Chapter 7

(2)ibid.43, 44. (OurSaviour'sAgony in the garden,—26 words.)(3) xxiii. 17. (The custom of releasing one at the Passover,—8 words.)(4)ibid.34. (OurLord'sprayer on behalf of His murderers,—12 words.)(5)ibid.38. (The record that the title on the Cross was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew,—7 words.)[pg 076](6) xxiv. 1. (“and certain with them,”—4 words.)(7)ibid.3. (“of theLord Jesus,”—3 words.)(8)ibid.6. (“He is not here, but He is risen,”—5 words.)(9)ibid.9. (“from the sepulchre,”—3 words.)(10)ibid.12. (The mention of S. Peter's visit to the sepulchre,—22 words.)(11)ibid.36. (“and saith unto them, Peace be unto you!”—5 words.)(12)ibid.40. (“and when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet,”—10 words.)(13)ibid.42. (“and of an honeycomb,”—4 words.)(14)ibid.51. (“and was carried up into Heaven,”—5.)(15)ibid.52. (“worshipped Him,”—2 words.)(16)ibid.53. (“praising and,”—2 words.)On an attentive survey of the foregoing sixteen instances of unauthorized Omission, it will be perceived that the 1st passage (S. Luke xxii. 19, 20) must have been eliminated from the Text because the mention oftwoCups seemed to create a difficulty.—The 2nd has been suppressed because (see p.82) the incident was deemed derogatory to the majesty ofGodIncarnate.—The 3rd and 5th were held to be superfluous, because the information which they contain has been already conveyed by the parallel passages.—The 10th will have been omitted as apparently inconsistent with the strict letter of S. John xx. 1-10.—The 6th and 13th are certainly instances of enforced Harmony.—Most of the others (the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th) seem to have been excised through mere wantonness,—the veriest licentiousness.—In the meantime, so far are Drs. Westcott and Hort from accepting the foregoing account of the matter, that they even style the 1st“aperverse interpolation:”in which view of the subject, however, they enjoy the distinction of standing entirely alone. With the same“moral certainty,”they further proceed to shut up within double[pg 077]brackets the 2nd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th: while the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 13th, and 16th, they exclude from their Text as indisputably spurious matter.Now, we are not about to abuse our Readers' patience by an investigation of the several points raised by the foregoing statement. In fact, all should have been passed by in silence, but that unhappily the“Revision”of our Authorized Version is touched thereby very nearly indeed. So intimate (may we not say,so fatal?) proves to be the sympathy between the labours of Drs. Westcott and Hort and those of our Revisionists,that whatever the former have shut up within double brackets, the latter are discovered to have branded with a note of suspicion, conceived invariably in the same terms: viz.,“Some ancient authorities omit.”And further,whatever those Editors have rejected from their Text, these Revisionists have rejected also. It becomes necessary, therefore, briefly to enquire after the precise amount of manuscript authority which underlies certain of the foregoing changes. And happily this may be done in a few words.Thesoleauthority for just half of the places above enumerated189isa single Greek codex,—and that, the most depraved of all,—viz. Beza'sd.190It should further be stated that the only allies discoverable fordare a few copies of the old Latin. What we are saying will seem scarcely credible: but it is a plain fact, of which any one may convince himself who will be at the pains to inspect the critical apparatus at the foot of the pages of Tischendorf's last (8th) edition. Our Revisionists' notion, therefore, of what constitutes“weighty evidence”is now before the Reader. If, inhisjudgment, the testimony ofone single manuscript, (andthatmanuscript the[pg 078]Codex Bezæ (d),)—does really invalidate that ofall other Manuscripts and all other Versionsin the world,—then of course, the Greek Text of the Revisionists will in his judgment be a thing to be rejoiced over. But what if he should be of opinion that such testimony, in and by itself, is simply worthless? We shrewdly suspect that the Revisionists' view of what constitutes“weighty Evidence”will be found to end where it began, viz. in the Jerusalem Chamber.For, when we reach down codexdfrom the shelf, we are reminded that, within the space of the three chapters of S. Luke's Gospel now under consideration, there are in all no less than 354 words omitted;of which, 250are omitted bydalone. May we have it explained to us why, of those 354 words, only 25 are singled out by Drs. Westcott and Hort for permanent excision from the sacred Text? Within the same compass, no less than 173 words have beenadded bydto the commonly Received Text,—146,substituted,—243,transposed. May we ask how it comes to pass that of those 562 wordsnot onehas been promoted to their margin by the Revisionists?... Return we, however, to our list of the changes which they actuallyhaveeffected.(1) Now, that ecclesiastical usage and the parallel places would seriously affect such precious words as are found in S. Luke xxii. 19, 20,—was to have been expected. Yet has the type been preserved all along, from the beginning, with singular exactness; except in one little handful of singularly licentious documents, viz. inda ff2i l, whichleave all out;—in b e, which substitute verses 17 and 18;—and in“the singular and sometimes rather wild Curetonian Syriac Version,”191which, retaining the 10 words of ver. 19, substitutes[pg 079]verses 17, 18 for ver. 20. Enough for the condemnation ofdsurvives in Justin,192—Basil,193—Epiphanius,194—Theodoret,195—Cyril,196—Maximus,197—Jerome.198But why delay ourselves concerning a place vouched forby every known copy of the Gospels exceptd? Drs. Westcott and Hort entertain“no moral doubtthat the [32] words [given at foot199] were absent from the original text of S. Luke;”in which opinion, happily,they stand alone. But why did our Revisionists suffer themselves to be led astray by such blind guidance?The next place is entitled to far graver attention, and may on no account be lightly dismissed, seeing that these two verses contain the sole record of that“Agony in the Garden”which the universal Church has almost erected into an article of the Faith.