CHAPTER IX.

St. Matt. xxvi. 73.(1) Αληθως και συ(2) εξ αυτων ει(3) και γαρ(4) 'η λαλια σου δηλον σε ποιει

St. Matt. xxvi. 73.

(1) Αληθως και συ(2) εξ αυτων ει(3) και γαρ(4) 'η λαλια σου δηλον σε ποιει

St. Mark xiv. 70.(1) Αληθως(2) εξ αυτων ει(3) και γαρ Γαλιλαιος ει,(4) και 'η λαλια σου 'ομοιαζει.

St. Mark xiv. 70.

(1) Αληθως(2) εξ αυτων ει(3) και γαρ Γαλιλαιος ει,(4) και 'η λαλια σου 'ομοιαζει.

What more clear than that the later Evangelist is explaining what his predecessor meant by 'thy speech bewrayeth thee' [or else is giving an independent account of the same transaction derived from the common source]? To St. Matthew,—a Jew addressing Jews,—it seemed superfluous to state that it was the peculiar accent of Galilee which betrayed Simon Peter. To St. Mark,—or rather to the readers whom St. Mark specially addressed,—the point was by no means so obvious. Accordingly, he paraphrases,—'for thou art a Galilean and thy speech correspondeth.' Let me be shewn that all down the ages, in ninety-nine copies out of every hundred, this peculiar diversity of expression has been faithfully retained, and instead of assenting to the proposal to suppress St. Mark's (fourth) explanatory clause with its unique verb 'ομοιαζει, I straightway betake myself to the far more pertinent inquiry,—What is the state of the text hereabouts? What, in fact, the context? This at least is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.

1. And first, I discover that Cod. D, in concert with several copies of the Old Latin (a b c ff2h q, &c.), only removes clause (4) from its proper place in St. Mark's Gospel, in order to thrust it into the parallel place in St. Matthew,—where it supplants the 'η λαλια σου δηλον σε ποιει of the earlier Evangelist; and where it clearly has no business to be.

Indeed the object of D is found to have been to assimilate St. Matthew's Gospel to St. Mark,—for D also omits και συ in clause (1).

2. The Ethiopic version, on the contrary, is for assimilating St. Mark to St. Matthew, for it transfers the same clause (4) as it stands in St. Matthew's Gospel (και 'η λαλια σου δηλον σε ποιει) to St. Mark.

3. Evan. 33 (which, because it exhibits an ancient text of a type like B, has been styled [with grim irony] 'the Queen of the Cursives') is more brilliant here than usual; exhibiting St. Mark's clause (4) thus,—και γαρ 'η λαλια σου δηλον σε 'ομοιαζει.

4. In C (and the Harkleian) the process of Assimilation is as conspicuous as in D, for St. Mark's third clause (3) is imported bodily into St. Matthew's Gospel. C further omits from St. Mark clause (4).

5. In the Vercelli Codex (a) however, the converse process is conspicuous. St. Mark's Gospel has been assimilated to St. Matthew's by the unauthorized insertion into clause (1) of και συ (which by the way is also found in M), and (in concert with the Gothic and Evann. 73, 131, 142*) by the entire suppression of clause (3).

6. Cod. L goes beyond all. [True to the craze of omission], it further obliterates as well from St. Matthew's Gospel as from St. Mark's all trace of clause (4).

7. [Symbol: Aleph] and B alone of Codexes, though in agreement with the Vulgate and the Egyptian version, do but eliminate the final clause (4) of St. Mark's Gospel. But note, lastly, that—

8. Cod. A, together with the Syriac versions, the Gothic, and the whole body of the cursives, recognizes none of these irregularities: but exhibits the commonly received text with entire fidelity.

