Footnotes

Footnotes1.See Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, ii.“Evidence of Early Versions and Patristic Quotations, &c.,”by the Rev. Ll. J. M. Bebb, M.A., p. 211. In this chapter, which from press reasons has been curtailed, I am glad to refer to Mr. Bebb's careful and thoughtful essay.2.I cannot help expressing my strong opinion that there were a great many distinct Latin versions, and that they had a great many sources of origin:—briefly speaking,(a) Because of the testimony of Augustine and Jerome;(b) Because Latin translations from the firstmusthave been wanted everywhere, and must have been constantly supplied. On the one hand the bilingualism prevalent in the Roman Empire would ensure a large number of translators: and on the other the want of accurate Greek scholarship would account for the numerous errors found in and propagated by the old Latin manuscripts. Copies of one translation could not in those days have been supplied in every place adequately to the want;(c) Because of the multitude of synonyms to be found in Old Latin MSS.;(d) Because on almost all disputed passages Old Latin evidence can be quoted on both sides;(e) Because the various MSS. differ so thoroughly that each MS. is quoted as resting upon its own authority, and no one standard has been reached or is in view, the utmost that has been done in this respect being to group them.But see next chapter: this is an undecided question.—Ed.3.Duval, Grammaire Syriaque, p. xi.4.Dr. Neubauer in Studia Biblica, vol. i. (Clarendon Press),“The Dialects of Palestine in the time of Christ,”distinguishes between (1) Babylonian Aramaic, (2) Galilaean Aramaic, (3) the purer Aramaic spoken at Jerusalem, and (4) modernized Hebrew also used at Jerusalem.5.I cannot agree with Dr. Field (Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Proleg. lxxvii, 1874) that the Peshitto is not the Syriac version here quoted by Melito; but, while he admits a frequent resemblance between it and the renderings imputed to“the Syrian,”he certainly produces not a few instances of diversity between the two. Besides Theodoret, who often opposes ὁ Σύρος to ὁ Εβραῖος (Thren. 1. 15 and passim), Field notes the following writers as citing the former,—Didymus, Diodorus, Eusebius of Emesa, Polychronius, Apollinarius, Chrysostom, Procopius (ibid. p. lxvii).6.All modern accounts of the unorthodox sects of the East confirm Walton's gracious language two hundred years ago:“Etsi verò, olim in haereses miserè prolapsi, se a reliquis Ecclesiae Catholicae membris separarint, unde justo Dei judicio sub Infidelium jugo oppressi serviunt, qui ipsis dominantur, ex continuis tamen calamitatibus edocti et sapientiores redditi (est enim Schola Crucis Schola Lucis) tandem eorum misertus Misericordiarum Pater eos ad rectam sanamque mentem, rejectis antiquis erroribus, reduxit”(Walton, Prolegomena, Wrangham, Tom. ii. p. 500).7.Dean Payne Smith's Catalogue, pp. 109-112. In the great Cambridge manuscript (Oo. I. 1, 2) the Epistles of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude follow 1 John, and are continued on the same quire, as Mr. Bradshaw reports.8.See an admirable paper by Dr. Gwynn in“Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy,”xxvii. 8,“On a Syriac MS. belonging to Archbishop Ussher.”This MS. was procured for Ussher in 1626 by T. Davies, lent to De Dieu, who used it in 1631, and is now in Trinity College Library, Dublin.9.Yet, besides his error of judgement in bringing into the Peshitto text such passages as we have just enumerated, Schaaf follows the Paris and London Polyglotts when interpolating τῶν σωζομένων Apoc. xxi. 24, although the words had been omitted by De Dieu (1627) and Gutbier (1664).10.Compare the Printed Editions of the Syriac New Testament,Church Quarterly Review, vol. xxvi, no. lii, 1888, and a Bibliographical Appendix by Prof. Isaac H. Hall to Dr. Murdock's Translation of the Peshitto.11.Tregelles in“Smith's Dictionary of the Bible”thinks that the term was originally applied to the Syriac version of the Hebrew Old Testament, in order to discriminate between it and the Greek Hexapla, or the Syro-hexaplar translation derived from it, with their apparatus of obeli and asterisks. To this view Dr. Field adds his weighty authority (Origenis Hexapla, Proleg. p. ix, note 1), adding that for this reason the pure Septuagint version also is called ἁπλοῦν (1 Kings vii. 13; xii. 22), to distinguish its rendering from what is given ἐν τῷ ἑξαπλῷ. The epithet which was proper to the Old Testament in course of time attached itself to the New.12.ܦܫܝܬܬܐ or ܐܬܬܝܫܦ, versio vulgata, popularis, Thes. Syr. 3319.13.A full list of editions of all the Syriac versions is given in the Syriac Grammar of Nestle (tr. Kennedy), Litteratura, pp. 17-30.14.“Remains of a very ancient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto unknown in Europe, discovered, edited, and translated by William Cureton, D.D. ... Canon of Westminster,”4to, London, 1858.Seealso Wright's description of the MSS. in Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, vol. i. pp. 73-5.15.Less able writers than Dr. Cureton have made out a strong, though not a convincing case, for the Hebrew origin of St. Matthew's Gospel, and thus far his argument is plausible enough. To demonstrate that the version he has discovered is based upon that Hebrew original, at least so far as to be a modification of it and not a translation from the Greek, he has but a single plea that will bear examination, viz. that out of the many readings of the Hebrew or Nazarene Gospel with which we are acquainted, his manuscript agrees with it in the one particular of inserting thethree kings, ch. i. 8, though even here the number offourteengenerations retained in ver. 17 shows them to be an interpolation. Such cases asJuda, ch. ii. 1;Ramtha, ver. 18; ܕ for ὅτι or the relative, ch. xiii. 16, can prove nothing, as they are common to the Curetonian with the Peshitto, from which version they may very well have been derived.16.The title to St. Matthew is remarkable; for while (in the subscription) we read,“Gospel of Markos,”and“Gospel of Juchanan”occurs, as in other Syriac MSS., to St. Matthew is prefixed the title“Evangeliom dampharsa Mattai.”The meaning of the second word is doubtful in this application. The root meansdivide,distinguish,separate—cf. Daniel v. 28. Cureton (Pref. vi) says (1) that the great authority Bernstein suggested“Evangelium per anni circulum dispositum.”This is inapplicable, because the copy is not set out in Church Lessons, although some are noted by a much later hand in the margins. (2) Cureton himself, noticing a defect in the vellum before ܡܬܝ (or ܝܬܡ), would read ܕܡܬܝ (or ܝܬܡܕ), and render“The distinct Gospel of Matthew.”This he understood to indicate that the translation of Matthew had a different origin from the other books, and was“built upon the original Aramaic text, which was the work of the Apostle himself.”But there is nothing to justify the insertion of a ܕ, which is required to connect the title with the following name. The title belongs to the whole work,“Evangeliom dampharsa—Mattai”[Catalogue Brit. Mus.l. c.]; the other names being preceded by“Evangeliom”only. (3)“Dampharsa”has been rendered“explained”[see the review in“Journal of Sacred Literature,”1858], viz. from the text of the Peshitto; and this, as we shall see presently, agrees with the character of the Curetonian, for it abounds in deliberate alterations. But (4) from the quotations and references in the“Thesaurus Syriacus”(R. Payne Smith), col. 3304, it seems almost certain that the epithet means“separated,”as opposed to“united in a Harmony.”Such, of course, the Codex Curetonianus is, but further evidence is required to justify the inference that the Curetonian was the offspring of Tatian's Harmony, and became the parent of the Peshitto, an opinion in large measure contradicted by the character of the translation.17.“Si nous devons en croire Scrivener, la version syriaque ditePeshittos'accorde bien plus avec lui [Cod. A] qu'avec (B).”(Les Livres Saints, &c., Pau et Vevey, 1872, Préface, p. iii.) The fact is notoriously true, and of course rests not on Scrivener's evidence, but on universal consent.18.The student may also consult:—Evangelienfragmente, F. Baethgen, 1885. Disputatio de cod. Evangg. Syr. Curetoniano, Hermansen, 1859. Lehir's Etude, Paris, 1859. Dr. Harman in Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature, Boston, 1885. Zeitschrift des Morgenländische Gesellschaft, 1859, p. 472. Dr. Wildeboer in De Waarde der Syrische Evangeliën (Leiden, 1880) gives three pages of the literature of the question.19.Cureton, Preface, pp. xi, xciii.20.Brit. Mus. Add. 12,138—seep.36.21.So Roediger in Z.M.D.G., b. 16, p. 550, instances ܐܚܢܢ (or ܢܢܚܐ); but it proves nothing, for the form occurs also in old Peshitto MSS.22.Pages 164-5.23.Pages 171-2.24.Some of the Homilies of Aphraates were composed between 337 and 345. Ephraem dieda.d.373. Bickell, Conspectus, p. 18.25.Page14.26.In the following paragraphs we quote from a MS. exhibiting the results of investigations made by the Rev. Dr. Waller, Principal of St. John's Hall, Highbury, who has most generously permitted us to make use of his labours.27.For other like cases see Mat. iv. 11, 21; v. 12, 47, in the Curetonian.28.The forms in which O. T. quotations appear in the Curetonian demand attention, as they seem to suggest similar inferences.29.E.g. in the transposition of the Beatitudes in St. Matt. v. 4, 5.30.Since the discovery of the Curetonian version in Syriac by Archdeacon Tattam in 1842 and Canon Cureton, some Textualists have maintained that it was older than the Peshitto on these main grounds:—1. Internal evidence proves that the Peshitto cannot have been the original text.2. The Curetonian is just such a text as may have been so, and would have demanded revision.3. The parallels of the Latin texts which were revised in the Vulgate suggests an authoritative revision betweena.d.250 and 350.These arguments depend upon a supposed historical parallel, and internal evidence.The parallel upon examination turns out to be illusory:—1. There was a definite recorded revision of the Latin Texts, but none of the Syrian. If there had been, it must have left a trace in history.2. There was an“infinita varietas”(August. De Doctr. Christ., ii. 11) of discordant Latin texts, but only one Syriac, so far as is known.3. Badness in Latin texts is just what we should expect amongst people who were poor Greek scholars, and lived at a distance. The Syrians on the contrary were close to Judea, and Greek had been known among them for centuries. It was not likely that within reach of the Apostles and almost within their lifetime a version should be made so bad as to require to be thrown off afterwards.As to internal evidence, the opinion of some experts is balanced by the opinion of other experts (see Abbé Martin, Des Versions Syriennes, Fasc. 4). The position of the Peshitto as universally received by Syrian Christians, and believed to date back to the earliest times, is not to be moved by mere conjecture, and a single copy of another version [or indeed by two copies]. Textual Guide, Miller, 1885, p. 74, note 1.31.On the order, functions, and decay of the Χωρεπίσκοποι,seeBingham's“Antiquities,”book ii, chap. xiv.32.Davidson, Bibl. Crit., vol. ii. p. 186, first edition. The Abbé Martin (seep.323note), after stating that this version was never used by any Syrian sect save the Monophysites or Jacobites, goes on to ask“Est-ce à dire que cette version soit entachée de monophysisme? Nous ne le pensons pas; pour l'affirmer, il faudra l'examiner très minutieusement; car l'hérésie monophysite est, à quelques points de vue, une des plus subtiles qui aient jamais paru”(Des Versions Syriennes, p. 162).33.The asterisks ([symbol] [symbol]) and obeli ([symbol] [symbol]) of this version will be observed in our specimens given below. Like the similar marks in Origen's Hexapla (from which they were doubtless borrowed), they have been miserably displaced by copyists; so that their real purpose is a little uncertain. Wetstein, and after him even Storr and Adler, refer them to changes made in the Harkleian from the Peshitto: White more plausibly considers the asterisk to intimate an addition to the text, the obelus to recommend a removal from it.34.“Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, ex Codd. MSS. Ridleianis in Bibliotheca Novi Collegii Oxon. repositis; nunc primum edita, cum Interpretation Latinâ et Annotationibus Josephi White. Oxonii e Typographeo Clarendoniano,”1778, 2 tom. 4to. And so for the two later volumes. Ridley named that one of his manuscripts which contains only the Gospels Codex Barsalibaei, as notes of revision by that writer are found in it (e.g. John vii. 53-viii. 11). G. H. Bernstein has also published St. John's Gospel (Leipzig, 1853) from manuscripts in the Vatican. In or about 1877 Professor Isaac H. Hall, an American missionary, discovered at Beerût a manuscript in the Estrangelo character, much mutilated (of which he kindly sent me a photographed page containing the end of St. Luke and the beginning of St. John), which in the Gospels follows the Harkleian version, although the text differs much from White's, but the rest of the N. T. is from the Peshitto. Dr. Hall has drawn up a list of over 300 readings differing from White's.35.Martin names as useful for the study of a version as yet too little known, the Lectionaries Bodleian 43; Brit. Mus. Addit. 7170, 7171, 7172, 14,490, 14,689, 18,714; Paris 51 and 52; Rome, Vatic. 36 and Barberini vi. 32.36.Seealso Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian version, Acts and Epp. of the Peshitto version ... by the Monk John. Presented to the Syrian Protestant College, &c., described with phototyped facsimiles by Prof. Isaac H. Hall [viii-ix], ff. 219 + a fragment at end.Mut.at beg. and end, &c. Written in old Jacobite characters. Sent courteously to the Editor.37.Thus also the termination of the definite state plural of nouns is made in ܐ [final form] for ܐ: the third person affix to plural nouns in ܘ for ܗܘ. In the compass of the six verses we have cited (below, p.39) occur not only the Greek words ܘܝܪܘܣܐ (or ܐܣܘܪܝܘ) (καιρός),v.3, and ܢܘܣܐ (or ܐܣܘܢ) (ναός),v.5, which are common enough in all Syriac books, but such Palestinian words and forms as ܕܝ (or ܝܕ) for ܕܝܢ (or ܢܝܕ), δέ (vv.4, 6, 7); ܒܒܝܢ (or ܢܝܒܒ)v.3,“when;”ܐܗܐv.3,“repented;”ܐܕܡܐ (or ܐܡܕܐ) for ܕܡܐ (or ܐܡܕ) (vv.4, 6, 8),“blood;”ܥܥܝܢܗ (or ܗܢܝܥܥ),v.4,“to us;”ܓܪܡܐ (or ܐܡܪܓ),v.5,“himself;”ܕܡܝܢ (or ܢܝܡܕ),v.6,“price”(Pesh. has ܛܡܝ (or ܝܡܛ), Hark. ܛܝܡܐ (or ܐܡܝܛ) (pl.) τιμή); ܥܦܝܢ (or ܢܝܦܥ)v.8,“therefore;”ܗܐܘ (or ܘܐܗ),v.8,“this.”38.Hence the name by which this version is distinguished. For the recensions of Targum and Talmud,seeEtheridge's“Hebrew Literature,”pp. 145-6, 195-7.39.Dr. Hort's not very explicit judgement should now be added:“The Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary has an entirely different text [from the Harkleian], probably not altogether unaffected by the Syriac Vulgate [meaning thereby the Peshitto], but more closely related to the Old Syriac [meaning the Curetonian]. Mixture with one or more Greek texts containing elements of every great type, but especially the more ancient, has however given the whole a strikingly composite character”(Introd., p. 157).40.On these readings, and those of the MSS. mentioned below (p.34),see“The New Syriac Fragments”(F. H. Woods), in theExpository Times, Nov., 1893.41.Seethe“Life and Times of Gregory the Illuminator, the Founder and Patron Saint of the Armenian Church,”translated by the Rev. S. C. Malan, London, 1868.42.Kept by the Greeks Oct. 23. Gale O. 4. 22 and other Greek Evangelistaria commemorate this holiday.43.Dec. 27 in the Western Calendar.44.So Gale O. 4. 22, with the same Lesson.45.SeeAthenaeum, Oct. 28, 1893.46.Anecdota Oxoniensia,“The Palestinian Version of the Holy Scripture;”edited by G. H. Gwilliam, B.D.: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1893.47.The full form (ܛܘܒܢܐ or ܐܢܒܘܛblessed) occurs in the scholion to Rom. viii. 15; Wiseman thought it meant the Peshitto; but see“Studia Biblica,”iii. 60 and note.48.Our specimens show the use in MSS. ofrucacaandkushaia, here printed with fine points. The dots and dashes of the Nestorian Massorah ore also shown.49.Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, iii. 56.50.The Codex Babylonicus,a.d.916, is the oldest Old Testament MS. known at present. Dr. Neubauer, Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., iii. 27.51.Karkaphta = skull. See also“Thes. Syr.,”col. 3762.52.Mr. Gwilliam suggests that this may have been the well-known Thomas Heracleensis. M. l'Abbé Martin (Tradition Karkaphienne, ou la Massore chez les Syriens), who carefully studied the subject twenty years ago, suggests Thomas of Edessa, teacher of Mar Abbas.SeeMr. Gwilliam's Essay in“Stud. Bibl. et Eccl.,”iii. pp. 56-65.53.“How the Codex was found”(Lewis and Gibson), 1893.54.Of no passage is this judgement more true than of this actual sentence itself, which is hardly quoted in the same way in any three MSS.; see Wordsworth's Vulgate, Fasc. 1, p. 2.55.ForItalaBentley conjecturedet illa, changing the followingnamintoquae; and he wrote to Sabatier almost ridiculing the idea of a“Versio Italica;”seeCorrespondence, ed. Wordsworth, 1842, p. 569; and“Versio Latina Italica, somnium merum,”in Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. 157-159; Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulgata, Mainz, 1868, p. 116 f.; Abp. Potter conjecturedusitataforItala;seeField, Otium Norvicense, pars tertia, p. 57.56.Bibliorum Sacr. Latinae Versiones Ant. seu Vetus Italica etc. opera et studio D. Petri Sabatier, 3 vols., Rheims, 1743-1749; a revised edition of this great work, for the Old Test., is in course of preparation under the auspices of the Munich Academy, and the able superintendence of Professor E. Wölfflin.57.Evangeliarium Quadruplex Latinae Versionis Antiquae, seu Veteris Italicae, editum ex codicibus manuscriptis ... a Josepho Blanchino, 2 vols., Rome, 1749; reprinted by Migne, Patr. Lat. xii, with the works of Eusebius Vercellensis.58.That is, by scholars who did not live in Italy; Italian Christians would use other names,vetus,antiqua,usitata,communis,vulgata; Kaulen, p. 118, Berger, p. 6.59.Published in theCatholic Magazinefor 1832-3; since reprinted in his“Essays on various subjects,”1853, vol. i.60.We have let these sentences stand as Dr. Scrivener penned them in 1883; since that time the opinion of scholars has become less positive as to the African origin of the Latin version. It is true that the words, phrases, &c., of that version in its earlier forms can be illustrated from contemporary African writers, and from them only; but that is because during this period we are dependent almost exclusively on Africa for our Latin literature; and consequently are able to use only the method ofagreementand not the method ofdifferencein testing the origin and characteristics of the Latin New Testament. These characteristics may be the result only of the time and not of the supposed place of writing. Nor can more stress be laid on the use of Greek names in the West than on the use of Latin names (plenty of which could be cited) in the East.61.SeeKaulen, p. 130 f., and also his Handb. d. Vulg., Mainz, 1870.62.“Novum opus me facere cogis ex veteri: ut post exemplaria Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa, quasi quidam arbiter sedeam: et quia inter se variant, quae sint ilia quae cum Graeca consentiant veritate, decernam. Pius labor, sed periculosa praesumptio, judicare de ceteris, ipsum ab omnibus judicandum: senis mutare linguam, et canescentem jam mundum ad initia retrahere parvulorum.”Praef. ad Damasum.63.“[Evangelia] Codicum Graecorum emendata collatione, sed veterum, quae ne multum a lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent, ita calamo temperavimus, ut his tantum quae sensum videbantur mutare correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant.”Ibid.For a signal instance, see below, ch.ix, note on Matt. xxi. 31.64.To his well-known censure of Jerome's rendering of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, Augustine adds,“Proinde non parvas Deo gratias agimus de opere tuo, quod Evangelium ex Graeco interpretatus es: quia pene in omnibus nulla offensio est, cum Scripturam Graecam contulerimus.”65.Roger Bacon's writings, however, in the thirteenth century, are the first in which Jerome's translation is cited as the“Vulgate”in the modern sense of the term.SeeDenifle, Die Handschriften der Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts, 1883, p. 278.66.SeeJaffé, Monumenta Carolina, p. 373,“Jam pridem universos Veteris ac Novi instruments libros ... examussim correximus;”S. Berger's essay (to be distinguished from his larger work), De l'histoire de la Vulgate en France (1887), p. 3 f.67.Seethe Oxford“Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica,”ii (1890), p. 278 f.68.Fritzsche,“Latein. Bibelübersetzungen”in Herzog, R. E.2viii. p. 449; Westcott,“Vulgate,”in Smith's Bibl. Dict. iii. p. 1703; Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulg., p. 229 f.; P. Corssen, in“Die Trierer Adahandschr.”(Leipzig, 1889), p. 31.69.Berger, as above, p.7.70.Seethe Life of Lanfranc, by Milo Crispinus, a monk of Bec, ch. xv, in Migne, Patr. Lat. 150, col. 55, and his Commentary,ibid., col. 101 f.; Mill, Proleg., § 1058; Cave's remark (Hist. Lit. 1743, vol. ii. p. 148),“Lanfrancus textum continuo emendat,”seems hardly borne out by the facts.71.His corrected Bible in four vols. is now preserved at Dijon, public library, 9 bis,seebelow, p.68, no.8; also Denifle, Die Hdss. d. Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrh. 1883, p. 267; Kaulen, p. 245.72.His criticisms are preserved in a MS. at Venice (Marciana Lat. class. x. cod. 178, fol. 141);seeDenifle, p. 270, who prints them.73.Seethe quotations in Denifle, p. 277 f., and Hody, p. 419 f.74.SeeS. Berger, De l'histoire de la Vulgate en France, p. 9 f., 1887, and Revue de Théol. et de Philos. de Lausanne, t. xvi. p. 41, 1883.75.SeeHugo's remark (Denifle, p. 295),“In multis libris maxime historialibus, non utimur translatione Hieronymi.”76.SeeVercellone, Diss. Acad., Rome, 1864, pp. 44-51; Hody, pp. 426-430; and Denifle, pp. 295-298. This correctorium is cited in Wordsworth's Vulgate ascor. vat.;seeBerger, Notitia Linguae Hebraicae etc., p. 32 (1893).77.SeeW. A. Copinger, Incunabula Biblica, or the first half-century of the Latin Bible, p. 3, London, 1892; and L. Delisle, Journ. des Savants, Apr. 1893.78.Or to Peter Schoeffer,seeJ. H. Hessels, in theAcademy, June, 1887, p. 396; August, p. 104; or to Johann Fust.Seethe British Museum“Catalogue of Printed Books,”Bible, part i. col. 16.79.Westcott, Vulgate, p. 1704. This seems to be that of“Thielman Kerver, impensis J. Parvi,”with emendations of A. Castellani.80.The British Museum possesses a copy (340. d. 1);seethe“Catalogue,”part i. col. 1.81.For detailssee“Old Lat. Bibl. Texts,”i. p. 51 f.82.Ibid., p. 48 f.83.The critical notes of Lucas Brugensis himself appear to be found in three forms:—(1) The“Notationes,”published in 1580, and incorporated in the Hentenian Bible of 1583.(2) The“Variae Lectiones,”printed in Walton's Polyglott, and taken from the Louvain Bible of 1584. These are simply a list of various readings to the Vulgate, with MS. authorities; he frequently adds the letters Q. N., i.e.“quaere notationes,”where he has treated the subject more fully in (1).(3) The“Notae ad Varias Lectiones,”also printed (for the Gospels) in Walton's Polyglott; adelectusof them is given in Sabatier at the end of each book of the New Testament, under the title“Roman. Correctionum auctore Fr. L. Br. delectus.”84.SeeE. Nestle, Ein Jubiläum der lateinischen Bibel, Tübingen, p. 13 f., 1892.85.There is a copy in the British Museum, Q. e. 5. It is practically in one volume, as the paging is continuous throughout.86.He gives a long list of the variations between the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles; Vercellone estimated their number at 3,000. It is to be noticed that theversingof the Sixtine ed. differs considerably from the Clementine as well as from Stephen.87.The regular form of title,“Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti V Pont. Max. jussu recognita et Clementis VIII auctoritate edita,”does not appear in any edition known to the writer before that of Rouille, Lyons, 1604.SeeBrit. Mus. Catalogue, col. 50. The earliest edition with this title known to Masch (Le Long, Bibl. Sacra, 1783, ii. p. 251) is dated 1609; and Vercellone (Variae Lect. i. p. lxxii) names others considerably later as the earliest.88.SeeOld Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. xvi.89.Ibid., p. xxv.90.SeeFasc. i. p. xv, and Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Cambridge, 1862.91.M. Berger, with exceptional kindness, allowed me to see the proof-sheets of his“History of the Vulgate”as they were printed, and to add a large number of MSS. to this list from that source.92.For the Würzburg MSS.,seeG. Schepps, Die ältesten Evangelienhandschriften der Universitätsbibliothek, Würzburg, 1887, from which these descriptions are mainly taken.93.For these MSS.,seeas before, G. Schepss, Die ältesten Evangelienhandschriften d. Würzb. Univ. B., 1887.94.My authority for these facts is Brugsch, Grammaire Démotique, p. 4, but what does he mean by the words which I have italicised?“Au nombre des auteurs les plus récents qui nous aient donné des témoignages sur l'existence du démotique il faut citer St. Clément, prêtre de l'église chrétienne à Alexandrie, et qui vivait vers l'an 190 de notre ère, ou environ le temps où régnait l'empereur Sévère. Mais les monuments nous prouvent quecette date n'est pas la dernière; il se trouve encore des inscriptions d'une époque plus rapprochée; telle est par exemple une inscription démotique que M. de Saulcy avait copiée en Égypte et qu'il eut la complaisance de me communiquer pendant mon séjour à Paris; elle date du règne en commun d'Aurélius et de Vérus, ce qui prouve quedans la première moitié du troisième sièclele démotique était encore connu et en usage.”L. Verus dieda.d.169.95.The date, however, is placed very much earlier by Revillout (Mélanges d'Archéologie Égyptienne et Assyrienne, p. 40), who supposes the Coptic alphabet to have been a work commenced by pagan Gnostics, completed by Christian Gnostics, and adopted when complete by their orthodox successors.96.[That Bahiric is a wrong transliteration is shown by Stern, Zeitschr. für Aeg. Sprache, 16 (1878), p. 23.]97.[There has been considerable variation in the names given to the different dialects. The terms Thebaic and Memphitic have been commonly adopted as a more convenient nomenclature, but, as will be shown below, the latter name at any rate is incorrect and misleading. Owing to the accident that the Memphitic dialect was the form of Coptic best known and earliest studied in Western Europe, the term Coptic has been sometimes confined to the Bohairic or Memphitic, as distinguished from the Sahidic or Thebaic, and was so used by Tischendorf; this usage also is erroneous and misleading; and the names Bohairic and Sahidic are almost universally employed by scholars at the present day.]98.Schwartze, whose opinion will not be suspected of any theological bias, infers from the historical notices that“the greatest part of the New Testament writings, if not all, and a part of the Old Testament, especially the Psalms, had been already translated, in the second century, into the Egyptian language, and indeed into that of Lower as well as into that of Upper Egypt”(p. 963).99.For convenience the following abbreviations will be used:“Z. A. S.”forZeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache;“Recueil”for theRecueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l'archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes;“Mémoires”for theMémoires de la Mission Archéologique Française au Caire; and“Mitt.”for theMittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer.100.Quatremère can only point to a single word accidentally preserved, which according to his hypothesis belongs to the real Bashmuric (Sur la Langue &c., p. 213 sq.).101.Memphitic (Lightfoot), Coptic (Tischendorf and others).102.Seealso A. J. Butler's“Coptic Churches,”vol. ii, Oxford.103.I have always added 284 to the year of the Martyrs for the yeara.d.; but this will not give the date accurately in every case, as the Diocletian year began in August or September;seeClinton, Fast. Rom., ii. p. 210.104.I have observed Luke xxiii. 17 in at least three wholly distinct forms in different Bohairic MSS.105.My sincere thanks are due to the late Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, and to Lord Zouche, for their kindness in allowing me free access to their valuable collections of Coptic MSS., and in facilitating my investigations in many ways.106.The volume, *Parham 102, described in the printed Catalogue (no. 1, vellum, p. 27) as a MS. of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, is really a selection of passages taken in order from the four Gospels, with a patristic catena attached to each. The leaves, however, are much displaced in the binding, and many are wanting. The title to the first Gospel is ϯ ⲉⲣⲙⲏⲛⲓⲁ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲑⲉⲟⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ϩⲁⲛⲙⲏϣ ⲛⲥⲁϧ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲫⲱⲥⲧⲏⲣ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯ ⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ, &c.“The interpretation of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew from numerous doctors and luminaries of the Church.”Among the Fathers quoted I observed Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Clement, the two Cyrils (of Jerusalem and of Alexandria), Didymus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Evagrius, the three Gregories (Thaumaturgus, Nazianzen, and Nyssen), Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Severianus of Gabala, Severus of Antioch (often styled simply the Patriarch), Symeon Stylites, Timotheus, and Titus.In the account of this MS. in the Catalogue it is stated that“the name of the scribe who wrote it is Sapita Leporos, a monk of the monastery, or monastic rule, of Laura under the sway of the great abbot Macarius,”and the inference is thence drawn that it must have been written before 395, when Macarius died. This early date, however, is at once set aside by the fact that writers who lived in the sixth century are quoted. Professor Wright (Journal of Sacred Literature, vii. p. 218), observing the name of Severus in the facsimile, points out the error of date, and suggests as an explanation that the colophon (which he had not seen) does not speak of the great Macarius, but of“an abbotMacarius.”The fact is, that though the great Macarius is certainly meant, there is nothing which implies that he was then living. The scribe describes himself as ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϧⲁ ⲡⲓ ⲧⲁⲗⲉⲡⲱⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲁϥⲥϧⲁⲓ,“I the unhappy one (ταλαιπωρος) who wrote it”(which has been wrongly read and interpreted as a proper name Sapita Leporos). He then gives his name ⲑⲉⲟⲗ ⲡⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (Theodorus of Busiris?) and adds, ⲡⲓⲁⲧⲙⲡϣⲁ ⲙⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲗⲁⲩⲣⲁ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ ⲁⲃⲃⲁ ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓ,“the unworthy monk of the holy laura of the great abbot Macarius.”He was merely an inmate of the monastery of St. Macarius; see the expression quoted from the Vat. MS. lxi in Tattam's Lexicon, p. 842. This magnificent MS. is dateda.m.604 =a.d.888 and has been published by Professor De Lagarde; but its value may not be very great for the Bohairic Version, as it is perhaps translated from the Greek.The *Parham MS. 106 (no. 5, p. 28) is wrongly described as containing the Gospel of St. John. The error is doubtless to be explained by the fact that the name ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲟⲩ occurs at the bottom of one of the pages; but the manuscript is not Biblical. Another MS. (no. 13, p. 29) is described as“St. Matthew with an Arabic translation, very large folio: a modern MS. copied at Cairo from an antient one in the library of the Coptic Patriarch.”I was not able to find this, when through the courtesy of Lord Zouche I had access to the Parham collection.107.The above account has been throughout revised by the Rev. G. Horner, who has collated or examined all MSS. of the Bohairic versions in European libraries.108.The MSS. 7 and 16 are exceptions.109.No weight can be given to the abnormal order in no. 12, until we know something more of this MS., which is perhaps a late transcript.110.It is used in the Apocalypse by Tregelles, and apparently also by Tischendorf in his eighth edition; and in the Rev. S. C. Malan's“Gospel according to St. John, translated from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin,”London, 1862, all Tuki's Sahidic fragments of this Evangelist are included.111.SeeMünter, De Indole, &c., Praef., p. iv. Schwartze (Quat. Evang. p. xx) says,“Praeterquam quod sicut omnes Tukii libri scatent vitiis, etiam angustioris sunt fideiRudimenta, Sahidicis locis partim e versione Arabica a Tukio concinnatis.”I do not know on what grounds Schwartze makes this last statement.112.This has now been published. By Amélineau, Notice sur le Papyrus Gnostique Bruce. Texte et Traduction, Notices et Extraits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres Bibliothèques. Tome xxix. lrePartie. Paris, 1891; and Gnostische Schriften in Koptischer Sprache aus dem Codex Brucianus, von Carl Schmidt, Leipzig, 1892.113.In the interval between Woide and Zoega, Griesbach (1806) appears to have obtained a few readings of this version from the Borgian MSS., e.g. Acts xxiv. 22, 23; xxv. 6; xxvii. 14; Col. ii. 2. At least I have not succeeded in tracing them to any printed source of information.Of the use which Schwartze has made of the published portions of the Sahidic text in his edition of the Bohairic Gospels, I have already spoken (p. 108). He has added no unpublished materials.114.Catal., p. 169:“Si de aetate codicum quaeris, scio equidem non defuisse qui singulos ad saecula sua referre satagerent, qui si aliquid profecerunt, ego sane non obstrepo. Sed quoniam meum sit quacumque in re ignorantiam fateri potius quam quae mihi non satisfaciunt, aliis velut explorata offerre, &c.”But since this was written the publication of Hyvernat's“Album de Paléographie Copte”has given much assistance; and more may be looked for from the publication of the Paris fragments.115.Its position was before Galatians, and not, as in the archetype of the Codex Vaticanus, after it.116.The term“Middle Egyptian”is often used as a general term to include the three varieties of Fayoumic, Lower Sahidic or what is properly Memphitic, and Akhmimic.117.The writer must express his regret that, owing to the haste with which the additions to this article had to be written, much must have been passed over.118.“But he prudently suppressed the four books of Kings, as they might tend to irritate the fierce and sanguinary spirit of the barbarians;”Gibbon, ch. xxxvii.119.“A faithful, a stern and noble Teutonic rendering of the Greek,”is the verdict of Prebendary S. C. Malan (St. John's Gospel, translated from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin, &c., 4to, 1872, Preface, p. viii). Bishop Ellicott also praises this version as usually faithful and accurate, yet marks an Arian tinge in the rendering of Phil. ii. 6-8.120.Goth. Version. Paul. Epist. quae supersunt, C. O. Castiglione, Milan, 1834.121.Skeat, St. Mark, 1882.122.Matt. iii. 11; v. 8; 15-vi. 32; vii. 12-x. 1; 23-xi. 25; xxv. 38-xxvi. 3; 65-xxvii. 19; 42-66; Mark i. 1; vi. 30; 58-xii. 38; xiii. 16-29; xiv. 4-16; 41-xvi. 12; Luke i. 1-x. 30; xiv. 9-xvi. 24; xvii. 3-xx. 46; John i. 29; iii. 3-5; 23-26; 29-32; v. 21-23; 35-38; 45-xi. 47; xii. 1-49; xiii. 11-xix. 13; Rom. vi. 23; vii. 1-viii. 10; 34-xi. 1; 11-xii. 5; 8-xiv. 5; 9-20; xv. 3-13; xvi. 21-24; 1 Cor. i. 12-25; iv. 2-12; v. 3-vi. 1; vii. 5-28; viii. 9-ix. 9; 19-x. 4; 15-xi. 6; 21-31; xii. 10-22; xiii. 1-12; xiv. 20-27; xv. 1-35; 46-Gal. i. 7; 20-iii. 6; 27-Eph. v. 11; 17-29; vi. 8-24; Phil. i. 14-ii. 8; 22-iv. 17; Col. i. 6-29; ii. 11-iv. 19; 1 Thess. ii. 10-2 Thess. ii. 4; 15-1 Tim. v. 14; 16-2 Tim. iv. 16; Tit. i. 1-ii. 1; Philem. 1-23; but no portion of the Acts, Hebrews, Catholic Epistles, or Apocalypse.123.Seep. 10 of the Armenian edition; Venice, 1833. The French translation of this in the“Collection des Historiens de l'Arménie,”Paris, 1869, is untrustworthy in all ways, and especially because the translator both adds to and omits from the Armenian text at random.124.The true history of which we cannot now make out, for, as given by his contemporaries, it is already obscured by legend and miracle.125.The translation of this writer in Langlois' second volume is reliable.126.Some critics bring down the date of Moses as late as the seventh or eighth century.127.Dr. Baronean thinks that the varieties of readings in the oldest Armenian MSS. is due to the fact that more than onesurecopy was brought from Constantinople on which to base the final revision.128.This is the conclusion at which P. P. Carékin arrives. See his“Catalogue of Ancient Armenian Translations,”Venice, 1889, p. 228.129.Among the chief authorities on the Slavonic version are the following:—(i) Горскій и Невоструевъ, описаніе славянскихъ рукописей Московской Синодальной Библіотеки. Москва, 1855.(ii) Астафьевъ, Опьітъ исторіи библіи въ Россіи въ связи съ просвѣщеніемъ и нравами. С. Петербургъ, 1892.(iii) Voskresenski, Характеристческія чертъі гиавнъіхъ редакцій славянскаго перевода Евангелія.(iv) Voskresenski, Древній славянскій переводъ Апостола и его судьбы до xv вѣка.(v) Oblak, Die Kirchenslavische Uebersetzung der Apocalypse [in the“Archiv für Slavische Philologie,”xiii. pp. 321-361].(vi) Prolegomena to the editions of the Codex Marianus and the Codex Zographensis, &c., by Jagić.(vii) Kaluzniacki, Monumenta Linguae Palaeoslavonicae, vol. i.130.In the Synodal Library at Moscow this proportion is as nine to two, and in another library as twelve to one.SeeОписаніе славянскихъ рукописей и т. д. (as above), p. 299.131.Kaluzniacki,l. c., p. xlv, gives instances.132.SeeJagić, Codex Zographensis, pp. xxvii ff.133.The statement that John Bishop of Seville translated the Bible into Arabic ina.d.719 is disproved by Lagarde (Die vier Evangelien Arabisch, p. xv).134.Edward Pocock, Professor of Hebrew at Oxford (1648-91) and a great Oriental scholar, should be distinguished from Richard Pococke, an Eastern traveller and Bishop of Meath, who died in 1765.135.I have been obliged to alter the first paragraph in this chapter because of Dr. Scrivener's private confession to myself of the great value of Dean Burgon's services in this province of Sacred Textual Criticism. I am convinced that he could not have continued to maintain an opinion so adverse to the value of early citations as that which he formed when people were not sufficiently aware of the wealth of illustrative evidence that lay ready to their hands. As Editor I owe very much in this chapter, both to the express teaching in Dean Burgon's great book, and to his method of argument in respect to patristic citations. The Dean did not leave this province at all as he found it.136.The Revision Revised, by John William Burgon, B. D., Dean of Chichester. John Murray, 1883.137.Seesome very thoughtful and cautious remarks by the Rev. Ll. J. M. Bebb in the second volume of the Oxford“Studia Biblica (et Ecclesiastica).”Mr. Bebb's entire Article on“The Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of the Books of the New Testament”is well worth careful study.138.“Dated codices, in fact they are, to all intents and purposes.”Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 292.“Every Father is seen to be a dated witness and an independent authority,”p. 297.139.I am glad to be able to coincide thus far with the judgement of Mr. Hammond, who says:“The value of even the most definite Patristic citation is only corroborative. Standing by itself, any such citation might mean no more than that the writer found the passage in his own copy, or in those examined by him, in the form in which he quotes it. The moment, however, it is found to be supported by other good evidence, the writer's authority may become of immense importance”(Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 66, 2nd edition). His illustration is the statement of Irenaeus in Matt. i. 18, which is discussed below, Chap.XI. (Third Edition.)140.He speaks (N. T., Proleg., § 1478) of Bp. Fell's“praepropera opinio;”he merely stated asuniversallytrue what for the most part certainly is so.141.Take the case of Irenaeus, in some respects the most important of them all. Theeditio princepsof Erasmus (1526) was printed from manuscripts now unknown. The three best manuscripts are in Latin only. The oldest of them I saw at Middle-hill, an exquisite specimen of the tenth or eleventh century,olimClaromontanus; another, of the twelfth, is in the Arundel collection in the British Museum; the third once belonged to Vossius.142.Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. 256, 7th edition) speaks of one Wolfenbüttel manuscript of the sixth century containing the Homilies on St. Matthew, which he designed to publish in his“Monumenta Sacra Inedita,”vol. vii. He indicates its readings by Chrgue.143.Life of Dean Burgon, by Dean Goulburn, p. 82, note. Murray, 1892.144.Dampar cod. i.e.“Joh. Damasceni parallela sacra ex cod. Rupefuc. saeculi ferè 8.”Tischendorf, N. T., Preface to vol. i of the eighth edition, 1869. He promised full information in his“Prolegomena,”which never appeared. Here we have a manuscript ascribed to the same century as the Father whose work it contains. One MS. is at Paris (collated by Mr. Rendel Harris,a.d.1884); another in Phillipps collection at Cheltenham.145.This important witness for the Old Latin version must now be used with H. Roensch's“Das Neue Testament Tertullian's,”Leipzig, 1871, wherein all his citations from the N. T. are arranged and critically examined.146.SeeDean Burgon's Appendix (D) to his“Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark,”pp. 269-287, which well deserves the praise accorded to it by a not very friendly critic. The Dean discusses at length the genius and character of Victor of Antioch's Commentary on St. Mark, and enumerates the manuscripts which contain it.147.It should be stated that some of the dates in the two tables just given are doubtful, authorities differing.148.Since the first edition of this book was issued, Ed. Reuss has published“Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci, cuius editiones ab initio typographiae ad nostram aetatem impressas quotquot reperiri potuerunt collegit digessit illustravit E. R. Argentoratensis”(Brunsvigae, 1872), to which the reader is referred for editions which our purpose does not lead us to notice. Some of his statements regarding the text of early editions we have repeated in the notes of the present chapter. His enumeration is not grounded on a complete collation of any book, but from the study of a thousand passages (p. 24) selected for his purpose. Hence his numerical results are perpetually less than our own, or even than Mill's. Professor Isaac H. Hall in Schaff's“Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version,”D. I. Macmillan, 1883, has improved upon Reuss, and given a list of editions which as to America is, I believe, exhaustive (seealso his“American Greek Testaments—a Critical Bibliography of the Greek New Testament as published in America”—Philadelphia, Pickwick and Company, 1883), and is very full as regards English and other editions. I should like to have availed myself of the Professor's kind permission to copy that list, but it would have been going out of the way to do so, since these two chapters are simply upon theEarlyPrinted and theCriticalEditions of the Text.—Ed.149.“Novum Testamentum Grece et Latine in academia complutensi noviter impressum,”Tom. v.150.Quite enough has been made of that piece of grim Spanish humour,“Mediam autem inter has latinam beati Hieronymi translationem velut inter Synagogam et Orientalem Ecclesiam posuimus: tanquam duos hinc et inde latrones, medium autem Jesum, hoc est Romanam sive latinam Ecclesiam collocantes”(Prol. Tom. i). The editors plainly meant no disparagement to the original Scriptures,as such; but they had persuaded themselves that Hebrew codices had been corrupted by the Jew, the Septuagint by the schismatical Greek, and so clung to the Latin as the only form (even before the Council of Trent) in which the Bible was known or studied in Western Europe.151.Of these, two copies are in Greek, three in Latin Elegiacs. I subjoin those of the native Greek editor, Demetrius Ducas, as a rather favourable specimen of verse composition in that age: the fantastic mode of accentuation described above was clearly nothiswork.Ειπράξεις ὅσιαι ἀρετήτε βροτοὺς ἐς ὅλυμπον,ἐσμακάρων χῶρον καὶ βίον οἶδεν ἄγειν,ἀρχιερεὺς ξιμένης θεῖος πέλει. ἔργα γὰρ αὐτοῦἤδε βίβλος. θνητοῖς ἄξια δῶρα τάδε.152.Tregelles (Account of the Printed Text, p. 7, note) states that he waselectedFeb. 28, crowned March 11: Sir Harris Nicolas (“Chronology of History,”p. 194) that he was elected March 11, without naming the date of his coronation as usual, but mentioning that“Leo X, in his letters, dated the commencement of his pontificate before his coronation.”153.The following is the document (a curiosity in its way) as cited by Vercellone:“Anno primo Leonis PP. X. Reverendiss. Dom. Franciscus Card. Toletanus de mandato SS. D. N. Papae habuit ex bibliotheca a Dom. Phaedro Bibliothecario duo volumina graeca: unum in quo continentur libri infrascripti; videlicet Proverbia Salomonis, Ecclesiastes, Cant. Cant., Job, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Esdras, Tobias, Judith [this is Vat. 346, or 248 of Parsons]. Sunt in eo folia quingenta et duodecim ex papyro in nigro. Fuit extractum ex blancho primo bibliothecae graecae communis. Mandatum Pontificis super concessione dictorum librorum registratum fuit in Camera Apostolica per D. Franciscum De Attavantes Notarium, ubi etiam annotata est obligatio. Promisit restituere intra annum sub poena ducentorum ducatorum.”—“Restituit die 9 Julii, MDXVIII. Ita est. Fr. Zenobius Bibliothecarius.”154.The Catalogue is copied at length by Tregelles (Account of the Printed Text, pp. 15-18). It is scarcely worth while to repeat the silly story taken up by Moldenhawer, whose admiration oflas cosas de Españawas not extravagantly high, that the Alcalà manuscripts had been sold to make sky-rockets about 1749; to which statement Sir John Bowring pleasantly adds in 1819,“To celebrate the arrival of some worthless grandee.”Gutierrez's recent list comprehends all the codices named in the University Catalogue made in 1745; and we may hope that even in Spain all grandees are not necessarily worthless.155.Thus in St. Mark the Complutensian varies from Laud. 2 in fifty-one places, and nowhere agrees with it except in company with a mass of other copies. In the Acts on the contrary they agree 139 times, and differ but forty-one, some of theirloci singularesbeing quite decisive: e.g. x. 17; 21; xii. 12; xvii. 31; xx. 38; xxiv. 16; 1 Pet. iii. 12; 14; 2 Pet. i. 11. In most of these places Seidel's Codex, in some of them Act. 69, and in nearly all Cod. Havn. 1 (Evan. 234, Act. 57, Paul. 72) are with Laud. 2. On testing this last at the Bodleian in some forty places, I found Mill's representation fairly accurate. As might have been expected, his Oxford manuscripts were collated much the best.156.Goeze's“Defence of the Complutensian Bible,”1766. He published a“Continuation”in 1769.Seealso Franc. Delitzsch's“Studies on the Complutensian Polyglott”(Bagster, 1872), derived from his Academical Exercise as Dean of the Theological Faculty at Leipzig, 1871-2.157.Reuss says boldly that the Complutensian text“purus et authenticus a veteribus nunquam repetitus est”(p. 25), and gives a list of forty-four places in which the Complutensian and Plantin editions are at variance (pp. 16, 17). He subjoins a list of 185 cases in which the two are in unison against Erasmus and Stephen jointly (pp. 18-21), so that the influence of the former over the latter cannot be disputed.158.At forty he obtained the countenance of that good and bountiful rather than great prelate, William Wareham, Archbishop of Canterbury (1502-32), who, prosperous in life, was so singularly“felix opportunitate mortis.”It gladdens and makes sad at once an English heart to read what Erasmus writes about him ten years later:“Cujusmodi Maecenas, si mihi primis illis contigisset annis, fortassis aliquid in bonis literis potuissem. Nunc natus saeculo parum felici, cum passim impunè regnaret barbaries, praesertim apud nostrates, apud quos turn crimen etiam erat quicquam bonarum literarum attigisse, tantum aberat ut honos aleret hominum studia in eâ regione, quae Baccho Cererique dicata sunt verius quam musis”(N. T. 1516, Annot. 1 Thess. ii. p. 554).159.Bishop Middleton may have lost sight of this pregnant fact when he wrote of Erasmus,“an acquaintance with Greek criticism was certainly not among his best acquirements, as his Greek Testament plainly proves: indeed he seems not to have had a very happy talent for languages”(Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 395, 3rd edition).160.The title-page is long and rather boastful.“Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum, non solum ad graecam veritatem, verum etiam ad multorum utriusque linguae codicum, eorumque veterum simul et emendatorum fidem, postremo ad probatissimorum autorum citationem, emendationem, et interpretationem, praecipue, Origenis, Chrysostomi, Cyrilli, Vulgarii, Hieronymi, Cypriani, Ambrosii, Hilarii, Augustini, una cum Annotationibus, quae lectorem doceant, quid qua ratione mutatum sit. Quisquis igitur amas veram theologiam, lege, cognosce, ac deinde judica. Neque statim offendere, si quid mutatum offenderis, sed expende, num in melius mutatum sit. Apud inclytam Germaniae Basilaeam.”The Vulgarius of Erasmus' first edition is no less a person than Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, as appears plainly from his Annotations, p. 319,“nec in ullis graecorum exemplaribus addita reperi [ἐκ σοῦ, Luke i. 35], ne apud Vulgarium quidem, nec in antiquis codicibus Latinis.”He had found out his portentous blunder by 1528, when, in his“Responsio ad Object, xvi. Hispanorum,”he gives that commentator his right name.161.Yet he could have followed none other than Cod. 1 in Matt. xxii. 28; xxiii. 25; xxvii. 52; xxviii. 3, 4, 19, 20; Mark vii. 18, 19, 26; x. 1; xii. 22; xv. 46; Luke i. 16, 61; ii. 43; ix. 1, 15; xi. 49; John i. 28; x. 8; xiii. 20; in all which passages the Latin Vulgate is neutral or hostile. See also Hoskier, Cod. Ev. 604, App. F. p. 4.162.Such are ὀρθρινός, Apoc. xxii. ver. 16; ἐλθέ bis, ἐλθέτω, λαμβανέτω τό, ver. 17; συμμαρτυροῦμαι γάρ, ἐπιτιθῇ πρὸς ταῦτα,—τῷ (anteβιβλίῳ) ver. 18; ἀφαιρῇ, βίβλου, ἀφαιρῆσει, βίβλουsecund., καί ult-τῷ (anteβιβλίῳ) ver. 19; ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν, ver. 21. Erasmus in his Annotations fairly confesses what he did:“quanquam in calce hujus libri, nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros, quae aberant in Graecis exemplaribus, ea tamen ex latinis adjecimus.”But since the text and commentary in Cod. Reuchlini are so mixed up as to be undistinguishable in parts without the aid of a second manuscript (Tregelles'“Delitzsch's Handschriftliche Funde,”Part ii. pp. 2-7), it is no wonder that in other places Erasmus in his perplexity was sometimes tempted to translate into his own Greek from the Latin Vulgate such words or clauses as he judged to have been wrongly passed over by his sole authority, e.g. ch. ii. 2, 17; iii. 5, 12, 15; vi. 11, 15 (seeunder Apoc. 1); vii. 17; xiii. 4, 5; xiv. 16; xxi. 16; xxii. 11, where the Greek words only of Erasmus are false; while in ch. ii. 3; v. 14 (bis); vi. 1, 3, 5, 7; xiii. 10; xiv. 5 (as partly in xxii. 14), he was misled by the recent copies of the Vulgate, whereto alone he had access, to make additions which no Greek manuscript is known to support. Bengel's acuteness had long before suspected that ch. v. 14; xxii. 11, and the form ἀκαθάρτητος, ch. xvii. 4 (where Apoc. 1 has τὰ ἀκάθαρτα) had their origin in no Greek copy, but in the Vulgate. Nor does Apoc. 1 lend any countenance to ch. xvii. 8, καίπερ ἔστι, or to ver. 13, διαδιδώσουσιν. For Erasmus' πληρώσονται ch. vi. 11, Apoc. 1 has πληρώσωσιν, the Latinimpleantur; for his σφραγίζωμεν, ch. vii. 3, we find σφραγίσωμεν in Apoc. 1, but the latter omits τῆς ἀμπέλου, ch. xiv. 18, and so does Erasmus on its authority.163.Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, p. 19.164.It sometimes happens that a reading cited in the Annotations is at variance with that given in the text; but Erasmus had been engaged in writing the former for about ten years at intervals, and had no leisure to revise them then. Thus John xvii. 2 δώσει (after Cod. 1, but corrected to δώση in the errata); 1 Thess. ii. 8; iii. 1; 1 Tim. v. 21; Apoc. i. 2; ii. 18; xiv. 10, 13; xxi. 6.165.The first complete printed English N. T. (Tyndale 1526) followed Erasmus' third edition rather than his second: cf. Rom. viii. 20, 21 as well as 1 John v. 7, 8.166.I never saw the Basle manuscripts, and probably Dean Alford had been more fortunate, otherwise I do not think he has evidence for his statement that 'Erasmus tampered with the readings of the very few MSS. which he collated' (N. T., vol. i. Proleg. p. 74, 4th edition). The truth is, that to save time and trouble, he used them ascopyfor the press, as was intimated above, where Burgon's evidence is quite to the point. For this purpose corrections would of course be necessary (those made by Erasmus were all too few), and he might fairly say, in the words cited by Wetstein (N. T., Proleg., p. 127),“se codices suos praecastigasse.”Any wanton“tampering”with the text I am loth to admit, unless for better reasons than I yet know of.167.Reuss (p. 24) enumerates 347 passages wherein the first edition of Erasmus differs from the Complutensian, forty-two of which were changed in his second edition. In fifteen places the first edition agrees with the Complutensian against the second (p. 30).168.Besides the weighty insertion of 1 John v. 7, 8, Reuss (p. 32) gives us only seven changes in the third edition from the second: Mill's other cases, he says, must be mere trifles.169.Here again Reuss declares“paucissimas novas habet”(p. 36), and names only six.170.“Non deserit quartam nisi duobus in locis: 1 Cor. xii. 2; Acts ix. 28”(Reuss, p. 37). Reuss had evidently not seen the first edition of the present work.171.Multis vetustissimis exemplaribus collatis, adhibita etiam quorundam eruditissimorum hominum cura, Biblia (ut vulgo appellant) graece cuncta eleganter descripsi (Andreas Aesulanus Cardinali Aegidio).172.This is Mill's calculation, but Wetstein followed him over the ground, adding (especially in the Apocalypse) not a few variations of Aldus which Mill had overlooked, now and then correcting his predecessor's errors (e.g. 2 Cor. xi. 1; Col. ii. 23), not without mistakes of his own (e.g. Luke xi. 34; Eph. vi. 22). Since Wetstein's time no one seems to have gone carefully through the Aldine N. T., except Delitzsch in order to illustrate the Codex Reuchlini (1) in the Apocalypse. Reuss (p. 28) notes eleven places in which it agrees with the Complutensian against Erasmus; seven wherein it rejects both books.173.The title-page runs εν λευκετια των παρησιων, παρα σιμωνι τω κολιναιω δεκεμβριου μηνος δευτερα φθινοντος, ετει απο της θεογονιας α φ λ δ. This book has no Preface, and the text does not contain 1 John v. 7, 8. It stands alone in reading ἀγγελία, 1 John i. 5. Reuss (p. 46), who praises Colinaeus highly, states that he deserts Erasmus' third edition 113 times out of his own thousand, fifty-three of them to side with the Complutensian, and subjoins a list of fifty-two passages wherein he stands alone among early editors, for most of which he may have had manuscript authority.174.Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xv.175.Reuss (pp. 50, 51, 54) mentions only nine places wherein Stephen's first edition does not agree either with the Complutensian or Erasmus; in the second edition four (or rather three) more; in the third nine, including the great erratum, 1 Pet. iii. 11. He further alleges that in the Apocalypse whatever improvements were introduced by Stephen came from the fourth edition of Erasmus, not from the Complutensian.176.Mill states that Stephen's citations of the Complutensian are 598, Marsh 578, of which forty-eight, or one in twelve, are false; but we have tried to be as exact as possible. Certainly some of Stephen's inaccuracies are rather slight, viz. Acts ix. 6; xv. 29; xxv. 5; xxviii. 3; Eph. iv. 32; Col. iii. 20; Apoc. i. 12; ii. 1, 20, 24; iii. 2, 4, 7, 12; iv. 8; xv. 2: β' seems to be put for α' Matt. x. 25.177.Viz. in the Gospels 81, Paul. 20, Act. Cath. 17, Apoc. 1 (ch. vii. 5): but for the Apocalypse the margin had only three authorities, α᾽, ιε᾽, ιϛ᾽ (ιϛ᾽ ending ch. xvii. 8), whose united readings Stephen rejects no less than fifty-four times.See, moreover, above, p.154, note 3.178.Here, again, my own collation represents Stephen's first edition as differing from his third in 797 places, of which 372 only are real various readings, the rest relating to accents, or being mere errata. Of these 372 places, the third edition agrees in fifty-six places with π. or πάντες of its own margin, and in fifty-five with some of the authorities cited therein. Stephen no doubt knew of manuscript authority for many of his other changes, though some may be mere errata.179.Wetstein (N. T., Prol., vol. i. p. 36) instances the readings of Cod. D (indicated as“quidam codex”by Beza in 1565) in Mark ix. 38; x. 50; Luke vii. 35. We may add that Beza in 1565 cites the evidence of one Stephanic manuscript for the omission of ὑμῶν, Matt. xxiii. 9; of two for κατεδίωξεν Mark i. 36; in later editions of two also in Luke xx. 4, and Acts xxii. 25; of three for ἑτέρῳ; Matt. xxi. 30, two of which would be Cod. D and Evan. 9 (Steph. ιβ᾽). In his dedication to Queen Elizabeth in 1565, Beza speaks plainly of an“exemplar ex Stephani nostri bibliotheca cum viginti quinque plus minus manuscriptis codicibus, et omnibus paenè impressis, ab Henrico Stephano ejus filio, et paternae sedulitatis haerede, quam diligentissimè collatum.”180.But here again we must qualify previous statements. Reuss (p. 58) cites six instances wherein Stephen's third and fourth editions differ (Matt. xxi. 7; xxiii. 13, 14; xxiv. 15; Luke xvii. 36; Col. i. 20; Apoc. iii. 12): to which list add Mark xiv. 21; xvi. 20; Luke i. 50; viii. 31; xii. 1; Acts xxvii. 13; 2 Cor. x. 6; Heb. vii. 1.181.Professor Isaac H. Hall, who has the advantage of Dr. Scrivener in actually himself possessing all the ten editions of Beza, as he states in MS. in a copy of his“American Greek Testaments”kindly given to me, says, p. 60, note, that in the edition of 1556 the Greek does not occur, and that Beza's firstGreektext was published in 1565. Beza must have reckoned his Latin amongst his editions when he spoke of his folio of 1565 as his second edition, and must generally have dated from 1556 as the beginning of his labours. The dates of the ten editions given above are extracted from Professor Hall's list in Schaff's“Companion to the Bible,”pp. 500-502.182.Reuss says fairly enough (p. 85) that Beza was the true author of what is called the received text, from which the Elzevir of 1624 rarely departs. He used as his basis the fourth edition of Stephen, from which he departed in 1565, so far as Reuss has found, only twenty-five times, nine times to side with the Complutensian, four times with Erasmus, thrice with the two united; the other nine readings are new, whereof two (Acts xvii. 25; James v. 12) had been adopted by Colinaeus. The second edition of 1582 withdraws one of the peculiar readings of its predecessor, but adds fourteen more. The third edition (1588), so far as Reuss knows, departs from the second but five times, and the fourth (1598) from the third only twice, Matt. vi. 1 (δικαιοσύνην); Heb. x. 17 (add. τότε εἴρηκε), neither of which I can verify. These results, on Reuss's system of investigation, can be only approximately true (seep.154, note), and do not include some changes silently introduced into Beza's Latin version, as suggested in his Annotations.183.Reuss (p. 109) states that out of his thousand select examples Elzevir 1624 differs from Beza's smaller New Testament of 1565 in only eight readings, all of which may be found in some of Beza's other editions (e.g. the small edition of 1580), except one misprint (Rom. vii. 2).184.Οἱ δοῦλος is disputed by Hoskier (App. C. p. 18, n.), who says that he has seen besides his own copy of 1624 several which read οἱ δοῦλου. He had also inspected mine.“And although he says it reads δοῦλος, I read easily δοῦλοι. The type is rather faulty, that is all.”The point is not worth disputing.185.“American Additions and Corrections,”p. 50.186.Professor Hall states (Schaff's“Companion,”p. 501) that Beza's editions of 1588 and 1598 were the chief foundations of the Authorized Version of 1611. Archdeacon Palmer (Preface to Greek Testament with Revisers' Readings, p. vii) refers chiefly to Stephen's edition of 1550. Dr. Scrivener (to whom Archdeacon Palmer refers), Cambridge Greek Testament, Praef., p. vi, in taking the Elzevir edition of 1624 as the authority for the“Textus Receptus,”says that it rests upon Stephen's 1550, and Beza's 1565, 1582, 1589 (= 1588), and 1598 (especially the later editions, and particularly 1598, Authorized Edition of the British Bible, p. 60), besides also Erasmus, the Complutensian, and the Vulgate (Authorized Edition, p. 60). Dr. Scrivener adds in the passage just named that out of 252 passages the“Translators abide with Beza against Stephen in 113, with Stephen against Beza in fifty-nine, with the Complutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in eighty.”187.“The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives.”By F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., &c., Cambridge, University Press, 1884. Appendix E.188.SeeMiller's“Textual Guide,”George Bell & Sons, 1885. Also Dr. Scrivener's“Adversaria et Critica Sacra”(not yet published).—Postscript.189.Reuss (p. 56) excepts Matt. ix. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 13; Philem. 6, where Walton prefers the Complutensian reading.190.Nos. 2 and 3 had been partially used by Beza (American Additions, p. 50).191.If Ussher lacked severe accuracy in collating his manuscripts, as well as skill in deciphering them, we have not to look far for the cause. In a Life prefixed to Ussher's“Body of Divinity,”1678, p. 11, we are told that“in the winter evenings he constantly spent two hours in comparing old MSS. of the Bible, Greek and Latin, taking with his own hand thevariae lectionesof each:”on which statement Dean Burgon (Letter in theGuardian, June 28, 1882) makes the pregnant comment,“Such work carried on at seventy or more by candlelight, is pretty sure to come to grief, especially when done with a heart-ache.”192.“Sed, cum aliqui ex editoribus N. T. in analogiis discernendis nimis fortasse curiosi loca Parallela ad infinitum fere numerum auxerint, quorum alia parum definitae similitudinis, alia remotioris sunt argumenti quam quae servatis sanae interpretationis legibus possint adhiberi, satius habuimus Curcellaeum sequi, qui nec parcior est, nec nimis minutus in locis allegandis, nec dissimilia unquam aut prorsus ἀπροσδιόνυσα ad marginem locavit.”—Car. Oxon. (Bishop C. Lloyd) Monitum N. T. Oxonii, 1827.193.1 John v. 7, 8 is included in brackets. Reuss (p. 130) thinks that the text follows Elzevir 1633 everywhere else but in Luke x. 22. Mill (N. T., Proleg. § 1397) says that it was printed“ad editiones priores Elzevirianas, typis Elzevirianis nitidissimis.”194.“Stephani Curcellaei annotationes variantium lectionum, pro variantibus lectionibus non habendae, quia ille non notat codices, unde eas habeat, an ex manuscriptis, an vero ex impressis exemplaribus. Possunt etiam pro uno codice haberi.”Canon xiii. pp. 11, 69-70 of the N. T. by G. D. T. M. D. (seebelow, p.204).195.But it goes with Elz. 1624 in Mark iv. 18; 2 Tim. i. 12; Apoc. xvi. 5, and sometimes prefers the readings of Stephen 1550, e.g. Mark i. 21; vi. 29, and notably Luke ii. 22 (αὐτῶν); Luke x. 22; Rom. vii. 2; Philem. 7. Peculiarities of this edition are Εἰ δὲ for Εἶτα Heb. xii. 9; συγκληρονόμοις 1 Pet. iii. 7. Wetstein's text follows its erratum, Acts xiii. 29 ἐτέλησαν. Mill seems to say (N. T., Proleg. § 1409) that Fell's text was taken from that of Curcellaeus.196.Fell imputes the origin of various readings to causes generally recognized, adding one which does not seem very probable, that accidental slips once made were retained and propagated through a superstitious feeling of misplaced reverence, citing in illustration Apoc. xxii. 18, 19. He alleges also the well-known subscription of Irenaeus, preserved by Eusebius, which will best be considered hereafter; and remarks, with whatever truth, that contrary to the practice of the Jews and Muhammedans in regard to their sacred books, it was allowed“e vulgo quibusvis, calamo pariter et manu profanis, sacra ista [N. T.] tractare”(Praef. p. 4).197.“Considerations on the Biblia Polyglotta,”1659: to which Walton rejoined, sharply enough, in“The Considerator considered,”also in 1659.198.Dr. Hort says that“his comprehensive examination of individual documents, seldom rising above the wilderness of multitudinous details, [is] yet full of sagacious observations”(Introd. p. 180).199.As Mill's text is sometimes reprinted in England as if it were quite identical with that commonly received, it is right to note the following passages wherein it does not coincide with Stephen's of 1550, besides that it corrects his typographical errors: Matt. xx. 15; 22; xxiv. 15; Mark ix. 16; xi. 22; xv. 29; Luke vii. 12bis; x. 6; xvii. 1; John viii. 4; 25; xiii. 30-31; xix. 7; Acts ii. 36; vii. 17; xiv. 8; Rom. xvi. 11; 1 Cor. iii. 15; x. 10; xv. 28; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. iv. 25; Tit. ii. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 11; 21; iv. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 12; Apoc. ii. 5; xx. 4. Reuss (p. 149) tells us that Kuster's edition recalls the Stephanic readings in Matt. xxiv. 15; Apoc. ii. 5.200.Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Introductory Preface, p. xv.201.Ellis,ubi supra, pp. xvii-xix. TheseProposalswere also very properly reprinted by Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. lxxxvii-xcvi, 7th edition), together with the specimen chapter (Apoc. xxii). The full title was to have been:“Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ Graece. Novum Testamentum Versionis Vulgatae, per stumHieryonymum ad vetusta exemplaria Graeca castigatae et exactae. Utrumque ex antiquissimis Codd. MSS., cum Graecis tum Latinis, edidit Richardus Bentleius.”202.This is all the more lamentable, inasmuch as Bentley was not accurate enough as a collator to make it unnecessary to follow him over the same ground. Dr. Westcott confirms my own experience in this respect when in a MS. note inserted by him on a blank leaf of Trin. Coll. B. XVII. 14, he states that“Bentley's testimony, when he quotes a reading, may always be taken as true; but it is not so when he notes no variation in particular. On an average he omitsone-thirdof the variations of the MSS., without following, as far as I can discover, any law in the selection of readings.”203.Bp. John Wordsworth would vindicate both Bentley and Walker from the suspicion of lightly taking up and lightly dropping so important a task. Walker, whom Bentley, as is said, called“Clarissimus Walker,”died on Nov. 9, 1741, at the age of forty-eight.—Wordsworth, Old Biblical Texts, I. xxv. p. 65. And for the Latin and Greek Texts collated by him wholly or partially,seepp.55-63.204.He continued this work till after 1735.Seepaper found by Dr. Ince at Christ Church, quoted by Bp. J. Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xxv. note 2.205.Mr. Jebb (Life of Bentley, p. 164) imputes the failure of Bentley's grand scheme partly to the worry of litigation which harassed him from 1729 to 1738; partly to a growing sense of complexity in the problem of the text, especially after he became better acquainted with the Vatican readings, i.e. about 1720 and 1729. Reuss (p. 172) ought never to have conditioned the ultimate success of such a man by the proviso“si consilio par fuerit perseverantia.”206.“This thought has now so engaged me, and in a manner inslaved me, thatvae mihiunless I do it. Nothing but sickness (by the blessing of God) shall hinder me from prosecuting it to the end”(Bentley to Archbp. Wake, 1716: Ellis,ubi supra, p. xvi). A short article in theEdinburgh Reviewfor July, 1860, apparently from the pen of Tregelles, draws attention to“Nicolai Toinardi Harmonia Graeco-Latina,”Paris, 1707, fol. (“liber rarissimus,”Reuss, p. 167), who so far anticipates Bentley's labours, that he forms a new Greek text by the aid of two Roman manuscripts (Cod. B being one of them) and of the Latin version.207.Dr. Gregory says that though Mace's edition had no accents or soft breathing, he anticipates most of the changes accepted by some critics of the present day.208.I cannot help borrowing the language of Donaldson, used with reference to an entirely different department of study, in the opening of one of his earliest and by far his most enduring work:“It may be stated as a fact worthy of observation in the literary history of modern Europe, that generally, when one of our countrymen has made the first advance in any branch of knowledge, we have acquiesced in what he has done, and have left the further improvement of the subject to our neighbours on the continent. The man of genius always finds an utterance, for he is urged on by an irresistible impulse—a conviction that it is his duty and vocation to speak: but we too often want those who shall follow in his steps, clear up what he has left obscure, and complete his unfinished labours”(New Cratylus, p. 1). Dr. Gregory quotes against Dr. Scrivener, Mace (1729), Bowyer, a follower of Wetstein (1763), Harwood (1776), besides Whitby, Middleton, and Twells: but Dr. S. looked for greater names, and till Middleton, a more advancing study.209.The full title is“'Ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη. Novum Testamentum Graecum ita adornatum ut Textus probatarum editionum medullam, Margo variantium lectionum in suas classes distributarum locorumque parellelorum delectum, Apparatus subjunctus criseos sacrae Millianae praesertim compendium limam supplementum ac fructum exhibeat, inserviente J. A. B.”210.They consist of seven Augsburg codices (Aug.1 = Evan. 83;Aug.2 = Evan. 84;Aug.3 = Evan. 85;Aug.4 = Evst. 24;Aug.5 = Paul. 54;Aug.6 = Act. 46;Aug.7 = Apoc. 80);Poson.= Evan. 86; extracts sent by Isel from three Basle copies (Bas.α = Evan. E;Bas.β = Evan. 2;Bas.γ = Evan. 1);Hirsaug.= Evan. 97;Mosc.