(2) That the incident of the ministering Angel, the Agony and bloody sweat of the world's Redeemer (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44), was anciently absent from certain copies of the Gospels, is expressly recorded by Hilary,200by Jerome,201and others. Only necessary is it to read the apologetic remarks which Ambrose introduces when he reaches S. Luke xxii. 43,202to understand what has evidently led to this serious mutilation of Scripture,—traces of which survive at this day exclusively infourcodices, viz.a b r t. Singular to relate, in the Gospel which was read on Maundy-Thursday these two verses of S. Luke's Gospel are thrust in between the 39th[pg 080]and the 40th verses of S. Matthew xxvi. Hence, 4 cursive copies, viz. 13-69-124-346—(confessedly derived from a common ancient archetype,203and therefore not four witnesses but only one),—actually exhibit these two Verses in that place. But will any unprejudiced person of sound mind entertain a doubt concerning the genuineness of these two verses, witnessed to as they are bythe whole body of the Manuscripts, uncial as well as cursive, andby every ancient Version?... If such a thing were possible, it is hoped that the following enumeration of ancient Fathers, who distinctly recognize the place under discussion, must at least be held to be decisive:—viz.Justin M.,204—Irenæus205in the IInd century:—Hippolytus,206—Dionysius Alex.,207—ps. Tatian,208in the IIIrd.—Arius,209—Eusebius,210—Athanasius,211—Ephraem Syr.,212—Didymus,213—Gregory Naz.,214—Epiphanius,215—Chrysostom,216—ps.-Dionysius Areop.,217in the IVth:—Julian the heretic,218—Theodoras Mops.,219—Nestorius,220—Cyril Alex.,221—Paulus, bishop of Emesa,222—Gennadius,223—Theodoret,224—and several Oriental Bishops (a.d.431),225in the Vth:—besides[pg 081]Ps.-Cæsarius,226—Theodosius Alex.,227—John Damascene,228—Maximus,229—Theodorus hæret.,230—Leontius Byz.,231—Anastasius Sin.,232—Photius:233and of the Latins, Hilary,234—Jerome,235—Augustine,236—Cassian,237—Paulinus,238—Facundus.239It will be seen that we have been enumeratingupwards of forty famous personages from every part of ancient Christendom, who recognize these verses as genuine; fourteen of them being as old,—some of them, a great deal older,—than our oldest MSS.—Whytherefore Drs. Westcott and Hort should insist on shutting up these 26 precious words—this article of the Faith—in double brackets, in token that it is“morally certain”that verses 43 and 44 are of spurious origin, we are at a loss to divine.240We can but ejaculate (in the very words they proceed to disallow),—“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”But our especial concern is withour Revisionists; and we do not exceed our province when we come forward to reproach them sternly for having succumbed to such evil counsels, and deliberately branded these Verses with their own corporate expression of doubt. For unlessthatbe the purpose of the marginal Note which they have set against these verses, we fail to understand the Revisers' language and are wholly at a loss to divine what purpose that note of theirs can be meant to serve. It is prefaced[pg 082]by a formula which, (as we learn from their own Preface,) offers to the reader the“alternative”ofomittingthe Verses in question: implies that“it would not be safe”any longer to accept them,—as the Church has hitherto done,—with undoubting confidence. In a word,—it brands them with suspicion.... We have been so full on this subject,—(not half of our references were known to Tischendorf,)—because of the unspeakable preciousness of the record; and because we desire to see an end at last to expressions of doubt and uncertainty on points which really afford not a shadow of pretence for either. These two Verses were excised through mistaken piety by certain of the orthodox,—jealous for the honour of theirLord, and alarmed by the use which the impugners of HisGodhead freely made of them.241Hence Ephraem [Carmina Nisibena, p. 145] puts the following words into the mouth of Satan, addressing the host of Hell:—“One thing I witnessed in Him which especially comforts me. I saw Him praying; and I rejoiced, for His countenance changed and He was afraid.His sweat was drops of blood, for He had a presentiment that His day had come. This was the fairest sight of all,—unless, to be sure, He was practising deception on me. For verily if He hath deceived me, then it is all over,—both with me, and with you, my servants!”(4) Next in importance after the preceding, comes the Prayer which theSaviourof the World breathed from the Cross on behalf of His murderers (S. Luke xxiii. 34). These twelve precious words,—(“Then saidJesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do,”)—like those twenty-six words in S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 which we have been considering already, Drs. Westcott and Hort enclose within double brackets in token of the“moral certainty”they entertain[pg 083]that the words are spurious.242And yet these words are found inevery known uncialand inevery known cursive Copy, except four; besides being foundin every ancient Version. Andwhat,—(we ask the question with sincere simplicity,)—whatamount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubting confidence in any existing Reading, if not such a concurrence of Authorities as this?... We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from Internal Evidence. True, that“few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the Truth of what they record, than this.”(It is the admission of the very man243who has nevertheless dared to brand it with suspicion.) But we reject his loathsome patronage with indignation.“Internal Evidence,”—“Transcriptional Probability,”—and all such“chaff and draff,”with which he fills his pagesad nauseam, and mystifies nobody but himself,—shall be allowed no place in the present discussion. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external testimony, or is forsaken thereby. How then about thePatristicevidence,—for this is all that remains unexplored?Only a fraction of it was known to Tischendorf. We find ourSaviour'sPrayer attested,—[pg 084]In the IInd century by Hegesippus,244—and by Irenæus:245—In the IIIrd, by Hippolytus,246—by Origen,247—by theApostolic Constitutions,248—by theClementine Homilies,249—by ps.-Tatian,250—and by the disputation of Archelaus with Manes:251—In the IVth, by Eusebius,252—by Athanasius,253—by Gregory Nyss.,254—by Theodoras Herac.,255—by Basil,256—by Chrysostom,257—by Ephraem Syr.,258—by ps.