Footnotes

Footnotes1.See Jerome, Epist. 34 (Migne, xxii. p. 448). Cod. V. of Philo has the following inscription:—Εὐζόϊος ἐπίσκοπος ἐν σωματίοις ἀνενέωσατο, i.e. transcribed on vellum from papyrus. Leopold Cohn's edition of Philo, De Opiticiis Mundi, Vratislaw, 1889.2.See my Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp. 7-37. George Bell and Sons, 1886.3.For an estimate of Tischendorf's great labour, see an article on Tischendorf's Greek Testament in the Quarterly Review for July, 1895.4.Dr. Hort's theory, which is generally held to supply the philosophical explanation of the tenets maintained in the school of critics who support B and א as pre-eminently the sources of the correct text, may be studied in his Introduction. It is also explained and controverted in my Textual Guide, pp. 38-59; and has been powerfully criticized by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised, Article III, or in No. 306 of the Quarterly Review, without reply.5.Quarterly Review, July 1895,“Tischendorf's Greek Testament.”6.See Preface.7.It is remarkable, that in quarters where we should have looked for more scientific procedure the importance of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is underrated, upon a plea that theological doctrine may be established upon passages other than those of which the text has been impugned by the destructive school. Yet (a) in all cases consideration of the text of an author must perforce precede consideration of inferences from the text—Lower Criticism must be the groundwork of Higher Criticism; (b) confirmatory passages cannot be thrown aside in face of attacks upon doctrine of every possible character; (c) Holy Scripture is too unique and precious to admit of the study of the several words of it being interesting rather than important; (d) many of the passages which Modern Criticism would erase or suspect—such as the last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, the first Word from the Cross, and the thrilling description of the depth of the Agony, besides numerous others—are valuable in the extreme; and, (e) generally speaking, it is impossible to pronounce, especially amidst the thought and life seething everywhere round us, what part of Holy Scripture is not, or may not prove to be, of the highest importance as well as interest.—E. M.8.See below, Vol. II. throughout, and a remarkable passage quoted from Caius or Gaius by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised (Quarterly Review, No. 306), pp. 323-324.9.St. John xiv. 26.10.St. John xvi. 13.11.Rev. John Oxlee's sermon on Luke xxii. 28-30 (1821), p. 91 (Three Sermons on the power, origin, and succession of the Christian Hierarchy, and especially that of the Church of England).12.Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 92.13.Ibid. p. 142.14.Scrivener, Plain Introduction, ed. 4, Vol. I. pp. 75-76.15.Of course this trenchant passage refers only to the principles of the school found to fail. A school may leave fruits of research of a most valuable kind, and yet be utterly in error as to the inferences involved in such and other facts. Dean Burgon amply admitted this. The following extract from one of the many detached papers left by the author is appended as possessing both illustrative and personal interest:—“Familiar as all such details as the present must of necessity prove to those who have made Textual Criticism their study, they may on no account be withheld. I am not addressing learned persons only. I propose, before I lay down my pen, to make educated persons, wherever they may be found, partakers of my own profound conviction that for the most part certainty is attainable on this subject-matter; but that the decrees of the popular school—at the head of which stand many of the great critics of Christendom—are utterly mistaken. Founded, as I venture to think, on entirely false premisses, their conclusions almost invariably are altogether wrong. And this I hold to be demonstrable; and I propose in the ensuing pages to establish the fact. If I do not succeed, I shall pay the penalty for my presumption and my folly. But if I succeed—and I wish to have jurists and persons skilled in the law of evidence, or at least thoughtful and unprejudiced persons, wherever they are to be found, and no others, for my judges,—if I establish my position, I say, let my father and my mother's son be kindly remembered by the Church of Christ when he has departed hence.”16.There are, however, in existence, about 200 MSS. of the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer, and about 150 of Virgil. But in the case of many books the existing authorities are but scanty. Thus there are not many more than thirty of Aeschylus, and they are all said by W. Dindorf to be derived from one of the eleventh century: only a few of Demosthenes, of which the oldest are of the tenth or eleventh century: only one authority for the first six books of the Annals of Tacitus (see also Madvig's Introduction): only one of the Clementines: only one of the Didachè, &c. See Gow's Companion to School Classics, Macmillan & Co. 1888.17.“I had already assisted my friend Prebendary Scrivener in greatly enlarging Scholz's list. We had, in fact, raised the enumeration of‘Evangelia’[copies of Gospels] to 621: of‘Acts and Catholic Epistles’to 239: of‘Paul’to 281: of‘Apocalypse’to 108: of‘Evangelistaria’[Lectionary copies of Gospels] to 299: of the book called‘Apostolos’[Lectionary copies of Acts and Epistles] to 81—making a total of 1629. But at the end of a protracted and somewhat laborious correspondence with the custodians of not a few great continental libraries, I am able to state that our available‘Evangelia’amount to at least 739: our‘Acts and Cath. Epp.’to 261: our‘Paul’to 338: our‘Apoc.’to 122: our‘Evst.’to 415: our copies of the‘Apostolos’to 128—making a total of 2003. This shews an increase of three hundred and seventy-four.”Revision Revised, p. 521. But since the publication of Dr. Gregory's Prolegomena, and of the fourth edition of Dr. Scrivener's Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, after Dean Burgon's death, the list has been largely increased. In the fourth edition of the Introduction (Appendix F, p. 397) the total number under the six classes of“Evangelia,”“Acts and Catholic Epistles,”“St. Paul,”“Apocalypse,”“Evangelistaria,”and“Apostolos,”has reached (about) 3,829, and may be reckoned when all have come in at over 4,000. The separate MSS. (some in the reckoning just given being counted more than once) are already over 3,000.18.Evan. 481 is dateda.d.835; Evan. S. is dateda.d.949.19.Or, as some think, at the end of the second century.20.ACΣ (Φ in St. Matt.) with fourteen other uncials, most cursives, four Old Latin, Gothic, St. Irenaeus, &c. &c.21.See Vol. II.22.All such questions are best understood by observing an illustration. In St. Matt. xiii. 36, the disciples say to our Lord,“Explain to us (φράσον ἡμῖν) the parable of the tares.”The cursives (and late uncials) are all agreed in this reading. Why then do Lachmann and Tregelles (not Tischendorf) exhibit διασάφησον? Only because they find διασάφησον in B. Had they known that the first reading of א exhibited that reading also, they would have been more confident than ever. But what pretence can there be for assuming that the Traditional reading of all the copies is untrustworthy in this place? The plea of antiquity at all events cannot be urged, for Origen reads φράσον four times. The Versions do not help us. What else is διασάφησον but a transparent Gloss? Διασάφησον (elucidate) explains φράσον, but φράσον (tell) does not explain διασάφησον.23.Plain Introduction, I. 277. 4th edition.24.It is very remarkable that the sum of Eusebius' own evidence is largely against those uncials. Yet it seems most probable that he had B and א executed from the ἀκριβῆ or“critical”copies of Origen. See below,Chapter IX.25.Viz. 996 verses out of 3,780.26.Miller's Scrivener (4th edition), Vol. I. Appendix F. p. 397. 1326 + 73 + 980 = 2379.27.Scrivener's Introduction, Ed. iv (1894), Vol. II. pp. 264-265.28.But see Miller's edition of Scrivener's Introduction, I. 397. App. F, where the numbers asnowknown are given as 73, 1326, 980 respectively.29.Account of the Printed Text, p. 138.30.This general position will be elucidated in ChaptersIXandXI.31.So also the Georgian and Sclavonic versions (the late Dr. Malan).32.The Traditional view of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is here maintained as superior both in authority and evidence to any other.33.א, 31, 41, 114.34.Tischendorf wrongly adduces Irenaeus. Read to the end of III. c. 19, § 1.35.Ap. Galland. vii. 178.36.xii. 64 c, 65 b. Καὶ ὅρα τι θαυμαστῶς; οὐκ εἶπεν, οὐ συνεφώνησαν, ἀλλ᾽, οὐ συνεκράθησαν. See by all means Cramer's Cat. p. 451.37.Ap. Cramer, Cat. p. 177. Οὐ γὰρ ἦσαν κατὰ τὴν πίστιν τοῖς ἐπαγγελθεῖσι συνημμένοι; ὄθεν οὔτως ἀναγνωστέον,“μὴ συγκεκερασμένους τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσι.”38.vi. 15 d. Ἄρα γὰρ ἔμελλον κατὰ τὸν ἴσον τρόπον συνανακιρνᾶσθαι τε ἀλλήλοις, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ οἶνος ὕδατι, κ.τ.λ. After this, it becomes of little moment that the same Cyril should elsewhere (i. 394) read συγκεκραμένος ἐν πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασι.39.iii. 566. After quoting the place, Thdrt. proceeds, Τί γὰρ ὤνησεν ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπαγγελία τοὺς ... μὴ ... οἷον τοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγοις ἀνακραθέντας.40.ii. 234.41.Ap. Oecum.42.ii. 670.43.From Dr. Malan, who informs me that the Bohairic and Ethiopic exhibit“their heartwas not mixed with”: which represents the same reading.44.So Theophylactus (ii. 670), who (with all the more trustworthy authorities) writes συγκεκραμένους. For this sense of the verb, see Liddell and Scott's Lex., and especially the instances in Wetstein.45.Yet Tischendorf says,“Dubitare nequeo quin lectio Sinaitica hujus loci mentem scriptoris recte reddat atque omnium sit verissima.”46.See below, ChapterXI, where the character and authority of Cursive Manuscripts are considered.47.The evidence on the passage is as follows:—For the insertion:—א* etc. BC*ΦΣDPΔ, 1, 13, 33, 108, 157, 346, and about ten more. Old Latin (except f), Vulgate, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Hilary, Cyril Alex. (2), Chrysostom (2).Against:—EFGKLMSUVXΓΠ. The rest of the Cursives, Peshitto (Pusey and Gwilliam found it in no copies), Sahidic, Eusebius, Basil, Jerome, Chrysostom,in loc., Juvencus. Compare Revision Revised, p. 108, note.48.By the Editor. See Miller's Scrivener, Introduction (4th ed.), Vol. I. p. 96, note 1, and below, ChapterIX.49.Miller's Scrivener, I. p. 176.50.Ibid. p. 208.51.Tregelles' Printed Text, &c., p. 247.52.Tischendorf, N. T., p. 322.53.Tischendorf and Alford.54.Burgon's Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 38-69; also p. 267.55.Ad Marinum. Ibid. p. 265.56.Ibid. pp. 235-6.57.Miller's Scrivener, I. p. 181.58.Ferrar and Abbott's Collation of Four Important Manuscripts, Abbè Martin,Quatre MSS. importants, J. Rendel Harris, On the Origin of the Ferrar Group (C. J. Clay and Sons), 1893. Miller's Scrivener, I. p. 398, App. F.59.See below, ChapterX. Also Mr. Rendel Harris'“Study of Codex Bezae”in the Cambridge Texts and Studies.60.Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, p. 21, &c.; Revision Revised, p. 297.61.See more upon this point in ChaptersV,XI. Compare St. Augustine's Canon:“Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur.”C. Donatist. iv. 24.62.See Revision Revised, pp. 91, 206, and below, ChapterV.63.