Footnotes

Footnotes1.Any one who desires to see this charge established, is invited to read from page399to page 413 of what follows.2.Dr. Newth. See pp.37-9.3.See pp.24-9:97, &c.4.See below, pp. 1 to 110.5.This will be found more fully explained from pp.127to 130: pp.154to 164: also pp.400to 403. See also the quotations on pp.112and368.6.See below, pp.113to 232.7.See below, pp.235to 366.8.Gospel of the Resurrection, p. viii.9.Reference is made to a vulgar effusion in the“Contemporary Review”for March 1882: from which it chiefly appears that Canon (now Archdeacon) Farrar is unable to forgive S. Mark the Evangelist for having written the 16th verse of his concluding chapter. The Venerable writer is in consequence for ever denouncing those“last Twelve Verses.”In March 1882, (pretending to review my Articles in the“Quarterly,”) he says:—“In spite of Dean Burgon's Essay on the subject, the minds of most scholars arequite unalterably made upon such questions as the authenticity of the last twelve verses of S. Mark.”[Contemporary Review, vol. xli. p. 365.] And in the ensuing October,—“If, amongpositive results, any one should set down such facts as that ... Mark xvi. 9-20 ...formed no part of the original apostolic autograph... He, I say, who should enumerate these points as beingbeyond the reach of serious dispute... would be expressing the views which areregarded as indisputableby the vast majority of such recent critics as have established any claim to serious attention.”[Expositor, p. 173.]It may not be without use to the Venerable writer that he should be reminded that critical questions, instead of being disposed of by such language as the foregoing, are not even touched thereby. One is surprised to have to tell a“fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,”so obvious a truth as that by such writing he does but effectually put himself out of court. By proclaiming that his mind is“quite unalterably made up”that the end of S. Mark's Gospel is not authentic, he admits that he is impervious to argument and therefore incapable of understanding proof. It is a mere waste of time to reason with an unfortunate who announces that he is beyond the reach of conviction.10.No. xxviii., page 436. If any one cares to know what the teaching was which the writer in the“Church Quarterly”was intending to reproduce, he is invited to read from p.296to p. 300 of the present volume.11.Contemporary Review, (Dec. 1881),—p. 985 seq.12.Q. R. (No. 304,) p. 313.—The passage referred to will be found below (at p.14),—slightly modified, in order to protect myself against the risk offuturemisconception. My Reviewer refers to four other places. He will find that my only object in them all was to prove that codicesa bאc dyield divergent testimony; and therefore, so habituallycontradictone another, as effectually to invalidate their own evidence throughout. This has never beenprovedbefore. It canonlybe proved, in fact, by one who has laboriously collated the codices in question, and submitted to the drudgery of exactly tabulating the result.13.“Damus tibi in manus Novum Testamentumidem profecto, quod ad textum attinet, cum ed. Millianâ,”—are the well known opening words of the“Monitum”prefixed to Lloyd's N. T.—And Mill, according to Scrivener, [Introduction, p. 399,]“only aims at reproducing Stephens' text of 1550, though in a few places he departs from it, whether by accident or design.”Such places are found to amount in all totwenty-nine.14.See below, pp.257-8: also p.390.15.The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, &c.—Macmillan, pp. 79.16.See below, pp.369to 520.17.Pages371-2.18.Pamphlet, pp. 77: 39, 40, 41.19.See below, p.425.20.Pages424-501.21.From January till June 1883.22.Pamphlet, p. 76.23.E.g.pages252-268:269-277:305-308.24.E.g.pages302-306.25.Page 354.26.On that day appeared Dr. Hort's“Introduction and Appendix”to the N. T. as edited by himself and Dr. Westcott.27.“Charge,”published in theGuardian, Dec. 20, 1882, p. 1813.28.Preface toHistory of the English Bible(p. ix.),—1868.29.Preface toPastoral Epistles(p. xiv.),—1861.30.The Authorized Version of the N. T.(p. 3),—1858.31.The New Testament of Our Lord and SaviourJesus Christtranslated out of the Greek: being the Version set fortha.d.1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Reviseda.d.1881.Printed for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881.32.The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version.Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ.The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version.[Edited by the Ven. Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.33.On Revision,—pp. 215-6.34.Tertullian,bis.35.Hieron.Opp.ii. 177 c (see the note).36.Apud Hieron. iii. 121.37.iv. 617 c (ed. Pusey).38.P. 272.39.i. 548 c; viii. 207 a.40.iv. 205.41.A reference to theJournal of Convocation, for a twelvemonth after the proposal for a Revision of the Authorized Version was seriously entertained, will reveal more than it would be convenient in this place even to allude to.42.We derive our information from the learned Congregationalist, Dr. Newth,—Lectures on Bible Revision(1881), p. 116.43.On Revision, pp. 26-7.44.Dr. Scrivener'sPlain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edition, 1874 (pp. 607), may be confidently recommended to any one who desires to master the outlines of Textual Criticism under the guidance of a judicious, impartial, and thoroughly competent guide. A new and revised edition of this excellent treatise will appear shortly.45.Studious readers are invited to enquire for Dr. Scrivener'sFull and exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels (hitherto unexamined), deposited in the British Museum, the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, &c., with a Critical Introduction. (Pp. lxxiv. and 178.) 1853. The introductory matter deserves very attentive perusal.—With equal confidence we beg to recommend hisExact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, a Græco-Latin Manuscript of S. Paul's Epistles, deposited in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge; to which is added a full Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, containing various portions of the Greek New Testament, in the Libraries of Cambridge, Parham, Leicester, Oxford, Lambeth, the British Museum, &c. With a Critical Introduction(which must also be carefully studied). (Pp. lxxx. and 563.) 1859.—Learned readers can scarcely require to be told of the same learned scholar'sNovum Testamentum Textûs Stephanici,a.d.1550. Accedunt variæ Lectiones Editionum Bezæ, Elzeviri, Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, Tregellesii.Curante F. H. A. Scrivener, A.M., D.C.L., LL.D. [1860.] Editio auctior et emendatior. 1877.—Those who merely wish for a short popular Introduction to the subject may be grateful to be told of Dr. Scrivener's SixLectures on the Text of the N. T. and the Ancient MSS. which contain it, chiefly addressed to those who do not read Greek. 1875.46.Scrivener'sPlain Introduction,—p. 118.47.Bezæ Codex Cantabrigiensis: being an exact Copy, in ordinary Type, of the celebrated Uncial Græco-Latin Manuscript of the Four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, written early in the Sixth Century, and presented to the University of Cambridge by Theodore Beza,a.d.1581. Edited, with a Critical Introduction, Annotations, and Facsimiles, by Frederick H. Scrivener, M.A., Rector of S. Gerrans, Cornwall. (Pp. lxiv. and 453.) Cambridge, 1864. No one who aspires to a competent acquaintance with Textual Criticism can afford to be without this book.48.On the subject of codex א we beg (once for all) to refer scholars to Scrivener'sFull Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament. To which is prefixed a Critical Introduction.[1863.] 2nd Edition, revised. (Pp. lxxii. and 163.) 1867.49.Bishop Ellicott'sConsiderations on Revision, &c. (1870), p. 40.50.The epithet“cursive,”is used to denote manuscripts written in“running-hand,”of which the oldest known specimens belong to the IXth century.“Uncial”manuscripts are those which are written in capital letters. A“codex”popularly signifies amanuscript. A“version”isa translation. A“recension”isa revision. (We have been requested to explain these terms.)51.Considerations on Revision, p. 30.52.Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claimperfectionfor the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g.at page107) that theTextus Receptusneeds correction. We do but insist, (1) That it is an incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely preferable to the“New Greek Text”of the Revisionists. And, (2) That to be improved, theTextus Receptuswill have to be revised on entirely different“principles”from those which are just now in fashion. Men must begin by unlearning theGerman prejudicesof the last fifty years; and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic offacts.53.Scrivener'sIntroduction, pp. 342-4.54.Ut suprà, p. 46. We prefer to quote the indictment against Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, from the pages of Revisionists.55.“Ex scriptoribus Græcistantisper Origene solousi sumus.”—Præfatio, p. xxi.56.Scrivener'sPlain Introd.p. 397.57.Ut suprà, p. 48.58.Ut suprà, p. 47.59.Prebendary Scrivener,ibid.(ed. 1874), p. 429.60.Ibid.p. 470.61.Ibid.62.Concilia, i. 852.63.Ut suprà, p. 47.64.The New Testament in the Original Greek.The Text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. Cambridge and London, 1881.65.From the Preface prefixed to the“limited and private issue”of 1870, p. vi.66.Ut suprà, p. xv.67.Ibid.p. xviii.68.Ibid.p. xvi.69.Ibid.pp. xviii., xix.70.[Note,—that I have thought it best, for many reasons, to retain the ensuing note as it originally appeared; merely restoring [within brackets] those printed portions of it for which there really was no room. The third Article in the present volume will be found to supply an ample exposure of the shallowness of Drs. Westcott and Hort's Textual Theory.]While these sheets are passing through the press, a copy of the long-expected volume reaches us. The theory of the respected authors proves to be the shallowest imaginable. It is brieflythis:—Fastening on the two oldest codices extant (band א, both of the IVth century), they invent the following hypothesis:—“That the ancestries of those two manuscriptsdiverged from a point near the autographs, and never came into contact subsequently.”[No reason is produced for this opinion.]Having thus secured two independent witnesses of what was in the sacred autographs, the Editors claim that thecoincidenceof א andbmust“mark those portions of text in which two primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission had not come to differ from each other through independent corruption:”and therefore that,“in the absence of specially strong internal evidence to the contrary,”“the readings of א andbcombinedmay safely be accepted as genuine.”But what is to be done when the same two codices divergeone from the other?—In all such cases (we are assured) the readings of any“binary combination”ofbare to be preferred; because“on the closest scrutiny,”they generally“have thering of genuineness;”hardly ever“look suspiciousafter full consideration.”“Even whenbstands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.”[We are not told why.]But, (rejoins the student who, after careful collation of codexb, has arrived at a vastly different estimate of its character,)—What is to be done when internal and external evidence alike condemn a reading of B? How is“mumpsimus”for example to be treated?—“Mumpsimus”(the Editors solemnly reply) as“the better attested reading”—(by which they mean the reading attested byb,)—we place in our margin.“Sumpsimus,”apparently therightreading, we place in the text within ††; in token that it is probably“a successful ancient conjecture.”We smile, and resume:—But how is the fact to be accounted for that the text of Chrysostom and (in the main) of the rest of the IVth-century Fathers, to whom we are so largely indebted for our critical materials, and who must have employed codices fully as old asband א: how is it, we ask, that the text of all these, including codexa, differs essentially from the text exhibited by codicesband א?—The editors reply,—The text of Chrysostom and the rest, we designate“Syrian,”and assume to have been the result of an“editorial Revision,”which we conjecturally assign to the second half of the IIIrd century. It is the“Pre-Syrian”text that we are in search of; and we recognize the object of our search in codexb.We stare, and smile again. But how then does it come to pass (we rejoin) that the Peschito, or primitiveSyriac, which is older by full a century and a half than the last-named date, is practically still the same text?—This fatal circumstance (not overlooked by the learned Editors) they encounter with another conjectural assumption.“A Revision”(say they)“of the Old Syriac version appears to have taken place early in the IVth century, or sooner; and doubtless in some connexion with the Syrian revision of the Greek text, the readings being to a very great extent coincident.”And pray, whereis“theOld Syriacversion”of which you speak?—It is (reply the Editors) our way of designating the fragmentary Syriac MS. commonly known as“Cureton's.”—Your way (we rejoin) of manipulating facts, and disposing of evidence is certainly the most convenient, as it is the most extraordinary, imaginable: yet is it altogether inadmissible in a grave enquiry like the present. Syriac scholars are of a widely different opinion from yourselves. Do you not perceive that you have been drawing upon your imagination for every one of your facts?We decline in short on the mere conjecturalipse dixitof these two respected scholars to admit either that the Peschito is a Revision of Cureton's Syriac Version;—or that it was executed abouta.d.325;—or that the text of Chrysostom and the other principal IVth-century Fathers is the result of an unrecorded“Antiochian Revision”which took place about the yeara.d.275.[But instead of troubling ourselves with removing the upper story of the visionary structure before us,—which reminds us painfully of a house which we once remember building with playing-cards,—we begin by removing the basement-story, which brings the entire superstructure in an instant to the ground.]For we decline to admit that the texts exhibited bybא can have“diverged from a point near the sacred autographs, and never come into contact subsequently.”We are able to show, on the contrary, that the readings they jointly embody afford the strongest presumption that the MSS. which contain them are nothing else but specimens of those“corrected,”i.e.corruptedcopies, which are known to have abounded in the earliest ages of the Church. From the prevalence of identical depravations in either, we infer that they are, on the contrary, derived from the same not very remote depraved original: and therefore, that their coincidence, when they differ from all (or nearly all) other MSS., so far from marking“two primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission”of the inspired autographs, does but mark what was derived from the same corrupt common ancestor; whereby the supposed two independent witnesses to the Evangelic verity become resolved intoa single witness to a fabricated text of the IIIrd century.It is impossible in the meantime to withhold from these learned and excellent men (who are infinitely better than their theory) the tribute of our sympathy and concern at the evident perplexity and constant distress to which their own fatal major premiss has reduced them. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. Doubt,—unbelief,—credulity,—general mistrust ofallevidence, is the inevitable sequel and penalty. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort solemnly assured their brother Revisionists that“the prevalent assumption, that throughout the N. T. the true text is to be foundsomewhereamong recorded readings,does not stand the test of experience;”[P. xxi.] and they are evidently still haunted by the same spectral suspicion. They see a ghost to be exorcised in every dark corner.“The Art ofConjectural Emendation”(says Dr. Hort)“depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation founded on knowledge and method.”[Introd.p. 71.] Specimens of the writer's skill in this department abound.Oneoccurs at p. 135 (App.) where,in defiance of every known document, he seeks to evacuate S. Paul's memorable injunction to Timothy (2 Tim. i. 13) of all its significance. [A fuller exposure of Dr. Hort's handling of this important text will be found later in the present volume.] May we be allowed to assure the accomplished writer thatin Biblical Textual Criticism,“Conjectural Emendation”has no place?71.Scrivener,Introduction, p. 453.—Stunica, it will be remembered, was the chief editor of the Complutensian, orfirst printededition of the New Testament, (1514).72.προσέφορον αὐτῷ,—S. Matt. ix. 2.73.Scrivener,Plain Introd. p. 472.74.The words omitted are therefore the following 22:—ἡμῶν, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ... γενηθήτω τὸ θελημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ... ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.75.Companion to the Revised Version, p. 61.76.The last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark, vindicated against recent critical Objectors and established, by the Rev. J. W. Burgon,—pp. 334, published by Parker, Oxford, 1871.77.As Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Chr. Wordsworth,—the learned Bishops of Chester and Lincoln. It is right to state that Bp. Ellicott“considers the passage doubtful.”(On Revision, p. 36.) Dr. Scrivener (it is well known) differs entirely from Bp. Ellicott on this important point.78.Lectures on Bible Revision, pp. 119-20.79.τὰς ἀληθεῖς ῥήσεις Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου.—Clemens Rom., c. 45.80.Should the Revised New Testament be authorized?—p. 42.81.Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered,—by Canon Cook,—pp. 221-2.82.At p. 34 of his pamphlet in reply to the first two of the present Articles.83.On Revision, pp. 30 and 49.84.Words of the N. T.p. 193.85.Companion to the Revised Version, p. 63.86.Ibid.p. 62.87.Viz. Eusebius,—Macarius Magnes,—Aphraates,—Didymus,—the SyriacActs of the App.,—Epiphanius,—Ambrose,—Chrysostom,—Jerome,—Augustine. It happens that the disputation of Macarius Magnes (a.d.300-350) with a heathen philosopher, which has recently come to light, contains an elaborate discussion of S. Mark xvi. 17, 18. Add the curious story related by the author of thePaschal Chronicle(a.d.628) concerning Leontius, Bishop of Antioch (a.d.348),—p. 289. This has been hitherto overlooked.88.Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 515.89.Tisch. specifies 7 Latin copies. Origen (iii. 946f.), Jerome (vii. 282), and Leo (ap. Sabatier) are the only patristic quotations discoverable.90.i. 45991.i. 374; ii. 714; iv. 15.92.vii. 47; viii. 13.93.Dem. Ev.pp. 163, 342.94.i. 180, 385.95.In loc. Alsoin Luc.xix. 29 (Cat. Ox.141).96.De Trin.p. 84; Cord.Cat. in Ps.ii. 450, 745.97.i. 845,—which is reproduced in thePaschal Chronicle, p. 374.98.P. 180; cf. p. 162.99.i. 154, 1047.100.i. 355, 696, 6; 97 iii. 346.101.Gr. iii. 434.102.Ap. Galland. ix. 754.103.i. 587; ii. 453, 454; vi. 393; vii. 311, 674; viii. 85; xi. 347. AlsoCat. in Ps.iii. 139.104.Ap. Chrys. vi. 424; cf. p. 417.105.In Luc.pp. 12, 16, 502 ( = Mai, ii. 128). Also Mai, ii. 343,Hom. de Incarn.p. 109.Opp.ii. 593; v.1681, 30, 128, 380, 402, 154; vi. 398. Maii, iii.2286.106.i. 290, 1298; ii. 18; iii. 480.107.Ap. Galland. ix. 446, 476.Concil.iii. 1001, 1023.108.Concil.iii. 1002.109.Ap. Galland. ix. 629.110.Concil.iii. 1095.111.Concil.iii. 829 = Cyr.Opp.vi. 159.112.Nov. Auctar.i. 596.113.Montf. ii. 152, 160, 247, 269.114.Hexaem.ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 899.115.Ap. Galland. xii. 308.116.Ed. Combefis, 14, 54; ap. Galland. xiii. 100, 123.117.Ap. Galland. xiii. 235.118.ii. 836.119.Ap. Galland. xiii. 212.120.E.g.Chrys.Opp.viii.;Append.214.121.P. 6d.122.Ap. Galland. iii. 809.123.ii. 602.124.ii. 101, 122, 407.125.iii. 447.126.ii. 298.127.ii. 804; iii. 783; v. 638, 670, 788; viii. 214, 285; x. 754, 821.128.Cord.Cat. in Ps.ii. 960.129.Of the ninety-two places above quoted, Tischendorf knew of onlyeleven, Tregelles adduces onlysix.—Neither critic seems to have been aware that“Gregory Thaum.”is not the author of the citation they ascribe to him. And why does Tischendorf quote as Basil's whatis knownnot to have been his?130.But then, note thatcis only available for comparison down to the end of ver. 5. In the 9 verses which have been lost, who shall say how many more eccentricities would have been discoverable?131.Companion to the Revised Version, pp. 62, 63.Words of the N. T.p. 193.132.Words of the N. T.p. 193.133.Drs. Westcott and Hort (consistently enough) put themon the self-same footingwith the evidently spurious ending found inl.134.True, that a separate volume of Greek Text has been put forth, showing every change which has been either actually accepted, or else suggested for future possible acceptance. But (in the words of the accomplished editor),“theRevisers are not responsible for its publication.”Moreover, (and this is the chief point,) it is a sealed book to all but Scholars.It were unhandsome, however, to take leave of the learned labours of Prebendary Scrivener and Archdeacon Palmer, without a few words of sympathy and admiration. Their volumes (mentioned at the beginning of the present Article) are all that was to have been expected from the exquisite scholarship of their respective editors, and will be of abiding interest and value.Bothvolumes should be in the hands of every scholar, for neither of them supersedes the other. Dr. Scrivener has (with rare ability and immense labour) set before the Church,for the first time, the Greek Text which was followed by the Revisers of 1611, viz. Beza's N. T. of 1598, supplemented in above 190 places from other sources; every one of which the editor traces out in hisAppendix, pp. 648-56. At the foot of each page, he shows what changes have been introduced into the Text by the Revisers of 1881.—Dr. Palmer, taking theText of Stephens(1550) as his basis, presents us with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the“Authorized Version,”and relegates the displaced Readings (of 1611) to the foot of each page.—We cordially congratulate them both, and thank them for the good service they have rendered.135.The number is not excessive. There were about 600 persons aboard the ship in which Josephus traversed the same waters. (Life, c.iii.)136.ii. 61 and 83.137.Isaiah xiv. 15.138.S. Matthew xxi. 1-3. S. Mark xi. 1-6. S. Luke xix. 29-34.139.אd lread—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε: C*,—αὐτον ΠΑΛΙΝ ἀποστελλει ὡδε:b,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ αὐτον ὡδε: Δ,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε: yscr—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ.140.iii. 722, 740.141.iii. 737, iv. 181.142.S. Matt. xxi. 8.143.Exod. x. 21-23.144.S. Matth. xxvii. 45; S. Mark xv. 33; S. Lu. xxiii. 44.145.Ap. Epiphan. i. 317 and 347.146.Intenebricatus est sol—a:obscuratus est sol—b:tenebricavit sol—c.147.Ap. Routh,Opusc.i. 79.148.i. 90, 913; ap. Epiph. i. 1006.149.Syr.ii. 48. So alsoEvan. Conc.pp. 245, 256, 257.150.Mai,Scriptt. Vett.vi. 64.151.i. 305.152.Ap. Mai, ii. 436; iii. 395. AlsoLuc.722.153.i. 288, 417.154.P. 233.155.Ed. by Wright, p. 16.156.“Sol mediâ dietenebricavit.”Adv. Jud.c. xiii.157.iii. 922-4. Read the whole of cap. 134. See also ap. Galland. xiv. 82, append., which by the way deserves to be compared with Chrys. vii. 825 a.158.ἀλλ᾽ ἦν σκότος θεοποίητον, διότι τὸν Κύριον συνέβη παθεῖν.—Routh, ii. 298.159.εἶτ᾽ ἐξαίφνης κατενεχθὲν ψηλαφητὸν σκότος, ἡλίου τὴν οἰκείαν αὐγὴν ἀποκρύψαντος, p. 29.160.ὅτι γὰρ οὐκ ἠν ἔκλειψις [sc. τὸ σκότος ἐκεῖνο] οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ. τρεῖς γὰρ ὥρας παρέμεινιν; ἡ δὲ ἔκλειψις ἐν μιᾷ καιροῦ γίνεται ῥοπῇ.—vii. 825 a.161.i. 414, 415; iii. 56.162.Ap. Mai, iv. 206. But further on he says: αὐτίκα γοῦν ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει οὐχ ἥλιος μόνον ἐσκότασεν κ.τ.λ.—Cyril of Jerusalem (pp. 57, 146, 199, 201, 202) and Cosmas (ap. Montf. ii. 177bis) were apparently acquainted with the same reading, but neither of them actually quotes Luke xxiii. 45.163.“In quibusdam exemplaribus non habeturtenebræ factæ sunt, et obscuratus est sol: sed ita,tenebræ factæ sunt super omnem terram, sole deficiente. Et forsitan ausus est aliquis quasi manifestius aliquid dicere volens, pro,et obscuratus est sol, poneredeficiente sole, existimans quod non aliter potuissent fieri tenebræ, nisi sole deficiente. Puto autem magis quod insidiatores ecclesiæ Christi mutaverunt hoc verbum, quoniamtenebræ factæ sunt sole deficiente, ut verisimiliter evangelia argui possint secundum adinventiones volentium arguere illa.”(iii. 923 f. a.)164.vii. 235.“Qui scripserunt contra Evangelia, suspicantur deliquium solis,”&c.165.This rests on little more than conjecture. Tisch.Cod. Ephr. Syr.p. 327.166.Ἐκλείποντος is only found besides in eleven lectionaries.167.The Thebaic represents“the sunsetting;”which, (like the mention of“eclipse,”) is only anotherinterpretationof the darkness,—derived from Jer. xv. 9 or Amos viii. 9 (“occiditsol meridie”). Compare Irenæus iv. 33. 12, (p. 273,) who says that these two prophecies found fulfilment in“eumoccasumsolis qui, crucifixo eo, fuit ab horâ sextâ.”He alludes to the same places in iv. 34. 3 (p. 275). So does Jerome (on Matt. xxvii. 45),—“Et hoc factum reor, ut compleatur prophetia,”and then he quotes Amos and Jeremiah; finely adding (from some ancient source),—“Videturque mihi clarissimum lumen mundi, hoc est luminare majus, retraxisse radios suos, ne aut pendentem videret Dominum; aut impii blasphemantes suâ luce fruerentur.”168.Our old friend of Halicarnassus (vii. 37), speaking of an eclipse which happenedb.c.481, remarks: ὁ ἥλιος ἐκλιπὼν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἕδρην.169.For it will be perceived that our Revisionists have adopted the reading vouched foronly by codexb. What c* once read is as uncertain as it is unimportant.170.Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet, p. 60.171.On the Revised Version, p. 14.172.πολλὰ κατὰ γνώμην αὐτοῦ διεπράττετο, as (probably) Victor of Antioch (Cat.p. 128), explains the place. He cites some one else (p. 129) who exhibits ἠπόρει; and who explains it of Herod's difficultyabout getting rid of Herodias.173.καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν, will have been the reading of that lost venerable codex of the Gospels which is chiefly represented at this day by Evann. 13-69-124-346,—as explained by Professor Abbott in his Introduction to Prof. Ferrar'sCollation of four important MSS., etc. (Dublin 1877). The same reading is also found in Evann. 28 : 122 : 541 : 572, and Evst. 196.Different must have been the reading of that other venerable exemplar which supplied the Latin Church with its earliest Text. But of this let the reader judge:—“Et cum audisset illum multa facere, libenter,”&c. (c: also“Codex Aureus”and γ, both at Stockholm):“et audito eo quod multa faciebat, et libenter,”&c. (g2q):“et audiens illum quia multa faciebat, et libenter,”&c. (b). The Anglo-Saxon, (“and he heard that he many wonders wrought, and he gladly heard him”) approaches nearest to the last two.The Peschito Syriac (which is without variety of reading here) in strictness exhibits:—“And many things he was hearing [from] him and doing; and gladly he was hearing him.”But this, by competent Syriac scholars, is considered to represent,—καὶ πολλὰ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ, ἐποίει; καὶ ἡδέως ἤκουεν αὐτοῦ.—Cod. Δ is peculiar in exhibiting καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλά, ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν,—omitting ἐποίει, καί.—The Coptic also renders,“et audiebat multa ab eo, et anxio erat corde.”From all this, it becomes clear that the actualintentionof the blundering author of the text exhibited by אb lwas, to connect πολλά,notwith ἠπόρει, but with ἀκούσας. So the Arabian version: but not the Gothic, Armenian, Sclavonic, or Georgian,—as Dr. S. C. Malan informs the Reviewer.174.Note, that tokens abound of a determination anciently to assimilate the Gospels hereabouts. Thus, because the first half of Luke ix. 10 (ϟα / η) and the whole of Mk. vi. 30 (ξα / η) are bracketed together by Eusebius, the former place in codexais found brought into conformity with the latter by the unauthorized insertion of the clause καὶ ὅσα ἐδίδαξαν.—The parallelism of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Lu. ix. 10 is the reason whydexhibits in the latter place ἀν- (instead of ὑπ)εχώρησε.—In like manner, in Lu. ix. 10, codexaexhibits εἰς ἔρημον τόπον, instead of εἰς τόπον ἔρημον; only because ἔρημον τόπον is the order of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Mk. vi. 32.—So again, codex א, in the same verse of S. Luke, entirely omits the final clause πόλεως καλουμένης Βηθσαῖδά, only in order to assimilate its text to that of the two earlier Gospels.—But there is no need to look beyond the limits of S. Mark vi. 14-16, for proofs of Assimilation. Instead of ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη (in ver. 14),band א exhibit ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν—only because those words are found in Lu. ix. 7.asubstitutes ἀνέστη (for ἠγέρθη)—only because that word is found in Lu. ix. 8. For ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν,csubstitutes ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν—only because S. Matth. so writes in ch. xiv. 2.dinserts καὶ ἔβαλεν εἰς φυλακήν into ver. 17—only because of Mtt. xiv. 3 and Lu. iii. 20. In אb lΔ, βαπτίζοντος (for βαπτιστοῦ) stands in ver. 24—only by Assimilation with ver. 14. (lis for assimilating ver. 25 likewise), Κ Δ Π, the Syr., and copies of the old Latin, transpose ἐνεργοῦσιν αἱ δυνάμεις (in ver. 14)—only because those words are transposed in Mtt. xiv. 2.... If facts like these do not open men's eyes to the danger of following the fashionable guides, it is to be feared that nothing ever will. The foulest blot of all remains to be noticed. Will it be believed that in ver. 22, codices אb d lΔ conspire in representing the dancer (whose name isknownto have been“Salome”) asanother“Herodias”—Herod's own daughter? This gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of history—a reading as preposterous as it is revolting, and therefore rejected hitherto byallthe editors andallthe critics—finds undoubting favour with Drs. Westcott and Hort. Calamitous to relate,it also disfigures the margin of our Revised Version of S. Markvi. 22,in consequence.175.i.e.“And”is omitted byb lΔ:“immediately”by אc:“with tears”by אa b c lΔ:“Lord”by אa b c d l.—In S. Mark vi. 16—(viz.“But when Herod heard thereof, he said [This is] John whom I beheaded. He is risen [from the dead],”)—the five words in brackets are omitted by our Revisers on the authority of אb(d)lΔ. But אdfurther omit Ἰωάννην:c domit ὁ: אb d lomit ὅτι. To enumerate and explain the effects of all the barbarous Mutilations which the Gospels alone have sustained at the hands of א, ofb, and ofd—would fill many volumes like the present.176.Chrysostom, vii. 825.177.On the Creed, Art. iv.“Dead:”about half-way through.178.The Coptic represents ὅτι ἐξέπνευσε.179.Namely, of ἘΝ τῇ Βας. σου, which is the reading ofevery known copy but two; besides Origen, Eusebius, Cyril Jer., Chrysostom, &c. Onlyb lread ΕἸΣ,—which Westcott and Hort adopt.180.i. 261.181.i. 936, 1363.182.i. 158.183.P. 301.184.Ap. Galland. vi. 53.185.P. 396.186.vii. 431.187.“Ut ab additamenti ratione alienum est, ita cur omiserint in promptu est.”188.But then, 25 (out of 320) pages ofdare lost:d's omissions in the Gospels may therefore be estimated at 4000. Codexadoes not admit of comparison, the first 24 chapters of S. Matthew having perished; but, from examining the way it exhibits the other three Gospels, it is found that 650 would about represent the number of words omitted from its text.—The discrepancy between the texts ofbאd, thusfor the first time brought distinctly into notice, let it be distinctly borne in mind, is a matter wholly irrespective of the merits or demerits of the Textus Receptus,—which, for convenience only, is adopted as a standard: not, of course, ofExcellencebut only ofComparison.189.Viz. the 1st, the 7th to 12th inclusive, and the 15th.190.Concerning“thesingular codexd,”—as Bp. Ellicott phrases it,—see back, pages 14 and 15.191.Bp. EllicottOn Revision,—p. 42. Concerning the value of the last-named authority, it is a satisfaction to enjoy the deliberate testimony of the Chairman of the Revisionist body. See below, p.85.192.i. 156.193.ii. 254.194.i. 344195.iv. 220, 1218.196.In Luc.664 (Mai, iv. 1105).197.ii. 653.198.“In Lucâ legimusduos calices, quibus discipulis propinavit,”vii. 216.199.Τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον; τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον, ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον.200.P. 1062.201.ii. 747.202.i. 1516. See below, p.82.203.Abbott'sCollation of four important Manuscripts, &c., 1877.204.ii. 354.205.Pp. 543 and 681 ( = ed. Mass. 219 and 277).206.Contra Noet.c. 18; also ap. Theodoret iv. 132-3.207.Ap. Galland. xix.;Append.116, 117.208.Evan. Conc.pp. 55, 235.209.Ap. Epiph. i. 742, 785.210.It is § 283 in his sectional system.211.P. 1121.212.ii. 43; v. 392; vi. 604. AlsoEvan. Conc.235. And see below, p.82.213.Pp. 394, 402.214.i. 551.215.[i. 742, 785;] ii. 36, 42.216.v. 263; vii. 791; viii. 377.217.ii. 39.218.Ap. Theod. Mops.219.In loc. bis; ap. Galland. xii. 693; and Mai,Scriptt. Vett.vi. 306.220.Concilia, iii. 327 a.221.Ap. Mai, iii. 389.222.Concilia, iii. 1101 d.223.Schol. 34.224.i. 692; iv. 271, 429; v. 23.Conc.iii. 907 e.225.Concilia, iii. 740 d.226.Ap. Galland. vi. 16, 17, 19.227.Ap. Cosmam, ii. 331.228.i. 544.229.In Dionys. ii. 18, 30.230.Ap. Galland. xii. 693.231.Ibid.688.232.Pp. 108, 1028, 1048.233.Epist.138234.P. 1061.235.ii. 747.236.iv. 901, 902, 1013, 1564.237.P. 373.238.Ap. Galland. ix. 40.239.Ibid.xi. 693.240.Let their own account of the matter be heard:—“The documentary evidence clearly designates [these verses] asan early Western interpolation, adopted in eclectic texts.”—“They can only bea fragment from the Traditions, written or oral, which were for a while at leastlocally current:”—an“evangelic Tradition,”therefore,“rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second century.”241.Consider the places referred to in Epiphanius.242.The Editors shall speak for themselves concerning this, the first of the“Seven last Words:”—“We cannot doubt thatit comes from an extraneous source:”—“need not have belonged originallyto the book in which it is now included:”—is“a Western interpolation.”Dr. Hort,—unconscious apparently that he isat the bar, noton the bench,—passes sentence (in his usual imperial style)—“Text, Western and Syrian”(p. 67).—But then, (1st) It happens that ourLord'sintercession on behalf of His murderers is attested by upwards of forty Patristic witnessesfrom every part of ancient Christendom: while, (2ndly) On the contrary, the places in which it isnot foundare certain copies of the old Latin, and codexd, which is supposed to be our great“Western”witness.243.Dr. Hort'sN. T.vol. ii.Note, p. 68.244.Ap. Eus.Hist. Eccl.ii. 23.245.P. 521 and ... [Mass. 210 and 277.]246.Ed. Lagarde, p. 65line3.247.ii. 188.Hær.iii. 18 p. 5.248.Ap. Gall. iii. 38, 127.249.Ibid.ii. 714. (Hom.xi. 20.)250.Evan. Conc.275.251.Ap. Routh, v. 161.252.He places the verses inCan.x.253.i. 1120.254.iii. 289.255.Cat. in Ps.iii. 219.256.i. 290.257.15 times.258.ii. 48, 321, 428; ii. (syr.) 233.259.Evan. Conc.117, 256.260.i. 607.261.Pp. 232, 286.262.P. 85.263.Pp. 11, 16. Dr. Wright assigns them to the IVth century.264.Eph.c. x.265.ii. 166, 168, 226.266.6 times.267.Ap. Mai, ii. 197 ( = Cramer 52); iii. 392.—Dr. Hort's strenuous pleading for the authority of Cyril on this occasion (who however is plainly against him) is amusing. So is his claim to have the cursive“82”on his side. He is certainly reduced to terrible straits throughout his ingenious volume. Yet are we scarcely prepared to find an upright and honourable man contending so hotly, and almost on any pretext, for the support of those very Fathers which, when they are against him, (as, 99 times out of 100, they are,) he treats with utter contumely. He is observed to put up with any ally, however insignificant, who evenseemsto be on his side.268.Ap. Theod. v. 1152.269.Pp. 423, 457.270.Cat. in Ps.i. 768; ii. 663.271.Pp. 1109, 1134.272.i. 374.273.P. 93.274.ii. 67, 747.275.i. 814; ii. 819; v. 735.276.P. 88.277.Ap. Chrys. vi. 191.278.11 times.279.P. 782 f.280.12 times.281.More than 60 times.282.Ap. Cypr. (ed. Baluze), &c. &c.283.On Revision,—p. 42note. See above, p.78note.284.Eclog. Proph.p. 89.285.In Luc.435 and 718.286.See pages93to 97.287.i. 1528.288.So Sedulius Paschalis, ap. Galland. ix. 595.289.iii. 2.290.Euseb.Ecl. Proph.p. 89: Greg. Nyss. i. 570.—These last two places have hitherto escaped observation.291.See above, pp.49-50, note 2.292.Viz., thus:—ἦν δὲ καὶ ἐπιγραφὴ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων οὗτος.293.Dean Alford,in loc.294.ὁ Λουκᾶς μιᾷ λέγει τῶν σαββάτων ὄρθρου βαθέος φέρειν ἀρώματα γυναῖκας ΔΎΟ τὰς ἀκολουθησάσας ἀυτῷ, αἵ τινες ἦσαν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας συνακολουθήσασαι, ὅτε ἔθαπτον αὐτὸν ἐλθοῦσαι ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα; αἵτινες ΔΎΟ, κ.τ.λ.,—ad Marinum, ap. Mai, iv. 266.295.Ps. i. 79.296.Dem.492.297.Ap. Mai, iv. 287, 293.298.i. 364.299.Ap. Mai, ii. 439.300.Ap. Galland. xi. 224.301.Cat. in Joann.p. 453.302.Ps.-Chrys. viii. 161-2. Johannes Thessal. ap. Galland. xiii. 189.303.Ap. Mai, iv. 293bis; 294diserte.304.i. 506, 1541.305.iii. 91.306.iv. 1108, andLuc.728 ( = Mai, ii. 441).307.iii.2142; viii. 472.308.So Tertullian:—“Manus et pedes suos inspiciendos offert”(Carn.c. 5).“Inspectui eorum manus et pedes suos offert”(Marc.iv. c. 43). Also Jerome i. 712.309.De Resur.240 (quoted by J. Damascene, ii. 762).310.Ap. Mai, iv. 294.311.i. 906, quoted by Epiph. i. 1003.312.Ap. Theodoret, iv. 141.313.i. 49.314.i. 510; ii. 408, 418; iii. 91.315.iv. 1108; vi. 23 (Trin.). Ap. Mai, ii. 442ter.316.iv. 272.317.Cat. in Joan.462, 3.318.i. 303.319.See above, pp.78and85.320.iii. 579.321.ii. 114 (ed. 1698).322.ii. 9, 362, 622.323.ii. 309; iv. 30; v. 531; vii. 581.324.vi. 79.325.Ep.i. (ap. Gall. i. p. xii.)326.ii. 464.327.Text, pp. 565 and 571.328.Append.p. 14.329.We depend for our Versions on Dr. S. C. Malan: pp. 31, 44.330.ii. 147.Conc.v. 675.331.Cord.Cat.i. 376.332.vii. 599, 600diserte.333.Ap. Photium, p. 644.334.Three times.335.i. 663, 1461, ii. 1137.336.Pp. 367, 699.337.vii. 139.338.Ap. Galland. vi. 324.339.iii. P. i. 760.340.Text, p. 572.341.Append.p. 14.342.ἔτι δὲ ἀπιστούντων αὐτῷ, καὶ θαυμαζόντων ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς.343.Viz. from ch. xix. 7 to xx. 46.344.We take leave to point out that, however favourable the estimate Drs. Westcott and Hort may have personally formed of the value and importance of the Vatican Codex (b), nothing can excuse their summary handling, not to say their contemptuous disregard, of all evidence adverse to that of their own favourite guide. Theypass bywhatever makes against the reading they adopt, with the oracular announcement that the rival reading is“Syrian,”“Western,”“Western and Syrian,”as the case may be.But we respectfully submit that“Syrian,”“Western,”“Western and Syrian,”as Critical expressions, are absolutely without meaning, as well as without use to a student in this difficult department of sacred Science. They supply no information. They are never supported by a particle of intelligible evidence. They are often demonstrably wrong, andalwaysunreasonable. They areDictation, notCriticism. When at last it is discovered that they do but signify that certain wordsare not found in codexb,—they are perceived to be the veriestfoolishnessalso.Progress is impossible while this method is permitted to prevail. If these distinguished Professors have enjoyed a Revelation as to what the Evangelists actually wrote, they would do well to acquaint the world with the fact at the earliest possible moment. If, on the contrary, they are merely relying on their own inner consciousness for the power of divining the truth of Scripture at a glance,—they must be prepared to find their decrees treated with the contumely which is due to imposture, of whatever kind.345.Marcion (Epiph. i. 317);—Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266);—Epiphanius (i. 348);—Cyril (Mai, ii. 438);—John Thessal. (Galland. xiii. 188).346.[The discussion of this text has been left very nearly as it originally stood,—the rather, because the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16 will be found fully discussed at the end of the present volume. SeeIndex of Texts.]347.Companion to the Revised Version, &c., by Alex. Roberts, D.D. (2nd edit.), pp. 66-8.348.Of this, any one may convince himself by merely inspecting the 2 pages of codexawhich are exposed to view at the British Museum.349.For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading (17, 73, 181), the second proves (on enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an abridgment of Œcumenius, who certainly read Θεός; and the last is non-existent.350.Concilia, ii. 217 c.351.viii. 214 b.352.A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude of proofs thatChristisGod, Gregory says:—Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαῤῥήδῃν βοᾷ; ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι. ii. 693.353.Τοῦτο ἡμῖν τὸ μέγα μυστήριον ... ὁ ἐνανθρωπήσας δι᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ πτωχεύσας Θεός, ἵνα ἀναστήσῃ τὴν σάρκα. (i. 215 a.)—Τί τὸ μέγα μυστήριον?... Θεὸς ἄνθρωπος γίνεται. (i. 685 b.)354.De Trin.p. 83—where the testimony is express.355.Θεὸς γὰρ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.—Concilia, i. 853 d.356.Cramer'sCat. in Rom.p. 124.357.One quotation may suffice:—Τὸ δὲ Θεὸν ὄντα, ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνεσχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ... τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἐκπλήξεως γέμον. ὂ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγεν; καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστέριον; ποῖον μέγα; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί; καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ Θεός, κ.τ.λ. i. 497. = Galland. xiv. 141.358.The following may suffice:—μέγα γὰρ τότε τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς ὢν καὶ ὁ Λόγος; ἐδικαιώθη δὲ καὶ ἐν πνεύματι. v. p. ii.; p. 154 c d.—In a newly-recovered treatise of Cyril, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is quoted at length with Θεός, followed by a remark on the ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθεὶς Θεός. This at least is decisive. The place has been hitherto overlooked.359.i. 92; iii. 657; iv. 19, 23.360.Apud Athanasium,Opp.ii. 33, where see Garnier's prefatory note.361.Καθ᾽ ὂ γὰρ ὑπῆρχε Θεὸς [sc. ὁ Χριστὸς] τοῦτον ᾔτει τὸν νομοθέτην δοθῆναι πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι ... τοιγαροῦν καὶ δεξάμενα τὰ ἔθνη τὸν νομοθέτην, τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα Θεόν. Cramer'sCat.iii. 69. The quotation is from the lost work of Severus against Julian of Halicarnassus.362.Galland. xii. 152 e, 153 e, with the notes both of Garnier and Gallandius.363.i. 313; ii. 263.364.Ap. Athanas. i. 706.365.iii. 401-2.366.Ap. Phot. 230.367.Contra Hær. Noet.c. 17.368.Ap. Clem. Al. 973.369.Cap. xii.370.Ad Eph.c. 19, 7;ad Magn.c. 8.371.See Scrivener'sPlain Introd.pp. 555-6, and Berriman'sDissertation, pp. 229-263. Also the end of this volume.372.i. 887 c.373.ii. 74 b.374.See above, p.98.375.As, that stupid fabrication, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; (in S. Matth. xix. 17):—the new incidents and sayings proposed for adoption, as in S. Mark i. 27 (in the Synagogue of Capernaum): in S. John xiii. 21-6 (at the last supper): in S. Luke xxiv. 17 (on the way to Emmaus):—the many proposed omissions, as in S. Matth. vi. 13 (the Doxology): in xvi. 2, 3 (the signs of the weather): in S. Mark ix. 44 & 46 (the words of woe): in S. John v. 3, 4 (the Angel troubling the pool), &c. &c. &c.376.It cannot be too plainly or too often stated that learned Prebendary Scrivener iswholly guiltlessof the many spurious“Readings”with which a majority of his co-Revisionists have corrupted the Word ofGod. He pleaded faithfully,—but he pleaded in vain.—It is right also to state that the scholarlike Bp. of S. Andrews (Dr. Charles Wordsworth) has fully purged himself of the suspicion of complicity, by his printed (not published) remonstrances with his colleagues.—The excellent Bp. of Salisbury (Dr. Moberly) attended only 121 of their 407 meetings; and that judicious scholar, the Abp. of Dublin (Dr. Trench) only 63. The reader will find more on this subject at the close of Art. II.,—pp.228-30.377.Eusebius,—Basil,—Chrysostom (in loc.),—Jerome,—Juvencus,—omit the words. P. E. Pusey found them innoSyriac copy. But the conclusive evidence is supplied by the Manuscripts; not more than 1 out of 20 of which contain this clause.378.“Revised Text”of S. Luke vi. 48.379.“Authorized Version,”supported bya c dand 12 other uncials, the whole body of the cursives, the Syriac, Latin, and Gothic versions.380.“Revised Text”of S. Luke v. 39.381.“Authorized Version,”supported bya cand 14 other uncials, the whole body of the cursives, andallthe versions except the Peschito and the Coptic.382.Address at Lincoln Diocesan Conference,—p. 16.383.On Revision,—p. 99.384.Dial.capp. 88 and 103 (pp. 306, 310, 352).385.P. 113.386.Ap. Galland. iii. 719, c d.387.iv. 15 (ap. Gall. iv. 296 b).388.42 b, 961 e, 1094 a.389.Ap. Galland. iv. 605 (ver. 365-6).390.Ap. Aug. viii. 423 e.391.“Vox illa Patris, quæ super baptizatum facta estEgo hodie genui te,”(Enchirid.c. 49 [Opp.vi. 215 a]):—“Illud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa voce sonuisse quod in Psalmo scriptum est,Filius meus es tu: ego hodie genui te, quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus Græcis non inveniri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus confirmari possit, quid aliud quam utrumque intelligendum est quolibet verborum ordine de cælo sonuisse?”(De Cons. Ev.ii. c. 14 [Opp.iii. P. ii. 46 d e]). Augustine seems to allude to what is found to have existed in theEbionite Gospel.392.Epiphanius (i. 138 b) quotes the passage which contains the statement.393.Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως—οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς: also—ἀνθρώπων.394.For my information on this subject, I am entirely indebted to one who is always liberal in communicating the lore of which he is perhaps the sole living depositary in England,—the Rev. Dr. S. C. Malan. See hisSeven Chapters of the Revision of 1881, revised,—p. 3. But especially should the reader be referred to Dr. Malan's learned dissertation on this very subject in hisSelect Readings in Westcott and Hort's Gr. Text of S. Matth.,—pp. 1 to 22.395.So Dr. Malan in hisSelect Readings(see above note 1),—pp. 15, 17, 19.396.“LibergenituræJesu Christi filii David, filii Abraham”...“Gradatim ordo deducitur ad Christinativitatem.”—De Carne Christi, c. 22.397.A friendly critic complains that we do not specify which editions of the Fathers we quote. Our reply is—This [was] a Review, not a Treatise. We areconstrainedto omit such details. Briefly, we always quotethe best Edition. Critical readers can experiencenodifficulty in verifying our references. A few details shall however be added: Justin (Otto): Irenæus (Stieren): Clemens Al. (Potter): Tertullian (Oehler): Cyprian (Baluze): Eusebius (Gaisford): Athanas. (1698): Greg. Nyss. (1638): Epiphan. (1622): Didymus (1769): Ephraem Syr. (1732): Jerome (Vallarsi): Nilus (1668-73): Chrysostom (Montfaucon): Cyril (Aubert): Isidorus (1638): Theodoret (Schulze): Maximus (1675): John Damascene (Lequien): Photius (1653). Most of the others (as Origen, Greg. Nazianz., Basil, Cyril of Jer., Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine), are quoted from the Benedictine editions. When we say“Mai,”we always mean hisNova Biblioth. PP.1852-71. By“Montfaucon,”we mean theNov. Coll. PP.1707. It is necessity that makes us so brief.398.Concilia, iii. 521 a to d.399.i.2340.400.P. 889 line 37 (γένησιν).401.i. 943 c.402.i. 735.403.v.1363, 676.404.Concil.iii. 325 ( = Cyril v.228 a).405.vii. 48; viii. 314.406.In Matth. ii. 16.407.Ps.-Athanas. ii. 306 and 700: ps.-Chrysost. xii. 694.408.P. 470.409.Gall. ix. 215.410.Trin.188.411.i. 250 b.412.i. 426 a (γένησις).413.Διαφέρει γένεσις καὶ γέννησις; γένεσις μὲν γάρ ἐστι παρὰ Θεοῦ πρώτη πλάσις, γέννησις δὲ ἡ ἐκ καταδίκης τοῦ θανάτου διὰ τὴν παράβασιν ἐξ ἀλλήλων διαδοχή.—Galland. xiv.Append.pp. 73, 74.414.[dated 22 Maya.d.359] ap. Athan. i. 721 d.415.i. 722 c.416.P. 20 of the newly-recoveredDiatessaron, translated from the Armenian. The Exposition is claimed for Ephraem Syrus.417.Dr. Malan,Seven Chapters of the Revision, revised, p. 7.418.See below, note 13.419.See p.122, note 11.420.i. 938, 952. Also ps.-Athan. ii. 409, excellently.421.Trin.349.422.P. 116.423.i. 392; ii. 599, 600.424.ii. 229.425.See p.122, note 11.426.i. 426, 1049 (5 times), 1052-3.427.vii. 76.428.Galland. ix. 636.429.P. 6 (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς: which is also the reading of Syrevand of the Sahidic. The Memphitic version represents τὸν υἱόν.)430.i. 276.431.Gal. xiii. 662.432.In Cat.433.ii. 462.434.“Ex hoc loco quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios filios habuisse Mariam, dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi qui habeat et fratres”(vii. 14). He refers to his treatise against Helvidius, ii. 210.435.Preface to Pastoral Epistles,—more fully quoted facing p. 1.436.The Preface (quoted above facing p. 1,) is dated 3rd Nov. 1868.437.Lectures on Biblical Revision, (1881) pp. 116 seqq. See above, pp.37-9.438.On Revision, pp. 30 and 49.439.The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST, translated out of the Greek: being the Version set fortha.d.1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Reviseda.d.1881. Printed for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881.The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version.Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ.The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version.[Edited by the Ven. Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.The New Testament in the Original Greek.The Text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. Cambridge and London, 1881.440.Malan'sGospel of S. John translated from the Eleven oldest Versions.441.Int. ii. 72; iv. 622 dis.442.C. Noet.§ 4.443.i. 1275.444.Trin.363.445.Ap. Gall. v. 67.446.i. 282.447.i. 486.448.Ep. ad Paul. Sam. Concil.i. 872 e; 889 e.449.Ap. Galland. iv. 563.450.vii. 546; viii. 153, 154, 277.451.iii. 570; iv. 226, 1049, 1153.452.iv. 150 (text); vi. 30, 169. Mai, ii. 69.453.Concilia, iii. 1102 d.454.Quoted by Leontius (Gall. xii. 693).455.In Cat.Cord. 96.456.Ibid.p. 94.457.Cat. in Ps.ii. 323 and 343.458.Ap. Photium, p. 281.459.Montf. ii. 286.460.i. 288, 559, 567.461.Ps.-Athan. ii. 464. Another, 625. Another, 630. Ps.-Epiphan. ii. 287.462.i. 863, 903, 1428.463.Gall. iii. 296.464.32 dis.; 514; 1045 dis.465.Gall. vi. 192.466.iv. 679.467.Ap. Athan. ii. 646.468.Gall. v. 124.469.Ibid.iii. 628, 675.470.Ibid.ix. 367.471.Ibid.ix. 493.472.Let the Reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts of the severalVersionsabove enumerated, and mentally assign eachFatherto his own approximate locality: then let him bear in mind that 995 out of 1000 of the extantManuscriptsagree with those Fathers and Versions; and let him further recognize that those MSS. (executed at different dates in different countries) must severally represent independent remote originals, inasmuch asno two of them are found to be quite alike.—Next, let him consider that,in all the Churches of the East, these words from the earliest period were read aspart of the Gospel for the Thursday in Easter week.—This done, let him decide whether it is reasonable that two worshippers of codexb—a.d.1881—should attempt to thrust all this mass of ancient evidence clean out of sight by their peremptory sentence of exclusion,—“Western and Syrian.”Drs. Westcott and Hort inform us that“the character of the attestationmarks”the clause (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ),“as aWestern gloss.”But the“attestation”for retaining that clause—(a) Comes demonstrably from every quarter of ancient Christendom:—(b) Is more ancient (by 200 years) than the evidence for omitting it:—(c) Is more numerous, in the proportion of 99 to 1:—(d) In point of respectability, stands absolutely alone. For since we haveprovedthat Origen and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, Ambrose and Jerome,recognizethe words in dispute, of what possible Textual significancy can it be if presently (because it is sufficient for their purpose) the same Fathers are observed to quote S. John iii. 13no further than down to the words“Son of Man”? No person, (least of all a professed Critic,) who adds to his learning a few grains of common sense and a little candour, can be misled by such a circumstance. Origen, Eusebius, Proclus, Ephraim Syrus, Jerome, Marius, when they are only insisting on the doctrinal significancy of the earlier words, naturally end their quotation at this place. The two Gregories (Naz. [ii. 87, 168]: Nyss. [Galland. vi. 522]), writing against the Apolinarian heresy, of course quoted the verse no further than Apolinaris himself was accustomed (for his heresy) to adduce it.... About theinternalevidence for the clause, nothing has been said; butthisis simply overwhelming. We make our appeal toCatholic Antiquity; and are content to rest our cause onExternal Evidence;—onCopies, onVersions, onFathers.473.Pp. 798, 799.474.iii. 414.475.Ant.c. 50;Consum.c. 28.476.Hist. Eccl.v. 8.477.Ἐμβατεῦσαι;—Ἐπιβῆναι τὰ ἔνδον ἐξερευνῆσαι ἣ σκοπῆσαι. Phavorinus, quoted by Brüder.478.Viz. S. Luke iv. 39: Acts x. 17: xi. 11: xxii. 20.479.S. Luke ii. 9 (where“came upon”is better than“stood bythem,”and should have been left): xxiv. 4: Acts xii. 7: xxii. 13: xxiii. 11.480.S. Luke xx. 1: xxi. 34 (last Day): Acts iv. 1: vi. 12: xvii. 5 (“assault”): xxiii. 27: xxviii. 2 (a rain-storm,—which, by the way, suggests for τὸν ἐφεστῶτα a different rendering from“the present”).481.S. Luke ii. 38.482.S. Luke x. 40.483.Cf. ch. xi. 20. So in Latin,Illa plurima sacrificia. (Cic.De Fin.2. 20. 63.)484.“The context”(says learned Dr. Field)“is too strong for philological quibbles.”The words“can by no possibility bear any other meaning.”—Otium Norvicense, p. 40.485.Στρατιώτης ὂς πρὸς τὸ φονεύειν τέτακται,—Theophylact, i. 201 e. Boys quotes SenecaDe Irá:—Tunc centurio supplicio præpositus condere gladiumspeculatoremjussit.486.Trench,Study of Words, p. 106.487.Otium Norvicense, pars tertia, 1881, pp. 155.488.Compare Xenophon (Cyrop.vii. 6. 8), τοὺς Συριστὶ ἐπισταμένους. Theplena locutiois found in Nehem. xiii. 24,—οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτῶν ἥμισυ λαλοῦντες Ἁζωτιστί, καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐπιγινώσκοντες λαλεῖν Ἰουδαιστί (quoted by Wetstein).489.Cf. Acts i. 23; xvii. 31. The Latin is“statuerunt”or“constituerunt.”The Revisionists give“appointed”in the second of these places, and“put forward”in the first. In both,—What becomes of their uniformity?490.P. 279.491.καὶ τὸν δικαστὴν εἷλεν ὁ τέως κατάδικος εἶναι νομιζόμενος καὶ τὴν νίκην αὐτὸς ὁ χειρωθεὶς ὁμολογεῖ λαμπρᾷ τῇ φωνῇ παρόντων ἁπάντων λέγων, ἐν ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. x. 307 b. (= xii. 433 a).492.ἐν ὀλίγῳ; τουτέστι παρὰ μικρόν. ix. 391 a.493.καὶ τὸν δικάζοντα μικροῦ μεταπεῖσαι, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον λέγειν, ἐν ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. ii. 516 d.494.iii. 399 d.495.v. 930 (παρ᾽ ὀλίγον).496.MS. Note in his copy of the N. T.497.And the Revisionists: for see Rom. xi. 4.498.Yet even here they cannot abstain from putting in the margin the peculiarly infelicitous alternative,—“Why didst thou forsake Me?”499.As in Rom. vi. 2: ix. 13. 1 Cor. i. 27: vi. 20: ix. 11. Ephes. iv. 20, &c. &c.500.Comp. S. Matth. viii. 1, 5, 23, 28; ix. 27, 28; xxi. 23.501.Ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς.502.ii. 155.503.Routh,Rell. iii. 226ad calc.504.Ap. Mai, iv. 266.505.ii. 1324.506.ii. 380.507.Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 403.508.So also Heb. xi. 17, 28. And see the Revision of S. James i. 11.509.Comp. ἀφίεμεν in S. Lu. xi. 4. In the case of certain Greek verbs, thepreteritein form is invariablypresentin signification. See Dr. Field's delightfulOtium Norvicense, p. 65.510.See above, pp.98-106. Alsoinfra, towards the end.511.As in S. Matth. xi. 11 and 2 Tim. iv. 17, where δέ is rendered“notwithstanding:”—Phil. i. 24 and Heb. xii. 11, where it is“nevertheless.”512.Eighttimes in succession in 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, δέ is not represented in the A. V. The ancientsfeltso keenly what Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the A. V. ventured to exhibit, that as often as not they leave out the δέ,—in which our Revisionists twice follow them. The reader of taste is invited to note the precious result of inserting“and,”as the Revisionists have done six times, where according to the genius of the English language it is not wanted at all.513.38 times in the Genealogy, S. Matth. i.514.Rom. xiv. 4: xv. 20.515.Rom. ix. 22.516.1 Cor. xii. 27.517.Gal. ii. 4.518.Act xxvii. 26.519.Rom. iii. 22.520.Ephes. iv. 1.521.2 Cor. v. 8.522.S. Mark xv. 31.523.S. Mark vi. 29.524.1 Cor. x. 1.525.S. Matth. vi. 30.526.S. John xx. 4.527.2 Cor. i. 23.528.2 Cor. vii. 13.529.2 Cor. ii. 12.530.2 Pet. iii. 13.531.S. Matth. ii. 22.532.1 Cor. xii. 20.533.1 S. John i. 3.534.S. Matth. xxv. 39.535.Acts viii. 3.536.Rom. xii. 6.537.S. Matth. vi. 29.538.As in S. Matth. vii. 9: xii. 29: xx. 15. Rom. iii. 29.539.S. Matth. xx. 15: xxvi. 53. Rom. iii. 29: vi. 3: vii. 1.540.S. John xvi. 32.541.S. Luke xix. 23.542.2 Cor. xiii. 1.543.S. Luke xii. 2.544.S. Luke xviii. 7.545.S Luke xiv. 21.546.1 S. John ii. 27.547.1 S. John i. 2.548.S. Mark ix. 39.549.Acts xxiii. 3.550.Consider S. Matth. iii. 16,—ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος: and ver. 6,—ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ.551.ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συνανεστράφη.552.Galland. iv. 6 bbis.553.P. 279.554.ix. 400.555.ii. 707.556.The circumstance is noticed and explained in the same way by Dr. Field in his delightfulOtium Norvicense.557.Concilia, iv. 79 e.558.Thus Cyril addresses one of his Epistles to Acacius Bp. of Melitene,—Concilia, iii. 1111.559.See Dr. Field's delightfulOtium Norvicense(Pars tertia), 1881, pp. 1-4 and 110, 111. This masterly contribution to Sacred Criticism ought to be in the hands of every student of Scripture.560.See Hesychius, and the notes on the place.561.Notes designed to illustrate some expressions in the Gk. Test. by a reference to thelxx., &c. By C. F. B. Wood, Præcentor of Llandaff,—Rivingtons, 1882, (pp. 21,)—p. 17:—an admirable performance, only far too brief.562.Μὴ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ῥῆμα?563.Οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ πᾶν ῥῆμα.564.[Pointed out to me by Professor Gandell,—whose exquisite familiarity with Scripture is only equalled by his readiness to communicate his knowledge to others.]565.μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς and ἐνταφιασμός,—S. Mark xiv. 3 and 8: S. John xii. 3 and 7. Hear Origen (apud Hieron. iii. 517):—“Non de nardo propositum est nunc Spiritui Sancto dicere, neque de hoc quod oculis intuemur, Evangelista scribit, unguento; sedde nardo spirituali.”And so Jerome himself, vii. 212.566.Ps. xxxiii. 18 (ἐγγὺς Κύριος τοῖς συντετριμμένοις τὴν καρδίαν): Is. lvii. 15.567.Consider Ignatius,ad Ephes.c. xvii. Also, the exquisite remark of Theod. Heracl. in Cramer'sCat.568.We prefer that readers should be reminded, by the varied form, of theGreekoriginal. In the extreme case (Acts vii. 45: Hebr. iv. 8), is it not far more edifying that attention should be in this way directed to the identity of the names“Joshua”and“Jesus,”than that the latter word should be entirely obliterated by the former;—and this, only for the sake of unmistakeably proclaiming, (what yet must needs be perfectly manifest, viz.) that“Joshua”is the personage spoken of?569.So, in S. Luke xxiii. 25, and Acts iii. 14: xiii. 28,—still following Tyndale.570.Acts xii. 20.571.Eph. iii. 13.572.For, as the story plainly shows (2 Sam. vii. 2, 3; 1 Chron. xvii. 1, 2), it was only“in his heart”to buildGodan house (1 Kings viii. 17, 18). Hence Cranmer's“he would fain”have done so.573.Acts xvi. 29.574.Col. i. 9.575.S. Matth. xiv. 15, 22, 23 (= S. Mark vi. 36, 45, [and note the substitution of ἀποταξάμενος in ver. 46]: S. Luke ix. 12): and xv. 32, 39 (= S. Mark viii. 9).576.S. Matt. xiii. 36: and S. Mark iv. 36.577.Acts xii. 13.578.Acts xvi. 16.579.Verses 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31.580.Twice he calls it μνῆμα.581.Ch. xxvii. 61, 64, 66; xxviii. 1.582.Except in 2 Tim. iii. 16,—where πρὸς διδασκαλίαν is renderedad docendum.583.Except in Rom. xii. 7,—where ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ is rendered“on teaching.”584.Except in Rom. xvi. 17, where they render it“doctrine.”585.And yet, since upwards of 50 times we are molested with a marginal note to inform us that διδάσκαλος means“Teacher”—διδασκαλία (rather than διδαχή) might have claimed to be rendered“teaching.”586.Viz. Rom. xii. 7: 1 Tim. iv. 13, 16: v. 17: 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16.—Rom. xv. 4.587.Eight times in Rev. xvi.588.S. Matth. xxvi. 7. S. Mark xiv. 3. S. Luke vii. 37.589.γλωσσόκομον. Consider the LXX. of 2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11.590.ζώνας.591.E.g.S. Matth. xxvi. 48. S. Luke ii. 12.592.Δύναμις is rendered“miracle”in the R. V. about half-a-dozen times.593.Acts iv. 16, 22.—On the other hand,“sign”was allowed to represent σημεῖον repeatedly in the A. V., as in S. Matth. xii. 38, &c., and the parallel places: S. Mark xvi. 17, 20: S. John xx. 30.594.Canon Cook'sRevised Version of the first three Gospels considered, &c.—p. 26: an admirable performance,—unanswered, becauseunanswerable.595.Dr. Vance Smith'sRevised Texts and Margins,—p. 45.596.S. Matth. xvii. 15: S. Mk. ix. 18, 20, 22, 26: S. Lu. ix. 39, 42.597.Consider ourLord'ssolemn words in Mtt. xvii. 21,—“But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting,”—12 words left out by the R. V., though witnessed to byall the Copies but3: by the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian Versions: and by the following Fathers:—(1) Origen, (2) Tertullian, (3) the Syriac Clement, (4) the SyriacCanons of Eusebius, (5) Athanasius, (6) Basil, (7) Ambrose, (8) Juvencus, (9) Chrysostom, (10)Opus imp., (11) Hilary, (12) Augustine, (13) J. Damascene, and others. Then (it will be asked), why have the Revisionists left them out? Because (we answer) they have been misled byband א, Cureton's Syriac and the Sahidic,—as untrustworthy a quaternion of witnesses to the text of Scripture as could be named.598.The word is only not banished entirely from the N. T. It occurs twice (viz. in Rom. i. 20, and Jude ver. 6), but only as the rendering of ἀῖδιος.599.S. Matth. xxv. 46.600.Clemens Al. (p. 71) says:—τὰσ γραφὰς ὁ Ἀπόστολος Θεοπνεύστους καλεῖ, ὠφελίμους οὔσας. Tertullian,—Legimus omnem Scripturam ædificationi habilem, divinitus inspirari.Origen (ii. 443),—πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος οὖσα ὠφελιμός ἐστι. Gregory Nyss. (ii. 605),—πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος λέγεται. Dial. (ap. Orig. i. 808),—πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος λέγεται παρὰ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου. So Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, &c.601.See Archdeacon Leeon Inspiration, pp. 261-3, reading his notes.602.S. John xvi. 15.603.Study by all means Basil's letter to Amphilochius, (vol. iii. p. 360 to 362.)—Ἔστιν οὖν ὁ νοῦς ὁ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ τοιοῦτος; Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ ὥρας, οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὔτε οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἄν ὁ Υἱὸς ἔγνω, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατέρ; ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτῷ ὑπῆρχε δεδομένη ἡ γνῶσις ... τουτέστιν, ἡ αἰτία τοῦ εἰδέναι τὸν Υἱὸν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός; καὶ ἀβίαστός ἐστι τῷ εὐγνωμόνως ἀκούοντι ἡ ἐξήγησις αὕτη. ἐπειδὴ οὐ πρόσκειται τὸ μόνος; ὡς καὶ παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ.—(p. 362 c.) Basil says of this interpretation—ἂ τοίνυν ἐκ παιδὸς παρὰ τῶν πατέρων ἠκούσαμεν.604.Notes, p. 109.605.Celebre effugium, (as Dr. Routh calls it,)quod ex falsâ verborum constructione Critici quidam hæreticis pararunt.Reliqq.iii. 322-3.606.calone has a point between ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων and Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τους αἰῶνας. But this is an entirely different thing from what is noted in the margin.607.MS. communication from the Rev. S. C. Malan.608.i. 506.609.Opusc.i. 52, 58;Phil.339.610.iv. 612.611.Routh,Reliqq. Sac.iii. 292, and 287. (Concil.i. 845 b. c.)612.Concilia, i. 873 d: 876 a.613.vi. c. 26.614.i. 414, 415, 429, 617, 684, 908.615.i. 282. And inCat.317.616.Trin.21, 29, 327, 392. Mai, vii. 303.617.ii. 596 a, (quoted by the Emp. Justinian [Concil.v. 697] and theChronicon Paschale, 355), 693, 697; iii. 287. Galland. vi. 575.618.i. 481, 487, 894, 978; ii. 74.619.Ap. Cyril (ed. Pusey), v. 534.620.Ap. Gall. iii. 805.621.Ap. Gall. iv. 576.622.Ap. Phot. col. 761, 853.623.Ap. Gall. vi. 8, 9, 80.624.Ap. Gall. vii. 618, and ap. Hieron. i. 560.625.Concilia, iii. 522 e ( = iv. 297 d = ap. Gall. viii. 667). Also,Concilia(Harduin), i. 1413 a.626.Ap. Gall. ix. 474.627.Ap. Gall. ix. 690, 691 ( =Concil.iii. 1230, 1231).628.Homilia(Arm.), p. 165 and 249.629.i. 464, 483; vi. 534; vii. 51; viii. 191; ix. 604, 653; x. 172.630.v.120, 503, 765, 792; v.258, 105, 118, 148; vi. 328. Ap. Mai, ii. 70, 86, 96, 104; iii. 84in Luc.26.631.Concilia, iii. 1099 b.632.i. 103; ii. 1355; iii. 215, 470; iv. 17, 433, 1148, 1264, 1295, 1309; v. 67, 1093.633.Cramer'sCat.160.634.Ibid. in Act.40.635.P. 166.636.Concilia, ii. 195.637.Ap. Gall. xii. 251.638.Ap. Gall. xii. 682.639.ii. 64.640.i. 557; ii. 35, 88.641.Prax. 13, 15—“Christum autem et ipse Deum cognominavit,Quorum patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in ævum.”642.P. 287.643.Ap. Gall. iii. 296, 313.644.i. 1470; ii. 457, 546, 609, 790.645.Concilia, ii. 982 c.646.78, 155, 393, 850, 970, 1125, 1232.647.i. 870, 872.648.Ap. Gall. viii. 157.649.Ap. Gall. vii. 589, 590.650.Ap. Gall. viii. 627.651.709, 711.652.Ap. Gall. x. 722.653.Ap. Gall. xi. 233, 237.654.Concilia, iii. 1364, 1382.655.Ap. Gall. 352, 357.656.Ibid.674.657.ii. 16, 215, 413.658.i. 839; v. 769; xii. 421.659.Those of our readers who wish to pursue this subject further may consult with advantage Dr. Gifford's learned note on the passage in theSpeaker's Commentary. Dr. Gifford justly remarks that“it is the natural and simple construction, which every Greek scholar would adopt without hesitation, if no question of doctrine were involved.”660.Note, that this has been the language of the Church from the beginning. Thus Tertullian,—“Aquam adituri ... contestamur nos renuntiare diabolo,et pompæ et angelis ejus”(i. 421): and Ambrose,—“Quando te interrogavit, Abrenuntias diaboloet operibus ejus, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio. Abrenuntiassæculo et voluptatibus ejus, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio”(ii. 350 c): and Ephraem Syrus,—Ἀποτάσσομαι τῷ Σατανᾷ καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ (ii. 195 and iii. 399). And Cæsarius of Arles,—“Abrenuntias diabolo,pompis et operibus ejus... Abrenuntio”(Galland. xi. 18 e).661.2 Tim. iv. 18.662.S. John xvii. 24.663.P. 140.664.Marcell. p. 192.665.In loc. diserte.666.Eth.ii. 297.667.viii. 485.668.Text, iv. 1003;Comm.1007, which aretwo distinct authorities, as learned readers of Cyril are aware.669.Concilia, iii. 356 d.670.iv. 450.671.Pp. 235, 321.672.i. 412; ii. 566, 649.673.Pp. 1017, 1033.674.Victricius ap. Gall. viii. 230. Also ps.-Chrys. v. 680.675.iii. 966dis.676.Dem.92.677.i. 319.678.Trin.190.679.v. 1039, 1069.680.ii. 460.681.v. 615.682.ii. 584. Cyril read the place both ways:—v.2156, andin Luc.p. 52.683.i. 720.684.ii. 381; iii. 962; iv. 601.685.Ap. Galland. vii. 183.686.Ap. Montf. ii. 67.687.iii. 333; v. 444; x. 498, 620; xii. 329.688.ii. 77; iii. 349.689.ii. 252.690.“Deseruimus fere quos sequi solemus codices.”691.P. 38 ( = Gall. vii. 26).692.i. 298, 613.693.viii. 351, 352.694.iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.695.i. 748; iv. 274, 550.696.In Dionys. Ar.ii. 192.697.As these sheets are passing through the press, we have received a book by Sir Edmund Beckett, entitled,Should the Revised New Testament be Authorized?In four Chapters, the author discusses with characteristic vigour, first, the principles and method of the Revisers, and then the Gospel of S. Matthew, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, as fair samples of their work, with a union of sound sense, forensic skill, and scholarship more skilful than to deserve his cautious disclaimer. Amidst details open, of course, to discussion, abundant proofs are set forth, in a most telling style, that the plea of“necessity”and“faithfulness”utterly fails, in justification of a mass of alterations, which, in point of English composition, carry their condemnation on their face, and, to sum up the great distinction between the two Versions, illustrate“the difference between working bydiscretionand byrules—by which no great thing was ever done or ever will be.”Sir Edmund Beckett is very happy in his exposure of the abuse of the famous canon of preferring the stranger reading to the more obvious, as if copyists never made stupid blunders or perpetrated wilful absurdities. The work deserves the notice of all English readers.698.It has been objected by certain of the Revisionists that it is not fair to say that“they were appointed to do one thing, and have done another.”We are glad of this opportunity to explain.Thatsomecorrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware: and had thosenecessarychanges been made, we should only have had words of commendation and thanks to offer. But it is found that by Dr. Hort's eager advocacy two-thirds of the Revisionists have made a vast number ofperfectly needless changes:—(1) Changes whichare incapable of being represented in a Translation: as ἐμοῦ for μου,—πάντες for ἅπαντες,—ὅτε for ὁπότε. Again, since γέννησις, at least as much as γένεσις, means“birth,”whyγένεσις in S. Matth. i. 18? Why, also, inform us that instead of ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ πεφυτευμένην, they prefer πεφυτευμένην ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ? and instead of καρπὸν ζητῶν,—ζητῶν καρπόν? Now this they have donethroughout,—at least 341 times in S. Luke alone. But (what is far worse), (2) They suggest in the margin changes which yet theydo not adopt. These numerous changes are,by their own confession, not“necessary:”and yet they are of a most serious character. In fact, it is of these we chiefly complain.—But, indeed (3),How manyof theirotheralterations of the Text will the Revisionists undertake to defend publicly on the plea of“Necessity”?[A vast deal more will be found on this subject towards the close of the present volume. In the meantime, see above, pages87-88.]699.“We meet in every page”(says Dr. Wordsworth, the learned Bishop of Lincoln,)“with small changes which are vexatious, teasing, and irritating; even the more so because they are small (as small insects sting most sharply),which seem almost to be made merely for the sake of change.”—p. 25.700.On the Revision of the English Version, &c. (1870), p. 99.701.Bp. Ellicott,Diocesan Progress, Jan. 1882,—p. 19.702.Bp. Ellicott,On Revision,—p. 49.703.“Quilxxinterpretes non legit, aut minus legit accurate, is sciat se non adeo idoneum, qui Scripta Evangelica Apostolica de Græco in Latinum, aut alium aliquem sermonem transferat, ut ut in aliis Græcis scriptoribus multum diuque fuerit versatus.”(John Bois, 1619.)—“Græcum N. T. contextum rite intellecturo nihil est utilius quam diligenter versasse Alexandrinam antiqui Fœderis interpretationem,e quâ unâ plus peti poterit auxilii, quam ex veteribus Scriptoribus Græcis simul sumtis.Centena reperientur in N. T. nusquam obvia in scriptis Græcorum veterum, sed frequentata in Alexandrinâ versione.”(Valcknaer, 1715-85.)704.On the Authorized Version,—p. 3.705.Preface, p. xiv.706.Quarterly Review, No. 304.707.Quarterly Review, No. 305.708.At the head of the present Article, as it originally appeared, will be found enumerated Dr. Scrivener's principal works. It shall but be said of them, that they are wholly unrivalled, or rather unapproached, in their particular department. Himself an exact and elegant Scholar,—a most patient and accurate observer of Textual phenomena, as well as an interesting and judicious expositor of their significance and value;—guarded in his statements, temperate in his language, fair and impartial (even kind) to all who come in his way:—Dr. Scrivener is the very best teacher and guide to whom a beginner can resort, who desires to be led by the hand, as it were, through the intricate mazes of Textual Criticism. HisPlain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the use of Biblical Students, (of which a third edition is now in the press,) is perforce the most generally useful, because the most comprehensive, of his works; but we strenuously recommend the three prefatory chapters of hisFull and Exact Collation of about twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Gospels[pp. lxxiv. and 178,—1853], and the two prefatory chapters of hisExact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, &c., to which is added a full Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, [pp. lxxx. and 563,—1859,] to the attention of students. His Collation ofCodex Bezæ(d) is perhaps the greatest of his works: but whatever he has done, he has done best. It is instructive to compare his collation of Cod. א with Tischendorf's. No reader of the Greek Testament can afford to be without his reprint of Stephens' ed. of 1550: and English readers are reminded that Dr. Scrivener's is the onlyclassicaledition of the English Bible,—The Cambridge Paragraph Bible, &c., 1870-3. His Preface or“Introduction”(pp. ix.-cxx.) passes praise. Ordinary English readers should enquire for hisSix Lectures on the Text of the N. T., &c., 1875,—which is in fact an attempt to popularize thePlain Introduction. The reader is referred to note 1 at the foot of page243.709.“Agmen ducit Carolus Lachmannus (N. T. Berolini1842-50), ingenii viribus et elegantiâ doctrinæ haud pluribus impar; editor N. T. audacior quam limatior: cujus textum, a recepto longè decedentem, tantopere judicibus quibusdam subtilioribus placuisse jamdudum miramur: quippe qui, abjectâ tot cæterorum codicum Græcorum ope, perpaucis antiquissimis (nec iis integris, nec per eum satis accuratè collatis) innixus, libros sacros ad sæculi post Christum quarti normam restituisse sibi videatur; versionum porrò (cujuslibet codicis ætatem facilè superantium) Syriacæ atque Ægyptiacarum contemptor, neutrius linguæ peritus; Latinarum contrà nimius fautor, præ Bentleio ipso Bentleianus.”—Scrivener's Preface toNov. Test, textûs Stephanici, &c. See above, p.238,note.710.Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 429.711.N. T. Part II. p. 2.712.No one who attends ever so little to the subject can require to be assured that“The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the variations adopted in the Revised Version,”edited by Dr. Scrivener for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1881, does not by any means represent his own views. The learned Prebendary merely edited the decisions of the two-thirds majority of the Revisionists,—which were not his own.713.Those who have never tried the experiment, can have no idea of the strain on the attention which such works as those enumerated in p.238(note) occasion. At the same time, it cannot be too clearly understood that it is chiefly by the multiplication ofexactcollations of MSS. that an abiding foundation will some day be laid on which to build up theScienceof Textual Criticism. We may safely keep our“Theories”back till we have collated our MSS.,—re-edited our Versions,—indexed our Fathers. They will be abundantly in timethen.714.Introduction, p. 18.715.See lower part of page17. Also note at p.75and middle of p.262.716.P. 13, cf. p. viii.717.They are as follows:—[1st] S. Mark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion the multitude, when they beheld ourSaviourand His Disciples departing in order to cross over unto the other side of the lake, ran on foot thither,—(α)“and outwent them—(β)and came together unto Him”(i.e.on His stepping out of the boat: not, as Dr. Hort strangely imagines [p. 99], on His emerging from the scene of His“retirement”in“some sequestered nook”).Now here,asubstitutes συνέδραμον [sic] for συνῆλθον.—אbwith the Coptic and the Vulg. omit clause (β).—domits clause (α), but substitutes“there”(αὐτοῦ) for“unto Him”in clause (β),—exhibits therefore a fabricated text.—The Syriac condenses the two clauses thus:—“got there before Him.”—l, Δ, 69, and 4 or 5 of the old Latin copies, read diversely from all the rest and from one another. The present is, in fact, one of those many places in S. Mark's Gospel where all is contradiction in those depraved witnesses which Lachmann made it his business to bring into fashion. OfConfusionthere is plenty.