-Ephraim,259—by ps.-Dionysius Areop.,260—by the ApocryphalActa Pilati,261—by theActa Philippi,262—and by the SyriacActs of the App.,263—by ps.-Ignatius,264—and ps.-Justin:265—In the Vth, by Theodoret,266—by Cyril,267—by Eutherius:268In the VIth, by Anastasius Sin.,269—by Hesychius:270—In the VIIth, by Antiochus mon.,271—by Maximus,272—by Andreas Cret.:273—[pg 085]In the VIIIth, by John Damascene,274—besides ps.-Chrysostom,275—ps. Amphilochius,276—and theOpus imperf.277Add to this, (since Latin authorities have been brought to the front),—Ambrose,278—Hilary,279—Jerome,280—Augustine,281—and other earlier writers.282We have thus again enumeratedupwards of fortyancient Fathers. And again we ask, With what show of reason is the brand set upon these 12 words? Gravely to cite, as if there were anything in it, such counter-evidence as the following, to the foregoing torrent of Testimony from every part of ancient Christendom:—viz:“b d, 38, 435, a b d and one Egyptian version”—might really have been mistaken for amauvaise plaisanterie, were it not that the gravity of the occasion effectually precludes the supposition. How could our Revisionistsdareto insinuate doubts into wavering hearts and unlearned heads, where (as here) they wereboundto know, there existsno manner of doubt at all?(5) The record of the same Evangelist (S. Luke xxiii. 38) that the Inscription over ourSaviour'sCross was“written ... in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,”disappears entirelyfrom our“Revised”version; and this, for no other reason, but because the incident is omitted byb c l, the corrupt Egyptian versions, and Cureton's depraved Syriac: the text of which (according to Bp. Ellicott283)“is of a very composite nature,—sometimes inclining to the shortness and simplicity of the Vatican manuscript”(b):e.g.on the present occasion. But surely the negative testimony of this little band of disreputable witnesses is entirely outweighed by the positive evidence of אa d q rwith 13 other uncials,—the[pg 086]evidence ofthe entire body of the cursives,—the sanction of the Latin,—the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac,—the Armenian,—Æthiopic,—and Georgian versions; besides Eusebius—whose testimony (which is express) has been hitherto strangely overlooked284—and Cyril.285Against the threefold plea of Antiquity, Respectability of witnesses, Universality of testimony,—what have our Revisionists to show? (a) They cannot pretend that there has been Assimilation here; for the type of S. John xix. 20 is essentially different, and has retained its distinctive character all down the ages. (b) Nor can they pretend that the condition of the Text hereabouts bears traces of having been jealously guarded. We ask the Reader's attention to this matter just for a moment. There may be some of the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber even, to whom what we are about to offer may not be altogether without the grace of novelty:—That the Title on the Cross is diversely set down by each of the four Evangelists,—all men are aware. But perhaps all are not aware thatS. Luke's recordof the Title (in ch. xxiii. 38) is exhibited infour different waysby codicesa b c d:—aexhibits—ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝb(with אLand a) exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ ΟΥΤΟΣcexhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is Mk. xv. 26).d(with e and ff2) exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ (which is the words of the Evangelist transposed).We propose to recur to the foregoing specimens of licentiousness by-and-by.286For the moment, let it be added that[pg 087]codexxand the Sahidic version conspire in a fifth variety, viz., ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is S. Matt. xxvii. 37); while Ambrose287is found to have used a Latin copy which represented ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ο ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is S. John xix. 18). We spare the reader any remarks of our own on all this. He is competent to draw his own painful inferences, and will not fail to make his own damaging reflections. He shall only be further informed that 14 uncials and the whole body of the cursive copies side with codexain upholding the Traditional Text; that the Vulgate,288—the Peschito,—Cureton's Syriac,—the Philoxenian;—besides the Coptic,—Armenian,—and Æthiopic versions—are all on the same side: lastly, that Origen,289—Eusebius,—and Gregory of Nyssa290are in addition consentient witnesses;—and we can hardly be mistaken if we venture to anticipate (1st),—That the Reader will agree with us that the Text with which we are best acquainted (as usual) is here deserving of all confidence; and (2ndly),—That the Revisionists who assure us“that they did not esteem it within their province to construct a continuous and complete Greek Text;”(and who were never authorized to constructa new Greek Text at all;) were not justified in the course they have pursued with regard to S. Luke xxiii. 38.“This is the King of the Jews”is the only idiomatic way of rendering into English the title according to S. Luke, whether the reading ofaor ofbbe adopted; but, in order to make it plain that theyreject the Greek ofain favour ofb, the Revisionists have gone out of their way. They have instructed the two Editors of“The Greek Testament with the[pg 088]Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version”291to exhibit S. Luke xxiii. 38as it stands in the mutilated recension of Drs. Westcott and Hort.292And ifthisprocedure, repeated many hundreds of times, be not constructing a“new Greek Text”of the N. T., we have yet to learn whatis.(6) From the first verse of the concluding chapter of S. Luke's Gospel, is excluded the familiar clause—“and certain others with them”(καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς). And pray, why? For no other reason but because אb c l, with some Latin authorities, omit the clause;—and our Revisionists do the like, on the plea that they have only been getting rid of a“harmonistic insertion.”293But it is nothing of the sort, as we proceed to explain.Ammonius, or some predecessor of his early in the IInd century, saw fit (with perverse ingenuity) to seek toforceS. Luke xxiii. 55 into agreement with S. Matt. xxvii. 