4g4 ,acts v4 #h2 xiii4 #ad2 xxi4 #bh1 #bi4 #bff ,cureton's ,syriac is closely allied to ,d1 and the ,lewis ,codex less so4 #bfg ,see b c e f ff#b i l q ,vulg4 #bfh ,so b e g#b ,curetonian1 ,lewis4 #bfi ,st4 ,chrysostom 7vii4 #hd4 d71 ,origen 7iii4 #ijb4 d int471 ,victor of ,antioch 7#cce7 insert the 4 #bgj ,so too 7,,bcl4 #db7 for 7,st4 ,mark vi4 #bf73 omit 7,,bc99,l4 six curs47 in 7iv4 #cf73 7,b99,c994 few curs47 for 7iv4 #ch73 7,,bc#b;,,dl4 few curs47 for 7xv4 #df73 799etc #f;,,bd99,l7 for 7,st4 ,luke i4 #di73 7c,b,c99,,klx99 few curs47 for 7,st4 ,john xiii4 #be73 c41 c4 #bga ,owing to differences of idiom in other languages1 it is not represented here in so much as a single ancient ,version4 #bgb 8,est enim officium inchoare narrationem40 ,hoogeveen1 ,de ,partic4 ,cf4 ,prom4 ,vinct4 v4 #fff4 ,see also ,st4 ,luke ix4 #dd4 #bgc ,dem4 ,ev4 #cbj b4 #bgd ii4 #eig3 #bgh4 #bge i4 #ajdj b4 #bgf viii4 #cad a3 7,eclog47 xii4 #fid d4 #bgg ,ap4 ,cyril1 v#b4 #bh a4 #bgh v#a4 #fgf e4 #bgi #cj b 7,gall4 xiii4 #aji d74 #bhj ,so1 in ,garnier's ,,mss4 of ,basil ii4 #bgh a1 note4 ,also in ,cyril apud ,mai ii4 #cgh4 #bha ,so ,mill1 ,prolegg4 #acdf and #acfc4--;,beza says roundly1 8,quod plerique ,graeci codices scriptum habent 1 sane non intelligo2 nisi dicam redundare40 #bhb is exhibited by the printed text of ,basil ii4 #bgh a4 #bhc is found in ,basil ii4 #afj b3-- 1 in ,dorotheus 7,a4,d4 #eif7 ap4 ,galland4 xii4 #djc d3-- 1 in ,chrysostom iv4 #ecf a2 vi4 #adb d--7where one of the ,manuscripts exhibits 74--,nilus the ,monk has the same reading 7 71--i4 #bhj4 #bhd ,accordingly1 is found in ,origen i4 #dij b4 ,so also reads the author of the scholium in ,cramer's ,cat4 ii4 #acc1--which is the same which ,matthaei 7in loc47 quotes out of ,evan4 #bef4 ,and so ,cyril 7ap4 ,mai1 ii4 #ahj71-- 4--,euthymius 7,a4,d4 #aaaf71 commenting on the traditional text of ,luke xviii4 #ad 7see ,matthaei's ,praefat4 i4 #agg71 says 4 #bhe ,the is obviously added by way of interpretation1 or to help out the meaning4 ,thus1 in ,origen 7iv4 #abd d7 we meet with 3--in ,chrysostom 7i4 #aea c71 3 and in ,basil ,sel4 7p4 #ahd c71 4 #bhf ,it is found however in ps4-,chrysostom 7viii4 #aai c73--in ,antiochus ,mon4 7p4 #aajb ed4 ,migne1 vol4 #hi1 p4 #aegi c73 and in ,theophylact 7i4 #dcc c74 ,at p4 #dce b1 the last-named writes 1 4 #bhg ,introduction1 p4 #ace4 #bhh ,for all this section except the early part of 8#d0 the ,editor is responsible4 #bhi ,see above1 p4 #fa1 note4 #bij #dha of the ,gospels3 from ,st4 ,saba1 now at ,st4 ,petersburg4 #bia ,the ,evangelistaria #aah1 #aib4 ,scrivener1 ,introduction1 ,i4 pp4 #cce1 #cdj4 #bib ,scrivener1 ,i4 ,app4 ,f1 p4 #cih994 ,of these1 #bje and #bji are probably from the same original4 ,burgon1 ,letters in ,guardian to ,dr4 ,scrivener4 #bic ,i am not of course asserting that any known cursive ,,ms4 is an exact counterpart of one of the oldest extant ,uncials4 ,nor even that every reading however extraordinary1 contained in ,codd4 ,b,d1 is also to be met with in one of the few ,cursives already specified4 ,but what then8 ,neither do any of the oldest ,uncials contain all the textual avouchings discoverable in the same ,cursives4 ,the thing asserted is only this3 that1 as a rule1 every principal reading discoverable in any of the five or seven oldest ,uncials1 is also exhibited in one or more of the ,cursives already cited or in others of them2 and that generally when there is consent among the oldest of the ,uncials1 there is also consent among about as many of the same ,cursives4 ,so that it is no exaggeration to say that we find ourselves always concerned with the joint testimony of the same little handful of ,uncial and ,cursive documents3 and therefore1 as was stated at the outset1 if the oldest of the ,uncials had never existed1 the readings which they advocate would have been advocated by ,,mss4 of the eleventh1 twelfth1 thirteenth1 and fourteenth centuries4 #bid ,manuscript ,evangelia in foreign ,libraries1 ,letters in the ,guardian from ,dean ,burgon to ,dr4 ,scrivener1 ,guardian1 ,jan4 #bi1 #ahgc4 8,you will not be dating it too early if you assign it to the seventh century40 #bie ,the other uncials which have a tendency to consort with ,b and are of earlier date4 ,thus ,t 7,codex ,borgianus ,i7 of ,st4 ,luke and ,st4 ,john is of the fourth or fifth century1 ,r of ,st4 ,luke 7,codex ,nitriensis in the ,british ,museum7 is of the end of the sixth1 ,z of ,st4 ,matthew 7,codex ,dublinensis71 a palimpsest1 is of the sixth3 ,q and ,p1 fragments like the rest1 are respectively of the fifth and sixth4 #bif ,by the ,editor4 #big ,above1 pp4 #hj-ha4 #bih ,hort1 ,introduction1 p4 #ace4 #bii ,chapters ,v1 ,,vi1 ,,vii4 #cjj ,vercell43--,si scires tu1 quamquam in hac tu die1 quae ad pacem tuam4 ,so ,amiat4 