= Evan. V; extracts sent by F. C. Gross. To these add Uffenbach's three,Uffen.2 or 1 = Paul. M;Uffen.1 or 2 = Act. 45;Uffen.3 = Evan. 101.211.It is worth while to quote at length Bengel's terse and vigorous statement of his principle:“Posset variarum lectionum ortus, per singulos codices, per paria codicum, per syzygias minores majoresque, per familias, tribus, nationesque illorum, investigari et repraesentari; et inde propinquitates discessionesque codicum ad schematismos quosdam reduci, et schematismorum aliquae concordantiae fieri; atque ita res tota per tabulam quandam quasi genealogicam oculis subjici, ad quam tabulam quaelibet varietas insignior cum agmine suorum codicum, ad convincendos etiam tardissimos dubitatores exigeretur. Magnam conjectanea nostra sylvam habent: sed manum de tabulâ, ne risuum periculo exponatur veritas. Bene est, quod praetergredi montem hunc, et planiore via pervenire datur ad codices discriminandos. Datur autem per hanc regulam aequissimam: Quo saepius non modo singuli codices, sed etiam syzygiae minores eorum vel majores, in aberrationes manifestas tendunt; eo levius ferunt testimonium in discrepantiis difficilioribus, eoque magis lectio ab eis deserta, tanquam genuina retineri debet”(N. T., Apparat. Crit., p. 387).212.See a eulogistic yet discriminating discussion upon Bengel inBengel als Gelehrter, ein Bild für unsere Tage, from the eminent pen of Dr. Nestle, which has been courteously sent to the editor through the Rev. H. J. White.213.The opposition of Frey and his other adversaries delayed thatopus magnumfor twenty years (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. p. 218).214.We here reckon separately, as we believe is both usual and convenient, every distinct portion of the N. T. contained in a manuscript. Thus Codd. C and 69 Evan. will each count for four.215.Errors of Wetstein's text will be found in John xi. 31; Acts i. 26; xiii. 29 ἐτέλησαν, from the Oxford N. T. 1675, though Wetstein himself remarks this. He corrects a few obvious misprints of Elzevir 1633, but his note shows that he does notintendto read τῷ in Mark vi. 29. The following seem to be deliberate variations from the Elzevir text: Matt. xiii. 15; xxi. 41; Mark xiv. 54; Luke ii. 22; xi. 12; xiii. 19; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. iii. 5; 1 Tim. iii. 2, 11 (yet not Tit. ii. 2); Philem. 7; 1 Pet. i. 3; iii. 7. All these deliberate variations are found in Von Mastricht's edition of 1735, which seems to have been used by Wetstein as the basis of his text; and in all of them (except Matt. xxi. 41; Luke xi. 12, and Phil. iii. 5) Fell's text agrees with Wetstein's. In Matt. xiii. 15; Mark xiv. 54; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 7, the Elzevir editions vary. (American Additions and Corrections, p. 51.) He spells ναζαρέτ uniformly, except in John i. 46, 47. Reuss (p. 183) adds nine changes made by Wetstein in the text for critical reasons: Matt. viii. 28; Luke xi. 2; John vii. 53-viii. 11; Acts v. 36; xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 16 (δ); Apoc. iii. 2; x. 4; xviii. 17.216.One other specimen of Matthaei's critical skill will suffice: he is speaking of his Cod. H, which is our Evst. 50.“Hic Codex scriptus est literis quadratis, estque eorum omnium, qui adhuc in Europa innotuerunt et vetustissimus et praestantissimus. Insanus quidem fuerit, qui cum hoc aut Cod. V [p. 144] comparare, aut aequiparare voluerit Codd. Alexandr. Clar. Germ. Boern. Cant. [Evan. AD, Paul. ADEG], qui sine ullo dubio pessimè ex scholiis et Versione Latinâ Vulgatâ interpolati sunt”(N. T., Tom. ix. p. 254).217.In using Matthaei's N. T. the following index of manuscripts first collated by him will be found useful: a = Evan. 259, Act. 98 (a 1), Paul. 113 (a or a 2), Apost. 82 (a 3): B = Evst. 47: b = Apost. 13: c = Act. 99, Paul. 114, Evst. 48: d = Evan. 237, Act. 100, Paul. 115: e = Evan. 238, Apost. 14: f = Act. 101, Paul. 116, Evst. 49: g = Evan. 239, Act. 102, Paul. 117: H = Evst. 50: h = Act. 103, Paul. 118: i = Evan. 240, Paul. 119: k = Evan. 241, Act. 104, Paul. 120, Apoc. 47: l = Evan. 242, Act. 105, Paul. 121, Apoc. 48: m = Evan. 243, Act. 106, Paul. 122: n = Evan. 244, Paul. 123: o = Evan. 245, Apoc. 49: p = Evan. 246, Apoc. 50: q = Evan. 247, Paul. 124: r = Evan. 248, also Apoc. 502, Apoc. 90: s = Evan. 249, Paul. 76: t = Apoc. 32, Evst. 51: tz = Apost. 15: V = V: v = Evan. 250, Apost. 5: x = Evan. 251, Act. 69, Paul. 74, Apoc. 30 (from Knittel); z = Evan. 252: 10 = Evan. 253: 11 = Evan. 254: 12 = Evan. 255: 14 = Evan. 256: 15 = O, 16 = Evst. 56, Apost. 20: 17 = Evan. 258: 18 = Evan. 99: 19 = Evst. 57: 20 = Evan. 89: ξ = Evst. 52, Apost. 16: χ = Evst. 53, Apost. 17: ψ = Evst. 54, Apost. 18: ω = Evst. 55, Apost. 19: Frag. Vet. = part of H: Gpaul. It should be noted, that in several of these cases different MSS. are included under one letter: e.g. c = Evst. 48 is a different MS. from c = Act. 99.218.The copies of Chrysostom's homilies on the Gospels freshly collated by this editor are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ, λ, μ, π, ρ, φ: those on St. Paul's Epistles are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, α, β.219.Reuss (p. 207) calculates that, besides misprints, Matthaei's second and very inferior edition differs in text from his first in but twenty-four places, none of them being in the Gospels.220.“Textui ad Millianum expresso”says Reuss (p. 151), which is not quite the same thing:seep.203, note 2.221.“Conscius sum mihi, me omnem et diligentiam et intentionem adhibuisse, ut haec editio quam emendatissima in manus eruditorum perveniret, utque in hoc opere, in quo ingenio non fuit locus, curae testimonium promererem; nulla tamen mihi est fiducia, me omnia, quae exigi possint, peregisse. Vix enim potest esse ulla tam perpetua legentis intentio, quae non obtutu continuo fatigetur, praesertim in tali genere, quod tam multis, saepe parvis, observationibus constat.”(Lecturis Editor, p. v. 1788.) Well could I testify to the truth of these last words!222.“Symbolae Criticae ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum N. T. lectionum Collectiones. Accedit multorum N. T. Codicum Graecorum descriptio et examen.”223.Yet Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. xcvii, 7th ed.) states that he only added two readings (Mark vi. 2, 4) to those given by Wetstein for Cod. C. From Cod. D too he seems to have taken only one reading, and that erroneously, επηγειραν, Acts xiv. 2.224.In the London edition of 1809 ἄλλοι is printed for the first οὗτοί, Mark iv. 18. Griesbach also omits καί in 2 Pet. i. 15: no manuscript except Cod. 182 (ascr) is known to do so.225.“Dissertatio critica de Codicibus quatuor Evangeliorum Origenianis,”Halae, 1771:“Curae in historiam textus Graeci epistolarum Paulinarum,”Jenae, 1777.226.“Commentarius Criticus in textum Gr. N. T.,”Part i. 1798; Part ii. 1811.227.The following specimen of a reading,possessing no internal excellence, preferred or favoured by Griesbach on the slightest evidence, will serve to illustrate the dangerous tendency of his system, had it been consistently acted upon throughout. In Matt. xxvii. 4 for ἀθῶον he indicates the mere gloss δίκαιον as equal or preferable (though in hislatermanual edition of 1805 he marks it as an inferior reading), on the authority of thelatermargin of Cod. B, of Cod. L, the Sahidic Armenian, and Latin versions and Fathers, and Origen in four places (ἀθῶον once). He adds the Syriac, but this is an error as regards the Peshitto or Harkleian; the Jerusalem may countenance him; though in such a case the testimony of versions is precarious on either side. Here, however, Griesbach defends δίκαιον against all likelihood, because BL and Origen are Alexandrian, the Latin versions Western.228.Reuss (p. 198) calculates that in his second edition out of Reuss' thousand chosen passages Griesbach stands with the Elzevir text in 648, sides with other editions in 293, has fifty-nine peculiar to himself. The second differs from the first edition (1774-5) in about fifty places only.229.Laurence, in the Appendix to his“Remarks,”shows that while Cod. A agrees with Origen against the received text in 154 places, and disagrees with the two united in 140, it sides with the received text against Origen in no less than 444 passages.230.David Schulz published at Berlin, 1827, 8vo, a third and much improved edition of his N. T., vol. i (Gospels), containing also collations of certain additional manuscripts, unknown to Griesbach.231.One of Porter's examples is almost amusing. It was Scholz's constant habit to copy Griesbach's lists of critical authorities (errors, misprints, and all) without giving the reader any warning that they were not the fruit of his own labours. The note he borrowed from Griesbach on 1 Tim. iii. 16, contains the words“uti docuimus in Symbolis Criticis:”this too Scholz appropriates (Tom. ii. p. 334, col. 2) so as to claim the“Symbolae Criticae”of the Halle Professor as his own! See also p. 217, Evan. 365; p. 253, Act. 86, and Tischendorf's notes on Acts xix. 25; 2 Pet. i. 15 (N. T., eighth edition). His very text must have been set up by Griesbach's. Thus, since the latter, by a mere press error, omitted με in 2 Cor. ii. 13, Scholz not only follows him in the omission, but cites in his note a few cursives in which he had met with με, a word really absent from no known copy. In Heb. ix. 5 again, both editors in error prefix τῆς to δόξης. Scholz's inaccuracy in the description of manuscripts which he must have had before him when he was writing is most wearisome to those who have had to trace his steps, and to verify, or rather to falsify, his statements. He has half filled our catalogues with duplicates and codices which are not Greek or are not Biblical at all. After correcting not a few of his misrepresentations of books in the libraries at Florence, Burgon breaks out at last:“What else but calamitous is it to any branch of study that it should have been prosecuted by such an incorrigible blunderer, a man so abominably careless as this?”(Guardian, Aug. 27, 1873.)232.Some of these statements are discussed in Scrivener's“Collation of the Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels,”Introd. pp. lxix-lxxi.233.The following is thewholeof this notice, which we reprint after Tregelles' example:“De ratione et consilio hujus editionis loco commodiore expositum est (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1830, pp. 817-845). Hic satis erit dixisse, editorem nusquam judicium suum, sed consuetudinem antiquissimarum orientis ecclesiarum secutum esse. Hanc quoties minus constantem fuisse animadvertit, quantum fieri potuit quae Italorum et Afrorum consensu comprobarentur praetulit: ubi pervagatam omnium auctorum discrepantiam deprehendit, partim uncis partim in marginibus indicavit. Quo factum est ut vulgatae et his proximis duobus saeculisreceptae lectionisratio haberi non posset. Haec diversitas hic in fine libri adjecta est, quoniam ea res doctis judicibus necessaria esse videbatur.”Here we have one of Lachmann's leading peculiarities—his absolute disregard of the received readings—hinted at in an incidental manner: the influence he was disposed to accord to the Latin versions when his chief authorities were at variance is pretty clearly indicated: but no one would guess that by the“custom of the oldest Churches of the East”he intends the few very ancient codices comprising Griesbach's Alexandrian class, and not the great mass of authorities, gathered from the Churches of Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople, of which that critic's Byzantine family was made up.234.These aredfor Cod. Bezae,efor Cod. Laud. 35,fbeing Lachmann's notation for Paul. Cod. D, asffis for Paul. Cod. E (whose Latin translation is cited independently),gfor Paul. Cod. G.235.We must now except the seventh century corrector of Cod. א called by Tischendorf Ca, who actually changes the original reading εκδ. into ενδ., to be himself set right by a later hand Cb. This is one out of many proofs of something more than an accidental connexion between Codd. א and B at a remote period.Seevol. i. p. 96, and note.236.In dedicating the third volume of his“Monumenta sacra inedita”in 1860 to the Theological Faculty at Leyden, Tischendorf states that he took to these studies twenty-three years before, that is, at about twenty-two years of age.237.Tischendorf left almost no papers behind him. Hence the task of writing Prolegomena to his eighth edition, gallantly undertaken by two American scholars, Dr. Caspar René Gregory of Leipzig, and Dr. Ezra Abbot of Cambridge, U. S., but for their own independent researches, might seem to resemble that of making bricks without straw.238.Through his haste to publish Cod. E of the Acts, in which design he feared to be forestalled by a certain Englishman, Tischendorf postponed to it vols. vii and viii, which he did not live to resume. Oscar von Gebhardt, now of Berlin, will complete vol. vii; Caspar René Gregory hopes to do what is possible for vol. viii.239.For further information respecting this indefatigable scholar and his labours we may refer to a work published at Leipzig in 1862,“Constantin Tischendorf in seiner fünfundzwanzigjährigen schriftstellerischen wirksamkeit. Literar-historische skizze von Dr. Joh. Ernst Volbeding.”I have also seen, by Dr. Ezra Abbot's courtesy, his paper in theUnitarian Review, March, 1875.240.A pamphlet of thirty-six pages appeared late in 1860,“Additions to the Fourth Volume of the Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,”&c., by S. P. T. Most of this industrious writer's other publications are not sufficiently connected with the subject of the present volume to be noticed here, but as throwing light upon the literary history of Scripture we may mention his edition of the“Canon Muratorianus,”liberally printed for him in 1867 by the Delegates of the Oxford University Press. Burgon, however, on comparing Tregelles' book with the document itself at Milan, cannot overmuch laud his minute correctness (Guardian, Feb. 5, 1873). Isaac H. Hall made the same comparison at Milan and confirms Burgon's judgement. The custodian of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, the famous Ceriani, had nothing to do with the work or with the lithograph facsimile.241.As a whole it may be pronounced very accurate as well as beautiful, with the conspicuous drawback that the Greek accents are so ill represented as to show either strange ignorance or utter indifference about them on the part of the person who revised the sheets for the press.242.He gave the same assurance to A. Earle, D.D., Bishop of Marlborough, assigning as his reason the results of the study of the Greek N. T.243.Dr. Hort (Introd. p. 277) hardly goes so far as this:“Those,”he says,“who propose remedies which cannot possibly avail are not thereby shown to have been wrong in the supposition that remedies were needed; and a few have been perhaps too quickly forgotten.”244.I hope that the change made in the wording of the above sentence from what stood in the first edition will satisfy my learned and acute critic, Mr. Linwood (Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to the New Testament, 1873, p. 9, note); although I fear that the difference between us is in substance as wide as ever. At the same time I would hardly rest the main stress of the argument where Dr. Roberts does when he says that“conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field, &c., simply because all sober critics feel that there is no need for it”(Words of the N. T., p. 24). There are texts, no doubt, some of those for example which Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort have branded with a marginal [+] in their edition; e.g. Acts vii. 46; xiii. 32; xix. 40; xxvi. 28; Rom. viii. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 2 (where Eph. ii. 11 might suggest ὅτι ποτέ); 1 Tim. vi. 7, and especially in the kindred Epistles, 2 Pet. iii. 10; 12; Jude 5; 22, 23, wherein, whether from internal difficulties or from the actual state of the external evidence, we should be very glad of more light than our existing authorities will lend us. What I most urge is the plain fact, that the conjectures, even of able and accomplished men, have never been such as to approve themselves to any but their authors, much less to commend themselves to the judgement of scholars as intuitively true.245.Bentley, the last great critic who paid much regard to conjectural emendations, promised in his Prospectus of 1720 that“If the author has anything to suggest towards a change of the text, not supported by any copies now extant, he will offer it separate in his Prolegomena.”It is really worth while to turn over Wm. Bowyer's“Critical Conjectures and Observations on the N. T.,”or the summary of them contained in Knappe's N. T. of 1797, if only to see the utter fruitlessness of the attempt to illustrate Scripture by ingenious exercise of the imagination. The best (e.g.συναλιζομένοις Acts i. 4; πορκείας for πορνείαςibid.xv. 20, 29), no less than the most tasteless and stupid (e.g.νηνεμίαν for νηστείαν Acts xxvii. 9), in the whole collection, are hopelessly condemned by the deep silence of a host of authorities which have since come to light. Nor are Mr. Linwood's additions to the over-copious list likely to fare much better. Who but himself will think πρώτη in Luke ii. 2 corrupted through the intermediate πρώτει from πρώτω ἔτει (ubi suprap.5); or that τὰ πολλά in Rom. xv. 22 ought to be ἐτη πολλά (p. 13)? Add to this, that he gives up existing readings much too easily, even where his emendations are more plausible than the foregoing, as when he would adopt ὅς ἄν for ὅταν in John viii. 44 (p. 6); and this is perhaps his best attempt. His worst surely is ΟΣ forΘΣ(θεός) Rom. ix. 5, which could not be endured unless ἐστιν followed ὅς, as it does in the very passage (Rom. i. 25) which he cites in illustration (p. 13).246.“vii.Inter duas variantes lectiones, si quae est εὐφωνότερος aut planior aut Graecantior, alteri non protinus praeferenda est, sed contra saepius.VIII.Lectio exhibens locutionem minus usitatam, sed alioqui subjectae materiae convenientem, praeferenda est alteri, quae, cum aeque conveniens sit, tamen phrasim habet minus insolentem, usuque magis tritam.”Wetstein's whole tract,“Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum N. T. necessariae”(N. T., vol. ii. pp. 851-874) deserves attentive study. See also the 43 Canones Critici and their Confirmatio in N. T. of G. D. T. M. D.247.So even Dr. Roberts, whose sympathies on the whole would not be the same as the Bishop of Lincoln's:“Of course occasions might occur on which, from carelessness or oversight, a transcriber would render a sentence obscure or ungrammatical which was clear and correct in his exemplar; but it is manifest that, so far as intentional alteration was concerned, the temptation all lay in the opposite direction”(“Words of the New Testament,”p. 7). So again speaks E. G. Punchard on James iii. 3 in Bp. Ellicott's Commentary,“The supporters of such curious corrections argue that the less likely is the more so; and thus every slip of a copyist, either in grammar or spelling, becomes more sacred in their eyes than is the Received text with believers in verbal inspiration.”Sir Edmund Beckett (“Should the Revised New Testament be Authorised?”1882) writes in so scornful a spirit as to neutralize the effects on a reader's mind of his native acuteness and common sense, but he deals well with the argument“that an improbable reading is more likely right, because nobody would have invented it.”“I suppose,”he rejoins,“an accidental piece of carelessness can produce an improbable and absurd error in copying as well as a probable one.”(p. 7.)248.In his seventh edition, not in his eighth.249.One other example to illustrate this rule, so difficult in its practical use, may be added from Alford on Mark ii. 22, where the reading καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί (whether the verse end or not in these words) appears to have been the original form, since“it fully explains all the others, either as emendations of construction, or corrections from parallel places.”The reader may apply this canon, if he pleases, to Aristotle, Ethic. iv. 9, in selecting between the three different readings ὀκνηροί or νωθροί or νοεροί to close the sentence οὐ μὴν ἠλίθιοί γε οἱ τοιοῦτοι δοκοῦσιν εἶναι, ἀλλα μᾶλλον ... having careful reference to the context in which it stands: or to the easier case of καίτοιγε and its variations in Acts xvii. 27: or to Rom. viii. 24, where the first hand of B and the margin of Cod. 47 (very expressly), by omitting τί καί, appear to present the original text.250.“Though the theory of explanatory interpolations of marginal glosses into the text of the N. T. has been sometimes carried too far (e.g. byWassenbergin‘Valcken.’Schol. in N. T., Tom. i), yet probably this has been the most fertile source of error in some MSS. of the Sacred Volume.”(Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, N. T., on 2 Cor. iii. 3.) Yes, insomeMSS.251.On this passage Canon Liddon justly says,“The question may still perhaps be asked ... whether here, as elsewhere, the presumption that copyists were always anxious to alter the text of the New Testament in theological interests, is not pressed somewhat excessively”(Bampton Lectures, 1866, p. 467, note).252.Griesbach's“etiam manifestò falsas”can allude only to 1 John v. 7, 8; yet it is a strong point against the authenticity of that passage that it isnotcited by Greek writers, who did not find it in their copies, but only by the Latins who did.253.The clause might have been derived from Gen. ii. 23, yet the evidence against it is strong and varied (אAB, 17, 67, Bohair., &c.).254.Alford's onlydefiniteexample (and that derived from Wetstein, N. T., vol. ii. p. 11) is found but in a single cursive (4) in Rom. xiv. 17, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις, ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνηκαὶ ἄσκησιςκαὶ εἰρήνη. Tregelles (An Account of Printed Text, p. 222) adds 1 Cor. vii. 5; Act. x. 30; Rom. xii. 13 (!) More to their purpose, perhaps, if we desired to help them on, would be the suspected addition of καὶ νηστείᾳ in Mark ix. 29, and of the whole verse in the parallel place Matt. xvii. 21; the former being brought into doubt on the very insufficient authority of Codd. א (by the first hand) Β, of the beautiful Latin copykfrom Bobbio, and by reason of the silence of Clement of Alexandria: the latter on the evidence of the same Greek manuscripts (kbeing defective) with Cod. 33, both (?) Egyptian, the Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac, the Latineff1, some forms of the Ethiopic version, and from the absence of the Eusebian canon, which ought to have referred us to the parallel place in St. Mark, whereas that verse is assigned to thetenthcanon. In the face of such readings of אΒ it is hard to understand the grounds of Mr. Darby's vague suspicion that they“bear the marks of having been in ecclesiastical hands.”(N. T., Preface, p. 3.)255.See (6), (7), (17), (18). The uncial characters most liable to be confounded by scribes (p. 10) are ΑΔΛ, ΕΣ, ΟΘ, ΝΠ, and less probably ΓΙΤ. An article in a foreign classical periodical, written by Professor Cobet, the co-editor of the Leyden reprint of the N. T. portion of Cod. B, unless regarded as a merejeu d'esprit, would serve to prove that the race of conjectural emendators is not so completely extinct as (before Mr. Linwood's pamphlet) I had supposed. By a dexterous interchange of letters of nearly the same form (Δ for Α, Ε for Σ, Ι for Τ, Σ for Ε, κ for ΙΣ, Τ for Ι) this modern Bentley—and he well deserves the name—suggests for ΑΣΤΕΙΟΣ τῷ θεῷ Act. vii. 20 [compare Heb. xi. 23] the common-place ΔΕΚΤΟΣ τῷ θεῷ, from Act. x. 35. Each one of thesixnecessary changes Cobet profusely illustrates by examples, and even the reverse substitution of δεκτός for ἀστεῖος from Alciphron: but in the absence of all manuscript authority for the very smallest of these several permutations in Act. vii. 20, he excites in us no other feeling than a sort of grudging admiration of his misplaced ingenuity. In the same spirit he suggests ΗΔΕΙΟΝΑ for ΠΛΕΙΟΝΑ, Heb. xi. 4; while in 1 Cor. ii. 4 for ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας λόγοις he simply reads ἐν πειθοῖ σοφίας, the σ which begins σοφίας having become accidentally doubled and λόγοις subsequently added to explain πειθοῖς, which he holds to be no Greek word at all: it seems indeed to be met with nowhere else. Dr. Hort's comment on this learned trifling is instructive:“Though it cannot be said that recent attempts in Holland to revive conjectural criticism for the N. T. have shown much felicity of suggestion, they cannot be justly condemned on the ground of principle”(Introd., p. 277).256.Thus Canon I of this chapter includes (12), (19): Canon III includes (2), (3), (4), (8), (9), (10); while (13) comes under Canon IV; (20) under Canon VI.257.“Canon Criticus”xxiv, N. T., by G. D. T. M. D., p. 12, 1735.258.Dean Burgon cites (Revision Revised, pp. 359, 360)“no less than thirty ancient witnesses.”259.'The precept, if we omit the phrase, is in striking harmony with the at first sight sharp, extreme, almost paradoxical character of various other precepts of the“Sermon on the Mount.”Milligan, Words of the N. T., p. 111.260.Very similar in point of moral feeling is the variation between ὀλιγοπιστίαν, the gentler, intrinsically perhaps the more probable, and ἀπιστίαν, the more emphatic term, in Matt. xvii. 20. Both must have been current in the second century, the former having the support of Codd. אB, 13, 22, 33, 124, 346 [hiat69], the Curetonian Syriac (and that too against Cod. D), both Egyptian, the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, Origen, Chrysostom (very expressly, although his manuscripts vary), John Damascene, but of the Latins Hilary alone. All the rest, including Codd. CD, the Peshitto Syriac, and the Latins among first class witnesses, maintain ἀπιστίαν of the common text.261.Perhaps I may refer to my“Textual Guide,”p. 120. The utmost caution should be employed in the use of this kind of evidence: perhaps nowhere else do authorities differ so much.—Ed.262.E.g. Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, v. 30. 1, for which see below, p.261: the early date renders this testimony most weighty.263.In deference to Lardner and others, who have supposed that Ignatius refers to the sacred autographs, we subjoin the sentence in dispute. Ἐπεὶ ἤκουσά τινων λεγόντων, ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις εὕρω, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ πιστεύω; καὶ λέγοντός μου αὐτοῖς, ὅτι γέγραπται, ἀπεκρίθησάν μοι, ὅτι πρόκειται. Ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀρχεῖά ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός κ.τ.λ. (Ad Philadelph. c. 8.) On account of ἀρχεῖα in the succeeding clause, ἀρχείοις has been suggested as a substitute for the manuscript reading ἀρχαίοις, and so the interpolators of the genuine Epistle have actually written. But without denying that a play on the words was designed between ἀρχαίοις and ἀρχεῖα, both copies of the Old Latin version maintain the distinction made in the Medicean Greek (“si non in veteribus invenio”and“Mihi autem principium est Jesus Christus”), and any difficulty as to the sense lies not in ἀρχαίοις but in πρόκειται. Chevallier's translation of the passage is perfectly intelligible,“Because I have heard some say, Unless I find it in the ancient writings, I will not believe in the Gospel. And when I said to them,‘It is written [in the Gospel],’they answered me,‘It is found written before [in the Law].’”Gainsayers set the first covenant in opposition to the second and better one.264.Thus Dr. Westcott understands the term, citing from Tertullian, De Monogamia, xi:“sciamus planè non sic esse in Graeco authentico.”Dean Burgon refers us to Routh's“Opuscula,”vol. i. pp. 151 and 206.265.Compare too Jerome's expression“ipsa authentica”(Comment. in Epist. ad Titum), when speaking of the autographs of Origen's Hexapla: below, p.263.266.The view I take is Coleridge's (Table Talk, p. 89, 2nd ed.).“I beg Tertullian's pardon; but among his manybravuras, he says something about St. Paul's autograph. Origen expressly declares the reverse;”referring, I suppose, to the passage cited below, p.263. Bp. Kaye, the very excellence of whose character almost unfitted him for entering into the spirit of Tertullian, observes:“Since the whole passage is evidently nothing more than a declamatory mode of stating the weight which he attached to the authority of the Apostolic Churches; to infer from it that the very chairs in which the Apostles sat, or that the very Epistles which they wrote, then actually existed at Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, &c., would be only to betray a total ignorance of Tertullian's style”(Kaye's“Ecclesiastical History ... illustrated from the writings of Tertullian,”p. 313, 2nd ed.). Just so: the autographs were no more in those cities than the chairs were: but it suited the purpose of the moment to suppose that they were extant; and,knowing nothing to the contrary, he boldly sends the reader in search of them.267.I do not observe, as some have thought, that Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. v. 10) intimates that the copy of St. Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew letters, left by St. Bartholomew in India, was the Evangelist's autograph; and the fancy that St. Mark wrote with his own hand the Latin fragments now at Venice (for.) is worthy of serious notice. The statement twice made in the“Chronicon Paschale,”of Alexandria, compiled in the seventh century,but full of ancient fragments, that ὡσεὶ τριτὴ was the true reading of John xix. 14“καθὼς τὰ ἀκριβῆ βιβλία περιέχει, αὐτό τε τὸ ἰδιόχειρον τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ ὅπερ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν πεφύλακται χάριτι Θεοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐφεσίων ἁγιωτάτῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν πιστῶν ἐκεῖσε προσκυνεῖται”(Dindorf, Chron. Pasch., pp. 11 and 411), is simply incredible. Isaac Casaubon, however, a most unimpeachable witness, says that this passage, and another which he cites, were found by himself in a fine fragment of the Paschal treatise of“Peter Bp. of Alexandria and martyr”[d. 311], which he got from Andrew Damarius, a Greek merchant or calligrapher (Pattison, Life of Is. Casaubon, p. 38). Casaubon adds to the assertion of Peter“Hec ille. Ego non ignoro quid adversus hanc sententiam possit disputari: de quo judicium esto eruditorum”(Exercit. in Annal. Eccles. pp. 464, 670, London, 1614).268.“I have no doubt,”says Tischendorf,“that in the very earliest ages after our Holy Scriptures were written, and before the authority of the Church protected them, wilful alterations, and especially additions, were made in them,”English N. T., 1869, Introd. p. xv.269.Caius (175-200) in Routh's“Reliquiae,”ii. 125, quoted in Burgon's“Revision Revised,”p. 323.270.“Necdum quoque Marcion Ponticus de Ponto emersisset, cujus magister Cerdon sub Hygino tunc episcopo, qui in Urbe nonus fuit, Romam venit: quem Marcion secutus...”Cyprian., Epist. 74. Cf. Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 10, 11.271.Dean Burgon attributes more importance to Marcion's mutilations.Seee.g.“The Revision Revised,”pp. 34-35.272.In 1 Cor. x. 9 Marcion seems to uphold the true reading against the judgement of Epiphanius: ὁ δὲ μαρκίων ἀντὶ τοῦκνχνἐποίησεν. Consult also Bp. Lightfoot's note (Epistle to the Colossians, p. 336, n. 1) on Heracleon's variation of πέντε for ἓξ in John ii. 20.“There is no reason to think,”he says,“that Heracleon falsified the text here; he appears to have found this various reading already in his copy.”273.SeeChap.XIon Acts xxvii. 37.274.Irenaeus' anxiety that his own works should be kept free from corruption, and the value attached by him to the labours of the corrector, are plainly seen in a remarkable subscription preserved by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. v. 20), which illustrates what has been said above, Ὁρκίζω σε τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βίβλιον τοῦτο, κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἧς ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλλῃς ὃ μετεγράψω, καὶ κατορθώσῃς αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸ ἀντίγραφον τοῦτο, ὅθεν μετεγράψω ἐπιμελῶς, καὶ τὸν ὅρκον τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψῃς, καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφῳ. Here the copyist (ὁ μεταγραφόμενος) is assumed to be the same person as the reviser or corrector. Mr. Linwood also (ubi supra, p.11) illustrates from Martial (Lib. vii. Epigram. x) the reader's natural wish to possess an author's original manuscript rather than a less perfect copy:Qui visarchetypashabere nugas. A still stronger illustration of the passage in Irenaeus (v. 30) is Linwood's citation of a well-known passage in Aulus Gellius, a contemporary of that Father, wherein he discusses with Higinus the corrupt variationamaroforamarorin Virgil, Geor. ii. 247 (Noctes Atticae, Lib. i. cap. 21).275.Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ κληθήσονται; ἤ, ὥς τινες τῶν μετατιθέντων τὰ Εὐαγγέλια, Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ὑπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἔσονται τέλειοι; καί, μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκα ἐμοῦ, ὅτι ἔξουσι τόπον ὅπου οὐ διωχθήσονται (Stromata, iv. 6). Tregelles (Horne, p. 39, note 2) pertinently remarks that Clement, in the very act of censuring others, subjoins the close of Matt. v. 9 to v. 10, and elsewhere himself ventures on liberties no less extravagant, as when he thus quotes Matt. xix. 24 (or Luke xviii. 25): πειστέον οὖν πολλῷ μᾶλλον τῇ γραφῇ λεγούσῃ, Θᾶττον κάμηλον διὰ τρυπήματος βελόνης διελεύσεσθαι, ἢ πλούσιον φιλοσοφεῖν (Stromata, ii. 5).276.In this place (contrary to what might have been inferred from the language of Irenaeus, cited above, p.262, note 2) the copyist (γραφεύς) is clearly distinct from the corrector (διορθωτής), who either alters the words that stand in the text, or adds to and subtracts from them. In Cobet's masterly Preface to his own and Kuenen's“N. T. ad fidem Cod. Vaticani,”Leyden, 1860, pp. xxvii-xxxiv, will be found most of the passages we have used that bear on the subject, with the following from classical writers,“Nota est Strabonis querela xiii. p. 609 de bibliopolis, qui libros edebant γραφεῦσι φαύλοις χρώμενοι, καὶ οὐκ ἀντιβάλλοντες... Sic in Demosthenis Codice Monacensi ad finem Orationis xi annotatum est Διωρθώθη πρὸς δύο Ἀττικιανά, id est,correctus est(hic liber)ex duobus codicibus ab Attico(nobili calligrapho)descriptis.”Just as at the end of each of Terence's plays the manuscripts read“Calliopius recensui.”277.No doubt certain that are quite or almost peculiar to Cod. D would deserve consideration if they were not destitute of adequate support. Some may be inclined to think the words cited above in vol. I. p. 8 not unworthy of Him to whom they are ascribed. The margin of the Harkleian Syriac alone countenances D in that touching appendage to Acts viii. 24, which every one must wish to be genuine, ος πολλα κλαιων ου διελυ[ι]μπανεν. Several minute facts are also inserted by D in the latter part of the same book, which are more likely to rest on traditional knowledge than to be mere exercises of an idle fancy. Such are απο ωρας ε εως δεκατης annexed to the end of Acts xix. 9: και Μυρα to Acts xxi. 1; the former of which is also found in Cod. 137 and the Harkleian margin; the latter in the Sahidic and one or two Latin copies.278.Considering that Cod. D and the Latin manuscripts contain the variation in Luke iii. 22, but not in Matt. iii. 17, we ought not to doubt that Justin Martyr (p. 331 B, ed. Paris, 1636) and Clement (p. 113, ed. Potter) refer to the former. Hence Bp. Kaye (Account of the Writings of Clement, p. 410) should not have produced this passage among others to show (what in itself is quite true) that“Clement frequently quotes from memory.”279.This point is exceedingly well stated by Canon Cook (Revised Version of the first three Gospels, p. 176):“I will not dwell upon indications of Arian tendencies. They are not such as we should be entitled to rely upon.... Eusebius was certainly above the suspicion of consciously introducing false statements or of obliterating true statements. As was the case with many supporters of the high Arian party, which came nearest to the sound orthodox faith, Eusebius was familiar with all scriptural texts which distinctly ascribe to our Lord the divine attributes and the divine name, and was far more likely to adopt an explanation which coincided with his own system, than to incur the risk of exposure and disgrace by obliterating or modifying them in manuscripts which would be always open to public inspection.”280.“This is possible, though there is no proof of it,”is Professor Abbot's comment (ubi supra, p.190, butseeabove, vol. i. p. 118, note 2).281.In the“Notitia Editionis Cod. Sin.,”1860. They are Matt. xxvii. 64-xxviii. 20; Mark i. 1-35; Luke xxiv. 24-53; John xxi. 1-25. Other like calculations, with much the same result, are given in Scrivener's“Cod. Sin.,”Introd. pp. xlii, xliii.282.And that too hardly to the credit of either of them.“Ought it not,”asks Dean Burgon,“sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value of their evidence to discover thatit is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree?... On every such occasion only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these perpetual inconsistencies between Codd. B and 8—grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross ones—altogether destroy my confidence in either?”(Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp. 77-8.)283.Magnus siquidem hic in nostris codicibus error inolevit, dum quod in eadem re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio, quia minus putaverint, addiderunt. Vel dum eundem sensum alius aliter expressit, ille qui unum e quatuor primum legerat, ad ejus exemplum ceteros quoque existimaverit emendandos.Unde accidit ut apud nos mixta sint omnia(Praef. ad Damasum).284.The precise references may be seen in Tischendorf's, and for the most part more exactly in Tregelles' N. T. That on Matt. xxiv. 36 is Tom. vii. p. 199, or vi. p. 54; on Galat. iii. 1 is Tom. vii. pp. 418, 487.285.See our note on Luke xxii. 44 below in Chap.XI. This same writer testifies to a practice already partially employed, of using breathings, accents, and stops in copies of Holy Scripture. Ἐπειδὴ δέ τινες κατὰ προσῳδίαν ἔστιζαν τὰς γραφὰς καὶ περὶ τῶν προσῳδῶν τάδε: ὀξεῖα ᾽, δασεῖα ᾽, βαρεῖα ᾽, ψιλὴ ᾽, περισπωμένη ᾽, ἀπόστροφος ᾽, μακρὰ —, ὑφὲν ᾽, βραχεῖα ᾽, ὑποδιαστολή, Ὡσαύτως καὶ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν σημείων κ.τ.λ. (Epiphan., De Mensur., c. 2, Tom. iii. p. 237 Migne). This passage may tend to confirm the statements made above, Vol. I. pp. 45-8, respecting the presence of such marks in very ancient codices, though on the whole we may not quite vouch for Sir F. Madden's opinion as regards Cod. A.286.“Evangelia quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha.”“Evangelia quae falsavit Esitius [aliiHesychiusvelIsicius], apocrypha,”occur separately in the course of a long list of spurious books (such as the Gospels of Thaddaeus, Matthias, Peter, James, that“nomine Thomae quo utuntur Manichaei,”&c.) in Appendix iii to Gelasius' works in Migne's Patrologia, Tom. lix. p. 162 [a.d.494]. But the authenticity of those decrees is far from certain, and since we hear of these falsified Gospels nowhere else, Gelasius' knowledge of them might have been derived from what he had read in Jerome's“Praef. ad Damasum.”287.Griesbach rejoices to have Hug's assent“in eo, in quo disputationis de veteribus N. T. recensionibus cardo vertitur; nempe extitisse, inde a secundo et tertio saeculo, plures sacri textûs recensiones, quarum una, si Evangelia spectes, supersit in Codice D, altera in Codd. BCL, alia in Codd. EFGHS et quae sunt reliqua”(Meletemata, p. lxviii, prefixed to“Commentarius Criticus,”Pars ii, 1811). I suppose that Tregelles must have overlooked this decisive passage (probably the last its author wrote for the public eye) when he states that Griesbach now“virtually gave up his system”as regards the possibility of“drawing an actual line of distinction between his Alexandrian and Western recensions”(An Account of the Printed Text, p. 91). He certainly showed, throughout his“Commentarius Criticus,”that Origen does not lend him the support he had once anticipated; but he still held that the theory of a triple recension was the veryhingeon which the whole question turned, and clung to that theory as tenaciously as ever.Third Edition.Dr. Hort (N. T., Introd. p. 186) has since confirmed our opinion that Griesbach was faithful to the last to the essential characteristics of his theory, adding that“the Meletemata of 1811 ... reiterate Griesbach's familiar statements in precise language, while they show a growing perception of mixture which might have led him to further results if he had not died in the following spring.”288.It should be also observed that ΦΣ containing SS. Matthew and Mark are probably older than D.289.E.g. Matt. i. 18; Acts viii. 37 for Irenaeus: Acts xiii. 33 for Origen. It is rare indeed that the express testimony of a Father is so fully confirmed by the oldest copies as in John i. 28, where Βηθανίᾳ, said by Origen to be σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, actually appears in א*ABC*.290.This view is controverted in Burgon's“Remains.”291.Mr. A. A. Vansittart, Journal of Philology, vol. ii. No. 3, p. 35. I suppose too that Mr. Hammond means much the same thing when he says,“It seems almost superfluous to affirm thatevery element of evidence must be allowed its full weight; but it is a principle that must not be forgotten.”(Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 93, 2nd edition.) Truly it is not superfluous to insist on this principle when we so perpetually find the study of the cursive manuscripts disparaged by the use of what we may venture to call the Caliph Omar's argument, that if they agree with the older authorities their evidence is superfluous, if they contradict them, it is necessarily false.292.The evidence of Evan. R, which contains only the decisive letters ΝΗΡΟΥ, is the more valuable, inasmuch as it has been alleged to support the readings of documents of the other class (which no doubt it often does) and thus to afford a confirmation of their authority; it cannot help them much when its vote is against them. On analyzing the 908 readings for which R is cited in Tischendorf's eighth edition, I find that it sides with A, the representative of the one class, 356 times; with its better reputed rival B 157 times, where A and B are at variance. It is with A alone of the great uncials 101 times, with B alone four, with א alone five, with C alone (but C is lost in 473 places out of the 908) six; with D alone twenty-four. Some of its other combinations are instructive. It is with AC forty-two times and with ACL sixteen; with AD fifty-one and with ADL eighteen; with אB eleven and with אBL twenty-nine; with אL nine times; with AL nineteen; with BL fifteen; with CL never; with DL twice. Cod. R stands unsupported by any of the preceding eighty-nine times, seldom without some countenance (but see Luke xi. 24 ἐκ), such as the Memphitic version, or later codices. In the places where its fragments coincide with those of Cod. Ξ (which is much more friendly to B) they agree 127 times, differ 105.293.Dean Burgon avers that he is thoroughly convinced that“no reading can be of real importance—I mean has a chance of beingtrue—which is witnessed to exclusively by a very few copies, whether uncial or cursive.... Nothing else are such extraordinary readings,wherever they may happen to be found, but fragments of primitive error, repudiated by the Church (‘a witness and keeper of Holy Writ’) in her corporate capacity.”(Letter in theGuardian, July 12, 1882.) I cannot go quite so far as this. [Dean Burgon has left his reply.]294.Not that we can in any way assent to the notions of Canon T. R. Birks (Essay on the right estimation of manuscript evidence in the text of the N. T., 1878), whose proposition that“Constant increase of error is no certain and inevitable result of repeated transcription”(p. 33) is true enough in itself, though we cannot follow him when he adds that“Errors, after they have found entrance, may be removed as well as increased in later copies. A careful scribe may not only make fewer mistakes of his own, but he may correct manifest faults of the manuscript from which he copies, and avail himself of the testimony of others, so as to revise and improve the text of that on which he chiefly relies.”Only such a scribe would no longer be a witness for the state of the text as extant in his generation, but a critical editor, working on principles of his own, whether good or bad alike unknown to us.295.Very pertinent to this matter is a striking extract from J. G. Reiche (a critic“remarkable for extent and accuracy of learning, and for soundness and sobriety of judgement,”as Canon Cook vouches, Revised Version, p. 4), given in Bloomfield's“Critical Annotations on the Sacred Text,”p. 5, note:“In multis sanè N. T. locis lectionis variae, iisque gravissimi argumenti, de verâ scripturâ judicium firmum et absolutum, quo acquiescere possis, ferri nequit, nisi omnium subsidiorum nostrorum alicujus auctoritatis suffragia, et interna veri falsique indicia, diligenter explorata, justâ lance expendantur.... Quod in causâ est, ut re non satis omni ex parte circumspectâ, non solum critici tantopere inter se dissentiant, sed etiam singuli sententiam suam toties retractent atque commutent.”In the same spirit Lagarde, speaking of the more recent manuscripts of the Septuagint, thus protests:“Certum est eos non a somniis monachorum undecimi vel alius cujusquam saeculi natos, sed ex archetypis uncialibus aut ipsos aut intercedentibus aliis derivatos. Unde elucet criticum acuto judicio et doctrinâ probabili instructum codicibus recentioribus collectis effecturum esse (?) quid in communi plurium aliquorum archetypo scriptum fuerit”(Genesis, p. 19). Compare also Canon Cook, Revised Version of the First Three Gospels, p. 5.296.“So extravagant a statement could scarcely be deemed worthy of the elaborate confutation with which Dr. Scrivener has condescended to honour it”(Saturday Review, Aug. 20, 1881). Yet this scheme of“Comparative Criticism made easy”has obtained, for its childlike simplicity, more acceptance than the reviewer could reasonably suppose. Dr. Hort, of course, speaks very differently:“B must be regarded as having preserved not only a very ancient text, but a very pure line of very ancient text, and that with comparatively small depravation either by scattered ancient corruptions otherwise attested or by individualisms of the scribe himself. On the other hand, to take it as the sole authority except where it contains self-betraying errors, as some have done, is an unwarrantable abandonment of criticism, and in our opinion inevitably leads to erroneous results”(Introd. p. 250).297.The textual labours of the Cambridge duumvirate have received all the fuller consideration in the learned world by reason of their authors having been members of the New Testament Revision Company, in whose deliberations they had a real influence, though, as a comparison of their text with that adopted by the Revisionists might easily have shown, by no means a preponderating one. I have carefully studied the chief criticisms which have been published on the controversy, without materially adding to the acquaintance with the subject which nearly eleven years of familiar conference with my colleagues had necessarily brought to me. The formidable onslaught on Dr. Hort's and Bishop Westcott's principles in three articles in theQuarterly Review[afterwards published together with additions in“The Revision Revised”] especially in the number for April, 1882, and Canon F. C. Cook's“Revised Version of the First Three Gospels”(1882), must be known to most scholars, and abound with materials from which a final judgement may be formed.“The Ely Lectures on the Revised Version of the N. T.”(1882), which my friend and benefactor Canon Kennedy was pleased to inscribe to myself, are none the less valuable for their attempt to hold the balance even between opposite views of the questions at issue. The host of pamphlets and articles in periodicals which the occasion has called forth could hardly be enumerated in detail, but some of them have been used with due acknowledgement in Chap.XII.298.We are concerned not with names but with things, so that Dr. Hort may give hisignis fatuuswhat appellation he likes, only why he calls it Syrian it is hard to determine. The notices connecting his imaginary revision with Lucian of Antioch which we have given above he feels to be insufficient, for he says no more than that“the conjecture derives some little support from a passage of Jerome, which is not itself discredited by the precariousness of the modern theories which have been suggested by it”(Hort, p. 138).299.SeeBurgon's“The Revision Revised,”pp. 271-288.300.Other examples may be seen in our notes in Chap. XII on Luke ii. 14 for Methodius; Luke xxii. 43, 44 for Hippolytus again; Luke xxiii. 34 for Irenaeus and Origen. Add Luke x. 1 for Irenaeus (p. 546, note 1); xxiii. 45 (Hippolytus); John xiii. 24 (Clem. Alex.); 2 Cor. xii. 7 (Iren. Orig.); Mark xvi. 17, 18 (Hippol.).Seealso Miller's“Textual Guide,”pp. 84, 85, where 165 passages on fifteen texts are gathered from writers before St. Chrysostom.301.For reasons which will be readily understood, we have quoted sparingly from the trenchant article in theQuarterly Review, April, 1882, but the following summary of the consequences of a too exclusive devotion to Codd. אB seems no unfit comment on the facts of the case:“Thus it would appear that the Truth of Scripture has run a very narrow risk of being lost for ever to mankind. Dr. Hort contends that it more than half layperduon a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;—Dr. Tischendorf that it had found its way into a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine at the foot of Mount Sinai—from which he rescued it on February 4, 1859:—neither, we venture to think, a very likely supposition. We incline to believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by any means shown Himself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these learned persons imagine”(p. 365). The Revision Revised, p. 343.302.SeeAppendixof passages at the end of this chapter. Yet while refusing without hesitation the claim of themonstrawhich follow to be regarded as a part of the sacred text, we are by no means insensible to the fact impressed upon us by the Dean of Llandaff, that there are readings which conciliate favour the more we think over them: it being the special privilege of Truth always to grow upon candid minds. We subjoin his persuasive words:“It is deeply interesting to take note of the process of thought and feeling which attends in one's own mind the presentation of some unfamiliar reading. At first sight the suggestion is repelled as unintelligible, startling, almost shocking. By degrees, light dawns upon it—it finds its plea and its palliation. At last, in many instances, it is accepted as adding force and beauty to the context, and a conviction gradually forms itself that thus and not otherwise was it written.”(Vaughan, Epistle to Romans, Preface to the third edition, p. xxi.)303.Thus far we are in agreement with the“Two Members of the N. T. Company,”however widely we may differ from their general views:“The great contribution of our own times to a mastery over materials has been the clearer statement of the method of genealogy, and, by means of it, the corrected distribution of the great mass of documentary evidence”(p. 19). Only that arbitrary theories ought to be kept as far as possible out of sight.304.So that we may be sure what we should have found in Cod. D, and with high probability in Cod. E, were they not defective, when in Acts xxvii. 5 we observe δι᾽ ἡμερῶν δεκάπεντε inserted after διαπλεύσαντες in 137, 184, and the Harkleian margin with an asterisk; as also when we note in Acts xxviii. 16 ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς before σύν in the last two and indemid.305.E.g. Luke xxiv. 3 τοῦ κυρίου ἰησοῦ omitted by D,abeff2l; ver. 6 οὐκ ἔστιν ὦδε ἀλλὰ ἠγέρθη (comp. Mark xvi. 6), omitted by the same; ver. 9 ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου by the same, bycand the Armenian; the whole of ver. 12, by the same (exceptff2) withfuld., but surely not by the Jerusalem Syriac, even according to Tischendorf's showing, or by Eusebius' canon, for he knew the verse well (comp. John xx. 5); ver. 36 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, εἰρήνη ὑμῖν omitted by D,abeff2las before (comp. John xx. 19, 26); the whole of ver. 40, omitted by the same and by Cureton's Syriac (comp. John xx. 20); ver. 51 καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν and ver. 52 προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν omitted by the same and by Augustine, the important clause in ver. 51 by א* also, and consequently by Tischendorf. Yet, as if to show how mixed the evidence is, D desertsabff2lwhen, in company with a host of authorities, both manuscripts and versions (fq, Vulgate, Bohairic, Syriac, and others), they annex καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου to the end of ver. 42.Seealso Luke x. 41, 42; xxii. 19, 20, discussed in Chap.XII.306.So of certain of the chief versions we sometimes hear it said that they are less important in the rest of the N. T. than in the Gospels; which means that in the former they side less with אB.307.Canon Kennedy, whose“Ely Lectures”exhibit, to say the least, no prejudice against the principles enunciated in Dr. Hort's Introduction, is good enough to commend the four rules here set forth to the attention of his readers (p. 159, note). The first three were stated in my first edition (1861), the fourth added in the second edition (1874), and, while they will not satisfy the advocates of extreme views on either side, suffice to intimate the terms on which the respective claims of the uncial and cursive manuscripts, of the earlier and the more recent authorities, may, in my deliberate judgement, be equitably adjusted.308.Dean Burgon held that too much deference is here paid to the mere antiquity of those which happen to be the oldest MSS., but are not the oldest authorities. He would therefore enlarge the grounds of judgement.309.The harmony subsisting between B and the Sahidic in characteristic readings, for which they stand almost or quite alone, is well worth notice: e.g. Acts xxvii. 37; Rom. xiii. 13; Col. iii. 6; Heb. iii. 2; 1 John ii. 14; 20.310.“The intrinsic evidence seems immoveable against the insertion.”Textual Criticism of the N. T., B. B. Warfield, D.D., p. 135.311.Yet in Penn's“Annotations to the Vatican Manuscripts”(1837)“The restoration of this verse to its due place”is described as“the most important circumstance of this [sc. his own] revision.”Its omission is imputed to“the undue influence of a criticism of Origen [ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀποθανόντος], whom Jerome followed.”312.“This gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of history—a reading as preposterous as it is revolting,”is the vigorous protest of Dean Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 68, note.313.“Post enim duodecim apostolos septuaginta alios Dominus noster ante se misisse invenitur; septuaginta autem nec octonario numero neque denario”(Irenaeus, p. 146, Massuet). Tertullian, just a little later (re-echoed by the younger Cyril), compares the Apostles with the twelve wells at Elim (Ex. xv. 27), the seventy with the three-score and ten palm-trees there (Adv. Marc. iv. 24). So Eusebius thrice, Basil and Ambrose. On the other hand in the Recognitions of Clement, usually assigned to the second or third century, the number adopted is seventy-two,“vel hoc modo recognitâ imagine Moysis”and of his elders, traditionally set down at that number. Compare Num. xi. 16. Epiphanius, Hilary (Scholz), and Augustine are also with Cod. B.314.To enable us to translate“a son, nay even an ox,”would require ἢ καί, which none read. The argument, moreover, is onea minori ad majus. Compare Ex. xxi. 33 with Ex. xxiii. 4; ch. xiii. 15.315.Let me addex meoCodd. 22, 219, 492, 547, 549, 558, 559, 576, 582, 584, 594, 596, 597, 598, 601, being no doubt a large majority of cursives. So Cod. 662, apparently after correction.316.But not in the Beirût MS. discovered in 1877 by Dr. Is. H. Hall.317.A more ludicrous blunder of Cod. B has been pointed out to me in the Old Testament, Ps. xvii. 14“they have children at their desire”: ΕΧΟΡΤΑΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΫΙΩΝ Cod. A, but ΕΧΟΡΤΑΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΫΕΙΩΝ Cod. B. The London papyrus has ΥΩΝ for ΥΙΩΝ.318.Codex P is of far greater value than others of its own date. It is frequently found in the company of B, sometimes alone, sometimes with other chief authorities, especially in the Catholic Epistles, e.g. James iv. 15; v. 4; 14; 2 Pet. i. 17 (partly); ii. 6; 1 John ii. 20.319.We note many small variations between the text of these critics as communicated to the Revisers some years before, and that finally published in 1881. The latter, of course, we have treated as their standard.320.This precious cursive forms one of a small class which in the Catholic Epistles and sometimes in the Acts conspire with the best uncials in upholding readings of the higher type: the other members are 69, 137, 182, to which will sometimes be added the text or margin of the Harkleian Syriac, Codd. 27, 29, the second hands of 57 and 66, 100, 180, 185, and particularly 221, which is of special interest in these Epistles. The following passages, examined by means of Tischendorf's notes, will prove what is here alleged: 1 Pet. iii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 4; 21; ii. 6; 11; 1 John i. 5; 7; 8; ii. 19; iii. 1; 19; 22; iv. 19; v. 5.321.Notice especially those instances in the Catholic Epistles, wherein the primary authorities are comparatively few, in which Cod. B accords with the later copies against Codd. אA(C), and is also supported by internal evidence: e.g. 1 Pet. iii. 18; iv. 14; v. 2; 2 Pet. ii. 20; 1 John ii. 10; iii. 23, &c. In 1 John iii. 21, where the first ἡμῶν is omitted by A and others, the second by C almost alone, B seems right in rejecting the word in both places. So in other cases internal probabilities occasionally plead strongly in favour of B, when it has little other support: as in Rom. viii. 24, where τίς ἐλπίζει; as against τις, τί καὶ ἐλπίζει; though B and the margin of Cod. 47 stand alone here, best accounts for the existence of other variations (seep.248). In Eph. v. 22, B alone, with Clement and Jerome, the latter very expressly, omits the verb in a manner which can hardly fail to commend itself as representing the true form of the passage. In Col. iii. 6, B, the Sahidic, the Roman Ethiopic, Clement (twice), Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, and auct. de singl. cler., are alone free from the clause interpolated from Eph. v. 6.322.Viz. Luke i. 1-4, some portion of the Gospel and most of the Acts: excluding such cases as St. Stephen's speech, Acts vii, and the parts of his Gospel which resemble in style, and were derived from the same sources as, those of SS. Matthew and Mark.323.Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 141) confirms the foregoing statements, which we have repeated unchanged from our former editions.“What spellings are sufficiently probable to deserve inclusion among alternative readings, is often difficult to determine. Although many deviations from classical orthography are amply attested, many others, which appear to be equally genuine, are found in one, two, or three MSS. only, and that often with an irregularity which suggests that all our MSS. have to a greater or less extent suffered from the effacement of unclassical forms of words. It is no less true on the other hand that a tendency in the opposite direction is discernible in Western MSS.: the orthography of common life, which to a certain extent was used by all the writers of the New Testament, though in unequal degrees, would naturally be introduced more freely in texts affected by an instinct of popular adaptation.”324.E.g. Aeschylus, Persae, 411: κόρυμβ᾽, ἐπ᾽ ἄλλην δ᾽ ἄλλος ἴθυνεν δόρυ, or Sophocles, Antigone, 219: τὸ μὴ πιχωρεῖν τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσιν τάδε.325.Cod. א, for instance, does not omit it above 208 times throughout the N. T., out of which 134 occur with verbs (three so as to cause a hiatus), 29 with nouns, 45 with adjectives (chiefly πᾶσι) or participles (Scrivener, Collation, &c., p. liv). Its absence produces the hiatus in B*C in 1 Pet. ii. 18 (ἐπιεικέσι), and not seldom in B, e.g. 1 Pet. iv. 6, where we find κριθῶσι and ζῶσι, which latter is countenanced by A, and both by אL.326.Wake 12 (Evan. 492), of the eleventh century, may be taken for a fair representative of its class and date. It retains ν with εἶπεν thirty-three times in St. Matthew, thirteen in St. Mark, as often as 130 in St. Luke. With other words it mostly reserves ν to indicate emphasis (e.g. Luke xxii. 14; xxiv. 30), or to stand before a break in the sense.327.The terminations which admit this moveable ν (including -ει of the pluperfect) are enumerated by Donaldson (Gr. Gram. p. 53). Tischendorf, however (N. T., Proleg. p. liv), demurs to εἴκοσιν, even before a vowel.328.With the remarkable exception of those six leaves of Cod. א which Tischendorf assigns to the scribe who wrote Cod. B. In these leaves of Cod. א Ἰωάνης occurs four times: Matt. xvi. 14; xvii. 1; 13; Luke i. 13, in which last passage, however, B has the doublenu.329.These last might be supposed to have originated from the omission or insertion of the faint line for ν over the preceding letter, which (especially at the end of a line) we stated in Vol. I. p. 50 to be found even in the oldest manuscripts. Sometimes the anomalous form is much supported by junior as well as by ancient codices: e.g. θυγατέραν, Luke xiii. 16 by KXΓ*Λ, 209, also by 69, and ten others of Scrivener's.330.Thus Canon Selwyn cites from Lycophron κἀπὸ γῆς ἐσχάζοσαν, and Dr. Moulton (Winer, p. 91, note 5), after Mullach, ἔσχοσαν from Scymnus Chius.331.Tregelles presses yet another argument:“If Alexandrian forms had been introduced into the N. T. by Egyptian copyists, how comes it that the classical MSS. written in that country are free from them?”(An Account of the Printed Text, p. 178). But what classical MSS. does he know of, written while Egypt was yet Greek or Christian, and now extant for our inspection? I can only think of Cureton's Homer and Babington's papyri.332.“It is hard to make St. Paul responsible for vulgarisms or provincialisms, which certainly his pen never wrote, and which there can be no proof that his lips ever uttered”(Epistle to the Romans, Preface to the third edition, p. xxi) is Dean Vaughan's comment on this“barbarism.”He regards the Apostle's habit of dictating his letters as a“sufficient reason for broken constructions, for participles without verbs, for suspended nominatives, for sudden digressions, for fresh starts.”333.Dr. Hort, however, accepts the form ἐφ᾽ in this place, aspirating ἐλπίδι, and in the same way favours but does not print οὐχ ὁλίγος eight times in the Acts, adding that although ὁλίγος“has no lost digamma to justify it, like some others, it may nevertheless have been in use in the apostolic age: it occurs in good MSS. of the LXX”(Introd., Notes, p. 143).334.“A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek regarded as the basis of N. T. Exegesis. By Dr. G. B. Winer. Translated from the German with large additions and full indices by Rev. W. F. Moulton, M. A., D. D.,”third edition revised, 8vo, Edinburgh, 1882. The forthcoming“Prolegomena”to Tischendorf's N. T. eighth edition (pp. 71-126), to which the kindness of Dr. Caspar René Gregory has given me access, contain a store of fresh materials on this subject; and Dr. Hort's“Notes on Orthography”(Introd., Notes, pp. 143-173) will afford invaluable aid to the student who is ever so little able to accept some of his conclusions. See also on the more general subject Dr. Neubauer's Article in the first issue of the Oxford“Studia Biblica”on“The Dialects of Palestine in the Time of Christ.”He controverts Dr. Roberts' opinion that“Christ spoke for the most part in Greek, and only now and then in Aramaic.”And he distinguishes between the Babylonian Aramaic, the Galilean Aramaic, and the dialect spoken at Jerusalem, which had more of Hebrew.335.In Acts ix. 34 Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, the article between them being rejected, is read by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, on the adequate authority of אB*C, 13, 15, 18, 68, 111, 180, and a catena (probably also Cod. 36), with one or two Fathers, although against AEP, 31, 61, &c.336.I know not why Tischendorf cites Cod. 71 (gscr) for the omission of Ἰησοῦ. I have again consulted the MS. at Lambeth, and findἰῦin this place.337.Seeabove, I. 130. The precise relation of the Latin Version of Cod. D to the parallel Greek text is fully examined in Scrivener's“Codex Bezae,”Introduction, chap. iii.338.Mr. E. B. Nicholson, Bodley's Librarian, doubts the conclusiveness of Irenaeus' Latin here“because his copyist was in the habit of altering him into accordance with the oldest Latin version; and because his argument is just as strong if we readJesu Christi autemas if we readChristi. The argument requiresChristi, but does not in the least require it as againstJesu Christi.”339.“The clearly Western Τοῦ δὲ χριστοῦ,”as Dr. Hort admits,“is intrinsically free from objection, ... yet it cannot be confidently accepted. The attestation is unsatisfactory, for no other Western omission of a solitary word in the Gospels has any high probability”(N. T., Notes, p. 7). He retains ψευδόμενοι, Matt. v. 11.340.Why should Gregory Nyssen (371) be classed among the opponents of the clause, whereas Griesbach honestly states,“suam expositionem his quidem verbis concludit: [ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ τὴν ἰσχὺν κεκτημένου, οὗ ῥυσθείημεν] χάριτι [τοῦ] χριστοῦ, ὅτι αὐτοῦ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα ἅμα τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν”? Griesbach adds indeed,“sed pro parte sacri textûs neutiquam haec habuisse videtur;”and justly: they were rather aloose paraphraseof the sentence before him.SeeTextual Guide, Edward Miller, App. V.341.Canon Cook (Revised Version, p. 57) alleges as a probable cause of the general omission of the doxology in early Latin Versions and Fathers, that in all the Western liturgies it is separated from the petitions preceding by an intercalatedEmbolismus. More weighty is his observation that all the Greek Fathers, from Chrysostom onwards, who deal with the interpretation of the Lord's Prayer,“agree with that great expositor in maintaining the important bearings [of the doxology] upon the preceding petitions.”342.“Quite a test-passage”Mr. Hammond calls it (Outlines of Text. Crit., p. 76).343.Third Edition.I would fain side in this instance with my revered friend and Revision colleague Dr. David Brown of Aberdeen, and all my prepossessions are strongly in favour of thetextus receptushere. He is quite right in perceiving (Christian Opinion and Revisionist, p. 435) that the key of his position lies in the authenticity of ἀγαθέ ver. 16, which is undoubtedly found in Mark x. 17; Luke xviii. 18. If that word had abided unquestioned here, the form of reply adopted in the other two Gospels would have inevitably followed. As the case stands, there is not considerably less evidence for omitting ἀγαθέ (אBDL, 1, 22, 479, Evst. 5 [not“five Evangelistaria”],aeff1, Eth., Origen twice, Hilary) than for Τί με ἐρωτᾷς κ.τ.λ., although Cureton's and the Jerusalem Syriac, the Bohairic, and the Vulgate with some other Latin copies, change sides here. It is upon these recreant versions that Dr. Brown must fix the charge of inconsistency. If ἀγαθέ be an interpolation, surely τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω is pertinently answered by Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ.344.Canon Westcott (Smith's“Dictionary of the Bible,”Vulgate Version) adds Bodl. 857; Brit. Mus. Reg.iB. vii, and Reg.i. A. xviii in part, also Addit. 24,142 by the second hand. Tischendorf also citestheotisc.345.No passage more favours Bp. Middleton's deliberate conclusion respecting the history of the Codex Bezae:“I believe that no fraud was intended: but only that the critical possessor of the basis filled its margin with glosses and readings chiefly from the Latin, being a Christian of the Western Church; and that the whole collection of Latin passages was translated into Greek, and substituted in the text by some one who had a high opinion of their value, and who was, as Wetstein describes him,‘καλλιγραφίας quàm vel Graecae vel Latinae linguae peritior.’”(Doctrine of the Greek Article, Appendix I. p. 485, 3rd edition.)346.I see no reasonable ground for imagining with Lachmann that Origen who, as he truly observes,“non solet difficilia praeterire,”did not find in his copy anything between πατρός; and Ἀμήν in ver. 31. On the supposition that he read πρῶτος there was no difficulty to slur over. Moreover, there is not a vestige of evidence for omitting λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ ἰησοῦς, the existence of which words Lachmann clearly perceived to be fatal to his ingenious guess, although Dr. Hort will only allow that it“weakens his suggestion,”adding in his quiet way“This phrase might easily seem otiose if it followed immediately on words of Christ, and might thus be thought to imply the intervention of words spoken by others”(Notes, p. 17).347.Jerome conceives that the Jews“intellegere quidem veritatem, sed tergiversari, et nolle dicere quod sentiunt;”and so Canon G. F. Goddard, Rector of Southfleet, believed that their wantonly false answer brought on them the Lord's stern rebuke. Hilary's idea is even more far-fetched: viz. that though the second son disobeyed, it was because hecouldnot execute the command.“Non ait noluisse sed non abisse. Res extra culpam infidelitatis est, quia in facti erat difficultate ne fieret.”348.His sole example is ὁδὸν ποιεῖν Mark ii. 23, which seems not at all parallel. The phrase may as well signify to“clear away”as“make their way.”349.πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει is the reading of Abbott's four and of Codd. 28, 122, 541, 561, 572, Evst. 196.350.Which is certainly its meaning in Lucian, Tom. ii. p. 705 (Salmur. 