61 and S. Mark xv. 47, by turning κατακολουθήσασαι δὲ καὶ γυναῖκες,—into κατηκολούθησαν δὲ ΔΎΟ γυναῖκες. This done, in order to produce“harmonistic”agreement and to be thorough, the same misguided individual proceeded to run his pen through the words“and certain with them”(καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς) as inopportune; and his work was ended. 1750 years have rolled by since then, and—What traces remain of the man's foolishness? Of hisfirstfeat (we answer), Eusebius,294dand Evan. 29, besides five copies of the old Latin (a b e ff2q), are[pg 089]the sole surviving Witnesses. Of hissecondachievement, אb c l, 33, 124, have preserved a record; besides seven copies of the old Latin (a b c e ff2g-11), together with the Vulgate, the Coptic, and Eusebius in one place295though not in another.296The Reader is therefore invited to notice that the tables have been unexpectedly turned upon our opponents. S. Luke introduced the words“and certain with them,”in order to prepare us for what he will have to say in xxiv. 10,—viz.“It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, andother women with them, which told these things unto the Apostles.”Some stupid harmonizer in the IInd century omitted the words, because they were in his way. Calamitous however it is that a clause which the Church has long since deliberately reinstated should, in the year 1881, be as deliberately banished for the second time from the sacred page by our Revisionists; who under the plea ofamending our English Authorized Versionhave (with the best intentions)falsified the Greek Textof the Gospels in countless places,—often, as here, without notice and without apology.(10) We find it impossible to pass by in silence the treatment which S. Luke xxiv. 12 has experienced at their hands. They have branded with doubt S. Luke's memorable account of S. Peter's visit to the sepulchre. And why? Let the evidenceforthis precious portion of the narrative be first rehearsed. Nineteen uncials then, with אa bat their head, supported byevery known cursivecopy,—all these vouch for the genuineness of the verse in question. The Latin,—the Syriac,—and the Egyptian versions also contain it. Eusebius,297—Gregory of Nyssa,298—Cyril,299—Severus,300—Ammonius,301[pg 090]and others302refer to it: whileno ancient writeris found to impugn it. Then,whythe double brackets of Drs. Westcott and Hort? andwhythe correlative marginal note of our Revisionists?—Simply becausedand 5 copies of the old Latin (a b e l fu) leave these 22 words out.(11) On the same sorry evidence—(viz.dand 5 copies of the old Latin)—it is proposed henceforth to omit ourSaviour'sgreeting to His disciples when He appeared among them in the upper chamber on the evening of the first Easter Day. And yet the precious words (“and saith unto them, Peace be unto you”[Lu. xxiv. 36],) are vouched for by 18 uncials (with אa bat their head), andevery known cursive copyof the Gospels: by all the Versions: and (as before) by Eusebius,303—and Ambrose,304—by Chrysostom,305—and Cyril,306—and Augustine.307(12) The same remarks suggest themselves on a survey of the evidence for S. Luke xxiv. 40:—“And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet.”The words are found in 18 uncials (beginning with אa b), and in every known cursive: in the Latin,308—the Syriac,—the Egyptian,—in short,in all the ancient Versions. Besides these, ps.-Justin,309—Eusebius,310—Athanasius,311—Ambrose (in Greek),312—Epiphanius,313—Chrysostom,314—Cyril,315—Theodoret,316—Ammonius,317—and[pg 091]John Damascene318—quote them. What but the veriest trifling is it, in the face of such a body of evidence, to bring forward the fact thatdand 5 copies of the old Latin, with Cureton's Syriac (of which we have had the character already319),omitthe words in question?The foregoing enumeration of instances of Mutilation might be enlarged to almost any extent. Take only three more short but striking specimens, before we pass on:—(a) Thus, the precious verse (S. Matthew xvii. 21) which declares that“this kind[of evil spirit]goeth not out but by prayer and fasting,”is expunged by our Revisionists; although it is vouched for by every known uncialbut two(bא), every known cursivebut one(Evan. 33); is witnessed to by the Old Latin and the Vulgate,—the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, and Slavonic versions; by Origen,320—Athanasius,321—Basil,322—Chrysostom,323—theOpus imperf.,324—the Syriac Clement,325—and John Damascene;326—by Tertullian,—Ambrose,—Hilary,—Juvencus,—Augustine,—Maximus Taur.,—and by the Syriac version of theCanons of Eusebius: above all by the Universal East,—having been read in all the churches of Oriental Christendom on the 10th Sunday after Pentecost, from the earliest period. Why, in the world, then (our readers will ask) have the Revisionists left those words out?... For no other reason, we answer, but because Drs. Westcott and Hort place them among the interpolations which they consider unworthy of being even[pg 092]“exceptionally retained in association with the true Text.”327“Western and Syrian”is their oracular sentence.328(b) The blessed declaration,“The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost,”—has in like manner been expunged by our Revisionists from S. Matth. xviii. 11; although it is attested by every known uncial exceptbאl, and every known cursiveexcept three: by the old Latin and the Vulgate: by the Peschito, Cureton's and the Philoxenian Syriac: by the Coptic, Armenian, Æthiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions:329—by Origen,330—Theodoras Heracl.,331—Chrysostom332—and Jovius333the monk;—by Tertullian,334—Ambrose,335—Hilary,336—Jerome,337—pope Damasus338—and Augustine:339—above all, by the Universal Eastern Church,—for it has been read in all assemblies of the faithful on the morrow of Pentecost, from the beginning. Why then (the reader will again ask) have the Revisionists expunged this verse? We can only answer as before,—because Drs. Westcott and Hort consign it to thelimbusof theirAppendix; class it among their“Rejected Readings”of the most hopeless type.340As before,alltheir sentence is“Western and Syrian.”They add,“Interpolated either from Lu. xix. 10, or from an independent source, written or oral.”341... Will the English Church suffer herself to be in this way defrauded of her priceless inheritance,—through the irreverent bungling of well-intentioned, but utterly misguided men?[pg 093]