On a survey of the premisses, will any candid personseriously contend that και 'η λαλια σου 'ομιαζει is no part of the genuine text of St. Mark xiv. 70? The words are found in what are virtually the most ancient authorities extant: the Syriac versions (besides the Gothic and Cod. A), the Old Latin (besides Cod. D)—retain them;—those in their usual place,—these, in their unusual. Idle it clearly is in the face of such evidence to pretend that St. Mark cannot have written the words in question[226]. It is too late to insist that a man cannot have lost his watch when his watch is proved to have been in his own pocket at eight in the morning, and is found in another man's pocket at nine. As for C and L, their handling of the Text hereabouts clearly disqualifies them from being cited in evidence. They are condemned under the note of Context. Adverse testimony is borne by B and [Symbol: Aleph]: and by them only. They omit the words in dispute,—the ordinary habit of theirs, and most easily accounted for. But how is the punctual insertion of the words in every other known copy to be explained? In the meantime, it remains to be stated,—and with this I shall take leave of the discussion,—that hereabouts 'we have a set of passages which bear clear marks of wilful and critical correction, thoroughly carried out in Cod. [Symbol: Aleph], and only partially in Cod. B and some of its compeers; the object being so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter's denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the fact, vouched for by St. Mark only, that the cock crowed twice[227].'Thatincident shall be treated of separately. Can those principles stand, which in the face of the foregoing statement, and the evidence which preceded it, justify the disturbance of the text in St. Mark xiv. 70?

[We now pass on to a kindred cause of adulteration of the text of the New Testament.]

FOOTNOTES:

[184]This paper bears the date 1877: but I have thought best to keep the words with this caution to the reader.

[185]Above, p. 32.

[186]The alleged evidence of Origen (iv. 453) isnil; the sum of it being that he takes no notice whatever of the forty words between οψεσθε με (in ver. 16), and τουτο τι εστιν (in ver. 18).

[187]Nonnus,—'ιξομαι εις γεννητηρα.

[188]viii. 465 a and c.

[189]iv. 932 and 933 c.

[190]= ανα-κειμενος + επι-πεσων. [Used not to suggest over-familiarity (?).]

[191]Beginning with Anatolius Laodicenus,A.D.270 (ap.Galland. iii. 548). Cf. Routh, Rell. i. 42.

[192]Ουκ ανακειται μονον, αλλα και τω στηθει επιπιπτει (Opp. viii. 423 a).—Τι δε και επιπιπτει τω στηθει (ibid. d). Note that the passage ascribed to 'Apolinarius' in Cord. Cat. p. 342 (which includes the second of these two references) is in reality part of Chrysostom's Commentary on St. John (ubi supra, c d).

[193]Cord. Cat. p. 341. But it is only in the κειμενον (or text) that the verb is found,—Opp. iv. 735.

[194]'ο δε θρασυς οξει παλμω | στηθεσιν αχραντοισι πεσων περιλημενος ανηρ.

[195]iv. 437 c: 440 d.

[196]Ibid. p. 342.

[197]Even Chrysostom, who certainly read the place as we do, is observed twice to glide into the more ordinary expression, viz. xiii. 423, line 13 from the bottom, and p. 424, line 18 from the top.

[198]'ο επι το στηθος αυτου αναπεσων (iii. 1, § 1).

[199]'ο επι το στηθος του Κυριου αναπεσων (ap.Euseb. iii. 31).

[200]Τι δει περι του αναπεσοντος επι το στηθος λεγειν του 'Ιησου (ibid. vi. 25. Opp. iv. 95).

[201]'ο επι τω στηθει του φλογος αναπεσων (Opp. ii. 49 a. Cf. 133 c).

[202](As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 1062: ii. 8.

[203]του εις το της σοφιας στηθος πιστως επαναπεσοντος (ap.Chrys, xiii. 55).

[204]'ο επι το στηθος του Ιησου αναπαυεται (Opp. i. 591).

[205](As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 488.

[206]Wright's Apocryphal Acts (fourth century), translated from the Syriac, p. 3.

[207](Fourth or fifth century)ap.Galland. vi. 132.

[208]Ap.Chrys. viii. 296.

[209]On a fresh Revision, &c., p. 73.—'Αναπιπτειν, (which occurs eleven times in the N.T.), when said of guests (ανακειμενοι) at a repast, denotes nothing whatever but the preliminary act of each in taking his place at the table; being the Greek equivalent for our "sitting down" to dinner. So far only does it signify "change of posture." The notion of "fallingbackward" quite disappears in the notion of "reclining" or "lying down."'—In St. John xxi. 20, the language of the Evangelist is the very mirror of his thought; which evidently passed directly from the moment when he assumed his place at the table (ανεπεσεν), to that later moment when (επι το στηθος αυτου) he interrogated his Divine Master concerning Judas. It is ageneraldescription of an incident,—for the details of which we have to refer to the circumstantial and authoritative narrative which went before.

[210]Traditional Text, Appendix IV.