and ,aur43--,si cognovisses et tu1 et quidem in hc die tu1 quae ad pacem tibi4 #cja ,mai1 iv4 #abi4 #cjb ,ibid41 and ,h4 ,e4 iii4 #g4 #cjc ,montf4 ii4 #dgj4 #cjd ,montf4 i4 #gjj4 #cje iii4 #cba2 interp4 #igg2 iv4 #ahj4 #cjf i4 #bbj3 also the ,vet4 interp41 8,si cognovisses et tu40 ,and so ap4 ,epiph4 i4 #bed b4 #cjg iii4 #cba1 #igg4 #cjh ,evan4 ,conc4 #ahd1 #bjg4 #cji ,in all #e places4 #caj ,mor4 ii4 #bgb b4 #caa #bje4 #cab ,in ,luc4 7,syr47 #fhf4 #cac ,int4 iii4 #igg4 #cad iv4 #ahj4 #cae ,in ,luc4 7,syr47 #fjg4 #caf ,in their usual high-handed way1 these editors assume1 without note or comment1 that ,b are to be followed here4 ,the 8,revisers0 of #ahha do the same4 ,is this to deal honestly with the evidence and with the ,english reader8 #cag ,viz4-- 1 4 #cah ,viz4-- 4 #cai ,it is omitted by ,eus4 iv4 #abi1 ,basil ii4 #bgb1 ,cod4 ,a1 ,evann4 #ga1 #eaa1 ,evst4 #bbb1 #bei4 ,for the second still fewer authorities exhibit 1 while some few 7as ,irenaeus7 omit it altogether4 #cbj 8,hanc diem tuam4 ,si ergo dies ejus erat1 quanto magis et tempus ejus60 p4 #ahd1 and so #bjg4 #cba 8,having been wholly unsuccessful in their fishing1 two of them1 seated on the shore1 were occupying their time in washing1--and two1 seated in their boat 444 were mending--their nets40 7,farrar's ,life of ,christ1 i4 #bda-b47 ,the footnote appended to this 8attempt to combine as far as it is possible in one continuous narrative0 the 8accounts of the ,synoptists10 is quite a curiosity4 #cbb ,st4 ,luke v4 #e4 #cbc ,ibid41 verses #a1 #b4 #cbd ,st4 ,matt4 iv4 #ah-,st4 ,mark i4 #af4 #cbe ,st4 ,luke v4 #c4 #cbf ,as in ,st4 ,matt1 xxvii4 #b1 #fj2 ,st4 ,luke v4 #d2 xiii4 #af2 ,st4 ,john xviii4 #bd2 xxi4 #ae2 ,acts xii4 #ag2 ,heb4 iv4 #h1 c41 c4 #cbg lavabant retia1 it4 vulg4 ,the one known exception is 7#a7 the ,cod4 ,rehdigeranus ,,vii 7,tischendorf74 #cbh ,the same pair of authorities are unique in substituting 7for 7 in ,st4 ,matt4 xxviii4 #ai2 i4e4 the ,apostles were to baptize people first1 and make them disciples afterwards4 #cbi ,c exhibit 3 ,a 7by far the purest of the five 8old uncials07 retains the traditional text4 #ccj ,p4 #ich4 #cca ,so does ,aphraates1 a contemporary of ,b and 1 p4 #cib4 #ccb ,gen4 xxv4 #h1 #ag2 xxxv4 #bi2 xlix4 #cc4 ,also ,jer4 xlii4 #ag1 #bb2 ,lament4 i4 #bj2 ,job xiii4 #ai2 ,ps4 ciii4 #cj4 #ccc #bfh1 #ffa4 #ccd #idb1 #iec 7,lat ,tr474 #cce #afb1 #cch 7,lat4 ,tr471 #fff4 #ccf ap4 ,phot4 #gia4 #ccg i4 #cec4 #cch iii4 #abj4 #cci i4 #hfa4 #cdj #bhj4 #cda i4 #ibj2 iii4 #cdd2 iv4 #bg2 vi4 #fjf4 #cdb vi4 #ebj4 #cdc i4 #hei b4 #cdd #c4 #ggb4 #cde ,mai1 #b4 #cdf i4 #eag4 #cdg #chh4 #cdh ,in one place of the ,syriac version of his ,homilies on ,st4 ,luke 7,luc4 #aaj71 the reading is plainly 3 but when the ,greek of the same passage is exhibited by ,mai 7ii4 #aif1 line #bh-ch7 it is observed to be destitute of the disputed clause4 ,on the other hand1 at p4 #eab of the ,syriac1 the reading is 4 ,but then the entire quotation is absent from the ,greek original 7,mai1 ii4 #cdi1 line #aa from bottom74 ,in ,mai1 ii4 #chj1 ,cyril's reading is certainly 4 #cdi ,eus4mare #ccj1 -ps #bea 7--74 #cej ,cyrhr #bgj4 #cea e1 inducet vobis veritatem omnem3 m1 disseret vobis omnem veritatem4 #ceb docebit vos omnem veritatem 7ii4 #cja74 #cec ,cod4 am4 7which exhibits docebit vos in omnem1 c47 clearly confuses two distinct types4 #ced om4 4 #cee ,cyr4 ,alex4 iv4 #cdg2 v4 #cfi1 #eic4 #cef ,d1 4 #ceg ,so ,cod4 b1 deducet vos in veritate omni4 ,cod4 c1 docebit vos in veritate omni4 #ceh ,did4 #bgh1 #ddf1 #chh 771 #ddc 7--74 #cei ,epiph4 i4 #hih2 ii4 #gh4 #cfj ,bas4 iii4 #db 773 and so ,evan4 #bdi4 ,codd4 of ,cyril ,alex4 774 #cfa ,chrys4 viii4 #ebg3 also #dfj1 #dfa 7--74 #cfb ,theod4ant #eda1 ap4 ,wegn4 #cfc ,cyr4 ,alex4txt iv4 #ibc3 v4 #fbh4 #cfd ,thdt4 iii4 #ae 74 4 474 #cfe ,tert4 i4 #gfb1 #gfe1 #hhd2 ii4 #aa1 #ba4 ,hil4 #hje1 #iei4 ,jer4 ii4 #adj4 #ada4 ,there are many lesser variants3--87diriget vos ,tert4 i4 #hhd1 deducet vos ,tert4 ii4 #ba1 ,vercell4 vos deducet2 i4 #gfb vos ducet3 ,hil4 #hje1 vos diriget7 in omnem veritatem40 ,some few 7as ,d1 ,tert4 i4 #gfb2 ii4 #ba4 ,cod4 a1 ,did4 #chh4 ,thdrt4 iii4 #ae7 prefix 4 #cff ,pet4 ,alex4 ap4 ,routh1 p4 #i4 #cfg ,did4 #ee4 #cfh ,orig4 i4 #chg1 #chh4 #cfi ,cyr4 ,alex4 iv4 #ibe1 #ihf4 #cgj 4 ,l41 ,tr41 ,w4-,h43 4 ,t4 #cga ,introduction1 p4 #ace4 ,the rest of his judgement is unfounded in fact4 ,constant and careful study combined with subtle appreciation will not reveal 8feebleness0 or 8impoverishment0 either in 8sense0 or 8force40 #cgb ,these are the ,dean's words to the end of the paragraph4 #cgc ,revised ,version1 c41 pp4 #bje-bah4 #cgd ,introduction1 i4 #bib-ic4 #cge ,ephes4 v4 #cj4 #cgf #gah 7,mass4 #bid71 ,gr4 and ,lat4 #cgg ,in loc4 ed4 ,swete1 ,gr4 and ,lat4 #cgh i4 #ie1 #bfg4 #cgi iii4 #bae b1 #baf a2 viii4 #bgb c2 xi4 #adg a b c d4 #chj ,ap4 ,cramer1 vi4 #bje1 #bjh4 #cha iii4 #dcd4 #chb 7,a4,d4 #efj71 #ajjd a1 #ajjg a4 #chc ii4 #aij e4 #chd ,rufinus 7iii4 #fa c7 translates1--8quia membra sumus corporis ejus1 et reliqua40 ,what else can this refer to but the very words in dispute8 #che ,ap4 ,galland4 iii4 #fhh c3-- 2 4 ,and lower down 7e1 and #fhi a73-- 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 ,from this it is plain that ,methodius read ,ephes4 v4 #cj as we do2 although he had before quoted it 7iii4 #fad b7 without the clause in dispute4 ,those who give their minds to these studies are soon made aware that it is never safe to infer from the silence of a ,father that he disallowed the words he omits1--especially if those words are in their nature parenthetical1 or supplementary1 or not absolutely required for the sense4 ,let a short clause be beside his immediate purpose1 and a ,father is as likely as not to omit it4 ,this subject has been discussed elsewhere3 but it is apt to the matter now in hand that ,i should point out that ,augustine twice 7iv4 #big c1 #adch c7 closes his quotation of the present place abruptly3 8,apostolo dicente1 ,quoniam membra sumus corporis ejus40 ,and yet1 elsewhere 7iii4 #gid71 he gives the words in full4 ,it is idle therefore to urge on the opposite side1 as if there were anything in it1 the anonymous commentator on ,st4 ,luke in ,cramer's ,cat4 p4 #hh4 #chf i4 #acaj b4 ,also ,ambrosiaster1 ii4 #bdh d4 #chg ,ap4 ,galland4 vii4 #bfb e 7,a4,d4 #cgb74 #chh ,ibid4 #cad c4 #chi ,mai1 iii4 #adj4 #cij vii4 #fei b4 #cia ,see above1 end of note #b4 #cib ,concil4 iv4 #ej b4 #cic ,hort1 ,introduction1 p4 #dj4 #cid ,ibid4 p4 #df4 #cie ,miller's ,scrivener1 ,introduction1 ,i4 p4 #agg4 #cif ,introduction1 ,i4 ,appendix ,f1 p4 #cih994 #cig ,introduction1 ,,ii4 #ccg1 note #a4 ,and for ,dean ,burgon's latest opinion on the date of see above1 pp4 #df1 #eb1 #afb4 ,the present ,,ms41 which ,i have been obliged to abridge in order to avoid repetition of much that has been already said1 was one of the ,dean's latest productions4 ,see ,appendix ,,vii4 #cih ,since ,dean ,burgon's death1 there has been reason to identify this set of readings with the ,syrio-,low-,latin ,text1 the first origin of which ,i have traced to the earliest times before the ,gospels were written--by ,st4 ,matthew1 ,st4 ,mark1 and ,st4 ,luke1 and of course ,st4 ,john4 #cii ,so with ,st4 ,athanasius in his earlier days4 ,see above1 p4 #aai1 note #b4 #djj ,miller's ,scrivener1 ,introduction1 ,i4 #ach4 #dja pp4 #b1 #aee4 #djb ,hort1 ,introduction1 p4 #b4 #djc ,hort1 ,introduction1 p4 #g4 #djd ,quarterly ,review1 ,no4 #cfc1 ,july1 #ahie4 #dje ,st4 ,john xxi4 #i-ac4 #djf ,in ,studia ,biblica et ,eccles4 ,,ii4 vi4 7,g4 ,h4 ,gwilliam71 published two years after the ,dean's death1 will be found a full description of this form of sections4 #djg ,as far as we know at present about ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 he kept these occurrences distinct4--,,ed4 #djh 8,origenes1 quum in caeteris libris omnes vicerit1 in ,cantico ,canticorum ipse se vicit40--,hieron4 ,opp4 iii4 #dii2 i4 #ebe4 #dji ,after quoting ,luke xxiv4 #da1 #db in extenso1 he proceeds1-- 2 7p4 #baj b73 and 1 4 7p4 #cda a74 #daj 1 444 4 ,and1 1 1--i4 #fbd a b4 ,see more concerning this quotation below1 p4 #bdi note4 #daa ,epiph4 i4 #adc4 #dab ,ephr4 ,syr4 ii4 #dh e4 #dac ,or whoever else was the author of the first ,homily of the ,resurrection1 wrongly ascribed to ,gregory ,nyss4 7iii4 #chb-ii74 ,hesychius was probably the author of the second ,homily4 7,last ,twelve ,verses1 c41 pp4 #eg-i47 ,both are compilations however1 into which precious passages of much older ,fathers have been unscrupulously interwoven1--to the infinite perplexity of every attentive reader4 #dad ,apud ,greg4 ,nyss4 iii4 #cii d4 #dae ,epiph4 i4 #feb d4 #daf ,in ,joanne legimus quod piscantibus ,apostolis1 in littore steterit1 et partem assi piscis1 favumque comederit1 quae verae resurrectionis indicia sunt4 ,in ,jerusalem autem nihil horum fecisse narratur4--,hieron4 i4 #hbe a4 #dag ,not from ,eusebius' ,qu4 ad ,marinum apparently4 ,compare however ,jerome1 i4 #hbd d with ,eusebius 7ap4 ,mai71 iv4 #bie 7cap4 x74 #dah ,see ,last ,twelve ,verses1 c41 pp4 #ea-f4 #dai i4 #ddd b4 #dbj ,p4 #agb4 #dba iv4 #aajh c4 #dbb ,athanas4 i4 #fdd3 1 4 ,this passage reappears in the fragmentary ,commentary published by ,mai 7ii4 #ehb71 divested only of the words 4 4--,the characteristic words 7in capitals7 do not appear in ,epiphanius 7i4 #adc c71 who merely says 1--confusing the place in ,st4 ,luke with the place in ,st4 ,john4 #dbc ,aug4 iii4 ,p4 #b1 #adc 7,a4,d4 #djj72 viii4 #dgb 7,a4,d4 #djd74 #dbd ,to the #i specified by ,tisch4--7,evann4 #ac1 #db1 #hh 7 71 #acj 7 71 #afa1 #cjj1 #cdf1 #djj1 #ejg71--;add ,evan4 #cc1 in which the words have been overlooked by ,tregelles4 #dbe 4--p4 #agd4 #dbf i4 #chd4 #dbg iii4 #dgg4 #dbh ,apud ,mai1 iv4 #bid1 #bie bis4 #dbi 8,ibi praeterire non poterat sc4 ,origenes si in exemplis suis additamentum reperisset40 7,from ,tischendorf's note on ,luke xxiv4 #db47 #dcj iv4 #aajh b c4 #dca 1 4--,ibid4 d4 ,similarly in the fragments of ,cyril's ,commentary on ,st4 ,luke1 he is observed to refer to the incident of the piece of broiled fish exclusively4 7,mai1 ii4 #ddb1 #ddc1 which reappears in ,p4 ,smith1 p4 #gcj47 #dcb iii4 ,p4 i4 p4 #ea4 ,for the honeycomb1 see iii4 ,p4 ii4 p4 #adc a3 viii4 #dgb d4 #dcc i4 #bae4 #dcd 8,favos post fella gustavit40--,de ,coron1 c4 #ad 7i4 p4 #dee74 #dce ii4 #ddd a4 #dcf i4 #chd2 iii4 #dgg4 #dcg ,opp4 iii4 #icb-he3 with which comp4 ,galland4 xiv4 ,append4 #hc-ij and #ia-aji4 #dch ,cat4 7#afbh71 p4 #fbb4 ,cordier translates from 8,venet4 #did0 7our 8,evan4 #dff074 #dci ,what follows is obtained 7,june #bh1 #ahhd7 by favour of ,sig4 ,veludo1 the learned librarian of ,st4 ,mark's1 from the ,catena on ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel at ,venice 7cod4 #did our ,evan4 #dff71 which ,cordier 7in #afbh7 translated into ,latin4 ,the ,latin of this particular passage is to be seen at p4 #fbb of his badly imagined and well-nigh useless work4 ,the first part of it 7 444 7 is occasionally found as a scholium1 e4g4 in ,cod4 ,marc4 ,venet4 #bg 7our ,evan4 #baj71 and is already known to scholars from ,matthaei's ,n4 ,t4 7note on ,luc4 xxiv4 #db74 ,the rest of the passage 7which now appears for the first time7 ,i exhibit for the reader's convenience parallel with a passage of ,gregory of ,nyssa's ,christian ,homily on ,canticles4 ,if the author of what is found in the second column is not quoting what is found in the first1 it is at least certain that both have resorted to1 and are here quoting from the same lost original3-- 7sic7 2 1 2 2 ,transcriber's ,note3 ,the following two paragraphs were side-by-side columns in the original4 2 2 2 1 4 ,,anon4 apud ,corderium 7fol4 #eh73 see above4 444 444 1 2 2 7444 1 47 1 4 ,,greg4 ,,nyss4 in ,cant4 7,opp4 i4 a72 the sentence in brackets being transposed4 ,quite evident is it that1 besides ,gregory of ,nyssa1 ,,hesychius 7or whoever else was the author of the first ,homily on the ,resurrection7 had the same original before him when he wrote as follows3-- 1 1 4 4 1 1 4 7ap4 ,greg4 ,nyss4 ,opp4 iii4 #cii c d47 #ddj ,so ,matthaei3 8,haec interpretatio sapit ingenium ,origenis40 7,n4,t4 iii4 #dih47 #dda 1--ii4 #bdj4 ,from the fragment ,de ,resurrectione preserved by ,john ,damascene1--ii4 #gfb;a4 #ddb ,see above1 note #a1 p4 #bdg4 #ddc ,see above1 note #a1 p4 #bdh4 #ddd i4 #fdd 7see above1 p4 #bdd1 n4 #g74 #dde i4 #fbd 7see above1 p4 #bdb1 n4 #c74 #ddf pp4 #baj1 #dca 7see above1 p4 #bdc74 #ddg i4 #feb d 7see above1 p4 #bdg74 #ddh i4 #hbe a2 ii4 #ddd a4 #ddi ,see above1 note #a1 p4 #bde4 #dej iv4 #aajh4 #dea ,apud ,galland4 ix4 #fcc4 #deb ,varim4 i4 #ef4 #dec ,apud ,greg4 ,nyss4 iii4 #cii4 #ded ,see above1 p4 #bdh1 note #f4 #dee 8,the words could hardly have been an interpolation40 7,alford1 in loc74 #def ,scrivener's ,introd4 ,,ii4 p4 #ceh4 #deg ,it is well known that ,dean ,burgon considered ,b1 1 and ,d to be bad manuscripts4 ,when ,i wrote my ,textual ,guide1 he was angry with me for not following him in this4 ,before his death1 the logic of facts convinced me that he was right and ,i was wrong4 ,we came together upon independent investigation4 ,i find that those ,,mss4 in disputed passages are almost always wrong--mainly1 if not entirely1 the authors of our confusion4 ,what worse could be said of them8 ,and nothing less will agree with the facts from our point of view4 ,compromise on this point which might be amiable shrinks upon inquiry before a vast array of facts4--,e4 ,m4 #deh ,compare ,epiphanius 7i4 #adc c7 ut supra 7,haer4 xxx4 c4 #ai7 with ,irenaeus 7iii4 c4 ii1 #i73 8,hi vero qui sunt a ,valentino 444 in tantum processerunt audaciae1 uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum est ,veritatis ,evangelium titulent40 #dei ,see above1 p4 #bdc4 #dfj ,there is reason for thinking that the omission was an ,alexandrian reading4 ,egyptian asceticism would be alien to so sweet a food as honeycomb4 ,see above1 p4 #aej4 ,the ,lewis ,cod4 omits the words4 ,but it may be remembered that it restricts ,st4 ,john ,baptist's food to locusts 8and the honey of the mountain40--,e4 ,m4 #dfa 1 ,mark xv4 #bc4 #dfb 1 ,matt4 xxvii4 #cd 7 ,luke xxiii4 #cg74 #dfc 1 1 ,john xix4 #bi4 #dfd ,matt4 xxvii4 #cd 7 ,luke xxiii4 #cg74 #dfe 1 ,matt4 xxvii4 #dh 7 ,mark xv4 #cf74 #dff ,not so the author of the ,syriac ,canons4 ,like ,eusebius1 he identifies 