(2)ibid.43, 44. (OurSaviour'sAgony in the garden,—26 words.)

(3) xxiii. 17. (The custom of releasing one at the Passover,—8 words.)

(4)ibid.34. (OurLord'sprayer on behalf of His murderers,—12 words.)

(5)ibid.38. (The record that the title on the Cross was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew,—7 words.)

(6) xxiv. 1. (“and certain with them,”—4 words.)

(7)ibid.3. (“of theLord Jesus,”—3 words.)

(8)ibid.6. (“He is not here, but He is risen,”—5 words.)

(9)ibid.9. (“from the sepulchre,”—3 words.)

(10)ibid.12. (The mention of S. Peter's visit to the sepulchre,—22 words.)

(11)ibid.36. (“and saith unto them, Peace be unto you!”—5 words.)

(12)ibid.40. (“and when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet,”—10 words.)

(13)ibid.42. (“and of an honeycomb,”—4 words.)

(14)ibid.51. (“and was carried up into Heaven,”—5.)

(15)ibid.52. (“worshipped Him,”—2 words.)

(16)ibid.53. (“praising and,”—2 words.)

On an attentive survey of the foregoing sixteen instances of unauthorized Omission, it will be perceived that the 1st passage (S. Luke xxii. 19, 20) must have been eliminated from the Text because the mention oftwoCups seemed to create a difficulty.—The 2nd has been suppressed because (see p.82) the incident was deemed derogatory to the majesty ofGodIncarnate.—The 3rd and 5th were held to be superfluous, because the information which they contain has been already conveyed by the parallel passages.—The 10th will have been omitted as apparently inconsistent with the strict letter of S. John xx. 1-10.—The 6th and 13th are certainly instances of enforced Harmony.—Most of the others (the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th) seem to have been excised through mere wantonness,—the veriest licentiousness.—In the meantime, so far are Drs. Westcott and Hort from accepting the foregoing account of the matter, that they even style the 1st“aperverse interpolation:”in which view of the subject, however, they enjoy the distinction of standing entirely alone. With the same“moral certainty,”they further proceed to shut up within double[pg 077]brackets the 2nd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th: while the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 13th, and 16th, they exclude from their Text as indisputably spurious matter.

Now, we are not about to abuse our Readers' patience by an investigation of the several points raised by the foregoing statement. In fact, all should have been passed by in silence, but that unhappily the“Revision”of our Authorized Version is touched thereby very nearly indeed. So intimate (may we not say,so fatal?) proves to be the sympathy between the labours of Drs. Westcott and Hort and those of our Revisionists,that whatever the former have shut up within double brackets, the latter are discovered to have branded with a note of suspicion, conceived invariably in the same terms: viz.,“Some ancient authorities omit.”And further,whatever those Editors have rejected from their Text, these Revisionists have rejected also. It becomes necessary, therefore, briefly to enquire after the precise amount of manuscript authority which underlies certain of the foregoing changes. And happily this may be done in a few words.

Thesoleauthority for just half of the places above enumerated189isa single Greek codex,—and that, the most depraved of all,—viz. Beza'sd.190It should further be stated that the only allies discoverable fordare a few copies of the old Latin. What we are saying will seem scarcely credible: but it is a plain fact, of which any one may convince himself who will be at the pains to inspect the critical apparatus at the foot of the pages of Tischendorf's last (8th) edition. Our Revisionists' notion, therefore, of what constitutes“weighty evidence”is now before the Reader. If, inhisjudgment, the testimony ofone single manuscript, (andthatmanuscript the[pg 078]Codex Bezæ (d),)—does really invalidate that ofall other Manuscripts and all other Versionsin the world,—then of course, the Greek Text of the Revisionists will in his judgment be a thing to be rejoiced over. But what if he should be of opinion that such testimony, in and by itself, is simply worthless? We shrewdly suspect that the Revisionists' view of what constitutes“weighty Evidence”will be found to end where it began, viz. in the Jerusalem Chamber.

For, when we reach down codexdfrom the shelf, we are reminded that, within the space of the three chapters of S. Luke's Gospel now under consideration, there are in all no less than 354 words omitted;of which, 250are omitted bydalone. May we have it explained to us why, of those 354 words, only 25 are singled out by Drs. Westcott and Hort for permanent excision from the sacred Text? Within the same compass, no less than 173 words have beenadded bydto the commonly Received Text,—146,substituted,—243,transposed. May we ask how it comes to pass that of those 562 wordsnot onehas been promoted to their margin by the Revisionists?... Return we, however, to our list of the changes which they actuallyhaveeffected.

(1) Now, that ecclesiastical usage and the parallel places would seriously affect such precious words as are found in S. Luke xxii. 19, 20,—was to have been expected. Yet has the type been preserved all along, from the beginning, with singular exactness; except in one little handful of singularly licentious documents, viz. inda ff2i l, whichleave all out;—in b e, which substitute verses 17 and 18;—and in“the singular and sometimes rather wild Curetonian Syriac Version,”191which, retaining the 10 words of ver. 19, substitutes[pg 079]verses 17, 18 for ver. 20. Enough for the condemnation ofdsurvives in Justin,192—Basil,193—Epiphanius,194—Theodoret,195—Cyril,196—Maximus,197—Jerome.198But why delay ourselves concerning a place vouched forby every known copy of the Gospels exceptd? Drs. Westcott and Hort entertain“no moral doubtthat the [32] words [given at foot199] were absent from the original text of S. Luke;”in which opinion, happily,they stand alone. But why did our Revisionists suffer themselves to be led astray by such blind guidance?

The next place is entitled to far graver attention, and may on no account be lightly dismissed, seeing that these two verses contain the sole record of that“Agony in the Garden”which the universal Church has almost erected into an article of the Faith.