1619); I know no example like that in St. Mark.351.I have ventured but slowly to vouch for Tischendorf's notion, that six leaves of Cod. א,that containingMark xvi. 2-Luke i. 56being one of them, were written by the scribe of Cod. B. On mere identity of handwriting and the peculiar shape of certain letters who shall insist? Yet there are parts of the case which I know not how to answer, and which have persuaded even Dr. Hort. Having now arrived at this conclusion our inference is simple and direct, that at least in these leaves, Codd. אB make but one witness, not two.352.The cases of Nehemiah, Tobit, and Daniel, in the Old Testament portion of Cod. B, are obviously in no wise parallel in regard to their blank columns.353.Of which supplement Dr. Hort says unexpectedly enough,“In style it is unlike the ordinary narratives of the Evangelists, but comparable to the four introductory verses of St. Luke's Gospel”(Introduction, p. 298).354.We ought to add that some Armenian codices which contain the paragraph have the subscription“Gospel after Mark”at the end of ver. 8 as well as of ver. 20, as though their scribes, like Cod. L's, knew of a double ending to the Gospel.355.Burgon (Guardian, July 12, 1882) speaks of seven manuscripts (Codd. 538, 539 being among them) wherein these last twelve verses begin on the right hand of the page. This would be more significant if a space were left, as is not stated, at the foot of the preceding page. In Cod. 550 the first letter α is small, but covers an abnormally large space.356.Of course no notice is to be taken of τέλος after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, as the end of the ecclesiastical lesson is all that is intimated. The grievous misstatements of preceding critics from Wetstein and Scholz down to Tischendorf, have been corrected throughout by means of Burgon's laborious researches (Burgon, pp. 114-123).357.The minute variations between these several codices are given by Burgon (Appendix E, pp. 288-90). Cod. 255 contains a scholion imputed to Eusebius, from which Griesbach had drawn inferences which Burgon (Last Twelve Verses, &c., Postscript, pp. 319-23) has shown to be unwarranted by the circumstances of the case.358.Dr. C. Taylor, Master of St. John's College, Cambridge, inThe Expositorfor July, 1893, quotes more evidence from Justin Martyr—hinting that some also remains behind—proving that that Father was familiar with these verses. Also he cites several passages from the Epistle of Barnabas in which traces of them occur, and from the Quartodeciman controversy, and from Clement of Rome. The value of the evidence which Dr. Taylor's acute vision has discovered consists chiefly in its cumulative force. From familiarity with the passage numerous traces of it arose; or as Dr. Taylor takes the case reversely, from the fact of the occurrence of numerous traces evident to a close observer, it is manifest that there pre-existed in the minds of the writers a familiarity with the language of the verses in question.359.It is surprising that Dr. Hort, who lays very undue stress upon the silence of certain early Christian writers that had no occasion for quoting the twelve verses in their extant works, should say of Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived abouta.d.349, that his“negative evidence is peculiarly cogent”(Notes, p. 37). To our mind it is not at all negative. Preaching on a Sunday, he reminds his hearers of a sermon he had delivered the day before, and which he would have them keep in their thoughts. One of the topics he briefly recalls is the article of the Creed τὸν καθίσαντα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρός. He must inevitably have used Mark xvi. 19 in his Saturday's discourse.360.Several of these references are derived from“The Revision Revised,”p. 423.361.Nor were these verses used in the Greek Church only. Vers. 9-20 comprised the Gospel for Easter Monday in the old Spanish or Mozarabic Liturgy, for Easter Tuesday among the Syrian Jacobites, for Ascension Day among the Armenians. Vers. 12-20 was the Gospel for Ascension Day in the Coptic Liturgy (Malan, Original Documents, iv. p. 63): vers. 16-20 in the old LatinComes.362.To get rid of one apparent ἀντιφωνία, that arising from the expression πρωῒ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου (sic), ver. 9, compared with ὀψὲ σαββάτων Matt. xxviii. 1, Eusebius proposes the plan of setting a stop between Ἀναστὰς δέ and πρωΐ, so little was he satisfied with rudely expunging the whole clause. Hence Cod. E puts a red cross after δέ: Codd. 20, 22, 34, 72, 193, 196, 199, 271, 345, 405, 411, 456, have a colon: Codd. 332, 339, 340, 439, a comma (Burgon,Guardian, Aug. 20, 1873).363.The following peculiarities have been noticed in these verses: ἐκεῖνος used absolutely, vers. 10, 11, 13; πορεύομαι vers. 10, 12, 15; τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις ver. 10; θεάομαι vers. 11, 14; ἀπιστέω vers. 11, 16; μετὰ ταῦτα ver. 12; ἕτερος ver. 12; παρακολουθέω ver. 17; ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ver. 17; κύριος for the Saviour, vers. 19, 20; πανταχοῦ, συνεργοῦντος, βεβαιόω, ἐπακολουθέω ver. 20, all of them as not found elsewhere in St. Mark. A very able and really conclusive plea for the genuineness of the paragraph, as coming from that Evangelist's pen, appeared in theBaptist Quarterly, Philadelphia, July, 1869, bearing the signature of Professor J. A. Broadus, of South Carolina. Unfortunately, from the nature of the case, it does not admit of abridgement. Burgon's ninth chapter (pp. 136-190) enters into full details, and amply justifies his conclusion that the supposed adverse argument from phraseology“breaks down hopelessly under severe analysis.”364.“Can any one, who knows the character of the Lord and of His ministry, conceive for an instant that we should be left with nothing but a message baulked through the alarm of women”(Kelly, Lectures Introductory to the Gospels, p. 258). Even Dr. Hort can say:“it is incredible that the Evangelist deliberately concluded either a paragraph with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, or the Gospel with a petty detail of a secondary event, leaving his narrative hanging in the air”(Notes, p. 46).365.When Burgon ventures upon a surmise, one which is probability itself by the side of those we have been speaking of, Professor Abbot (ubi supra, p.197) remarks upon it that“With Mr. Burgon a conjecture seems to be a demonstration.”We will not be deterred by dread of any such reproach from mentioning his method of accounting for the absence of these verses from some very early copies, commending it to the reader for what it may seem worth. After a learned and exhaustive proof that the Church lessons, as we now have them, existed from very early times (Twelve Verses, pp. 191-211), and noting that an important lesson ended with Mark xvi. 8 (seeCalendar of Lessons); he supposes that τέλος, which would stand at the end of such a lesson, misled some scribe who had before him anexemplarof the Gospels whose last leaf (containing Mark xvi. 9-20, or according to Codd. 20, 215, 300 only vers. 16-20) was lost, as it might easily be in those older manuscripts wherein St. Mark stood last.366.The Codex lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis is said to omit the verses. But what is that against a host of other codices? And when the other MS. of the Curetonian includes the verses? Positive testimony is worth more than negative.367.Dr. Hort, however, while he admits the possibility of the leaf containing vers. 9-20 having been lost in some very early copy, which thus would become the parent of transcripts having a mutilated text (Notes, p. 49), rather inconsistently arrives at the conclusion that the passage in question“manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the apostolic age”(ibid.p. 51).368.Dr. Hort will hardly find many friends for his division (Notes, p. 56),Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς,Εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.369.I am loth to sully with a semblance of unseasonable levity a page which is devoted to the vindication of the true form of the Angelic Hymn, and must ask the student to refer for himself to the 470th number of theSpectator, where what we will venture to call a precisely parallel case exercises the delicate humour of Addison.“So many ancient manuscripts,”he tells us, concur in this last reading,“that I am very much in doubt whether it ought not to take place. There are but two reasons which incline me to the reading as I have published it: first, because the rhyme, and secondly, because the sense, is preserved by it.”370.This torrent of testimony includes ninety-two places, of which“Tischendorf knew of only eleven, Tregelles adduces only six”(R. R., p. 45, note).371.Every word uttered by such a scholar as Dr. Field (d. 1885) is so valuable that no apology can be needed for citing the following critique from his charming“Otium Norvicense,”Part iii. p. 36, on the reading εὐδοκίας and the rendering“among men in whom he is well pleased.”“To which it may be briefly objected (1)that it ruins the stichometry; (2) that it separates ἐν from εὐδοκία, the word with which it is normally construed; (3) that‘men of good pleasure’(אנשי רצון) would be, according to Graeco-biblical usage, not ἄνθρωποι εὐδοκίας, but ἄνδρες εὐδοκίας; (4) that the turn of the sentence, ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, very much resembles the second clause of Prov. xiv. 9: ובין ישרים רצון rendered by Symmachus καὶ ἀναμέσον εὐθέων εὐδοκία.”But this is almost slaying the slain.372.Κυριακὴ δευτεροπρώτη is cited by Sophocles in his Lexicon from“Eustr. 2381 B”in the sense oflow Sunday(McClellan, N. T., p. 690). Canon Cook conjectures that it may mean the first sabbath in the second month (Iyar), precisely the time when wheat would be fully ripe (Revised Version, p. 69). [More probably it is“the first sabbath after the second day of the Passover.”] On the other hand,“If the word be a reality and originally in the text, its meaning, since in that case it must have been borrowed from something in the Jewish calendar, would have been traditionally known from the first.”(Green, Course of Developed Criticism, p. 56.) But why would it? The fancy that δευτεροπρώτῳ had its origin in numerals of reference (B A) set in the margin will most commend itself to such scholars as are under the self-imposed necessity of upholding Codd. אB united against all other evidence, of whatever kind.373.Just as Jerome, speaking of the latter part of 1 Cor. vii. 35, says,“In Lat. Codd.ob translationis difficultatemhoc penitus non invenitur.”(Vallars. ii. 261, as Burgon points out.)374.Dr. Hort and theQuarterly Reviewer(October, 1881, p. 348) almost simultaneously called attention to the question put by Jerome to his teacher Gregory of Nazianzus as to the meaning of this word.“Docebo te super hac re in ecclesia”was the only reply he obtained; on which Jerome's comment is,Eleganter lusit(Hier.ad Nepotianum, Ep. 52). Neither of these great Fathers could explain a term which neither doubted to be written by the Evangelist.375.Cyril applies the whole passage to enforce the duty of exercising with frugality the Christian duty of entertaining strangers:“And this He did for our benefit, that He might fix a limit to hospitality”(Dean Payne Smith's Translation, pp. 317-20).376.Praelectio in Scholis Cantabrigiensibus habita Februarii die decimo quarto,mdcccl, quâ ... Lucae pericopam (xxii. 17-20) multis ante saeculis conturbatam vetustissimorum ope codicum in pristinam formam restituebat, Cathedram Theologicam ambiens, J. W. Blakesley, S. T. B., Coll. SS. Trinitatis nuper Socius (Cambridge, 1850).377.“Intrinsically both readings are difficult, but in unequal degrees. The difficulty of the shorter reading [that of pure omission in vers. 19, 20] consists exclusively in the change of order, as to the Bread and the Cup, which is illustrated by many phenomena of the relation between the narratives of the third and of the first two Gospels, and which finds an exact parallel in the change of order in St. Luke's account of the Temptation”(iv. 5-8; 9-12). Hort, Notes, p. 64.378.Adler says“in omnibus codicibus,”andguelph. heidelb.Dawkins iii and xvii in Jones, and cod. Rich are specified. Lee sets the verses in a parenthesis. But the Curetonian has them after ver. 19 in words but little differing from his or Schaaf's.379.“Si fides habenda A. F. Gorio‘in Conspectu Quattuor Codicum Evangeliorum Syriacorum mirae aetatis’apud Blanchini Evangelium Quadruplex p.dxl, et hi quattuor Codices cum Veronensi [b] faciunt.”Blakesley,SchemafacingPraelectio, p. 20.380.Especially mark his mode of dealing with ἐκχυννόμενον ver. 20, which by a little violence (not quite unprecedented) is made to refer to ποτήριον instead of to αἵματι:“Ex Matthaeo vel Marco accessit clausula ista τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον, fraude tamen ita piâ accessit, ut potius grammaticis legibus vim facere, quam vel literulam demutare maluerit interpolator. Ita fit ut vel hodie male assutus pannus centonem prodat. Postulat enim sermonis ratio, ut cuivis patet, τῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνομένω, non τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον, quod tamen in Matthaeo Marcoque optime Graece dicebatur, cum subjectum de quo praedicabatur non ἡ διαθήκη verum τὸ αἷμα esset”(Praelectio, p. 22).381.Very undue stress has been laid on Tischendorf's statement,“Hos versus A corrector uncis inclusit, partim etiam punctis notavit; C vero puncta et uncos delevit,”and אahas sometimes been spoken of as only a little less weighty than א itself. I had the satisfaction, through Dean Burgon's kindness, of showing some of our critics, Dr. Hort included, a fine photograph of the whole page. The points are nearly, if not quite, invisible, the unci are rude slight curves at the beginning and end of the passage only, looking as likely to have been scrawled fifty years since as fourteen hundred. Yet even now Dr. Hort maintains that Tischendorf's decision is probably right, strangely adding,“but the point is of little consequence”(Notes, p. 65).382.Bp. Lightfoot's Codd. 2, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 22, 26 omit them altogether: they are in the margin of 1, 20. They stand in the text of 3, 14, 21, and so in 18primâ manu, but in smaller characters.383.Yet Dr. Hort contends that“The testimony of A is not affected by the presence of Eusebian numerals, of necessity misplaced, which manifestly presuppose the inclusion of vv. 43, 44: the discrepance merely shows that the Biblical text and the Eusebian notation were taken by the scribe from different sources, as they doubtless were throughout”(Notes, p. 65). It is just this readiness to devise expedients to meet emergencies as they arise which is at once the strength and the weakness of Dr. Hort's position as a textual critic. These sections and canons illustrate the criticism of the text in some other places: e.g. Matt. xvi. 2, 3; xvii. 21; ch. xxiii. 34; hardly in Luke xxiv. 12.384.Ἰστέον ὅτι τὰ περὶ τῶν θρόμβων τινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐκ ἔχουσιν: adding that the clause is cited by Dionysius the Areopagite, Gennadius, Epiphanius, and other holy Fathers.385.Thus in Evst. 253 we find John xiii. 3-17 inserteduno tenorebetween Matt. xxvi. 20 and 21, as also Luke xxii. 43, 44 between vers. 39 and 40, with no break whatever. So again in the same manuscript with the mixed lessons for Good Friday.386.“Upwards of forty famous personages from every part of ancient Christendom recognize these verses as part of the Gospel; fourteen of them being as old, some of them being a great deal older, than our oldest manuscripts”(The Revision Revised, p. 81).387.The reader will see that I have understood this passage, with Grotius, as applying to an orthodox tampering with Luke xix. 41, not with xxii. 43, 44. As the text of Epiphanius stands I cannot well do otherwise, since Mill's mode of punctuation (N. T., Proleg. § 797), which wholly separates καὶ γενόμενος from the words immediately preceding, cannot be endured, and leaves καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρότατον unaccounted for. Yet I confess that there is no trace of any meddling with ἔκλαυσε by any one, and I know not where Irenaeus cites it.388.Lightfoot's Codd. 22, 26. The clause stands in the margin of 1, 20, in the text of 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23.389.Dean Burgon (Revision Revised, p. 83), who refers to upwards of forty Fathers and more than 150 passages (seealso Miller's Textual Guide, App. II), burns with indignation as he sums up his results:“Andwhat(we ask the question with sincere simplicity),whatamount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubted confidence in any given reading, if not such a concurrence of authorities as this? We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from internal evidence. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external testimony, or is clearly forsaken thereby.”390.“Gospel according to St. John from eleven versions,”1872, p. 8. Dr. Malan also translates in the same way the Peshitto“the only Son of God”and its satellite the Persic of the Polyglott as“the only one of God.”With much deference to a profound scholar, I do not see how such a rendering is possible in the Peshitto: it is precisely that which he gives in ch. iii. 18, where the Syriac inserts ܒܪܚ ܕ (or ܕ ܚܪܒ). Bp. Lightfoot judges θεός the more likely rendering of the Bohairic, though θεοῦ is possible.391.We are not likely to adopt Tischendorf's latest reading and punctuation in Col. ii. 2, τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ.392.Hence we cannot think with Prebendary Sadler (Lost Gospel, p. 48) that μονογενὴς θεός is very probably the original reading, and must even take leave to doubt its orthodoxy. The received reading ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is upheld by Dr. Ezra Abbot in papers contributed to the AmericanBibliotheca Sacra, Oct. 1861, and to theUnitarian Review, June, 1875; it is attacked with characteristic vigour and fullness of research by Dr. Hort in the first of his“Two Dissertations”(pp. 1-72) written in 1876 as exercises for Theological degrees at Cambridge.393.The Revision Revised, p. 133. Also Miller's“Textual Guide,”App. VI.394.To give but a very small part of the variations in ver. 4: δέ (proγάρ) L,abcff, Vulg. -γάρ Evst. 51, Boh. + κυρίου (postγὰρ) AKLΔ, 12, 13, 69, 507, 509, 511, 512, 570 and fifteen others: at τοῦ θεοῦ 152, Evst. 53, 54.—κατὰ καιρὸνa b ffἐλούετο (proκατέβαινεν) A (K), 42, 507. Ethiop.—ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ a b ff. ἐταράσσετο τὸ ὕδωρ C3GHIMUVΛ*, 440, 509, 510, 512, 513, 515, 543, 570, 575, Evst. 150, 257, many others. + in piscinam (postἐμβάς)c, Clementine Vulg. ἐγένετο FL, 69, at least fifteen others.395.Either Dean Burgon or I have recently found the passage in Codd. 518, 524, 541, 560, 561, 573, 582, 594, 598, 599, 600, 602, 604, 622.396.Of Lightfoot's list of manuscripts, the passage is omitted in Codd. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26. It stands in the text of 3, 9, 14, in the margin only of 1, 20.397.“Both elements, the clause ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τῶν ὑδάτων (sic) κίνησιν, and the scholium or explanatory note respecting the angel, are unquestionably very ancient: but no good Greek document contains both, while each of them separately is condemned by decisive evidence”(Hort, Introd., p. 301).398.Dean Burgon has left a long vindication of the whole passage amongst his papers not yet published.399.Add from Dr. Malan (ubi supra, p.97), the Georgian, Slavonic (text, not margin), Anglo-Saxon, and Persic. His Arabic (that of Erpenius) agrees with the Peshitto Syriac. The Armenian version of Ephraem's Tatian also readsnon.400.Codd. AC are defective in this place, but by measuring the space we have shown (p.99, note 2) that A does not contain the twelve verses, and the same method applies to C. The reckoning, as McClellan remarks (N. T., p. 723),“does not preclude the possibility of small gaps having existed in A and C to mark theplaceof the Section, as in L and Δ.”401.Yet Burgon's caution should be attended to.“It is to mislead—rather it is to misrepresent the facts of the case—to say (with the critics) that Codex X leaves out the‘pericope de adulterâ.’This Codex is nothing else but acommentary on the Gospel, as the Gospel used to be read in public. Of necessity, therefore, it leaves out those parts of the Gospel which are observednotto have been publicly read”(Guardian, Sept. 10, 1873).402.The kindred copies Codd. Λ, 215 (20 has an asterisk only against the place), 262, &c., have the following scholium at ch. vii. 53: τὰ ὠβελισμένα ἔν τισιν ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται, οὐδὲ Ἀπολ[λ]ιναρίῳ; ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ὅλα κεῖ[ν]ται; μνημονεύουσιν τῆς περικοπῆς ταύτης καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἐν αἷς ἐξέθεντο διατάξεσιν εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. The reference is to the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24. 4), as Tischendorf perceives.403.Yet so that the first hand of Cod. 207 recognizes it in the text, setting in the margin τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ζήτει εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ βιβλίου (Burgon,Guardian, Oct. 1, 1873).404.A learned friend suggests that, supposing the true place for this supplemental history to be yet in doubt, there would be this reason for the narrative to be set after Luke xxi, that a reader of the Synoptic Gospels would be aware of no other occasion when the Lord had to lodge outside the city: whereas with St. John's narrative before him, he would see that this was probably the usual lot of alatecomer at the Feast of Tabernacles (ch. vii. 14). Mr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that the true place for thepericopeis between ch. v and ch. vi, as for other reasons which we cannot depend upon, so from our illustrating the mention of the Mosaic Law in ch. viii. 5 by ch. v. 45, 46.405.Yet on the whole this paragraph is found in more of Bp. Lightfoot's copies than would have been anticipated: viz. in the text of 3, 8, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, in the margin of 1, and on a later leaf of 20. It is wanting in 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 19, 21, 25, 26.406.“Similiter Nicon ejectam esse vult narrationem ab Armenis, βλαβερὰν εἶναι τοῖς πολλοῖς τὴν τοιαύτην ἀκρόασιν dicentibus.”Tischendorfad loc.Nicon lived in or about the tenth century, but Theophylact in the eleventh does not use the paragraph.407.Notice especially the reading of 48, 64, 604, 736 (primâ manu) in ver. 8 ἔγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἑνὸς ἑκάστου αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας.408.We are not surprised in this instance at Dr. Hort's verdict (Introd. p. 299):“No interpolation is more clearly Western, though it is not Western of the earliest type.”Dean Burgon has left amongst his papers an elaborate vindication of this passage, from which however the Editor cannot quote.409.The form τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, objected to by Michaelis, is vindicated by Matt. i. 18, the reading of which cannot rightly be impugned.Seeabove. Compare also ver. 12.410.ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ εὐνοῦχος πεισθεὶς καὶ παραυτίκα ἀξιῶν βαπτισθῆναι, ἔλεγε, Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. Harvey, vol. ii. p. 62.411.Such are αὐτῷ with or without ὁ Φίλιππος in E, 100, 105, 163, 186, 221, the Harkleian with an asterisk: σου added after καρδίας in E, 100, 105, 163, 186,tol., the Harkleian with an asterisk, the Armenian, Cyprian; butex toto cordethe margin ofam.and the Clementine Vulgate: τόν omitted before Ἰησοῦν in 186, 221 and others.412.“Non reperi in graeco codice, quanquam arbitror omissum librariorum incuria. Nam et haec in quodam codice graeco asscripta reperi, sed in margine.”Erasmus, N. T., 1516.413.They plead, besides the confessed preponderance of manuscript evidence for Ἑλληνιστάς, that“A familiar word standing in an obvious antithesis was not likely to be exchanged for a word so rare that it is no longer extant, except in a totally different sense, anywhere but in the Acts and two or three late Greek interpretations of the Acts; more especially when the change introduced an apparent difficulty”(Hort, Notes, p. 93).Judicet lector.414.Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. lvi and lxxxii.415.But with the same lack of accuracy which so often deforms this great copy: ως ετροφοφορησεν σεκςοθςσου ως ει τις τροποφορησειprimâ manu(Vercellone).416.Witness too Lucian's ὑπερμεγέθη ναῦν καὶ πέρα τοῦ μέτρου, μίαν τῶν ἀπ᾽ Αἰγύπτου εἰς Ἰταλίαν σιταγωγῶν (Navig. seu Vota, c. 1) which was driven out of its course to the Piraeus. Mr. Smith, of Jordan Hill, cannot bring its dimensions under 1,300 tons.417.Dr. Field, however, says that“this is a mistake.”The Syriac is ἔχωμεν and nothing else. For ἔχομεν this version (and all others) would put ܐܬ ܥܢ (or ܢܥ ܬܐ): but“when the word is in the subjunctive mood, since ܐܬ (or ܬܐ) is indeclinable, it is a peculiarity of the Harkleian to prefix the corresponding mood of ܗܘܐ (or ܐܘܗ), here ܢܗܘܐ (or ܐܘܗܢ)”(Otium Norvicense, iii. p. 93). For this strange phrase he cites Rom. i. 13; 2 Cor. v. 12, and to such an authority I have butdare manus.418.It is simply impossible to translate with Jos. Agar Beet, in the [Wesleyan]London Quarterly, April, 1878, either“Let us then, justified by faith, have peace with God,”or“Let us then be justified by faith and have peace with God.”Acts xv. 36 will help him little: the other places he cites (Matt. ii. 13, &c.) not at all.419.Dr. Vaughan (Epistle to the Romans) has ἔχωμεν in his text, and compares Heb. xii. 28, ἔχωμεν χάριν,“where there is the same variety of reading.”B is lost in this last place, but ἔχομεν, which is quite inadmissible, is found in Codd. אKP, the Latin of D, 31 and many other cursives, the printed Vulgate, and its best manuscripts. In Rom. xiv. 19 even Dr. Hort is driven by the versions and the sense to adopt in his text διώκωμεν of CD and the mass of cursives, rather than διώκομεν with אABFGLP, &c. The like confusion between ο and ω appears in the text we shall examine next but one (1 Cor. xiii. 3) and in the subjoined note (p.384). See also φορέσομεν and φορέσωμεν, 1 Cor. xv. 49. We must confess, however, that in some of our oldest extant MSS. the interchange of ο and ω is but rare. In Cod. Sarravianus it is found in but twenty-three places out of 1224 in which itacisms occur, 830 of them being the mutation of ει and ι. On the other hand, ο stands for ω andvice versâvery frequently in that papyrus fragment of the Psalms in the British Museum which Tischendorf, perhaps a little hastily, judged to be older than any existing writing on vellum.420.Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 116) observes that διαθρύπτω is specially used in the Septuagint (Lev. ii. 6; Isa. lviii. 7) for the breaking of bread.421.Few things are too hard for Dr. Hort, yet one is almost surprised to be told that“The text gives an excellent sense, for, as ver. 2 refers to a faith towards God which is unaccompanied by love, so ver. 3 refers to acts which seem by their very nature to be acts of love to men, but are really done in ostentation. First the dissolving of the goods in almsgiving is mentioned, then, as a climax, the yielding up of the very body; both alike being done for the sake of glorying, and unaccompanied by love”(Notes, p. 117).422.Tyler comparesshoushoualso in 2 Cor. vii. 5, 9; Ps. v. 11 (12).423.Neither Winer nor his careful translator, Professor Moulton, seems disposed to yield to Lachmann's authority in this matter.“In the better class of writers,”says Winer,“such forms are probably due to the transcribers (Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 721), but in later authors, especially the Scholiasts (as on Thucydides iii. 11 and 54), they cannot be set aside. In the N. T., however, there is very little in favour of these conjunctives”(Moulton's“Winer,”p. 89 and note 4, p. 361 and note 1). Yet Tregelles thinks“there would be no difficulty about the case, had not one been made by grammatical critics”(An Account of the Printed Text, p. 211, note †). But in his own example, John xvii. 2, ἵνα ... δώσῃ is read by אcACGKMSX, 33, 511, 546, and (so far as I can find) by no other manuscript whatever. On the other hand δώσει (read by Westcott and Hort;seeIntrod., Notes, p. 172) is supported by BEHUYΓΔΛΠ (א has δωσω, D εχη, L δωσ), and (as it would seem) by every other codex extant: δώσῃ came into the common text from the second edition of Erasmus. Out of the twenty-five collated by myself for this chapter, δώσει is found in twenty-four (now including Wake 12 or Cod. 492 and Cod. 622), and the following others have been expressly cited for it: 1, 10, 11, 15, 22, 42, 45, 48, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61 (Dobbin), 63, 65, 66, 106, 118, 124, 127, 131, 142, 145, 157, 250, 262, Evst. 3, 22, 24, 36, and at least fifty others, indeed one might say all that have been collated with any degree of minuteness: so too the Complutensian and first edition of Erasmus. The constant confusion of ει and η at the period when the uncials were written abundantly accounts for the reading of the few, though AC are among them. In later times such itacisms were far more rare in careful transcription, and the mediaeval copyists knew their native language too well to fall into the habit in this passage. In Pet. iii. 1 ἵνα κερδηθήσονται is read by all the uncials (אABCKLP), nearly all cursives, and the Complutensian edition, in the place of -σωνται of Erasmus and the Received text; just as we have ἵνα γινώσκομεν in אAB*LP, 98, 99, 101, 180, 184, 188, 190 in 1 John v. 20. The case for ἀρκεσθησόμεθα 1 Tim. vi. 8 is but a shade less feeble.424.Tischendorf, however, boldly interposes a comma between the words (seep.359, note), and is followed by Westcott and Hort and by Bp. Lightfoot, whose note on the passage (Coloss. p. 318) is very elaborate. This mode of punctuation would set χριστοῦ in apposition to μυστηρίου, in support of which construction ch. i. 27 (ὅ); 1 Tim. iii. 16 (ὅς) are alleged. This, however, is not the sense favoured by Hilary (in agnitionem sacramenti dei Christi, and againDeus Christus sacramentum est), and would almost call for the article before χριστοῦ. In meaning it would be equivalent to D*, &c., ὅ ἐστινχσ.425.In Dr. Swete's edition, vol. ii. p. 11, Theodore expounds thus in the old Latin version:sed facti sumus quieti in medio vestro, hoc est,“omni mediocritate et humilitate sumus abusi, nolentes graves aliquibus videri.”426.A like combination is seen in Cod. 37 in 1 Tim. vi. 19 τῆς αἰωνίου ὄντως ζωῆς.427.Dean Burgon has just presented me with the photographed page in Cod. G, respecting whose evidence there can be no remaining doubt.428.The true reading of the Codex Alexandrinus in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has long been an interesting puzzle with Biblical students. The manuscript, and especially the leaf containing this verse (fol. 145), now very thin and falling into holes, must have been in a widely different condition from the present when it first came to England. At that period Young, Huish, and the rest who collated or referred to it, believed thatΘΣwas written by the first hand. Mill (N. T.ad loc.) declares that he had first supposed the primitive reading to beΟΣ, seeing clearly that the lineoverthe letters had not been entirely made, but only thickened, by a later hand, probably the same that traced the coarse, rude, recent, horizontal diameter now running through the circle. On looking more closely, however, he detected“ductus quosdam et vestigia satis certa ... praesertim ad partem sinistram, qua peripheriam literae pertingit,”evidently belonging to an earlier diameter, which the thicker and later one had almost defaced. This old line was afterwards seen by John Berriman and four other persons with him (Gloucester Ridley, Gibson, Hewett, and Pilkington) by means of a glass in the bright sunshine, when he was preparing his Lady Moyer's Lecture for 1737-8 (Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16, p. 156). Wetstein admitted the existence of such a transverse line, but referred it to the tongue orsagittaof Ε on the reverse of the leaf, an explanation rejected by Woide, but admitted by Tregelles, who states in opposition to Woide that“Part of the Ε on the other side of the leafdoesintersect the Ο, as we have seen again and again, and which others with us have seen also”(Horne, iv. p. 156). This last assertion may be received as quite true, and yet not relevant to the point at issue. In an Excursus appended to 1 Timothy in his edition of“The Pastoral Epistles”(p. 100, 1856), Bp. Ellicott declares, as the result of“minute personal inspection,”that the original reading was“indisputably”ΟΣ. But the fact is, that the page is much too far gone to admit of any present judgement which would weigh against past judgements, as any one who examines the passage can see for himself. Woide could see the line in 1765, but not in 1785.429.Yet how can it beprecariousin the face of such testimony as the following (Quarterly Review, Oct. 1881, p. 363)? Τὸ δὲ θεὸν ὄντα ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνασχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ... τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἐκπλήξεως γέμον. Ὅ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγε; καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; ποῖον μέγα? θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί; καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ θεός (Chrysostom, i. 497). It is necessary to study the context well before we can understand the strength or weakness of Patristic evidence.430.Twenty-three times in all, as Ward (seep.394, note) observes, adding that“nothing can be more express and unquestionable than his reading.”TheQuarterly Reviewerspeaks very well (ubi supra),“A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude of proofs that Christ is God, Gregory says: Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαρρήδην βοᾷ ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι”(ii. 693).431.Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 67, 'Σχόλια Photii MSS. (Bib. Pub. Cant.)ad loc. ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις Κύριλλος ἐν τῷιβκεφαλαίῳ τῶν σχολίων φησίν, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.' Photius also quoted Gregory Thaumaturgus (or Apollinarius) for θεός.432.Dr. Swete, in his masterly edition of the Latin translation of Theodore's commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, after citing the Latin text asqui manifestatus est in carne, adds“Both our MSS. readqui, here and [15 lines] below and use the masculine consistently throughout the context.... Thus the present translation goes to confirm the inference already drawn from the Greek fragment of Theodore, de Incarn. xiii (Migne, P. G. 66, 987), that he read ὃς ἐφανερώθη”(vol. ii. p. 135 n.): pertinently observing that if Theodore used ὅς, he was in harmony with the Syriac versions.433.“Conspectum lectionis hujus loci optime dedit in sermone vernaculo William H. Ward, V. D. M. in Bibliotheca Sacrâ Americanâ, anni 1865,”Tregelles N. T.ad loc. For a copy of this work I am indebted to the kindness of A. W. Tyler of New York. Mr. Ward wonders that neither Tregelles nor I have noticed a certain pinhole in Cod. A, which was pointed out to Sir F. Madden by J. Scott Porter, made by some person at the extremity of the sagitta of the Ε on the opposite page, and falling exactly on the supposed transverse line of the Θ. I cannot perceive the pinhole, but the vellum is fast crumbling away from the effects of time, certainly through no lack of care on the part of those who keep the manuscript.434.“As the Apostle here applies toChristlanguage which in the Old Testament is made use of with reference to Jehovah (seeIsa. viii. 13), he clearly suggests the supreme godhead of our Redeemer,”as Dr. Roberts puts the matter (Words of the New Testament, p. 170). Not, of course, that our critical judgement should be swayed one way or the other by individual prepossessions; but that those who in the course of these researches have sacrificed to truth much that they have hitherto held dear, need not suppress their satisfaction when truth is gain.435.This translation of 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, and Jude, printed by Pococke from Bodl. Orient. 119, well deserves careful study, being totally different in style and character both from the Peshitto and the Harkleian, somewhat free and periphrastic, yet, in our paucity of good authorities just here, of great interest and full of valuable readings. Thus, in this very verse it reads ἀδικούμενοι (“being wronged as the hire of their wrong-doing”) with א*BP and the Armenian, difficult as it may seem to receive that word as genuine: in ver. 17 it omits εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα with אB and some other versions: in ch. iii. 10 it sides with the Sahidic alone in receiving οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται (apparently correctly) instead of εὑρεθήσεται of אBKP, of the excellent cursives 27, 29, 66secundâ manu, of the Armenian and Harkleian margin, where the Received text follows the obvious κατακαήσεται of AL and the rest, and C hits upon ἀφανισθήσονται in pure despair.436.Bp. Chr. Wordsworth speaks as though there were aparonomasia, a play on the words ἀγάπη and ἀπάτη, comparing (after Windischmann) 2 Thess. ii. 10.“The false teachers called their meetings ἀγάπαι,love feasts, but they were mere ἀπάται,deceits. Theirtablewas asnare”(Ps. lxix. 22). This view might be tenable if St. Peter, with whom theparonomasiamust have taken its rise, were not the earlier writer of the two, as the Bishop of Lincoln believes he was, as firmly as we do. Perhaps Dr. Westcott's notion that 2 Peter is a translation, not an original, at least in ch. ii, will best account for the textual variations between it and St. Jude.437.See the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. xxxv, xxxvii.438.“Restitui in Grecis hoc membrum ex quatuor manuscr. codicum, veteris Latini et Syri interpretis auctoritate. sic etiam assueto Johanne istis oppositionibus contrariorum uti quam saepissimè.”Beza, N. T., 1582.439.Horne (Introduction, vol. ii. pt. ii. ch. iii. sect. 4), and after his example Tregelles (Horne, iv. pp. 384-8), give a curious list of more than fifty volumes, pamphlets, or critical notices on this question. The following are the most worthy of perusal: Letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq., by G. Travis, Archdeacon of Chester, 1785, 2nd edit.; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Richard Porson, 1790; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Herbert Marsh [afterwards Bp. of Peterborough], 1795; A Vindication of the Literary Character of Professor Porson, by Crito Cantabrigiensis [Thomas Turton, afterwards Bp. of Ely], 1827; Two Letters on some parts of the Controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, by Nicolas Wiseman, 1835, for whichseeIndex. For Dr. Adam Clarke's“Observations,”&c., 1805,seeEvan. 61. Add F. A. Knittel on 1 John v. 7. Professor Ezra Abbot's edition of“Orme's Memoir of the Controversy on 1 John v. 7,”New York, 1866, has not fallen in my way. As elaborate works, on the verses are“A new plea for the authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, or Porson's Letters to Travis eclectically examined,”Cambridge, 1867, being the performance of a literary veteran, the late Rev. Charles Forster, whose arguments in vindication of the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, published in 1838, modern Biblical writers have found it easier to pass by than to refute; and“The Three Witnesses, the disputed text in St. John, considerations new and old,”by the Rev. H. T. Armfield, Bagster, 1883.440.That the Codex Montfortianus was influenced by the Vulgate is probably true, though it is a little hasty to infer the fact at once from a single instance, namely, the substitution of χριστός after that version and Uscan's Armenian for the second πνεῦμα in verse 6:“quae lectio Latina Graece in codicem 34 Dublinensem illum Montfortianum recepta luculenter testatur versionem vulgatam ad cum conficiendum valuisse”(Tischendorfad loc.).441.It is really surprising how loosely persons who cannot help being scholars, at least in some degree, will talk about codices containing this clause. Dr. Edward Tatham, Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford (1792-1834), writing in 1827, speaks of a manuscript in his College Library which exhibited it, but is now missing, as having been once seen by him and Dr. Parsons, Bishop of Peterborough (Crito Cantabrigiensis, p. 334, note). Yet there can be no question that he meant Act. 33, which does not give the verse, but has long been known to have some connexion with the Codex Montfortianus, which does (seeAct. 33).442.Of the two Spanish MSS. oneleon.2contains the passage only in the margin, the otherleon.1adds at the end of ver. 8,inxpoihu. Canon Westcott cites a manuscript in the British Museum (Add. 11,852), of the ninth century, to the same effect, observing that, likemandcav., it contains the Epistle to the Laodiceans. This MS. runs“quia tres sunt qui testimonium dantspset aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt. Sicut in caelo tres sunt pater verbum etspset tres unum sunt.”Westcott's manuscript is, in fact,ulm., and had already been used by Porson (Letters, &c., p. 148).443.Mr. Forster (ubi supra, pp.200-209) believed that he had discoveredGreekauthority of the fourth century for this passage, in an isolated Homily by an unknown author, in the Benedictine edition of Chrysostom (Tom. xii. pp. 416-21), whose date Montfaucon easily fixes by internal evidence ata.d.381. As this discovery, if real, is of the utmost importance in the controversy, it seems only right to subjoin the words alleged by this learned divine, leaving them to make their own way with the reader: (1) εἷς κέκληται ὁ Πατὴρ καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον: (2) δεῖ γὰρ τῇ ἀποστολικῇ χορείᾳ παραχωρῆσαι τὴν Ἁγίαν Τριάδα, ἢν ὁ Πατὴρ καταγγέλλει. Τριὰς Ἀποστόλων, μάρτυς τῆς οὐρανίου Τριάδος.444.The“Prologus Galeatus in vii EpistolasCanonicas,”in which the author complains of the omission of ver. 7,“ab infidelibus translatoribus,”is certainly not Jerome's, and begins to appear in codices of about the ninth century.445.The writer of a manuscript note in the British Museum copy of Travis'“Letters to Gibbon,”1785, p. 49, very well observes on the second citation from Cyprian:“That three are one might be taken from the eighth verse, as that was certainly understood of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,especially when Baptism was the subject in hand”[Matt. xxviii. 19].446.It will be seen upon examination of our collations on p.402that the points of difference between Codex Montfortianus (34) and Erasmus' printed text are two, viz. that 34 omits καί after πνεῦμα in ver. 8, and with the Complutensian leaves out its last clause altogether; while, on the other hand, Erasmus and Cod. 34 agree against the Complutensian in their barbarous neglect of the Greek article in both verses. As regards the omission in Cod. 34 of the last clause of ver. 8 (καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν), it is obvious to conjecture that the person, whosoever he was, that sent the transcript of the passage to Erasmus, who never saw the MS. for himself, might have broken off after copying the disputed words, and neglected to note down the further variation that immediately followed them. After the foregoing explanation we must leave the matter as it stands, for there is no known mode of accounting for the discrepancy, whereof Mr. Forster makes the very utmost in the following note, which, as a specimen of his book, is annexed entire:“Bishop Marsh labours hard to identify the Codex Britannicus used by Erasmus, with the Codex Montfortianus. Erasmus's own description of the Codex Britannicus completely nullifies the attempt:‘Postremo: Quod Britannicum etiam in terrae testimonio addebat, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι, quod non addebatur hic duntaxat in editione Hispaniensi.’Now as this clause is also omitted in the Montfort Codex, it cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus. In this as yet undiscovered MS., therefore, we have a second and independent Gr. MS. witness to the seventh verse. The zeal of the adversaries to evade this fact only betrays their sense of its importance”(p. 126). Alas!Hi motus animorum.447.I side with Porson against Travis on every important point at issue between them, and yet I must say that if the former lost a legacy (as has been reported) by publishing his“Letters,”he was entitled to but slender sympathy. The prejudices of good men (especially when a passage is concerned which they have long held to be a genuine portion of Scripture, clearly teaching pure and right doctrine) should be dealt with gently: not that the truth should be dissembled or withheld, but when told it ought to be in a spirit of tenderness and love. Now take one example out of fifty of the tone and temper of Porson. The immediate question was a very subordinate one in the controversy, namely, the evidence borne by the Acts of the Lateran Council,a.d.1215.“Though this,”rejoins Porson,“proves nothing in favour of the verse, it proves two other points. That the clergy then exercised dominion over the rights of mankind, and that able tithe-lawyers often make sorry critics.Which I desire some certain gentlemen of my acquaintance to lay up in their hearts as a very seasonable innuendo”(Letters, p. 361, quoted from“A Tale of a Tub”p. 151). As if it were a disgrace for an Archdeacon to know a little about the laws which affect the clergy.448.Gaussen (Theopneustia, pp. 115-7) has still spirit remaining to press the masculine forms οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ver. 7 and οἱ τρεῖς ver. 8 as making in favour of the intervening clause:“Remove it, and the grammar becomes incoherent:”a reason truly, but one not strong enough to carry his point.449.We are compelled to draw a sharp distinction between γεγεννημένος and γεννηθείς in the same context, and, with all deference to theQuarterly Reviewer(April, 1882, p. 366), we do not think his view of the matter more natural than that given in the text:“St. John,”he suggests,“is distinguishing between the mere recipient of the new birth (ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ),—and the man who retains the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit which he received when he became regenerate (ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ).”[The distinction given between the perfect and aorist, as I have altered it in the text, is perfectly just, and explains the passage. The effects of regeneration if continued are indefectible, but the mere fact of regeneration entails constant watchfulness.]450.So it certainly seems to me after careful inspection of Cod. A, although it may be too bold to say, as some have, that there are in it no corrections by later hands. Above in ver. 10 ἐν ἀυτῷ is supported by ABKLP and a shower of cursives in the room of ἐν ἑαυτῷ of א and the Received text, but here there is no difference of sense between the two forms. Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 144) has an exhaustive and cautious note on the breathing of αυτου, αυτῳ, &c., and ultimately declines to exclude the aspirate from the N. T.451.The Revision Revised, pp. 247-8.452.For a very full and clear account of a MS. of this class, the reader may consult an article by Prof. Isaac H. Hall in the“Journal of the American Oriental Society,”vol. xi, No. 2, 1885.453.It is not meant that these terms occur as titles.Apostolos(ܫܥܝܐ or ܐܝܥܫ) as applied to a book means the fourteen Epp. of St. Paul.Evangeliom, in the sense ofEvangelistaryin a title, is quoted in“Thesaurus Syriacus.”But many liturgical terms were borrowed from the Greeks, especially by the Maronites. For a succinct account of Greek and Latin Service Books,seePelliccia's“Polity”(tr. Bellett, 1883), pp. 183-8: for the Syriac system,seeEtheridge's“Syrian Churches,”pp. 112-6.

Footnotes1.See Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, ii.“Evidence of Early Versions and Patristic Quotations, &c.,”by the Rev. Ll. J. M. Bebb, M.A., p. 211. In this chapter, which from press reasons has been curtailed, I am glad to refer to Mr. Bebb's careful and thoughtful essay.2.I cannot help expressing my strong opinion that there were a great many distinct Latin versions, and that they had a great many sources of origin:—briefly speaking,(a) Because of the testimony of Augustine and Jerome;(b) Because Latin translations from the firstmusthave been wanted everywhere, and must have been constantly supplied. On the one hand the bilingualism prevalent in the Roman Empire would ensure a large number of translators: and on the other the want of accurate Greek scholarship would account for the numerous errors found in and propagated by the old Latin manuscripts. Copies of one translation could not in those days have been supplied in every place adequately to the want;(c) Because of the multitude of synonyms to be found in Old Latin MSS.;(d) Because on almost all disputed passages Old Latin evidence can be quoted on both sides;(e) Because the various MSS. differ so thoroughly that each MS. is quoted as resting upon its own authority, and no one standard has been reached or is in view, the utmost that has been done in this respect being to group them.But see next chapter: this is an undecided question.—Ed.3.Duval, Grammaire Syriaque, p. xi.4.Dr. Neubauer in Studia Biblica, vol. i. (Clarendon Press),“The Dialects of Palestine in the time of Christ,”distinguishes between (1) Babylonian Aramaic, (2) Galilaean Aramaic, (3) the purer Aramaic spoken at Jerusalem, and (4) modernized Hebrew also used at Jerusalem.5.I cannot agree with Dr. Field (Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Proleg. lxxvii, 1874) that the Peshitto is not the Syriac version here quoted by Melito; but, while he admits a frequent resemblance between it and the renderings imputed to“the Syrian,”he certainly produces not a few instances of diversity between the two. Besides Theodoret, who often opposes ὁ Σύρος to ὁ Εβραῖος (Thren. 1. 15 and passim), Field notes the following writers as citing the former,—Didymus, Diodorus, Eusebius of Emesa, Polychronius, Apollinarius, Chrysostom, Procopius (ibid. p. lxvii).6.All modern accounts of the unorthodox sects of the East confirm Walton's gracious language two hundred years ago:“Etsi verò, olim in haereses miserè prolapsi, se a reliquis Ecclesiae Catholicae membris separarint, unde justo Dei judicio sub Infidelium jugo oppressi serviunt, qui ipsis dominantur, ex continuis tamen calamitatibus edocti et sapientiores redditi (est enim Schola Crucis Schola Lucis) tandem eorum misertus Misericordiarum Pater eos ad rectam sanamque mentem, rejectis antiquis erroribus, reduxit”(Walton, Prolegomena, Wrangham, Tom. ii. p. 500).7.Dean Payne Smith's Catalogue, pp. 109-112. In the great Cambridge manuscript (Oo. I. 1, 2) the Epistles of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude follow 1 John, and are continued on the same quire, as Mr. Bradshaw reports.8.See an admirable paper by Dr. Gwynn in“Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy,”xxvii. 8,“On a Syriac MS. belonging to Archbishop Ussher.”This MS. was procured for Ussher in 1626 by T. Davies, lent to De Dieu, who used it in 1631, and is now in Trinity College Library, Dublin.9.Yet, besides his error of judgement in bringing into the Peshitto text such passages as we have just enumerated, Schaaf follows the Paris and London Polyglotts when interpolating τῶν σωζομένων Apoc. xxi. 24, although the words had been omitted by De Dieu (1627) and Gutbier (1664).10.Compare the Printed Editions of the Syriac New Testament,Church Quarterly Review, vol. xxvi, no. lii, 1888, and a Bibliographical Appendix by Prof. Isaac H. Hall to Dr. Murdock's Translation of the Peshitto.11.Tregelles in“Smith's Dictionary of the Bible”thinks that the term was originally applied to the Syriac version of the Hebrew Old Testament, in order to discriminate between it and the Greek Hexapla, or the Syro-hexaplar translation derived from it, with their apparatus of obeli and asterisks. To this view Dr. Field adds his weighty authority (Origenis Hexapla, Proleg. p. ix, note 1), adding that for this reason the pure Septuagint version also is called ἁπλοῦν (1 Kings vii. 13; xii. 22), to distinguish its rendering from what is given ἐν τῷ ἑξαπλῷ. The epithet which was proper to the Old Testament in course of time attached itself to the New.12.ܦܫܝܬܬܐ or ܐܬܬܝܫܦ, versio vulgata, popularis, Thes. Syr. 3319.13.A full list of editions of all the Syriac versions is given in the Syriac Grammar of Nestle (tr. Kennedy), Litteratura, pp. 17-30.14.“Remains of a very ancient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto unknown in Europe, discovered, edited, and translated by William Cureton, D.D. ... Canon of Westminster,”4to, London, 1858.Seealso Wright's description of the MSS. in Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, vol. i. pp. 73-5.15.Less able writers than Dr. Cureton have made out a strong, though not a convincing case, for the Hebrew origin of St. Matthew's Gospel, and thus far his argument is plausible enough. To demonstrate that the version he has discovered is based upon that Hebrew original, at least so far as to be a modification of it and not a translation from the Greek, he has but a single plea that will bear examination, viz. that out of the many readings of the Hebrew or Nazarene Gospel with which we are acquainted, his manuscript agrees with it in the one particular of inserting thethree kings, ch. i. 8, though even here the number offourteengenerations retained in ver. 17 shows them to be an interpolation. Such cases asJuda, ch. ii. 1;Ramtha, ver. 18; ܕ for ὅτι or the relative, ch. xiii. 16, can prove nothing, as they are common to the Curetonian with the Peshitto, from which version they may very well have been derived.16.The title to St. Matthew is remarkable; for while (in the subscription) we read,“Gospel of Markos,”and“Gospel of Juchanan”occurs, as in other Syriac MSS., to St. Matthew is prefixed the title“Evangeliom dampharsa Mattai.”The meaning of the second word is doubtful in this application. The root meansdivide,distinguish,separate—cf. Daniel v. 28. Cureton (Pref. vi) says (1) that the great authority Bernstein suggested“Evangelium per anni circulum dispositum.”This is inapplicable, because the copy is not set out in Church Lessons, although some are noted by a much later hand in the margins. (2) Cureton himself, noticing a defect in the vellum before ܡܬܝ (or ܝܬܡ), would read ܕܡܬܝ (or ܝܬܡܕ), and render“The distinct Gospel of Matthew.”This he understood to indicate that the translation of Matthew had a different origin from the other books, and was“built upon the original Aramaic text, which was the work of the Apostle himself.”But there is nothing to justify the insertion of a ܕ, which is required to connect the title with the following name. The title belongs to the whole work,“Evangeliom dampharsa—Mattai”[Catalogue Brit. Mus.l. c.]; the other names being preceded by“Evangeliom”only. (3)“Dampharsa”has been rendered“explained”[see the review in“Journal of Sacred Literature,”1858], viz. from the text of the Peshitto; and this, as we shall see presently, agrees with the character of the Curetonian, for it abounds in deliberate alterations. But (4) from the quotations and references in the“Thesaurus Syriacus”(R. Payne Smith), col. 3304, it seems almost certain that the epithet means“separated,”as opposed to“united in a Harmony.”Such, of course, the Codex Curetonianus is, but further evidence is required to justify the inference that the Curetonian was the offspring of Tatian's Harmony, and became the parent of the Peshitto, an opinion in large measure contradicted by the character of the translation.17.“Si nous devons en croire Scrivener, la version syriaque ditePeshittos'accorde bien plus avec lui [Cod. A] qu'avec (B).”(Les Livres Saints, &c., Pau et Vevey, 1872, Préface, p. iii.) The fact is notoriously true, and of course rests not on Scrivener's evidence, but on universal consent.18.The student may also consult:—Evangelienfragmente, F. Baethgen, 1885. Disputatio de cod. Evangg. Syr. Curetoniano, Hermansen, 1859. Lehir's Etude, Paris, 1859. Dr. Harman in Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature, Boston, 1885. Zeitschrift des Morgenländische Gesellschaft, 1859, p. 472. Dr. Wildeboer in De Waarde der Syrische Evangeliën (Leiden, 1880) gives three pages of the literature of the question.19.Cureton, Preface, pp. xi, xciii.20.Brit. Mus. Add. 12,138—seep.36.21.So Roediger in Z.M.D.G., b. 16, p. 550, instances ܐܚܢܢ (or ܢܢܚܐ); but it proves nothing, for the form occurs also in old Peshitto MSS.22.Pages 164-5.23.Pages 171-2.24.Some of the Homilies of Aphraates were composed between 337 and 345. Ephraem dieda.d.373. Bickell, Conspectus, p. 18.25.Page14.26.In the following paragraphs we quote from a MS. exhibiting the results of investigations made by the Rev. Dr. Waller, Principal of St. John's Hall, Highbury, who has most generously permitted us to make use of his labours.27.For other like cases see Mat. iv. 11, 21; v. 12, 47, in the Curetonian.28.The forms in which O. T. quotations appear in the Curetonian demand attention, as they seem to suggest similar inferences.29.E.g. in the transposition of the Beatitudes in St. Matt. v. 4, 5.30.Since the discovery of the Curetonian version in Syriac by Archdeacon Tattam in 1842 and Canon Cureton, some Textualists have maintained that it was older than the Peshitto on these main grounds:—1. Internal evidence proves that the Peshitto cannot have been the original text.2. The Curetonian is just such a text as may have been so, and would have demanded revision.3. The parallels of the Latin texts which were revised in the Vulgate suggests an authoritative revision betweena.d.250 and 350.These arguments depend upon a supposed historical parallel, and internal evidence.The parallel upon examination turns out to be illusory:—1. There was a definite recorded revision of the Latin Texts, but none of the Syrian. If there had been, it must have left a trace in history.2. There was an“infinita varietas”(August. De Doctr. Christ., ii. 11) of discordant Latin texts, but only one Syriac, so far as is known.3. Badness in Latin texts is just what we should expect amongst people who were poor Greek scholars, and lived at a distance. The Syrians on the contrary were close to Judea, and Greek had been known among them for centuries. It was not likely that within reach of the Apostles and almost within their lifetime a version should be made so bad as to require to be thrown off afterwards.As to internal evidence, the opinion of some experts is balanced by the opinion of other experts (see Abbé Martin, Des Versions Syriennes, Fasc. 4). The position of the Peshitto as universally received by Syrian Christians, and believed to date back to the earliest times, is not to be moved by mere conjecture, and a single copy of another version [or indeed by two copies]. Textual Guide, Miller, 1885, p. 74, note 1.31.On the order, functions, and decay of the Χωρεπίσκοποι,seeBingham's“Antiquities,”book ii, chap. xiv.32.Davidson, Bibl. Crit., vol. ii. p. 186, first edition. The Abbé Martin (seep.323note), after stating that this version was never used by any Syrian sect save the Monophysites or Jacobites, goes on to ask“Est-ce à dire que cette version soit entachée de monophysisme? Nous ne le pensons pas; pour l'affirmer, il faudra l'examiner très minutieusement; car l'hérésie monophysite est, à quelques points de vue, une des plus subtiles qui aient jamais paru”(Des Versions Syriennes, p. 162).33.The asterisks ([symbol] [symbol]) and obeli ([symbol] [symbol]) of this version will be observed in our specimens given below. Like the similar marks in Origen's Hexapla (from which they were doubtless borrowed), they have been miserably displaced by copyists; so that their real purpose is a little uncertain. Wetstein, and after him even Storr and Adler, refer them to changes made in the Harkleian from the Peshitto: White more plausibly considers the asterisk to intimate an addition to the text, the obelus to recommend a removal from it.34.“Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, ex Codd. MSS. Ridleianis in Bibliotheca Novi Collegii Oxon. repositis; nunc primum edita, cum Interpretation Latinâ et Annotationibus Josephi White. Oxonii e Typographeo Clarendoniano,”1778, 2 tom. 4to. And so for the two later volumes. Ridley named that one of his manuscripts which contains only the Gospels Codex Barsalibaei, as notes of revision by that writer are found in it (e.g. John vii. 53-viii. 11). G. H. Bernstein has also published St. John's Gospel (Leipzig, 1853) from manuscripts in the Vatican. In or about 1877 Professor Isaac H. Hall, an American missionary, discovered at Beerût a manuscript in the Estrangelo character, much mutilated (of which he kindly sent me a photographed page containing the end of St. Luke and the beginning of St. John), which in the Gospels follows the Harkleian version, although the text differs much from White's, but the rest of the N. T. is from the Peshitto. Dr. Hall has drawn up a list of over 300 readings differing from White's.35.Martin names as useful for the study of a version as yet too little known, the Lectionaries Bodleian 43; Brit. Mus. Addit. 7170, 7171, 7172, 14,490, 14,689, 18,714; Paris 51 and 52; Rome, Vatic. 36 and Barberini vi. 32.36.Seealso Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian version, Acts and Epp. of the Peshitto version ... by the Monk John. Presented to the Syrian Protestant College, &c., described with phototyped facsimiles by Prof. Isaac H. Hall [viii-ix], ff. 219 + a fragment at end.Mut.at beg. and end, &c. Written in old Jacobite characters. Sent courteously to the Editor.37.Thus also the termination of the definite state plural of nouns is made in ܐ [final form] for ܐ: the third person affix to plural nouns in ܘ for ܗܘ. In the compass of the six verses we have cited (below, p.39) occur not only the Greek words ܘܝܪܘܣܐ (or ܐܣܘܪܝܘ) (καιρός),v.3, and ܢܘܣܐ (or ܐܣܘܢ) (ναός),v.5, which are common enough in all Syriac books, but such Palestinian words and forms as ܕܝ (or ܝܕ) for ܕܝܢ (or ܢܝܕ), δέ (vv.4, 6, 7); ܒܒܝܢ (or ܢܝܒܒ)v.3,“when;”ܐܗܐv.3,“repented;”ܐܕܡܐ (or ܐܡܕܐ) for ܕܡܐ (or ܐܡܕ) (vv.4, 6, 8),“blood;”ܥܥܝܢܗ (or ܗܢܝܥܥ),v.4,“to us;”ܓܪܡܐ (or ܐܡܪܓ),v.5,“himself;”ܕܡܝܢ (or ܢܝܡܕ),v.6,“price”(Pesh. has ܛܡܝ (or ܝܡܛ), Hark. ܛܝܡܐ (or ܐܡܝܛ) (pl.) τιμή); ܥܦܝܢ (or ܢܝܦܥ)v.8,“therefore;”ܗܐܘ (or ܘܐܗ),v.8,“this.”38.Hence the name by which this version is distinguished. For the recensions of Targum and Talmud,seeEtheridge's“Hebrew Literature,”pp. 145-6, 195-7.39.Dr. Hort's not very explicit judgement should now be added:“The Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary has an entirely different text [from the Harkleian], probably not altogether unaffected by the Syriac Vulgate [meaning thereby the Peshitto], but more closely related to the Old Syriac [meaning the Curetonian]. Mixture with one or more Greek texts containing elements of every great type, but especially the more ancient, has however given the whole a strikingly composite character”(Introd., p. 157).40.On these readings, and those of the MSS. mentioned below (p.34),see“The New Syriac Fragments”(F. H. Woods), in theExpository Times, Nov., 1893.41.Seethe“Life and Times of Gregory the Illuminator, the Founder and Patron Saint of the Armenian Church,”translated by the Rev. S. C. Malan, London, 1868.42.Kept by the Greeks Oct. 23. Gale O. 4. 22 and other Greek Evangelistaria commemorate this holiday.43.Dec. 27 in the Western Calendar.44.So Gale O. 4. 22, with the same Lesson.45.SeeAthenaeum, Oct. 28, 1893.46.Anecdota Oxoniensia,“The Palestinian Version of the Holy Scripture;”edited by G. H. Gwilliam, B.D.: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1893.47.The full form (ܛܘܒܢܐ or ܐܢܒܘܛblessed) occurs in the scholion to Rom. viii. 15; Wiseman thought it meant the Peshitto; but see“Studia Biblica,”iii. 60 and note.48.Our specimens show the use in MSS. ofrucacaandkushaia, here printed with fine points. The dots and dashes of the Nestorian Massorah ore also shown.49.Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, iii. 56.50.The Codex Babylonicus,a.d.916, is the oldest Old Testament MS. known at present. Dr. Neubauer, Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., iii. 27.51.Karkaphta = skull. See also“Thes. Syr.,”col. 3762.52.Mr. Gwilliam suggests that this may have been the well-known Thomas Heracleensis. M. l'Abbé Martin (Tradition Karkaphienne, ou la Massore chez les Syriens), who carefully studied the subject twenty years ago, suggests Thomas of Edessa, teacher of Mar Abbas.SeeMr. Gwilliam's Essay in“Stud. Bibl. et Eccl.,”iii. pp. 56-65.53.“How the Codex was found”(Lewis and Gibson), 1893.54.Of no passage is this judgement more true than of this actual sentence itself, which is hardly quoted in the same way in any three MSS.; see Wordsworth's Vulgate, Fasc. 1, p. 2.55.ForItalaBentley conjecturedet illa, changing the followingnamintoquae; and he wrote to Sabatier almost ridiculing the idea of a“Versio Italica;”seeCorrespondence, ed. Wordsworth, 1842, p. 569; and“Versio Latina Italica, somnium merum,”in Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. 157-159; Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulgata, Mainz, 1868, p. 116 f.; Abp. Potter conjecturedusitataforItala;seeField, Otium Norvicense, pars tertia, p. 57.56.Bibliorum Sacr. Latinae Versiones Ant. seu Vetus Italica etc. opera et studio D. Petri Sabatier, 3 vols., Rheims, 1743-1749; a revised edition of this great work, for the Old Test., is in course of preparation under the auspices of the Munich Academy, and the able superintendence of Professor E. Wölfflin.57.Evangeliarium Quadruplex Latinae Versionis Antiquae, seu Veteris Italicae, editum ex codicibus manuscriptis ... a Josepho Blanchino, 2 vols., Rome, 1749; reprinted by Migne, Patr. Lat. xii, with the works of Eusebius Vercellensis.58.That is, by scholars who did not live in Italy; Italian Christians would use other names,vetus,antiqua,usitata,communis,vulgata; Kaulen, p. 118, Berger, p. 6.59.Published in theCatholic Magazinefor 1832-3; since reprinted in his“Essays on various subjects,”1853, vol. i.60.We have let these sentences stand as Dr. Scrivener penned them in 1883; since that time the opinion of scholars has become less positive as to the African origin of the Latin version. It is true that the words, phrases, &c., of that version in its earlier forms can be illustrated from contemporary African writers, and from them only; but that is because during this period we are dependent almost exclusively on Africa for our Latin literature; and consequently are able to use only the method ofagreementand not the method ofdifferencein testing the origin and characteristics of the Latin New Testament. These characteristics may be the result only of the time and not of the supposed place of writing. Nor can more stress be laid on the use of Greek names in the West than on the use of Latin names (plenty of which could be cited) in the East.61.SeeKaulen, p. 130 f., and also his Handb. d. Vulg., Mainz, 1870.62.“Novum opus me facere cogis ex veteri: ut post exemplaria Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa, quasi quidam arbiter sedeam: et quia inter se variant, quae sint ilia quae cum Graeca consentiant veritate, decernam. Pius labor, sed periculosa praesumptio, judicare de ceteris, ipsum ab omnibus judicandum: senis mutare linguam, et canescentem jam mundum ad initia retrahere parvulorum.”Praef. ad Damasum.63.“[Evangelia] Codicum Graecorum emendata collatione, sed veterum, quae ne multum a lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent, ita calamo temperavimus, ut his tantum quae sensum videbantur mutare correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant.”Ibid.For a signal instance, see below, ch.ix, note on Matt. xxi. 31.64.To his well-known censure of Jerome's rendering of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, Augustine adds,“Proinde non parvas Deo gratias agimus de opere tuo, quod Evangelium ex Graeco interpretatus es: quia pene in omnibus nulla offensio est, cum Scripturam Graecam contulerimus.”65.Roger Bacon's writings, however, in the thirteenth century, are the first in which Jerome's translation is cited as the“Vulgate”in the modern sense of the term.SeeDenifle, Die Handschriften der Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts, 1883, p. 278.66.SeeJaffé, Monumenta Carolina, p. 373,“Jam pridem universos Veteris ac Novi instruments libros ... examussim correximus;”S. Berger's essay (to be distinguished from his larger work), De l'histoire de la Vulgate en France (1887), p. 3 f.67.Seethe Oxford“Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica,”ii (1890), p. 278 f.68.Fritzsche,“Latein. Bibelübersetzungen”in Herzog, R. E.2viii. p. 449; Westcott,“Vulgate,”in Smith's Bibl. Dict. iii. p. 1703; Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulg., p. 229 f.; P. Corssen, in“Die Trierer Adahandschr.”(Leipzig, 1889), p. 31.69.Berger, as above, p.7.70.Seethe Life of Lanfranc, by Milo Crispinus, a monk of Bec, ch. xv, in Migne, Patr. Lat. 150, col. 55, and his Commentary,ibid., col. 101 f.; Mill, Proleg., § 1058; Cave's remark (Hist. Lit. 1743, vol. ii. p. 148),“Lanfrancus textum continuo emendat,”seems hardly borne out by the facts.71.His corrected Bible in four vols. is now preserved at Dijon, public library, 9 bis,seebelow, p.68, no.8; also Denifle, Die Hdss. d. Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrh. 1883, p. 267; Kaulen, p. 245.72.His criticisms are preserved in a MS. at Venice (Marciana Lat. class. x. cod. 178, fol. 141);seeDenifle, p. 270, who prints them.73.Seethe quotations in Denifle, p. 277 f., and Hody, p. 419 f.74.SeeS. Berger, De l'histoire de la Vulgate en France, p. 9 f., 1887, and Revue de Théol. et de Philos. de Lausanne, t. xvi. p. 41, 1883.75.SeeHugo's remark (Denifle, p. 295),“In multis libris maxime historialibus, non utimur translatione Hieronymi.”76.SeeVercellone, Diss. Acad., Rome, 1864, pp. 44-51; Hody, pp. 426-430; and Denifle, pp. 295-298. This correctorium is cited in Wordsworth's Vulgate ascor. vat.;seeBerger, Notitia Linguae Hebraicae etc., p. 32 (1893).77.SeeW. A. Copinger, Incunabula Biblica, or the first half-century of the Latin Bible, p. 3, London, 1892; and L. Delisle, Journ. des Savants, Apr. 1893.78.Or to Peter Schoeffer,seeJ. H. Hessels, in theAcademy, June, 1887, p. 396; August, p. 104; or to Johann Fust.Seethe British Museum“Catalogue of Printed Books,”Bible, part i. col. 16.79.Westcott, Vulgate, p. 1704. This seems to be that of“Thielman Kerver, impensis J. Parvi,”with emendations of A. Castellani.80.The British Museum possesses a copy (340. d. 1);seethe“Catalogue,”part i. col. 1.81.For detailssee“Old Lat. Bibl. Texts,”i. p. 51 f.82.Ibid., p. 48 f.83.The critical notes of Lucas Brugensis himself appear to be found in three forms:—(1) The“Notationes,”published in 1580, and incorporated in the Hentenian Bible of 1583.(2) The“Variae Lectiones,”printed in Walton's Polyglott, and taken from the Louvain Bible of 1584. These are simply a list of various readings to the Vulgate, with MS. authorities; he frequently adds the letters Q. N., i.e.“quaere notationes,”where he has treated the subject more fully in (1).