7#a7 ,matt4 xxvii4 #cd with ,mark xv4 #bc2 and 7#b7 ,matt4 xxvii4 #dh with ,mark xv4 #cf and ,luke xxiii4 #cf2 but unlike ,eusebius1 he makes ,john xix4 #bi parallel with these last three4 #dfg ,the former1--pp4 #bhf-g3 the latter1--p4 #aig4 ,the ,cod4 ,fuld4 ingeniously--8,et dederunt ei vinum murratum bibere cum felle mixtum0 7,ranke1 p4 #aed74 #dfh ,evann4 #a1 #bb1 #cc1 #fc1 #fi1 #gc1 #aad1 #abb1 #bji1 #bbb1 #bec1 #ejg1 #eac4 #dfi #g4 #dgj ,pp4 #ebf1 #fha 7,mass4 #bab1 #bgg74 #dga ,de ,spect4 written ,a4,d4 #aih 7see ,clinton1 ,app4 p4 #dac71 c4 xxx4-i4 p4 #fb4 #dgb 8 #8,et dederunt ei bibero acetum et fel4' ,pro eo quod dulci suo vino eos laetificarat1 acetum ei porrexerunt2 pro felle autem magna ejus miseratio amaritudinem gentium dulcem fecit40 ,evan4 ,conc4 p4 #bde4 #dgc ,celsus 1--writes ,origen 7i4 #daf c d e71 quoting the blasphemous language of his opponent and refuting it1 but accepting the reference to the ,gospel record4 ,this he does twice1 remarking on the second occasion 7i4 #gjc b c7 that such as ,celsus are for ever offering to ,,jesus 8gall and vinegar40 7,these passages are unknown to many critics because they were overlooked by ,griesbach47--,elsewhere ,origen twice 7iii4 #ibj d e1 #iba b7 recognizes the same incident1 on the second occasion contrasting the record in ,matt4 xxvii4 #cd with that in ,mark xv4 #bc in a way which shews that he accounted the places parallel3--8,et hoc considera1 quod secundum ,matthaeum quidem ,jesus accipiens acetum cum felle permixtum gustavit1 et noluit bibere3 secundum ,marcum autem1 cum daretur et myrrhatum vinum1 non accepit40--iii4 #iba b4 #dgd ,lib4 i4 #cgd and viii4 #cjc 7assigned by ,alexander to the age of ,antoninus ,pius71 ap4 ,galland4 i4 #cdf a1 #cie c4 ,the line 7 1 7 is also found in ,montfaucon's ,appendix 7,palaeogr4 #bdf74 ,sibyll4 lib4 i4 #cgd1 ,gall4 i4 #cdf a 1 2 ibid4 viii4 #cjc1 #cie c 444 2 quoted by ,lactantius1 lib4 iv4 c4 #ah1 ,a4,d4 #cbj1 ,gall4 iv4 #cjj a 444 1 which is the way the line is quoted from the ,sibyl in ,montfaucon's ,appendix 7,pal4 ,graec4 #bdf74 ,lactantius a little earlier 7,gall4 iv4 #bii b7 had said1--8,dederunt ei cibum fellis1 et miscuerunt ei aceti potionem40 #dge ,referring to the miracle at ,cana1 where 7viz4 in p4 #ee7 the statement is repeated4 ,evan4 ,conc4 p4 #bde4 ,see above1 note #e4 #dgf ,apud ,montf4 ii4 #fc2 ,corderii1 ,cat in ,luc4 p4 #eii4 #dgg ,the ,tractatus ii4 #cje b at the end of the ,quaestt4 ad ,antiochum 7,ath4 ii4 #cja-f71 which is certainly of the date of ,athanasius1 and which the editor pronounces to be not unworthy of him 7,praefat4 ,,ii4 viii-ix74 #dgh ,opusc4 ed4 ,augusti1 p4 #af4 #dgi ,cord4 ,cat4 in ,ps4 ii4 #cic4 #dhj ,cord4 ,cat4 in ,ps4 ii4 #dji4 #dha 1 4--i4 #fbd b 7where it should be noted that the contents of verses #cd and #dh 7in ,matt4 xxvii7 are confused74 #dhb i4 #dha a1 #ech d1 #fge b4 ,more plainly in p4 #fab e1-- 1 1 7 ,cat4 ,nic4 p4 #ghh74 #dhc ii4 #dh c1 #bhd a4 #dhd ,lib4 iv4 c4 #ah4 ,see above1 last page1 note #g4 #dhe vii4 #bcf c d1 quoted next page4 #dhf 8,refertur etiam quod aceto potatus sit1 vel vino myrrhato1 quod est amarius felle40 ,rufinus1 in ,symb4 #bf4 #dhg vii4 #hai a b 7 ,cat4 ,nic4 p4 #gib74 ,see also a remarkable passage ascribed to ,chrys4 in the ,catena of ,nicetas1 pp4 #cga-b4 #dhh 8,jesus de felle una cum aceto amaritudinis libavit40 7,hom4 translated by ,aucher from the ,armenian4--,venice4 #ahbg1 p4 #dce74 #dhi ,apud ,mai1 ,n4 ,bibl4 ,,pp4 iii4 #dee4 #dij ,apud ,mai1 ii4 #ff2 iii4 #db4 ,is this the same place which is quoted in ,cord4 ,cat4 in ,ps4 ii4 #daj8 #dia ,apud ,galland4 v4 #ccb4 #dib ,or ,acta ,pilati1 pp4 #bfb1 #bhf4 #dic ,p4 #he4 #did ,p4 #af4 #die ,cord4 ,cat4 in ,ps4 ii4 #daj4 #dif p4 #hg4 #dig x4 #hbi4 #dih ii4 #hd1 #agh4 #dii ,cramer1 ,cat4 i4 #bce4 #ejj i4 #bbh1 #edi4 #eja vii4 #bcf c d4 #ejb ,st4 ,john i4 #a-c1 #ad2 xx4 #ca4 #ejc #a ,st4 ,john ii4 #ah1 #bb1 #bc2 iv4 #a1 #b1 #c1 #ae2 v4 #aj1 #aa1 #ab1 #bj2 #b ,st4 ,john ver4 #g1 #i1 #aj4 ,so ,st4 ,jude ver4 #d4 #ejd ,so ,athanasius excellently3-- 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 2 2 is not an attribute or adornment of 1 4--i4 #hge a4 ,so ,macarius ,magnes1 p4 #ac4--,see also below1 note #b1 p4 #bfb4 #eje ,so1 excellently ,cyril ,alex4 ,v4 #caj d1 ,suicer's ,thesaurus2 see ,pearson on the ,creed1 on ,st4 ,matt4 xix4 #ag4 #ejf ,so ,marcion 7ap4 ,epiph471-- 2 1 2 1 1 1 i4 #cci a4 ,note1 that it was thus ,marcion exhibited ,st4 ,luke xviii4 #ah1 #ai4 ,see ,hippol4 ,phil4 #bed1-- 2 4 #ejg ,so ,arius 7ap4 ,epiphanium71-- 1 1 2 4 i4 #gdb b4--,from this1 ,arius inferred a separate essence3-- 4 i4 #ghj c4--,note1 that this shews how ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel was quoted by the ,arians4 #ejh ,e4g4 ps4-,tatian1 ,evan4 ,conc4 #agc1 #agd4--;,ambrose1 ii4 #dgc e-#dgf d4--,gregory ,naz4 i4 #edi4--;,didymus1 ,trin4 #ej-c4--;,basil1 i4 #bia c4--,epiphanius1 i4 #ghj-a4--,macarius ,magnes1 #ab-ad4--,theodoret1 v4 #icj-b4--;,augustine is very eloquent on the subject4 #eji ii4 #fhi4 ,see the summary of contents at p4 #bha4 #eaj ,thus1 ,valentinus 7ap4 ,clem4 ,alex471-- 1 444 ,strom4 ii4 #dji4--;,heracleon 7ap4 ,orig471-- 1 444 1 iv4 #aci b4--,ptolemaeus to ,flora 7ap4 ,epiphanium71-- 1 2 1 1 1 i4 #bba c4--,the ,marcosian gloss was1-- 1 ap4 ,irenaeum1 p4 #ib4--,the ,naassenes substituted1-- 1 1 444 ap4 ,hippolyt4 ,philosoph4 #ajb4--,marcion introduced the same gloss even into ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel1-- 1 ap4 ,epiphan4 i4 #cci d1 and comp4 #cae c4 #eaa 1 --,tryph4 c4 #aja vol4 ii4 #cdd4 #eab 8,unus tantum0 7ait7 8est bonus1 ,pater qui in coelis est40--,evan4 ,conc4 p4 #agc and on p4 #afi1--8,unus tantum0 7ait7 8est bonus03 ast post haec non tacuit1 sed adjecit 8,pater40 #eac 2 7ap4 ,galland4 ii4 #geb d74 ,and so at p4 #gei a and d1 adding-- 4 ,this reference will be found vindicated below3 in note #h1 p4 #bfi4 #ead ,for the places in ,clemens ,alex4 see below1 note #c1 p4 #bfc4--,the places in ,origen are at least six3-- 2 1 i4 #bbc c1 #bgi a1 #ehf a2 iv4 #da d3 and the last nine words1 iv4 #fe d1 #adg a4--,for the places in ps4-,tatian1 see below1 note #b1 p4 #bfc4--,the place in the ,dialogus is found ap4 ,orig4 i4 #hjd b3-- 2 --words assigned to ,megethius the heretic4 #eae ,didymus1-- 2 p4 #ea4--;,and ,ambrose1--8,circumspectione coelesti non dixit1 ,nemo bonus nisi unus ,pater1 sed ,nemo bonus nisi unus ,deus0 ii4 #dgd b4--,and ,chrysostom1--1 4 1 1 vii4 #fbh b3 quoted by ,victor1 ,ant4 in ,cat4 p4 #bbj4--;,and ,theodoret 7wrongly ascribed to ,maximus1 ii4 #cib1 #cif71-- 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 v4 p4 #ica4 ,epiphanius see the references above1 in note #a1 p4 #bfa expressly mentions that this unauthorized addition 7to ,luke xviii4 #ah7 was the work of the heretic ,marcion4 #eaf 8,dicendo autem #8,quid me vocas bonum1' opinionem eius qui interrogaverat suo responso refutavit1 quia iste putabat ,christum de hc terr et sicut unum ex magistris ,israelitarum esse10--ps4-,tatian1 ,evan4 ,conc4 p4 #agd4--8;,dives per adulationem honoravit ,filium 444 sicut homines sociis suis grata nomina dare volunt40 ,ibid4 p4 #afh4 #eag ,apol4 i4 c4 #af i4 #db1--quoted below in note #b1 p4 #bfe4 #eah 8,cui respondit1 #8,non est aliquis bonus1' ut tu putasti1 #8nisi tantum unus ,deus ,pater' 444 #8,nemo' 7sit7 #8bonus1 nisi tantum unus1 ,pater qui est in coelis' ,evan4 ,conc4 p4 #afi4 #8,non est bonus1 nisi tantum unus' ,ibid44 #8,non est bonus1 nisi tantum unus qui est in coelis' p4 #agj4 #8,non est bonus nisi tantum unus' 0 p4 #agc4 #eai 2 1 1 p4 #ada4 ,and overleaf1-- 1 p4 #adb4 ,tischendorf admits the reference4 #ebj i4 #cae b4 ,the quotation is given below1 in note #g1 p4 #bfi4 #eba ,praep4 ,evan4 #edb b2 ,ps4 #dbf d2 ap4 ,mai1 iv4 #aja4 #ebb 1 7p4 #ab74 #ebc ii4 #bdb e and #bgi e4 7,see also i4 #bia e and iii4 #cfa a47 #ebd vii4 #fbh b1-- 1 2 2 1 444 4 ,see also vii4 #cbi4 #ebe i4 #hge a4 ,the quotation is proved to be from ,st4 ,matt4 xix4 7#ag-ba7 by all that follows4 #ebf ii4 #fia d2 #fid b c4 ,see below1 note #aj1 p4 #bfg4 #ebg ,trin4 #ej1 #ea4 #ebh 8,nemo bonus nisi unus ,deus03--iv4 #chc c2 v4 #dhh b2 viii4 #ggj d1 #ggb b4 #ebi v4 ,p4 i4 #caj d1 and #cdf a 7 #fgb b74 #ecj v4 #ica-c4 ,note that ,ambrose1 ,didymus1 ,chrysostom1 ,theodoret1 all four hang together in this place1 which is plain from the remark that is common to all four1 quoted above in note #a1 last page4 ,there is nothing to shew from which ,gospel ,nilus 7ii4 #cfb7 quotes the words 1 2 4 #eca p4 #ajbh1 unequivocally4 #ecb ,ap4 ,chrys4 vi4 #acg d1 #ach b4 #ecc ,besides these positive testimonies1 the passage is quoted frequently as it is given in ,st4 ,mark and ,st4 ,luke1 but with no special reference4 ,surely some of these must refer to ,st4 ,matthew8 #ecd ,for other instances of this indiscreet zeal1 see ,vol4 ,,ii4 #ece ,b,,dl4 #a1 #bb1 #dgi1 ,evst4 #e4 #ecf 2 1 2 4--,apol4 ,i4 c4 #af vol4 i4 p4 #db4 ,and so in ,tryph4 c4 #aja vol4 ii4 p4 #cdd1-- 2 2 444 #ecg 8,ad iudicem dives venit1 donis dulcis linguae eum capturus40 7,the reference1 therefore1 is to ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel3 which is further proved by the quotation lower down of the latter part of ver4 #ag3 also by the inquiry1--8,quid adhuc mihi deest807 8,ille dives bonum eum vocavit40 8,dives ,dominum #8,magistrum bonum' vocaverat sicut unum ex bonis magistris40--,evan4 ,conc4 #afh1 #afi4 #ech ,ap4 ,irenaeum1--p4 #ib4 ,see below1 note #b1 p4 #bfg4 #eci ,ap4 ,hippolytum1 ,philosoph4 #ajb4 ,see below1 note #c1 p4 #bfg4 #edj 