(2) That the incident of the ministering Angel, the Agony and bloody sweat of the world's Redeemer (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44), was anciently absent from certain copies of the Gospels, is expressly recorded by Hilary,200by Jerome,201and others. Only necessary is it to read the apologetic remarks which Ambrose introduces when he reaches S. Luke xxii. 43,202to understand what has evidently led to this serious mutilation of Scripture,—traces of which survive at this day exclusively infourcodices, viz.a b r t. Singular to relate, in the Gospel which was read on Maundy-Thursday these two verses of S. Luke's Gospel are thrust in between the 39th[pg 080]and the 40th verses of S. Matthew xxvi. Hence, 4 cursive copies, viz. 13-69-124-346—(confessedly derived from a common ancient archetype,203and therefore not four witnesses but only one),—actually exhibit these two Verses in that place. But will any unprejudiced person of sound mind entertain a doubt concerning the genuineness of these two verses, witnessed to as they are bythe whole body of the Manuscripts, uncial as well as cursive, andby every ancient Version?... If such a thing were possible, it is hoped that the following enumeration of ancient Fathers, who distinctly recognize the place under discussion, must at least be held to be decisive:—viz.

Justin M.,204—Irenæus205in the IInd century:—

Hippolytus,206—Dionysius Alex.,207—ps. Tatian,208in the IIIrd.—

Arius,209—Eusebius,210—Athanasius,211—Ephraem Syr.,212—Didymus,213—Gregory Naz.,214—Epiphanius,215—Chrysostom,216—ps.-Dionysius Areop.,217in the IVth:—

Julian the heretic,218—Theodoras Mops.,219—Nestorius,220—Cyril Alex.,221—Paulus, bishop of Emesa,222—Gennadius,223—Theodoret,224—and several Oriental Bishops (a.d.431),225in the Vth:—besides[pg 081]Ps.-Cæsarius,226—Theodosius Alex.,227—John Damascene,228—Maximus,229—Theodorus hæret.,230—Leontius Byz.,231—Anastasius Sin.,232—Photius:233and of the Latins, Hilary,234—Jerome,235—Augustine,236—Cassian,237—Paulinus,238—Facundus.239

It will be seen that we have been enumeratingupwards of forty famous personages from every part of ancient Christendom, who recognize these verses as genuine; fourteen of them being as old,—some of them, a great deal older,—than our oldest MSS.—Whytherefore Drs. Westcott and Hort should insist on shutting up these 26 precious words—this article of the Faith—in double brackets, in token that it is“morally certain”that verses 43 and 44 are of spurious origin, we are at a loss to divine.240We can but ejaculate (in the very words they proceed to disallow),—“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”But our especial concern is withour Revisionists; and we do not exceed our province when we come forward to reproach them sternly for having succumbed to such evil counsels, and deliberately branded these Verses with their own corporate expression of doubt. For unlessthatbe the purpose of the marginal Note which they have set against these verses, we fail to understand the Revisers' language and are wholly at a loss to divine what purpose that note of theirs can be meant to serve. It is prefaced[pg 082]by a formula which, (as we learn from their own Preface,) offers to the reader the“alternative”ofomittingthe Verses in question: implies that“it would not be safe”any longer to accept them,—as the Church has hitherto done,—with undoubting confidence. In a word,—it brands them with suspicion.... We have been so full on this subject,—(not half of our references were known to Tischendorf,)—because of the unspeakable preciousness of the record; and because we desire to see an end at last to expressions of doubt and uncertainty on points which really afford not a shadow of pretence for either. These two Verses were excised through mistaken piety by certain of the orthodox,—jealous for the honour of theirLord, and alarmed by the use which the impugners of HisGodhead freely made of them.241Hence Ephraem [Carmina Nisibena, p. 145] puts the following words into the mouth of Satan, addressing the host of Hell:—“One thing I witnessed in Him which especially comforts me. I saw Him praying; and I rejoiced, for His countenance changed and He was afraid.His sweat was drops of blood, for He had a presentiment that His day had come. This was the fairest sight of all,—unless, to be sure, He was practising deception on me. For verily if He hath deceived me, then it is all over,—both with me, and with you, my servants!”

(4) Next in importance after the preceding, comes the Prayer which theSaviourof the World breathed from the Cross on behalf of His murderers (S. Luke xxiii. 34). These twelve precious words,—(“Then saidJesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do,”)—like those twenty-six words in S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 which we have been considering already, Drs. Westcott and Hort enclose within double brackets in token of the“moral certainty”they entertain[pg 083]that the words are spurious.242And yet these words are found inevery known uncialand inevery known cursive Copy, except four; besides being foundin every ancient Version. Andwhat,—(we ask the question with sincere simplicity,)—whatamount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubting confidence in any existing Reading, if not such a concurrence of Authorities as this?... We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from Internal Evidence. True, that“few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the Truth of what they record, than this.”(It is the admission of the very man243who has nevertheless dared to brand it with suspicion.) But we reject his loathsome patronage with indignation.“Internal Evidence,”—“Transcriptional Probability,”—and all such“chaff and draff,”with which he fills his pagesad nauseam, and mystifies nobody but himself,—shall be allowed no place in the present discussion. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external testimony, or is forsaken thereby. How then about thePatristicevidence,—for this is all that remains unexplored?