(3) The“Notae ad Varias Lectiones,”also printed (for the Gospels) in Walton's Polyglott; adelectusof them is given in Sabatier at the end of each book of the New Testament, under the title“Roman. Correctionum auctore Fr. L. Br. delectus.”84.SeeE. Nestle, Ein Jubiläum der lateinischen Bibel, Tübingen, p. 13 f., 1892.85.There is a copy in the British Museum, Q. e. 5. It is practically in one volume, as the paging is continuous throughout.86.He gives a long list of the variations between the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles; Vercellone estimated their number at 3,000. It is to be noticed that theversingof the Sixtine ed. differs considerably from the Clementine as well as from Stephen.87.The regular form of title,“Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti V Pont. Max. jussu recognita et Clementis VIII auctoritate edita,”does not appear in any edition known to the writer before that of Rouille, Lyons, 1604.SeeBrit. Mus. Catalogue, col. 50. The earliest edition with this title known to Masch (Le Long, Bibl. Sacra, 1783, ii. p. 251) is dated 1609; and Vercellone (Variae Lect. i. p. lxxii) names others considerably later as the earliest.88.SeeOld Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. xvi.89.Ibid., p. xxv.90.SeeFasc. i. p. xv, and Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Cambridge, 1862.91.M. Berger, with exceptional kindness, allowed me to see the proof-sheets of his“History of the Vulgate”as they were printed, and to add a large number of MSS. to this list from that source.92.For the Würzburg MSS.,seeG. Schepps, Die ältesten Evangelienhandschriften der Universitätsbibliothek, Würzburg, 1887, from which these descriptions are mainly taken.93.For these MSS.,seeas before, G. Schepss, Die ältesten Evangelienhandschriften d. Würzb. Univ. B., 1887.94.My authority for these facts is Brugsch, Grammaire Démotique, p. 4, but what does he mean by the words which I have italicised?“Au nombre des auteurs les plus récents qui nous aient donné des témoignages sur l'existence du démotique il faut citer St. Clément, prêtre de l'église chrétienne à Alexandrie, et qui vivait vers l'an 190 de notre ère, ou environ le temps où régnait l'empereur Sévère. Mais les monuments nous prouvent quecette date n'est pas la dernière; il se trouve encore des inscriptions d'une époque plus rapprochée; telle est par exemple une inscription démotique que M. de Saulcy avait copiée en Égypte et qu'il eut la complaisance de me communiquer pendant mon séjour à Paris; elle date du règne en commun d'Aurélius et de Vérus, ce qui prouve quedans la première moitié du troisième sièclele démotique était encore connu et en usage.”L. Verus dieda.d.169.95.The date, however, is placed very much earlier by Revillout (Mélanges d'Archéologie Égyptienne et Assyrienne, p. 40), who supposes the Coptic alphabet to have been a work commenced by pagan Gnostics, completed by Christian Gnostics, and adopted when complete by their orthodox successors.96.[That Bahiric is a wrong transliteration is shown by Stern, Zeitschr. für Aeg. Sprache, 16 (1878), p. 23.]97.[There has been considerable variation in the names given to the different dialects. The terms Thebaic and Memphitic have been commonly adopted as a more convenient nomenclature, but, as will be shown below, the latter name at any rate is incorrect and misleading. Owing to the accident that the Memphitic dialect was the form of Coptic best known and earliest studied in Western Europe, the term Coptic has been sometimes confined to the Bohairic or Memphitic, as distinguished from the Sahidic or Thebaic, and was so used by Tischendorf; this usage also is erroneous and misleading; and the names Bohairic and Sahidic are almost universally employed by scholars at the present day.]98.Schwartze, whose opinion will not be suspected of any theological bias, infers from the historical notices that“the greatest part of the New Testament writings, if not all, and a part of the Old Testament, especially the Psalms, had been already translated, in the second century, into the Egyptian language, and indeed into that of Lower as well as into that of Upper Egypt”(p. 963).99.For convenience the following abbreviations will be used:“Z. A. S.”forZeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache;“Recueil”for theRecueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l'archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes;“Mémoires”for theMémoires de la Mission Archéologique Française au Caire; and“Mitt.”for theMittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer.100.Quatremère can only point to a single word accidentally preserved, which according to his hypothesis belongs to the real Bashmuric (Sur la Langue &c., p. 213 sq.).101.Memphitic (Lightfoot), Coptic (Tischendorf and others).102.Seealso A. J. Butler's“Coptic Churches,”vol. ii, Oxford.103.I have always added 284 to the year of the Martyrs for the yeara.d.; but this will not give the date accurately in every case, as the Diocletian year began in August or September;seeClinton, Fast. Rom., ii. p. 210.104.I have observed Luke xxiii. 17 in at least three wholly distinct forms in different Bohairic MSS.105.My sincere thanks are due to the late Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, and to Lord Zouche, for their kindness in allowing me free access to their valuable collections of Coptic MSS., and in facilitating my investigations in many ways.106.The volume, *Parham 102, described in the printed Catalogue (no. 1, vellum, p. 27) as a MS. of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, is really a selection of passages taken in order from the four Gospels, with a patristic catena attached to each. The leaves, however, are much displaced in the binding, and many are wanting. The title to the first Gospel is ϯ ⲉⲣⲙⲏⲛⲓⲁ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲑⲉⲟⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ϩⲁⲛⲙⲏϣ ⲛⲥⲁϧ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲫⲱⲥⲧⲏⲣ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯ ⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ, &c.“The interpretation of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew from numerous doctors and luminaries of the Church.”Among the Fathers quoted I observed Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Clement, the two Cyrils (of Jerusalem and of Alexandria), Didymus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Evagrius, the three Gregories (Thaumaturgus, Nazianzen, and Nyssen), Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Severianus of Gabala, Severus of Antioch (often styled simply the Patriarch), Symeon Stylites, Timotheus, and Titus.In the account of this MS. in the Catalogue it is stated that“the name of the scribe who wrote it is Sapita Leporos, a monk of the monastery, or monastic rule, of Laura under the sway of the great abbot Macarius,”and the inference is thence drawn that it must have been written before 395, when Macarius died. This early date, however, is at once set aside by the fact that writers who lived in the sixth century are quoted. Professor Wright (Journal of Sacred Literature, vii. p. 218), observing the name of Severus in the facsimile, points out the error of date, and suggests as an explanation that the colophon (which he had not seen) does not speak of the great Macarius, but of“an abbotMacarius.”The fact is, that though the great Macarius is certainly meant, there is nothing which implies that he was then living. The scribe describes himself as ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϧⲁ ⲡⲓ ⲧⲁⲗⲉⲡⲱⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲁϥⲥϧⲁⲓ,“I the unhappy one (ταλαιπωρος) who wrote it”(which has been wrongly read and interpreted as a proper name Sapita Leporos). He then gives his name ⲑⲉⲟⲗ ⲡⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (Theodorus of Busiris?) and adds, ⲡⲓⲁⲧⲙⲡϣⲁ ⲙⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲗⲁⲩⲣⲁ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ ⲁⲃⲃⲁ ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓ,“the unworthy monk of the holy laura of the great abbot Macarius.”He was merely an inmate of the monastery of St. Macarius; see the expression quoted from the Vat. MS. lxi in Tattam's Lexicon, p. 842. This magnificent MS. is dateda.m.604 =a.d.888 and has been published by Professor De Lagarde; but its value may not be very great for the Bohairic Version, as it is perhaps translated from the Greek.The *Parham MS. 106 (no. 5, p. 28) is wrongly described as containing the Gospel of St. John. The error is doubtless to be explained by the fact that the name ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲟⲩ occurs at the bottom of one of the pages; but the manuscript is not Biblical. Another MS. (no. 13, p. 29) is described as“St. Matthew with an Arabic translation, very large folio: a modern MS. copied at Cairo from an antient one in the library of the Coptic Patriarch.”I was not able to find this, when through the courtesy of Lord Zouche I had access to the Parham collection.107.The above account has been throughout revised by the Rev. G. Horner, who has collated or examined all MSS. of the Bohairic versions in European libraries.108.The MSS. 7 and 16 are exceptions.109.No weight can be given to the abnormal order in no. 12, until we know something more of this MS., which is perhaps a late transcript.110.It is used in the Apocalypse by Tregelles, and apparently also by Tischendorf in his eighth edition; and in the Rev. S. C. Malan's“Gospel according to St. John, translated from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin,”London, 1862, all Tuki's Sahidic fragments of this Evangelist are included.111.SeeMünter, De Indole, &c., Praef., p. iv. Schwartze (Quat. Evang. p. xx) says,“Praeterquam quod sicut omnes Tukii libri scatent vitiis, etiam angustioris sunt fideiRudimenta, Sahidicis locis partim e versione Arabica a Tukio concinnatis.”I do not know on what grounds Schwartze makes this last statement.112.This has now been published. By Amélineau, Notice sur le Papyrus Gnostique Bruce. Texte et Traduction, Notices et Extraits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres Bibliothèques. Tome xxix. lrePartie. Paris, 1891; and Gnostische Schriften in Koptischer Sprache aus dem Codex Brucianus, von Carl Schmidt, Leipzig, 1892.113.In the interval between Woide and Zoega, Griesbach (1806) appears to have obtained a few readings of this version from the Borgian MSS., e.g. Acts xxiv. 22, 23; xxv. 6; xxvii. 14; Col. ii. 2. At least I have not succeeded in tracing them to any printed source of information.Of the use which Schwartze has made of the published portions of the Sahidic text in his edition of the Bohairic Gospels, I have already spoken (p. 108). He has added no unpublished materials.114.Catal., p. 169:“Si de aetate codicum quaeris, scio equidem non defuisse qui singulos ad saecula sua referre satagerent, qui si aliquid profecerunt, ego sane non obstrepo. Sed quoniam meum sit quacumque in re ignorantiam fateri potius quam quae mihi non satisfaciunt, aliis velut explorata offerre, &c.”But since this was written the publication of Hyvernat's“Album de Paléographie Copte”has given much assistance; and more may be looked for from the publication of the Paris fragments.115.Its position was before Galatians, and not, as in the archetype of the Codex Vaticanus, after it.116.The term“Middle Egyptian”is often used as a general term to include the three varieties of Fayoumic, Lower Sahidic or what is properly Memphitic, and Akhmimic.117.The writer must express his regret that, owing to the haste with which the additions to this article had to be written, much must have been passed over.118.“But he prudently suppressed the four books of Kings, as they might tend to irritate the fierce and sanguinary spirit of the barbarians;”Gibbon, ch. xxxvii.119.“A faithful, a stern and noble Teutonic rendering of the Greek,”is the verdict of Prebendary S. C. Malan (St. John's Gospel, translated from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin, &c., 4to, 1872, Preface, p. viii). Bishop Ellicott also praises this version as usually faithful and accurate, yet marks an Arian tinge in the rendering of Phil. ii. 6-8.120.Goth. Version. Paul. Epist. quae supersunt, C. O. Castiglione, Milan, 1834.121.Skeat, St. Mark, 1882.122.Matt. iii. 11; v. 8; 15-vi. 32; vii. 12-x. 1; 23-xi. 25; xxv. 38-xxvi. 3; 65-xxvii. 19; 42-66; Mark i. 1; vi. 30; 58-xii. 38; xiii. 16-29; xiv. 4-16; 41-xvi. 12; Luke i. 1-x. 30; xiv. 9-xvi. 24; xvii. 3-xx. 46; John i. 29; iii. 3-5; 23-26; 29-32; v. 21-23; 35-38; 45-xi. 47; xii. 1-49; xiii. 11-xix. 13; Rom. vi. 23; vii. 1-viii. 10; 34-xi. 1; 11-xii. 5; 8-xiv. 5; 9-20; xv. 3-13; xvi. 21-24; 1 Cor. i. 12-25; iv. 2-12; v. 3-vi. 1; vii. 5-28; viii. 9-ix. 9; 19-x. 4; 15-xi. 6; 21-31; xii. 10-22; xiii. 1-12; xiv. 20-27; xv. 1-35; 46-Gal. i. 7; 20-iii. 6; 27-Eph. v. 11; 17-29; vi. 8-24; Phil. i. 14-ii. 8; 22-iv. 17; Col. i. 6-29; ii. 11-iv. 19; 1 Thess. ii. 10-2 Thess. ii. 4; 15-1 Tim. v. 14; 16-2 Tim. iv. 16; Tit. i. 1-ii. 1; Philem. 1-23; but no portion of the Acts, Hebrews, Catholic Epistles, or Apocalypse.123.Seep. 10 of the Armenian edition; Venice, 1833. The French translation of this in the“Collection des Historiens de l'Arménie,”Paris, 1869, is untrustworthy in all ways, and especially because the translator both adds to and omits from the Armenian text at random.124.The true history of which we cannot now make out, for, as given by his contemporaries, it is already obscured by legend and miracle.125.The translation of this writer in Langlois' second volume is reliable.126.Some critics bring down the date of Moses as late as the seventh or eighth century.127.Dr. Baronean thinks that the varieties of readings in the oldest Armenian MSS. is due to the fact that more than onesurecopy was brought from Constantinople on which to base the final revision.128.This is the conclusion at which P. P. Carékin arrives. See his“Catalogue of Ancient Armenian Translations,”Venice, 1889, p. 228.129.Among the chief authorities on the Slavonic version are the following:—(i) Горскій и Невоструевъ, описаніе славянскихъ рукописей Московской Синодальной Библіотеки. Москва, 1855.(ii) Астафьевъ, Опьітъ исторіи библіи въ Россіи въ связи съ просвѣщеніемъ и нравами. С. Петербургъ, 1892.(iii) Voskresenski, Характеристческія чертъі гиавнъіхъ редакцій славянскаго перевода Евангелія.(iv) Voskresenski, Древній славянскій переводъ Апостола и его судьбы до xv вѣка.(v) Oblak, Die Kirchenslavische Uebersetzung der Apocalypse [in the“Archiv für Slavische Philologie,”xiii. pp. 321-361].(vi) Prolegomena to the editions of the Codex Marianus and the Codex Zographensis, &c., by Jagić.(vii) Kaluzniacki, Monumenta Linguae Palaeoslavonicae, vol. i.130.In the Synodal Library at Moscow this proportion is as nine to two, and in another library as twelve to one.SeeОписаніе славянскихъ рукописей и т. д. (as above), p. 299.131.Kaluzniacki,l. c., p. xlv, gives instances.132.SeeJagić, Codex Zographensis, pp. xxvii ff.133.The statement that John Bishop of Seville translated the Bible into Arabic ina.d.719 is disproved by Lagarde (Die vier Evangelien Arabisch, p. xv).134.Edward Pocock, Professor of Hebrew at Oxford (1648-91) and a great Oriental scholar, should be distinguished from Richard Pococke, an Eastern traveller and Bishop of Meath, who died in 1765.135.I have been obliged to alter the first paragraph in this chapter because of Dr. Scrivener's private confession to myself of the great value of Dean Burgon's services in this province of Sacred Textual Criticism. I am convinced that he could not have continued to maintain an opinion so adverse to the value of early citations as that which he formed when people were not sufficiently aware of the wealth of illustrative evidence that lay ready to their hands. As Editor I owe very much in this chapter, both to the express teaching in Dean Burgon's great book, and to his method of argument in respect to patristic citations. The Dean did not leave this province at all as he found it.136.The Revision Revised, by John William Burgon, B. D., Dean of Chichester. John Murray, 1883.137.Seesome very thoughtful and cautious remarks by the Rev. Ll. J. M. Bebb in the second volume of the Oxford“Studia Biblica (et Ecclesiastica).”Mr. Bebb's entire Article on“The Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of the Books of the New Testament”is well worth careful study.138.“Dated codices, in fact they are, to all intents and purposes.”Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 292.“Every Father is seen to be a dated witness and an independent authority,”p. 297.139.I am glad to be able to coincide thus far with the judgement of Mr. Hammond, who says:“The value of even the most definite Patristic citation is only corroborative. Standing by itself, any such citation might mean no more than that the writer found the passage in his own copy, or in those examined by him, in the form in which he quotes it. The moment, however, it is found to be supported by other good evidence, the writer's authority may become of immense importance”(Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 66, 2nd edition). His illustration is the statement of Irenaeus in Matt. i. 18, which is discussed below, Chap.XI. (Third Edition.)140.He speaks (N. T., Proleg., § 1478) of Bp. Fell's“praepropera opinio;”he merely stated asuniversallytrue what for the most part certainly is so.141.Take the case of Irenaeus, in some respects the most important of them all. Theeditio princepsof Erasmus (1526) was printed from manuscripts now unknown. The three best manuscripts are in Latin only. The oldest of them I saw at Middle-hill, an exquisite specimen of the tenth or eleventh century,olimClaromontanus; another, of the twelfth, is in the Arundel collection in the British Museum; the third once belonged to Vossius.142.Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. 256, 7th edition) speaks of one Wolfenbüttel manuscript of the sixth century containing the Homilies on St. Matthew, which he designed to publish in his“Monumenta Sacra Inedita,”vol. vii. He indicates its readings by Chrgue.143.Life of Dean Burgon, by Dean Goulburn, p. 82, note. Murray, 1892.144.Dampar cod. i.e.“Joh. Damasceni parallela sacra ex cod. Rupefuc. saeculi ferè 8.”Tischendorf, N. T., Preface to vol. i of the eighth edition, 1869. He promised full information in his“Prolegomena,”which never appeared. Here we have a manuscript ascribed to the same century as the Father whose work it contains. One MS. is at Paris (collated by Mr. Rendel Harris,a.d.1884); another in Phillipps collection at Cheltenham.145.This important witness for the Old Latin version must now be used with H. Roensch's“Das Neue Testament Tertullian's,”Leipzig, 1871, wherein all his citations from the N. T. are arranged and critically examined.146.SeeDean Burgon's Appendix (D) to his“Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark,”pp. 269-287, which well deserves the praise accorded to it by a not very friendly critic. The Dean discusses at length the genius and character of Victor of Antioch's Commentary on St. Mark, and enumerates the manuscripts which contain it.147.It should be stated that some of the dates in the two tables just given are doubtful, authorities differing.148.Since the first edition of this book was issued, Ed. Reuss has published“Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci, cuius editiones ab initio typographiae ad nostram aetatem impressas quotquot reperiri potuerunt collegit digessit illustravit E. R. Argentoratensis”(Brunsvigae, 1872), to which the reader is referred for editions which our purpose does not lead us to notice. Some of his statements regarding the text of early editions we have repeated in the notes of the present chapter. His enumeration is not grounded on a complete collation of any book, but from the study of a thousand passages (p. 24) selected for his purpose. Hence his numerical results are perpetually less than our own, or even than Mill's. Professor Isaac H. Hall in Schaff's“Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version,”D. I. Macmillan, 1883, has improved upon Reuss, and given a list of editions which as to America is, I believe, exhaustive (seealso his“American Greek Testaments—a Critical Bibliography of the Greek New Testament as published in America”—Philadelphia, Pickwick and Company, 1883), and is very full as regards English and other editions. I should like to have availed myself of the Professor's kind permission to copy that list, but it would have been going out of the way to do so, since these two chapters are simply upon theEarlyPrinted and theCriticalEditions of the Text.—Ed.149.“Novum Testamentum Grece et Latine in academia complutensi noviter impressum,”Tom. v.150.Quite enough has been made of that piece of grim Spanish humour,“Mediam autem inter has latinam beati Hieronymi translationem velut inter Synagogam et Orientalem Ecclesiam posuimus: tanquam duos hinc et inde latrones, medium autem Jesum, hoc est Romanam sive latinam Ecclesiam collocantes”(Prol. Tom. i). The editors plainly meant no disparagement to the original Scriptures,as such; but they had persuaded themselves that Hebrew codices had been corrupted by the Jew, the Septuagint by the schismatical Greek, and so clung to the Latin as the only form (even before the Council of Trent) in which the Bible was known or studied in Western Europe.151.Of these, two copies are in Greek, three in Latin Elegiacs. I subjoin those of the native Greek editor, Demetrius Ducas, as a rather favourable specimen of verse composition in that age: the fantastic mode of accentuation described above was clearly nothiswork.Ειπράξεις ὅσιαι ἀρετήτε βροτοὺς ἐς ὅλυμπον,ἐσμακάρων χῶρον καὶ βίον οἶδεν ἄγειν,ἀρχιερεὺς ξιμένης θεῖος πέλει. ἔργα γὰρ αὐτοῦἤδε βίβλος. θνητοῖς ἄξια δῶρα τάδε.152.Tregelles (Account of the Printed Text, p. 7, note) states that he waselectedFeb. 28, crowned March 11: Sir Harris Nicolas (“Chronology of History,”p. 194) that he was elected March 11, without naming the date of his coronation as usual, but mentioning that“Leo X, in his letters, dated the commencement of his pontificate before his coronation.”153.The following is the document (a curiosity in its way) as cited by Vercellone:“Anno primo Leonis PP. X. Reverendiss. Dom. Franciscus Card. Toletanus de mandato SS. D. N. Papae habuit ex bibliotheca a Dom. Phaedro Bibliothecario duo volumina graeca: unum in quo continentur libri infrascripti; videlicet Proverbia Salomonis, Ecclesiastes, Cant. Cant., Job, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Esdras, Tobias, Judith [this is Vat. 346, or 248 of Parsons]. Sunt in eo folia quingenta et duodecim ex papyro in nigro. Fuit extractum ex blancho primo bibliothecae graecae communis. Mandatum Pontificis super concessione dictorum librorum registratum fuit in Camera Apostolica per D. Franciscum De Attavantes Notarium, ubi etiam annotata est obligatio. Promisit restituere intra annum sub poena ducentorum ducatorum.”—“Restituit die 9 Julii, MDXVIII. Ita est. Fr. Zenobius Bibliothecarius.”154.The Catalogue is copied at length by Tregelles (Account of the Printed Text, pp. 15-18). It is scarcely worth while to repeat the silly story taken up by Moldenhawer, whose admiration oflas cosas de Españawas not extravagantly high, that the Alcalà manuscripts had been sold to make sky-rockets about 1749; to which statement Sir John Bowring pleasantly adds in 1819,“To celebrate the arrival of some worthless grandee.”Gutierrez's recent list comprehends all the codices named in the University Catalogue made in 1745; and we may hope that even in Spain all grandees are not necessarily worthless.155.Thus in St. Mark the Complutensian varies from Laud. 2 in fifty-one places, and nowhere agrees with it except in company with a mass of other copies. In the Acts on the contrary they agree 139 times, and differ but forty-one, some of theirloci singularesbeing quite decisive: e.g. x. 17; 21; xii. 12; xvii. 31; xx. 38; xxiv. 16; 1 Pet. iii. 12; 14; 2 Pet. i. 11. In most of these places Seidel's Codex, in some of them Act. 69, and in nearly all Cod. Havn. 1 (Evan. 234, Act. 57, Paul. 72) are with Laud. 2. On testing this last at the Bodleian in some forty places, I found Mill's representation fairly accurate. As might have been expected, his Oxford manuscripts were collated much the best.156.Goeze's“Defence of the Complutensian Bible,”1766. He published a“Continuation”in 1769.Seealso Franc. Delitzsch's“Studies on the Complutensian Polyglott”(Bagster, 1872), derived from his Academical Exercise as Dean of the Theological Faculty at Leipzig, 1871-2.157.Reuss says boldly that the Complutensian text“purus et authenticus a veteribus nunquam repetitus est”(p. 25), and gives a list of forty-four places in which the Complutensian and Plantin editions are at variance (pp. 16, 17). He subjoins a list of 185 cases in which the two are in unison against Erasmus and Stephen jointly (pp. 18-21), so that the influence of the former over the latter cannot be disputed.158.At forty he obtained the countenance of that good and bountiful rather than great prelate, William Wareham, Archbishop of Canterbury (1502-32), who, prosperous in life, was so singularly“felix opportunitate mortis.”It gladdens and makes sad at once an English heart to read what Erasmus writes about him ten years later:“Cujusmodi Maecenas, si mihi primis illis contigisset annis, fortassis aliquid in bonis literis potuissem. Nunc natus saeculo parum felici, cum passim impunè regnaret barbaries, praesertim apud nostrates, apud quos turn crimen etiam erat quicquam bonarum literarum attigisse, tantum aberat ut honos aleret hominum studia in eâ regione, quae Baccho Cererique dicata sunt verius quam musis”(N. T. 1516, Annot. 1 Thess. ii. p. 554).159.Bishop Middleton may have lost sight of this pregnant fact when he wrote of Erasmus,“an acquaintance with Greek criticism was certainly not among his best acquirements, as his Greek Testament plainly proves: indeed he seems not to have had a very happy talent for languages”(Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 395, 3rd edition).160.The title-page is long and rather boastful.“Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum, non solum ad graecam veritatem, verum etiam ad multorum utriusque linguae codicum, eorumque veterum simul et emendatorum fidem, postremo ad probatissimorum autorum citationem, emendationem, et interpretationem, praecipue, Origenis, Chrysostomi, Cyrilli, Vulgarii, Hieronymi, Cypriani, Ambrosii, Hilarii, Augustini, una cum Annotationibus, quae lectorem doceant, quid qua ratione mutatum sit. Quisquis igitur amas veram theologiam, lege, cognosce, ac deinde judica. Neque statim offendere, si quid mutatum offenderis, sed expende, num in melius mutatum sit. Apud inclytam Germaniae Basilaeam.”The Vulgarius of Erasmus' first edition is no less a person than Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, as appears plainly from his Annotations, p. 319,“nec in ullis graecorum exemplaribus addita reperi [ἐκ σοῦ, Luke i. 35], ne apud Vulgarium quidem, nec in antiquis codicibus Latinis.”He had found out his portentous blunder by 1528, when, in his“Responsio ad Object, xvi. Hispanorum,”he gives that commentator his right name.161.Yet he could have followed none other than Cod. 1 in Matt. xxii. 28; xxiii. 25; xxvii. 52; xxviii. 3, 4, 19, 20; Mark vii. 18, 19, 26; x. 1; xii. 22; xv. 46; Luke i. 16, 61; ii. 43; ix. 1, 15; xi. 49; John i. 28; x. 8; xiii. 20; in all which passages the Latin Vulgate is neutral or hostile. See also Hoskier, Cod. Ev. 604, App. F. p. 4.162.Such are ὀρθρινός, Apoc. xxii. ver. 16; ἐλθέ bis, ἐλθέτω, λαμβανέτω τό, ver. 17; συμμαρτυροῦμαι γάρ, ἐπιτιθῇ πρὸς ταῦτα,—τῷ (anteβιβλίῳ) ver. 18; ἀφαιρῇ, βίβλου, ἀφαιρῆσει, βίβλουsecund., καί ult-τῷ (anteβιβλίῳ) ver. 19; ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν, ver. 21. Erasmus in his Annotations fairly confesses what he did:“quanquam in calce hujus libri, nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros, quae aberant in Graecis exemplaribus, ea tamen ex latinis adjecimus.”But since the text and commentary in Cod. Reuchlini are so mixed up as to be undistinguishable in parts without the aid of a second manuscript (Tregelles'“Delitzsch's Handschriftliche Funde,”Part ii. pp. 2-7), it is no wonder that in other places Erasmus in his perplexity was sometimes tempted to translate into his own Greek from the Latin Vulgate such words or clauses as he judged to have been wrongly passed over by his sole authority, e.g. ch. ii. 2, 17; iii. 5, 12, 15; vi. 11, 15 (seeunder Apoc. 1); vii. 17; xiii. 4, 5; xiv. 16; xxi. 16; xxii. 11, where the Greek words only of Erasmus are false; while in ch. ii. 3; v. 14 (bis); vi. 1, 3, 5, 7; xiii. 10; xiv. 5 (as partly in xxii. 14), he was misled by the recent copies of the Vulgate, whereto alone he had access, to make additions which no Greek manuscript is known to support. Bengel's acuteness had long before suspected that ch. v. 14; xxii. 11, and the form ἀκαθάρτητος, ch. xvii. 4 (where Apoc. 1 has τὰ ἀκάθαρτα) had their origin in no Greek copy, but in the Vulgate. Nor does Apoc. 1 lend any countenance to ch. xvii. 8, καίπερ ἔστι, or to ver. 13, διαδιδώσουσιν. For Erasmus' πληρώσονται ch. vi. 11, Apoc. 1 has πληρώσωσιν, the Latinimpleantur; for his σφραγίζωμεν, ch. vii. 3, we find σφραγίσωμεν in Apoc. 1, but the latter omits τῆς ἀμπέλου, ch. xiv. 18, and so does Erasmus on its authority.163.Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, p. 19.164.It sometimes happens that a reading cited in the Annotations is at variance with that given in the text; but Erasmus had been engaged in writing the former for about ten years at intervals, and had no leisure to revise them then. Thus John xvii. 2 δώσει (after Cod. 1, but corrected to δώση in the errata); 1 Thess. ii. 8; iii. 1; 1 Tim. v. 21; Apoc. i. 2; ii. 18; xiv. 10, 13; xxi. 6.165.The first complete printed English N. T. (Tyndale 1526) followed Erasmus' third edition rather than his second: cf. Rom. viii. 20, 21 as well as 1 John v. 7, 8.166.I never saw the Basle manuscripts, and probably Dean Alford had been more fortunate, otherwise I do not think he has evidence for his statement that 'Erasmus tampered with the readings of the very few MSS. which he collated' (N. T., vol. i. Proleg. p. 74, 4th edition). The truth is, that to save time and trouble, he used them ascopyfor the press, as was intimated above, where Burgon's evidence is quite to the point. For this purpose corrections would of course be necessary (those made by Erasmus were all too few), and he might fairly say, in the words cited by Wetstein (N. T., Proleg., p. 127),“se codices suos praecastigasse.”Any wanton“tampering”with the text I am loth to admit, unless for better reasons than I yet know of.167.Reuss (p. 24) enumerates 347 passages wherein the first edition of Erasmus differs from the Complutensian, forty-two of which were changed in his second edition. In fifteen places the first edition agrees with the Complutensian against the second (p. 30).168.Besides the weighty insertion of 1 John v. 7, 8, Reuss (p. 32) gives us only seven changes in the third edition from the second: Mill's other cases, he says, must be mere trifles.169.Here again Reuss declares“paucissimas novas habet”(p. 36), and names only six.170.“Non deserit quartam nisi duobus in locis: 1 Cor. xii. 2; Acts ix. 28”(Reuss, p. 37). Reuss had evidently not seen the first edition of the present work.171.Multis vetustissimis exemplaribus collatis, adhibita etiam quorundam eruditissimorum hominum cura, Biblia (ut vulgo appellant) graece cuncta eleganter descripsi (Andreas Aesulanus Cardinali Aegidio).172.This is Mill's calculation, but Wetstein followed him over the ground, adding (especially in the Apocalypse) not a few variations of Aldus which Mill had overlooked, now and then correcting his predecessor's errors (e.g. 2 Cor. xi. 1; Col. ii. 23), not without mistakes of his own (e.g. Luke xi. 34; Eph. vi. 22). Since Wetstein's time no one seems to have gone carefully through the Aldine N. T., except Delitzsch in order to illustrate the Codex Reuchlini (1) in the Apocalypse. Reuss (p. 28) notes eleven places in which it agrees with the Complutensian against Erasmus; seven wherein it rejects both books.173.The title-page runs εν λευκετια των παρησιων, παρα σιμωνι τω κολιναιω δεκεμβριου μηνος δευτερα φθινοντος, ετει απο της θεογονιας α φ λ δ. This book has no Preface, and the text does not contain 1 John v. 7, 8. It stands alone in reading ἀγγελία, 1 John i. 5. Reuss (p. 46), who praises Colinaeus highly, states that he deserts Erasmus' third edition 113 times out of his own thousand, fifty-three of them to side with the Complutensian, and subjoins a list of fifty-two passages wherein he stands alone among early editors, for most of which he may have had manuscript authority.174.Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xv.175.Reuss (pp. 50, 51, 54) mentions only nine places wherein Stephen's first edition does not agree either with the Complutensian or Erasmus; in the second edition four (or rather three) more; in the third nine, including the great erratum, 1 Pet. iii. 11. He further alleges that in the Apocalypse whatever improvements were introduced by Stephen came from the fourth edition of Erasmus, not from the Complutensian.176.Mill states that Stephen's citations of the Complutensian are 598, Marsh 578, of which forty-eight, or one in twelve, are false; but we have tried to be as exact as possible. Certainly some of Stephen's inaccuracies are rather slight, viz. Acts ix. 6; xv. 29; xxv. 5; xxviii. 3; Eph. iv. 32; Col. iii. 20; Apoc. i. 12; ii. 1, 20, 24; iii. 2, 4, 7, 12; iv. 8; xv. 2: β' seems to be put for α' Matt. x. 25.177.Viz. in the Gospels 81, Paul. 20, Act. Cath. 17, Apoc. 1 (ch. vii. 5): but for the Apocalypse the margin had only three authorities, α᾽, ιε᾽, ιϛ᾽ (ιϛ᾽ ending ch. xvii. 8), whose united readings Stephen rejects no less than fifty-four times.See, moreover, above, p.154, note 3.178.Here, again, my own collation represents Stephen's first edition as differing from his third in 797 places, of which 372 only are real various readings, the rest relating to accents, or being mere errata. Of these 372 places, the third edition agrees in fifty-six places with π. or πάντες of its own margin, and in fifty-five with some of the authorities cited therein. Stephen no doubt knew of manuscript authority for many of his other changes, though some may be mere errata.179.Wetstein (N. T., Prol., vol. i. p. 36) instances the readings of Cod. D (indicated as“quidam codex”by Beza in 1565) in Mark ix. 38; x. 50; Luke vii. 35. We may add that Beza in 1565 cites the evidence of one Stephanic manuscript for the omission of ὑμῶν, Matt. xxiii. 9; of two for κατεδίωξεν Mark i. 36; in later editions of two also in Luke xx. 4, and Acts xxii. 25; of three for ἑτέρῳ; Matt. xxi. 30, two of which would be Cod. D and Evan. 9 (Steph. ιβ᾽). In his dedication to Queen Elizabeth in 1565, Beza speaks plainly of an“exemplar ex Stephani nostri bibliotheca cum viginti quinque plus minus manuscriptis codicibus, et omnibus paenè impressis, ab Henrico Stephano ejus filio, et paternae sedulitatis haerede, quam diligentissimè collatum.”180.But here again we must qualify previous statements. Reuss (p. 58) cites six instances wherein Stephen's third and fourth editions differ (Matt. xxi. 7; xxiii. 13, 14; xxiv. 15; Luke xvii. 36; Col. i. 20; Apoc. iii. 12): to which list add Mark xiv. 21; xvi. 20; Luke i. 50; viii. 31; xii. 1; Acts xxvii. 13; 2 Cor. x. 6; Heb. vii. 1.181.Professor Isaac H. Hall, who has the advantage of Dr. Scrivener in actually himself possessing all the ten editions of Beza, as he states in MS. in a copy of his“American Greek Testaments”kindly given to me, says, p. 60, note, that in the edition of 1556 the Greek does not occur, and that Beza's firstGreektext was published in 1565. Beza must have reckoned his Latin amongst his editions when he spoke of his folio of 1565 as his second edition, and must generally have dated from 1556 as the beginning of his labours. The dates of the ten editions given above are extracted from Professor Hall's list in Schaff's“Companion to the Bible,”pp. 500-502.182.Reuss says fairly enough (p. 85) that Beza was the true author of what is called the received text, from which the Elzevir of 1624 rarely departs. He used as his basis the fourth edition of Stephen, from which he departed in 1565, so far as Reuss has found, only twenty-five times, nine times to side with the Complutensian, four times with Erasmus, thrice with the two united; the other nine readings are new, whereof two (Acts xvii. 25; James v. 12) had been adopted by Colinaeus. The second edition of 1582 withdraws one of the peculiar readings of its predecessor, but adds fourteen more. The third edition (1588), so far as Reuss knows, departs from the second but five times, and the fourth (1598) from the third only twice, Matt. vi. 1 (δικαιοσύνην); Heb. x. 17 (add. τότε εἴρηκε), neither of which I can verify. These results, on Reuss's system of investigation, can be only approximately true (seep.154, note), and do not include some changes silently introduced into Beza's Latin version, as suggested in his Annotations.183.Reuss (p. 109) states that out of his thousand select examples Elzevir 1624 differs from Beza's smaller New Testament of 1565 in only eight readings, all of which may be found in some of Beza's other editions (e.g. the small edition of 1580), except one misprint (Rom. vii. 2).184.Οἱ δοῦλος is disputed by Hoskier (App. C. p. 18, n.), who says that he has seen besides his own copy of 1624 several which read οἱ δοῦλου. He had also inspected mine.“And although he says it reads δοῦλος, I read easily δοῦλοι. The type is rather faulty, that is all.”The point is not worth disputing.185.“American Additions and Corrections,”p. 50.186.Professor Hall states (Schaff's“Companion,”p. 501) that Beza's editions of 1588 and 1598 were the chief foundations of the Authorized Version of 1611. Archdeacon Palmer (Preface to Greek Testament with Revisers' Readings, p. vii) refers chiefly to Stephen's edition of 1550. Dr. Scrivener (to whom Archdeacon Palmer refers), Cambridge Greek Testament, Praef., p. vi, in taking the Elzevir edition of 1624 as the authority for the“Textus Receptus,”says that it rests upon Stephen's 1550, and Beza's 1565, 1582, 1589 (= 1588), and 1598 (especially the later editions, and particularly 1598, Authorized Edition of the British Bible, p. 60), besides also Erasmus, the Complutensian, and the Vulgate (Authorized Edition, p. 60). Dr. Scrivener adds in the passage just named that out of 252 passages the“Translators abide with Beza against Stephen in 113, with Stephen against Beza in fifty-nine, with the Complutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in eighty.”187.“The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives.”By F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., &c., Cambridge, University Press, 1884. Appendix E.188.SeeMiller's“Textual Guide,”George Bell & Sons, 1885. Also Dr. Scrivener's“Adversaria et Critica Sacra”(not yet published).—Postscript.189.Reuss (p. 56) excepts Matt. ix. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 13; Philem. 6, where Walton prefers the Complutensian reading.190.Nos. 2 and 3 had been partially used by Beza (American Additions, p. 50).191.If Ussher lacked severe accuracy in collating his manuscripts, as well as skill in deciphering them, we have not to look far for the cause. In a Life prefixed to Ussher's“Body of Divinity,”1678, p. 11, we are told that“in the winter evenings he constantly spent two hours in comparing old MSS. of the Bible, Greek and Latin, taking with his own hand thevariae lectionesof each:”on which statement Dean Burgon (Letter in theGuardian, June 28, 1882) makes the pregnant comment,“Such work carried on at seventy or more by candlelight, is pretty sure to come to grief, especially when done with a heart-ache.”192.“Sed, cum aliqui ex editoribus N. T. in analogiis discernendis nimis fortasse curiosi loca Parallela ad infinitum fere numerum auxerint, quorum alia parum definitae similitudinis, alia remotioris sunt argumenti quam quae servatis sanae interpretationis legibus possint adhiberi, satius habuimus Curcellaeum sequi, qui nec parcior est, nec nimis minutus in locis allegandis, nec dissimilia unquam aut prorsus ἀπροσδιόνυσα ad marginem locavit.”—Car. Oxon. (Bishop C. Lloyd) Monitum N. T. Oxonii, 1827.193.1 John v. 7, 8 is included in brackets. Reuss (p. 130) thinks that the text follows Elzevir 1633 everywhere else but in Luke x. 22. Mill (N. T., Proleg. § 1397) says that it was printed“ad editiones priores Elzevirianas, typis Elzevirianis nitidissimis.”194.“Stephani Curcellaei annotationes variantium lectionum, pro variantibus lectionibus non habendae, quia ille non notat codices, unde eas habeat, an ex manuscriptis, an vero ex impressis exemplaribus. Possunt etiam pro uno codice haberi.”Canon xiii. pp. 11, 69-70 of the N. T. by G. D. T. M. D. (seebelow, p.204).195.But it goes with Elz. 1624 in Mark iv. 18; 2 Tim. i. 12; Apoc. xvi. 5, and sometimes prefers the readings of Stephen 1550, e.g. Mark i. 21; vi. 29, and notably Luke ii. 22 (αὐτῶν); Luke x. 22; Rom. vii. 2; Philem. 7. Peculiarities of this edition are Εἰ δὲ for Εἶτα Heb. xii. 9; συγκληρονόμοις 1 Pet. iii. 7. Wetstein's text follows its erratum, Acts xiii. 29 ἐτέλησαν. Mill seems to say (N. T., Proleg. § 1409) that Fell's text was taken from that of Curcellaeus.196.Fell imputes the origin of various readings to causes generally recognized, adding one which does not seem very probable, that accidental slips once made were retained and propagated through a superstitious feeling of misplaced reverence, citing in illustration Apoc. xxii. 18, 19. He alleges also the well-known subscription of Irenaeus, preserved by Eusebius, which will best be considered hereafter; and remarks, with whatever truth, that contrary to the practice of the Jews and Muhammedans in regard to their sacred books, it was allowed“e vulgo quibusvis, calamo pariter et manu profanis, sacra ista [N. T.] tractare”(Praef. p. 4).197.“Considerations on the Biblia Polyglotta,”1659: to which Walton rejoined, sharply enough, in“The Considerator considered,”also in 1659.198.Dr. Hort says that“his comprehensive examination of individual documents, seldom rising above the wilderness of multitudinous details, [is] yet full of sagacious observations”(Introd. p. 180).199.As Mill's text is sometimes reprinted in England as if it were quite identical with that commonly received, it is right to note the following passages wherein it does not coincide with Stephen's of 1550, besides that it corrects his typographical errors: Matt. xx. 15; 22; xxiv. 15; Mark ix. 16; xi. 22; xv. 29; Luke vii. 12bis; x. 6; xvii. 1; John viii. 4; 25; xiii. 30-31; xix. 7; Acts ii. 36; vii. 17; xiv. 8; Rom. xvi. 11; 1 Cor. iii. 15; x. 10; xv. 28; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. iv. 25; Tit. ii. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 11; 21; iv. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 12; Apoc. ii. 5; xx. 4. Reuss (p. 149) tells us that Kuster's edition recalls the Stephanic readings in Matt. xxiv. 15; Apoc. ii. 5.200.Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Introductory Preface, p. xv.201.Ellis,ubi supra, pp. xvii-xix. TheseProposalswere also very properly reprinted by Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. lxxxvii-xcvi, 7th edition), together with the specimen chapter (Apoc. xxii). The full title was to have been:“Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ Graece. Novum Testamentum Versionis Vulgatae, per stumHieryonymum ad vetusta exemplaria Graeca castigatae et exactae. Utrumque ex antiquissimis Codd. MSS., cum Graecis tum Latinis, edidit Richardus Bentleius.”202.This is all the more lamentable, inasmuch as Bentley was not accurate enough as a collator to make it unnecessary to follow him over the same ground. Dr. Westcott confirms my own experience in this respect when in a MS. note inserted by him on a blank leaf of Trin. Coll. B. XVII. 14, he states that“Bentley's testimony, when he quotes a reading, may always be taken as true; but it is not so when he notes no variation in particular. On an average he omitsone-thirdof the variations of the MSS., without following, as far as I can discover, any law in the selection of readings.”203.Bp. John Wordsworth would vindicate both Bentley and Walker from the suspicion of lightly taking up and lightly dropping so important a task. Walker, whom Bentley, as is said, called“Clarissimus Walker,”died on Nov. 9, 1741, at the age of forty-eight.—Wordsworth, Old Biblical Texts, I. xxv. p. 65. And for the Latin and Greek Texts collated by him wholly or partially,seepp.55-63.204.He continued this work till after 1735.Seepaper found by Dr. Ince at Christ Church, quoted by Bp. J. Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xxv. note 2.205.Mr. Jebb (Life of Bentley, p. 164) imputes the failure of Bentley's grand scheme partly to the worry of litigation which harassed him from 1729 to 1738; partly to a growing sense of complexity in the problem of the text, especially after he became better acquainted with the Vatican readings, i.e. about 1720 and 1729. Reuss (p. 172) ought never to have conditioned the ultimate success of such a man by the proviso“si consilio par fuerit perseverantia.”206.“This thought has now so engaged me, and in a manner inslaved me, thatvae mihiunless I do it. Nothing but sickness (by the blessing of God) shall hinder me from prosecuting it to the end”(Bentley to Archbp. Wake, 1716: Ellis,ubi supra, p. xvi). A short article in theEdinburgh Reviewfor July, 1860, apparently from the pen of Tregelles, draws attention to“Nicolai Toinardi Harmonia Graeco-Latina,”Paris, 1707, fol. (“liber rarissimus,”Reuss, p. 167), who so far anticipates Bentley's labours, that he forms a new Greek text by the aid of two Roman manuscripts (Cod. B being one of them) and of the Latin version.207.Dr. Gregory says that though Mace's edition had no accents or soft breathing, he anticipates most of the changes accepted by some critics of the present day.208.I cannot help borrowing the language of Donaldson, used with reference to an entirely different department of study, in the opening of one of his earliest and by far his most enduring work:“It may be stated as a fact worthy of observation in the literary history of modern Europe, that generally, when one of our countrymen has made the first advance in any branch of knowledge, we have acquiesced in what he has done, and have left the further improvement of the subject to our neighbours on the continent. The man of genius always finds an utterance, for he is urged on by an irresistible impulse—a conviction that it is his duty and vocation to speak: but we too often want those who shall follow in his steps, clear up what he has left obscure, and complete his unfinished labours”(New Cratylus, p. 1). Dr. Gregory quotes against Dr. Scrivener, Mace (1729), Bowyer, a follower of Wetstein (1763), Harwood (1776), besides Whitby, Middleton, and Twells: but Dr. S. looked for greater names, and till Middleton, a more advancing study.209.The full title is“'Ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη. Novum Testamentum Graecum ita adornatum ut Textus probatarum editionum medullam, Margo variantium lectionum in suas classes distributarum locorumque parellelorum delectum, Apparatus subjunctus criseos sacrae Millianae praesertim compendium limam supplementum ac fructum exhibeat, inserviente J. A. B.”210.They consist of seven Augsburg codices (Aug.1 = Evan. 83;Aug.2 = Evan. 84;Aug.3 = Evan. 85;Aug.4 = Evst. 24;Aug.5 = Paul. 54;Aug.6 = Act. 46;Aug.7 = Apoc. 80);Poson.= Evan. 86; extracts sent by Isel from three Basle copies (Bas.α = Evan. E;Bas.β = Evan. 2;Bas.γ = Evan. 1);Hirsaug.= Evan. 97;Mosc.= Evan. V; extracts sent by F. C. Gross. To these add Uffenbach's three,Uffen.2 or 1 = Paul. M;Uffen.1 or 2 = Act. 45;Uffen.3 = Evan. 101.211.It is worth while to quote at length Bengel's terse and vigorous statement of his principle:“Posset variarum lectionum ortus, per singulos codices, per paria codicum, per syzygias minores majoresque, per familias, tribus, nationesque illorum, investigari et repraesentari; et inde propinquitates discessionesque codicum ad schematismos quosdam reduci, et schematismorum aliquae concordantiae fieri; atque ita res tota per tabulam quandam quasi genealogicam oculis subjici, ad quam tabulam quaelibet varietas insignior cum agmine suorum codicum, ad convincendos etiam tardissimos dubitatores exigeretur. Magnam conjectanea nostra sylvam habent: sed manum de tabulâ, ne risuum periculo exponatur veritas. Bene est, quod praetergredi montem hunc, et planiore via pervenire datur ad codices discriminandos. Datur autem per hanc regulam aequissimam: Quo saepius non modo singuli codices, sed etiam syzygiae minores eorum vel majores, in aberrationes manifestas tendunt; eo levius ferunt testimonium in discrepantiis difficilioribus, eoque magis lectio ab eis deserta, tanquam genuina retineri debet”(N. T., Apparat. Crit., p. 387).212.See a eulogistic yet discriminating discussion upon Bengel inBengel als Gelehrter, ein Bild für unsere Tage, from the eminent pen of Dr. Nestle, which has been courteously sent to the editor through the Rev. H. J. White.213.The opposition of Frey and his other adversaries delayed thatopus magnumfor twenty years (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. p. 218).214.We here reckon separately, as we believe is both usual and convenient, every distinct portion of the N. T. contained in a manuscript. Thus Codd. C and 69 Evan. will each count for four.215.Errors of Wetstein's text will be found in John xi. 31; Acts i. 26; xiii. 29 ἐτέλησαν, from the Oxford N. T. 1675, though Wetstein himself remarks this. He corrects a few obvious misprints of Elzevir 1633, but his note shows that he does notintendto read τῷ in Mark vi. 29. The following seem to be deliberate variations from the Elzevir text: Matt. xiii. 15; xxi. 41; Mark xiv. 54; Luke ii. 22; xi. 12; xiii. 19; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. iii. 5; 1 Tim. iii. 2, 11 (yet not Tit. ii. 2); Philem. 7; 1 Pet. i. 3; iii. 7. All these deliberate variations are found in Von Mastricht's edition of 1735, which seems to have been used by Wetstein as the basis of his text; and in all of them (except Matt. xxi. 41; Luke xi. 12, and Phil. iii. 5) Fell's text agrees with Wetstein's. In Matt. xiii. 15; Mark xiv. 54; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 7, the Elzevir editions vary. (American Additions and Corrections, p. 51.) He spells ναζαρέτ uniformly, except in John i. 46, 47. Reuss (p. 183) adds nine changes made by Wetstein in the text for critical reasons: Matt. viii. 28; Luke xi. 2; John vii. 53-viii. 11; Acts v. 36; xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 16 (δ); Apoc. iii. 2; x. 4; xviii. 17.216.One other specimen of Matthaei's critical skill will suffice: he is speaking of his Cod. H, which is our Evst. 50.“Hic Codex scriptus est literis quadratis, estque eorum omnium, qui adhuc in Europa innotuerunt et vetustissimus et praestantissimus. Insanus quidem fuerit, qui cum hoc aut Cod. V [p. 144] comparare, aut aequiparare voluerit Codd. Alexandr. Clar. Germ. Boern. Cant. [Evan. AD, Paul. ADEG], qui sine ullo dubio pessimè ex scholiis et Versione Latinâ Vulgatâ interpolati sunt”(N. T., Tom. ix. p. 254).217.In using Matthaei's N. T. the following index of manuscripts first collated by him will be found useful: a = Evan. 259, Act. 98 (a 1), Paul. 113 (a or a 2), Apost. 82 (a 3): B = Evst. 47: b = Apost. 13: c = Act. 99, Paul. 114, Evst. 48: d = Evan. 237, Act. 100, Paul. 115: e = Evan. 238, Apost. 14: f = Act. 101, Paul. 116, Evst. 49: g = Evan. 239, Act. 102, Paul. 117: H = Evst. 50: h = Act. 103, Paul. 118: i = Evan. 240, Paul. 119: k = Evan. 241, Act. 104, Paul. 120, Apoc. 47: l = Evan. 242, Act. 105, Paul. 121, Apoc. 48: m = Evan. 243, Act. 106, Paul. 122: n = Evan. 244, Paul. 123: o = Evan. 245, Apoc. 49: p = Evan. 246, Apoc. 50: q = Evan. 247, Paul. 124: r = Evan. 248, also Apoc. 502, Apoc. 90: s = Evan. 249, Paul. 76: t = Apoc. 32, Evst. 51: tz = Apost. 15: V = V: v = Evan. 250, Apost. 5: x = Evan. 251, Act. 69, Paul. 74, Apoc. 30 (from Knittel); z = Evan. 252: 10 = Evan. 253: 11 = Evan. 254: 12 = Evan. 255: 14 = Evan. 256: 15 = O, 16 = Evst. 56, Apost. 20: 17 = Evan. 258: 18 = Evan. 99: 19 = Evst. 57: 20 = Evan. 89: ξ = Evst. 52, Apost. 16: χ = Evst. 53, Apost. 17: ψ = Evst. 54, Apost. 18: ω = Evst. 55, Apost. 19: Frag. Vet. = part of H: Gpaul. It should be noted, that in several of these cases different MSS. are included under one letter: e.g. c = Evst. 48 is a different MS. from c = Act. 99.218.The copies of Chrysostom's homilies on the Gospels freshly collated by this editor are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ, λ, μ, π, ρ, φ: those on St. Paul's Epistles are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, α, β.219.Reuss (p. 207) calculates that, besides misprints, Matthaei's second and very inferior edition differs in text from his first in but twenty-four places, none of them being in the Gospels.220.“Textui ad Millianum expresso”says Reuss (p. 151), which is not quite the same thing:seep.203, note 2.221.“Conscius sum mihi, me omnem et diligentiam et intentionem adhibuisse, ut haec editio quam emendatissima in manus eruditorum perveniret, utque in hoc opere, in quo ingenio non fuit locus, curae testimonium promererem; nulla tamen mihi est fiducia, me omnia, quae exigi possint, peregisse. Vix enim potest esse ulla tam perpetua legentis intentio, quae non obtutu continuo fatigetur, praesertim in tali genere, quod tam multis, saepe parvis, observationibus constat.”(Lecturis Editor, p. v. 1788.) Well could I testify to the truth of these last words!222.“Symbolae Criticae ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum N. T. lectionum Collectiones. Accedit multorum N. T. Codicum Graecorum descriptio et examen.”223.Yet Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. xcvii, 7th ed.) states that he only added two readings (Mark vi. 2, 4) to those given by Wetstein for Cod. C. From Cod. D too he seems to have taken only one reading, and that erroneously, επηγειραν, Acts xiv. 2.224.In the London edition of 1809 ἄλλοι is printed for the first οὗτοί, Mark iv. 18. Griesbach also omits καί in 2 Pet. i. 15: no manuscript except Cod. 182 (ascr) is known to do so.225.“Dissertatio critica de Codicibus quatuor Evangeliorum Origenianis,”Halae, 1771:“Curae in historiam textus Graeci epistolarum Paulinarum,”Jenae, 1777.226.“Commentarius Criticus in textum Gr. N. T.,”Part i. 1798; Part ii. 1811.227.The following specimen of a reading,possessing no internal excellence, preferred or favoured by Griesbach on the slightest evidence, will serve to illustrate the dangerous tendency of his system, had it been consistently acted upon throughout. In Matt. xxvii. 4 for ἀθῶον he indicates the mere gloss δίκαιον as equal or preferable (though in hislatermanual edition of 1805 he marks it as an inferior reading), on the authority of thelatermargin of Cod. B, of Cod. L, the Sahidic Armenian, and Latin versions and Fathers, and Origen in four places (ἀθῶον once). He adds the Syriac, but this is an error as regards the Peshitto or Harkleian; the Jerusalem may countenance him; though in such a case the testimony of versions is precarious on either side. Here, however, Griesbach defends δίκαιον against all likelihood, because BL and Origen are Alexandrian, the Latin versions Western.228.Reuss (p. 198) calculates that in his second edition out of Reuss' thousand chosen passages Griesbach stands with the Elzevir text in 648, sides with other editions in 293, has fifty-nine peculiar to himself. The second differs from the first edition (1774-5) in about fifty places only.229.Laurence, in the Appendix to his“Remarks,”shows that while Cod. A agrees with Origen against the received text in 154 places, and disagrees with the two united in 140, it sides with the received text against Origen in no less than 444 passages.230.David Schulz published at Berlin, 1827, 8vo, a third and much improved edition of his N. T., vol. i (Gospels), containing also collations of certain additional manuscripts, unknown to Griesbach.231.One of Porter's examples is almost amusing. It was Scholz's constant habit to copy Griesbach's lists of critical authorities (errors, misprints, and all) without giving the reader any warning that they were not the fruit of his own labours. The note he borrowed from Griesbach on 1 Tim. iii. 16, contains the words“uti docuimus in Symbolis Criticis:”this too Scholz appropriates (Tom. ii. p. 334, col. 2) so as to claim the“Symbolae Criticae”of the Halle Professor as his own! See also p. 217, Evan. 365; p. 253, Act. 86, and Tischendorf's notes on Acts xix. 25; 2 Pet. i. 15 (N. T., eighth edition). His very text must have been set up by Griesbach's. Thus, since the latter, by a mere press error, omitted με in 2 Cor. ii. 13, Scholz not only follows him in the omission, but cites in his note a few cursives in which he had met with με, a word really absent from no known copy. In Heb. ix. 5 again, both editors in error prefix τῆς to δόξης. Scholz's inaccuracy in the description of manuscripts which he must have had before him when he was writing is most wearisome to those who have had to trace his steps, and to verify, or rather to falsify, his statements. He has half filled our catalogues with duplicates and codices which are not Greek or are not Biblical at all. After correcting not a few of his misrepresentations of books in the libraries at Florence, Burgon breaks out at last:“What else but calamitous is it to any branch of study that it should have been prosecuted by such an incorrigible blunderer, a man so abominably careless as this?”(Guardian, Aug. 27, 1873.)232.Some of these statements are discussed in Scrivener's“Collation of the Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels,”Introd. pp. lxix-lxxi.233.The following is thewholeof this notice, which we reprint after Tregelles' example:“De ratione et consilio hujus editionis loco commodiore expositum est (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1830, pp. 817-845). Hic satis erit dixisse, editorem nusquam judicium suum, sed consuetudinem antiquissimarum orientis ecclesiarum secutum esse. Hanc quoties minus constantem fuisse animadvertit, quantum fieri potuit quae Italorum et Afrorum consensu comprobarentur praetulit: ubi pervagatam omnium auctorum discrepantiam deprehendit, partim uncis partim in marginibus indicavit. Quo factum est ut vulgatae et his proximis duobus saeculisreceptae lectionisratio haberi non posset. Haec diversitas hic in fine libri adjecta est, quoniam ea res doctis judicibus necessaria esse videbatur.”Here we have one of Lachmann's leading peculiarities—his absolute disregard of the received readings—hinted at in an incidental manner: the influence he was disposed to accord to the Latin versions when his chief authorities were at variance is pretty clearly indicated: but no one would guess that by the“custom of the oldest Churches of the East”he intends the few very ancient codices comprising Griesbach's Alexandrian class, and not the great mass of authorities, gathered from the Churches of Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople, of which that critic's Byzantine family was made up.234.These aredfor Cod. Bezae,efor Cod. Laud. 35,fbeing Lachmann's notation for Paul. Cod. D, asffis for Paul. Cod. E (whose Latin translation is cited independently),gfor Paul. Cod. G.235.We must now except the seventh century corrector of Cod. א called by Tischendorf Ca, who actually changes the original reading εκδ. into ενδ., to be himself set right by a later hand Cb. This is one out of many proofs of something more than an accidental connexion between Codd. א and B at a remote period.Seevol. i. p. 96, and note.236.In dedicating the third volume of his“Monumenta sacra inedita”in 1860 to the Theological Faculty at Leyden, Tischendorf states that he took to these studies twenty-three years before, that is, at about twenty-two years of age.237.Tischendorf left almost no papers behind him. Hence the task of writing Prolegomena to his eighth edition, gallantly undertaken by two American scholars, Dr. Caspar René Gregory of Leipzig, and Dr. Ezra Abbot of Cambridge, U. S., but for their own independent researches, might seem to resemble that of making bricks without straw.238.Through his haste to publish Cod. E of the Acts, in which design he feared to be forestalled by a certain Englishman, Tischendorf postponed to it vols. vii and viii, which he did not live to resume. Oscar von Gebhardt, now of Berlin, will complete vol. vii; Caspar René Gregory hopes to do what is possible for vol. viii.239.For further information respecting this indefatigable scholar and his labours we may refer to a work published at Leipzig in 1862,“Constantin Tischendorf in seiner fünfundzwanzigjährigen schriftstellerischen wirksamkeit. Literar-historische skizze von Dr. Joh. Ernst Volbeding.”I have also seen, by Dr. Ezra Abbot's courtesy, his paper in theUnitarian Review, March, 1875.240.A pamphlet of thirty-six pages appeared late in 1860,“Additions to the Fourth Volume of the Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,”&c., by S. P. T. Most of this industrious writer's other publications are not sufficiently connected with the subject of the present volume to be noticed here, but as throwing light upon the literary history of Scripture we may mention his edition of the“Canon Muratorianus,”liberally printed for him in 1867 by the Delegates of the Oxford University Press. Burgon, however, on comparing Tregelles' book with the document itself at Milan, cannot overmuch laud his minute correctness (Guardian, Feb. 5, 1873). Isaac H. Hall made the same comparison at Milan and confirms Burgon's judgement. The custodian of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, the famous Ceriani, had nothing to do with the work or with the lithograph facsimile.241.As a whole it may be pronounced very accurate as well as beautiful, with the conspicuous drawback that the Greek accents are so ill represented as to show either strange ignorance or utter indifference about them on the part of the person who revised the sheets for the press.242.He gave the same assurance to A. Earle, D.D., Bishop of Marlborough, assigning as his reason the results of the study of the Greek N. T.243.Dr. Hort (Introd. p. 277) hardly goes so far as this:“Those,”he says,“who propose remedies which cannot possibly avail are not thereby shown to have been wrong in the supposition that remedies were needed; and a few have been perhaps too quickly forgotten.”244.I hope that the change made in the wording of the above sentence from what stood in the first edition will satisfy my learned and acute critic, Mr. Linwood (Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to the New Testament, 1873, p. 9, note); although I fear that the difference between us is in substance as wide as ever. At the same time I would hardly rest the main stress of the argument where Dr. Roberts does when he says that“conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field, &c., simply because all sober critics feel that there is no need for it”(Words of the N. T., p. 24). There are texts, no doubt, some of those for example which Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort have branded with a marginal [+] in their edition; e.g. Acts vii. 46; xiii. 32; xix. 40; xxvi. 28; Rom. viii. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 2 (where Eph. ii. 11 might suggest ὅτι ποτέ); 1 Tim. vi. 7, and especially in the kindred Epistles, 2 Pet. iii. 10; 12; Jude 5; 22, 23, wherein, whether from internal difficulties or from the actual state of the external evidence, we should be very glad of more light than our existing authorities will lend us. What I most urge is the plain fact, that the conjectures, even of able and accomplished men, have never been such as to approve themselves to any but their authors, much less to commend themselves to the judgement of scholars as intuitively true.245.Bentley, the last great critic who paid much regard to conjectural emendations, promised in his Prospectus of 1720 that“If the author has anything to suggest towards a change of the text, not supported by any copies now extant, he will offer it separate in his Prolegomena.”It is really worth while to turn over Wm. Bowyer's“Critical Conjectures and Observations on the N. T.,”or the summary of them contained in Knappe's N. T. of 1797, if only to see the utter fruitlessness of the attempt to illustrate Scripture by ingenious exercise of the imagination. The best (e.g.συναλιζομένοις Acts i. 4; πορκείας for πορνείαςibid.xv. 20, 29), no less than the most tasteless and stupid (e.g.νηνεμίαν for νηστείαν Acts xxvii. 9), in the whole collection, are hopelessly condemned by the deep silence of a host of authorities which have since come to light. Nor are Mr. Linwood's additions to the over-copious list likely to fare much better. Who but himself will think πρώτη in Luke ii. 2 corrupted through the intermediate πρώτει from πρώτω ἔτει (ubi suprap.5); or that τὰ πολλά in Rom. xv. 22 ought to be ἐτη πολλά (p. 13)? Add to this, that he gives up existing readings much too easily, even where his emendations are more plausible than the foregoing, as when he would adopt ὅς ἄν for ὅταν in John viii. 44 (p. 6); and this is perhaps his best attempt. His worst surely is ΟΣ forΘΣ(θεός) Rom. ix. 5, which could not be endured unless ἐστιν followed ὅς, as it does in the very passage (Rom. i. 25) which he cites in illustration (p. 13).246.“vii.Inter duas variantes lectiones, si quae est εὐφωνότερος aut planior aut Graecantior, alteri non protinus praeferenda est, sed contra saepius.VIII.Lectio exhibens locutionem minus usitatam, sed alioqui subjectae materiae convenientem, praeferenda est alteri, quae, cum aeque conveniens sit, tamen phrasim habet minus insolentem, usuque magis tritam.”Wetstein's whole tract,“Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum N. T. necessariae”(N. T., vol. ii. pp. 851-874) deserves attentive study. See also the 43 Canones Critici and their Confirmatio in N. T. of G. D. T. M. D.247.So even Dr. Roberts, whose sympathies on the whole would not be the same as the Bishop of Lincoln's:“Of course occasions might occur on which, from carelessness or oversight, a transcriber would render a sentence obscure or ungrammatical which was clear and correct in his exemplar; but it is manifest that, so far as intentional alteration was concerned, the temptation all lay in the opposite direction”(“Words of the New Testament,”p. 7). So again speaks E. G. Punchard on James iii. 3 in Bp. Ellicott's Commentary,“The supporters of such curious corrections argue that the less likely is the more so; and thus every slip of a copyist, either in grammar or spelling, becomes more sacred in their eyes than is the Received text with believers in verbal inspiration.”Sir Edmund Beckett (“Should the Revised New Testament be Authorised?”1882) writes in so scornful a spirit as to neutralize the effects on a reader's mind of his native acuteness and common sense, but he deals well with the argument“that an improbable reading is more likely right, because nobody would have invented it.”“I suppose,”he rejoins,“an accidental piece of carelessness can produce an improbable and absurd error in copying as well as a probable one.”(p. 7.)248.In his seventh edition, not in his eighth.249.One other example to illustrate this rule, so difficult in its practical use, may be added from Alford on Mark ii. 22, where the reading καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί (whether the verse end or not in these words) appears to have been the original form, since“it fully explains all the others, either as emendations of construction, or corrections from parallel places.”The reader may apply this canon, if he pleases, to Aristotle, Ethic. iv. 9, in selecting between the three different readings ὀκνηροί or νωθροί or νοεροί to close the sentence οὐ μὴν ἠλίθιοί γε οἱ τοιοῦτοι δοκοῦσιν εἶναι, ἀλλα μᾶλλον ... having careful reference to the context in which it stands: or to the easier case of καίτοιγε and its variations in Acts xvii. 27: or to Rom. viii. 24, where the first hand of B and the margin of Cod. 47 (very expressly), by omitting τί καί, appear to present the original text.250.“Though the theory of explanatory interpolations of marginal glosses into the text of the N. T. has been sometimes carried too far (e.g. byWassenbergin‘Valcken.’Schol. in N. T., Tom. i), yet probably this has been the most fertile source of error in some MSS. of the Sacred Volume.”(Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, N. T., on 2 Cor. iii. 3.) Yes, insomeMSS.251.On this passage Canon Liddon justly says,“The question may still perhaps be asked ... whether here, as elsewhere, the presumption that copyists were always anxious to alter the text of the New Testament in theological interests, is not pressed somewhat excessively”(Bampton Lectures, 1866, p. 467, note).252.Griesbach's“etiam manifestò falsas”can allude only to 1 John v. 7, 8; yet it is a strong point against the authenticity of that passage that it isnotcited by Greek writers, who did not find it in their copies, but only by the Latins who did.253.The clause might have been derived from Gen. ii. 23, yet the evidence against it is strong and varied (אAB, 17, 67, Bohair., &c.).254.Alford's onlydefiniteexample (and that derived from Wetstein, N. T., vol. ii. p. 11) is found but in a single cursive (4) in Rom. xiv. 17, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις, ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνηκαὶ ἄσκησιςκαὶ εἰρήνη. Tregelles (An Account of Printed Text, p. 222) adds 1 Cor. vii. 5; Act. x. 30; Rom. xii. 13 (!) More to their purpose, perhaps, if we desired to help them on, would be the suspected addition of καὶ νηστείᾳ in Mark ix. 29, and of the whole verse in the parallel place Matt. xvii. 21; the former being brought into doubt on the very insufficient authority of Codd. א (by the first hand) Β, of the beautiful Latin copykfrom Bobbio, and by reason of the silence of Clement of Alexandria: the latter on the evidence of the same Greek manuscripts (kbeing defective) with Cod. 33, both (?) Egyptian, the Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac, the Latineff1, some forms of the Ethiopic version, and from the absence of the Eusebian canon, which ought to have referred us to the parallel place in St. Mark, whereas that verse is assigned to thetenthcanon. In the face of such readings of אΒ it is hard to understand the grounds of Mr. Darby's vague suspicion that they“bear the marks of having been in ecclesiastical hands.”(N. T., Preface, p. 3.)255.See (6), (7), (17), (18). The uncial characters most liable to be confounded by scribes (p. 10) are ΑΔΛ, ΕΣ, ΟΘ, ΝΠ, and less probably ΓΙΤ. An article in a foreign classical periodical, written by Professor Cobet, the co-editor of the Leyden reprint of the N. T. portion of Cod. B, unless regarded as a merejeu d'esprit, would serve to prove that the race of conjectural emendators is not so completely extinct as (before Mr. Linwood's pamphlet) I had supposed. By a dexterous interchange of letters of nearly the same form (Δ for Α, Ε for Σ, Ι for Τ, Σ for Ε, κ for ΙΣ, Τ for Ι) this modern Bentley—and he well deserves the name—suggests for ΑΣΤΕΙΟΣ τῷ θεῷ Act. vii. 20 [compare Heb. xi. 23] the common-place ΔΕΚΤΟΣ τῷ θεῷ, from Act. x. 35. Each one of thesixnecessary changes Cobet profusely illustrates by examples, and even the reverse substitution of δεκτός for ἀστεῖος from Alciphron: but in the absence of all manuscript authority for the very smallest of these several permutations in Act. vii. 20, he excites in us no other feeling than a sort of grudging admiration of his misplaced ingenuity. In the same spirit he suggests ΗΔΕΙΟΝΑ for ΠΛΕΙΟΝΑ, Heb. xi. 4; while in 1 Cor. ii. 4 for ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας λόγοις he simply reads ἐν πειθοῖ σοφίας, the σ which begins σοφίας having become accidentally doubled and λόγοις subsequently added to explain πειθοῖς, which he holds to be no Greek word at all: it seems indeed to be met with nowhere else. Dr. Hort's comment on this learned trifling is instructive:“Though it cannot be said that recent attempts in Holland to revive conjectural criticism for the N. T. have shown much felicity of suggestion, they cannot be justly condemned on the ground of principle”(Introd., p. 277).256.Thus Canon I of this chapter includes (12), (19): Canon III includes (2), (3), (4), (8), (9), (10); while (13) comes under Canon IV; (20) under Canon VI.257.