But surely (rejoins the intelligent Reader, coming fresh to these studies), the oldest extant Manuscripts (bאa c d)mustexhibit the purest text! Is it not so?Itoughtto be so, no doubt (we answer); but it certainlyneed notbe the case.We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Hesychius in Egypt,“revised”the text of the N. T. Unfortunately, they did their work in an age when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in turn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment ofmonstrainto the sacred writings. Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch,a.d.168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of whom we know there were very many in the primitive age,—some of whose productions, we further know, were freely multiplied in every quarter of ancient Christendom:—add, the fabricated Gospels which anciently abounded; notably theGospel of the Hebrews, about which Jerome is so communicative, and which (he says) he had translated into Greek and Latin:—lastly, freely grant that here and there, with well-meant assiduity, the orthodox themselves may have sought to prop up truths which the early heretics (Basilides,a.d.134, Valentinus,a.d.140, with his disciple Heracleon, Marcion,a.d.150, and the rest,) most perseveringly assailed;—and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not a few of the codices of primitive Christendom must have exhibited Texts which[pg 030]were even scandalously corrupt.“It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,”writes the most learned of the Revisionist body,“that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus [a.d.150] and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.”71And what else are codices אb c dbutspecimens—in vastlydifferent degrees—of the class thus characterizedby Prebendary Scrivener? Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservationsolelyto the circumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy?Only by singling out some definite portion of the Gospels, and attending closely to the handling it has experienced at the hands ofaאb c d,—to the last four of which it is just now the fashion to bow down as to an oracular voice from which there shall be no appeal,—can the student become aware of the hopelessness of any attempt to construct the Text of the N. T. out of the materials which those codices exclusively supply. Let us this time take S. Mark's account of the healing of“the paralytic borne of four”(ch. ii. 1-12),—and confront their exhibition of it, with that of the commonly received Text. In the course of those 12 verses, (not reckoning 4 blunders and certain peculiarities of spelling,) there will be found to be 60 variations of reading,—of which[pg 031]55 are nothing else but depravations of the text, the result of inattention or licentiousness. Westcott and Hort adopt 23 of these:—(18, in which אbconspire to vouch for a reading: 2, where א is unsupported byb: 2, wherebis unsupported by א: 1, wherec dare supported by neither א norb). Now, in the present instance, the“five old uncials”cannot bethe depositories of a tradition,—whether Western or Eastern,—because they render inconsistent testimonyin every verse. It must further be admitted, (for this is really not a question of opinion, but a plain matter of fact,) that it is unreasonable to place confidence in such documents. What would be thought in a Court of Law of five witnesses, called up 47 times for examination, who should be observed to bear contradictory testimonyevery time?But the whole of the problem does not by any means lie on the surface. All thatappearsis that the five oldest uncials are not trustworthy witnesses; which singly, in the course of 12 verses separate themselves from their fellows 33 times: viz.a, twice;—א, 5 times;—b, 6 times;—c, thrice;—d, 17 times: and which also enter into the 11 following combinations with one another in opposition to the ordinary Text:—a c, twice;—אb, 10 times;—אd, once;—c d, 3 times;—אb c, once;—אb d, 5 times;—אc d, once;—b c d, once;—aאc d, once;—a b c d, once;—aאb c d, once. (Note, that on this last occasion, which is theonlytime when they all 5 agree,they are certainly all 5 wrong.) But this, as was observed before, lies on the surface. On closer critical inspection, it is further discovered that their testimony betrays the baseness of their origin by its intrinsic worthlessness. Thus, in Mk. ii, 1, the delicate precision of the announcement ἠκούσθη ὅτι ΕἸΣ ΟἾΚΟΝ ἘΣΤΙ (that“He has gone in”), disappears from אb d:—as well as (in ver. 2) the circumstance that it became the signal for many“immediately”(אb) to assemble about the door.—In ver. 4, S. Mark explains his predecessor's concise[pg 032]statement that the paralytic was“brought to”ourSaviour,72by remarking that the thing was“impossible”by the ordinary method of approach. Accordingly, his account of the expedient resorted to by the bearers fills one entire verse (ver. 4) of his Gospel. In the mean time, אbby exhibiting (in S. Mark ii. 3,)“bringing unto Him one sick of the palsy”(φέροντες πρὸς αὐτὸν παραλυτικόν,—which is but a senseless transposition of πρὸς αὐτόν, παραλυτικὸν φέροντες), do their best to obliterate the exquisite significance of the second Evangelist's method.—In the next verse, the perplexity of the bearers, who, because they could not“come nighHim”(προσεγγίσαι αὐτῷ), unroofed the house, is lost in אb,—whose προσενέγκαι has been obtained either from Matt. ix. 2, or else from Luke v. 18, 19 (εἰσενεγκεῖν, εἰσενέγκωσιν).“The bedwhere wasthe paralytic”(τὸν κράββατον ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ ὁ παραλυτικός), in imitation of“the roofwhere was”Jesus (τὴν στέγην ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ [ὁ Ἰησοῦς], which had immediately preceded), is just one of those tasteless depravations, for which אb, and especiallyd, are conspicuous among manuscripts.—In the last verse, theinstantaneous risingof the paralytic, noticed by S. Mark (ἠγέρθη εὐθέως), and insisted upon by S. Luke (“and immediately he rose upbefore them,”—καὶ παραχρῆμα ἀναστὰς ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν), is obliterated by shifting εὐθέως in אbandcto a place where εὐθέως is not wanted, and where its significancy disappears.Other instances of Assimilation are conspicuous. All must see that, in ver. 5, καὶ ἰδών (אb c) is derived from Matt. ix. 2 and Luke v. 20: as well as that“Son,be of good cheer”(c) is imported hither from Matt. ix. 2.“Myson,”on the other hand (א), is a mere effort of the imagination. In the same verse, σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι (אb d) is either from Matt. ix. 5 (sic); or[pg 033]else from ver. 9, lower down in S. Mark's narrative. Λέγοντες, in ver. 6 (d), is from S. Luke v. 21. Ὕπαγε (א) in ver. 9, and ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου (d), are clearly importations from ver 11. The strange confusion in ver. 7,—“Because this man thus speaketh, he blasphemeth”(b),—and“Why doth this man thus speak? He blasphemeth”(אd),—is due solely to Mtt. ix. 3:—while the appendix proposed by א as a substitute for“We never saw it on this fashion”(οὐδέποτε οὕτως εἴδομεν), in ver 12 (viz.“It was never so seen in Israel,”οὐδέποτε οὕτως ἐφάνη ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ), has been transplanted hither from S. Matt. ix. 33.We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of אb c dhereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting thathereticaldepravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena.That(we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and fabricators of Gospels have universally perished. From the slender relics of their iniquitous performances which have survived to our time, we are sometimes able to lay our finger on a foul blot and to say,“Thiscame from Tatian's Diatessaron; andthatfrom Marcion's mutilated recension of the Gospel according to S. Luke.”The piercing of ourSaviour'sside, transplanted by codices אb cfrom S. John xix. 34 into S. Matt, xxvii. 49, is an instance of the former,—which it may reasonably create astonishment to find that Drs. Westcott and Hort (alone among Editors) have nevertheless admitted into their text, as equally trustworthy with the last 12 verses of S. Mark's Gospel. But it occasions a stronger sentiment than surprise to discover that this,“the gravest interpolation yet laid to the charge ofb,”—this“sentence which neither they nor any other competent scholar can possibly believe that the Evangelist ever wrote,”73—has been[pg 034]actually foisted into the margin ofthe Revised Versionof S. Matthew xxvii. 49. Were not the Revisionists aware that such a disfigurement must prove fatal to their work?For whosebenefit is the information volunteered that“many ancient authorities”are thus grossly interpolated?An instructive specimen of depravation follows, which can be traced to Marcion's mutilated recension of S. Luke's Gospel. We venture to entreat the favour of the reader's sustained attention to the license with which theLord'sPrayer as given in S. Luke's Gospel (xi. 2-4), is exhibited by codices אa b c d. For every reason one would have expected that so precious a formula would have been found enshrined in the“old uncials”in peculiar safety; handled by copyists of the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries with peculiar reverence. Let us ascertain exactly what has befallen it:—(a)dintroduces theLord'sPrayer by interpolating the following paraphrase of S. Matt. vi. 7:—“Use not vain repetitions as the rest: for some suppose that they shall be heard by their much speaking. But when ye pray”... After which portentous exordium,(b)bא omit the 5 words,“Our”“which art in heaven,”Then,(c)domits the article (τό) before“name:”and supplements the first petition with the words“upon us”(ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς). It must needs also transpose the words“Thy Kingdom”(ἡ βασιλεία σου).(d)bin turn omits the third petition,—“Thy will be done, as in heaven, also on the earth;”which 11 words א retains, but adds“so”before“also,”and omits the article (τῆς); finding for once an ally ina c d.(e) אdfor δίδου write δός (from Matt.).(f) א omits the article (τό) before“day by day.”And,(g)d, instead of the 3 last-named words, writes“this day”(from Matt.): substitutes“debts”(τὰ ὀφειλήματα) for“sins”(τὰ[pg 035]ἁμαρτήματα,—also from Matt.): and in place of“for [we] ourselves”(καὶ γὰρ αὐτοί) writes“as also we”(ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς, again from Matt.).—But,(h) א shows its sympathy withdby accepting two-thirds of this last blunder: exhibiting“as also [we] ourselves”(ὡς καὶ αὐτοί).(i)dconsistently reads“our debtors”(τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν) in place of“every one that is indebted to us”(παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν).—Finally,(j)bא omit the last petition,—“but deliver us from evil”(ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ)—unsupported bya cord. Of lesser discrepancies we decline to take account.So then, these five“first-class authorities”are found to throw themselves intosix different combinationsin their departures from S. Luke's way of exhibiting theLord'sPrayer,—which, among them, they contrive to falsify in respect of no less than 45 words; and yetthey are never able to agree among themselves as to any single various reading:whileonly onceare more than two of them observed to stand together,—viz. in the unauthorized omission of the article. In respect of 32 (out of the 45) words,they bear in turn solitary evidence. What need to declare that it iscertainly falsein every instance? Such however is the infatuation of the Critics, that the vagaries ofbare all taken for gospel. Besides omitting the 11 words whichbomits jointly with א, Drs. Westcott and Hort erase from the Book of Life those other 11 precious words which are omitted bybonly. And in this way it comes to pass that the mutilated condition to which the scalpel of Marcion the heretic reduced theLord'sPrayer some 1730 years ago,74(for the mischief can all be traced back[pg 036]tohim!), is palmed off on the Church of England by the Revisionists as the work of theHoly Ghost!(a) We may now proceed with our examination of their work, beginning—as Dr. Roberts (one of the Revisionists) does, when explaining the method and results of their labours—with what we hold to be the gravest blot of all, viz. the marks of serious suspicion which we find set against the last Twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel. Well may the learned Presbyterian anticipate that—“The reader will be struck by the appearance which this long paragraph presents in the Revised Version. Although inserted, it is marked off by a considerable space from the rest of the Gospel. A note is also placed in the margin containing a brief explanation of this.”75Averybrief“explanation”certainly: for the noteexplainsnothing. Allusion is made to the following words—“The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.”But now,—For the use ofwhomhas this piece of information been volunteered? Not for learned readers certainly: it being familiarly known to all, that codicesband אalone of manuscripts(to their own effectual condemnation) omit these 12 verses. But then scholars know something more about the matter. They also know that these 12 verses have been made the subject of a separate treatise extending to upwards of 300 pages,—which treatise has now been before the world for a full decade of years, and for the best of reasons has never yet been answered. Its object, stated on its title-page, was to vindicate against recent critical objectors, and to[pg 037]establish“the last Twelve Verses”of S. Mark's Gospel.76Moreover, competent judges at once admitted that the author had succeeded in doing what he undertook to do.77Canit then be right (we respectfully enquire) still to insinuate into unlearned minds distrust of twelve consecutive verses of the everlasting Gospel, which yet have been demonstrated to be as trustworthy as any other verses which can be named?The question arises,—But how did it come to pass that such evil counsels were allowed to prevail in the Jerusalem Chamber? Light has been thrown on the subject by two of the New Test. company. And first by the learned Congregationalist, Dr. Newth, who has been at the pains to describe the method which was pursued on every occasion. The practice (he informs us) was as follows. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, as chairman, asks—“Whether anyTextualChanges are proposed? The evidence for and against is briefly stated, and the proposal considered. The duty of stating this evidence is by tacit consent devolved upon (sic) two members of the Company, who from their previous studies are specially entitled to speak with authority upon such questions,—Dr. Scrivener andDr. Hort,—and who come prepared to enumerate particularly the authorities on either side. Dr. Scrivener opens up the matter by stating the facts of the case, and by giving his judgment on the bearings of the evidence. Dr. Hort follows, and mentions any additional matters that may call for notice; and, if differing from Dr. Scrivener's estimate of the weight of the evidence, gives his[pg 038]reasons and states his own view. After discussion, the vote of the Company is taken, and the proposed Reading accepted or rejected.The Text being thus settled, the Chairman asks for proposals on the Rendering.”78And thus, the men who were appointed to improvethe English Translationare exhibited to us remodellingthe original Greek. At a moment's notice, as if by intuition,—by an act which can only be described as the exercise of instinct,—these eminent Divines undertake to decide which shall be deemed the genuine utterances of theHoly Ghost,79—whichnot. Each is called upon to give his vote, and he gives it.“The Text being thus settled”they proceed to do the only thing they were originally appointed to do; viz. to try their hands at improving our Authorized Version. But we venture respectfully to suggest, that by no such“rough and ready”process is that most delicate and difficult of all critical problems—the truth of Scripture—to be“settled.”Sir Edmund Beckett remarks that if the description above given“of the process by which the Revisionists‘settled’the Greek alterations, is not a kind of joke, it is quite enough to‘settle’this Revised Greek Testament in a very different sense.”80And so, in truth, it clearly is.