[211]Pesh. and Harkl.: Cur. and Lew. are defective.

[212]Thus Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Green, Scrivener, McClellan, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers.

[213]In pseudo-Jerome's Brev. in Psalm., Opp. vii. (ad calc.) 198.

[214]Mont. i. 462.

[215]Ubi supra.

[216]Omitting trifling variants.

[217][Symbol: Aleph]BL areexclusivelyresponsible on 45 occasions: +C (i.e. [Symbol: Aleph]BCL), on 27: +D, on 35: +Δ, on 73: +CD, on 19: +CΔ, on 118: +DΔ (i.e. [Symbol: Aleph]BDLΔ), on 42: +CDΔ, on 66.

[218]In the text of Evan. 72 the reading in dispute isnotfound: 205, 206 are duplicates of 209: and 222, 255 are only fragments. There remain 1, 22, 33, 61, 63, 115, 131, 151, 152, 161, 184, 209, 253, 372, 391:—of which the six at Rome require to be re-examined.

[219]v. 10.

[220]Ap.Hieron. vii. 17.

[221]'Evangelistas arguere falsitatis, hoc impiorum est, Celsi, Porphyrii, Juliani.' Hieron. i. 311.

[222]γραφεως τοινυν εστι σφαλμα. Quoted (from the lost work of Eusebius ad Marinum) in Victor of Ant.'s Catena, ed. Cramer, p. 267. (See Simon, iii. 89; Mai, iv. 299; Matthaei's N.T. ii. 20, &c.)

[223]'Nos autem nomen Isaiae putamusadditum Scriptorum vitio, quod et in aliis locis probare possumus.' vii. 17 (I suspect he got it from Eusebius).

[224]See Studia Biblica, ii. p. 249. Syrian Form of Ammonian sections and Eusebian Canons by Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. Mr. Gwilliam gives St. Luke iii. 4-6, according to the Syrian form.

[225]Compare St. Mark vi. 7-13 with St. Luke ix. 1-6.

[226]Schulz,—'et λαλια et ομοιαζει aliena a Marco.' Tischendorf—'omnino e Matthaeo fluxit: ipsum ομοιαζει glossatoris est.' This is foolishness,—not criticism.

[227]Scrivener's Full Collation of the Cod. Sin., &c., 2nd ed., p. xlvii.

There exist not a few corrupt Readings,—and they have imposed largely on many critics,—which, strange to relate, have arisen from nothing else but the proneness of words standing side by side in a sentence to be attracted into a likeness of ending,—whether in respect of grammatical form or of sound; whereby sometimes the sense is made to suffer grievously,—sometimes entirely to disappear. Let this be called the error ofAttraction. The phenomena of 'Assimilation' are entirely distinct. A somewhat gross instance, which however has imposed on learned critics, is furnished by the Revised Text and Version of St. John vi. 71 and xiii. 26.

'Judas Iscariot' is a combination of appellatives with which every Christian ear is even awfully familiar. The expression Ιουδας Ισκαριωτης is found in St. Matt. x. 4 and xxvi. 14: in St. Mark iii. 19 and xiv. 10: in St. Luke vi. 16, and in xxii. 31 with the express statement added that Judas was so 'surnamed.' So far happily we are all agreed. St. John's invariable practice is to designate the traitor, whom he names four times, as 'Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon;'—jealous doubtless for the honour of hisbrother Apostle, 'Jude (Ιουδας) the brother of James[228]': and resolved that there shall be no mistake about the traitor's identity. Who does not at once recall the Evangelist's striking parenthesis in St. John xiv. 22,—'Judas (not Iscariot)'? Accordingly, in St. John xiii. 2 the Revisers present us with 'Judas Iscariot, Simon's son': and even in St. John xii. 4 they are content to read 'Judas Iscariot.'