Only a fraction of it was known to Tischendorf. We find ourSaviour'sPrayer attested,—

In the IInd century by Hegesippus,244—and by Irenæus:245—

In the IIIrd, by Hippolytus,246—by Origen,247—by theApostolic Constitutions,248—by theClementine Homilies,249—by ps.-Tatian,250—and by the disputation of Archelaus with Manes:251—

In the IVth, by Eusebius,252—by Athanasius,253—by Gregory Nyss.,254—by Theodoras Herac.,255—by Basil,256—by Chrysostom,257—by Ephraem Syr.,258—by ps.-Ephraim,259—by ps.-Dionysius Areop.,260—by the ApocryphalActa Pilati,261—by theActa Philippi,262—and by the SyriacActs of the App.,263—by ps.-Ignatius,264—and ps.-Justin:265—

In the Vth, by Theodoret,266—by Cyril,267—by Eutherius:268

In the VIth, by Anastasius Sin.,269—by Hesychius:270—

In the VIIth, by Antiochus mon.,271—by Maximus,272—by Andreas Cret.:273—

In the VIIIth, by John Damascene,274—besides ps.-Chrysostom,275—ps. Amphilochius,276—and theOpus imperf.277

Add to this, (since Latin authorities have been brought to the front),—Ambrose,278—Hilary,279—Jerome,280—Augustine,281—and other earlier writers.282

We have thus again enumeratedupwards of fortyancient Fathers. And again we ask, With what show of reason is the brand set upon these 12 words? Gravely to cite, as if there were anything in it, such counter-evidence as the following, to the foregoing torrent of Testimony from every part of ancient Christendom:—viz:“b d, 38, 435, a b d and one Egyptian version”—might really have been mistaken for amauvaise plaisanterie, were it not that the gravity of the occasion effectually precludes the supposition. How could our Revisionistsdareto insinuate doubts into wavering hearts and unlearned heads, where (as here) they wereboundto know, there existsno manner of doubt at all?

(5) The record of the same Evangelist (S. Luke xxiii. 38) that the Inscription over ourSaviour'sCross was“written ... in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,”disappears entirelyfrom our“Revised”version; and this, for no other reason, but because the incident is omitted byb c l, the corrupt Egyptian versions, and Cureton's depraved Syriac: the text of which (according to Bp. Ellicott283)“is of a very composite nature,—sometimes inclining to the shortness and simplicity of the Vatican manuscript”(b):e.g.on the present occasion. But surely the negative testimony of this little band of disreputable witnesses is entirely outweighed by the positive evidence of אa d q rwith 13 other uncials,—the[pg 086]evidence ofthe entire body of the cursives,—the sanction of the Latin,—the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac,—the Armenian,—Æthiopic,—and Georgian versions; besides Eusebius—whose testimony (which is express) has been hitherto strangely overlooked284—and Cyril.285Against the threefold plea of Antiquity, Respectability of witnesses, Universality of testimony,—what have our Revisionists to show? (a) They cannot pretend that there has been Assimilation here; for the type of S. John xix. 20 is essentially different, and has retained its distinctive character all down the ages. (b) Nor can they pretend that the condition of the Text hereabouts bears traces of having been jealously guarded. We ask the Reader's attention to this matter just for a moment. There may be some of the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber even, to whom what we are about to offer may not be altogether without the grace of novelty:—

That the Title on the Cross is diversely set down by each of the four Evangelists,—all men are aware. But perhaps all are not aware thatS. Luke's recordof the Title (in ch. xxiii. 38) is exhibited infour different waysby codicesa b c d:—

aexhibits—ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ

b(with אLand a) exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ ΟΥΤΟΣ

cexhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is Mk. xv. 26).

d(with e and ff2) exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ (which is the words of the Evangelist transposed).

We propose to recur to the foregoing specimens of licentiousness by-and-by.286For the moment, let it be added that[pg 087]codexxand the Sahidic version conspire in a fifth variety, viz., ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is S. Matt. xxvii. 37); while Ambrose287is found to have used a Latin copy which represented ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ο ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is S. John xix. 18). We spare the reader any remarks of our own on all this. He is competent to draw his own painful inferences, and will not fail to make his own damaging reflections. He shall only be further informed that 14 uncials and the whole body of the cursive copies side with codexain upholding the Traditional Text; that the Vulgate,288—the Peschito,—Cureton's Syriac,—the Philoxenian;—besides the Coptic,—Armenian,—and Æthiopic versions—are all on the same side: lastly, that Origen,289—Eusebius,—and Gregory of Nyssa290are in addition consentient witnesses;—and we can hardly be mistaken if we venture to anticipate (1st),—That the Reader will agree with us that the Text with which we are best acquainted (as usual) is here deserving of all confidence; and (2ndly),—That the Revisionists who assure us“that they did not esteem it within their province to construct a continuous and complete Greek Text;”(and who were never authorized to constructa new Greek Text at all;) were not justified in the course they have pursued with regard to S. Luke xxiii. 38.“This is the King of the Jews”is the only idiomatic way of rendering into English the title according to S. Luke, whether the reading ofaor ofbbe adopted; but, in order to make it plain that theyreject the Greek ofain favour ofb, the Revisionists have gone out of their way. They have instructed the two Editors of“The Greek Testament with the[pg 088]Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version”291to exhibit S. Luke xxiii. 38as it stands in the mutilated recension of Drs. Westcott and Hort.292And ifthisprocedure, repeated many hundreds of times, be not constructing a“new Greek Text”of the N. T., we have yet to learn whatis.

(6) From the first verse of the concluding chapter of S. Luke's Gospel, is excluded the familiar clause—“and certain others with them”(καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς). And pray, why? For no other reason but because אb c l, with some Latin authorities, omit the clause;—and our Revisionists do the like, on the plea that they have only been getting rid of a“harmonistic insertion.”293But it is nothing of the sort, as we proceed to explain.