—“Such a proceeding appeared to me so strange,”(writes the learned and judicious Editor of theSpeaker's Commentary,)“that I fully expected that the account would be corrected, or that some explanation would be given which might remove the very unpleasant impression.”81We have since heard on the best authority,[pg 039]thatnamely of Bishop Ellicott himself,82that Dr. Newth's account of the method of“settling”the text of the N. T., pursued in the Jerusalem Chamber, is correct.But in fact, it proves to have been, from the very first, a definite part of the Programme. The chairman of the Revisionist body, Bishop Ellicott,—when he had“to consider the practical question,”—whether“(1), to construct a critical Text first: or (2), to use preferentially, though not exclusively, some current Text: or (3),simply to proceed onwardwith the work of Revision, whether of Text or Translation, making the currentTextus Receptusthe standard, and departing from it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly necessary,—in fact,solvere ambulando;”announces, at the end of 19 pages,—“We are driven then to the third alternative.”83We naturally cast about for some evidence that the members of the New Testament company possess that mastery of the subject which alone could justify one of their number (Dr. Milligan) in asserting roundly that these 12 verses are“not from the pen of S. Mark himself;”84and another (Dr. Roberts) in maintaining that“the passage isnot the immediate production of S. Mark.”85Dr. Roberts assures us that—“Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers, especially Greeks, testify that these verses were not written by S. Mark, or not found in the best copies.”86Will the learned writer permit us to assure him in return that he is entirely mistaken? He is requested to believe that Gregory of Nyssa says nothing of the sort—says[pg 040]nothing at allconcerning these verses: that Victor of Antioch vouches emphatically for theirgenuineness: that Severus does but copy, while Jerome does but translate, a few random expressions of Eusebius: and that Eusebius himselfnowhere“testifies that these verses were not written by S. Mark.”So far from it, Eusebius actuallyquotes the verses, quotes them asgenuine. Dr. Roberts is further assured that there areno“other writers”whether Greek or Latin, who insinuate doubt concerning these verses. On the contrary, besidesboththe Latin andallthe Syriac—besides the Gothic and thetwoEgyptian versions—there exist four authorities of the IInd century;—as many of the IIIrd;—five of the Vth;—four of the VIth;—as many of the VIIth;—together withat least tenof the IVth87(contemporaries therefore of codicesbandא);—which actuallyrecognizethe verses in question. Now, when toevery known Manuscript but twoof bad character, besidesevery ancient Version, some one-and-thirty Fathershave been added, 18 of whom must have used copies at least as old as eitherbor א,—Dr. Roberts is assured that an amount of external authority has been accumulated which is simply overwhelming in discussions of this nature.But the significance of a single feature of the Lectionary, of which up to this point nothing has been said, is alone sufficient to determine the controversy. We refer to the fact thatin every part of Eastern Christendomthese same 12 verses—neither more nor less—have been from the earliest recorded period, and still are, aproper lesson both for the Easter season and for Ascension Day.[pg 041]We pass on.(b) A more grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture is scarcely to be found than occurs in the proposed revised exhibition of S. Luke ii. 14, in the Greek and English alike; for indeed not only is the proposed Greek text (ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας) impossible, but the English of the Revisionists (“peace among men in whom he is well pleased”)“can be arrived at”(as one of themselves has justly remarked)“only through some process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator might like to put upon it.”88More than that: the harmony of the exquisite three-part hymn, which the Angels sang on the night of the Nativity, becomes hopelessly marred, and its structural symmetry destroyed, by the welding of the second and third members of the sentence into one. Singular to relate, the addition ofa single final letter(ς) has done all this mischief. Quite as singular is it that we should be able at the end of upwards of 1700 years to discover what occasioned its calamitous insertion. From the archetypal copy, by the aid of which the old Latin translation was made, (for the Latin copiesallread“pax hominibus bonæ voluntatis,”) the preposition ἐν was evidently away,—absorbed apparently by the ἀν which immediately follows. In order therefore to make a sentence of some sort out of words which, without ἐν, are simply unintelligible, εὐδοκία was turned into εὐδοκίας. It is accordingly a significant circumstance that, whereas there existsnoGreek copy of the Gospels whichomitsthe ἐν, there is scarcely a Latin exhibition of the place to be found which contains it.89To return however to the genuine clause,—“Good-will towards men”(ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία).[pg 042]Absolutely decisive of the true reading of the passage—irrespectively of internal considerations—ought to be the consideration that it is vouched forby every known copyof the Gospels of whatever sort, excepting only אa b d: the first and third of which, however, were anciently corrected and brought into conformity with the Received Text; while the second (a) is observed to be so inconstant in its testimony, that in the primitive“Morning-hymn”(given in another page of the same codex, and containing a quotation of S. Luke ii. 14), the correct reading of the place is found.d's complicity in error is the less important, because of the ascertained sympathy between that codex and the Latin. In the meantime the two Syriac Versions are a full set-off against the Latin copies; while the hostile evidence of the Gothic (which this time sides with the Latin) is more than neutralized by the unexpected desertion of the Coptic version from the opposite camp. The Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, Slavonic and Arabian versions, are besides all with the Received Text. It therefore comes to this:—We are invited to make our election between every other copy of the Gospels,—every known Lectionary,—and (not least of all) the ascertained ecclesiastical usage of the Eastern Church from the beginning,—on the one hand: and the testimony of four Codices without a history or a character, which concur in upholding a patent mistake, on the other. Will any one hesitate as to which of these two parties has the stronger claim on his allegiance?Could doubt be supposed to be entertained in any quarter, it must at all events be borne away by the torrent of Patristic authority which is available on the present occasion:—In the IInd century,—we have the testimony of (1) Irenæus.90[pg 043]In the IIIrd,—that of (2) Origen91in 3 places,—and of (3) theApostolical Constitutions92in 2.In the IVth,—(4) Eusebius,93—(5) Aphraates the Persian,94—(6) Titus of Bostra,95each twice;—(7) Didymus96in 3 places;—(8) Gregory of Nazianzus,97—(9) Cyril of Jerusalem,98—(10) Epiphanius99twice;—(11) Gregory of Nyssa1004 times,—(12) Ephraem Syrus,101—(13) Philo bishop of Carpasus,102—(14) Chrysostom,103in 9 places,—and (15) a nameless preacher at Antioch,104—all these,contemporaries (be it remembered) ofbandא, are found to bear concurrent testimony in favour of the commonly received text.In the Vth century,—(16) Cyril of Alexandria,105on no less than 14 occasions, vouches for it also;—(17) Theodoret106on 4;—(18) Theodotus of Ancyra107on 5 (once108in a homily preached before the Council of Ephesus on Christmas-day,a.d.431);—(19) Proclus109archbishop of Constantinople;—(20) Paulus110bishop of Emesa (in a sermon preached before Cyril of Alexandria on Christmas-day,a.d.431);—(21) the Eastern bishops111at Ephesus collectively,a.d.431 (an unusually weighty piece of evidence);—and lastly, (22) Basil[pg 044]of Seleucia.112Now, let it be remarked thatthese were contemporaries of codexa.In the VIth century,—the Patristic witnesses are (23) Cosmas, the voyager,1135 times,—(24) Anastasius Sinaita,114—(25) Eulogius115archbishop of Alexandria:contemporaries, be it remembered, of codexd.In the VIIth,—(26) Andreas of Crete116twice.And in the VIIIth,—(27) Cosmas117bishop of Maiuma near Gaza,—and his pupil (28) John Damascene,118—and (29) Germanus119archbishop of Constantinople.To these 29 illustrious names are to be added unknown writers of uncertain date, butallof considerable antiquity; and some120are proved by internal evidence to belong to the IVth or Vth century,—in short, to be of the date of the Fathers whose names 16 of them severally bear, but among whose genuine works their productions are probablynotto be reckoned. One of these was anciently mistaken for (30) Gregory Thaumaturgus:121a second, for (31) Methodius:122a third, for (32) Basil.123Three others, with different degrees of reasonableness, have been supposed to be (33, 34, 35) Athanasius.124One has passed for (36) Gregory of Nyssa;125another for (37) Epiphanius;126while no less than eight (38 to 45) have been mistaken for Chrysostom,127some of them being certainly his contemporaries. Add (46) one anonymous Father,128and (47) the author of the apocryphal[pg 045]Acta Pilati,—and it will be perceived that 18 ancient authorities have been added to the list, every whit as competent to witness what was the text of S. Luke ii. 14 at the time whena bאdwere written, as Basil or Athanasius, Epiphanius or Chrysostom themselves.129For our present purposethey areCodicesof the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries. In this way then, far more thanforty-sevenancient witnesses have come back to testify to the men of this generation that the commonly received reading of S. Luke ii. 14 isthe true reading, and that the text which the Revisionists are seeking to palm off upon us isa fabrication and a blunder. Will any one be found to maintain that the authority ofband א is appreciable, when confronted by the first 15contemporary Ecclesiastical Writersabove enumerated? or thatacan stand against the 7 which follow?This is not all however. Survey the preceding enumeration geographically, and note that, besides 1 name from Gaul,—at least 2 stand for Constantinople,—while 5 are dotted over Asia Minor:—10 at least represent Antioch; and—6, other parts of Syria:—3 stand for Palestine, and 12 for other Churches of the East:—at least 5 are Alexandrian,—2 are men of Cyprus, and—1 is from Crete. If the articulate voices of so many illustrious Bishops, coming back to us in this way from every part of ancient Christendom and all delivering the same unfaltering message,—ifthisbe not allowed to be decisive on a point of the kind just now before us, then pray let us have it explained to us,—What amount of evidencewillmen accept as final? It is high time that this were known.... The plain truth is, that a case has[pg 046]been established against אa b dand the Latin version, which amounts toproofthat those documents, even when they conspire to yield the self-same evidence, are not to be depended on as witnesses to the text of Scripture. The history of the reading advocated by the Revisionists is briefly this:—It emerges into notice in the IInd century; and in the Vth, disappears from sight entirely.Enough and to spare has now been offered concerning the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14. But because we propose to ourselves thatno uncertainty whatevershall remain on this subject, it will not be wasted labour if at parting we pour into the ruined citadel just enough of shot and shell to leave no dark corner standing for the ghost of a respectable doubt hereafter to hide in. Now, it is confessedly nothing else but the high estimate which Critics have conceived of the value of the testimony of the old uncials (אa b c d), which has occasioned any doubt at all to exist in this behalf. Let the learned Reader then ascertain for himself the character of codices אa b c dhereabouts, by collatingthe context in which S. Luke ii. 14 is found, viz. the 13 verses which precede and the one verse (ver. 15) which immediately follows. If the old uncials are observed all to sing in tune throughout, hereabouts, well and good: but if on the contrary, their voices prove utterly discordant,whosees not that the last pretence has been taken away for placingany confidence at allin their testimony concerning the text of ver. 14, turning as it does on the presence or absence ofa single letter?... He will find, as the result of his analysis, that within the space of those 14 verses, the old uncials are responsible for 56“various readings”(so-called): singly, for 41; in combination with one another, for 15. So diverse, however, is the testimony they respectively render, that they are found severally to differ from the Text of the cursives no[pg 047]less than 70 times. Among them, besides twice varying the phrase,—they contrive to omit 19 words:—to add 4:—to substitute 17:—to alter 10:—to transpose 24.—Lastly, these five codices are observed (within the same narrow limits) to fall intotendifferent combinations: viz.bא, for 5 readings;—b d, for 2;—אc, אd,a c, אb d,aאd,a bאd,bאc d,a bאc d, for 1 each.atherefore, which stands alonetwice, is found in combination 4 times;—c, which stands aloneonce, is found in combination 4 times;130—b, which stands alone 5 times, is found in combination 6 times;—א, which stands alone 11 times, is found in combination 8 times;—d, which stands alone 22 times, is found in combination 7 times.... And now,—for the last time we ask the question,—With what show of reason can the unintelligible εὐδοκίας (of אa b d) be upheld as genuine, in defiance ofthe whole body of Manuscripts, uncial and cursive,—the great bulk of the Versions,—and the mighty array of (upwards of fifty) Fathers exhibited above?(c) We are at last able to proceed, with a promise that we shall rarely prove so tedious again. But it is absolutely necessary to begin by clearing the ground. We may not go on doubting for ever. The“Angelic hymn”and“The last 12 Verses”of S. Mark's Gospel, are convenient places for a trial of strength.It has now been provedthat the commonly received text of S. Luke ii. 14 is the true text,—the Revisionists' emendation of the place, a palpable mistake. On behalf of the second Gospel, we claim to have also established that an important portion of the sacred narrative has been unjustly branded with a note of ignominy; from which we solemnly call upon the Revisionists to set the Evangelist free. The pretence that no harm has been done[pg 048]him by the mere statement of what is an undeniable fact,—(viz. that“the two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end;”and that“some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel,”)—will not stand examination. Pin to the shoulder of an honourable man a hearsay libel on his character, and see what he will have to say to you! Besides,—Why have the 12 verses been further separated off from the rest of the Gospel?This at least is unjustifiable.Those who, with Drs. Roberts and Milligan,131have been taught to maintain“that the passage is not the immediate production of S. Mark,”—“can hardly be regarded as a part of the original Gospel; but is rather an addition made to it at a very early age, whether in the lifetime of the Evangelist or not, it is impossible to say:”—such Critics are informed that they stultify themselves when they proceed in the same breath to assure the offended reader that the passage“is neverthelesspossessed of full canonical authority.”132Men who so write show that they do not understand the question. For if these 12 versesare“canonical Scripture,”—as much inspired as the 12 verses which precede them, and as worthy of undoubting confidence,—then, whether they be“the production of S. Mark,”or of some other, is a purely irrelevant circumstance. TheAuthorshipof the passage, as every one must see, is not the question. The last 12 verses of Deuteronomy, for instance, were probably not written by Moses. Do we therefore separate them off from the rest of Deuteronomy, and encumber the margin with a note expressive of our opinion? Our Revisionists, so far from holding what follows to be“canonical Scripture,”are careful to state that a rival ending to be found elsewhere merits serious attention. S. Mark xvi. 9-20, therefore (according to them),[pg 049]isnot certainlya genuine part of the Gospel;may, after all, be nothing else but a spurious accretion to the text. And as long as such doubts are put forth by our Revisionists, they publish to the world that,in their accountat all events, these verses arenot“possessed of full canonical authority.”If“the two oldest Greek manuscripts”justly“omit from verse 9 to the end”(as stated in the margin), will any one deny that our printed Text ought to omit them also?133On the other hand, if the circumstance is a mere literary curiosity, will any one maintain that it is entitled to abiding record in the margin of theEnglish Versionof the everlasting page?—affords any warrant whatever for separating“the last Twelve Verses”from their context?(d) We can probably render ordinary readers no more effectual service, than by offering now to guide them over a few select places, concerning the true reading of which the Revisionists either entertain such serious doubts that they haverecordedtheir uncertainty in the margin of their work; or else, entertaining no doubts at all, have deliberately thrust a new reading into the body of their text, andthat, without explanation, apology, or indeed record of any kind.134One remark should be premised, viz. that“various[pg 050]Readings”as they are (often most unreasonably) called, are seldom if ever the result of consciousfraud. An immense number are to be ascribed to sheer accident. It was through erroneous judgment, we repeat, not with evil intent, that men took liberties with the deposit. They imported into their copies whatever readings they considered highly recommended. By some of these ancient Critics it seems to have been thought allowableto abbreviate, by simply leaving out whatever did not appear to themselves strictly necessary: by others, totransposethe words—even the members—of a sentence, almost to any extent: by others, tosubstituteeasy expressions for difficult ones. In this way it comes to pass that we are often presented, and in the oldest documents of all, with Readings which stand self-condemned; are clearly fabrications. That it was held allowable to assimilate one Gospel to another, is quite certain. Add, that as early as the IInd century there abounded in the Church documents,—“Diatessarons”they were sometimes called,—of which the avowed object was to weave one continuous and connected narrative“out of the four;”—and we shall find that as many heads have been provided, as will suffice for the classification of almost every various reading which we are likely to encounter in our study of the Gospels.