But in the two places of St. John's Gospel which remain to be noticed, viz. vi. 71 and xiii. 26, instead of 'Judas Iscariot the son of Simon' the Revisers require us henceforth to read, 'Judas the son of Simon Iscariot.' Andwhy? Only, I answer, because—in place of Ιουδαν Σιμωνος ΙσκαριωΤΗΝ (in vi. 71) and Ιουδα Σιμωνος ΙσκαριωΤΗ (in xiii. 26)—a little handful of copies substitute on both occasions ΙσκαριωΤΟΥ. Need I go on? Nothing else has evidently happened but that, through the oscitancy of some very early scribe, the ΙσκαριωΤΗΝ, ΙσκαριωΤΗ, have been attracted into concord with the immediately preceding genitive ΣΙμωΝΟΣ ... So transparent a blunder would have scarcely deserved a passing remark at our hands had it been suffered to remain,—where suchbêtisesare the rule and not the exception,—viz. in the columns of Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph]. But strange to say, not only have the Revisers adopted this corrupt reading in the two passages already mentioned, but they have not let so much as a hint fall that any alteration whatsoever has been made by them in the inspired Text.

Another and a far graver case of 'Attraction' is found in Acts xx. 24. St. Paul, in his address to the elders of Ephesus, refers to the discouragements he has had to encounter. 'But none of these things move me,' he grandly exclaims, 'neither count I my life dear unto myself, sothat I might finish my course with joy.' The Greek for this begins αλλ' ουδενος λογον ποιουμαι: where some second or third century copyist (misled by the preceding genitive) in place of λογοΝ writes λογοΥ; with what calamitous consequence, has been found largely explained elsewhere[229]. Happily, the error survives only in Codd. B and C: and their character is already known by the readers of this book and the Companion Volume. So much has been elsewhere offered on this subject that I shall say no more about it here: but proceed to present my reader with another and more famous instance of attraction.

St. Paul in a certain place (2 Cor. iii. 3) tells the Corinthians, in allusion to the language of Exodus xxxi. 12, xxxiv. 1, that they are an epistle not written on 'stony tables(εν πλαξι λιθιναις),' but on 'fleshy tablesof the heart (εν πλαξι καρδιας σαρκιναις).' The one proper proof that this is what St. Paul actually wrote, is not only (1) That the Copies largely preponderate in favour of so exhibiting the place: but (2) That the Versions, with the single exception of 'that abject slave of manuscripts the Philoxenian [or Harkleian] Syriac,' are all on the same side: and lastly (3) That the Fathers are as nearly as possible unanimous. Let the evidence for καρδιας (unknown to Tischendorf and the rest) be produced in detail:—

In the second century, Irenaeus[230],—the Old Latin,—the Peshitto.

In the third century, Origen seven times[231],—the Coptic version.

In the fourth century, the Dialogus[232],—Didymus[233],—Basil[234],—Gregory Nyss.[235],—Marcus the Monk[236],—Chrysostomin two places[237],—Nilus[238],—the Vulgate,—and the Gothic versions.

In the fifth century, Cyril[239],—Isidorus[240],—Theodoret[241],—the Armenian—and the Ethiopic versions.

In the seventh century, Victor, Bp. of Carthage addressing Theodorus P.[242]

In the eighth century, J. Damascene[243]... Besides, of the Latins, Hilary[244],—Ambrose[245],—Optatus[246],—Jerome[247],—Tichonius[248],—Augustine thirteen times[249],—Fulgentius[250], and others[251]... If this be not overwhelming evidence, may I be told whatis[252]?

But then it so happens that—attracted by the two datives between which καρδιας stands, and tempted by the consequent jingle, a surprising number of copies are found to exhibit the 'perfectly absurd' and 'wholly unnatural reading[253],' πλαξι καρδιΑΙΣ σαρκινΑΙΣ. And because (as might have been expected from their character) A[254]B[Symbol: Aleph]CD[255]are all five of the number,—Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, one and all adopt and advocate the awkward blunder[256]. Καρδιαις is also adopted by the Revisers of 1881 without so much as a hint let fall in the margin that the evidence is overwhelmingly against themselves and in favour of the traditional Text of the Authorized Version[257].

FOOTNOTES:

[228]St. Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13; St. Jude 1.

[229]Above, pp. 28-31.

[230]753int.

[231]ii. 843 c. Alsointii. 96, 303; iv. 419, 489, 529, 558.

[232]Ap. Orig. i. 866 a,—interesting and emphatic testimony.

[233]Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 272.

[234]i. 161 e. Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 844.

[235]i. 682 (ουκ εν πλαξι λιθιναις ... αλλ' εν τω της καρδιας πυξιω).

[236]Galland. viii. 40 b.

[237]vii. 2: x. 475.

[238]i. 29.