“Conflation”—as the Reader sees—there is none.[2nd] In S. Mark viii. 26, ourSaviour(after restoring sight to the blind man of Bethsaida) is related to have said,—(α)“Neither enter into the village”—(β)“nor tell it to any one—(γ)in the village.”(And let it be noted that the trustworthiness of this way of exhibiting the text is vouched for bya c nΔ and 12 other uncials: by the whole body of the cursives: by the Peschito and Harklensian, the Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions: and by the only Father who quotes the place—Victor of Antioch. [Cramer'sCat.p. 345, lines 3 and 8.])But it is found that the“two false witnesses”(אb) omit clauses (β) and (γ), retaining only clause (α). One of these two however (א), aware that under such circumstances μηδέ is intolerable, [Dr. Hort, on the contrary, (only because he finds it inb,) considers μηδέ“simple and vigorous”as well as“unique”and“peculiar”(p. 100).] substitutes μή. As fordand the Vulg., they substitute and paraphrase, importing from Matt. ix. 6 (or Mk. ii. 11),“Depart unto thine house.”dproceeds,—“and tell it to no one[μηδενὶ εἴπῃς, from Matth. viii. 4,]in the village.”Six copies of the old Latin (b f ff-2g-1-2l), with the Vulgate, exhibit the following paraphrase of the entire place:—“Depart unto thine house, and if thou enterest into the village, tell it to no one.”The same reading exactly is found in Evan. 13-69-346: 28, 61, 473, and i, (except that 28, 61, 346 exhibit“say nothing[from Mk. i. 44]to no one.”) All six however add at the end,—“not even in the village.”Evan. 124 and a stand alone in exhibiting,—“Depart unto thine house; and enter not into the village; neither tell it to any one,”—to which 124 [not a] adds,—“in the village.”...Whyall this contradiction and confusion is now to be called“Conflation,”—and what“clear evidence”is to be elicited therefrom that“Syrian”are posterior alike to“Western”and to“neutral”readings,—passes our powers of comprehension.We shall be content to hasten forward when we have further informed our Readers that while Lachmann and Tregelles abide by the Received Text in this place; Tischendorf,alone of Editors, adopts the reading of א (μη εις την κωμην εισελθης): while Westcott and Hort,alone of Editors, adopt the reading ofb(μηδε εις την κωμην εισελθης),—so ending the sentence. What else however but calamitous is it to find that Westcott and Hort have persuaded their fellow Revisers to adopt the same mutilated exhibition of the Sacred Text? The consequence is, that henceforth,—instead of“Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town,”—we are invited to read,“Do not even enter into the village.”[3rd] In S. Mk. ix. 38,—S. John, speaking of one who cast out devils inChrist'sName, says—(α)“who followeth not us, and we forbad him—(β)because he followeth not us.”Here, אb c lΔ the Syriac, Coptic, and Æthiopic, omit clause (α), retaining (β).dwith the old Latin and the Vulg. omit clause (β), but retain (α).—Both clauses are found ina nwith 11 other uncials and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Gothic, and the only Father who quotes the place,—Basil [ii. 252].—Why should the pretence be set up that there has been“Conflation”here? Two Omissions do not make one Conflation.[4th] In Mk. ix. 49,—ourSavioursays,—“For(α)every one shall be salted with fire—and(β)every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.”Here, clause (α) is omitted bydand a few copies of the old Latin; clause (β) by אbLΔ.But such an ordinary circumstance as the omission of half-a-dozen words by Cod.dis so nearly without textual significancy, as scarcely to merit commemoration. And do Drs. Westcott and Hort really propose to build their huge and unwieldy hypothesis on so flimsy a circumstance as the concurrence in error of אb lΔ,—especially in S. Mark's Gospel, which those codices exhibit more unfaithfully than any other codices that can be named? Against them, are to be set on the present occasiona c d nwith 12 other uncials and the whole body of the cursives: the Ital. and Vulgate; both Syriac; the Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions; besides the only Father who quotes the place,—Victor of Antioch. [Also“Anon.”p. 206: and see Cramer'sCat.p. 368.][5th] S. Luke (ix. 10) relates how, on a certain occasion, ourSaviour“withdrew to a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida:”which S. Luke expresses in six words: viz. [1] εἰς [2] τόπον [3] ἔρημον [4] πόλεως [5] καλουμένης [6] Βηθσαϊδά: of which six words,—(a)—א and Syrcuretain but three,—1, 2, 3.(b)—The Peschito retains but four,—1, 2, 3, 6.(c)—b l xΞdand the 2 Egyptian versions retain other four,—1, 4, 5, 6: but for πόλεως καλουμένηςdexhibits κώμην λεγομένην.(d)—The old Latin and Vulg. retain five,—1, 2, 3, 5, 6: but for“qui(orquod)vocabatur,”the Vulg.bandcexhibit“qui(orquod) est.”(e)—3 cursives retain other five, viz. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6: while,(f)—a cΔe, with 9 more uncials and the great bulk of the cursives,—the Harklensian, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions,—retainall the six words.In view of which facts, it probably never occurred to any one before to suggest that the best attested reading of all is the result of“conflation,”i.e.ofspurious mixture. Note, that א anddhave, this time, changed sides.[6th] S. Luke (xi. 54) speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees as (α)“lying in wait for Him,”(β)seeking(γ)to catch something out of His mouth(δ)“that they might accuse Him.”This is the reading of 14 uncials headed bya c, and of the whole body of the cursives: the reading of the Vulgate also and of the Syriac. What is to be said against it?It is found that אb lwith the Coptic and Æthiopic Versions omit clauses (β) and (δ), but retain clauses (α) and (γ).—Cod.d, in conjunction with Cureton's Syriac and the old Latin, retains clause (β), andparaphrases all the rest of the sentence. How then can it be pretended that there has been any“Conflation”here?In the meantime, how unreasonable is the excision from the Revised Text of clauses (β) and (δ)—(ζητοῦντες ... ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτόν)—which are attested bya c dand 12 other uncials, together with the whole body of the cursives; by all the Syriac and by all the Latin copies!... Are we then to understand that אb, and the Coptic Version, outweigh every other authority which can be named?[7th] The“rich fool”in the parable (S. Lu. xii. 18), speaks of (α) πάντα τὰ γενήματά μου, καὶ (β) τὰ ἀγαθά μου. (Soa qand 13 other uncials, besides the whole body of the cursives; the Vulgate, Basil, and Cyril.)But אd(with the old Latin and Cureton's Syriac [which however drops the πάντα]), retaining clause (α), omit clause (β).—On the other hand,b t, (with the Egyptian Versions, the Syriac, the Armenian, and Æthiopic,) retaining clause (β), substitute τὸν σῖτον (a gloss) for τὰ γενήματα in clause (α). Lachmann, Tisch., and Alford, accordingly retain the traditional text in this place. So does Tregelles, and so do Westcott and Hort,—only substituting τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα. Confessedly therefore there has been no“Syrian conflation”here: for all that has happened has beenthe substitutionbybof τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα; and the omission of 4 words by אd. This instance must therefore have been an oversight.—Only once more.[8th] S. Luke's Gospel ends (xxiv. 53) with the record that the Apostles were continually in the Temple,“(α)praising and(β)blessingGod.”Such is the reading of 13 uncials headed by A and every known cursive: a few copies of the old Lat., the Vulg., Syraic, Philox., Æthiopic, and Armenian Versions. But it is found that אb comit clause (α): whiledand seven copies of the old Latin omit clause (β).And this completes the evidence for“Conflation.”We have displayed it thus minutely, lest we should be suspected of unfairness towards the esteemed writers onthe only occasionwhich they have attempted argumentative proof. Their theory has at lastforced themto make an appeal to Scripture, and to produce some actual specimens of their meaning. After ransacking the Gospels for 30 years, they have at last fastened uponeight: of which (as we have seen), several have really no business to be cited,—as not fulfilling the necessary conditions of the problem. To prevent cavil however, letall but one, the [7th], pass unchallenged.718.The Reader is referred to pp.17,75,249.719.E.g.pp. 115, 116, 117, 118, &c.720.Referred to below, p.296.721.See above, pages257(bottom) and258(top).722.See above, pp.37to 38.723.Ibid.p.39.724.To speak with entire accuracy, Drs. Westcott and Hort require us to believe that the Authors of the [imaginary] Syrian Revisions ofa.d.250 anda.d.350, interpolated the genuine Text of the Gospels, with between 2877 (b) and 3455 (א) spurious words; mutilated the genuine Text in respect of between 536 (b) and 839 (א) words:—substituted for as many genuine words, between 935 (b) and 1114 (א) uninspired words:—licentiously transposed between 2098 (b) and 2299 (א):—and in respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c., altered without authority between 1132 (B) and 1265 (א) words.725.Quoted by Canon Cook,Revised Version Considered,—p. 202.726.i.e.say froma.d.90 toa.d.250-350.727.See above, p.269.728.“If,”says Dr. Hort,“an editor were for any purpose to make it his aim to restore as completely as possible the New Testament of Antioch ina.d.350, he could not help taking the approximate consent of the cursives as equivalent toa primary documentary witness. And he would not be the less justified in so doing for being unable to say precisely by what historical agenciesthe one Antiochian original”—[note the fallacy!]—“was multiplied into the cursive hosts of the later ages.”—Pp. 143-4.729.Preface to the“limited and private issue”of 1870, p. xviii.: reprinted in theIntroduction(1881), p. 66.730.Ibid.731.P. 65 (§ 84). In the Table of Contents (p. xi.),“Personal instincts”are substituted for“Personal discernment.”732.The Revisers and the Greek Text,—p. 19.733.Introduction,—p. xiii.734.Notes, p. 22.735.Notes, p. 88.736.Notes,—p. 51.737.Scrivener'sPlain Introduction,—pp. 507-8.738.Scrivener's“Introduction,”pp. 513-4.739.InS. Matth.i. 25,—the omission of“her first-born:”—in vi. 13, the omission of theDoxology:—in xii. 47, the omission ofthe whole verse:—in xvi. 2, 3, the omission of ourLord'smemorable words concerning thesigns of the weather:—in xvii. 21, the omission of the mysterious statement,“But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting:”—in xviii. 11, the omission of the precious words“For the Son of man came to save that which was lost.”InS. Markxvi. 9-20, the omission of the“last Twelve Verses,”—(“the contents of which arenot such as could have been inventedby any scribe or editor of the Gospel,”—W. and H. p. 57). All admit that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is an impossible ending.InS. Lukevi. 1, the suppression of the unique δευτεροπρώτῳ; (“the very obscurity of the expression attesting strongly to its genuineness,”—Scrivener, p. 516, and so W. and H. p. 58):—ix. 54-56, the omittedrebuke to the“disciples James and John:”—in x. 41, 42, the omittedwords concerning Martha and Mary:—in xxii. 43, 44, the omission of theAgony in the Garden,—(which nevertheless,“it would be impossible to regardas a product of the inventiveness of scribes,”—W. and H. p. 67):—in xxiii. 17, a memorable clause omitted:—in xxiii. 34, the omission of our Lord'sprayer for His murderers,—(concerning which Westcott and Hort remark that“few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this”—p. 68):—in xxiii. 38, the statement that the Inscription on the Cross was“in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew:”—in xxiv. 12,the visit of S. Peter to the Sepulchre. Bishop Lightfoot remarks concerning S. Luke ix. 56: xxii. 43, 44: and xxiii. 34,—“It seems impossible to believe that these incidents are other than authentic,”—(p. 28.)InS. Johniii. 13, the solemn clause“which is in heaven:”—in v. 3, 4, the omitted incident ofthe troubling of the pool:—in vii. 53 to viii. 11,the narrative concerning the woman taken in adulteryomitted,—concerning which Drs. W. and H. remark that“the argument which has always told most in its favour in modern times is its own internal character. The story itself has justly seemedto vouch for its own substantial truth, and the words in which it is clothed to harmonize with those of other Gospel narratives”—(p. 87). Bishop Lightfoot remarks that“the narrative bears on its face the highest credentials of authentic history”—(p. 28).740.To some extent, even the unlearned Reader may easily convince himself of this, by examining the rejected“alternative”Readings in the margin of the“Revised Version.”The“Many”and the“Some ancient authorities,”there spoken of,almost invariably include—sometimesdenote—codd.bא, one or both of them. These constitute the merest fraction of the entire amount of corrupt readings exhibited bybא; but they will give English readers some notion of the problem just now under consideration.Besides the details already supplied [see above, pages16and17:—30and31:—46and47:—75:—249:—262:—289:—316to 319] concerningband א,—(the result of laborious collation,)—some particulars shall now be added. The piercing of ourSaviour'sside, thrust in after Matt. xxvii. 49:—the eclipse of the sun when the moon was full, in Lu. xxiii. 45:—the monstrous figment concerning Herod's daughter, thrust into Mk. vi. 22:—the precious clauses omitted in Matt. i. 25 and xviii. 11:—in Lu. ix. 54-6, and in Jo. iii. 13:—the wretched glosses in Lu. vi. 48: x. 42: xv. 21: Jo. x. 14 and Mk. vi. 20:—the substitution of οινον (for οξος) in Matt. xxvii. 34,—of Θεος (for υιος) in Jo. i. 18,—of ανθρωπου (for Θεου) in ix. 35,—of οὑ (for ῷ) in Rom. iv. 8:—the geographical blunder in Mk. vii. 31: in Lu. iv. 44:—the omission in Matt. xii. 47,—and of two important verses in Matt. xvi. 2, 3:—of ιδια in Acts i. 19:—of εγειραι και in iii. 6;—and of δευτεροπρωτω in Lu. vi. 1:—the two spurious clauses in Mk. iii. 14, 16:—the obvious blunders in Jo. ix. 4 and 11:—in Acts xii. 25—besides the impossible reading in 1 Cor. xiii. 3,—make up a heavy indictment againstband א jointly—which are here found in company with just a very few disreputable allies. Add, the plain error at Lu. ii. 14:—the gloss at Mk. v. 36:—the mere fabrication at Matt. xix. 17:—the omissions at Matt. vi. 13: Jo. v. 3, 4.b(in company with others, but apart from א) by exhibiting βαπτισαντες in Matt. xxviii. 19:—ὡδε των in Mk. ix. 1:—“seventy-two,”in Lu. x. 1:—the blunder in Lu. xvi. 12:—and the grievous omissions in Lu. xxii. 43, 44 (Christ'sAgony in the Garden),—and xxiii. 34 (His prayer for His murderers),—enjoys unenviable distinction.—b, singly, is remarkable for an obvious blunder in Matt. xxi. 31:—Lu. xxi. 24:—Jo. xviii. 5:—Acts x. 19—and xvii. 28:—xxvii. 37:—not to mention the insertion of δεδομενον in Jo. vii. 39.א (in company with others, but apart fromb) is conspicuous for its sorry interpolation of Matt. viii. 13:—its substitution of εστιν (for ην) in S. John i. 4:—its geographical blunder in S. Luke xxiv. 13:—its textual blunder at 1 Pet. i. 23.—א, singly, is remarkable for its sorry paraphrase in Jo. ii. 3:—its addition to i. 34:—its omissions in Matt. xxiii. 35:—Mk. i. 1:—Jo. ix. 38:—its insertion of Ησαιου in Matt. xiii. 35:—its geographical blunders in Mk. i. 28:—Lu. i. 26:—Acts viii. 5:—besides the blunders in Jo. vi. 51—and xiii. 10:—1 Tim. iii. 16:—Acts xxv. 13:—and the clearly fabricated narrative of Jo. xiii. 24. Add the fabricated text at Mk. xiv. 30, 68, 72; of which the object was“so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter's denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed twice.”741.Characteristic, and fatal beyond anything that can be named are, (1) Theexclusiveomission byband א of Mark xvi. 9-20:—(2) The omission of εν Εφεσῳ, from Ephes. i. 1:—(3) The blunder, αποσκιασματος, in James i. 17:—(4) The nonsensical συστρεφομενων in Matt. xvii. 22:—(5) That“vile error,”(as Scrivener calls it,) περιελοντες, in Acts xxviii. 13:—(6) The impossible order of words in Lu. xxiii. 32; and (7) The extraordinary order in Acts i. 5:—(8) The omission of the last clause of theLord'sprayer, in Lu. xi. 4; and (9) Of that solemn verse, Matt. xvii. 21; and (10) Of ισχυρον in Matt. xiv. 30:—(11) The substitution of εργων (for τεκνων) in Matt. xi. 29:—(12) Of ελιγμα (for μιγμα) in Jo. xix. 39,—and (13) of ην τεθειμενος (for ετεθη) in John xix. 41. Then, (14) The thrusting of Χριστος into Matt. xvi. 21,—and (15) Of ὁ Θεος into vi. 8:—besides (16) So minute a peculiarity as Βεεζεβουλ in Matt. x. 35: xii. 24, 27: Lu. xi. 15, 18, 19. (17) Add, the gloss at Matt. xvii. 20, and (18) The omissions at Matt. v. 22: xvii. 21.—It must be admitted that such peculiar blemishes, taken collectively, constitute a proof of affinity of origin,—community of descent from one and the same disreputable ancestor. But space fails us.The Reader will be interested to learn that although, in the Gospels,bcombines exclusively witha, but 11 times; and withc, but 38 times: withd, it combines exclusively 141 times, and with א, 239 times: (viz. in Matt. 121,—in Mk. 26,—in Lu. 51,—in Jo. 41 times).Contrast it witha:—which combines exclusively withd, 21 times: with א 13 times: withb, 11 times: withc, 4 times.742.The Reviewer speaks from actual inspection of both documents. They are essentially dissimilar. The learned Ceriani assured the Reviewer (in 1872) that whereas the Vatican Codex must certainly have been writtenin Italy,—the birthplace of the Sinaitic was [notEgypt, but]either Palestine or Syria. Thus, considerations of time and place effectually dispose of Tischendorf's preposterous notion that the Scribe of Codexbwrotesix leavesof א: an imagination which solely resulted from the anxiety of the Critic to secure for his own cod. א the same antiquity which is claimed for the vaunted cod.b.This opinion of Dr. Tischendorf's rests on the same fanciful basis as his notion thatthe last verseof S. John's Gospel in א was not written by the same hand which wrote the rest of the Gospel. There isno manner of difference: though of course it is possible that the scribe took a new pen, preliminary to writing that last verse, and executing the curious and delicate ornament which follows. Concerning S. Jo. xxi. 25, see above, pp.23-4.743.Tischendorf's narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript (“When were our Gospels written?”), [1866,] p. 23.744.“Papyrus Inédit de la Bibliothèque de M. Ambroise Firmin-Didot. Nouveaux fragments d'Euripide et d'autres Poètes Grecs, publiés par M. Henri Weil. (Extrait desMonumens Grecs publiés par l'Association pour l'encouragement des Etudes Grecques en France. Année 1879.)”Pp. 36.745.The rest of the passage may not be without interest to classical readers:—“Ce n'est pas à dire qu'elle soit tout à fait sans intérêt, sans importance: pour la constitution du texte. Elle nous apprend que, au vers 5, ἀρίστων, pour ἀριστέων (correction de Wakefield) était déjà l'ancienne vulgate; et que les vers 11 et 12, s'ils sont altérés, comme l'assurent quelques éditeurs d'Euripide, l'étaient déjà dans l'antiquité.“L'homme ... était aussi ignorant que négligent. Je le prends pour un Egyptien n'ayant qu'une connoissance très imparfaite de la langue grecque, et ne possédant aucune notion ni sur l'orthographe, ni sur les règles les plus élémentaires du trimètre iambique. Le plus singulier est qu'il commence sa copie au milieu d'un vers et qu'il la finisse de même. Il oublie des lettres nécessaires, il en ajoute de parasites, il les met les unes pour les autres, il tronque les mots ou il les altère, au point de détruire quelquefois la suite de la construction et le sens du passage.”A faithful copy of the verses in minuscule characters is subjoined for the gratification of Scholars. We have but divided the words and inserted capital letters:—“ανδρων αριστων οι δε πανχρυσον δεροςΠελεια μετηλθον ου γαρ τον δεσπονα εμηνΜηδια πυργους γης επλευσε Ειολκιαςερωτι θυμωδ εγπλαγις Ιανοσονοςοτ αν κτανει πισας Πελειαδας κουραςπατερα κατοικη τηνδε γην Κορινθιανσυν ανδρι και τεκνοισιν ανδανοισα μενφυγη πολιτων ων αφηκετο χθονος.”An excellent scholar (R. C. P.) remarks,—“The fragment must have been written from dictation (of small parts, as it seems to me); and by an illiterate scribe. It is just such a result as one might expect from a half-educated reader enunciating Milton for a half-educated writer.”746.See p.324note1.—Photius [cod. 48] says that“Gaius”was a presbyter of Rome, and ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπος. See Routh'sReliqq.ii. 125.747.Eusebius,Hist. Ecol.v. 28 (ap. Routh'sReliqq.ii. 132-4).748.Tregelles, Part ii. p. 2.749.Scrivener's prefatoryIntroduction,—p. xix.750.Ibid.p. iii.751.On Revision,—p. 47.752.Singular to relate, S. Mark x. 17 to 31exactlyfills two columns of cod. א. (See Tischendorf's reprint, 4to, p. 24*.)753.Clemens Al. (ed. Potter),—pp. 937-8.... Note, how Clemens begins § v. (p. 938, line 30). This will be found noticed below, viz. at p.336, note 3.754.“This Text”(say the Editors)“isan attempt to reproduce at once the autograph Text.”—Introduction, p. xxviii.755.Westcott and Hort'sIntroduction, pp. 112-3.756.Besides,—All but L. conspire 5 times.All but T. 3 times.All but Tr. 1 time.Then,—T. Tr. WH. combine 2 timesT. WH. RT. 1 timeTr. WH. RT. 1 timeL. Tr. WH. 1 timeThen,—L. T. stand by themselves 1 timeL. Tr. 1 timeT. WH. 1 timeLastly,—L. stands alone 4 times.Total: 21.757.Twicehe agrees with all 5: viz. omitting ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν in ver. 21; and in omitting ῆ γυναῖκα (in ver. 29):—Oncehe agrees with only Lachmann: viz. in transposing ταῦτα πάντα (in ver. 20).758.On the remaining 5 occasions (17 + 3 + 5 = 25), Clemens exhibits peculiar readings of his own,—sides withno one.759.Q. R.p. 360.760.Article xx. § 1.761.Εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—S. John xvi. 13.762.Theodoret,Opp.iv. 208.—Comp. Clinton,F. R.ii.Appendix, p. 473.763.The reader is invited to enquire for Bp. Kaye (of Lincoln)'sAccount of the writings of Clement of Alexandria,—and to read the vith and viiith chapters.764.Ταῦτα μὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται. (§ v.),—p. 938.765.Alford's N. T. vol. i. proleg. p. 92.766.See p. 197 (§ 269): and p. 201 (§ 275-9):—and p. 205 (§ 280).767.Preface(1870), p. xv.768.See above, pp.79to 85.769.Pp.359-60.770.P. 210 to p. 287. See the Contents, pp. xxiii.-xxviii.771.Pp. 91-119 and pp. 133-146.772.“I perceiveda large and wide basketfull of old parchments; and the librarian told me that two heaps like this had been alreadycommitted to the flames.What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers,”&c.—(Narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript,p. 23.)773.τὴν παρακαταθήκην.—1 Tim. vi. 20.774.[While this sheet is passing through the press, I find among my papers a note (written in 1876) by the learned, loved, and lamented Editor of Cyril,—Philip E. Pusey,—with whom I used to be in constant communication:—“It is not obvious to me, looking at the subject from outside, whyb c l, constituting a class of MSS. allied to each other, and therefore nearly = 1-½ MSS., are to be held to be superior toa. It is still less obvious to me why —— showing up (as he does) very many grave faults ofb, should yet considerbsuperior in character toa.”]775.Introduction, p. 567.776.Let the following places be considered: S. Jo. i. 13; iii. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8; 1 Jo. ii. 29; iii. 9bis, iv. 7; v. 1bis, 4, 18bis.Whyis it to be supposed that on this last occasionthe Eternal Sonshould be intended?777.a*,b, 105.778.The paraphrase is interesting. The Vulgate, Jerome [ii. 321, 691], Cassian [p. 409],—“Sed generatio Dei conservat eum:”Chromatius [Gall. viii. 347], and Vigilius Taps. [ap. Athanas. ii. 646],—“Quia (quoniam) nativitas Dei custodit (servat) illum.”In a letter of 5 Bishops to Innocentius I. (a.d.410) [Galland. viii. 598 b], it is,—“Nativitas quæ ex Deo est.”Such a rendering (viz.“his having been born ofGod”) amounts to aninterpretationof the place.779.From the Rev. S. C. Malan, D.D.780.iv. 326 b c.781.Gall. viii. 347,—of which the Greek is to be seen in Cramer'sCat.pp. 143-4. Many portions of the lost Text of this Father, (the present passage included [p. 231]) are to be found in the Scholia published by C. F. Matthæi [N. T. xi. 181 to 245-7].782.i. 94, 97.783.InCat.p. 124, repeated p. 144.784.iii. 433 c.785.ii. 601 d.786.By putting a small uncial Ε above the Α.787.Diocesan Progress, Jan. 1882.—[pp. 20] p. 19.788.Introduction, p. 283.Notes, pp. 3, 22, andpassim.789.Sermons, vol. i. 132,—(“A form of sound words to be used by Ministers.”)790.Quoted by ps.-EphraemEvan. Conc.p. 135 l. 2:—Nonnus:—Chrys. viii. 248:—Cyril iv. 269 e, 270 a, 273:—Cramer'sCat.p. 242 l. 25 (which isnotfrom Chrys.):—Chron. Paschale217 a (diserte).—Recognized by Melito (a.d.170):—Irenæus (a.d.177):—Hippolytus (a.d.190):—Origen:—Eusebius:—Apollinarius Laod., &c.791.This is thetruereason of the eagerness which has been displayed in certain quarters to find ὅς, (not Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16:—just as nothing else but a determination thatChristshall not be spoken of as ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, has occasioned the supposed doubt as to the construction of Rom. ix. 5,—in which we rejoice to find that Dr. Westcott refuses to concur with Dr. Hort.792.See Dr. W. H. Mill'sUniversity Sermons(1845),—pp. 301-2 and 305:—a volume which should be found in every clergyman's library.793.Rev. xxii. 18, 19.794.ἀφανισθήσονται.795.This happens not unfrequently in codices of the type of א andb. A famous instance occurs at Col. ii. 18, (ἂ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων,—“prying into the things he hath not seen”); where א*a b d* and a little handful of suspicious documents leave out the“not.”Our Editors, rather than recognize this blunder (so obvious and ordinary!), are for conjecturing Α ΕΟΡΑΚΕΝ ΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ into ΑΕΡΑ ΚΕΝΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ; which (if it means anything at all) may as well mean,—“proceeding on an airy foundation to offer an empty conjecture.”Dismissing that conjecture as worthless, we have to set off the whole mass of the copies—against some 6 or 7:—Irenæus (i. 847), Theodoras Mops, (inloc.), Chrys. (xi. 372), Theodoret (iii. 489, 490), John Damascene (ii. 211)—against no Fathers at all (for Origen once has μή [iv. 665]; once, has it not [iii. 63]; and once is doubtful [i. 583]). Jerome and Augustine both take notice of the diversity of reading,but only to reject it.—The Syriac versions, the Vulgate, Gothic, Georgian, Sclavonic, Æthiopic, Arabic and Armenian—(we owe the information, as usual, to Dr. Malan)—are to be set against the suspicious Coptic. All these then are with the Traditional Text: which cannot seriously be suspected of error.796.εὑρεθήσεται.797.Augustin, vii. 595.798.ii. 467: iii. 865:—ii. 707: iii. 800:—ii. 901.In Luc. pp. 428, 654.799.ii. 347.800.Preface to“Provisional issue,”p. xxi.801.Introduction, p. 210.802.Ibid. p. 276.803.Apud Mai, vi. 105.804.Opp.vii. 543. Comp. 369.805.Ap. Cramer,Cat.vi. 187.806.So, Nilus, i. 270.807.Interp.595: 607.808.Dem. Evan.p. 444.809.P. 306.810.Epist. ad Zen.iii. 1. 78. Note, that our learned Cave considered this to be agenuinework of Justin M. (a.d.150).811.Cantic.(an early work)interp.iii. 39,—though elsewhere (i. 112, 181 [?]: ii. 305int.[butnotii. 419]) he is for leaving out εἰκῆ.812.Gall. iii. 72 and 161.813.ii. 89 b and e (partly quoted in theCat.of Nicetas)expressly: 265.814.i. 818expressly.815.ii. 312 (preserved in Jerome's Latin translation, i. 240).816.i. 132; iii. 442.817.472, 634.818.Ap. Chrys.819.iii. 768:apud Mai, ii. 6 and iii. 268.820.i. 48, 664; iv. 946.821.Cramer'sCat.viii. 12, line 14.822.128, 625.823.Gall. vi. 181.824.Gall. x. 14.825.Gall. vii. 509.826.i. 27, written when he was 42; and ii. 733, 739, written when he was 84.827.vii. 26,—“Radendum est ergosine causâ.”And so, at p. 636.828.1064.829.ii. 261.830.ii. 592.831.Amphilochia, (Athens, 1858,)—p. 317. Also inCat.832.Apophthegm. PP.[ap. Cotel.Eccl. Gr. Mon.i. 622].833.S. Matth. xv. 14.834.Gospel of the Resurrection,—p. vii.835.Introduction, pp. 300-2.836.Ibid.p. 299.837.Appendix, p. 66.838.See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 432.839.On Revision,—p. 99.840.Speech in Convocation, Feb. 1870, (p. 83.)841.On Revision,—p. 205.842.Address to Lincoln Diocesan Conference,—p. 25.843.Ibid.,—p. 27.844.Considerations on Revision,—p. 44. The Preface is dated 23rd May, 1870. The Revisers met on the 22nd of June.We learn from Dr. Newth'sLectures on Bible Revision(1881), that,—“As the general Rules under which the Revision was to be carried out had been carefully prepared, no need existed for any lengthened discussion of preliminary arrangements, and the Company upon its first meeting was able to enter at once upon its work”(p. 118) ...“The portion prescribed for the first session was Matt. i. to iv.”(p. 119) ...“The question of the spelling of proper names ... being settled, the Company proceeded to the actual details of the Revision, and in a surprisingly short time settled down to an established method of procedure.”—“All proposals made at the first Revision were decided by simple majorities”(p. 122) ...“The questions which concerned the Greek Text were decided for the most part at the First Revision.”(Bp. Ellicott'sPamphlet, p. 34.)845.The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, by two Members of the New Testament Company,—1882. Macmillan, pp. 79, price two shillings and sixpence.846.“To these two articles—so far, at least, as they are concerned with the Greek Text adopted by the Revisers—our Essay is intended for an answer.”—p. 79.847.See above, pages235to 366.848.Article III.,—see last note.849.Pamphlet, p. 79.850.The Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered in its bearings upon the record of ourLord'sWords and of incidents in His Life,—(1882. pp. 250. Murray,)—p. 232. Canon Cook's temperate and very interesting volume will be found simply unanswerable.851.P. 40.852.Ibid.853.As at p. 4, and p. 12, and p. 13, and p. 19, and p. 40.854.See above, pp.348-350.855.P. 40.856.P. 40.857.P. 77.858.P. 41, and so at p. 77.859.P. 41.860.P. 5.861.P. 3.862.P. 77.863.On Revision, pp. 47-8.864.Scrivener'sIntroduction,—p. 423.865.Ibid.p. 421.866.“Non tantum totius Antiquitatis altum de tali opere suscepto silentium,—sed etiam frequentes Patrum, usque ad quartum seculum viventium, de textu N. T. liberius tractato, impuneque corrupto, deque summâ Codicum dissonantiâ querelæ, nec non ipsæ corruptiones inde a primis temporibus continuo propagatæ,—satis sunt documento, neminem opus tam arduum, scrupulorum plenum, atque invidiæ et calumniis obnoxium, aggressum fuisse; etiamsi doctiorum Patrum de singulis locis disputationes ostendant, eos non prorsus rudes in rebus criticis fuisse.”—Codd. MSS. N. T. Græcorum &c. nova descriptio, et cum textu vulgo recepto Collatio, &c.4to. Gottingæ, 1847. (p. 4.)867.He proceeds:—“Hucusque nemini contigit, nec in posterum, puto, continget, monumentorum nostrorum, tanquam totidem testium singulorum, ingens agmen ad tres quatuorve, e quibus omnium testimonium pendeat, testes referre; aut e testium grege innumero aliquot duces auctoresque secernere, quorum testimonium tam plenum, certum firmumque sit, ut sine damno ceterorum testimonio careamus.”—Ibid.(p. 19.)868.Commentarius Criticus in N. T.(in his Preface to the Ep. to the Hebrews). We are indebted to Canon Cook for calling attention to this. See by all means hisRevised Text of the first three Gospels,—pp. 4-8.869.It requires to be stated, that, (as explained by the Abbé to the present writer,) the“Post-scriptum”of his Fascic. IV., (viz. from p. 234 to p. 236,) is ajeu d'espritonly,—intended to enliven a dry subject, and to entertain his pupils.870.It seems to have escaped Bishop Ellicott's notice, (and yet the fact well deserves commemoration) that the claims of Tischendorf and Tregelles on the Church's gratitude, are not by any means founded onthe Textswhich they severally put forth. As in the case of Mill, Wetstein and Birch, their merit is that theypatiently accumulated evidence.“Tischendorf's reputation as a Biblical scholar rests less on his critical editions of the N. T., than on the texts of the chief uncial authorities which in rapid succession he gave to the world.”(Scrivener'sIntroduction,—p. 427.)871.P. 12.872.P. 13.873.See above, pp. 12: 30-3: 34-5: 46-7: 75: 94-6: 249: 262: 289: 319.874.P. 40.875.P. 19.876.P. 4.877.Acts xix. 35.878.Suprà, pp.339-41.879.P. 13.880.Bp. Ellicott,On Revision, &c.—p. 30.881.P. 15.882.P. 16.883.P. 17.884.P. 18.885.P. 19.886.P. 19.887.P. 20.888.P. 21.889.Pp. 23-4.890.Supra, pp.258-266.891.Pp. 25-7.892.SeeArt.III.,—viz. from p.235to p. 366.893.You refer to such places as pp. 87-8 and 224, where see the Notes.894.Chronicle of Convocation, Feb. 1870, p. 83.895.See above, p.368.896.The clause (“and sayest thou, Who touched me?”) is witnessed to bya c d p r xΓ Δ Λ Ξ Π andevery other known uncial except three of bad character: by every known cursive but four:—by the Old Latin and Vulgate: by all the four Syriac: by the Gothic and the Æthiopic Versions; as well as by ps.-Tatian (Evan. Concord, p. 77) and Chrysostom (vii. 359 a). It cannot be pretended that the words are derived from S. Mark's Gospel (as Tischendorf coarsely imagined);—for the sufficient reason thatthe words are not found there. In S. Mark (v. 31) it is,—καὶ λέγεις, Τίς μου ἥψατο; in S. Luke (viii. 45), καὶ λέγεις, Τίς ὁ ἁψάμενός μου. Moreover, this delicate distinction has been maintained all down the ages.897.Page154to p. 164.898.You will perhaps remind me that you do not read ἐξελθοῦσαν. I am aware that you have tacitly substituted ἐξεληλυθυῖαν,—which is only supported byfourmanuscripts of bad character: being disallowed byeighteen uncials, (witha c dat their head,) andevery known cursive but one; besides the following Fathers:—Marcion (Epiph. i. 313 a, 327 a.) (a.d.150),—Origen (iii. 466 e.),—the author ofthe Dialogus(Orig. i. 853 d.) (a.d.325),—Epiphanius (i. 327 b.),—Didymus (pp. 124, 413.), in two places,—Basil (iii. 8 c.),—Chrysostom (vii. 532 a.),—Cyril (Opp. vi. 99 e. Mai, ii. 226.) in two places,—ps.-Athanasius (ii. 14 c.) (a.d.400),—ps.-Chrysostom (xiii. 212 e f.).... Is it tolerable that the Sacred Text should be put to wrongs after this fashion, by a body of men who are avowedly (for see page369) unskilled in Textual Criticism, and who were appointed only to revise the authorizedEnglish Version?899.This I make the actual sum, after deducting for marginal notes and variations in stops.900.I mean such changes as ἠγέρθη for ἐγήγερται (ix. 7),—φέρετε for ἐνένκαντες (xv. 23), &c. These are generally the result of a change of construction.901.MS. communication from my friend, the Editor902.I desire to keep out of sight thecritical improprietyof such corrections of the text. And yet, it is worth stating that אb larethe only witnesses discoverablefor the former, andalmost the onlywitnesses to be found for the latter of these two utterly unmeaning changes.903.Characteristic of these two false-witnesses is it, that they are not able to convey eventhisshort message correctly. In reporting the two words ἔρχωμαι ἐνθάδε, they contrive to make two blunders.bsubstitutes διέρχομαι for διέρχωμαι: א, ὦδε for ἐνθάδε,—which latter eccentricity Tischendorf (characteristically) does not allude to in his note ...“These be thy gods, O Israel!”904.Rev. xxii. 19.905.iv. 28, c. 1 (p. 655 = Mass. 265). Note that the reference isnotto S. Matt. x. 15.906.P. 123.907.Viz. vi. 7-13.908.i. 199 and 200.909.In loc.910.See above, pp.347-9.911.See above, pp.79-85.912.See above, pp.409-411.913.See above, p.399.914.Bp. Ellicotton Revision, p. 30.915.The Bp. attendedonly one meetingof the Revisers. (Newth, p. 125.)916.Page 4.917.See above, pp.41to 47.918.Pages 17, 18.919.See above, p.37, note 1.920.Pages98-106.921.Pages 64-76.922.The exceptions are not worth noticinghere.923.N. T. ed. 2da. 1807, iii. 442-3.924.i. 887 c.925.CalledAncoratus, written in Pamphylia,a.d.373. The extract inAdv. Hær.extends from p. 887 to p. 899 (=Ancor.ii. 67-79).926.ii. 74 b. Note, that to begin the quotation at the word ἐφανερώθη was a frequent practice with the ancients, especially when enough had been said already to make it plain that it was of theSonthey were speaking, or when it would have been nothing to the purpose to begin with Θεός. Thus Origen, iv. 465 c:—Didymus on 1 JohnapudGalland. vi. 301 a:—Nestorius,apudCyril, vi. 103 e:—ps-Chrysost. x. 763 c, 764 c:—and the Latin of Cyril v.1785. So indeed ps-Epiphanius, ii. 307 c.927.i. 894 c.928.ApudTheodoret, v. 719.929.iv. 622 a,—qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu.930.De incarn. Unig.v. part i. 680 d e =De rectâ fide, v. part ii. b c.931.Ibid.681 a =ibid.6 d e.932.Page98.933.Note at the end of Bishop Ellicott's Commentary on 1 Timothy.934.Berriman's MS. Note in the British Museum copy of hisDissertation,—p. 154. Another annotated copy is in the Bodleian.935.“Certe quidem in exemplari Alexandrino nostro, linea illa transversa quam loquor, adeo exilis ac plane evanida est, ut primo intuitu haud dubitarim ipse scriptumΟΣ, quod proinde in variantes lectiones conjeceram.... Verum postea perlustrato attentius loco, lineolæ, quæ primam aciem fugerat, ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa deprehendi, præsertim ad partem sinistram, quæ peripheriam literæ pertingit,”&c.—In loco.936.Clem. Rom.ed. Wotton, p. 27.937.Berriman, pp. 154-5.938.Ibid.(MS. Note.) Berriman adds other important testimony, p. 156.939.Dissertation, p. 156. Berriman refers to the fact that some one in recent times, with a view apparently to establish the actual reading of the place, has clumsily thickened the superior stroke with common black ink, and introduced a rude dot into the middle of the θ. There has been no attempt at fraud. Such a line and such a dot could deceive no one.940.“Quanquam lineola, quæ Θεός compendiose scriptum ab ὅς distinguitur, sublesta videtur nonnullis.”—N. T. p. 710.941.Griesbach in 1785 makes the same report:—“Manibus hominum inepte curiosorum ea folii pars quæ dictum controversum continet, adeo detrita est, ut nemo mortalium hodie certi quidquam discernere possit ... Non oculos tantum sed digitos etiam adhibuisse videntur, ut primitivam illius loci lectionem eruerent et velut exsculperent.”(Symb. Crit.i. p. x.) The MS. was evidently in precisely the same state when the Rev. J. C. Velthusen (Observations on Various Subjects, pp. 74-87) inspected it in 1773.942.As C. F. Matthæi [N. T. m. xi.Præfat.pp. lii.-iii.] remarks:—“cum de DivinitateChristiagitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur.”Woide instances it as an example of the force of prejudice, that Wetstein“apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ adscripsisse,quia eam abesse volebat.”[Præfat.p. xxxi.]943.“Patet, ut alia mittamus, e consensu Versionum,”&c.—ii. 149.944.Woide,ibid.945.Supra, p.100.946.Introduction, p. 553.947.Introd.p. 553.948.Any one desirous of understanding this question fully, should (besides Berriman's admirableDissertation) read Woide'sPræfatioto his edition of Codex A, pp. xxx. to xxxii. (§ 87).—“Erunt fortasse quidam”(he writes in conclusion)“qui suspicabuntur, nonnullos hanc lineolam diametralem in medio Θ vidisse, quoniam eam videre volebant. Nec negari potest præsumptarum opinionum esse vim permagnam. Sed idem, etiam Wetstenio, nec immerito, objici potest, eam apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ adscripsisse, quia eam abesse volebat. Et eruditissimis placere aliquando, quæ vitiosa sunt, scio: sed omnia testimonia, omnemque historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere non licet: nec mirum est nos ea nunc non discernere, quæ, antequam nos Codicem vidissemus, evanuerant.”949.Prolegomenato his ed. of Cod.c,—pp. 39-42.950.“Ος habet codexc, ut puto; nam lineola illa tenuis, quæ ex Ο facit Θ, non apparet.”(In loc.) And so Griesbach,Symb. Crit.i. p. viii. (1785).951.“Quotiescunque locum inspiciebam (inspexi autem per hoc biennium sæpissime) mihi prorsus apparebat.”“Quam [lineolam] miror hucusque omnium oculos fugisse.”[Prolegg.p. 41].... Equidem miror sane.952.Page 75.953.Pages 64, 69, 71, 75.—Some have pointed out that oppositeΟΣinf—aboveΟΣing,—is written“quod.”Yes, but not“qui.”The Latin version is independent of the Greek. In S. Mark xi. 8, above ΑΓΡΩΝ is written“arboribus;”and in 1 Tim. iv. 10, ΑΓΩΝΙΖΟΜΕΘΑ is translated byf“maledicimur,”—byg,“exprobramur vel maledicimur.”954.Introduction toCod. Augiensis, p. xxviij.955.E.g.Out of ΟΜΕΝΤΟΙΣΤΕΡΕΟΣ [2 Tim. ii. 19], they both make Ο · μεν · το · ισ · τεραιος. For ὑγιαίνωσιν [Tit. i. 13], both write υγει · ενωσειν:—for καινὴ κτίσις [2 Cor. v. 17] both give και · νηκτισις:—for ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες [1 Tim. iii. 10], both exhibit ανευ · κλητοιον · εχοντες (“nullum crimen habentes”):—for ὡς γάγγραινα νομὴν ἕξει [2 Tim. ii. 17], both exhibit ως · γανγρα · ινα · (F G) νομηνεξει, (G, who writes above the words“sicut cancer ut serpat”).956.He must be held responsible for ὝΠΟΚΡΙΣΙ in place of ὑποκρίσει [1 Tim. iv. 2]: ΑΣΤΙΖΟΜΕΝΟΣ instead of λογιζόμενος [2 Cor. v. 19]: ΠΡΙΧΟΤΗΤΙ instead of πραότητι [2 Tim. ii. 25]. And he was the author of ΓΕΡΜΑΝΕ in Phil. iv. 3: as well as of Ο δε πνευμα in 1 Tim. iv. 1.But the scribes offandgalso were curiously innocent of Greek.gsuggests that γυναιξειν (in 1 Tim. ii. 10) may be“infinitivus”—(of course from γυναίκω).957.Introduction, p. 155.958.Thirteen times between Rom. i. 7 and xiii. 1.959.E.g.Gal. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 55; 2 Cor. vi. 11 (ος andο). Those who have Matthæi's reprint ofgat hand are invited to refer to the last line of fol. 91: (1 Tim. vi. 20) where Ὦ Τιμόθεε is exhibited thus:—ΟὮ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΕ.960.Col. ii. 22, 23: iii. 2.961.As 1 Tim. iii. 1: iv. 14: vi. 15. Consider the practice offin 1 Thess. i. 9 (Ο; ΠΟΙΑΝ): in 2 Cor. viii. 11, 14 (Ο; ΠΩΣ).962.Rarest of all are instances of this mark over the Latin“e”: but we meet with“spē”(Col. i. 23):“sē”(ii. 18):rēpēntes(2 Tim. iii. 6), &c. So, in the Greek, ἡ or ᾗ writtenΗare most unusual.—A few instances are found of“u”with this appendage, as“domūs”(1 Tim. v. 13):“spiritū”(1 Cor. iv. 21), &c.963.This information is obtained from a photograph of the page procured from Dresden through the kindness of the librarian, Counsellor Dr. Forstemann.964.See Rettig'sProlegg.pp. xxiv.-v.965.“You will perceive that I have now succeeded in identifying every Evangelium hitherto spoken of as existing in Florence, with the exception of Evan 365 [Act. 145, Paul 181] (Laurent vi. 36), &c., which is said to‘contain also the Psalms.’I assure you no such Codex exists in the Laurentian Library; no, nor ever did exist there. Dr. Anziani devoted full an hour to the enquiry, allowing me [for I was very incredulous] to see the process whereby he convinced himself that Scholz is in error. It was just such an intelligent and exhaustive process as Coxe of the Bodleian, or dear old Dr. Bandinel before him, would have gone through under similar circumstances. Pray strike that Codex off your list; and with it‘Acts 145’and‘Paul 181.’I need hardly say that Bandini's Catalogue knows nothing of it. It annoys me to be obliged to add that I cannot even find out the history of Scholz's mistake.”—Guardian, August 27, 1873.966.“Whoseword on such matters is entitled to most credit,—the word of the Reviewer, or the word of the most famous manuscript collators of this century?... Those who have had occasion to seek in public libraries for manuscripts which are not famous for antiquity or beauty or completeness (sic), know that the answer‘non est inventus’is no conclusive reason for believing that the object of their quest has not been seen and collated in former years by those who profess to have actually seen and collated it. That 181‘is non-existent’must be considered unproven.”—Bp. Ellicott'sPamphlet, p. 72.967.The learned Abbé Martin, who has obligingly inspected for me the 18 copies of the“Praxapostolus”in the Paris library, reports as follows concerning“Apost. 12”( = Reg. 375),—“A very foul MS. of small value, I believe: but a curious specimen of bad Occidental scholarship. It was copied for the monks of S. Denys, and exhibits many Latin words; having been apparently revised on the Latin. The lection is assigned to Σαββάτῳ λ᾽ (not λδ᾽) in this codex.”968.“Codices Cryptenses seu Abbatiæ Cryptæ Ferratæ in Tusculano, digesti et illustrati cura et studioD. Antonii Rocchi, Hieromonachi Basiliani Bibliothecæ custodis,”—Tusculani, fol. 1882.—I have received 424 pages (1 May, 1883).969.Not a few of the Basilian Codices have been transferred to the Vatican.970.In anAppendixto the present volume, I will give fuller information. I am still (3rd May, 1883) awaiting replies to my troublesome interrogatories addressed to the heads of not a few continental libraries.971.Rufinus, namely (fl.a.d.395).Opp.iv. 465972.MS. letter to myself, August 11, 1879.973.MS. letter from the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John's College, Oxford.974.See above, page429.975.Page 71. And so p. 65 and 69.976.MS. letter to myself.977.See above, page429.978.Ulfilas. Veteris et Novi Test. Versionis Goth. fragmenta quæ supersunt, &c. 4to. 1843.979.“Si tamen Uppström‘obscurum’dixit, non‘incertum,’fides illi adhiberi potest, quia diligentissime apices omnes investigabat; me enim præsente in aula codicem tractabat.”—(Private letter to myself.)Ceriani proceeds,—“Quæris quomodo componatur cum textu 1 Tim. iii. 16, nota54Proleg.Gabelentz Gothicam versionem legens Θεός. Putarem ex loco Castillionæi in notis ad Philip. ii. 6, locutos fuisse doctos illos Germanos, oblitos illius Routh præcepti‘Let me recommend to you the practice of always verifying your references, sir.’”The reader will be interested to be informed that Castiglione, the former editor of the codex, was in favour of“God”in 1835, and of“soei”(quæ[ = ὅ], to agree with“runa,”i.e.“mystery,”which is feminine in Gothic) in 1839. Gabelentz, in 1843, ventured to print“saei”= ὅς.“Et‘saei’legit etiam diligentissimus Andreas Uppström nuperus codicis Ambrosiani investigator et editor, in opereCodicis Gothici Ambrosiani sive Epist. Pauli, &c.Holmiæ et Lipsiæ, 1868.”980.Stuttgard, 1857.981.Of the department of Oriental MSS. in the Brit. Mus., who derives his text from“the three Museum MSS. which contain the Arabic Version of the Epistles: viz.Harl.5474 (dateda.d.1332):—Oriental1328 (Xth cent.):—Arundel Orient.19 (dateda.d.1616).”—Walton's Polyglott, he says, exhibits“a garbled version, quite distinct from the genuine Arabic: viz.‘These glories commemorate them in the greatness of the mystery of fair piety.Godappeared in the flesh,’”&c.982.See above, pp.271to 294.983.i. 387 a: 551 a: 663 abis.—ii. 430 a: 536 c: 581 c: 594 a, 595 b (these two, of the 2nd pagination): 693 d [ = ii. 265, ed. 1615, from which Tisch. quotes it. The place may be seen in full,supra, p.101.]—iii. 39 bbis: 67 a b.—Ap. Galland.vi. 518 c: 519 d: 520 b: 526 d: 532 a: 562 b: 566 d: 571 a. All but five of these places, I believe, exhibit ὁ Θεός,—which seems to have been the reading of this Father. The article is seldom seen in MSS. Only four instances of it,—(they will be found distinctly specified below, page493,note1),—are known to exist. More places must have been overlooked.Note, that Griesbach only mentions Gregory of Nyssa (whose name Tregelles omits entirely) to remark that he is not to be cited for Θεός; seeing that, according to him, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is to be read thus:—τὸ μυστήριον ἐν σαρκὶ ἐφανερώθη. Griesbach borrowed that quotation and that blunder from Wetstein; to be blindly followed in turn by Scholz and Alford. And yet, the words in question arenot the words of Gregory Nyss. at all; but of Apolinaris, against whom Gregory is writing,—as Gregory himself explains. [Antirrh. adv. Apol.apud Galland. vi. 522 d.]984.De Trin.p. 83. The testimony is express.985.i. 92: iii. 657.-iv. 19, 23.986.i. 313:—ii. 263.987.i. 497 c d e.—viii. 85 e: 86 a.—xi. 605 f: 606 a b d e.—(The first of these places occurs in the Homilyde Beato Philogonio, which Matthæi in the main [viz. from p. 497, line 20, to the end] edited from an independent source [Lectt. Mosqq.1779]. Gallandius [xiv.Append.141-4] reprints Matthæi's labours).—Concerning this place of Chrysostom (vide suprà, p.101), Bp. Ellicott says (p. 66),—“The passage which he [the Quarterly Reviewer] does allege, deserves to be placed before our readers in full, as an illustration of the precarious character of patristic evidence. If this passage attests the reading θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16, does it not also attest the reading ὁ θεός in Heb. ii. 16, where no copyist or translator has introduced it?”... I can but say, in reply,—“No, certainly not.”May I be permitted to add, that it is to me simply unintelligible how Bp. Ellicott can show himself soplanè hospesin this department of sacred Science as to be capable of gravely asking such a very foolish question?988.i. 215 a: 685 b. The places may be seen quotedsuprà, p.101.989.The place is quoted in Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 59.990.Antirrheticus, ap. Galland. vi. 517-77.991.The full title was,—Ἀπόδειξις περὶ τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως τῆς καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου.Ibid.518 b, c: 519 a.992.Apolinaris did not deny thatChristwas veryGod. His heresy (like that of Arius) turned upon the nature of the conjunction of the Godhead with the Manhood. Hear Theodoret:—Α. Θεὸς Λόγος σαρκὶ ἑνωθεὶς ἄνθρωπον ἀπετέλεσεν Θεόν. Ο. Τοῦτο οὖν λέγεις θείαν ἐμψυχίαν? Α. Καὶ πάνυ. Ο. Ἀντὶ ψυχῆς οὖν ὁ Λόγος? Α. Ναί.Dial.vi.adv. Apol.(Opp.v. 1080 = Athanas. ii. 525 d.)993.Cramer'sCat. in Actus, iii. 69. It is also met with in the Catena on the Acts which J. C. Wolf published in hisAnecdota Græca, iii. 137-8. The place is quoted above, p.102.994.Cramer'sCat. in Rom.p. 124.995.P. 67.996.P. 65.997.P. 65.998.See above, p.429.999.Bentley, Scholz, Tischendorf, Alford and others adduce“Euthalius.”1000.Concilia, i. 849-893. The place is quoted below in note 3.1001.“Verum ex illis verbis illud tantum inferri debet false eam epistolam Dionysio Alexandrino attribui: non autem scriptum non fuisse ab aliquo ex Episcopis qui Synodis adversus Paulum Antiochenum celebratis interfuerant. Innumeris enim exemplis constat indubitatæ antiquitatis Epistolas ex Scriptorum errore falsos titulos præferre.”—(Pagi ada.d.264, apud Mansi,Concil.i. 1039.)1002.εἶς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ὁ ῶν ἐν τῷ Πατρι συναΐδιος λόγος, ἕν αὐτοῦ πρόσωπον, ἀόρατος Θεός, καὶ ὁρατὸς γενόμενος; ΘΕῸΣ ΓᾺΡ ἘΦΑΝΕΡΏΘΗ ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός, ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθεὶς ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου—Concilia, i. 853 a.1003.Cap. xi.1004.Ad Ephes.c. 19: c. 7.Ad Magnes.c. 8.1005.Cap. xii.1006.Contra Hæresim Noeti, c. xvii. (Routh'sOpuscula, i. 76.) Read the antecedent chapters.1007.Dialog.ii. 'Inconfusus.'—Opp.iv. 132.1008.Cod. 230,—p. 845, line 40.1009.vii. 26,ap. Galland. iii. 182 a.1010.iii. 401-2,Epist.261 ( = 65). A quotation from Gal. iv. 4 follows.1011.μαθήσεται γὰρ ὅτι φύσει μὲν καὶ ἀληθείᾳ Θεός ἐστιν ὁ Ἐμμανουήλ, θεοτόκος δὲ δι᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ ἡ τεκοῦσα παρθένος.—Vol. v. Part ii. 48 e.1012.καὶ οὔτι που φαμὲν ὅτι καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Θεὸς ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς γεγονώς.—Opp.V. Part 2, p. 124 c d. (=Concilia, iii. 221 c d.)1013.N. T. vol. xi.Præfat.p. xli.1014.διὰ τοῦ ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθέντος Θεοῦ.—De Incarnatione Domini, Mai,Nov. PP. Bibliotheca, ii. 68.1015.Earlier in the same Treatise, Cyril thus grandly paraphrases 1 Tim. iii. 16:—τότε δὴ τότε τὸ μέγα καὶ ἄῤῥητον γίνεται τῆς οἰκονομίας μυστήριον; αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ δημιουργὸς ἁπάσης τῆς κτίσεως, ὁ ἀχώρητος, ὁ ἀπερίγραπτος, ὁ ἀναλλοίωτος, ἡ πηγὴ τῆς ζωῆς, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ φωτὸς φῶς, ἡ ζῶσα τοῦ Πατρὸς εἰκών, τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν φύσιν ἀναλαμβάνει.—Ibid.p. 37.1016.P. 153 d. (=Concilia, iii. 264 c d.)1017.Ibid, d e.1018.εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἕνα τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ἄνθρωπον ἁπλῶς, καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ μᾶλλον Θεὸν ἐνηνθρωπηκότα διεκήρυξαν οἰ μαθηταί κ.τ.λ. Presently,—μέγα γὰρ τότε τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐστὶ μυστήριον, πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος. p. 154 a b c.—In a subsequent page,—ὅ γε μὴν ἐνανθρωπήσας Θεός, καίτοι νομισθεὶς οὐδὲν ἕτερον εἶναι πλὴν ὅτι μόνον ἄνθρωπος ... ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, τετίμηται δὲ καὶ ὡς Υἱὸς ἀληθῶς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός ... Θεὸς εἶναι πεπιστευμένος.—Ibid.p. 170 d e.1019.Ἀναθεματισμὸς β᾽.—Εἴ τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ σαρκὶ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἡνῶσθαι τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγον, ἕνα τε εἶναι Χριστὸν μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός, τὸν αὐτὸν δηλονότι Θεόν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.—vi. 148 a.1020.Ibid.b, c, down to 149 a. (=Concilia, iii. 815 b-e.)1021.Preserved by Œcumenius in hisCatena, 1631, ii. 228.1022.Ellis, p. 67.1023.In loc.1024.Variæ Lect.ii. 232. He enumerates ten MSS. in which he found it,—but he only quotes down to ἐφανερώθη.1025.In loc.1026.P. 227note.1027.Pointed out long since by Matthæi,N. T.vol. xi.Præfat.p. xlviii. Also in his ed. of 1807,—iii. 443-4.“Nec ideo laudatus est, ut doceret Cyrillum loco Θεός legisse ὅς, sed ideo, ne quis si Deum factum legeret hominem, humanis peccatis etiam obnoxium esse crederet.”1028.See Berriman'sDissertation, p. 189.—(MS. note of the Author.)1029.Not from the 2nd article of hisExplanatio xii. capitum, as Tischendorf supposes.1030.See how P. E. Pusey characterizes the“Scholia,”in hisPrefaceto vol. vi. of his edition,—pp. xii. xiii.1031.Cyril's Greek, (to judge from Mercator's Latin,) must have run somewhat as follows:—Ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος ὁμολογουμένως μέγα φησὶν εἶναι τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον. Καὶ ὄντως οὔτως ἔξει; ἐφανερώθη γὰρ ἐν σαρκί, Θεὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος.1032.Opp.vol. v. P. i. p. 785 d.—The original scholium (of which the extant Greek proves to be only a garbled fragment, [see Pusey's ed. vi. p. 520,]) abounds in expressions which imply, (if they do not require,) that Θεός went before:e.g.quasi Deus homo factus:—erant ergo gentes in mundo sine Deo, cum absque Christo essent:—Deus enim erat incarnatus:—in humanitate tamen Deus remansit: Deus enim Verbum, carne assumptâ, non deposuit quod erat; intelligitur tamen idem Deus simul et homo,&c.1033.P. 67.1034.Opp.vi. 327.1035.ii. 852.1036.Matthæi, N. T. xi.Præfat.pp. lii.-iii.1037.Vol. V. P. ii. pp. 55-180.1038.“How is the Godhead of Christ proved?”(asks Ussher in hisBody of Divinity, ed. 1653, p. 161). And he adduces out of the N. T. only Jo. i. 1, xx. 28; Rom. ix. 5; 1 Jo. v. 20.—Hehadquoted 1 Tim. iii. 16 in p. 160 (with Rom. ix. 5) to prove the union of the two natures.1039.Burgon'sLast Twelve Verses, &c., p. 195 and note. See Canon Cook on this subject,—pp. 146-7.1040.Suprà, p.102.1041.Pp. 68-9.1042.Proleg. in N. T.,—§ 1013.1043.Opp.(ed. 1645) ii. 447.1044.Concilia, v. 772 a. I quote from Garnier's ed. of theBreviarium, reprinted by Gallandius, xii. 1532.1045.iv. 465 c.1046.Concilia, vi. 28 e [= iii. 645 c (ed. Harduin)].1047.“Ex sequentibus colligo quædam exemplaria tempore Anastasii et Macedonii habuisse ὅς Θεός; ut, mutatione factâ ὅς in ὡς, intelligereturut esset Deus.”(Cotelerii,Eccl. Gr. Mon.iii. 663)—“Q. d. Ut hic homo, qui dicitur Jesus, esset et dici posset Deus,”&c. (Cornelius,in loc.He declares absolutely“olim legerunt ... ὅς Θεός.”)—All this was noticed long since by Berriman, pp. 243-4.1048.“Apost. 83,”is“Crypta-Ferrat.A. β. iv.”described in theAppendix. I owe the information to the learned librarian of Crypta Ferrata, the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. It is a pleasure to transcribe the letter which conveyed information which the writer knew would be acceptable to me:—“Clme Rme Domine. Quod erat in votis, plures loci illius Paulini non modo in nostris codd. lectiones, sed et in his ipsis variationes, adsequutus es. Modo ego operi meo finem imponam, descriptis prope sexcentis et quinquaginta quinque vel codicibus vel MSS. Tres autem, quos primum nunc notatos tibi exhibeo, pertinent ad Liturgicorum ordinem. Jam felici omine tuas prosoquere elucubrationes, cautus tantum ne studio et labore nimio valetudinem tuam defatiges. Vale. De Tusculano, xi. kal. Maias, an. R. S.mdccclxxxiii.Antonius Rocchi, Hieromonachus Basilianus.”For“Paul 282,”(a bilingual MS. at Paris, known as“Arménien 9,”) I am indebted to the Abbé Martin, who describes it in hisIntroduction à la Critique Textuelle du N. T., 1883,—pp. 660-1. SeeAppendix.1049.Prebendary Scrivener (p. 555) ably closes the list. Any one desirous of mastering the entire literature of the subject should study the Rev. John Berriman's interesting and exhaustiveDissertation,—pp. 229-263.1050.The reader is invited to read what Berriman, (who was engaged on his“Dissertation”while Bp. Butler was writing the“Advertisement”prefixed to his“Analogy”[1736],) has written on this part of the subject,—pp. 120-9, 173-198, 231-240, 259-60, 262, &c.1051.Apud Athanasium,Opp. ii. 33; and see Garnier's introductory Note.1052.“Audi Paulum magnâ voce clamantem:Deus manifestatus est in carne[down to]assumptus est in gloriâ. O magni doctoris affatum!Deus, inquit,manifestatus est in carne,”&c.—Concilia, vii. p. 618 e.1053.Theodori Studitæ,Epistt. lib. ii. 36, and 156. (Sirmondi'sOpera Varia, vol. v. pp. 349 e and 498 b,—Venet. 1728.)1054.Paul 113, (Matthæi's a) contains two Scholia which witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη:—Paul 115, (Matthæi's d) also contains two Scholia.—Paul 118, (Matthæi's h).—Paul 123, (Matthæi's n). See Matthæi's N. T. vol. xi.Præfat.pp. xlii.-iii.1055.ii. 228 a.1056.ii. 569 e: 570 a.1057.Panoplia,—Tergobyst, 1710, fol. ρκγ᾽. p. 2, col. 1.1058.Σαββάτῳ πρὸ τῶν φώτων.1059.But in Apost. 12 (Reg. 375) it is the lection for the 30th (λ᾽) Saturday.—In Apost. 33 (Reg. 382), for the 31st (λα᾽).—In Apost. 26 (Reg. 320), the lection for the 34th Saturday begins at 1 Tim. vi. 11.—Apostt. 26 and 27 (Regg. 320-1) are said to have a peculiar order of lessons.1060.For convenience, many codices are reckoned under this head (viz. of“Apostolus”) which are rather Ἀπόστολο-εὐαγγέλια. Many again which are but fragmentary, or contain only a very few lessons from the Epistles: such are Apostt. 97 to 103. See theAppendix.1061.No. 21, 28, 31 are said to be Gospel lessons (“Evstt.”). No. 29, 35 and 36 are Euchologia;“the two latter probably Melchite, for the codices exhibit some Arabic words”(Abbé Martin). No. 43 and 48 must be erased. No. 70 and 81 are identical with 52 (B. M.Addit.32051).1062.Viz. Apost. 1: 3: 6: 9 & 10 (which are Menologies with a few Gospel lections): 15: 16: 17: 19: 20: 24: 26: 27: 32: 37: 39: 44: 47: 50: 53: 55: 56: 59: 60: 61: 63: 64: 66: 67: 68: 71: 72: 73: 75: 76: 78: 79: 80: 87: 88: 90.1063.Viz. Apost. 4 at Florence: 8 at Copenhagen: 40, 41, 42 at Rome: 54 at St. Petersburg: 74 in America.1064.Viz. Apost. 2 and 52 (Addit. 32051) in the B. Mus., also 69 (Addit. 29714 verified by Dr. C. R. Gregory): 5 at Gottingen: 7 at the Propaganda (verified by Dr. Beyer): 11, 22, 23, 25, 30, 33 at Paris (verified by Abbé Martin): 13, 14, 18 at Moscow: 38, 49 in the Vatican (verified by Signor Cozza-Luzi): 45 at Glasgow (verified by Dr. Young): 46 at Milan (verified by Dr. Ceriani): 51 at Besançon (verified by M. Castan): 57 and 62 at Lambeth, also 65b-c(all three verified by Scrivener): 58 at Ch. Ch., Oxford: 77 at Moscow: 82 at Messina (verified by Papas Matranga): 84 and 89 at Crypta Ferrata (verified by Hieromonachus Rocchi).1065.Viz. Apost. 34 (Reg. 383), a XVth-century Codex. The Abbé Martin assures me that this copy exhibits μυστήριον; | θῢ ἐφανερώθη. Note however that the position of the point, as well as the accentuation, proves that nothing else but θς was intended. This is very instructive. What if the same slip of the pen had been found in Cod.b?1066.Viz. Apost 83 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. iv.)1067.Viz. Praxapost. 85 and 86 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. vii. which exhibits μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφα | νερώθη ἐν σαρκί; and A. β. viii., which exhibits μυστίριον; ὅς ἐ ... νερώθη | ἐν σαρκύ. [sic.]). Concerning these codices, see above, pp.446to 448.1068.Concilia, ii. 217 c ( = ed. Hard. i. 418 b).1069.He wrote a history of the Council of Nicæa, in which he introduces the discussions of the several Bishops present,—all the product (as Cave thinks) of his own brain.1070.viii. 214 b.1071.Cited at the Council of CP. (a.d.553). [Concilia, ed. Labbe et Cossart, v. 447 b c = ed. Harduin, iii. 29 c and 82 e.]1072.Concilia, Labbe, v. 449 a, and Harduin, iii. 84 d.1073.Harduin, iii. 32 d.1074.A Latin translation of the work of Leontius (Contra Nestor. et Eutych.), wherein it is stated that the present place was found inlib.xiii., may be seen in Gallandius [xii. 660-99: the passage under consideration being given at p. 694 c d]: but Mai (Script. Vett.vi. 290-312), having discovered in the Vatican the original text of the excerpts from Theod. Mops., published (from the xiith book of Theod.de Incarnatione) the Greek of the passage [vi. 308]. From this source, Migne [Patr. Gr.vol. 66, col. 988] seems to have obtained his quotation.1075.Either as given by Mai, or as represented in the Latin translation of Leontius (obtained from a different codex) by Canisius [Antiquæ Lectt., 1601, vol. iv.], from whose work Gallandius simply reprinted it in 1788.1076.Theodori Mops. Fragmenta Syriaca, vertitEd. Sachau, Lips. 1869,—p. 53.—I am indebted for much zealous help in respect of these Syriac quotations to the Rev. Thomas Randell of Oxford,—who, I venture to predict, will some day make his mark in these studies.1077.Ibid.p. 64. The context of the place (which is derived from Lagarde'sAnalecta Syriaca, p. 102, top,) is as follows:“Deitas enim inhabitans hæc omnia gubernare incepit. Et in hac re etiam gratia Spiritus Sancti adjuvabat ad hunc effectum, ut beatus quoque Apostolus dixit:‘Vere grande ... in spiritu;’quoniam nos quoque auxilium Spiritûs accepturi sumus ad perfectionem justitiæ.”A further reference to 1 Tim. iii. 16 at page 69, does not help us.1078.I owe this, and more help than I can express in a foot-note, to my learned friend the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John's.1079.Pages437-43.1080.See above, p.444.1081.See above, pp.446-8; also theAppendix.1082.See pp.426-8.1083.See pp.480-2.1084.N. T. 1806 ii.ad calcem, p. [25].1085.Page 76.1086.See above, pp.376-8.1087.Viz. from p.431to p. 478.1088.See above, pp.462-4.1089.Viz. Acts iii. 12; 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8; vi. 3, 5, 6; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Tit. i. 1; 2 Pet. i. 3, 6, 7; iii. 11.1090.From the friend whose help is acknowledged at foot of pp.450,481.1091.Scholz enumerates 8 of these copies: Coxe, 15. But there must exist a vast many more; as, at M. Athos, in the convent of S. Catharine, at Meteora, &c., &c.1092.In explanation of this statement, the reader is invited to refer to theAppendixat the end of the present volume. [Since the foregoing words have been in print I have obtained from Rome tidings of about 34 more copies of S. Paul's Epistles; raising the present total to 336. The known copies of the book called“Apostolus”now amount to 127.]1093.Viz. Paul 61 (see Scrivener'sIntroduction, 3rd ed. p. 251): and Paul 181 (see above, at pp.444-5).1094.Viz. Paul 248, at Strasburg.1095.Viz. Paul 8 (see Scrivener'sIntroduction): 15 (which is not in the University library at Louvain): 50 and 51 (in Scrivener'sIntroduction): 209 and 210 (which, I find on repeated enquiry, are no longer preserved in the Collegio Romano; nor, since the suppression of the Jesuits, is any one able to tell what has become of them).1096.Viz. Paul 42: 53: 54: 58 (Vat.165,—from Sig. Cozza-Luzi): 60: 64: 66: 76: 82: 89: 118: 119: 124: 127: 146: 147: 148: 152: 160: 161: 162: 163: 172: 187: 191: 202: 214: 225 (MilanN. 272sup.,—from Dr. Ceriani): 259: 263: 271: 275: 284 (ModenaII.a. 13,—from Sig. Cappilli [Acts, 195—see Appendix]): 286 (Milane.2inf.—from Dr. Ceriani [see Appendix]): 287 (Milana.241inf.—from Dr. Ceriani [see Appendix]): 293 (Crypta Ferrata,a.β. vi.—from the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi [see Appendix]): 302 (Berlin, MS. Græc.8vo. No. 9.—from Dr. C. de Boor [see Appendix]).1097.Viz. Paul 254 (restored to CP., see Scrivener'sIntroduction): and Paul 261 (Muralt's 8: Petrop. xi. 1. 2. 330).1098.I found the reading of 150 copies of S. Paul's Epistles at 1 Tim. iii. 16, ascertained ready to my hand,—chiefly the result of the labours of Mill, Kuster, Walker, Berriman, Birch, Matthæi, Scholz, Reiche, and Scrivener. The following 102 I am enabled to contribute to the number,—thanks to the many friendly helpers whose names follow:—In theVatican(Abbate Cozza-Luzi, keeper of the library, whose friendly forwardness and enlightened zeal I cannot sufficiently acknowledge. See theAppendix) No. 185, 186, 196, 204, 207, 294, 295, 296, 297.—Propaganda(Dr. Beyer) No. 92.—Crypta Ferrata(the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. See theAppendix,) No. 290, 291, 292.—Venice(Sig. Veludo) No. 215.—Milan(Dr. Ceriani, the most learned and helpful of friends,) No. 173, 174, 175, 176, 223, 288, 289.—Ferrara, (Sig. Gennari) No. 222.—Modena(Sig. Cappilli) No. 285.—Bologna(Sig. Gardiani) No. 105.—Turin(Sig. Gorresio) No. 165, 168.—Florence(Dr. Anziani) No. 182, 226, 239.—Messina(Papas Filippo Matranga. See theAppendix,) No. 216, 283.—Palermo(Sig. Penerino) No. 217.—TheEscurial(S. Herbert Capper, Esq., of the British Legation. He executed a difficult task with rare ability, at the instance of his Excellency, Sir Robert Morier, who is requested to accept this expression of my thanks,) No. 228, 229.—Paris(M. Wescher, who is as obliging as he is learned in this department,) No. 16, 65, 136, 142, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 164.—(L'Abbé Martin. See theAppendix) No. 282.Arsenal(M. Thierry) No. 130.—S. Genevieve(M. Denis) No. 247.—Poictiers(M. Dartige) No. 276.—Berlin(Dr. C. de Boor) No. 220, 298, 299, 300, 301.—Dresden(Dr. Forstemann) No. 237.—Munich(Dr. Laubmann) No. 55, 125, 126, 128.—Gottingen(Dr. Lagarde) No. 243.—Wolfenbuttel(Dr. von Heinemann) No. 74, 241.—Basle(Mons. Sieber) No. 7.—Upsala(Dr. Belsheim) No. 273, 274.—Lincoping(the same) No. 272.—Zurich(Dr. Escher) No. 56.—Prebendary Scrivener verified for me Paul 252: 253: 255: 256: 257: 258: 260: 264: 265: 277.—Rev. T. Randell, has verified No. 13.—Alex. Peckover, Esq., No. 278.—Personally, I have inspected No. 24: 34: 62: 63: 224: 227: 234: 235: 236: 240: 242: 249: 250: 251: 262: 266: 267: 268: 269: 270: 279: 280: 281.1099.Viz. Paul 37 (theCodex Leicest., 69 of the Gospels):—Paul 85 (Vat. 1136), observed by Abbate Cozza-Luzi:—Paul 93 (Naples 1.b.12) which is 83 of the Acts,—noticed by Birch:—Paul 175 (Ambros.f.125sup.) at Milan; as I learn from Dr. Ceriani. See above, p.456note1.1100.Viz. Paul 282,—concerning which, see above, p.474, note 1.1101.The present locality of this codex (Evan. 421 = Acts 176 = Paul 218) is unknown. The only Greek codices in the public library of the“Seminario”at Syracuse are an“Evst.”and an“Apost.”(which I number respectively 362 and 113). My authority for Θεός in Paul 218, is Birch [Proleg.p. xcviii.], to whom Munter communicated his collations.1102.For the ensuing codices, see theAppendix.1103.Vat. 2068 (Basil. 107),—which I number“Apost. 115”(seeAppendix.)1104.Viz. by 4 uncials (a,k,l,p), + (247 Paul + 31 Apost. = ) 278 cursive manuscripts reading Θεός: + 4 (Paul) reading ὁ Θεός: + 2 (1 Paul, 1 Apost.) reading ὅς Θεός: + 1 (Apost.) reading Θῢ = 289. (See above, pp.473-4: 478.)1105.The Harkleian (see pp.450,489): the Georgian, and the Slavonic (p.454).1106.See above, pp.487-490,—which is the summary of what will be found more largely delivered from page455to page 476.1107.See above, pp.448-453: also p.479.1108.See above, pp.479-480.1109.See above, pp.452-3.1110.See above, pp.482,483.1111.See above, page436, and middle of page439.1112.See his long and singular note.1113.Fresh Revision, p. 27.1114.Printed Text, p. 231.1115.P. 226.1116.“Forteμυστήριον; ὁχςἐθανατώθη ἐν σαρκί ... ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀποστόλοις.”—BentleiiCritica Sacra, p. 67.1117.Developed Criticism, p. 160.1118.Thus Augustine (viii. 828 f.) paraphrases,—“In carne manifestatus estFilius Dei.”—And Marius Victorinus,a.d.390 (ap. Galland. viii. 161),—“Hoc enim est magnum sacramentum, quodDeusexanimavit semet ipsum cum esset inDeiformá:”“fuit ergo antequam esset in carne, sed manifestatum dixit in carne.”—And Fulgentius,a.d.513, thus expands the text (ap. Galland. xi. 232):—“quia scilicet Verbum quod in principio erat, et apudDeumerat, etDeuserat, id estDeiunigenitus Filius,Deivirtus et sapientia, per quem et in quo facta sunt omnia, ... idemDeusunigenitus,”&c. &c.—And Ferrandus,a.d.356 (ibid.p. 356):—“ita pro redemtione humani generis humanam naturam credimus suscepisse, ut ille qui Trinitate perfectaDeusunigenitus permanebat ac permanet, ipse ex Maria fieret primogenitus in multis fratribus,”&c.1119.MS. note in his interleaved copy of the N. T.He adds,“Hæc addenda posui Notis ad S. Hippolytum contra Noetum p. 93, vol. i.Scriptor. Ecclesiast. Opusculorum.”1120.Page 29.1121.P. 29.1122.P. 30.1123.Address, on the Revised Version, p. 10.1124.See above, pp.37to 39.1125.Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet, p. 34.1126.P. 231.1127.Fifth Rule of the Committee.1128.Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet, p. 30.1129.No fair person will mistake the spirit in which the next ensuing paragraphs (in the Text) are written. But I will add what shall effectually protect me from being misunderstood.Against the respectability and personal worth of any member of the Revisionist body, let me not be supposed to breathe a syllable. All, (for aught I know to the contrary,) may be men of ability and attainment, as well as of high moral excellence. I will add that, in early life, I numbered several professing Unitarians among my friends. It were base in me to forget how wondrous kind I found them: how much I loved them: how fondly I cherish their memory.Further. That in order to come at the truth of Scripture, we are bound to seek help at the hands ofanywho are able to render help,—whoever doubted? If a worshipper of the false prophet,—if a devotee of Buddha,—could contribute anything,—whowould hesitate to sue to him for enlightenment? As for Abraham's descendants,—they are our very brethren.But it is quite a different thing when Revisionists appointed by the Convocation of the Southern Province, co-opt Separatists and even Unitarians into their body, where they shall determine the sense of Scripture and vote upon its translation on equal terms. Surely, when the Lower House of Convocation accepted the 5th“Resolution”of the Upper House,—viz., that the Revising body“shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong;”—the Synod of Canterbury did not suppose that it was pledging itself to sanctionsuch“co-operation”as is implied by actualco-optation!It should be added that Bp. Wilberforce, (the actual framer of the 5th fundamental Resolution,) has himself informed us that“in framing it, it never occurred to him that it would apply to the admission of any member of the Socinian body.”Chronicle of Convocation(Feb. 1871,) p. 4.“I am aware,”(says our learned and pious bishop of Lincoln,)“that the ancient Church did not scruple to avail herself of the translation of a renegade Jew, like Aquila; and of Ebionitish heretics, like Symmachus and Theodotion; and that St. Augustine profited by the expository rules of Tychonius the Donatist. But I very much doubt whether the ancient Church would have looked for a large outpouring of a blessing fromGodon a work of translating His Word, where the workmen were not all joined together in a spirit of Christian unity, and in the profession of the true Faith; and in which the opinions of the several translators were to be counted and not weighed; and where everything was to be decided by numerical majorities; and where the votes of an Arius or a Nestorius were to be reckoned as of equal value with those of an Athanasius or a Cyril.”(Address on the Revised Version, 1881, pp. 38.)1130.The Bible and Popular Theology, by G. Vance Smith, 1871.1131.An Unitarian Reviser of our Authorized Version, intolerable: an earnest Remonstrance and Petition,—addressed to yourself by your present correspondent:—Oxford, Parker, 1872, pp. 8.1132.See letter of“One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.”inthe Timesof July 11, 1870.1133.Protest against the Communion of an Unitarian in Westminster Abbey on June22nd, 1870:—Oxford, 1870, pp. 64.1134.See theChronicle of Convocation(Feb. 1871), pp. 3-28,—when a Resolution was moved and carried by the Bp. (Wilberforce) of Winchester,—“That it is the judgment of this House that no person who denies the Godhead of ourLord Jesus Christought to be invited to join either company to which is committed the Revision of the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture: and that it is further the judgment of this House that any such person now on either Company should cease to act therewith.“And that this Resolution be communicated to the Lower House, and their concurrence requested:”—which was done. See p. 143.1135.The Reader is invited to refer back to pp.132-135.1136.The Reader is requested to refer back to pp.210-214.1137.S. Mark x. 21.1138.S. Luke xxii. 64.1139.S. Luke xxiii. 38.1140.S. Luke xxiv. 42.1141.Εἰπεῖν is“to command”in S. Matth. (and S. Luke) iv. 3: in S. Mark v. 43: viii. 7, and in many other places. On the other hand, the Revisers have thrust“command”into S. Matth. xx. 21, where“grant”had far better have been let alone: and have overlooked other places (as S. Matth. xxii. 24, S. James ii. 11), where“command”might perhaps have been introduced with advantage. (I nothing doubt that when the Centurion of Capernaum said to our Lord μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ [Mtt. viii. 8 = Lu. vii. 7], he entreated Him“only to givethe word of command.”)We all see, of course, that it was because Δός is rendered“grant”in the (very nearly) parallel place to S. Matth. xx. 21 (viz. S. Mark x. 37), that the Revisers thought it incumbent on them to represent Εἰπέ in the earlier Gospel differently; and so they bethought themselves of“command.”(Infelicitously enough, as I humbly think.“Promise”would evidently have been a preferable substitute: the word in the original (εἰπεῖν) being one of that large family of Greek verbs which vary their shade of signification according to their context.) But it is plainly impracticable tolevel upafter this rigid fashion,—to translate in this mechanical way. Far more is lost than is gained by this straining after an impossible closeness of rendering. The spirit becomes inevitably sacrificed to the letter. All this has been largely remarked upon above, at pp.187-206.Take the case before us in illustration. S. James and S. John with their Mother, have evidently agreed together to“ask a favour”of theirLord(cf. Mtt. xx. 20, Mk. x. 35). The Mother begins Εἰπέ,—the sons begin, Δός. Why are we to assume that the request is made by the Mother ina different spiritfrom the sons? Why are we to impose upon her language the imperious sentiment which the very mention of“command”unavoidably suggests to an English ear?A prior, and yet more fatal objection, remains in full force. The Revisers, (I say it for the last time,) were clearly going beyond their prescribed duty when they set about handling the Authorized Version after this merciless fashion. Their business was to correct“plain and clear errors,”—notto produce a“New English Version.”1142.Take the following as a sample, which is one of the Author's proofs that the“Results of the Revision”are“unfavourable to Orthodoxy:”—“The only instance in the N. T. in which the religious worship or adoration ofChristwas apparently implied, has beenalteredby the Revision:‘Atthe name ofJesusevery knee shall bow,’[Philipp. ii. 10] is now to be read‘inthe name.’Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N. T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship ofJesus Christ.”—Texts and Margins,—p. 47.1143.Supra, p.424to p. 501.1144.See above, pp.272-275, pp.278-281.1145.See above, p.275.1146.See above, pp.276-7.1147.See above, pp.303-305.1148.See above, p.304.1149.See above, pp.339-42; also pp.422,423.1150.See above, pp.391-7.1151.See above, pp.36-40:47-9:422-4.1152.See above, pp.41-7:420-2.1153.See above, pp.98-106:424-501.1154.Evan. 738 belongs to Oriel College, Oxford, [xii.], small 4to. of 130 foll. slightlymut.Evan. 739, Bodl. Greek Miscell. 323 [xiii.], 8vo.membr.foll. 183,mut.Brought from Ephesus, and obtained for the Bodleian in 1883.1155.Evst. 415 belongs to Lieut. Bate, [xiii.],chart.foll. 219, mutilated throughout. He obtained it in 1878 from a Cyprus villager at Kikos, near Mount Trovodos (i.e.Olympus.) It came from a monastery on the mountain.1156.Apost. 128 will be found described, for the first time, below, at p.528.