7ap4 ,galland4 ii4 #gei d3 comp4 #geb b74 ,for the reference1 and its indication1 see below1 note #h1 p4 #bfi4 #eda ,comment4 in ,matt4 xv4 7in loc74 #edb i4 #hge a1--clearly a quotation from memory of ,st4 ,matt4 xix4 #ag1 #ah1 #ai1 #bj1 #ba4 #edc ,adv4 ,eunom4 i4 #bia e1-- 1 4 ,again in ii4 #bdb c1 and #bgi e1 expressly4 ,see also iii4 #cfa a4 #edd 1 1 2--,catech4 #bii4 #ede iii4 #bif d 7certainly from ,st4 ,matthew74 #edf 444 4--,contr4 ,eunom4 ii4 #fib b4 ,also 2 2 7ap4 ,mai1 iv4 #ab74 #edg 444 2 1--p4 #ab4 #edh vii4 #fbh b4 #edi lib4 iii4 #ejc4 #eej #iid c4 #eea ,ap4 ,sabatier4 #eeb vii4 #adg-h4 #eec iii4#a #gfa d2 iii4#b #hb d ibi enim et bonum nominavit2 iv4 #abgi g2 v4 #aif g4 #eed ,ap4 ,sabatier4 #eee v4 ,p4 i4 #cdf a 7 #fgb b71-- 1 444 4 #eef 2--v4 #ica4 ,see note #a1 p4 #bfb4 #eeg ,magister bone1 quid boni faciam ut vitam aeternam possideam8--7ap4 ,chrysost4 vi4 #acg d1 #ach b74 #eeh 1 1 2 2 1 ,tryph4 c4 #aja1 vol4 ii4 #cdd4 ,and see the place 7,apol4 i4 #af7 quoted above1 note #b1 p4 #bfe4 #eei ,marcosians 7ap4 ,irenaeum71-- 1 1 1 2 1 p4 #ib4 ,no one who studies the question will affect to doubt that this quotation and the next are from ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel4 #efj ,the ,naassenes 7ap4 ,hippolytum71-- 2 2 1 1 1 ,philosoph4 #ajb4 ,see the remark in the former note #e1 p4 #bfe4 #efa ,see below1 note #h1 p4 #bfi4 #efb 8,cur vocas me bonum1 quum in eo quod a me discere vis1 iustus sim80--,evan4 ,conc4 p4 #afh4 ,and so in pp4 #agc1 #agd4 ,see above1 note #c1 p4 #bfe4 #efc ,this is in fact a double testimony1 for the difficulty had been raised by the heathen philosopher whom ,macarius is refuting4 2--pp4 #ab and #ac 7ed4 #ahgf74 ,see above1 note #f1 p4 #bfc4 #efd i4 #hge a4 ,see last page1 note #i4 #efe ii4 #bgi e4 #eff ,quid me vocas bonum8--#gjc4 #efg ii4 #fib d4 ,also ap4 ,mai1 iv4 #g1 #ab 7 74 #efh vii #fbh b4 ,the place is quoted in note #a1 p4 #bfb4 #efi v4#a #cdf a 7 4447 p4 #fgb b4 #egj v4 #ica1--which clearly is a reproduction of the place of ,chrysostom 7vii4 #fbh b7 referred to in the last note but one4 ,read the whole page4 #ega ,ap4 ,chrysost4 vi4 #acg d1 #ach b4 #egb 1 2 1 1 7but at the end of eight lines1 ,origen exhibits 7like the five authorities specified in note #h1 next page7 87 444 7but six lines lower down7 8 4--in ,matt4 iii4 #ffd;ab4 ,and so p4 #ffe;c4 ,cf4 #fff;b4 #egc ,see above1 note #b1 p4 #bfa4 #egd ,see above1 note #b1 p4 #bfa4 #ege ,see above1 note #b1 p4 #bfa4 #egf a e ff#a omit bone2 b c f ff#b g#a-b h-q ,vulg4 insert it2 a b c e ff#a4 #b g#a h l ,vulg4 write de bono1 f q bonum2 a b c ff#a4 #b #a ,vulg4 write unus2 f g#a h m q nemo4 #egg ,see above1 p4 #adi4 #egh ,this wild performance is unique in its testimony 7see below1 p4 #bgg74 ,cureton renders the text thus3--8,why askest thou me concerning good8 for ,one is good1 ,,god40 ,and ,mrs4 ,lewis thus3--8,why askest thou me concerning the good8 for ,one is the good one40 #egi 8 1 4--i4 #cae;b4 #ehj 1 8 1 4 1 7ap4 ,galland4 ii4 #gei d e74--,note1 the reference is certainly to ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel1 as all that follows proves3 the inquiry in ver4 #af 7by assimilation from ,luke xviii4 #ah7 being similarly exhibited in 1 ,l1--,irenaeus1 ,int4 p4 #bda2 ,orig4 iii4 #ffd;b2 ,cyril1 ,alex4 v4#a #caj;d2 ,basil1 ii4 #bgi;e2 and ,chrysostom1 iii4 #ahb2 vii4 #fbg-h2 viii4 #bcd4 #eha ,eusebius-- 8 1 1--,praep4 ,evan4 #edb;b4--,the last seven words are also found in ,ps4 7ed4 ,montf47 #dbf;d2 and ap4 ,mai1 iv4 #aja4 #ehb 1 1 2 1 8 4 7,note1 that all but the last seven words exactly 1 ,l1 and ,basil1 ii4 #bgi;e47--,v4#a #caj;d4--,but elsewhere 7also quoting ,st4 ,matthew7 ,cyril exhibits-- 444 2 4--,ibid4 p4 #cdf;a 7 p4 #fgb;b74 #ehc 8 1 4--p4 #ajbh4 #ehd ,magister1 quid boni faciam1 ut habeam vitam aeternam4 ,cui ,dominus1 ,quid me vocas bonum 7#gjc73--,unus enim bonus est1 ait ,dominus 7#dhi74 ,but elsewhere1 ,magister bone1 quid boni faciam 7#iid;c74 #ehe ,magister bone1 quid boni faciam ut habeam vitam aeternam8 ,qui dicit ei1 ,quid me interrogas de bono8 ,unus est bonus ,deus8 4--vii4 #adg-h4 #ehf ,for 8bone10 see above1 note #ab1 p4 #bff3 for 8nemo10 c1 see note #ab1 p4 #bfc4 #ehg #a ,sam4 xiv4 #bj4 #ehh p4 #bii4 #ehi ,epiphanius i4 #cci;d1 and ,hippolytus ,phil4 #bed1 shew that ,marcion so read ,luke xviii4 #ai4--;,epiphanius i4 #gdb b quotes ,arius4 ,see the words above1 in notes #c1 #d1 p4 #bfj4 #eij ,six ,lectures on the ,text 7#ahge71--p4 #acj4 #eia ,plain ,introduction 7ed4 #d71 ,,ii4 p4 #cbi4 #eib ,matt4 xix4 #bj ,mark x4 #bj ,luke xviii4 #ba4 #eic iii4 #ffi cd4 #eid 444 1 2 4 1 1 1 4--iii4 #fgj a b4 #eie 1 1 444--iii4 #fga b4 #eif 1 1 1 4--iii4 #fga c4 #eig ,see above1 pp4 #aeb-d4 #eih ,w4-,hort1 p4 #bhg4 #eii ,so ,cureton renders ,st4 ,luke