[239]i. 8: ii. 504: v2. 65. (Aubert prints καρδιας σαρκινης. The published Concilia (iii. 140) exhibits καρδιας σαρκιναις. Pusey, finding in one of his MSS. αλλ' εν πλαξι καρδιας λιθιναις (sic), prints καρδιας σαρκιναις.)Ap. Mai, iii. 89, 90.

[240]299.

[241]iii. 302.

[242]Concil. vi. 154.

[243]ii. 129.

[244]344.

[245]i. 762: ii. 668, 1380.

[246]Galland. v. 505.

[247]vi. 609.

[248]Galland. viii. 742 dis.

[249]i. 672: ii. 49: iii1. 472, 560: iv. 1302: v. 743-4: viii. 311: x. 98, 101, 104, 107, 110.

[250]Galland. xi. 248.

[251]Ps.-Ambrose, ii. 176.

[252]Yet strange to say, Tischendorf claims the support of Didymus and Theodoret for καρδιαις, on the ground that in the course of their expository remarks they contrast καρδιαι σαρκιναι (or λογικαι) with πλακες λιθιναι: as if it were not the word πλαξι which alone occasions difficulty. Again, Tischendorf enumerates Cod. E (Paul) among his authorities. Had he then forgotten that E is 'nothing better than a transcript of Cod. D(Claromontanus), made by some ignorant person'? that 'the Greekis manifestly worthless, and that it should long since have been removed from the list of authorities'? [Scrivener's Introd., 4th edit., i. 177. See also Traditional Text, p. 65, and note. Tischendorf is frequently inaccurate in his references to the fathers.]

[253]Scrivener's Introd. ii. 254.

[254]A in the Epistles differs from A in the Gospels.

[255]Besides GLP and the following cursives,—29, 30, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 55, 74, 104, 106, 109, 112, 113, 115, 137, 219, 221, 238, 252, 255, 257, 262, 277.

[256]That I may not be accused of suppressing what is to be said on the other side, let it be here added that the sum of the adverse evidence (besides the testimony of many MSS.) is the Harkleian version:—the doubtful testimony of Eusebius (for, though Valerius reads καρδιας, the MSS. largely preponderate which read καρδιαις in H. E. Mart. Pal. cxiii. § 6. See Burton's ed. p. 637):—Cyril in one place, as explained above:—and lastly, a quotation from Chrysostom on the Maccabees, given in Cramer's Catena, vii. 595 (εν πλαξι καρδιαις σαρκιναις), which reappears at the end of eight lines without the word πλαξι.

[257][The papers on Assimilation and Attraction were left by the Dean in the same portfolio. No doubt he would have separated them, if he had lived to complete his work, and amplified his treatment of the latter, for the materials under that head were scanty.—For 2 Cor. iii. 3, see also a note of my own to p. 65 of The Traditional Text.]

[We have now to consider the largest of all classes of corrupt variations from the genuine Text[258]—the omission of words and clauses and sentences,—a truly fertile province of inquiry. Omissions are much in favour with a particular school of critics; though a habit of admitting them whether in ancient or modern times cannot but be symptomatic of a tendency to scepticism.]

Omissions are often treated as 'Various Readings.' Yet only by an Hibernian licence can words omitted be so reckoned: for in truth the very essence of the matter is that on such occasions nothing is read. It is to the case of words omitted however that this chapter is to be exclusively devoted. And it will be borne in mind that I speak now of those words alone where the words are observed to exist in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred, so to speak;—being away only from that hundredth copy.

Now it becomes evident, as soon as attention has been called to the circumstance, that such a phenomenon requires separate treatment. Words so omitted labourprima facieunder a disadvantage which is all their own.My meaning will be best illustrated if I may be allowed to adduce and briefly discuss a few examples. And I will begin with a crucial case;—the most conspicuous doubtless within the whole compass of the New Testament. I mean the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel; which verses are either bracketed off, or else entirely severed from the rest of the Gospel, by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and others.

The warrant of those critics for dealing thus unceremoniously with a portion of the sacred deposit is the fact that whereas Eusebius, for the statement rests solely with him, declares that anciently many copies were without the verses in question, our two oldest extant MSS. conspire in omitting them. But, I reply, the latter circumstance does not conduct to the inference that those verses are spurious. It only proves that the statement of Eusebius was correct. The Father cited did not, as is evident from his words[259], himself doubt the genuineness of the verses in question; but admitted them to be genuine. [He quotes two opinions;—the opinion of an advocate who questions their genuineness, and an opposing opinion which he evidently considers the better of the two, since he rests upon the latter and casts a slur upon the former as being an off-hand expedient; besides that he quotes several words out of the twelve verses, and argues at great length upon the second hypothesis.