Footnotes1.Any one who desires to see this charge established, is invited to read from page399to page 413 of what follows.2.Dr. Newth. See pp.37-9.3.See pp.24-9:97, &c.4.See below, pp. 1 to 110.5.This will be found more fully explained from pp.127to 130: pp.154to 164: also pp.400to 403. See also the quotations on pp.112and368.6.See below, pp.113to 232.7.See below, pp.235to 366.8.Gospel of the Resurrection, p. viii.9.Reference is made to a vulgar effusion in the“Contemporary Review”for March 1882: from which it chiefly appears that Canon (now Archdeacon) Farrar is unable to forgive S. Mark the Evangelist for having written the 16th verse of his concluding chapter. The Venerable writer is in consequence for ever denouncing those“last Twelve Verses.”In March 1882, (pretending to review my Articles in the“Quarterly,”) he says:—“In spite of Dean Burgon's Essay on the subject, the minds of most scholars arequite unalterably made upon such questions as the authenticity of the last twelve verses of S. Mark.”[Contemporary Review, vol. xli. p. 365.] And in the ensuing October,—“If, amongpositive results, any one should set down such facts as that ... Mark xvi. 9-20 ...formed no part of the original apostolic autograph... He, I say, who should enumerate these points as beingbeyond the reach of serious dispute... would be expressing the views which areregarded as indisputableby the vast majority of such recent critics as have established any claim to serious attention.”[Expositor, p. 173.]It may not be without use to the Venerable writer that he should be reminded that critical questions, instead of being disposed of by such language as the foregoing, are not even touched thereby. One is surprised to have to tell a“fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,”so obvious a truth as that by such writing he does but effectually put himself out of court. By proclaiming that his mind is“quite unalterably made up”that the end of S. Mark's Gospel is not authentic, he admits that he is impervious to argument and therefore incapable of understanding proof. It is a mere waste of time to reason with an unfortunate who announces that he is beyond the reach of conviction.10.No. xxviii., page 436. If any one cares to know what the teaching was which the writer in the“Church Quarterly”was intending to reproduce, he is invited to read from p.296to p. 300 of the present volume.11.Contemporary Review, (Dec. 1881),—p. 985 seq.12.Q. R. (No. 304,) p. 313.—The passage referred to will be found below (at p.14),—slightly modified, in order to protect myself against the risk offuturemisconception. My Reviewer refers to four other places. He will find that my only object in them all was to prove that codicesa bאc dyield divergent testimony; and therefore, so habituallycontradictone another, as effectually to invalidate their own evidence throughout. This has never beenprovedbefore. It canonlybe proved, in fact, by one who has laboriously collated the codices in question, and submitted to the drudgery of exactly tabulating the result.13.“Damus tibi in manus Novum Testamentumidem profecto, quod ad textum attinet, cum ed. Millianâ,”—are the well known opening words of the“Monitum”prefixed to Lloyd's N. T.—And Mill, according to Scrivener, [Introduction, p. 399,]“only aims at reproducing Stephens' text of 1550, though in a few places he departs from it, whether by accident or design.”Such places are found to amount in all totwenty-nine.14.See below, pp.257-8: also p.390.15.The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, &c.—Macmillan, pp. 79.16.See below, pp.369to 520.17.Pages371-2.18.Pamphlet, pp. 77: 39, 40, 41.19.See below, p.425.20.Pages424-501.21.From January till June 1883.22.Pamphlet, p. 76.23.E.g.pages252-268:269-277:305-308.24.E.g.pages302-306.25.Page 354.26.On that day appeared Dr. Hort's“Introduction and Appendix”to the N. T. as edited by himself and Dr. Westcott.27.“Charge,”published in theGuardian, Dec. 20, 1882, p. 1813.28.Preface toHistory of the English Bible(p. ix.),—1868.29.Preface toPastoral Epistles(p. xiv.),—1861.30.The Authorized Version of the N. T.(p. 3),—1858.31.The New Testament of Our Lord and SaviourJesus Christtranslated out of the Greek: being the Version set fortha.d.1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Reviseda.d.1881.Printed for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881.32.The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version.Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ.The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version.[Edited by the Ven. Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.33.On Revision,—pp. 215-6.34.Tertullian,bis.35.Hieron.Opp.ii. 177 c (see the note).36.Apud Hieron. iii. 121.37.iv. 617 c (ed. Pusey).38.P. 272.39.i. 548 c; viii. 207 a.40.iv. 205.41.A reference to theJournal of Convocation, for a twelvemonth after the proposal for a Revision of the Authorized Version was seriously entertained, will reveal more than it would be convenient in this place even to allude to.42.We derive our information from the learned Congregationalist, Dr. Newth,—Lectures on Bible Revision(1881), p. 116.43.On Revision, pp. 26-7.44.Dr. Scrivener'sPlain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edition, 1874 (pp. 607), may be confidently recommended to any one who desires to master the outlines of Textual Criticism under the guidance of a judicious, impartial, and thoroughly competent guide. A new and revised edition of this excellent treatise will appear shortly.45.Studious readers are invited to enquire for Dr. Scrivener'sFull and exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels (hitherto unexamined), deposited in the British Museum, the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, &c., with a Critical Introduction. (Pp. lxxiv. and 178.) 1853. The introductory matter deserves very attentive perusal.—With equal confidence we beg to recommend hisExact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, a Græco-Latin Manuscript of S. Paul's Epistles, deposited in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge; to which is added a full Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, containing various portions of the Greek New Testament, in the Libraries of Cambridge, Parham, Leicester, Oxford, Lambeth, the British Museum, &c. With a Critical Introduction(which must also be carefully studied). (Pp. lxxx. and 563.) 1859.—Learned readers can scarcely require to be told of the same learned scholar'sNovum Testamentum Textûs Stephanici,a.d.1550. Accedunt variæ Lectiones Editionum Bezæ, Elzeviri, Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, Tregellesii.Curante F. H. A. Scrivener, A.M., D.C.L., LL.D. [1860.] Editio auctior et emendatior. 1877.—Those who merely wish for a short popular Introduction to the subject may be grateful to be told of Dr. Scrivener's SixLectures on the Text of the N. T. and the Ancient MSS. which contain it, chiefly addressed to those who do not read Greek. 1875.46.Scrivener'sPlain Introduction,—p. 118.47.Bezæ Codex Cantabrigiensis: being an exact Copy, in ordinary Type, of the celebrated Uncial Græco-Latin Manuscript of the Four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, written early in the Sixth Century, and presented to the University of Cambridge by Theodore Beza,a.d.1581. Edited, with a Critical Introduction, Annotations, and Facsimiles, by Frederick H. Scrivener, M.A., Rector of S. Gerrans, Cornwall. (Pp. lxiv. and 453.) Cambridge, 1864. No one who aspires to a competent acquaintance with Textual Criticism can afford to be without this book.48.On the subject of codex א we beg (once for all) to refer scholars to Scrivener'sFull Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament. To which is prefixed a Critical Introduction.[1863.] 2nd Edition, revised. (Pp. lxxii. and 163.) 1867.49.Bishop Ellicott'sConsiderations on Revision, &c. (1870), p. 40.50.The epithet“cursive,”is used to denote manuscripts written in“running-hand,”of which the oldest known specimens belong to the IXth century.“Uncial”manuscripts are those which are written in capital letters. A“codex”popularly signifies amanuscript. A“version”isa translation. A“recension”isa revision. (We have been requested to explain these terms.)51.Considerations on Revision, p. 30.52.Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claimperfectionfor the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g.at page107) that theTextus Receptusneeds correction. We do but insist, (1) That it is an incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely preferable to the“New Greek Text”of the Revisionists. And, (2) That to be improved, theTextus Receptuswill have to be revised on entirely different“principles”from those which are just now in fashion. Men must begin by unlearning theGerman prejudicesof the last fifty years; and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic offacts.53.Scrivener'sIntroduction, pp. 342-4.54.Ut suprà, p. 46. We prefer to quote the indictment against Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, from the pages of Revisionists.55.“Ex scriptoribus Græcistantisper Origene solousi sumus.”—Præfatio, p. xxi.56.Scrivener'sPlain Introd.p. 397.57.Ut suprà, p. 48.58.Ut suprà, p. 47.59.Prebendary Scrivener,ibid.(ed. 1874), p. 429.60.Ibid.p. 470.61.Ibid.62.Concilia, i. 852.63.Ut suprà, p. 47.64.The New Testament in the Original Greek.The Text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. Cambridge and London, 1881.65.From the Preface prefixed to the“limited and private issue”of 1870, p. vi.66.Ut suprà, p. xv.67.Ibid.p. xviii.68.Ibid.p. xvi.69.Ibid.pp. xviii., xix.70.[Note,—that I have thought it best, for many reasons, to retain the ensuing note as it originally appeared; merely restoring [within brackets] those printed portions of it for which there really was no room. The third Article in the present volume will be found to supply an ample exposure of the shallowness of Drs. Westcott and Hort's Textual Theory.]While these sheets are passing through the press, a copy of the long-expected volume reaches us. The theory of the respected authors proves to be the shallowest imaginable. It is brieflythis:—Fastening on the two oldest codices extant (band א, both of the IVth century), they invent the following hypothesis:—“That the ancestries of those two manuscriptsdiverged from a point near the autographs, and never came into contact subsequently.”[No reason is produced for this opinion.]Having thus secured two independent witnesses of what was in the sacred autographs, the Editors claim that thecoincidenceof א andbmust“mark those portions of text in which two primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission had not come to differ from each other through independent corruption:”and therefore that,“in the absence of specially strong internal evidence to the contrary,”“the readings of א andbcombinedmay safely be accepted as genuine.”But what is to be done when the same two codices divergeone from the other?—In all such cases (we are assured) the readings of any“binary combination”ofbare to be preferred; because“on the closest scrutiny,”they generally“have thering of genuineness;”hardly ever“look suspiciousafter full consideration.”“Even whenbstands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.”[We are not told why.]But, (rejoins the student who, after careful collation of codexb, has arrived at a vastly different estimate of its character,)—What is to be done when internal and external evidence alike condemn a reading of B? How is“mumpsimus”for example to be treated?—“Mumpsimus”(the Editors solemnly reply) as“the better attested reading”—(by which they mean the reading attested byb,)—we place in our margin.“Sumpsimus,”apparently therightreading, we place in the text within ††; in token that it is probably“a successful ancient conjecture.”We smile, and resume:—But how is the fact to be accounted for that the text of Chrysostom and (in the main) of the rest of the IVth-century Fathers, to whom we are so largely indebted for our critical materials, and who must have employed codices fully as old asband א: how is it, we ask, that the text of all these, including codexa, differs essentially from the text exhibited by codicesband א?—The editors reply,—The text of Chrysostom and the rest, we designate“Syrian,”and assume to have been the result of an“editorial Revision,”which we conjecturally assign to the second half of the IIIrd century. It is the“Pre-Syrian”text that we are in search of; and we recognize the object of our search in codexb.We stare, and smile again. But how then does it come to pass (we rejoin) that the Peschito, or primitiveSyriac, which is older by full a century and a half than the last-named date, is practically still the same text?—This fatal circumstance (not overlooked by the learned Editors) they encounter with another conjectural assumption.“A Revision”(say they)“of the Old Syriac version appears to have taken place early in the IVth century, or sooner; and doubtless in some connexion with the Syrian revision of the Greek text, the readings being to a very great extent coincident.”And pray, whereis“theOld Syriacversion”of which you speak?—It is (reply the Editors) our way of designating the fragmentary Syriac MS. commonly known as“Cureton's.”—Your way (we rejoin) of manipulating facts, and disposing of evidence is certainly the most convenient, as it is the most extraordinary, imaginable: yet is it altogether inadmissible in a grave enquiry like the present. Syriac scholars are of a widely different opinion from yourselves. Do you not perceive that you have been drawing upon your imagination for every one of your facts?We decline in short on the mere conjecturalipse dixitof these two respected scholars to admit either that the Peschito is a Revision of Cureton's Syriac Version;—or that it was executed abouta.d.325;—or that the text of Chrysostom and the other principal IVth-century Fathers is the result of an unrecorded“Antiochian Revision”which took place about the yeara.d.275.[But instead of troubling ourselves with removing the upper story of the visionary structure before us,—which reminds us painfully of a house which we once remember building with playing-cards,—we begin by removing the basement-story, which brings the entire superstructure in an instant to the ground.]For we decline to admit that the texts exhibited bybא can have“diverged from a point near the sacred autographs, and never come into contact subsequently.”We are able to show, on the contrary, that the readings they jointly embody afford the strongest presumption that the MSS. which contain them are nothing else but specimens of those“corrected,”i.e.corruptedcopies, which are known to have abounded in the earliest ages of the Church. From the prevalence of identical depravations in either, we infer that they are, on the contrary, derived from the same not very remote depraved original: and therefore, that their coincidence, when they differ from all (or nearly all) other MSS., so far from marking“two primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission”of the inspired autographs, does but mark what was derived from the same corrupt common ancestor; whereby the supposed two independent witnesses to the Evangelic verity become resolved intoa single witness to a fabricated text of the IIIrd century.It is impossible in the meantime to withhold from these learned and excellent men (who are infinitely better than their theory) the tribute of our sympathy and concern at the evident perplexity and constant distress to which their own fatal major premiss has reduced them. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. Doubt,—unbelief,—credulity,—general mistrust ofallevidence, is the inevitable sequel and penalty. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort solemnly assured their brother Revisionists that“the prevalent assumption, that throughout the N. T. the true text is to be foundsomewhereamong recorded readings,does not stand the test of experience;”[P. xxi.] and they are evidently still haunted by the same spectral suspicion. They see a ghost to be exorcised in every dark corner.“The Art ofConjectural Emendation”(says Dr. Hort)“depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation founded on knowledge and method.”[Introd.p. 71.] Specimens of the writer's skill in this department abound.Oneoccurs at p. 135 (App.) where,in defiance of every known document, he seeks to evacuate S. Paul's memorable injunction to Timothy (2 Tim. i. 13) of all its significance. [A fuller exposure of Dr. Hort's handling of this important text will be found later in the present volume.] May we be allowed to assure the accomplished writer thatin Biblical Textual Criticism,“Conjectural Emendation”has no place?71.Scrivener,Introduction, p. 453.—Stunica, it will be remembered, was the chief editor of the Complutensian, orfirst printededition of the New Testament, (1514).72.προσέφορον αὐτῷ,—S. Matt. ix. 2.73.Scrivener,Plain Introd. p. 472.74.The words omitted are therefore the following 22:—ἡμῶν, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ... γενηθήτω τὸ θελημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ... ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.75.Companion to the Revised Version, p. 61.76.The last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark, vindicated against recent critical Objectors and established, by the Rev. J. W. Burgon,—pp. 334, published by Parker, Oxford, 1871.77.As Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Chr. Wordsworth,—the learned Bishops of Chester and Lincoln. It is right to state that Bp. Ellicott“considers the passage doubtful.”(On Revision, p. 36.) Dr. Scrivener (it is well known) differs entirely from Bp. Ellicott on this important point.78.Lectures on Bible Revision, pp. 119-20.79.τὰς ἀληθεῖς ῥήσεις Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου.—Clemens Rom., c. 45.80.Should the Revised New Testament be authorized?—p. 42.81.Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered,—by Canon Cook,—pp. 221-2.82.At p. 34 of his pamphlet in reply to the first two of the present Articles.83.On Revision, pp. 30 and 49.84.Words of the N. T.p. 193.85.Companion to the Revised Version, p. 63.86.Ibid.p. 62.87.Viz. Eusebius,—Macarius Magnes,—Aphraates,—Didymus,—the SyriacActs of the App.,—Epiphanius,—Ambrose,—Chrysostom,—Jerome,—Augustine. It happens that the disputation of Macarius Magnes (a.d.300-350) with a heathen philosopher, which has recently come to light, contains an elaborate discussion of S. Mark xvi. 17, 18. Add the curious story related by the author of thePaschal Chronicle(a.d.628) concerning Leontius, Bishop of Antioch (a.d.348),—p. 289. This has been hitherto overlooked.88.Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 515.89.Tisch. specifies 7 Latin copies. Origen (iii. 946f.), Jerome (vii. 282), and Leo (ap. Sabatier) are the only patristic quotations discoverable.90.i. 45991.i. 374; ii. 714; iv. 15.92.vii. 47; viii. 13.93.Dem. Ev.pp. 163, 342.94.i. 180, 385.95.In loc. Alsoin Luc.xix. 29 (Cat. Ox.141).96.De Trin.p. 84; Cord.Cat. in Ps.ii. 450, 745.97.i. 845,—which is reproduced in thePaschal Chronicle, p. 374.98.P. 180; cf. p. 162.99.i. 154, 1047.100.i. 355, 696, 6; 97 iii. 346.101.Gr. iii. 434.102.Ap. Galland. ix. 754.103.i. 587; ii. 453, 454; vi. 393; vii. 311, 674; viii. 85; xi. 347. AlsoCat. in Ps.iii. 139.104.Ap. Chrys. vi. 424; cf. p. 417.105.In Luc.pp. 12, 16, 502 ( = Mai, ii. 128). Also Mai, ii. 343,Hom. de Incarn.p. 109.Opp.ii. 593; v.1681, 30, 128, 380, 402, 154; vi. 398. Maii, iii.2286.106.i. 290, 1298; ii. 18; iii. 480.107.Ap. Galland. ix. 446, 476.Concil.iii. 1001, 1023.108.Concil.iii. 1002.109.Ap. Galland. ix. 629.110.Concil.iii. 1095.111.Concil.iii. 829 = Cyr.Opp.vi. 159.112.Nov. Auctar.i. 596.113.Montf. ii. 152, 160, 247, 269.114.Hexaem.ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 899.115.Ap. Galland. xii. 308.116.Ed. Combefis, 14, 54; ap. Galland. xiii. 100, 123.117.Ap. Galland. xiii. 235.118.ii. 836.119.Ap. Galland. xiii. 212.120.E.g.Chrys.Opp.viii.;Append.214.121.P. 6d.122.Ap. Galland. iii. 809.123.ii. 602.124.ii. 101, 122, 407.125.iii. 447.126.ii. 298.127.ii. 804; iii. 783; v. 638, 670, 788; viii. 214, 285; x. 754, 821.128.Cord.Cat. in Ps.ii. 960.129.Of the ninety-two places above quoted, Tischendorf knew of onlyeleven, Tregelles adduces onlysix.—Neither critic seems to have been aware that“Gregory Thaum.”is not the author of the citation they ascribe to him. And why does Tischendorf quote as Basil's whatis knownnot to have been his?130.But then, note thatcis only available for comparison down to the end of ver. 5. In the 9 verses which have been lost, who shall say how many more eccentricities would have been discoverable?131.Companion to the Revised Version, pp. 62, 63.Words of the N. T.p. 193.132.Words of the N. T.p. 193.133.Drs. Westcott and Hort (consistently enough) put themon the self-same footingwith the evidently spurious ending found inl.134.True, that a separate volume of Greek Text has been put forth, showing every change which has been either actually accepted, or else suggested for future possible acceptance. But (in the words of the accomplished editor),“theRevisers are not responsible for its publication.”Moreover, (and this is the chief point,) it is a sealed book to all but Scholars.It were unhandsome, however, to take leave of the learned labours of Prebendary Scrivener and Archdeacon Palmer, without a few words of sympathy and admiration. Their volumes (mentioned at the beginning of the present Article) are all that was to have been expected from the exquisite scholarship of their respective editors, and will be of abiding interest and value.Bothvolumes should be in the hands of every scholar, for neither of them supersedes the other. Dr. Scrivener has (with rare ability and immense labour) set before the Church,for the first time, the Greek Text which was followed by the Revisers of 1611, viz. Beza's N. T. of 1598, supplemented in above 190 places from other sources; every one of which the editor traces out in hisAppendix, pp. 648-56. At the foot of each page, he shows what changes have been introduced into the Text by the Revisers of 1881.—Dr. Palmer, taking theText of Stephens(1550) as his basis, presents us with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the“Authorized Version,”and relegates the displaced Readings (of 1611) to the foot of each page.—We cordially congratulate them both, and thank them for the good service they have rendered.135.The number is not excessive. There were about 600 persons aboard the ship in which Josephus traversed the same waters. (Life, c.iii.)136.ii. 61 and 83.137.Isaiah xiv. 15.138.S. Matthew xxi. 1-3. S. Mark xi. 1-6. S. Luke xix. 29-34.139.אd lread—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε: C*,—αὐτον ΠΑΛΙΝ ἀποστελλει ὡδε:b,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ αὐτον ὡδε: Δ,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε: yscr—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ.140.iii. 722, 740.141.iii. 737, iv. 181.142.S. Matt. xxi. 8.143.Exod. x. 21-23.144.S. Matth. xxvii. 45; S. Mark xv. 33; S. Lu. xxiii. 44.145.Ap. Epiphan. i. 317 and 347.146.Intenebricatus est sol—a:obscuratus est sol—b:tenebricavit sol—c.147.Ap. Routh,Opusc.i. 79.148.i. 90, 913; ap. Epiph. i. 1006.149.Syr.ii. 48. So alsoEvan. Conc.pp. 245, 256, 257.150.Mai,Scriptt. Vett.vi. 64.151.i. 305.152.Ap. Mai, ii. 436; iii. 395. AlsoLuc.722.153.i. 288, 417.154.P. 233.155.Ed. by Wright, p. 16.156.“Sol mediâ dietenebricavit.”Adv. Jud.c. xiii.157.iii. 922-4. Read the whole of cap. 134. See also ap. Galland. xiv. 82, append., which by the way deserves to be compared with Chrys. vii. 825 a.158.ἀλλ᾽ ἦν σκότος θεοποίητον, διότι τὸν Κύριον συνέβη παθεῖν.—Routh, ii. 298.159.εἶτ᾽ ἐξαίφνης κατενεχθὲν ψηλαφητὸν σκότος, ἡλίου τὴν οἰκείαν αὐγὴν ἀποκρύψαντος, p. 29.160.ὅτι γὰρ οὐκ ἠν ἔκλειψις [sc. τὸ σκότος ἐκεῖνο] οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ. τρεῖς γὰρ ὥρας παρέμεινιν; ἡ δὲ ἔκλειψις ἐν μιᾷ καιροῦ γίνεται ῥοπῇ.—vii. 825 a.161.i. 414, 415; iii. 56.162.Ap. Mai, iv. 206. But further on he says: αὐτίκα γοῦν ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει οὐχ ἥλιος μόνον ἐσκότασεν κ.τ.λ.—Cyril of Jerusalem (pp. 57, 146, 199, 201, 202) and Cosmas (ap. Montf. ii. 177bis) were apparently acquainted with the same reading, but neither of them actually quotes Luke xxiii. 45.163.“In quibusdam exemplaribus non habeturtenebræ factæ sunt, et obscuratus est sol: sed ita,tenebræ factæ sunt super omnem terram, sole deficiente. Et forsitan ausus est aliquis quasi manifestius aliquid dicere volens, pro,et obscuratus est sol, poneredeficiente sole, existimans quod non aliter potuissent fieri tenebræ, nisi sole deficiente. Puto autem magis quod insidiatores ecclesiæ Christi mutaverunt hoc verbum, quoniamtenebræ factæ sunt sole deficiente, ut verisimiliter evangelia argui possint secundum adinventiones volentium arguere illa.”(iii. 923 f. a.)164.vii. 235.“Qui scripserunt contra Evangelia, suspicantur deliquium solis,”&c.165.This rests on little more than conjecture. Tisch.Cod. Ephr. Syr.p. 327.166.Ἐκλείποντος is only found besides in eleven lectionaries.167.The Thebaic represents“the sunsetting;”which, (like the mention of“eclipse,”) is only anotherinterpretationof the darkness,—derived from Jer. xv. 9 or Amos viii. 9 (“occiditsol meridie”). Compare Irenæus iv. 33. 12, (p. 273,) who says that these two prophecies found fulfilment in“eumoccasumsolis qui, crucifixo eo, fuit ab horâ sextâ.”He alludes to the same places in iv. 34. 3 (p. 275). So does Jerome (on Matt. xxvii. 45),—“Et hoc factum reor, ut compleatur prophetia,”and then he quotes Amos and Jeremiah; finely adding (from some ancient source),—“Videturque mihi clarissimum lumen mundi, hoc est luminare majus, retraxisse radios suos, ne aut pendentem videret Dominum; aut impii blasphemantes suâ luce fruerentur.”168.Our old friend of Halicarnassus (vii. 37), speaking of an eclipse which happenedb.c.481, remarks: ὁ ἥλιος ἐκλιπὼν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἕδρην.169.For it will be perceived that our Revisionists have adopted the reading vouched foronly by codexb. What c* once read is as uncertain as it is unimportant.170.Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet, p. 60.171.On the Revised Version, p. 14.172.πολλὰ κατὰ γνώμην αὐτοῦ διεπράττετο, as (probably) Victor of Antioch (Cat.p. 128), explains the place. He cites some one else (p. 129) who exhibits ἠπόρει; and who explains it of Herod's difficultyabout getting rid of Herodias.173.καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν, will have been the reading of that lost venerable codex of the Gospels which is chiefly represented at this day by Evann. 13-69-124-346,—as explained by Professor Abbott in his Introduction to Prof. Ferrar'sCollation of four important MSS., etc. (Dublin 1877). The same reading is also found in Evann. 28 : 122 : 541 : 572, and Evst. 196.Different must have been the reading of that other venerable exemplar which supplied the Latin Church with its earliest Text. But of this let the reader judge:—“Et cum audisset illum multa facere, libenter,”&c. (c: also“Codex Aureus”and γ, both at Stockholm):“et audito eo quod multa faciebat, et libenter,”&c. (g2q):“et audiens illum quia multa faciebat, et libenter,”&c. (b). The Anglo-Saxon, (“and he heard that he many wonders wrought, and he gladly heard him”) approaches nearest to the last two.The Peschito Syriac (which is without variety of reading here) in strictness exhibits:—“And many things he was hearing [from] him and doing; and gladly he was hearing him.”But this, by competent Syriac scholars, is considered to represent,—καὶ πολλὰ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ, ἐποίει; καὶ ἡδέως ἤκουεν αὐτοῦ.—Cod. Δ is peculiar in exhibiting καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλά, ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν,—omitting ἐποίει, καί.—The Coptic also renders,“et audiebat multa ab eo, et anxio erat corde.”From all this, it becomes clear that the actualintentionof the blundering author of the text exhibited by אb lwas, to connect πολλά,notwith ἠπόρει, but with ἀκούσας. So the Arabian version: but not the Gothic, Armenian, Sclavonic, or Georgian,—as Dr. S. C. Malan informs the Reviewer.174.Note, that tokens abound of a determination anciently to assimilate the Gospels hereabouts. Thus, because the first half of Luke ix. 10 (ϟα / η) and the whole of Mk. vi. 30 (ξα / η) are bracketed together by Eusebius, the former place in codexais found brought into conformity with the latter by the unauthorized insertion of the clause καὶ ὅσα ἐδίδαξαν.—The parallelism of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Lu. ix. 10 is the reason whydexhibits in the latter place ἀν- (instead of ὑπ)εχώρησε.—In like manner, in Lu. ix. 10, codexaexhibits εἰς ἔρημον τόπον, instead of εἰς τόπον ἔρημον; only because ἔρημον τόπον is the order of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Mk. vi. 32.—So again, codex א, in the same verse of S. Luke, entirely omits the final clause πόλεως καλουμένης Βηθσαῖδά, only in order to assimilate its text to that of the two earlier Gospels.—But there is no need to look beyond the limits of S. Mark vi. 14-16, for proofs of Assimilation. Instead of ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη (in ver. 14),band א exhibit ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν—only because those words are found in Lu. ix. 7.asubstitutes ἀνέστη (for ἠγέρθη)—only because that word is found in Lu. ix. 8. For ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν,csubstitutes ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν—only because S. Matth. so writes in ch. xiv. 2.dinserts καὶ ἔβαλεν εἰς φυλακήν into ver. 17—only because of Mtt. xiv. 3 and Lu. iii. 20. In אb lΔ, βαπτίζοντος (for βαπτιστοῦ) stands in ver. 24—only by Assimilation with ver. 14. (lis for assimilating ver. 25 likewise), Κ Δ Π, the Syr., and copies of the old Latin, transpose ἐνεργοῦσιν αἱ δυνάμεις (in ver. 14)—only because those words are transposed in Mtt. xiv. 2.... If facts like these do not open men's eyes to the danger of following the fashionable guides, it is to be feared that nothing ever will. The foulest blot of all remains to be noticed. Will it be believed that in ver. 22, codices אb d lΔ conspire in representing the dancer (whose name isknownto have been“Salome”) asanother“Herodias”—Herod's own daughter? This gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of history—a reading as preposterous as it is revolting, and therefore rejected hitherto byallthe editors andallthe critics—finds undoubting favour with Drs. Westcott and Hort. Calamitous to relate,it also disfigures the margin of our Revised Version of S. Markvi. 22,in consequence.175.i.e.“And”is omitted byb lΔ:“immediately”by אc:“with tears”by אa b c lΔ:“Lord”by אa b c d l.—In S. Mark vi. 16—(viz.“But when Herod heard thereof, he said [This is] John whom I beheaded. He is risen [from the dead],”)—the five words in brackets are omitted by our Revisers on the authority of אb(d)lΔ. But אdfurther omit Ἰωάννην:c domit ὁ: אb d lomit ὅτι. To enumerate and explain the effects of all the barbarous Mutilations which the Gospels alone have sustained at the hands of א, ofb, and ofd—would fill many volumes like the present.176.Chrysostom, vii. 825.177.On the Creed, Art. iv.“Dead:”about half-way through.178.The Coptic represents ὅτι ἐξέπνευσε.179.Namely, of ἘΝ τῇ Βας. σου, which is the reading ofevery known copy but two; besides Origen, Eusebius, Cyril Jer., Chrysostom, &c. Onlyb lread ΕἸΣ,—which Westcott and Hort adopt.180.i. 261.181.i. 936, 1363.182.i. 158.183.P. 301.184.Ap. Galland. vi. 53.185.P. 396.186.vii. 431.187.“Ut ab additamenti ratione alienum est, ita cur omiserint in promptu est.”188.But then, 25 (out of 320) pages ofdare lost:d's omissions in the Gospels may therefore be estimated at 4000. Codexadoes not admit of comparison, the first 24 chapters of S. Matthew having perished; but, from examining the way it exhibits the other three Gospels, it is found that 650 would about represent the number of words omitted from its text.—The discrepancy between the texts ofbאd, thusfor the first time brought distinctly into notice, let it be distinctly borne in mind, is a matter wholly irrespective of the merits or demerits of the Textus Receptus,—which, for convenience only, is adopted as a standard: not, of course, ofExcellencebut only ofComparison.189.Viz. the 1st, the 7th to 12th inclusive, and the 15th.190.Concerning“thesingular codexd,”—as Bp. Ellicott phrases it,—see back, pages 14 and 15.191.Bp. EllicottOn Revision,—p. 42. Concerning the value of the last-named authority, it is a satisfaction to enjoy the deliberate testimony of the Chairman of the Revisionist body. See below, p.85.192.i. 156.193.ii. 254.194.i. 344195.iv. 220, 1218.196.In Luc.664 (Mai, iv. 1105).197.ii. 653.198.“In Lucâ legimusduos calices, quibus discipulis propinavit,”vii. 216.199.Τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον; τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον, ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον.200.P. 1062.201.ii. 747.202.i. 1516. See below, p.82.203.Abbott'sCollation of four important Manuscripts, &c., 1877.204.ii. 354.205.Pp. 543 and 681 ( = ed. Mass. 219 and 277).206.Contra Noet.c. 18; also ap. Theodoret iv. 132-3.207.Ap. Galland. xix.;Append.116, 117.208.Evan. Conc.pp. 55, 235.209.Ap. Epiph. i. 742, 785.210.It is § 283 in his sectional system.211.P. 1121.212.ii. 43; v. 392; vi. 604. AlsoEvan. Conc.235. And see below, p.82.213.Pp. 394, 402.214.i. 551.215.[i. 742, 785;] ii. 36, 42.216.v. 263; vii. 791; viii. 377.217.ii. 39.218.Ap. Theod. Mops.219.In loc. bis; ap. Galland. xii. 693; and Mai,Scriptt. Vett.vi. 306.220.Concilia, iii. 327 a.221.Ap. Mai, iii. 389.222.Concilia, iii. 1101 d.223.Schol. 34.224.i. 692; iv. 271, 429; v. 23.Conc.iii. 907 e.225.Concilia, iii. 740 d.226.Ap. Galland. vi. 16, 17, 19.227.Ap. Cosmam, ii. 331.228.i. 544.229.In Dionys. ii. 18, 30.230.Ap. Galland. xii. 693.231.Ibid.688.232.Pp. 108, 1028, 1048.233.Epist.138234.P. 1061.235.ii. 747.236.iv. 901, 902, 1013, 1564.237.P. 373.238.Ap. Galland. ix. 40.239.Ibid.xi. 693.240.Let their own account of the matter be heard:—“The documentary evidence clearly designates [these verses] asan early Western interpolation, adopted in eclectic texts.”—“They can only bea fragment from the Traditions, written or oral, which were for a while at leastlocally current:”—an“evangelic Tradition,”therefore,“rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second century.”241.Consider the places referred to in Epiphanius.242.The Editors shall speak for themselves concerning this, the first of the“Seven last Words:”—“We cannot doubt thatit comes from an extraneous source:”—“need not have belonged originallyto the book in which it is now included:”—is“a Western interpolation.”Dr. Hort,—unconscious apparently that he isat the bar, noton the bench,—passes sentence (in his usual imperial style)—“Text, Western and Syrian”(p. 67).—But then, (1st) It happens that ourLord'sintercession on behalf of His murderers is attested by upwards of forty Patristic witnessesfrom every part of ancient Christendom: while, (2ndly) On the contrary, the places in which it isnot foundare certain copies of the old Latin, and codexd, which is supposed to be our great“Western”witness.243.Dr. Hort'sN. T.vol. ii.Note, p. 68.244.Ap. Eus.Hist. Eccl.ii. 23.245.P. 521 and ... [Mass. 210 and 277.]246.Ed. Lagarde, p. 65line3.247.ii. 188.Hær.iii. 18 p. 5.248.Ap. Gall. iii. 38, 127.249.Ibid.ii. 714. (Hom.xi. 20.)250.Evan. Conc.275.251.Ap. Routh, v. 161.252.He places the verses inCan.x.253.i. 1120.254.iii. 289.255.Cat. in Ps.iii. 219.256.i. 290.257.15 times.258.ii. 48, 321, 428; ii. (syr.) 233.259.Evan. Conc.117, 256.260.i. 607.261.Pp. 232, 286.262.P. 85.263.Pp. 11, 16. Dr. Wright assigns them to the IVth century.264.Eph.c. x.265.ii. 166, 168, 226.266.6 times.267.Ap. Mai, ii. 197 ( = Cramer 52); iii. 392.—Dr. Hort's strenuous pleading for the authority of Cyril on this occasion (who however is plainly against him) is amusing. So is his claim to have the cursive“82”on his side. He is certainly reduced to terrible straits throughout his ingenious volume. Yet are we scarcely prepared to find an upright and honourable man contending so hotly, and almost on any pretext, for the support of those very Fathers which, when they are against him, (as, 99 times out of 100, they are,) he treats with utter contumely. He is observed to put up with any ally, however insignificant, who evenseemsto be on his side.268.Ap. Theod. v. 1152.269.Pp. 423, 457.270.Cat. in Ps.i. 768; ii. 663.271.Pp. 1109, 1134.272.i. 374.273.P. 93.274.ii. 67, 747.275.i. 814; ii. 819; v. 735.276.P. 88.277.Ap. Chrys. vi. 191.278.11 times.279.P. 782 f.280.12 times.281.More than 60 times.282.Ap. Cypr. (ed. Baluze), &c. &c.283.On Revision,—p. 42note. See above, p.78note.284.Eclog. Proph.p. 89.285.In Luc.435 and 718.286.See pages93to 97.287.i. 1528.288.So Sedulius Paschalis, ap. Galland. ix. 595.289.iii. 2.290.Euseb.Ecl. Proph.p. 89: Greg. Nyss. i. 570.—These last two places have hitherto escaped observation.291.See above, pp.49-50, note 2.292.Viz., thus:—ἦν δὲ καὶ ἐπιγραφὴ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων οὗτος.293.Dean Alford,in loc.294.ὁ Λουκᾶς μιᾷ λέγει τῶν σαββάτων ὄρθρου βαθέος φέρειν ἀρώματα γυναῖκας ΔΎΟ τὰς ἀκολουθησάσας ἀυτῷ, αἵ τινες ἦσαν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας συνακολουθήσασαι, ὅτε ἔθαπτον αὐτὸν ἐλθοῦσαι ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα; αἵτινες ΔΎΟ, κ.τ.λ.,—ad Marinum, ap. Mai, iv. 266.295.Ps. i. 79.296.Dem.492.297.Ap. Mai, iv. 287, 293.298.i. 364.299.Ap. Mai, ii. 439.300.Ap. Galland. xi. 224.301.Cat. in Joann.p. 453.302.Ps.-Chrys. viii. 161-2. Johannes Thessal. ap. Galland. xiii. 189.303.Ap. Mai, iv. 293bis; 294diserte.304.i. 506, 1541.305.iii. 91.306.iv. 1108, andLuc.728 ( = Mai, ii. 441).307.iii.2142; viii. 472.308.So Tertullian:—“Manus et pedes suos inspiciendos offert”(Carn.c. 5).“Inspectui eorum manus et pedes suos offert”(Marc.iv. c. 43). Also Jerome i. 712.309.De Resur.240 (quoted by J. Damascene, ii. 762).310.Ap. Mai, iv. 294.311.i. 906, quoted by Epiph. i. 1003.312.Ap. Theodoret, iv. 141.313.i. 49.314.i. 510; ii. 408, 418; iii. 91.315.iv. 1108; vi. 23 (Trin.). Ap. Mai, ii. 442ter.316.iv. 272.317.Cat. in Joan.462, 3.318.i. 303.319.See above, pp.78and85.320.iii. 579.321.ii. 114 (ed. 1698).322.ii. 9, 362, 622.323.ii. 309; iv. 30; v. 531; vii. 581.324.vi. 79.325.Ep.i. (ap. Gall. i. p. xii.)326.ii. 464.327.Text, pp. 565 and 571.328.Append.p. 14.329.We depend for our Versions on Dr. S. C. Malan: pp. 31, 44.330.ii. 147.Conc.v. 675.331.Cord.Cat.i. 376.332.vii. 599, 600diserte.333.Ap. Photium, p. 644.334.Three times.335.i. 663, 1461, ii. 1137.336.Pp. 367, 699.337.vii. 139.338.Ap. Galland. vi. 324.339.iii. P. i. 760.340.Text, p. 572.341.Append.p. 14.342.ἔτι δὲ ἀπιστούντων αὐτῷ, καὶ θαυμαζόντων ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς.343.Viz. from ch. xix. 7 to xx. 46.344.We take leave to point out that, however favourable the estimate Drs. Westcott and Hort may have personally formed of the value and importance of the Vatican Codex (b), nothing can excuse their summary handling, not to say their contemptuous disregard, of all evidence adverse to that of their own favourite guide. Theypass bywhatever makes against the reading they adopt, with the oracular announcement that the rival reading is“Syrian,”“Western,”“Western and Syrian,”as the case may be.But we respectfully submit that“Syrian,”“Western,”“Western and Syrian,”as Critical expressions, are absolutely without meaning, as well as without use to a student in this difficult department of sacred Science. They supply no information. They are never supported by a particle of intelligible evidence. They are often demonstrably wrong, andalwaysunreasonable. They areDictation, notCriticism. When at last it is discovered that they do but signify that certain wordsare not found in codexb,—they are perceived to be the veriestfoolishnessalso.Progress is impossible while this method is permitted to prevail. If these distinguished Professors have enjoyed a Revelation as to what the Evangelists actually wrote, they would do well to acquaint the world with the fact at the earliest possible moment. If, on the contrary, they are merely relying on their own inner consciousness for the power of divining the truth of Scripture at a glance,—they must be prepared to find their decrees treated with the contumely which is due to imposture, of whatever kind.345.Marcion (Epiph. i. 317);—Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266);—Epiphanius (i. 348);—Cyril (Mai, ii. 438);—John Thessal. (Galland. xiii. 188).346.[The discussion of this text has been left very nearly as it originally stood,—the rather, because the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16 will be found fully discussed at the end of the present volume. SeeIndex of Texts.]347.Companion to the Revised Version, &c., by Alex. Roberts, D.D. (2nd edit.), pp. 66-8.348.Of this, any one may convince himself by merely inspecting the 2 pages of codexawhich are exposed to view at the British Museum.349.For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading (17, 73, 181), the second proves (on enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an abridgment of Œcumenius, who certainly read Θεός; and the last is non-existent.350.Concilia, ii. 217 c.351.viii. 214 b.352.A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude of proofs thatChristisGod, Gregory says:—Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαῤῥήδῃν βοᾷ; ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι. ii. 693.353.Τοῦτο ἡμῖν τὸ μέγα μυστήριον ... ὁ ἐνανθρωπήσας δι᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ πτωχεύσας Θεός, ἵνα ἀναστήσῃ τὴν σάρκα. (i. 215 a.)—Τί τὸ μέγα μυστήριον?... Θεὸς ἄνθρωπος γίνεται. (i. 685 b.)354.De Trin.p. 83—where the testimony is express.355.Θεὸς γὰρ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.—Concilia, i. 853 d.356.Cramer'sCat. in Rom.p. 124.357.One quotation may suffice:—Τὸ δὲ Θεὸν ὄντα, ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνεσχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ... τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἐκπλήξεως γέμον. ὂ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγεν; καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστέριον; ποῖον μέγα; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί; καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ Θεός, κ.τ.λ. i. 497. = Galland. xiv. 141.358.The following may suffice:—μέγα γὰρ τότε τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς ὢν καὶ ὁ Λόγος; ἐδικαιώθη δὲ καὶ ἐν πνεύματι. v. p. ii.; p. 154 c d.—In a newly-recovered treatise of Cyril, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is quoted at length with Θεός, followed by a remark on the ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθεὶς Θεός. This at least is decisive. The place has been hitherto overlooked.359.i. 92; iii. 657; iv. 19, 23.360.Apud Athanasium,Opp.ii. 33, where see Garnier's prefatory note.361.Καθ᾽ ὂ γὰρ ὑπῆρχε Θεὸς [sc. ὁ Χριστὸς] τοῦτον ᾔτει τὸν νομοθέτην δοθῆναι πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι ... τοιγαροῦν καὶ δεξάμενα τὰ ἔθνη τὸν νομοθέτην, τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα Θεόν. Cramer'sCat.iii. 69. The quotation is from the lost work of Severus against Julian of Halicarnassus.362.Galland. xii. 152 e, 153 e, with the notes both of Garnier and Gallandius.363.i. 313; ii. 263.364.Ap. Athanas. i. 706.365.iii. 401-2.366.Ap. Phot. 230.367.Contra Hær. Noet.c. 17.368.Ap. Clem. Al. 973.369.Cap. xii.370.Ad Eph.c. 19, 7;ad Magn.c. 8.371.See Scrivener'sPlain Introd.pp. 555-6, and Berriman'sDissertation, pp. 229-263. Also the end of this volume.372.i. 887 c.373.ii. 74 b.374.See above, p.98.375.As, that stupid fabrication, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; (in S. Matth. xix. 17):—the new incidents and sayings proposed for adoption, as in S. Mark i. 27 (in the Synagogue of Capernaum): in S. John xiii. 21-6 (at the last supper): in S. Luke xxiv. 17 (on the way to Emmaus):—the many proposed omissions, as in S. Matth. vi. 13 (the Doxology): in xvi. 2, 3 (the signs of the weather): in S. Mark ix. 44 & 46 (the words of woe): in S. John v. 3, 4 (the Angel troubling the pool), &c. &c. &c.376.It cannot be too plainly or too often stated that learned Prebendary Scrivener iswholly guiltlessof the many spurious“Readings”with which a majority of his co-Revisionists have corrupted the Word ofGod. He pleaded faithfully,—but he pleaded in vain.—It is right also to state that the scholarlike Bp. of S. Andrews (Dr. Charles Wordsworth) has fully purged himself of the suspicion of complicity, by his printed (not published) remonstrances with his colleagues.—The excellent Bp. of Salisbury (Dr. Moberly) attended only 121 of their 407 meetings; and that judicious scholar, the Abp. of Dublin (Dr. Trench) only 63. The reader will find more on this subject at the close of Art. II.,—pp.228-30.377.Eusebius,—Basil,—Chrysostom (in loc.),—Jerome,—Juvencus,—omit the words. P. E. Pusey found them innoSyriac copy. But the conclusive evidence is supplied by the Manuscripts; not more than 1 out of 20 of which contain this clause.378.“Revised Text”of S. Luke vi. 48.379.“Authorized Version,”supported bya c dand 12 other uncials, the whole body of the cursives, the Syriac, Latin, and Gothic versions.380.“Revised Text”of S. Luke v. 39.381.“Authorized Version,”supported bya cand 14 other uncials, the whole body of the cursives, andallthe versions except the Peschito and the Coptic.382.Address at Lincoln Diocesan Conference,—p. 16.383.On Revision,—p. 99.384.Dial.capp. 88 and 103 (pp. 306, 310, 352).385.P. 113.386.Ap. Galland. iii. 719, c d.387.iv. 15 (ap. Gall. iv. 296 b).388.42 b, 961 e, 1094 a.389.Ap. Galland. iv. 605 (ver. 365-6).390.Ap. Aug. viii. 423 e.391.“Vox illa Patris, quæ super baptizatum facta estEgo hodie genui te,”(Enchirid.c. 49 [Opp.vi. 215 a]):—“Illud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa voce sonuisse quod in Psalmo scriptum est,Filius meus es tu: ego hodie genui te, quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus Græcis non inveniri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus confirmari possit, quid aliud quam utrumque intelligendum est quolibet verborum ordine de cælo sonuisse?”(De Cons. Ev.ii. c. 14 [Opp.iii. P. ii. 46 d e]). Augustine seems to allude to what is found to have existed in theEbionite Gospel.392.Epiphanius (i. 138 b) quotes the passage which contains the statement.393.Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως—οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς: also—ἀνθρώπων.394.For my information on this subject, I am entirely indebted to one who is always liberal in communicating the lore of which he is perhaps the sole living depositary in England,—the Rev. Dr. S. C. Malan. See hisSeven Chapters of the Revision of 1881, revised,—p. 3. But especially should the reader be referred to Dr. Malan's learned dissertation on this very subject in hisSelect Readings in Westcott and Hort's Gr. Text of S. Matth.,—pp. 1 to 22.395.So Dr. Malan in hisSelect Readings(see above note 1),—pp. 15, 17, 19.396.“LibergenituræJesu Christi filii David, filii Abraham”...“Gradatim ordo deducitur ad Christinativitatem.”—De Carne Christi, c. 22.397.A friendly critic complains that we do not specify which editions of the Fathers we quote. Our reply is—This [was] a Review, not a Treatise. We areconstrainedto omit such details. Briefly, we always quotethe best Edition. Critical readers can experiencenodifficulty in verifying our references. A few details shall however be added: Justin (Otto): Irenæus (Stieren): Clemens Al. (Potter): Tertullian (Oehler): Cyprian (Baluze): Eusebius (Gaisford): Athanas. (1698): Greg. Nyss. (1638): Epiphan. (1622): Didymus (1769): Ephraem Syr. (1732): Jerome (Vallarsi): Nilus (1668-73): Chrysostom (Montfaucon): Cyril (Aubert): Isidorus (1638): Theodoret (Schulze): Maximus (1675): John Damascene (Lequien): Photius (1653). Most of the others (as Origen, Greg. Nazianz., Basil, Cyril of Jer., Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine), are quoted from the Benedictine editions. When we say“Mai,”we always mean hisNova Biblioth. PP.1852-71. By“Montfaucon,”we mean theNov. Coll. PP.1707. It is necessity that makes us so brief.398.Concilia, iii. 521 a to d.399.i.2340.400.P. 889 line 37 (γένησιν).401.i. 943 c.402.i. 735.403.v.1363, 676.404.Concil.iii. 325 ( = Cyril v.228 a).405.vii. 48; viii. 314.406.In Matth. ii. 16.407.Ps.-Athanas. ii. 306 and 700: ps.-Chrysost. xii. 694.408.P. 470.409.Gall. ix. 215.410.Trin.188.411.i. 250 b.412.i. 426 a (γένησις).413.Διαφέρει γένεσις καὶ γέννησις; γένεσις μὲν γάρ ἐστι παρὰ Θεοῦ πρώτη πλάσις, γέννησις δὲ ἡ ἐκ καταδίκης τοῦ θανάτου διὰ τὴν παράβασιν ἐξ ἀλλήλων διαδοχή.—Galland. xiv.Append.pp. 73, 74.414.[dated 22 Maya.d.359] ap. Athan. i. 721 d.415.i. 722 c.416.P. 20 of the newly-recoveredDiatessaron, translated from the Armenian. The Exposition is claimed for Ephraem Syrus.417.Dr. Malan,Seven Chapters of the Revision, revised, p. 7.418.See below, note 13.419.See p.122, note 11.420.i. 938, 952. Also ps.-Athan. ii. 409, excellently.421.Trin.349.422.P. 116.423.i. 392; ii. 599, 600.424.ii. 229.425.See p.122, note 11.426.i. 426, 1049 (5 times), 1052-3.427.vii. 76.428.Galland. ix. 636.429.P. 6 (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς: which is also the reading of Syrevand of the Sahidic. The Memphitic version represents τὸν υἱόν.)430.i. 276.431.Gal. xiii. 662.432.In Cat.433.ii. 462.434.“Ex hoc loco quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios filios habuisse Mariam, dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi qui habeat et fratres”(vii. 14). He refers to his treatise against Helvidius, ii. 210.435.Preface to Pastoral Epistles,—more fully quoted facing p. 1.436.The Preface (quoted above facing p. 1,) is dated 3rd Nov. 1868.437.Lectures on Biblical Revision, (1881) pp. 116 seqq. See above, pp.37-9.438.On Revision, pp. 30 and 49.439.The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST, translated out of the Greek: being the Version set fortha.d.1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Reviseda.d.1881. Printed for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881.The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version.Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ.The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version.[Edited by the Ven. Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.The New Testament in the Original Greek.The Text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. Cambridge and London, 1881.440.Malan'sGospel of S. John translated from the Eleven oldest Versions.441.Int. ii. 72; iv. 622 dis.442.C. Noet.§ 4.443.i. 1275.444.Trin.363.445.Ap. Gall. v. 67.446.i. 282.447.i. 486.448.Ep. ad Paul. Sam. Concil.i. 872 e; 889 e.449.Ap. Galland. iv. 563.450.vii. 546; viii. 153, 154, 277.451.iii. 570; iv. 226, 1049, 1153.452.iv. 150 (text); vi. 30, 169. Mai, ii. 69.453.Concilia, iii. 1102 d.454.Quoted by Leontius (Gall. xii. 693).455.In Cat.Cord. 96.456.Ibid.p. 94.457.Cat. in Ps.ii. 323 and 343.458.Ap. Photium, p. 281.459.Montf. ii. 286.460.i. 288, 559, 567.461.Ps.-Athan. ii. 464. Another, 625. Another, 630. Ps.-Epiphan. ii. 287.462.i. 863, 903, 1428.463.Gall. iii. 296.464.32 dis.; 514; 1045 dis.465.Gall. vi. 192.466.iv. 679.467.Ap. Athan. ii. 646.468.Gall. v. 124.469.Ibid.iii. 628, 675.470.Ibid.ix. 367.471.Ibid.ix. 493.472.Let the Reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts of the severalVersionsabove enumerated, and mentally assign eachFatherto his own approximate locality: then let him bear in mind that 995 out of 1000 of the extantManuscriptsagree with those Fathers and Versions; and let him further recognize that those MSS. (executed at different dates in different countries) must severally represent independent remote originals, inasmuch asno two of them are found to be quite alike.—Next, let him consider that,in all the Churches of the East, these words from the earliest period were read aspart of the Gospel for the Thursday in Easter week.—This done, let him decide whether it is reasonable that two worshippers of codexb—a.d.1881—should attempt to thrust all this mass of ancient evidence clean out of sight by their peremptory sentence of exclusion,—“Western and Syrian.”Drs. Westcott and Hort inform us that“the character of the attestationmarks”the clause (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ),“as aWestern gloss.”But the“attestation”for retaining that clause—(a) Comes demonstrably from every quarter of ancient Christendom:—(b) Is more ancient (by 200 years) than the evidence for omitting it:—(c) Is more numerous, in the proportion of 99 to 1:—(d) In point of respectability, stands absolutely alone. For since we haveprovedthat Origen and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, Ambrose and Jerome,recognizethe words in dispute, of what possible Textual significancy can it be if presently (because it is sufficient for their purpose) the same Fathers are observed to quote S. John iii. 13no further than down to the words“Son of Man”? No person, (least of all a professed Critic,) who adds to his learning a few grains of common sense and a little candour, can be misled by such a circumstance. Origen, Eusebius, Proclus, Ephraim Syrus, Jerome, Marius, when they are only insisting on the doctrinal significancy of the earlier words, naturally end their quotation at this place. The two Gregories (Naz. [ii. 87, 168]: Nyss. [Galland. vi. 522]), writing against the Apolinarian heresy, of course quoted the verse no further than Apolinaris himself was accustomed (for his heresy) to adduce it.... About theinternalevidence for the clause, nothing has been said; butthisis simply overwhelming. We make our appeal toCatholic Antiquity; and are content to rest our cause onExternal Evidence;—onCopies, onVersions, onFathers.473.Pp. 798, 799.474.iii. 414.475.Ant.c. 50;Consum.c. 28.476.Hist. Eccl.v. 8.477.Ἐμβατεῦσαι;—Ἐπιβῆναι τὰ ἔνδον ἐξερευνῆσαι ἣ σκοπῆσαι. Phavorinus, quoted by Brüder.478.Viz. S. Luke iv. 39: Acts x. 17: xi. 11: xxii. 20.479.S. Luke ii. 9 (where“came upon”is better than“stood bythem,”and should have been left): xxiv. 4: Acts xii. 7: xxii. 13: xxiii. 11.480.S. Luke xx. 1: xxi. 34 (last Day): Acts iv. 1: vi. 12: xvii. 5 (“assault”): xxiii. 27: xxviii. 2 (a rain-storm,—which, by the way, suggests for τὸν ἐφεστῶτα a different rendering from“the present”).481.S. Luke ii. 38.482.S. Luke x. 40.483.Cf. ch. xi. 20. So in Latin,Illa plurima sacrificia. (Cic.De Fin.2. 20. 63.)484.“The context”(says learned Dr. Field)“is too strong for philological quibbles.”The words“can by no possibility bear any other meaning.”—Otium Norvicense, p. 40.485.Στρατιώτης ὂς πρὸς τὸ φονεύειν τέτακται,—Theophylact, i. 201 e. Boys quotes SenecaDe Irá:—Tunc centurio supplicio præpositus condere gladiumspeculatoremjussit.486.Trench,Study of Words, p. 106.487.Otium Norvicense, pars tertia, 1881, pp. 155.488.Compare Xenophon (Cyrop.vii. 6. 8), τοὺς Συριστὶ ἐπισταμένους. Theplena locutiois found in Nehem. xiii. 24,—οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτῶν ἥμισυ λαλοῦντες Ἁζωτιστί, καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐπιγινώσκοντες λαλεῖν Ἰουδαιστί (quoted by Wetstein).489.Cf. Acts i. 23; xvii. 31. The Latin is“statuerunt”or“constituerunt.”The Revisionists give“appointed”in the second of these places, and“put forward”in the first. In both,—What becomes of their uniformity?490.P. 279.491.καὶ τὸν δικαστὴν εἷλεν ὁ τέως κατάδικος εἶναι νομιζόμενος καὶ τὴν νίκην αὐτὸς ὁ χειρωθεὶς ὁμολογεῖ λαμπρᾷ τῇ φωνῇ παρόντων ἁπάντων λέγων, ἐν ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. x. 307 b. (= xii. 433 a).492.ἐν ὀλίγῳ; τουτέστι παρὰ μικρόν. ix. 391 a.493.καὶ τὸν δικάζοντα μικροῦ μεταπεῖσαι, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον λέγειν, ἐν ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. ii. 516 d.494.iii. 399 d.495.v. 930 (παρ᾽ ὀλίγον).496.MS. Note in his copy of the N. T.497.And the Revisionists: for see Rom. xi. 4.498.Yet even here they cannot abstain from putting in the margin the peculiarly infelicitous alternative,—“Why didst thou forsake Me?”499.As in Rom. vi. 2: ix. 13. 1 Cor. i. 27: vi. 20: ix. 11. Ephes. iv. 20, &c. &c.500.Comp. S. Matth. viii. 1, 5, 23, 28; ix. 27, 28; xxi. 23.501.Ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς.502.ii. 155.503.Routh,Rell. iii. 226ad calc.504.Ap. Mai, iv. 266.505.ii. 1324.506.ii. 380.507.Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 403.508.So also Heb. xi. 17, 28. And see the Revision of S. James i. 11.509.Comp. ἀφίεμεν in S. Lu. xi. 4. In the case of certain Greek verbs, thepreteritein form is invariablypresentin signification. See Dr. Field's delightfulOtium Norvicense, p. 65.510.See above, pp.98-106. Alsoinfra, towards the end.511.As in S. Matth. xi. 11 and 2 Tim. iv. 17, where δέ is rendered“notwithstanding:”—Phil. i. 24 and Heb. xii. 11, where it is“nevertheless.”512.Eighttimes in succession in 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, δέ is not represented in the A. V. The ancientsfeltso keenly what Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the A. V. ventured to exhibit, that as often as not they leave out the δέ,—in which our Revisionists twice follow them. The reader of taste is invited to note the precious result of inserting“and,”as the Revisionists have done six times, where according to the genius of the English language it is not wanted at all.513.38 times in the Genealogy, S. Matth. i.514.Rom. xiv. 4: xv. 20.515.Rom. ix. 22.516.1 Cor. xii. 27.517.Gal. ii. 4.518.Act xxvii. 26.519.Rom. iii. 22.520.Ephes. iv. 1.521.2 Cor. v. 8.522.S. Mark xv. 31.523.S. Mark vi. 29.524.1 Cor. x. 1.525.S. Matth. vi. 30.526.S. John xx. 4.527.2 Cor. i. 23.528.2 Cor. vii. 13.529.2 Cor. ii. 12.530.2 Pet. iii. 13.531.S. Matth. ii. 22.532.1 Cor. xii. 20.533.1 S. John i. 3.534.S. Matth. xxv. 39.535.Acts viii. 3.536.Rom. xii. 6.537.S. Matth. vi. 29.538.As in S. Matth. vii. 9: xii. 29: xx. 15. Rom. iii. 29.539.S. Matth. xx. 15: xxvi. 53. Rom. iii. 29: vi. 3: vii. 1.540.S. John xvi. 32.541.S. Luke xix. 23.542.2 Cor. xiii. 1.543.S. Luke xii. 2.544.S. Luke xviii. 7.545.S Luke xiv. 21.546.1 S. John ii. 27.547.1 S. John i. 2.548.S. Mark ix. 39.549.Acts xxiii. 3.550.Consider S. Matth. iii. 16,—ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος: and ver. 6,—ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ.551.ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συνανεστράφη.552.Galland. iv. 6 bbis.553.P. 279.554.ix. 400.555.ii. 707.556.The circumstance is noticed and explained in the same way by Dr. Field in his delightfulOtium Norvicense.557.Concilia, iv. 79 e.558.Thus Cyril addresses one of his Epistles to Acacius Bp. of Melitene,—Concilia, iii. 1111.559.See Dr. Field's delightfulOtium Norvicense(Pars tertia), 1881, pp. 1-4 and 110, 111. This masterly contribution to Sacred Criticism ought to be in the hands of every student of Scripture.560.See Hesychius, and the notes on the place.561.Notes designed to illustrate some expressions in the Gk. Test. by a reference to thelxx., &c. By C. F. B. Wood, Præcentor of Llandaff,—Rivingtons, 1882, (pp. 21,)—p. 17:—an admirable performance, only far too brief.562.Μὴ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ῥῆμα?563.Οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ πᾶν ῥῆμα.564.[Pointed out to me by Professor Gandell,—whose exquisite familiarity with Scripture is only equalled by his readiness to communicate his knowledge to others.]565.μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς and ἐνταφιασμός,—S. Mark xiv. 3 and 8: S. John xii. 3 and 7. Hear Origen (apud Hieron. iii. 517):—“Non de nardo propositum est nunc Spiritui Sancto dicere, neque de hoc quod oculis intuemur, Evangelista scribit, unguento; sedde nardo spirituali.”And so Jerome himself, vii. 212.566.Ps. xxxiii. 18 (ἐγγὺς Κύριος τοῖς συντετριμμένοις τὴν καρδίαν): Is. lvii. 15.567.Consider Ignatius,ad Ephes.c. xvii. Also, the exquisite remark of Theod. Heracl. in Cramer'sCat.568.We prefer that readers should be reminded, by the varied form, of theGreekoriginal. In the extreme case (Acts vii. 45: Hebr. iv. 8), is it not far more edifying that attention should be in this way directed to the identity of the names“Joshua”and“Jesus,”than that the latter word should be entirely obliterated by the former;—and this, only for the sake of unmistakeably proclaiming, (what yet must needs be perfectly manifest, viz.) that“Joshua”is the personage spoken of?569.So, in S. Luke xxiii. 25, and Acts iii. 14: xiii. 28,—still following Tyndale.570.Acts xii. 20.571.Eph. iii. 13.572.For, as the story plainly shows (2 Sam. vii. 2, 3; 1 Chron. xvii. 1, 2), it was only“in his heart”to buildGodan house (1 Kings viii. 17, 18). Hence Cranmer's“he would fain”have done so.573.Acts xvi. 29.574.Col. i. 9.575.S. Matth. xiv. 15, 22, 23 (= S. Mark vi. 36, 45, [and note the substitution of ἀποταξάμενος in ver. 46]: S. Luke ix. 12): and xv. 32, 39 (= S. Mark viii. 9).576.S. Matt. xiii. 36: and S. Mark iv. 36.577.Acts xii. 13.578.Acts xvi. 16.579.Verses 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31.580.Twice he calls it μνῆμα.581.Ch. xxvii. 61, 64, 66; xxviii. 1.582.Except in 2 Tim. iii. 16,—where πρὸς διδασκαλίαν is renderedad docendum.583.Except in Rom. xii. 7,—where ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ is rendered“on teaching.”584.Except in Rom. xvi. 17, where they render it“doctrine.”585.And yet, since upwards of 50 times we are molested with a marginal note to inform us that διδάσκαλος means“Teacher”—διδασκαλία (rather than διδαχή) might have claimed to be rendered“teaching.”586.Viz. Rom. xii. 7: 1 Tim. iv. 13, 16: v. 17: 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16.—Rom. xv. 4.587.Eight times in Rev. xvi.588.S. Matth. xxvi. 7. S. Mark xiv. 3. S. Luke vii. 37.589.γλωσσόκομον. Consider the LXX. of 2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11.590.ζώνας.591.E.g.S. Matth. xxvi. 48. S. Luke ii. 12.592.Δύναμις is rendered“miracle”in the R. V. about half-a-dozen times.593.Acts iv. 16, 22.—On the other hand,“sign”was allowed to represent σημεῖον repeatedly in the A. V., as in S. Matth. xii. 38, &c., and the parallel places: S. Mark xvi. 17, 20: S. John xx. 30.594.Canon Cook'sRevised Version of the first three Gospels considered, &c.—p. 26: an admirable performance,—unanswered, becauseunanswerable.595.Dr. Vance Smith'sRevised Texts and Margins,—p. 45.596.S. Matth. xvii. 15: S. Mk. ix. 18, 20, 22, 26: S. Lu. ix. 39, 42.597.Consider ourLord'ssolemn words in Mtt. xvii. 21,—“But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting,”—12 words left out by the R. V., though witnessed to byall the Copies but3: by the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian Versions: and by the following Fathers:—(1) Origen, (2) Tertullian, (3) the Syriac Clement, (4) the SyriacCanons of Eusebius, (5) Athanasius, (6) Basil, (7) Ambrose, (8) Juvencus, (9) Chrysostom, (10)Opus imp., (11) Hilary, (12) Augustine, (13) J. Damascene, and others. Then (it will be asked), why have the Revisionists left them out? Because (we answer) they have been misled byband א, Cureton's Syriac and the Sahidic,—as untrustworthy a quaternion of witnesses to the text of Scripture as could be named.598.The word is only not banished entirely from the N. T. It occurs twice (viz. in Rom. i. 20, and Jude ver. 6), but only as the rendering of ἀῖδιος.599.S. Matth. xxv. 46.600.Clemens Al. (p. 71) says:—τὰσ γραφὰς ὁ Ἀπόστολος Θεοπνεύστους καλεῖ, ὠφελίμους οὔσας. Tertullian,—Legimus omnem Scripturam ædificationi habilem, divinitus inspirari.Origen (ii. 443),—πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος οὖσα ὠφελιμός ἐστι. Gregory Nyss. (ii. 605),—πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος λέγεται. Dial. (ap. Orig. i. 808),—πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος λέγεται παρὰ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου. So Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, &c.601.See Archdeacon Leeon Inspiration, pp. 261-3, reading his notes.602.S. John xvi. 15.603.Study by all means Basil's letter to Amphilochius, (vol. iii. p. 360 to 362.)—Ἔστιν οὖν ὁ νοῦς ὁ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ τοιοῦτος; Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ ὥρας, οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὔτε οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἄν ὁ Υἱὸς ἔγνω, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατέρ; ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτῷ ὑπῆρχε δεδομένη ἡ γνῶσις ... τουτέστιν, ἡ αἰτία τοῦ εἰδέναι τὸν Υἱὸν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός; καὶ ἀβίαστός ἐστι τῷ εὐγνωμόνως ἀκούοντι ἡ ἐξήγησις αὕτη. ἐπειδὴ οὐ πρόσκειται τὸ μόνος; ὡς καὶ παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ.—(p. 362 c.) Basil says of this interpretation—ἂ τοίνυν ἐκ παιδὸς παρὰ τῶν πατέρων ἠκούσαμεν.604.Notes, p. 109.605.Celebre effugium, (as Dr. Routh calls it,)quod ex falsâ verborum constructione Critici quidam hæreticis pararunt.Reliqq.iii. 322-3.606.calone has a point between ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων and Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τους αἰῶνας. But this is an entirely different thing from what is noted in the margin.607.MS. communication from the Rev. S. C. Malan.608.i. 506.609.Opusc.i. 52, 58;Phil.339.610.iv. 612.611.Routh,Reliqq. Sac.iii. 292, and 287. (Concil.i. 845 b. c.)612.Concilia, i. 873 d: 876 a.613.vi. c. 26.614.i. 414, 415, 429, 617, 684, 908.615.i. 282. And inCat.317.616.Trin.21, 29, 327, 392. Mai, vii. 303.617.ii. 596 a, (quoted by the Emp. Justinian [Concil.v. 697] and theChronicon Paschale, 355), 693, 697; iii. 287. Galland. vi. 575.618.i. 481, 487, 894, 978; ii. 74.619.Ap. Cyril (ed. Pusey), v. 534.620.Ap. Gall. iii. 805.621.Ap. Gall. iv. 576.622.Ap. Phot. col. 761, 853.623.Ap. Gall. vi. 8, 9, 80.624.Ap. Gall. vii. 618, and ap. Hieron. i. 560.625.Concilia, iii. 522 e ( = iv. 297 d = ap. Gall. viii. 667). Also,Concilia(Harduin), i. 1413 a.626.Ap. Gall. ix. 474.627.Ap. Gall. ix. 690, 691 ( =Concil.iii. 1230, 1231).628.Homilia(Arm.), p. 165 and 249.629.i. 464, 483; vi. 534; vii. 51; viii. 191; ix. 604, 653; x. 172.630.v.120, 503, 765, 792; v.258, 105, 118, 148; vi. 328. Ap. Mai, ii. 70, 86, 96, 104; iii. 84in Luc.26.631.Concilia, iii. 1099 b.632.i. 103; ii. 1355; iii. 215, 470; iv. 17, 433, 1148, 1264, 1295, 1309; v. 67, 1093.633.Cramer'sCat.160.634.Ibid. in Act.40.635.P. 166.636.Concilia, ii. 195.637.Ap. Gall. xii. 251.638.Ap. Gall. xii. 682.639.ii. 64.640.i. 557; ii. 35, 88.641.Prax. 13, 15—“Christum autem et ipse Deum cognominavit,Quorum patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in ævum.”642.P. 287.643.Ap. Gall. iii. 296, 313.644.i. 1470; ii. 457, 546, 609, 790.645.Concilia, ii. 982 c.646.78, 155, 393, 850, 970, 1125, 1232.647.i. 870, 872.648.Ap. Gall. viii. 157.649.Ap. Gall. vii. 589, 590.650.Ap. Gall. viii. 627.651.709, 711.652.Ap. Gall. x. 722.653.Ap. Gall. xi. 233, 237.654.Concilia, iii. 1364, 1382.655.Ap. Gall. 352, 357.656.Ibid.674.657.ii. 16, 215, 413.658.i. 839; v. 769; xii. 421.659.Those of our readers who wish to pursue this subject further may consult with advantage Dr. Gifford's learned note on the passage in theSpeaker's Commentary. Dr. Gifford justly remarks that“it is the natural and simple construction, which every Greek scholar would adopt without hesitation, if no question of doctrine were involved.”660.Note, that this has been the language of the Church from the beginning. Thus Tertullian,—“Aquam adituri ... contestamur nos renuntiare diabolo,et pompæ et angelis ejus”(i. 421): and Ambrose,—“Quando te interrogavit, Abrenuntias diaboloet operibus ejus, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio. Abrenuntiassæculo et voluptatibus ejus, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio”(ii. 350 c): and Ephraem Syrus,—Ἀποτάσσομαι τῷ Σατανᾷ καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ (ii. 195 and iii. 399). And Cæsarius of Arles,—“Abrenuntias diabolo,pompis et operibus ejus... Abrenuntio”(Galland. xi. 18 e).661.2 Tim. iv. 18.662.S. John xvii. 24.663.P. 140.664.Marcell. p. 192.665.In loc. diserte.666.Eth.ii. 297.667.viii. 485.668.Text, iv. 1003;Comm.1007, which aretwo distinct authorities, as learned readers of Cyril are aware.669.Concilia, iii. 356 d.670.iv. 450.671.Pp. 235, 321.672.i. 412; ii. 566, 649.673.Pp. 1017, 1033.674.Victricius ap. Gall. viii. 230. Also ps.-Chrys. v. 680.675.iii. 966dis.676.Dem.92.677.i. 319.678.Trin.190.679.v. 1039, 1069.680.ii. 460.681.v. 615.682.ii. 584. Cyril read the place both ways:—v.2156, andin Luc.p. 52.683.i. 720.684.ii. 381; iii. 962; iv. 601.685.Ap. Galland. vii. 183.686.Ap. Montf. ii. 67.687.iii. 333; v. 444; x. 498, 620; xii. 329.688.ii. 77; iii. 349.689.ii. 252.690.“Deseruimus fere quos sequi solemus codices.”691.P. 38 ( = Gall. vii. 26).692.i. 298, 613.693.viii. 351, 352.694.iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.695.i. 748; iv. 274, 550.696.In Dionys. Ar.ii. 192.697.As these sheets are passing through the press, we have received a book by Sir Edmund Beckett, entitled,Should the Revised New Testament be Authorized?In four Chapters, the author discusses with characteristic vigour, first, the principles and method of the Revisers, and then the Gospel of S. Matthew, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, as fair samples of their work, with a union of sound sense, forensic skill, and scholarship more skilful than to deserve his cautious disclaimer. Amidst details open, of course, to discussion, abundant proofs are set forth, in a most telling style, that the plea of“necessity”and“faithfulness”utterly fails, in justification of a mass of alterations, which, in point of English composition, carry their condemnation on their face, and, to sum up the great distinction between the two Versions, illustrate“the difference between working bydiscretionand byrules—by which no great thing was ever done or ever will be.”Sir Edmund Beckett is very happy in his exposure of the abuse of the famous canon of preferring the stranger reading to the more obvious, as if copyists never made stupid blunders or perpetrated wilful absurdities. The work deserves the notice of all English readers.698.It has been objected by certain of the Revisionists that it is not fair to say that“they were appointed to do one thing, and have done another.”We are glad of this opportunity to explain.Thatsomecorrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware: and had thosenecessarychanges been made, we should only have had words of commendation and thanks to offer. But it is found that by Dr. Hort's eager advocacy two-thirds of the Revisionists have made a vast number ofperfectly needless changes:—(1) Changes whichare incapable of being represented in a Translation: as ἐμοῦ for μου,—πάντες for ἅπαντες,—ὅτε for ὁπότε. Again, since γέννησις, at least as much as γένεσις, means“birth,”whyγένεσις in S. Matth. i. 18? Why, also, inform us that instead of ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ πεφυτευμένην, they prefer πεφυτευμένην ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ? and instead of καρπὸν ζητῶν,—ζητῶν καρπόν? Now this they have donethroughout,—at least 341 times in S. Luke alone. But (what is far worse), (2) They suggest in the margin changes which yet theydo not adopt. These numerous changes are,by their own confession, not“necessary:”and yet they are of a most serious character. In fact, it is of these we chiefly complain.—But, indeed (3),How manyof theirotheralterations of the Text will the Revisionists undertake to defend publicly on the plea of“Necessity”?[A vast deal more will be found on this subject towards the close of the present volume. In the meantime, see above, pages87-88.]699.“We meet in every page”(says Dr. Wordsworth, the learned Bishop of Lincoln,)“with small changes which are vexatious, teasing, and irritating; even the more so because they are small (as small insects sting most sharply),which seem almost to be made merely for the sake of change.”—p. 25.700.On the Revision of the English Version, &c. (1870), p. 99.701.Bp. Ellicott,Diocesan Progress, Jan. 1882,—p. 19.702.Bp. Ellicott,On Revision,—p. 49.703.“Quilxxinterpretes non legit, aut minus legit accurate, is sciat se non adeo idoneum, qui Scripta Evangelica Apostolica de Græco in Latinum, aut alium aliquem sermonem transferat, ut ut in aliis Græcis scriptoribus multum diuque fuerit versatus.”(John Bois, 1619.)—“Græcum N. T. contextum rite intellecturo nihil est utilius quam diligenter versasse Alexandrinam antiqui Fœderis interpretationem,e quâ unâ plus peti poterit auxilii, quam ex veteribus Scriptoribus Græcis simul sumtis.Centena reperientur in N. T. nusquam obvia in scriptis Græcorum veterum, sed frequentata in Alexandrinâ versione.”(Valcknaer, 1715-85.)704.On the Authorized Version,—p. 3.705.Preface, p. xiv.706.Quarterly Review, No. 304.707.Quarterly Review, No. 305.708.At the head of the present Article, as it originally appeared, will be found enumerated Dr. Scrivener's principal works. It shall but be said of them, that they are wholly unrivalled, or rather unapproached, in their particular department. Himself an exact and elegant Scholar,—a most patient and accurate observer of Textual phenomena, as well as an interesting and judicious expositor of their significance and value;—guarded in his statements, temperate in his language, fair and impartial (even kind) to all who come in his way:—Dr. Scrivener is the very best teacher and guide to whom a beginner can resort, who desires to be led by the hand, as it were, through the intricate mazes of Textual Criticism. HisPlain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the use of Biblical Students, (of which a third edition is now in the press,) is perforce the most generally useful, because the most comprehensive, of his works; but we strenuously recommend the three prefatory chapters of hisFull and Exact Collation of about twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Gospels[pp. lxxiv. and 178,—1853], and the two prefatory chapters of hisExact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, &c., to which is added a full Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, [pp. lxxx. and 563,—1859,] to the attention of students. His Collation ofCodex Bezæ(d) is perhaps the greatest of his works: but whatever he has done, he has done best. It is instructive to compare his collation of Cod. א with Tischendorf's. No reader of the Greek Testament can afford to be without his reprint of Stephens' ed. of 1550: and English readers are reminded that Dr. Scrivener's is the onlyclassicaledition of the English Bible,—The Cambridge Paragraph Bible, &c., 1870-3. His Preface or“Introduction”(pp. ix.-cxx.) passes praise. Ordinary English readers should enquire for hisSix Lectures on the Text of the N. T., &c., 1875,—which is in fact an attempt to popularize thePlain Introduction. The reader is referred to note 1 at the foot of page243.709.“Agmen ducit Carolus Lachmannus (N. T. Berolini1842-50), ingenii viribus et elegantiâ doctrinæ haud pluribus impar; editor N. T. audacior quam limatior: cujus textum, a recepto longè decedentem, tantopere judicibus quibusdam subtilioribus placuisse jamdudum miramur: quippe qui, abjectâ tot cæterorum codicum Græcorum ope, perpaucis antiquissimis (nec iis integris, nec per eum satis accuratè collatis) innixus, libros sacros ad sæculi post Christum quarti normam restituisse sibi videatur; versionum porrò (cujuslibet codicis ætatem facilè superantium) Syriacæ atque Ægyptiacarum contemptor, neutrius linguæ peritus; Latinarum contrà nimius fautor, præ Bentleio ipso Bentleianus.”—Scrivener's Preface toNov. Test, textûs Stephanici, &c. See above, p.238,note.710.Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 429.711.N. T. Part II. p. 2.712.No one who attends ever so little to the subject can require to be assured that“The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the variations adopted in the Revised Version,”edited by Dr. Scrivener for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1881, does not by any means represent his own views. The learned Prebendary merely edited the decisions of the two-thirds majority of the Revisionists,—which were not his own.713.Those who have never tried the experiment, can have no idea of the strain on the attention which such works as those enumerated in p.238(note) occasion. At the same time, it cannot be too clearly understood that it is chiefly by the multiplication ofexactcollations of MSS. that an abiding foundation will some day be laid on which to build up theScienceof Textual Criticism. We may safely keep our“Theories”back till we have collated our MSS.,—re-edited our Versions,—indexed our Fathers. They will be abundantly in timethen.714.Introduction, p. 18.715.See lower part of page17. Also note at p.75and middle of p.262.716.P. 13, cf. p. viii.717.They are as follows:—[1st] S. Mark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion the multitude, when they beheld ourSaviourand His Disciples departing in order to cross over unto the other side of the lake, ran on foot thither,—(α)“and outwent them—(β)and came together unto Him”(i.e.on His stepping out of the boat: not, as Dr. Hort strangely imagines [p. 99], on His emerging from the scene of His“retirement”in“some sequestered nook”).Now here,asubstitutes συνέδραμον [sic] for συνῆλθον.—אbwith the Coptic and the Vulg. omit clause (β).—domits clause (α), but substitutes“there”(αὐτοῦ) for“unto Him”in clause (β),—exhibits therefore a fabricated text.—The Syriac condenses the two clauses thus:—“got there before Him.”—l, Δ, 69, and 4 or 5 of the old Latin copies, read diversely from all the rest and from one another. The present is, in fact, one of those many places in S. Mark's Gospel where all is contradiction in those depraved witnesses which Lachmann made it his business to bring into fashion. OfConfusionthere is plenty.