καθ᾽ ἰδίαν, ἐδυνήθημεν, τριημέρᾳ, ἀναστήσεται.64.μετάβα ἔνθεν.65.συστρεφομένων, ὀλιγοπιστίαν; omission of Ἰησοῦς, λέγει.66.ὁ ἐρχόμενος, for which D absurdly substitutes ὁ ἐργαζόμενος,“he that worketh.”67.So, as it seems, the Lewis, but the column is defective.68.Viz. Ver. 20, ἀπέστειλεν for ἀπέσταλκεν, אB; ἕτερον for ἄλλον, אDLXΞ. Ver. 22, omit ὅτι, אBLXΞ; insert καὶ before κωφοί, אBDFΓΔ*Λ; insert καὶ before πτωχοί, אFX. Ver. 23, ὂς ἂν for ὂς ἐάν, אD. Ver. 24, τοῖς ὄχλοις for πρὸς τοὺς ὄχλους, אD and eight others; ἐξήλθατε for ἐξεληλύθατε, אABDLΞ. Ver. 25, ἐξήλθατε for ἐξεληλύθατε, אABDLΞ. Ver. 26, ἐξήλθατε for ἐξεληλύθατε, אBDLΞ. Ver. 28, insert ἀμὴν before λέγω, אLX; omit προφήτης, אBKLMX. Ver. 30, omit εἰς ἑαυτούς, אD. Ver. 32, ἂ λέγει for λέγοντες, א*B. See Tischendorf, eighth edition,in loco. TheConcordia discorswill be noticed.69.The explanation given by the majority of the Revisers has only their English Translation to recommend it,“in tables that are hearts of flesh”for ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις. In the Traditional reading (a) πλαξὶ σαρκίναις answers to πλαξὶ λιθίναις; and therefore σαρκίναις would agree with πλαξὶ, not with καρδίαις. (b) The opposition between λιθίναις and καρδίαις σαρκίναις would be weak indeed, the latter being a mere appendage in apposition to πλαξί, and would therefore be a blot in St. Paul's nervous passage. (c) The apposition is harsh, ill-balanced (contrast St. Mark viii. 8), and unlike Greek: Dr. Hort is driven to suppose πλαξί to be a“primitive interpolation.”The faultiness of a majority of the Uncials is corrected by Cursives, Versions, Fathers.70.“Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspecta merito habetur, quae orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifeste prae ceteris favet.”N.T. Prolegomena, I. p. lxvi.71.See Hort's Introduction, pp. 210-270.72.I have retained this challenge though it has been rendered nugatory by the Dean's lamented death, in order to exhibit his absolute sincerity and fearlessness.—E. M.73.Here the Dean's MS. ceases, and the Editor is responsible for what follows. The MS. was marked in pencil,“Very rough—but worth carrying on.”74.See a passage from Caius quoted in The Revision Revised, p. 323. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 28.75.Hort, Introduction, p. 223.76.See AppendixV, and below, ChapterIX.77.As a specimen of how quickly a Cursive copy could be written by an accomplished copyist, we may note the following entry from Dean Burgon's Letters in the Guardian to Dr. Scrivener, in a letter dated Jan. 29, 1873.“Note further, that there is ... another copy of the O.T. in one volume ... at the end of which is stated that Nicodemus ὁ ξένος, the scribe, began his task on the 8th of June and finished it on the 15th of July,a.d.1334, working very hard—as he must have done indeed.”78.See below, ChapterVIII. § 2.79.See ChapterVI.80.See ChapterVII.81.See next Chapter.82.Another fragment found in the Dean's papers is introduced here.83.Here the fragment ends.84.See Dr. Gwynn's remarks which are quoted below, AppendixVII.85.The Revision Revised, p. 423. Add a few more; see AppendixVII.86.Dr. Gwynn, Appendix VII.87.Another MS. comes in here.88.The MS. ceases.89.Hort, Introduction, pp. 95-99.90.ו-צאו ללכת ארצה בנען ויבאו ארצה בנען׃91.An instance is afforded in St. Mark viii. 7, where“the Five Old Uncials”exhibit the passage thus:A. και ταυτα ευλογησας ειπεν παρατεθηναι και αυτα.א*. και ευλογησας αυτα παρεθηκεν.א1. και ευλογησας ειπεν και ταυτα παρατιθεναι.B. ευλογησας αυτα ειπεν και ταυτα παρατιθεναι.C. και ευλογησας αυτα ειπεν και ταυτα παραθετε.D. και ευχαριστησας ειπεν και αυτους εκελευσεν παρατιθεναι.Lachmann, and Tischendorf (1859) follow A; Alford, and Tischendorf (1869) follow א; Tregelles and Westcott, and Hort adopt B. They happen to be all wrong, and the Textus Receptus right. The only word they all agree in is the initial καί.92.After this the MSS. recommence.93.SΠ mark the place with asterisks, and Λ with an obelus.94.In twelve, asterisks: in two, obeli.95.The MS., which has not been perfect, here ceases.96.In the Syriaconeform appears to be used foralltheMarys([Syriac characters] Mar-yam, also sometimes, but not always, spelt in theJerusalem Syriac[Syriaic characters] = Mar-yaam), also forMiriamin the O. T., forMariamnethe wife of Herod, and others; in fact, wherever it is intended to represent a Hebrew female name. At Rom. xvi. 6, the Peshitto has [Syriaic characters] = Μαρία obviously as a translation of the Greek form in the text which was followed. (See Thesaurus Syriacus, Payne Smith, coll. 2225, 2226.)In Syriac literature [Syriac characters] = Maria occurs from time to time as the name of some Saint or Martyr—e.g. in a volume of Acta Mart. described by Wright in Cat. Syr. MSS. in B. M. p. 1081, and which appears to be a fifth-century MS.On the hypothesis that Hebrew-Aramaic was spoken in Palestine (paceDrs. Abbot and Roberts), I do not doubt thatonly oneform (cf. Pearson, Creed, Art. iii. and notes) of the name was in use,“Maryam,”a vulgarized form of“Miriam”; but it may well be that Greek Christians kept the Hebrew form Μαριαμ for the Virgin, while they adopted a more Greek-looking word for the other women. This fine distinction has been lost in thecorruptUncials, while observed in thecorrectUncials and Cursives, which is all that the Dean's argument requires.—(G. H. G.)97.The MSS. continue here.98.LXX.99.St. John xix. 25. As the passage issyndeton, the omission of the καί which would be necessary if Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ were different from ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αἰτοῦ could not be justified. Compare, e.g., the construction in the mention of four in St. Mark xiii. 3. In disregarding the usage requiring exclusively eithersyndetonorasyndeton, even scholars are guided unconsciously by theirEnglishexperience.—(Ed.)100.The genitive Μαρ᾽ας is used in the Textus Receptus in Matt. i. 16, 18; ii. 11; Mark vi. 3; Luke i. 41. Μαριάμ is used in the Nominative, Matt. xiii. 55; Luke i. 27, 34, 39, 46, 56; ii. 5, 19. In the Vocative, Luke i. 30. The Accusative, Matt. i. 20; Luke ii. 16. Dative, Luke ii. 5; Acts i. 14. Μαριάμ occurs for another Mary in the Textus Receptus, Rom. xvi. 6.101.Serapion, Bp. of Thmuis (on a mouth of the Nile)a.d.340 (ap.Galland. v. 60 a).102.Basil, i. 240 d.103.Epiphanius, i. 435 c.104.Chrysostom, iii. 120 d e; vii. 180 a, 547 equat.; viii. 112 a c (nine times).105.Asterius, p. 128 b.106.Basil Opp. (i. Append.) i. 500 e (cf. p. 377 Monitum).107.Cyril, iv. 131 c.108.A gives Ιωνα; א, Ιωαννης; C and D are silent. Obvious it is that the revised text of St. John i. 43 and of xxi. 15, 16, 17,—must stand or fall together. In this latter place the Vulgate forsakes us, and אB are joined by C and D. On the other hand, Cyril (iv. 1117),—Basil (ii. 298),—Chrysostom (viii. 525 c d),—Theodoret (ii. 426),—Jo. Damascene (ii. 510 e),—and Eulogius ([a.d.580.]ap.Photium, p. 1612), come to our air. Not that we require it.109.“Araba”(instead of“abara”) is a word which must have exercised so powerful and seductive an influence over ancient Eastern scribes,—(having been forthirty-four centuriesthe established designation of the sterile Wady, which extends from the Southern extremity of the Dead Sea to the North of the Arabian Gulf)—that the only wonder is it did not find its way into Evangelia. See Gesenius on ערבה (Ἄραβα in the LXX of Deut. ii. 8, &c. So in the Revised O. T.).110.The MSS. have ceased.111.See AppendixV.112.See Preface.113.This chapter and the next three have been supplied entirely by the Editor.114.See also Miller's Textual Guide, chapter IV. No answer has been made to the Dean's strictures.115.See Dr. Scrivener's incisive criticism of Dr. Hort's theory, Introduction, edit. 4, ii. 284-296.116.The Revision Revised, pp. 323-324, 334.117.Yet Marcion and Tatian may fairly be adduced as witnesses upon individual readings.118.E.g.“Many of the verses which he [Origen] quotes in different places shew discrepancies of text that cannot be accounted for either by looseness of citation or by corruption of the MSS. of his writings.”Hort, Introduction, p. 113. See also the whole passage, pp. 113-4.119.See Hort. Introduction, p. 160. The most useful part of Irenaeus' works in this respect is found in the Latin Translation, which is of the fourth century.120.Or Magnus, or Major, which names were applied to him to distinguish him from his brother who was called Alexandrinus, and to whom some of his works have been sometimes attributed. Macarius Magnus or Aegyptius was a considerable writer, as may be understood from the fact that he occupies nearly 1000 pages in Migne's Series. His memory is still, I am informed, preserved in Egypt. But in some fields of scholarship at the present day he has met with strange neglect.121.The names of many Fathers are omitted in this list, because I could not find any witness on one side or the other in their writings. Also Syriac writings are not here included.122.See The Revision Revised, p. 123.123.The Revision Revised, p. 92.124.I have mentioned here only cases where the passage is quoted professedly from St. Matthew. The passage as given in St. Mark x. 17-18, and in St. Luke xviii. 18-19, is frequently quoted without reference to any one of the Gospels. Surely some of these quotations must be meant for St. Matthew.125.For the reff. see below, AppendixII.126.Compare The Revision Revised, pp. 162-3.127.For reff. see Vol. II. viii. For Mark i. 1, Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, see AppendixIV.128.The Revision Revised, pp. 423-440. Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-51. The latitudinarian Eusebius on the same passage witnesses on both sides.129.The Revision Revised, pp. 420-1; Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-3.130.The Revision Revised, pp. 79-82. The Dean alleges more than forty witnesses in all. What are quoted here, as in the other instances, are only the Fathers before St. Chrysostom.131.Ibid. pp. 82-5.132.The Revision Revised, pp. 61-65.133.Ibid. pp. 90-1.134.See below, AppendixI.135.Many of the Fathers quote only as far as οὐδὲ ἕν. But that was evidently a convenient quotation of a stock character in controversy, just as πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο was even more commonly. St Epiphanius often quotes thus, but remarks (Haer. II. (lxix.) 56, Ancor. lxxv.), that the passage goes on to ὁ γέγονεν.136.See The Revision Revised, p. 133.137.Ibid. pp. 220-1.138.Tischendorf quotes these on the wrong side.139.The Revision Revised, pp. 217-8.140.Ibid. pp. 23-4. See also an article in Hermathena, Vol. VIII., No. XIX., 1893, written by the Rev. Dr. Gwynn with his characteristic acuteness and ingenuity.141.Hort, Introduction, pp. 128, 127.142.Ibid. p. 113.143.It may perhaps be questioned whether Justin should be classed here: but the character of his witness, as on Matt. v. 44, ix. 13, and Luke xxii. 43-44, is more on the Traditional side, though the numbers are against that.144.Athanasius in his“Orationes IV contra Arianos”used Alexandrian texts. See IV.145.According to Pliny (N. II. v. 18), the towns of Decapolis were: 1. Scythopolis the chief, not far from Tiberias (Joseph. B. J. III. ix. 7); 2. Philadelphia; 3. Raphanae; 4. Gadara; 5. Hippos; 6. Dios; 7. Pella; 8. Gerasa; 9. Canatha (Otopos, Joseph.); 10. Damascus. This area does not coincide with that which is sometimes now marked in maps and is part of Galilee and Samaria. But the Gospel notion of Decapolis, is of a country east of Galilee, lying near to the Lake, starting from the south-east, and stretching on towards the mountains into the north. It was different from Galilee (Matt. iv. 25), was mainly on the east of the sea of Tiberias (Mark v. 20, Eusebius and Jerome OS2. pp. 251, 89—“around Pella and Basanitis,”—Epiphanius Haer. i. 123), extended also to the west (Mark vii. 31), was reckoned in Syria (Josephus, passim,“Decapolis of Syria”), and was generally after the time of Pompey under the jurisdiction of the Governor of Syria. The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes it well as“situated, with the exception of a small portion, on the eastern side of the Upper Jordan and the sea of Tiberias.”Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, to which I am indebted for much of the evidence given above, is inconsistent. The population was in a measure Greek.146.Εἰς τὰς κώμας Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου. What a condensed account of His sojourn in various“towns”!147.See Ancient Syriac Documents relative to the Earliest Establishment of Christianity in Edessa and the neighbouring countries, &c. edited by W. Cureton, D.D., with a Preface by the late Dr. Wright, 1864.148.Cureton's Preface to“An Antient Recension, &c.”149.Philip E. Pusey held that there was a revision of the Peshitto in the eighth century, but that it was confined to grammatical peculiarities. This would on general grounds be not impossible, because the art of copying was perfected by about that time.150.See AppendixVI.151.This position is demonstrated in full in an article in the Church Quarterly Review for April, 1895, on“The Text of the Syriac Gospels,”pp. 123-5.152.The Text of the Syriac Gospels, pp. 113-4: also Church Times, Jan. 11, 1895. This position is established in both places.153.Yet some people appear to think, that the worse a text is the more reason there is to suppose that it was close to the Autograph Original. Verily this is evolution run wild.154.Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed.,“Syriac Literature,”by Dr. W. Wright, now published separately under the same title.155.Dr. Scrivener, Introduction (4th Edition), II. 7.156.See also Miller's Edition of Scrivener's Introduction (4th), II. 12.157.Another very ancient MS. of the Peshitto Gospels is the Cod. Philipp. 1388, in the Royal Library, Berlin (in Miller's Scrivener the name is speltPhillipps). Dr. Sachau ascribes it to the fifth, or the beginning of the sixth century, thus making it older than the Vatican Tetraevangelicum, No. 3, in Miller's Scrivener, II. 12. A full description will be found in Sachau's Catalogue of the Syr. MSS. in the Berlin Library.The second was collated by Drs. Guidi and Ugolini, the third, in St. John, by Dr. Sachau. The readings of the second and third are in the possession of Mr. Gwilliam, who informs me that all three support the Peshitto text, and are free from all traces of any pre-Peshitto text, such as according to Dr. Hort and Mr. Burkitt the Curetonian and Lewis MSS. contain. Thus every fresh accession of evidence tends always to establish the text of the Peshitto Version more securely in the position it has always held until quite recent years.The interesting feature of all the above-named MSS. is the uniformity of their testimony to the text of the Peshitto. Take for example the evidence of No. 10 in Miller's Scrivener, II. 13, No. 3, in Miller's Scrivener, II. 12, and Cod. Philipp. 1388. The first was collated by P. E. Pusey, and the results are published in Studia Biblica, vol. i,“A fifth century MS.”158.Dr. W. Wright's article in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Dr. Hort could not have been aware of this fact when he spoke of“the almost total extinction of Old Syriac MSS.”: or else he lamented a disappearance of what never appeared.159.p. 107.160.See Patrologia Syriaca, Graffin, P. I. vol. ii. Paris, 1895.161.See in St. Matt. alone (out of many instances) v. 22 (the translation of εἰκῆ), ix. 13 (of εἰς μετάνοιαν), xi. 23 (“which art exalted”), xx. 16 (of πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσι κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί), xxvi. 42 (ποτήριον), 28 (καινῆς); besides St. Luke ii. 14 (εὐδοκία), xxiii. 45 (ἐσκοτίσθη), John iii. 13 (though“from heaven”), xxi. 25 (the verse).162.Doctrine of Addai, xxxv. 15-17.163.H. E. iv. 29.164.Haer. xlvi. 1.165.Canons.166.Haer. i. 20.167.The Earliest Life of Christ, Appendix VIII.168.The MS. is mutilated at the beginning of the other three Gospels.169.It appears almost, if not quite, certain that this is the true meaning. Payne Smith's Thesaurus Syriacus, coll. 3303-4.170.The Lewis Codex was in part destroyed, as not being worth keeping, while the leaves which escaped that fate were used for other writing. Perhaps others were treated in similar fashion, which would help to account for the fact mentioned in note 2, p.129.171.Plain Introduction, II. 43-44.172.Essays on Various Subjects, i. Two Letters on some parts of the controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, pp. 23, &c. The arguments are more ingenious than powerful. Africa, e.g., had no monopoly of Low-Latin.173.The numerator in these fractions denotes the number of times throughout the Gospels when the text of the MS. in question agrees in the selected passages with the Textus Receptus: the denominator, when it witnesses to the Neologian Text.174.Once in k bycomperireprobably a slip forcorripere. Old Latin Texts, III. pp. xxiv-xxv.175.“Tot sunt paene (exemplaria), quot codices,”Jerome, Epistola ad Damascum.“Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas,”“interpretum numerositas,”“nullo modo numerari possunt,”De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 16, 21.176.De Doctr. Christ. ii. 16.177.Scrivener's Plain Introduction, II. 44, note 1.178.See Diez, Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen, as well as Introduction to the Grammar of the Romance Languages, translated by C. B. Cayley. Also Abel Hovelacque, The Science of Language, English Translation, pp. 227-9.“The Grammar of Frederick Diez, first published some forty years ago, has once for all disposed of those Iberian, Keltic, and other theories, which nevertheless crop up from time to time.”Ibid. p. 229. Brachet, Grammar of the French Language, pp. 3-5; Whitney, Language and the Study of Language, pp. 165, &c., &c.179.“Syro-Latin”is doubtless an exact translation of“Syro-Latinus”: but as we do not say“Syran”but“Syrian,”it is not idiomatic English.180.This is purely my own opinion. Dean Burgon followed Townson in supposing that the Synoptic Evangelists in some cases saw one another's books.181.Isaiah xxxv. 8, 9.182.Introduction, pp. 127, &c.183.Probably Alexandrian reading.184.Probably Alexandrian reading.185.Probably Alexandrian reading.186.Probably Alexandrian reading.187.Probably Alexandrian reading.188.Probably Alexandrian reading.189.Probably Alexandrian reading.190.Probably Alexandrian reading.191.Probably Alexandrian reading.192.In Matt. xv. 14, quoted and translated by Dr. Bigg in his Bampton Lectures on The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 123.193.Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, p. 236, and note z.194.Above, p.100.195.Hort, Introduction, p. 143.196.Eusebius suggested the Homoean theory, but his own position, so far as he had a position, is best indicated as above.197.Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 35. Plin. at. Hist. xiii. 11.198.τὰ βιβλία, μάλιστα τὰς μεμβράνας, 2 Tim. iv. 13.199.Palaeography, p. 36.200.See above, p.2.201.Palaeography, pp. 27-34. Paper was first made in China by a man named Ts'ai Lun, who lived abouta.d.90. He is said to have used the bark of a tree; probably Broussonetia papyrifera, Vent. from which a coarse kind of paper is still made in northern China. The better kinds of modern Chinese paper are made from the bamboo, which is soaked and pounded to a pulp. See Die Erfindung des Papiers in China, von Friedrich Hirth. Published in Vol. I. of theT'oung Pao(April, 1890). S. J. Brille: Leide. (Kindly communicated by Mr. H. A. Giles, H. B. M. Consul at Ningpo, author of“A Chinese-English Dictionary.”&c., through my friend Dr. Alexander Prior of Park Terrace, N. W., and Halse House, near Taunton.)202....“the science of palaeography, which now stands on quite a different footing from what it had twenty, or even ten, years ago. Instead of beginning practically in the fourth century of our era, with the earliest of the great vellum codices of the Bible, it now begins in the third century before Christ....”Church Quarterly Review for October, 1894, p. 104.203....“it is abundantly clear that the textual tradition at about the beginning of the Christian era is substantially identical with that of the tenth or eleventh century manuscripts, on which our present texts of the classics are based. Setting minor differences aside, the papyri, with a very few exceptions, represent the same texts as the vellum manuscripts of a thousand years later.”Church Quarterly, pp. 98, 99. What is here represented as unquestionably the case as regards Classical manuscripts is indeed more than what I claim for manuscripts of the New Testament. The Cursives were in great measure successors of papyri.204.Introduction, p. 16. He began it in the year 1853, and as it appears chiefly upon Lachmann's foundation.205.By the Editor.206.Tischendorf's fourteen brief days' work is a marvel of accuracy, but must not be expected to be free from all errors. Thus he wrongly gives Ευρακυλων instead of Ευρακυδων, as Vercellone pointed out in his Preface to the octavo ed. of Mai in 1859, and as may be seen in the photographic copy of B.207.Cf. Scrivener's Introduction, (4th ed.) II. 283.208.See Kuenen and Cobet's Edition of the Vatican B, Introduction.209.Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf's 8th Ed. of New Testament, (I) p. 286.210.See AppendixV.211.Constantine died in 337, and Constantius II reigned till 360.212.In his Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp. 291-4, Dean Burgon argued that a lapse of about half a century divided the date of א from that of B. But it seems that afterwards he surrendered the opinion which he embraced on the first appearance of א in favour of the conclusion adopted by Tischendorf and Scrivener and other experts, in consequence of their identifying the writing of the six conjugate leaves of א with that of the scribe of B. See above, pp.46,52.213.The Revision Revised, p. 292.214.The above passage, including the last paragraph, is from the pen of the Dean.215.See above, Introduction, p.2.216.It is remarkable that Constantine in his Semi-Arian days applied to Eusebius, whilst the orthodox Constans sent a similar order afterwards to Athanasius. Apol. ad Const. § 4 (Montfaucon, Vita Athan. p. xxxvii),ap.Wordsworth's Church History, Vol. II. p. 45.217.See Canon Cook's ingenious argument. Those MSS. are handsome enough for an imperial order. The objection of my friend, the late Archdeacon Palmer (Scrivener's Introduction, I. 119, note), which I too hastily adopted on other grounds also in my Textual Guide, p. 82, note 1, will not stand, because σωματία cannot mean“collections [of writings],”but simply, according to the frequent usage of the word in the early ages of the Church,“vellum manuscripts.”The difficulty in translating τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά“of three or four columns in a page”is not insuperable.218.Scrivener, Vol. II. 269 (4th ed.).219.Scrivener, Vol. I. 55 (4th ed.).220.The colophon is given in full by Wilhelm Bousset in a number of the well-known“Texte und Untersuchungen,”edited by Oscar von Gebhardt and Adolf Harnack, entitled“Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament,”p. 45. II. Der Kodex Pamphili, 1894, to which my notice was kindly drawn by Dr. Sanday.221.Miller's Scrivener, I. 183-4. By Euthalius, the Deacon, afterwards Bp. of Sulci.222.Introduction, p. 267. Dr. Hort controverts the notion that B and א were written at Alexandria (not Caesarea), which no one now maintains.223.By the Dean.224.See AppendixIV, and Revision Revised, p. 132. Origen, c. Celsum, Praef. ii. 4; Comment. in John ix. Followed here only by א*.225.See Last Twelve Verses, pp. 93-99. Also pp. 66, note, 85, 107, 235.226.Migne, viii. 96 d. Ταῦτα ἐγένετο ἐν Βηθανίᾳ. ὅσα δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει, ἐν Βηθαβαρᾷ, φησιν; ἡ γὰρ Βηθανία οὐχὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐπήμου ἦν; ἀλλ᾽ ἐγγύς που τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων. This speedily assumed the form of ascholium, as follows:—Χρὴ δὲ γινώσκειν, ὅτι τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν Βηθαβαρᾷ περιέχει; ἡ γὰρ Βηθανία οὐχὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγγύς που τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων:—which is quoted by the learned Benedictine editor of Origen in M. iv. 401 (at top of the left hand column),—evidently from Coisl. 23, our Evan. 39,—since the words are found in Cramer, Cat. ii. 191 (line 1-3).227.Origen, i. 265; coll. 1. 227, 256.228.Origen, Comment. in John vi.229.The word is actually transliterated into Syriac letters in the Peshitto.230.See The Revision Revised, pp. 358-61.231.vii. 52.232.vii. 418.233.A name by which Origen was known.234.Imbecillitatem virium mearum sentiens, Origenis Commentarios sum sequatus. Scripsit ille vir in epistolam Pauli ad Galatas quinque proprie volumina, et decimum Stromatum suorum librum commatico super explanatione ejus sermone complevit.—Praefatio, vii. 370.235.iii. 509-10.236.686-7.237.vii. 117-20.238.vii. 537 seq.239.I endeavour in the text to make the matter in hand intelligible to the English reader. But such things can scarcely be explained in English without more words than the point is worth. Origen says:—κἀκεῖ μὲν κελεύει τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνακλιθῆναι (Matt. xiv. 19), ἢ ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τοῦ χόρτου. (καὶ γὰρ ὁ Λουκᾶς (ix. 14) κατακλίνατε αὐτούς, ἀνέγραψε; καὶ ὁ Μάρκος (vi. 39), ἐπέταξε, φησίν, αὐτοῖς πάντας ἀνακλῖναι;) ἐνθάδε δὲ οὐ κελεύει, ἀλλὰ παραγγέλλει τῷ ὄχλῳ ἀνακλιθῆναι. iii. 509 f, 510 a.240.The only other witnesses are from Evan. 1, 33, and the lost archetype of 13, 124, 346. The Versions do not distinguish certainly between κελεύω and παραγγέλλω. Chrysostom, the only Father who quotes this place, exhibits ἐκέλευσε ... καὶ λαβών (vii. 539 c).241.Lectio ab omni parte commendatur, et a correctore alienissima: βαψω και δωσω ab usu est Johannis, sed elegantius videbatur βαψας επιδωσω vel δωσω.242.Luke iv. 8.243.Πρὸς μὲν τὸν Πέτρον εἶπεν; ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ; πρὸς δὲ τὸν διάβολον. ὕπαγε, Σατανᾶ, χώρις τῆς ὀπίσω μου προσθήκης; τὸ γὰρ ὀπίσω τοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἶναι ἀγαθόν ἐστι. iii. 540. I believe that Origen is the sole cause of the perplexity. Commenting on Matt. xvi. 23 υπαγε οπισω μου Σατανα (the words addressed to Simon Peter), he explains that they are a rebuke to the Apostle for having for a time at Satan's instigationdesisted from following Him. Comp. (he says) these words spoken to Peter (υπ. οπ. μου Σ.) with those addressed to Satan at the temptationwithout theοπισω μου“for to bebehind Christis a good thing.”... I suppose he had before him a MS. of St. Mat.,withoutthe οπισω μου. This gloss is referred to by Victor of Antioch (173 Cat. Poss., i. 348 Cramer). It is even repeated by Jerome on Matt. vii. 21 d e: Non ut plerique putant eâdem Satanas et Apostolus Petrus sententiâ condemnantur. Petro enim dicitur,“Vade retro me, Satana;”id est“Sequere me, qui contrarius es voluntati meae.”Hic vero audit,“Vade Satana:”et non ei dicitur“retro me,”ut subaudiatur,“vade in ignem aeternum.”Vade Satana(Irenaeus, 775, also Hilary, 620 a). Peter Alex, has υπαγε Σατανα, γεγραπται γαρ, ap. Routh, Reliqq. iv. 24 (on p. 55). Audierat diabolus a Domino,Recede Sathanas, scandalum mihi es. Scriptum est,Dominum Deum tuum adorabis et illi soli servies, Tertullian, Scorp. c. 15. Οὐκ εἶπεν Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου; οὐ γὰρ ὑποστρέψαι οἷός τε; ἀλλά; Ὕπαγε Σατανᾶ, ἐν οἶς ἐπελέξω.—Epist. ad Philipp. c. xii. Ignat. Interpol. According to some Critics (Tisch., Treg., W.-Hort) there isnoυπαγε οπισω μου Σ. in Lu. iv. 8, andonlyυπαγε Σ. in Matt. iv. 10, so that υπαγε οπισω μου Σατανα occurs inneitheraccounts of the temptation. But I believe υπαγε οπισω μου Σ. is the correct reading inbothplaces. Justin M. Tryph. ii. 352. Origen interp. ii. 132 b (Vade retro), so Ambrose, i. 671; so Jerome, vi. 809 e; redi retro S., Aug. iv. 47 e; redi post me S., Aug. iii. 842 g. Theodoret, ii. 1608. So Maximus Taur., Vigil. Tapa. Vade retro S.ap.Sabattier.“Vade post me Satana.Et sine dubio ire post Deum servi est.”Et iterum quod ait ad ilium,“Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et ipsi soli servies.”Archelaus et Man. disput. (Routh, Reliqq. v. 120),a.d.277. St. Antony the monk,apudAthanas.“Vita Ant.”i. 824 c d (= Galland. iv. 647 a).a.d.300.Retro vade Satana, ps.-Tatian (Lu.), 49. Athanasius, i. 272 d, 537 c, 589 f. Nestorius ap. Marium Merc. (Galland. viii. 647 c)Vade retro S.but onlyVade S.viii. 631 c. Idatius (a.d.385)apudAthanas. ii. 605 b. Chrys. vii. 172bis(Matt.) J. Damascene, ii. 450. ps.-Chrys. x. 734, 737. Opus Imperf. ap. Chrys. vi. 48bis. Apocryphal Acts, Tisch. p. 250.244.See ver. 44.245.St. John viii. 40; xv. 15.246.Orig., Euseb., Epiph., both Cyrils, Didymus, Basil, Chrysostom.247.For the sceptical passages in B and א see AppendixV.248.By the Editor.249.Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25) divides the writings of the Church into three classes:—1. The Received Books (ὁμολογούμενα), i.e. the Four Gospels, Acts, the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Revelation (?).2. Doubtful (ἀντιλεγόμενα), i.e. James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude (cf. ii. 23fin.).3. Spurious (νόθα), Acts of St. Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation of St. Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, the so-called Διδαχαί, Revelation of St. John (?).This division appears to need confirmation, if it is to be taken as representing the general opinion of the Church of the time.250.See Westcott, Canon, &c. pp. 431-9.251.See particularly Haddan's Remains, pp. 258-294, Scots on the Continent. The sacrifice of that capable scholar and excellent churchman at a comparatively early age to the toil which was unavoidable under want of encouragement of ability and genius has entailed a loss upon sacred learning which can hardly be over-estimated.252.The reader is now in the Dean's hands. See Mr. Rendel Harris' ingenious and suggestive“Study of Codex Bezae”in the Cambridge Texts and Studies, and Dr. Chase's“The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezae.”But we must demur to the expression“Old Syriac.”253.Introduction, p. 149.254.The same wholesale corruption of the deposit prevails in what follows, viz. the healing of the paralytic borne of four (v. 17-26), and the call of St. Matthew (27-34): as well as in respect of the walk through the cornfields on the Sabbath day (vi. 1-5), and the healing of the man with the withered hand (6-11). Indeed it is continued to the end of the call of the Twelve (12-19). The particulars are too many to insert here.255.καθως ερεθη δια του προφητου, instead of ὅπως πληρωθῇ διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.256.Υμεις δε ζητειτε εκ μικρου αυξησαι, και εκ μειζονος ελαττον ειναι.257.I.e. a b c d e ff1.2g1.2h m n.258.Scrivener's Introduction, I. 130 (4th ed.). The reader will recollect the suggestion given above in ChapterVIIthat some of these corruptions may have come from the earliest times before the four Gospels were written. The interpolation just noticed may very well have been such a survival.259.The number of the generations in St. Luke's Gospel is 18.260.Num. xxxiii. coll. xxi. 18, 19 and Deut. x. 6, 7.261.Note, that whereas the Ἰεχονίας of St. Matt. i. 11 isJehoiakim, and the Ἰεχονίας of ver. 12,Jehoiachin,—Cod. D writes them respectively Ιωακειμ and Ιεχονιας.262.Cureton's Syriac is the only known copy of the Gospels in which the three omitted kings are found in St. Matthew's Gospel: which, I suppose, explains why the learned editor of that document flattered himself that he had therein discovered the lost original of St. Matthew's Gospel. Cureton (Pref., p. viii) shews that in other quarters also (e.g. by Mar Yakub the Persian, usually known as Aphraates) 63 generations were reckoned from Adam toJesusexclusive:thatnumber being obtained by adding 24 of St. Matthew's names and 33 of St. Luke's to the 3 names common to both Evangelists (viz. David, Salathiel, and Zorobabel); and to these, adding the 3 omitted kings.The testimony of MSS. is not altogether uniform in regard to the number of names in the Genealogy. In the Textus Receptus (including ourSaviour'sname and the name of the DivineAuthorof Adam's being) the number of the names is 77. So Basil made it; so Greg. Naz. and his namesake of Nyssa; so Jerome and Augustine.263.ἡ δὲ Μαρία (D—η) Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία Ἰωσῆ (D Ιακωβου) ἐθεώρουν (D εθεασαντο) ποῦ (D οπου) τίθεται (D τεθειται). Καὶ διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου, Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη (Domits the foregoing thirteen words) (D + πορευθεισαι) ἠγόρασαν ἀρώματα, ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι (D—ελθουσαι) ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν (D αυτ. αλειψ.) καὶ (D + ερχορται) λίαν (D—λιαν) πρωῒ τῆς (D—της) μιᾶς σαββάτων (D σαββατου) ἔρχονται (Dsee above) ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον, ἀνατείλαντος (D ανατελλοντος) τοῦ ἡλίου. καὶ ἕλεγον πρὸς ἑαυτὰς (D εαυτους), Τίς ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν (D ημιον αποκ.) τὸν λίθον ἐκ (D απο) τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου? (D + ην γαρ μεγας σφοδρα). Καὶ ἀναβλέψασαι θεωροῦσιν (D ερχονται και ευρισκουσιν) ὅτι ἀποκεκίλισται ὁ λίθος (D αποκεκυλισμενον τον λιθον). ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα. (Dsee above.) καὶ ... εἶδον νεανίσκον (D νεαν. ειδ.) καθήμενον.... καὶ ἐξεθαμβήθησαν (D εθανβησαν). ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς (D και λεγει αυτοις) (D + ο αγγελος). Μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε (D φοβεισθαι) (D + τον) Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν (D—τον Ναζ.) ... ἴδε (D ειδετε) ὁ τόπος (D εκει τοπον αυτον) ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν. ἀλλ᾽ (D αλλα) ὑπάγετε (D + και) εἴπατε ... ὅτι (D + ιδου) προάγει (D προαγω) ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν; ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν (D μη) ὄψεοθε, καθὼς εἶπεν (D ειρηκα) ὑμῖν. St. Mark xv. 47-xvi. 7.264.So for example at the end of the same passage in St. Luke, the difficult αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο (ii. 2) becomes αυτη εγενετο απογραφη πρωτη; ἐπλήσθησαν is changed into the simpler ετελεσθησαν; φόβος μέγας (ii. 9) after ἐφοβήθησαν into σφοδρα; και (ii. 10) is inserted before παντὶ τῷ λαῷ.265.Yet not unfrequently the Greek is unique in its extravagance, e.g. Acts v. 8; xiii. 14; xxi. 28, 29.266.Cureton's Syriac is closely allied to D, and the Lewis Codex less so.267.See b c e f ff2i l q Vulg.268.So b e g2Curetonian, Lewis.269.St. Chrysostom (vii. 84. d), Origen (iii. 902. dint.), Victor of Antioch (335) insert the καί.270.So too ἀνακειμένους (BCLΔ. 42) for συνανακειμένους (St. Mark vi. 26): omit δὲ (אBC*LΔ. six curs.) in καὶ ἄλλα δὲ πλοῖα (iv. 36): ἐγείρουσιν (אB*C*ΔΠ. few curs.) for διεγείρουσιν (iv. 38): ἔθηκεν (אBC2DL. few curs.) for κατέθηκεν (xv. 46): μέγαλα (א*etc 6BD*L) for μεγαλεῖα (St. Luke i. 49): ἀναπεσών (אcBC*KLXΠ* few curs.) for ἐπιπεσών (St. John xiii. 25): &c., &c.271.Owing to differences of idiom in other languages, it is not represented here in so much as a single ancient Version.272.“Est enimτοῦ ΓΑΡofficium inchoare narrationem.”Hoogeveen, De Partic. Cf. Prom. Vinct. v. 666. See also St. Luke ix. 44.273.Dem. Ev. 320 b.274.ii. 597: 278.275.i. 1040 b.276.viii. 314 a: (Eclog.) xii. 694 d.277.Ap.Cyril, v2. 28 a.278.v1. 676 e.279.30 b (=Gall. xiii. 109 d).280.So, in Garnier's MSS. of Basil ii. 278 a, note. Also in CyrilapudMai ii. 378.281.So Mill,Prolegg.1346 and 1363.—Beza says roundly,“Quod plerique Graeci codices scriptum habentἢ γὰρ ἐκεινος,sane non intelligo; nisi dicam γάρ redundare.”282.ἠπερ ἐκεῖνος is exhibited by the printed text of Basil ii. 278 a.283.ὑπὲρ αὐτόν is found in Basil ii. 160 b:—ὑπὲρ ἐκεῖνον, in Dorotheus (a.d.596) ap. Galland. xii. 403 d:—ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον, in Chrysostom iv. 536 a; vi. 142 d—(where one of the Manuscripts exhibits παρὰ τὸν Φαρισαῖον).—Nilus the Monk has the same reading (ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον),—i. 280.284.Accordingly, παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον is found in Origen i. 490 b. So also reads the author of the scholium in Cramer's Cat. ii. 133,—which is the same which Matthaei (in loc.) quotes out of Evan. 256. And so Cyril (ap.Mai, ii. 180),—παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν Φαρισαῖον.—Euthymius (a.d.1116), commenting on the traditional text of Luke xviii. 14 (see Matthaei'sPraefat.i. 177), says ΓΑΡ ὅ ἐκεῖνος ἢγουν οὐκ ἐκεῖνος.285.The μᾶλλον is obviously added by way of interpretation, or to help out the meaning. Thus, in Origen (iv. 124 d) we meet with μᾶλλον αὐτοῦ:—in Chrysostom (i. 151 c), μᾶλλον ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον: and in Basil Sel. (p. 184 c), μᾶλλον ἢ ὁ Φαρισαῖος.286.It is found however in ps.-Chrysostom (viii. 119 c):—in Antiochus Mon. (p. 1102 = ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 1579 c): and in Theophylact (i. 433 c). At p. 435 b, the last-named writes ἢ ἐκεῖνος, ἀντὶ τοῦ ΠΑΡ᾽ ὃ ἐκεῖνος.287.Introduction, p. 135.288.For all this section except the early part of“4”the Editor is responsible.289.See above, p.61, note.290.481 of the Gospels: from St. Saba, now at St. Petersburg.291.The Evangelistaria 118, 192. Scrivener, Introduction, I. pp. 335, 340.292.Scrivener, I. App. F, p. 398*. Of these, 205 and 209 are probably from the same original. Burgon, Letters inGuardianto Dr. Scrivener.293.I am not of course asserting that any known cursive MS. is an exact counterpart of one of the oldest extant Uncials. Nor even that every reading however extraordinary, contained in Codd. BאD, is also to be met with in one of the few Cursives already specified. But what then? Neither do any of the oldest Uncials contain all the textual avouchings discoverable in the same Cursives.The thing asserted is only this: that, as a rule, every principal reading discoverable in any of the five or seven oldest Uncials, is also exhibited in one or more of the Cursives already cited or in others of them; and that generally when there is consent among the oldest of the Uncials, there is also consent among about as many of the same Cursives. So that it is no exaggeration to say that we find ourselves always concerned with the joint testimony of the same little handful of Uncial and Cursive documents: and therefore, as was stated at the outset, if the oldest of the Uncials had never existed, the readings which they advocate would have been advocated by MSS. of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries.294.Manuscript Evangelia in foreign Libraries, Letters in theGuardianfrom Dean Burgon to Dr. Scrivener,Guardian, Jan. 29, 1873.“You will not be dating it too early if you assign it to the seventh century.”295.The other uncials which have a tendency to consort with B and א are of earlier date. Thus T (Codex Borgianus I) of St. Luke and St. John is of the fourth or fifth century, R of St. Luke (Codex Nitriensis in the British Museum) is of the end of the sixth, Z of St. Matthew (Codex Dublinensis), a palimpsest, is of the sixth: Q and P, fragments like the rest, are respectively of the fifth and sixth.296.By the Editor.297.Above, pp.80-81.298.Hort, Introduction, p. 135.299.ChaptersV,VI,VII.300.Vercell.:—Si scires tu, quamquam in hac tuâ die, quae ad pacem tuam.So Amiat. and Aur.:—Si cognovisses et tu, et quidem in hâc die tuâ, quae ad pacem tibi.301.Mai, iv. 129.302.Ibid., and H. E. iii. 7.303.Montf. ii. 470.304.Montf. i. 700.305.iii. 321;interp.977; iv. 180.306.i. 220: also theVet. interp.,“Si cognovisses et tu.”And soap. Epiph.i. 254 b.307.iii. 321, 977.308.Evan. Conc.184, 207.309.In all 5 places.310.Mor.ii. 272 b.311.205.312.In Luc.(Syr.) 686.313.Int.iii. 977.314.iv. 180.315.In Luc.(Syr.) 607.316.In their usual high-handed way, these editorsassume, without note or comment, that Bא are to be followed here. The“Revisers”of 1881do the same. Is this to deal honestly with the evidence and with the English reader?317.Viz.—εἰ ἔγνως τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην σου, καί γε ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σου ταύτῃ.318.Viz.—εἰ καὶ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ ἔγνως τὴν εἰρήνην σου.319.It is omitted by Eus. iv. 129, Basil ii. 272, Cod. A, Evann. 71, 511, Evst. 222, 259. For the second σου still fewer authorities exhibit σοι, while some few (as Irenaeus) omit it altogether.320.“Hanc diem tuam.Si ergo dies ejus erat, quanto magis et tempus ejus!”p. 184, and so 207.321.“Having been wholly unsuccessful [in their fishing], two of them, seated on the shore, were occupying their time in washing,—and two, seated in their boat ... were mending—their nets.”(Farrar's Life of Christ, i. 241-2.) The footnote appended to this“attempt to combineas far as it is possiblein one continuous narrative”the“accounts of the Synoptists,”is quite a curiosity.322.St. Luke v. 5.323.Ibid., verses 1, 2.324.St. Matt. iv. 18-St. Mark i. 16.325.St. Luke v. 3.326.As in St. Matt, xxvii. 2, 60; St. Luke v. 4; xiii. 16; St. John xviii. 24; xxi. 15; Acts xii. 17; Heb. iv. 8, &c., &c.327.lavabant retia, it. vulg. The one known exception is (1) the Cod. Rehdigeranus [VII] (Tischendorf).328.The same pair of authorities areuniquein substituting βαπτίσαντες (for βαπτίζοντες) in St. Matt. xxviii. 19; i.e. the Apostles were to baptize people first, and make them disciples afterwards.329.אC exhibit ἔπλυναν: A (by far the purest of the five“old uncials”) retains the traditional text.330.P. 938.331.So does Aphraates, a contemporary of B and א, p. 392.332.Gen. xxv. 8, 17; xxxv. 29; xlix. 33. Also Jer. xlii. 17, 22; Lament. i. 20; Job xiii. 19; Ps. ciii. 30.333.268, 661.334.942, 953 (Lat Tr.).335.162, 338 (Lat. Tr.), 666.336.ap.Phot. 791.337.i. 353.338.iii. 120.339.i. 861.340.280.341.i. 920; iii. 344; iv. 27; vi. 606.342.vi. 520.343.i. 859 b.344.3. 772.345.Mai, 2.346.i. 517.347.388.348.In one place of the Syriac version of his Homilies on St. Luke (Luc. 110), the reading is plainly ἵνα ὅταν ἐκλίπητε: but when the Greek of the same passage is exhibited by Mai (ii. 196, line 28-38) it is observed to be destitute of the disputed clause. On the other hand, at p. 512 of the Syriac, the reading is ἐκλίπῃ. But then the entire quotation is absent from the Greek original (Mai, ii. 349, line 11 from bottom). In Mai, ii. 380, Cyril's reading is certainly ἐκλίπητε.349.Eus.mare330,-ps251 (—πᾶσαν).350.Cyrhr270.351.e,inducet vobis veritatem omnem:m,disseret vobis omnem veritatem.352.docebit vos omnem veritatem(ii. 301).353.Cod.am.(which exhibitsdocebit vos in omnem, &c.) clearly confuses two distinct types.354.א om. πάσῃ.355.Cyr. Alex. iv. 347; v. 369, 593.356.D, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς ὁδηγήσει ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ.357.So Cod. b,deducet vos in veritate omni. Cod. c,docebit vos in veritate omni.358.Did. 278, 446, 388 (προσ), 443 (—την).359.Epiph. i. 898; ii. 78.360.Bas. iii. 42 (προσ): and so Evan. 249. Codd. of Cyril Alex. (ἐπί).361.Chrys. viii. 527: also 460, 461 (—την).362.Theod.ant541,ap.Wegn.363.Cyr. Alex.txtiv. 923: v. 628.364.Thdt. iii. 15 (ἐκεῖ. ος ὑμ. ὁδ.).365.Tert. i. 762, 765, 884; ii. 11, 21. Hil. 805, 959. Jer. ii. 140. 141. There are many lesser variants:—“(diriget vos Tert. i. 884, deducet vos Tert. ii. 21, Vercell. vos deducet; i. 762 vos ducet: Hil. 805, vos diriget) in omnem veritatem.”Some few (as D, Tert. i. 762; ii. 21. Cod. a, Did. 388. Thdrt. iii. 15) prefix ἐκεῖνος.366.Pet. Alex.ap.Routh, p. 9.367.Did. 55.368.Orig. i. 387, 388.369.Cyr. Alex. iv. 925, 986.370.εἰς τὴν ἁλήθ. πᾶσαν L., Tr., W.-H.: ἐν τῇ ἁληθ. πάσῃ T.371.Introduction, p. 135. The rest of his judgement is unfounded in fact. Constant and careful study combined with subtle appreciation will not reveal“feebleness”or“impoverishment”either in“sense”or“force.”372.These are the Dean's words to the end of the paragraph.373.Revised Version, &c., pp. 205-218.374.Introduction, i. 292-93.375.Ephes. v. 30.376.718 (Mass. 294), Gr. and Lat.377.In loc.ed. Swete, Gr. and Lat.378.i. 95, 267.379.iii. 215 b, 216 a; viii. 272 c; xi. 147 a b c d.380.Ap.Cramer, vi. 205, 208.381.iii. 434.382.