But surely (rejoins the intelligent Reader, coming fresh to these studies), the oldest extant Manuscripts (bאa c d)mustexhibit the purest text! Is it not so?Itoughtto be so, no doubt (we answer); but it certainlyneed notbe the case.We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Hesychius in Egypt,“revised”the text of the N. T. Unfortunately, they did their work in an age when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in turn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment ofmonstrainto the sacred writings. Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch,a.d.168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of whom we know there were very many in the primitive age,—some of whose productions, we further know, were freely multiplied in every quarter of ancient Christendom:—add, the fabricated Gospels which anciently abounded; notably theGospel of the Hebrews, about which Jerome is so communicative, and which (he says) he had translated into Greek and Latin:—lastly, freely grant that here and there, with well-meant assiduity, the orthodox themselves may have sought to prop up truths which the early heretics (Basilides,a.d.134, Valentinus,a.d.140, with his disciple Heracleon, Marcion,a.d.150, and the rest,) most perseveringly assailed;—and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not a few of the codices of primitive Christendom must have exhibited Texts which[pg 030]were even scandalously corrupt.“It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,”writes the most learned of the Revisionist body,“that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus [a.d.150] and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.”71And what else are codices אb c dbutspecimens—in vastlydifferent degrees—of the class thus characterizedby Prebendary Scrivener? Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservationsolelyto the circumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy?Only by singling out some definite portion of the Gospels, and attending closely to the handling it has experienced at the hands ofaאb c d,—to the last four of which it is just now the fashion to bow down as to an oracular voice from which there shall be no appeal,—can the student become aware of the hopelessness of any attempt to construct the Text of the N. T. out of the materials which those codices exclusively supply. Let us this time take S. Mark's account of the healing of“the paralytic borne of four”(ch. ii. 1-12),—and confront their exhibition of it, with that of the commonly received Text. In the course of those 12 verses, (not reckoning 4 blunders and certain peculiarities of spelling,) there will be found to be 60 variations of reading,—of which[pg 031]55 are nothing else but depravations of the text, the result of inattention or licentiousness. Westcott and Hort adopt 23 of these:—(18, in which אbconspire to vouch for a reading: 2, where א is unsupported byb: 2, wherebis unsupported by א: 1, wherec dare supported by neither א norb). Now, in the present instance, the“five old uncials”cannot bethe depositories of a tradition,—whether Western or Eastern,—because they render inconsistent testimonyin every verse. It must further be admitted, (for this is really not a question of opinion, but a plain matter of fact,) that it is unreasonable to place confidence in such documents. What would be thought in a Court of Law of five witnesses, called up 47 times for examination, who should be observed to bear contradictory testimonyevery time?But the whole of the problem does not by any means lie on the surface. All thatappearsis that the five oldest uncials are not trustworthy witnesses; which singly, in the course of 12 verses separate themselves from their fellows 33 times: viz.a, twice;—א, 5 times;—b, 6 times;—c, thrice;—d, 17 times: and which also enter into the 11 following combinations with one another in opposition to the ordinary Text:—a c, twice;—אb, 10 times;—אd, once;—c d, 3 times;—אb c, once;—אb d, 5 times;—אc d, once;—b c d, once;—aאc d, once;—a b c d, once;—aאb c d, once. (Note, that on this last occasion, which is theonlytime when they all 5 agree,they are certainly all 5 wrong.) But this, as was observed before, lies on the surface. On closer critical inspection, it is further discovered that their testimony betrays the baseness of their origin by its intrinsic worthlessness. Thus, in Mk. ii, 1, the delicate precision of the announcement ἠκούσθη ὅτι ΕἸΣ ΟἾΚΟΝ ἘΣΤΙ (that“He has gone in”), disappears from אb d:—as well as (in ver. 2) the circumstance that it became the signal for many“immediately”(אb) to assemble about the door.—In ver. 4, S. Mark explains his predecessor's concise[pg 032]statement that the paralytic was“brought to”ourSaviour,72by remarking that the thing was“impossible”by the ordinary method of approach. Accordingly, his account of the expedient resorted to by the bearers fills one entire verse (ver. 4) of his Gospel. In the mean time, אbby exhibiting (in S. Mark ii. 3,)“bringing unto Him one sick of the palsy”(φέροντες πρὸς αὐτὸν παραλυτικόν,—which is but a senseless transposition of πρὸς αὐτόν, παραλυτικὸν φέροντες), do their best to obliterate the exquisite significance of the second Evangelist's method.—In the next verse, the perplexity of the bearers, who, because they could not“come nighHim”(προσεγγίσαι αὐτῷ), unroofed the house, is lost in אb,—whose προσενέγκαι has been obtained either from Matt. ix. 2, or else from Luke v. 18, 19 (εἰσενεγκεῖν, εἰσενέγκωσιν).“The bedwhere wasthe paralytic”(τὸν κράββατον ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ ὁ παραλυτικός), in imitation of“the roofwhere was”Jesus (τὴν στέγην ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ [ὁ Ἰησοῦς], which had immediately preceded), is just one of those tasteless depravations, for which אb, and especiallyd, are conspicuous among manuscripts.—In the last verse, theinstantaneous risingof the paralytic, noticed by S. Mark (ἠγέρθη εὐθέως), and insisted upon by S. Luke (“and immediately he rose upbefore them,”—καὶ παραχρῆμα ἀναστὰς ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν), is obliterated by shifting εὐθέως in אbandcto a place where εὐθέως is not wanted, and where its significancy disappears.Other instances of Assimilation are conspicuous. All must see that, in ver. 5, καὶ ἰδών (אb c) is derived from Matt. ix. 2 and Luke v. 20: as well as that“Son,be of good cheer”(c) is imported hither from Matt. ix. 2.“Myson,”on the other hand (א), is a mere effort of the imagination. In the same verse, σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι (אb d) is either from Matt. ix. 5 (sic); or[pg 033]else from ver. 9, lower down in S. Mark's narrative. Λέγοντες, in ver. 6 (d), is from S. Luke v. 21. Ὕπαγε (א) in ver. 9, and ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου (d), are clearly importations from ver 11. The strange confusion in ver. 7,—“Because this man thus speaketh, he blasphemeth”(b),—and“Why doth this man thus speak? He blasphemeth”(אd),—is due solely to Mtt. ix. 3:—while the appendix proposed by א as a substitute for“We never saw it on this fashion”(οὐδέποτε οὕτως εἴδομεν), in ver 12 (viz.“It was never so seen in Israel,”οὐδέποτε οὕτως ἐφάνη ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ), has been transplanted hither from S. Matt. ix. 33.We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of אb c dhereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting thathereticaldepravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena.That(we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and fabricators of Gospels have universally perished. From the slender relics of their iniquitous performances which have survived to our time, we are sometimes able to lay our finger on a foul blot and to say,“Thiscame from Tatian's Diatessaron; andthatfrom Marcion's mutilated recension of the Gospel according to S. Luke.”The piercing of ourSaviour'sside, transplanted by codices אb cfrom S. John xix. 34 into S. Matt, xxvii. 49, is an instance of the former,—which it may reasonably create astonishment to find that Drs. Westcott and Hort (alone among Editors) have nevertheless admitted into their text, as equally trustworthy with the last 12 verses of S. Mark's Gospel. But it occasions a stronger sentiment than surprise to discover that this,“the gravest interpolation yet laid to the charge ofb,”—this“sentence which neither they nor any other competent scholar can possibly believe that the Evangelist ever wrote,”73—has been[pg 034]actually foisted into the margin ofthe Revised Versionof S. Matthew xxvii. 49. Were not the Revisionists aware that such a disfigurement must prove fatal to their work?For whosebenefit is the information volunteered that“many ancient authorities”are thus grossly interpolated?An instructive specimen of depravation follows, which can be traced to Marcion's mutilated recension of S. Luke's Gospel. We venture to entreat the favour of the reader's sustained attention to the license with which theLord'sPrayer as given in S. Luke's Gospel (xi. 2-4), is exhibited by codices אa b c d. For every reason one would have expected that so precious a formula would have been found enshrined in the“old uncials”in peculiar safety; handled by copyists of the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries with peculiar reverence. Let us ascertain exactly what has befallen it:—(a)dintroduces theLord'sPrayer by interpolating the following paraphrase of S. Matt. vi. 7:—“Use not vain repetitions as the rest: for some suppose that they shall be heard by their much speaking. But when ye pray”... After which portentous exordium,(b)bא omit the 5 words,“Our”“which art in heaven,”Then,(c)domits the article (τό) before“name:”and supplements the first petition with the words“upon us”(ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς). It must needs also transpose the words“Thy Kingdom”(ἡ βασιλεία σου).(d)bin turn omits the third petition,—“Thy will be done, as in heaven, also on the earth;”which 11 words א retains, but adds“so”before“also,”and omits the article (τῆς); finding for once an ally ina c d.(e) אdfor δίδου write δός (from Matt.).(f) א omits the article (τό) before“day by day.”And,(g)d, instead of the 3 last-named words, writes“this day”(from Matt.): substitutes“debts”(τὰ ὀφειλήματα) for“sins”(τὰ[pg 035]ἁμαρτήματα,—also from Matt.): and in place of“for [we] ourselves”(καὶ γὰρ αὐτοί) writes“as also we”(ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς, again from Matt.).—But,(h) א shows its sympathy withdby accepting two-thirds of this last blunder: exhibiting“as also [we] ourselves”(ὡς καὶ αὐτοί).(i)dconsistently reads“our debtors”(τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν) in place of“every one that is indebted to us”(παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν).—Finally,(j)bא omit the last petition,—“but deliver us from evil”(ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ)—unsupported bya cord. Of lesser discrepancies we decline to take account.So then, these five“first-class authorities”are found to throw themselves intosix different combinationsin their departures from S. Luke's way of exhibiting theLord'sPrayer,—which, among them, they contrive to falsify in respect of no less than 45 words; and yetthey are never able to agree among themselves as to any single various reading:whileonly onceare more than two of them observed to stand together,—viz. in the unauthorized omission of the article. In respect of 32 (out of the 45) words,they bear in turn solitary evidence. What need to declare that it iscertainly falsein every instance? Such however is the infatuation of the Critics, that the vagaries ofbare all taken for gospel. Besides omitting the 11 words whichbomits jointly with א, Drs. Westcott and Hort erase from the Book of Life those other 11 precious words which are omitted bybonly. And in this way it comes to pass that the mutilated condition to which the scalpel of Marcion the heretic reduced theLord'sPrayer some 1730 years ago,74(for the mischief can all be traced back[pg 036]tohim!), is palmed off on the Church of England by the Revisionists as the work of theHoly Ghost!(a) We may now proceed with our examination of their work, beginning—as Dr. Roberts (one of the Revisionists) does, when explaining the method and results of their labours—with what we hold to be the gravest blot of all, viz. the marks of serious suspicion which we find set against the last Twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel. Well may the learned Presbyterian anticipate that—“The reader will be struck by the appearance which this long paragraph presents in the Revised Version. Although inserted, it is marked off by a considerable space from the rest of the Gospel. A note is also placed in the margin containing a brief explanation of this.”75Averybrief“explanation”certainly: for the noteexplainsnothing. Allusion is made to the following words—“The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.”But now,—For the use ofwhomhas this piece of information been volunteered? Not for learned readers certainly: it being familiarly known to all, that codicesband אalone of manuscripts(to their own effectual condemnation) omit these 12 verses. But then scholars know something more about the matter. They also know that these 12 verses have been made the subject of a separate treatise extending to upwards of 300 pages,—which treatise has now been before the world for a full decade of years, and for the best of reasons has never yet been answered. Its object, stated on its title-page, was to vindicate against recent critical objectors, and to[pg 037]establish“the last Twelve Verses”of S. Mark's Gospel.76Moreover, competent judges at once admitted that the author had succeeded in doing what he undertook to do.77Canit then be right (we respectfully enquire) still to insinuate into unlearned minds distrust of twelve consecutive verses of the everlasting Gospel, which yet have been demonstrated to be as trustworthy as any other verses which can be named?The question arises,—But how did it come to pass that such evil counsels were allowed to prevail in the Jerusalem Chamber? Light has been thrown on the subject by two of the New Test. company. And first by the learned Congregationalist, Dr. Newth, who has been at the pains to describe the method which was pursued on every occasion. The practice (he informs us) was as follows. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, as chairman, asks—“Whether anyTextualChanges are proposed? The evidence for and against is briefly stated, and the proposal considered. The duty of stating this evidence is by tacit consent devolved upon (sic) two members of the Company, who from their previous studies are specially entitled to speak with authority upon such questions,—Dr. Scrivener andDr. Hort,—and who come prepared to enumerate particularly the authorities on either side. Dr. Scrivener opens up the matter by stating the facts of the case, and by giving his judgment on the bearings of the evidence. Dr. Hort follows, and mentions any additional matters that may call for notice; and, if differing from Dr. Scrivener's estimate of the weight of the evidence, gives his[pg 038]reasons and states his own view. After discussion, the vote of the Company is taken, and the proposed Reading accepted or rejected.The Text being thus settled, the Chairman asks for proposals on the Rendering.”78And thus, the men who were appointed to improvethe English Translationare exhibited to us remodellingthe original Greek. At a moment's notice, as if by intuition,—by an act which can only be described as the exercise of instinct,—these eminent Divines undertake to decide which shall be deemed the genuine utterances of theHoly Ghost,79—whichnot. Each is called upon to give his vote, and he gives it.“The Text being thus settled”they proceed to do the only thing they were originally appointed to do; viz. to try their hands at improving our Authorized Version. But we venture respectfully to suggest, that by no such“rough and ready”process is that most delicate and difficult of all critical problems—the truth of Scripture—to be“settled.”Sir Edmund Beckett remarks that if the description above given“of the process by which the Revisionists‘settled’the Greek alterations, is not a kind of joke, it is quite enough to‘settle’this Revised Greek Testament in a very different sense.”80And so, in truth, it clearly is.