“Conflation”—as the Reader sees—there is none.[2nd] In S. Mark viii. 26, ourSaviour(after restoring sight to the blind man of Bethsaida) is related to have said,—(α)“Neither enter into the village”—(β)“nor tell it to any one—(γ)in the village.”(And let it be noted that the trustworthiness of this way of exhibiting the text is vouched for bya c nΔ and 12 other uncials: by the whole body of the cursives: by the Peschito and Harklensian, the Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions: and by the only Father who quotes the place—Victor of Antioch. [Cramer'sCat.p. 345, lines 3 and 8.])But it is found that the“two false witnesses”(אb) omit clauses (β) and (γ), retaining only clause (α). One of these two however (א), aware that under such circumstances μηδέ is intolerable, [Dr. Hort, on the contrary, (only because he finds it inb,) considers μηδέ“simple and vigorous”as well as“unique”and“peculiar”(p. 100).] substitutes μή. As fordand the Vulg., they substitute and paraphrase, importing from Matt. ix. 6 (or Mk. ii. 11),“Depart unto thine house.”dproceeds,—“and tell it to no one[μηδενὶ εἴπῃς, from Matth. viii. 4,]in the village.”Six copies of the old Latin (b f ff-2g-1-2l), with the Vulgate, exhibit the following paraphrase of the entire place:—“Depart unto thine house, and if thou enterest into the village, tell it to no one.”The same reading exactly is found in Evan. 13-69-346: 28, 61, 473, and i, (except that 28, 61, 346 exhibit“say nothing[from Mk. i. 44]to no one.”) All six however add at the end,—“not even in the village.”Evan. 124 and a stand alone in exhibiting,—“Depart unto thine house; and enter not into the village; neither tell it to any one,”—to which 124 [not a] adds,—“in the village.”...Whyall this contradiction and confusion is now to be called“Conflation,”—and what“clear evidence”is to be elicited therefrom that“Syrian”are posterior alike to“Western”and to“neutral”readings,—passes our powers of comprehension.We shall be content to hasten forward when we have further informed our Readers that while Lachmann and Tregelles abide by the Received Text in this place; Tischendorf,alone of Editors, adopts the reading of א (μη εις την κωμην εισελθης): while Westcott and Hort,alone of Editors, adopt the reading ofb(μηδε εις την κωμην εισελθης),—so ending the sentence. What else however but calamitous is it to find that Westcott and Hort have persuaded their fellow Revisers to adopt the same mutilated exhibition of the Sacred Text? The consequence is, that henceforth,—instead of“Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town,”—we are invited to read,“Do not even enter into the village.”[3rd] In S. Mk. ix. 38,—S. John, speaking of one who cast out devils inChrist'sName, says—(α)“who followeth not us, and we forbad him—(β)because he followeth not us.”Here, אb c lΔ the Syriac, Coptic, and Æthiopic, omit clause (α), retaining (β).dwith the old Latin and the Vulg. omit clause (β), but retain (α).—Both clauses are found ina nwith 11 other uncials and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Gothic, and the only Father who quotes the place,—Basil [ii. 252].—Why should the pretence be set up that there has been“Conflation”here? Two Omissions do not make one Conflation.[4th] In Mk. ix. 49,—ourSavioursays,—“For(α)every one shall be salted with fire—and(β)every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.”Here, clause (α) is omitted bydand a few copies of the old Latin; clause (β) by אbLΔ.But such an ordinary circumstance as the omission of half-a-dozen words by Cod.dis so nearly without textual significancy, as scarcely to merit commemoration. And do Drs. Westcott and Hort really propose to build their huge and unwieldy hypothesis on so flimsy a circumstance as the concurrence in error of אb lΔ,—especially in S. Mark's Gospel, which those codices exhibit more unfaithfully than any other codices that can be named? Against them, are to be set on the present occasiona c d nwith 12 other uncials and the whole body of the cursives: the Ital. and Vulgate; both Syriac; the Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions; besides the only Father who quotes the place,—Victor of Antioch. [Also“Anon.”p. 206: and see Cramer'sCat.p. 368.][5th] S. Luke (ix. 10) relates how, on a certain occasion, ourSaviour“withdrew to a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida:”which S. Luke expresses in six words: viz. [1] εἰς [2] τόπον [3] ἔρημον [4] πόλεως [5] καλουμένης [6] Βηθσαϊδά: of which six words,—(a)—א and Syrcuretain but three,—1, 2, 3.(b)—The Peschito retains but four,—1, 2, 3, 6.(c)—b l xΞdand the 2 Egyptian versions retain other four,—1, 4, 5, 6: but for πόλεως καλουμένηςdexhibits κώμην λεγομένην.(d)—The old Latin and Vulg. retain five,—1, 2, 3, 5, 6: but for“qui(orquod)vocabatur,”the Vulg.bandcexhibit“qui(orquod) est.”(e)—3 cursives retain other five, viz. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6: while,(f)—a cΔe, with 9 more uncials and the great bulk of the cursives,—the Harklensian, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions,—retainall the six words.In view of which facts, it probably never occurred to any one before to suggest that the best attested reading of all is the result of“conflation,”i.e.ofspurious mixture. Note, that א anddhave, this time, changed sides.[6th] S. Luke (xi. 54) speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees as (α)“lying in wait for Him,”(β)seeking(γ)to catch something out of His mouth(δ)“that they might accuse Him.”This is the reading of 14 uncials headed bya c, and of the whole body of the cursives: the reading of the Vulgate also and of the Syriac. What is to be said against it?It is found that אb lwith the Coptic and Æthiopic Versions omit clauses (β) and (δ), but retain clauses (α) and (γ).—Cod.d, in conjunction with Cureton's Syriac and the old Latin, retains clause (β), andparaphrases all the rest of the sentence. How then can it be pretended that there has been any“Conflation”here?In the meantime, how unreasonable is the excision from the Revised Text of clauses (β) and (δ)—(ζητοῦντες ... ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτόν)—which are attested bya c dand 12 other uncials, together with the whole body of the cursives; by all the Syriac and by all the Latin copies!... Are we then to understand that אb, and the Coptic Version, outweigh every other authority which can be named?[7th] The“rich fool”in the parable (S. Lu. xii. 18), speaks of (α) πάντα τὰ γενήματά μου, καὶ (β) τὰ ἀγαθά μου. (Soa qand 13 other uncials, besides the whole body of the cursives; the Vulgate, Basil, and Cyril.)But אd(with the old Latin and Cureton's Syriac [which however drops the πάντα]), retaining clause (α), omit clause (β).—On the other hand,b t, (with the Egyptian Versions, the Syriac, the Armenian, and Æthiopic,) retaining clause (β), substitute τὸν σῖτον (a gloss) for τὰ γενήματα in clause (α). Lachmann, Tisch., and Alford, accordingly retain the traditional text in this place. So does Tregelles, and so do Westcott and Hort,—only substituting τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα. Confessedly therefore there has been no“Syrian conflation”here: for all that has happened has beenthe substitutionbybof τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα; and the omission of 4 words by אd. This instance must therefore have been an oversight.—Only once more.[8th] S. Luke's Gospel ends (xxiv. 53) with the record that the Apostles were continually in the Temple,“(α)praising and(β)blessingGod.”Such is the reading of 13 uncials headed by A and every known cursive: a few copies of the old Lat., the Vulg., Syraic, Philox., Æthiopic, and Armenian Versions. But it is found that אb comit clause (α): whiledand seven copies of the old Latin omit clause (β).And this completes the evidence for“Conflation.”We have displayed it thus minutely, lest we should be suspected of unfairness towards the esteemed writers onthe only occasionwhich they have attempted argumentative proof. Their theory has at lastforced themto make an appeal to Scripture, and to produce some actual specimens of their meaning. After ransacking the Gospels for 30 years, they have at last fastened uponeight: of which (as we have seen), several have really no business to be cited,—as not fulfilling the necessary conditions of the problem. To prevent cavil however, letall but one, the [7th], pass unchallenged.718.The Reader is referred to pp.17,75,249.719.E.g.pp. 115, 116, 117, 118, &c.720.Referred to below, p.296.721.See above, pages257(bottom) and258(top).722.See above, pp.37to 38.723.Ibid.p.39.724.To speak with entire accuracy, Drs. Westcott and Hort require us to believe that the Authors of the [imaginary] Syrian Revisions ofa.d.250 anda.d.350, interpolated the genuine Text of the Gospels, with between 2877 (b) and 3455 (א) spurious words; mutilated the genuine Text in respect of between 536 (b) and 839 (א) words:—substituted for as many genuine words, between 935 (b) and 1114 (א) uninspired words:—licentiously transposed between 2098 (b) and 2299 (א):—and in respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c., altered without authority between 1132 (B) and 1265 (א) words.725.Quoted by Canon Cook,Revised Version Considered,—p. 202.726.i.e.say froma.d.90 toa.d.250-350.727.See above, p.269.728.“If,”says Dr. Hort,“an editor were for any purpose to make it his aim to restore as completely as possible the New Testament of Antioch ina.d.350, he could not help taking the approximate consent of the cursives as equivalent toa primary documentary witness. And he would not be the less justified in so doing for being unable to say precisely by what historical agenciesthe one Antiochian original”—[note the fallacy!]—“was multiplied into the cursive hosts of the later ages.”—Pp. 143-4.729.Preface to the“limited and private issue”of 1870, p. xviii.: reprinted in theIntroduction(1881), p. 66.730.Ibid.731.P. 65 (§ 84). In the Table of Contents (p. xi.),“Personal instincts”are substituted for“Personal discernment.”732.The Revisers and the Greek Text,—p. 19.733.Introduction,—p. xiii.734.Notes, p. 22.735.Notes, p. 88.736.Notes,—p. 51.737.Scrivener'sPlain Introduction,—pp. 507-8.738.Scrivener's“Introduction,”pp. 513-4.739.InS. Matth.i. 25,—the omission of“her first-born:”—in vi. 13, the omission of theDoxology:—in xii. 47, the omission ofthe whole verse:—in xvi. 2, 3, the omission of ourLord'smemorable words concerning thesigns of the weather:—in xvii. 21, the omission of the mysterious statement,“But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting:”—in xviii. 11, the omission of the precious words“For the Son of man came to save that which was lost.”InS. Markxvi. 9-20, the omission of the“last Twelve Verses,”—(“the contents of which arenot such as could have been inventedby any scribe or editor of the Gospel,”—W. and H. p. 57). All admit that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is an impossible ending.InS. Lukevi. 1, the suppression of the unique δευτεροπρώτῳ; (“the very obscurity of the expression attesting strongly to its genuineness,”—Scrivener, p. 516, and so W. and H. p. 58):—ix. 54-56, the omittedrebuke to the“disciples James and John:”—in x. 41, 42, the omittedwords concerning Martha and Mary:—in xxii. 43, 44, the omission of theAgony in the Garden,—(which nevertheless,“it would be impossible to regardas a product of the inventiveness of scribes,”—W. and H. p. 67):—in xxiii. 17, a memorable clause omitted:—in xxiii. 34, the omission of our Lord'sprayer for His murderers,—(concerning which Westcott and Hort remark that“few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this”—p. 68):—in xxiii. 38, the statement that the Inscription on the Cross was“in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew:”—in xxiv. 12,the visit of S. Peter to the Sepulchre. Bishop Lightfoot remarks concerning S. Luke ix. 56: xxii. 43, 44: and xxiii. 34,—“It seems impossible to believe that these incidents are other than authentic,”—(p. 28.)InS. Johniii. 13, the solemn clause“which is in heaven:”—in v. 3, 4, the omitted incident ofthe troubling of the pool:—in vii. 53 to viii. 11,the narrative concerning the woman taken in adulteryomitted,—concerning which Drs. W. and H. remark that“the argument which has always told most in its favour in modern times is its own internal character. The story itself has justly seemedto vouch for its own substantial truth, and the words in which it is clothed to harmonize with those of other Gospel narratives”—(p. 87). Bishop Lightfoot remarks that“the narrative bears on its face the highest credentials of authentic history”—(p. 28).740.To some extent, even the unlearned Reader may easily convince himself of this, by examining the rejected“alternative”Readings in the margin of the“Revised Version.”The“Many”and the“Some ancient authorities,”there spoken of,almost invariably include—sometimesdenote—codd.bא, one or both of them. These constitute the merest fraction of the entire amount of corrupt readings exhibited bybא; but they will give English readers some notion of the problem just now under consideration.Besides the details already supplied [see above, pages16and17:—30and31:—46and47:—75:—249:—262:—289:—316to 319] concerningband א,—(the result of laborious collation,)—some particulars shall now be added. The piercing of ourSaviour'sside, thrust in after Matt. xxvii. 49:—the eclipse of the sun when the moon was full, in Lu. xxiii. 45:—the monstrous figment concerning Herod's daughter, thrust into Mk. vi. 22:—the precious clauses omitted in Matt. i. 25 and xviii. 11:—in Lu. ix. 54-6, and in Jo. iii. 13:—the wretched glosses in Lu. vi. 48: x. 42: xv. 21: Jo. x. 14 and Mk. vi. 20:—the substitution of οινον (for οξος) in Matt. xxvii. 34,—of Θεος (for υιος) in Jo. i. 18,—of ανθρωπου (for Θεου) in ix. 35,—of οὑ (for ῷ) in Rom. iv. 8:—the geographical blunder in Mk. vii. 31: in Lu. iv. 44:—the omission in Matt. xii. 47,—and of two important verses in Matt. xvi. 2, 3:—of ιδια in Acts i. 19:—of εγειραι και in iii. 6;—and of δευτεροπρωτω in Lu. vi. 1:—the two spurious clauses in Mk. iii. 14, 16:—the obvious blunders in Jo. ix. 4 and 11:—in Acts xii. 25—besides the impossible reading in 1 Cor. xiii. 3,—make up a heavy indictment againstband א jointly—which are here found in company with just a very few disreputable allies. Add, the plain error at Lu. ii. 14:—the gloss at Mk. v. 36:—the mere fabrication at Matt. xix. 17:—the omissions at Matt. vi. 13: Jo. v. 3, 4.b(in company with others, but apart from א) by exhibiting βαπτισαντες in Matt. xxviii. 19:—ὡδε των in Mk. ix. 1:—“seventy-two,”in Lu. x. 1:—the blunder in Lu. xvi. 12:—and the grievous omissions in Lu. xxii. 43, 44 (Christ'sAgony in the Garden),—and xxiii. 34 (His prayer for His murderers),—enjoys unenviable distinction.—b, singly, is remarkable for an obvious blunder in Matt. xxi. 31:—Lu. xxi. 24:—Jo. xviii. 5:—Acts x. 19—and xvii. 28:—xxvii. 37:—not to mention the insertion of δεδομενον in Jo. vii. 39.א (in company with others, but apart fromb) is conspicuous for its sorry interpolation of Matt. viii. 13:—its substitution of εστιν (for ην) in S. John i. 4:—its geographical blunder in S. Luke xxiv. 13:—its textual blunder at 1 Pet. i. 23.—א, singly, is remarkable for its sorry paraphrase in Jo. ii. 3:—its addition to i. 34:—its omissions in Matt. xxiii. 35:—Mk. i. 1:—Jo. ix. 38:—its insertion of Ησαιου in Matt. xiii. 35:—its geographical blunders in Mk. i. 28:—Lu. i. 26:—Acts viii. 5:—besides the blunders in Jo. vi. 51—and xiii. 10:—1 Tim. iii. 16:—Acts xxv. 13:—and the clearly fabricated narrative of Jo. xiii. 24. Add the fabricated text at Mk. xiv. 30, 68, 72; of which the object was“so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter's denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed twice.”741.Characteristic, and fatal beyond anything that can be named are, (1) Theexclusiveomission byband א of Mark xvi. 9-20:—(2) The omission of εν Εφεσῳ, from Ephes. i. 1:—(3) The blunder, αποσκιασματος, in James i. 17:—(4) The nonsensical συστρεφομενων in Matt. xvii. 22:—(5) That“vile error,”(as Scrivener calls it,) περιελοντες, in Acts xxviii. 13:—(6) The impossible order of words in Lu. xxiii. 32; and (7) The extraordinary order in Acts i. 5:—(8) The omission of the last clause of theLord'sprayer, in Lu. xi. 4; and (9) Of that solemn verse, Matt. xvii. 21; and (10) Of ισχυρον in Matt. xiv. 30:—(11) The substitution of εργων (for τεκνων) in Matt. xi. 29:—(12) Of ελιγμα (for μιγμα) in Jo. xix. 39,—and (13) of ην τεθειμενος (for ετεθη) in John xix. 41. Then, (14) The thrusting of Χριστος into Matt. xvi. 21,—and (15) Of ὁ Θεος into vi. 8:—besides (16) So minute a peculiarity as Βεεζεβουλ in Matt. x. 35: xii. 24, 27: Lu. xi. 15, 18, 19. (17) Add, the gloss at Matt. xvii. 20, and (18) The omissions at Matt. v. 22: xvii. 21.—It must be admitted that such peculiar blemishes, taken collectively, constitute a proof of affinity of origin,—community of descent from one and the same disreputable ancestor. But space fails us.The Reader will be interested to learn that although, in the Gospels,bcombines exclusively witha, but 11 times; and withc, but 38 times: withd, it combines exclusively 141 times, and with א, 239 times: (viz. in Matt. 121,—in Mk. 26,—in Lu. 51,—in Jo. 41 times).Contrast it witha:—which combines exclusively withd, 21 times: with א 13 times: withb, 11 times: withc, 4 times.742.The Reviewer speaks from actual inspection of both documents. They are essentially dissimilar. The learned Ceriani assured the Reviewer (in 1872) that whereas the Vatican Codex must certainly have been writtenin Italy,—the birthplace of the Sinaitic was [notEgypt, but]either Palestine or Syria. Thus, considerations of time and place effectually dispose of Tischendorf's preposterous notion that the Scribe of Codexbwrotesix leavesof א: an imagination which solely resulted from the anxiety of the Critic to secure for his own cod. א the same antiquity which is claimed for the vaunted cod.b.This opinion of Dr. Tischendorf's rests on the same fanciful basis as his notion thatthe last verseof S. John's Gospel in א was not written by the same hand which wrote the rest of the Gospel. There isno manner of difference: though of course it is possible that the scribe took a new pen, preliminary to writing that last verse, and executing the curious and delicate ornament which follows. Concerning S. Jo. xxi. 25, see above, pp.23-4.743.Tischendorf's narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript (“When were our Gospels written?”), [1866,] p. 23.744.“Papyrus Inédit de la Bibliothèque de M. Ambroise Firmin-Didot. Nouveaux fragments d'Euripide et d'autres Poètes Grecs, publiés par M. Henri Weil. (Extrait desMonumens Grecs publiés par l'Association pour l'encouragement des Etudes Grecques en France. Année 1879.)”Pp. 36.745.The rest of the passage may not be without interest to classical readers:—“Ce n'est pas à dire qu'elle soit tout à fait sans intérêt, sans importance: pour la constitution du texte. Elle nous apprend que, au vers 5, ἀρίστων, pour ἀριστέων (correction de Wakefield) était déjà l'ancienne vulgate; et que les vers 11 et 12, s'ils sont altérés, comme l'assurent quelques éditeurs d'Euripide, l'étaient déjà dans l'antiquité.“L'homme ... était aussi ignorant que négligent. Je le prends pour un Egyptien n'ayant qu'une connoissance très imparfaite de la langue grecque, et ne possédant aucune notion ni sur l'orthographe, ni sur les règles les plus élémentaires du trimètre iambique. Le plus singulier est qu'il commence sa copie au milieu d'un vers et qu'il la finisse de même. Il oublie des lettres nécessaires, il en ajoute de parasites, il les met les unes pour les autres, il tronque les mots ou il les altère, au point de détruire quelquefois la suite de la construction et le sens du passage.”A faithful copy of the verses in minuscule characters is subjoined for the gratification of Scholars. We have but divided the words and inserted capital letters:—“ανδρων αριστων οι δε πανχρυσον δεροςΠελεια μετηλθον ου γαρ τον δεσπονα εμηνΜηδια πυργους γης επλευσε Ειολκιαςερωτι θυμωδ εγπλαγις Ιανοσονοςοτ αν κτανει πισας Πελειαδας κουραςπατερα κατοικη τηνδε γην Κορινθιανσυν ανδρι και τεκνοισιν ανδανοισα μενφυγη πολιτων ων αφηκετο χθονος.”An excellent scholar (R. C. P.) remarks,—“The fragment must have been written from dictation (of small parts, as it seems to me); and by an illiterate scribe. It is just such a result as one might expect from a half-educated reader enunciating Milton for a half-educated writer.”746.See p.324note1.—Photius [cod. 48] says that“Gaius”was a presbyter of Rome, and ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπος. See Routh'sReliqq.ii. 125.747.Eusebius,Hist. Ecol.v. 28 (ap. Routh'sReliqq.ii. 132-4).748.Tregelles, Part ii. p. 2.749.Scrivener's prefatoryIntroduction,—p. xix.750.Ibid.p. iii.751.On Revision,—p. 47.752.Singular to relate, S. Mark x. 17 to 31exactlyfills two columns of cod. א. (See Tischendorf's reprint, 4to, p. 24*.)753.Clemens Al. (ed. Potter),—pp. 937-8.... Note, how Clemens begins § v. (p. 938, line 30). This will be found noticed below, viz. at p.336, note 3.754.“This Text”(say the Editors)“isan attempt to reproduce at once the autograph Text.”—Introduction, p. xxviii.755.Westcott and Hort'sIntroduction, pp. 112-3.756.Besides,—All but L. conspire 5 times.All but T. 3 times.All but Tr. 1 time.Then,—T. Tr. WH. combine 2 timesT. WH. RT. 1 timeTr. WH. RT. 1 timeL. Tr. WH. 1 timeThen,—L. T. stand by themselves 1 timeL. Tr. 1 timeT. WH. 1 timeLastly,—L. stands alone 4 times.Total: 21.757.Twicehe agrees with all 5: viz. omitting ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν in ver. 21; and in omitting ῆ γυναῖκα (in ver. 29):—Oncehe agrees with only Lachmann: viz. in transposing ταῦτα πάντα (in ver. 20).758.On the remaining 5 occasions (17 + 3 + 5 = 25), Clemens exhibits peculiar readings of his own,—sides withno one.759.Q. R.p. 360.760.Article xx. § 1.761.Εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—S. John xvi. 13.762.Theodoret,Opp.iv. 208.—Comp. Clinton,F. R.ii.Appendix, p. 473.763.The reader is invited to enquire for Bp. Kaye (of Lincoln)'sAccount of the writings of Clement of Alexandria,—and to read the vith and viiith chapters.764.Ταῦτα μὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται. (§ v.),—p. 938.765.Alford's N. T. vol. i. proleg. p. 92.766.See p. 197 (§ 269): and p. 201 (§ 275-9):—and p. 205 (§ 280).767.Preface(1870), p. xv.768.See above, pp.79to 85.769.Pp.359-60.770.P. 210 to p. 287. See the Contents, pp. xxiii.-xxviii.771.Pp. 91-119 and pp. 133-146.772.“I perceiveda large and wide basketfull of old parchments; and the librarian told me that two heaps like this had been alreadycommitted to the flames.What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers,”&c.—(Narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript,p. 23.)773.τὴν παρακαταθήκην.—1 Tim. vi. 20.774.[While this sheet is passing through the press, I find among my papers a note (written in 1876) by the learned, loved, and lamented Editor of Cyril,—Philip E. Pusey,—with whom I used to be in constant communication:—“It is not obvious to me, looking at the subject from outside, whyb c l, constituting a class of MSS. allied to each other, and therefore nearly = 1-½ MSS., are to be held to be superior toa. It is still less obvious to me why —— showing up (as he does) very many grave faults ofb, should yet considerbsuperior in character toa.”]775.Introduction, p. 567.776.Let the following places be considered: S. Jo. i. 13; iii. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8; 1 Jo. ii. 29; iii. 9bis, iv. 7; v. 1bis, 4, 18bis.Whyis it to be supposed that on this last occasionthe Eternal Sonshould be intended?777.a*,b, 105.778.The paraphrase is interesting. The Vulgate, Jerome [ii. 321, 691], Cassian [p. 409],—“Sed generatio Dei conservat eum:”Chromatius [Gall. viii. 347], and Vigilius Taps. [ap. Athanas. ii. 646],—“Quia (quoniam) nativitas Dei custodit (servat) illum.”In a letter of 5 Bishops to Innocentius I. (a.d.410) [Galland. viii. 598 b], it is,—“Nativitas quæ ex Deo est.”Such a rendering (viz.“his having been born ofGod”) amounts to aninterpretationof the place.779.From the Rev. S. C. Malan, D.D.780.iv. 326 b c.781.Gall. viii. 347,—of which the Greek is to be seen in Cramer'sCat.pp. 143-4. Many portions of the lost Text of this Father, (the present passage included [p. 231]) are to be found in the Scholia published by C. F. Matthæi [N. T. xi. 181 to 245-7].782.i. 94, 97.783.InCat.p. 124, repeated p. 144.784.iii. 433 c.785.ii. 601 d.786.By putting a small uncial Ε above the Α.787.Diocesan Progress, Jan. 1882.—[pp. 20] p. 19.788.Introduction, p. 283.Notes, pp. 3, 22, andpassim.789.Sermons, vol. i. 132,—(“A form of sound words to be used by Ministers.”)790.Quoted by ps.-EphraemEvan. Conc.p. 135 l. 2:—Nonnus:—Chrys. viii. 248:—Cyril iv. 269 e, 270 a, 273:—Cramer'sCat.p. 242 l. 25 (which isnotfrom Chrys.):—Chron. Paschale217 a (diserte).—Recognized by Melito (a.d.170):—Irenæus (a.d.177):—Hippolytus (a.d.190):—Origen:—Eusebius:—Apollinarius Laod., &c.791.This is thetruereason of the eagerness which has been displayed in certain quarters to find ὅς, (not Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16:—just as nothing else but a determination thatChristshall not be spoken of as ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, has occasioned the supposed doubt as to the construction of Rom. ix. 5,—in which we rejoice to find that Dr. Westcott refuses to concur with Dr. Hort.792.See Dr. W. H. Mill'sUniversity Sermons(1845),—pp. 301-2 and 305:—a volume which should be found in every clergyman's library.793.Rev. xxii. 18, 19.794.ἀφανισθήσονται.795.This happens not unfrequently in codices of the type of א andb. A famous instance occurs at Col. ii. 18, (ἂ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων,—“prying into the things he hath not seen”); where א*a b d* and a little handful of suspicious documents leave out the“not.”Our Editors, rather than recognize this blunder (so obvious and ordinary!), are for conjecturing Α ΕΟΡΑΚΕΝ ΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ into ΑΕΡΑ ΚΕΝΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ; which (if it means anything at all) may as well mean,—“proceeding on an airy foundation to offer an empty conjecture.”Dismissing that conjecture as worthless, we have to set off the whole mass of the copies—against some 6 or 7:—Irenæus (i. 847), Theodoras Mops, (inloc.), Chrys. (xi. 372), Theodoret (iii. 489, 490), John Damascene (ii. 211)—against no Fathers at all (for Origen once has μή [iv. 665]; once, has it not [iii. 63]; and once is doubtful [i. 583]). Jerome and Augustine both take notice of the diversity of reading,but only to reject it.—The Syriac versions, the Vulgate, Gothic, Georgian, Sclavonic, Æthiopic, Arabic and Armenian—(we owe the information, as usual, to Dr. Malan)—are to be set against the suspicious Coptic. All these then are with the Traditional Text: which cannot seriously be suspected of error.796.εὑρεθήσεται.797.Augustin, vii. 595.798.ii. 467: iii. 865:—ii. 707: iii. 800:—ii. 901.In Luc. pp. 428, 654.799.ii. 347.800.Preface to“Provisional issue,”p. xxi.801.Introduction, p. 210.802.Ibid. p. 276.803.Apud Mai, vi. 105.804.Opp.vii. 543. Comp. 369.805.Ap. Cramer,Cat.vi. 187.806.So, Nilus, i. 270.807.Interp.595: 607.808.Dem. Evan.p. 444.809.P. 306.810.Epist. ad Zen.iii. 1. 78. Note, that our learned Cave considered this to be agenuinework of Justin M. (a.d.150).811.Cantic.(an early work)interp.iii. 39,—though elsewhere (i. 112, 181 [?]: ii. 305int.[butnotii. 419]) he is for leaving out εἰκῆ.812.Gall. iii. 72 and 161.813.ii. 89 b and e (partly quoted in theCat.of Nicetas)expressly: 265.814.i. 818expressly.815.ii. 312 (preserved in Jerome's Latin translation, i. 240).816.i. 132; iii. 442.817.472, 634.818.Ap. Chrys.819.iii. 768:apud Mai, ii. 6 and iii. 268.820.i. 48, 664; iv. 946.821.Cramer'sCat.viii. 12, line 14.822.128, 625.823.Gall. vi. 181.824.Gall. x. 14.825.Gall. vii. 509.826.i. 27, written when he was 42; and ii. 733, 739, written when he was 84.827.vii. 26,—“Radendum est ergosine causâ.”And so, at p. 636.828.1064.829.ii. 261.830.ii. 592.831.Amphilochia, (Athens, 1858,)—p. 317. Also inCat.832.Apophthegm. PP.[ap. Cotel.Eccl. Gr. Mon.i. 622].833.S. Matth. xv. 14.834.Gospel of the Resurrection,—p. vii.835.Introduction, pp. 300-2.836.Ibid.p. 299.837.Appendix, p. 66.838.See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 432.839.On Revision,—p. 99.840.Speech in Convocation, Feb. 1870, (p. 83.)841.On Revision,—p. 205.842.Address to Lincoln Diocesan Conference,—p. 25.843.Ibid.,—p. 27.844.Considerations on Revision,—p. 44. The Preface is dated 23rd May, 1870. The Revisers met on the 22nd of June.We learn from Dr. Newth'sLectures on Bible Revision(1881), that,—“As the general Rules under which the Revision was to be carried out had been carefully prepared, no need existed for any lengthened discussion of preliminary arrangements, and the Company upon its first meeting was able to enter at once upon its work”(p. 118) ...“The portion prescribed for the first session was Matt. i. to iv.”(p. 119) ...“The question of the spelling of proper names ... being settled, the Company proceeded to the actual details of the Revision, and in a surprisingly short time settled down to an established method of procedure.”—“All proposals made at the first Revision were decided by simple majorities”(p. 122) ...“The questions which concerned the Greek Text were decided for the most part at the First Revision.”(Bp. Ellicott'sPamphlet, p. 34.)845.The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, by two Members of the New Testament Company,—1882. Macmillan, pp. 79, price two shillings and sixpence.846.“To these two articles—so far, at least, as they are concerned with the Greek Text adopted by the Revisers—our Essay is intended for an answer.”—p. 79.847.See above, pages235to 366.848.Article III.,—see last note.849.Pamphlet, p. 79.850.The Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered in its bearings upon the record of ourLord'sWords and of incidents in His Life,—(1882. pp. 250. Murray,)—p. 232. Canon Cook's temperate and very interesting volume will be found simply unanswerable.851.P. 40.852.Ibid.853.As at p. 4, and p. 12, and p. 13, and p. 19, and p. 40.854.See above, pp.348-350.855.P. 40.856.P. 40.857.P. 77.858.P. 41, and so at p. 77.859.P. 41.860.P. 5.861.P. 3.862.P. 77.863.On Revision, pp. 47-8.864.Scrivener'sIntroduction,—p. 423.865.Ibid.p. 421.866.“Non tantum totius Antiquitatis altum de tali opere suscepto silentium,—sed etiam frequentes Patrum, usque ad quartum seculum viventium, de textu N. T. liberius tractato, impuneque corrupto, deque summâ Codicum dissonantiâ querelæ, nec non ipsæ corruptiones inde a primis temporibus continuo propagatæ,—satis sunt documento, neminem opus tam arduum, scrupulorum plenum, atque invidiæ et calumniis obnoxium, aggressum fuisse; etiamsi doctiorum Patrum de singulis locis disputationes ostendant, eos non prorsus rudes in rebus criticis fuisse.”—Codd. MSS. N. T. Græcorum &c. nova descriptio, et cum textu vulgo recepto Collatio, &c.4to. Gottingæ, 1847. (p. 4.)867.He proceeds:—“Hucusque nemini contigit, nec in posterum, puto, continget, monumentorum nostrorum, tanquam totidem testium singulorum, ingens agmen ad tres quatuorve, e quibus omnium testimonium pendeat, testes referre; aut e testium grege innumero aliquot duces auctoresque secernere, quorum testimonium tam plenum, certum firmumque sit, ut sine damno ceterorum testimonio careamus.”—Ibid.(p. 19.)868.Commentarius Criticus in N. T.(in his Preface to the Ep. to the Hebrews). We are indebted to Canon Cook for calling attention to this. See by all means hisRevised Text of the first three Gospels,—pp. 4-8.869.It requires to be stated, that, (as explained by the Abbé to the present writer,) the“Post-scriptum”of his Fascic. IV., (viz. from p. 234 to p. 236,) is ajeu d'espritonly,—intended to enliven a dry subject, and to entertain his pupils.870.It seems to have escaped Bishop Ellicott's notice, (and yet the fact well deserves commemoration) that the claims of Tischendorf and Tregelles on the Church's gratitude, are not by any means founded onthe Textswhich they severally put forth. As in the case of Mill, Wetstein and Birch, their merit is that theypatiently accumulated evidence.“Tischendorf's reputation as a Biblical scholar rests less on his critical editions of the N. T., than on the texts of the chief uncial authorities which in rapid succession he gave to the world.”(Scrivener'sIntroduction,—p. 427.)871.P. 12.872.P. 13.873.See above, pp. 12: 30-3: 34-5: 46-7: 75: 94-6: 249: 262: 289: 319.874.P. 40.875.P. 19.876.P. 4.877.Acts xix. 35.878.Suprà, pp.339-41.879.P. 13.880.Bp. Ellicott,On Revision, &c.—p. 30.881.P. 15.882.P. 16.883.P. 17.884.P. 18.885.P. 19.886.P. 19.887.P. 20.888.P. 21.889.Pp. 23-4.890.Supra, pp.258-266.891.Pp. 25-7.892.SeeArt.III.,—viz. from p.235to p. 366.893.You refer to such places as pp. 87-8 and 224, where see the Notes.894.Chronicle of Convocation, Feb. 1870, p. 83.895.See above, p.368.896.The clause (“and sayest thou, Who touched me?”) is witnessed to bya c d p r xΓ Δ Λ Ξ Π andevery other known uncial except three of bad character: by every known cursive but four:—by the Old Latin and Vulgate: by all the four Syriac: by the Gothic and the Æthiopic Versions; as well as by ps.-Tatian (Evan. Concord, p. 77) and Chrysostom (vii. 359 a). It cannot be pretended that the words are derived from S. Mark's Gospel (as Tischendorf coarsely imagined);—for the sufficient reason thatthe words are not found there. In S. Mark (v. 31) it is,—καὶ λέγεις, Τίς μου ἥψατο; in S. Luke (viii. 45), καὶ λέγεις, Τίς ὁ ἁψάμενός μου. Moreover, this delicate distinction has been maintained all down the ages.897.Page154to p. 164.898.You will perhaps remind me that you do not read ἐξελθοῦσαν. I am aware that you have tacitly substituted ἐξεληλυθυῖαν,—which is only supported byfourmanuscripts of bad character: being disallowed byeighteen uncials, (witha c dat their head,) andevery known cursive but one; besides the following Fathers:—Marcion (Epiph. i. 313 a, 327 a.) (a.d.150),—Origen (iii. 466 e.),—the author ofthe Dialogus(Orig. i. 853 d.) (a.d.325),—Epiphanius (i. 327 b.),—Didymus (pp. 124, 413.), in two places,—Basil (iii. 8 c.),—Chrysostom (vii. 532 a.),—Cyril (Opp. vi. 99 e. Mai, ii. 226.) in two places,—ps.-Athanasius (ii. 14 c.) (a.d.400),—ps.-Chrysostom (xiii. 212 e f.).... Is it tolerable that the Sacred Text should be put to wrongs after this fashion, by a body of men who are avowedly (for see page369) unskilled in Textual Criticism, and who were appointed only to revise the authorizedEnglish Version?899.This I make the actual sum, after deducting for marginal notes and variations in stops.900.I mean such changes as ἠγέρθη for ἐγήγερται (ix. 7),—φέρετε for ἐνένκαντες (xv. 23), &c. These are generally the result of a change of construction.901.MS. communication from my friend, the Editor902.I desire to keep out of sight thecritical improprietyof such corrections of the text. And yet, it is worth stating that אb larethe only witnesses discoverablefor the former, andalmost the onlywitnesses to be found for the latter of these two utterly unmeaning changes.903.Characteristic of these two false-witnesses is it, that they are not able to convey eventhisshort message correctly. In reporting the two words ἔρχωμαι ἐνθάδε, they contrive to make two blunders.bsubstitutes διέρχομαι for διέρχωμαι: א, ὦδε for ἐνθάδε,—which latter eccentricity Tischendorf (characteristically) does not allude to in his note ...“These be thy gods, O Israel!”904.Rev. xxii. 19.905.iv. 28, c. 1 (p. 655 = Mass. 265). Note that the reference isnotto S. Matt. x. 15.906.P. 123.907.Viz. vi. 7-13.908.i. 199 and 200.909.In loc.910.See above, pp.347-9.911.See above, pp.79-85.912.See above, pp.409-411.913.See above, p.399.914.Bp. Ellicotton Revision, p. 30.915.The Bp. attendedonly one meetingof the Revisers. (Newth, p. 125.)916.Page 4.917.See above, pp.41to 47.918.Pages 17, 18.919.See above, p.37, note 1.920.Pages98-106.921.Pages 64-76.922.The exceptions are not worth noticinghere.923.N. T. ed. 2da. 1807, iii. 442-3.924.i. 887 c.925.CalledAncoratus, written in Pamphylia,a.d.373. The extract inAdv. Hær.extends from p. 887 to p. 899 (=Ancor.ii. 67-79).926.ii. 74 b. Note, that to begin the quotation at the word ἐφανερώθη was a frequent practice with the ancients, especially when enough had been said already to make it plain that it was of theSonthey were speaking, or when it would have been nothing to the purpose to begin with Θεός. Thus Origen, iv. 465 c:—Didymus on 1 JohnapudGalland. vi. 301 a:—Nestorius,apudCyril, vi. 103 e:—ps-Chrysost. x. 763 c, 764 c:—and the Latin of Cyril v.1785. So indeed ps-Epiphanius, ii. 307 c.927.i. 894 c.928.ApudTheodoret, v. 719.929.iv. 622 a,—qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu.930.De incarn. Unig.v. part i. 680 d e =De rectâ fide, v. part ii. b c.931.Ibid.681 a =ibid.6 d e.932.Page98.933.Note at the end of Bishop Ellicott's Commentary on 1 Timothy.934.Berriman's MS. Note in the British Museum copy of hisDissertation,—p. 154. Another annotated copy is in the Bodleian.935.“Certe quidem in exemplari Alexandrino nostro, linea illa transversa quam loquor, adeo exilis ac plane evanida est, ut primo intuitu haud dubitarim ipse scriptumΟΣ, quod proinde in variantes lectiones conjeceram.... Verum postea perlustrato attentius loco, lineolæ, quæ primam aciem fugerat, ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa deprehendi, præsertim ad partem sinistram, quæ peripheriam literæ pertingit,”&c.—In loco.936.Clem. Rom.ed. Wotton, p. 27.937.Berriman, pp. 154-5.938.Ibid.(MS. Note.) Berriman adds other important testimony, p. 156.939.Dissertation, p. 156. Berriman refers to the fact that some one in recent times, with a view apparently to establish the actual reading of the place, has clumsily thickened the superior stroke with common black ink, and introduced a rude dot into the middle of the θ. There has been no attempt at fraud. Such a line and such a dot could deceive no one.940.“Quanquam lineola, quæ Θεός compendiose scriptum ab ὅς distinguitur, sublesta videtur nonnullis.”—N. T. p. 710.941.Griesbach in 1785 makes the same report:—“Manibus hominum inepte curiosorum ea folii pars quæ dictum controversum continet, adeo detrita est, ut nemo mortalium hodie certi quidquam discernere possit ... Non oculos tantum sed digitos etiam adhibuisse videntur, ut primitivam illius loci lectionem eruerent et velut exsculperent.”(Symb. Crit.i. p. x.) The MS. was evidently in precisely the same state when the Rev. J. C. Velthusen (Observations on Various Subjects, pp. 74-87) inspected it in 1773.942.As C. F. Matthæi [N. T. m. xi.Præfat.pp. lii.-iii.] remarks:—“cum de DivinitateChristiagitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur.”Woide instances it as an example of the force of prejudice, that Wetstein“apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ adscripsisse,quia eam abesse volebat.”[Præfat.p. xxxi.]943.“Patet, ut alia mittamus, e consensu Versionum,”&c.—ii. 149.944.Woide,ibid.945.Supra, p.100.946.Introduction, p. 553.947.Introd.p. 553.948.Any one desirous of understanding this question fully, should (besides Berriman's admirableDissertation) read Woide'sPræfatioto his edition of Codex A, pp. xxx. to xxxii. (§ 87).—“Erunt fortasse quidam”(he writes in conclusion)“qui suspicabuntur, nonnullos hanc lineolam diametralem in medio Θ vidisse, quoniam eam videre volebant. Nec negari potest præsumptarum opinionum esse vim permagnam. Sed idem, etiam Wetstenio, nec immerito, objici potest, eam apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ adscripsisse, quia eam abesse volebat. Et eruditissimis placere aliquando, quæ vitiosa sunt, scio: sed omnia testimonia, omnemque historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere non licet: nec mirum est nos ea nunc non discernere, quæ, antequam nos Codicem vidissemus, evanuerant.”949.Prolegomenato his ed. of Cod.c,—pp. 39-42.950.“Ος habet codexc, ut puto; nam lineola illa tenuis, quæ ex Ο facit Θ, non apparet.”(In loc.) And so Griesbach,Symb. Crit.i. p. viii. (1785).951.“Quotiescunque locum inspiciebam (inspexi autem per hoc biennium sæpissime) mihi prorsus apparebat.”“Quam [lineolam] miror hucusque omnium oculos fugisse.”[Prolegg.p. 41].... Equidem miror sane.952.Page 75.953.Pages 64, 69, 71, 75.—Some have pointed out that oppositeΟΣinf—aboveΟΣing,—is written“quod.”Yes, but not“qui.”The Latin version is independent of the Greek. In S. Mark xi. 8, above ΑΓΡΩΝ is written“arboribus;”and in 1 Tim. iv. 10, ΑΓΩΝΙΖΟΜΕΘΑ is translated byf“maledicimur,”—byg,“exprobramur vel maledicimur.”954.Introduction toCod. Augiensis, p. xxviij.955.E.g.Out of ΟΜΕΝΤΟΙΣΤΕΡΕΟΣ [2 Tim. ii. 19], they both make Ο · μεν · το · ισ · τεραιος. For ὑγιαίνωσιν [Tit. i. 13], both write υγει · ενωσειν:—for καινὴ κτίσις [2 Cor. v. 17] both give και · νηκτισις:—for ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες [1 Tim. iii. 10], both exhibit ανευ · κλητοιον · εχοντες (“nullum crimen habentes”):—for ὡς γάγγραινα νομὴν ἕξει [2 Tim. ii. 17], both exhibit ως · γανγρα · ινα · (F G) νομηνεξει, (G, who writes above the words“sicut cancer ut serpat”).956.He must be held responsible for ὝΠΟΚΡΙΣΙ in place of ὑποκρίσει [1 Tim. iv. 2]: ΑΣΤΙΖΟΜΕΝΟΣ instead of λογιζόμενος [2 Cor. v. 19]: ΠΡΙΧΟΤΗΤΙ instead of πραότητι [2 Tim. ii. 25]. And he was the author of ΓΕΡΜΑΝΕ in Phil. iv. 3: as well as of Ο δε πνευμα in 1 Tim. iv. 1.But the scribes offandgalso were curiously innocent of Greek.gsuggests that γυναιξειν (in 1 Tim. ii. 10) may be“infinitivus”—(of course from γυναίκω).957.Introduction, p. 155.958.Thirteen times between Rom. i. 7 and xiii. 1.959.E.g.Gal. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 55; 2 Cor. vi. 11 (ος andο). Those who have Matthæi's reprint ofgat hand are invited to refer to the last line of fol. 91: (1 Tim. vi. 20) where Ὦ Τιμόθεε is exhibited thus:—ΟὮ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΕ.960.Col. ii. 22, 23: iii. 2.961.As 1 Tim. iii. 1: iv. 14: vi. 15. Consider the practice offin 1 Thess. i. 9 (Ο; ΠΟΙΑΝ): in 2 Cor. viii. 11, 14 (Ο; ΠΩΣ).962.Rarest of all are instances of this mark over the Latin“e”: but we meet with“spē”(Col. i. 23):“sē”(ii. 18):rēpēntes(2 Tim. iii. 6), &c. So, in the Greek, ἡ or ᾗ writtenΗare most unusual.—A few instances are found of“u”with this appendage, as“domūs”(1 Tim. v. 13):“spiritū”(1 Cor. iv. 21), &c.963.This information is obtained from a photograph of the page procured from Dresden through the kindness of the librarian, Counsellor Dr. Forstemann.964.See Rettig'sProlegg.pp. xxiv.-v.965.“You will perceive that I have now succeeded in identifying every Evangelium hitherto spoken of as existing in Florence, with the exception of Evan 365 [Act. 145, Paul 181] (Laurent vi. 36), &c., which is said to‘contain also the Psalms.’I assure you no such Codex exists in the Laurentian Library; no, nor ever did exist there. Dr. Anziani devoted full an hour to the enquiry, allowing me [for I was very incredulous] to see the process whereby he convinced himself that Scholz is in error. It was just such an intelligent and exhaustive process as Coxe of the Bodleian, or dear old Dr. Bandinel before him, would have gone through under similar circumstances. Pray strike that Codex off your list; and with it‘Acts 145’and‘Paul 181.’I need hardly say that Bandini's Catalogue knows nothing of it. It annoys me to be obliged to add that I cannot even find out the history of Scholz's mistake.”—Guardian, August 27, 1873.966.“Whoseword on such matters is entitled to most credit,—the word of the Reviewer, or the word of the most famous manuscript collators of this century?... Those who have had occasion to seek in public libraries for manuscripts which are not famous for antiquity or beauty or completeness (sic), know that the answer‘non est inventus’is no conclusive reason for believing that the object of their quest has not been seen and collated in former years by those who profess to have actually seen and collated it. That 181‘is non-existent’must be considered unproven.”—Bp. Ellicott'sPamphlet, p. 72.967.The learned Abbé Martin, who has obligingly inspected for me the 18 copies of the“Praxapostolus”in the Paris library, reports as follows concerning“Apost. 12”( = Reg. 375),—“A very foul MS. of small value, I believe: but a curious specimen of bad Occidental scholarship. It was copied for the monks of S. Denys, and exhibits many Latin words; having been apparently revised on the Latin. The lection is assigned to Σαββάτῳ λ᾽ (not λδ᾽) in this codex.”968.“Codices Cryptenses seu Abbatiæ Cryptæ Ferratæ in Tusculano, digesti et illustrati cura et studioD. Antonii Rocchi, Hieromonachi Basiliani Bibliothecæ custodis,”—Tusculani, fol. 1882.—I have received 424 pages (1 May, 1883).969.Not a few of the Basilian Codices have been transferred to the Vatican.970.In anAppendixto the present volume, I will give fuller information. I am still (3rd May, 1883) awaiting replies to my troublesome interrogatories addressed to the heads of not a few continental libraries.971.Rufinus, namely (fl.a.d.395).Opp.iv. 465972.MS. letter to myself, August 11, 1879.973.MS. letter from the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John's College, Oxford.974.See above, page429.975.Page 71. And so p. 65 and 69.976.MS. letter to myself.977.See above, page429.978.Ulfilas. Veteris et Novi Test. Versionis Goth. fragmenta quæ supersunt, &c. 4to. 1843.979.“Si tamen Uppström‘obscurum’dixit, non‘incertum,’fides illi adhiberi potest, quia diligentissime apices omnes investigabat; me enim præsente in aula codicem tractabat.”—(Private letter to myself.)Ceriani proceeds,—“Quæris quomodo componatur cum textu 1 Tim. iii. 16, nota54Proleg.Gabelentz Gothicam versionem legens Θεός. Putarem ex loco Castillionæi in notis ad Philip. ii. 6, locutos fuisse doctos illos Germanos, oblitos illius Routh præcepti‘Let me recommend to you the practice of always verifying your references, sir.’”The reader will be interested to be informed that Castiglione, the former editor of the codex, was in favour of“God”in 1835, and of“soei”(quæ[ = ὅ], to agree with“runa,”i.e.“mystery,”which is feminine in Gothic) in 1839. Gabelentz, in 1843, ventured to print“saei”= ὅς.“Et‘saei’legit etiam diligentissimus Andreas Uppström nuperus codicis Ambrosiani investigator et editor, in opereCodicis Gothici Ambrosiani sive Epist. Pauli, &c.Holmiæ et Lipsiæ, 1868.”980.Stuttgard, 1857.981.Of the department of Oriental MSS. in the Brit. Mus., who derives his text from“the three Museum MSS. which contain the Arabic Version of the Epistles: viz.Harl.5474 (dateda.d.1332):—Oriental1328 (Xth cent.):—Arundel Orient.19 (dateda.d.1616).”—Walton's Polyglott, he says, exhibits“a garbled version, quite distinct from the genuine Arabic: viz.‘These glories commemorate them in the greatness of the mystery of fair piety.Godappeared in the flesh,’”&c.982.See above, pp.271to 294.983.i. 387 a: 551 a: 663 abis.—ii. 430 a: 536 c: 581 c: 594 a, 595 b (these two, of the 2nd pagination): 693 d [ = ii. 265, ed. 1615, from which Tisch. quotes it. The place may be seen in full,supra, p.101.]—iii. 39 bbis: 67 a b.—Ap. Galland.vi. 518 c: 519 d: 520 b: 526 d: 532 a: 562 b: 566 d: 571 a. All but five of these places, I believe, exhibit ὁ Θεός,—which seems to have been the reading of this Father. The article is seldom seen in MSS. Only four instances of it,—(they will be found distinctly specified below, page493,note1),—are known to exist. More places must have been overlooked.Note, that Griesbach only mentions Gregory of Nyssa (whose name Tregelles omits entirely) to remark that he is not to be cited for Θεός; seeing that, according to him, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is to be read thus:—τὸ μυστήριον ἐν σαρκὶ ἐφανερώθη. Griesbach borrowed that quotation and that blunder from Wetstein; to be blindly followed in turn by Scholz and Alford. And yet, the words in question arenot the words of Gregory Nyss. at all; but of Apolinaris, against whom Gregory is writing,—as Gregory himself explains. [Antirrh. adv. Apol.apud Galland. vi. 522 d.]984.De Trin.p. 83. The testimony is express.985.i. 92: iii. 657.-iv. 19, 23.986.i. 313:—ii. 263.987.i. 497 c d e.—viii. 85 e: 86 a.—xi. 605 f: 606 a b d e.—(The first of these places occurs in the Homilyde Beato Philogonio, which Matthæi in the main [viz. from p. 497, line 20, to the end] edited from an independent source [Lectt. Mosqq.1779]. Gallandius [xiv.Append.141-4] reprints Matthæi's labours).—Concerning this place of Chrysostom (vide suprà, p.101), Bp. Ellicott says (p. 66),—“The passage which he [the Quarterly Reviewer] does allege, deserves to be placed before our readers in full, as an illustration of the precarious character of patristic evidence. If this passage attests the reading θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16, does it not also attest the reading ὁ θεός in Heb. ii. 16, where no copyist or translator has introduced it?”... I can but say, in reply,—“No, certainly not.”May I be permitted to add, that it is to me simply unintelligible how Bp. Ellicott can show himself soplanè hospesin this department of sacred Science as to be capable of gravely asking such a very foolish question?988.i. 215 a: 685 b. The places may be seen quotedsuprà, p.101.989.The place is quoted in Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 59.990.Antirrheticus, ap. Galland. vi. 517-77.991.The full title was,—Ἀπόδειξις περὶ τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως τῆς καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου.Ibid.518 b, c: 519 a.992.Apolinaris did not deny thatChristwas veryGod. His heresy (like that of Arius) turned upon the nature of the conjunction of the Godhead with the Manhood. Hear Theodoret:—Α. Θεὸς Λόγος σαρκὶ ἑνωθεὶς ἄνθρωπον ἀπετέλεσεν Θεόν. Ο. Τοῦτο οὖν λέγεις θείαν ἐμψυχίαν? Α. Καὶ πάνυ. Ο. Ἀντὶ ψυχῆς οὖν ὁ Λόγος? Α. Ναί.Dial.vi.adv. Apol.(Opp.v. 1080 = Athanas. ii. 525 d.)993.Cramer'sCat. in Actus, iii. 69. It is also met with in the Catena on the Acts which J. C. Wolf published in hisAnecdota Græca, iii. 137-8. The place is quoted above, p.102.994.Cramer'sCat. in Rom.p. 124.995.P. 67.996.P. 65.997.P. 65.998.See above, p.429.999.Bentley, Scholz, Tischendorf, Alford and others adduce“Euthalius.”1000.Concilia, i. 849-893. The place is quoted below in note 3.1001.“Verum ex illis verbis illud tantum inferri debet false eam epistolam Dionysio Alexandrino attribui: non autem scriptum non fuisse ab aliquo ex Episcopis qui Synodis adversus Paulum Antiochenum celebratis interfuerant. Innumeris enim exemplis constat indubitatæ antiquitatis Epistolas ex Scriptorum errore falsos titulos præferre.”—(Pagi ada.d.264, apud Mansi,Concil.i. 1039.)1002.εἶς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ὁ ῶν ἐν τῷ Πατρι συναΐδιος λόγος, ἕν αὐτοῦ πρόσωπον, ἀόρατος Θεός, καὶ ὁρατὸς γενόμενος; ΘΕῸΣ ΓᾺΡ ἘΦΑΝΕΡΏΘΗ ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός, ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθεὶς ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου—Concilia, i. 853 a.1003.Cap. xi.1004.Ad Ephes.c. 19: c. 7.Ad Magnes.c. 8.1005.Cap. xii.1006.Contra Hæresim Noeti, c. xvii. (Routh'sOpuscula, i. 76.) Read the antecedent chapters.1007.Dialog.ii. 'Inconfusus.'—Opp.iv. 132.1008.Cod. 230,—p. 845, line 40.1009.vii. 26,ap. Galland. iii. 182 a.1010.iii. 401-2,Epist.261 ( = 65). A quotation from Gal. iv. 4 follows.1011.μαθήσεται γὰρ ὅτι φύσει μὲν καὶ ἀληθείᾳ Θεός ἐστιν ὁ Ἐμμανουήλ, θεοτόκος δὲ δι᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ ἡ τεκοῦσα παρθένος.—Vol. v. Part ii. 48 e.1012.καὶ οὔτι που φαμὲν ὅτι καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Θεὸς ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς γεγονώς.—Opp.V. Part 2, p. 124 c d. (=Concilia, iii. 221 c d.)1013.N. T. vol. xi.Præfat.p. xli.1014.διὰ τοῦ ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθέντος Θεοῦ.—De Incarnatione Domini, Mai,Nov. PP. Bibliotheca, ii. 68.1015.Earlier in the same Treatise, Cyril thus grandly paraphrases 1 Tim. iii. 16:—τότε δὴ τότε τὸ μέγα καὶ ἄῤῥητον γίνεται τῆς οἰκονομίας μυστήριον; αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ δημιουργὸς ἁπάσης τῆς κτίσεως, ὁ ἀχώρητος, ὁ ἀπερίγραπτος, ὁ ἀναλλοίωτος, ἡ πηγὴ τῆς ζωῆς, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ φωτὸς φῶς, ἡ ζῶσα τοῦ Πατρὸς εἰκών, τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν φύσιν ἀναλαμβάνει.—Ibid.p. 37.1016.P. 153 d. (=Concilia, iii. 264 c d.)1017.Ibid, d e.1018.εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἕνα τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ἄνθρωπον ἁπλῶς, καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ μᾶλλον Θεὸν ἐνηνθρωπηκότα διεκήρυξαν οἰ μαθηταί κ.τ.λ. Presently,—μέγα γὰρ τότε τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐστὶ μυστήριον, πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος. p. 154 a b c.—In a subsequent page,—ὅ γε μὴν ἐνανθρωπήσας Θεός, καίτοι νομισθεὶς οὐδὲν ἕτερον εἶναι πλὴν ὅτι μόνον ἄνθρωπος ... ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, τετίμηται δὲ καὶ ὡς Υἱὸς ἀληθῶς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός ... Θεὸς εἶναι πεπιστευμένος.—Ibid.p. 170 d e.1019.Ἀναθεματισμὸς β᾽.—Εἴ τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ σαρκὶ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἡνῶσθαι τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγον, ἕνα τε εἶναι Χριστὸν μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός, τὸν αὐτὸν δηλονότι Θεόν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.—vi. 148 a.1020.Ibid.b, c, down to 149 a. (=Concilia, iii. 815 b-e.)1021.Preserved by Œcumenius in hisCatena, 1631, ii. 228.1022.Ellis, p. 67.1023.In loc.1024.Variæ Lect.ii. 232. He enumerates ten MSS. in which he found it,—but he only quotes down to ἐφανερώθη.1025.In loc.1026.P. 227note.1027.Pointed out long since by Matthæi,N. T.vol. xi.Præfat.p. xlviii. Also in his ed. of 1807,—iii. 443-4.“Nec ideo laudatus est, ut doceret Cyrillum loco Θεός legisse ὅς, sed ideo, ne quis si Deum factum legeret hominem, humanis peccatis etiam obnoxium esse crederet.”1028.See Berriman'sDissertation, p. 189.—(MS. note of the Author.)1029.Not from the 2nd article of hisExplanatio xii. capitum, as Tischendorf supposes.1030.See how P. E. Pusey characterizes the“Scholia,”in hisPrefaceto vol. vi. of his edition,—pp. xii. xiii.1031.Cyril's Greek, (to judge from Mercator's Latin,) must have run somewhat as follows:—Ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος ὁμολογουμένως μέγα φησὶν εἶναι τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον. Καὶ ὄντως οὔτως ἔξει; ἐφανερώθη γὰρ ἐν σαρκί, Θεὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος.1032.Opp.vol. v. P. i. p. 785 d.—The original scholium (of which the extant Greek proves to be only a garbled fragment, [see Pusey's ed. vi. p. 520,]) abounds in expressions which imply, (if they do not require,) that Θεός went before:e.g.quasi Deus homo factus:—erant ergo gentes in mundo sine Deo, cum absque Christo essent:—Deus enim erat incarnatus:—in humanitate tamen Deus remansit: Deus enim Verbum, carne assumptâ, non deposuit quod erat; intelligitur tamen idem Deus simul et homo,&c.1033.P. 67.1034.Opp.vi. 327.1035.ii. 852.1036.Matthæi, N. T. xi.Præfat.pp. lii.-iii.1037.Vol. V. P. ii. pp. 55-180.1038.“How is the Godhead of Christ proved?”(asks Ussher in hisBody of Divinity, ed. 1653, p. 161). And he adduces out of the N. T. only Jo. i. 1, xx. 28; Rom. ix. 5; 1 Jo. v. 20.—Hehadquoted 1 Tim. iii. 16 in p. 160 (with Rom. ix. 5) to prove the union of the two natures.1039.Burgon'sLast Twelve Verses, &c., p. 195 and note. See Canon Cook on this subject,—pp. 146-7.1040.Suprà, p.102.1041.Pp. 68-9.1042.Proleg. in N. T.,—§ 1013.1043.Opp.(ed. 1645) ii. 447.1044.Concilia, v. 772 a. I quote from Garnier's ed. of theBreviarium, reprinted by Gallandius, xii. 1532.1045.iv. 465 c.1046.Concilia, vi. 28 e [= iii. 645 c (ed. Harduin)].1047.“Ex sequentibus colligo quædam exemplaria tempore Anastasii et Macedonii habuisse ὅς Θεός; ut, mutatione factâ ὅς in ὡς, intelligereturut esset Deus.”(Cotelerii,Eccl. Gr. Mon.iii. 663)—“Q. d. Ut hic homo, qui dicitur Jesus, esset et dici posset Deus,”&c. (Cornelius,in loc.He declares absolutely“olim legerunt ... ὅς Θεός.”)—All this was noticed long since by Berriman, pp. 243-4.1048.“Apost. 83,”is“Crypta-Ferrat.A. β. iv.”described in theAppendix. I owe the information to the learned librarian of Crypta Ferrata, the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. It is a pleasure to transcribe the letter which conveyed information which the writer knew would be acceptable to me:—“Clme Rme Domine. Quod erat in votis, plures loci illius Paulini non modo in nostris codd. lectiones, sed et in his ipsis variationes, adsequutus es. Modo ego operi meo finem imponam, descriptis prope sexcentis et quinquaginta quinque vel codicibus vel MSS. Tres autem, quos primum nunc notatos tibi exhibeo, pertinent ad Liturgicorum ordinem. Jam felici omine tuas prosoquere elucubrationes, cautus tantum ne studio et labore nimio valetudinem tuam defatiges. Vale. De Tusculano, xi. kal. Maias, an. R. S.mdccclxxxiii.Antonius Rocchi, Hieromonachus Basilianus.”For“Paul 282,”(a bilingual MS. at Paris, known as“Arménien 9,”) I am indebted to the Abbé Martin, who describes it in hisIntroduction à la Critique Textuelle du N. T., 1883,—pp. 660-1. SeeAppendix.1049.Prebendary Scrivener (p. 555) ably closes the list. Any one desirous of mastering the entire literature of the subject should study the Rev. John Berriman's interesting and exhaustiveDissertation,—pp. 229-263.1050.The reader is invited to read what Berriman, (who was engaged on his“Dissertation”while Bp. Butler was writing the“Advertisement”prefixed to his“Analogy”[1736],) has written on this part of the subject,—pp. 120-9, 173-198, 231-240, 259-60, 262, &c.1051.Apud Athanasium,Opp. ii. 33; and see Garnier's introductory Note.1052.“Audi Paulum magnâ voce clamantem:Deus manifestatus est in carne[down to]assumptus est in gloriâ. O magni doctoris affatum!Deus, inquit,manifestatus est in carne,”&c.—Concilia, vii. p. 618 e.1053.Theodori Studitæ,Epistt. lib. ii. 36, and 156. (Sirmondi'sOpera Varia, vol. v. pp. 349 e and 498 b,—Venet. 1728.)1054.Paul 113, (Matthæi's a) contains two Scholia which witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη:—Paul 115, (Matthæi's d) also contains two Scholia.—Paul 118, (Matthæi's h).—Paul 123, (Matthæi's n). See Matthæi's N. T. vol. xi.Præfat.pp. xlii.-iii.1055.ii. 228 a.1056.ii. 569 e: 570 a.1057.Panoplia,—Tergobyst, 1710, fol. ρκγ᾽. p. 2, col. 1.1058.Σαββάτῳ πρὸ τῶν φώτων.1059.But in Apost. 12 (Reg. 375) it is the lection for the 30th (λ᾽) Saturday.—In Apost. 33 (Reg. 382), for the 31st (λα᾽).—In Apost. 26 (Reg. 320), the lection for the 34th Saturday begins at 1 Tim. vi. 11.—Apostt. 26 and 27 (Regg. 320-1) are said to have a peculiar order of lessons.1060.For convenience, many codices are reckoned under this head (viz. of“Apostolus”) which are rather Ἀπόστολο-εὐαγγέλια. Many again which are but fragmentary, or contain only a very few lessons from the Epistles: such are Apostt. 97 to 103. See theAppendix.1061.No. 21, 28, 31 are said to be Gospel lessons (“Evstt.”). No. 29, 35 and 36 are Euchologia;“the two latter probably Melchite, for the codices exhibit some Arabic words”(Abbé Martin). No. 43 and 48 must be erased. No. 70 and 81 are identical with 52 (B. M.Addit.32051).1062.Viz. Apost. 1: 3: 6: 9 & 10 (which are Menologies with a few Gospel lections): 15: 16: 17: 19: 20: 24: 26: 27: 32: 37: 39: 44: 47: 50: 53: 55: 56: 59: 60: 61: 63: 64: 66: 67: 68: 71: 72: 73: 75: 76: 78: 79: 80: 87: 88: 90.1063.Viz. Apost. 4 at Florence: 8 at Copenhagen: 40, 41, 42 at Rome: 54 at St. Petersburg: 74 in America.1064.Viz. Apost. 2 and 52 (Addit. 32051) in the B. Mus., also 69 (Addit. 29714 verified by Dr. C. R. Gregory): 5 at Gottingen: 7 at the Propaganda (verified by Dr. Beyer): 11, 22, 23, 25, 30, 33 at Paris (verified by Abbé Martin): 13, 14, 18 at Moscow: 38, 49 in the Vatican (verified by Signor Cozza-Luzi): 45 at Glasgow (verified by Dr. Young): 46 at Milan (verified by Dr. Ceriani): 51 at Besançon (verified by M. Castan): 57 and 62 at Lambeth, also 65b-c(all three verified by Scrivener): 58 at Ch. Ch., Oxford: 77 at Moscow: 82 at Messina (verified by Papas Matranga): 84 and 89 at Crypta Ferrata (verified by Hieromonachus Rocchi).1065.Viz. Apost. 34 (Reg. 383), a XVth-century Codex. The Abbé Martin assures me that this copy exhibits μυστήριον; | θῢ ἐφανερώθη. Note however that the position of the point, as well as the accentuation, proves that nothing else but θς was intended. This is very instructive. What if the same slip of the pen had been found in Cod.b?1066.Viz. Apost 83 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. iv.)1067.Viz. Praxapost. 85 and 86 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. vii. which exhibits μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφα | νερώθη ἐν σαρκί; and A. β. viii., which exhibits μυστίριον; ὅς ἐ ... νερώθη | ἐν σαρκύ. [sic.]). Concerning these codices, see above, pp.446to 448.1068.Concilia, ii. 217 c ( = ed. Hard. i. 418 b).1069.He wrote a history of the Council of Nicæa, in which he introduces the discussions of the several Bishops present,—all the product (as Cave thinks) of his own brain.1070.viii. 214 b.1071.Cited at the Council of CP. (a.d.553). [Concilia, ed. Labbe et Cossart, v. 447 b c = ed. Harduin, iii. 29 c and 82 e.]1072.Concilia, Labbe, v. 449 a, and Harduin, iii. 84 d.1073.Harduin, iii. 32 d.1074.A Latin translation of the work of Leontius (Contra Nestor. et Eutych.), wherein it is stated that the present place was found inlib.xiii., may be seen in Gallandius [xii. 660-99: the passage under consideration being given at p. 694 c d]: but Mai (Script. Vett.vi. 290-312), having discovered in the Vatican the original text of the excerpts from Theod. Mops., published (from the xiith book of Theod.de Incarnatione) the Greek of the passage [vi. 308]. From this source, Migne [Patr. Gr.vol. 66, col. 988] seems to have obtained his quotation.1075.Either as given by Mai, or as represented in the Latin translation of Leontius (obtained from a different codex) by Canisius [Antiquæ Lectt., 1601, vol. iv.], from whose work Gallandius simply reprinted it in 1788.1076.Theodori Mops. Fragmenta Syriaca, vertitEd. Sachau, Lips. 1869,—p. 53.—I am indebted for much zealous help in respect of these Syriac quotations to the Rev. Thomas Randell of Oxford,—who, I venture to predict, will some day make his mark in these studies.1077.Ibid.p. 64. The context of the place (which is derived from Lagarde'sAnalecta Syriaca, p. 102, top,) is as follows:“Deitas enim inhabitans hæc omnia gubernare incepit. Et in hac re etiam gratia Spiritus Sancti adjuvabat ad hunc effectum, ut beatus quoque Apostolus dixit:‘Vere grande ... in spiritu;’quoniam nos quoque auxilium Spiritûs accepturi sumus ad perfectionem justitiæ.”A further reference to 1 Tim. iii. 16 at page 69, does not help us.1078.I owe this, and more help than I can express in a foot-note, to my learned friend the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John's.1079.Pages437-43.1080.See above, p.444.1081.See above, pp.446-8; also theAppendix.1082.See pp.426-8.1083.See pp.480-2.1084.N. T. 1806 ii.ad calcem, p. [25].1085.Page 76.1086.See above, pp.376-8.1087.Viz. from p.431to p. 478.1088.See above, pp.462-4.1089.Viz. Acts iii. 12; 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8; vi. 3, 5, 6; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Tit. i. 1; 2 Pet. i. 3, 6, 7; iii. 11.1090.From the friend whose help is acknowledged at foot of pp.450,481.1091.Scholz enumerates 8 of these copies: Coxe, 15. But there must exist a vast many more; as, at M. Athos, in the convent of S. Catharine, at Meteora, &c., &c.1092.In explanation of this statement, the reader is invited to refer to theAppendixat the end of the present volume. [Since the foregoing words have been in print I have obtained from Rome tidings of about 34 more copies of S. Paul's Epistles; raising the present total to 336. The known copies of the book called“Apostolus”now amount to 127.]1093.Viz. Paul 61 (see Scrivener'sIntroduction, 3rd ed. p. 251): and Paul 181 (see above, at pp.444-5).1094.Viz. Paul 248, at Strasburg.1095.Viz. Paul 8 (see Scrivener'sIntroduction): 15 (which is not in the University library at Louvain): 50 and 51 (in Scrivener'sIntroduction): 209 and 210 (which, I find on repeated enquiry, are no longer preserved in the Collegio Romano; nor, since the suppression of the Jesuits, is any one able to tell what has become of them).1096.Viz. Paul 42: 53: 54: 58 (Vat.165,—from Sig. Cozza-Luzi): 60: 64: 66: 76: 82: 89: 118: 119: 124: 127: 146: 147: 148: 152: 160: 161: 162: 163: 172: 187: 191: 202: 214: 225 (MilanN. 272sup.,—from Dr. Ceriani): 259: 263: 271: 275: 284 (ModenaII.a. 13,—from Sig. Cappilli [Acts, 195—see Appendix]): 286 (Milane.2inf.—from Dr. Ceriani [see Appendix]): 287 (Milana.241inf.—from Dr. Ceriani [see Appendix]): 293 (Crypta Ferrata,a.β. vi.—from the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi [see Appendix]): 302 (Berlin, MS. Græc.8vo. No. 9.—from Dr. C. de Boor [see Appendix]).1097.Viz. Paul 254 (restored to CP., see Scrivener'sIntroduction): and Paul 261 (Muralt's 8: Petrop. xi. 1. 2. 330).1098.I found the reading of 150 copies of S. Paul's Epistles at 1 Tim. iii. 16, ascertained ready to my hand,—chiefly the result of the labours of Mill, Kuster, Walker, Berriman, Birch, Matthæi, Scholz, Reiche, and Scrivener. The following 102 I am enabled to contribute to the number,—thanks to the many friendly helpers whose names follow:—In theVatican(Abbate Cozza-Luzi, keeper of the library, whose friendly forwardness and enlightened zeal I cannot sufficiently acknowledge. See theAppendix) No. 185, 186, 196, 204, 207, 294, 295, 296, 297.—Propaganda(Dr. Beyer) No. 92.—Crypta Ferrata(the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. See theAppendix,) No. 290, 291, 292.—Venice(Sig. Veludo) No. 215.—Milan(Dr. Ceriani, the most learned and helpful of friends,) No. 173, 174, 175, 176, 223, 288, 289.—Ferrara, (Sig. Gennari) No. 222.—Modena(Sig. Cappilli) No. 285.—Bologna(Sig. Gardiani) No. 105.—Turin(Sig. Gorresio) No. 165, 168.—Florence(Dr. Anziani) No. 182, 226, 239.—Messina(Papas Filippo Matranga. See theAppendix,) No. 216, 283.—Palermo(Sig. Penerino) No. 217.—TheEscurial(S. Herbert Capper, Esq., of the British Legation. He executed a difficult task with rare ability, at the instance of his Excellency, Sir Robert Morier, who is requested to accept this expression of my thanks,) No. 228, 229.—Paris(M. Wescher, who is as obliging as he is learned in this department,) No. 16, 65, 136, 142, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 164.—(L'Abbé Martin. See theAppendix) No. 282.Arsenal(M. Thierry) No. 130.—S. Genevieve(M. Denis) No. 247.—Poictiers(M. Dartige) No. 276.—Berlin(Dr. C. de Boor) No. 220, 298, 299, 300, 301.—Dresden(Dr. Forstemann) No. 237.—Munich(Dr. Laubmann) No. 55, 125, 126, 128.—Gottingen(Dr. Lagarde) No. 243.—Wolfenbuttel(Dr. von Heinemann) No. 74, 241.—Basle(Mons. Sieber) No. 7.—Upsala(Dr. Belsheim) No. 273, 274.—Lincoping(the same) No. 272.—Zurich(Dr. Escher) No. 56.—Prebendary Scrivener verified for me Paul 252: 253: 255: 256: 257: 258: 260: 264: 265: 277.—Rev. T. Randell, has verified No. 13.—Alex. Peckover, Esq., No. 278.—Personally, I have inspected No. 24: 34: 62: 63: 224: 227: 234: 235: 236: 240: 242: 249: 250: 251: 262: 266: 267: 268: 269: 270: 279: 280: 281.1099.Viz. Paul 37 (theCodex Leicest., 69 of the Gospels):—Paul 85 (Vat. 1136), observed by Abbate Cozza-Luzi:—Paul 93 (Naples 1.b.12) which is 83 of the Acts,—noticed by Birch:—Paul 175 (Ambros.f.125sup.) at Milan; as I learn from Dr. Ceriani. See above, p.456note1.1100.Viz. Paul 282,—concerning which, see above, p.474, note 1.1101.The present locality of this codex (Evan. 421 = Acts 176 = Paul 218) is unknown. The only Greek codices in the public library of the“Seminario”at Syracuse are an“Evst.”and an“Apost.”(which I number respectively 362 and 113). My authority for Θεός in Paul 218, is Birch [Proleg.p. xcviii.], to whom Munter communicated his collations.1102.For the ensuing codices, see theAppendix.1103.Vat. 2068 (Basil. 107),—which I number“Apost. 115”(seeAppendix.)1104.Viz. by 4 uncials (a,k,l,p), + (247 Paul + 31 Apost. = ) 278 cursive manuscripts reading Θεός: + 4 (Paul) reading ὁ Θεός: + 2 (1 Paul, 1 Apost.) reading ὅς Θεός: + 1 (Apost.) reading Θῢ = 289. (See above, pp.473-4: 478.)1105.The Harkleian (see pp.450,489): the Georgian, and the Slavonic (p.454).1106.See above, pp.487-490,—which is the summary of what will be found more largely delivered from page455to page 476.1107.See above, pp.448-453: also p.479.1108.See above, pp.479-480.1109.See above, pp.452-3.1110.See above, pp.482,483.1111.See above, page436, and middle of page439.1112.See his long and singular note.1113.Fresh Revision, p. 27.1114.Printed Text, p. 231.1115.P. 226.1116.“Forteμυστήριον; ὁχςἐθανατώθη ἐν σαρκί ... ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀποστόλοις.”—BentleiiCritica Sacra, p. 67.1117.Developed Criticism, p. 160.1118.Thus Augustine (viii. 828 f.) paraphrases,—“In carne manifestatus estFilius Dei.”—And Marius Victorinus,a.d.390 (ap. Galland. viii. 161),—“Hoc enim est magnum sacramentum, quodDeusexanimavit semet ipsum cum esset inDeiformá:”“fuit ergo antequam esset in carne, sed manifestatum dixit in carne.”—And Fulgentius,a.d.513, thus expands the text (ap. Galland. xi. 232):—“quia scilicet Verbum quod in principio erat, et apudDeumerat, etDeuserat, id estDeiunigenitus Filius,Deivirtus et sapientia, per quem et in quo facta sunt omnia, ... idemDeusunigenitus,”&c. &c.—And Ferrandus,a.d.356 (ibid.p. 356):—“ita pro redemtione humani generis humanam naturam credimus suscepisse, ut ille qui Trinitate perfectaDeusunigenitus permanebat ac permanet, ipse ex Maria fieret primogenitus in multis fratribus,”&c.1119.MS. note in his interleaved copy of the N. T.He adds,“Hæc addenda posui Notis ad S. Hippolytum contra Noetum p. 93, vol. i.Scriptor. Ecclesiast. Opusculorum.”1120.Page 29.1121.P. 29.1122.P. 30.1123.Address, on the Revised Version, p. 10.1124.See above, pp.37to 39.1125.Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet, p. 34.1126.P. 231.1127.Fifth Rule of the Committee.1128.Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet, p. 30.1129.No fair person will mistake the spirit in which the next ensuing paragraphs (in the Text) are written. But I will add what shall effectually protect me from being misunderstood.Against the respectability and personal worth of any member of the Revisionist body, let me not be supposed to breathe a syllable. All, (for aught I know to the contrary,) may be men of ability and attainment, as well as of high moral excellence. I will add that, in early life, I numbered several professing Unitarians among my friends. It were base in me to forget how wondrous kind I found them: how much I loved them: how fondly I cherish their memory.Further. That in order to come at the truth of Scripture, we are bound to seek help at the hands ofanywho are able to render help,—whoever doubted? If a worshipper of the false prophet,—if a devotee of Buddha,—could contribute anything,—whowould hesitate to sue to him for enlightenment? As for Abraham's descendants,—they are our very brethren.But it is quite a different thing when Revisionists appointed by the Convocation of the Southern Province, co-opt Separatists and even Unitarians into their body, where they shall determine the sense of Scripture and vote upon its translation on equal terms. Surely, when the Lower House of Convocation accepted the 5th“Resolution”of the Upper House,—viz., that the Revising body“shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong;”—the Synod of Canterbury did not suppose that it was pledging itself to sanctionsuch“co-operation”as is implied by actualco-optation!It should be added that Bp. Wilberforce, (the actual framer of the 5th fundamental Resolution,) has himself informed us that“in framing it, it never occurred to him that it would apply to the admission of any member of the Socinian body.”Chronicle of Convocation(Feb. 1871,) p. 4.“I am aware,”(says our learned and pious bishop of Lincoln,)“that the ancient Church did not scruple to avail herself of the translation of a renegade Jew, like Aquila; and of Ebionitish heretics, like Symmachus and Theodotion; and that St. Augustine profited by the expository rules of Tychonius the Donatist. But I very much doubt whether the ancient Church would have looked for a large outpouring of a blessing fromGodon a work of translating His Word, where the workmen were not all joined together in a spirit of Christian unity, and in the profession of the true Faith; and in which the opinions of the several translators were to be counted and not weighed; and where everything was to be decided by numerical majorities; and where the votes of an Arius or a Nestorius were to be reckoned as of equal value with those of an Athanasius or a Cyril.”(Address on the Revised Version, 1881, pp. 38.)1130.The Bible and Popular Theology, by G. Vance Smith, 1871.1131.An Unitarian Reviser of our Authorized Version, intolerable: an earnest Remonstrance and Petition,—addressed to yourself by your present correspondent:—Oxford, Parker, 1872, pp. 8.1132.See letter of“One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.”inthe Timesof July 11, 1870.1133.Protest against the Communion of an Unitarian in Westminster Abbey on June22nd, 1870:—Oxford, 1870, pp. 64.1134.See theChronicle of Convocation(Feb. 1871), pp. 3-28,—when a Resolution was moved and carried by the Bp. (Wilberforce) of Winchester,—“That it is the judgment of this House that no person who denies the Godhead of ourLord Jesus Christought to be invited to join either company to which is committed the Revision of the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture: and that it is further the judgment of this House that any such person now on either Company should cease to act therewith.“And that this Resolution be communicated to the Lower House, and their concurrence requested:”—which was done. See p. 143.1135.The Reader is invited to refer back to pp.132-135.1136.The Reader is requested to refer back to pp.210-214.1137.S. Mark x. 21.1138.S. Luke xxii. 64.1139.S. Luke xxiii. 38.1140.S. Luke xxiv. 42.1141.Εἰπεῖν is“to command”in S. Matth. (and S. Luke) iv. 3: in S. Mark v. 43: viii. 7, and in many other places. On the other hand, the Revisers have thrust“command”into S. Matth. xx. 21, where“grant”had far better have been let alone: and have overlooked other places (as S. Matth. xxii. 24, S. James ii. 11), where“command”might perhaps have been introduced with advantage. (I nothing doubt that when the Centurion of Capernaum said to our Lord μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ [Mtt. viii. 8 = Lu. vii. 7], he entreated Him“only to givethe word of command.”)We all see, of course, that it was because Δός is rendered“grant”in the (very nearly) parallel place to S. Matth. xx. 21 (viz. S. Mark x. 37), that the Revisers thought it incumbent on them to represent Εἰπέ in the earlier Gospel differently; and so they bethought themselves of“command.”(Infelicitously enough, as I humbly think.“Promise”would evidently have been a preferable substitute: the word in the original (εἰπεῖν) being one of that large family of Greek verbs which vary their shade of signification according to their context.) But it is plainly impracticable tolevel upafter this rigid fashion,—to translate in this mechanical way. Far more is lost than is gained by this straining after an impossible closeness of rendering. The spirit becomes inevitably sacrificed to the letter. All this has been largely remarked upon above, at pp.187-206.Take the case before us in illustration. S. James and S. John with their Mother, have evidently agreed together to“ask a favour”of theirLord(cf. Mtt. xx. 20, Mk. x. 35). The Mother begins Εἰπέ,—the sons begin, Δός. Why are we to assume that the request is made by the Mother ina different spiritfrom the sons? Why are we to impose upon her language the imperious sentiment which the very mention of“command”unavoidably suggests to an English ear?A prior, and yet more fatal objection, remains in full force. The Revisers, (I say it for the last time,) were clearly going beyond their prescribed duty when they set about handling the Authorized Version after this merciless fashion. Their business was to correct“plain and clear errors,”—notto produce a“New English Version.”1142.Take the following as a sample, which is one of the Author's proofs that the“Results of the Revision”are“unfavourable to Orthodoxy:”—“The only instance in the N. T. in which the religious worship or adoration ofChristwas apparently implied, has beenalteredby the Revision:‘Atthe name ofJesusevery knee shall bow,’[Philipp. ii. 10] is now to be read‘inthe name.’Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N. T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship ofJesus Christ.”—Texts and Margins,—p. 47.1143.Supra, p.424to p. 501.1144.See above, pp.272-275, pp.278-281.1145.See above, p.275.1146.See above, pp.276-7.1147.See above, pp.303-305.1148.See above, p.304.1149.See above, pp.339-42; also pp.422,423.1150.See above, pp.391-7.1151.See above, pp.36-40:47-9:422-4.1152.See above, pp.41-7:420-2.1153.See above, pp.98-106:424-501.1154.Evan. 738 belongs to Oriel College, Oxford, [xii.], small 4to. of 130 foll. slightlymut.Evan. 739, Bodl. Greek Miscell. 323 [xiii.], 8vo.membr.foll. 183,mut.Brought from Ephesus, and obtained for the Bodleian in 1883.1155.Evst. 415 belongs to Lieut. Bate, [xiii.],chart.foll. 219, mutilated throughout. He obtained it in 1878 from a Cyprus villager at Kikos, near Mount Trovodos (i.e.Olympus.) It came from a monastery on the mountain.1156.Apost. 128 will be found described, for the first time, below, at p.528.