(a.d.560), 1004 a, 1007 a.383.ii. 190 e.384.Rufinus (iii. 61 c) translates,—“quia membra sumus corporis ejus,et reliqua.”What else can this refer to but the very words in dispute?385.Ap.Galland. iii. 688 c:—ὅθεν ὁ Ἀπόστολος εὐθυβόλως εἰς Χριστὸν ἀνηκόντισε τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἀδάμ; οὕτως γὰρ ἂν μάλιστα ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν συμφωνήσει γεγονέναι. And lower down (e, and 689 a):—ὅπως αὐξηθῶσιν οἱ ἐν αὐτῷ οἰκοδομηθέντες ἅπαντες, οἱ γεγεννημένοι διὰ τοῦ λουτροῦ, ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν καὶ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς ἁγιωσύνης αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῆς δόξης προσειληφότες; ὀστᾶ γὰρ καὶ σάρκα Σοφίας ὁ λέγων εἶναι σύνεσιν καὶ ἀρετήν, ὀρθότατα λέγει. From this it is plain that Methodius read Ephes. v. 30 as we do; although he had before quoted it (iii. 614 b)withoutthe clause in dispute. Those who give their minds to these studies are soon made aware that it is never safe to infer from the silence of a Father that he disallowed the words he omits,—especially if those words are in their nature parenthetical, or supplementary, or not absolutely required for the sense. Let a short clause be beside his immediate purpose, and a Father is as likely as not to omit it. This subject has been discussed elsewhere: but it is apt to the matter now in hand that I should point out that Augustinetwice(iv. 297 c, 1438 c) closes his quotation of the present place abruptly:“Apostolo dicente,Quoniam membra sumus corporis ejus.”And yet, elsewhere (iii. 794), he gives the words in full.It is idle therefore to urge on the opposite side, as if there were anything in it, the anonymous commentator on St. Luke in Cramer's Cat. p. 88.386.i. 1310 b. Also Ambrosiaster, ii. 248 d.387.Ap.Galland. vii. 262 e (a.d.372).388.Ibid. 314 c.389.Mai, iii. 140.390.vii. 659 b.391.See above, end of note 2.392.Concil. iv. 50 b.393.Hort, Introduction, p. 40.394.Ibid. p. 46.395.Miller's Scrivener, Introduction, I. p. 177.396.Introduction, I. Appendix F, p. 398*.397.Introduction, II. 337, note 1. And for Dean Burgon's latest opinion on the date of א see above, pp.46,52,162. The present MS., which I have been obliged to abridge in order to avoid repetition of much that has been already said, was one of the Dean's latest productions. See AppendixVII.398.Since Dean Burgon's death, there has been reason to identify this set of readings with the Syrio-Low-Latin Text, the first origin of which I have traced to the earliest times before the Gospels were written—by St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and of course St. John.399.So with St. Athanasius in his earlier days. See above, p.119, note 2.400.Miller's Scrivener, Introduction, I. 138.401.pp.2,155.402.Hort, Introduction, p. 2.403.Hort, Introduction, p. 7.404.Quarterly Review, No. 363, July, 1895.405.St. John xxi. 9-13.406.In Studia Biblica et Eccles. II. vi. (G. H. Gwilliam), published two years after the Dean's death, will be found a full description of this form of sections.407.As far as we know at present about Tatian's Diatessaron, he kept these occurrences distinct.—Ed.408.“Origenes, quum in caeteris libris omnes vicerit, in Cantico Canticorum ipse se vicit.”—Hieron. Opp. iii. 499; i. 525.409.After quoting Luke xxiv. 41, 42in extenso, he proceeds,—βλέπεις πῶς πεπλήρωται τό; Ἔφαγον ἄρτον μου μετὰ μέλιτος μου (p. 210 b): and καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀναστασιν ἕλεγεν, Ἔφαγον τὸν ἄρτον μετὰ μέλιτος μου. ἔδωκαν γὰρ αὐτῷ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου (p. 341 a).410.Ἄρτος γίνεται, οὐκέτι ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἐσθιόμενος ... ἀλλ᾽ ὄψον ἑαυτῷ τὸ μέλι ποιούμενος. And, ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν προφανεὶς τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἄρτος ἐστί, τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδυνόμενος,—i. 624 a b. See more concerning this quotation below, p.249note.411.Epiph. i. 143.412.Ephr. Syr. ii. 48 e.413.Or whoever else was the author of the first Homily of the Resurrection, wrongly ascribed to Gregory Nyss. (iii. 382-99). Hesychius was probably the author of the second Homily. (Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 57-9.) Both arecompilationshowever, into which precious passages of much older Fathers have been unscrupulously interwoven,—to the infinite perplexity of every attentive reader.414.ApudGreg. Nyss. iii. 399 d.415.Epiph. i. 652 d.416.In Joanne legimus quod piscantibus Apostolis, in littore steterit, et partem assi piscis, favumque comederit, quae verae resurrectionis indicia sunt. In Jerusalem autem nihil horum fecisse narratur.—Hieron. i. 825 a.417.Not from Eusebius' Qu. ad Marinum apparently. Compare however Jerome, i. 824 d with Eusebius (ap.Mai), iv. 295 (cap. x).418.See Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 51-6.419.i. 444 b.420.P. 172.421.iv. 1108 c.422.Athanas. i. 644: καὶ φαγὼν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν, ΛΑΒΩΝ ΤΑ ΕΠΙΛΟΙΠΑ ἀπέδωκεν αὐτοῖς. This passage reappears in the fragmentary Commentary published by Mai (ii. 582), divested only of the words καὶ ἀπὸ μελ. κηρ.—The characteristic words (in capitals) do not appear in Epiphanius (i. 143 c), who merely says καὶ ἔδωκε τοῖς μαθηταῖς,—confusing the place in St. Luke with the place in St. John.423.Aug. iii. P. 2, 143 (a.d.400); viii. 472 (a.d.404).424.To the 9 specified by Tisch.—(Evann. 13, 42, 88 (τα περισσευματα), 130 (το επαναλειφθεν), 161, 300, 346, 400, 507),—add Evan. 33, in which the words καὶ τὰ ἐπίλοιπα ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς have been overlooked by Tregelles.425.Πρὸς τούτοις οὐδὲ τραγημάτων κηρίων ἀμοίρους περιορατέον τοὺς δειπνοῦντας κατὰ Λόγον.—p. 174.426.i. 384.427.iii. 477.428.ApudMai, iv. 294, 295bis.429.“Ibi τὸ κηρίον praeterire non poterat [sc.Origenes] si in exemplis suis additamentum reperisset.”(From Tischendorf's note on Luke xxiv. 42.)430.iv. 1108 b c.431.Κατεδήδοκε γὰρ τὸ προκομισθὲν ἰχθύδιον, ἤτοι τὸ εξ αὐτοῦ μέρος.—Ibid. d. Similarly in the fragments of Cyril's Commentary on St. Luke, he is observed to refer to the incident of the piece of broiled fish exclusively. (Mai, ii. 442, 443, which reappears in P. Smith, p. 730.)432.iii. P. i. p. 51. For the honeycomb, see iii. P. ii. p. 143 a: viii. 472 d.433.i. 215.434.“Favospost fella gustavit.”—De Coronâ, c. 14 (i. p. 455).435.ii. 444 a.436.i. 384; iii. 477.437.Opp. iii. 932-85: with which comp. Galland. xiv. Append. 83-90 and 91-109.438.Cat. (1628), p. 622. Cordier translates from“Venet. 494”(our“Evan. 466”).439.What follows is obtained (June 28, 1884) by favour of Sig. Veludo, the learned librarian of St. Mark's, from the Catena on St. Luke's Gospel at Venice (cod. 494 = our Evan. 466), which Cordier (in 1628) translated into Latin. The Latin of this particular passage is to be seen at p. 622 of his badly imagined and well-nigh useless work. The first part of it (συνέφαγε ... ἐναπογράψονται) is occasionally found as a scholium, e.g. in Cod. Marc. Venet. 27 (our Evan. 210), and is already known to scholars from Matthaei's N. T. (note on Luc. xxiv. 42). The rest of the passage (which now appears for the first time) I exhibit for the reader's convenience parallel with a passage of Gregory of Nyssa's Christian Homily on Canticles. If the author of what is found in the second column is not quoting what is found in the first, it is at least certain that both have resorted to, and are here quoting from the same lost original:—Συνέφαγεν δὲ καὶ τῷ ὀπτῷ ἰχθύῳ (sic) τὸ κηρίον τοῦ μέλιτος; δηλῶν ὡς οἱ πυρωθέντες διὰ τῆς θείας ἐνανθρωπήσεως καὶ μετασχόντες αὐτοῦ τῆς θεότητος, ὡς μέλι μετ᾽ ἐπιθυμίας τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ παραδέξονται; κηρῷ ὤσπερ τοὺς νόμους ἐναπογράψαντες; ὅτι ὁ μὲν τοῦ πάσχα[Transcriber's Note: The following two paragraphs were side-by-side columns in the original.]ἄρτος ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἠσθίετο καὶ ὁ νόμος διεκελεύτο;πρὸς γὰρ τὸ παρὸν ἡ πικρία;ὁ δὲ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἄρτος τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδύνετο;ὄψον γὰρ ἑαυτοῖς τὸ μέλι ποιησόμεθα, ὅταν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ κηρῷ ὁ καρπὸς τῆς ἀρετῆς καταγλυκαίνει τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια.Anon.apud Corderium(fol. 58): see above.... ἄρτος ... οὐκέτι ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἐσθιόμενος, ὡς ὁ νόμος διακελεύεται;πρὸς γὰρ τὸ παρόν ἐστιν ἡ πικρίς;(... ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦ κυρίου προσφανεὶς τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἄρτος ἐστί, τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδυνόμενος.)ἀλλ᾽ ὄψον ἑαυτῷ τὸ μέλι ποιούμενος, ὅταν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ ὁ καρπὸς τῆς ἀρετῆς καταγλυκαίνῃ τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια.Greg. Nyss.in Cant. (Opp. i. a); the sentence in brackets being transposed.Quite evident is it that, besides Gregory of Nyssa,Hesychius(or whoever else was the author of the first Homily on the Resurrection) had the same original before him when he wrote as follows:—ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ὁ πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα σῖτος ὁ ἄζυμος, ὄψον τὴν πικρίδα ἔχει, ἴδωμεν τίνι ἡδόσματι ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἄρτος ἡδύνεται. ὁρᾶς τοῦ Πέτρου ἁλιεύοντος ἐν ταῖς χεροὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἄρτον καὶ κηρίον μέλιτος νόησον τί σοι ἡ πικρία τοῦ βίου κατασκευάζεται. οὐκοῦν ἀναστάντες καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐκ τῆς τῶν λόγων ἀλείας, ἤδη τῷ ἄρτῳ προσδράμωμεν, ὂν καταγλυκαίνει τὸ κηρίον τῆς ἀγαθῆς ἐλπίδος. (ap. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 399 c d.)440.So Matthaei:“Haec interpretatio sapit ingenium Origenis.”(N.T. iii. 498.)441.Καὶ ἔφαγε κηρίον καὶ ἰχθύν,—ii. 240. From the fragment De Resurrectione preserved by John Damascene,—ii. 762a.442.See above, note 1, p.247.443.See above, note 1, p.248.444.i. 644 (see above, p.244, n. 7).445.i. 624 (see above, p.242, n. 3).446.pp. 210, 431 (see above, p.243).447.i. 652 d (see above, p.247).448.i. 825 a; ii. 444 a.449.See above, note 1, p.245.450.iv. 1108.451.ApudGalland. ix. 633.452.Varim. i. 56.453.ApudGreg. Nyss. iii. 399.454.See above, p.248, note 6.455.“The words could hardly have been an interpolation.”(Alford,in loc).456.Scrivener's Introd. II. p. 358.457.It is well known that Dean Burgon considered B, א, and D to be bad manuscripts. When I wrote my Textual Guide, he was angry with me for not following him in this. Before his death, the logic of facts convinced me that he was right and I was wrong. We came together upon independent investigation. I find that those MSS. in disputed passages are almost always wrong—mainly, if not entirely, the authors of our confusion. What worse could be said of them? And nothing less will agree with the facts from our point of view. Compromise on this point which might be amiable shrinks upon inquiry before a vast array of facts.—E. M.458.Compare Epiphanius (i. 143 c)ut supra(Haer. xxx. c. 19) with Irenaeus (iii. c. ii, § 9):“Hi vero qui sunt a Valentino ... in tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum estVeritatis Evangeliumtitulent.”459.See above, p.243.460.There is reason for thinking that the omission was an Alexandrian reading. Egyptian asceticism would be alien to so sweet a food as honeycomb. See above, p.150. The Lewis Cod. omits the words. But it may be remembered that it restricts St. John Baptist's food to locusts“and the honey of the mountain.”—E. M.461.Ἐσμυρμισμένον οἶνον, Mark xv. 23.462.Ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον, Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37).463.Πλήσαντες σπόγγον ὄξους, καὶ ὑσσώπῳ περιθέντες, John xix. 29.464.Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37).465.Καὶ εἰθέως δραμὰν εἰς ἐξ αὐτῶν, Matt. xxvii. 48 (= Mark xv. 36).466.Not so the author of the Syriac Canons. Like Eusebius, he identifies (1) Matt. xxvii. 34 with Mark xv. 23; and (2) Matt. xxvii. 48 with Mark xv. 36 and Luke xxiii. 36; but unlike Eusebius, he makes John xix. 29 parallel with these last three.467.The former,—pp. 286-7: the latter,—p. 197. The Cod. Fuld. ingeniously—“Et dederunt ei vinum murratum bibere cum felle mixtum”(Ranke, p. 154).468.Evann. 1, 22, 33, 63, 69, 73, 114, 122, 209, 222, 253, 507, 513.469.§7.470.Pp. 526, 681 (Mass. 212, 277).471.De Spect. writtena.d.198 (see Clinton, App. p. 413), c. xxx.-i. p. 62.472.