—“Such a proceeding appeared to me so strange,”(writes the learned and judicious Editor of theSpeaker's Commentary,)“that I fully expected that the account would be corrected, or that some explanation would be given which might remove the very unpleasant impression.”81We have since heard on the best authority,[pg 039]thatnamely of Bishop Ellicott himself,82that Dr. Newth's account of the method of“settling”the text of the N. T., pursued in the Jerusalem Chamber, is correct.But in fact, it proves to have been, from the very first, a definite part of the Programme. The chairman of the Revisionist body, Bishop Ellicott,—when he had“to consider the practical question,”—whether“(1), to construct a critical Text first: or (2), to use preferentially, though not exclusively, some current Text: or (3),simply to proceed onwardwith the work of Revision, whether of Text or Translation, making the currentTextus Receptusthe standard, and departing from it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly necessary,—in fact,solvere ambulando;”announces, at the end of 19 pages,—“We are driven then to the third alternative.”83We naturally cast about for some evidence that the members of the New Testament company possess that mastery of the subject which alone could justify one of their number (Dr. Milligan) in asserting roundly that these 12 verses are“not from the pen of S. Mark himself;”84and another (Dr. Roberts) in maintaining that“the passage isnot the immediate production of S. Mark.”85Dr. Roberts assures us that—“Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers, especially Greeks, testify that these verses were not written by S. Mark, or not found in the best copies.”86Will the learned writer permit us to assure him in return that he is entirely mistaken? He is requested to believe that Gregory of Nyssa says nothing of the sort—says[pg 040]nothing at allconcerning these verses: that Victor of Antioch vouches emphatically for theirgenuineness: that Severus does but copy, while Jerome does but translate, a few random expressions of Eusebius: and that Eusebius himselfnowhere“testifies that these verses were not written by S. Mark.”So far from it, Eusebius actuallyquotes the verses, quotes them asgenuine. Dr. Roberts is further assured that there areno“other writers”whether Greek or Latin, who insinuate doubt concerning these verses. On the contrary, besidesboththe Latin andallthe Syriac—besides the Gothic and thetwoEgyptian versions—there exist four authorities of the IInd century;—as many of the IIIrd;—five of the Vth;—four of the VIth;—as many of the VIIth;—together withat least tenof the IVth87(contemporaries therefore of codicesbandא);—which actuallyrecognizethe verses in question. Now, when toevery known Manuscript but twoof bad character, besidesevery ancient Version, some one-and-thirty Fathershave been added, 18 of whom must have used copies at least as old as eitherbor א,—Dr. Roberts is assured that an amount of external authority has been accumulated which is simply overwhelming in discussions of this nature.But the significance of a single feature of the Lectionary, of which up to this point nothing has been said, is alone sufficient to determine the controversy. We refer to the fact thatin every part of Eastern Christendomthese same 12 verses—neither more nor less—have been from the earliest recorded period, and still are, aproper lesson both for the Easter season and for Ascension Day.[pg 041]We pass on.(b) A more grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture is scarcely to be found than occurs in the proposed revised exhibition of S. Luke ii. 14, in the Greek and English alike; for indeed not only is the proposed Greek text (ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας) impossible, but the English of the Revisionists (“peace among men in whom he is well pleased”)“can be arrived at”(as one of themselves has justly remarked)“only through some process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator might like to put upon it.”88More than that: the harmony of the exquisite three-part hymn, which the Angels sang on the night of the Nativity, becomes hopelessly marred, and its structural symmetry destroyed, by the welding of the second and third members of the sentence into one. Singular to relate, the addition ofa single final letter(ς) has done all this mischief. Quite as singular is it that we should be able at the end of upwards of 1700 years to discover what occasioned its calamitous insertion. From the archetypal copy, by the aid of which the old Latin translation was made, (for the Latin copiesallread“pax hominibus bonæ voluntatis,”) the preposition ἐν was evidently away,—absorbed apparently by the ἀν which immediately follows. In order therefore to make a sentence of some sort out of words which, without ἐν, are simply unintelligible, εὐδοκία was turned into εὐδοκίας. It is accordingly a significant circumstance that, whereas there existsnoGreek copy of the Gospels whichomitsthe ἐν, there is scarcely a Latin exhibition of the place to be found which contains it.89To return however to the genuine clause,—“Good-will towards men”(ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία).[pg 042]Absolutely decisive of the true reading of the passage—irrespectively of internal considerations—ought to be the consideration that it is vouched forby every known copyof the Gospels of whatever sort, excepting only אa b d: the first and third of which, however, were anciently corrected and brought into conformity with the Received Text; while the second (a) is observed to be so inconstant in its testimony, that in the primitive“Morning-hymn”(given in another page of the same codex, and containing a quotation of S. Luke ii. 14), the correct reading of the place is found.d's complicity in error is the less important, because of the ascertained sympathy between that codex and the Latin. In the meantime the two Syriac Versions are a full set-off against the Latin copies; while the hostile evidence of the Gothic (which this time sides with the Latin) is more than neutralized by the unexpected desertion of the Coptic version from the opposite camp. The Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, Slavonic and Arabian versions, are besides all with the Received Text. It therefore comes to this:—We are invited to make our election between every other copy of the Gospels,—every known Lectionary,—and (not least of all) the ascertained ecclesiastical usage of the Eastern Church from the beginning,—on the one hand: and the testimony of four Codices without a history or a character, which concur in upholding a patent mistake, on the other. Will any one hesitate as to which of these two parties has the stronger claim on his allegiance?Could doubt be supposed to be entertained in any quarter, it must at all events be borne away by the torrent of Patristic authority which is available on the present occasion:—In the IInd century,—we have the testimony of (1) Irenæus.90[pg 043]In the IIIrd,—that of (2) Origen91in 3 places,—and of (3) theApostolical Constitutions92in 2.In the IVth,—(4) Eusebius,93—(5) Aphraates the Persian,94—(6) Titus of Bostra,95each twice;—(7) Didymus96in 3 places;—(8) Gregory of Nazianzus,97—(9) Cyril of Jerusalem,98—(10) Epiphanius99twice;—(11) Gregory of Nyssa1004 times,—(12) Ephraem Syrus,101—(13) Philo bishop of Carpasus,102—(14) Chrysostom,103in 9 places,—and (15) a nameless preacher at Antioch,104—all these,contemporaries (be it remembered) ofbandא, are found to bear concurrent testimony in favour of the commonly received text.In the Vth century,—(16) Cyril of Alexandria,105on no less than 14 occasions, vouches for it also;—(17) Theodoret106on 4;—(18) Theodotus of Ancyra107on 5 (once108in a homily preached before the Council of Ephesus on Christmas-day,a.d.431);—(19) Proclus109archbishop of Constantinople;—(20) Paulus110bishop of Emesa (in a sermon preached before Cyril of Alexandria on Christmas-day,a.d.431);—(21) the Eastern bishops111at Ephesus collectively,a.d.431 (an unusually weighty piece of evidence);—and lastly, (22) Basil[pg 044]of Seleucia.112Now, let it be remarked thatthese were contemporaries of codexa.In the VIth century,—the Patristic witnesses are (23) Cosmas, the voyager,1135 times,—(24) Anastasius Sinaita,114—(25) Eulogius115archbishop of Alexandria:contemporaries, be it remembered, of codexd.In the VIIth,—(26) Andreas of Crete116twice.And in the VIIIth,—(27) Cosmas117bishop of Maiuma near Gaza,—and his pupil (28) John Damascene,118—and (29) Germanus119archbishop of Constantinople.To these 29 illustrious names are to be added unknown writers of uncertain date, butallof considerable antiquity; and some120are proved by internal evidence to belong to the IVth or Vth century,—in short, to be of the date of the Fathers whose names 16 of them severally bear, but among whose genuine works their productions are probablynotto be reckoned. One of these was anciently mistaken for (30) Gregory Thaumaturgus:121a second, for (31) Methodius:122a third, for (32) Basil.123Three others, with different degrees of reasonableness, have been supposed to be (33, 34, 35) Athanasius.124One has passed for (36) Gregory of Nyssa;125another for (37) Epiphanius;126while no less than eight (38 to 45) have been mistaken for Chrysostom,127some of them being certainly his contemporaries. Add (46) one anonymous Father,128and (47) the author of the apocryphal[pg 045]Acta Pilati,—and it will be perceived that 18 ancient authorities have been added to the list, every whit as competent to witness what was the text of S. Luke ii. 14 at the time whena bאdwere written, as Basil or Athanasius, Epiphanius or Chrysostom themselves.129For our present purposethey areCodicesof the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries. In this way then, far more thanforty-sevenancient witnesses have come back to testify to the men of this generation that the commonly received reading of S. Luke ii. 14 isthe true reading, and that the text which the Revisionists are seeking to palm off upon us isa fabrication and a blunder. Will any one be found to maintain that the authority ofband א is appreciable, when confronted by the first 15contemporary Ecclesiastical Writersabove enumerated? or thatacan stand against the 7 which follow?This is not all however. Survey the preceding enumeration geographically, and note that, besides 1 name from Gaul,—at least 2 stand for Constantinople,—while 5 are dotted over Asia Minor:—10 at least represent Antioch; and—6, other parts of Syria:—3 stand for Palestine, and 12 for other Churches of the East:—at least 5 are Alexandrian,—2 are men of Cyprus, and—1 is from Crete. If the articulate voices of so many illustrious Bishops, coming back to us in this way from every part of ancient Christendom and all delivering the same unfaltering message,—ifthisbe not allowed to be decisive on a point of the kind just now before us, then pray let us have it explained to us,—What amount of evidencewillmen accept as final? It is high time that this were known.... The plain truth is, that a case has[pg 046]been established against אa b dand the Latin version, which amounts toproofthat those documents, even when they conspire to yield the self-same evidence, are not to be depended on as witnesses to the text of Scripture. The history of the reading advocated by the Revisionists is briefly this:—It emerges into notice in the IInd century; and in the Vth, disappears from sight entirely.Enough and to spare has now been offered concerning the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14. But because we propose to ourselves thatno uncertainty whatevershall remain on this subject, it will not be wasted labour if at parting we pour into the ruined citadel just enough of shot and shell to leave no dark corner standing for the ghost of a respectable doubt hereafter to hide in. Now, it is confessedly nothing else but the high estimate which Critics have conceived of the value of the testimony of the old uncials (אa b c d), which has occasioned any doubt at all to exist in this behalf. Let the learned Reader then ascertain for himself the character of codices אa b c dhereabouts, by collatingthe context in which S. Luke ii. 14 is found, viz. the 13 verses which precede and the one verse (ver. 15) which immediately follows. If the old uncials are observed all to sing in tune throughout, hereabouts, well and good: but if on the contrary, their voices prove utterly discordant,whosees not that the last pretence has been taken away for placingany confidence at allin their testimony concerning the text of ver. 14, turning as it does on the presence or absence ofa single letter?... He will find, as the result of his analysis, that within the space of those 14 verses, the old uncials are responsible for 56“various readings”(so-called): singly, for 41; in combination with one another, for 15. So diverse, however, is the testimony they respectively render, that they are found severally to differ from the Text of the cursives no[pg 047]less than 70 times. Among them, besides twice varying the phrase,—they contrive to omit 19 words:—to add 4:—to substitute 17:—to alter 10:—to transpose 24.—Lastly, these five codices are observed (within the same narrow limits) to fall intotendifferent combinations: viz.bא, for 5 readings;—b d, for 2;—אc, אd,a c, אb d,aאd,a bאd,bאc d,a bאc d, for 1 each.atherefore, which stands alonetwice, is found in combination 4 times;—c, which stands aloneonce, is found in combination 4 times;130—b, which stands alone 5 times, is found in combination 6 times;—א, which stands alone 11 times, is found in combination 8 times;—d, which stands alone 22 times, is found in combination 7 times.... And now,—for the last time we ask the question,—With what show of reason can the unintelligible εὐδοκίας (of אa b d) be upheld as genuine, in defiance ofthe whole body of Manuscripts, uncial and cursive,—the great bulk of the Versions,—and the mighty array of (upwards of fifty) Fathers exhibited above?(c) We are at last able to proceed, with a promise that we shall rarely prove so tedious again. But it is absolutely necessary to begin by clearing the ground. We may not go on doubting for ever. The“Angelic hymn”and“The last 12 Verses”of S. Mark's Gospel, are convenient places for a trial of strength.It has now been provedthat the commonly received text of S. Luke ii. 14 is the true text,—the Revisionists' emendation of the place, a palpable mistake. On behalf of the second Gospel, we claim to have also established that an important portion of the sacred narrative has been unjustly branded with a note of ignominy; from which we solemnly call upon the Revisionists to set the Evangelist free. The pretence that no harm has been done[pg 048]him by the mere statement of what is an undeniable fact,—(viz. that“the two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end;”and that“some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel,”)—will not stand examination. Pin to the shoulder of an honourable man a hearsay libel on his character, and see what he will have to say to you! Besides,—Why have the 12 verses been further separated off from the rest of the Gospel?This at least is unjustifiable.Those who, with Drs. Roberts and Milligan,131have been taught to maintain“that the passage is not the immediate production of S. Mark,”—“can hardly be regarded as a part of the original Gospel; but is rather an addition made to it at a very early age, whether in the lifetime of the Evangelist or not, it is impossible to say:”—such Critics are informed that they stultify themselves when they proceed in the same breath to assure the offended reader that the passage“is neverthelesspossessed of full canonical authority.”132Men who so write show that they do not understand the question. For if these 12 versesare“canonical Scripture,”—as much inspired as the 12 verses which precede them, and as worthy of undoubting confidence,—then, whether they be“the production of S. Mark,”or of some other, is a purely irrelevant circumstance. TheAuthorshipof the passage, as every one must see, is not the question. The last 12 verses of Deuteronomy, for instance, were probably not written by Moses. Do we therefore separate them off from the rest of Deuteronomy, and encumber the margin with a note expressive of our opinion? Our Revisionists, so far from holding what follows to be“canonical Scripture,”are careful to state that a rival ending to be found elsewhere merits serious attention. S. Mark xvi. 9-20, therefore (according to them),[pg 049]isnot certainlya genuine part of the Gospel;may, after all, be nothing else but a spurious accretion to the text. And as long as such doubts are put forth by our Revisionists, they publish to the world that,in their accountat all events, these verses arenot“possessed of full canonical authority.”If“the two oldest Greek manuscripts”justly“omit from verse 9 to the end”(as stated in the margin), will any one deny that our printed Text ought to omit them also?133On the other hand, if the circumstance is a mere literary curiosity, will any one maintain that it is entitled to abiding record in the margin of theEnglish Versionof the everlasting page?—affords any warrant whatever for separating“the last Twelve Verses”from their context?(d) We can probably render ordinary readers no more effectual service, than by offering now to guide them over a few select places, concerning the true reading of which the Revisionists either entertain such serious doubts that they haverecordedtheir uncertainty in the margin of their work; or else, entertaining no doubts at all, have deliberately thrust a new reading into the body of their text, andthat, without explanation, apology, or indeed record of any kind.134One remark should be premised, viz. that“various[pg 050]Readings”as they are (often most unreasonably) called, are seldom if ever the result of consciousfraud. An immense number are to be ascribed to sheer accident. It was through erroneous judgment, we repeat, not with evil intent, that men took liberties with the deposit. They imported into their copies whatever readings they considered highly recommended. By some of these ancient Critics it seems to have been thought allowableto abbreviate, by simply leaving out whatever did not appear to themselves strictly necessary: by others, totransposethe words—even the members—of a sentence, almost to any extent: by others, tosubstituteeasy expressions for difficult ones. In this way it comes to pass that we are often presented, and in the oldest documents of all, with Readings which stand self-condemned; are clearly fabrications. That it was held allowable to assimilate one Gospel to another, is quite certain. Add, that as early as the IInd century there abounded in the Church documents,—“Diatessarons”they were sometimes called,—of which the avowed object was to weave one continuous and connected narrative“out of the four;”—and we shall find that as many heads have been provided, as will suffice for the classification of almost every various reading which we are likely to encounter in our study of the Gospels.