Ammonius, or some predecessor of his early in the IInd century, saw fit (with perverse ingenuity) to seek toforceS. Luke xxiii. 55 into agreement with S. Matt. xxvii. 61 and S. Mark xv. 47, by turning κατακολουθήσασαι δὲ καὶ γυναῖκες,—into κατηκολούθησαν δὲ ΔΎΟ γυναῖκες. This done, in order to produce“harmonistic”agreement and to be thorough, the same misguided individual proceeded to run his pen through the words“and certain with them”(καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς) as inopportune; and his work was ended. 1750 years have rolled by since then, and—What traces remain of the man's foolishness? Of hisfirstfeat (we answer), Eusebius,294dand Evan. 29, besides five copies of the old Latin (a b e ff2q), are[pg 089]the sole surviving Witnesses. Of hissecondachievement, אb c l, 33, 124, have preserved a record; besides seven copies of the old Latin (a b c e ff2g-11), together with the Vulgate, the Coptic, and Eusebius in one place295though not in another.296The Reader is therefore invited to notice that the tables have been unexpectedly turned upon our opponents. S. Luke introduced the words“and certain with them,”in order to prepare us for what he will have to say in xxiv. 10,—viz.“It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, andother women with them, which told these things unto the Apostles.”Some stupid harmonizer in the IInd century omitted the words, because they were in his way. Calamitous however it is that a clause which the Church has long since deliberately reinstated should, in the year 1881, be as deliberately banished for the second time from the sacred page by our Revisionists; who under the plea ofamending our English Authorized Versionhave (with the best intentions)falsified the Greek Textof the Gospels in countless places,—often, as here, without notice and without apology.

(10) We find it impossible to pass by in silence the treatment which S. Luke xxiv. 12 has experienced at their hands. They have branded with doubt S. Luke's memorable account of S. Peter's visit to the sepulchre. And why? Let the evidenceforthis precious portion of the narrative be first rehearsed. Nineteen uncials then, with אa bat their head, supported byevery known cursivecopy,—all these vouch for the genuineness of the verse in question. The Latin,—the Syriac,—and the Egyptian versions also contain it. Eusebius,297—Gregory of Nyssa,298—Cyril,299—Severus,300—Ammonius,301[pg 090]and others302refer to it: whileno ancient writeris found to impugn it. Then,whythe double brackets of Drs. Westcott and Hort? andwhythe correlative marginal note of our Revisionists?—Simply becausedand 5 copies of the old Latin (a b e l fu) leave these 22 words out.

(11) On the same sorry evidence—(viz.dand 5 copies of the old Latin)—it is proposed henceforth to omit ourSaviour'sgreeting to His disciples when He appeared among them in the upper chamber on the evening of the first Easter Day. And yet the precious words (“and saith unto them, Peace be unto you”[Lu. xxiv. 36],) are vouched for by 18 uncials (with אa bat their head), andevery known cursive copyof the Gospels: by all the Versions: and (as before) by Eusebius,303—and Ambrose,304—by Chrysostom,305—and Cyril,306—and Augustine.307

(12) The same remarks suggest themselves on a survey of the evidence for S. Luke xxiv. 40:—“And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet.”The words are found in 18 uncials (beginning with אa b), and in every known cursive: in the Latin,308—the Syriac,—the Egyptian,—in short,in all the ancient Versions. Besides these, ps.-Justin,309—Eusebius,310—Athanasius,311—Ambrose (in Greek),312—Epiphanius,313—Chrysostom,314—Cyril,315—Theodoret,316—Ammonius,317—and[pg 091]John Damascene318—quote them. What but the veriest trifling is it, in the face of such a body of evidence, to bring forward the fact thatdand 5 copies of the old Latin, with Cureton's Syriac (of which we have had the character already319),omitthe words in question?

The foregoing enumeration of instances of Mutilation might be enlarged to almost any extent. Take only three more short but striking specimens, before we pass on:—

(a) Thus, the precious verse (S. Matthew xvii. 21) which declares that“this kind[of evil spirit]goeth not out but by prayer and fasting,”is expunged by our Revisionists; although it is vouched for by every known uncialbut two(bא), every known cursivebut one(Evan. 33); is witnessed to by the Old Latin and the Vulgate,—the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, and Slavonic versions; by Origen,320—Athanasius,321—Basil,322—Chrysostom,323—theOpus imperf.,324—the Syriac Clement,325—and John Damascene;326—by Tertullian,—Ambrose,—Hilary,—Juvencus,—Augustine,—Maximus Taur.,—and by the Syriac version of theCanons of Eusebius: above all by the Universal East,—having been read in all the churches of Oriental Christendom on the 10th Sunday after Pentecost, from the earliest period. Why, in the world, then (our readers will ask) have the Revisionists left those words out?... For no other reason, we answer, but because Drs. Westcott and Hort place them among the interpolations which they consider unworthy of being even[pg 092]“exceptionally retained in association with the true Text.”327“Western and Syrian”is their oracular sentence.328

(b) The blessed declaration,“The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost,”—has in like manner been expunged by our Revisionists from S. Matth. xviii. 11; although it is attested by every known uncial exceptbאl, and every known cursiveexcept three: by the old Latin and the Vulgate: by the Peschito, Cureton's and the Philoxenian Syriac: by the Coptic, Armenian, Æthiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions:329—by Origen,330—Theodoras Heracl.,331—Chrysostom332—and Jovius333the monk;—by Tertullian,334—Ambrose,335—Hilary,336—Jerome,337—pope Damasus338—and Augustine:339—above all, by the Universal Eastern Church,—for it has been read in all assemblies of the faithful on the morrow of Pentecost, from the beginning. Why then (the reader will again ask) have the Revisionists expunged this verse? We can only answer as before,—because Drs. Westcott and Hort consign it to thelimbusof theirAppendix; class it among their“Rejected Readings”of the most hopeless type.340As before,alltheir sentence is“Western and Syrian.”They add,“Interpolated either from Lu. xix. 10, or from an independent source, written or oral.”341... Will the English Church suffer herself to be in this way defrauded of her priceless inheritance,—through the irreverent bungling of well-intentioned, but utterly misguided men?

Back to Index Next