Footnotes1.Any one who desires to see this charge established, is invited to read from page399to page 413 of what follows.2.Dr. Newth. See pp.37-9.3.See pp.24-9:97, &c.4.See below, pp. 1 to 110.5.This will be found more fully explained from pp.127to 130: pp.154to 164: also pp.400to 403. See also the quotations on pp.112and368.6.See below, pp.113to 232.7.See below, pp.235to 366.8.Gospel of the Resurrection, p. viii.9.Reference is made to a vulgar effusion in the“Contemporary Review”for March 1882: from which it chiefly appears that Canon (now Archdeacon) Farrar is unable to forgive S. Mark the Evangelist for having written the 16th verse of his concluding chapter. The Venerable writer is in consequence for ever denouncing those“last Twelve Verses.”In March 1882, (pretending to review my Articles in the“Quarterly,”) he says:—“In spite of Dean Burgon's Essay on the subject, the minds of most scholars arequite unalterably made upon such questions as the authenticity of the last twelve verses of S. Mark.”[Contemporary Review, vol. xli. p. 365.] And in the ensuing October,—“If, amongpositive results, any one should set down such facts as that ... Mark xvi. 9-20 ...formed no part of the original apostolic autograph... He, I say, who should enumerate these points as beingbeyond the reach of serious dispute... would be expressing the views which areregarded as indisputableby the vast majority of such recent critics as have established any claim to serious attention.”[Expositor, p. 173.]It may not be without use to the Venerable writer that he should be reminded that critical questions, instead of being disposed of by such language as the foregoing, are not even touched thereby. One is surprised to have to tell a“fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,”so obvious a truth as that by such writing he does but effectually put himself out of court. By proclaiming that his mind is“quite unalterably made up”that the end of S. Mark's Gospel is not authentic, he admits that he is impervious to argument and therefore incapable of understanding proof. It is a mere waste of time to reason with an unfortunate who announces that he is beyond the reach of conviction.10.No. xxviii., page 436. If any one cares to know what the teaching was which the writer in the“Church Quarterly”was intending to reproduce, he is invited to read from p.296to p. 300 of the present volume.11.Contemporary Review, (Dec. 1881),—p. 985 seq.12.Q. R. (No. 304,) p. 313.—The passage referred to will be found below (at p.14),—slightly modified, in order to protect myself against the risk offuturemisconception. My Reviewer refers to four other places. He will find that my only object in them all was to prove that codicesa bאc dyield divergent testimony; and therefore, so habituallycontradictone another, as effectually to invalidate their own evidence throughout. This has never beenprovedbefore. It canonlybe proved, in fact, by one who has laboriously collated the codices in question, and submitted to the drudgery of exactly tabulating the result.13.“Damus tibi in manus Novum Testamentumidem profecto, quod ad textum attinet, cum ed. Millianâ,”—are the well known opening words of the“Monitum”prefixed to Lloyd's N. T.—And Mill, according to Scrivener, [Introduction, p. 399,]“only aims at reproducing Stephens' text of 1550, though in a few places he departs from it, whether by accident or design.”Such places are found to amount in all totwenty-nine.14.See below, pp.257-8: also p.390.15.The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, &c.—Macmillan, pp. 79.16.See below, pp.369to 520.17.Pages371-2.18.Pamphlet, pp. 77: 39, 40, 41.19.See below, p.425.20.Pages424-501.21.From January till June 1883.22.Pamphlet, p. 76.23.E.g.pages252-268:269-277:305-308.24.E.g.pages302-306.25.Page 354.26.On that day appeared Dr. Hort's“Introduction and Appendix”to the N. T. as edited by himself and Dr. Westcott.27.“Charge,”published in theGuardian, Dec. 20, 1882, p. 1813.28.Preface toHistory of the English Bible(p. ix.),—1868.29.Preface toPastoral Epistles(p. xiv.),—1861.30.The Authorized Version of the N. T.(p. 3),—1858.31.The New Testament of Our Lord and SaviourJesus Christtranslated out of the Greek: being the Version set fortha.d.1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Reviseda.d.1881.Printed for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881.32.The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version.Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ.The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version.[Edited by the Ven. Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.33.On Revision,—pp. 215-6.34.Tertullian,bis.35.Hieron.Opp.ii. 177 c (see the note).36.Apud Hieron. iii. 121.37.iv. 617 c (ed. Pusey).38.P. 272.39.i. 548 c; viii. 207 a.40.iv. 205.41.A reference to theJournal of Convocation, for a twelvemonth after the proposal for a Revision of the Authorized Version was seriously entertained, will reveal more than it would be convenient in this place even to allude to.42.We derive our information from the learned Congregationalist, Dr. Newth,—Lectures on Bible Revision(1881), p. 116.43.On Revision, pp. 26-7.44.Dr. Scrivener'sPlain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edition, 1874 (pp. 607), may be confidently recommended to any one who desires to master the outlines of Textual Criticism under the guidance of a judicious, impartial, and thoroughly competent guide. A new and revised edition of this excellent treatise will appear shortly.45.Studious readers are invited to enquire for Dr. Scrivener'sFull and exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels (hitherto unexamined), deposited in the British Museum, the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, &c., with a Critical Introduction. (Pp. lxxiv. and 178.) 1853. The introductory matter deserves very attentive perusal.—With equal confidence we beg to recommend hisExact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, a Græco-Latin Manuscript of S. Paul's Epistles, deposited in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge; to which is added a full Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, containing various portions of the Greek New Testament, in the Libraries of Cambridge, Parham, Leicester, Oxford, Lambeth, the British Museum, &c. With a Critical Introduction(which must also be carefully studied). (Pp. lxxx. and 563.) 1859.—Learned readers can scarcely require to be told of the same learned scholar'sNovum Testamentum Textûs Stephanici,a.d.1550. Accedunt variæ Lectiones Editionum Bezæ, Elzeviri, Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, Tregellesii.Curante F. H. A. Scrivener, A.M., D.C.L., LL.D. [1860.] Editio auctior et emendatior. 1877.—Those who merely wish for a short popular Introduction to the subject may be grateful to be told of Dr. Scrivener's SixLectures on the Text of the N. T. and the Ancient MSS. which contain it, chiefly addressed to those who do not read Greek. 1875.46.Scrivener'sPlain Introduction,—p. 118.47.Bezæ Codex Cantabrigiensis: being an exact Copy, in ordinary Type, of the celebrated Uncial Græco-Latin Manuscript of the Four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, written early in the Sixth Century, and presented to the University of Cambridge by Theodore Beza,a.d.1581. Edited, with a Critical Introduction, Annotations, and Facsimiles, by Frederick H. Scrivener, M.A., Rector of S. Gerrans, Cornwall. (Pp. lxiv. and 453.) Cambridge, 1864. No one who aspires to a competent acquaintance with Textual Criticism can afford to be without this book.48.On the subject of codex א we beg (once for all) to refer scholars to Scrivener'sFull Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament. To which is prefixed a Critical Introduction.[1863.] 2nd Edition, revised. (Pp. lxxii. and 163.) 1867.49.Bishop Ellicott'sConsiderations on Revision, &c. (1870), p. 40.50.The epithet“cursive,”is used to denote manuscripts written in“running-hand,”of which the oldest known specimens belong to the IXth century.“Uncial”manuscripts are those which are written in capital letters. A“codex”popularly signifies amanuscript. A“version”isa translation. A“recension”isa revision. (We have been requested to explain these terms.)51.Considerations on Revision, p. 30.52.Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claimperfectionfor the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g.at page107) that theTextus Receptusneeds correction. We do but insist, (1) That it is an incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely preferable to the“New Greek Text”of the Revisionists. And, (2) That to be improved, theTextus Receptuswill have to be revised on entirely different“principles”from those which are just now in fashion. Men must begin by unlearning theGerman prejudicesof the last fifty years; and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic offacts.53.Scrivener'sIntroduction, pp. 342-4.54.Ut suprà, p. 46. We prefer to quote the indictment against Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, from the pages of Revisionists.55.“Ex scriptoribus Græcistantisper Origene solousi sumus.”—Præfatio, p. xxi.56.Scrivener'sPlain Introd.p. 397.57.Ut suprà, p. 48.58.Ut suprà, p. 47.59.Prebendary Scrivener,ibid.(ed. 1874), p. 429.60.Ibid.p. 470.61.Ibid.62.Concilia, i. 852.63.Ut suprà, p. 47.64.The New Testament in the Original Greek.The Text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. Cambridge and London, 1881.65.From the Preface prefixed to the“limited and private issue”of 1870, p. vi.66.Ut suprà, p. xv.67.Ibid.p. xviii.68.Ibid.p. xvi.69.Ibid.pp. xviii., xix.70.[Note,—that I have thought it best, for many reasons, to retain the ensuing note as it originally appeared; merely restoring [within brackets] those printed portions of it for which there really was no room. The third Article in the present volume will be found to supply an ample exposure of the shallowness of Drs. Westcott and Hort's Textual Theory.]While these sheets are passing through the press, a copy of the long-expected volume reaches us. The theory of the respected authors proves to be the shallowest imaginable. It is brieflythis:—Fastening on the two oldest codices extant (band א, both of the IVth century), they invent the following hypothesis:—“That the ancestries of those two manuscriptsdiverged from a point near the autographs, and never came into contact subsequently.”[No reason is produced for this opinion.]Having thus secured two independent witnesses of what was in the sacred autographs, the Editors claim that thecoincidenceof א andbmust“mark those portions of text in which two primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission had not come to differ from each other through independent corruption:”and therefore that,“in the absence of specially strong internal evidence to the contrary,”“the readings of א andbcombinedmay safely be accepted as genuine.”But what is to be done when the same two codices divergeone from the other?—In all such cases (we are assured) the readings of any“binary combination”ofbare to be preferred; because“on the closest scrutiny,”they generally“have thering of genuineness;”hardly ever“look suspiciousafter full consideration.”“Even whenbstands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.”[We are not told why.]But, (rejoins the student who, after careful collation of codexb, has arrived at a vastly different estimate of its character,)—What is to be done when internal and external evidence alike condemn a reading of B? How is“mumpsimus”for example to be treated?—“Mumpsimus”(the Editors solemnly reply) as“the better attested reading”—(by which they mean the reading attested byb,)—we place in our margin.“Sumpsimus,”apparently therightreading, we place in the text within ††; in token that it is probably“a successful ancient conjecture.”We smile, and resume:—But how is the fact to be accounted for that the text of Chrysostom and (in the main) of the rest of the IVth-century Fathers, to whom we are so largely indebted for our critical materials, and who must have employed codices fully as old asband א: how is it, we ask, that the text of all these, including codexa, differs essentially from the text exhibited by codicesband א?—The editors reply,—The text of Chrysostom and the rest, we designate“Syrian,”and assume to have been the result of an“editorial Revision,”which we conjecturally assign to the second half of the IIIrd century. It is the“Pre-Syrian”text that we are in search of; and we recognize the object of our search in codexb.We stare, and smile again. But how then does it come to pass (we rejoin) that the Peschito, or primitiveSyriac, which is older by full a century and a half than the last-named date, is practically still the same text?—This fatal circumstance (not overlooked by the learned Editors) they encounter with another conjectural assumption.“A Revision”(say they)“of the Old Syriac version appears to have taken place early in the IVth century, or sooner; and doubtless in some connexion with the Syrian revision of the Greek text, the readings being to a very great extent coincident.”And pray, whereis“theOld Syriacversion”of which you speak?—It is (reply the Editors) our way of designating the fragmentary Syriac MS. commonly known as“Cureton's.”—Your way (we rejoin) of manipulating facts, and disposing of evidence is certainly the most convenient, as it is the most extraordinary, imaginable: yet is it altogether inadmissible in a grave enquiry like the present. Syriac scholars are of a widely different opinion from yourselves. Do you not perceive that you have been drawing upon your imagination for every one of your facts?We decline in short on the mere conjecturalipse dixitof these two respected scholars to admit either that the Peschito is a Revision of Cureton's Syriac Version;—or that it was executed abouta.d.325;—or that the text of Chrysostom and the other principal IVth-century Fathers is the result of an unrecorded“Antiochian Revision”which took place about the yeara.d.275.[But instead of troubling ourselves with removing the upper story of the visionary structure before us,—which reminds us painfully of a house which we once remember building with playing-cards,—we begin by removing the basement-story, which brings the entire superstructure in an instant to the ground.]For we decline to admit that the texts exhibited bybא can have“diverged from a point near the sacred autographs, and never come into contact subsequently.”We are able to show, on the contrary, that the readings they jointly embody afford the strongest presumption that the MSS. which contain them are nothing else but specimens of those“corrected,”i.e.corruptedcopies, which are known to have abounded in the earliest ages of the Church. From the prevalence of identical depravations in either, we infer that they are, on the contrary, derived from the same not very remote depraved original: and therefore, that their coincidence, when they differ from all (or nearly all) other MSS., so far from marking“two primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission”of the inspired autographs, does but mark what was derived from the same corrupt common ancestor; whereby the supposed two independent witnesses to the Evangelic verity become resolved intoa single witness to a fabricated text of the IIIrd century.It is impossible in the meantime to withhold from these learned and excellent men (who are infinitely better than their theory) the tribute of our sympathy and concern at the evident perplexity and constant distress to which their own fatal major premiss has reduced them. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. Doubt,—unbelief,—credulity,—general mistrust ofallevidence, is the inevitable sequel and penalty. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort solemnly assured their brother Revisionists that“the prevalent assumption, that throughout the N. T. the true text is to be foundsomewhereamong recorded readings,does not stand the test of experience;”[P. xxi.] and they are evidently still haunted by the same spectral suspicion. They see a ghost to be exorcised in every dark corner.“The Art ofConjectural Emendation”(says Dr. Hort)“depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation founded on knowledge and method.”[Introd.p. 71.] Specimens of the writer's skill in this department abound.Oneoccurs at p. 135 (App.) where,in defiance of every known document, he seeks to evacuate S. Paul's memorable injunction to Timothy (2 Tim. i. 13) of all its significance. [A fuller exposure of Dr. Hort's handling of this important text will be found later in the present volume.] May we be allowed to assure the accomplished writer thatin Biblical Textual Criticism,“Conjectural Emendation”has no place?71.Scrivener,Introduction, p. 453.—Stunica, it will be remembered, was the chief editor of the Complutensian, orfirst printededition of the New Testament, (1514).72.προσέφορον αὐτῷ,—S. Matt. ix. 2.73.Scrivener,Plain Introd. p. 472.74.The words omitted are therefore the following 22:—ἡμῶν, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ... γενηθήτω τὸ θελημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ... ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.75.Companion to the Revised Version, p. 61.76.The last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark, vindicated against recent critical Objectors and established, by the Rev. J. W. Burgon,—pp. 334, published by Parker, Oxford, 1871.77.As Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Chr. Wordsworth,—the learned Bishops of Chester and Lincoln. It is right to state that Bp. Ellicott“considers the passage doubtful.”(On Revision, p. 36.) Dr. Scrivener (it is well known) differs entirely from Bp. Ellicott on this important point.78.Lectures on Bible Revision, pp. 119-20.79.τὰς ἀληθεῖς ῥήσεις Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου.—Clemens Rom., c. 45.80.Should the Revised New Testament be authorized?—p. 42.81.Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered,—by Canon Cook,—pp. 221-2.82.At p. 34 of his pamphlet in reply to the first two of the present Articles.83.On Revision, pp. 30 and 49.84.Words of the N. T.p. 193.85.Companion to the Revised Version, p. 63.86.Ibid.p. 62.87.Viz. Eusebius,—Macarius Magnes,—Aphraates,—Didymus,—the SyriacActs of the App.,—Epiphanius,—Ambrose,—Chrysostom,—Jerome,—Augustine. It happens that the disputation of Macarius Magnes (a.d.300-350) with a heathen philosopher, which has recently come to light, contains an elaborate discussion of S. Mark xvi. 17, 18. Add the curious story related by the author of thePaschal Chronicle(a.d.628) concerning Leontius, Bishop of Antioch (a.d.348),—p. 289. This has been hitherto overlooked.88.Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 515.89.Tisch. specifies 7 Latin copies. Origen (iii. 946f.), Jerome (vii. 282), and Leo (ap. Sabatier) are the only patristic quotations discoverable.90.i. 45991.i. 374; ii. 714; iv. 15.92.vii. 47; viii. 13.93.Dem. Ev.pp. 163, 342.94.i. 180, 385.95.In loc. Alsoin Luc.xix. 29 (Cat. Ox.141).96.De Trin.p. 84; Cord.Cat. in Ps.ii. 450, 745.97.i. 845,—which is reproduced in thePaschal Chronicle, p. 374.98.P. 180; cf. p. 162.99.i. 154, 1047.100.i. 355, 696, 6; 97 iii. 346.101.Gr. iii. 434.102.Ap. Galland. ix. 754.103.i. 587; ii. 453, 454; vi. 393; vii. 311, 674; viii. 85; xi. 347. AlsoCat. in Ps.iii. 139.104.Ap. Chrys. vi. 424; cf. p. 417.105.In Luc.pp. 12, 16, 502 ( = Mai, ii. 128). Also Mai, ii. 343,Hom. de Incarn.p. 109.Opp.ii. 593; v.1681, 30, 128, 380, 402, 154; vi. 398. Maii, iii.2286.106.i. 290, 1298; ii. 18; iii. 480.107.Ap. Galland. ix. 446, 476.Concil.iii. 1001, 1023.108.Concil.iii. 1002.109.Ap. Galland. ix. 629.110.Concil.iii. 1095.111.Concil.iii. 829 = Cyr.Opp.vi. 159.112.Nov. Auctar.i. 596.113.Montf. ii. 152, 160, 247, 269.114.Hexaem.ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 899.115.Ap. Galland. xii. 308.116.Ed. Combefis, 14, 54; ap. Galland. xiii. 100, 123.117.Ap. Galland. xiii. 235.118.ii. 836.119.Ap. Galland. xiii. 212.120.E.g.Chrys.Opp.viii.;Append.214.121.P. 6d.122.Ap. Galland. iii. 809.123.ii. 602.124.ii. 101, 122, 407.125.iii. 447.126.ii. 298.127.ii. 804; iii. 783; v. 638, 670, 788; viii. 214, 285; x. 754, 821.128.Cord.Cat. in Ps.ii. 960.129.Of the ninety-two places above quoted, Tischendorf knew of onlyeleven, Tregelles adduces onlysix.—Neither critic seems to have been aware that“Gregory Thaum.”is not the author of the citation they ascribe to him. And why does Tischendorf quote as Basil's whatis knownnot to have been his?130.But then, note thatcis only available for comparison down to the end of ver. 5. In the 9 verses which have been lost, who shall say how many more eccentricities would have been discoverable?131.Companion to the Revised Version, pp. 62, 63.Words of the N. T.p. 193.132.Words of the N. T.p. 193.133.Drs. Westcott and Hort (consistently enough) put themon the self-same footingwith the evidently spurious ending found inl.134.True, that a separate volume of Greek Text has been put forth, showing every change which has been either actually accepted, or else suggested for future possible acceptance. But (in the words of the accomplished editor),“theRevisers are not responsible for its publication.”Moreover, (and this is the chief point,) it is a sealed book to all but Scholars.It were unhandsome, however, to take leave of the learned labours of Prebendary Scrivener and Archdeacon Palmer, without a few words of sympathy and admiration. Their volumes (mentioned at the beginning of the present Article) are all that was to have been expected from the exquisite scholarship of their respective editors, and will be of abiding interest and value.Bothvolumes should be in the hands of every scholar, for neither of them supersedes the other. Dr. Scrivener has (with rare ability and immense labour) set before the Church,for the first time, the Greek Text which was followed by the Revisers of 1611, viz. Beza's N. T. of 1598, supplemented in above 190 places from other sources; every one of which the editor traces out in hisAppendix, pp. 648-56. At the foot of each page, he shows what changes have been introduced into the Text by the Revisers of 1881.—Dr. Palmer, taking theText of Stephens(1550) as his basis, presents us with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the“Authorized Version,”and relegates the displaced Readings (of 1611) to the foot of each page.—We cordially congratulate them both, and thank them for the good service they have rendered.135.The number is not excessive. There were about 600 persons aboard the ship in which Josephus traversed the same waters. (Life, c.iii.)136.ii. 61 and 83.137.Isaiah xiv. 15.138.S. Matthew xxi. 1-3. S. Mark xi. 1-6. S. Luke xix. 29-34.139.אd lread—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε: C*,—αὐτον ΠΑΛΙΝ ἀποστελλει ὡδε:b,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ αὐτον ὡδε: Δ,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε: yscr—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ.140.iii. 722, 740.141.iii. 737, iv. 181.142.S. Matt. xxi. 8.143.Exod. x. 21-23.144.S. Matth. xxvii. 45; S. Mark xv. 33; S. Lu. xxiii. 44.145.Ap. Epiphan. i. 317 and 347.146.Intenebricatus est sol—a:obscuratus est sol—b:tenebricavit sol—c.147.Ap. Routh,Opusc.i. 79.148.i. 90, 913; ap. Epiph. i. 1006.149.Syr.ii. 48. So alsoEvan. Conc.pp. 245, 256, 257.150.Mai,Scriptt. Vett.vi. 64.151.i. 305.152.Ap. Mai, ii. 436; iii. 395. AlsoLuc.722.153.i. 288, 417.154.P. 233.155.Ed. by Wright, p. 16.156.“Sol mediâ dietenebricavit.”Adv. Jud.c. xiii.157.iii. 922-4. Read the whole of cap. 134. See also ap. Galland. xiv. 82, append., which by the way deserves to be compared with Chrys. vii. 825 a.158.ἀλλ᾽ ἦν σκότος θεοποίητον, διότι τὸν Κύριον συνέβη παθεῖν.—Routh, ii. 298.159.εἶτ᾽ ἐξαίφνης κατενεχθὲν ψηλαφητὸν σκότος, ἡλίου τὴν οἰκείαν αὐγὴν ἀποκρύψαντος, p. 29.160.ὅτι γὰρ οὐκ ἠν ἔκλειψις [sc. τὸ σκότος ἐκεῖνο] οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ. τρεῖς γὰρ ὥρας παρέμεινιν; ἡ δὲ ἔκλειψις ἐν μιᾷ καιροῦ γίνεται ῥοπῇ.—vii. 825 a.161.i. 414, 415; iii. 56.162.Ap. Mai, iv. 206. But further on he says: αὐτίκα γοῦν ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει οὐχ ἥλιος μόνον ἐσκότασεν κ.τ.λ.—Cyril of Jerusalem (pp. 57, 146, 199, 201, 202) and Cosmas (ap. Montf. ii. 177bis) were apparently acquainted with the same reading, but neither of them actually quotes Luke xxiii. 45.163.“In quibusdam exemplaribus non habeturtenebræ factæ sunt, et obscuratus est sol: sed ita,tenebræ factæ sunt super omnem terram, sole deficiente. Et forsitan ausus est aliquis quasi manifestius aliquid dicere volens, pro,et obscuratus est sol, poneredeficiente sole, existimans quod non aliter potuissent fieri tenebræ, nisi sole deficiente. Puto autem magis quod insidiatores ecclesiæ Christi mutaverunt hoc verbum, quoniamtenebræ factæ sunt sole deficiente, ut verisimiliter evangelia argui possint secundum adinventiones volentium arguere illa.”(iii. 923 f. a.)164.vii. 235.“Qui scripserunt contra Evangelia, suspicantur deliquium solis,”&c.165.This rests on little more than conjecture. Tisch.Cod. Ephr. Syr.p. 327.166.Ἐκλείποντος is only found besides in eleven lectionaries.167.The Thebaic represents“the sunsetting;”which, (like the mention of“eclipse,”) is only anotherinterpretationof the darkness,—derived from Jer. xv. 9 or Amos viii. 9 (“occiditsol meridie”). Compare Irenæus iv. 33. 12, (p. 273,) who says that these two prophecies found fulfilment in“eumoccasumsolis qui, crucifixo eo, fuit ab horâ sextâ.”He alludes to the same places in iv. 34. 3 (p. 275). So does Jerome (on Matt. xxvii. 45),—“Et hoc factum reor, ut compleatur prophetia,”and then he quotes Amos and Jeremiah; finely adding (from some ancient source),—“Videturque mihi clarissimum lumen mundi, hoc est luminare majus, retraxisse radios suos, ne aut pendentem videret Dominum; aut impii blasphemantes suâ luce fruerentur.”168.Our old friend of Halicarnassus (vii. 37), speaking of an eclipse which happenedb.c.481, remarks: ὁ ἥλιος ἐκλιπὼν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἕδρην.169.For it will be perceived that our Revisionists have adopted the reading vouched foronly by codexb. What c* once read is as uncertain as it is unimportant.170.Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet, p. 60.171.On the Revised Version, p. 14.172.πολλὰ κατὰ γνώμην αὐτοῦ διεπράττετο, as (probably) Victor of Antioch (Cat.p. 128), explains the place. He cites some one else (p. 129) who exhibits ἠπόρει; and who explains it of Herod's difficultyabout getting rid of Herodias.173.καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν, will have been the reading of that lost venerable codex of the Gospels which is chiefly represented at this day by Evann. 13-69-124-346,—as explained by Professor Abbott in his Introduction to Prof. Ferrar'sCollation of four important MSS., etc. (Dublin 1877). The same reading is also found in Evann. 28 : 122 : 541 : 572, and Evst. 196.Different must have been the reading of that other venerable exemplar which supplied the Latin Church with its earliest Text. But of this let the reader judge:—“Et cum audisset illum multa facere, libenter,”&c. (c: also“Codex Aureus”and γ, both at Stockholm):“et audito eo quod multa faciebat, et libenter,”&c. (g2q):“et audiens illum quia multa faciebat, et libenter,”&c. (b). The Anglo-Saxon, (“and he heard that he many wonders wrought, and he gladly heard him”) approaches nearest to the last two.The Peschito Syriac (which is without variety of reading here) in strictness exhibits:—“And many things he was hearing [from] him and doing; and gladly he was hearing him.”But this, by competent Syriac scholars, is considered to represent,—καὶ πολλὰ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ, ἐποίει; καὶ ἡδέως ἤκουεν αὐτοῦ.—Cod. Δ is peculiar in exhibiting καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλά, ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν,—omitting ἐποίει, καί.—The Coptic also renders,“et audiebat multa ab eo, et anxio erat corde.”From all this, it becomes clear that the actualintentionof the blundering author of the text exhibited by אb lwas, to connect πολλά,notwith ἠπόρει, but with ἀκούσας. So the Arabian version: but not the Gothic, Armenian, Sclavonic, or Georgian,—as Dr. S. C. Malan informs the Reviewer.174.Note, that tokens abound of a determination anciently to assimilate the Gospels hereabouts. Thus, because the first half of Luke ix. 10 (ϟα / η) and the whole of Mk. vi. 30 (ξα / η) are bracketed together by Eusebius, the former place in codexais found brought into conformity with the latter by the unauthorized insertion of the clause καὶ ὅσα ἐδίδαξαν.—The parallelism of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Lu. ix. 10 is the reason whydexhibits in the latter place ἀν- (instead of ὑπ)εχώρησε.—In like manner, in Lu. ix. 10, codexaexhibits εἰς ἔρημον τόπον, instead of εἰς τόπον ἔρημον; only because ἔρημον τόπον is the order of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Mk. vi. 32.—So again, codex א, in the same verse of S. Luke, entirely omits the final clause πόλεως καλουμένης Βηθσαῖδά, only in order to assimilate its text to that of the two earlier Gospels.—But there is no need to look beyond the limits of S. Mark vi. 14-16, for proofs of Assimilation. Instead of ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη (in ver. 14),band א exhibit ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν—only because those words are found in Lu. ix. 7.asubstitutes ἀνέστη (for ἠγέρθη)—only because that word is found in Lu. ix. 8. For ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν,csubstitutes ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν—only because S. Matth. so writes in ch. xiv. 2.dinserts καὶ ἔβαλεν εἰς φυλακήν into ver. 17—only because of Mtt. xiv. 3 and Lu. iii. 20. In אb lΔ, βαπτίζοντος (for βαπτιστοῦ) stands in ver. 24—only by Assimilation with ver. 14. (lis for assimilating ver. 25 likewise), Κ Δ Π, the Syr., and copies of the old Latin, transpose ἐνεργοῦσιν αἱ δυνάμεις (in ver. 14)—only because those words are transposed in Mtt. xiv. 2.... If facts like these do not open men's eyes to the danger of following the fashionable guides, it is to be feared that nothing ever will. The foulest blot of all remains to be noticed. Will it be believed that in ver. 22, codices אb d lΔ conspire in representing the dancer (whose name isknownto have been“Salome”) asanother“Herodias”—Herod's own daughter? This gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of history—a reading as preposterous as it is revolting, and therefore rejected hitherto byallthe editors andallthe critics—finds undoubting favour with Drs. Westcott and Hort. Calamitous to relate,it also disfigures the margin of our Revised Version of S. Markvi. 22,in consequence.175.i.e.“And”is omitted byb lΔ:“immediately”by אc:“with tears”by אa b c lΔ:“Lord”by אa b c d l.—In S. Mark vi. 16—(viz.“But when Herod heard thereof, he said [This is] John whom I beheaded. He is risen [from the dead],”)—the five words in brackets are omitted by our Revisers on the authority of אb(d)lΔ. But אdfurther omit Ἰωάννην:c domit ὁ: אb d lomit ὅτι. To enumerate and explain the effects of all the barbarous Mutilations which the Gospels alone have sustained at the hands of א, ofb, and ofd—would fill many volumes like the present.176.Chrysostom, vii. 825.177.On the Creed, Art. iv.“Dead:”about half-way through.178.The Coptic represents ὅτι ἐξέπνευσε.179.Namely, of ἘΝ τῇ Βας. σου, which is the reading ofevery known copy but two; besides Origen, Eusebius, Cyril Jer., Chrysostom, &c. Onlyb lread ΕἸΣ,—which Westcott and Hort adopt.180.i. 261.181.i. 936, 1363.182.i. 158.183.P. 301.184.Ap. Galland. vi. 53.185.P. 396.186.vii. 431.187.“Ut ab additamenti ratione alienum est, ita cur omiserint in promptu est.”188.But then, 25 (out of 320) pages ofdare lost:d's omissions in the Gospels may therefore be estimated at 4000. Codexadoes not admit of comparison, the first 24 chapters of S. Matthew having perished; but, from examining the way it exhibits the other three Gospels, it is found that 650 would about represent the number of words omitted from its text.—The discrepancy between the texts ofbאd, thusfor the first time brought distinctly into notice, let it be distinctly borne in mind, is a matter wholly irrespective of the merits or demerits of the Textus Receptus,—which, for convenience only, is adopted as a standard: not, of course, ofExcellencebut only ofComparison.189.Viz. the 1st, the 7th to 12th inclusive, and the 15th.190.Concerning“thesingular codexd,”—as Bp. Ellicott phrases it,—see back, pages 14 and 15.191.Bp. EllicottOn Revision,—p. 42. Concerning the value of the last-named authority, it is a satisfaction to enjoy the deliberate testimony of the Chairman of the Revisionist body. See below, p.85.192.i. 156.193.ii. 254.194.i. 344195.iv. 220, 1218.196.In Luc.664 (Mai, iv. 1105).197.ii. 653.198.“In Lucâ legimusduos calices, quibus discipulis propinavit,”vii. 216.199.Τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον; τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον, ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον.200.P. 1062.201.ii. 747.202.i. 1516. See below, p.82.203.Abbott'sCollation of four important Manuscripts, &c., 1877.204.ii. 354.205.Pp. 543 and 681 ( = ed. Mass. 219 and 277).206.Contra Noet.c. 18; also ap. Theodoret iv. 132-3.207.Ap. Galland. xix.;Append.116, 117.208.Evan. Conc.pp. 55, 235.209.Ap. Epiph. i. 742, 785.210.It is § 283 in his sectional system.211.P. 1121.212.ii. 43; v. 392; vi. 604. AlsoEvan. Conc.235. And see below, p.82.213.Pp. 394, 402.214.i. 551.215.[i. 742, 785;] ii. 36, 42.216.v. 263; vii. 791; viii. 377.217.ii. 39.218.Ap. Theod. Mops.219.In loc. bis; ap. Galland. xii. 693; and Mai,Scriptt. Vett.vi. 306.220.Concilia, iii. 327 a.221.Ap. Mai, iii. 389.222.Concilia, iii. 1101 d.223.Schol. 34.224.i. 692; iv. 271, 429; v. 23.Conc.iii. 907 e.225.Concilia, iii. 740 d.226.Ap. Galland. vi. 16, 17, 19.227.Ap. Cosmam, ii. 331.228.i. 544.229.In Dionys. ii. 18, 30.230.Ap. Galland. xii. 693.231.Ibid.688.232.Pp. 108, 1028, 1048.233.Epist.138234.P. 1061.235.ii. 747.236.iv. 901, 902, 1013, 1564.237.P. 373.238.Ap. Galland. ix. 40.239.Ibid.xi. 693.240.Let their own account of the matter be heard:—“The documentary evidence clearly designates [these verses] asan early Western interpolation, adopted in eclectic texts.”—“They can only bea fragment from the Traditions, written or oral, which were for a while at leastlocally current:”—an“evangelic Tradition,”therefore,“rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second century.”241.Consider the places referred to in Epiphanius.242.The Editors shall speak for themselves concerning this, the first of the“Seven last Words:”—“We cannot doubt thatit comes from an extraneous source:”—“need not have belonged originallyto the book in which it is now included:”—is“a Western interpolation.”Dr. Hort,—unconscious apparently that he isat the bar, noton the bench,—passes sentence (in his usual imperial style)—“Text, Western and Syrian”(p. 67).—But then, (1st) It happens that ourLord'sintercession on behalf of His murderers is attested by upwards of forty Patristic witnessesfrom every part of ancient Christendom: while, (2ndly) On the contrary, the places in which it isnot foundare certain copies of the old Latin, and codexd, which is supposed to be our great“Western”witness.243.Dr. Hort'sN. T.vol. ii.Note, p. 68.244.Ap. Eus.Hist. Eccl.ii. 23.245.P. 521 and ... [Mass. 210 and 277.]246.Ed. Lagarde, p. 65line3.247.ii. 188.Hær.iii. 18 p. 5.248.Ap. Gall. iii. 38, 127.249.Ibid.ii. 714. (Hom.xi. 20.)250.Evan. Conc.275.251.Ap. Routh, v. 161.252.He places the verses inCan.x.253.i. 1120.254.iii. 289.255.Cat. in Ps.iii. 219.256.i. 290.257.15 times.258.ii. 48, 321, 428; ii. (syr.) 233.259.Evan. Conc.117, 256.260.i. 607.261.Pp. 232, 286.262.P. 85.263.Pp. 11, 16. Dr. Wright assigns them to the IVth century.264.Eph.c. x.265.ii. 166, 168, 226.266.6 times.267.Ap. Mai, ii. 197 ( = Cramer 52); iii. 392.—Dr. Hort's strenuous pleading for the authority of Cyril on this occasion (who however is plainly against him) is amusing. So is his claim to have the cursive“82”on his side. He is certainly reduced to terrible straits throughout his ingenious volume. Yet are we scarcely prepared to find an upright and honourable man contending so hotly, and almost on any pretext, for the support of those very Fathers which, when they are against him, (as, 99 times out of 100, they are,) he treats with utter contumely. He is observed to put up with any ally, however insignificant, who evenseemsto be on his side.268.Ap. Theod. v. 1152.269.Pp. 423, 457.270.Cat. in Ps.i. 768; ii. 663.271.Pp. 1109, 1134.272.i. 374.273.P. 93.274.ii. 67, 747.275.i. 814; ii. 819; v. 735.276.P. 88.277.Ap. Chrys. vi. 191.278.11 times.279.P. 782 f.280.12 times.281.More than 60 times.282.Ap. Cypr. (ed. Baluze), &c. &c.283.On Revision,—p. 42note. See above, p.78note.284.Eclog. Proph.p. 89.285.In Luc.435 and 718.286.See pages93to 97.287.i. 1528.288.So Sedulius Paschalis, ap. Galland. ix. 595.289.iii. 2.290.Euseb.Ecl. Proph.p. 89: Greg. Nyss. i. 570.—These last two places have hitherto escaped observation.291.See above, pp.49-50, note 2.292.Viz., thus:—ἦν δὲ καὶ ἐπιγραφὴ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων οὗτος.293.Dean Alford,in loc.294.ὁ Λουκᾶς μιᾷ λέγει τῶν σαββάτων ὄρθρου βαθέος φέρειν ἀρώματα γυναῖκας ΔΎΟ τὰς ἀκολουθησάσας ἀυτῷ, αἵ τινες ἦσαν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας συνακολουθήσασαι, ὅτε ἔθαπτον αὐτὸν ἐλθοῦσαι ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα; αἵτινες ΔΎΟ, κ.τ.λ.,—ad Marinum, ap. Mai, iv. 266.295.Ps. i. 79.296.Dem.492.297.Ap. Mai, iv. 287, 293.298.i. 364.299.Ap. Mai, ii. 439.300.Ap. Galland. xi. 224.301.Cat. in Joann.p. 453.302.Ps.-Chrys. viii. 161-2. Johannes Thessal. ap. Galland. xiii. 189.303.Ap. Mai, iv. 293bis; 294diserte.304.i. 506, 1541.305.iii. 91.306.iv. 1108, andLuc.728 ( = Mai, ii. 441).307.iii.2142; viii. 472.308.So Tertullian:—“Manus et pedes suos inspiciendos offert”(Carn.c. 5).“Inspectui eorum manus et pedes suos offert”(Marc.iv. c. 43). Also Jerome i. 712.309.De Resur.240 (quoted by J. Damascene, ii. 762).310.Ap. Mai, iv. 294.311.i. 906, quoted by Epiph. i. 1003.312.Ap. Theodoret, iv. 141.313.i. 49.314.i. 510; ii. 408, 418; iii. 91.315.iv. 1108; vi. 23 (Trin.). Ap. Mai, ii. 442ter.316.iv. 272.317.Cat. in Joan.462, 3.318.i. 303.319.See above, pp.78and85.320.iii. 579.321.ii. 114 (ed. 1698).322.ii. 9, 362, 622.323.ii. 309; iv. 30; v. 531; vii. 581.324.vi. 79.325.Ep.i. (ap. Gall. i. p. xii.)326.ii. 464.327.Text, pp. 565 and 571.328.Append.p. 14.329.We depend for our Versions on Dr. S. C. Malan: pp. 31, 44.330.ii. 147.Conc.v. 675.331.Cord.Cat.i. 376.332.vii. 599, 600diserte.333.Ap. Photium, p. 644.334.Three times.335.i. 663, 1461, ii. 1137.336.Pp. 367, 699.337.vii. 139.338.Ap. Galland. vi. 324.339.iii. P. i. 760.340.Text, p. 572.341.Append.p. 14.342.ἔτι δὲ ἀπιστούντων αὐτῷ, καὶ θαυμαζόντων ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς.343.Viz. from ch. xix. 7 to xx. 46.344.We take leave to point out that, however favourable the estimate Drs. Westcott and Hort may have personally formed of the value and importance of the Vatican Codex (b), nothing can excuse their summary handling, not to say their contemptuous disregard, of all evidence adverse to that of their own favourite guide. Theypass bywhatever makes against the reading they adopt, with the oracular announcement that the rival reading is“Syrian,”“Western,”“Western and Syrian,”as the case may be.But we respectfully submit that“Syrian,”“Western,”“Western and Syrian,”as Critical expressions, are absolutely without meaning, as well as without use to a student in this difficult department of sacred Science. They supply no information. They are never supported by a particle of intelligible evidence. They are often demonstrably wrong, andalwaysunreasonable. They areDictation, notCriticism. When at last it is discovered that they do but signify that certain wordsare not found in codexb,—they are perceived to be the veriestfoolishnessalso.Progress is impossible while this method is permitted to prevail. If these distinguished Professors have enjoyed a Revelation as to what the Evangelists actually wrote, they would do well to acquaint the world with the fact at the earliest possible moment. If, on the contrary, they are merely relying on their own inner consciousness for the power of divining the truth of Scripture at a glance,—they must be prepared to find their decrees treated with the contumely which is due to imposture, of whatever kind.345.Marcion (Epiph. i. 317);—Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266);—Epiphanius (i. 348);—Cyril (Mai, ii. 438);—John Thessal. (Galland. xiii. 188).346.[The discussion of this text has been left very nearly as it originally stood,—the rather, because the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16 will be found fully discussed at the end of the present volume. SeeIndex of Texts.]347.Companion to the Revised Version, &c., by Alex. Roberts, D.D. (2nd edit.), pp. 66-8.348.Of this, any one may convince himself by merely inspecting the 2 pages of codexawhich are exposed to view at the British Museum.349.For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading (17, 73, 181), the second proves (on enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an abridgment of Œcumenius, who certainly read Θεός; and the last is non-existent.350.Concilia, ii. 217 c.351.viii. 214 b.352.A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude of proofs thatChristisGod, Gregory says:—Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαῤῥήδῃν βοᾷ; ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι. ii. 693.353.Τοῦτο ἡμῖν τὸ μέγα μυστήριον ... ὁ ἐνανθρωπήσας δι᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ πτωχεύσας Θεός, ἵνα ἀναστήσῃ τὴν σάρκα. (i. 215 a.)—Τί τὸ μέγα μυστήριον?... Θεὸς ἄνθρωπος γίνεται. (i. 685 b.)354.De Trin.p. 83—where the testimony is express.355.Θεὸς γὰρ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.—Concilia, i. 853 d.356.Cramer'sCat. in Rom.p. 124.357.One quotation may suffice:—Τὸ δὲ Θεὸν ὄντα, ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνεσχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ... τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἐκπλήξεως γέμον. ὂ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγεν; καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστέριον; ποῖον μέγα; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί; καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ Θεός, κ.τ.λ. i. 497. = Galland. xiv. 141.358.The following may suffice:—μέγα γὰρ τότε τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς ὢν καὶ ὁ Λόγος; ἐδικαιώθη δὲ καὶ ἐν πνεύματι. v. p. ii.; p. 154 c d.—In a newly-recovered treatise of Cyril, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is quoted at length with Θεός, followed by a remark on the ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθεὶς Θεός. This at least is decisive. The place has been hitherto overlooked.359.i. 92; iii. 657; iv. 19, 23.360.Apud Athanasium,Opp.ii. 33, where see Garnier's prefatory note.361.Καθ᾽ ὂ γὰρ ὑπῆρχε Θεὸς [sc. ὁ Χριστὸς] τοῦτον ᾔτει τὸν νομοθέτην δοθῆναι πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι ... τοιγαροῦν καὶ δεξάμενα τὰ ἔθνη τὸν νομοθέτην, τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα Θεόν. Cramer'sCat.iii. 69. The quotation is from the lost work of Severus against Julian of Halicarnassus.362.Galland. xii. 152 e, 153 e, with the notes both of Garnier and Gallandius.363.i. 313; ii. 263.364.Ap. Athanas. i. 706.365.iii. 401-2.366.Ap. Phot. 230.367.Contra Hær. Noet.c. 17.368.Ap. Clem. Al. 973.369.Cap. xii.370.Ad Eph.c. 19, 7;ad Magn.c. 8.371.See Scrivener'sPlain Introd.pp. 555-6, and Berriman'sDissertation, pp. 229-263. Also the end of this volume.372.i. 887 c.373.ii. 74 b.374.See above, p.98.375.As, that stupid fabrication, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; (in S. Matth. xix. 17):—the new incidents and sayings proposed for adoption, as in S. Mark i. 27 (in the Synagogue of Capernaum): in S. John xiii. 21-6 (at the last supper): in S. Luke xxiv. 17 (on the way to Emmaus):—the many proposed omissions, as in S. Matth. vi. 13 (the Doxology): in xvi. 2, 3 (the signs of the weather): in S. Mark ix. 44 & 46 (the words of woe): in S. John v. 3, 4 (the Angel troubling the pool), &c. &c. &c.376.It cannot be too plainly or too often stated that learned Prebendary Scrivener iswholly guiltlessof the many spurious“Readings”with which a majority of his co-Revisionists have corrupted the Word ofGod. He pleaded faithfully,—but he pleaded in vain.—It is right also to state that the scholarlike Bp. of S. Andrews (Dr. Charles Wordsworth) has fully purged himself of the suspicion of complicity, by his printed (not published) remonstrances with his colleagues.—The excellent Bp. of Salisbury (Dr. Moberly) attended only 121 of their 407 meetings; and that judicious scholar, the Abp. of Dublin (Dr. Trench) only 63. The reader will find more on this subject at the close of Art. II.,—pp.228-30.377.Eusebius,—Basil,—Chrysostom (in loc.),—Jerome,—Juvencus,—omit the words. P. E. Pusey found them innoSyriac copy. But the conclusive evidence is supplied by the Manuscripts; not more than 1 out of 20 of which contain this clause.378.“Revised Text”of S. Luke vi. 48.379.“Authorized Version,”supported bya c dand 12 other uncials, the whole body of the cursives, the Syriac, Latin, and Gothic versions.380.“Revised Text”of S. Luke v. 39.381.“Authorized Version,”supported bya cand 14 other uncials, the whole body of the cursives, andallthe versions except the Peschito and the Coptic.382.Address at Lincoln Diocesan Conference,—p. 16.383.On Revision,—p. 99.384.Dial.capp. 88 and 103 (pp. 306, 310, 352).385.P. 113.386.Ap. Galland. iii. 719, c d.387.iv. 15 (ap. Gall. iv. 296 b).388.42 b, 961 e, 1094 a.389.Ap. Galland. iv. 605 (ver. 365-6).390.Ap. Aug. viii. 423 e.391.“Vox illa Patris, quæ super baptizatum facta estEgo hodie genui te,”(Enchirid.c. 49 [Opp.vi. 215 a]):—“Illud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa voce sonuisse quod in Psalmo scriptum est,Filius meus es tu: ego hodie genui te, quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus Græcis non inveniri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus confirmari possit, quid aliud quam utrumque intelligendum est quolibet verborum ordine de cælo sonuisse?”(De Cons. Ev.ii. c. 14 [Opp.iii. P. ii. 46 d e]). Augustine seems to allude to what is found to have existed in theEbionite Gospel.392.Epiphanius (i. 138 b) quotes the passage which contains the statement.393.Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως—οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς: also—ἀνθρώπων.394.For my information on this subject, I am entirely indebted to one who is always liberal in communicating the lore of which he is perhaps the sole living depositary in England,—the Rev. Dr. S. C. Malan. See hisSeven Chapters of the Revision of 1881, revised,—p. 3. But especially should the reader be referred to Dr. Malan's learned dissertation on this very subject in hisSelect Readings in Westcott and Hort's Gr. Text of S. Matth.,—pp. 1 to 22.395.So Dr. Malan in hisSelect Readings(see above note 1),—pp. 15, 17, 19.396.“LibergenituræJesu Christi filii David, filii Abraham”...“Gradatim ordo deducitur ad Christinativitatem.”—De Carne Christi, c. 22.397.A friendly critic complains that we do not specify which editions of the Fathers we quote. Our reply is—This [was] a Review, not a Treatise. We areconstrainedto omit such details. Briefly, we always quotethe best Edition. Critical readers can experiencenodifficulty in verifying our references. A few details shall however be added: Justin (Otto): Irenæus (Stieren): Clemens Al. (Potter): Tertullian (Oehler): Cyprian (Baluze): Eusebius (Gaisford): Athanas. (1698): Greg. Nyss. (1638): Epiphan. (1622): Didymus (1769): Ephraem Syr. (1732): Jerome (Vallarsi): Nilus (1668-73): Chrysostom (Montfaucon): Cyril (Aubert): Isidorus (1638): Theodoret (Schulze): Maximus (1675): John Damascene (Lequien): Photius (1653). Most of the others (as Origen, Greg. Nazianz., Basil, Cyril of Jer., Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine), are quoted from the Benedictine editions. When we say“Mai,”we always mean hisNova Biblioth. PP.1852-71. By“Montfaucon,”we mean theNov. Coll. PP.1707. It is necessity that makes us so brief.398.Concilia, iii. 521 a to d.399.i.2340.400.P. 889 line 37 (γένησιν).401.i. 943 c.402.i. 735.403.v.1363, 676.404.Concil.iii. 325 ( = Cyril v.228 a).405.vii. 48; viii. 314.406.In Matth. ii. 16.407.Ps.-Athanas. ii. 306 and 700: ps.-Chrysost. xii. 694.408.P. 470.409.Gall. ix. 215.410.Trin.188.411.i. 250 b.412.i. 426 a (γένησις).413.Διαφέρει γένεσις καὶ γέννησις; γένεσις μὲν γάρ ἐστι παρὰ Θεοῦ πρώτη πλάσις, γέννησις δὲ ἡ ἐκ καταδίκης τοῦ θανάτου διὰ τὴν παράβασιν ἐξ ἀλλήλων διαδοχή.—Galland. xiv.Append.pp. 73, 74.414.[dated 22 Maya.d.359] ap. Athan. i. 721 d.415.i. 722 c.416.P. 20 of the newly-recoveredDiatessaron, translated from the Armenian. The Exposition is claimed for Ephraem Syrus.417.Dr. Malan,Seven Chapters of the Revision, revised, p. 7.418.See below, note 13.419.See p.122, note 11.420.i. 938, 952. Also ps.-Athan. ii. 409, excellently.421.Trin.349.422.P. 116.423.i. 392; ii. 599, 600.424.ii. 229.425.See p.122, note 11.426.i. 426, 1049 (5 times), 1052-3.427.vii. 76.428.Galland. ix. 636.429.P. 6 (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς: which is also the reading of Syrevand of the Sahidic. The Memphitic version represents τὸν υἱόν.)430.i. 276.431.Gal. xiii. 662.432.In Cat.433.ii. 462.434.“Ex hoc loco quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios filios habuisse Mariam, dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi qui habeat et fratres”(vii. 14). He refers to his treatise against Helvidius, ii. 210.435.Preface to Pastoral Epistles,—more fully quoted facing p. 1.436.The Preface (quoted above facing p. 1,) is dated 3rd Nov. 1868.437.Lectures on Biblical Revision, (1881) pp. 116 seqq. See above, pp.37-9.438.On Revision, pp. 30 and 49.439.The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST, translated out of the Greek: being the Version set fortha.d.1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Reviseda.d.1881. Printed for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881.The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version.Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ.The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version.[Edited by the Ven. Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.The New Testament in the Original Greek.The Text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. Cambridge and London, 1881.440.Malan'sGospel of S. John translated from the Eleven oldest Versions.441.Int. ii. 72; iv. 622 dis.442.C. Noet.§ 4.443.i. 1275.444.Trin.363.445.Ap. Gall. v. 67.446.i. 282.447.i. 486.448.Ep. ad Paul. Sam. Concil.i. 872 e; 889 e.449.Ap. Galland. iv. 563.450.vii. 546; viii. 153, 154, 277.451.iii. 570; iv. 226, 1049, 1153.452.iv. 150 (text); vi. 30, 169. Mai, ii. 69.453.Concilia, iii. 1102 d.454.Quoted by Leontius (Gall. xii. 693).455.In Cat.Cord. 96.456.Ibid.p. 94.457.Cat. in Ps.ii. 323 and 343.458.Ap. Photium, p. 281.459.Montf. ii. 286.460.i. 288, 559, 567.461.Ps.-Athan. ii. 464. Another, 625. Another, 630. Ps.-Epiphan. ii. 287.462.i. 863, 903, 1428.463.Gall. iii. 296.464.32 dis.; 514; 1045 dis.465.Gall. vi. 192.466.iv. 679.467.Ap. Athan. ii. 646.468.Gall. v. 124.469.Ibid.iii. 628, 675.470.Ibid.ix. 367.471.Ibid.ix. 493.472.Let the Reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts of the severalVersionsabove enumerated, and mentally assign eachFatherto his own approximate locality: then let him bear in mind that 995 out of 1000 of the extantManuscriptsagree with those Fathers and Versions; and let him further recognize that those MSS. (executed at different dates in different countries) must severally represent independent remote originals, inasmuch asno two of them are found to be quite alike.—Next, let him consider that,in all the Churches of the East, these words from the earliest period were read aspart of the Gospel for the Thursday in Easter week.—This done, let him decide whether it is reasonable that two worshippers of codexb—a.d.1881—should attempt to thrust all this mass of ancient evidence clean out of sight by their peremptory sentence of exclusion,—“Western and Syrian.”Drs. Westcott and Hort inform us that“the character of the attestationmarks”the clause (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ),“as aWestern gloss.”But the“attestation”for retaining that clause—(a) Comes demonstrably from every quarter of ancient Christendom:—(b) Is more ancient (by 200 years) than the evidence for omitting it:—(c) Is more numerous, in the proportion of 99 to 1:—(d) In point of respectability, stands absolutely alone. For since we haveprovedthat Origen and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, Ambrose and Jerome,recognizethe words in dispute, of what possible Textual significancy can it be if presently (because it is sufficient for their purpose) the same Fathers are observed to quote S. John iii. 13no further than down to the words“Son of Man”? No person, (least of all a professed Critic,) who adds to his learning a few grains of common sense and a little candour, can be misled by such a circumstance. Origen, Eusebius, Proclus, Ephraim Syrus, Jerome, Marius, when they are only insisting on the doctrinal significancy of the earlier words, naturally end their quotation at this place. The two Gregories (Naz. [ii. 87, 168]: Nyss. [Galland. vi. 522]), writing against the Apolinarian heresy, of course quoted the verse no further than Apolinaris himself was accustomed (for his heresy) to adduce it.... About theinternalevidence for the clause, nothing has been said; butthisis simply overwhelming. We make our appeal toCatholic Antiquity; and are content to rest our cause onExternal Evidence;—onCopies, onVersions, onFathers.473.Pp. 798, 799.474.iii. 414.475.Ant.c. 50;Consum.c. 28.476.Hist. Eccl.v. 8.477.Ἐμβατεῦσαι;—Ἐπιβῆναι τὰ ἔνδον ἐξερευνῆσαι ἣ σκοπῆσαι. Phavorinus, quoted by Brüder.478.Viz. S. Luke iv. 39: Acts x. 17: xi. 11: xxii. 20.479.S. Luke ii. 9 (where“came upon”is better than“stood bythem,”and should have been left): xxiv. 4: Acts xii. 7: xxii. 13: xxiii. 11.480.S. Luke xx. 1: xxi. 34 (last Day): Acts iv. 1: vi. 12: xvii. 5 (“assault”): xxiii. 27: xxviii. 2 (a rain-storm,—which, by the way, suggests for τὸν ἐφεστῶτα a different rendering from“the present”).481.S. Luke ii. 38.482.S. Luke x. 40.483.Cf. ch. xi. 20. So in Latin,Illa plurima sacrificia. (Cic.De Fin.2. 20. 63.)484.“The context”(says learned Dr. Field)“is too strong for philological quibbles.”The words“can by no possibility bear any other meaning.”—Otium Norvicense, p. 40.485.Στρατιώτης ὂς πρὸς τὸ φονεύειν τέτακται,—Theophylact, i. 201 e. Boys quotes SenecaDe Irá:—Tunc centurio supplicio præpositus condere gladiumspeculatoremjussit.486.Trench,Study of Words, p. 106.487.Otium Norvicense, pars tertia, 1881, pp. 155.488.Compare Xenophon (Cyrop.vii. 6. 8), τοὺς Συριστὶ ἐπισταμένους. Theplena locutiois found in Nehem. xiii. 24,—οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτῶν ἥμισυ λαλοῦντες Ἁζωτιστί, καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐπιγινώσκοντες λαλεῖν Ἰουδαιστί (quoted by Wetstein).489.Cf. Acts i. 23; xvii. 31. The Latin is“statuerunt”or“constituerunt.”The Revisionists give“appointed”in the second of these places, and“put forward”in the first. In both,—What becomes of their uniformity?490.P. 279.491.καὶ τὸν δικαστὴν εἷλεν ὁ τέως κατάδικος εἶναι νομιζόμενος καὶ τὴν νίκην αὐτὸς ὁ χειρωθεὶς ὁμολογεῖ λαμπρᾷ τῇ φωνῇ παρόντων ἁπάντων λέγων, ἐν ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. x. 307 b. (= xii. 433 a).492.ἐν ὀλίγῳ; τουτέστι παρὰ μικρόν. ix. 391 a.493.καὶ τὸν δικάζοντα μικροῦ μεταπεῖσαι, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον λέγειν, ἐν ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. ii. 516 d.494.iii. 399 d.495.v. 930 (παρ᾽ ὀλίγον).496.MS. Note in his copy of the N. T.497.And the Revisionists: for see Rom. xi. 4.498.Yet even here they cannot abstain from putting in the margin the peculiarly infelicitous alternative,—“Why didst thou forsake Me?”499.As in Rom. vi. 2: ix. 13. 1 Cor. i. 27: vi. 20: ix. 11. Ephes. iv. 20, &c. &c.500.Comp. S. Matth. viii. 1, 5, 23, 28; ix. 27, 28; xxi. 23.501.Ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς.502.ii. 155.503.Routh,Rell. iii. 226ad calc.504.Ap. Mai, iv. 266.505.ii. 1324.506.ii. 380.507.Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 403.508.So also Heb. xi. 17, 28. And see the Revision of S. James i. 11.509.Comp. ἀφίεμεν in S. Lu. xi. 4. In the case of certain Greek verbs, thepreteritein form is invariablypresentin signification. See Dr. Field's delightfulOtium Norvicense, p. 65.510.See above, pp.98-106. Alsoinfra, towards the end.511.As in S. Matth. xi. 11 and 2 Tim. iv. 17, where δέ is rendered“notwithstanding:”—Phil. i. 24 and Heb. xii. 11, where it is“nevertheless.”512.Eighttimes in succession in 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, δέ is not represented in the A. V. The ancientsfeltso keenly what Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the A. V. ventured to exhibit, that as often as not they leave out the δέ,—in which our Revisionists twice follow them. The reader of taste is invited to note the precious result of inserting“and,”as the Revisionists have done six times, where according to the genius of the English language it is not wanted at all.513.38 times in the Genealogy, S. Matth. i.514.Rom. xiv. 4: xv. 20.515.Rom. ix. 22.516.1 Cor. xii. 27.517.Gal. ii. 4.518.Act xxvii. 26.519.Rom. iii. 22.520.Ephes. iv. 1.521.2 Cor. v. 8.522.S. Mark xv. 31.523.S. Mark vi. 29.524.1 Cor. x. 1.525.S. Matth. vi. 30.526.S. John xx. 4.527.2 Cor. i. 23.528.2 Cor. vii. 13.529.2 Cor. ii. 12.530.2 Pet. iii. 13.531.S. Matth. ii. 22.532.1 Cor. xii. 20.533.1 S. John i. 3.534.S. Matth. xxv. 39.535.Acts viii. 3.536.Rom. xii. 6.537.S. Matth. vi. 29.538.As in S. Matth. vii. 9: xii. 29: xx. 15. Rom. iii. 29.539.S. Matth. xx. 15: xxvi. 53. Rom. iii. 29: vi. 3: vii. 1.540.S. John xvi. 32.541.S. Luke xix. 23.542.2 Cor. xiii. 1.543.S. Luke xii. 2.544.S. Luke xviii. 7.545.S Luke xiv. 21.546.1 S. John ii. 27.547.1 S. John i. 2.548.S. Mark ix. 39.549.Acts xxiii. 3.550.Consider S. Matth. iii. 16,—ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος: and ver. 6,—ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ.551.ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συνανεστράφη.552.Galland. iv. 6 bbis.553.P. 279.554.ix. 400.555.ii. 707.556.The circumstance is noticed and explained in the same way by Dr. Field in his delightfulOtium Norvicense.557.Concilia, iv. 79 e.558.Thus Cyril addresses one of his Epistles to Acacius Bp. of Melitene,—Concilia, iii. 1111.559.See Dr. Field's delightfulOtium Norvicense(Pars tertia), 1881, pp. 1-4 and 110, 111. This masterly contribution to Sacred Criticism ought to be in the hands of every student of Scripture.560.See Hesychius, and the notes on the place.561.Notes designed to illustrate some expressions in the Gk. Test. by a reference to thelxx., &c. By C. F. B. Wood, Præcentor of Llandaff,—Rivingtons, 1882, (pp. 21,)—p. 17:—an admirable performance, only far too brief.562.Μὴ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ῥῆμα?563.Οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ πᾶν ῥῆμα.564.[Pointed out to me by Professor Gandell,—whose exquisite familiarity with Scripture is only equalled by his readiness to communicate his knowledge to others.]565.μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς and ἐνταφιασμός,—S. Mark xiv. 3 and 8: S. John xii. 3 and 7. Hear Origen (apud Hieron. iii. 517):—“Non de nardo propositum est nunc Spiritui Sancto dicere, neque de hoc quod oculis intuemur, Evangelista scribit, unguento; sedde nardo spirituali.”And so Jerome himself, vii. 212.566.Ps. xxxiii. 18 (ἐγγὺς Κύριος τοῖς συντετριμμένοις τὴν καρδίαν): Is. lvii. 15.567.Consider Ignatius,ad Ephes.c. xvii. Also, the exquisite remark of Theod. Heracl. in Cramer'sCat.568.We prefer that readers should be reminded, by the varied form, of theGreekoriginal. In the extreme case (Acts vii. 45: Hebr. iv. 8), is it not far more edifying that attention should be in this way directed to the identity of the names“Joshua”and“Jesus,”than that the latter word should be entirely obliterated by the former;—and this, only for the sake of unmistakeably proclaiming, (what yet must needs be perfectly manifest, viz.) that“Joshua”is the personage spoken of?569.So, in S. Luke xxiii. 25, and Acts iii. 14: xiii. 28,—still following Tyndale.570.Acts xii. 20.571.Eph. iii. 13.572.For, as the story plainly shows (2 Sam. vii. 2, 3; 1 Chron. xvii. 1, 2), it was only“in his heart”to buildGodan house (1 Kings viii. 17, 18). Hence Cranmer's“he would fain”have done so.573.Acts xvi. 29.574.Col. i. 9.575.S. Matth. xiv. 15, 22, 23 (= S. Mark vi. 36, 45, [and note the substitution of ἀποταξάμενος in ver. 46]: S. Luke ix. 12): and xv. 32, 39 (= S. Mark viii. 9).576.S. Matt. xiii. 36: and S. Mark iv. 36.577.Acts xii. 13.578.Acts xvi. 16.579.Verses 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31.580.Twice he calls it μνῆμα.581.Ch. xxvii. 61, 64, 66; xxviii. 1.582.Except in 2 Tim. iii. 16,—where πρὸς διδασκαλίαν is renderedad docendum.583.Except in Rom. xii. 7,—where ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ is rendered“on teaching.”584.Except in Rom. xvi. 17, where they render it“doctrine.”585.And yet, since upwards of 50 times we are molested with a marginal note to inform us that διδάσκαλος means“Teacher”—διδασκαλία (rather than διδαχή) might have claimed to be rendered“teaching.”586.Viz. Rom. xii. 7: 1 Tim. iv. 13, 16: v. 17: 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16.—Rom. xv. 4.587.Eight times in Rev. xvi.588.S. Matth. xxvi. 7. S. Mark xiv. 3. S. Luke vii. 37.589.γλωσσόκομον. Consider the LXX. of 2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11.590.ζώνας.591.E.g.S. Matth. xxvi. 48. S. Luke ii. 12.592.Δύναμις is rendered“miracle”in the R. V. about half-a-dozen times.593.Acts iv. 16, 22.—On the other hand,“sign”was allowed to represent σημεῖον repeatedly in the A. V., as in S. Matth. xii. 38, &c., and the parallel places: S. Mark xvi. 17, 20: S. John xx. 30.594.Canon Cook'sRevised Version of the first three Gospels considered, &c.—p. 26: an admirable performance,—unanswered, becauseunanswerable.595.Dr. Vance Smith'sRevised Texts and Margins,—p. 45.596.S. Matth. xvii. 15: S. Mk. ix. 18, 20, 22, 26: S. Lu. ix. 39, 42.597.Consider ourLord'ssolemn words in Mtt. xvii. 21,—“But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting,”—12 words left out by the R. V., though witnessed to byall the Copies but3: by the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian Versions: and by the following Fathers:—(1) Origen, (2) Tertullian, (3) the Syriac Clement, (4) the SyriacCanons of Eusebius, (5) Athanasius, (6) Basil, (7) Ambrose, (8) Juvencus, (9) Chrysostom, (10)Opus imp., (11) Hilary, (12) Augustine, (13) J. Damascene, and others. Then (it will be asked), why have the Revisionists left them out? Because (we answer) they have been misled byband א, Cureton's Syriac and the Sahidic,—as untrustworthy a quaternion of witnesses to the text of Scripture as could be named.598.The word is only not banished entirely from the N. T. It occurs twice (viz. in Rom. i. 20, and Jude ver. 6), but only as the rendering of ἀῖδιος.599.S. Matth. xxv. 46.600.Clemens Al. (p. 71) says:—τὰσ γραφὰς ὁ Ἀπόστολος Θεοπνεύστους καλεῖ, ὠφελίμους οὔσας. Tertullian,—Legimus omnem Scripturam ædificationi habilem, divinitus inspirari.Origen (ii. 443),—πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος οὖσα ὠφελιμός ἐστι. Gregory Nyss. (ii. 605),—πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος λέγεται. Dial. (ap. Orig. i. 808),—πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος λέγεται παρὰ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου. So Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, &c.601.See Archdeacon Leeon Inspiration, pp. 261-3, reading his notes.602.S. John xvi. 15.603.Study by all means Basil's letter to Amphilochius, (vol. iii. p. 360 to 362.)—Ἔστιν οὖν ὁ νοῦς ὁ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ τοιοῦτος; Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ ὥρας, οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὔτε οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἄν ὁ Υἱὸς ἔγνω, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατέρ; ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτῷ ὑπῆρχε δεδομένη ἡ γνῶσις ... τουτέστιν, ἡ αἰτία τοῦ εἰδέναι τὸν Υἱὸν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός; καὶ ἀβίαστός ἐστι τῷ εὐγνωμόνως ἀκούοντι ἡ ἐξήγησις αὕτη. ἐπειδὴ οὐ πρόσκειται τὸ μόνος; ὡς καὶ παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ.—(p. 362 c.) Basil says of this interpretation—ἂ τοίνυν ἐκ παιδὸς παρὰ τῶν πατέρων ἠκούσαμεν.604.Notes, p. 109.605.Celebre effugium, (as Dr. Routh calls it,)quod ex falsâ verborum constructione Critici quidam hæreticis pararunt.Reliqq.iii. 322-3.606.calone has a point between ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων and Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τους αἰῶνας. But this is an entirely different thing from what is noted in the margin.607.MS. communication from the Rev. S. C. Malan.608.i. 506.609.Opusc.i. 52, 58;Phil.339.610.iv. 612.611.Routh,Reliqq. Sac.iii. 292, and 287. (Concil.i. 845 b. c.)612.Concilia, i. 873 d: 876 a.613.vi. c. 26.614.i. 414, 415, 429, 617, 684, 908.615.i. 282. And inCat.317.616.Trin.21, 29, 327, 392. Mai, vii. 303.617.ii. 596 a, (quoted by the Emp. Justinian [Concil.v. 697] and theChronicon Paschale, 355), 693, 697; iii. 287. Galland. vi. 575.618.i. 481, 487, 894, 978; ii. 74.619.Ap. Cyril (ed. Pusey), v. 534.620.Ap. Gall. iii. 805.621.Ap. Gall. iv. 576.622.Ap. Phot. col. 761, 853.623.Ap. Gall. vi. 8, 9, 80.624.Ap. Gall. vii. 618, and ap. Hieron. i. 560.625.Concilia, iii. 522 e ( = iv. 297 d = ap. Gall. viii. 667). Also,Concilia(Harduin), i. 1413 a.626.Ap. Gall. ix. 474.627.Ap. Gall. ix. 690, 691 ( =Concil.iii. 1230, 1231).628.Homilia(Arm.), p. 165 and 249.629.i. 464, 483; vi. 534; vii. 51; viii. 191; ix. 604, 653; x. 172.630.v.120, 503, 765, 792; v.258, 105, 118, 148; vi. 328. Ap. Mai, ii. 70, 86, 96, 104; iii. 84in Luc.26.631.Concilia, iii. 1099 b.632.i. 103; ii. 1355; iii. 215, 470; iv. 17, 433, 1148, 1264, 1295, 1309; v. 67, 1093.633.Cramer'sCat.160.634.Ibid. in Act.40.635.P. 166.636.Concilia, ii. 195.637.Ap. Gall. xii. 251.638.Ap. Gall. xii. 682.639.ii. 64.640.i. 557; ii. 35, 88.641.Prax. 13, 15—“Christum autem et ipse Deum cognominavit,Quorum patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in ævum.”642.P. 287.643.Ap. Gall. iii. 296, 313.644.i. 1470; ii. 457, 546, 609, 790.645.Concilia, ii. 982 c.646.78, 155, 393, 850, 970, 1125, 1232.647.i. 870, 872.648.Ap. Gall. viii. 157.649.Ap. Gall. vii. 589, 590.650.Ap. Gall. viii. 627.651.709, 711.652.Ap. Gall. x. 722.653.Ap. Gall. xi. 233, 237.654.Concilia, iii. 1364, 1382.655.Ap. Gall. 352, 357.656.Ibid.674.657.ii. 16, 215, 413.658.i. 839; v. 769; xii. 421.659.Those of our readers who wish to pursue this subject further may consult with advantage Dr. Gifford's learned note on the passage in theSpeaker's Commentary. Dr. Gifford justly remarks that“it is the natural and simple construction, which every Greek scholar would adopt without hesitation, if no question of doctrine were involved.”660.Note, that this has been the language of the Church from the beginning. Thus Tertullian,—“Aquam adituri ... contestamur nos renuntiare diabolo,et pompæ et angelis ejus”(i. 421): and Ambrose,—“Quando te interrogavit, Abrenuntias diaboloet operibus ejus, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio. Abrenuntiassæculo et voluptatibus ejus, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio”(ii. 350 c): and Ephraem Syrus,—Ἀποτάσσομαι τῷ Σατανᾷ καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ (ii. 195 and iii. 399). And Cæsarius of Arles,—“Abrenuntias diabolo,pompis et operibus ejus... Abrenuntio”(Galland. xi. 18 e).661.2 Tim. iv. 18.662.S. John xvii. 24.663.P. 140.664.Marcell. p. 192.665.In loc. diserte.666.Eth.ii. 297.667.viii. 485.668.Text, iv. 1003;Comm.1007, which aretwo distinct authorities, as learned readers of Cyril are aware.669.Concilia, iii. 356 d.670.iv. 450.671.Pp. 235, 321.672.i. 412; ii. 566, 649.673.Pp. 1017, 1033.674.Victricius ap. Gall. viii. 230. Also ps.-Chrys. v. 680.675.iii. 966dis.676.Dem.92.677.i. 319.678.Trin.190.679.v. 1039, 1069.680.ii. 460.681.v. 615.682.ii. 584. Cyril read the place both ways:—v.2156, andin Luc.p. 52.683.i. 720.684.ii. 381; iii. 962; iv. 601.685.Ap. Galland. vii. 183.686.Ap. Montf. ii. 67.687.iii. 333; v. 444; x. 498, 620; xii. 329.688.ii. 77; iii. 349.689.ii. 252.690.“Deseruimus fere quos sequi solemus codices.”691.P. 38 ( = Gall. vii. 26).692.i. 298, 613.693.viii. 351, 352.694.iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.695.i. 748; iv. 274, 550.696.In Dionys. Ar.ii. 192.697.As these sheets are passing through the press, we have received a book by Sir Edmund Beckett, entitled,Should the Revised New Testament be Authorized?In four Chapters, the author discusses with characteristic vigour, first, the principles and method of the Revisers, and then the Gospel of S. Matthew, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, as fair samples of their work, with a union of sound sense, forensic skill, and scholarship more skilful than to deserve his cautious disclaimer. Amidst details open, of course, to discussion, abundant proofs are set forth, in a most telling style, that the plea of“necessity”and“faithfulness”utterly fails, in justification of a mass of alterations, which, in point of English composition, carry their condemnation on their face, and, to sum up the great distinction between the two Versions, illustrate“the difference between working bydiscretionand byrules—by which no great thing was ever done or ever will be.”Sir Edmund Beckett is very happy in his exposure of the abuse of the famous canon of preferring the stranger reading to the more obvious, as if copyists never made stupid blunders or perpetrated wilful absurdities. The work deserves the notice of all English readers.698.It has been objected by certain of the Revisionists that it is not fair to say that“they were appointed to do one thing, and have done another.”We are glad of this opportunity to explain.Thatsomecorrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware: and had thosenecessarychanges been made, we should only have had words of commendation and thanks to offer. But it is found that by Dr. Hort's eager advocacy two-thirds of the Revisionists have made a vast number ofperfectly needless changes:—(1) Changes whichare incapable of being represented in a Translation: as ἐμοῦ for μου,—πάντες for ἅπαντες,—ὅτε for ὁπότε. Again, since γέννησις, at least as much as γένεσις, means“birth,”whyγένεσις in S. Matth. i. 18? Why, also, inform us that instead of ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ πεφυτευμένην, they prefer πεφυτευμένην ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ? and instead of καρπὸν ζητῶν,—ζητῶν καρπόν? Now this they have donethroughout,—at least 341 times in S. Luke alone. But (what is far worse), (2) They suggest in the margin changes which yet theydo not adopt. These numerous changes are,by their own confession, not“necessary:”and yet they are of a most serious character. In fact, it is of these we chiefly complain.—But, indeed (3),How manyof theirotheralterations of the Text will the Revisionists undertake to defend publicly on the plea of“Necessity”?[A vast deal more will be found on this subject towards the close of the present volume. In the meantime, see above, pages87-88.]699.“We meet in every page”(says Dr. Wordsworth, the learned Bishop of Lincoln,)“with small changes which are vexatious, teasing, and irritating; even the more so because they are small (as small insects sting most sharply),which seem almost to be made merely for the sake of change.”—p. 25.700.On the Revision of the English Version, &c. (1870), p. 99.701.Bp. Ellicott,Diocesan Progress, Jan. 1882,—p. 19.702.Bp. Ellicott,On Revision,—p. 49.703.“Quilxxinterpretes non legit, aut minus legit accurate, is sciat se non adeo idoneum, qui Scripta Evangelica Apostolica de Græco in Latinum, aut alium aliquem sermonem transferat, ut ut in aliis Græcis scriptoribus multum diuque fuerit versatus.”(John Bois, 1619.)—“Græcum N. T. contextum rite intellecturo nihil est utilius quam diligenter versasse Alexandrinam antiqui Fœderis interpretationem,e quâ unâ plus peti poterit auxilii, quam ex veteribus Scriptoribus Græcis simul sumtis.Centena reperientur in N. T. nusquam obvia in scriptis Græcorum veterum, sed frequentata in Alexandrinâ versione.”(Valcknaer, 1715-85.)704.On the Authorized Version,—p. 3.705.Preface, p. xiv.706.Quarterly Review, No. 304.707.Quarterly Review, No. 305.708.At the head of the present Article, as it originally appeared, will be found enumerated Dr. Scrivener's principal works. It shall but be said of them, that they are wholly unrivalled, or rather unapproached, in their particular department. Himself an exact and elegant Scholar,—a most patient and accurate observer of Textual phenomena, as well as an interesting and judicious expositor of their significance and value;—guarded in his statements, temperate in his language, fair and impartial (even kind) to all who come in his way:—Dr. Scrivener is the very best teacher and guide to whom a beginner can resort, who desires to be led by the hand, as it were, through the intricate mazes of Textual Criticism. HisPlain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the use of Biblical Students, (of which a third edition is now in the press,) is perforce the most generally useful, because the most comprehensive, of his works; but we strenuously recommend the three prefatory chapters of hisFull and Exact Collation of about twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Gospels[pp. lxxiv. and 178,—1853], and the two prefatory chapters of hisExact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, &c., to which is added a full Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, [pp. lxxx. and 563,—1859,] to the attention of students. His Collation ofCodex Bezæ(d) is perhaps the greatest of his works: but whatever he has done, he has done best. It is instructive to compare his collation of Cod. א with Tischendorf's. No reader of the Greek Testament can afford to be without his reprint of Stephens' ed. of 1550: and English readers are reminded that Dr. Scrivener's is the onlyclassicaledition of the English Bible,—The Cambridge Paragraph Bible, &c., 1870-3. His Preface or“Introduction”(pp. ix.-cxx.) passes praise. Ordinary English readers should enquire for hisSix Lectures on the Text of the N. T., &c., 1875,—which is in fact an attempt to popularize thePlain Introduction. The reader is referred to note 1 at the foot of page243.709.“Agmen ducit Carolus Lachmannus (N. T. Berolini1842-50), ingenii viribus et elegantiâ doctrinæ haud pluribus impar; editor N. T. audacior quam limatior: cujus textum, a recepto longè decedentem, tantopere judicibus quibusdam subtilioribus placuisse jamdudum miramur: quippe qui, abjectâ tot cæterorum codicum Græcorum ope, perpaucis antiquissimis (nec iis integris, nec per eum satis accuratè collatis) innixus, libros sacros ad sæculi post Christum quarti normam restituisse sibi videatur; versionum porrò (cujuslibet codicis ætatem facilè superantium) Syriacæ atque Ægyptiacarum contemptor, neutrius linguæ peritus; Latinarum contrà nimius fautor, præ Bentleio ipso Bentleianus.”—Scrivener's Preface toNov. Test, textûs Stephanici, &c. See above, p.238,note.710.Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 429.711.N. T. Part II. p. 2.712.No one who attends ever so little to the subject can require to be assured that“The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the variations adopted in the Revised Version,”edited by Dr. Scrivener for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1881, does not by any means represent his own views. The learned Prebendary merely edited the decisions of the two-thirds majority of the Revisionists,—which were not his own.713.Those who have never tried the experiment, can have no idea of the strain on the attention which such works as those enumerated in p.238(note) occasion. At the same time, it cannot be too clearly understood that it is chiefly by the multiplication ofexactcollations of MSS. that an abiding foundation will some day be laid on which to build up theScienceof Textual Criticism. We may safely keep our“Theories”back till we have collated our MSS.,—re-edited our Versions,—indexed our Fathers. They will be abundantly in timethen.714.Introduction, p. 18.715.See lower part of page17. Also note at p.75and middle of p.262.716.P. 13, cf. p. viii.717.They are as follows:—[1st] S. Mark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion the multitude, when they beheld ourSaviourand His Disciples departing in order to cross over unto the other side of the lake, ran on foot thither,—(α)“and outwent them—(β)and came together unto Him”(i.e.on His stepping out of the boat: not, as Dr. Hort strangely imagines [p. 99], on His emerging from the scene of His“retirement”in“some sequestered nook”).Now here,asubstitutes συνέδραμον [sic] for συνῆλθον.—אbwith the Coptic and the Vulg. omit clause (β).—domits clause (α), but substitutes“there”(αὐτοῦ) for“unto Him”in clause (β),—exhibits therefore a fabricated text.—The Syriac condenses the two clauses thus:—“got there before Him.”—l, Δ, 69, and 4 or 5 of the old Latin copies, read diversely from all the rest and from one another. The present is, in fact, one of those many places in S. Mark's Gospel where all is contradiction in those depraved witnesses which Lachmann made it his business to bring into fashion. OfConfusionthere is plenty.