But surely (rejoins the intelligent Reader, coming fresh to these studies), the oldest extant Manuscripts (bאa c d)mustexhibit the purest text! Is it not so?Itoughtto be so, no doubt (we answer); but it certainlyneed notbe the case.We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Hesychius in Egypt,“revised”the text of the N. T. Unfortunately, they did their work in an age when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in turn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment ofmonstrainto the sacred writings. Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch,a.d.168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of whom we know there were very many in the primitive age,—some of whose productions, we further know, were freely multiplied in every quarter of ancient Christendom:—add, the fabricated Gospels which anciently abounded; notably theGospel of the Hebrews, about which Jerome is so communicative, and which (he says) he had translated into Greek and Latin:—lastly, freely grant that here and there, with well-meant assiduity, the orthodox themselves may have sought to prop up truths which the early heretics (Basilides,a.d.134, Valentinus,a.d.140, with his disciple Heracleon, Marcion,a.d.150, and the rest,) most perseveringly assailed;—and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not a few of the codices of primitive Christendom must have exhibited Texts which[pg 030]were even scandalously corrupt.“It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,”writes the most learned of the Revisionist body,“that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus [a.d.150] and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.”71And what else are codices אb c dbutspecimens—in vastlydifferent degrees—of the class thus characterizedby Prebendary Scrivener? Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservationsolelyto the circumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy?Only by singling out some definite portion of the Gospels, and attending closely to the handling it has experienced at the hands ofaאb c d,—to the last four of which it is just now the fashion to bow down as to an oracular voice from which there shall be no appeal,—can the student become aware of the hopelessness of any attempt to construct the Text of the N. T. out of the materials which those codices exclusively supply. Let us this time take S. Mark's account of the healing of“the paralytic borne of four”(ch. ii. 1-12),—and confront their exhibition of it, with that of the commonly received Text. In the course of those 12 verses, (not reckoning 4 blunders and certain peculiarities of spelling,) there will be found to be 60 variations of reading,—of which[pg 031]55 are nothing else but depravations of the text, the result of inattention or licentiousness. Westcott and Hort adopt 23 of these:—(18, in which אbconspire to vouch for a reading: 2, where א is unsupported byb: 2, wherebis unsupported by א: 1, wherec dare supported by neither א norb). Now, in the present instance, the“five old uncials”cannot bethe depositories of a tradition,—whether Western or Eastern,—because they render inconsistent testimonyin every verse. It must further be admitted, (for this is really not a question of opinion, but a plain matter of fact,) that it is unreasonable to place confidence in such documents. What would be thought in a Court of Law of five witnesses, called up 47 times for examination, who should be observed to bear contradictory testimonyevery time?But the whole of the problem does not by any means lie on the surface. All thatappearsis that the five oldest uncials are not trustworthy witnesses; which singly, in the course of 12 verses separate themselves from their fellows 33 times: viz.a, twice;—א, 5 times;—b, 6 times;—c, thrice;—d, 17 times: and which also enter into the 11 following combinations with one another in opposition to the ordinary Text:—a c, twice;—אb, 10 times;—אd, once;—c d, 3 times;—אb c, once;—אb d, 5 times;—אc d, once;—b c d, once;—aאc d, once;—a b c d, once;—aאb c d, once. (Note, that on this last occasion, which is theonlytime when they all 5 agree,they are certainly all 5 wrong.) But this, as was observed before, lies on the surface. On closer critical inspection, it is further discovered that their testimony betrays the baseness of their origin by its intrinsic worthlessness. Thus, in Mk. ii, 1, the delicate precision of the announcement ἠκούσθη ὅτι ΕἸΣ ΟἾΚΟΝ ἘΣΤΙ (that“He has gone in”), disappears from אb d:—as well as (in ver. 2) the circumstance that it became the signal for many“immediately”(אb) to assemble about the door.—In ver. 4, S. Mark explains his predecessor's concise[pg 032]statement that the paralytic was“brought to”ourSaviour,72by remarking that the thing was“impossible”by the ordinary method of approach. Accordingly, his account of the expedient resorted to by the bearers fills one entire verse (ver. 4) of his Gospel. In the mean time, אbby exhibiting (in S. Mark ii. 3,)“bringing unto Him one sick of the palsy”(φέροντες πρὸς αὐτὸν παραλυτικόν,—which is but a senseless transposition of πρὸς αὐτόν, παραλυτικὸν φέροντες), do their best to obliterate the exquisite significance of the second Evangelist's method.—In the next verse, the perplexity of the bearers, who, because they could not“come nighHim”(προσεγγίσαι αὐτῷ), unroofed the house, is lost in אb,—whose προσενέγκαι has been obtained either from Matt. ix. 2, or else from Luke v. 18, 19 (εἰσενεγκεῖν, εἰσενέγκωσιν).“The bedwhere wasthe paralytic”(τὸν κράββατον ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ ὁ παραλυτικός), in imitation of“the roofwhere was”Jesus (τὴν στέγην ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ [ὁ Ἰησοῦς], which had immediately preceded), is just one of those tasteless depravations, for which אb, and especiallyd, are conspicuous among manuscripts.—In the last verse, theinstantaneous risingof the paralytic, noticed by S. Mark (ἠγέρθη εὐθέως), and insisted upon by S. Luke (“and immediately he rose upbefore them,”—καὶ παραχρῆμα ἀναστὰς ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν), is obliterated by shifting εὐθέως in אbandcto a place where εὐθέως is not wanted, and where its significancy disappears.Other instances of Assimilation are conspicuous. All must see that, in ver. 5, καὶ ἰδών (אb c) is derived from Matt. ix. 2 and Luke v. 20: as well as that“Son,be of good cheer”(c) is imported hither from Matt. ix. 2.“Myson,”on the other hand (א), is a mere effort of the imagination. In the same verse, σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι (אb d) is either from Matt. ix. 5 (sic); or[pg 033]else from ver. 9, lower down in S. Mark's narrative. Λέγοντες, in ver. 6 (d), is from S. Luke v. 21. Ὕπαγε (א) in ver. 9, and ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου (d), are clearly importations from ver 11. The strange confusion in ver. 7,—“Because this man thus speaketh, he blasphemeth”(b),—and“Why doth this man thus speak? He blasphemeth”(אd),—is due solely to Mtt. ix. 3:—while the appendix proposed by א as a substitute for“We never saw it on this fashion”(οὐδέποτε οὕτως εἴδομεν), in ver 12 (viz.“It was never so seen in Israel,”οὐδέποτε οὕτως ἐφάνη ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ), has been transplanted hither from S. Matt. ix. 33.We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of אb c dhereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting thathereticaldepravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena.That(we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and fabricators of Gospels have universally perished. From the slender relics of their iniquitous performances which have survived to our time, we are sometimes able to lay our finger on a foul blot and to say,“Thiscame from Tatian's Diatessaron; andthatfrom Marcion's mutilated recension of the Gospel according to S. Luke.”The piercing of ourSaviour'sside, transplanted by codices אb cfrom S. John xix. 34 into S. Matt, xxvii. 49, is an instance of the former,—which it may reasonably create astonishment to find that Drs. Westcott and Hort (alone among Editors) have nevertheless admitted into their text, as equally trustworthy with the last 12 verses of S. Mark's Gospel. But it occasions a stronger sentiment than surprise to discover that this,“the gravest interpolation yet laid to the charge ofb,”—this“sentence which neither they nor any other competent scholar can possibly believe that the Evangelist ever wrote,”73—has been[pg 034]actually foisted into the margin ofthe Revised Versionof S. Matthew xxvii. 49. Were not the Revisionists aware that such a disfigurement must prove fatal to their work?For whosebenefit is the information volunteered that“many ancient authorities”are thus grossly interpolated?An instructive specimen of depravation follows, which can be traced to Marcion's mutilated recension of S. Luke's Gospel. We venture to entreat the favour of the reader's sustained attention to the license with which theLord'sPrayer as given in S. Luke's Gospel (xi. 2-4), is exhibited by codices אa b c d. For every reason one would have expected that so precious a formula would have been found enshrined in the“old uncials”in peculiar safety; handled by copyists of the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries with peculiar reverence. Let us ascertain exactly what has befallen it:—(a)dintroduces theLord'sPrayer by interpolating the following paraphrase of S. Matt. vi. 7:—“Use not vain repetitions as the rest: for some suppose that they shall be heard by their much speaking. But when ye pray”... After which portentous exordium,(b)bא omit the 5 words,“Our”“which art in heaven,”Then,(c)domits the article (τό) before“name:”and supplements the first petition with the words“upon us”(ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς). It must needs also transpose the words“Thy Kingdom”(ἡ βασιλεία σου).(d)bin turn omits the third petition,—“Thy will be done, as in heaven, also on the earth;”which 11 words א retains, but adds“so”before“also,”and omits the article (τῆς); finding for once an ally ina c d.(e) אdfor δίδου write δός (from Matt.).(f) א omits the article (τό) before“day by day.”And,(g)d, instead of the 3 last-named words, writes“this day”(from Matt.): substitutes“debts”(τὰ ὀφειλήματα) for“sins”(τὰ[pg 035]ἁμαρτήματα,—also from Matt.): and in place of“for [we] ourselves”(καὶ γὰρ αὐτοί) writes“as also we”(ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς, again from Matt.).—But,(h) א shows its sympathy withdby accepting two-thirds of this last blunder: exhibiting“as also [we] ourselves”(ὡς καὶ αὐτοί).(i)dconsistently reads“our debtors”(τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν) in place of“every one that is indebted to us”(παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν).—Finally,(j)bא omit the last petition,—“but deliver us from evil”(ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ)—unsupported bya cord. Of lesser discrepancies we decline to take account.So then, these five“first-class authorities”are found to throw themselves intosix different combinationsin their departures from S. Luke's way of exhibiting theLord'sPrayer,—which, among them, they contrive to falsify in respect of no less than 45 words; and yetthey are never able to agree among themselves as to any single various reading:whileonly onceare more than two of them observed to stand together,—viz. in the unauthorized omission of the article. In respect of 32 (out of the 45) words,they bear in turn solitary evidence. What need to declare that it iscertainly falsein every instance? Such however is the infatuation of the Critics, that the vagaries ofbare all taken for gospel. Besides omitting the 11 words whichbomits jointly with א, Drs. Westcott and Hort erase from the Book of Life those other 11 precious words which are omitted bybonly. And in this way it comes to pass that the mutilated condition to which the scalpel of Marcion the heretic reduced theLord'sPrayer some 1730 years ago,74(for the mischief can all be traced back[pg 036]tohim!), is palmed off on the Church of England by the Revisionists as the work of theHoly Ghost!(a) We may now proceed with our examination of their work, beginning—as Dr. Roberts (one of the Revisionists) does, when explaining the method and results of their labours—with what we hold to be the gravest blot of all, viz. the marks of serious suspicion which we find set against the last Twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel. Well may the learned Presbyterian anticipate that—“The reader will be struck by the appearance which this long paragraph presents in the Revised Version. Although inserted, it is marked off by a considerable space from the rest of the Gospel. A note is also placed in the margin containing a brief explanation of this.”75Averybrief“explanation”certainly: for the noteexplainsnothing. Allusion is made to the following words—“The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.”But now,—For the use ofwhomhas this piece of information been volunteered? Not for learned readers certainly: it being familiarly known to all, that codicesband אalone of manuscripts(to their own effectual condemnation) omit these 12 verses. But then scholars know something more about the matter. They also know that these 12 verses have been made the subject of a separate treatise extending to upwards of 300 pages,—which treatise has now been before the world for a full decade of years, and for the best of reasons has never yet been answered. Its object, stated on its title-page, was to vindicate against recent critical objectors, and to[pg 037]establish“the last Twelve Verses”of S. Mark's Gospel.76Moreover, competent judges at once admitted that the author had succeeded in doing what he undertook to do.77Canit then be right (we respectfully enquire) still to insinuate into unlearned minds distrust of twelve consecutive verses of the everlasting Gospel, which yet have been demonstrated to be as trustworthy as any other verses which can be named?The question arises,—But how did it come to pass that such evil counsels were allowed to prevail in the Jerusalem Chamber? Light has been thrown on the subject by two of the New Test. company. And first by the learned Congregationalist, Dr. Newth, who has been at the pains to describe the method which was pursued on every occasion. The practice (he informs us) was as follows. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, as chairman, asks—“Whether anyTextualChanges are proposed? The evidence for and against is briefly stated, and the proposal considered. The duty of stating this evidence is by tacit consent devolved upon (sic) two members of the Company, who from their previous studies are specially entitled to speak with authority upon such questions,—Dr. Scrivener andDr. Hort,—and who come prepared to enumerate particularly the authorities on either side. Dr. Scrivener opens up the matter by stating the facts of the case, and by giving his judgment on the bearings of the evidence. Dr. Hort follows, and mentions any additional matters that may call for notice; and, if differing from Dr. Scrivener's estimate of the weight of the evidence, gives his[pg 038]reasons and states his own view. After discussion, the vote of the Company is taken, and the proposed Reading accepted or rejected.The Text being thus settled, the Chairman asks for proposals on the Rendering.”78And thus, the men who were appointed to improvethe English Translationare exhibited to us remodellingthe original Greek. At a moment's notice, as if by intuition,—by an act which can only be described as the exercise of instinct,—these eminent Divines undertake to decide which shall be deemed the genuine utterances of theHoly Ghost,79—whichnot. Each is called upon to give his vote, and he gives it.“The Text being thus settled”they proceed to do the only thing they were originally appointed to do; viz. to try their hands at improving our Authorized Version. But we venture respectfully to suggest, that by no such“rough and ready”process is that most delicate and difficult of all critical problems—the truth of Scripture—to be“settled.”Sir Edmund Beckett remarks that if the description above given“of the process by which the Revisionists‘settled’the Greek alterations, is not a kind of joke, it is quite enough to‘settle’this Revised Greek Testament in a very different sense.”80And so, in truth, it clearly is.