“Canon Criticus”xxiv, N. T., by G. D. T. M. D., p. 12, 1735.258.Dean Burgon cites (Revision Revised, pp. 359, 360)“no less than thirty ancient witnesses.”259.'The precept, if we omit the phrase, is in striking harmony with the at first sight sharp, extreme, almost paradoxical character of various other precepts of the“Sermon on the Mount.”Milligan, Words of the N. T., p. 111.260.Very similar in point of moral feeling is the variation between ὀλιγοπιστίαν, the gentler, intrinsically perhaps the more probable, and ἀπιστίαν, the more emphatic term, in Matt. xvii. 20. Both must have been current in the second century, the former having the support of Codd. אB, 13, 22, 33, 124, 346 [hiat69], the Curetonian Syriac (and that too against Cod. D), both Egyptian, the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, Origen, Chrysostom (very expressly, although his manuscripts vary), John Damascene, but of the Latins Hilary alone. All the rest, including Codd. CD, the Peshitto Syriac, and the Latins among first class witnesses, maintain ἀπιστίαν of the common text.261.Perhaps I may refer to my“Textual Guide,”p. 120. The utmost caution should be employed in the use of this kind of evidence: perhaps nowhere else do authorities differ so much.—Ed.262.E.g. Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, v. 30. 1, for which see below, p.261: the early date renders this testimony most weighty.263.In deference to Lardner and others, who have supposed that Ignatius refers to the sacred autographs, we subjoin the sentence in dispute. Ἐπεὶ ἤκουσά τινων λεγόντων, ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις εὕρω, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ πιστεύω; καὶ λέγοντός μου αὐτοῖς, ὅτι γέγραπται, ἀπεκρίθησάν μοι, ὅτι πρόκειται. Ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀρχεῖά ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός κ.τ.λ. (Ad Philadelph. c. 8.) On account of ἀρχεῖα in the succeeding clause, ἀρχείοις has been suggested as a substitute for the manuscript reading ἀρχαίοις, and so the interpolators of the genuine Epistle have actually written. But without denying that a play on the words was designed between ἀρχαίοις and ἀρχεῖα, both copies of the Old Latin version maintain the distinction made in the Medicean Greek (“si non in veteribus invenio”and“Mihi autem principium est Jesus Christus”), and any difficulty as to the sense lies not in ἀρχαίοις but in πρόκειται. Chevallier's translation of the passage is perfectly intelligible,“Because I have heard some say, Unless I find it in the ancient writings, I will not believe in the Gospel. And when I said to them,‘It is written [in the Gospel],’they answered me,‘It is found written before [in the Law].’”Gainsayers set the first covenant in opposition to the second and better one.264.Thus Dr. Westcott understands the term, citing from Tertullian, De Monogamia, xi:“sciamus planè non sic esse in Graeco authentico.”Dean Burgon refers us to Routh's“Opuscula,”vol. i. pp. 151 and 206.265.Compare too Jerome's expression“ipsa authentica”(Comment. in Epist. ad Titum), when speaking of the autographs of Origen's Hexapla: below, p.263.266.The view I take is Coleridge's (Table Talk, p. 89, 2nd ed.).“I beg Tertullian's pardon; but among his manybravuras, he says something about St. Paul's autograph. Origen expressly declares the reverse;”referring, I suppose, to the passage cited below, p.263. Bp. Kaye, the very excellence of whose character almost unfitted him for entering into the spirit of Tertullian, observes:“Since the whole passage is evidently nothing more than a declamatory mode of stating the weight which he attached to the authority of the Apostolic Churches; to infer from it that the very chairs in which the Apostles sat, or that the very Epistles which they wrote, then actually existed at Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, &c., would be only to betray a total ignorance of Tertullian's style”(Kaye's“Ecclesiastical History ... illustrated from the writings of Tertullian,”p. 313, 2nd ed.). Just so: the autographs were no more in those cities than the chairs were: but it suited the purpose of the moment to suppose that they were extant; and,knowing nothing to the contrary, he boldly sends the reader in search of them.267.I do not observe, as some have thought, that Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. v. 10) intimates that the copy of St. Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew letters, left by St. Bartholomew in India, was the Evangelist's autograph; and the fancy that St. Mark wrote with his own hand the Latin fragments now at Venice (for.) is worthy of serious notice. The statement twice made in the“Chronicon Paschale,”of Alexandria, compiled in the seventh century,but full of ancient fragments, that ὡσεὶ τριτὴ was the true reading of John xix. 14“καθὼς τὰ ἀκριβῆ βιβλία περιέχει, αὐτό τε τὸ ἰδιόχειρον τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ ὅπερ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν πεφύλακται χάριτι Θεοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐφεσίων ἁγιωτάτῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν πιστῶν ἐκεῖσε προσκυνεῖται”(Dindorf, Chron. Pasch., pp. 11 and 411), is simply incredible. Isaac Casaubon, however, a most unimpeachable witness, says that this passage, and another which he cites, were found by himself in a fine fragment of the Paschal treatise of“Peter Bp. of Alexandria and martyr”[d. 311], which he got from Andrew Damarius, a Greek merchant or calligrapher (Pattison, Life of Is. Casaubon, p. 38). Casaubon adds to the assertion of Peter“Hec ille. Ego non ignoro quid adversus hanc sententiam possit disputari: de quo judicium esto eruditorum”(Exercit. in Annal. Eccles. pp. 464, 670, London, 1614).268.“I have no doubt,”says Tischendorf,“that in the very earliest ages after our Holy Scriptures were written, and before the authority of the Church protected them, wilful alterations, and especially additions, were made in them,”English N. T., 1869, Introd. p. xv.269.Caius (175-200) in Routh's“Reliquiae,”ii. 125, quoted in Burgon's“Revision Revised,”p. 323.270.“Necdum quoque Marcion Ponticus de Ponto emersisset, cujus magister Cerdon sub Hygino tunc episcopo, qui in Urbe nonus fuit, Romam venit: quem Marcion secutus...”Cyprian., Epist. 74. Cf. Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 10, 11.271.Dean Burgon attributes more importance to Marcion's mutilations.Seee.g.“The Revision Revised,”pp. 34-35.272.In 1 Cor. x. 9 Marcion seems to uphold the true reading against the judgement of Epiphanius: ὁ δὲ μαρκίων ἀντὶ τοῦκνχνἐποίησεν. Consult also Bp. Lightfoot's note (Epistle to the Colossians, p. 336, n. 1) on Heracleon's variation of πέντε for ἓξ in John ii. 20.“There is no reason to think,”he says,“that Heracleon falsified the text here; he appears to have found this various reading already in his copy.”273.SeeChap.XIon Acts xxvii. 37.274.Irenaeus' anxiety that his own works should be kept free from corruption, and the value attached by him to the labours of the corrector, are plainly seen in a remarkable subscription preserved by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. v. 20), which illustrates what has been said above, Ὁρκίζω σε τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βίβλιον τοῦτο, κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἧς ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλλῃς ὃ μετεγράψω, καὶ κατορθώσῃς αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸ ἀντίγραφον τοῦτο, ὅθεν μετεγράψω ἐπιμελῶς, καὶ τὸν ὅρκον τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψῃς, καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφῳ. Here the copyist (ὁ μεταγραφόμενος) is assumed to be the same person as the reviser or corrector. Mr. Linwood also (ubi supra, p.11) illustrates from Martial (Lib. vii. Epigram. x) the reader's natural wish to possess an author's original manuscript rather than a less perfect copy:Qui visarchetypashabere nugas. A still stronger illustration of the passage in Irenaeus (v. 30) is Linwood's citation of a well-known passage in Aulus Gellius, a contemporary of that Father, wherein he discusses with Higinus the corrupt variationamaroforamarorin Virgil, Geor. ii. 247 (Noctes Atticae, Lib. i. cap. 21).275.Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ κληθήσονται; ἤ, ὥς τινες τῶν μετατιθέντων τὰ Εὐαγγέλια, Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ὑπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἔσονται τέλειοι; καί, μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκα ἐμοῦ, ὅτι ἔξουσι τόπον ὅπου οὐ διωχθήσονται (Stromata, iv. 6). Tregelles (Horne, p. 39, note 2) pertinently remarks that Clement, in the very act of censuring others, subjoins the close of Matt. v. 9 to v. 10, and elsewhere himself ventures on liberties no less extravagant, as when he thus quotes Matt. xix. 24 (or Luke xviii. 25): πειστέον οὖν πολλῷ μᾶλλον τῇ γραφῇ λεγούσῃ, Θᾶττον κάμηλον διὰ τρυπήματος βελόνης διελεύσεσθαι, ἢ πλούσιον φιλοσοφεῖν (Stromata, ii. 5).276.In this place (contrary to what might have been inferred from the language of Irenaeus, cited above, p.262, note 2) the copyist (γραφεύς) is clearly distinct from the corrector (διορθωτής), who either alters the words that stand in the text, or adds to and subtracts from them. In Cobet's masterly Preface to his own and Kuenen's“N. T. ad fidem Cod. Vaticani,”Leyden, 1860, pp. xxvii-xxxiv, will be found most of the passages we have used that bear on the subject, with the following from classical writers,“Nota est Strabonis querela xiii. p. 609 de bibliopolis, qui libros edebant γραφεῦσι φαύλοις χρώμενοι, καὶ οὐκ ἀντιβάλλοντες... Sic in Demosthenis Codice Monacensi ad finem Orationis xi annotatum est Διωρθώθη πρὸς δύο Ἀττικιανά, id est,correctus est(hic liber)ex duobus codicibus ab Attico(nobili calligrapho)descriptis.”Just as at the end of each of Terence's plays the manuscripts read“Calliopius recensui.”277.No doubt certain that are quite or almost peculiar to Cod. D would deserve consideration if they were not destitute of adequate support. Some may be inclined to think the words cited above in vol. I. p. 8 not unworthy of Him to whom they are ascribed. The margin of the Harkleian Syriac alone countenances D in that touching appendage to Acts viii. 24, which every one must wish to be genuine, ος πολλα κλαιων ου διελυ[ι]μπανεν. Several minute facts are also inserted by D in the latter part of the same book, which are more likely to rest on traditional knowledge than to be mere exercises of an idle fancy. Such are απο ωρας ε εως δεκατης annexed to the end of Acts xix. 9: και Μυρα to Acts xxi. 1; the former of which is also found in Cod. 137 and the Harkleian margin; the latter in the Sahidic and one or two Latin copies.278.Considering that Cod. D and the Latin manuscripts contain the variation in Luke iii. 22, but not in Matt. iii. 17, we ought not to doubt that Justin Martyr (p. 331 B, ed. Paris, 1636) and Clement (p. 113, ed. Potter) refer to the former. Hence Bp. Kaye (Account of the Writings of Clement, p. 410) should not have produced this passage among others to show (what in itself is quite true) that“Clement frequently quotes from memory.”279.This point is exceedingly well stated by Canon Cook (Revised Version of the first three Gospels, p. 176):“I will not dwell upon indications of Arian tendencies. They are not such as we should be entitled to rely upon.... Eusebius was certainly above the suspicion of consciously introducing false statements or of obliterating true statements. As was the case with many supporters of the high Arian party, which came nearest to the sound orthodox faith, Eusebius was familiar with all scriptural texts which distinctly ascribe to our Lord the divine attributes and the divine name, and was far more likely to adopt an explanation which coincided with his own system, than to incur the risk of exposure and disgrace by obliterating or modifying them in manuscripts which would be always open to public inspection.”280.“This is possible, though there is no proof of it,”is Professor Abbot's comment (ubi supra, p.190, butseeabove, vol. i. p. 118, note 2).281.In the“Notitia Editionis Cod. Sin.,”1860. They are Matt. xxvii. 64-xxviii. 20; Mark i. 1-35; Luke xxiv. 24-53; John xxi. 1-25. Other like calculations, with much the same result, are given in Scrivener's“Cod. Sin.,”Introd. pp. xlii, xliii.282.And that too hardly to the credit of either of them.“Ought it not,”asks Dean Burgon,“sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value of their evidence to discover thatit is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree?... On every such occasion only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these perpetual inconsistencies between Codd. B and 8—grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross ones—altogether destroy my confidence in either?”(Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp. 77-8.)283.Magnus siquidem hic in nostris codicibus error inolevit, dum quod in eadem re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio, quia minus putaverint, addiderunt. Vel dum eundem sensum alius aliter expressit, ille qui unum e quatuor primum legerat, ad ejus exemplum ceteros quoque existimaverit emendandos.Unde accidit ut apud nos mixta sint omnia(Praef. ad Damasum).284.The precise references may be seen in Tischendorf's, and for the most part more exactly in Tregelles' N. T. That on Matt. xxiv. 36 is Tom. vii. p. 199, or vi. p. 54; on Galat. iii. 1 is Tom. vii. pp. 418, 487.285.See our note on Luke xxii. 44 below in Chap.XI. This same writer testifies to a practice already partially employed, of using breathings, accents, and stops in copies of Holy Scripture. Ἐπειδὴ δέ τινες κατὰ προσῳδίαν ἔστιζαν τὰς γραφὰς καὶ περὶ τῶν προσῳδῶν τάδε: ὀξεῖα ᾽, δασεῖα ᾽, βαρεῖα ᾽, ψιλὴ ᾽, περισπωμένη ᾽, ἀπόστροφος ᾽, μακρὰ —, ὑφὲν ᾽, βραχεῖα ᾽, ὑποδιαστολή, Ὡσαύτως καὶ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν σημείων κ.τ.λ. (Epiphan., De Mensur., c. 2, Tom. iii. p. 237 Migne). This passage may tend to confirm the statements made above, Vol. I. pp. 45-8, respecting the presence of such marks in very ancient codices, though on the whole we may not quite vouch for Sir F. Madden's opinion as regards Cod. A.286.“Evangelia quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha.”“Evangelia quae falsavit Esitius [aliiHesychiusvelIsicius], apocrypha,”occur separately in the course of a long list of spurious books (such as the Gospels of Thaddaeus, Matthias, Peter, James, that“nomine Thomae quo utuntur Manichaei,”&c.) in Appendix iii to Gelasius' works in Migne's Patrologia, Tom. lix. p. 162 [a.d.494]. But the authenticity of those decrees is far from certain, and since we hear of these falsified Gospels nowhere else, Gelasius' knowledge of them might have been derived from what he had read in Jerome's“Praef. ad Damasum.”287.Griesbach rejoices to have Hug's assent“in eo, in quo disputationis de veteribus N. T. recensionibus cardo vertitur; nempe extitisse, inde a secundo et tertio saeculo, plures sacri textûs recensiones, quarum una, si Evangelia spectes, supersit in Codice D, altera in Codd. BCL, alia in Codd. EFGHS et quae sunt reliqua”(Meletemata, p. lxviii, prefixed to“Commentarius Criticus,”Pars ii, 1811). I suppose that Tregelles must have overlooked this decisive passage (probably the last its author wrote for the public eye) when he states that Griesbach now“virtually gave up his system”as regards the possibility of“drawing an actual line of distinction between his Alexandrian and Western recensions”(An Account of the Printed Text, p. 91). He certainly showed, throughout his“Commentarius Criticus,”that Origen does not lend him the support he had once anticipated; but he still held that the theory of a triple recension was the veryhingeon which the whole question turned, and clung to that theory as tenaciously as ever.Third Edition.Dr. Hort (N. T., Introd. p. 186) has since confirmed our opinion that Griesbach was faithful to the last to the essential characteristics of his theory, adding that“the Meletemata of 1811 ... reiterate Griesbach's familiar statements in precise language, while they show a growing perception of mixture which might have led him to further results if he had not died in the following spring.”288.It should be also observed that ΦΣ containing SS. Matthew and Mark are probably older than D.289.E.g. Matt. i. 18; Acts viii. 37 for Irenaeus: Acts xiii. 33 for Origen. It is rare indeed that the express testimony of a Father is so fully confirmed by the oldest copies as in John i. 28, where Βηθανίᾳ, said by Origen to be σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, actually appears in א*ABC*.290.This view is controverted in Burgon's“Remains.”291.Mr. A. A. Vansittart, Journal of Philology, vol. ii. No. 3, p. 35. I suppose too that Mr. Hammond means much the same thing when he says,“It seems almost superfluous to affirm thatevery element of evidence must be allowed its full weight; but it is a principle that must not be forgotten.”(Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 93, 2nd edition.) Truly it is not superfluous to insist on this principle when we so perpetually find the study of the cursive manuscripts disparaged by the use of what we may venture to call the Caliph Omar's argument, that if they agree with the older authorities their evidence is superfluous, if they contradict them, it is necessarily false.292.The evidence of Evan. R, which contains only the decisive letters ΝΗΡΟΥ, is the more valuable, inasmuch as it has been alleged to support the readings of documents of the other class (which no doubt it often does) and thus to afford a confirmation of their authority; it cannot help them much when its vote is against them. On analyzing the 908 readings for which R is cited in Tischendorf's eighth edition, I find that it sides with A, the representative of the one class, 356 times; with its better reputed rival B 157 times, where A and B are at variance. It is with A alone of the great uncials 101 times, with B alone four, with א alone five, with C alone (but C is lost in 473 places out of the 908) six; with D alone twenty-four. Some of its other combinations are instructive. It is with AC forty-two times and with ACL sixteen; with AD fifty-one and with ADL eighteen; with אB eleven and with אBL twenty-nine; with אL nine times; with AL nineteen; with BL fifteen; with CL never; with DL twice. Cod. R stands unsupported by any of the preceding eighty-nine times, seldom without some countenance (but see Luke xi. 24 ἐκ), such as the Memphitic version, or later codices. In the places where its fragments coincide with those of Cod. Ξ (which is much more friendly to B) they agree 127 times, differ 105.293.Dean Burgon avers that he is thoroughly convinced that“no reading can be of real importance—I mean has a chance of beingtrue—which is witnessed to exclusively by a very few copies, whether uncial or cursive.... Nothing else are such extraordinary readings,wherever they may happen to be found, but fragments of primitive error, repudiated by the Church (‘a witness and keeper of Holy Writ’) in her corporate capacity.”(Letter in theGuardian, July 12, 1882.) I cannot go quite so far as this. [Dean Burgon has left his reply.]294.Not that we can in any way assent to the notions of Canon T. R. Birks (Essay on the right estimation of manuscript evidence in the text of the N. T., 1878), whose proposition that“Constant increase of error is no certain and inevitable result of repeated transcription”(p. 33) is true enough in itself, though we cannot follow him when he adds that“Errors, after they have found entrance, may be removed as well as increased in later copies. A careful scribe may not only make fewer mistakes of his own, but he may correct manifest faults of the manuscript from which he copies, and avail himself of the testimony of others, so as to revise and improve the text of that on which he chiefly relies.”Only such a scribe would no longer be a witness for the state of the text as extant in his generation, but a critical editor, working on principles of his own, whether good or bad alike unknown to us.295.Very pertinent to this matter is a striking extract from J. G. Reiche (a critic“remarkable for extent and accuracy of learning, and for soundness and sobriety of judgement,”as Canon Cook vouches, Revised Version, p. 4), given in Bloomfield's“Critical Annotations on the Sacred Text,”p. 5, note:“In multis sanè N. T. locis lectionis variae, iisque gravissimi argumenti, de verâ scripturâ judicium firmum et absolutum, quo acquiescere possis, ferri nequit, nisi omnium subsidiorum nostrorum alicujus auctoritatis suffragia, et interna veri falsique indicia, diligenter explorata, justâ lance expendantur.... Quod in causâ est, ut re non satis omni ex parte circumspectâ, non solum critici tantopere inter se dissentiant, sed etiam singuli sententiam suam toties retractent atque commutent.”In the same spirit Lagarde, speaking of the more recent manuscripts of the Septuagint, thus protests:“Certum est eos non a somniis monachorum undecimi vel alius cujusquam saeculi natos, sed ex archetypis uncialibus aut ipsos aut intercedentibus aliis derivatos. Unde elucet criticum acuto judicio et doctrinâ probabili instructum codicibus recentioribus collectis effecturum esse (?) quid in communi plurium aliquorum archetypo scriptum fuerit”(Genesis, p. 19). Compare also Canon Cook, Revised Version of the First Three Gospels, p. 5.296.“So extravagant a statement could scarcely be deemed worthy of the elaborate confutation with which Dr. Scrivener has condescended to honour it”(Saturday Review, Aug. 20, 1881). Yet this scheme of“Comparative Criticism made easy”has obtained, for its childlike simplicity, more acceptance than the reviewer could reasonably suppose. Dr. Hort, of course, speaks very differently:“B must be regarded as having preserved not only a very ancient text, but a very pure line of very ancient text, and that with comparatively small depravation either by scattered ancient corruptions otherwise attested or by individualisms of the scribe himself. On the other hand, to take it as the sole authority except where it contains self-betraying errors, as some have done, is an unwarrantable abandonment of criticism, and in our opinion inevitably leads to erroneous results”(Introd. p. 250).297.The textual labours of the Cambridge duumvirate have received all the fuller consideration in the learned world by reason of their authors having been members of the New Testament Revision Company, in whose deliberations they had a real influence, though, as a comparison of their text with that adopted by the Revisionists might easily have shown, by no means a preponderating one. I have carefully studied the chief criticisms which have been published on the controversy, without materially adding to the acquaintance with the subject which nearly eleven years of familiar conference with my colleagues had necessarily brought to me. The formidable onslaught on Dr. Hort's and Bishop Westcott's principles in three articles in theQuarterly Review[afterwards published together with additions in“The Revision Revised”] especially in the number for April, 1882, and Canon F. C. Cook's“Revised Version of the First Three Gospels”(1882), must be known to most scholars, and abound with materials from which a final judgement may be formed.“The Ely Lectures on the Revised Version of the N. T.”(1882), which my friend and benefactor Canon Kennedy was pleased to inscribe to myself, are none the less valuable for their attempt to hold the balance even between opposite views of the questions at issue. The host of pamphlets and articles in periodicals which the occasion has called forth could hardly be enumerated in detail, but some of them have been used with due acknowledgement in Chap.XII.298.We are concerned not with names but with things, so that Dr. Hort may give hisignis fatuuswhat appellation he likes, only why he calls it Syrian it is hard to determine. The notices connecting his imaginary revision with Lucian of Antioch which we have given above he feels to be insufficient, for he says no more than that“the conjecture derives some little support from a passage of Jerome, which is not itself discredited by the precariousness of the modern theories which have been suggested by it”(Hort, p. 138).299.SeeBurgon's“The Revision Revised,”pp. 271-288.300.Other examples may be seen in our notes in Chap. XII on Luke ii. 14 for Methodius; Luke xxii. 43, 44 for Hippolytus again; Luke xxiii. 34 for Irenaeus and Origen. Add Luke x. 1 for Irenaeus (p. 546, note 1); xxiii. 45 (Hippolytus); John xiii. 24 (Clem. Alex.); 2 Cor. xii. 7 (Iren. Orig.); Mark xvi. 17, 18 (Hippol.).Seealso Miller's“Textual Guide,”pp. 84, 85, where 165 passages on fifteen texts are gathered from writers before St. Chrysostom.301.For reasons which will be readily understood, we have quoted sparingly from the trenchant article in theQuarterly Review, April, 1882, but the following summary of the consequences of a too exclusive devotion to Codd. אB seems no unfit comment on the facts of the case:“Thus it would appear that the Truth of Scripture has run a very narrow risk of being lost for ever to mankind. Dr. Hort contends that it more than half layperduon a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;—Dr. Tischendorf that it had found its way into a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine at the foot of Mount Sinai—from which he rescued it on February 4, 1859:—neither, we venture to think, a very likely supposition. We incline to believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by any means shown Himself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these learned persons imagine”(p. 365). The Revision Revised, p. 343.302.SeeAppendixof passages at the end of this chapter. Yet while refusing without hesitation the claim of themonstrawhich follow to be regarded as a part of the sacred text, we are by no means insensible to the fact impressed upon us by the Dean of Llandaff, that there are readings which conciliate favour the more we think over them: it being the special privilege of Truth always to grow upon candid minds. We subjoin his persuasive words:“It is deeply interesting to take note of the process of thought and feeling which attends in one's own mind the presentation of some unfamiliar reading. At first sight the suggestion is repelled as unintelligible, startling, almost shocking. By degrees, light dawns upon it—it finds its plea and its palliation. At last, in many instances, it is accepted as adding force and beauty to the context, and a conviction gradually forms itself that thus and not otherwise was it written.”(Vaughan, Epistle to Romans, Preface to the third edition, p. xxi.)303.Thus far we are in agreement with the“Two Members of the N. T. Company,”however widely we may differ from their general views:“The great contribution of our own times to a mastery over materials has been the clearer statement of the method of genealogy, and, by means of it, the corrected distribution of the great mass of documentary evidence”(p. 19). Only that arbitrary theories ought to be kept as far as possible out of sight.304.So that we may be sure what we should have found in Cod. D, and with high probability in Cod. E, were they not defective, when in Acts xxvii. 5 we observe δι᾽ ἡμερῶν δεκάπεντε inserted after διαπλεύσαντες in 137, 184, and the Harkleian margin with an asterisk; as also when we note in Acts xxviii. 16 ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς before σύν in the last two and indemid.305.E.g. Luke xxiv. 3 τοῦ κυρίου ἰησοῦ omitted by D,abeff2l; ver. 6 οὐκ ἔστιν ὦδε ἀλλὰ ἠγέρθη (comp. Mark xvi. 6), omitted by the same; ver. 9 ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου by the same, bycand the Armenian; the whole of ver. 12, by the same (exceptff2) withfuld., but surely not by the Jerusalem Syriac, even according to Tischendorf's showing, or by Eusebius' canon, for he knew the verse well (comp. John xx. 5); ver. 36 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, εἰρήνη ὑμῖν omitted by D,abeff2las before (comp. John xx. 19, 26); the whole of ver. 40, omitted by the same and by Cureton's Syriac (comp. John xx. 20); ver. 51 καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν and ver. 52 προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν omitted by the same and by Augustine, the important clause in ver. 51 by א* also, and consequently by Tischendorf. Yet, as if to show how mixed the evidence is, D desertsabff2lwhen, in company with a host of authorities, both manuscripts and versions (fq, Vulgate, Bohairic, Syriac, and others), they annex καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου to the end of ver. 42.Seealso Luke x. 41, 42; xxii. 19, 20, discussed in Chap.XII.306.So of certain of the chief versions we sometimes hear it said that they are less important in the rest of the N. T. than in the Gospels; which means that in the former they side less with אB.307.Canon Kennedy, whose“Ely Lectures”exhibit, to say the least, no prejudice against the principles enunciated in Dr. Hort's Introduction, is good enough to commend the four rules here set forth to the attention of his readers (p. 159, note). The first three were stated in my first edition (1861), the fourth added in the second edition (1874), and, while they will not satisfy the advocates of extreme views on either side, suffice to intimate the terms on which the respective claims of the uncial and cursive manuscripts, of the earlier and the more recent authorities, may, in my deliberate judgement, be equitably adjusted.308.Dean Burgon held that too much deference is here paid to the mere antiquity of those which happen to be the oldest MSS., but are not the oldest authorities. He would therefore enlarge the grounds of judgement.309.The harmony subsisting between B and the Sahidic in characteristic readings, for which they stand almost or quite alone, is well worth notice: e.g. Acts xxvii. 37; Rom. xiii. 13; Col. iii. 6; Heb. iii. 2; 1 John ii. 14; 20.310.“The intrinsic evidence seems immoveable against the insertion.”Textual Criticism of the N. T., B. B. Warfield, D.D., p. 135.311.Yet in Penn's“Annotations to the Vatican Manuscripts”(1837)“The restoration of this verse to its due place”is described as“the most important circumstance of this [sc. his own] revision.”Its omission is imputed to“the undue influence of a criticism of Origen [ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀποθανόντος], whom Jerome followed.”312.“This gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of history—a reading as preposterous as it is revolting,”is the vigorous protest of Dean Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 68, note.313.“Post enim duodecim apostolos septuaginta alios Dominus noster ante se misisse invenitur; septuaginta autem nec octonario numero neque denario”(Irenaeus, p. 146, Massuet). Tertullian, just a little later (re-echoed by the younger Cyril), compares the Apostles with the twelve wells at Elim (Ex. xv. 27), the seventy with the three-score and ten palm-trees there (Adv. Marc. iv. 24). So Eusebius thrice, Basil and Ambrose. On the other hand in the Recognitions of Clement, usually assigned to the second or third century, the number adopted is seventy-two,“vel hoc modo recognitâ imagine Moysis”and of his elders, traditionally set down at that number. Compare Num. xi. 16. Epiphanius, Hilary (Scholz), and Augustine are also with Cod. B.314.To enable us to translate“a son, nay even an ox,”would require ἢ καί, which none read. The argument, moreover, is onea minori ad majus. Compare Ex. xxi. 33 with Ex. xxiii. 4; ch. xiii. 15.315.Let me addex meoCodd. 22, 219, 492, 547, 549, 558, 559, 576, 582, 584, 594, 596, 597, 598, 601, being no doubt a large majority of cursives. So Cod. 662, apparently after correction.316.But not in the Beirût MS. discovered in 1877 by Dr. Is. H. Hall.317.A more ludicrous blunder of Cod. B has been pointed out to me in the Old Testament, Ps. xvii. 14“they have children at their desire”: ΕΧΟΡΤΑΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΫΙΩΝ Cod. A, but ΕΧΟΡΤΑΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΫΕΙΩΝ Cod. B. The London papyrus has ΥΩΝ for ΥΙΩΝ.318.Codex P is of far greater value than others of its own date. It is frequently found in the company of B, sometimes alone, sometimes with other chief authorities, especially in the Catholic Epistles, e.g. James iv. 15; v. 4; 14; 2 Pet. i. 17 (partly); ii. 6; 1 John ii. 20.319.We note many small variations between the text of these critics as communicated to the Revisers some years before, and that finally published in 1881. The latter, of course, we have treated as their standard.320.This precious cursive forms one of a small class which in the Catholic Epistles and sometimes in the Acts conspire with the best uncials in upholding readings of the higher type: the other members are 69, 137, 182, to which will sometimes be added the text or margin of the Harkleian Syriac, Codd. 27, 29, the second hands of 57 and 66, 100, 180, 185, and particularly 221, which is of special interest in these Epistles. The following passages, examined by means of Tischendorf's notes, will prove what is here alleged: 1 Pet. iii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 4; 21; ii. 6; 11; 1 John i. 5; 7; 8; ii. 19; iii. 1; 19; 22; iv. 19; v. 5.321.Notice especially those instances in the Catholic Epistles, wherein the primary authorities are comparatively few, in which Cod. B accords with the later copies against Codd. אA(C), and is also supported by internal evidence: e.g. 1 Pet. iii. 18; iv. 14; v. 2; 2 Pet. ii. 20; 1 John ii. 10; iii. 23, &c. In 1 John iii. 21, where the first ἡμῶν is omitted by A and others, the second by C almost alone, B seems right in rejecting the word in both places. So in other cases internal probabilities occasionally plead strongly in favour of B, when it has little other support: as in Rom. viii. 24, where τίς ἐλπίζει; as against τις, τί καὶ ἐλπίζει; though B and the margin of Cod. 47 stand alone here, best accounts for the existence of other variations (seep.248). In Eph. v. 22, B alone, with Clement and Jerome, the latter very expressly, omits the verb in a manner which can hardly fail to commend itself as representing the true form of the passage. In Col. iii. 6, B, the Sahidic, the Roman Ethiopic, Clement (twice), Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, and auct. de singl. cler., are alone free from the clause interpolated from Eph. v. 6.322.Viz. Luke i. 1-4, some portion of the Gospel and most of the Acts: excluding such cases as St. Stephen's speech, Acts vii, and the parts of his Gospel which resemble in style, and were derived from the same sources as, those of SS. Matthew and Mark.323.Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 141) confirms the foregoing statements, which we have repeated unchanged from our former editions.“What spellings are sufficiently probable to deserve inclusion among alternative readings, is often difficult to determine. Although many deviations from classical orthography are amply attested, many others, which appear to be equally genuine, are found in one, two, or three MSS. only, and that often with an irregularity which suggests that all our MSS. have to a greater or less extent suffered from the effacement of unclassical forms of words. It is no less true on the other hand that a tendency in the opposite direction is discernible in Western MSS.: the orthography of common life, which to a certain extent was used by all the writers of the New Testament, though in unequal degrees, would naturally be introduced more freely in texts affected by an instinct of popular adaptation.”324.E.g. Aeschylus, Persae, 411: κόρυμβ᾽, ἐπ᾽ ἄλλην δ᾽ ἄλλος ἴθυνεν δόρυ, or Sophocles, Antigone, 219: τὸ μὴ πιχωρεῖν τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσιν τάδε.325.Cod. א, for instance, does not omit it above 208 times throughout the N. T., out of which 134 occur with verbs (three so as to cause a hiatus), 29 with nouns, 45 with adjectives (chiefly πᾶσι) or participles (Scrivener, Collation, &c., p. liv). Its absence produces the hiatus in B*C in 1 Pet. ii. 18 (ἐπιεικέσι), and not seldom in B, e.g. 1 Pet. iv. 6, where we find κριθῶσι and ζῶσι, which latter is countenanced by A, and both by אL.326.Wake 12 (Evan. 492), of the eleventh century, may be taken for a fair representative of its class and date. It retains ν with εἶπεν thirty-three times in St. Matthew, thirteen in St. Mark, as often as 130 in St. Luke. With other words it mostly reserves ν to indicate emphasis (e.g. Luke xxii. 14; xxiv. 30), or to stand before a break in the sense.327.The terminations which admit this moveable ν (including -ει of the pluperfect) are enumerated by Donaldson (Gr. Gram. p. 53). Tischendorf, however (N. T., Proleg. p. liv), demurs to εἴκοσιν, even before a vowel.328.With the remarkable exception of those six leaves of Cod. א which Tischendorf assigns to the scribe who wrote Cod. B. In these leaves of Cod. א Ἰωάνης occurs four times: Matt. xvi. 14; xvii. 1; 13; Luke i. 13, in which last passage, however, B has the doublenu.329.These last might be supposed to have originated from the omission or insertion of the faint line for ν over the preceding letter, which (especially at the end of a line) we stated in Vol. I. p. 50 to be found even in the oldest manuscripts. Sometimes the anomalous form is much supported by junior as well as by ancient codices: e.g. θυγατέραν, Luke xiii. 16 by KXΓ*Λ, 209, also by 69, and ten others of Scrivener's.330.Thus Canon Selwyn cites from Lycophron κἀπὸ γῆς ἐσχάζοσαν, and Dr. Moulton (Winer, p. 91, note 5), after Mullach, ἔσχοσαν from Scymnus Chius.331.Tregelles presses yet another argument:“If Alexandrian forms had been introduced into the N. T. by Egyptian copyists, how comes it that the classical MSS. written in that country are free from them?”(An Account of the Printed Text, p. 178). But what classical MSS. does he know of, written while Egypt was yet Greek or Christian, and now extant for our inspection? I can only think of Cureton's Homer and Babington's papyri.332.“It is hard to make St. Paul responsible for vulgarisms or provincialisms, which certainly his pen never wrote, and which there can be no proof that his lips ever uttered”(Epistle to the Romans, Preface to the third edition, p. xxi) is Dean Vaughan's comment on this“barbarism.”He regards the Apostle's habit of dictating his letters as a“sufficient reason for broken constructions, for participles without verbs, for suspended nominatives, for sudden digressions, for fresh starts.”333.Dr. Hort, however, accepts the form ἐφ᾽ in this place, aspirating ἐλπίδι, and in the same way favours but does not print οὐχ ὁλίγος eight times in the Acts, adding that although ὁλίγος“has no lost digamma to justify it, like some others, it may nevertheless have been in use in the apostolic age: it occurs in good MSS. of the LXX”(Introd., Notes, p. 143).334.“A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek regarded as the basis of N. T. Exegesis. By Dr. G. B. Winer. Translated from the German with large additions and full indices by Rev. W. F. Moulton, M. A., D. D.,”third edition revised, 8vo, Edinburgh, 1882. The forthcoming“Prolegomena”to Tischendorf's N. T. eighth edition (pp. 71-126), to which the kindness of Dr. Caspar René Gregory has given me access, contain a store of fresh materials on this subject; and Dr. Hort's“Notes on Orthography”(Introd., Notes, pp. 143-173) will afford invaluable aid to the student who is ever so little able to accept some of his conclusions. See also on the more general subject Dr. Neubauer's Article in the first issue of the Oxford“Studia Biblica”on“The Dialects of Palestine in the Time of Christ.”He controverts Dr. Roberts' opinion that“Christ spoke for the most part in Greek, and only now and then in Aramaic.”And he distinguishes between the Babylonian Aramaic, the Galilean Aramaic, and the dialect spoken at Jerusalem, which had more of Hebrew.335.In Acts ix. 34 Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, the article between them being rejected, is read by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, on the adequate authority of אB*C, 13, 15, 18, 68, 111, 180, and a catena (probably also Cod. 36), with one or two Fathers, although against AEP, 31, 61, &c.336.I know not why Tischendorf cites Cod. 71 (gscr) for the omission of Ἰησοῦ. I have again consulted the MS. at Lambeth, and findἰῦin this place.337.Seeabove, I. 130. The precise relation of the Latin Version of Cod. D to the parallel Greek text is fully examined in Scrivener's“Codex Bezae,”Introduction, chap. iii.338.Mr. E. B. Nicholson, Bodley's Librarian, doubts the conclusiveness of Irenaeus' Latin here“because his copyist was in the habit of altering him into accordance with the oldest Latin version; and because his argument is just as strong if we readJesu Christi autemas if we readChristi. The argument requiresChristi, but does not in the least require it as againstJesu Christi.”339.“The clearly Western Τοῦ δὲ χριστοῦ,”as Dr. Hort admits,“is intrinsically free from objection, ... yet it cannot be confidently accepted. The attestation is unsatisfactory, for no other Western omission of a solitary word in the Gospels has any high probability”(N. T., Notes, p. 7). He retains ψευδόμενοι, Matt. v. 11.340.Why should Gregory Nyssen (371) be classed among the opponents of the clause, whereas Griesbach honestly states,“suam expositionem his quidem verbis concludit: [ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ τὴν ἰσχὺν κεκτημένου, οὗ ῥυσθείημεν] χάριτι [τοῦ] χριστοῦ, ὅτι αὐτοῦ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα ἅμα τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν”? Griesbach adds indeed,“sed pro parte sacri textûs neutiquam haec habuisse videtur;”and justly: they were rather aloose paraphraseof the sentence before him.SeeTextual Guide, Edward Miller, App. V.341.Canon Cook (Revised Version, p. 57) alleges as a probable cause of the general omission of the doxology in early Latin Versions and Fathers, that in all the Western liturgies it is separated from the petitions preceding by an intercalatedEmbolismus. More weighty is his observation that all the Greek Fathers, from Chrysostom onwards, who deal with the interpretation of the Lord's Prayer,“agree with that great expositor in maintaining the important bearings [of the doxology] upon the preceding petitions.”342.“Quite a test-passage”Mr. Hammond calls it (Outlines of Text. Crit., p. 76).343.Third Edition.I would fain side in this instance with my revered friend and Revision colleague Dr. David Brown of Aberdeen, and all my prepossessions are strongly in favour of thetextus receptushere. He is quite right in perceiving (Christian Opinion and Revisionist, p. 435) that the key of his position lies in the authenticity of ἀγαθέ ver. 16, which is undoubtedly found in Mark x. 17; Luke xviii. 18. If that word had abided unquestioned here, the form of reply adopted in the other two Gospels would have inevitably followed. As the case stands, there is not considerably less evidence for omitting ἀγαθέ (אBDL, 1, 22, 479, Evst. 5 [not“five Evangelistaria”],aeff1, Eth., Origen twice, Hilary) than for Τί με ἐρωτᾷς κ.τ.λ., although Cureton's and the Jerusalem Syriac, the Bohairic, and the Vulgate with some other Latin copies, change sides here. It is upon these recreant versions that Dr. Brown must fix the charge of inconsistency. If ἀγαθέ be an interpolation, surely τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω is pertinently answered by Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ.344.Canon Westcott (Smith's“Dictionary of the Bible,”Vulgate Version) adds Bodl. 857; Brit. Mus. Reg.iB. vii, and Reg.i. A. xviii in part, also Addit. 24,142 by the second hand. Tischendorf also citestheotisc.345.No passage more favours Bp. Middleton's deliberate conclusion respecting the history of the Codex Bezae:“I believe that no fraud was intended: but only that the critical possessor of the basis filled its margin with glosses and readings chiefly from the Latin, being a Christian of the Western Church; and that the whole collection of Latin passages was translated into Greek, and substituted in the text by some one who had a high opinion of their value, and who was, as Wetstein describes him,‘καλλιγραφίας quàm vel Graecae vel Latinae linguae peritior.’”(Doctrine of the Greek Article, Appendix I. p. 485, 3rd edition.)346.I see no reasonable ground for imagining with Lachmann that Origen who, as he truly observes,“non solet difficilia praeterire,”did not find in his copy anything between πατρός; and Ἀμήν in ver. 31. On the supposition that he read πρῶτος there was no difficulty to slur over. Moreover, there is not a vestige of evidence for omitting λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ ἰησοῦς, the existence of which words Lachmann clearly perceived to be fatal to his ingenious guess, although Dr. Hort will only allow that it“weakens his suggestion,”adding in his quiet way“This phrase might easily seem otiose if it followed immediately on words of Christ, and might thus be thought to imply the intervention of words spoken by others”(Notes, p. 17).347.Jerome conceives that the Jews“intellegere quidem veritatem, sed tergiversari, et nolle dicere quod sentiunt;”and so Canon G. F. Goddard, Rector of Southfleet, believed that their wantonly false answer brought on them the Lord's stern rebuke. Hilary's idea is even more far-fetched: viz. that though the second son disobeyed, it was because hecouldnot execute the command.“Non ait noluisse sed non abisse. Res extra culpam infidelitatis est, quia in facti erat difficultate ne fieret.”348.His sole example is ὁδὸν ποιεῖν Mark ii. 23, which seems not at all parallel. The phrase may as well signify to“clear away”as“make their way.”349.πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει is the reading of Abbott's four and of Codd. 28, 122, 541, 561, 572, Evst. 196.350.Which is certainly its meaning in Lucian, Tom. ii. p. 705 (Salmur. 1619); I know no example like that in St. Mark.351.I have ventured but slowly to vouch for Tischendorf's notion, that six leaves of Cod. א,that containingMark xvi. 2-Luke i. 56being one of them, were written by the scribe of Cod. B. On mere identity of handwriting and the peculiar shape of certain letters who shall insist? Yet there are parts of the case which I know not how to answer, and which have persuaded even Dr. Hort. Having now arrived at this conclusion our inference is simple and direct, that at least in these leaves, Codd. אB make but one witness, not two.352.The cases of Nehemiah, Tobit, and Daniel, in the Old Testament portion of Cod. B, are obviously in no wise parallel in regard to their blank columns.353.Of which supplement Dr. Hort says unexpectedly enough,“In style it is unlike the ordinary narratives of the Evangelists, but comparable to the four introductory verses of St. Luke's Gospel”(Introduction, p. 298).354.We ought to add that some Armenian codices which contain the paragraph have the subscription“Gospel after Mark”at the end of ver. 8 as well as of ver. 20, as though their scribes, like Cod. L's, knew of a double ending to the Gospel.355.Burgon (Guardian, July 12, 1882) speaks of seven manuscripts (Codd. 538, 539 being among them) wherein these last twelve verses begin on the right hand of the page. This would be more significant if a space were left, as is not stated, at the foot of the preceding page. In Cod. 550 the first letter α is small, but covers an abnormally large space.356.Of course no notice is to be taken of τέλος after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, as the end of the ecclesiastical lesson is all that is intimated. The grievous misstatements of preceding critics from Wetstein and Scholz down to Tischendorf, have been corrected throughout by means of Burgon's laborious researches (Burgon, pp. 114-123).357.The minute variations between these several codices are given by Burgon (Appendix E, pp. 288-90). Cod. 255 contains a scholion imputed to Eusebius, from which Griesbach had drawn inferences which Burgon (Last Twelve Verses, &c., Postscript, pp. 319-23) has shown to be unwarranted by the circumstances of the case.358.Dr. C. Taylor, Master of St. John's College, Cambridge, inThe Expositorfor July, 1893, quotes more evidence from Justin Martyr—hinting that some also remains behind—proving that that Father was familiar with these verses. Also he cites several passages from the Epistle of Barnabas in which traces of them occur, and from the Quartodeciman controversy, and from Clement of Rome. The value of the evidence which Dr. Taylor's acute vision has discovered consists chiefly in its cumulative force. From familiarity with the passage numerous traces of it arose; or as Dr. Taylor takes the case reversely, from the fact of the occurrence of numerous traces evident to a close observer, it is manifest that there pre-existed in the minds of the writers a familiarity with the language of the verses in question.359.It is surprising that Dr. Hort, who lays very undue stress upon the silence of certain early Christian writers that had no occasion for quoting the twelve verses in their extant works, should say of Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived abouta.d.349, that his“negative evidence is peculiarly cogent”(Notes, p. 37). To our mind it is not at all negative. Preaching on a Sunday, he reminds his hearers of a sermon he had delivered the day before, and which he would have them keep in their thoughts. One of the topics he briefly recalls is the article of the Creed τὸν καθίσαντα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρός. He must inevitably have used Mark xvi. 19 in his Saturday's discourse.360.Several of these references are derived from“The Revision Revised,”p. 423.361.Nor were these verses used in the Greek Church only. Vers. 9-20 comprised the Gospel for Easter Monday in the old Spanish or Mozarabic Liturgy, for Easter Tuesday among the Syrian Jacobites, for Ascension Day among the Armenians. Vers. 12-20 was the Gospel for Ascension Day in the Coptic Liturgy (Malan, Original Documents, iv. p. 63): vers. 16-20 in the old LatinComes.362.To get rid of one apparent ἀντιφωνία, that arising from the expression πρωῒ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου (sic), ver. 9, compared with ὀψὲ σαββάτων Matt. xxviii. 1, Eusebius proposes the plan of setting a stop between Ἀναστὰς δέ and πρωΐ, so little was he satisfied with rudely expunging the whole clause. Hence Cod. E puts a red cross after δέ: Codd. 20, 22, 34, 72, 193, 196, 199, 271, 345, 405, 411, 456, have a colon: Codd. 332, 339, 340, 439, a comma (Burgon,Guardian, Aug. 20, 1873).363.The following peculiarities have been noticed in these verses: ἐκεῖνος used absolutely, vers. 10, 11, 13; πορεύομαι vers. 10, 12, 15; τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις ver. 10; θεάομαι vers. 11, 14; ἀπιστέω vers. 11, 16; μετὰ ταῦτα ver. 12; ἕτερος ver. 12; παρακολουθέω ver. 17; ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ver. 17; κύριος for the Saviour, vers. 19, 20; πανταχοῦ, συνεργοῦντος, βεβαιόω, ἐπακολουθέω ver. 20, all of them as not found elsewhere in St. Mark. A very able and really conclusive plea for the genuineness of the paragraph, as coming from that Evangelist's pen, appeared in theBaptist Quarterly, Philadelphia, July, 1869, bearing the signature of Professor J. A. Broadus, of South Carolina. Unfortunately, from the nature of the case, it does not admit of abridgement. Burgon's ninth chapter (pp. 136-190) enters into full details, and amply justifies his conclusion that the supposed adverse argument from phraseology“breaks down hopelessly under severe analysis.”364.“Can any one, who knows the character of the Lord and of His ministry, conceive for an instant that we should be left with nothing but a message baulked through the alarm of women”(Kelly, Lectures Introductory to the Gospels, p. 258). Even Dr. Hort can say:“it is incredible that the Evangelist deliberately concluded either a paragraph with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, or the Gospel with a petty detail of a secondary event, leaving his narrative hanging in the air”(Notes, p. 46).365.When Burgon ventures upon a surmise, one which is probability itself by the side of those we have been speaking of, Professor Abbot (ubi supra, p.197) remarks upon it that“With Mr. Burgon a conjecture seems to be a demonstration.”We will not be deterred by dread of any such reproach from mentioning his method of accounting for the absence of these verses from some very early copies, commending it to the reader for what it may seem worth. After a learned and exhaustive proof that the Church lessons, as we now have them, existed from very early times (Twelve Verses, pp. 191-211), and noting that an important lesson ended with Mark xvi. 8 (seeCalendar of Lessons); he supposes that τέλος, which would stand at the end of such a lesson, misled some scribe who had before him anexemplarof the Gospels whose last leaf (containing Mark xvi. 9-20, or according to Codd. 20, 215, 300 only vers. 16-20) was lost, as it might easily be in those older manuscripts wherein St. Mark stood last.366.The Codex lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis is said to omit the verses. But what is that against a host of other codices? And when the other MS. of the Curetonian includes the verses? Positive testimony is worth more than negative.367.Dr. Hort, however, while he admits the possibility of the leaf containing vers. 9-20 having been lost in some very early copy, which thus would become the parent of transcripts having a mutilated text (Notes, p. 49), rather inconsistently arrives at the conclusion that the passage in question“manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the apostolic age”(ibid.p. 51).368.Dr. Hort will hardly find many friends for his division (Notes, p. 56),Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς,Εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.369.I am loth to sully with a semblance of unseasonable levity a page which is devoted to the vindication of the true form of the Angelic Hymn, and must ask the student to refer for himself to the 470th number of theSpectator, where what we will venture to call a precisely parallel case exercises the delicate humour of Addison.“So many ancient manuscripts,”he tells us, concur in this last reading,“that I am very much in doubt whether it ought not to take place. There are but two reasons which incline me to the reading as I have published it: first, because the rhyme, and secondly, because the sense, is preserved by it.”370.This torrent of testimony includes ninety-two places, of which“Tischendorf knew of only eleven, Tregelles adduces only six”(R. R., p. 45, note).371.Every word uttered by such a scholar as Dr. Field (d. 1885) is so valuable that no apology can be needed for citing the following critique from his charming“Otium Norvicense,”Part iii. p. 36, on the reading εὐδοκίας and the rendering“among men in whom he is well pleased.”“To which it may be briefly objected (1)that it ruins the stichometry; (2) that it separates ἐν from εὐδοκία, the word with which it is normally construed; (3) that‘men of good pleasure’(אנשי רצון) would be, according to Graeco-biblical usage, not ἄνθρωποι εὐδοκίας, but ἄνδρες εὐδοκίας; (4) that the turn of the sentence, ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, very much resembles the second clause of Prov. xiv. 9: ובין ישרים רצון rendered by Symmachus καὶ ἀναμέσον εὐθέων εὐδοκία.”But this is almost slaying the slain.372.Κυριακὴ δευτεροπρώτη is cited by Sophocles in his Lexicon from“Eustr. 2381 B”in the sense oflow Sunday(McClellan, N. T., p. 690). Canon Cook conjectures that it may mean the first sabbath in the second month (Iyar), precisely the time when wheat would be fully ripe (Revised Version, p. 69). [More probably it is“the first sabbath after the second day of the Passover.”] On the other hand,“If the word be a reality and originally in the text, its meaning, since in that case it must have been borrowed from something in the Jewish calendar, would have been traditionally known from the first.”(Green, Course of Developed Criticism, p. 56.) But why would it? The fancy that δευτεροπρώτῳ had its origin in numerals of reference (B A) set in the margin will most commend itself to such scholars as are under the self-imposed necessity of upholding Codd. אB united against all other evidence, of whatever kind.373.Just as Jerome, speaking of the latter part of 1 Cor. vii. 35, says,“In Lat. Codd.ob translationis difficultatemhoc penitus non invenitur.”(Vallars. ii. 261, as Burgon points out.)374.Dr. Hort and theQuarterly Reviewer(October, 1881, p. 348) almost simultaneously called attention to the question put by Jerome to his teacher Gregory of Nazianzus as to the meaning of this word.“Docebo te super hac re in ecclesia”was the only reply he obtained; on which Jerome's comment is,Eleganter lusit(Hier.ad Nepotianum, Ep. 52). Neither of these great Fathers could explain a term which neither doubted to be written by the Evangelist.375.Cyril applies the whole passage to enforce the duty of exercising with frugality the Christian duty of entertaining strangers:“And this He did for our benefit, that He might fix a limit to hospitality”(Dean Payne Smith's Translation, pp. 317-20).376.Praelectio in Scholis Cantabrigiensibus habita Februarii die decimo quarto,mdcccl, quâ ... Lucae pericopam (xxii. 17-20) multis ante saeculis conturbatam vetustissimorum ope codicum in pristinam formam restituebat, Cathedram Theologicam ambiens, J. W. Blakesley, S. T. B., Coll. SS. Trinitatis nuper Socius (Cambridge, 1850).377.“Intrinsically both readings are difficult, but in unequal degrees. The difficulty of the shorter reading [that of pure omission in vers. 19, 20] consists exclusively in the change of order, as to the Bread and the Cup, which is illustrated by many phenomena of the relation between the narratives of the third and of the first two Gospels, and which finds an exact parallel in the change of order in St. Luke's account of the Temptation”(iv. 5-8; 9-12). Hort, Notes, p. 64.378.Adler says“in omnibus codicibus,”andguelph. heidelb.Dawkins iii and xvii in Jones, and cod. Rich are specified. Lee sets the verses in a parenthesis. But the Curetonian has them after ver. 19 in words but little differing from his or Schaaf's.379.“Si fides habenda A. F. Gorio‘in Conspectu Quattuor Codicum Evangeliorum Syriacorum mirae aetatis’apud Blanchini Evangelium Quadruplex p.dxl, et hi quattuor Codices cum Veronensi [b] faciunt.”Blakesley,SchemafacingPraelectio, p. 20.380.Especially mark his mode of dealing with ἐκχυννόμενον ver. 20, which by a little violence (not quite unprecedented) is made to refer to ποτήριον instead of to αἵματι:“Ex Matthaeo vel Marco accessit clausula ista τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον, fraude tamen ita piâ accessit, ut potius grammaticis legibus vim facere, quam vel literulam demutare maluerit interpolator. Ita fit ut vel hodie male assutus pannus centonem prodat. Postulat enim sermonis ratio, ut cuivis patet, τῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνομένω, non τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον, quod tamen in Matthaeo Marcoque optime Graece dicebatur, cum subjectum de quo praedicabatur non ἡ διαθήκη verum τὸ αἷμα esset”(Praelectio, p. 22).381.Very undue stress has been laid on Tischendorf's statement,“Hos versus A corrector uncis inclusit, partim etiam punctis notavit; C vero puncta et uncos delevit,”and אahas sometimes been spoken of as only a little less weighty than א itself. I had the satisfaction, through Dean Burgon's kindness, of showing some of our critics, Dr. Hort included, a fine photograph of the whole page. The points are nearly, if not quite, invisible, the unci are rude slight curves at the beginning and end of the passage only, looking as likely to have been scrawled fifty years since as fourteen hundred. Yet even now Dr. Hort maintains that Tischendorf's decision is probably right, strangely adding,“but the point is of little consequence”(Notes, p. 65).382.Bp. Lightfoot's Codd. 2, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 22, 26 omit them altogether: they are in the margin of 1, 20. They stand in the text of 3, 14, 21, and so in 18primâ manu, but in smaller characters.383.Yet Dr. Hort contends that“The testimony of A is not affected by the presence of Eusebian numerals, of necessity misplaced, which manifestly presuppose the inclusion of vv. 43, 44: the discrepance merely shows that the Biblical text and the Eusebian notation were taken by the scribe from different sources, as they doubtless were throughout”(Notes, p. 65). It is just this readiness to devise expedients to meet emergencies as they arise which is at once the strength and the weakness of Dr. Hort's position as a textual critic. These sections and canons illustrate the criticism of the text in some other places: e.g. Matt. xvi. 2, 3; xvii. 21; ch. xxiii. 34; hardly in Luke xxiv. 12.384.Ἰστέον ὅτι τὰ περὶ τῶν θρόμβων τινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐκ ἔχουσιν: adding that the clause is cited by Dionysius the Areopagite, Gennadius, Epiphanius, and other holy Fathers.385.Thus in Evst. 253 we find John xiii. 3-17 inserteduno tenorebetween Matt. xxvi. 20 and 21, as also Luke xxii. 43, 44 between vers. 39 and 40, with no break whatever. So again in the same manuscript with the mixed lessons for Good Friday.386.“Upwards of forty famous personages from every part of ancient Christendom recognize these verses as part of the Gospel; fourteen of them being as old, some of them being a great deal older, than our oldest manuscripts”(The Revision Revised, p. 81).387.The reader will see that I have understood this passage, with Grotius, as applying to an orthodox tampering with Luke xix. 41, not with xxii. 43, 44. As the text of Epiphanius stands I cannot well do otherwise, since Mill's mode of punctuation (N. T., Proleg. § 797), which wholly separates καὶ γενόμενος from the words immediately preceding, cannot be endured, and leaves καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρότατον unaccounted for. Yet I confess that there is no trace of any meddling with ἔκλαυσε by any one, and I know not where Irenaeus cites it.388.Lightfoot's Codd. 22, 26. The clause stands in the margin of 1, 20, in the text of 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23.389.Dean Burgon (Revision Revised, p. 83), who refers to upwards of forty Fathers and more than 150 passages (seealso Miller's Textual Guide, App. II), burns with indignation as he sums up his results:“Andwhat(we ask the question with sincere simplicity),whatamount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubted confidence in any given reading, if not such a concurrence of authorities as this? We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from internal evidence. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external testimony, or is clearly forsaken thereby.”390.“Gospel according to St. John from eleven versions,”1872, p. 8. Dr. Malan also translates in the same way the Peshitto“the only Son of God”and its satellite the Persic of the Polyglott as“the only one of God.”With much deference to a profound scholar, I do not see how such a rendering is possible in the Peshitto: it is precisely that which he gives in ch. iii. 18, where the Syriac inserts ܒܪܚ ܕ (or ܕ ܚܪܒ). Bp. Lightfoot judges θεός the more likely rendering of the Bohairic, though θεοῦ is possible.391.We are not likely to adopt Tischendorf's latest reading and punctuation in Col. ii. 2, τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ.392.Hence we cannot think with Prebendary Sadler (Lost Gospel, p. 48) that μονογενὴς θεός is very probably the original reading, and must even take leave to doubt its orthodoxy. The received reading ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is upheld by Dr. Ezra Abbot in papers contributed to the AmericanBibliotheca Sacra, Oct. 1861, and to theUnitarian Review, June, 1875; it is attacked with characteristic vigour and fullness of research by Dr. Hort in the first of his“Two Dissertations”(pp. 1-72) written in 1876 as exercises for Theological degrees at Cambridge.393.The Revision Revised, p. 133. Also Miller's“Textual Guide,”App. VI.394.To give but a very small part of the variations in ver. 4: δέ (proγάρ) L,abcff, Vulg. -γάρ Evst. 51, Boh. + κυρίου (postγὰρ) AKLΔ, 12, 13, 69, 507, 509, 511, 512, 570 and fifteen others: at τοῦ θεοῦ 152, Evst. 53, 54.—κατὰ καιρὸνa b ffἐλούετο (proκατέβαινεν) A (K), 42, 507. Ethiop.—ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ a b ff. ἐταράσσετο τὸ ὕδωρ C3GHIMUVΛ*, 440, 509, 510, 512, 513, 515, 543, 570, 575, Evst. 150, 257, many others. + in piscinam (postἐμβάς)c, Clementine Vulg. ἐγένετο FL, 69, at least fifteen others.395.Either Dean Burgon or I have recently found the passage in Codd. 518, 524, 541, 560, 561, 573, 582, 594, 598, 599, 600, 602, 604, 622.396.Of Lightfoot's list of manuscripts, the passage is omitted in Codd. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26. It stands in the text of 3, 9, 14, in the margin only of 1, 20.397.“Both elements, the clause ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τῶν ὑδάτων (sic) κίνησιν, and the scholium or explanatory note respecting the angel, are unquestionably very ancient: but no good Greek document contains both, while each of them separately is condemned by decisive evidence”(Hort, Introd., p. 301).398.Dean Burgon has left a long vindication of the whole passage amongst his papers not yet published.399.Add from Dr. Malan (ubi supra, p.97), the Georgian, Slavonic (text, not margin), Anglo-Saxon, and Persic. His Arabic (that of Erpenius) agrees with the Peshitto Syriac. The Armenian version of Ephraem's Tatian also readsnon.400.Codd. AC are defective in this place, but by measuring the space we have shown (p.99, note 2) that A does not contain the twelve verses, and the same method applies to C. The reckoning, as McClellan remarks (N. T., p. 723),“does not preclude the possibility of small gaps having existed in A and C to mark theplaceof the Section, as in L and Δ.”401.Yet Burgon's caution should be attended to.“It is to mislead—rather it is to misrepresent the facts of the case—to say (with the critics) that Codex X leaves out the‘pericope de adulterâ.’This Codex is nothing else but acommentary on the Gospel, as the Gospel used to be read in public. Of necessity, therefore, it leaves out those parts of the Gospel which are observednotto have been publicly read”(Guardian, Sept. 10, 1873).402.The kindred copies Codd. Λ, 215 (20 has an asterisk only against the place), 262, &c., have the following scholium at ch. vii. 53: τὰ ὠβελισμένα ἔν τισιν ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται, οὐδὲ Ἀπολ[λ]ιναρίῳ; ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ὅλα κεῖ[ν]ται; μνημονεύουσιν τῆς περικοπῆς ταύτης καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἐν αἷς ἐξέθεντο διατάξεσιν εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. The reference is to the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24. 4), as Tischendorf perceives.403.Yet so that the first hand of Cod. 207 recognizes it in the text, setting in the margin τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ζήτει εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ βιβλίου (Burgon,Guardian, Oct. 1, 1873).404.A learned friend suggests that, supposing the true place for this supplemental history to be yet in doubt, there would be this reason for the narrative to be set after Luke xxi, that a reader of the Synoptic Gospels would be aware of no other occasion when the Lord had to lodge outside the city: whereas with St. John's narrative before him, he would see that this was probably the usual lot of alatecomer at the Feast of Tabernacles (ch. vii. 14). Mr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that the true place for thepericopeis between ch. v and ch. vi, as for other reasons which we cannot depend upon, so from our illustrating the mention of the Mosaic Law in ch. viii. 5 by ch. v. 45, 46.405.Yet on the whole this paragraph is found in more of Bp. Lightfoot's copies than would have been anticipated: viz. in the text of 3, 8, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, in the margin of 1, and on a later leaf of 20. It is wanting in 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 19, 21, 25, 26.406.“Similiter Nicon ejectam esse vult narrationem ab Armenis, βλαβερὰν εἶναι τοῖς πολλοῖς τὴν τοιαύτην ἀκρόασιν dicentibus.”Tischendorfad loc.Nicon lived in or about the tenth century, but Theophylact in the eleventh does not use the paragraph.407.Notice especially the reading of 48, 64, 604, 736 (primâ manu) in ver. 8 ἔγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἑνὸς ἑκάστου αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας.408.We are not surprised in this instance at Dr. Hort's verdict (Introd. p. 299):“No interpolation is more clearly Western, though it is not Western of the earliest type.”Dean Burgon has left amongst his papers an elaborate vindication of this passage, from which however the Editor cannot quote.409.The form τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, objected to by Michaelis, is vindicated by Matt. i. 18, the reading of which cannot rightly be impugned.Seeabove. Compare also ver. 12.410.ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ εὐνοῦχος πεισθεὶς καὶ παραυτίκα ἀξιῶν βαπτισθῆναι, ἔλεγε, Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. Harvey, vol. ii. p. 62.411.Such are αὐτῷ with or without ὁ Φίλιππος in E, 100, 105, 163, 186, 221, the Harkleian with an asterisk: σου added after καρδίας in E, 100, 105, 163, 186,tol., the Harkleian with an asterisk, the Armenian, Cyprian; butex toto cordethe margin ofam.and the Clementine Vulgate: τόν omitted before Ἰησοῦν in 186, 221 and others.412.“Non reperi in graeco codice, quanquam arbitror omissum librariorum incuria. Nam et haec in quodam codice graeco asscripta reperi, sed in margine.”Erasmus, N. T., 1516.413.They plead, besides the confessed preponderance of manuscript evidence for Ἑλληνιστάς, that“A familiar word standing in an obvious antithesis was not likely to be exchanged for a word so rare that it is no longer extant, except in a totally different sense, anywhere but in the Acts and two or three late Greek interpretations of the Acts; more especially when the change introduced an apparent difficulty”(Hort, Notes, p. 93).Judicet lector.414.Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. lvi and lxxxii.415.But with the same lack of accuracy which so often deforms this great copy: ως ετροφοφορησεν σεκςοθςσου ως ει τις τροποφορησειprimâ manu(Vercellone).416.Witness too Lucian's ὑπερμεγέθη ναῦν καὶ πέρα τοῦ μέτρου, μίαν τῶν ἀπ᾽ Αἰγύπτου εἰς Ἰταλίαν σιταγωγῶν (Navig. seu Vota, c. 1) which was driven out of its course to the Piraeus. Mr. Smith, of Jordan Hill, cannot bring its dimensions under 1,300 tons.417.Dr. Field, however, says that“this is a mistake.”The Syriac is ἔχωμεν and nothing else. For ἔχομεν this version (and all others) would put ܐܬ ܥܢ (or ܢܥ ܬܐ): but“when the word is in the subjunctive mood, since ܐܬ (or ܬܐ) is indeclinable, it is a peculiarity of the Harkleian to prefix the corresponding mood of ܗܘܐ (or ܐܘܗ), here ܢܗܘܐ (or ܐܘܗܢ)”(Otium Norvicense, iii. p. 93). For this strange phrase he cites Rom. i. 13; 2 Cor. v. 12, and to such an authority I have butdare manus.418.It is simply impossible to translate with Jos. Agar Beet, in the [Wesleyan]London Quarterly, April, 1878, either“Let us then, justified by faith, have peace with God,”or“Let us then be justified by faith and have peace with God.”Acts xv. 36 will help him little: the other places he cites (Matt. ii. 13, &c.) not at all.419.Dr. Vaughan (Epistle to the Romans) has ἔχωμεν in his text, and compares Heb. xii. 28, ἔχωμεν χάριν,“where there is the same variety of reading.”B is lost in this last place, but ἔχομεν, which is quite inadmissible, is found in Codd. אKP, the Latin of D, 31 and many other cursives, the printed Vulgate, and its best manuscripts. In Rom. xiv. 19 even Dr. Hort is driven by the versions and the sense to adopt in his text διώκωμεν of CD and the mass of cursives, rather than διώκομεν with אABFGLP, &c. The like confusion between ο and ω appears in the text we shall examine next but one (1 Cor. xiii. 3) and in the subjoined note (p.384). See also φορέσομεν and φορέσωμεν, 1 Cor. xv. 49. We must confess, however, that in some of our oldest extant MSS. the interchange of ο and ω is but rare. In Cod. Sarravianus it is found in but twenty-three places out of 1224 in which itacisms occur, 830 of them being the mutation of ει and ι. On the other hand, ο stands for ω andvice versâvery frequently in that papyrus fragment of the Psalms in the British Museum which Tischendorf, perhaps a little hastily, judged to be older than any existing writing on vellum.420.Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 116) observes that διαθρύπτω is specially used in the Septuagint (Lev. ii. 6; Isa. lviii. 7) for the breaking of bread.421.Few things are too hard for Dr. Hort, yet one is almost surprised to be told that“The text gives an excellent sense, for, as ver. 2 refers to a faith towards God which is unaccompanied by love, so ver. 3 refers to acts which seem by their very nature to be acts of love to men, but are really done in ostentation. First the dissolving of the goods in almsgiving is mentioned, then, as a climax, the yielding up of the very body; both alike being done for the sake of glorying, and unaccompanied by love”(Notes, p. 117).422.Tyler comparesshoushoualso in 2 Cor. vii. 5, 9; Ps. v. 11 (12).423.Neither Winer nor his careful translator, Professor Moulton, seems disposed to yield to Lachmann's authority in this matter.“In the better class of writers,”says Winer,“such forms are probably due to the transcribers (Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 721), but in later authors, especially the Scholiasts (as on Thucydides iii. 11 and 54), they cannot be set aside. In the N. T., however, there is very little in favour of these conjunctives”(Moulton's“Winer,”p. 89 and note 4, p. 361 and note 1). Yet Tregelles thinks“there would be no difficulty about the case, had not one been made by grammatical critics”(An Account of the Printed Text, p. 211, note †). But in his own example, John xvii. 2, ἵνα ... δώσῃ is read by אcACGKMSX, 33, 511, 546, and (so far as I can find) by no other manuscript whatever. On the other hand δώσει (read by Westcott and Hort;seeIntrod., Notes, p. 172) is supported by BEHUYΓΔΛΠ (א has δωσω, D εχη, L δωσ), and (as it would seem) by every other codex extant: δώσῃ came into the common text from the second edition of Erasmus. Out of the twenty-five collated by myself for this chapter, δώσει is found in twenty-four (now including Wake 12 or Cod. 492 and Cod. 622), and the following others have been expressly cited for it: 1, 10, 11, 15, 22, 42, 45, 48, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61 (Dobbin), 63, 65, 66, 106, 118, 124, 127, 131, 142, 145, 157, 250, 262, Evst. 3, 22, 24, 36, and at least fifty others, indeed one might say all that have been collated with any degree of minuteness: so too the Complutensian and first edition of Erasmus. The constant confusion of ει and η at the period when the uncials were written abundantly accounts for the reading of the few, though AC are among them. In later times such itacisms were far more rare in careful transcription, and the mediaeval copyists knew their native language too well to fall into the habit in this passage. In Pet. iii. 1 ἵνα κερδηθήσονται is read by all the uncials (אABCKLP), nearly all cursives, and the Complutensian edition, in the place of -σωνται of Erasmus and the Received text; just as we have ἵνα γινώσκομεν in אAB*LP, 98, 99, 101, 180, 184, 188, 190 in 1 John v. 20. The case for ἀρκεσθησόμεθα 1 Tim. vi. 8 is but a shade less feeble.424.Tischendorf, however, boldly interposes a comma between the words (seep.359, note), and is followed by Westcott and Hort and by Bp. Lightfoot, whose note on the passage (Coloss. p. 318) is very elaborate. This mode of punctuation would set χριστοῦ in apposition to μυστηρίου, in support of which construction ch. i. 27 (ὅ); 1 Tim. iii. 16 (ὅς) are alleged. This, however, is not the sense favoured by Hilary (in agnitionem sacramenti dei Christi, and againDeus Christus sacramentum est), and would almost call for the article before χριστοῦ. In meaning it would be equivalent to D*, &c., ὅ ἐστινχσ.425.In Dr. Swete's edition, vol. ii. p. 11, Theodore expounds thus in the old Latin version:sed facti sumus quieti in medio vestro, hoc est,“omni mediocritate et humilitate sumus abusi, nolentes graves aliquibus videri.”426.A like combination is seen in Cod. 37 in 1 Tim. vi. 19 τῆς αἰωνίου ὄντως ζωῆς.427.Dean Burgon has just presented me with the photographed page in Cod. G, respecting whose evidence there can be no remaining doubt.428.The true reading of the Codex Alexandrinus in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has long been an interesting puzzle with Biblical students. The manuscript, and especially the leaf containing this verse (fol. 145), now very thin and falling into holes, must have been in a widely different condition from the present when it first came to England. At that period Young, Huish, and the rest who collated or referred to it, believed thatΘΣwas written by the first hand. Mill (N. T.ad loc.) declares that he had first supposed the primitive reading to beΟΣ, seeing clearly that the lineoverthe letters had not been entirely made, but only thickened, by a later hand, probably the same that traced the coarse, rude, recent, horizontal diameter now running through the circle. On looking more closely, however, he detected“ductus quosdam et vestigia satis certa ... praesertim ad partem sinistram, qua peripheriam literae pertingit,”evidently belonging to an earlier diameter, which the thicker and later one had almost defaced. This old line was afterwards seen by John Berriman and four other persons with him (Gloucester Ridley, Gibson, Hewett, and Pilkington) by means of a glass in the bright sunshine, when he was preparing his Lady Moyer's Lecture for 1737-8 (Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16, p. 156). Wetstein admitted the existence of such a transverse line, but referred it to the tongue orsagittaof Ε on the reverse of the leaf, an explanation rejected by Woide, but admitted by Tregelles, who states in opposition to Woide that“Part of the Ε on the other side of the leafdoesintersect the Ο, as we have seen again and again, and which others with us have seen also”(Horne, iv. p. 156). This last assertion may be received as quite true, and yet not relevant to the point at issue. In an Excursus appended to 1 Timothy in his edition of“The Pastoral Epistles”(p. 100, 1856), Bp. Ellicott declares, as the result of“minute personal inspection,”that the original reading was“indisputably”ΟΣ. But the fact is, that the page is much too far gone to admit of any present judgement which would weigh against past judgements, as any one who examines the passage can see for himself. Woide could see the line in 1765, but not in 1785.429.Yet how can it beprecariousin the face of such testimony as the following (Quarterly Review, Oct. 1881, p. 363)? Τὸ δὲ θεὸν ὄντα ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνασχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ... τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἐκπλήξεως γέμον. Ὅ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγε; καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; ποῖον μέγα? θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί; καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ θεός (Chrysostom, i. 497). It is necessary to study the context well before we can understand the strength or weakness of Patristic evidence.430.Twenty-three times in all, as Ward (seep.394, note) observes, adding that“nothing can be more express and unquestionable than his reading.”TheQuarterly Reviewerspeaks very well (ubi supra),“A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude of proofs that Christ is God, Gregory says: Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαρρήδην βοᾷ ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι”(ii. 693).431.Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 67, 'Σχόλια Photii MSS. (Bib. Pub. Cant.)ad loc. ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις Κύριλλος ἐν τῷιβκεφαλαίῳ τῶν σχολίων φησίν, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.' Photius also quoted Gregory Thaumaturgus (or Apollinarius) for θεός.432.Dr. Swete, in his masterly edition of the Latin translation of Theodore's commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, after citing the Latin text asqui manifestatus est in carne, adds“Both our MSS. readqui, here and [15 lines] below and use the masculine consistently throughout the context.... Thus the present translation goes to confirm the inference already drawn from the Greek fragment of Theodore, de Incarn. xiii (Migne, P. G. 66, 987), that he read ὃς ἐφανερώθη”(vol. ii. p. 135 n.): pertinently observing that if Theodore used ὅς, he was in harmony with the Syriac versions.433.“Conspectum lectionis hujus loci optime dedit in sermone vernaculo William H. Ward, V. D. M. in Bibliotheca Sacrâ Americanâ, anni 1865,”Tregelles N. T.ad loc. For a copy of this work I am indebted to the kindness of A. W. Tyler of New York. Mr. Ward wonders that neither Tregelles nor I have noticed a certain pinhole in Cod. A, which was pointed out to Sir F. Madden by J. Scott Porter, made by some person at the extremity of the sagitta of the Ε on the opposite page, and falling exactly on the supposed transverse line of the Θ. I cannot perceive the pinhole, but the vellum is fast crumbling away from the effects of time, certainly through no lack of care on the part of those who keep the manuscript.434.“As the Apostle here applies toChristlanguage which in the Old Testament is made use of with reference to Jehovah (seeIsa. viii. 13), he clearly suggests the supreme godhead of our Redeemer,”as Dr. Roberts puts the matter (Words of the New Testament, p. 170). Not, of course, that our critical judgement should be swayed one way or the other by individual prepossessions; but that those who in the course of these researches have sacrificed to truth much that they have hitherto held dear, need not suppress their satisfaction when truth is gain.435.This translation of 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, and Jude, printed by Pococke from Bodl. Orient. 119, well deserves careful study, being totally different in style and character both from the Peshitto and the Harkleian, somewhat free and periphrastic, yet, in our paucity of good authorities just here, of great interest and full of valuable readings. Thus, in this very verse it reads ἀδικούμενοι (“being wronged as the hire of their wrong-doing”) with א*BP and the Armenian, difficult as it may seem to receive that word as genuine: in ver. 17 it omits εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα with אB and some other versions: in ch. iii. 10 it sides with the Sahidic alone in receiving οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται (apparently correctly) instead of εὑρεθήσεται of אBKP, of the excellent cursives 27, 29, 66secundâ manu, of the Armenian and Harkleian margin, where the Received text follows the obvious κατακαήσεται of AL and the rest, and C hits upon ἀφανισθήσονται in pure despair.436.Bp. Chr. Wordsworth speaks as though there were aparonomasia, a play on the words ἀγάπη and ἀπάτη, comparing (after Windischmann) 2 Thess. ii. 10.“The false teachers called their meetings ἀγάπαι,love feasts, but they were mere ἀπάται,deceits. Theirtablewas asnare”(Ps. lxix. 22). This view might be tenable if St. Peter, with whom theparonomasiamust have taken its rise, were not the earlier writer of the two, as the Bishop of Lincoln believes he was, as firmly as we do. Perhaps Dr. Westcott's notion that 2 Peter is a translation, not an original, at least in ch. ii, will best account for the textual variations between it and St. Jude.437.See the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. xxxv, xxxvii.438.“Restitui in Grecis hoc membrum ex quatuor manuscr. codicum, veteris Latini et Syri interpretis auctoritate. sic etiam assueto Johanne istis oppositionibus contrariorum uti quam saepissimè.”Beza, N. T., 1582.439.Horne (Introduction, vol. ii. pt. ii. ch. iii. sect. 4), and after his example Tregelles (Horne, iv. pp. 384-8), give a curious list of more than fifty volumes, pamphlets, or critical notices on this question. The following are the most worthy of perusal: Letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq., by G. Travis, Archdeacon of Chester, 1785, 2nd edit.; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Richard Porson, 1790; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Herbert Marsh [afterwards Bp. of Peterborough], 1795; A Vindication of the Literary Character of Professor Porson, by Crito Cantabrigiensis [Thomas Turton, afterwards Bp. of Ely], 1827; Two Letters on some parts of the Controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, by Nicolas Wiseman, 1835, for whichseeIndex. For Dr. Adam Clarke's“Observations,”&c., 1805,seeEvan. 61. Add F. A. Knittel on 1 John v. 7. Professor Ezra Abbot's edition of“Orme's Memoir of the Controversy on 1 John v. 7,”New York, 1866, has not fallen in my way. As elaborate works, on the verses are“A new plea for the authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, or Porson's Letters to Travis eclectically examined,”Cambridge, 1867, being the performance of a literary veteran, the late Rev. Charles Forster, whose arguments in vindication of the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, published in 1838, modern Biblical writers have found it easier to pass by than to refute; and“The Three Witnesses, the disputed text in St. John, considerations new and old,”by the Rev. H. T. Armfield, Bagster, 1883.440.That the Codex Montfortianus was influenced by the Vulgate is probably true, though it is a little hasty to infer the fact at once from a single instance, namely, the substitution of χριστός after that version and Uscan's Armenian for the second πνεῦμα in verse 6:“quae lectio Latina Graece in codicem 34 Dublinensem illum Montfortianum recepta luculenter testatur versionem vulgatam ad cum conficiendum valuisse”(Tischendorfad loc.).441.It is really surprising how loosely persons who cannot help being scholars, at least in some degree, will talk about codices containing this clause. Dr. Edward Tatham, Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford (1792-1834), writing in 1827, speaks of a manuscript in his College Library which exhibited it, but is now missing, as having been once seen by him and Dr. Parsons, Bishop of Peterborough (Crito Cantabrigiensis, p. 334, note). Yet there can be no question that he meant Act. 33, which does not give the verse, but has long been known to have some connexion with the Codex Montfortianus, which does (seeAct. 33).442.Of the two Spanish MSS. oneleon.2contains the passage only in the margin, the otherleon.1adds at the end of ver. 8,inxpoihu. Canon Westcott cites a manuscript in the British Museum (Add. 11,852), of the ninth century, to the same effect, observing that, likemandcav., it contains the Epistle to the Laodiceans. This MS. runs“quia tres sunt qui testimonium dantspset aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt. Sicut in caelo tres sunt pater verbum etspset tres unum sunt.”Westcott's manuscript is, in fact,ulm., and had already been used by Porson (Letters, &c., p. 148).443.Mr. Forster (ubi supra, pp.200-209) believed that he had discoveredGreekauthority of the fourth century for this passage, in an isolated Homily by an unknown author, in the Benedictine edition of Chrysostom (Tom. xii. pp. 416-21), whose date Montfaucon easily fixes by internal evidence ata.d.381. As this discovery, if real, is of the utmost importance in the controversy, it seems only right to subjoin the words alleged by this learned divine, leaving them to make their own way with the reader: (1) εἷς κέκληται ὁ Πατὴρ καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον: (2) δεῖ γὰρ τῇ ἀποστολικῇ χορείᾳ παραχωρῆσαι τὴν Ἁγίαν Τριάδα, ἢν ὁ Πατὴρ καταγγέλλει. Τριὰς Ἀποστόλων, μάρτυς τῆς οὐρανίου Τριάδος.444.The“Prologus Galeatus in vii EpistolasCanonicas,”in which the author complains of the omission of ver. 7,“ab infidelibus translatoribus,”is certainly not Jerome's, and begins to appear in codices of about the ninth century.445.The writer of a manuscript note in the British Museum copy of Travis'“Letters to Gibbon,”1785, p. 49, very well observes on the second citation from Cyprian:“That three are one might be taken from the eighth verse, as that was certainly understood of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,especially when Baptism was the subject in hand”[Matt. xxviii. 19].446.It will be seen upon examination of our collations on p.402that the points of difference between Codex Montfortianus (34) and Erasmus' printed text are two, viz. that 34 omits καί after πνεῦμα in ver. 8, and with the Complutensian leaves out its last clause altogether; while, on the other hand, Erasmus and Cod. 34 agree against the Complutensian in their barbarous neglect of the Greek article in both verses. As regards the omission in Cod. 34 of the last clause of ver. 8 (καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν), it is obvious to conjecture that the person, whosoever he was, that sent the transcript of the passage to Erasmus, who never saw the MS. for himself, might have broken off after copying the disputed words, and neglected to note down the further variation that immediately followed them. After the foregoing explanation we must leave the matter as it stands, for there is no known mode of accounting for the discrepancy, whereof Mr. Forster makes the very utmost in the following note, which, as a specimen of his book, is annexed entire:“Bishop Marsh labours hard to identify the Codex Britannicus used by Erasmus, with the Codex Montfortianus. Erasmus's own description of the Codex Britannicus completely nullifies the attempt:‘Postremo: Quod Britannicum etiam in terrae testimonio addebat, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι, quod non addebatur hic duntaxat in editione Hispaniensi.’Now as this clause is also omitted in the Montfort Codex, it cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus. In this as yet undiscovered MS., therefore, we have a second and independent Gr. MS. witness to the seventh verse. The zeal of the adversaries to evade this fact only betrays their sense of its importance”(p. 126). Alas!Hi motus animorum.447.I side with Porson against Travis on every important point at issue between them, and yet I must say that if the former lost a legacy (as has been reported) by publishing his“Letters,”he was entitled to but slender sympathy. The prejudices of good men (especially when a passage is concerned which they have long held to be a genuine portion of Scripture, clearly teaching pure and right doctrine) should be dealt with gently: not that the truth should be dissembled or withheld, but when told it ought to be in a spirit of tenderness and love. Now take one example out of fifty of the tone and temper of Porson. The immediate question was a very subordinate one in the controversy, namely, the evidence borne by the Acts of the Lateran Council,a.d.1215.“Though this,”rejoins Porson,“proves nothing in favour of the verse, it proves two other points. That the clergy then exercised dominion over the rights of mankind, and that able tithe-lawyers often make sorry critics.Which I desire some certain gentlemen of my acquaintance to lay up in their hearts as a very seasonable innuendo”(Letters, p. 361, quoted from“A Tale of a Tub”p. 151). As if it were a disgrace for an Archdeacon to know a little about the laws which affect the clergy.448.Gaussen (Theopneustia, pp. 115-7) has still spirit remaining to press the masculine forms οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ver. 7 and οἱ τρεῖς ver. 8 as making in favour of the intervening clause:“Remove it, and the grammar becomes incoherent:”a reason truly, but one not strong enough to carry his point.449.We are compelled to draw a sharp distinction between γεγεννημένος and γεννηθείς in the same context, and, with all deference to theQuarterly Reviewer(April, 1882, p. 366), we do not think his view of the matter more natural than that given in the text:“St. John,”he suggests,“is distinguishing between the mere recipient of the new birth (ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ),—and the man who retains the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit which he received when he became regenerate (ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ).”[The distinction given between the perfect and aorist, as I have altered it in the text, is perfectly just, and explains the passage. The effects of regeneration if continued are indefectible, but the mere fact of regeneration entails constant watchfulness.]450.So it certainly seems to me after careful inspection of Cod. A, although it may be too bold to say, as some have, that there are in it no corrections by later hands. Above in ver. 10 ἐν ἀυτῷ is supported by ABKLP and a shower of cursives in the room of ἐν ἑαυτῷ of א and the Received text, but here there is no difference of sense between the two forms. Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 144) has an exhaustive and cautious note on the breathing of αυτου, αυτῳ, &c., and ultimately declines to exclude the aspirate from the N. T.451.The Revision Revised, pp. 247-8.452.For a very full and clear account of a MS. of this class, the reader may consult an article by Prof. Isaac H. Hall in the“Journal of the American Oriental Society,”vol. xi, No. 2, 1885.453.It is not meant that these terms occur as titles.Apostolos(ܫܥܝܐ or ܐܝܥܫ) as applied to a book means the fourteen Epp. of St. Paul.Evangeliom, in the sense ofEvangelistaryin a title, is quoted in“Thesaurus Syriacus.”But many liturgical terms were borrowed from the Greeks, especially by the Maronites. For a succinct account of Greek and Latin Service Books,seePelliccia's“Polity”(tr. Bellett, 1883), pp. 183-8: for the Syriac system,seeEtheridge's“Syrian Churches,”pp. 112-6.

Footnotes1.See Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, ii.“Evidence of Early Versions and Patristic Quotations, &c.,”by the Rev. Ll. J. M. Bebb, M.A., p. 211. In this chapter, which from press reasons has been curtailed, I am glad to refer to Mr. Bebb's careful and thoughtful essay.2.I cannot help expressing my strong opinion that there were a great many distinct Latin versions, and that they had a great many sources of origin:—briefly speaking,(a) Because of the testimony of Augustine and Jerome;(b) Because Latin translations from the firstmusthave been wanted everywhere, and must have been constantly supplied. On the one hand the bilingualism prevalent in the Roman Empire would ensure a large number of translators: and on the other the want of accurate Greek scholarship would account for the numerous errors found in and propagated by the old Latin manuscripts. Copies of one translation could not in those days have been supplied in every place adequately to the want;(c) Because of the multitude of synonyms to be found in Old Latin MSS.;(d) Because on almost all disputed passages Old Latin evidence can be quoted on both sides;(e) Because the various MSS. differ so thoroughly that each MS. is quoted as resting upon its own authority, and no one standard has been reached or is in view, the utmost that has been done in this respect being to group them.But see next chapter: this is an undecided question.—Ed.3.Duval, Grammaire Syriaque, p. xi.4.Dr. Neubauer in Studia Biblica, vol. i. (Clarendon Press),“The Dialects of Palestine in the time of Christ,”distinguishes between (1) Babylonian Aramaic, (2) Galilaean Aramaic, (3) the purer Aramaic spoken at Jerusalem, and (4) modernized Hebrew also used at Jerusalem.5.I cannot agree with Dr. Field (Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Proleg. lxxvii, 1874) that the Peshitto is not the Syriac version here quoted by Melito; but, while he admits a frequent resemblance between it and the renderings imputed to“the Syrian,”he certainly produces not a few instances of diversity between the two. Besides Theodoret, who often opposes ὁ Σύρος to ὁ Εβραῖος (Thren. 1. 15 and passim), Field notes the following writers as citing the former,—Didymus, Diodorus, Eusebius of Emesa, Polychronius, Apollinarius, Chrysostom, Procopius (ibid. p. lxvii).6.All modern accounts of the unorthodox sects of the East confirm Walton's gracious language two hundred years ago:“Etsi verò, olim in haereses miserè prolapsi, se a reliquis Ecclesiae Catholicae membris separarint, unde justo Dei judicio sub Infidelium jugo oppressi serviunt, qui ipsis dominantur, ex continuis tamen calamitatibus edocti et sapientiores redditi (est enim Schola Crucis Schola Lucis) tandem eorum misertus Misericordiarum Pater eos ad rectam sanamque mentem, rejectis antiquis erroribus, reduxit”(Walton, Prolegomena, Wrangham, Tom. ii. p. 500).7.Dean Payne Smith's Catalogue, pp. 109-112. In the great Cambridge manuscript (Oo. I. 1, 2) the Epistles of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude follow 1 John, and are continued on the same quire, as Mr. Bradshaw reports.8.See an admirable paper by Dr. Gwynn in“Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy,”xxvii. 8,“On a Syriac MS. belonging to Archbishop Ussher.”This MS. was procured for Ussher in 1626 by T. Davies, lent to De Dieu, who used it in 1631, and is now in Trinity College Library, Dublin.9.Yet, besides his error of judgement in bringing into the Peshitto text such passages as we have just enumerated, Schaaf follows the Paris and London Polyglotts when interpolating τῶν σωζομένων Apoc. xxi. 24, although the words had been omitted by De Dieu (1627) and Gutbier (1664).10.Compare the Printed Editions of the Syriac New Testament,Church Quarterly Review, vol. xxvi, no. lii, 1888, and a Bibliographical Appendix by Prof. Isaac H. Hall to Dr. Murdock's Translation of the Peshitto.11.Tregelles in“Smith's Dictionary of the Bible”thinks that the term was originally applied to the Syriac version of the Hebrew Old Testament, in order to discriminate between it and the Greek Hexapla, or the Syro-hexaplar translation derived from it, with their apparatus of obeli and asterisks. To this view Dr. Field adds his weighty authority (Origenis Hexapla, Proleg. p. ix, note 1), adding that for this reason the pure Septuagint version also is called ἁπλοῦν (1 Kings vii. 13; xii. 22), to distinguish its rendering from what is given ἐν τῷ ἑξαπλῷ. The epithet which was proper to the Old Testament in course of time attached itself to the New.12.ܦܫܝܬܬܐ or ܐܬܬܝܫܦ, versio vulgata, popularis, Thes. Syr. 3319.13.A full list of editions of all the Syriac versions is given in the Syriac Grammar of Nestle (tr. Kennedy), Litteratura, pp. 17-30.14.“Remains of a very ancient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto unknown in Europe, discovered, edited, and translated by William Cureton, D.D. ... Canon of Westminster,”4to, London, 1858.Seealso Wright's description of the MSS. in Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, vol. i. pp. 73-5.15.Less able writers than Dr. Cureton have made out a strong, though not a convincing case, for the Hebrew origin of St. Matthew's Gospel, and thus far his argument is plausible enough. To demonstrate that the version he has discovered is based upon that Hebrew original, at least so far as to be a modification of it and not a translation from the Greek, he has but a single plea that will bear examination, viz. that out of the many readings of the Hebrew or Nazarene Gospel with which we are acquainted, his manuscript agrees with it in the one particular of inserting thethree kings, ch. i. 8, though even here the number offourteengenerations retained in ver. 17 shows them to be an interpolation. Such cases asJuda, ch. ii. 1;Ramtha, ver. 18; ܕ for ὅτι or the relative, ch. xiii. 16, can prove nothing, as they are common to the Curetonian with the Peshitto, from which version they may very well have been derived.16.The title to St. Matthew is remarkable; for while (in the subscription) we read,“Gospel of Markos,”and“Gospel of Juchanan”occurs, as in other Syriac MSS., to St. Matthew is prefixed the title“Evangeliom dampharsa Mattai.”The meaning of the second word is doubtful in this application. The root meansdivide,distinguish,separate—cf. Daniel v. 28. Cureton (Pref. vi) says (1) that the great authority Bernstein suggested“Evangelium per anni circulum dispositum.”This is inapplicable, because the copy is not set out in Church Lessons, although some are noted by a much later hand in the margins. (2) Cureton himself, noticing a defect in the vellum before ܡܬܝ (or ܝܬܡ), would read ܕܡܬܝ (or ܝܬܡܕ), and render“The distinct Gospel of Matthew.”This he understood to indicate that the translation of Matthew had a different origin from the other books, and was“built upon the original Aramaic text, which was the work of the Apostle himself.”But there is nothing to justify the insertion of a ܕ, which is required to connect the title with the following name. The title belongs to the whole work,“Evangeliom dampharsa—Mattai”[Catalogue Brit. Mus.l. c.]; the other names being preceded by“Evangeliom”only. (3)“Dampharsa”has been rendered“explained”[see the review in“Journal of Sacred Literature,”1858], viz. from the text of the Peshitto; and this, as we shall see presently, agrees with the character of the Curetonian, for it abounds in deliberate alterations. But (4) from the quotations and references in the“Thesaurus Syriacus”(R. Payne Smith), col. 3304, it seems almost certain that the epithet means“separated,”as opposed to“united in a Harmony.”Such, of course, the Codex Curetonianus is, but further evidence is required to justify the inference that the Curetonian was the offspring of Tatian's Harmony, and became the parent of the Peshitto, an opinion in large measure contradicted by the character of the translation.17.“Si nous devons en croire Scrivener, la version syriaque ditePeshittos'accorde bien plus avec lui [Cod. A] qu'avec (B).”(Les Livres Saints, &c., Pau et Vevey, 1872, Préface, p. iii.) The fact is notoriously true, and of course rests not on Scrivener's evidence, but on universal consent.18.The student may also consult:—Evangelienfragmente, F. Baethgen, 1885. Disputatio de cod. Evangg. Syr. Curetoniano, Hermansen, 1859. Lehir's Etude, Paris, 1859. Dr. Harman in Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature, Boston, 1885. Zeitschrift des Morgenländische Gesellschaft, 1859, p. 472. Dr. Wildeboer in De Waarde der Syrische Evangeliën (Leiden, 1880) gives three pages of the literature of the question.19.Cureton, Preface, pp. xi, xciii.20.Brit. Mus. Add. 12,138—seep.36.21.So Roediger in Z.M.D.G., b. 16, p. 550, instances ܐܚܢܢ (or ܢܢܚܐ); but it proves nothing, for the form occurs also in old Peshitto MSS.22.Pages 164-5.23.Pages 171-2.24.Some of the Homilies of Aphraates were composed between 337 and 345. Ephraem dieda.d.373. Bickell, Conspectus, p. 18.25.Page14.26.In the following paragraphs we quote from a MS. exhibiting the results of investigations made by the Rev. Dr. Waller, Principal of St. John's Hall, Highbury, who has most generously permitted us to make use of his labours.27.For other like cases see Mat. iv. 11, 21; v. 12, 47, in the Curetonian.28.The forms in which O. T. quotations appear in the Curetonian demand attention, as they seem to suggest similar inferences.29.E.g. in the transposition of the Beatitudes in St. Matt. v. 4, 5.30.Since the discovery of the Curetonian version in Syriac by Archdeacon Tattam in 1842 and Canon Cureton, some Textualists have maintained that it was older than the Peshitto on these main grounds:—1. Internal evidence proves that the Peshitto cannot have been the original text.2. The Curetonian is just such a text as may have been so, and would have demanded revision.3. The parallels of the Latin texts which were revised in the Vulgate suggests an authoritative revision betweena.d.250 and 350.These arguments depend upon a supposed historical parallel, and internal evidence.The parallel upon examination turns out to be illusory:—1. There was a definite recorded revision of the Latin Texts, but none of the Syrian. If there had been, it must have left a trace in history.2. There was an“infinita varietas”(August. De Doctr. Christ., ii. 11) of discordant Latin texts, but only one Syriac, so far as is known.3. Badness in Latin texts is just what we should expect amongst people who were poor Greek scholars, and lived at a distance. The Syrians on the contrary were close to Judea, and Greek had been known among them for centuries. It was not likely that within reach of the Apostles and almost within their lifetime a version should be made so bad as to require to be thrown off afterwards.As to internal evidence, the opinion of some experts is balanced by the opinion of other experts (see Abbé Martin, Des Versions Syriennes, Fasc. 4). The position of the Peshitto as universally received by Syrian Christians, and believed to date back to the earliest times, is not to be moved by mere conjecture, and a single copy of another version [or indeed by two copies]. Textual Guide, Miller, 1885, p. 74, note 1.31.On the order, functions, and decay of the Χωρεπίσκοποι,seeBingham's“Antiquities,”book ii, chap. xiv.32.Davidson, Bibl. Crit., vol. ii. p. 186, first edition. The Abbé Martin (seep.323note), after stating that this version was never used by any Syrian sect save the Monophysites or Jacobites, goes on to ask“Est-ce à dire que cette version soit entachée de monophysisme? Nous ne le pensons pas; pour l'affirmer, il faudra l'examiner très minutieusement; car l'hérésie monophysite est, à quelques points de vue, une des plus subtiles qui aient jamais paru”(Des Versions Syriennes, p. 162).33.The asterisks ([symbol] [symbol]) and obeli ([symbol] [symbol]) of this version will be observed in our specimens given below. Like the similar marks in Origen's Hexapla (from which they were doubtless borrowed), they have been miserably displaced by copyists; so that their real purpose is a little uncertain. Wetstein, and after him even Storr and Adler, refer them to changes made in the Harkleian from the Peshitto: White more plausibly considers the asterisk to intimate an addition to the text, the obelus to recommend a removal from it.34.“Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, ex Codd. MSS. Ridleianis in Bibliotheca Novi Collegii Oxon. repositis; nunc primum edita, cum Interpretation Latinâ et Annotationibus Josephi White. Oxonii e Typographeo Clarendoniano,”1778, 2 tom. 4to. And so for the two later volumes. Ridley named that one of his manuscripts which contains only the Gospels Codex Barsalibaei, as notes of revision by that writer are found in it (e.g. John vii. 53-viii. 11). G. H. Bernstein has also published St. John's Gospel (Leipzig, 1853) from manuscripts in the Vatican. In or about 1877 Professor Isaac H. Hall, an American missionary, discovered at Beerût a manuscript in the Estrangelo character, much mutilated (of which he kindly sent me a photographed page containing the end of St. Luke and the beginning of St. John), which in the Gospels follows the Harkleian version, although the text differs much from White's, but the rest of the N. T. is from the Peshitto. Dr. Hall has drawn up a list of over 300 readings differing from White's.35.Martin names as useful for the study of a version as yet too little known, the Lectionaries Bodleian 43; Brit. Mus. Addit. 7170, 7171, 7172, 14,490, 14,689, 18,714; Paris 51 and 52; Rome, Vatic. 36 and Barberini vi. 32.36.Seealso Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian version, Acts and Epp. of the Peshitto version ... by the Monk John. Presented to the Syrian Protestant College, &c., described with phototyped facsimiles by Prof. Isaac H. Hall [viii-ix], ff. 219 + a fragment at end.Mut.at beg. and end, &c. Written in old Jacobite characters. Sent courteously to the Editor.37.Thus also the termination of the definite state plural of nouns is made in ܐ [final form] for ܐ: the third person affix to plural nouns in ܘ for ܗܘ. In the compass of the six verses we have cited (below, p.39) occur not only the Greek words ܘܝܪܘܣܐ (or ܐܣܘܪܝܘ) (καιρός),v.3, and ܢܘܣܐ (or ܐܣܘܢ) (ναός),v.5, which are common enough in all Syriac books, but such Palestinian words and forms as ܕܝ (or ܝܕ) for ܕܝܢ (or ܢܝܕ), δέ (vv.4, 6, 7); ܒܒܝܢ (or ܢܝܒܒ)v.3,“when;”ܐܗܐv.3,“repented;”ܐܕܡܐ (or ܐܡܕܐ) for ܕܡܐ (or ܐܡܕ) (vv.4, 6, 8),“blood;”ܥܥܝܢܗ (or ܗܢܝܥܥ),v.4,“to us;”ܓܪܡܐ (or ܐܡܪܓ),v.5,“himself;”ܕܡܝܢ (or ܢܝܡܕ),v.6,“price”(Pesh. has ܛܡܝ (or ܝܡܛ), Hark. ܛܝܡܐ (or ܐܡܝܛ) (pl.) τιμή); ܥܦܝܢ (or ܢܝܦܥ)v.8,“therefore;”ܗܐܘ (or ܘܐܗ),v.8,“this.”38.Hence the name by which this version is distinguished. For the recensions of Targum and Talmud,seeEtheridge's“Hebrew Literature,”pp. 145-6, 195-7.39.Dr. Hort's not very explicit judgement should now be added:“The Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary has an entirely different text [from the Harkleian], probably not altogether unaffected by the Syriac Vulgate [meaning thereby the Peshitto], but more closely related to the Old Syriac [meaning the Curetonian]. Mixture with one or more Greek texts containing elements of every great type, but especially the more ancient, has however given the whole a strikingly composite character”(Introd., p. 157).40.On these readings, and those of the MSS. mentioned below (p.34),see“The New Syriac Fragments”(F. H. Woods), in theExpository Times, Nov., 1893.41.Seethe“Life and Times of Gregory the Illuminator, the Founder and Patron Saint of the Armenian Church,”translated by the Rev. S. C. Malan, London, 1868.42.Kept by the Greeks Oct. 23. Gale O. 4. 22 and other Greek Evangelistaria commemorate this holiday.43.Dec. 27 in the Western Calendar.44.So Gale O. 4. 22, with the same Lesson.45.SeeAthenaeum, Oct. 28, 1893.46.Anecdota Oxoniensia,“The Palestinian Version of the Holy Scripture;”edited by G. H. Gwilliam, B.D.: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1893.47.The full form (ܛܘܒܢܐ or ܐܢܒܘܛblessed) occurs in the scholion to Rom. viii. 15; Wiseman thought it meant the Peshitto; but see“Studia Biblica,”iii. 60 and note.48.Our specimens show the use in MSS. ofrucacaandkushaia, here printed with fine points. The dots and dashes of the Nestorian Massorah ore also shown.49.Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, iii. 56.50.The Codex Babylonicus,a.d.916, is the oldest Old Testament MS. known at present. Dr. Neubauer, Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., iii. 27.51.Karkaphta = skull. See also“Thes. Syr.,”col. 3762.52.Mr. Gwilliam suggests that this may have been the well-known Thomas Heracleensis. M. l'Abbé Martin (Tradition Karkaphienne, ou la Massore chez les Syriens), who carefully studied the subject twenty years ago, suggests Thomas of Edessa, teacher of Mar Abbas.SeeMr. Gwilliam's Essay in“Stud. Bibl. et Eccl.,”iii. pp. 56-65.53.“How the Codex was found”(Lewis and Gibson), 1893.54.Of no passage is this judgement more true than of this actual sentence itself, which is hardly quoted in the same way in any three MSS.; see Wordsworth's Vulgate, Fasc. 1, p. 2.55.ForItalaBentley conjecturedet illa, changing the followingnamintoquae; and he wrote to Sabatier almost ridiculing the idea of a“Versio Italica;”seeCorrespondence, ed. Wordsworth, 1842, p. 569; and“Versio Latina Italica, somnium merum,”in Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. 157-159; Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulgata, Mainz, 1868, p. 116 f.; Abp. Potter conjecturedusitataforItala;seeField, Otium Norvicense, pars tertia, p. 57.56.Bibliorum Sacr. Latinae Versiones Ant. seu Vetus Italica etc. opera et studio D. Petri Sabatier, 3 vols., Rheims, 1743-1749; a revised edition of this great work, for the Old Test., is in course of preparation under the auspices of the Munich Academy, and the able superintendence of Professor E. Wölfflin.57.Evangeliarium Quadruplex Latinae Versionis Antiquae, seu Veteris Italicae, editum ex codicibus manuscriptis ... a Josepho Blanchino, 2 vols., Rome, 1749; reprinted by Migne, Patr. Lat. xii, with the works of Eusebius Vercellensis.58.That is, by scholars who did not live in Italy; Italian Christians would use other names,vetus,antiqua,usitata,communis,vulgata; Kaulen, p. 118, Berger, p. 6.59.Published in theCatholic Magazinefor 1832-3; since reprinted in his“Essays on various subjects,”1853, vol. i.60.We have let these sentences stand as Dr. Scrivener penned them in 1883; since that time the opinion of scholars has become less positive as to the African origin of the Latin version. It is true that the words, phrases, &c., of that version in its earlier forms can be illustrated from contemporary African writers, and from them only; but that is because during this period we are dependent almost exclusively on Africa for our Latin literature; and consequently are able to use only the method ofagreementand not the method ofdifferencein testing the origin and characteristics of the Latin New Testament. These characteristics may be the result only of the time and not of the supposed place of writing. Nor can more stress be laid on the use of Greek names in the West than on the use of Latin names (plenty of which could be cited) in the East.61.SeeKaulen, p. 130 f., and also his Handb. d. Vulg., Mainz, 1870.62.“Novum opus me facere cogis ex veteri: ut post exemplaria Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa, quasi quidam arbiter sedeam: et quia inter se variant, quae sint ilia quae cum Graeca consentiant veritate, decernam. Pius labor, sed periculosa praesumptio, judicare de ceteris, ipsum ab omnibus judicandum: senis mutare linguam, et canescentem jam mundum ad initia retrahere parvulorum.”Praef. ad Damasum.63.“[Evangelia] Codicum Graecorum emendata collatione, sed veterum, quae ne multum a lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent, ita calamo temperavimus, ut his tantum quae sensum videbantur mutare correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant.”Ibid.For a signal instance, see below, ch.ix, note on Matt. xxi. 31.64.To his well-known censure of Jerome's rendering of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, Augustine adds,“Proinde non parvas Deo gratias agimus de opere tuo, quod Evangelium ex Graeco interpretatus es: quia pene in omnibus nulla offensio est, cum Scripturam Graecam contulerimus.”65.Roger Bacon's writings, however, in the thirteenth century, are the first in which Jerome's translation is cited as the“Vulgate”in the modern sense of the term.SeeDenifle, Die Handschriften der Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts, 1883, p. 278.66.SeeJaffé, Monumenta Carolina, p. 373,“Jam pridem universos Veteris ac Novi instruments libros ... examussim correximus;”S. Berger's essay (to be distinguished from his larger work), De l'histoire de la Vulgate en France (1887), p. 3 f.67.Seethe Oxford“Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica,”ii (1890), p. 278 f.68.Fritzsche,“Latein. Bibelübersetzungen”in Herzog, R. E.2viii. p. 449; Westcott,“Vulgate,”in Smith's Bibl. Dict. iii. p. 1703; Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulg., p. 229 f.; P. Corssen, in“Die Trierer Adahandschr.”(Leipzig, 1889), p. 31.69.Berger, as above, p.7.70.Seethe Life of Lanfranc, by Milo Crispinus, a monk of Bec, ch. xv, in Migne, Patr. Lat. 150, col. 55, and his Commentary,ibid., col. 101 f.; Mill, Proleg., § 1058; Cave's remark (Hist. Lit. 1743, vol. ii. p. 148),“Lanfrancus textum continuo emendat,”seems hardly borne out by the facts.71.His corrected Bible in four vols. is now preserved at Dijon, public library, 9 bis,seebelow, p.68, no.8; also Denifle, Die Hdss. d. Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrh. 1883, p. 267; Kaulen, p. 245.72.His criticisms are preserved in a MS. at Venice (Marciana Lat. class. x. cod. 178, fol. 141);seeDenifle, p. 270, who prints them.73.Seethe quotations in Denifle, p. 277 f., and Hody, p. 419 f.74.SeeS. Berger, De l'histoire de la Vulgate en France, p. 9 f., 1887, and Revue de Théol. et de Philos. de Lausanne, t. xvi. p. 41, 1883.75.SeeHugo's remark (Denifle, p. 295),“In multis libris maxime historialibus, non utimur translatione Hieronymi.”76.SeeVercellone, Diss. Acad., Rome, 1864, pp. 44-51; Hody, pp. 426-430; and Denifle, pp. 295-298. This correctorium is cited in Wordsworth's Vulgate ascor. vat.;seeBerger, Notitia Linguae Hebraicae etc., p. 32 (1893).77.SeeW. A. Copinger, Incunabula Biblica, or the first half-century of the Latin Bible, p. 3, London, 1892; and L. Delisle, Journ. des Savants, Apr. 1893.78.Or to Peter Schoeffer,seeJ. H. Hessels, in theAcademy, June, 1887, p. 396; August, p. 104; or to Johann Fust.Seethe British Museum“Catalogue of Printed Books,”Bible, part i. col. 16.79.Westcott, Vulgate, p. 1704. This seems to be that of“Thielman Kerver, impensis J. Parvi,”with emendations of A. Castellani.80.The British Museum possesses a copy (340. d. 1);seethe“Catalogue,”part i. col. 1.81.For detailssee“Old Lat. Bibl. Texts,”i. p. 51 f.82.Ibid., p. 48 f.83.The critical notes of Lucas Brugensis himself appear to be found in three forms:—(1) The“Notationes,”published in 1580, and incorporated in the Hentenian Bible of 1583.(2) The“Variae Lectiones,”printed in Walton's Polyglott, and taken from the Louvain Bible of 1584. These are simply a list of various readings to the Vulgate, with MS. authorities; he frequently adds the letters Q. N., i.e.“quaere notationes,”where he has treated the subject more fully in (1).(3) The“Notae ad Varias Lectiones,”also printed (for the Gospels) in Walton's Polyglott; adelectusof them is given in Sabatier at the end of each book of the New Testament, under the title“Roman. Correctionum auctore Fr. L. Br. delectus.”84.SeeE. Nestle, Ein Jubiläum der lateinischen Bibel, Tübingen, p. 13 f., 1892.85.There is a copy in the British Museum, Q. e. 5. It is practically in one volume, as the paging is continuous throughout.86.He gives a long list of the variations between the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles; Vercellone estimated their number at 3,000. It is to be noticed that theversingof the Sixtine ed. differs considerably from the Clementine as well as from Stephen.87.The regular form of title,“Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti V Pont. Max. jussu recognita et Clementis VIII auctoritate edita,”does not appear in any edition known to the writer before that of Rouille, Lyons, 1604.SeeBrit. Mus. Catalogue, col. 50. The earliest edition with this title known to Masch (Le Long, Bibl. Sacra, 1783, ii. p. 251) is dated 1609; and Vercellone (Variae Lect. i. p. lxxii) names others considerably later as the earliest.88.SeeOld Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. xvi.89.Ibid., p. xxv.90.SeeFasc. i. p. xv, and Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Cambridge, 1862.91.M. Berger, with exceptional kindness, allowed me to see the proof-sheets of his“History of the Vulgate”as they were printed, and to add a large number of MSS. to this list from that source.92.For the Würzburg MSS.,seeG. Schepps, Die ältesten Evangelienhandschriften der Universitätsbibliothek, Würzburg, 1887, from which these descriptions are mainly taken.93.For these MSS.,seeas before, G. Schepss, Die ältesten Evangelienhandschriften d. Würzb. Univ. B., 1887.94.My authority for these facts is Brugsch, Grammaire Démotique, p. 4, but what does he mean by the words which I have italicised?“Au nombre des auteurs les plus récents qui nous aient donné des témoignages sur l'existence du démotique il faut citer St. Clément, prêtre de l'église chrétienne à Alexandrie, et qui vivait vers l'an 190 de notre ère, ou environ le temps où régnait l'empereur Sévère. Mais les monuments nous prouvent quecette date n'est pas la dernière; il se trouve encore des inscriptions d'une époque plus rapprochée; telle est par exemple une inscription démotique que M. de Saulcy avait copiée en Égypte et qu'il eut la complaisance de me communiquer pendant mon séjour à Paris; elle date du règne en commun d'Aurélius et de Vérus, ce qui prouve quedans la première moitié du troisième sièclele démotique était encore connu et en usage.”L. Verus dieda.d.169.95.The date, however, is placed very much earlier by Revillout (Mélanges d'Archéologie Égyptienne et Assyrienne, p. 40), who supposes the Coptic alphabet to have been a work commenced by pagan Gnostics, completed by Christian Gnostics, and adopted when complete by their orthodox successors.96.[That Bahiric is a wrong transliteration is shown by Stern, Zeitschr. für Aeg. Sprache, 16 (1878), p. 23.]97.[There has been considerable variation in the names given to the different dialects. The terms Thebaic and Memphitic have been commonly adopted as a more convenient nomenclature, but, as will be shown below, the latter name at any rate is incorrect and misleading. Owing to the accident that the Memphitic dialect was the form of Coptic best known and earliest studied in Western Europe, the term Coptic has been sometimes confined to the Bohairic or Memphitic, as distinguished from the Sahidic or Thebaic, and was so used by Tischendorf; this usage also is erroneous and misleading; and the names Bohairic and Sahidic are almost universally employed by scholars at the present day.]98.Schwartze, whose opinion will not be suspected of any theological bias, infers from the historical notices that“the greatest part of the New Testament writings, if not all, and a part of the Old Testament, especially the Psalms, had been already translated, in the second century, into the Egyptian language, and indeed into that of Lower as well as into that of Upper Egypt”(p. 963).99.For convenience the following abbreviations will be used:“Z. A. S.”forZeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache;“Recueil”for theRecueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l'archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes;“Mémoires”for theMémoires de la Mission Archéologique Française au Caire; and“Mitt.”for theMittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer.100.Quatremère can only point to a single word accidentally preserved, which according to his hypothesis belongs to the real Bashmuric (Sur la Langue &c., p. 213 sq.).101.Memphitic (Lightfoot), Coptic (Tischendorf and others).102.Seealso A. J. Butler's“Coptic Churches,”vol. ii, Oxford.103.I have always added 284 to the year of the Martyrs for the yeara.d.; but this will not give the date accurately in every case, as the Diocletian year began in August or September;seeClinton, Fast. Rom., ii. p. 210.104.I have observed Luke xxiii. 17 in at least three wholly distinct forms in different Bohairic MSS.105.My sincere thanks are due to the late Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, and to Lord Zouche, for their kindness in allowing me free access to their valuable collections of Coptic MSS., and in facilitating my investigations in many ways.106.The volume, *Parham 102, described in the printed Catalogue (no. 1, vellum, p. 27) as a MS. of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, is really a selection of passages taken in order from the four Gospels, with a patristic catena attached to each. The leaves, however, are much displaced in the binding, and many are wanting. The title to the first Gospel is ϯ ⲉⲣⲙⲏⲛⲓⲁ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲑⲉⲟⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ϩⲁⲛⲙⲏϣ ⲛⲥⲁϧ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲫⲱⲥⲧⲏⲣ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯ ⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ, &c.“The interpretation of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew from numerous doctors and luminaries of the Church.”Among the Fathers quoted I observed Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Clement, the two Cyrils (of Jerusalem and of Alexandria), Didymus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Evagrius, the three Gregories (Thaumaturgus, Nazianzen, and Nyssen), Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Severianus of Gabala, Severus of Antioch (often styled simply the Patriarch), Symeon Stylites, Timotheus, and Titus.In the account of this MS. in the Catalogue it is stated that“the name of the scribe who wrote it is Sapita Leporos, a monk of the monastery, or monastic rule, of Laura under the sway of the great abbot Macarius,”and the inference is thence drawn that it must have been written before 395, when Macarius died. This early date, however, is at once set aside by the fact that writers who lived in the sixth century are quoted. Professor Wright (Journal of Sacred Literature, vii. p. 218), observing the name of Severus in the facsimile, points out the error of date, and suggests as an explanation that the colophon (which he had not seen) does not speak of the great Macarius, but of“an abbotMacarius.”The fact is, that though the great Macarius is certainly meant, there is nothing which implies that he was then living. The scribe describes himself as ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϧⲁ ⲡⲓ ⲧⲁⲗⲉⲡⲱⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲁϥⲥϧⲁⲓ,“I the unhappy one (ταλαιπωρος) who wrote it”(which has been wrongly read and interpreted as a proper name Sapita Leporos). He then gives his name ⲑⲉⲟⲗ ⲡⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (Theodorus of Busiris?) and adds, ⲡⲓⲁⲧⲙⲡϣⲁ ⲙⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲗⲁⲩⲣⲁ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ ⲁⲃⲃⲁ ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓ,“the unworthy monk of the holy laura of the great abbot Macarius.”He was merely an inmate of the monastery of St. Macarius; see the expression quoted from the Vat. MS. lxi in Tattam's Lexicon, p. 842. This magnificent MS. is dateda.m.604 =a.d.888 and has been published by Professor De Lagarde; but its value may not be very great for the Bohairic Version, as it is perhaps translated from the Greek.The *Parham MS. 106 (no. 5, p. 28) is wrongly described as containing the Gospel of St. John. The error is doubtless to be explained by the fact that the name ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲟⲩ occurs at the bottom of one of the pages; but the manuscript is not Biblical. Another MS. (no. 13, p. 29) is described as“St. Matthew with an Arabic translation, very large folio: a modern MS. copied at Cairo from an antient one in the library of the Coptic Patriarch.”I was not able to find this, when through the courtesy of Lord Zouche I had access to the Parham collection.107.The above account has been throughout revised by the Rev. G. Horner, who has collated or examined all MSS. of the Bohairic versions in European libraries.108.The MSS. 7 and 16 are exceptions.109.No weight can be given to the abnormal order in no. 12, until we know something more of this MS., which is perhaps a late transcript.110.It is used in the Apocalypse by Tregelles, and apparently also by Tischendorf in his eighth edition; and in the Rev. S. C. Malan's“Gospel according to St. John, translated from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin,”London, 1862, all Tuki's Sahidic fragments of this Evangelist are included.111.SeeMünter, De Indole, &c., Praef., p. iv. Schwartze (Quat. Evang. p. xx) says,“Praeterquam quod sicut omnes Tukii libri scatent vitiis, etiam angustioris sunt fideiRudimenta, Sahidicis locis partim e versione Arabica a Tukio concinnatis.”I do not know on what grounds Schwartze makes this last statement.112.This has now been published. By Amélineau, Notice sur le Papyrus Gnostique Bruce. Texte et Traduction, Notices et Extraits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres Bibliothèques. Tome xxix. lrePartie. Paris, 1891; and Gnostische Schriften in Koptischer Sprache aus dem Codex Brucianus, von Carl Schmidt, Leipzig, 1892.113.In the interval between Woide and Zoega, Griesbach (1806) appears to have obtained a few readings of this version from the Borgian MSS., e.g. Acts xxiv. 22, 23; xxv. 6; xxvii. 14; Col. ii. 2. At least I have not succeeded in tracing them to any printed source of information.Of the use which Schwartze has made of the published portions of the Sahidic text in his edition of the Bohairic Gospels, I have already spoken (p. 108). He has added no unpublished materials.114.Catal., p. 169:“Si de aetate codicum quaeris, scio equidem non defuisse qui singulos ad saecula sua referre satagerent, qui si aliquid profecerunt, ego sane non obstrepo. Sed quoniam meum sit quacumque in re ignorantiam fateri potius quam quae mihi non satisfaciunt, aliis velut explorata offerre, &c.”But since this was written the publication of Hyvernat's“Album de Paléographie Copte”has given much assistance; and more may be looked for from the publication of the Paris fragments.115.Its position was before Galatians, and not, as in the archetype of the Codex Vaticanus, after it.116.The term“Middle Egyptian”is often used as a general term to include the three varieties of Fayoumic, Lower Sahidic or what is properly Memphitic, and Akhmimic.117.The writer must express his regret that, owing to the haste with which the additions to this article had to be written, much must have been passed over.118.“But he prudently suppressed the four books of Kings, as they might tend to irritate the fierce and sanguinary spirit of the barbarians;”Gibbon, ch. xxxvii.119.“A faithful, a stern and noble Teutonic rendering of the Greek,”is the verdict of Prebendary S. C. Malan (St. John's Gospel, translated from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin, &c., 4to, 1872, Preface, p. viii). Bishop Ellicott also praises this version as usually faithful and accurate, yet marks an Arian tinge in the rendering of Phil. ii. 6-8.120.Goth. Version. Paul. Epist. quae supersunt, C. O. Castiglione, Milan, 1834.121.Skeat, St. Mark, 1882.122.Matt. iii. 11; v. 8; 15-vi. 32; vii. 12-x. 1; 23-xi. 25; xxv. 38-xxvi. 3; 65-xxvii. 19; 42-66; Mark i. 1; vi. 30; 58-xii. 38; xiii. 16-29; xiv. 4-16; 41-xvi. 12; Luke i. 1-x. 30; xiv. 9-xvi. 24; xvii. 3-xx. 46; John i. 29; iii. 3-5; 23-26; 29-32; v. 21-23; 35-38; 45-xi. 47; xii. 1-49; xiii. 11-xix. 13; Rom. vi. 23; vii. 1-viii. 10; 34-xi. 1; 11-xii. 5; 8-xiv. 5; 9-20; xv. 3-13; xvi. 21-24; 1 Cor. i. 12-25; iv. 2-12; v. 3-vi. 1; vii. 5-28; viii. 9-ix. 9; 19-x. 4; 15-xi. 6; 21-31; xii. 10-22; xiii. 1-12; xiv. 20-27; xv. 1-35; 46-Gal. i. 7; 20-iii. 6; 27-Eph. v. 11; 17-29; vi. 8-24; Phil. i. 14-ii. 8; 22-iv. 17; Col. i. 6-29; ii. 11-iv. 19; 1 Thess. ii. 10-2 Thess. ii. 4; 15-1 Tim. v. 14; 16-2 Tim. iv. 16; Tit. i. 1-ii. 1; Philem. 1-23; but no portion of the Acts, Hebrews, Catholic Epistles, or Apocalypse.123.Seep. 10 of the Armenian edition; Venice, 1833. The French translation of this in the“Collection des Historiens de l'Arménie,”Paris, 1869, is untrustworthy in all ways, and especially because the translator both adds to and omits from the Armenian text at random.124.The true history of which we cannot now make out, for, as given by his contemporaries, it is already obscured by legend and miracle.125.The translation of this writer in Langlois' second volume is reliable.126.Some critics bring down the date of Moses as late as the seventh or eighth century.127.Dr. Baronean thinks that the varieties of readings in the oldest Armenian MSS. is due to the fact that more than onesurecopy was brought from Constantinople on which to base the final revision.128.This is the conclusion at which P. P. Carékin arrives. See his“Catalogue of Ancient Armenian Translations,”Venice, 1889, p. 228.129.Among the chief authorities on the Slavonic version are the following:—(i) Горскій и Невоструевъ, описаніе славянскихъ рукописей Московской Синодальной Библіотеки. Москва, 1855.(ii) Астафьевъ, Опьітъ исторіи библіи въ Россіи въ связи съ просвѣщеніемъ и нравами. С. Петербургъ, 1892.(iii) Voskresenski, Характеристческія чертъі гиавнъіхъ редакцій славянскаго перевода Евангелія.(iv) Voskresenski, Древній славянскій переводъ Апостола и его судьбы до xv вѣка.(v) Oblak, Die Kirchenslavische Uebersetzung der Apocalypse [in the“Archiv für Slavische Philologie,”xiii. pp. 321-361].(vi) Prolegomena to the editions of the Codex Marianus and the Codex Zographensis, &c., by Jagić.(vii) Kaluzniacki, Monumenta Linguae Palaeoslavonicae, vol. i.130.In the Synodal Library at Moscow this proportion is as nine to two, and in another library as twelve to one.SeeОписаніе славянскихъ рукописей и т. д. (as above), p. 299.131.Kaluzniacki,l. c., p. xlv, gives instances.132.SeeJagić, Codex Zographensis, pp. xxvii ff.133.The statement that John Bishop of Seville translated the Bible into Arabic ina.d.719 is disproved by Lagarde (Die vier Evangelien Arabisch, p. xv).134.Edward Pocock, Professor of Hebrew at Oxford (1648-91) and a great Oriental scholar, should be distinguished from Richard Pococke, an Eastern traveller and Bishop of Meath, who died in 1765.135.I have been obliged to alter the first paragraph in this chapter because of Dr. Scrivener's private confession to myself of the great value of Dean Burgon's services in this province of Sacred Textual Criticism. I am convinced that he could not have continued to maintain an opinion so adverse to the value of early citations as that which he formed when people were not sufficiently aware of the wealth of illustrative evidence that lay ready to their hands. As Editor I owe very much in this chapter, both to the express teaching in Dean Burgon's great book, and to his method of argument in respect to patristic citations. The Dean did not leave this province at all as he found it.136.The Revision Revised, by John William Burgon, B. D., Dean of Chichester. John Murray, 1883.137.Seesome very thoughtful and cautious remarks by the Rev. Ll. J. M. Bebb in the second volume of the Oxford“Studia Biblica (et Ecclesiastica).”Mr. Bebb's entire Article on“The Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of the Books of the New Testament”is well worth careful study.138.“Dated codices, in fact they are, to all intents and purposes.”Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 292.“Every Father is seen to be a dated witness and an independent authority,”p. 297.139.I am glad to be able to coincide thus far with the judgement of Mr. Hammond, who says:“The value of even the most definite Patristic citation is only corroborative. Standing by itself, any such citation might mean no more than that the writer found the passage in his own copy, or in those examined by him, in the form in which he quotes it. The moment, however, it is found to be supported by other good evidence, the writer's authority may become of immense importance”(Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 66, 2nd edition). His illustration is the statement of Irenaeus in Matt. i. 18, which is discussed below, Chap.XI. (Third Edition.)140.He speaks (N. T., Proleg., § 1478) of Bp. Fell's“praepropera opinio;”he merely stated asuniversallytrue what for the most part certainly is so.141.Take the case of Irenaeus, in some respects the most important of them all. Theeditio princepsof Erasmus (1526) was printed from manuscripts now unknown. The three best manuscripts are in Latin only. The oldest of them I saw at Middle-hill, an exquisite specimen of the tenth or eleventh century,olimClaromontanus; another, of the twelfth, is in the Arundel collection in the British Museum; the third once belonged to Vossius.142.Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. 256, 7th edition) speaks of one Wolfenbüttel manuscript of the sixth century containing the Homilies on St. Matthew, which he designed to publish in his“Monumenta Sacra Inedita,”vol. vii. He indicates its readings by Chrgue.143.Life of Dean Burgon, by Dean Goulburn, p. 82, note. Murray, 1892.144.Dampar cod. i.e.“Joh. Damasceni parallela sacra ex cod. Rupefuc. saeculi ferè 8.”Tischendorf, N. T., Preface to vol. i of the eighth edition, 1869. He promised full information in his“Prolegomena,”which never appeared. Here we have a manuscript ascribed to the same century as the Father whose work it contains. One MS. is at Paris (collated by Mr. Rendel Harris,a.d.1884); another in Phillipps collection at Cheltenham.145.This important witness for the Old Latin version must now be used with H. Roensch's“Das Neue Testament Tertullian's,”Leipzig, 1871, wherein all his citations from the N. T. are arranged and critically examined.146.SeeDean Burgon's Appendix (D) to his“Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark,”pp. 269-287, which well deserves the praise accorded to it by a not very friendly critic. The Dean discusses at length the genius and character of Victor of Antioch's Commentary on St. Mark, and enumerates the manuscripts which contain it.147.It should be stated that some of the dates in the two tables just given are doubtful, authorities differing.148.Since the first edition of this book was issued, Ed. Reuss has published“Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci, cuius editiones ab initio typographiae ad nostram aetatem impressas quotquot reperiri potuerunt collegit digessit illustravit E. R. Argentoratensis”(Brunsvigae, 1872), to which the reader is referred for editions which our purpose does not lead us to notice. Some of his statements regarding the text of early editions we have repeated in the notes of the present chapter. His enumeration is not grounded on a complete collation of any book, but from the study of a thousand passages (p. 24) selected for his purpose. Hence his numerical results are perpetually less than our own, or even than Mill's. Professor Isaac H. Hall in Schaff's“Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version,”D. I. Macmillan, 1883, has improved upon Reuss, and given a list of editions which as to America is, I believe, exhaustive (seealso his“American Greek Testaments—a Critical Bibliography of the Greek New Testament as published in America”—Philadelphia, Pickwick and Company, 1883), and is very full as regards English and other editions. I should like to have availed myself of the Professor's kind permission to copy that list, but it would have been going out of the way to do so, since these two chapters are simply upon theEarlyPrinted and theCriticalEditions of the Text.—Ed.149.“Novum Testamentum Grece et Latine in academia complutensi noviter impressum,”Tom. v.150.Quite enough has been made of that piece of grim Spanish humour,“Mediam autem inter has latinam beati Hieronymi translationem velut inter Synagogam et Orientalem Ecclesiam posuimus: tanquam duos hinc et inde latrones, medium autem Jesum, hoc est Romanam sive latinam Ecclesiam collocantes”(Prol. Tom. i). The editors plainly meant no disparagement to the original Scriptures,as such; but they had persuaded themselves that Hebrew codices had been corrupted by the Jew, the Septuagint by the schismatical Greek, and so clung to the Latin as the only form (even before the Council of Trent) in which the Bible was known or studied in Western Europe.151.Of these, two copies are in Greek, three in Latin Elegiacs. I subjoin those of the native Greek editor, Demetrius Ducas, as a rather favourable specimen of verse composition in that age: the fantastic mode of accentuation described above was clearly nothiswork.Ειπράξεις ὅσιαι ἀρετήτε βροτοὺς ἐς ὅλυμπον,ἐσμακάρων χῶρον καὶ βίον οἶδεν ἄγειν,ἀρχιερεὺς ξιμένης θεῖος πέλει. ἔργα γὰρ αὐτοῦἤδε βίβλος. θνητοῖς ἄξια δῶρα τάδε.152.Tregelles (Account of the Printed Text, p. 7, note) states that he waselectedFeb. 28, crowned March 11: Sir Harris Nicolas (“Chronology of History,”p. 194) that he was elected March 11, without naming the date of his coronation as usual, but mentioning that“Leo X, in his letters, dated the commencement of his pontificate before his coronation.”153.The following is the document (a curiosity in its way) as cited by Vercellone:“Anno primo Leonis PP. X. Reverendiss. Dom. Franciscus Card. Toletanus de mandato SS. D. N. Papae habuit ex bibliotheca a Dom. Phaedro Bibliothecario duo volumina graeca: unum in quo continentur libri infrascripti; videlicet Proverbia Salomonis, Ecclesiastes, Cant. Cant., Job, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Esdras, Tobias, Judith [this is Vat. 346, or 248 of Parsons]. Sunt in eo folia quingenta et duodecim ex papyro in nigro. Fuit extractum ex blancho primo bibliothecae graecae communis. Mandatum Pontificis super concessione dictorum librorum registratum fuit in Camera Apostolica per D. Franciscum De Attavantes Notarium, ubi etiam annotata est obligatio. Promisit restituere intra annum sub poena ducentorum ducatorum.”—“Restituit die 9 Julii, MDXVIII. Ita est. Fr. Zenobius Bibliothecarius.”154.The Catalogue is copied at length by Tregelles (Account of the Printed Text, pp. 15-18). It is scarcely worth while to repeat the silly story taken up by Moldenhawer, whose admiration oflas cosas de Españawas not extravagantly high, that the Alcalà manuscripts had been sold to make sky-rockets about 1749; to which statement Sir John Bowring pleasantly adds in 1819,“To celebrate the arrival of some worthless grandee.”Gutierrez's recent list comprehends all the codices named in the University Catalogue made in 1745; and we may hope that even in Spain all grandees are not necessarily worthless.155.Thus in St. Mark the Complutensian varies from Laud. 2 in fifty-one places, and nowhere agrees with it except in company with a mass of other copies. In the Acts on the contrary they agree 139 times, and differ but forty-one, some of theirloci singularesbeing quite decisive: e.g. x. 17; 21; xii. 12; xvii. 31; xx. 38; xxiv. 16; 1 Pet. iii. 12; 14; 2 Pet. i. 11. In most of these places Seidel's Codex, in some of them Act. 69, and in nearly all Cod. Havn. 1 (Evan. 234, Act. 57, Paul. 72) are with Laud. 2. On testing this last at the Bodleian in some forty places, I found Mill's representation fairly accurate. As might have been expected, his Oxford manuscripts were collated much the best.156.Goeze's“Defence of the Complutensian Bible,”1766. He published a“Continuation”in 1769.Seealso Franc. Delitzsch's“Studies on the Complutensian Polyglott”(Bagster, 1872), derived from his Academical Exercise as Dean of the Theological Faculty at Leipzig, 1871-2.157.Reuss says boldly that the Complutensian text“purus et authenticus a veteribus nunquam repetitus est”(p. 25), and gives a list of forty-four places in which the Complutensian and Plantin editions are at variance (pp. 16, 17). He subjoins a list of 185 cases in which the two are in unison against Erasmus and Stephen jointly (pp. 18-21), so that the influence of the former over the latter cannot be disputed.158.At forty he obtained the countenance of that good and bountiful rather than great prelate, William Wareham, Archbishop of Canterbury (1502-32), who, prosperous in life, was so singularly“felix opportunitate mortis.”It gladdens and makes sad at once an English heart to read what Erasmus writes about him ten years later:“Cujusmodi Maecenas, si mihi primis illis contigisset annis, fortassis aliquid in bonis literis potuissem. Nunc natus saeculo parum felici, cum passim impunè regnaret barbaries, praesertim apud nostrates, apud quos turn crimen etiam erat quicquam bonarum literarum attigisse, tantum aberat ut honos aleret hominum studia in eâ regione, quae Baccho Cererique dicata sunt verius quam musis”(N. T. 1516, Annot. 