“‘Et dederunt ei biberoacetumet fel.’Pro eo quod dulci suo vino eos laetificarat,acetumei porrexerunt; pro felle autem magna ejus miseratio amaritudinem gentium dulcem fecit.”Evan. Conc. p. 245.473.Celsus τὸ ὄξος καὶ τὴν χολὴν ὀνειδίζει τῷ Ἰησοῦ,—writes Origen (i. 416 c d e), quoting the blasphemous language of his opponent and refuting it, but accepting the reference to the Gospel record. This he does twice, remarking on the second occasion (i. 703 b c) that such as Celsus are for ever offering toJesus“gall andvinegar.”(These passages are unknown to many critics because they were overlooked by Griesbach.)—Elsewhere Origen twice (iii. 920 d e, 921 b) recognizes the same incident, on the second occasion contrasting the record in Matt. xxvii. 34 with that in Mark xv. 23 in a way which shews that he accounted the places parallel:—“Et hoc considera, quod secundum Matthaeum quidem Jesus accipiensacetum cum felle permixtumgustavit, et noluit bibere: secundum Marcum autem, cum daretur etmyrrhatum vinum, non accepit.”—iii. 921 b.474.Lib. i. 374 and viii. 303 (assigned by Alexander to the age of Antoninus Pius),ap.Galland. i. 346 a, 395 c. The line (εἰς δὲ τὸ βρῶμα χολήν, καὶ εἰς δίψαν ὄξος ἔδωκαν) is also found in Montfaucon's Appendix (Palaeogr. 246). Sibyll. lib. i. 374, Gall. i. 346 a εἰς δὲ τὸ βρῶμα χολήν, καὶ εἰς πότον ὄξος ἄκρατον; ibid. viii. 303, 395 c ... πιεῖν ὄξος ἔδωκαν; quoted by Lactantius, lib. iv. c. 18,a.d.320, Gall. iv. 300 a ... εἰς δίψαν ὄξος ἔδωκαν, which is the way the line is quoted from the Sibyl in Montfaucon's Appendix (Pal. Graec. 246). Lactantius a little earlier (Gall. iv. 299 b) had said,—“Dederunt ei cibum fellis, et miscuerunt ei aceti potionem.”475.Referring to the miracle at Cana, where (viz. in p. 55) the statement is repeated. Evan. Conc. p. 245. See above, note 5.476.ApudMontf. ii. 63; Corderii, Cat in Luc. p. 599.477.The Tractatus [ii. 305 b] at the end of the Quaestt. ad Antiochum (Ath. ii. 301-6), which is certainly of the date of Athanasius, and which the editor pronounces to be not unworthy of him (Praefat. II. viii-ix).478.Opusc. ed. Augusti, p. 16.479.Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 393.480.Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 409.481.Οὐ σπογγιὰ χολῇ τε καὶ ὄξει διάβροχος, οἵαν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τῷ εὐεργέτῃ τὴν φιλοτησίαν ἐνδεικνύμενοι διὰ τοῦ καλάμου προτείνουσι.—i. 624 b (where it should be noted that the contents of verses 34 and 48 (in Matt. xxvii) are confused).482.i. 481 a, 538 d, 675 b. More plainly in p. 612 e,—μιᾶς τῆς χολῆς, ἑνὸς ὄξους, δι᾽ ὧν τὴν πικρὰν γεῦσιν ἐθεραπεύθημεν (= Cat. Nic. p. 788).483.ii. 48 c, 284 a.484.Lib. iv. c. 18. See above, last page, note 7.485.vii. 236 c d, quoted next page.486.“Refertur etiam quod aceto potatus sit, vel vino myrrhato, quod est amarius felle.”Rufinus, in Symb. § 26.487.vii. 819 a b (= Cat. Nic. p. 792). See also a remarkable passage ascribed to Chrys. in the Catena of Nicetas, pp. 371-2.488.“Jesusde felle una cum acetoamaritudinis libavit.”(Hom. translated by Aucher from the Armenian.—Venice. 1827, p. 435).489.ApudMai, N. Bibl. PP. iii. 455.490.ApudMai, ii. 66; iii. 42. Is this the same place which is quoted in Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410?491.ApudGalland. v. 332.492.Or Acta Pilati, pp. 262, 286.493.P. 85.494.P. 16.495.Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410.496.p. 87.497.x. 829.498.ii. 84, 178.499.Cramer, Cat. i. 235.500.i. 228, 549.501.vii. 236 c d.502.St. John i. 1-3, 14; xx. 31.503.1 St. John ii. 18, 22, 23; iv. 1, 2, 3, 15; v. 10, 11, 12, 20; 2 St. John ver. 7, 9, 10. So St. Jude ver. 4.504.So Athanasius excellently:—ὁ θεὸς συναριθμήσας ἑαυτὸν μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὴν σάρκα αὐτοῦ τοῦτο εἶπε, καὶ πρὸς τὸν νοῦν τοῦ προσελθόντος αὐτῷ; ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἄνθρωπον αὐτὸν ἐνόμιζε μόνον καὶ οὐ θεόν, καὶ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν νοῦν ἡ ἀπόκρισις. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἄνθρωπον, φησί νομίζεις με καὶ οὐ θεόν, μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀγαθός; οὐ γὰρ διαφέρει [is not an attribute or adornment of] ἀνθρωπίνη φύσει τὸ ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ θεῷ.—i. 875 a. So Macarius Magnes, p. 13.—See also below, note 2, p.262.505.So, excellently Cyril Alex. V. 310 d, Suicer's Thesaurus; see Pearson on the Creed, on St. Matt. xix. 17.506.So Marcion (ap.Epiph.),—εἶπέ τισ πρὸς αὐτόν; διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τί ποιήσος ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; ὁ δέ, μή με λέγετε ἀγαθόν, εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ [i. 339 a]. Note, that it was thus Marcion exhibited St. Luke xviii. 18, 19. See Hippol. Phil. 254,—Τί με λέγετε ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός.507.So Arius (ap.Epiphanium),—εἶτα πάλιν φησὶ ὁ μανιώδης Ἀρείος, πῶς εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς ὁ Θεός. ὡς αὐτοῦ ἀργουμένον τὴν ἀγαθότητα [i. 742 b].—From this, Arius inferred a separate essence:—καὶ ἀφώρισεν ἑαυτὸν ἐντεῦθεν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας τε καὶ ὑποστάσεως. τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἐστι γελοιῶδες [i. 780 c].—Note, that this shews how St. Luke's Gospel was quoted by the Arians.508.E.g. ps.-Tatian, Evan. Conc. 173, 174.—Ambrose, ii. 473 e-476 d.—Gregory Naz. i. 549.—Didymus, Trin. 50-3.—Basil, i. 291 c.—Epiphanius, i. 780-1.—Macarius Magnes, 12-14.—Theodoret, v. 930-2.—Augustine is very eloquent on the subject.509.ii. 689. See the summary of contents at p. 281.510.Thus, Valentinus (ap.Clem. Alex.),—εἶς δέ ἐστιν ἀγαθός, οὖ παρουσία ἡ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ φανέρωσις ... ὁ μόνος ἀγαθὸς Πατήρ [Strom. ii. 409].—Heracleon (ap.Orig.),—ὁ γὰρ πέμψας αὐτὸν Πατήρ, ... οὗτος καὶ μόνος ἀγαθός, καὶ μείζων τοῦ πεμφθέντος [iv. 139 b].—Ptolemaeus to Flora (ap.Epiphanium),—καὶ εἰ ὁ τέλειος Θεὸς ἀγαθός ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἔστιν; ἕνα γὰρ μόνον εἴναι ἀγαθὸν Θεόν, τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Πατέρα, ὁ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν ἀπεφῄνατο, ὂν αὐτὸς ἐφανέρωσεν [i. 221 c].—The Marcosian gloss was,—εἶς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [ap.Irenaeum, p. 92].—The Naassenes substituted,—εἶς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ὂς ἀνατελεῖ τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ. [ap.Hippolyt. Philosoph. 102].—Marcion introduced the same gloss even into St. Luke's Gospel,—εἶς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ [ap.Epiphan. i. 339 d, and comp. 315 c].511.Εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς ουρανοῖς—Tryph. c. 101 [vol. ii. 344].512.“Unus tantum”(ait)“est bonus, Pater qui in coelis est.”—Evan. Conc. p. 173 and on p. 169,—“Unus tantum”(ait)“est bonus”: ast post haec non tacuit, sed adjecit“Pater.”513.Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν; ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς εἶς ἐστιν (ap.Galland. ii. 752 d). And so at p. 759 a and d, adding—ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. This reference will be found vindicated below: in note 8, p.269.514.For the places in Clemens Alex. see below, note 3, p.263.—The places in Origen are at least six:—Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός ὁ Πατήρ [i. 223 c, 279 a, 586 a; iv. 41 d: and the last nine words, iv. 65 d, 147 a].—For the places in ps.-Tatian, see below, note 2, p.263.—The place in theDialogusis foundap.Orig. i. 804 b:—λέγοντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Πατήρ—words assigned to Megethius the heretic.515.Didymus,—οὐκ εἶπεν μὲν οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Πατήρ; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός [p. 51].—And Ambrose,—“Circumspectione coelesti non dixit,Nemo bonus nisi unus Pater, sedNemo bonus nisi unus Deus”[ii. 474 b].—And Chrysostom,—ἐπήγαγεν, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός. καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατήρ μου, ἵνα μάθῃς ὅτι οὐκ ἐξεκάλυψεν ἑαυτὸν τῷ νεανίσκῳ [vii. 628 b: quoted by Victor, Ant. in Cat. p. 220].—And Theodoret (wrongly ascribed to Maximus, ii. 392, 396),—Οὐκ εἴρηται, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Πατήρ. ἀλλ᾽, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός [v. p. 931]. Epiphanius [see the references above, in note 1, p.261] expressly mentions that this unauthorized addition (to Luke xviii. 18) was the work of the heretic Marcion.516.“Dicendo autem‘Quid me vocas bonum,’opinionem eius qui interrogaverat suo responso refutavit,quia iste putabat Christum de hâc terrâ et sicut unum ex magistris Israelitarum esse,”—ps.-Tatian, Evan. Conc. p. 174.—“Dives per adulationem honoravit Filium ...sicut homines sociis suis grata nomina dare volunt.”Ibid. p. 168.517.Apol. i. c. 16 [i. 42],—quoted below in note 2, p.265.518.“Cui respondit,‘Non est aliquis bonus,’ut tu putasti,‘nisi tantum unus Deus Pater’...‘Nemo’(sit)‘bonus, nisi tantum unus, Pater qui est in coelis’[Evan. Conc. p. 169].‘Non est bonus, nisi tantum unus’[Ibid.].‘Non est bonus, nisi tantum unus qui est in coelis’[p. 170].‘Non est bonus nisi tantum unus’”[p. 173].519.Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁπηνίκα διαρρήδην λέγει; Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατήρ μου, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [p. 141]. And overleaf,—ἀλλὰ καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατὴρ αὐτοῦ [p. 142]. Tischendorf admits the reference.520.i. 315 b. The quotation is given below, in note 7, p.269.521.Praep. Evan. 542 b; Ps. 426 d;ap.Mai, iv. 101.522.Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός (p. 12).523.ii. 242 e and 279 e. (See also i. 291 e and iii. 361 a.)524.vii. 628 b,—οὐ γὰρ εἶπε, τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐκ εἱμὶ ἀγαθός; ἀλλ᾽, οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός ... εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ θεός. See also vii. 329.525.i. 875 a. The quotation is proved to be from St. Matt. xix. (17-21) by all that follows.526.ii. 691 d; 694 b c. See below, note 10, p.267.527.Trin. 50, 51.528.“Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus”:—iv. 383 c; v. 488 b; viii. 770 d, 772 b.529.v. P. i. 310 d, and 346 a (= 672 b).530.v. 931-3. Note that Ambrose, Didymus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, all four hang together in this place, which is plain from the remark that is common to all four, quoted above in note 1, last page. There is nothing to shew from which Gospel Nilus (ii. 362) quotes the words οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶ; ὁ Θεός.531.p. 1028, unequivocally.532.Ap.Chrys. vi. 137 d, 138 b.533.Besides these positive testimonies, the passage is quoted frequently as it is given in St. Mark and St. Luke,but with no special reference. Surely some of these must refer to St. Matthew?534.For other instances of this indiscreet zeal, see Vol. II.535.BאDL. 1, 22, 479, Evst. 5.536.Καὶ προσελθόντος αὐτῷ τινος καὶ εἰπόντος; Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων; Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα.—Apol. I. c. 16 [vol. i. p. 42]. And so in Tryph. c. 101 [vol. ii. p. 344],—λέγοντος αὐτῷ τινος; Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ; κ.τ.λ.537.“Ad iudicem dives venit, donis dulcis linguae eum capturus.”(The reference, therefore, is to St. Matthew's Gospel: which is further proved by the quotation lower down of the latter part of ver. 17: also by the inquiry,—“Quid adhuc mihi deest?”)“Ille dives bonum eum vocavit.”“Dives Dominum‘Magistrum bonum’vocaverat sicut unum ex bonis magistris.”