—“Such a proceeding appeared to me so strange,”(writes the learned and judicious Editor of theSpeaker's Commentary,)“that I fully expected that the account would be corrected, or that some explanation would be given which might remove the very unpleasant impression.”81We have since heard on the best authority,[pg 039]thatnamely of Bishop Ellicott himself,82that Dr. Newth's account of the method of“settling”the text of the N. T., pursued in the Jerusalem Chamber, is correct.But in fact, it proves to have been, from the very first, a definite part of the Programme. The chairman of the Revisionist body, Bishop Ellicott,—when he had“to consider the practical question,”—whether“(1), to construct a critical Text first: or (2), to use preferentially, though not exclusively, some current Text: or (3),simply to proceed onwardwith the work of Revision, whether of Text or Translation, making the currentTextus Receptusthe standard, and departing from it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly necessary,—in fact,solvere ambulando;”announces, at the end of 19 pages,—“We are driven then to the third alternative.”83We naturally cast about for some evidence that the members of the New Testament company possess that mastery of the subject which alone could justify one of their number (Dr. Milligan) in asserting roundly that these 12 verses are“not from the pen of S. Mark himself;”84and another (Dr. Roberts) in maintaining that“the passage isnot the immediate production of S. Mark.”85Dr. Roberts assures us that—“Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers, especially Greeks, testify that these verses were not written by S. Mark, or not found in the best copies.”86Will the learned writer permit us to assure him in return that he is entirely mistaken? He is requested to believe that Gregory of Nyssa says nothing of the sort—says[pg 040]nothing at allconcerning these verses: that Victor of Antioch vouches emphatically for theirgenuineness: that Severus does but copy, while Jerome does but translate, a few random expressions of Eusebius: and that Eusebius himselfnowhere“testifies that these verses were not written by S. Mark.”So far from it, Eusebius actuallyquotes the verses, quotes them asgenuine. Dr. Roberts is further assured that there areno“other writers”whether Greek or Latin, who insinuate doubt concerning these verses. On the contrary, besidesboththe Latin andallthe Syriac—besides the Gothic and thetwoEgyptian versions—there exist four authorities of the IInd century;—as many of the IIIrd;—five of the Vth;—four of the VIth;—as many of the VIIth;—together withat least tenof the IVth87(contemporaries therefore of codicesbandא);—which actuallyrecognizethe verses in question. Now, when toevery known Manuscript but twoof bad character, besidesevery ancient Version, some one-and-thirty Fathershave been added, 18 of whom must have used copies at least as old as eitherbor א,—Dr. Roberts is assured that an amount of external authority has been accumulated which is simply overwhelming in discussions of this nature.But the significance of a single feature of the Lectionary, of which up to this point nothing has been said, is alone sufficient to determine the controversy. We refer to the fact thatin every part of Eastern Christendomthese same 12 verses—neither more nor less—have been from the earliest recorded period, and still are, aproper lesson both for the Easter season and for Ascension Day.[pg 041]We pass on.(b) A more grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture is scarcely to be found than occurs in the proposed revised exhibition of S. Luke ii. 14, in the Greek and English alike; for indeed not only is the proposed Greek text (ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας) impossible, but the English of the Revisionists (“peace among men in whom he is well pleased”)“can be arrived at”(as one of themselves has justly remarked)“only through some process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator might like to put upon it.”88More than that: the harmony of the exquisite three-part hymn, which the Angels sang on the night of the Nativity, becomes hopelessly marred, and its structural symmetry destroyed, by the welding of the second and third members of the sentence into one. Singular to relate, the addition ofa single final letter(ς) has done all this mischief. Quite as singular is it that we should be able at the end of upwards of 1700 years to discover what occasioned its calamitous insertion. From the archetypal copy, by the aid of which the old Latin translation was made, (for the Latin copiesallread“pax hominibus bonæ voluntatis,”) the preposition ἐν was evidently away,—absorbed apparently by the ἀν which immediately follows. In order therefore to make a sentence of some sort out of words which, without ἐν, are simply unintelligible, εὐδοκία was turned into εὐδοκίας. It is accordingly a significant circumstance that, whereas there existsnoGreek copy of the Gospels whichomitsthe ἐν, there is scarcely a Latin exhibition of the place to be found which contains it.89To return however to the genuine clause,—“Good-will towards men”(ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία).[pg 042]Absolutely decisive of the true reading of the passage—irrespectively of internal considerations—ought to be the consideration that it is vouched forby every known copyof the Gospels of whatever sort, excepting only אa b d: the first and third of which, however, were anciently corrected and brought into conformity with the Received Text; while the second (a) is observed to be so inconstant in its testimony, that in the primitive“Morning-hymn”(given in another page of the same codex, and containing a quotation of S. Luke ii. 14), the correct reading of the place is found.d's complicity in error is the less important, because of the ascertained sympathy between that codex and the Latin. In the meantime the two Syriac Versions are a full set-off against the Latin copies; while the hostile evidence of the Gothic (which this time sides with the Latin) is more than neutralized by the unexpected desertion of the Coptic version from the opposite camp. The Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, Slavonic and Arabian versions, are besides all with the Received Text. It therefore comes to this:—We are invited to make our election between every other copy of the Gospels,—every known Lectionary,—and (not least of all) the ascertained ecclesiastical usage of the Eastern Church from the beginning,—on the one hand: and the testimony of four Codices without a history or a character, which concur in upholding a patent mistake, on the other. Will any one hesitate as to which of these two parties has the stronger claim on his allegiance?Could doubt be supposed to be entertained in any quarter, it must at all events be borne away by the torrent of Patristic authority which is available on the present occasion:—In the IInd century,—we have the testimony of (1) Irenæus.90[pg 043]In the IIIrd,—that of (2) Origen91in 3 places,—and of (3) theApostolical Constitutions92in 2.In the IVth,—(4) Eusebius,93—(5) Aphraates the Persian,94—(6) Titus of Bostra,95each twice;—(7) Didymus96in 3 places;—(8) Gregory of Nazianzus,97—(9) Cyril of Jerusalem,98—(10) Epiphanius99twice;—(11) Gregory of Nyssa1004 times,—(12) Ephraem Syrus,101—(13) Philo bishop of Carpasus,102—(14) Chrysostom,103in 9 places,—and (15) a nameless preacher at Antioch,104—all these,contemporaries (be it remembered) ofbandא, are found to bear concurrent testimony in favour of the commonly received text.In the Vth century,—(16) Cyril of Alexandria,105on no less than 14 occasions, vouches for it also;—(17) Theodoret106on 4;—(18) Theodotus of Ancyra107on 5 (once108in a homily preached before the Council of Ephesus on Christmas-day,a.d.431);—(19) Proclus109archbishop of Constantinople;—(20) Paulus110bishop of Emesa (in a sermon preached before Cyril of Alexandria on Christmas-day,a.d.431);—(21) the Eastern bishops111at Ephesus collectively,a.d.431 (an unusually weighty piece of evidence);—and lastly, (22) Basil[pg 044]of Seleucia.112Now, let it be remarked thatthese were contemporaries of codexa.In the VIth century,—the Patristic witnesses are (23) Cosmas, the voyager,1135 times,—(24) Anastasius Sinaita,114—(25) Eulogius115archbishop of Alexandria:contemporaries, be it remembered, of codexd.In the VIIth,—(26) Andreas of Crete116twice.And in the VIIIth,—(27) Cosmas117bishop of Maiuma near Gaza,—and his pupil (28) John Damascene,118—and (29) Germanus119archbishop of Constantinople.To these 29 illustrious names are to be added unknown writers of uncertain date, butallof considerable antiquity; and some120are proved by internal evidence to belong to the IVth or Vth century,—in short, to be of the date of the Fathers whose names 16 of them severally bear, but among whose genuine works their productions are probablynotto be reckoned. One of these was anciently mistaken for (30) Gregory Thaumaturgus:121a second, for (31) Methodius:122a third, for (32) Basil.123Three others, with different degrees of reasonableness, have been supposed to be (33, 34, 35) Athanasius.124One has passed for (36) Gregory of Nyssa;125another for (37) Epiphanius;126while no less than eight (38 to 45) have been mistaken for Chrysostom,127some of them being certainly his contemporaries. Add (46) one anonymous Father,128and (47) the author of the apocryphal[pg 045]Acta Pilati,—and it will be perceived that 18 ancient authorities have been added to the list, every whit as competent to witness what was the text of S. Luke ii. 14 at the time whena bאdwere written, as Basil or Athanasius, Epiphanius or Chrysostom themselves.129For our present purposethey areCodicesof the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries. In this way then, far more thanforty-sevenancient witnesses have come back to testify to the men of this generation that the commonly received reading of S. Luke ii. 14 isthe true reading, and that the text which the Revisionists are seeking to palm off upon us isa fabrication and a blunder. Will any one be found to maintain that the authority ofband א is appreciable, when confronted by the first 15contemporary Ecclesiastical Writersabove enumerated? or thatacan stand against the 7 which follow?This is not all however. Survey the preceding enumeration geographically, and note that, besides 1 name from Gaul,—at least 2 stand for Constantinople,—while 5 are dotted over Asia Minor:—10 at least represent Antioch; and—6, other parts of Syria:—3 stand for Palestine, and 12 for other Churches of the East:—at least 5 are Alexandrian,—2 are men of Cyprus, and—1 is from Crete. If the articulate voices of so many illustrious Bishops, coming back to us in this way from every part of ancient Christendom and all delivering the same unfaltering message,—ifthisbe not allowed to be decisive on a point of the kind just now before us, then pray let us have it explained to us,—What amount of evidencewillmen accept as final? It is high time that this were known.... The plain truth is, that a case has[pg 046]been established against אa b dand the Latin version, which amounts toproofthat those documents, even when they conspire to yield the self-same evidence, are not to be depended on as witnesses to the text of Scripture. The history of the reading advocated by the Revisionists is briefly this:—It emerges into notice in the IInd century; and in the Vth, disappears from sight entirely.Enough and to spare has now been offered concerning the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14. But because we propose to ourselves thatno uncertainty whatevershall remain on this subject, it will not be wasted labour if at parting we pour into the ruined citadel just enough of shot and shell to leave no dark corner standing for the ghost of a respectable doubt hereafter to hide in. Now, it is confessedly nothing else but the high estimate which Critics have conceived of the value of the testimony of the old uncials (אa b c d), which has occasioned any doubt at all to exist in this behalf. Let the learned Reader then ascertain for himself the character of codices אa b c dhereabouts, by collatingthe context in which S. Luke ii. 14 is found, viz. the 13 verses which precede and the one verse (ver. 15) which immediately follows. If the old uncials are observed all to sing in tune throughout, hereabouts, well and good: but if on the contrary, their voices prove utterly discordant,whosees not that the last pretence has been taken away for placingany confidence at allin their testimony concerning the text of ver. 14, turning as it does on the presence or absence ofa single letter?... He will find, as the result of his analysis, that within the space of those 14 verses, the old uncials are responsible for 56“various readings”(so-called): singly, for 41; in combination with one another, for 15. So diverse, however, is the testimony they respectively render, that they are found severally to differ from the Text of the cursives no[pg 047]less than 70 times. Among them, besides twice varying the phrase,—they contrive to omit 19 words:—to add 4:—to substitute 17:—to alter 10:—to transpose 24.—Lastly, these five codices are observed (within the same narrow limits) to fall intotendifferent combinations: viz.bא, for 5 readings;—b d, for 2;—אc, אd,a c, אb d,aאd,a bאd,bאc d,a bאc d, for 1 each.atherefore, which stands alonetwice, is found in combination 4 times;—c, which stands aloneonce, is found in combination 4 times;130—b, which stands alone 5 times, is found in combination 6 times;—א, which stands alone 11 times, is found in combination 8 times;—d, which stands alone 22 times, is found in combination 7 times.... And now,—for the last time we ask the question,—With what show of reason can the unintelligible εὐδοκίας (of אa b d) be upheld as genuine, in defiance ofthe whole body of Manuscripts, uncial and cursive,—the great bulk of the Versions,—and the mighty array of (upwards of fifty) Fathers exhibited above?(c) We are at last able to proceed, with a promise that we shall rarely prove so tedious again. But it is absolutely necessary to begin by clearing the ground. We may not go on doubting for ever. The“Angelic hymn”and“The last 12 Verses”of S. Mark's Gospel, are convenient places for a trial of strength.It has now been provedthat the commonly received text of S. Luke ii. 14 is the true text,—the Revisionists' emendation of the place, a palpable mistake. On behalf of the second Gospel, we claim to have also established that an important portion of the sacred narrative has been unjustly branded with a note of ignominy; from which we solemnly call upon the Revisionists to set the Evangelist free. The pretence that no harm has been done[pg 048]him by the mere statement of what is an undeniable fact,—(viz. that“the two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end;”and that“some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel,”)—will not stand examination. Pin to the shoulder of an honourable man a hearsay libel on his character, and see what he will have to say to you! Besides,—Why have the 12 verses been further separated off from the rest of the Gospel?This at least is unjustifiable.Those who, with Drs. Roberts and Milligan,131have been taught to maintain“that the passage is not the immediate production of S. Mark,”—“can hardly be regarded as a part of the original Gospel; but is rather an addition made to it at a very early age, whether in the lifetime of the Evangelist or not, it is impossible to say:”—such Critics are informed that they stultify themselves when they proceed in the same breath to assure the offended reader that the passage“is neverthelesspossessed of full canonical authority.”132Men who so write show that they do not understand the question. For if these 12 versesare“canonical Scripture,”—as much inspired as the 12 verses which precede them, and as worthy of undoubting confidence,—then, whether they be“the production of S. Mark,”or of some other, is a purely irrelevant circumstance. TheAuthorshipof the passage, as every one must see, is not the question. The last 12 verses of Deuteronomy, for instance, were probably not written by Moses. Do we therefore separate them off from the rest of Deuteronomy, and encumber the margin with a note expressive of our opinion? Our Revisionists, so far from holding what follows to be“canonical Scripture,”are careful to state that a rival ending to be found elsewhere merits serious attention. S. Mark xvi. 9-20, therefore (according to them),[pg 049]isnot certainlya genuine part of the Gospel;may, after all, be nothing else but a spurious accretion to the text. And as long as such doubts are put forth by our Revisionists, they publish to the world that,in their accountat all events, these verses arenot“possessed of full canonical authority.”If“the two oldest Greek manuscripts”justly“omit from verse 9 to the end”(as stated in the margin), will any one deny that our printed Text ought to omit them also?133On the other hand, if the circumstance is a mere literary curiosity, will any one maintain that it is entitled to abiding record in the margin of theEnglish Versionof the everlasting page?—affords any warrant whatever for separating“the last Twelve Verses”from their context?(d) We can probably render ordinary readers no more effectual service, than by offering now to guide them over a few select places, concerning the true reading of which the Revisionists either entertain such serious doubts that they haverecordedtheir uncertainty in the margin of their work; or else, entertaining no doubts at all, have deliberately thrust a new reading into the body of their text, andthat, without explanation, apology, or indeed record of any kind.134One remark should be premised, viz. that“various[pg 050]Readings”as they are (often most unreasonably) called, are seldom if ever the result of consciousfraud. An immense number are to be ascribed to sheer accident. It was through erroneous judgment, we repeat, not with evil intent, that men took liberties with the deposit. They imported into their copies whatever readings they considered highly recommended. By some of these ancient Critics it seems to have been thought allowableto abbreviate, by simply leaving out whatever did not appear to themselves strictly necessary: by others, totransposethe words—even the members—of a sentence, almost to any extent: by others, tosubstituteeasy expressions for difficult ones. In this way it comes to pass that we are often presented, and in the oldest documents of all, with Readings which stand self-condemned; are clearly fabrications. That it was held allowable to assimilate one Gospel to another, is quite certain. Add, that as early as the IInd century there abounded in the Church documents,—“Diatessarons”they were sometimes called,—of which the avowed object was to weave one continuous and connected narrative“out of the four;”—and we shall find that as many heads have been provided, as will suffice for the classification of almost every various reading which we are likely to encounter in our study of the Gospels.