1 Thess. ii. p. 554).159.Bishop Middleton may have lost sight of this pregnant fact when he wrote of Erasmus,“an acquaintance with Greek criticism was certainly not among his best acquirements, as his Greek Testament plainly proves: indeed he seems not to have had a very happy talent for languages”(Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 395, 3rd edition).160.The title-page is long and rather boastful.“Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum, non solum ad graecam veritatem, verum etiam ad multorum utriusque linguae codicum, eorumque veterum simul et emendatorum fidem, postremo ad probatissimorum autorum citationem, emendationem, et interpretationem, praecipue, Origenis, Chrysostomi, Cyrilli, Vulgarii, Hieronymi, Cypriani, Ambrosii, Hilarii, Augustini, una cum Annotationibus, quae lectorem doceant, quid qua ratione mutatum sit. Quisquis igitur amas veram theologiam, lege, cognosce, ac deinde judica. Neque statim offendere, si quid mutatum offenderis, sed expende, num in melius mutatum sit. Apud inclytam Germaniae Basilaeam.”The Vulgarius of Erasmus' first edition is no less a person than Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, as appears plainly from his Annotations, p. 319,“nec in ullis graecorum exemplaribus addita reperi [ἐκ σοῦ, Luke i. 35], ne apud Vulgarium quidem, nec in antiquis codicibus Latinis.”He had found out his portentous blunder by 1528, when, in his“Responsio ad Object, xvi. Hispanorum,”he gives that commentator his right name.161.Yet he could have followed none other than Cod. 1 in Matt. xxii. 28; xxiii. 25; xxvii. 52; xxviii. 3, 4, 19, 20; Mark vii. 18, 19, 26; x. 1; xii. 22; xv. 46; Luke i. 16, 61; ii. 43; ix. 1, 15; xi. 49; John i. 28; x. 8; xiii. 20; in all which passages the Latin Vulgate is neutral or hostile. See also Hoskier, Cod. Ev. 604, App. F. p. 4.162.Such are ὀρθρινός, Apoc. xxii. ver. 16; ἐλθέ bis, ἐλθέτω, λαμβανέτω τό, ver. 17; συμμαρτυροῦμαι γάρ, ἐπιτιθῇ πρὸς ταῦτα,—τῷ (anteβιβλίῳ) ver. 18; ἀφαιρῇ, βίβλου, ἀφαιρῆσει, βίβλουsecund., καί ult-τῷ (anteβιβλίῳ) ver. 19; ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν, ver. 21. Erasmus in his Annotations fairly confesses what he did:“quanquam in calce hujus libri, nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros, quae aberant in Graecis exemplaribus, ea tamen ex latinis adjecimus.”But since the text and commentary in Cod. Reuchlini are so mixed up as to be undistinguishable in parts without the aid of a second manuscript (Tregelles'“Delitzsch's Handschriftliche Funde,”Part ii. pp. 2-7), it is no wonder that in other places Erasmus in his perplexity was sometimes tempted to translate into his own Greek from the Latin Vulgate such words or clauses as he judged to have been wrongly passed over by his sole authority, e.g. ch. ii. 2, 17; iii. 5, 12, 15; vi. 11, 15 (seeunder Apoc. 1); vii. 17; xiii. 4, 5; xiv. 16; xxi. 16; xxii. 11, where the Greek words only of Erasmus are false; while in ch. ii. 3; v. 14 (bis); vi. 1, 3, 5, 7; xiii. 10; xiv. 5 (as partly in xxii. 14), he was misled by the recent copies of the Vulgate, whereto alone he had access, to make additions which no Greek manuscript is known to support. Bengel's acuteness had long before suspected that ch. v. 14; xxii. 11, and the form ἀκαθάρτητος, ch. xvii. 4 (where Apoc. 1 has τὰ ἀκάθαρτα) had their origin in no Greek copy, but in the Vulgate. Nor does Apoc. 1 lend any countenance to ch. xvii. 8, καίπερ ἔστι, or to ver. 13, διαδιδώσουσιν. For Erasmus' πληρώσονται ch. vi. 11, Apoc. 1 has πληρώσωσιν, the Latinimpleantur; for his σφραγίζωμεν, ch. vii. 3, we find σφραγίσωμεν in Apoc. 1, but the latter omits τῆς ἀμπέλου, ch. xiv. 18, and so does Erasmus on its authority.163.Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, p. 19.164.It sometimes happens that a reading cited in the Annotations is at variance with that given in the text; but Erasmus had been engaged in writing the former for about ten years at intervals, and had no leisure to revise them then. Thus John xvii. 2 δώσει (after Cod. 1, but corrected to δώση in the errata); 1 Thess. ii. 8; iii. 1; 1 Tim. v. 21; Apoc. i. 2; ii. 18; xiv. 10, 13; xxi. 6.165.The first complete printed English N. T. (Tyndale 1526) followed Erasmus' third edition rather than his second: cf. Rom. viii. 20, 21 as well as 1 John v. 7, 8.166.I never saw the Basle manuscripts, and probably Dean Alford had been more fortunate, otherwise I do not think he has evidence for his statement that 'Erasmus tampered with the readings of the very few MSS. which he collated' (N. T., vol. i. Proleg. p. 74, 4th edition). The truth is, that to save time and trouble, he used them ascopyfor the press, as was intimated above, where Burgon's evidence is quite to the point. For this purpose corrections would of course be necessary (those made by Erasmus were all too few), and he might fairly say, in the words cited by Wetstein (N. T., Proleg., p. 127),“se codices suos praecastigasse.”Any wanton“tampering”with the text I am loth to admit, unless for better reasons than I yet know of.167.Reuss (p. 24) enumerates 347 passages wherein the first edition of Erasmus differs from the Complutensian, forty-two of which were changed in his second edition. In fifteen places the first edition agrees with the Complutensian against the second (p. 30).168.Besides the weighty insertion of 1 John v. 7, 8, Reuss (p. 32) gives us only seven changes in the third edition from the second: Mill's other cases, he says, must be mere trifles.169.Here again Reuss declares“paucissimas novas habet”(p. 36), and names only six.170.“Non deserit quartam nisi duobus in locis: 1 Cor. xii. 2; Acts ix. 28”(Reuss, p. 37). Reuss had evidently not seen the first edition of the present work.171.Multis vetustissimis exemplaribus collatis, adhibita etiam quorundam eruditissimorum hominum cura, Biblia (ut vulgo appellant) graece cuncta eleganter descripsi (Andreas Aesulanus Cardinali Aegidio).172.This is Mill's calculation, but Wetstein followed him over the ground, adding (especially in the Apocalypse) not a few variations of Aldus which Mill had overlooked, now and then correcting his predecessor's errors (e.g. 2 Cor. xi. 1; Col. ii. 23), not without mistakes of his own (e.g. Luke xi. 34; Eph. vi. 22). Since Wetstein's time no one seems to have gone carefully through the Aldine N. T., except Delitzsch in order to illustrate the Codex Reuchlini (1) in the Apocalypse. Reuss (p. 28) notes eleven places in which it agrees with the Complutensian against Erasmus; seven wherein it rejects both books.173.The title-page runs εν λευκετια των παρησιων, παρα σιμωνι τω κολιναιω δεκεμβριου μηνος δευτερα φθινοντος, ετει απο της θεογονιας α φ λ δ. This book has no Preface, and the text does not contain 1 John v. 7, 8. It stands alone in reading ἀγγελία, 1 John i. 5. Reuss (p. 46), who praises Colinaeus highly, states that he deserts Erasmus' third edition 113 times out of his own thousand, fifty-three of them to side with the Complutensian, and subjoins a list of fifty-two passages wherein he stands alone among early editors, for most of which he may have had manuscript authority.174.Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xv.175.Reuss (pp. 50, 51, 54) mentions only nine places wherein Stephen's first edition does not agree either with the Complutensian or Erasmus; in the second edition four (or rather three) more; in the third nine, including the great erratum, 1 Pet. iii. 11. He further alleges that in the Apocalypse whatever improvements were introduced by Stephen came from the fourth edition of Erasmus, not from the Complutensian.176.Mill states that Stephen's citations of the Complutensian are 598, Marsh 578, of which forty-eight, or one in twelve, are false; but we have tried to be as exact as possible. Certainly some of Stephen's inaccuracies are rather slight, viz. Acts ix. 6; xv. 29; xxv. 5; xxviii. 3; Eph. iv. 32; Col. iii. 20; Apoc. i. 12; ii. 1, 20, 24; iii. 2, 4, 7, 12; iv. 8; xv. 2: β' seems to be put for α' Matt. x. 25.177.Viz. in the Gospels 81, Paul. 20, Act. Cath. 17, Apoc. 1 (ch. vii. 5): but for the Apocalypse the margin had only three authorities, α᾽, ιε᾽, ιϛ᾽ (ιϛ᾽ ending ch. xvii. 8), whose united readings Stephen rejects no less than fifty-four times.See, moreover, above, p.154, note 3.178.Here, again, my own collation represents Stephen's first edition as differing from his third in 797 places, of which 372 only are real various readings, the rest relating to accents, or being mere errata. Of these 372 places, the third edition agrees in fifty-six places with π. or πάντες of its own margin, and in fifty-five with some of the authorities cited therein. Stephen no doubt knew of manuscript authority for many of his other changes, though some may be mere errata.179.Wetstein (N. T., Prol., vol. i. p. 36) instances the readings of Cod. D (indicated as“quidam codex”by Beza in 1565) in Mark ix. 38; x. 50; Luke vii. 35. We may add that Beza in 1565 cites the evidence of one Stephanic manuscript for the omission of ὑμῶν, Matt. xxiii. 9; of two for κατεδίωξεν Mark i. 36; in later editions of two also in Luke xx. 4, and Acts xxii. 25; of three for ἑτέρῳ; Matt. xxi. 30, two of which would be Cod. D and Evan. 9 (Steph. ιβ᾽). In his dedication to Queen Elizabeth in 1565, Beza speaks plainly of an“exemplar ex Stephani nostri bibliotheca cum viginti quinque plus minus manuscriptis codicibus, et omnibus paenè impressis, ab Henrico Stephano ejus filio, et paternae sedulitatis haerede, quam diligentissimè collatum.”180.But here again we must qualify previous statements. Reuss (p. 58) cites six instances wherein Stephen's third and fourth editions differ (Matt. xxi. 7; xxiii. 13, 14; xxiv. 15; Luke xvii. 36; Col. i. 20; Apoc. iii. 12): to which list add Mark xiv. 21; xvi. 20; Luke i. 50; viii. 31; xii. 1; Acts xxvii. 13; 2 Cor. x. 6; Heb. vii. 1.181.Professor Isaac H. Hall, who has the advantage of Dr. Scrivener in actually himself possessing all the ten editions of Beza, as he states in MS. in a copy of his“American Greek Testaments”kindly given to me, says, p. 60, note, that in the edition of 1556 the Greek does not occur, and that Beza's firstGreektext was published in 1565. Beza must have reckoned his Latin amongst his editions when he spoke of his folio of 1565 as his second edition, and must generally have dated from 1556 as the beginning of his labours. The dates of the ten editions given above are extracted from Professor Hall's list in Schaff's“Companion to the Bible,”pp. 500-502.182.Reuss says fairly enough (p. 85) that Beza was the true author of what is called the received text, from which the Elzevir of 1624 rarely departs. He used as his basis the fourth edition of Stephen, from which he departed in 1565, so far as Reuss has found, only twenty-five times, nine times to side with the Complutensian, four times with Erasmus, thrice with the two united; the other nine readings are new, whereof two (Acts xvii. 25; James v. 12) had been adopted by Colinaeus. The second edition of 1582 withdraws one of the peculiar readings of its predecessor, but adds fourteen more. The third edition (1588), so far as Reuss knows, departs from the second but five times, and the fourth (1598) from the third only twice, Matt. vi. 1 (δικαιοσύνην); Heb. x. 17 (add. τότε εἴρηκε), neither of which I can verify. These results, on Reuss's system of investigation, can be only approximately true (seep.154, note), and do not include some changes silently introduced into Beza's Latin version, as suggested in his Annotations.183.Reuss (p. 109) states that out of his thousand select examples Elzevir 1624 differs from Beza's smaller New Testament of 1565 in only eight readings, all of which may be found in some of Beza's other editions (e.g. the small edition of 1580), except one misprint (Rom. vii. 2).184.Οἱ δοῦλος is disputed by Hoskier (App. C. p. 18, n.), who says that he has seen besides his own copy of 1624 several which read οἱ δοῦλου. He had also inspected mine.“And although he says it reads δοῦλος, I read easily δοῦλοι. The type is rather faulty, that is all.”The point is not worth disputing.185.“American Additions and Corrections,”p. 50.186.Professor Hall states (Schaff's“Companion,”p. 501) that Beza's editions of 1588 and 1598 were the chief foundations of the Authorized Version of 1611. Archdeacon Palmer (Preface to Greek Testament with Revisers' Readings, p. vii) refers chiefly to Stephen's edition of 1550. Dr. Scrivener (to whom Archdeacon Palmer refers), Cambridge Greek Testament, Praef., p. vi, in taking the Elzevir edition of 1624 as the authority for the“Textus Receptus,”says that it rests upon Stephen's 1550, and Beza's 1565, 1582, 1589 (= 1588), and 1598 (especially the later editions, and particularly 1598, Authorized Edition of the British Bible, p. 60), besides also Erasmus, the Complutensian, and the Vulgate (Authorized Edition, p. 60). Dr. Scrivener adds in the passage just named that out of 252 passages the“Translators abide with Beza against Stephen in 113, with Stephen against Beza in fifty-nine, with the Complutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in eighty.”187.“The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives.”By F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., &c., Cambridge, University Press, 1884. Appendix E.188.SeeMiller's“Textual Guide,”George Bell & Sons, 1885. Also Dr. Scrivener's“Adversaria et Critica Sacra”(not yet published).—Postscript.189.Reuss (p. 56) excepts Matt. ix. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 13; Philem. 6, where Walton prefers the Complutensian reading.190.Nos. 2 and 3 had been partially used by Beza (American Additions, p. 50).191.If Ussher lacked severe accuracy in collating his manuscripts, as well as skill in deciphering them, we have not to look far for the cause. In a Life prefixed to Ussher's“Body of Divinity,”1678, p. 11, we are told that“in the winter evenings he constantly spent two hours in comparing old MSS. of the Bible, Greek and Latin, taking with his own hand thevariae lectionesof each:”on which statement Dean Burgon (Letter in theGuardian, June 28, 1882) makes the pregnant comment,“Such work carried on at seventy or more by candlelight, is pretty sure to come to grief, especially when done with a heart-ache.”192.“Sed, cum aliqui ex editoribus N. T. in analogiis discernendis nimis fortasse curiosi loca Parallela ad infinitum fere numerum auxerint, quorum alia parum definitae similitudinis, alia remotioris sunt argumenti quam quae servatis sanae interpretationis legibus possint adhiberi, satius habuimus Curcellaeum sequi, qui nec parcior est, nec nimis minutus in locis allegandis, nec dissimilia unquam aut prorsus ἀπροσδιόνυσα ad marginem locavit.”—Car. Oxon. (Bishop C. Lloyd) Monitum N. T. Oxonii, 1827.193.1 John v. 7, 8 is included in brackets. Reuss (p. 130) thinks that the text follows Elzevir 1633 everywhere else but in Luke x. 22. Mill (N. T., Proleg. § 1397) says that it was printed“ad editiones priores Elzevirianas, typis Elzevirianis nitidissimis.”194.“Stephani Curcellaei annotationes variantium lectionum, pro variantibus lectionibus non habendae, quia ille non notat codices, unde eas habeat, an ex manuscriptis, an vero ex impressis exemplaribus. Possunt etiam pro uno codice haberi.”Canon xiii. pp. 11, 69-70 of the N. T. by G. D. T. M. D. (seebelow, p.204).195.But it goes with Elz. 1624 in Mark iv. 18; 2 Tim. i. 12; Apoc. xvi. 5, and sometimes prefers the readings of Stephen 1550, e.g. Mark i. 21; vi. 29, and notably Luke ii. 22 (αὐτῶν); Luke x. 22; Rom. vii. 2; Philem. 7. Peculiarities of this edition are Εἰ δὲ for Εἶτα Heb. xii. 9; συγκληρονόμοις 1 Pet. iii. 7. Wetstein's text follows its erratum, Acts xiii. 29 ἐτέλησαν. Mill seems to say (N. T., Proleg. § 1409) that Fell's text was taken from that of Curcellaeus.196.Fell imputes the origin of various readings to causes generally recognized, adding one which does not seem very probable, that accidental slips once made were retained and propagated through a superstitious feeling of misplaced reverence, citing in illustration Apoc. xxii. 18, 19. He alleges also the well-known subscription of Irenaeus, preserved by Eusebius, which will best be considered hereafter; and remarks, with whatever truth, that contrary to the practice of the Jews and Muhammedans in regard to their sacred books, it was allowed“e vulgo quibusvis, calamo pariter et manu profanis, sacra ista [N. T.] tractare”(Praef. p. 4).197.“Considerations on the Biblia Polyglotta,”1659: to which Walton rejoined, sharply enough, in“The Considerator considered,”also in 1659.198.Dr. Hort says that“his comprehensive examination of individual documents, seldom rising above the wilderness of multitudinous details, [is] yet full of sagacious observations”(Introd. p. 180).199.As Mill's text is sometimes reprinted in England as if it were quite identical with that commonly received, it is right to note the following passages wherein it does not coincide with Stephen's of 1550, besides that it corrects his typographical errors: Matt. xx. 15; 22; xxiv. 15; Mark ix. 16; xi. 22; xv. 29; Luke vii. 12bis; x. 6; xvii. 1; John viii. 4; 25; xiii. 30-31; xix. 7; Acts ii. 36; vii. 17; xiv. 8; Rom. xvi. 11; 1 Cor. iii. 15; x. 10; xv. 28; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. iv. 25; Tit. ii. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 11; 21; iv. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 12; Apoc. ii. 5; xx. 4. Reuss (p. 149) tells us that Kuster's edition recalls the Stephanic readings in Matt. xxiv. 15; Apoc. ii. 5.200.Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Introductory Preface, p. xv.201.Ellis,ubi supra, pp. xvii-xix. TheseProposalswere also very properly reprinted by Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. lxxxvii-xcvi, 7th edition), together with the specimen chapter (Apoc. xxii). The full title was to have been:“Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ Graece. Novum Testamentum Versionis Vulgatae, per stumHieryonymum ad vetusta exemplaria Graeca castigatae et exactae. Utrumque ex antiquissimis Codd. MSS., cum Graecis tum Latinis, edidit Richardus Bentleius.”202.This is all the more lamentable, inasmuch as Bentley was not accurate enough as a collator to make it unnecessary to follow him over the same ground. Dr. Westcott confirms my own experience in this respect when in a MS. note inserted by him on a blank leaf of Trin. Coll. B. XVII. 14, he states that“Bentley's testimony, when he quotes a reading, may always be taken as true; but it is not so when he notes no variation in particular. On an average he omitsone-thirdof the variations of the MSS., without following, as far as I can discover, any law in the selection of readings.”203.Bp. John Wordsworth would vindicate both Bentley and Walker from the suspicion of lightly taking up and lightly dropping so important a task. Walker, whom Bentley, as is said, called“Clarissimus Walker,”died on Nov. 9, 1741, at the age of forty-eight.—Wordsworth, Old Biblical Texts, I. xxv. p. 65. And for the Latin and Greek Texts collated by him wholly or partially,seepp.55-63.204.He continued this work till after 1735.Seepaper found by Dr. Ince at Christ Church, quoted by Bp. J. Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xxv. note 2.205.Mr. Jebb (Life of Bentley, p. 164) imputes the failure of Bentley's grand scheme partly to the worry of litigation which harassed him from 1729 to 1738; partly to a growing sense of complexity in the problem of the text, especially after he became better acquainted with the Vatican readings, i.e. about 1720 and 1729. Reuss (p. 172) ought never to have conditioned the ultimate success of such a man by the proviso“si consilio par fuerit perseverantia.”206.“This thought has now so engaged me, and in a manner inslaved me, thatvae mihiunless I do it. Nothing but sickness (by the blessing of God) shall hinder me from prosecuting it to the end”(Bentley to Archbp. Wake, 1716: Ellis,ubi supra, p. xvi). A short article in theEdinburgh Reviewfor July, 1860, apparently from the pen of Tregelles, draws attention to“Nicolai Toinardi Harmonia Graeco-Latina,”Paris, 1707, fol. (“liber rarissimus,”Reuss, p. 167), who so far anticipates Bentley's labours, that he forms a new Greek text by the aid of two Roman manuscripts (Cod. B being one of them) and of the Latin version.207.Dr. Gregory says that though Mace's edition had no accents or soft breathing, he anticipates most of the changes accepted by some critics of the present day.208.I cannot help borrowing the language of Donaldson, used with reference to an entirely different department of study, in the opening of one of his earliest and by far his most enduring work:“It may be stated as a fact worthy of observation in the literary history of modern Europe, that generally, when one of our countrymen has made the first advance in any branch of knowledge, we have acquiesced in what he has done, and have left the further improvement of the subject to our neighbours on the continent. The man of genius always finds an utterance, for he is urged on by an irresistible impulse—a conviction that it is his duty and vocation to speak: but we too often want those who shall follow in his steps, clear up what he has left obscure, and complete his unfinished labours”(New Cratylus, p. 1). Dr. Gregory quotes against Dr. Scrivener, Mace (1729), Bowyer, a follower of Wetstein (1763), Harwood (1776), besides Whitby, Middleton, and Twells: but Dr. S. looked for greater names, and till Middleton, a more advancing study.209.The full title is“'Ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη. Novum Testamentum Graecum ita adornatum ut Textus probatarum editionum medullam, Margo variantium lectionum in suas classes distributarum locorumque parellelorum delectum, Apparatus subjunctus criseos sacrae Millianae praesertim compendium limam supplementum ac fructum exhibeat, inserviente J. A. B.”210.They consist of seven Augsburg codices (Aug.1 = Evan. 83;Aug.2 = Evan. 84;Aug.3 = Evan. 85;Aug.4 = Evst. 24;Aug.5 = Paul. 54;Aug.6 = Act. 46;Aug.7 = Apoc. 80);Poson.= Evan. 86; extracts sent by Isel from three Basle copies (Bas.α = Evan. E;Bas.β = Evan. 2;Bas.γ = Evan. 1);Hirsaug.= Evan. 97;Mosc.= Evan. V; extracts sent by F. C. Gross. To these add Uffenbach's three,Uffen.2 or 1 = Paul. M;Uffen.1 or 2 = Act. 45;Uffen.3 = Evan. 101.211.It is worth while to quote at length Bengel's terse and vigorous statement of his principle:“Posset variarum lectionum ortus, per singulos codices, per paria codicum, per syzygias minores majoresque, per familias, tribus, nationesque illorum, investigari et repraesentari; et inde propinquitates discessionesque codicum ad schematismos quosdam reduci, et schematismorum aliquae concordantiae fieri; atque ita res tota per tabulam quandam quasi genealogicam oculis subjici, ad quam tabulam quaelibet varietas insignior cum agmine suorum codicum, ad convincendos etiam tardissimos dubitatores exigeretur. Magnam conjectanea nostra sylvam habent: sed manum de tabulâ, ne risuum periculo exponatur veritas. Bene est, quod praetergredi montem hunc, et planiore via pervenire datur ad codices discriminandos. Datur autem per hanc regulam aequissimam: Quo saepius non modo singuli codices, sed etiam syzygiae minores eorum vel majores, in aberrationes manifestas tendunt; eo levius ferunt testimonium in discrepantiis difficilioribus, eoque magis lectio ab eis deserta, tanquam genuina retineri debet”(N. T., Apparat. Crit., p. 387).212.See a eulogistic yet discriminating discussion upon Bengel inBengel als Gelehrter, ein Bild für unsere Tage, from the eminent pen of Dr. Nestle, which has been courteously sent to the editor through the Rev. H. J. White.213.The opposition of Frey and his other adversaries delayed thatopus magnumfor twenty years (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. p. 218).214.We here reckon separately, as we believe is both usual and convenient, every distinct portion of the N. T. contained in a manuscript. Thus Codd. C and 69 Evan. will each count for four.215.Errors of Wetstein's text will be found in John xi. 31; Acts i. 26; xiii. 29 ἐτέλησαν, from the Oxford N. T. 1675, though Wetstein himself remarks this. He corrects a few obvious misprints of Elzevir 1633, but his note shows that he does notintendto read τῷ in Mark vi. 29. The following seem to be deliberate variations from the Elzevir text: Matt. xiii. 15; xxi. 41; Mark xiv. 54; Luke ii. 22; xi. 12; xiii. 19; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. iii. 5; 1 Tim. iii. 2, 11 (yet not Tit. ii. 2); Philem. 7; 1 Pet. i. 3; iii. 7. All these deliberate variations are found in Von Mastricht's edition of 1735, which seems to have been used by Wetstein as the basis of his text; and in all of them (except Matt. xxi. 41; Luke xi. 12, and Phil. iii. 5) Fell's text agrees with Wetstein's. In Matt. xiii. 15; Mark xiv. 54; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 7, the Elzevir editions vary. (American Additions and Corrections, p. 51.) He spells ναζαρέτ uniformly, except in John i. 46, 47. Reuss (p. 183) adds nine changes made by Wetstein in the text for critical reasons: Matt. viii. 28; Luke xi. 2; John vii. 53-viii. 11; Acts v. 36; xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 16 (δ); Apoc. iii. 2; x. 4; xviii. 17.216.One other specimen of Matthaei's critical skill will suffice: he is speaking of his Cod. H, which is our Evst. 50.“Hic Codex scriptus est literis quadratis, estque eorum omnium, qui adhuc in Europa innotuerunt et vetustissimus et praestantissimus. Insanus quidem fuerit, qui cum hoc aut Cod. V [p. 144] comparare, aut aequiparare voluerit Codd. Alexandr. Clar. Germ. Boern. Cant. [Evan. AD, Paul. ADEG], qui sine ullo dubio pessimè ex scholiis et Versione Latinâ Vulgatâ interpolati sunt”(N. T., Tom. ix. p. 254).217.In using Matthaei's N. T. the following index of manuscripts first collated by him will be found useful: a = Evan. 259, Act. 98 (a 1), Paul. 113 (a or a 2), Apost. 82 (a 3): B = Evst. 47: b = Apost. 13: c = Act. 99, Paul. 114, Evst. 48: d = Evan. 237, Act. 100, Paul. 115: e = Evan. 238, Apost. 14: f = Act. 101, Paul. 116, Evst. 49: g = Evan. 239, Act. 102, Paul. 117: H = Evst. 50: h = Act. 103, Paul. 118: i = Evan. 240, Paul. 119: k = Evan. 241, Act. 104, Paul. 120, Apoc. 47: l = Evan. 242, Act. 105, Paul. 121, Apoc. 48: m = Evan. 243, Act. 106, Paul. 122: n = Evan. 244, Paul. 123: o = Evan. 245, Apoc. 49: p = Evan. 246, Apoc. 50: q = Evan. 247, Paul. 124: r = Evan. 248, also Apoc. 502, Apoc. 90: s = Evan. 249, Paul. 76: t = Apoc. 32, Evst. 51: tz = Apost. 15: V = V: v = Evan. 250, Apost. 5: x = Evan. 251, Act. 69, Paul. 74, Apoc. 30 (from Knittel); z = Evan. 252: 10 = Evan. 253: 11 = Evan. 254: 12 = Evan. 255: 14 = Evan. 256: 15 = O, 16 = Evst. 56, Apost. 20: 17 = Evan. 258: 18 = Evan. 99: 19 = Evst. 57: 20 = Evan. 89: ξ = Evst. 52, Apost. 16: χ = Evst. 53, Apost. 17: ψ = Evst. 54, Apost. 18: ω = Evst. 55, Apost. 19: Frag. Vet. = part of H: Gpaul. It should be noted, that in several of these cases different MSS. are included under one letter: e.g. c = Evst. 48 is a different MS. from c = Act. 99.218.The copies of Chrysostom's homilies on the Gospels freshly collated by this editor are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ, λ, μ, π, ρ, φ: those on St. Paul's Epistles are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, α, β.219.Reuss (p. 207) calculates that, besides misprints, Matthaei's second and very inferior edition differs in text from his first in but twenty-four places, none of them being in the Gospels.220.“Textui ad Millianum expresso”says Reuss (p. 151), which is not quite the same thing:seep.203, note 2.221.“Conscius sum mihi, me omnem et diligentiam et intentionem adhibuisse, ut haec editio quam emendatissima in manus eruditorum perveniret, utque in hoc opere, in quo ingenio non fuit locus, curae testimonium promererem; nulla tamen mihi est fiducia, me omnia, quae exigi possint, peregisse. Vix enim potest esse ulla tam perpetua legentis intentio, quae non obtutu continuo fatigetur, praesertim in tali genere, quod tam multis, saepe parvis, observationibus constat.”(Lecturis Editor, p. v. 1788.) Well could I testify to the truth of these last words!222.“Symbolae Criticae ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum N. T. lectionum Collectiones. Accedit multorum N. T. Codicum Graecorum descriptio et examen.”223.Yet Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. xcvii, 7th ed.) states that he only added two readings (Mark vi. 2, 4) to those given by Wetstein for Cod. C. From Cod. D too he seems to have taken only one reading, and that erroneously, επηγειραν, Acts xiv. 2.224.In the London edition of 1809 ἄλλοι is printed for the first οὗτοί, Mark iv. 18. Griesbach also omits καί in 2 Pet. i. 15: no manuscript except Cod. 182 (ascr) is known to do so.225.“Dissertatio critica de Codicibus quatuor Evangeliorum Origenianis,”Halae, 1771:“Curae in historiam textus Graeci epistolarum Paulinarum,”Jenae, 1777.226.“Commentarius Criticus in textum Gr. N. T.,”Part i. 1798; Part ii. 1811.227.The following specimen of a reading,possessing no internal excellence, preferred or favoured by Griesbach on the slightest evidence, will serve to illustrate the dangerous tendency of his system, had it been consistently acted upon throughout. In Matt. xxvii. 4 for ἀθῶον he indicates the mere gloss δίκαιον as equal or preferable (though in hislatermanual edition of 1805 he marks it as an inferior reading), on the authority of thelatermargin of Cod. B, of Cod. L, the Sahidic Armenian, and Latin versions and Fathers, and Origen in four places (ἀθῶον once). He adds the Syriac, but this is an error as regards the Peshitto or Harkleian; the Jerusalem may countenance him; though in such a case the testimony of versions is precarious on either side. Here, however, Griesbach defends δίκαιον against all likelihood, because BL and Origen are Alexandrian, the Latin versions Western.228.Reuss (p. 198) calculates that in his second edition out of Reuss' thousand chosen passages Griesbach stands with the Elzevir text in 648, sides with other editions in 293, has fifty-nine peculiar to himself. The second differs from the first edition (1774-5) in about fifty places only.229.Laurence, in the Appendix to his“Remarks,”shows that while Cod. A agrees with Origen against the received text in 154 places, and disagrees with the two united in 140, it sides with the received text against Origen in no less than 444 passages.230.David Schulz published at Berlin, 1827, 8vo, a third and much improved edition of his N. T., vol. i (Gospels), containing also collations of certain additional manuscripts, unknown to Griesbach.231.One of Porter's examples is almost amusing. It was Scholz's constant habit to copy Griesbach's lists of critical authorities (errors, misprints, and all) without giving the reader any warning that they were not the fruit of his own labours. The note he borrowed from Griesbach on 1 Tim. iii. 16, contains the words“uti docuimus in Symbolis Criticis:”this too Scholz appropriates (Tom. ii. p. 334, col. 2) so as to claim the“Symbolae Criticae”of the Halle Professor as his own! See also p. 217, Evan. 365; p. 253, Act. 86, and Tischendorf's notes on Acts xix. 25; 2 Pet. i. 15 (N. T., eighth edition). His very text must have been set up by Griesbach's. Thus, since the latter, by a mere press error, omitted με in 2 Cor. ii. 13, Scholz not only follows him in the omission, but cites in his note a few cursives in which he had met with με, a word really absent from no known copy. In Heb. ix. 5 again, both editors in error prefix τῆς to δόξης. Scholz's inaccuracy in the description of manuscripts which he must have had before him when he was writing is most wearisome to those who have had to trace his steps, and to verify, or rather to falsify, his statements. He has half filled our catalogues with duplicates and codices which are not Greek or are not Biblical at all. After correcting not a few of his misrepresentations of books in the libraries at Florence, Burgon breaks out at last:“What else but calamitous is it to any branch of study that it should have been prosecuted by such an incorrigible blunderer, a man so abominably careless as this?”(Guardian, Aug. 27, 1873.)232.Some of these statements are discussed in Scrivener's“Collation of the Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels,”Introd. pp. lxix-lxxi.233.The following is thewholeof this notice, which we reprint after Tregelles' example:“De ratione et consilio hujus editionis loco commodiore expositum est (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1830, pp. 817-845). Hic satis erit dixisse, editorem nusquam judicium suum, sed consuetudinem antiquissimarum orientis ecclesiarum secutum esse. Hanc quoties minus constantem fuisse animadvertit, quantum fieri potuit quae Italorum et Afrorum consensu comprobarentur praetulit: ubi pervagatam omnium auctorum discrepantiam deprehendit, partim uncis partim in marginibus indicavit. Quo factum est ut vulgatae et his proximis duobus saeculisreceptae lectionisratio haberi non posset. Haec diversitas hic in fine libri adjecta est, quoniam ea res doctis judicibus necessaria esse videbatur.”Here we have one of Lachmann's leading peculiarities—his absolute disregard of the received readings—hinted at in an incidental manner: the influence he was disposed to accord to the Latin versions when his chief authorities were at variance is pretty clearly indicated: but no one would guess that by the“custom of the oldest Churches of the East”he intends the few very ancient codices comprising Griesbach's Alexandrian class, and not the great mass of authorities, gathered from the Churches of Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople, of which that critic's Byzantine family was made up.234.These aredfor Cod. Bezae,efor Cod. Laud. 35,fbeing Lachmann's notation for Paul. Cod. D, asffis for Paul. Cod. E (whose Latin translation is cited independently),gfor Paul. Cod. G.235.We must now except the seventh century corrector of Cod. א called by Tischendorf Ca, who actually changes the original reading εκδ. into ενδ., to be himself set right by a later hand Cb. This is one out of many proofs of something more than an accidental connexion between Codd. א and B at a remote period.Seevol. i. p. 96, and note.236.In dedicating the third volume of his“Monumenta sacra inedita”in 1860 to the Theological Faculty at Leyden, Tischendorf states that he took to these studies twenty-three years before, that is, at about twenty-two years of age.237.Tischendorf left almost no papers behind him. Hence the task of writing Prolegomena to his eighth edition, gallantly undertaken by two American scholars, Dr. Caspar René Gregory of Leipzig, and Dr. Ezra Abbot of Cambridge, U. S., but for their own independent researches, might seem to resemble that of making bricks without straw.238.Through his haste to publish Cod. E of the Acts, in which design he feared to be forestalled by a certain Englishman, Tischendorf postponed to it vols. vii and viii, which he did not live to resume. Oscar von Gebhardt, now of Berlin, will complete vol. vii; Caspar René Gregory hopes to do what is possible for vol. viii.239.For further information respecting this indefatigable scholar and his labours we may refer to a work published at Leipzig in 1862,“Constantin Tischendorf in seiner fünfundzwanzigjährigen schriftstellerischen wirksamkeit. Literar-historische skizze von Dr. Joh. Ernst Volbeding.”I have also seen, by Dr. Ezra Abbot's courtesy, his paper in theUnitarian Review, March, 1875.240.A pamphlet of thirty-six pages appeared late in 1860,“Additions to the Fourth Volume of the Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,”&c., by S. P. T. Most of this industrious writer's other publications are not sufficiently connected with the subject of the present volume to be noticed here, but as throwing light upon the literary history of Scripture we may mention his edition of the“Canon Muratorianus,”liberally printed for him in 1867 by the Delegates of the Oxford University Press. Burgon, however, on comparing Tregelles' book with the document itself at Milan, cannot overmuch laud his minute correctness (Guardian, Feb. 5, 1873). Isaac H. Hall made the same comparison at Milan and confirms Burgon's judgement. The custodian of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, the famous Ceriani, had nothing to do with the work or with the lithograph facsimile.241.As a whole it may be pronounced very accurate as well as beautiful, with the conspicuous drawback that the Greek accents are so ill represented as to show either strange ignorance or utter indifference about them on the part of the person who revised the sheets for the press.242.He gave the same assurance to A. Earle, D.D., Bishop of Marlborough, assigning as his reason the results of the study of the Greek N. T.243.Dr. Hort (Introd. p. 277) hardly goes so far as this:“Those,”he says,“who propose remedies which cannot possibly avail are not thereby shown to have been wrong in the supposition that remedies were needed; and a few have been perhaps too quickly forgotten.”244.I hope that the change made in the wording of the above sentence from what stood in the first edition will satisfy my learned and acute critic, Mr. Linwood (Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to the New Testament, 1873, p. 9, note); although I fear that the difference between us is in substance as wide as ever. At the same time I would hardly rest the main stress of the argument where Dr. Roberts does when he says that“conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field, &c., simply because all sober critics feel that there is no need for it”(Words of the N. T., p. 24). There are texts, no doubt, some of those for example which Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort have branded with a marginal [+] in their edition; e.g. Acts vii. 46; xiii. 32; xix. 40; xxvi. 28; Rom. viii. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 2 (where Eph. ii. 11 might suggest ὅτι ποτέ); 1 Tim. vi. 7, and especially in the kindred Epistles, 2 Pet. iii. 10; 12; Jude 5; 22, 23, wherein, whether from internal difficulties or from the actual state of the external evidence, we should be very glad of more light than our existing authorities will lend us. What I most urge is the plain fact, that the conjectures, even of able and accomplished men, have never been such as to approve themselves to any but their authors, much less to commend themselves to the judgement of scholars as intuitively true.245.Bentley, the last great critic who paid much regard to conjectural emendations, promised in his Prospectus of 1720 that“If the author has anything to suggest towards a change of the text, not supported by any copies now extant, he will offer it separate in his Prolegomena.”It is really worth while to turn over Wm. Bowyer's“Critical Conjectures and Observations on the N. T.,”or the summary of them contained in Knappe's N. T. of 1797, if only to see the utter fruitlessness of the attempt to illustrate Scripture by ingenious exercise of the imagination. The best (e.g.συναλιζομένοις Acts i. 4; πορκείας for πορνείαςibid.xv. 20, 29), no less than the most tasteless and stupid (e.g.νηνεμίαν for νηστείαν Acts xxvii. 9), in the whole collection, are hopelessly condemned by the deep silence of a host of authorities which have since come to light. Nor are Mr. Linwood's additions to the over-copious list likely to fare much better. Who but himself will think πρώτη in Luke ii. 2 corrupted through the intermediate πρώτει from πρώτω ἔτει (ubi suprap.5); or that τὰ πολλά in Rom. xv. 22 ought to be ἐτη πολλά (p. 13)? Add to this, that he gives up existing readings much too easily, even where his emendations are more plausible than the foregoing, as when he would adopt ὅς ἄν for ὅταν in John viii. 44 (p. 6); and this is perhaps his best attempt. His worst surely is ΟΣ forΘΣ(θεός) Rom. ix. 5, which could not be endured unless ἐστιν followed ὅς, as it does in the very passage (Rom. i. 25) which he cites in illustration (p. 13).246.“vii.Inter duas variantes lectiones, si quae est εὐφωνότερος aut planior aut Graecantior, alteri non protinus praeferenda est, sed contra saepius.VIII.Lectio exhibens locutionem minus usitatam, sed alioqui subjectae materiae convenientem, praeferenda est alteri, quae, cum aeque conveniens sit, tamen phrasim habet minus insolentem, usuque magis tritam.”Wetstein's whole tract,“Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum N. T. necessariae”(N. T., vol. ii. pp. 851-874) deserves attentive study. See also the 43 Canones Critici and their Confirmatio in N. T. of G. D. T. M. D.247.So even Dr. Roberts, whose sympathies on the whole would not be the same as the Bishop of Lincoln's:“Of course occasions might occur on which, from carelessness or oversight, a transcriber would render a sentence obscure or ungrammatical which was clear and correct in his exemplar; but it is manifest that, so far as intentional alteration was concerned, the temptation all lay in the opposite direction”(“Words of the New Testament,”p. 7). So again speaks E. G. Punchard on James iii. 3 in Bp. Ellicott's Commentary,“The supporters of such curious corrections argue that the less likely is the more so; and thus every slip of a copyist, either in grammar or spelling, becomes more sacred in their eyes than is the Received text with believers in verbal inspiration.”Sir Edmund Beckett (“Should the Revised New Testament be Authorised?”1882) writes in so scornful a spirit as to neutralize the effects on a reader's mind of his native acuteness and common sense, but he deals well with the argument“that an improbable reading is more likely right, because nobody would have invented it.”“I suppose,”he rejoins,“an accidental piece of carelessness can produce an improbable and absurd error in copying as well as a probable one.”(p. 7.)248.In his seventh edition, not in his eighth.249.One other example to illustrate this rule, so difficult in its practical use, may be added from Alford on Mark ii. 22, where the reading καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί (whether the verse end or not in these words) appears to have been the original form, since“it fully explains all the others, either as emendations of construction, or corrections from parallel places.”The reader may apply this canon, if he pleases, to Aristotle, Ethic. iv. 9, in selecting between the three different readings ὀκνηροί or νωθροί or νοεροί to close the sentence οὐ μὴν ἠλίθιοί γε οἱ τοιοῦτοι δοκοῦσιν εἶναι, ἀλλα μᾶλλον ... having careful reference to the context in which it stands: or to the easier case of καίτοιγε and its variations in Acts xvii. 27: or to Rom. viii. 24, where the first hand of B and the margin of Cod. 47 (very expressly), by omitting τί καί, appear to present the original text.250.“Though the theory of explanatory interpolations of marginal glosses into the text of the N. T. has been sometimes carried too far (e.g. byWassenbergin‘Valcken.’Schol. in N. T., Tom. i), yet probably this has been the most fertile source of error in some MSS. of the Sacred Volume.”(Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, N. T., on 2 Cor. iii. 3.) Yes, insomeMSS.251.On this passage Canon Liddon justly says,“The question may still perhaps be asked ... whether here, as elsewhere, the presumption that copyists were always anxious to alter the text of the New Testament in theological interests, is not pressed somewhat excessively”(Bampton Lectures, 1866, p. 467, note).252.Griesbach's“etiam manifestò falsas”can allude only to 1 John v. 7, 8; yet it is a strong point against the authenticity of that passage that it isnotcited by Greek writers, who did not find it in their copies, but only by the Latins who did.253.The clause might have been derived from Gen. ii. 23, yet the evidence against it is strong and varied (אAB, 17, 67, Bohair., &c.).254.Alford's onlydefiniteexample (and that derived from Wetstein, N. T., vol. ii. p. 11) is found but in a single cursive (4) in Rom. xiv. 17, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις, ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνηκαὶ ἄσκησιςκαὶ εἰρήνη. Tregelles (An Account of Printed Text, p. 222) adds 1 Cor. vii. 5; Act. x. 30; Rom. xii. 13 (!) More to their purpose, perhaps, if we desired to help them on, would be the suspected addition of καὶ νηστείᾳ in Mark ix. 29, and of the whole verse in the parallel place Matt. xvii. 21; the former being brought into doubt on the very insufficient authority of Codd. א (by the first hand) Β, of the beautiful Latin copykfrom Bobbio, and by reason of the silence of Clement of Alexandria: the latter on the evidence of the same Greek manuscripts (kbeing defective) with Cod. 33, both (?) Egyptian, the Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac, the Latineff1, some forms of the Ethiopic version, and from the absence of the Eusebian canon, which ought to have referred us to the parallel place in St. Mark, whereas that verse is assigned to thetenthcanon. In the face of such readings of אΒ it is hard to understand the grounds of Mr. Darby's vague suspicion that they“bear the marks of having been in ecclesiastical hands.”(N. T., Preface, p. 3.)255.See (6), (7), (17), (18). The uncial characters most liable to be confounded by scribes (p. 10) are ΑΔΛ, ΕΣ, ΟΘ, ΝΠ, and less probably ΓΙΤ. An article in a foreign classical periodical, written by Professor Cobet, the co-editor of the Leyden reprint of the N. T. portion of Cod. B, unless regarded as a merejeu d'esprit, would serve to prove that the race of conjectural emendators is not so completely extinct as (before Mr. Linwood's pamphlet) I had supposed. By a dexterous interchange of letters of nearly the same form (Δ for Α, Ε for Σ, Ι for Τ, Σ for Ε, κ for ΙΣ, Τ for Ι) this modern Bentley—and he well deserves the name—suggests for ΑΣΤΕΙΟΣ τῷ θεῷ Act. vii. 20 [compare Heb. xi. 23] the common-place ΔΕΚΤΟΣ τῷ θεῷ, from Act. x. 35. Each one of thesixnecessary changes Cobet profusely illustrates by examples, and even the reverse substitution of δεκτός for ἀστεῖος from Alciphron: but in the absence of all manuscript authority for the very smallest of these several permutations in Act. vii. 20, he excites in us no other feeling than a sort of grudging admiration of his misplaced ingenuity. In the same spirit he suggests ΗΔΕΙΟΝΑ for ΠΛΕΙΟΝΑ, Heb. xi. 4; while in 1 Cor. ii. 4 for ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας λόγοις he simply reads ἐν πειθοῖ σοφίας, the σ which begins σοφίας having become accidentally doubled and λόγοις subsequently added to explain πειθοῖς, which he holds to be no Greek word at all: it seems indeed to be met with nowhere else. Dr. Hort's comment on this learned trifling is instructive:“Though it cannot be said that recent attempts in Holland to revive conjectural criticism for the N. T. have shown much felicity of suggestion, they cannot be justly condemned on the ground of principle”(Introd., p. 277).256.Thus Canon I of this chapter includes (12), (19): Canon III includes (2), (3), (4), (8), (9), (10); while (13) comes under Canon IV; (20) under Canon VI.257.“Canon Criticus”xxiv, N. T., by G. D. T. M. D., p. 12, 1735.258.Dean Burgon cites (Revision Revised, pp. 359, 360)“no less than thirty ancient witnesses.”259.'The precept, if we omit the phrase, is in striking harmony with the at first sight sharp, extreme, almost paradoxical character of various other precepts of the“Sermon on the Mount.”Milligan, Words of the N. T., p. 111.260.Very similar in point of moral feeling is the variation between ὀλιγοπιστίαν, the gentler, intrinsically perhaps the more probable, and ἀπιστίαν, the more emphatic term, in Matt. xvii. 20. Both must have been current in the second century, the former having the support of Codd. אB, 13, 22, 33, 124, 346 [hiat69], the Curetonian Syriac (and that too against Cod. D), both Egyptian, the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, Origen, Chrysostom (very expressly, although his manuscripts vary), John Damascene, but of the Latins Hilary alone. All the rest, including Codd. CD, the Peshitto Syriac, and the Latins among first class witnesses, maintain ἀπιστίαν of the common text.261.Perhaps I may refer to my“Textual Guide,”p. 120. The utmost caution should be employed in the use of this kind of evidence: perhaps nowhere else do authorities differ so much.—Ed.262.E.g. Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, v. 30. 1, for which see below, p.261: the early date renders this testimony most weighty.263.In deference to Lardner and others, who have supposed that Ignatius refers to the sacred autographs, we subjoin the sentence in dispute. Ἐπεὶ ἤκουσά τινων λεγόντων, ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις εὕρω, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ πιστεύω; καὶ λέγοντός μου αὐτοῖς, ὅτι γέγραπται, ἀπεκρίθησάν μοι, ὅτι πρόκειται. Ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀρχεῖά ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός κ.τ.λ. (Ad Philadelph. c. 8.) On account of ἀρχεῖα in the succeeding clause, ἀρχείοις has been suggested as a substitute for the manuscript reading ἀρχαίοις, and so the interpolators of the genuine Epistle have actually written. But without denying that a play on the words was designed between ἀρχαίοις and ἀρχεῖα, both copies of the Old Latin version maintain the distinction made in the Medicean Greek (“si non in veteribus invenio”and“Mihi autem principium est Jesus Christus”), and any difficulty as to the sense lies not in ἀρχαίοις but in πρόκειται. Chevallier's translation of the passage is perfectly intelligible,“Because I have heard some say, Unless I find it in the ancient writings, I will not believe in the Gospel. And when I said to them,‘It is written [in the Gospel],’they answered me,‘It is found written before [in the Law].’”Gainsayers set the first covenant in opposition to the second and better one.264.Thus Dr. Westcott understands the term, citing from Tertullian, De Monogamia, xi:“sciamus planè non sic esse in Graeco authentico.”Dean Burgon refers us to Routh's“Opuscula,”vol. i. pp. 151 and 206.265.Compare too Jerome's expression“ipsa authentica”(Comment. in Epist. ad Titum), when speaking of the autographs of Origen's Hexapla: below, p.263.266.The view I take is Coleridge's (Table Talk, p. 89, 2nd ed.).“I beg Tertullian's pardon; but among his manybravuras, he says something about St. Paul's autograph. Origen expressly declares the reverse;”referring, I suppose, to the passage cited below, p.263. Bp. Kaye, the very excellence of whose character almost unfitted him for entering into the spirit of Tertullian, observes:“Since the whole passage is evidently nothing more than a declamatory mode of stating the weight which he attached to the authority of the Apostolic Churches; to infer from it that the very chairs in which the Apostles sat, or that the very Epistles which they wrote, then actually existed at Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, &c., would be only to betray a total ignorance of Tertullian's style”(Kaye's“Ecclesiastical History ... illustrated from the writings of Tertullian,”p. 313, 2nd ed.). Just so: the autographs were no more in those cities than the chairs were: but it suited the purpose of the moment to suppose that they were extant; and,knowing nothing to the contrary, he boldly sends the reader in search of them.267.I do not observe, as some have thought, that Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. v. 10) intimates that the copy of St. Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew letters, left by St. Bartholomew in India, was the Evangelist's autograph; and the fancy that St. Mark wrote with his own hand the Latin fragments now at Venice (for.) is worthy of serious notice. The statement twice made in the“Chronicon Paschale,”of Alexandria, compiled in the seventh century,but full of ancient fragments, that ὡσεὶ τριτὴ was the true reading of John xix. 14“καθὼς τὰ ἀκριβῆ βιβλία περιέχει, αὐτό τε τὸ ἰδιόχειρον τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ ὅπερ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν πεφύλακται χάριτι Θεοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐφεσίων ἁγιωτάτῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν πιστῶν ἐκεῖσε προσκυνεῖται”(Dindorf, Chron. Pasch., pp. 11 and 411), is simply incredible. Isaac Casaubon, however, a most unimpeachable witness, says that this passage, and another which he cites, were found by himself in a fine fragment of the Paschal treatise of“Peter Bp. of Alexandria and martyr”[d. 311], which he got from Andrew Damarius, a Greek merchant or calligrapher (Pattison, Life of Is. Casaubon, p. 38). Casaubon adds to the assertion of Peter“Hec ille. Ego non ignoro quid adversus hanc sententiam possit disputari: de quo judicium esto eruditorum”(Exercit. in Annal. Eccles. pp. 464, 670, London, 1614).268.“I have no doubt,”says Tischendorf,“that in the very earliest ages after our Holy Scriptures were written, and before the authority of the Church protected them, wilful alterations, and especially additions, were made in them,”English N. T., 1869, Introd. p. xv.269.Caius (175-200) in Routh's“Reliquiae,”ii. 125, quoted in Burgon's“Revision Revised,”p. 323.270.“Necdum quoque Marcion Ponticus de Ponto emersisset, cujus magister Cerdon sub Hygino tunc episcopo, qui in Urbe nonus fuit, Romam venit: quem Marcion secutus...”Cyprian., Epist. 74. Cf. Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 10, 11.271.Dean Burgon attributes more importance to Marcion's mutilations.Seee.g.“The Revision Revised,”pp. 34-35.272.In 1 Cor. x. 9 Marcion seems to uphold the true reading against the judgement of Epiphanius: ὁ δὲ μαρκίων ἀντὶ τοῦκνχνἐποίησεν. Consult also Bp. Lightfoot's note (Epistle to the Colossians, p. 336, n. 1) on Heracleon's variation of πέντε for ἓξ in John ii. 20.“There is no reason to think,”he says,“that Heracleon falsified the text here; he appears to have found this various reading already in his copy.”273.SeeChap.XIon Acts xxvii. 37.274.Irenaeus' anxiety that his own works should be kept free from corruption, and the value attached by him to the labours of the corrector, are plainly seen in a remarkable subscription preserved by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. v. 20), which illustrates what has been said above, Ὁρκίζω σε τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βίβλιον τοῦτο, κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἧς ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλλῃς ὃ μετεγράψω, καὶ κατορθώσῃς αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸ ἀντίγραφον τοῦτο, ὅθεν μετεγράψω ἐπιμελῶς, καὶ τὸν ὅρκον τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψῃς, καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφῳ. Here the copyist (ὁ μεταγραφόμενος) is assumed to be the same person as the reviser or corrector. Mr. Linwood also (ubi supra, p.11) illustrates from Martial (Lib. vii. Epigram. x) the reader's natural wish to possess an author's original manuscript rather than a less perfect copy:Qui visarchetypashabere nugas. A still stronger illustration of the passage in Irenaeus (v. 30) is Linwood's citation of a well-known passage in Aulus Gellius, a contemporary of that Father, wherein he discusses with Higinus the corrupt variationamaroforamarorin Virgil, Geor. ii. 247 (Noctes Atticae, Lib. i. cap. 21).275.Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ κληθήσονται; ἤ, ὥς τινες τῶν μετατιθέντων τὰ Εὐαγγέλια, Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ὑπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἔσονται τέλειοι; καί, μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκα ἐμοῦ, ὅτι ἔξουσι τόπον ὅπου οὐ διωχθήσονται (Stromata, iv. 6). Tregelles (Horne, p. 39, note 2) pertinently remarks that Clement, in the very act of censuring others, subjoins the close of Matt. v. 9 to v. 10, and elsewhere himself ventures on liberties no less extravagant, as when he thus quotes Matt. xix. 24 (or Luke xviii. 25): πειστέον οὖν πολλῷ μᾶλλον τῇ γραφῇ λεγούσῃ, Θᾶττον κάμηλον διὰ τρυπήματος βελόνης διελεύσεσθαι, ἢ πλούσιον φιλοσοφεῖν (Stromata, ii. 5).276.In this place (contrary to what might have been inferred from the language of Irenaeus, cited above, p.262, note 2) the copyist (γραφεύς) is clearly distinct from the corrector (διορθωτής), who either alters the words that stand in the text, or adds to and subtracts from them. In Cobet's masterly Preface to his own and Kuenen's“N. T. ad fidem Cod. Vaticani,”Leyden, 1860, pp. xxvii-xxxiv, will be found most of the passages we have used that bear on the subject, with the following from classical writers,“Nota est Strabonis querela xiii. p. 609 de bibliopolis, qui libros edebant γραφεῦσι φαύλοις χρώμενοι, καὶ οὐκ ἀντιβάλλοντες... Sic in Demosthenis Codice Monacensi ad finem Orationis xi annotatum est Διωρθώθη πρὸς δύο Ἀττικιανά, id est,correctus est(hic liber)ex duobus codicibus ab Attico(nobili calligrapho)descriptis.”Just as at the end of each of Terence's plays the manuscripts read“Calliopius recensui.”277.No doubt certain that are quite or almost peculiar to Cod. D would deserve consideration if they were not destitute of adequate support. Some may be inclined to think the words cited above in vol. I. p. 8 not unworthy of Him to whom they are ascribed. The margin of the Harkleian Syriac alone countenances D in that touching appendage to Acts viii. 24, which every one must wish to be genuine, ος πολλα κλαιων ου διελυ[ι]μπανεν. Several minute facts are also inserted by D in the latter part of the same book, which are more likely to rest on traditional knowledge than to be mere exercises of an idle fancy. Such are απο ωρας ε εως δεκατης annexed to the end of Acts xix. 9: και Μυρα to Acts xxi. 1; the former of which is also found in Cod. 137 and the Harkleian margin; the latter in the Sahidic and one or two Latin copies.278.Considering that Cod. D and the Latin manuscripts contain the variation in Luke iii. 22, but not in Matt. iii. 17, we ought not to doubt that Justin Martyr (p. 331 B, ed. Paris, 1636) and Clement (p. 113, ed. Potter) refer to the former. Hence Bp. Kaye (Account of the Writings of Clement, p. 410) should not have produced this passage among others to show (what in itself is quite true) that“Clement frequently quotes from memory.”279.This point is exceedingly well stated by Canon Cook (Revised Version of the first three Gospels, p. 176):“I will not dwell upon indications of Arian tendencies. They are not such as we should be entitled to rely upon.... Eusebius was certainly above the suspicion of consciously introducing false statements or of obliterating true statements. As was the case with many supporters of the high Arian party, which came nearest to the sound orthodox faith, Eusebius was familiar with all scriptural texts which distinctly ascribe to our Lord the divine attributes and the divine name, and was far more likely to adopt an explanation which coincided with his own system, than to incur the risk of exposure and disgrace by obliterating or modifying them in manuscripts which would be always open to public inspection.”280.“This is possible, though there is no proof of it,”is Professor Abbot's comment (ubi supra, p.190, butseeabove, vol. i. p. 118, note 2).281.In the“Notitia Editionis Cod. Sin.,”1860. They are Matt. xxvii. 64-xxviii. 20; Mark i. 1-35; Luke xxiv. 24-53; John xxi. 1-25. Other like calculations, with much the same result, are given in Scrivener's“Cod. Sin.,”Introd. pp. xlii, xliii.282.And that too hardly to the credit of either of them.“Ought it not,”asks Dean Burgon,“sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value of their evidence to discover thatit is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree?... On every such occasion only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these perpetual inconsistencies between Codd. B and 8—grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross ones—altogether destroy my confidence in either?”(Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp. 77-8.)283.Magnus siquidem hic in nostris codicibus error inolevit, dum quod in eadem re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio, quia minus putaverint, addiderunt. Vel dum eundem sensum alius aliter expressit, ille qui unum e quatuor primum legerat, ad ejus exemplum ceteros quoque existimaverit emendandos.Unde accidit ut apud nos mixta sint omnia(Praef. ad Damasum).284.The precise references may be seen in Tischendorf's, and for the most part more exactly in Tregelles' N. T. That on Matt. xxiv. 36 is Tom. vii. p. 199, or vi. p. 54; on Galat. iii. 1 is Tom. vii. pp. 418, 487.285.See our note on Luke xxii. 44 below in Chap.XI. This same writer testifies to a practice already partially employed, of using breathings, accents, and stops in copies of Holy Scripture. Ἐπειδὴ δέ τινες κατὰ προσῳδίαν ἔστιζαν τὰς γραφὰς καὶ περὶ τῶν προσῳδῶν τάδε: ὀξεῖα ᾽, δασεῖα ᾽, βαρεῖα ᾽, ψιλὴ ᾽, περισπωμένη ᾽, ἀπόστροφος ᾽, μακρὰ —, ὑφὲν ᾽, βραχεῖα ᾽, ὑποδιαστολή, Ὡσαύτως καὶ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν σημείων κ.τ.λ. (Epiphan., De Mensur., c. 2, Tom. iii. p. 237 Migne). This passage may tend to confirm the statements made above, Vol. I. pp. 45-8, respecting the presence of such marks in very ancient codices, though on the whole we may not quite vouch for Sir F. Madden's opinion as regards Cod. A.286.“Evangelia quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha.”“Evangelia quae falsavit Esitius [aliiHesychiusvelIsicius], apocrypha,”occur separately in the course of a long list of spurious books (such as the Gospels of Thaddaeus, Matthias, Peter, James, that“nomine Thomae quo utuntur Manichaei,”&c.) in Appendix iii to Gelasius' works in Migne's Patrologia, Tom. lix. p. 162 [a.d.494]. But the authenticity of those decrees is far from certain, and since we hear of these falsified Gospels nowhere else, Gelasius' knowledge of them might have been derived from what he had read in Jerome's“Praef. ad Damasum.”287.Griesbach rejoices to have Hug's assent“in eo, in quo disputationis de veteribus N. T. recensionibus cardo vertitur; nempe extitisse, inde a secundo et tertio saeculo, plures sacri textûs recensiones, quarum una, si Evangelia spectes, supersit in Codice D, altera in Codd. BCL, alia in Codd. EFGHS et quae sunt reliqua”(Meletemata, p. lxviii, prefixed to“Commentarius Criticus,”Pars ii, 1811). I suppose that Tregelles must have overlooked this decisive passage (probably the last its author wrote for the public eye) when he states that Griesbach now“virtually gave up his system”as regards the possibility of“drawing an actual line of distinction between his Alexandrian and Western recensions”(An Account of the Printed Text, p. 91). He certainly showed, throughout his“Commentarius Criticus,”that Origen does not lend him the support he had once anticipated; but he still held that the theory of a triple recension was the veryhingeon which the whole question turned, and clung to that theory as tenaciously as ever.Third Edition.Dr. Hort (N. T., Introd. p. 186) has since confirmed our opinion that Griesbach was faithful to the last to the essential characteristics of his theory, adding that“the Meletemata of 1811 ... reiterate Griesbach's familiar statements in precise language, while they show a growing perception of mixture which might have led him to further results if he had not died in the following spring.”288.It should be also observed that ΦΣ containing SS. Matthew and Mark are probably older than D.289.E.g. Matt. i. 18; Acts viii. 37 for Irenaeus: Acts xiii. 33 for Origen. It is rare indeed that the express testimony of a Father is so fully confirmed by the oldest copies as in John i. 28, where Βηθανίᾳ, said by Origen to be σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, actually appears in א*ABC*.290.This view is controverted in Burgon's“Remains.”291.Mr. A. A. Vansittart, Journal of Philology, vol. ii. No. 3, p. 35. I suppose too that Mr. Hammond means much the same thing when he says,“It seems almost superfluous to affirm thatevery element of evidence must be allowed its full weight; but it is a principle that must not be forgotten.”(Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 93, 2nd edition.) Truly it is not superfluous to insist on this principle when we so perpetually find the study of the cursive manuscripts disparaged by the use of what we may venture to call the Caliph Omar's argument, that if they agree with the older authorities their evidence is superfluous, if they contradict them, it is necessarily false.292.The evidence of Evan. R, which contains only the decisive letters ΝΗΡΟΥ, is the more valuable, inasmuch as it has been alleged to support the readings of documents of the other class (which no doubt it often does) and thus to afford a confirmation of their authority; it cannot help them much when its vote is against them. On analyzing the 908 readings for which R is cited in Tischendorf's eighth edition, I find that it sides with A, the representative of the one class, 356 times; with its better reputed rival B 157 times, where A and B are at variance. It is with A alone of the great uncials 101 times, with B alone four, with א alone five, with C alone (but C is lost in 473 places out of the 908) six; with D alone twenty-four. Some of its other combinations are instructive. It is with AC forty-two times and with ACL sixteen; with AD fifty-one and with ADL eighteen; with אB eleven and with אBL twenty-nine; with אL nine times; with AL nineteen; with BL fifteen; with CL never; with DL twice. Cod. R stands unsupported by any of the preceding eighty-nine times, seldom without some countenance (but see Luke xi. 24 ἐκ), such as the Memphitic version, or later codices. In the places where its fragments coincide with those of Cod. Ξ (which is much more friendly to B) they agree 127 times, differ 105.293.Dean Burgon avers that he is thoroughly convinced that“no reading can be of real importance—I mean has a chance of beingtrue—which is witnessed to exclusively by a very few copies, whether uncial or cursive.... Nothing else are such extraordinary readings,wherever they may happen to be found, but fragments of primitive error, repudiated by the Church (‘a witness and keeper of Holy Writ’) in her corporate capacity.”(Letter in theGuardian, July 12, 1882.) I cannot go quite so far as this. [Dean Burgon has left his reply.]294.Not that we can in any way assent to the notions of Canon T. R. Birks (Essay on the right estimation of manuscript evidence in the text of the N. T., 1878), whose proposition that“Constant increase of error is no certain and inevitable result of repeated transcription”(p. 33) is true enough in itself, though we cannot follow him when he adds that“Errors, after they have found entrance, may be removed as well as increased in later copies. A careful scribe may not only make fewer mistakes of his own, but he may correct manifest faults of the manuscript from which he copies, and avail himself of the testimony of others, so as to revise and improve the text of that on which he chiefly relies.”Only such a scribe would no longer be a witness for the state of the text as extant in his generation, but a critical editor, working on principles of his own, whether good or bad alike unknown to us.295.Very pertinent to this matter is a striking extract from J. G. Reiche (a critic“remarkable for extent and accuracy of learning, and for soundness and sobriety of judgement,”as Canon Cook vouches, Revised Version, p. 4), given in Bloomfield's“Critical Annotations on the Sacred Text,”p. 5, note:“In multis sanè N. T. locis lectionis variae, iisque gravissimi argumenti, de verâ scripturâ judicium firmum et absolutum, quo acquiescere possis, ferri nequit, nisi omnium subsidiorum nostrorum alicujus auctoritatis suffragia, et interna veri falsique indicia, diligenter explorata, justâ lance expendantur.... Quod in causâ est, ut re non satis omni ex parte circumspectâ, non solum critici tantopere inter se dissentiant, sed etiam singuli sententiam suam toties retractent atque commutent.”In the same spirit Lagarde, speaking of the more recent manuscripts of the Septuagint, thus protests:“Certum est eos non a somniis monachorum undecimi vel alius cujusquam saeculi natos, sed ex archetypis uncialibus aut ipsos aut intercedentibus aliis derivatos. Unde elucet criticum acuto judicio et doctrinâ probabili instructum codicibus recentioribus collectis effecturum esse (?) quid in communi plurium aliquorum archetypo scriptum fuerit”(Genesis, p. 19). Compare also Canon Cook, Revised Version of the First Three Gospels, p. 5.296.“So extravagant a statement could scarcely be deemed worthy of the elaborate confutation with which Dr. Scrivener has condescended to honour it”(Saturday Review, Aug. 20, 1881). Yet this scheme of“Comparative Criticism made easy”has obtained, for its childlike simplicity, more acceptance than the reviewer could reasonably suppose. Dr. Hort, of course, speaks very differently:“B must be regarded as having preserved not only a very ancient text, but a very pure line of very ancient text, and that with comparatively small depravation either by scattered ancient corruptions otherwise attested or by individualisms of the scribe himself. On the other hand, to take it as the sole authority except where it contains self-betraying errors, as some have done, is an unwarrantable abandonment of criticism, and in our opinion inevitably leads to erroneous results”(Introd. p. 250).297.The textual labours of the Cambridge duumvirate have received all the fuller consideration in the learned world by reason of their authors having been members of the New Testament Revision Company, in whose deliberations they had a real influence, though, as a comparison of their text with that adopted by the Revisionists might easily have shown, by no means a preponderating one. I have carefully studied the chief criticisms which have been published on the controversy, without materially adding to the acquaintance with the subject which nearly eleven years of familiar conference with my colleagues had necessarily brought to me. The formidable onslaught on Dr. Hort's and Bishop Westcott's principles in three articles in theQuarterly Review[afterwards published together with additions in“The Revision Revised”] especially in the number for April, 1882, and Canon F. C. Cook's“Revised Version of the First Three Gospels”(1882), must be known to most scholars, and abound with materials from which a final judgement may be formed.“The Ely Lectures on the Revised Version of the N. T.”(1882), which my friend and benefactor Canon Kennedy was pleased to inscribe to myself, are none the less valuable for their attempt to hold the balance even between opposite views of the questions at issue. The host of pamphlets and articles in periodicals which the occasion has called forth could hardly be enumerated in detail, but some of them have been used with due acknowledgement in Chap.XII.298.We are concerned not with names but with things, so that Dr. Hort may give hisignis fatuuswhat appellation he likes, only why he calls it Syrian it is hard to determine. The notices connecting his imaginary revision with Lucian of Antioch which we have given above he feels to be insufficient, for he says no more than that“the conjecture derives some little support from a passage of Jerome, which is not itself discredited by the precariousness of the modern theories which have been suggested by it”(Hort, p. 138).299.SeeBurgon's“The Revision Revised,”pp. 271-288.300.Other examples may be seen in our notes in Chap. XII on Luke ii. 14 for Methodius; Luke xxii. 43, 44 for Hippolytus again; Luke xxiii. 