“Conflation”—as the Reader sees—there is none.[2nd] In S. Mark viii. 26, ourSaviour(after restoring sight to the blind man of Bethsaida) is related to have said,—(α)“Neither enter into the village”—(β)“nor tell it to any one—(γ)in the village.”(And let it be noted that the trustworthiness of this way of exhibiting the text is vouched for bya c nΔ and 12 other uncials: by the whole body of the cursives: by the Peschito and Harklensian, the Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions: and by the only Father who quotes the place—Victor of Antioch. [Cramer'sCat.p. 345, lines 3 and 8.])But it is found that the“two false witnesses”(אb) omit clauses (β) and (γ), retaining only clause (α). One of these two however (א), aware that under such circumstances μηδέ is intolerable, [Dr. Hort, on the contrary, (only because he finds it inb,) considers μηδέ“simple and vigorous”as well as“unique”and“peculiar”(p. 100).] substitutes μή. As fordand the Vulg., they substitute and paraphrase, importing from Matt. ix. 6 (or Mk. ii. 11),“Depart unto thine house.”dproceeds,—“and tell it to no one[μηδενὶ εἴπῃς, from Matth. viii. 4,]in the village.”Six copies of the old Latin (b f ff-2g-1-2l), with the Vulgate, exhibit the following paraphrase of the entire place:—“Depart unto thine house, and if thou enterest into the village, tell it to no one.”The same reading exactly is found in Evan. 13-69-346: 28, 61, 473, and i, (except that 28, 61, 346 exhibit“say nothing[from Mk. i. 44]to no one.”) All six however add at the end,—“not even in the village.”Evan. 124 and a stand alone in exhibiting,—“Depart unto thine house; and enter not into the village; neither tell it to any one,”—to which 124 [not a] adds,—“in the village.”...Whyall this contradiction and confusion is now to be called“Conflation,”—and what“clear evidence”is to be elicited therefrom that“Syrian”are posterior alike to“Western”and to“neutral”readings,—passes our powers of comprehension.We shall be content to hasten forward when we have further informed our Readers that while Lachmann and Tregelles abide by the Received Text in this place; Tischendorf,alone of Editors, adopts the reading of א (μη εις την κωμην εισελθης): while Westcott and Hort,alone of Editors, adopt the reading ofb(μηδε εις την κωμην εισελθης),—so ending the sentence. What else however but calamitous is it to find that Westcott and Hort have persuaded their fellow Revisers to adopt the same mutilated exhibition of the Sacred Text? The consequence is, that henceforth,—instead of“Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town,”—we are invited to read,“Do not even enter into the village.”[3rd] In S. Mk. ix. 38,—S. John, speaking of one who cast out devils inChrist'sName, says—(α)“who followeth not us, and we forbad him—(β)because he followeth not us.”Here, אb c lΔ the Syriac, Coptic, and Æthiopic, omit clause (α), retaining (β).dwith the old Latin and the Vulg. omit clause (β), but retain (α).—Both clauses are found ina nwith 11 other uncials and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Gothic, and the only Father who quotes the place,—Basil [ii. 252].—Why should the pretence be set up that there has been“Conflation”here? Two Omissions do not make one Conflation.[4th] In Mk. ix. 49,—ourSavioursays,—“For(α)every one shall be salted with fire—and(β)every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.”Here, clause (α) is omitted bydand a few copies of the old Latin; clause (β) by אbLΔ.But such an ordinary circumstance as the omission of half-a-dozen words by Cod.dis so nearly without textual significancy, as scarcely to merit commemoration. And do Drs. Westcott and Hort really propose to build their huge and unwieldy hypothesis on so flimsy a circumstance as the concurrence in error of אb lΔ,—especially in S. Mark's Gospel, which those codices exhibit more unfaithfully than any other codices that can be named? Against them, are to be set on the present occasiona c d nwith 12 other uncials and the whole body of the cursives: the Ital. and Vulgate; both Syriac; the Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions; besides the only Father who quotes the place,—Victor of Antioch. [Also“Anon.”p. 206: and see Cramer'sCat.p. 368.][5th] S. Luke (ix. 10) relates how, on a certain occasion, ourSaviour“withdrew to a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida:”which S. Luke expresses in six words: viz. [1] εἰς [2] τόπον [3] ἔρημον [4] πόλεως [5] καλουμένης [6] Βηθσαϊδά: of which six words,—(a)—א and Syrcuretain but three,—1, 2, 3.(b)—The Peschito retains but four,—1, 2, 3, 6.(c)—b l xΞdand the 2 Egyptian versions retain other four,—1, 4, 5, 6: but for πόλεως καλουμένηςdexhibits κώμην λεγομένην.(d)—The old Latin and Vulg. retain five,—1, 2, 3, 5, 6: but for“qui(orquod)vocabatur,”the Vulg.bandcexhibit“qui(orquod) est.”(e)—3 cursives retain other five, viz. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6: while,(f)—a cΔe, with 9 more uncials and the great bulk of the cursives,—the Harklensian, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions,—retainall the six words.In view of which facts, it probably never occurred to any one before to suggest that the best attested reading of all is the result of“conflation,”i.e.ofspurious mixture. Note, that א anddhave, this time, changed sides.[6th] S. Luke (xi. 54) speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees as (α)“lying in wait for Him,”(β)seeking(γ)to catch something out of His mouth(δ)“that they might accuse Him.”This is the reading of 14 uncials headed bya c, and of the whole body of the cursives: the reading of the Vulgate also and of the Syriac. What is to be said against it?It is found that אb lwith the Coptic and Æthiopic Versions omit clauses (β) and (δ), but retain clauses (α) and (γ).—Cod.d, in conjunction with Cureton's Syriac and the old Latin, retains clause (β), andparaphrases all the rest of the sentence. How then can it be pretended that there has been any“Conflation”here?In the meantime, how unreasonable is the excision from the Revised Text of clauses (β) and (δ)—(ζητοῦντες ... ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτόν)—which are attested bya c dand 12 other uncials, together with the whole body of the cursives; by all the Syriac and by all the Latin copies!... Are we then to understand that אb, and the Coptic Version, outweigh every other authority which can be named?[7th] The“rich fool”in the parable (S. Lu. xii. 18), speaks of (α) πάντα τὰ γενήματά μου, καὶ (β) τὰ ἀγαθά μου. (Soa qand 13 other uncials, besides the whole body of the cursives; the Vulgate, Basil, and Cyril.)But אd(with the old Latin and Cureton's Syriac [which however drops the πάντα]), retaining clause (α), omit clause (β).—On the other hand,b t, (with the Egyptian Versions, the Syriac, the Armenian, and Æthiopic,) retaining clause (β), substitute τὸν σῖτον (a gloss) for τὰ γενήματα in clause (α). Lachmann, Tisch., and Alford, accordingly retain the traditional text in this place. So does Tregelles, and so do Westcott and Hort,—only substituting τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα. Confessedly therefore there has been no“Syrian conflation”here: for all that has happened has beenthe substitutionbybof τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα; and the omission of 4 words by אd. This instance must therefore have been an oversight.—Only once more.[8th] S. Luke's Gospel ends (xxiv. 53) with the record that the Apostles were continually in the Temple,“(α)praising and(β)blessingGod.”Such is the reading of 13 uncials headed by A and every known cursive: a few copies of the old Lat., the Vulg., Syraic, Philox., Æthiopic, and Armenian Versions. But it is found that אb comit clause (α): whiledand seven copies of the old Latin omit clause (β).And this completes the evidence for“Conflation.”We have displayed it thus minutely, lest we should be suspected of unfairness towards the esteemed writers onthe only occasionwhich they have attempted argumentative proof. Their theory has at lastforced themto make an appeal to Scripture, and to produce some actual specimens of their meaning. After ransacking the Gospels for 30 years, they have at last fastened uponeight: of which (as we have seen), several have really no business to be cited,—as not fulfilling the necessary conditions of the problem. To prevent cavil however, letall but one, the [7th], pass unchallenged.718.The Reader is referred to pp.17,75,249.719.E.g.pp. 115, 116, 117, 118, &c.720.Referred to below, p.296.721.See above, pages257(bottom) and258(top).722.See above, pp.37to 38.723.Ibid.p.39.724.To speak with entire accuracy, Drs. Westcott and Hort require us to believe that the Authors of the [imaginary] Syrian Revisions ofa.d.250 anda.d.350, interpolated the genuine Text of the Gospels, with between 2877 (b) and 3455 (א) spurious words; mutilated the genuine Text in respect of between 536 (b) and 839 (א) words:—substituted for as many genuine words, between 935 (b) and 1114 (א) uninspired words:—licentiously transposed between 2098 (b) and 2299 (א):—and in respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c., altered without authority between 1132 (B) and 1265 (א) words.725.Quoted by Canon Cook,Revised Version Considered,—p. 202.726.i.e.say froma.d.90 toa.d.250-350.727.See above, p.269.728.“If,”says Dr. Hort,“an editor were for any purpose to make it his aim to restore as completely as possible the New Testament of Antioch ina.d.350, he could not help taking the approximate consent of the cursives as equivalent toa primary documentary witness. And he would not be the less justified in so doing for being unable to say precisely by what historical agenciesthe one Antiochian original”—[note the fallacy!]—“was multiplied into the cursive hosts of the later ages.”—Pp. 143-4.729.Preface to the“limited and private issue”of 1870, p. xviii.: reprinted in theIntroduction(1881), p. 66.730.Ibid.731.P. 65 (§ 84). In the Table of Contents (p. xi.),“Personal instincts”are substituted for“Personal discernment.”732.The Revisers and the Greek Text,—p. 19.733.Introduction,—p. xiii.734.Notes, p. 22.735.Notes, p. 88.736.Notes,—p. 51.737.Scrivener'sPlain Introduction,—pp. 507-8.738.Scrivener's“Introduction,”pp. 513-4.739.InS. Matth.i. 25,—the omission of“her first-born:”—in vi. 13, the omission of theDoxology:—in xii. 47, the omission ofthe whole verse:—in xvi. 2, 3, the omission of ourLord'smemorable words concerning thesigns of the weather:—in xvii. 21, the omission of the mysterious statement,“But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting:”—in xviii. 11, the omission of the precious words“For the Son of man came to save that which was lost.”InS. Markxvi. 9-20, the omission of the“last Twelve Verses,”—(“the contents of which arenot such as could have been inventedby any scribe or editor of the Gospel,”—W. and H. p. 57). All admit that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is an impossible ending.InS. Lukevi. 1, the suppression of the unique δευτεροπρώτῳ; (“the very obscurity of the expression attesting strongly to its genuineness,”—Scrivener, p. 516, and so W. and H. p. 58):—ix. 54-56, the omittedrebuke to the“disciples James and John:”—in x. 41, 42, the omittedwords concerning Martha and Mary:—in xxii. 43, 44, the omission of theAgony in the Garden,—(which nevertheless,“it would be impossible to regardas a product of the inventiveness of scribes,”—W. and H. p. 67):—in xxiii. 17, a memorable clause omitted:—in xxiii. 34, the omission of our Lord'sprayer for His murderers,—(concerning which Westcott and Hort remark that“few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this”—p. 68):—in xxiii. 38, the statement that the Inscription on the Cross was“in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew:”—in xxiv. 12,the visit of S. Peter to the Sepulchre. Bishop Lightfoot remarks concerning S. Luke ix. 56: xxii. 43, 44: and xxiii. 34,—“It seems impossible to believe that these incidents are other than authentic,”—(p. 28.)InS. Johniii. 13, the solemn clause“which is in heaven:”—in v. 3, 4, the omitted incident ofthe troubling of the pool:—in vii. 53 to viii. 11,the narrative concerning the woman taken in adulteryomitted,—concerning which Drs. W. and H. remark that“the argument which has always told most in its favour in modern times is its own internal character. The story itself has justly seemedto vouch for its own substantial truth, and the words in which it is clothed to harmonize with those of other Gospel narratives”—(p. 87). Bishop Lightfoot remarks that“the narrative bears on its face the highest credentials of authentic history”—(p. 28).740.To some extent, even the unlearned Reader may easily convince himself of this, by examining the rejected“alternative”Readings in the margin of the“Revised Version.”The“Many”and the“Some ancient authorities,”there spoken of,almost invariably include—sometimesdenote—codd.bא, one or both of them. These constitute the merest fraction of the entire amount of corrupt readings exhibited bybא; but they will give English readers some notion of the problem just now under consideration.Besides the details already supplied [see above, pages16and17:—30and31:—46and47:—75:—249:—262:—289:—316to 319] concerningband א,—(the result of laborious collation,)—some particulars shall now be added. The piercing of ourSaviour'sside, thrust in after Matt. xxvii. 49:—the eclipse of the sun when the moon was full, in Lu. xxiii. 45:—the monstrous figment concerning Herod's daughter, thrust into Mk. vi. 22:—the precious clauses omitted in Matt. i. 25 and xviii. 11:—in Lu. ix. 54-6, and in Jo. iii. 13:—the wretched glosses in Lu. vi. 48: x. 42: xv. 21: Jo. x. 14 and Mk. vi. 20:—the substitution of οινον (for οξος) in Matt. xxvii. 34,—of Θεος (for υιος) in Jo. i. 18,—of ανθρωπου (for Θεου) in ix. 35,—of οὑ (for ῷ) in Rom. iv. 8:—the geographical blunder in Mk. vii. 31: in Lu. iv. 44:—the omission in Matt. xii. 47,—and of two important verses in Matt. xvi. 2, 3:—of ιδια in Acts i. 19:—of εγειραι και in iii. 6;—and of δευτεροπρωτω in Lu. vi. 1:—the two spurious clauses in Mk. iii. 14, 16:—the obvious blunders in Jo. ix. 4 and 11:—in Acts xii. 25—besides the impossible reading in 1 Cor. xiii. 3,—make up a heavy indictment againstband א jointly—which are here found in company with just a very few disreputable allies. Add, the plain error at Lu. ii. 14:—the gloss at Mk. v. 36:—the mere fabrication at Matt. xix. 17:—the omissions at Matt. vi. 13: Jo. v. 3, 4.b(in company with others, but apart from א) by exhibiting βαπτισαντες in Matt. xxviii. 19:—ὡδε των in Mk. ix. 1:—“seventy-two,”in Lu. x. 1:—the blunder in Lu. xvi. 12:—and the grievous omissions in Lu. xxii. 43, 44 (Christ'sAgony in the Garden),—and xxiii. 34 (His prayer for His murderers),—enjoys unenviable distinction.—b, singly, is remarkable for an obvious blunder in Matt. xxi. 31:—Lu. xxi. 24:—Jo. xviii. 5:—Acts x. 19—and xvii. 28:—xxvii. 37:—not to mention the insertion of δεδομενον in Jo. vii. 39.א (in company with others, but apart fromb) is conspicuous for its sorry interpolation of Matt. viii. 13:—its substitution of εστιν (for ην) in S. John i. 4:—its geographical blunder in S. Luke xxiv. 13:—its textual blunder at 1 Pet. i. 23.—א, singly, is remarkable for its sorry paraphrase in Jo. ii. 3:—its addition to i. 34:—its omissions in Matt. xxiii. 35:—Mk. i. 1:—Jo. ix. 38:—its insertion of Ησαιου in Matt. xiii. 35:—its geographical blunders in Mk. i. 28:—Lu. i. 26:—Acts viii. 5:—besides the blunders in Jo. vi. 51—and xiii. 10:—1 Tim. iii. 16:—Acts xxv. 13:—and the clearly fabricated narrative of Jo. xiii. 24. Add the fabricated text at Mk. xiv. 30, 68, 72; of which the object was“so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter's denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed twice.”741.Characteristic, and fatal beyond anything that can be named are, (1) Theexclusiveomission byband א of Mark xvi. 9-20:—(2) The omission of εν Εφεσῳ, from Ephes. i. 1:—(3) The blunder, αποσκιασματος, in James i. 17:—(4) The nonsensical συστρεφομενων in Matt. xvii. 22:—(5) That“vile error,”(as Scrivener calls it,) περιελοντες, in Acts xxviii. 13:—(6) The impossible order of words in Lu. xxiii. 32; and (7) The extraordinary order in Acts i. 5:—(8) The omission of the last clause of theLord'sprayer, in Lu. xi. 4; and (9) Of that solemn verse, Matt. xvii. 21; and (10) Of ισχυρον in Matt. xiv. 30:—(11) The substitution of εργων (for τεκνων) in Matt. xi. 29:—(12) Of ελιγμα (for μιγμα) in Jo. xix. 39,—and (13) of ην τεθειμενος (for ετεθη) in John xix. 41. Then, (14) The thrusting of Χριστος into Matt. xvi. 21,—and (15) Of ὁ Θεος into vi. 8:—besides (16) So minute a peculiarity as Βεεζεβουλ in Matt. x. 35: xii. 24, 27: Lu. xi. 15, 18, 19. (17) Add, the gloss at Matt. xvii. 20, and (18) The omissions at Matt. v. 22: xvii. 21.—It must be admitted that such peculiar blemishes, taken collectively, constitute a proof of affinity of origin,—community of descent from one and the same disreputable ancestor. But space fails us.The Reader will be interested to learn that although, in the Gospels,bcombines exclusively witha, but 11 times; and withc, but 38 times: withd, it combines exclusively 141 times, and with א, 239 times: (viz. in Matt. 121,—in Mk. 26,—in Lu. 51,—in Jo. 41 times).Contrast it witha:—which combines exclusively withd, 21 times: with א 13 times: withb, 11 times: withc, 4 times.742.The Reviewer speaks from actual inspection of both documents. They are essentially dissimilar. The learned Ceriani assured the Reviewer (in 1872) that whereas the Vatican Codex must certainly have been writtenin Italy,—the birthplace of the Sinaitic was [notEgypt, but]either Palestine or Syria. Thus, considerations of time and place effectually dispose of Tischendorf's preposterous notion that the Scribe of Codexbwrotesix leavesof א: an imagination which solely resulted from the anxiety of the Critic to secure for his own cod. א the same antiquity which is claimed for the vaunted cod.b.This opinion of Dr. Tischendorf's rests on the same fanciful basis as his notion thatthe last verseof S. John's Gospel in א was not written by the same hand which wrote the rest of the Gospel. There isno manner of difference: though of course it is possible that the scribe took a new pen, preliminary to writing that last verse, and executing the curious and delicate ornament which follows. Concerning S. Jo. xxi. 25, see above, pp.23-4.743.Tischendorf's narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript (“When were our Gospels written?”), [1866,] p. 23.744.“Papyrus Inédit de la Bibliothèque de M. Ambroise Firmin-Didot. Nouveaux fragments d'Euripide et d'autres Poètes Grecs, publiés par M. Henri Weil. (Extrait desMonumens Grecs publiés par l'Association pour l'encouragement des Etudes Grecques en France. Année 1879.)”Pp. 36.745.The rest of the passage may not be without interest to classical readers:—“Ce n'est pas à dire qu'elle soit tout à fait sans intérêt, sans importance: pour la constitution du texte. Elle nous apprend que, au vers 5, ἀρίστων, pour ἀριστέων (correction de Wakefield) était déjà l'ancienne vulgate; et que les vers 11 et 12, s'ils sont altérés, comme l'assurent quelques éditeurs d'Euripide, l'étaient déjà dans l'antiquité.“L'homme ... était aussi ignorant que négligent. Je le prends pour un Egyptien n'ayant qu'une connoissance très imparfaite de la langue grecque, et ne possédant aucune notion ni sur l'orthographe, ni sur les règles les plus élémentaires du trimètre iambique. Le plus singulier est qu'il commence sa copie au milieu d'un vers et qu'il la finisse de même. Il oublie des lettres nécessaires, il en ajoute de parasites, il les met les unes pour les autres, il tronque les mots ou il les altère, au point de détruire quelquefois la suite de la construction et le sens du passage.”A faithful copy of the verses in minuscule characters is subjoined for the gratification of Scholars. We have but divided the words and inserted capital letters:—“ανδρων αριστων οι δε πανχρυσον δεροςΠελεια μετηλθον ου γαρ τον δεσπονα εμηνΜηδια πυργους γης επλευσε Ειολκιαςερωτι θυμωδ εγπλαγις Ιανοσονοςοτ αν κτανει πισας Πελειαδας κουραςπατερα κατοικη τηνδε γην Κορινθιανσυν ανδρι και τεκνοισιν ανδανοισα μενφυγη πολιτων ων αφηκετο χθονος.”An excellent scholar (R. C. P.) remarks,—“The fragment must have been written from dictation (of small parts, as it seems to me); and by an illiterate scribe. It is just such a result as one might expect from a half-educated reader enunciating Milton for a half-educated writer.”746.See p.324note1.—Photius [cod. 48] says that“Gaius”was a presbyter of Rome, and ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπος. See Routh'sReliqq.ii. 125.747.Eusebius,Hist. Ecol.v. 28 (ap. Routh'sReliqq.ii. 132-4).748.Tregelles, Part ii. p. 2.749.Scrivener's prefatoryIntroduction,—p. xix.750.Ibid.p. iii.751.On Revision,—p. 47.752.Singular to relate, S. Mark x. 17 to 31exactlyfills two columns of cod. א. (See Tischendorf's reprint, 4to, p. 24*.)753.Clemens Al. (ed. Potter),—pp. 937-8.... Note, how Clemens begins § v. (p. 938, line 30). This will be found noticed below, viz. at p.336, note 3.754.“This Text”(say the Editors)“isan attempt to reproduce at once the autograph Text.”—Introduction, p. xxviii.755.Westcott and Hort'sIntroduction, pp. 112-3.756.Besides,—All but L. conspire 5 times.All but T. 3 times.All but Tr. 1 time.Then,—T. Tr. WH. combine 2 timesT. WH. RT. 1 timeTr. WH. RT. 1 timeL. Tr. WH. 1 timeThen,—L. T. stand by themselves 1 timeL. Tr. 1 timeT. WH. 1 timeLastly,—L. stands alone 4 times.Total: 21.757.Twicehe agrees with all 5: viz. omitting ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν in ver. 21; and in omitting ῆ γυναῖκα (in ver. 29):—Oncehe agrees with only Lachmann: viz. in transposing ταῦτα πάντα (in ver. 20).758.On the remaining 5 occasions (17 + 3 + 5 = 25), Clemens exhibits peculiar readings of his own,—sides withno one.759.Q. R.p. 360.760.Article xx. § 1.761.Εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—S. John xvi. 13.762.Theodoret,Opp.iv. 208.—Comp. Clinton,F. R.ii.Appendix, p. 473.763.The reader is invited to enquire for Bp. Kaye (of Lincoln)'sAccount of the writings of Clement of Alexandria,—and to read the vith and viiith chapters.764.Ταῦτα μὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται. (§ v.),—p. 938.765.Alford's N. T. vol. i. proleg. p. 92.766.See p. 197 (§ 269): and p. 201 (§ 275-9):—and p. 205 (§ 280).767.Preface(1870), p. xv.768.See above, pp.79to 85.769.Pp.359-60.770.P. 210 to p. 287. See the Contents, pp. xxiii.-xxviii.771.Pp. 91-119 and pp. 133-146.772.“I perceiveda large and wide basketfull of old parchments; and the librarian told me that two heaps like this had been alreadycommitted to the flames.What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers,”&c.—(Narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript,p. 23.)773.τὴν παρακαταθήκην.—1 Tim. vi. 20.774.[While this sheet is passing through the press, I find among my papers a note (written in 1876) by the learned, loved, and lamented Editor of Cyril,—Philip E. Pusey,—with whom I used to be in constant communication:—“It is not obvious to me, looking at the subject from outside, whyb c l, constituting a class of MSS. allied to each other, and therefore nearly = 1-½ MSS., are to be held to be superior toa. It is still less obvious to me why —— showing up (as he does) very many grave faults ofb, should yet considerbsuperior in character toa.”]775.Introduction, p. 567.776.Let the following places be considered: S. Jo. i. 13; iii. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8; 1 Jo. ii. 29; iii. 9bis, iv. 7; v. 1bis, 4, 18bis.Whyis it to be supposed that on this last occasionthe Eternal Sonshould be intended?777.a*,b, 105.778.The paraphrase is interesting. The Vulgate, Jerome [ii. 321, 691], Cassian [p. 409],—“Sed generatio Dei conservat eum:”Chromatius [Gall. viii. 347], and Vigilius Taps. [ap. Athanas. ii. 646],—“Quia (quoniam) nativitas Dei custodit (servat) illum.”In a letter of 5 Bishops to Innocentius I. (a.d.410) [Galland. viii. 598 b], it is,—“Nativitas quæ ex Deo est.”Such a rendering (viz.“his having been born ofGod”) amounts to aninterpretationof the place.779.From the Rev. S. C. Malan, D.D.780.iv. 326 b c.781.Gall. viii. 347,—of which the Greek is to be seen in Cramer'sCat.pp. 143-4. Many portions of the lost Text of this Father, (the present passage included [p. 231]) are to be found in the Scholia published by C. F. Matthæi [N. T. xi. 181 to 245-7].782.i. 94, 97.783.InCat.p. 124, repeated p. 144.784.iii. 433 c.785.ii. 601 d.786.By putting a small uncial Ε above the Α.787.Diocesan Progress, Jan. 1882.—[pp. 20] p. 19.788.Introduction, p. 283.Notes, pp. 3, 22, andpassim.789.Sermons, vol. i. 132,—(“A form of sound words to be used by Ministers.”)790.Quoted by ps.-EphraemEvan. Conc.p. 135 l. 2:—Nonnus:—Chrys. viii. 248:—Cyril iv. 269 e, 270 a, 273:—Cramer'sCat.p. 242 l. 25 (which isnotfrom Chrys.):—Chron. Paschale217 a (diserte).—Recognized by Melito (a.d.170):—Irenæus (a.d.177):—Hippolytus (a.d.190):—Origen:—Eusebius:—Apollinarius Laod., &c.791.This is thetruereason of the eagerness which has been displayed in certain quarters to find ὅς, (not Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16:—just as nothing else but a determination thatChristshall not be spoken of as ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, has occasioned the supposed doubt as to the construction of Rom. ix. 5,—in which we rejoice to find that Dr. Westcott refuses to concur with Dr. Hort.792.See Dr. W. H. Mill'sUniversity Sermons(1845),—pp. 301-2 and 305:—a volume which should be found in every clergyman's library.793.Rev. xxii. 18, 19.794.ἀφανισθήσονται.795.This happens not unfrequently in codices of the type of א andb. A famous instance occurs at Col. ii. 18, (ἂ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων,—“prying into the things he hath not seen”); where א*a b d* and a little handful of suspicious documents leave out the“not.”Our Editors, rather than recognize this blunder (so obvious and ordinary!), are for conjecturing Α ΕΟΡΑΚΕΝ ΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ into ΑΕΡΑ ΚΕΝΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ; which (if it means anything at all) may as well mean,—“proceeding on an airy foundation to offer an empty conjecture.”Dismissing that conjecture as worthless, we have to set off the whole mass of the copies—against some 6 or 7:—Irenæus (i. 847), Theodoras Mops, (inloc.), Chrys. (xi. 372), Theodoret (iii. 489, 490), John Damascene (ii. 211)—against no Fathers at all (for Origen once has μή [iv. 665]; once, has it not [iii. 63]; and once is doubtful [i. 583]). Jerome and Augustine both take notice of the diversity of reading,but only to reject it.—The Syriac versions, the Vulgate, Gothic, Georgian, Sclavonic, Æthiopic, Arabic and Armenian—(we owe the information, as usual, to Dr. Malan)—are to be set against the suspicious Coptic. All these then are with the Traditional Text: which cannot seriously be suspected of error.796.εὑρεθήσεται.797.Augustin, vii. 595.798.ii. 467: iii. 865:—ii. 707: iii. 800:—ii. 901.In Luc. pp. 428, 654.799.ii. 347.800.Preface to“Provisional issue,”p. xxi.801.Introduction, p. 210.802.Ibid. p. 276.803.Apud Mai, vi. 105.804.Opp.vii. 543. Comp. 369.805.Ap. Cramer,Cat.vi. 187.806.So, Nilus, i. 270.807.Interp.595: 607.808.Dem. Evan.p. 444.809.P. 306.810.Epist. ad Zen.iii. 1. 78. Note, that our learned Cave considered this to be agenuinework of Justin M. (a.d.150).811.Cantic.(an early work)interp.iii. 39,—though elsewhere (i. 112, 181 [?]: ii. 305int.[butnotii. 419]) he is for leaving out εἰκῆ.812.Gall. iii. 72 and 161.813.ii. 89 b and e (partly quoted in theCat.of Nicetas)expressly: 265.814.i. 818expressly.815.ii. 312 (preserved in Jerome's Latin translation, i. 240).816.i. 132; iii. 442.817.472, 634.818.Ap. Chrys.819.iii. 768:apud Mai, ii. 6 and iii. 268.820.i. 48, 664; iv. 946.821.Cramer'sCat.viii. 12, line 14.822.128, 625.823.Gall. vi. 181.824.Gall. x. 14.825.Gall. vii. 509.826.i. 27, written when he was 42; and ii. 733, 739, written when he was 84.827.vii. 26,—“Radendum est ergosine causâ.”And so, at p. 636.828.1064.829.ii. 261.830.ii. 592.831.Amphilochia, (Athens, 1858,)—p. 317. Also inCat.832.Apophthegm. PP.[ap. Cotel.Eccl. Gr. Mon.i. 622].833.S. Matth. xv. 14.834.Gospel of the Resurrection,—p. vii.835.Introduction, pp. 300-2.836.Ibid.p. 299.837.Appendix, p. 66.838.See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 432.839.On Revision,—p. 99.840.Speech in Convocation, Feb. 1870, (p. 83.)841.On Revision,—p. 205.842.Address to Lincoln Diocesan Conference,—p. 25.843.Ibid.,—p. 27.844.Considerations on Revision,—p. 44. The Preface is dated 23rd May, 1870. The Revisers met on the 22nd of June.We learn from Dr. Newth'sLectures on Bible Revision(1881), that,—“As the general Rules under which the Revision was to be carried out had been carefully prepared, no need existed for any lengthened discussion of preliminary arrangements, and the Company upon its first meeting was able to enter at once upon its work”(p. 118) ...“The portion prescribed for the first session was Matt. i. to iv.”(p. 119) ...“The question of the spelling of proper names ... being settled, the Company proceeded to the actual details of the Revision, and in a surprisingly short time settled down to an established method of procedure.”—“All proposals made at the first Revision were decided by simple majorities”(p. 122) ...“The questions which concerned the Greek Text were decided for the most part at the First Revision.”(Bp. Ellicott'sPamphlet, p. 34.)845.The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, by two Members of the New Testament Company,—1882. Macmillan, pp. 79, price two shillings and sixpence.846.“To these two articles—so far, at least, as they are concerned with the Greek Text adopted by the Revisers—our Essay is intended for an answer.”—p. 79.847.See above, pages235to 366.848.Article III.,—see last note.849.Pamphlet, p. 79.850.The Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered in its bearings upon the record of ourLord'sWords and of incidents in His Life,—(1882. pp. 250. Murray,)—p. 232. Canon Cook's temperate and very interesting volume will be found simply unanswerable.851.P. 40.852.Ibid.853.As at p. 4, and p. 12, and p. 13, and p. 19, and p. 40.854.See above, pp.348-350.855.P. 40.856.P. 40.857.P. 77.858.P. 41, and so at p. 77.859.P. 41.860.P. 5.861.P. 3.862.P. 77.863.On Revision, pp. 47-8.864.Scrivener'sIntroduction,—p. 423.865.Ibid.p. 421.866.“Non tantum totius Antiquitatis altum de tali opere suscepto silentium,—sed etiam frequentes Patrum, usque ad quartum seculum viventium, de textu N. T. liberius tractato, impuneque corrupto, deque summâ Codicum dissonantiâ querelæ, nec non ipsæ corruptiones inde a primis temporibus continuo propagatæ,—satis sunt documento, neminem opus tam arduum, scrupulorum plenum, atque invidiæ et calumniis obnoxium, aggressum fuisse; etiamsi doctiorum Patrum de singulis locis disputationes ostendant, eos non prorsus rudes in rebus criticis fuisse.”—Codd. MSS. N. T. Græcorum &c. nova descriptio, et cum textu vulgo recepto Collatio, &c.4to. Gottingæ, 1847. (p. 4.)867.He proceeds:—“Hucusque nemini contigit, nec in posterum, puto, continget, monumentorum nostrorum, tanquam totidem testium singulorum, ingens agmen ad tres quatuorve, e quibus omnium testimonium pendeat, testes referre; aut e testium grege innumero aliquot duces auctoresque secernere, quorum testimonium tam plenum, certum firmumque sit, ut sine damno ceterorum testimonio careamus.”—Ibid.(p. 19.)868.Commentarius Criticus in N. T.(in his Preface to the Ep. to the Hebrews). We are indebted to Canon Cook for calling attention to this. See by all means hisRevised Text of the first three Gospels,—pp. 4-8.869.It requires to be stated, that, (as explained by the Abbé to the present writer,) the“Post-scriptum”of his Fascic. IV., (viz. from p. 234 to p. 236,) is ajeu d'espritonly,—intended to enliven a dry subject, and to entertain his pupils.870.It seems to have escaped Bishop Ellicott's notice, (and yet the fact well deserves commemoration) that the claims of Tischendorf and Tregelles on the Church's gratitude, are not by any means founded onthe Textswhich they severally put forth. As in the case of Mill, Wetstein and Birch, their merit is that theypatiently accumulated evidence.“Tischendorf's reputation as a Biblical scholar rests less on his critical editions of the N. T., than on the texts of the chief uncial authorities which in rapid succession he gave to the world.”(Scrivener'sIntroduction,—p. 427.)871.P. 12.872.P. 13.873.See above, pp. 12: 30-3: 34-5: 46-7: 75: 94-6: 249: 262: 289: 319.874.P. 40.875.P. 19.876.P. 4.877.Acts xix. 35.878.Suprà, pp.339-41.879.P. 13.880.Bp. Ellicott,On Revision, &c.—p. 30.881.P. 15.882.P. 16.883.P. 17.884.P. 18.885.P. 19.886.P. 19.887.P. 20.888.P. 21.889.Pp. 23-4.890.Supra, pp.258-266.891.Pp. 25-7.892.SeeArt.III.,—viz. from p.235to p. 366.893.You refer to such places as pp. 87-8 and 224, where see the Notes.894.Chronicle of Convocation, Feb. 1870, p. 83.895.See above, p.368.896.The clause (“and sayest thou, Who touched me?”) is witnessed to bya c d p r xΓ Δ Λ Ξ Π andevery other known uncial except three of bad character: by every known cursive but four:—by the Old Latin and Vulgate: by all the four Syriac: by the Gothic and the Æthiopic Versions; as well as by ps.-Tatian (Evan. Concord, p. 77) and Chrysostom (vii. 359 a). It cannot be pretended that the words are derived from S. Mark's Gospel (as Tischendorf coarsely imagined);—for the sufficient reason thatthe words are not found there. In S. Mark (v. 31) it is,—καὶ λέγεις, Τίς μου ἥψατο; in S. Luke (viii. 45), καὶ λέγεις, Τίς ὁ ἁψάμενός μου. Moreover, this delicate distinction has been maintained all down the ages.897.Page154to p. 164.898.You will perhaps remind me that you do not read ἐξελθοῦσαν. I am aware that you have tacitly substituted ἐξεληλυθυῖαν,—which is only supported byfourmanuscripts of bad character: being disallowed byeighteen uncials, (witha c dat their head,) andevery known cursive but one; besides the following Fathers:—Marcion (Epiph. i. 313 a, 327 a.) (a.d.150),—Origen (iii. 466 e.),—the author ofthe Dialogus(Orig. i. 853 d.) (a.d.325),—Epiphanius (i. 327 b.),—Didymus (pp. 124, 413.), in two places,—Basil (iii. 8 c.),—Chrysostom (vii. 532 a.),—Cyril (Opp. vi. 99 e. Mai, ii. 226.) in two places,—ps.-Athanasius (ii. 14 c.) (a.d.400),—ps.-Chrysostom (xiii. 212 e f.).... Is it tolerable that the Sacred Text should be put to wrongs after this fashion, by a body of men who are avowedly (for see page369) unskilled in Textual Criticism, and who were appointed only to revise the authorizedEnglish Version?899.This I make the actual sum, after deducting for marginal notes and variations in stops.900.I mean such changes as ἠγέρθη for ἐγήγερται (ix. 7),—φέρετε for ἐνένκαντες (xv. 23), &c. These are generally the result of a change of construction.901.MS. communication from my friend, the Editor902.I desire to keep out of sight thecritical improprietyof such corrections of the text. And yet, it is worth stating that אb larethe only witnesses discoverablefor the former, andalmost the onlywitnesses to be found for the latter of these two utterly unmeaning changes.903.Characteristic of these two false-witnesses is it, that they are not able to convey eventhisshort message correctly. In reporting the two words ἔρχωμαι ἐνθάδε, they contrive to make two blunders.bsubstitutes διέρχομαι for διέρχωμαι: א, ὦδε for ἐνθάδε,—which latter eccentricity Tischendorf (characteristically) does not allude to in his note ...“These be thy gods, O Israel!”904.Rev. xxii. 19.905.iv. 28, c. 1 (p. 655 = Mass. 265). Note that the reference isnotto S. Matt. x. 15.906.P. 123.907.Viz. vi. 7-13.908.i. 199 and 200.909.In loc.910.See above, pp.347-9.911.See above, pp.79-85.912.See above, pp.409-411.913.See above, p.399.914.Bp. Ellicotton Revision, p. 30.915.The Bp. attendedonly one meetingof the Revisers. (Newth, p. 125.)916.Page 4.917.See above, pp.41to 47.918.Pages 17, 18.919.See above, p.37, note 1.920.Pages98-106.921.Pages 64-76.922.The exceptions are not worth noticinghere.923.N. T. ed. 2da. 1807, iii. 442-3.924.i. 887 c.925.CalledAncoratus, written in Pamphylia,a.d.373. The extract inAdv. Hær.extends from p. 887 to p. 899 (=Ancor.ii. 67-79).926.ii. 74 b. Note, that to begin the quotation at the word ἐφανερώθη was a frequent practice with the ancients, especially when enough had been said already to make it plain that it was of theSonthey were speaking, or when it would have been nothing to the purpose to begin with Θεός. Thus Origen, iv. 465 c:—Didymus on 1 JohnapudGalland. vi. 301 a:—Nestorius,apudCyril, vi. 103 e:—ps-Chrysost. x. 763 c, 764 c:—and the Latin of Cyril v.1785. So indeed ps-Epiphanius, ii. 307 c.927.i. 894 c.928.ApudTheodoret, v. 719.929.iv. 622 a,—qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu.930.De incarn. Unig.v. part i. 680 d e =De rectâ fide, v. part ii. b c.931.Ibid.681 a =ibid.6 d e.932.Page98.933.Note at the end of Bishop Ellicott's Commentary on 1 Timothy.934.Berriman's MS. Note in the British Museum copy of hisDissertation,—p. 154. Another annotated copy is in the Bodleian.935.“Certe quidem in exemplari Alexandrino nostro, linea illa transversa quam loquor, adeo exilis ac plane evanida est, ut primo intuitu haud dubitarim ipse scriptumΟΣ, quod proinde in variantes lectiones conjeceram.... Verum postea perlustrato attentius loco, lineolæ, quæ primam aciem fugerat, ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa deprehendi, præsertim ad partem sinistram, quæ peripheriam literæ pertingit,”&c.—In loco.936.Clem. Rom.ed. Wotton, p. 27.937.Berriman, pp. 154-5.938.Ibid.(MS. Note.) Berriman adds other important testimony, p. 156.939.Dissertation, p. 156. Berriman refers to the fact that some one in recent times, with a view apparently to establish the actual reading of the place, has clumsily thickened the superior stroke with common black ink, and introduced a rude dot into the middle of the θ. There has been no attempt at fraud. Such a line and such a dot could deceive no one.940.“Quanquam lineola, quæ Θεός compendiose scriptum ab ὅς distinguitur, sublesta videtur nonnullis.”—N. T. p. 710.941.Griesbach in 1785 makes the same report:—“Manibus hominum inepte curiosorum ea folii pars quæ dictum controversum continet, adeo detrita est, ut nemo mortalium hodie certi quidquam discernere possit ... Non oculos tantum sed digitos etiam adhibuisse videntur, ut primitivam illius loci lectionem eruerent et velut exsculperent.”(Symb. Crit.i. p. x.) The MS. was evidently in precisely the same state when the Rev. J. C. Velthusen (Observations on Various Subjects, pp. 74-87) inspected it in 1773.942.As C. F. Matthæi [N. T. m. xi.Præfat.pp. lii.-iii.] remarks:—“cum de DivinitateChristiagitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur.”Woide instances it as an example of the force of prejudice, that Wetstein“apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ adscripsisse,quia eam abesse volebat.”[Præfat.p. xxxi.]943.“Patet, ut alia mittamus, e consensu Versionum,”&c.—ii. 149.944.Woide,ibid.945.Supra, p.100.946.Introduction, p. 553.947.Introd.p. 553.948.Any one desirous of understanding this question fully, should (besides Berriman's admirableDissertation) read Woide'sPræfatioto his edition of Codex A, pp. xxx. to xxxii. (§ 87).—“Erunt fortasse quidam”(he writes in conclusion)“qui suspicabuntur, nonnullos hanc lineolam diametralem in medio Θ vidisse, quoniam eam videre volebant. Nec negari potest præsumptarum opinionum esse vim permagnam. Sed idem, etiam Wetstenio, nec immerito, objici potest, eam apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ adscripsisse, quia eam abesse volebat. Et eruditissimis placere aliquando, quæ vitiosa sunt, scio: sed omnia testimonia, omnemque historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere non licet: nec mirum est nos ea nunc non discernere, quæ, antequam nos Codicem vidissemus, evanuerant.”949.Prolegomenato his ed. of Cod.c,—pp. 39-42.950.“Ος habet codexc, ut puto; nam lineola illa tenuis, quæ ex Ο facit Θ, non apparet.”(In loc.) And so Griesbach,Symb. Crit.i. p. viii. (1785).951.“Quotiescunque locum inspiciebam (inspexi autem per hoc biennium sæpissime) mihi prorsus apparebat.”“Quam [lineolam] miror hucusque omnium oculos fugisse.”[Prolegg.p. 41].... Equidem miror sane.952.Page 75.953.Pages 64, 69, 71, 75.—Some have pointed out that oppositeΟΣinf—aboveΟΣing,—is written“quod.”Yes, but not“qui.”The Latin version is independent of the Greek. In S. Mark xi. 8, above ΑΓΡΩΝ is written“arboribus;”and in 1 Tim. iv. 10, ΑΓΩΝΙΖΟΜΕΘΑ is translated byf“maledicimur,”—byg,“exprobramur vel maledicimur.”954.Introduction toCod. Augiensis, p. xxviij.955.E.g.Out of ΟΜΕΝΤΟΙΣΤΕΡΕΟΣ [2 Tim. ii. 19], they both make Ο · μεν · το · ισ · τεραιος. For ὑγιαίνωσιν [Tit. i. 13], both write υγει · ενωσειν:—for καινὴ κτίσις [2 Cor. v. 17] both give και · νηκτισις:—for ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες [1 Tim. iii. 10], both exhibit ανευ · κλητοιον · εχοντες (“nullum crimen habentes”):—for ὡς γάγγραινα νομὴν ἕξει [2 Tim. ii. 17], both exhibit ως · γανγρα · ινα · (F G) νομηνεξει, (G, who writes above the words“sicut cancer ut serpat”).956.He must be held responsible for ὝΠΟΚΡΙΣΙ in place of ὑποκρίσει [1 Tim. iv. 2]: ΑΣΤΙΖΟΜΕΝΟΣ instead of λογιζόμενος [2 Cor. v. 19]: ΠΡΙΧΟΤΗΤΙ instead of πραότητι [2 Tim. ii. 25]. And he was the author of ΓΕΡΜΑΝΕ in Phil. iv. 3: as well as of Ο δε πνευμα in 1 Tim. iv. 1.But the scribes offandgalso were curiously innocent of Greek.gsuggests that γυναιξειν (in 1 Tim. ii. 10) may be“infinitivus”—(of course from γυναίκω).957.Introduction, p. 155.958.Thirteen times between Rom. i. 7 and xiii. 1.959.E.g.Gal. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 55; 2 Cor. vi. 11 (ος andο). Those who have Matthæi's reprint ofgat hand are invited to refer to the last line of fol. 91: (1 Tim. vi. 20) where Ὦ Τιμόθεε is exhibited thus:—ΟὮ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΕ.960.Col. ii. 22, 23: iii. 2.961.As 1 Tim. iii. 1: iv. 14: vi. 15. Consider the practice offin 1 Thess. i. 9 (Ο; ΠΟΙΑΝ): in 2 Cor. viii. 11, 14 (Ο; ΠΩΣ).962.Rarest of all are instances of this mark over the Latin“e”: but we meet with“spē”(Col. i. 23):“sē”(ii. 18):rēpēntes(2 Tim. iii. 6), &c. So, in the Greek, ἡ or ᾗ writtenΗare most unusual.—A few instances are found of“u”with this appendage, as“domūs”(1 Tim. v. 13):“spiritū”(1 Cor. iv. 21), &c.963.This information is obtained from a photograph of the page procured from Dresden through the kindness of the librarian, Counsellor Dr. Forstemann.964.See Rettig'sProlegg.pp. xxiv.-v.965.“You will perceive that I have now succeeded in identifying every Evangelium hitherto spoken of as existing in Florence, with the exception of Evan 365 [Act. 145, Paul 181] (Laurent vi. 36), &c., which is said to‘contain also the Psalms.’I assure you no such Codex exists in the Laurentian Library; no, nor ever did exist there. Dr. Anziani devoted full an hour to the enquiry, allowing me [for I was very incredulous] to see the process whereby he convinced himself that Scholz is in error. It was just such an intelligent and exhaustive process as Coxe of the Bodleian, or dear old Dr. Bandinel before him, would have gone through under similar circumstances. Pray strike that Codex off your list; and with it‘Acts 145’and‘Paul 181.’I need hardly say that Bandini's Catalogue knows nothing of it. It annoys me to be obliged to add that I cannot even find out the history of Scholz's mistake.”—Guardian, August 27, 1873.966.“Whoseword on such matters is entitled to most credit,—the word of the Reviewer, or the word of the most famous manuscript collators of this century?... Those who have had occasion to seek in public libraries for manuscripts which are not famous for antiquity or beauty or completeness (sic), know that the answer‘non est inventus’is no conclusive reason for believing that the object of their quest has not been seen and collated in former years by those who profess to have actually seen and collated it. That 181‘is non-existent’must be considered unproven.”—Bp. Ellicott'sPamphlet, p. 72.967.The learned Abbé Martin, who has obligingly inspected for me the 18 copies of the“Praxapostolus”in the Paris library, reports as follows concerning“Apost. 12”( = Reg. 375),—“A very foul MS. of small value, I believe: but a curious specimen of bad Occidental scholarship. It was copied for the monks of S. Denys, and exhibits many Latin words; having been apparently revised on the Latin. The lection is assigned to Σαββάτῳ λ᾽ (not λδ᾽) in this codex.”968.“Codices Cryptenses seu Abbatiæ Cryptæ Ferratæ in Tusculano, digesti et illustrati cura et studioD. Antonii Rocchi, Hieromonachi Basiliani Bibliothecæ custodis,”—Tusculani, fol. 1882.—I have received 424 pages (1 May, 1883).969.Not a few of the Basilian Codices have been transferred to the Vatican.970.In anAppendixto the present volume, I will give fuller information. I am still (3rd May, 1883) awaiting replies to my troublesome interrogatories addressed to the heads of not a few continental libraries.971.Rufinus, namely (fl.a.d.395).Opp.iv. 465972.MS. letter to myself, August 11, 1879.973.MS. letter from the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John's College, Oxford.974.See above, page429.975.Page 71. And so p. 65 and 69.976.MS. letter to myself.977.See above, page429.978.Ulfilas. Veteris et Novi Test. Versionis Goth. fragmenta quæ supersunt, &c. 4to. 1843.979.“Si tamen Uppström‘obscurum’dixit, non‘incertum,’fides illi adhiberi potest, quia diligentissime apices omnes investigabat; me enim præsente in aula codicem tractabat.”—(Private letter to myself.)Ceriani proceeds,—“Quæris quomodo componatur cum textu 1 Tim. iii. 16, nota54Proleg.Gabelentz Gothicam versionem legens Θεός. Putarem ex loco Castillionæi in notis ad Philip. ii. 6, locutos fuisse doctos illos Germanos, oblitos illius Routh præcepti‘Let me recommend to you the practice of always verifying your references, sir.’”The reader will be interested to be informed that Castiglione, the former editor of the codex, was in favour of“God”in 1835, and of“soei”(quæ[ = ὅ], to agree with“runa,”i.e.“mystery,”which is feminine in Gothic) in 1839. Gabelentz, in 1843, ventured to print“saei”= ὅς.“Et‘saei’legit etiam diligentissimus Andreas Uppström nuperus codicis Ambrosiani investigator et editor, in opereCodicis Gothici Ambrosiani sive Epist. Pauli, &c.Holmiæ et Lipsiæ, 1868.”980.Stuttgard, 1857.981.Of the department of Oriental MSS. in the Brit. Mus., who derives his text from“the three Museum MSS. which contain the Arabic Version of the Epistles: viz.Harl.5474 (dateda.d.1332):—Oriental1328 (Xth cent.):—Arundel Orient.19 (dateda.d.1616).”—Walton's Polyglott, he says, exhibits“a garbled version, quite distinct from the genuine Arabic: viz.‘These glories commemorate them in the greatness of the mystery of fair piety.Godappeared in the flesh,’”&c.982.See above, pp.271to 294.983.i. 387 a: 551 a: 663 abis.—ii. 430 a: 536 c: 581 c: 594 a, 595 b (these two, of the 2nd pagination): 693 d [ = ii. 265, ed. 1615, from which Tisch. quotes it. The place may be seen in full,supra, p.101.]—iii. 39 bbis: 67 a b.—Ap. Galland.vi. 518 c: 519 d: 520 b: 526 d: 532 a: 562 b: 566 d: 571 a. All but five of these places, I believe, exhibit ὁ Θεός,—which seems to have been the reading of this Father. The article is seldom seen in MSS. Only four instances of it,—(they will be found distinctly specified below, page493,note1),—are known to exist. More places must have been overlooked.Note, that Griesbach only mentions Gregory of Nyssa (whose name Tregelles omits entirely) to remark that he is not to be cited for Θεός; seeing that, according to him, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is to be read thus:—τὸ μυστήριον ἐν σαρκὶ ἐφανερώθη. Griesbach borrowed that quotation and that blunder from Wetstein; to be blindly followed in turn by Scholz and Alford. And yet, the words in question arenot the words of Gregory Nyss. at all; but of Apolinaris, against whom Gregory is writing,—as Gregory himself explains. [Antirrh. adv. Apol.apud Galland. vi. 522 d.]984.De Trin.p. 83. The testimony is express.985.i. 92: iii. 657.-iv. 19, 23.986.i. 313:—ii. 263.987.i. 497 c d e.—viii. 85 e: 86 a.—xi. 605 f: 606 a b d e.—(The first of these places occurs in the Homilyde Beato Philogonio, which Matthæi in the main [viz. from p. 497, line 20, to the end] edited from an independent source [Lectt. Mosqq.1779]. Gallandius [xiv.Append.141-4] reprints Matthæi's labours).—Concerning this place of Chrysostom (vide suprà, p.101), Bp. Ellicott says (p. 66),—“The passage which he [the Quarterly Reviewer] does allege, deserves to be placed before our readers in full, as an illustration of the precarious character of patristic evidence. If this passage attests the reading θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16, does it not also attest the reading ὁ θεός in Heb. ii. 16, where no copyist or translator has introduced it?”... I can but say, in reply,—“No, certainly not.”May I be permitted to add, that it is to me simply unintelligible how Bp. Ellicott can show himself soplanè hospesin this department of sacred Science as to be capable of gravely asking such a very foolish question?988.i. 215 a: 685 b. The places may be seen quotedsuprà, p.101.989.The place is quoted in Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 59.990.Antirrheticus, ap. Galland. vi. 517-77.991.The full title was,—Ἀπόδειξις περὶ τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως τῆς καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου.Ibid.518 b, c: 519 a.992.Apolinaris did not deny thatChristwas veryGod. His heresy (like that of Arius) turned upon the nature of the conjunction of the Godhead with the Manhood. Hear Theodoret:—Α. Θεὸς Λόγος σαρκὶ ἑνωθεὶς ἄνθρωπον ἀπετέλεσεν Θεόν. Ο. Τοῦτο οὖν λέγεις θείαν ἐμψυχίαν? Α. Καὶ πάνυ. Ο. Ἀντὶ ψυχῆς οὖν ὁ Λόγος? Α. Ναί.Dial.vi.adv. Apol.(Opp.v. 1080 = Athanas. ii. 525 d.)993.Cramer'sCat. in Actus, iii. 69. It is also met with in the Catena on the Acts which J. C. Wolf published in hisAnecdota Græca, iii. 137-8. The place is quoted above, p.102.994.Cramer'sCat. in Rom.p. 124.995.P. 67.996.P. 65.997.P. 65.998.See above, p.429.999.Bentley, Scholz, Tischendorf, Alford and others adduce“Euthalius.”1000.Concilia, i. 849-893. The place is quoted below in note 3.1001.“Verum ex illis verbis illud tantum inferri debet false eam epistolam Dionysio Alexandrino attribui: non autem scriptum non fuisse ab aliquo ex Episcopis qui Synodis adversus Paulum Antiochenum celebratis interfuerant. Innumeris enim exemplis constat indubitatæ antiquitatis Epistolas ex Scriptorum errore falsos titulos præferre.”—(Pagi ada.d.264, apud Mansi,Concil.i. 1039.)1002.εἶς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ὁ ῶν ἐν τῷ Πατρι συναΐδιος λόγος, ἕν αὐτοῦ πρόσωπον, ἀόρατος Θεός, καὶ ὁρατὸς γενόμενος; ΘΕῸΣ ΓᾺΡ ἘΦΑΝΕΡΏΘΗ ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός, ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθεὶς ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου—Concilia, i. 853 a.1003.Cap. xi.1004.Ad Ephes.c. 19: c. 7.Ad Magnes.c. 8.1005.Cap. xii.1006.Contra Hæresim Noeti, c. xvii. (Routh'sOpuscula, i. 76.) Read the antecedent chapters.1007.Dialog.ii. 'Inconfusus.'—Opp.iv. 132.1008.Cod. 230,—p. 845, line 40.1009.vii. 26,ap. Galland. iii. 182 a.1010.iii. 401-2,Epist.261 ( = 65). A quotation from Gal. iv. 4 follows.1011.μαθήσεται γὰρ ὅτι φύσει μὲν καὶ ἀληθείᾳ Θεός ἐστιν ὁ Ἐμμανουήλ, θεοτόκος δὲ δι᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ ἡ τεκοῦσα παρθένος.—Vol. v. Part ii. 48 e.1012.καὶ οὔτι που φαμὲν ὅτι καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Θεὸς ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς γεγονώς.—Opp.V. Part 2, p. 124 c d. (=Concilia, iii. 221 c d.)1013.N. T. vol. xi.Præfat.p. xli.1014.διὰ τοῦ ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθέντος Θεοῦ.—De Incarnatione Domini, Mai,Nov. PP. Bibliotheca, ii. 68.1015.Earlier in the same Treatise, Cyril thus grandly paraphrases 1 Tim. iii. 16:—τότε δὴ τότε τὸ μέγα καὶ ἄῤῥητον γίνεται τῆς οἰκονομίας μυστήριον; αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ δημιουργὸς ἁπάσης τῆς κτίσεως, ὁ ἀχώρητος, ὁ ἀπερίγραπτος, ὁ ἀναλλοίωτος, ἡ πηγὴ τῆς ζωῆς, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ φωτὸς φῶς, ἡ ζῶσα τοῦ Πατρὸς εἰκών, τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν φύσιν ἀναλαμβάνει.—Ibid.p. 37.1016.P. 153 d. (=Concilia, iii. 264 c d.)1017.Ibid, d e.1018.εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἕνα τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ἄνθρωπον ἁπλῶς, καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ μᾶλλον Θεὸν ἐνηνθρωπηκότα διεκήρυξαν οἰ μαθηταί κ.τ.λ. Presently,—μέγα γὰρ τότε τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐστὶ μυστήριον, πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος. p. 154 a b c.—In a subsequent page,—ὅ γε μὴν ἐνανθρωπήσας Θεός, καίτοι νομισθεὶς οὐδὲν ἕτερον εἶναι πλὴν ὅτι μόνον ἄνθρωπος ... ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, τετίμηται δὲ καὶ ὡς Υἱὸς ἀληθῶς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός ... Θεὸς εἶναι πεπιστευμένος.—Ibid.p. 170 d e.1019.Ἀναθεματισμὸς β᾽.—Εἴ τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ σαρκὶ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἡνῶσθαι τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγον, ἕνα τε εἶναι Χριστὸν μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός, τὸν αὐτὸν δηλονότι Θεόν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.—vi. 148 a.1020.Ibid.b, c, down to 149 a. (=Concilia, iii. 815 b-e.)1021.Preserved by Œcumenius in hisCatena, 1631, ii. 228.1022.Ellis, p. 67.1023.In loc.1024.Variæ Lect.ii. 232. He enumerates ten MSS. in which he found it,—but he only quotes down to ἐφανερώθη.1025.In loc.1026.P. 227note.1027.Pointed out long since by Matthæi,N. T.vol. xi.Præfat.p. xlviii. Also in his ed. of 1807,—iii. 443-4.“Nec ideo laudatus est, ut doceret Cyrillum loco Θεός legisse ὅς, sed ideo, ne quis si Deum factum legeret hominem, humanis peccatis etiam obnoxium esse crederet.”1028.See Berriman'sDissertation, p. 189.—(MS. note of the Author.)1029.Not from the 2nd article of hisExplanatio xii. capitum, as Tischendorf supposes.1030.See how P. E. Pusey characterizes the“Scholia,”in hisPrefaceto vol. vi. of his edition,—pp. xii. xiii.1031.Cyril's Greek, (to judge from Mercator's Latin,) must have run somewhat as follows:—Ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος ὁμολογουμένως μέγα φησὶν εἶναι τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον. Καὶ ὄντως οὔτως ἔξει; ἐφανερώθη γὰρ ἐν σαρκί, Θεὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος.1032.Opp.vol. v. P. i. p. 785 d.—The original scholium (of which the extant Greek proves to be only a garbled fragment, [see Pusey's ed. vi. p. 520,]) abounds in expressions which imply, (if they do not require,) that Θεός went before:e.g.quasi Deus homo factus:—erant ergo gentes in mundo sine Deo, cum absque Christo essent:—Deus enim erat incarnatus:—in humanitate tamen Deus remansit: Deus enim Verbum, carne assumptâ, non deposuit quod erat; intelligitur tamen idem Deus simul et homo,&c.1033.P. 67.1034.Opp.vi. 327.1035.ii. 852.1036.Matthæi, N. T. xi.Præfat.pp. lii.-iii.1037.Vol. V. P. ii. pp. 55-180.1038.“How is the Godhead of Christ proved?”(asks Ussher in hisBody of Divinity, ed. 1653, p. 161). And he adduces out of the N. T. only Jo. i. 1, xx. 28; Rom. ix. 5; 1 Jo. v. 20.—Hehadquoted 1 Tim. iii. 16 in p. 160 (with Rom. ix. 5) to prove the union of the two natures.1039.Burgon'sLast Twelve Verses, &c., p. 195 and note. See Canon Cook on this subject,—pp. 146-7.1040.Suprà, p.102.1041.Pp. 68-9.1042.Proleg. in N. T.,—§ 1013.1043.Opp.(ed. 1645) ii. 447.1044.Concilia, v. 772 a. I quote from Garnier's ed. of theBreviarium, reprinted by Gallandius, xii. 1532.1045.iv. 465 c.1046.Concilia, vi. 28 e [= iii. 645 c (ed. Harduin)].1047.“Ex sequentibus colligo quædam exemplaria tempore Anastasii et Macedonii habuisse ὅς Θεός; ut, mutatione factâ ὅς in ὡς, intelligereturut esset Deus.”(Cotelerii,Eccl. Gr. Mon.iii. 663)—“Q. d. Ut hic homo, qui dicitur Jesus, esset et dici posset Deus,”&c. (Cornelius,in loc.He declares absolutely“olim legerunt ... ὅς Θεός.”)—All this was noticed long since by Berriman, pp. 243-4.1048.“Apost. 83,”is“Crypta-Ferrat.A. β. iv.”described in theAppendix. I owe the information to the learned librarian of Crypta Ferrata, the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. It is a pleasure to transcribe the letter which conveyed information which the writer knew would be acceptable to me:—“Clme Rme Domine. Quod erat in votis, plures loci illius Paulini non modo in nostris codd. lectiones, sed et in his ipsis variationes, adsequutus es. Modo ego operi meo finem imponam, descriptis prope sexcentis et quinquaginta quinque vel codicibus vel MSS. Tres autem, quos primum nunc notatos tibi exhibeo, pertinent ad Liturgicorum ordinem. Jam felici omine tuas prosoquere elucubrationes, cautus tantum ne studio et labore nimio valetudinem tuam defatiges. Vale. De Tusculano, xi. kal. Maias, an. R. S.mdccclxxxiii.Antonius Rocchi, Hieromonachus Basilianus.”For“Paul 282,”(a bilingual MS. at Paris, known as“Arménien 9,”) I am indebted to the Abbé Martin, who describes it in hisIntroduction à la Critique Textuelle du N. T., 1883,—pp. 660-1. SeeAppendix.1049.Prebendary Scrivener (p. 555) ably closes the list. Any one desirous of mastering the entire literature of the subject should study the Rev. John Berriman's interesting and exhaustiveDissertation,—pp. 229-263.1050.The reader is invited to read what Berriman, (who was engaged on his“Dissertation”while Bp. Butler was writing the“Advertisement”prefixed to his“Analogy”[1736],) has written on this part of the subject,—pp. 120-9, 173-198, 231-240, 259-60, 262, &c.1051.Apud Athanasium,Opp. ii. 33; and see Garnier's introductory Note.1052.“Audi Paulum magnâ voce clamantem:Deus manifestatus est in carne[down to]assumptus est in gloriâ. O magni doctoris affatum!Deus, inquit,manifestatus est in carne,”&c.—Concilia, vii. p. 618 e.1053.Theodori Studitæ,Epistt. lib. ii. 36, and 156. (Sirmondi'sOpera Varia, vol. v. pp. 349 e and 498 b,—Venet. 1728.)1054.Paul 113, (Matthæi's a) contains two Scholia which witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη:—Paul 115, (Matthæi's d) also contains two Scholia.—Paul 118, (Matthæi's h).—Paul 123, (Matthæi's n). See Matthæi's N. T. vol. xi.Præfat.pp. xlii.-iii.1055.ii. 228 a.1056.ii. 569 e: 570 a.1057.Panoplia,—Tergobyst, 1710, fol. ρκγ᾽. p. 2, col. 1.1058.Σαββάτῳ πρὸ τῶν φώτων.1059.But in Apost. 12 (Reg. 375) it is the lection for the 30th (λ᾽) Saturday.—In Apost. 33 (Reg. 382), for the 31st (λα᾽).—In Apost. 26 (Reg. 320), the lection for the 34th Saturday begins at 1 Tim. vi. 11.—Apostt. 26 and 27 (Regg. 320-1) are said to have a peculiar order of lessons.1060.For convenience, many codices are reckoned under this head (viz. of“Apostolus”) which are rather Ἀπόστολο-εὐαγγέλια. Many again which are but fragmentary, or contain only a very few lessons from the Epistles: such are Apostt. 97 to 103. See theAppendix.1061.No. 21, 28, 31 are said to be Gospel lessons (“Evstt.”). No. 29, 35 and 36 are Euchologia;“the two latter probably Melchite, for the codices exhibit some Arabic words”(Abbé Martin). No. 43 and 48 must be erased. No. 70 and 81 are identical with 52 (B. M.Addit.32051).1062.Viz. Apost. 1: 3: 6: 9 & 10 (which are Menologies with a few Gospel lections): 15: 16: 17: 19: 20: 24: 26: 27: 32: 37: 39: 44: 47: 50: 53: 55: 56: 59: 60: 61: 63: 64: 66: 67: 68: 71: 72: 73: 75: 76: 78: 79: 80: 87: 88: 90.1063.Viz. Apost. 4 at Florence: 8 at Copenhagen: 40, 41, 42 at Rome: 54 at St. Petersburg: 74 in America.1064.Viz. Apost. 2 and 52 (Addit. 32051) in the B. Mus., also 69 (Addit. 29714 verified by Dr. C. R. Gregory): 5 at Gottingen: 7 at the Propaganda (verified by Dr. Beyer): 11, 22, 23, 25, 30, 33 at Paris (verified by Abbé Martin): 13, 14, 18 at Moscow: 38, 49 in the Vatican (verified by Signor Cozza-Luzi): 45 at Glasgow (verified by Dr. Young): 46 at Milan (verified by Dr. Ceriani): 51 at Besançon (verified by M. Castan): 57 and 62 at Lambeth, also 65b-c(all three verified by Scrivener): 58 at Ch. Ch., Oxford: 77 at Moscow: 82 at Messina (verified by Papas Matranga): 84 and 89 at Crypta Ferrata (verified by Hieromonachus Rocchi).1065.Viz. Apost. 34 (Reg. 383), a XVth-century Codex. The Abbé Martin assures me that this copy exhibits μυστήριον; | θῢ ἐφανερώθη. Note however that the position of the point, as well as the accentuation, proves that nothing else but θς was intended. This is very instructive. What if the same slip of the pen had been found in Cod.b?1066.Viz. Apost 83 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. iv.)1067.Viz. Praxapost. 85 and 86 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. vii. which exhibits μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφα | νερώθη ἐν σαρκί; and A. β. viii., which exhibits μυστίριον; ὅς ἐ ... νερώθη | ἐν σαρκύ. [sic.]). Concerning these codices, see above, pp.446to 448.1068.Concilia, ii. 217 c ( = ed. Hard. i. 418 b).1069.He wrote a history of the Council of Nicæa, in which he introduces the discussions of the several Bishops present,—all the product (as Cave thinks) of his own brain.1070.viii. 214 b.1071.Cited at the Council of CP. (a.d.553). [Concilia, ed. Labbe et Cossart, v. 447 b c = ed. Harduin, iii. 29 c and 82 e.]1072.Concilia, Labbe, v. 449 a, and Harduin, iii. 84 d.1073.Harduin, iii. 32 d.1074.A Latin translation of the work of Leontius (Contra Nestor. et Eutych.), wherein it is stated that the present place was found inlib.xiii., may be seen in Gallandius [xii. 660-99: the passage under consideration being given at p. 694 c d]: but Mai (Script. Vett.vi. 290-312), having discovered in the Vatican the original text of the excerpts from Theod. Mops., published (from the xiith book of Theod.de Incarnatione) the Greek of the passage [vi. 308]. From this source, Migne [Patr. Gr.vol. 66, col. 988] seems to have obtained his quotation.1075.Either as given by Mai, or as represented in the Latin translation of Leontius (obtained from a different codex) by Canisius [Antiquæ Lectt., 1601, vol. iv.], from whose work Gallandius simply reprinted it in 1788.1076.Theodori Mops. Fragmenta Syriaca, vertitEd. Sachau, Lips. 1869,—p. 53.—I am indebted for much zealous help in respect of these Syriac quotations to the Rev. Thomas Randell of Oxford,—who, I venture to predict, will some day make his mark in these studies.1077.Ibid.p. 64. The context of the place (which is derived from Lagarde'sAnalecta Syriaca, p. 102, top,) is as follows:“Deitas enim inhabitans hæc omnia gubernare incepit. Et in hac re etiam gratia Spiritus Sancti adjuvabat ad hunc effectum, ut beatus quoque Apostolus dixit:‘Vere grande ... in spiritu;’quoniam nos quoque auxilium Spiritûs accepturi sumus ad perfectionem justitiæ.”A further reference to 1 Tim. iii. 16 at page 69, does not help us.1078.I owe this, and more help than I can express in a foot-note, to my learned friend the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John's.1079.Pages437-43.1080.See above, p.444.1081.See above, pp.446-8; also theAppendix.1082.See pp.426-8.1083.See pp.480-2.1084.N. T. 1806 ii.ad calcem, p. [25].1085.Page 76.1086.See above, pp.376-8.1087.Viz. from p.431to p. 478.1088.See above, pp.462-4.1089.Viz. Acts iii. 12; 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8; vi. 3, 5, 6; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Tit. i. 1; 2 Pet. i. 3, 6, 7; iii. 11.1090.From the friend whose help is acknowledged at foot of pp.450,481.1091.Scholz enumerates 8 of these copies: Coxe, 15. But there must exist a vast many more; as, at M. Athos, in the convent of S. Catharine, at Meteora, &c., &c.1092.In explanation of this statement, the reader is invited to refer to theAppendixat the end of the present volume. [Since the foregoing words have been in print I have obtained from Rome tidings of about 34 more copies of S. Paul's Epistles; raising the present total to 336. The known copies of the book called“Apostolus”now amount to 127.]1093.Viz. Paul 61 (see Scrivener'sIntroduction, 3rd ed. p. 251): and Paul 181 (see above, at pp.444-5).1094.Viz. Paul 248, at Strasburg.1095.Viz. Paul 8 (see Scrivener'sIntroduction): 15 (which is not in the University library at Louvain): 50 and 51 (in Scrivener'sIntroduction): 209 and 210 (which, I find on repeated enquiry, are no longer preserved in the Collegio Romano; nor, since the suppression of the Jesuits, is any one able to tell what has become of them).1096.Viz. Paul 42: 53: 54: 58 (Vat.165,—from Sig. Cozza-Luzi): 60: 64: 66: 76: 82: 89: 118: 119: 124: 127: 146: 147: 148: 152: 160: 161: 162: 163: 172: 187: 191: 202: 214: 225 (MilanN. 272sup.,—from Dr. Ceriani): 259: 263: 271: 275: 284 (ModenaII.a. 13,—from Sig. Cappilli [Acts, 195—see Appendix]): 286 (Milane.2inf.—from Dr. Ceriani [see Appendix]): 287 (Milana.241inf.—from Dr. Ceriani [see Appendix]): 293 (Crypta Ferrata,a.β. vi.—from the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi [see Appendix]): 302 (Berlin, MS. Græc.8vo. No. 9.—from Dr. C. de Boor [see Appendix]).1097.Viz. Paul 254 (restored to CP., see Scrivener'sIntroduction): and Paul 261 (Muralt's 8: Petrop. xi. 1. 2. 330).1098.I found the reading of 150 copies of S. Paul's Epistles at 1 Tim. iii. 16, ascertained ready to my hand,—chiefly the result of the labours of Mill, Kuster, Walker, Berriman, Birch, Matthæi, Scholz, Reiche, and Scrivener. The following 102 I am enabled to contribute to the number,—thanks to the many friendly helpers whose names follow:—In theVatican(Abbate Cozza-Luzi, keeper of the library, whose friendly forwardness and enlightened zeal I cannot sufficiently acknowledge. See theAppendix) No. 185, 186, 196, 204, 207, 294, 295, 296, 297.—Propaganda(Dr. Beyer) No. 92.—Crypta Ferrata(the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. See theAppendix,) No. 290, 291, 292.—Venice(Sig. Veludo) No. 215.—Milan(Dr. Ceriani, the most learned and helpful of friends,) No. 173, 174, 175, 176, 223, 288, 289.—Ferrara, (Sig. Gennari) No. 222.—Modena(Sig. Cappilli) No. 285.—Bologna(Sig. Gardiani) No. 105.—Turin(Sig. Gorresio) No. 165, 168.—Florence(Dr. Anziani) No. 182, 226, 239.—Messina(Papas Filippo Matranga. See theAppendix,) No. 216, 283.—Palermo(Sig. Penerino) No. 217.—TheEscurial(S. Herbert Capper, Esq., of the British Legation. He executed a difficult task with rare ability, at the instance of his Excellency, Sir Robert Morier, who is requested to accept this expression of my thanks,) No. 228, 229.—Paris(M. Wescher, who is as obliging as he is learned in this department,) No. 16, 65, 136, 142, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 164.—(L'Abbé Martin. See theAppendix) No. 282.Arsenal(M. Thierry) No. 130.—S. Genevieve(M. Denis) No. 247.—Poictiers(M. Dartige) No. 276.—Berlin(Dr. C. de Boor) No. 220, 298, 299, 300, 301.—Dresden(Dr. Forstemann) No. 237.—Munich(Dr. Laubmann) No. 55, 125, 126, 128.—Gottingen(Dr. Lagarde) No. 243.—Wolfenbuttel(Dr. von Heinemann) No. 74, 241.—Basle(Mons. Sieber) No. 7.—Upsala(Dr. Belsheim) No. 273, 274.—Lincoping(the same) No. 272.—Zurich(Dr. Escher) No. 56.—Prebendary Scrivener verified for me Paul 252: 253: 255: 256: 257: 258: 260: 264: 265: 277.—Rev. T. Randell, has verified No. 13.—Alex. Peckover, Esq., No. 278.—Personally, I have inspected No. 24: 34: 62: 63: 224: 227: 234: 235: 236: 240: 242: 249: 250: 251: 262: 266: 267: 268: 269: 270: 279: 280: 281.1099.Viz. Paul 37 (theCodex Leicest., 69 of the Gospels):—Paul 85 (Vat. 1136), observed by Abbate Cozza-Luzi:—Paul 93 (Naples 1.b.12) which is 83 of the Acts,—noticed by Birch:—Paul 175 (Ambros.f.125sup.) at Milan; as I learn from Dr. Ceriani. See above, p.456note1.1100.Viz. Paul 282,—concerning which, see above, p.474, note 1.1101.The present locality of this codex (Evan. 421 = Acts 176 = Paul 218) is unknown. The only Greek codices in the public library of the“Seminario”at Syracuse are an“Evst.”and an“Apost.”(which I number respectively 362 and 113). My authority for Θεός in Paul 218, is Birch [Proleg.p. xcviii.], to whom Munter communicated his collations.1102.For the ensuing codices, see theAppendix.1103.Vat. 2068 (Basil. 107),—which I number“Apost. 115”(seeAppendix.)1104.Viz. by 4 uncials (a,k,l,p), + (247 Paul + 31 Apost. = ) 278 cursive manuscripts reading Θεός: + 4 (Paul) reading ὁ Θεός: + 2 (1 Paul, 1 Apost.) reading ὅς Θεός: + 1 (Apost.) reading Θῢ = 289. (See above, pp.473-4: 478.)1105.The Harkleian (see pp.450,489): the Georgian, and the Slavonic (p.454).1106.See above, pp.487-490,—which is the summary of what will be found more largely delivered from page455to page 476.1107.See above, pp.448-453: also p.479.1108.See above, pp.479-480.1109.See above, pp.452-3.1110.See above, pp.482,483.1111.See above, page436, and middle of page439.1112.See his long and singular note.1113.Fresh Revision, p. 27.1114.Printed Text, p. 231.1115.P. 226.1116.“Forteμυστήριον; ὁχςἐθανατώθη ἐν σαρκί ... ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀποστόλοις.”—BentleiiCritica Sacra, p. 67.1117.Developed Criticism, p. 160.1118.Thus Augustine (viii. 828 f.) paraphrases,—“In carne manifestatus estFilius Dei.”—And Marius Victorinus,a.d.390 (ap. Galland. viii. 161),—“Hoc enim est magnum sacramentum, quodDeusexanimavit semet ipsum cum esset inDeiformá:”“fuit ergo antequam esset in carne, sed manifestatum dixit in carne.”—And Fulgentius,a.d.513, thus expands the text (ap. Galland. xi. 232):—“quia scilicet Verbum quod in principio erat, et apudDeumerat, etDeuserat, id estDeiunigenitus Filius,Deivirtus et sapientia, per quem et in quo facta sunt omnia, ... idemDeusunigenitus,”&c. &c.—And Ferrandus,a.d.356 (ibid.p. 356):—“ita pro redemtione humani generis humanam naturam credimus suscepisse, ut ille qui Trinitate perfectaDeusunigenitus permanebat ac permanet, ipse ex Maria fieret primogenitus in multis fratribus,”&c.1119.MS. note in his interleaved copy of the N. T.He adds,“Hæc addenda posui Notis ad S. Hippolytum contra Noetum p. 93, vol. i.Scriptor. Ecclesiast. Opusculorum.”1120.Page 29.1121.P. 29.1122.P. 30.1123.Address, on the Revised Version, p. 10.1124.See above, pp.37to 39.1125.Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet, p. 34.1126.P. 231.1127.Fifth Rule of the Committee.1128.Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet, p. 30.1129.No fair person will mistake the spirit in which the next ensuing paragraphs (in the Text) are written. But I will add what shall effectually protect me from being misunderstood.Against the respectability and personal worth of any member of the Revisionist body, let me not be supposed to breathe a syllable. All, (for aught I know to the contrary,) may be men of ability and attainment, as well as of high moral excellence. I will add that, in early life, I numbered several professing Unitarians among my friends. It were base in me to forget how wondrous kind I found them: how much I loved them: how fondly I cherish their memory.Further. That in order to come at the truth of Scripture, we are bound to seek help at the hands ofanywho are able to render help,—whoever doubted? If a worshipper of the false prophet,—if a devotee of Buddha,—could contribute anything,—whowould hesitate to sue to him for enlightenment? As for Abraham's descendants,—they are our very brethren.But it is quite a different thing when Revisionists appointed by the Convocation of the Southern Province, co-opt Separatists and even Unitarians into their body, where they shall determine the sense of Scripture and vote upon its translation on equal terms. Surely, when the Lower House of Convocation accepted the 5th“Resolution”of the Upper House,—viz., that the Revising body“shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong;”—the Synod of Canterbury did not suppose that it was pledging itself to sanctionsuch“co-operation”as is implied by actualco-optation!It should be added that Bp. Wilberforce, (the actual framer of the 5th fundamental Resolution,) has himself informed us that“in framing it, it never occurred to him that it would apply to the admission of any member of the Socinian body.”Chronicle of Convocation(Feb. 1871,) p. 4.“I am aware,”(says our learned and pious bishop of Lincoln,)“that the ancient Church did not scruple to avail herself of the translation of a renegade Jew, like Aquila; and of Ebionitish heretics, like Symmachus and Theodotion; and that St. Augustine profited by the expository rules of Tychonius the Donatist. But I very much doubt whether the ancient Church would have looked for a large outpouring of a blessing fromGodon a work of translating His Word, where the workmen were not all joined together in a spirit of Christian unity, and in the profession of the true Faith; and in which the opinions of the several translators were to be counted and not weighed; and where everything was to be decided by numerical majorities; and where the votes of an Arius or a Nestorius were to be reckoned as of equal value with those of an Athanasius or a Cyril.”(Address on the Revised Version, 1881, pp. 38.)1130.The Bible and Popular Theology, by G. Vance Smith, 1871.1131.An Unitarian Reviser of our Authorized Version, intolerable: an earnest Remonstrance and Petition,—addressed to yourself by your present correspondent:—Oxford, Parker, 1872, pp. 8.1132.See letter of“One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.”inthe Timesof July 11, 1870.1133.Protest against the Communion of an Unitarian in Westminster Abbey on June22nd, 1870:—Oxford, 1870, pp. 64.1134.See theChronicle of Convocation(Feb. 1871), pp. 3-28,—when a Resolution was moved and carried by the Bp. (Wilberforce) of Winchester,—“That it is the judgment of this House that no person who denies the Godhead of ourLord Jesus Christought to be invited to join either company to which is committed the Revision of the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture: and that it is further the judgment of this House that any such person now on either Company should cease to act therewith.“And that this Resolution be communicated to the Lower House, and their concurrence requested:”—which was done. See p. 143.1135.The Reader is invited to refer back to pp.132-135.1136.The Reader is requested to refer back to pp.210-214.1137.S. Mark x. 21.1138.S. Luke xxii. 64.1139.S. Luke xxiii. 38.1140.S. Luke xxiv. 42.1141.Εἰπεῖν is“to command”in S. Matth. (and S. Luke) iv. 3: in S. Mark v. 43: viii. 7, and in many other places. On the other hand, the Revisers have thrust“command”into S. Matth. xx. 21, where“grant”had far better have been let alone: and have overlooked other places (as S. Matth. xxii. 24, S. James ii. 11), where“command”might perhaps have been introduced with advantage. (I nothing doubt that when the Centurion of Capernaum said to our Lord μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ [Mtt. viii. 8 = Lu. vii. 7], he entreated Him“only to givethe word of command.”)We all see, of course, that it was because Δός is rendered“grant”in the (very nearly) parallel place to S. Matth. xx. 21 (viz. S. Mark x. 37), that the Revisers thought it incumbent on them to represent Εἰπέ in the earlier Gospel differently; and so they bethought themselves of“command.”(Infelicitously enough, as I humbly think.“Promise”would evidently have been a preferable substitute: the word in the original (εἰπεῖν) being one of that large family of Greek verbs which vary their shade of signification according to their context.) But it is plainly impracticable tolevel upafter this rigid fashion,—to translate in this mechanical way. Far more is lost than is gained by this straining after an impossible closeness of rendering. The spirit becomes inevitably sacrificed to the letter. All this has been largely remarked upon above, at pp.187-206.Take the case before us in illustration. S. James and S. John with their Mother, have evidently agreed together to“ask a favour”of theirLord(cf. Mtt. xx. 20, Mk. x. 35). The Mother begins Εἰπέ,—the sons begin, Δός. Why are we to assume that the request is made by the Mother ina different spiritfrom the sons? Why are we to impose upon her language the imperious sentiment which the very mention of“command”unavoidably suggests to an English ear?A prior, and yet more fatal objection, remains in full force. The Revisers, (I say it for the last time,) were clearly going beyond their prescribed duty when they set about handling the Authorized Version after this merciless fashion. Their business was to correct“plain and clear errors,”—notto produce a“New English Version.”1142.Take the following as a sample, which is one of the Author's proofs that the“Results of the Revision”are“unfavourable to Orthodoxy:”—“The only instance in the N. T. in which the religious worship or adoration ofChristwas apparently implied, has beenalteredby the Revision:‘Atthe name ofJesusevery knee shall bow,’[Philipp. ii. 10] is now to be read‘inthe name.’Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N. T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship ofJesus Christ.”—Texts and Margins,—p. 47.1143.Supra, p.424to p. 501.1144.See above, pp.272-275, pp.278-281.1145.See above, p.275.1146.See above, pp.276-7.1147.See above, pp.303-305.1148.See above, p.304.1149.See above, pp.339-42; also pp.422,423.1150.See above, pp.391-7.1151.See above, pp.36-40:47-9:422-4.1152.See above, pp.41-7:420-2.1153.See above, pp.98-106:424-501.1154.Evan. 738 belongs to Oriel College, Oxford, [xii.], small 4to. of 130 foll. slightlymut.Evan. 739, Bodl. Greek Miscell. 323 [xiii.], 8vo.membr.foll. 183,mut.Brought from Ephesus, and obtained for the Bodleian in 1883.1155.Evst. 415 belongs to Lieut. Bate, [xiii.],chart.foll. 219, mutilated throughout. He obtained it in 1878 from a Cyprus villager at Kikos, near Mount Trovodos (i.e.Olympus.) It came from a monastery on the mountain.1156.Apost. 128 will be found described, for the first time, below, at p.528.