But surely (rejoins the intelligent Reader, coming fresh to these studies), the oldest extant Manuscripts (bאa c d)mustexhibit the purest text! Is it not so?
Itoughtto be so, no doubt (we answer); but it certainlyneed notbe the case.
We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Hesychius in Egypt,“revised”the text of the N. T. Unfortunately, they did their work in an age when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in turn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment ofmonstrainto the sacred writings. Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch,a.d.168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of whom we know there were very many in the primitive age,—some of whose productions, we further know, were freely multiplied in every quarter of ancient Christendom:—add, the fabricated Gospels which anciently abounded; notably theGospel of the Hebrews, about which Jerome is so communicative, and which (he says) he had translated into Greek and Latin:—lastly, freely grant that here and there, with well-meant assiduity, the orthodox themselves may have sought to prop up truths which the early heretics (Basilides,a.d.134, Valentinus,a.d.140, with his disciple Heracleon, Marcion,a.d.150, and the rest,) most perseveringly assailed;—and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not a few of the codices of primitive Christendom must have exhibited Texts which[pg 030]were even scandalously corrupt.“It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,”writes the most learned of the Revisionist body,
“that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus [a.d.150] and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.”71
And what else are codices אb c dbutspecimens—in vastlydifferent degrees—of the class thus characterizedby Prebendary Scrivener? Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservationsolelyto the circumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy?
Only by singling out some definite portion of the Gospels, and attending closely to the handling it has experienced at the hands ofaאb c d,—to the last four of which it is just now the fashion to bow down as to an oracular voice from which there shall be no appeal,—can the student become aware of the hopelessness of any attempt to construct the Text of the N. T. out of the materials which those codices exclusively supply. Let us this time take S. Mark's account of the healing of“the paralytic borne of four”(ch. ii. 1-12),—and confront their exhibition of it, with that of the commonly received Text. In the course of those 12 verses, (not reckoning 4 blunders and certain peculiarities of spelling,) there will be found to be 60 variations of reading,—of which[pg 031]55 are nothing else but depravations of the text, the result of inattention or licentiousness. Westcott and Hort adopt 23 of these:—(18, in which אbconspire to vouch for a reading: 2, where א is unsupported byb: 2, wherebis unsupported by א: 1, wherec dare supported by neither א norb). Now, in the present instance, the“five old uncials”cannot bethe depositories of a tradition,—whether Western or Eastern,—because they render inconsistent testimonyin every verse. It must further be admitted, (for this is really not a question of opinion, but a plain matter of fact,) that it is unreasonable to place confidence in such documents. What would be thought in a Court of Law of five witnesses, called up 47 times for examination, who should be observed to bear contradictory testimonyevery time?
But the whole of the problem does not by any means lie on the surface. All thatappearsis that the five oldest uncials are not trustworthy witnesses; which singly, in the course of 12 verses separate themselves from their fellows 33 times: viz.a, twice;—א, 5 times;—b, 6 times;—c, thrice;—d, 17 times: and which also enter into the 11 following combinations with one another in opposition to the ordinary Text:—a c, twice;—אb, 10 times;—אd, once;—c d, 3 times;—אb c, once;—אb d, 5 times;—אc d, once;—b c d, once;—aאc d, once;—a b c d, once;—aאb c d, once. (Note, that on this last occasion, which is theonlytime when they all 5 agree,they are certainly all 5 wrong.) But this, as was observed before, lies on the surface. On closer critical inspection, it is further discovered that their testimony betrays the baseness of their origin by its intrinsic worthlessness. Thus, in Mk. ii, 1, the delicate precision of the announcement ἠκούσθη ὅτι ΕἸΣ ΟἾΚΟΝ ἘΣΤΙ (that“He has gone in”), disappears from אb d:—as well as (in ver. 2) the circumstance that it became the signal for many“immediately”(אb) to assemble about the door.—In ver. 4, S. Mark explains his predecessor's concise[pg 032]statement that the paralytic was“brought to”ourSaviour,72by remarking that the thing was“impossible”by the ordinary method of approach. Accordingly, his account of the expedient resorted to by the bearers fills one entire verse (ver. 4) of his Gospel. In the mean time, אbby exhibiting (in S. Mark ii. 3,)“bringing unto Him one sick of the palsy”(φέροντες πρὸς αὐτὸν παραλυτικόν,—which is but a senseless transposition of πρὸς αὐτόν, παραλυτικὸν φέροντες), do their best to obliterate the exquisite significance of the second Evangelist's method.—In the next verse, the perplexity of the bearers, who, because they could not“come nighHim”(προσεγγίσαι αὐτῷ), unroofed the house, is lost in אb,—whose προσενέγκαι has been obtained either from Matt. ix. 2, or else from Luke v. 18, 19 (εἰσενεγκεῖν, εἰσενέγκωσιν).“The bedwhere wasthe paralytic”(τὸν κράββατον ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ ὁ παραλυτικός), in imitation of“the roofwhere was”Jesus (τὴν στέγην ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ [ὁ Ἰησοῦς], which had immediately preceded), is just one of those tasteless depravations, for which אb, and especiallyd, are conspicuous among manuscripts.—In the last verse, theinstantaneous risingof the paralytic, noticed by S. Mark (ἠγέρθη εὐθέως), and insisted upon by S. Luke (“and immediately he rose upbefore them,”—καὶ παραχρῆμα ἀναστὰς ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν), is obliterated by shifting εὐθέως in אbandcto a place where εὐθέως is not wanted, and where its significancy disappears.
Other instances of Assimilation are conspicuous. All must see that, in ver. 5, καὶ ἰδών (אb c) is derived from Matt. ix. 2 and Luke v. 20: as well as that“Son,be of good cheer”(c) is imported hither from Matt. ix. 2.“Myson,”on the other hand (א), is a mere effort of the imagination. In the same verse, σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι (אb d) is either from Matt. ix. 5 (sic); or[pg 033]else from ver. 9, lower down in S. Mark's narrative. Λέγοντες, in ver. 6 (d), is from S. Luke v. 21. Ὕπαγε (א) in ver. 9, and ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου (d), are clearly importations from ver 11. The strange confusion in ver. 7,—“Because this man thus speaketh, he blasphemeth”(b),—and“Why doth this man thus speak? He blasphemeth”(אd),—is due solely to Mtt. ix. 3:—while the appendix proposed by א as a substitute for“We never saw it on this fashion”(οὐδέποτε οὕτως εἴδομεν), in ver 12 (viz.“It was never so seen in Israel,”οὐδέποτε οὕτως ἐφάνη ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ), has been transplanted hither from S. Matt. ix. 33.
We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of אb c dhereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting thathereticaldepravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena.That(we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and fabricators of Gospels have universally perished. From the slender relics of their iniquitous performances which have survived to our time, we are sometimes able to lay our finger on a foul blot and to say,“Thiscame from Tatian's Diatessaron; andthatfrom Marcion's mutilated recension of the Gospel according to S. Luke.”The piercing of ourSaviour'sside, transplanted by codices אb cfrom S. John xix. 34 into S. Matt, xxvii. 49, is an instance of the former,—which it may reasonably create astonishment to find that Drs. Westcott and Hort (alone among Editors) have nevertheless admitted into their text, as equally trustworthy with the last 12 verses of S. Mark's Gospel. But it occasions a stronger sentiment than surprise to discover that this,“the gravest interpolation yet laid to the charge ofb,”—this“sentence which neither they nor any other competent scholar can possibly believe that the Evangelist ever wrote,”73—has been[pg 034]actually foisted into the margin ofthe Revised Versionof S. Matthew xxvii. 49. Were not the Revisionists aware that such a disfigurement must prove fatal to their work?For whosebenefit is the information volunteered that“many ancient authorities”are thus grossly interpolated?
An instructive specimen of depravation follows, which can be traced to Marcion's mutilated recension of S. Luke's Gospel. We venture to entreat the favour of the reader's sustained attention to the license with which theLord'sPrayer as given in S. Luke's Gospel (xi. 2-4), is exhibited by codices אa b c d. For every reason one would have expected that so precious a formula would have been found enshrined in the“old uncials”in peculiar safety; handled by copyists of the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries with peculiar reverence. Let us ascertain exactly what has befallen it:—
(a)dintroduces theLord'sPrayer by interpolating the following paraphrase of S. Matt. vi. 7:—“Use not vain repetitions as the rest: for some suppose that they shall be heard by their much speaking. But when ye pray”... After which portentous exordium,
(b)bא omit the 5 words,“Our”“which art in heaven,”Then,
(c)domits the article (τό) before“name:”and supplements the first petition with the words“upon us”(ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς). It must needs also transpose the words“Thy Kingdom”(ἡ βασιλεία σου).
(d)bin turn omits the third petition,—“Thy will be done, as in heaven, also on the earth;”which 11 words א retains, but adds“so”before“also,”and omits the article (τῆς); finding for once an ally ina c d.
(e) אdfor δίδου write δός (from Matt.).
(f) א omits the article (τό) before“day by day.”And,
(g)d, instead of the 3 last-named words, writes“this day”(from Matt.): substitutes“debts”(τὰ ὀφειλήματα) for“sins”(τὰ[pg 035]ἁμαρτήματα,—also from Matt.): and in place of“for [we] ourselves”(καὶ γὰρ αὐτοί) writes“as also we”(ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς, again from Matt.).—But,
(h) א shows its sympathy withdby accepting two-thirds of this last blunder: exhibiting“as also [we] ourselves”(ὡς καὶ αὐτοί).
(i)dconsistently reads“our debtors”(τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν) in place of“every one that is indebted to us”(παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν).—Finally,
(j)bא omit the last petition,—“but deliver us from evil”(ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ)—unsupported bya cord. Of lesser discrepancies we decline to take account.
So then, these five“first-class authorities”are found to throw themselves intosix different combinationsin their departures from S. Luke's way of exhibiting theLord'sPrayer,—which, among them, they contrive to falsify in respect of no less than 45 words; and yetthey are never able to agree among themselves as to any single various reading:whileonly onceare more than two of them observed to stand together,—viz. in the unauthorized omission of the article. In respect of 32 (out of the 45) words,they bear in turn solitary evidence. What need to declare that it iscertainly falsein every instance? Such however is the infatuation of the Critics, that the vagaries ofbare all taken for gospel. Besides omitting the 11 words whichbomits jointly with א, Drs. Westcott and Hort erase from the Book of Life those other 11 precious words which are omitted bybonly. And in this way it comes to pass that the mutilated condition to which the scalpel of Marcion the heretic reduced theLord'sPrayer some 1730 years ago,74(for the mischief can all be traced back[pg 036]tohim!), is palmed off on the Church of England by the Revisionists as the work of theHoly Ghost!
(a) We may now proceed with our examination of their work, beginning—as Dr. Roberts (one of the Revisionists) does, when explaining the method and results of their labours—with what we hold to be the gravest blot of all, viz. the marks of serious suspicion which we find set against the last Twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel. Well may the learned Presbyterian anticipate that—
“The reader will be struck by the appearance which this long paragraph presents in the Revised Version. Although inserted, it is marked off by a considerable space from the rest of the Gospel. A note is also placed in the margin containing a brief explanation of this.”75
Averybrief“explanation”certainly: for the noteexplainsnothing. Allusion is made to the following words—
“The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.”
But now,—For the use ofwhomhas this piece of information been volunteered? Not for learned readers certainly: it being familiarly known to all, that codicesband אalone of manuscripts(to their own effectual condemnation) omit these 12 verses. But then scholars know something more about the matter. They also know that these 12 verses have been made the subject of a separate treatise extending to upwards of 300 pages,—which treatise has now been before the world for a full decade of years, and for the best of reasons has never yet been answered. Its object, stated on its title-page, was to vindicate against recent critical objectors, and to[pg 037]establish“the last Twelve Verses”of S. Mark's Gospel.76Moreover, competent judges at once admitted that the author had succeeded in doing what he undertook to do.77Canit then be right (we respectfully enquire) still to insinuate into unlearned minds distrust of twelve consecutive verses of the everlasting Gospel, which yet have been demonstrated to be as trustworthy as any other verses which can be named?
The question arises,—But how did it come to pass that such evil counsels were allowed to prevail in the Jerusalem Chamber? Light has been thrown on the subject by two of the New Test. company. And first by the learned Congregationalist, Dr. Newth, who has been at the pains to describe the method which was pursued on every occasion. The practice (he informs us) was as follows. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, as chairman, asks—
“Whether anyTextualChanges are proposed? The evidence for and against is briefly stated, and the proposal considered. The duty of stating this evidence is by tacit consent devolved upon (sic) two members of the Company, who from their previous studies are specially entitled to speak with authority upon such questions,—Dr. Scrivener andDr. Hort,—and who come prepared to enumerate particularly the authorities on either side. Dr. Scrivener opens up the matter by stating the facts of the case, and by giving his judgment on the bearings of the evidence. Dr. Hort follows, and mentions any additional matters that may call for notice; and, if differing from Dr. Scrivener's estimate of the weight of the evidence, gives his[pg 038]reasons and states his own view. After discussion, the vote of the Company is taken, and the proposed Reading accepted or rejected.The Text being thus settled, the Chairman asks for proposals on the Rendering.”78
And thus, the men who were appointed to improvethe English Translationare exhibited to us remodellingthe original Greek. At a moment's notice, as if by intuition,—by an act which can only be described as the exercise of instinct,—these eminent Divines undertake to decide which shall be deemed the genuine utterances of theHoly Ghost,79—whichnot. Each is called upon to give his vote, and he gives it.“The Text being thus settled”they proceed to do the only thing they were originally appointed to do; viz. to try their hands at improving our Authorized Version. But we venture respectfully to suggest, that by no such“rough and ready”process is that most delicate and difficult of all critical problems—the truth of Scripture—to be“settled.”
Sir Edmund Beckett remarks that if the description above given“of the process by which the Revisionists‘settled’the Greek alterations, is not a kind of joke, it is quite enough to‘settle’this Revised Greek Testament in a very different sense.”80And so, in truth, it clearly is.—“Such a proceeding appeared to me so strange,”(writes the learned and judicious Editor of theSpeaker's Commentary,)“that I fully expected that the account would be corrected, or that some explanation would be given which might remove the very unpleasant impression.”81We have since heard on the best authority,[pg 039]thatnamely of Bishop Ellicott himself,82that Dr. Newth's account of the method of“settling”the text of the N. T., pursued in the Jerusalem Chamber, is correct.