34 for Irenaeus and Origen. Add Luke x. 1 for Irenaeus (p. 546, note 1); xxiii. 45 (Hippolytus); John xiii. 24 (Clem. Alex.); 2 Cor. xii. 7 (Iren. Orig.); Mark xvi. 17, 18 (Hippol.).Seealso Miller's“Textual Guide,”pp. 84, 85, where 165 passages on fifteen texts are gathered from writers before St. Chrysostom.301.For reasons which will be readily understood, we have quoted sparingly from the trenchant article in theQuarterly Review, April, 1882, but the following summary of the consequences of a too exclusive devotion to Codd. אB seems no unfit comment on the facts of the case:“Thus it would appear that the Truth of Scripture has run a very narrow risk of being lost for ever to mankind. Dr. Hort contends that it more than half layperduon a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;—Dr. Tischendorf that it had found its way into a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine at the foot of Mount Sinai—from which he rescued it on February 4, 1859:—neither, we venture to think, a very likely supposition. We incline to believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by any means shown Himself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these learned persons imagine”(p. 365). The Revision Revised, p. 343.302.SeeAppendixof passages at the end of this chapter. Yet while refusing without hesitation the claim of themonstrawhich follow to be regarded as a part of the sacred text, we are by no means insensible to the fact impressed upon us by the Dean of Llandaff, that there are readings which conciliate favour the more we think over them: it being the special privilege of Truth always to grow upon candid minds. We subjoin his persuasive words:“It is deeply interesting to take note of the process of thought and feeling which attends in one's own mind the presentation of some unfamiliar reading. At first sight the suggestion is repelled as unintelligible, startling, almost shocking. By degrees, light dawns upon it—it finds its plea and its palliation. At last, in many instances, it is accepted as adding force and beauty to the context, and a conviction gradually forms itself that thus and not otherwise was it written.”(Vaughan, Epistle to Romans, Preface to the third edition, p. xxi.)303.Thus far we are in agreement with the“Two Members of the N. T. Company,”however widely we may differ from their general views:“The great contribution of our own times to a mastery over materials has been the clearer statement of the method of genealogy, and, by means of it, the corrected distribution of the great mass of documentary evidence”(p. 19). Only that arbitrary theories ought to be kept as far as possible out of sight.304.So that we may be sure what we should have found in Cod. D, and with high probability in Cod. E, were they not defective, when in Acts xxvii. 5 we observe δι᾽ ἡμερῶν δεκάπεντε inserted after διαπλεύσαντες in 137, 184, and the Harkleian margin with an asterisk; as also when we note in Acts xxviii. 16 ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς before σύν in the last two and indemid.305.E.g. Luke xxiv. 3 τοῦ κυρίου ἰησοῦ omitted by D,abeff2l; ver. 6 οὐκ ἔστιν ὦδε ἀλλὰ ἠγέρθη (comp. Mark xvi. 6), omitted by the same; ver. 9 ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου by the same, bycand the Armenian; the whole of ver. 12, by the same (exceptff2) withfuld., but surely not by the Jerusalem Syriac, even according to Tischendorf's showing, or by Eusebius' canon, for he knew the verse well (comp. John xx. 5); ver. 36 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, εἰρήνη ὑμῖν omitted by D,abeff2las before (comp. John xx. 19, 26); the whole of ver. 40, omitted by the same and by Cureton's Syriac (comp. John xx. 20); ver. 51 καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν and ver. 52 προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν omitted by the same and by Augustine, the important clause in ver. 51 by א* also, and consequently by Tischendorf. Yet, as if to show how mixed the evidence is, D desertsabff2lwhen, in company with a host of authorities, both manuscripts and versions (fq, Vulgate, Bohairic, Syriac, and others), they annex καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου to the end of ver. 42.Seealso Luke x. 41, 42; xxii. 19, 20, discussed in Chap.XII.306.So of certain of the chief versions we sometimes hear it said that they are less important in the rest of the N. T. than in the Gospels; which means that in the former they side less with אB.307.Canon Kennedy, whose“Ely Lectures”exhibit, to say the least, no prejudice against the principles enunciated in Dr. Hort's Introduction, is good enough to commend the four rules here set forth to the attention of his readers (p. 159, note). The first three were stated in my first edition (1861), the fourth added in the second edition (1874), and, while they will not satisfy the advocates of extreme views on either side, suffice to intimate the terms on which the respective claims of the uncial and cursive manuscripts, of the earlier and the more recent authorities, may, in my deliberate judgement, be equitably adjusted.308.Dean Burgon held that too much deference is here paid to the mere antiquity of those which happen to be the oldest MSS., but are not the oldest authorities. He would therefore enlarge the grounds of judgement.309.The harmony subsisting between B and the Sahidic in characteristic readings, for which they stand almost or quite alone, is well worth notice: e.g. Acts xxvii. 37; Rom. xiii. 13; Col. iii. 6; Heb. iii. 2; 1 John ii. 14; 20.310.“The intrinsic evidence seems immoveable against the insertion.”Textual Criticism of the N. T., B. B. Warfield, D.D., p. 135.311.Yet in Penn's“Annotations to the Vatican Manuscripts”(1837)“The restoration of this verse to its due place”is described as“the most important circumstance of this [sc. his own] revision.”Its omission is imputed to“the undue influence of a criticism of Origen [ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀποθανόντος], whom Jerome followed.”312.“This gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of history—a reading as preposterous as it is revolting,”is the vigorous protest of Dean Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 68, note.313.“Post enim duodecim apostolos septuaginta alios Dominus noster ante se misisse invenitur; septuaginta autem nec octonario numero neque denario”(Irenaeus, p. 146, Massuet). Tertullian, just a little later (re-echoed by the younger Cyril), compares the Apostles with the twelve wells at Elim (Ex. xv. 27), the seventy with the three-score and ten palm-trees there (Adv. Marc. iv. 24). So Eusebius thrice, Basil and Ambrose. On the other hand in the Recognitions of Clement, usually assigned to the second or third century, the number adopted is seventy-two,“vel hoc modo recognitâ imagine Moysis”and of his elders, traditionally set down at that number. Compare Num. xi. 16. Epiphanius, Hilary (Scholz), and Augustine are also with Cod. B.314.To enable us to translate“a son, nay even an ox,”would require ἢ καί, which none read. The argument, moreover, is onea minori ad majus. Compare Ex. xxi. 33 with Ex. xxiii. 4; ch. xiii. 15.315.Let me addex meoCodd. 22, 219, 492, 547, 549, 558, 559, 576, 582, 584, 594, 596, 597, 598, 601, being no doubt a large majority of cursives. So Cod. 662, apparently after correction.316.But not in the Beirût MS. discovered in 1877 by Dr. Is. H. Hall.317.A more ludicrous blunder of Cod. B has been pointed out to me in the Old Testament, Ps. xvii. 14“they have children at their desire”: ΕΧΟΡΤΑΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΫΙΩΝ Cod. A, but ΕΧΟΡΤΑΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΫΕΙΩΝ Cod. B. The London papyrus has ΥΩΝ for ΥΙΩΝ.318.Codex P is of far greater value than others of its own date. It is frequently found in the company of B, sometimes alone, sometimes with other chief authorities, especially in the Catholic Epistles, e.g. James iv. 15; v. 4; 14; 2 Pet. i. 17 (partly); ii. 6; 1 John ii. 20.319.We note many small variations between the text of these critics as communicated to the Revisers some years before, and that finally published in 1881. The latter, of course, we have treated as their standard.320.This precious cursive forms one of a small class which in the Catholic Epistles and sometimes in the Acts conspire with the best uncials in upholding readings of the higher type: the other members are 69, 137, 182, to which will sometimes be added the text or margin of the Harkleian Syriac, Codd. 27, 29, the second hands of 57 and 66, 100, 180, 185, and particularly 221, which is of special interest in these Epistles. The following passages, examined by means of Tischendorf's notes, will prove what is here alleged: 1 Pet. iii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 4; 21; ii. 6; 11; 1 John i. 5; 7; 8; ii. 19; iii. 1; 19; 22; iv. 19; v. 5.321.Notice especially those instances in the Catholic Epistles, wherein the primary authorities are comparatively few, in which Cod. B accords with the later copies against Codd. אA(C), and is also supported by internal evidence: e.g. 1 Pet. iii. 18; iv. 14; v. 2; 2 Pet. ii. 20; 1 John ii. 10; iii. 23, &c. In 1 John iii. 21, where the first ἡμῶν is omitted by A and others, the second by C almost alone, B seems right in rejecting the word in both places. So in other cases internal probabilities occasionally plead strongly in favour of B, when it has little other support: as in Rom. viii. 24, where τίς ἐλπίζει; as against τις, τί καὶ ἐλπίζει; though B and the margin of Cod. 47 stand alone here, best accounts for the existence of other variations (seep.248). In Eph. v. 22, B alone, with Clement and Jerome, the latter very expressly, omits the verb in a manner which can hardly fail to commend itself as representing the true form of the passage. In Col. iii. 6, B, the Sahidic, the Roman Ethiopic, Clement (twice), Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, and auct. de singl. cler., are alone free from the clause interpolated from Eph. v. 6.322.Viz. Luke i. 1-4, some portion of the Gospel and most of the Acts: excluding such cases as St. Stephen's speech, Acts vii, and the parts of his Gospel which resemble in style, and were derived from the same sources as, those of SS. Matthew and Mark.323.Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 141) confirms the foregoing statements, which we have repeated unchanged from our former editions.“What spellings are sufficiently probable to deserve inclusion among alternative readings, is often difficult to determine. Although many deviations from classical orthography are amply attested, many others, which appear to be equally genuine, are found in one, two, or three MSS. only, and that often with an irregularity which suggests that all our MSS. have to a greater or less extent suffered from the effacement of unclassical forms of words. It is no less true on the other hand that a tendency in the opposite direction is discernible in Western MSS.: the orthography of common life, which to a certain extent was used by all the writers of the New Testament, though in unequal degrees, would naturally be introduced more freely in texts affected by an instinct of popular adaptation.”324.E.g. Aeschylus, Persae, 411: κόρυμβ᾽, ἐπ᾽ ἄλλην δ᾽ ἄλλος ἴθυνεν δόρυ, or Sophocles, Antigone, 219: τὸ μὴ πιχωρεῖν τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσιν τάδε.325.Cod. א, for instance, does not omit it above 208 times throughout the N. T., out of which 134 occur with verbs (three so as to cause a hiatus), 29 with nouns, 45 with adjectives (chiefly πᾶσι) or participles (Scrivener, Collation, &c., p. liv). Its absence produces the hiatus in B*C in 1 Pet. ii. 18 (ἐπιεικέσι), and not seldom in B, e.g. 1 Pet. iv. 6, where we find κριθῶσι and ζῶσι, which latter is countenanced by A, and both by אL.326.Wake 12 (Evan. 492), of the eleventh century, may be taken for a fair representative of its class and date. It retains ν with εἶπεν thirty-three times in St. Matthew, thirteen in St. Mark, as often as 130 in St. Luke. With other words it mostly reserves ν to indicate emphasis (e.g. Luke xxii. 14; xxiv. 30), or to stand before a break in the sense.327.The terminations which admit this moveable ν (including -ει of the pluperfect) are enumerated by Donaldson (Gr. Gram. p. 53). Tischendorf, however (N. T., Proleg. p. liv), demurs to εἴκοσιν, even before a vowel.328.With the remarkable exception of those six leaves of Cod. א which Tischendorf assigns to the scribe who wrote Cod. B. In these leaves of Cod. א Ἰωάνης occurs four times: Matt. xvi. 14; xvii. 1; 13; Luke i. 13, in which last passage, however, B has the doublenu.329.These last might be supposed to have originated from the omission or insertion of the faint line for ν over the preceding letter, which (especially at the end of a line) we stated in Vol. I. p. 50 to be found even in the oldest manuscripts. Sometimes the anomalous form is much supported by junior as well as by ancient codices: e.g. θυγατέραν, Luke xiii. 16 by KXΓ*Λ, 209, also by 69, and ten others of Scrivener's.330.Thus Canon Selwyn cites from Lycophron κἀπὸ γῆς ἐσχάζοσαν, and Dr. Moulton (Winer, p. 91, note 5), after Mullach, ἔσχοσαν from Scymnus Chius.331.Tregelles presses yet another argument:“If Alexandrian forms had been introduced into the N. T. by Egyptian copyists, how comes it that the classical MSS. written in that country are free from them?”(An Account of the Printed Text, p. 178). But what classical MSS. does he know of, written while Egypt was yet Greek or Christian, and now extant for our inspection? I can only think of Cureton's Homer and Babington's papyri.332.“It is hard to make St. Paul responsible for vulgarisms or provincialisms, which certainly his pen never wrote, and which there can be no proof that his lips ever uttered”(Epistle to the Romans, Preface to the third edition, p. xxi) is Dean Vaughan's comment on this“barbarism.”He regards the Apostle's habit of dictating his letters as a“sufficient reason for broken constructions, for participles without verbs, for suspended nominatives, for sudden digressions, for fresh starts.”333.Dr. Hort, however, accepts the form ἐφ᾽ in this place, aspirating ἐλπίδι, and in the same way favours but does not print οὐχ ὁλίγος eight times in the Acts, adding that although ὁλίγος“has no lost digamma to justify it, like some others, it may nevertheless have been in use in the apostolic age: it occurs in good MSS. of the LXX”(Introd., Notes, p. 143).334.“A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek regarded as the basis of N. T. Exegesis. By Dr. G. B. Winer. Translated from the German with large additions and full indices by Rev. W. F. Moulton, M. A., D. D.,”third edition revised, 8vo, Edinburgh, 1882. The forthcoming“Prolegomena”to Tischendorf's N. T. eighth edition (pp. 71-126), to which the kindness of Dr. Caspar René Gregory has given me access, contain a store of fresh materials on this subject; and Dr. Hort's“Notes on Orthography”(Introd., Notes, pp. 143-173) will afford invaluable aid to the student who is ever so little able to accept some of his conclusions. See also on the more general subject Dr. Neubauer's Article in the first issue of the Oxford“Studia Biblica”on“The Dialects of Palestine in the Time of Christ.”He controverts Dr. Roberts' opinion that“Christ spoke for the most part in Greek, and only now and then in Aramaic.”And he distinguishes between the Babylonian Aramaic, the Galilean Aramaic, and the dialect spoken at Jerusalem, which had more of Hebrew.335.In Acts ix. 34 Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, the article between them being rejected, is read by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, on the adequate authority of אB*C, 13, 15, 18, 68, 111, 180, and a catena (probably also Cod. 36), with one or two Fathers, although against AEP, 31, 61, &c.336.I know not why Tischendorf cites Cod. 71 (gscr) for the omission of Ἰησοῦ. I have again consulted the MS. at Lambeth, and findἰῦin this place.337.Seeabove, I. 130. The precise relation of the Latin Version of Cod. D to the parallel Greek text is fully examined in Scrivener's“Codex Bezae,”Introduction, chap. iii.338.Mr. E. B. Nicholson, Bodley's Librarian, doubts the conclusiveness of Irenaeus' Latin here“because his copyist was in the habit of altering him into accordance with the oldest Latin version; and because his argument is just as strong if we readJesu Christi autemas if we readChristi. The argument requiresChristi, but does not in the least require it as againstJesu Christi.”339.“The clearly Western Τοῦ δὲ χριστοῦ,”as Dr. Hort admits,“is intrinsically free from objection, ... yet it cannot be confidently accepted. The attestation is unsatisfactory, for no other Western omission of a solitary word in the Gospels has any high probability”(N. T., Notes, p. 7). He retains ψευδόμενοι, Matt. v. 11.340.Why should Gregory Nyssen (371) be classed among the opponents of the clause, whereas Griesbach honestly states,“suam expositionem his quidem verbis concludit: [ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ τὴν ἰσχὺν κεκτημένου, οὗ ῥυσθείημεν] χάριτι [τοῦ] χριστοῦ, ὅτι αὐτοῦ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα ἅμα τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν”? Griesbach adds indeed,“sed pro parte sacri textûs neutiquam haec habuisse videtur;”and justly: they were rather aloose paraphraseof the sentence before him.SeeTextual Guide, Edward Miller, App. V.341.Canon Cook (Revised Version, p. 57) alleges as a probable cause of the general omission of the doxology in early Latin Versions and Fathers, that in all the Western liturgies it is separated from the petitions preceding by an intercalatedEmbolismus. More weighty is his observation that all the Greek Fathers, from Chrysostom onwards, who deal with the interpretation of the Lord's Prayer,“agree with that great expositor in maintaining the important bearings [of the doxology] upon the preceding petitions.”342.“Quite a test-passage”Mr. Hammond calls it (Outlines of Text. Crit., p. 76).343.Third Edition.I would fain side in this instance with my revered friend and Revision colleague Dr. David Brown of Aberdeen, and all my prepossessions are strongly in favour of thetextus receptushere. He is quite right in perceiving (Christian Opinion and Revisionist, p. 435) that the key of his position lies in the authenticity of ἀγαθέ ver. 16, which is undoubtedly found in Mark x. 17; Luke xviii. 18. If that word had abided unquestioned here, the form of reply adopted in the other two Gospels would have inevitably followed. As the case stands, there is not considerably less evidence for omitting ἀγαθέ (אBDL, 1, 22, 479, Evst. 5 [not“five Evangelistaria”],aeff1, Eth., Origen twice, Hilary) than for Τί με ἐρωτᾷς κ.τ.λ., although Cureton's and the Jerusalem Syriac, the Bohairic, and the Vulgate with some other Latin copies, change sides here. It is upon these recreant versions that Dr. Brown must fix the charge of inconsistency. If ἀγαθέ be an interpolation, surely τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω is pertinently answered by Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ.344.Canon Westcott (Smith's“Dictionary of the Bible,”Vulgate Version) adds Bodl. 857; Brit. Mus. Reg.iB. vii, and Reg.i. A. xviii in part, also Addit. 24,142 by the second hand. Tischendorf also citestheotisc.345.No passage more favours Bp. Middleton's deliberate conclusion respecting the history of the Codex Bezae:“I believe that no fraud was intended: but only that the critical possessor of the basis filled its margin with glosses and readings chiefly from the Latin, being a Christian of the Western Church; and that the whole collection of Latin passages was translated into Greek, and substituted in the text by some one who had a high opinion of their value, and who was, as Wetstein describes him,‘καλλιγραφίας quàm vel Graecae vel Latinae linguae peritior.’”(Doctrine of the Greek Article, Appendix I. p. 485, 3rd edition.)346.I see no reasonable ground for imagining with Lachmann that Origen who, as he truly observes,“non solet difficilia praeterire,”did not find in his copy anything between πατρός; and Ἀμήν in ver. 31. On the supposition that he read πρῶτος there was no difficulty to slur over. Moreover, there is not a vestige of evidence for omitting λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ ἰησοῦς, the existence of which words Lachmann clearly perceived to be fatal to his ingenious guess, although Dr. Hort will only allow that it“weakens his suggestion,”adding in his quiet way“This phrase might easily seem otiose if it followed immediately on words of Christ, and might thus be thought to imply the intervention of words spoken by others”(Notes, p. 17).347.Jerome conceives that the Jews“intellegere quidem veritatem, sed tergiversari, et nolle dicere quod sentiunt;”and so Canon G. F. Goddard, Rector of Southfleet, believed that their wantonly false answer brought on them the Lord's stern rebuke. Hilary's idea is even more far-fetched: viz. that though the second son disobeyed, it was because hecouldnot execute the command.“Non ait noluisse sed non abisse. Res extra culpam infidelitatis est, quia in facti erat difficultate ne fieret.”348.His sole example is ὁδὸν ποιεῖν Mark ii. 23, which seems not at all parallel. The phrase may as well signify to“clear away”as“make their way.”349.πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει is the reading of Abbott's four and of Codd. 28, 122, 541, 561, 572, Evst. 196.350.Which is certainly its meaning in Lucian, Tom. ii. p. 705 (Salmur. 1619); I know no example like that in St. Mark.351.I have ventured but slowly to vouch for Tischendorf's notion, that six leaves of Cod. א,that containingMark xvi. 2-Luke i. 56being one of them, were written by the scribe of Cod. B. On mere identity of handwriting and the peculiar shape of certain letters who shall insist? Yet there are parts of the case which I know not how to answer, and which have persuaded even Dr. Hort. Having now arrived at this conclusion our inference is simple and direct, that at least in these leaves, Codd. אB make but one witness, not two.352.The cases of Nehemiah, Tobit, and Daniel, in the Old Testament portion of Cod. B, are obviously in no wise parallel in regard to their blank columns.353.Of which supplement Dr. Hort says unexpectedly enough,“In style it is unlike the ordinary narratives of the Evangelists, but comparable to the four introductory verses of St. Luke's Gospel”(Introduction, p. 298).354.We ought to add that some Armenian codices which contain the paragraph have the subscription“Gospel after Mark”at the end of ver. 8 as well as of ver. 20, as though their scribes, like Cod. L's, knew of a double ending to the Gospel.355.Burgon (Guardian, July 12, 1882) speaks of seven manuscripts (Codd. 538, 539 being among them) wherein these last twelve verses begin on the right hand of the page. This would be more significant if a space were left, as is not stated, at the foot of the preceding page. In Cod. 550 the first letter α is small, but covers an abnormally large space.356.Of course no notice is to be taken of τέλος after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, as the end of the ecclesiastical lesson is all that is intimated. The grievous misstatements of preceding critics from Wetstein and Scholz down to Tischendorf, have been corrected throughout by means of Burgon's laborious researches (Burgon, pp. 114-123).357.The minute variations between these several codices are given by Burgon (Appendix E, pp. 288-90). Cod. 255 contains a scholion imputed to Eusebius, from which Griesbach had drawn inferences which Burgon (Last Twelve Verses, &c., Postscript, pp. 319-23) has shown to be unwarranted by the circumstances of the case.358.Dr. C. Taylor, Master of St. John's College, Cambridge, inThe Expositorfor July, 1893, quotes more evidence from Justin Martyr—hinting that some also remains behind—proving that that Father was familiar with these verses. Also he cites several passages from the Epistle of Barnabas in which traces of them occur, and from the Quartodeciman controversy, and from Clement of Rome. The value of the evidence which Dr. Taylor's acute vision has discovered consists chiefly in its cumulative force. From familiarity with the passage numerous traces of it arose; or as Dr. Taylor takes the case reversely, from the fact of the occurrence of numerous traces evident to a close observer, it is manifest that there pre-existed in the minds of the writers a familiarity with the language of the verses in question.359.It is surprising that Dr. Hort, who lays very undue stress upon the silence of certain early Christian writers that had no occasion for quoting the twelve verses in their extant works, should say of Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived abouta.d.349, that his“negative evidence is peculiarly cogent”(Notes, p. 37). To our mind it is not at all negative. Preaching on a Sunday, he reminds his hearers of a sermon he had delivered the day before, and which he would have them keep in their thoughts. One of the topics he briefly recalls is the article of the Creed τὸν καθίσαντα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρός. He must inevitably have used Mark xvi. 19 in his Saturday's discourse.360.Several of these references are derived from“The Revision Revised,”p. 423.361.Nor were these verses used in the Greek Church only. Vers. 9-20 comprised the Gospel for Easter Monday in the old Spanish or Mozarabic Liturgy, for Easter Tuesday among the Syrian Jacobites, for Ascension Day among the Armenians. Vers. 12-20 was the Gospel for Ascension Day in the Coptic Liturgy (Malan, Original Documents, iv. p. 63): vers. 16-20 in the old LatinComes.362.To get rid of one apparent ἀντιφωνία, that arising from the expression πρωῒ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου (sic), ver. 9, compared with ὀψὲ σαββάτων Matt. xxviii. 1, Eusebius proposes the plan of setting a stop between Ἀναστὰς δέ and πρωΐ, so little was he satisfied with rudely expunging the whole clause. Hence Cod. E puts a red cross after δέ: Codd. 20, 22, 34, 72, 193, 196, 199, 271, 345, 405, 411, 456, have a colon: Codd. 332, 339, 340, 439, a comma (Burgon,Guardian, Aug. 20, 1873).363.The following peculiarities have been noticed in these verses: ἐκεῖνος used absolutely, vers. 10, 11, 13; πορεύομαι vers. 10, 12, 15; τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις ver. 10; θεάομαι vers. 11, 14; ἀπιστέω vers. 11, 16; μετὰ ταῦτα ver. 12; ἕτερος ver. 12; παρακολουθέω ver. 17; ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ver. 17; κύριος for the Saviour, vers. 19, 20; πανταχοῦ, συνεργοῦντος, βεβαιόω, ἐπακολουθέω ver. 20, all of them as not found elsewhere in St. Mark. A very able and really conclusive plea for the genuineness of the paragraph, as coming from that Evangelist's pen, appeared in theBaptist Quarterly, Philadelphia, July, 1869, bearing the signature of Professor J. A. Broadus, of South Carolina. Unfortunately, from the nature of the case, it does not admit of abridgement. Burgon's ninth chapter (pp. 136-190) enters into full details, and amply justifies his conclusion that the supposed adverse argument from phraseology“breaks down hopelessly under severe analysis.”364.“Can any one, who knows the character of the Lord and of His ministry, conceive for an instant that we should be left with nothing but a message baulked through the alarm of women”(Kelly, Lectures Introductory to the Gospels, p. 258). Even Dr. Hort can say:“it is incredible that the Evangelist deliberately concluded either a paragraph with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, or the Gospel with a petty detail of a secondary event, leaving his narrative hanging in the air”(Notes, p. 46).365.When Burgon ventures upon a surmise, one which is probability itself by the side of those we have been speaking of, Professor Abbot (ubi supra, p.197) remarks upon it that“With Mr. Burgon a conjecture seems to be a demonstration.”We will not be deterred by dread of any such reproach from mentioning his method of accounting for the absence of these verses from some very early copies, commending it to the reader for what it may seem worth. After a learned and exhaustive proof that the Church lessons, as we now have them, existed from very early times (Twelve Verses, pp. 191-211), and noting that an important lesson ended with Mark xvi. 8 (seeCalendar of Lessons); he supposes that τέλος, which would stand at the end of such a lesson, misled some scribe who had before him anexemplarof the Gospels whose last leaf (containing Mark xvi. 9-20, or according to Codd. 20, 215, 300 only vers. 16-20) was lost, as it might easily be in those older manuscripts wherein St. Mark stood last.366.The Codex lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis is said to omit the verses. But what is that against a host of other codices? And when the other MS. of the Curetonian includes the verses? Positive testimony is worth more than negative.367.Dr. Hort, however, while he admits the possibility of the leaf containing vers. 9-20 having been lost in some very early copy, which thus would become the parent of transcripts having a mutilated text (Notes, p. 49), rather inconsistently arrives at the conclusion that the passage in question“manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the apostolic age”(ibid.p. 51).368.Dr. Hort will hardly find many friends for his division (Notes, p. 56),Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς,Εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.369.I am loth to sully with a semblance of unseasonable levity a page which is devoted to the vindication of the true form of the Angelic Hymn, and must ask the student to refer for himself to the 470th number of theSpectator, where what we will venture to call a precisely parallel case exercises the delicate humour of Addison.“So many ancient manuscripts,”he tells us, concur in this last reading,“that I am very much in doubt whether it ought not to take place. There are but two reasons which incline me to the reading as I have published it: first, because the rhyme, and secondly, because the sense, is preserved by it.”370.This torrent of testimony includes ninety-two places, of which“Tischendorf knew of only eleven, Tregelles adduces only six”(R. R., p. 45, note).371.Every word uttered by such a scholar as Dr. Field (d. 1885) is so valuable that no apology can be needed for citing the following critique from his charming“Otium Norvicense,”Part iii. p. 36, on the reading εὐδοκίας and the rendering“among men in whom he is well pleased.”“To which it may be briefly objected (1)that it ruins the stichometry; (2) that it separates ἐν from εὐδοκία, the word with which it is normally construed; (3) that‘men of good pleasure’(אנשי רצון) would be, according to Graeco-biblical usage, not ἄνθρωποι εὐδοκίας, but ἄνδρες εὐδοκίας; (4) that the turn of the sentence, ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, very much resembles the second clause of Prov. xiv. 9: ובין ישרים רצון rendered by Symmachus καὶ ἀναμέσον εὐθέων εὐδοκία.”But this is almost slaying the slain.372.Κυριακὴ δευτεροπρώτη is cited by Sophocles in his Lexicon from“Eustr. 2381 B”in the sense oflow Sunday(McClellan, N. T., p. 690). Canon Cook conjectures that it may mean the first sabbath in the second month (Iyar), precisely the time when wheat would be fully ripe (Revised Version, p. 69). [More probably it is“the first sabbath after the second day of the Passover.”] On the other hand,“If the word be a reality and originally in the text, its meaning, since in that case it must have been borrowed from something in the Jewish calendar, would have been traditionally known from the first.”(Green, Course of Developed Criticism, p. 56.) But why would it? The fancy that δευτεροπρώτῳ had its origin in numerals of reference (B A) set in the margin will most commend itself to such scholars as are under the self-imposed necessity of upholding Codd. אB united against all other evidence, of whatever kind.373.Just as Jerome, speaking of the latter part of 1 Cor. vii. 35, says,“In Lat. Codd.ob translationis difficultatemhoc penitus non invenitur.”(Vallars. ii. 261, as Burgon points out.)374.Dr. Hort and theQuarterly Reviewer(October, 1881, p. 348) almost simultaneously called attention to the question put by Jerome to his teacher Gregory of Nazianzus as to the meaning of this word.“Docebo te super hac re in ecclesia”was the only reply he obtained; on which Jerome's comment is,Eleganter lusit(Hier.ad Nepotianum, Ep. 52). Neither of these great Fathers could explain a term which neither doubted to be written by the Evangelist.375.Cyril applies the whole passage to enforce the duty of exercising with frugality the Christian duty of entertaining strangers:“And this He did for our benefit, that He might fix a limit to hospitality”(Dean Payne Smith's Translation, pp. 317-20).376.Praelectio in Scholis Cantabrigiensibus habita Februarii die decimo quarto,mdcccl, quâ ... Lucae pericopam (xxii. 17-20) multis ante saeculis conturbatam vetustissimorum ope codicum in pristinam formam restituebat, Cathedram Theologicam ambiens, J. W. Blakesley, S. T. B., Coll. SS. Trinitatis nuper Socius (Cambridge, 1850).377.“Intrinsically both readings are difficult, but in unequal degrees. The difficulty of the shorter reading [that of pure omission in vers. 19, 20] consists exclusively in the change of order, as to the Bread and the Cup, which is illustrated by many phenomena of the relation between the narratives of the third and of the first two Gospels, and which finds an exact parallel in the change of order in St. Luke's account of the Temptation”(iv. 5-8; 9-12). Hort, Notes, p. 64.378.Adler says“in omnibus codicibus,”andguelph. heidelb.Dawkins iii and xvii in Jones, and cod. Rich are specified. Lee sets the verses in a parenthesis. But the Curetonian has them after ver. 19 in words but little differing from his or Schaaf's.379.“Si fides habenda A. F. Gorio‘in Conspectu Quattuor Codicum Evangeliorum Syriacorum mirae aetatis’apud Blanchini Evangelium Quadruplex p.dxl, et hi quattuor Codices cum Veronensi [b] faciunt.”Blakesley,SchemafacingPraelectio, p. 20.380.Especially mark his mode of dealing with ἐκχυννόμενον ver. 20, which by a little violence (not quite unprecedented) is made to refer to ποτήριον instead of to αἵματι:“Ex Matthaeo vel Marco accessit clausula ista τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον, fraude tamen ita piâ accessit, ut potius grammaticis legibus vim facere, quam vel literulam demutare maluerit interpolator. Ita fit ut vel hodie male assutus pannus centonem prodat. Postulat enim sermonis ratio, ut cuivis patet, τῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνομένω, non τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον, quod tamen in Matthaeo Marcoque optime Graece dicebatur, cum subjectum de quo praedicabatur non ἡ διαθήκη verum τὸ αἷμα esset”(Praelectio, p. 22).381.Very undue stress has been laid on Tischendorf's statement,“Hos versus A corrector uncis inclusit, partim etiam punctis notavit; C vero puncta et uncos delevit,”and אahas sometimes been spoken of as only a little less weighty than א itself. I had the satisfaction, through Dean Burgon's kindness, of showing some of our critics, Dr. Hort included, a fine photograph of the whole page. The points are nearly, if not quite, invisible, the unci are rude slight curves at the beginning and end of the passage only, looking as likely to have been scrawled fifty years since as fourteen hundred. Yet even now Dr. Hort maintains that Tischendorf's decision is probably right, strangely adding,“but the point is of little consequence”(Notes, p. 65).382.Bp. Lightfoot's Codd. 2, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 22, 26 omit them altogether: they are in the margin of 1, 20. They stand in the text of 3, 14, 21, and so in 18primâ manu, but in smaller characters.383.Yet Dr. Hort contends that“The testimony of A is not affected by the presence of Eusebian numerals, of necessity misplaced, which manifestly presuppose the inclusion of vv. 43, 44: the discrepance merely shows that the Biblical text and the Eusebian notation were taken by the scribe from different sources, as they doubtless were throughout”(Notes, p. 65). It is just this readiness to devise expedients to meet emergencies as they arise which is at once the strength and the weakness of Dr. Hort's position as a textual critic. These sections and canons illustrate the criticism of the text in some other places: e.g. Matt. xvi. 2, 3; xvii. 21; ch. xxiii. 34; hardly in Luke xxiv. 12.384.Ἰστέον ὅτι τὰ περὶ τῶν θρόμβων τινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐκ ἔχουσιν: adding that the clause is cited by Dionysius the Areopagite, Gennadius, Epiphanius, and other holy Fathers.385.Thus in Evst. 253 we find John xiii. 3-17 inserteduno tenorebetween Matt. xxvi. 20 and 21, as also Luke xxii. 43, 44 between vers. 39 and 40, with no break whatever. So again in the same manuscript with the mixed lessons for Good Friday.386.“Upwards of forty famous personages from every part of ancient Christendom recognize these verses as part of the Gospel; fourteen of them being as old, some of them being a great deal older, than our oldest manuscripts”(The Revision Revised, p. 81).387.The reader will see that I have understood this passage, with Grotius, as applying to an orthodox tampering with Luke xix. 41, not with xxii. 43, 44. As the text of Epiphanius stands I cannot well do otherwise, since Mill's mode of punctuation (N. T., Proleg. § 797), which wholly separates καὶ γενόμενος from the words immediately preceding, cannot be endured, and leaves καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρότατον unaccounted for. Yet I confess that there is no trace of any meddling with ἔκλαυσε by any one, and I know not where Irenaeus cites it.388.Lightfoot's Codd. 22, 26. The clause stands in the margin of 1, 20, in the text of 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23.389.Dean Burgon (Revision Revised, p. 83), who refers to upwards of forty Fathers and more than 150 passages (seealso Miller's Textual Guide, App. II), burns with indignation as he sums up his results:“Andwhat(we ask the question with sincere simplicity),whatamount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubted confidence in any given reading, if not such a concurrence of authorities as this? We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from internal evidence. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external testimony, or is clearly forsaken thereby.”390.“Gospel according to St. John from eleven versions,”1872, p. 8. Dr. Malan also translates in the same way the Peshitto“the only Son of God”and its satellite the Persic of the Polyglott as“the only one of God.”With much deference to a profound scholar, I do not see how such a rendering is possible in the Peshitto: it is precisely that which he gives in ch. iii. 18, where the Syriac inserts ܒܪܚ ܕ (or ܕ ܚܪܒ). Bp. Lightfoot judges θεός the more likely rendering of the Bohairic, though θεοῦ is possible.391.We are not likely to adopt Tischendorf's latest reading and punctuation in Col. ii. 2, τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ.392.Hence we cannot think with Prebendary Sadler (Lost Gospel, p. 48) that μονογενὴς θεός is very probably the original reading, and must even take leave to doubt its orthodoxy. The received reading ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is upheld by Dr. Ezra Abbot in papers contributed to the AmericanBibliotheca Sacra, Oct. 1861, and to theUnitarian Review, June, 1875; it is attacked with characteristic vigour and fullness of research by Dr. Hort in the first of his“Two Dissertations”(pp. 1-72) written in 1876 as exercises for Theological degrees at Cambridge.393.The Revision Revised, p. 133. Also Miller's“Textual Guide,”App. VI.394.To give but a very small part of the variations in ver. 4: δέ (proγάρ) L,abcff, Vulg. -γάρ Evst. 51, Boh. + κυρίου (postγὰρ) AKLΔ, 12, 13, 69, 507, 509, 511, 512, 570 and fifteen others: at τοῦ θεοῦ 152, Evst. 53, 54.—κατὰ καιρὸνa b ffἐλούετο (proκατέβαινεν) A (K), 42, 507. Ethiop.—ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ a b ff. ἐταράσσετο τὸ ὕδωρ C3GHIMUVΛ*, 440, 509, 510, 512, 513, 515, 543, 570, 575, Evst. 150, 257, many others. + in piscinam (postἐμβάς)c, Clementine Vulg. ἐγένετο FL, 69, at least fifteen others.395.Either Dean Burgon or I have recently found the passage in Codd. 518, 524, 541, 560, 561, 573, 582, 594, 598, 599, 600, 602, 604, 622.396.Of Lightfoot's list of manuscripts, the passage is omitted in Codd. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26. It stands in the text of 3, 9, 14, in the margin only of 1, 20.397.“Both elements, the clause ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τῶν ὑδάτων (sic) κίνησιν, and the scholium or explanatory note respecting the angel, are unquestionably very ancient: but no good Greek document contains both, while each of them separately is condemned by decisive evidence”(Hort, Introd., p. 301).398.Dean Burgon has left a long vindication of the whole passage amongst his papers not yet published.399.Add from Dr. Malan (ubi supra, p.97), the Georgian, Slavonic (text, not margin), Anglo-Saxon, and Persic. His Arabic (that of Erpenius) agrees with the Peshitto Syriac. The Armenian version of Ephraem's Tatian also readsnon.400.Codd. AC are defective in this place, but by measuring the space we have shown (p.99, note 2) that A does not contain the twelve verses, and the same method applies to C. The reckoning, as McClellan remarks (N. T., p. 723),“does not preclude the possibility of small gaps having existed in A and C to mark theplaceof the Section, as in L and Δ.”401.Yet Burgon's caution should be attended to.“It is to mislead—rather it is to misrepresent the facts of the case—to say (with the critics) that Codex X leaves out the‘pericope de adulterâ.’This Codex is nothing else but acommentary on the Gospel, as the Gospel used to be read in public. Of necessity, therefore, it leaves out those parts of the Gospel which are observednotto have been publicly read”(Guardian, Sept. 10, 1873).402.The kindred copies Codd. Λ, 215 (20 has an asterisk only against the place), 262, &c., have the following scholium at ch. vii. 53: τὰ ὠβελισμένα ἔν τισιν ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται, οὐδὲ Ἀπολ[λ]ιναρίῳ; ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ὅλα κεῖ[ν]ται; μνημονεύουσιν τῆς περικοπῆς ταύτης καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἐν αἷς ἐξέθεντο διατάξεσιν εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. The reference is to the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24. 4), as Tischendorf perceives.403.Yet so that the first hand of Cod. 207 recognizes it in the text, setting in the margin τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ζήτει εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ βιβλίου (Burgon,Guardian, Oct. 1, 1873).404.A learned friend suggests that, supposing the true place for this supplemental history to be yet in doubt, there would be this reason for the narrative to be set after Luke xxi, that a reader of the Synoptic Gospels would be aware of no other occasion when the Lord had to lodge outside the city: whereas with St. John's narrative before him, he would see that this was probably the usual lot of alatecomer at the Feast of Tabernacles (ch. vii. 14). Mr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that the true place for thepericopeis between ch. v and ch. vi, as for other reasons which we cannot depend upon, so from our illustrating the mention of the Mosaic Law in ch. viii. 5 by ch. v. 45, 46.405.Yet on the whole this paragraph is found in more of Bp. Lightfoot's copies than would have been anticipated: viz. in the text of 3, 8, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, in the margin of 1, and on a later leaf of 20. It is wanting in 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 19, 21, 25, 26.406.“Similiter Nicon ejectam esse vult narrationem ab Armenis, βλαβερὰν εἶναι τοῖς πολλοῖς τὴν τοιαύτην ἀκρόασιν dicentibus.”Tischendorfad loc.Nicon lived in or about the tenth century, but Theophylact in the eleventh does not use the paragraph.407.Notice especially the reading of 48, 64, 604, 736 (primâ manu) in ver. 8 ἔγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἑνὸς ἑκάστου αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας.408.We are not surprised in this instance at Dr. Hort's verdict (Introd. p. 299):“No interpolation is more clearly Western, though it is not Western of the earliest type.”Dean Burgon has left amongst his papers an elaborate vindication of this passage, from which however the Editor cannot quote.409.The form τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, objected to by Michaelis, is vindicated by Matt. i. 18, the reading of which cannot rightly be impugned.Seeabove. Compare also ver. 12.410.ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ εὐνοῦχος πεισθεὶς καὶ παραυτίκα ἀξιῶν βαπτισθῆναι, ἔλεγε, Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. Harvey, vol. ii. p. 62.411.Such are αὐτῷ with or without ὁ Φίλιππος in E, 100, 105, 163, 186, 221, the Harkleian with an asterisk: σου added after καρδίας in E, 100, 105, 163, 186,tol., the Harkleian with an asterisk, the Armenian, Cyprian; butex toto cordethe margin ofam.and the Clementine Vulgate: τόν omitted before Ἰησοῦν in 186, 221 and others.412.“Non reperi in graeco codice, quanquam arbitror omissum librariorum incuria. Nam et haec in quodam codice graeco asscripta reperi, sed in margine.”Erasmus, N. T., 1516.413.They plead, besides the confessed preponderance of manuscript evidence for Ἑλληνιστάς, that“A familiar word standing in an obvious antithesis was not likely to be exchanged for a word so rare that it is no longer extant, except in a totally different sense, anywhere but in the Acts and two or three late Greek interpretations of the Acts; more especially when the change introduced an apparent difficulty”(Hort, Notes, p. 93).Judicet lector.414.Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. lvi and lxxxii.415.But with the same lack of accuracy which so often deforms this great copy: ως ετροφοφορησεν σεκςοθςσου ως ει τις τροποφορησειprimâ manu(Vercellone).416.Witness too Lucian's ὑπερμεγέθη ναῦν καὶ πέρα τοῦ μέτρου, μίαν τῶν ἀπ᾽ Αἰγύπτου εἰς Ἰταλίαν σιταγωγῶν (Navig. seu Vota, c. 1) which was driven out of its course to the Piraeus. Mr. Smith, of Jordan Hill, cannot bring its dimensions under 1,300 tons.417.Dr. Field, however, says that“this is a mistake.”The Syriac is ἔχωμεν and nothing else. For ἔχομεν this version (and all others) would put ܐܬ ܥܢ (or ܢܥ ܬܐ): but“when the word is in the subjunctive mood, since ܐܬ (or ܬܐ) is indeclinable, it is a peculiarity of the Harkleian to prefix the corresponding mood of ܗܘܐ (or ܐܘܗ), here ܢܗܘܐ (or ܐܘܗܢ)”(Otium Norvicense, iii. p. 93). For this strange phrase he cites Rom. i. 13; 2 Cor. v. 12, and to such an authority I have butdare manus.418.It is simply impossible to translate with Jos. Agar Beet, in the [Wesleyan]London Quarterly, April, 1878, either“Let us then, justified by faith, have peace with God,”or“Let us then be justified by faith and have peace with God.”Acts xv. 36 will help him little: the other places he cites (Matt. ii. 13, &c.) not at all.419.Dr. Vaughan (Epistle to the Romans) has ἔχωμεν in his text, and compares Heb. xii. 28, ἔχωμεν χάριν,“where there is the same variety of reading.”B is lost in this last place, but ἔχομεν, which is quite inadmissible, is found in Codd. אKP, the Latin of D, 31 and many other cursives, the printed Vulgate, and its best manuscripts. In Rom. xiv. 19 even Dr. Hort is driven by the versions and the sense to adopt in his text διώκωμεν of CD and the mass of cursives, rather than διώκομεν with אABFGLP, &c. The like confusion between ο and ω appears in the text we shall examine next but one (1 Cor. xiii. 3) and in the subjoined note (p.384). See also φορέσομεν and φορέσωμεν, 1 Cor. xv. 49. We must confess, however, that in some of our oldest extant MSS. the interchange of ο and ω is but rare. In Cod. Sarravianus it is found in but twenty-three places out of 1224 in which itacisms occur, 830 of them being the mutation of ει and ι. On the other hand, ο stands for ω andvice versâvery frequently in that papyrus fragment of the Psalms in the British Museum which Tischendorf, perhaps a little hastily, judged to be older than any existing writing on vellum.420.Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 116) observes that διαθρύπτω is specially used in the Septuagint (Lev. ii. 6; Isa. lviii. 7) for the breaking of bread.421.Few things are too hard for Dr. Hort, yet one is almost surprised to be told that“The text gives an excellent sense, for, as ver. 2 refers to a faith towards God which is unaccompanied by love, so ver. 3 refers to acts which seem by their very nature to be acts of love to men, but are really done in ostentation. First the dissolving of the goods in almsgiving is mentioned, then, as a climax, the yielding up of the very body; both alike being done for the sake of glorying, and unaccompanied by love”(Notes, p. 117).422.Tyler comparesshoushoualso in 2 Cor. vii. 5, 9; Ps. v. 11 (12).423.Neither Winer nor his careful translator, Professor Moulton, seems disposed to yield to Lachmann's authority in this matter.“In the better class of writers,”says Winer,“such forms are probably due to the transcribers (Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 721), but in later authors, especially the Scholiasts (as on Thucydides iii. 11 and 54), they cannot be set aside. In the N. T., however, there is very little in favour of these conjunctives”(Moulton's“Winer,”p. 89 and note 4, p. 361 and note 1). Yet Tregelles thinks“there would be no difficulty about the case, had not one been made by grammatical critics”(An Account of the Printed Text, p. 211, note †). But in his own example, John xvii. 2, ἵνα ... δώσῃ is read by אcACGKMSX, 33, 511, 546, and (so far as I can find) by no other manuscript whatever. On the other hand δώσει (read by Westcott and Hort;seeIntrod., Notes, p. 172) is supported by BEHUYΓΔΛΠ (א has δωσω, D εχη, L δωσ), and (as it would seem) by every other codex extant: δώσῃ came into the common text from the second edition of Erasmus. Out of the twenty-five collated by myself for this chapter, δώσει is found in twenty-four (now including Wake 12 or Cod. 492 and Cod. 622), and the following others have been expressly cited for it: 1, 10, 11, 15, 22, 42, 45, 48, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61 (Dobbin), 63, 65, 66, 106, 118, 124, 127, 131, 142, 145, 157, 250, 262, Evst. 3, 22, 24, 36, and at least fifty others, indeed one might say all that have been collated with any degree of minuteness: so too the Complutensian and first edition of Erasmus. The constant confusion of ει and η at the period when the uncials were written abundantly accounts for the reading of the few, though AC are among them. In later times such itacisms were far more rare in careful transcription, and the mediaeval copyists knew their native language too well to fall into the habit in this passage. In Pet. iii. 1 ἵνα κερδηθήσονται is read by all the uncials (אABCKLP), nearly all cursives, and the Complutensian edition, in the place of -σωνται of Erasmus and the Received text; just as we have ἵνα γινώσκομεν in אAB*LP, 98, 99, 101, 180, 184, 188, 190 in 1 John v. 20. The case for ἀρκεσθησόμεθα 1 Tim. vi. 8 is but a shade less feeble.424.Tischendorf, however, boldly interposes a comma between the words (seep.359, note), and is followed by Westcott and Hort and by Bp. Lightfoot, whose note on the passage (Coloss. p. 318) is very elaborate. This mode of punctuation would set χριστοῦ in apposition to μυστηρίου, in support of which construction ch. i. 27 (ὅ); 1 Tim. iii. 16 (ὅς) are alleged. This, however, is not the sense favoured by Hilary (in agnitionem sacramenti dei Christi, and againDeus Christus sacramentum est), and would almost call for the article before χριστοῦ. In meaning it would be equivalent to D*, &c., ὅ ἐστινχσ.425.In Dr. Swete's edition, vol. ii. p. 11, Theodore expounds thus in the old Latin version:sed facti sumus quieti in medio vestro, hoc est,“omni mediocritate et humilitate sumus abusi, nolentes graves aliquibus videri.”426.A like combination is seen in Cod. 37 in 1 Tim. vi. 19 τῆς αἰωνίου ὄντως ζωῆς.427.Dean Burgon has just presented me with the photographed page in Cod. G, respecting whose evidence there can be no remaining doubt.428.The true reading of the Codex Alexandrinus in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has long been an interesting puzzle with Biblical students. The manuscript, and especially the leaf containing this verse (fol. 145), now very thin and falling into holes, must have been in a widely different condition from the present when it first came to England. At that period Young, Huish, and the rest who collated or referred to it, believed thatΘΣwas written by the first hand. Mill (N. T.ad loc.) declares that he had first supposed the primitive reading to beΟΣ, seeing clearly that the lineoverthe letters had not been entirely made, but only thickened, by a later hand, probably the same that traced the coarse, rude, recent, horizontal diameter now running through the circle. On looking more closely, however, he detected“ductus quosdam et vestigia satis certa ... praesertim ad partem sinistram, qua peripheriam literae pertingit,”evidently belonging to an earlier diameter, which the thicker and later one had almost defaced. This old line was afterwards seen by John Berriman and four other persons with him (Gloucester Ridley, Gibson, Hewett, and Pilkington) by means of a glass in the bright sunshine, when he was preparing his Lady Moyer's Lecture for 1737-8 (Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16, p. 156). Wetstein admitted the existence of such a transverse line, but referred it to the tongue orsagittaof Ε on the reverse of the leaf, an explanation rejected by Woide, but admitted by Tregelles, who states in opposition to Woide that“Part of the Ε on the other side of the leafdoesintersect the Ο, as we have seen again and again, and which others with us have seen also”(Horne, iv. p. 156). This last assertion may be received as quite true, and yet not relevant to the point at issue. In an Excursus appended to 1 Timothy in his edition of“The Pastoral Epistles”(p. 100, 1856), Bp. Ellicott declares, as the result of“minute personal inspection,”that the original reading was“indisputably”ΟΣ. But the fact is, that the page is much too far gone to admit of any present judgement which would weigh against past judgements, as any one who examines the passage can see for himself. Woide could see the line in 1765, but not in 1785.429.Yet how can it beprecariousin the face of such testimony as the following (Quarterly Review, Oct. 1881, p. 363)? Τὸ δὲ θεὸν ὄντα ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνασχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ... τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἐκπλήξεως γέμον. Ὅ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγε; καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; ποῖον μέγα? θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί; καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ θεός (Chrysostom, i. 497). It is necessary to study the context well before we can understand the strength or weakness of Patristic evidence.430.Twenty-three times in all, as Ward (seep.394, note) observes, adding that“nothing can be more express and unquestionable than his reading.”TheQuarterly Reviewerspeaks very well (ubi supra),“A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude of proofs that Christ is God, Gregory says: Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαρρήδην βοᾷ ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι”(ii. 693).431.Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 67, 'Σχόλια Photii MSS. (Bib. Pub. Cant.)ad loc. ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις Κύριλλος ἐν τῷιβκεφαλαίῳ τῶν σχολίων φησίν, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.' Photius also quoted Gregory Thaumaturgus (or Apollinarius) for θεός.432.Dr. Swete, in his masterly edition of the Latin translation of Theodore's commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, after citing the Latin text asqui manifestatus est in carne, adds“Both our MSS. readqui, here and [15 lines] below and use the masculine consistently throughout the context.... Thus the present translation goes to confirm the inference already drawn from the Greek fragment of Theodore, de Incarn. xiii (Migne, P. G. 66, 987), that he read ὃς ἐφανερώθη”(vol. ii. p. 135 n.): pertinently observing that if Theodore used ὅς, he was in harmony with the Syriac versions.433.“Conspectum lectionis hujus loci optime dedit in sermone vernaculo William H. Ward, V. D. M. in Bibliotheca Sacrâ Americanâ, anni 1865,”Tregelles N. T.ad loc. For a copy of this work I am indebted to the kindness of A. W. Tyler of New York. Mr. Ward wonders that neither Tregelles nor I have noticed a certain pinhole in Cod. A, which was pointed out to Sir F. Madden by J. Scott Porter, made by some person at the extremity of the sagitta of the Ε on the opposite page, and falling exactly on the supposed transverse line of the Θ. I cannot perceive the pinhole, but the vellum is fast crumbling away from the effects of time, certainly through no lack of care on the part of those who keep the manuscript.434.“As the Apostle here applies toChristlanguage which in the Old Testament is made use of with reference to Jehovah (seeIsa. viii. 13), he clearly suggests the supreme godhead of our Redeemer,”as Dr. Roberts puts the matter (Words of the New Testament, p. 170). Not, of course, that our critical judgement should be swayed one way or the other by individual prepossessions; but that those who in the course of these researches have sacrificed to truth much that they have hitherto held dear, need not suppress their satisfaction when truth is gain.435.This translation of 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, and Jude, printed by Pococke from Bodl. Orient. 119, well deserves careful study, being totally different in style and character both from the Peshitto and the Harkleian, somewhat free and periphrastic, yet, in our paucity of good authorities just here, of great interest and full of valuable readings. Thus, in this very verse it reads ἀδικούμενοι (“being wronged as the hire of their wrong-doing”) with א*BP and the Armenian, difficult as it may seem to receive that word as genuine: in ver. 17 it omits εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα with אB and some other versions: in ch. iii. 10 it sides with the Sahidic alone in receiving οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται (apparently correctly) instead of εὑρεθήσεται of אBKP, of the excellent cursives 27, 29, 66secundâ manu, of the Armenian and Harkleian margin, where the Received text follows the obvious κατακαήσεται of AL and the rest, and C hits upon ἀφανισθήσονται in pure despair.436.Bp. Chr. Wordsworth speaks as though there were aparonomasia, a play on the words ἀγάπη and ἀπάτη, comparing (after Windischmann) 2 Thess. ii. 10.“The false teachers called their meetings ἀγάπαι,love feasts, but they were mere ἀπάται,deceits. Theirtablewas asnare”(Ps. lxix. 22). This view might be tenable if St. Peter, with whom theparonomasiamust have taken its rise, were not the earlier writer of the two, as the Bishop of Lincoln believes he was, as firmly as we do. Perhaps Dr. Westcott's notion that 2 Peter is a translation, not an original, at least in ch. ii, will best account for the textual variations between it and St. Jude.437.See the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. xxxv, xxxvii.438.“Restitui in Grecis hoc membrum ex quatuor manuscr. codicum, veteris Latini et Syri interpretis auctoritate. sic etiam assueto Johanne istis oppositionibus contrariorum uti quam saepissimè.”Beza, N. T., 1582.439.Horne (Introduction, vol. ii. pt. ii. ch. iii. sect. 4), and after his example Tregelles (Horne, iv. pp. 384-8), give a curious list of more than fifty volumes, pamphlets, or critical notices on this question. The following are the most worthy of perusal: Letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq., by G. Travis, Archdeacon of Chester, 1785, 2nd edit.; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Richard Porson, 1790; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Herbert Marsh [afterwards Bp. of Peterborough], 1795; A Vindication of the Literary Character of Professor Porson, by Crito Cantabrigiensis [Thomas Turton, afterwards Bp. of Ely], 1827; Two Letters on some parts of the Controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, by Nicolas Wiseman, 1835, for whichseeIndex. For Dr. Adam Clarke's“Observations,”&c., 1805,seeEvan. 61. Add F. A. Knittel on 1 John v. 7. Professor Ezra Abbot's edition of“Orme's Memoir of the Controversy on 1 John v. 7,”New York, 1866, has not fallen in my way. As elaborate works, on the verses are“A new plea for the authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, or Porson's Letters to Travis eclectically examined,”Cambridge, 1867, being the performance of a literary veteran, the late Rev. Charles Forster, whose arguments in vindication of the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, published in 1838, modern Biblical writers have found it easier to pass by than to refute; and“The Three Witnesses, the disputed text in St. John, considerations new and old,”by the Rev. H. T. Armfield, Bagster, 1883.440.That the Codex Montfortianus was influenced by the Vulgate is probably true, though it is a little hasty to infer the fact at once from a single instance, namely, the substitution of χριστός after that version and Uscan's Armenian for the second πνεῦμα in verse 6:“quae lectio Latina Graece in codicem 34 Dublinensem illum Montfortianum recepta luculenter testatur versionem vulgatam ad cum conficiendum valuisse”(Tischendorfad loc.).441.It is really surprising how loosely persons who cannot help being scholars, at least in some degree, will talk about codices containing this clause. Dr. Edward Tatham, Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford (1792-1834), writing in 1827, speaks of a manuscript in his College Library which exhibited it, but is now missing, as having been once seen by him and Dr. Parsons, Bishop of Peterborough (Crito Cantabrigiensis, p. 334, note). Yet there can be no question that he meant Act. 33, which does not give the verse, but has long been known to have some connexion with the Codex Montfortianus, which does (seeAct. 33).442.Of the two Spanish MSS. oneleon.2contains the passage only in the margin, the otherleon.1adds at the end of ver. 8,inxpoihu. Canon Westcott cites a manuscript in the British Museum (Add. 11,852), of the ninth century, to the same effect, observing that, likemandcav., it contains the Epistle to the Laodiceans. This MS. runs“quia tres sunt qui testimonium dantspset aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt. Sicut in caelo tres sunt pater verbum etspset tres unum sunt.”Westcott's manuscript is, in fact,ulm., and had already been used by Porson (Letters, &c., p. 148).443.Mr. Forster (ubi supra, pp.200-209) believed that he had discoveredGreekauthority of the fourth century for this passage, in an isolated Homily by an unknown author, in the Benedictine edition of Chrysostom (Tom. xii. pp. 416-21), whose date Montfaucon easily fixes by internal evidence ata.d.381. As this discovery, if real, is of the utmost importance in the controversy, it seems only right to subjoin the words alleged by this learned divine, leaving them to make their own way with the reader: (1) εἷς κέκληται ὁ Πατὴρ καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον: (2) δεῖ γὰρ τῇ ἀποστολικῇ χορείᾳ παραχωρῆσαι τὴν Ἁγίαν Τριάδα, ἢν ὁ Πατὴρ καταγγέλλει. Τριὰς Ἀποστόλων, μάρτυς τῆς οὐρανίου Τριάδος.444.The“Prologus Galeatus in vii EpistolasCanonicas,”in which the author complains of the omission of ver. 7,“ab infidelibus translatoribus,”is certainly not Jerome's, and begins to appear in codices of about the ninth century.445.The writer of a manuscript note in the British Museum copy of Travis'“Letters to Gibbon,”1785, p. 49, very well observes on the second citation from Cyprian:“That three are one might be taken from the eighth verse, as that was certainly understood of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,especially when Baptism was the subject in hand”[Matt. xxviii. 19].446.It will be seen upon examination of our collations on p.402that the points of difference between Codex Montfortianus (34) and Erasmus' printed text are two, viz. that 34 omits καί after πνεῦμα in ver. 8, and with the Complutensian leaves out its last clause altogether; while, on the other hand, Erasmus and Cod. 34 agree against the Complutensian in their barbarous neglect of the Greek article in both verses. As regards the omission in Cod. 34 of the last clause of ver. 8 (καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν), it is obvious to conjecture that the person, whosoever he was, that sent the transcript of the passage to Erasmus, who never saw the MS. for himself, might have broken off after copying the disputed words, and neglected to note down the further variation that immediately followed them. After the foregoing explanation we must leave the matter as it stands, for there is no known mode of accounting for the discrepancy, whereof Mr. Forster makes the very utmost in the following note, which, as a specimen of his book, is annexed entire:“Bishop Marsh labours hard to identify the Codex Britannicus used by Erasmus, with the Codex Montfortianus. Erasmus's own description of the Codex Britannicus completely nullifies the attempt:‘Postremo: Quod Britannicum etiam in terrae testimonio addebat, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι, quod non addebatur hic duntaxat in editione Hispaniensi.’Now as this clause is also omitted in the Montfort Codex, it cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus. In this as yet undiscovered MS., therefore, we have a second and independent Gr. MS. witness to the seventh verse. The zeal of the adversaries to evade this fact only betrays their sense of its importance”(p. 126). Alas!Hi motus animorum.447.I side with Porson against Travis on every important point at issue between them, and yet I must say that if the former lost a legacy (as has been reported) by publishing his“Letters,”he was entitled to but slender sympathy. The prejudices of good men (especially when a passage is concerned which they have long held to be a genuine portion of Scripture, clearly teaching pure and right doctrine) should be dealt with gently: not that the truth should be dissembled or withheld, but when told it ought to be in a spirit of tenderness and love. Now take one example out of fifty of the tone and temper of Porson. The immediate question was a very subordinate one in the controversy, namely, the evidence borne by the Acts of the Lateran Council,a.d.1215.“Though this,”rejoins Porson,“proves nothing in favour of the verse, it proves two other points. That the clergy then exercised dominion over the rights of mankind, and that able tithe-lawyers often make sorry critics.Which I desire some certain gentlemen of my acquaintance to lay up in their hearts as a very seasonable innuendo”(Letters, p. 361, quoted from“A Tale of a Tub”p. 151). As if it were a disgrace for an Archdeacon to know a little about the laws which affect the clergy.448.Gaussen (Theopneustia, pp. 115-7) has still spirit remaining to press the masculine forms οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ver. 7 and οἱ τρεῖς ver. 8 as making in favour of the intervening clause:“Remove it, and the grammar becomes incoherent:”a reason truly, but one not strong enough to carry his point.449.We are compelled to draw a sharp distinction between γεγεννημένος and γεννηθείς in the same context, and, with all deference to theQuarterly Reviewer(April, 1882, p. 366), we do not think his view of the matter more natural than that given in the text:“St. John,”he suggests,“is distinguishing between the mere recipient of the new birth (ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ),—and the man who retains the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit which he received when he became regenerate (ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ).”[The distinction given between the perfect and aorist, as I have altered it in the text, is perfectly just, and explains the passage. The effects of regeneration if continued are indefectible, but the mere fact of regeneration entails constant watchfulness.]450.So it certainly seems to me after careful inspection of Cod. A, although it may be too bold to say, as some have, that there are in it no corrections by later hands. Above in ver. 10 ἐν ἀυτῷ is supported by ABKLP and a shower of cursives in the room of ἐν ἑαυτῷ of א and the Received text, but here there is no difference of sense between the two forms. Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 144) has an exhaustive and cautious note on the breathing of αυτου, αυτῳ, &c., and ultimately declines to exclude the aspirate from the N. T.451.The Revision Revised, pp. 247-8.452.For a very full and clear account of a MS. of this class, the reader may consult an article by Prof. Isaac H. Hall in the“Journal of the American Oriental Society,”vol. xi, No. 2, 1885.453.It is not meant that these terms occur as titles.Apostolos(ܫܥܝܐ or ܐܝܥܫ) as applied to a book means the fourteen Epp. of St. Paul.Evangeliom, in the sense ofEvangelistaryin a title, is quoted in“Thesaurus Syriacus.”But many liturgical terms were borrowed from the Greeks, especially by the Maronites. For a succinct account of Greek and Latin Service Books,seePelliccia's“Polity”(tr. Bellett, 1883), pp. 183-8: for the Syriac system,seeEtheridge's“Syrian Churches,”pp. 112-6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The parallel upon examination turns out to be illusory:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of these, two copies are in Greek, three in Latin Elegiacs. I subjoin those of the native Greek editor, Demetrius Ducas, as a rather favourable specimen of verse composition in that age: the fantastic mode of accentuation described above was clearly nothiswork.

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

Dr. Hort will hardly find many friends for his division (Notes, p. 56),

Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς,Εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.

It is not meant that these terms occur as titles.Apostolos(ܫܥܝܐ or ܐܝܥܫ) as applied to a book means the fourteen Epp. of St. Paul.Evangeliom, in the sense ofEvangelistaryin a title, is quoted in“Thesaurus Syriacus.”

But many liturgical terms were borrowed from the Greeks, especially by the Maronites. For a succinct account of Greek and Latin Service Books,seePelliccia's“Polity”(tr. Bellett, 1883), pp. 183-8: for the Syriac system,seeEtheridge's“Syrian Churches,”pp. 112-6.

Back to IndexNext