Reference is made to a vulgar effusion in the“Contemporary Review”for March 1882: from which it chiefly appears that Canon (now Archdeacon) Farrar is unable to forgive S. Mark the Evangelist for having written the 16th verse of his concluding chapter. The Venerable writer is in consequence for ever denouncing those“last Twelve Verses.”In March 1882, (pretending to review my Articles in the“Quarterly,”) he says:—“In spite of Dean Burgon's Essay on the subject, the minds of most scholars arequite unalterably made upon such questions as the authenticity of the last twelve verses of S. Mark.”[Contemporary Review, vol. xli. p. 365.] And in the ensuing October,—“If, amongpositive results, any one should set down such facts as that ... Mark xvi. 9-20 ...formed no part of the original apostolic autograph... He, I say, who should enumerate these points as beingbeyond the reach of serious dispute... would be expressing the views which areregarded as indisputableby the vast majority of such recent critics as have established any claim to serious attention.”[Expositor, p. 173.]

It may not be without use to the Venerable writer that he should be reminded that critical questions, instead of being disposed of by such language as the foregoing, are not even touched thereby. One is surprised to have to tell a“fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,”so obvious a truth as that by such writing he does but effectually put himself out of court. By proclaiming that his mind is“quite unalterably made up”that the end of S. Mark's Gospel is not authentic, he admits that he is impervious to argument and therefore incapable of understanding proof. It is a mere waste of time to reason with an unfortunate who announces that he is beyond the reach of conviction.