On the other hand, one and that the least faulty of the two MSS. witnessing for the omission confesses mutely its error by leaving a vacant space where the omitted verses should have come in; whilst the other was apparently copied from an exemplar containing the verses[260]. And all the other copies insert them, except L and a few cursiveswhich propose a manifestly spurious substitute for the verses,—together with all the versions, except one Old Latin (k), the Lewis Codex, two Armenian MSS. and an Arabic Lectionary,—besides more than ninety testimonies in their favour from more than 'forty-four' ancient witnesses[261];—such is the evidence which weighs down the conflicting testimony over and over and over again. Beyond all this, the cause of the error is patent. Some scribe mistook the Τελος occurring at the end of an Ecclesiastical Lection at the close of chapter xvi. 8 for the 'End' of St. Mark's Gospel[262].

That is the simple truth: and the question will now be asked by an intelligent reader, 'If such is the balance of evidence, how is it that learned critics still doubt the genuineness of those verses?'

To this question there can be but one answer, viz. 'Because those critics are blinded by invincible prejudice in favour of two unsafe guides, and on behalf of Omission.'

We have already seen enough of the character of those guides, and are now anxious to learn what there can be in omissions which render them so acceptable to minds of the present day. And we can imagine nothing except the halo which has gathered round the detection of spurious passages in modern times, and has extended to a supposed detection of passages which in fact are not spurious. Some people appear to feel delight if they can prove any charge against people who claim to be orthodox; others without any such feeling delight in superior criticism; and the flavour of scepticism especially commends itself to the taste of many. To the votaries of such criticism, omissions ofpassages which they style 'interpolations,' offer temptingly spacious hunting-fields.

Yet the experience of copyists would pronounce that Omission is the besetting fault of transcribers. It is so easy under the influence of the desire of accomplishing a task, or at least of anxiety for making progress, to pass over a word, a line, or even more lines than one. As has been explained before, the eye readily moves from one ending to a similar ending with a surprising tendency to pursue the course which would lighten labour instead of increasing it. The cumulative result of such abridgement by omission on the part of successive scribes may be easily imagined, and in fact is just what is presented in Codex B[263]. Besides these considerations, the passages which are omitted, and which we claim to be genuine, bear in themselves the character belonging to the rest of the Gospels, indeed—in Dr. Hort's expressive phrase—'have the true ring of genuineness.' They are not like some which some critics of the same school would fain force upon us[264]. But beyond all,—and this is the real source and ground of attestation,—they enjoy superior evidence from copies, generally beyond comparison with the opposing testimony, from Versions, and from Fathers.]

The fact seems to be all but overlooked that a very much larger amount of proof than usual is required at the hands of those who would persuade us to cancel words which havebeen hitherto by all persons,—in all ages,—in all countries,—regarded as inspired Scripture. They have (1) to account for the fact of those words' existence: and next (2), to demonstrate that they have no right to their place in the sacred page. The discovery that from a few copies they are away, clearly has very little to do with the question. We may be able to account for the omission from those few copies: and the instant we have done this, the negative evidence—the argumente silentio—has been effectually disposed of. A very different task—a far graver responsibility—is imposed upon the adverse party, as may be easily shewn. [They must establish many modes of accounting for many classes and groups of evidence. Broad and sweeping measures are now out of date. The burden of proof lies with them.]

The force of what I am saying will be best understood if a few actual specimens of omission may be adduced, and individually considered. And first, let us take the case of an omitted word. In St. Luke vi. 1 δευτεροπρωτω is omitted from some MSS. Westcott and Hort and the Revisers accordingly exhibit the text of that place as follows:—Εγενετο δε εν σαββατω διαπορευεσθαι αυτον δια σποριμων.

Now I desire to be informed how it is credible that so very difficult and peculiar a word as this,—for indeed the expression has never yet been satisfactorily explained,—should have found its way into every known Evangelium except [Symbol: Aleph]BL and a few cursives, if it be spurious? How it came to be here and there omitted, is intelligible enough. (a) One has but to glance at the Cod. [Symbol: Aleph],

Back to Index Next