But in fact, it proves to have been, from the very first, a definite part of the Programme. The chairman of the Revisionist body, Bishop Ellicott,—when he had“to consider the practical question,”—whether“(1), to construct a critical Text first: or (2), to use preferentially, though not exclusively, some current Text: or (3),simply to proceed onwardwith the work of Revision, whether of Text or Translation, making the currentTextus Receptusthe standard, and departing from it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly necessary,—in fact,solvere ambulando;”announces, at the end of 19 pages,—“We are driven then to the third alternative.”83
We naturally cast about for some evidence that the members of the New Testament company possess that mastery of the subject which alone could justify one of their number (Dr. Milligan) in asserting roundly that these 12 verses are“not from the pen of S. Mark himself;”84and another (Dr. Roberts) in maintaining that“the passage isnot the immediate production of S. Mark.”85Dr. Roberts assures us that—
“Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers, especially Greeks, testify that these verses were not written by S. Mark, or not found in the best copies.”86
Will the learned writer permit us to assure him in return that he is entirely mistaken? He is requested to believe that Gregory of Nyssa says nothing of the sort—says[pg 040]nothing at allconcerning these verses: that Victor of Antioch vouches emphatically for theirgenuineness: that Severus does but copy, while Jerome does but translate, a few random expressions of Eusebius: and that Eusebius himselfnowhere“testifies that these verses were not written by S. Mark.”So far from it, Eusebius actuallyquotes the verses, quotes them asgenuine. Dr. Roberts is further assured that there areno“other writers”whether Greek or Latin, who insinuate doubt concerning these verses. On the contrary, besidesboththe Latin andallthe Syriac—besides the Gothic and thetwoEgyptian versions—there exist four authorities of the IInd century;—as many of the IIIrd;—five of the Vth;—four of the VIth;—as many of the VIIth;—together withat least tenof the IVth87(contemporaries therefore of codicesbandא);—which actuallyrecognizethe verses in question. Now, when toevery known Manuscript but twoof bad character, besidesevery ancient Version, some one-and-thirty Fathershave been added, 18 of whom must have used copies at least as old as eitherbor א,—Dr. Roberts is assured that an amount of external authority has been accumulated which is simply overwhelming in discussions of this nature.
But the significance of a single feature of the Lectionary, of which up to this point nothing has been said, is alone sufficient to determine the controversy. We refer to the fact thatin every part of Eastern Christendomthese same 12 verses—neither more nor less—have been from the earliest recorded period, and still are, aproper lesson both for the Easter season and for Ascension Day.
We pass on.
(b) A more grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture is scarcely to be found than occurs in the proposed revised exhibition of S. Luke ii. 14, in the Greek and English alike; for indeed not only is the proposed Greek text (ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας) impossible, but the English of the Revisionists (“peace among men in whom he is well pleased”)“can be arrived at”(as one of themselves has justly remarked)“only through some process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator might like to put upon it.”88More than that: the harmony of the exquisite three-part hymn, which the Angels sang on the night of the Nativity, becomes hopelessly marred, and its structural symmetry destroyed, by the welding of the second and third members of the sentence into one. Singular to relate, the addition ofa single final letter(ς) has done all this mischief. Quite as singular is it that we should be able at the end of upwards of 1700 years to discover what occasioned its calamitous insertion. From the archetypal copy, by the aid of which the old Latin translation was made, (for the Latin copiesallread“pax hominibus bonæ voluntatis,”) the preposition ἐν was evidently away,—absorbed apparently by the ἀν which immediately follows. In order therefore to make a sentence of some sort out of words which, without ἐν, are simply unintelligible, εὐδοκία was turned into εὐδοκίας. It is accordingly a significant circumstance that, whereas there existsnoGreek copy of the Gospels whichomitsthe ἐν, there is scarcely a Latin exhibition of the place to be found which contains it.89To return however to the genuine clause,—“Good-will towards men”(ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία).
Absolutely decisive of the true reading of the passage—irrespectively of internal considerations—ought to be the consideration that it is vouched forby every known copyof the Gospels of whatever sort, excepting only אa b d: the first and third of which, however, were anciently corrected and brought into conformity with the Received Text; while the second (a) is observed to be so inconstant in its testimony, that in the primitive“Morning-hymn”(given in another page of the same codex, and containing a quotation of S. Luke ii. 14), the correct reading of the place is found.d's complicity in error is the less important, because of the ascertained sympathy between that codex and the Latin. In the meantime the two Syriac Versions are a full set-off against the Latin copies; while the hostile evidence of the Gothic (which this time sides with the Latin) is more than neutralized by the unexpected desertion of the Coptic version from the opposite camp. The Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, Slavonic and Arabian versions, are besides all with the Received Text. It therefore comes to this:—We are invited to make our election between every other copy of the Gospels,—every known Lectionary,—and (not least of all) the ascertained ecclesiastical usage of the Eastern Church from the beginning,—on the one hand: and the testimony of four Codices without a history or a character, which concur in upholding a patent mistake, on the other. Will any one hesitate as to which of these two parties has the stronger claim on his allegiance?
Could doubt be supposed to be entertained in any quarter, it must at all events be borne away by the torrent of Patristic authority which is available on the present occasion:—
In the IInd century,—we have the testimony of (1) Irenæus.90
In the IIIrd,—that of (2) Origen91in 3 places,—and of (3) theApostolical Constitutions92in 2.
In the IVth,—(4) Eusebius,93—(5) Aphraates the Persian,94—(6) Titus of Bostra,95each twice;—(7) Didymus96in 3 places;—(8) Gregory of Nazianzus,97—(9) Cyril of Jerusalem,98—(10) Epiphanius99twice;—(11) Gregory of Nyssa1004 times,—(12) Ephraem Syrus,101—(13) Philo bishop of Carpasus,102—(14) Chrysostom,103in 9 places,—and (15) a nameless preacher at Antioch,104—all these,contemporaries (be it remembered) ofbandא, are found to bear concurrent testimony in favour of the commonly received text.
In the Vth century,—(16) Cyril of Alexandria,105on no less than 14 occasions, vouches for it also;—(17) Theodoret106on 4;—(18) Theodotus of Ancyra107on 5 (once108in a homily preached before the Council of Ephesus on Christmas-day,a.d.431);—(19) Proclus109archbishop of Constantinople;—(20) Paulus110bishop of Emesa (in a sermon preached before Cyril of Alexandria on Christmas-day,a.d.431);—(21) the Eastern bishops111at Ephesus collectively,a.d.431 (an unusually weighty piece of evidence);—and lastly, (22) Basil[pg 044]of Seleucia.112Now, let it be remarked thatthese were contemporaries of codexa.
In the VIth century,—the Patristic witnesses are (23) Cosmas, the voyager,1135 times,—(24) Anastasius Sinaita,114—(25) Eulogius115archbishop of Alexandria:contemporaries, be it remembered, of codexd.
In the VIIth,—(26) Andreas of Crete116twice.
And in the VIIIth,—(27) Cosmas117bishop of Maiuma near Gaza,—and his pupil (28) John Damascene,118—and (29) Germanus119archbishop of Constantinople.
To these 29 illustrious names are to be added unknown writers of uncertain date, butallof considerable antiquity; and some120are proved by internal evidence to belong to the IVth or Vth century,—in short, to be of the date of the Fathers whose names 16 of them severally bear, but among whose genuine works their productions are probablynotto be reckoned. One of these was anciently mistaken for (30) Gregory Thaumaturgus:121a second, for (31) Methodius:122a third, for (32) Basil.123Three others, with different degrees of reasonableness, have been supposed to be (33, 34, 35) Athanasius.124One has passed for (36) Gregory of Nyssa;125another for (37) Epiphanius;126while no less than eight (38 to 45) have been mistaken for Chrysostom,127some of them being certainly his contemporaries. Add (46) one anonymous Father,128and (47) the author of the apocryphal[pg 045]Acta Pilati,—and it will be perceived that 18 ancient authorities have been added to the list, every whit as competent to witness what was the text of S. Luke ii. 14 at the time whena bאdwere written, as Basil or Athanasius, Epiphanius or Chrysostom themselves.129For our present purposethey areCodicesof the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries. In this way then, far more thanforty-sevenancient witnesses have come back to testify to the men of this generation that the commonly received reading of S. Luke ii. 14 isthe true reading, and that the text which the Revisionists are seeking to palm off upon us isa fabrication and a blunder. Will any one be found to maintain that the authority ofband א is appreciable, when confronted by the first 15contemporary Ecclesiastical Writersabove enumerated? or thatacan stand against the 7 which follow?
This is not all however. Survey the preceding enumeration geographically, and note that, besides 1 name from Gaul,—at least 2 stand for Constantinople,—while 5 are dotted over Asia Minor:—10 at least represent Antioch; and—6, other parts of Syria:—3 stand for Palestine, and 12 for other Churches of the East:—at least 5 are Alexandrian,—2 are men of Cyprus, and—1 is from Crete. If the articulate voices of so many illustrious Bishops, coming back to us in this way from every part of ancient Christendom and all delivering the same unfaltering message,—ifthisbe not allowed to be decisive on a point of the kind just now before us, then pray let us have it explained to us,—What amount of evidencewillmen accept as final? It is high time that this were known.... The plain truth is, that a case has[pg 046]been established against אa b dand the Latin version, which amounts toproofthat those documents, even when they conspire to yield the self-same evidence, are not to be depended on as witnesses to the text of Scripture. The history of the reading advocated by the Revisionists is briefly this:—It emerges into notice in the IInd century; and in the Vth, disappears from sight entirely.
Enough and to spare has now been offered concerning the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14. But because we propose to ourselves thatno uncertainty whatevershall remain on this subject, it will not be wasted labour if at parting we pour into the ruined citadel just enough of shot and shell to leave no dark corner standing for the ghost of a respectable doubt hereafter to hide in. Now, it is confessedly nothing else but the high estimate which Critics have conceived of the value of the testimony of the old uncials (אa b c d), which has occasioned any doubt at all to exist in this behalf. Let the learned Reader then ascertain for himself the character of codices אa b c dhereabouts, by collatingthe context in which S. Luke ii. 14 is found, viz. the 13 verses which precede and the one verse (ver. 15) which immediately follows. If the old uncials are observed all to sing in tune throughout, hereabouts, well and good: but if on the contrary, their voices prove utterly discordant,whosees not that the last pretence has been taken away for placingany confidence at allin their testimony concerning the text of ver. 14, turning as it does on the presence or absence ofa single letter?... He will find, as the result of his analysis, that within the space of those 14 verses, the old uncials are responsible for 56“various readings”(so-called): singly, for 41; in combination with one another, for 15. So diverse, however, is the testimony they respectively render, that they are found severally to differ from the Text of the cursives no[pg 047]less than 70 times. Among them, besides twice varying the phrase,—they contrive to omit 19 words:—to add 4:—to substitute 17:—to alter 10:—to transpose 24.—Lastly, these five codices are observed (within the same narrow limits) to fall intotendifferent combinations: viz.bא, for 5 readings;—b d, for 2;—אc, אd,a c, אb d,aאd,a bאd,bאc d,a bאc d, for 1 each.atherefore, which stands alonetwice, is found in combination 4 times;—c, which stands aloneonce, is found in combination 4 times;130—b, which stands alone 5 times, is found in combination 6 times;—א, which stands alone 11 times, is found in combination 8 times;—d, which stands alone 22 times, is found in combination 7 times.... And now,—for the last time we ask the question,—With what show of reason can the unintelligible εὐδοκίας (of אa b d) be upheld as genuine, in defiance ofthe whole body of Manuscripts, uncial and cursive,—the great bulk of the Versions,—and the mighty array of (upwards of fifty) Fathers exhibited above?
(c) We are at last able to proceed, with a promise that we shall rarely prove so tedious again. But it is absolutely necessary to begin by clearing the ground. We may not go on doubting for ever. The“Angelic hymn”and“The last 12 Verses”of S. Mark's Gospel, are convenient places for a trial of strength.It has now been provedthat the commonly received text of S. Luke ii. 14 is the true text,—the Revisionists' emendation of the place, a palpable mistake. On behalf of the second Gospel, we claim to have also established that an important portion of the sacred narrative has been unjustly branded with a note of ignominy; from which we solemnly call upon the Revisionists to set the Evangelist free. The pretence that no harm has been done[pg 048]him by the mere statement of what is an undeniable fact,—(viz. that“the two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end;”and that“some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel,”)—will not stand examination. Pin to the shoulder of an honourable man a hearsay libel on his character, and see what he will have to say to you! Besides,—Why have the 12 verses been further separated off from the rest of the Gospel?This at least is unjustifiable.
Those who, with Drs. Roberts and Milligan,131have been taught to maintain“that the passage is not the immediate production of S. Mark,”—“can hardly be regarded as a part of the original Gospel; but is rather an addition made to it at a very early age, whether in the lifetime of the Evangelist or not, it is impossible to say:”—such Critics are informed that they stultify themselves when they proceed in the same breath to assure the offended reader that the passage“is neverthelesspossessed of full canonical authority.”132Men who so write show that they do not understand the question. For if these 12 versesare“canonical Scripture,”—as much inspired as the 12 verses which precede them, and as worthy of undoubting confidence,—then, whether they be“the production of S. Mark,”or of some other, is a purely irrelevant circumstance. TheAuthorshipof the passage, as every one must see, is not the question. The last 12 verses of Deuteronomy, for instance, were probably not written by Moses. Do we therefore separate them off from the rest of Deuteronomy, and encumber the margin with a note expressive of our opinion? Our Revisionists, so far from holding what follows to be“canonical Scripture,”are careful to state that a rival ending to be found elsewhere merits serious attention. S. Mark xvi. 9-20, therefore (according to them),[pg 049]isnot certainlya genuine part of the Gospel;may, after all, be nothing else but a spurious accretion to the text. And as long as such doubts are put forth by our Revisionists, they publish to the world that,in their accountat all events, these verses arenot“possessed of full canonical authority.”If“the two oldest Greek manuscripts”justly“omit from verse 9 to the end”(as stated in the margin), will any one deny that our printed Text ought to omit them also?133On the other hand, if the circumstance is a mere literary curiosity, will any one maintain that it is entitled to abiding record in the margin of theEnglish Versionof the everlasting page?—affords any warrant whatever for separating“the last Twelve Verses”from their context?
(d) We can probably render ordinary readers no more effectual service, than by offering now to guide them over a few select places, concerning the true reading of which the Revisionists either entertain such serious doubts that they haverecordedtheir uncertainty in the margin of their work; or else, entertaining no doubts at all, have deliberately thrust a new reading into the body of their text, andthat, without explanation, apology, or indeed record of any kind.134One remark should be premised, viz. that“various[pg 050]Readings”as they are (often most unreasonably) called, are seldom if ever the result of consciousfraud. An immense number are to be ascribed to sheer accident. It was through erroneous judgment, we repeat, not with evil intent, that men took liberties with the deposit. They imported into their copies whatever readings they considered highly recommended. By some of these ancient Critics it seems to have been thought allowableto abbreviate, by simply leaving out whatever did not appear to themselves strictly necessary: by others, totransposethe words—even the members—of a sentence, almost to any extent: by others, tosubstituteeasy expressions for difficult ones. In this way it comes to pass that we are often presented, and in the oldest documents of all, with Readings which stand self-condemned; are clearly fabrications. That it was held allowable to assimilate one Gospel to another, is quite certain. Add, that as early as the IInd century there abounded in the Church documents,—“Diatessarons”they were sometimes called,—of which the avowed object was to weave one continuous and connected narrative“out of the four;”—and we shall find that as many heads have been provided, as will suffice for the classification of almost every various reading which we are likely to encounter in our study of the Gospels.