xviii4 #ai4 #fjj 8,scriptum est in evangelio quodam quod dicitur secundum ,hebraeos1444 ,dixit ei alter divitum3 ,magister quid boni faciens vivam80--7,orig4 ,vet4 ,interp4 iii4 #fgj47 ,i suppose the mention of 1 in ver4 #af1 suggested this4 #fja ,the ,marcionite ,gospel exhibited 7,hippol4 ,phil4 #bed2 ,epiph4 i4 #cae c74--,comp4 the ,clement4 ,hom4 7ap4 ,galland4 ii4 #geb b1 #gei a d74 #fjb ,hammond1 quoted approvingly by ,scrivener1--,i4 #cbh 7cd4 #d74 #fjc ,c4 ,r4 ,gregory's ,prolegomena1 p4 #g4 #fjd ,printed ,text1 pp4 #acc-h4 #fje ,introduction 7#ahhc71--pp4 #egc-f4 ,also ,vol4 ,,ii4 7#ahid71 pp4 #cbg-i4 ,i did not as ,editor think myself entitled to alter ,dr4 ,scrivener's expressed opinion4 ,e4 ,m4 #fjf ,it is right to state that ,tischendorf thought differently4 8,videtur illud huic quidem loco parum apte illatum40 ,he can only bring himself to admit that the text had been 8jam ,irenaei tempore nobili additamento auctum40 ,he insists that it is absurd1 as well as at variance with the entire history of the sacred text1 to suppose that the title 8,,son ,,of ,,god0 has here been removed by unscrupulous ,unbelief1 rather than thrust in by officious ,piety4 #fjg v4 #aj2 vii4 #ag2 and in the ,vulgate4 ,twice however 7viz4 i4 #caa and vi4 #ifi7 ,jerome omits the clause4 #fjh ,in ,joan4 iv4 #ae1 #af4--,see also contra ,cels4 i4 #chi d e f1 where ,origen says the same thing more briefly4 ,the other places are iv4 #abe and #dfd4 #fji 1 2 4 4 adv4 ,manichaeos 7ap4 ,galland4 v4 #fa74 #faj ap4 ,galland4 v4 #cbi4 #faa i4 #bej4 #fab ap4 ,galland4 iv4 #ee4 #fac p4 #db4 #fad ,a4,d4 #djj4 ,de ,sigill4 ap4 ,chrys4 xii4 #dab3-- 1 1 1 8 10 1 1 4 1 1 8 1 0 444 1 4 #fae i4 #dbg3-- 444 444 4 #faf i4 #ejf 7lib4 iii4 cap4 xvi74 #fag i4 #dfa 7lib4 iii4 cap4 x74 #fah ,midway between the two places cited above1 ,irenaeus shews how the four ,gospels may be severally identified with the four living creatures described in the ,apocalypse4 ,he sees the lion in ,st4 ,john1 who says3 8,in the beginning was the ,word3 and 444 all things were made by him3 and without him was not anything made30 the flying eagle in ,st4 ,mark1 because he begins his gospel with an appeal to 8the prophetic spirit which comes down upon men from on high2 saying1 #8,the beginning of the ,gospel 444 as it is written in the prophets4' ,hence the ,evangelists' concise and elliptical manner1 which is a characteristic of prophecy0 7lib4 iii4 cap4 xi4 #h1 p4 #dgj74 ,such quotations as these 7#ah words being omitted in one case1 #e in the other7 do not help us4 ,i derive the above notice from the scholium in ,evan4 #bch 7,matthaei's e1--,n4 ,t4 ii4 #ba72 ,curzon's 8#gc4 #h40 ,the lost ,greek of the passage in ,irenaeus was first supplied by ,grabe from a ,,ms4 of the ,quaestiones of ,anastasius ,sinaita1 in the ,bodleian 7,barocc4 #bjf1 fol4 74 ,it is the solution of the #addth ,quaestio4 ,but it is to be found in many other places besides4 ,in ,evan4 #bch1 by the way1 twelve more of the lost words of ,irenaeus are found3 viz4 1 2 444 ,germanus also 7,a4,d4 #gae1 ap4 ,gall4 xiii4 #bae7 quoting the place1 confirms the reading 1--which must obviously have stood in the original4 #fai ,note1 that he actually reads 8,the beginning of the ,gospel of the ,son of ,god10--omitting the words 8,,jesus ,,christ03 not1 of course1 as disallowing them1 but in order the more effectually to emphasize the ,divine ,sonship of ,,messiah4 #fbj 7sc4 7 2 1 1 4444 1 1 1 2 4 ,this is the first scholium in the ,catena as edited by ,possinus1--p4 #f4 ,what follows is a well-known scholium of the same ,catena1 7the first in ,cramer's ed471 which ,c4 ,f4 ,matthaei 7,n4 ,t4 ii4 #bj7 prints from six of his ,,mss43-- 1 8 2 4440 #fba ,ap4 ,hieron4 vii4 #ag4 #fbb vi4 #ccj diserte4 #fbc ii4 #dac4 #fbd ,a4,d4 #hij4 ,de objectionibus ,manichaeorum1 ap4 ,galland4 xiii4 #ffg4 #fbe i4 #aebi d4 #fbf ,cons4 #ci4 #fbg ,e#b of the ,acts and ,cath4 ,epp4 7,laudianus7 in the ,bodleian ,library at ,oxford1 of the sixth century4 #fbh ,this observation is due to ,dr4 ,salmon2 see the ,note appended to ,lecture ,,ix of his ,historical ,introduction to the ,new ,testament 7#eth edition1 p4 #adg74 #fbi ,this fact was first pointed out by ,dr4 ,gwynn in a memorandum communicated by him to ,dr4 ,scrivener1 who inserted it in his ,plain ,introduction to the ,criticism of the ,new ,testament 7#crd edition1 p4 xii2 cp4 #dth edition1 vol4 ,i1 p4 #id71 and ,i am indebted to the same source for this admirable amplification of part of that memorandum4 #fcj ,a sufficient facsimile of the page in question 7#bi ro7 is given by ,dean ,burgon in his ,last ,twelve ,verses1 reproduced from a photograph4 #fca ,on the contrary1 in ,tatian's ,diatessaron is left out and is translated4 ,for the ,curetonian1 see above1 p4 #bie4