The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version.Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.

Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ.The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version.[Edited by the Ven. Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.

[Note,—that I have thought it best, for many reasons, to retain the ensuing note as it originally appeared; merely restoring [within brackets] those printed portions of it for which there really was no room. The third Article in the present volume will be found to supply an ample exposure of the shallowness of Drs. Westcott and Hort's Textual Theory.]

While these sheets are passing through the press, a copy of the long-expected volume reaches us. The theory of the respected authors proves to be the shallowest imaginable. It is brieflythis:—Fastening on the two oldest codices extant (band א, both of the IVth century), they invent the following hypothesis:—“That the ancestries of those two manuscriptsdiverged from a point near the autographs, and never came into contact subsequently.”[No reason is produced for this opinion.]

Having thus secured two independent witnesses of what was in the sacred autographs, the Editors claim that thecoincidenceof א andbmust“mark those portions of text in which two primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission had not come to differ from each other through independent corruption:”and therefore that,“in the absence of specially strong internal evidence to the contrary,”“the readings of א andbcombinedmay safely be accepted as genuine.”

But what is to be done when the same two codices divergeone from the other?—In all such cases (we are assured) the readings of any“binary combination”ofbare to be preferred; because“on the closest scrutiny,”they generally“have thering of genuineness;”hardly ever“look suspiciousafter full consideration.”“Even whenbstands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.”[We are not told why.]

But, (rejoins the student who, after careful collation of codexb, has arrived at a vastly different estimate of its character,)—What is to be done when internal and external evidence alike condemn a reading of B? How is“mumpsimus”for example to be treated?—“Mumpsimus”(the Editors solemnly reply) as“the better attested reading”—(by which they mean the reading attested byb,)—we place in our margin.“Sumpsimus,”apparently therightreading, we place in the text within ††; in token that it is probably“a successful ancient conjecture.”

We smile, and resume:—But how is the fact to be accounted for that the text of Chrysostom and (in the main) of the rest of the IVth-century Fathers, to whom we are so largely indebted for our critical materials, and who must have employed codices fully as old asband א: how is it, we ask, that the text of all these, including codexa, differs essentially from the text exhibited by codicesband א?—The editors reply,—The text of Chrysostom and the rest, we designate“Syrian,”and assume to have been the result of an“editorial Revision,”which we conjecturally assign to the second half of the IIIrd century. It is the“Pre-Syrian”text that we are in search of; and we recognize the object of our search in codexb.

We stare, and smile again. But how then does it come to pass (we rejoin) that the Peschito, or primitiveSyriac, which is older by full a century and a half than the last-named date, is practically still the same text?—This fatal circumstance (not overlooked by the learned Editors) they encounter with another conjectural assumption.“A Revision”(say they)“of the Old Syriac version appears to have taken place early in the IVth century, or sooner; and doubtless in some connexion with the Syrian revision of the Greek text, the readings being to a very great extent coincident.”

And pray, whereis“theOld Syriacversion”of which you speak?—It is (reply the Editors) our way of designating the fragmentary Syriac MS. commonly known as“Cureton's.”—Your way (we rejoin) of manipulating facts, and disposing of evidence is certainly the most convenient, as it is the most extraordinary, imaginable: yet is it altogether inadmissible in a grave enquiry like the present. Syriac scholars are of a widely different opinion from yourselves. Do you not perceive that you have been drawing upon your imagination for every one of your facts?

We decline in short on the mere conjecturalipse dixitof these two respected scholars to admit either that the Peschito is a Revision of Cureton's Syriac Version;—or that it was executed abouta.d.325;—or that the text of Chrysostom and the other principal IVth-century Fathers is the result of an unrecorded“Antiochian Revision”which took place about the yeara.d.275.

[But instead of troubling ourselves with removing the upper story of the visionary structure before us,—which reminds us painfully of a house which we once remember building with playing-cards,—we begin by removing the basement-story, which brings the entire superstructure in an instant to the ground.]

For we decline to admit that the texts exhibited bybא can have“diverged from a point near the sacred autographs, and never come into contact subsequently.”We are able to show, on the contrary, that the readings they jointly embody afford the strongest presumption that the MSS. which contain them are nothing else but specimens of those“corrected,”i.e.corruptedcopies, which are known to have abounded in the earliest ages of the Church. From the prevalence of identical depravations in either, we infer that they are, on the contrary, derived from the same not very remote depraved original: and therefore, that their coincidence, when they differ from all (or nearly all) other MSS., so far from marking“two primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission”of the inspired autographs, does but mark what was derived from the same corrupt common ancestor; whereby the supposed two independent witnesses to the Evangelic verity become resolved intoa single witness to a fabricated text of the IIIrd century.

It is impossible in the meantime to withhold from these learned and excellent men (who are infinitely better than their theory) the tribute of our sympathy and concern at the evident perplexity and constant distress to which their own fatal major premiss has reduced them. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. Doubt,—unbelief,—credulity,—general mistrust ofallevidence, is the inevitable sequel and penalty. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort solemnly assured their brother Revisionists that“the prevalent assumption, that throughout the N. T. the true text is to be foundsomewhereamong recorded readings,does not stand the test of experience;”[P. xxi.] and they are evidently still haunted by the same spectral suspicion. They see a ghost to be exorcised in every dark corner.“The Art ofConjectural Emendation”(says Dr. Hort)“depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation founded on knowledge and method.”[Introd.p. 71.] Specimens of the writer's skill in this department abound.Oneoccurs at p. 135 (App.) where,in defiance of every known document, he seeks to evacuate S. Paul's memorable injunction to Timothy (2 Tim. i. 13) of all its significance. [A fuller exposure of Dr. Hort's handling of this important text will be found later in the present volume.] May we be allowed to assure the accomplished writer thatin Biblical Textual Criticism,“Conjectural Emendation”has no place?

True, that a separate volume of Greek Text has been put forth, showing every change which has been either actually accepted, or else suggested for future possible acceptance. But (in the words of the accomplished editor),“theRevisers are not responsible for its publication.”Moreover, (and this is the chief point,) it is a sealed book to all but Scholars.

It were unhandsome, however, to take leave of the learned labours of Prebendary Scrivener and Archdeacon Palmer, without a few words of sympathy and admiration. Their volumes (mentioned at the beginning of the present Article) are all that was to have been expected from the exquisite scholarship of their respective editors, and will be of abiding interest and value.Bothvolumes should be in the hands of every scholar, for neither of them supersedes the other. Dr. Scrivener has (with rare ability and immense labour) set before the Church,for the first time, the Greek Text which was followed by the Revisers of 1611, viz. Beza's N. T. of 1598, supplemented in above 190 places from other sources; every one of which the editor traces out in hisAppendix, pp. 648-56. At the foot of each page, he shows what changes have been introduced into the Text by the Revisers of 1881.—Dr. Palmer, taking theText of Stephens(1550) as his basis, presents us with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the“Authorized Version,”and relegates the displaced Readings (of 1611) to the foot of each page.—We cordially congratulate them both, and thank them for the good service they have rendered.

καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν, will have been the reading of that lost venerable codex of the Gospels which is chiefly represented at this day by Evann. 13-69-124-346,—as explained by Professor Abbott in his Introduction to Prof. Ferrar'sCollation of four important MSS., etc. (Dublin 1877). The same reading is also found in Evann. 28 : 122 : 541 : 572, and Evst. 196.

Different must have been the reading of that other venerable exemplar which supplied the Latin Church with its earliest Text. But of this let the reader judge:—“Et cum audisset illum multa facere, libenter,”&c. (c: also“Codex Aureus”and γ, both at Stockholm):“et audito eo quod multa faciebat, et libenter,”&c. (g2q):“et audiens illum quia multa faciebat, et libenter,”&c. (b). The Anglo-Saxon, (“and he heard that he many wonders wrought, and he gladly heard him”) approaches nearest to the last two.

The Peschito Syriac (which is without variety of reading here) in strictness exhibits:—“And many things he was hearing [from] him and doing; and gladly he was hearing him.”But this, by competent Syriac scholars, is considered to represent,—καὶ πολλὰ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ, ἐποίει; καὶ ἡδέως ἤκουεν αὐτοῦ.—Cod. Δ is peculiar in exhibiting καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλά, ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν,—omitting ἐποίει, καί.—The Coptic also renders,“et audiebat multa ab eo, et anxio erat corde.”From all this, it becomes clear that the actualintentionof the blundering author of the text exhibited by אb lwas, to connect πολλά,notwith ἠπόρει, but with ἀκούσας. So the Arabian version: but not the Gothic, Armenian, Sclavonic, or Georgian,—as Dr. S. C. Malan informs the Reviewer.

The Editors shall speak for themselves concerning this, the first of the“Seven last Words:”—“We cannot doubt thatit comes from an extraneous source:”—“need not have belonged originallyto the book in which it is now included:”—is“a Western interpolation.”

Dr. Hort,—unconscious apparently that he isat the bar, noton the bench,—passes sentence (in his usual imperial style)—“Text, Western and Syrian”(p. 67).—But then, (1st) It happens that ourLord'sintercession on behalf of His murderers is attested by upwards of forty Patristic witnessesfrom every part of ancient Christendom: while, (2ndly) On the contrary, the places in which it isnot foundare certain copies of the old Latin, and codexd, which is supposed to be our great“Western”witness.

We take leave to point out that, however favourable the estimate Drs. Westcott and Hort may have personally formed of the value and importance of the Vatican Codex (b), nothing can excuse their summary handling, not to say their contemptuous disregard, of all evidence adverse to that of their own favourite guide. Theypass bywhatever makes against the reading they adopt, with the oracular announcement that the rival reading is“Syrian,”“Western,”“Western and Syrian,”as the case may be.

But we respectfully submit that“Syrian,”“Western,”“Western and Syrian,”as Critical expressions, are absolutely without meaning, as well as without use to a student in this difficult department of sacred Science. They supply no information. They are never supported by a particle of intelligible evidence. They are often demonstrably wrong, andalwaysunreasonable. They areDictation, notCriticism. When at last it is discovered that they do but signify that certain wordsare not found in codexb,—they are perceived to be the veriestfoolishnessalso.

Progress is impossible while this method is permitted to prevail. If these distinguished Professors have enjoyed a Revelation as to what the Evangelists actually wrote, they would do well to acquaint the world with the fact at the earliest possible moment. If, on the contrary, they are merely relying on their own inner consciousness for the power of divining the truth of Scripture at a glance,—they must be prepared to find their decrees treated with the contumely which is due to imposture, of whatever kind.

“Vox illa Patris, quæ super baptizatum facta estEgo hodie genui te,”(Enchirid.c. 49 [Opp.vi. 215 a]):—

“Illud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa voce sonuisse quod in Psalmo scriptum est,Filius meus es tu: ego hodie genui te, quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus Græcis non inveniri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus confirmari possit, quid aliud quam utrumque intelligendum est quolibet verborum ordine de cælo sonuisse?”(De Cons. Ev.ii. c. 14 [Opp.iii. P. ii. 46 d e]). Augustine seems to allude to what is found to have existed in theEbionite Gospel.

The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST, translated out of the Greek: being the Version set fortha.d.1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Reviseda.d.1881. Printed for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881.

The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version.Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.

Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ.The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version.[Edited by the Ven. Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.

The New Testament in the Original Greek.The Text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. Cambridge and London, 1881.

Let the Reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts of the severalVersionsabove enumerated, and mentally assign eachFatherto his own approximate locality: then let him bear in mind that 995 out of 1000 of the extantManuscriptsagree with those Fathers and Versions; and let him further recognize that those MSS. (executed at different dates in different countries) must severally represent independent remote originals, inasmuch asno two of them are found to be quite alike.—Next, let him consider that,in all the Churches of the East, these words from the earliest period were read aspart of the Gospel for the Thursday in Easter week.—This done, let him decide whether it is reasonable that two worshippers of codexb—a.d.1881—should attempt to thrust all this mass of ancient evidence clean out of sight by their peremptory sentence of exclusion,—“Western and Syrian.”

Drs. Westcott and Hort inform us that“the character of the attestationmarks”the clause (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ),“as aWestern gloss.”But the“attestation”for retaining that clause—(a) Comes demonstrably from every quarter of ancient Christendom:—(b) Is more ancient (by 200 years) than the evidence for omitting it:—(c) Is more numerous, in the proportion of 99 to 1:—(d) In point of respectability, stands absolutely alone. For since we haveprovedthat Origen and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, Ambrose and Jerome,recognizethe words in dispute, of what possible Textual significancy can it be if presently (because it is sufficient for their purpose) the same Fathers are observed to quote S. John iii. 13no further than down to the words“Son of Man”? No person, (least of all a professed Critic,) who adds to his learning a few grains of common sense and a little candour, can be misled by such a circumstance. Origen, Eusebius, Proclus, Ephraim Syrus, Jerome, Marius, when they are only insisting on the doctrinal significancy of the earlier words, naturally end their quotation at this place. The two Gregories (Naz. [ii. 87, 168]: Nyss. [Galland. vi. 522]), writing against the Apolinarian heresy, of course quoted the verse no further than Apolinaris himself was accustomed (for his heresy) to adduce it.... About theinternalevidence for the clause, nothing has been said; butthisis simply overwhelming. We make our appeal toCatholic Antiquity; and are content to rest our cause onExternal Evidence;—onCopies, onVersions, onFathers.

It has been objected by certain of the Revisionists that it is not fair to say that“they were appointed to do one thing, and have done another.”We are glad of this opportunity to explain.

Thatsomecorrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware: and had thosenecessarychanges been made, we should only have had words of commendation and thanks to offer. But it is found that by Dr. Hort's eager advocacy two-thirds of the Revisionists have made a vast number ofperfectly needless changes:—(1) Changes whichare incapable of being represented in a Translation: as ἐμοῦ for μου,—πάντες for ἅπαντες,—ὅτε for ὁπότε. Again, since γέννησις, at least as much as γένεσις, means“birth,”whyγένεσις in S. Matth. i. 18? Why, also, inform us that instead of ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ πεφυτευμένην, they prefer πεφυτευμένην ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ? and instead of καρπὸν ζητῶν,—ζητῶν καρπόν? Now this they have donethroughout,—at least 341 times in S. Luke alone. But (what is far worse), (2) They suggest in the margin changes which yet theydo not adopt. These numerous changes are,by their own confession, not“necessary:”and yet they are of a most serious character. In fact, it is of these we chiefly complain.—But, indeed (3),How manyof theirotheralterations of the Text will the Revisionists undertake to defend publicly on the plea of“Necessity”?

[A vast deal more will be found on this subject towards the close of the present volume. In the meantime, see above, pages87-88.]

They are as follows:—

[1st] S. Mark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion the multitude, when they beheld ourSaviourand His Disciples departing in order to cross over unto the other side of the lake, ran on foot thither,—(α)“and outwent them—(β)and came together unto Him”(i.e.on His stepping out of the boat: not, as Dr. Hort strangely imagines [p. 99], on His emerging from the scene of His“retirement”in“some sequestered nook”).

Now here,asubstitutes συνέδραμον [sic] for συνῆλθον.—אbwith the Coptic and the Vulg. omit clause (β).—domits clause (α), but substitutes“there”(αὐτοῦ) for“unto Him”in clause (β),—exhibits therefore a fabricated text.—The Syriac condenses the two clauses thus:—“got there before Him.”—l, Δ, 69, and 4 or 5 of the old Latin copies, read diversely from all the rest and from one another. The present is, in fact, one of those many places in S. Mark's Gospel where all is contradiction in those depraved witnesses which Lachmann made it his business to bring into fashion. OfConfusionthere is plenty.“Conflation”—as the Reader sees—there is none.

[2nd] In S. Mark viii. 26, ourSaviour(after restoring sight to the blind man of Bethsaida) is related to have said,—(α)“Neither enter into the village”—(β)“nor tell it to any one—(γ)in the village.”(And let it be noted that the trustworthiness of this way of exhibiting the text is vouched for bya c nΔ and 12 other uncials: by the whole body of the cursives: by the Peschito and Harklensian, the Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions: and by the only Father who quotes the place—Victor of Antioch. [Cramer'sCat.p. 345, lines 3 and 8.])

But it is found that the“two false witnesses”(אb) omit clauses (β) and (γ), retaining only clause (α). One of these two however (א), aware that under such circumstances μηδέ is intolerable, [Dr. Hort, on the contrary, (only because he finds it inb,) considers μηδέ“simple and vigorous”as well as“unique”and“peculiar”(p. 100).] substitutes μή. As fordand the Vulg., they substitute and paraphrase, importing from Matt. ix. 6 (or Mk. ii. 11),“Depart unto thine house.”dproceeds,—“and tell it to no one[μηδενὶ εἴπῃς, from Matth. viii. 4,]in the village.”Six copies of the old Latin (b f ff-2g-1-2l), with the Vulgate, exhibit the following paraphrase of the entire place:—“Depart unto thine house, and if thou enterest into the village, tell it to no one.”The same reading exactly is found in Evan. 13-69-346: 28, 61, 473, and i, (except that 28, 61, 346 exhibit“say nothing[from Mk. i. 44]to no one.”) All six however add at the end,—“not even in the village.”Evan. 124 and a stand alone in exhibiting,—“Depart unto thine house; and enter not into the village; neither tell it to any one,”—to which 124 [not a] adds,—“in the village.”...Whyall this contradiction and confusion is now to be called“Conflation,”—and what“clear evidence”is to be elicited therefrom that“Syrian”are posterior alike to“Western”and to“neutral”readings,—passes our powers of comprehension.

We shall be content to hasten forward when we have further informed our Readers that while Lachmann and Tregelles abide by the Received Text in this place; Tischendorf,alone of Editors, adopts the reading of א (μη εις την κωμην εισελθης): while Westcott and Hort,alone of Editors, adopt the reading ofb(μηδε εις την κωμην εισελθης),—so ending the sentence. What else however but calamitous is it to find that Westcott and Hort have persuaded their fellow Revisers to adopt the same mutilated exhibition of the Sacred Text? The consequence is, that henceforth,—instead of“Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town,”—we are invited to read,“Do not even enter into the village.”

[3rd] In S. Mk. ix. 38,—S. John, speaking of one who cast out devils inChrist'sName, says—(α)“who followeth not us, and we forbad him—(β)because he followeth not us.”

Here, אb c lΔ the Syriac, Coptic, and Æthiopic, omit clause (α), retaining (β).dwith the old Latin and the Vulg. omit clause (β), but retain (α).—Both clauses are found ina nwith 11 other uncials and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Gothic, and the only Father who quotes the place,—Basil [ii. 252].—Why should the pretence be set up that there has been“Conflation”here? Two Omissions do not make one Conflation.

[4th] In Mk. ix. 49,—ourSavioursays,—“For(α)every one shall be salted with fire—and(β)every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.”

Here, clause (α) is omitted bydand a few copies of the old Latin; clause (β) by אbLΔ.

But such an ordinary circumstance as the omission of half-a-dozen words by Cod.dis so nearly without textual significancy, as scarcely to merit commemoration. And do Drs. Westcott and Hort really propose to build their huge and unwieldy hypothesis on so flimsy a circumstance as the concurrence in error of אb lΔ,—especially in S. Mark's Gospel, which those codices exhibit more unfaithfully than any other codices that can be named? Against them, are to be set on the present occasiona c d nwith 12 other uncials and the whole body of the cursives: the Ital. and Vulgate; both Syriac; the Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions; besides the only Father who quotes the place,—Victor of Antioch. [Also“Anon.”p. 206: and see Cramer'sCat.p. 368.]

[5th] S. Luke (ix. 10) relates how, on a certain occasion, ourSaviour“withdrew to a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida:”which S. Luke expresses in six words: viz. [1] εἰς [2] τόπον [3] ἔρημον [4] πόλεως [5] καλουμένης [6] Βηθσαϊδά: of which six words,—

(a)—א and Syrcuretain but three,—1, 2, 3.

(b)—The Peschito retains but four,—1, 2, 3, 6.

(c)—b l xΞdand the 2 Egyptian versions retain other four,—1, 4, 5, 6: but for πόλεως καλουμένηςdexhibits κώμην λεγομένην.

(d)—The old Latin and Vulg. retain five,—1, 2, 3, 5, 6: but for“qui(orquod)vocabatur,”the Vulg.bandcexhibit“qui(orquod) est.”

(e)—3 cursives retain other five, viz. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6: while,

(f)—a cΔe, with 9 more uncials and the great bulk of the cursives,—the Harklensian, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions,—retainall the six words.

In view of which facts, it probably never occurred to any one before to suggest that the best attested reading of all is the result of“conflation,”i.e.ofspurious mixture. Note, that א anddhave, this time, changed sides.

[6th] S. Luke (xi. 54) speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees as (α)“lying in wait for Him,”(β)seeking(γ)to catch something out of His mouth(δ)“that they might accuse Him.”This is the reading of 14 uncials headed bya c, and of the whole body of the cursives: the reading of the Vulgate also and of the Syriac. What is to be said against it?

It is found that אb lwith the Coptic and Æthiopic Versions omit clauses (β) and (δ), but retain clauses (α) and (γ).—Cod.d, in conjunction with Cureton's Syriac and the old Latin, retains clause (β), andparaphrases all the rest of the sentence. How then can it be pretended that there has been any“Conflation”here?

In the meantime, how unreasonable is the excision from the Revised Text of clauses (β) and (δ)—(ζητοῦντες ... ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτόν)—which are attested bya c dand 12 other uncials, together with the whole body of the cursives; by all the Syriac and by all the Latin copies!... Are we then to understand that אb, and the Coptic Version, outweigh every other authority which can be named?

[7th] The“rich fool”in the parable (S. Lu. xii. 18), speaks of (α) πάντα τὰ γενήματά μου, καὶ (β) τὰ ἀγαθά μου. (Soa qand 13 other uncials, besides the whole body of the cursives; the Vulgate, Basil, and Cyril.)

But אd(with the old Latin and Cureton's Syriac [which however drops the πάντα]), retaining clause (α), omit clause (β).—On the other hand,b t, (with the Egyptian Versions, the Syriac, the Armenian, and Æthiopic,) retaining clause (β), substitute τὸν σῖτον (a gloss) for τὰ γενήματα in clause (α). Lachmann, Tisch., and Alford, accordingly retain the traditional text in this place. So does Tregelles, and so do Westcott and Hort,—only substituting τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα. Confessedly therefore there has been no“Syrian conflation”here: for all that has happened has beenthe substitutionbybof τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα; and the omission of 4 words by אd. This instance must therefore have been an oversight.—Only once more.

[8th] S. Luke's Gospel ends (xxiv. 53) with the record that the Apostles were continually in the Temple,“(α)praising and(β)blessingGod.”Such is the reading of 13 uncials headed by A and every known cursive: a few copies of the old Lat., the Vulg., Syraic, Philox., Æthiopic, and Armenian Versions. But it is found that אb comit clause (α): whiledand seven copies of the old Latin omit clause (β).

And this completes the evidence for“Conflation.”We have displayed it thus minutely, lest we should be suspected of unfairness towards the esteemed writers onthe only occasionwhich they have attempted argumentative proof. Their theory has at lastforced themto make an appeal to Scripture, and to produce some actual specimens of their meaning. After ransacking the Gospels for 30 years, they have at last fastened uponeight: of which (as we have seen), several have really no business to be cited,—as not fulfilling the necessary conditions of the problem. To prevent cavil however, letall but one, the [7th], pass unchallenged.

InS. Matth.i. 25,—the omission of“her first-born:”—in vi. 13, the omission of theDoxology:—in xii. 47, the omission ofthe whole verse:—in xvi. 2, 3, the omission of ourLord'smemorable words concerning thesigns of the weather:—in xvii. 21, the omission of the mysterious statement,“But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting:”—in xviii. 11, the omission of the precious words“For the Son of man came to save that which was lost.”

InS. Markxvi. 9-20, the omission of the“last Twelve Verses,”—(“the contents of which arenot such as could have been inventedby any scribe or editor of the Gospel,”—W. and H. p. 57). All admit that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is an impossible ending.

InS. Lukevi. 1, the suppression of the unique δευτεροπρώτῳ; (“the very obscurity of the expression attesting strongly to its genuineness,”—Scrivener, p. 516, and so W. and H. p. 58):—ix. 54-56, the omittedrebuke to the“disciples James and John:”—in x. 41, 42, the omittedwords concerning Martha and Mary:—in xxii. 43, 44, the omission of theAgony in the Garden,—(which nevertheless,“it would be impossible to regardas a product of the inventiveness of scribes,”—W. and H. p. 67):—in xxiii. 17, a memorable clause omitted:—in xxiii. 34, the omission of our Lord'sprayer for His murderers,—(concerning which Westcott and Hort remark that“few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this”—p. 68):—in xxiii. 38, the statement that the Inscription on the Cross was“in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew:”—in xxiv. 12,the visit of S. Peter to the Sepulchre. Bishop Lightfoot remarks concerning S. Luke ix. 56: xxii. 43, 44: and xxiii. 34,—“It seems impossible to believe that these incidents are other than authentic,”—(p. 28.)

InS. Johniii. 13, the solemn clause“which is in heaven:”—in v. 3, 4, the omitted incident ofthe troubling of the pool:—in vii. 53 to viii. 11,the narrative concerning the woman taken in adulteryomitted,—concerning which Drs. W. and H. remark that“the argument which has always told most in its favour in modern times is its own internal character. The story itself has justly seemedto vouch for its own substantial truth, and the words in which it is clothed to harmonize with those of other Gospel narratives”—(p. 87). Bishop Lightfoot remarks that“the narrative bears on its face the highest credentials of authentic history”—(p. 28).

To some extent, even the unlearned Reader may easily convince himself of this, by examining the rejected“alternative”Readings in the margin of the“Revised Version.”The“Many”and the“Some ancient authorities,”there spoken of,almost invariably include—sometimesdenote—codd.bא, one or both of them. These constitute the merest fraction of the entire amount of corrupt readings exhibited bybא; but they will give English readers some notion of the problem just now under consideration.

Besides the details already supplied [see above, pages16and17:—30and31:—46and47:—75:—249:—262:—289:—316to 319] concerningband א,—(the result of laborious collation,)—some particulars shall now be added. The piercing of ourSaviour'sside, thrust in after Matt. xxvii. 49:—the eclipse of the sun when the moon was full, in Lu. xxiii. 45:—the monstrous figment concerning Herod's daughter, thrust into Mk. vi. 22:—the precious clauses omitted in Matt. i. 25 and xviii. 11:—in Lu. ix. 54-6, and in Jo. iii. 13:—the wretched glosses in Lu. vi. 48: x. 42: xv. 21: Jo. x. 14 and Mk. vi. 20:—the substitution of οινον (for οξος) in Matt. xxvii. 34,—of Θεος (for υιος) in Jo. i. 18,—of ανθρωπου (for Θεου) in ix. 35,—of οὑ (for ῷ) in Rom. iv. 8:—the geographical blunder in Mk. vii. 31: in Lu. iv. 44:—the omission in Matt. xii. 47,—and of two important verses in Matt. xvi. 2, 3:—of ιδια in Acts i. 19:—of εγειραι και in iii. 6;—and of δευτεροπρωτω in Lu. vi. 1:—the two spurious clauses in Mk. iii. 14, 16:—the obvious blunders in Jo. ix. 4 and 11:—in Acts xii. 25—besides the impossible reading in 1 Cor. xiii. 3,—make up a heavy indictment againstband א jointly—which are here found in company with just a very few disreputable allies. Add, the plain error at Lu. ii. 14:—the gloss at Mk. v. 36:—the mere fabrication at Matt. xix. 17:—the omissions at Matt. vi. 13: Jo. v. 3, 4.

b(in company with others, but apart from א) by exhibiting βαπτισαντες in Matt. xxviii. 19:—ὡδε των in Mk. ix. 1:—“seventy-two,”in Lu. x. 1:—the blunder in Lu. xvi. 12:—and the grievous omissions in Lu. xxii. 43, 44 (Christ'sAgony in the Garden),—and xxiii. 34 (His prayer for His murderers),—enjoys unenviable distinction.—b, singly, is remarkable for an obvious blunder in Matt. xxi. 31:—Lu. xxi. 24:—Jo. xviii. 5:—Acts x. 19—and xvii. 28:—xxvii. 37:—not to mention the insertion of δεδομενον in Jo. vii. 39.

א (in company with others, but apart fromb) is conspicuous for its sorry interpolation of Matt. viii. 13:—its substitution of εστιν (for ην) in S. John i. 4:—its geographical blunder in S. Luke xxiv. 13:—its textual blunder at 1 Pet. i. 23.—א, singly, is remarkable for its sorry paraphrase in Jo. ii. 3:—its addition to i. 34:—its omissions in Matt. xxiii. 35:—Mk. i. 1:—Jo. ix. 38:—its insertion of Ησαιου in Matt. xiii. 35:—its geographical blunders in Mk. i. 28:—Lu. i. 26:—Acts viii. 5:—besides the blunders in Jo. vi. 51—and xiii. 10:—1 Tim. iii. 16:—Acts xxv. 13:—and the clearly fabricated narrative of Jo. xiii. 24. Add the fabricated text at Mk. xiv. 30, 68, 72; of which the object was“so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter's denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed twice.”

Characteristic, and fatal beyond anything that can be named are, (1) Theexclusiveomission byband א of Mark xvi. 9-20:—(2) The omission of εν Εφεσῳ, from Ephes. i. 1:—(3) The blunder, αποσκιασματος, in James i. 17:—(4) The nonsensical συστρεφομενων in Matt. xvii. 22:—(5) That“vile error,”(as Scrivener calls it,) περιελοντες, in Acts xxviii. 13:—(6) The impossible order of words in Lu. xxiii. 32; and (7) The extraordinary order in Acts i. 5:—(8) The omission of the last clause of theLord'sprayer, in Lu. xi. 4; and (9) Of that solemn verse, Matt. xvii. 21; and (10) Of ισχυρον in Matt. xiv. 30:—(11) The substitution of εργων (for τεκνων) in Matt. xi. 29:—(12) Of ελιγμα (for μιγμα) in Jo. xix. 39,—and (13) of ην τεθειμενος (for ετεθη) in John xix. 41. Then, (14) The thrusting of Χριστος into Matt. xvi. 21,—and (15) Of ὁ Θεος into vi. 8:—besides (16) So minute a peculiarity as Βεεζεβουλ in Matt. x. 35: xii. 24, 27: Lu. xi. 15, 18, 19. (17) Add, the gloss at Matt. xvii. 20, and (18) The omissions at Matt. v. 22: xvii. 21.—It must be admitted that such peculiar blemishes, taken collectively, constitute a proof of affinity of origin,—community of descent from one and the same disreputable ancestor. But space fails us.

The Reader will be interested to learn that although, in the Gospels,bcombines exclusively witha, but 11 times; and withc, but 38 times: withd, it combines exclusively 141 times, and with א, 239 times: (viz. in Matt. 121,—in Mk. 26,—in Lu. 51,—in Jo. 41 times).

Contrast it witha:—which combines exclusively withd, 21 times: with א 13 times: withb, 11 times: withc, 4 times.

The Reviewer speaks from actual inspection of both documents. They are essentially dissimilar. The learned Ceriani assured the Reviewer (in 1872) that whereas the Vatican Codex must certainly have been writtenin Italy,—the birthplace of the Sinaitic was [notEgypt, but]either Palestine or Syria. Thus, considerations of time and place effectually dispose of Tischendorf's preposterous notion that the Scribe of Codexbwrotesix leavesof א: an imagination which solely resulted from the anxiety of the Critic to secure for his own cod. א the same antiquity which is claimed for the vaunted cod.b.

This opinion of Dr. Tischendorf's rests on the same fanciful basis as his notion thatthe last verseof S. John's Gospel in א was not written by the same hand which wrote the rest of the Gospel. There isno manner of difference: though of course it is possible that the scribe took a new pen, preliminary to writing that last verse, and executing the curious and delicate ornament which follows. Concerning S. Jo. xxi. 25, see above, pp.23-4.

The rest of the passage may not be without interest to classical readers:—“Ce n'est pas à dire qu'elle soit tout à fait sans intérêt, sans importance: pour la constitution du texte. Elle nous apprend que, au vers 5, ἀρίστων, pour ἀριστέων (correction de Wakefield) était déjà l'ancienne vulgate; et que les vers 11 et 12, s'ils sont altérés, comme l'assurent quelques éditeurs d'Euripide, l'étaient déjà dans l'antiquité.

“L'homme ... était aussi ignorant que négligent. Je le prends pour un Egyptien n'ayant qu'une connoissance très imparfaite de la langue grecque, et ne possédant aucune notion ni sur l'orthographe, ni sur les règles les plus élémentaires du trimètre iambique. Le plus singulier est qu'il commence sa copie au milieu d'un vers et qu'il la finisse de même. Il oublie des lettres nécessaires, il en ajoute de parasites, il les met les unes pour les autres, il tronque les mots ou il les altère, au point de détruire quelquefois la suite de la construction et le sens du passage.”A faithful copy of the verses in minuscule characters is subjoined for the gratification of Scholars. We have but divided the words and inserted capital letters:—

“ανδρων αριστων οι δε πανχρυσον δεροςΠελεια μετηλθον ου γαρ τον δεσπονα εμηνΜηδια πυργους γης επλευσε Ειολκιαςερωτι θυμωδ εγπλαγις Ιανοσονοςοτ αν κτανει πισας Πελειαδας κουραςπατερα κατοικη τηνδε γην Κορινθιανσυν ανδρι και τεκνοισιν ανδανοισα μενφυγη πολιτων ων αφηκετο χθονος.”

An excellent scholar (R. C. P.) remarks,—“The fragment must have been written from dictation (of small parts, as it seems to me); and by an illiterate scribe. It is just such a result as one might expect from a half-educated reader enunciating Milton for a half-educated writer.”

Considerations on Revision,—p. 44. The Preface is dated 23rd May, 1870. The Revisers met on the 22nd of June.

We learn from Dr. Newth'sLectures on Bible Revision(1881), that,—“As the general Rules under which the Revision was to be carried out had been carefully prepared, no need existed for any lengthened discussion of preliminary arrangements, and the Company upon its first meeting was able to enter at once upon its work”(p. 118) ...“The portion prescribed for the first session was Matt. i. to iv.”(p. 119) ...“The question of the spelling of proper names ... being settled, the Company proceeded to the actual details of the Revision, and in a surprisingly short time settled down to an established method of procedure.”—“All proposals made at the first Revision were decided by simple majorities”(p. 122) ...“The questions which concerned the Greek Text were decided for the most part at the First Revision.”(Bp. Ellicott'sPamphlet, p. 34.)

He must be held responsible for ὝΠΟΚΡΙΣΙ in place of ὑποκρίσει [1 Tim. iv. 2]: ΑΣΤΙΖΟΜΕΝΟΣ instead of λογιζόμενος [2 Cor. v. 19]: ΠΡΙΧΟΤΗΤΙ instead of πραότητι [2 Tim. ii. 25]. And he was the author of ΓΕΡΜΑΝΕ in Phil. iv. 3: as well as of Ο δε πνευμα in 1 Tim. iv. 1.

But the scribes offandgalso were curiously innocent of Greek.gsuggests that γυναιξειν (in 1 Tim. ii. 10) may be“infinitivus”—(of course from γυναίκω).

“Si tamen Uppström‘obscurum’dixit, non‘incertum,’fides illi adhiberi potest, quia diligentissime apices omnes investigabat; me enim præsente in aula codicem tractabat.”—(Private letter to myself.)

Ceriani proceeds,—“Quæris quomodo componatur cum textu 1 Tim. iii. 16, nota54Proleg.Gabelentz Gothicam versionem legens Θεός. Putarem ex loco Castillionæi in notis ad Philip. ii. 6, locutos fuisse doctos illos Germanos, oblitos illius Routh præcepti‘Let me recommend to you the practice of always verifying your references, sir.’”

The reader will be interested to be informed that Castiglione, the former editor of the codex, was in favour of“God”in 1835, and of“soei”(quæ[ = ὅ], to agree with“runa,”i.e.“mystery,”which is feminine in Gothic) in 1839. Gabelentz, in 1843, ventured to print“saei”= ὅς.“Et‘saei’legit etiam diligentissimus Andreas Uppström nuperus codicis Ambrosiani investigator et editor, in opereCodicis Gothici Ambrosiani sive Epist. Pauli, &c.Holmiæ et Lipsiæ, 1868.”

i. 387 a: 551 a: 663 abis.—ii. 430 a: 536 c: 581 c: 594 a, 595 b (these two, of the 2nd pagination): 693 d [ = ii. 265, ed. 1615, from which Tisch. quotes it. The place may be seen in full,supra, p.101.]—iii. 39 bbis: 67 a b.—Ap. Galland.vi. 518 c: 519 d: 520 b: 526 d: 532 a: 562 b: 566 d: 571 a. All but five of these places, I believe, exhibit ὁ Θεός,—which seems to have been the reading of this Father. The article is seldom seen in MSS. Only four instances of it,—(they will be found distinctly specified below, page493,note1),—are known to exist. More places must have been overlooked.

Note, that Griesbach only mentions Gregory of Nyssa (whose name Tregelles omits entirely) to remark that he is not to be cited for Θεός; seeing that, according to him, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is to be read thus:—τὸ μυστήριον ἐν σαρκὶ ἐφανερώθη. Griesbach borrowed that quotation and that blunder from Wetstein; to be blindly followed in turn by Scholz and Alford. And yet, the words in question arenot the words of Gregory Nyss. at all; but of Apolinaris, against whom Gregory is writing,—as Gregory himself explains. [Antirrh. adv. Apol.apud Galland. vi. 522 d.]

“Apost. 83,”is“Crypta-Ferrat.A. β. iv.”described in theAppendix. I owe the information to the learned librarian of Crypta Ferrata, the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. It is a pleasure to transcribe the letter which conveyed information which the writer knew would be acceptable to me:—“Clme Rme Domine. Quod erat in votis, plures loci illius Paulini non modo in nostris codd. lectiones, sed et in his ipsis variationes, adsequutus es. Modo ego operi meo finem imponam, descriptis prope sexcentis et quinquaginta quinque vel codicibus vel MSS. Tres autem, quos primum nunc notatos tibi exhibeo, pertinent ad Liturgicorum ordinem. Jam felici omine tuas prosoquere elucubrationes, cautus tantum ne studio et labore nimio valetudinem tuam defatiges. Vale. De Tusculano, xi. kal. Maias, an. R. S.mdccclxxxiii.Antonius Rocchi, Hieromonachus Basilianus.”

For“Paul 282,”(a bilingual MS. at Paris, known as“Arménien 9,”) I am indebted to the Abbé Martin, who describes it in hisIntroduction à la Critique Textuelle du N. T., 1883,—pp. 660-1. SeeAppendix.

I found the reading of 150 copies of S. Paul's Epistles at 1 Tim. iii. 16, ascertained ready to my hand,—chiefly the result of the labours of Mill, Kuster, Walker, Berriman, Birch, Matthæi, Scholz, Reiche, and Scrivener. The following 102 I am enabled to contribute to the number,—thanks to the many friendly helpers whose names follow:—

In theVatican(Abbate Cozza-Luzi, keeper of the library, whose friendly forwardness and enlightened zeal I cannot sufficiently acknowledge. See theAppendix) No. 185, 186, 196, 204, 207, 294, 295, 296, 297.—Propaganda(Dr. Beyer) No. 92.—Crypta Ferrata(the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. See theAppendix,) No. 290, 291, 292.—Venice(Sig. Veludo) No. 215.—Milan(Dr. Ceriani, the most learned and helpful of friends,) No. 173, 174, 175, 176, 223, 288, 289.—Ferrara, (Sig. Gennari) No. 222.—Modena(Sig. Cappilli) No. 285.—Bologna(Sig. Gardiani) No. 105.—Turin(Sig. Gorresio) No. 165, 168.—Florence(Dr. Anziani) No. 182, 226, 239.—Messina(Papas Filippo Matranga. See theAppendix,) No. 216, 283.—Palermo(Sig. Penerino) No. 217.—TheEscurial(S. Herbert Capper, Esq., of the British Legation. He executed a difficult task with rare ability, at the instance of his Excellency, Sir Robert Morier, who is requested to accept this expression of my thanks,) No. 228, 229.—Paris(M. Wescher, who is as obliging as he is learned in this department,) No. 16, 65, 136, 142, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 164.—(L'Abbé Martin. See theAppendix) No. 282.Arsenal(M. Thierry) No. 130.—S. Genevieve(M. Denis) No. 247.—Poictiers(M. Dartige) No. 276.—Berlin(Dr. C. de Boor) No. 220, 298, 299, 300, 301.—Dresden(Dr. Forstemann) No. 237.—Munich(Dr. Laubmann) No. 55, 125, 126, 128.—Gottingen(Dr. Lagarde) No. 243.—Wolfenbuttel(Dr. von Heinemann) No. 74, 241.—Basle(Mons. Sieber) No. 7.—Upsala(Dr. Belsheim) No. 273, 274.—Lincoping(the same) No. 272.—Zurich(Dr. Escher) No. 56.—Prebendary Scrivener verified for me Paul 252: 253: 255: 256: 257: 258: 260: 264: 265: 277.—Rev. T. Randell, has verified No. 13.—Alex. Peckover, Esq., No. 278.—Personally, I have inspected No. 24: 34: 62: 63: 224: 227: 234: 235: 236: 240: 242: 249: 250: 251: 262: 266: 267: 268: 269: 270: 279: 280: 281.

No fair person will mistake the spirit in which the next ensuing paragraphs (in the Text) are written. But I will add what shall effectually protect me from being misunderstood.

Against the respectability and personal worth of any member of the Revisionist body, let me not be supposed to breathe a syllable. All, (for aught I know to the contrary,) may be men of ability and attainment, as well as of high moral excellence. I will add that, in early life, I numbered several professing Unitarians among my friends. It were base in me to forget how wondrous kind I found them: how much I loved them: how fondly I cherish their memory.

Further. That in order to come at the truth of Scripture, we are bound to seek help at the hands ofanywho are able to render help,—whoever doubted? If a worshipper of the false prophet,—if a devotee of Buddha,—could contribute anything,—whowould hesitate to sue to him for enlightenment? As for Abraham's descendants,—they are our very brethren.

But it is quite a different thing when Revisionists appointed by the Convocation of the Southern Province, co-opt Separatists and even Unitarians into their body, where they shall determine the sense of Scripture and vote upon its translation on equal terms. Surely, when the Lower House of Convocation accepted the 5th“Resolution”of the Upper House,—viz., that the Revising body“shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong;”—the Synod of Canterbury did not suppose that it was pledging itself to sanctionsuch“co-operation”as is implied by actualco-optation!

It should be added that Bp. Wilberforce, (the actual framer of the 5th fundamental Resolution,) has himself informed us that“in framing it, it never occurred to him that it would apply to the admission of any member of the Socinian body.”Chronicle of Convocation(Feb. 1871,) p. 4.

“I am aware,”(says our learned and pious bishop of Lincoln,)“that the ancient Church did not scruple to avail herself of the translation of a renegade Jew, like Aquila; and of Ebionitish heretics, like Symmachus and Theodotion; and that St. Augustine profited by the expository rules of Tychonius the Donatist. But I very much doubt whether the ancient Church would have looked for a large outpouring of a blessing fromGodon a work of translating His Word, where the workmen were not all joined together in a spirit of Christian unity, and in the profession of the true Faith; and in which the opinions of the several translators were to be counted and not weighed; and where everything was to be decided by numerical majorities; and where the votes of an Arius or a Nestorius were to be reckoned as of equal value with those of an Athanasius or a Cyril.”(Address on the Revised Version, 1881, pp. 38.)

See theChronicle of Convocation(Feb. 1871), pp. 3-28,—when a Resolution was moved and carried by the Bp. (Wilberforce) of Winchester,—“That it is the judgment of this House that no person who denies the Godhead of ourLord Jesus Christought to be invited to join either company to which is committed the Revision of the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture: and that it is further the judgment of this House that any such person now on either Company should cease to act therewith.

“And that this Resolution be communicated to the Lower House, and their concurrence requested:”—which was done. See p. 143.

Εἰπεῖν is“to command”in S. Matth. (and S. Luke) iv. 3: in S. Mark v. 43: viii. 7, and in many other places. On the other hand, the Revisers have thrust“command”into S. Matth. xx. 21, where“grant”had far better have been let alone: and have overlooked other places (as S. Matth. xxii. 24, S. James ii. 11), where“command”might perhaps have been introduced with advantage. (I nothing doubt that when the Centurion of Capernaum said to our Lord μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ [Mtt. viii. 8 = Lu. vii. 7], he entreated Him“only to givethe word of command.”)

We all see, of course, that it was because Δός is rendered“grant”in the (very nearly) parallel place to S. Matth. xx. 21 (viz. S. Mark x. 37), that the Revisers thought it incumbent on them to represent Εἰπέ in the earlier Gospel differently; and so they bethought themselves of“command.”(Infelicitously enough, as I humbly think.“Promise”would evidently have been a preferable substitute: the word in the original (εἰπεῖν) being one of that large family of Greek verbs which vary their shade of signification according to their context.) But it is plainly impracticable tolevel upafter this rigid fashion,—to translate in this mechanical way. Far more is lost than is gained by this straining after an impossible closeness of rendering. The spirit becomes inevitably sacrificed to the letter. All this has been largely remarked upon above, at pp.187-206.

Take the case before us in illustration. S. James and S. John with their Mother, have evidently agreed together to“ask a favour”of theirLord(cf. Mtt. xx. 20, Mk. x. 35). The Mother begins Εἰπέ,—the sons begin, Δός. Why are we to assume that the request is made by the Mother ina different spiritfrom the sons? Why are we to impose upon her language the imperious sentiment which the very mention of“command”unavoidably suggests to an English ear?

A prior, and yet more fatal objection, remains in full force. The Revisers, (I say it for the last time,) were clearly going beyond their prescribed duty when they set about handling the Authorized Version after this merciless fashion. Their business was to correct“plain and clear errors,”—notto produce a“New English Version.”

Back to IndexNext