—Evan. Conc. 168, 169.538.Ap.Irenaeum,—p. 92. See below, note 2, p.267.539.Ap.Hippolytum, Philosoph. 102. See below, note 3, p.267.540.Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν (ap.Galland. ii. 759 d: comp. 752 b). For the reference, and its indication, see below, note 8, p.269.541.Comment. in Matt. xv. (in loc).542.i. 875 a,—clearly a quotation from memory of St. Matt. xix. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.543.Adv. Eunom. i. 291 e,—ἀγαθὲ διδάσκαλε, ἀκούσας. Again in ii. 242 c, and 279 e, expressly. See also iii. 361 a.544.Καθὼς ἀπεκρίνατο τῷ προσελθόντι καὶ εἰπόντι, Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τί ποιήσω ἵνα ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχω;—Catech. 299.545.iii. 296 d (certainly from St. Matthew).546.Προσῄει θωπεύων τῇ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ προσηγορίᾳ τὸ Κύριον ... Διδάσκαλον ἀγαθὸν ὀνομάζων.—Contr. Eunom. ii. 692 b. Also πρὸς τὸν νεάνισκον ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸν προσαγορεύσαντα; Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; (ap.Mai, iv. 12).547.Ὁ νεανίσκος ἐκεῖνος ... προσελθὰν διελέγετο φάσκων; Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ,—p. 12.548.vii. 628 b.549.lib. iii. 503.550.994 c.551.Ap.Sabatier.552.vii. 147-8.553.iii.1761 d; iii.282 d [ibi enim etbonumnominavit]; iv. 1279 g; v. 196 g.554.Ap.Sabatier.555.v. P. i. 346 a (= 672 b),—προσέρχεταί τις ἐν τοῖς εὐανγελίοις, καὶ φησί ... Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ.556.Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;—v. 931. See note 1, p.262.557.Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut vitam aeternam possideam?—(ap.Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 138 b).558.Λέγοντος αὐτῷ τινός, Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, ἀπεκρίνατο; Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [Tryph. c. 101, vol. ii. 344]. And see the place (Apol. i. 16) quoted above, note 2, p.265.559.Marcosians (ap.Irenaeum),—Καὶ τῷ εἰπόντι αὐτῷ, Διδάσκαλέ ἀγαθέ, τὸν ἀληθῶς ἀγαθὸν Θεὸν ὡμολογηκέναι εἰπόντα, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [p. 92]. No one who studies the question will affect to doubt that this quotation and the next are from St. Matthew's Gospel.560.The Naassenes (ap.Hippolytum),—Τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος λεγόμενον; Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθος, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ὄς ἀνατελεῖ τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους, καὶ βρἐχει ἐπὶ ὁσίους καὶ ἀμαρτωλούς [Philosoph. 102]. See the remark in the former note 5, p. 265.561.See below, note 8, p.269.562.“Cur vocas me bonum, quum in eo quod a me discere vis, iustus sim?”—Evan. Conc. p. 168. And so in pp. 173, 174. See above, note 3, p.265.563.This is in fact a double testimony, for the difficulty had been raised by the heathen philosopher whom Macarius is refuting. Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;—pp. 12 and 13 (ed. 1876). See above, note 6, p.263.564.i. 875 a. See last page, note 9.565.ii. 279 e.566.Quid me vocas bonum?—703.567.ii. 692 d. Alsoap.Mai, iv. 7, 12 (πρὸς τὸν νεάνισκον).568.vii 628 b. The place is quoted in note 1, p.262.569.v.1346 a (προσέρχεταί τις ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις κ.τ.λ.) = p. 672 b.570.v. 931,—which clearly is a reproduction of the place of Chrysostom (vii. 628 b) referred to in the last note but one. Read the whole page.571.Ap.Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 138 b.572.Καὶ ἰδού, εἶς προσελθὼν εἶπεν αὐτῷ; Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω, ἵνα σχῶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον (but at the end of eight lines, Origen exhibits (like the five authorities specified in note 8, next page) ἵνα ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω?) ... Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ (but τοῦ six lines lower down) ἀγαθοῦ? εἶς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός.—in Matt. iii. 664ab. And so p. 665c. Cf. 666b.573.See above, note 2, p.261.574.See above, note 2, p.261.575.See above, note 2, p.261.576.a e ff1omitbone; b c f ff2g1-2h-q Vulg. insert it; a b c e ff1. 2g1h l Vulg. writede bono, f qbonum; a b c ff1. 21 Vulg. writeunus; f g1h m qnemo.577.See above, p.149.578.This wild performance is unique in its testimony (see below, p.277). Cureton renders the text thus:—“Why askest thou me concerning good? for One is good,God.”And Mrs. Lewis thus:—“Why askest thou me concerning the good? for One is the good one.”579.Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ Θεός.—i. 315b.580.Αὐτὸς ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν τῷ εἰπόντι Φαρισαίῳ, Τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω? πρῶτον ἔφη, Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν. ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς εἶς ἐστιν, ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (ap.Galland. ii. 759 d e).—Note, the reference is certainly to St. Matthew's Gospel, as all that follows proves: the inquiry in ver. 16 (by assimilation from Luke xviii. 18) being similarly exhibited in א, L,—Irenaeus, Int. p. 241; Orig. iii. 664b; Cyril, Alex. v.1310d; Basil, ii. 279e; and Chrysostom, iii. 182; vii. 627-8; viii. 234.581.Eusebius—Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός,—Praep. Evan. 542b.—The last seven words are also found in Ps. (ed. Montf.) 426d; andap.Mai, iv. 101.582.Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσας, ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; ὁ δέ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός. (Note, that all but the last seven words exactly = א, L, and Basil, ii. 279e.)—V.1310d.—But elsewhere (also quoting St. Matthew) Cyril exhibits—διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ ... τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός.—Ibid. p. 346a (= p. 672b).583.Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός.—p. 1028.584.Magister, quid boni faciam, ut habeam vitam aeternam.Cui Dominus, Quid me vocas bonum(703):—Unus enim bonus est, aitDominus (489). But elsewhere,Magister bone, quid boni faciam(994c).585.Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut habeam vitam aeternam? Qui dicit ei, Quid me interrogas de bono? Unus est bonus Deus?.—vii. 147-8.586.For“bone,”see above, note 12, p.266: for“nemo,”&c, see note 12, p.263.587.1 Sam. xiv. 20.588.p. 299.589.Epiphanius [i. 339d], and Hippolytus [Phil. 254], shew that Marcion so read Luke xviii. 19.—Epiphanius [i. 742 b] quotes Arius. See the words above, in notes 3, 4, p.260.590.Six Lectures on the Text (1875),—p. 130.591.Plain Introduction (ed. 4), II. p. 329.592.Matt. xix. 20 = Mark x. 20 = Luke xviii. 21.593.iii. 669 cd.594.Πρόσχες οὖν εἰ δυνάμεθα πρὸς τὴν προκειμένην ζήτησιν ... οὕτως ἀπαντῆσαι, ὅτι μήποτε τό; ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλουσίον σου ὡς ἑαυτόν. ὑπονοεῖσθαι δυναται, ὡς οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐνταῦθα παρειλῆφθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπό τινος τὴν ἀκρίβειαν μὴ νοήσαντος τῶν λεγομένων, προστεθεῖσθαι.—iii. 670 a b.595.Καὶ εὶ μὲν μὴ καὶ περὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφωνία ἦν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν ἀντιγράφων ὤστε πάντα τὰ κατὰ Ματθαîον μὴ συνᾴδειν ἀλλήλοις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ εὐαγγέλια, κ.τ.λ.—iii. 671 b.596.Νυνὶ δέ δηλονότι πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥᾳθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομὲνων, εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορθώσει προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων.—iii. 671 c.597.See above, pp.152-4.598.W.-Hort, p. 287.599.So Cureton renders St. Luke xviii. 19.600.“Scriptum est in evangelio quodam quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos,...Dixit ei alter divitum:Magister quid boni faciens vivam?”—(Orig. Vet. Interp. iii. 670.) I suppose the mention of εἶς προσελθών, in ver. 16, suggested this.601.The Marcionite Gospel exhibited Μή με λέγετε ἀγαθόν (Hippol. Phil. 254; Epiph. i. 315 c).—Comp. the Clement. Hom. (ap.Galland. ii. 752 b, 759 a d).602.Hammond, quoted approvingly by Scrivener,—I. 328 (cd. 4).603.C. R. Gregory's Prolegomena, p. 7.604.Printed Text, pp. 133-8.605.Introduction (1883),—pp. 573-6. [Also Vol. II. (1894), pp. 327-9. I did not as Editor think myself entitled to alter Dr. Scrivener's expressed opinion. E. M.]606.It is right to state that Tischendorf thought differently.“Videtur illud huic quidem loco parum apte illatum.”He can only bring himself to admit that the text had been“jam Irenaei tempore nobili additamento auctum.”He insists that it is absurd, as well as at variance with the entire history of the sacred text, to suppose that the title“Son of God”has here been removed by unscrupulous Unbelief, rather than thrust in by officious Piety.607.v. 10; vii. 17; and in the Vulgate. Twice however (viz. i. 311 and vi. 969) Jeromeomitsthe clause.608.In Joan. iv. 15, 16.—See also contra Cels. i. 389 d e f, where Origen says the same thing more briefly. The other places are iv. 125 and 464.609.Οὔτε ἐπιστήμην τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἔχουσι, τὴν τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἀρχὴν μὴ παραλαβόντες; ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν Ἠσαΐα τῷ προφήτῃ.adv.Manichaeos (ap.Galland. v. 61).610.ap.Galland. v. 329.611.i. 250.612.ap.Galland. iv. 55.613.p. 42.614.a.d.400. De Sigill.ap.Chrys. xii. 412:—ὁ μακάριος Μάρκος, καθεὶς ἑαυτὸν εἶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, καὶ θαρσήσας τοῖς προγεγυμνασμένοις, λέγει μὲν“υἱὸν Θεοῦ,”ἀλλ᾽ εὐθέως συνέστειλε τὸν λόγον, καὶ ἐκολόβωσε τὴν ἔννοιαν, ἵνα μαλάξῃ τὸν ἀκροατήν. ἐπάγει οὖν εὐθέως τὰ κατὰ τὸν Βαπτιστήν, λέγων,“ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν Ἠσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ ἰδου”κ.τ.λ. ἔδειξε τὴν λαμπάδα τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ εὐθέας ἀπέκρυψε.615.i. 427:—ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ... ὡς γέγραπται ἐν Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ ... φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ.616.i. 506 (lib. iii. cap. xvi).617.i. 461 (lib. iii. cap. x).618.Midway between the two places cited above, Irenaeus shews how the four Gospels may be severally identified with the four living creatures described in the Apocalypse. He sees the lion in St. John, who says:“In the beginning was the Word: and ... all things were made by him: and without him was not anything made:”the flying eagle in St. Mark, because he begins his gospel with an appeal to“the prophetic spirit which comes down upon men from on high; saying,‘The beginning of the Gospel ... as it is written in the prophets.’Hence the Evangelists' concise and elliptical manner, which is a characteristic of prophecy”(lib. iii. cap. xi. § 8, p. 470). Such quotations as these (18 words being omitted in one case, 5 in the other) do not help us. I derive the above notice from the scholium in Evan. 238 (Matthaei's e,—N. T. ii. 21); Curzon's“73. 8.”The lost Greek of the passage in Irenaeus was first supplied by Grabe from a MS. of the Quaestiones of Anastasius Sinaita, in the Bodleian (Barocc. 206, fol. πβ). It is the solution of the 144th Quaestio. But it is to be found in many other places besides. In Evan. 238, by the way, twelve more of the lost words of Irenaeus are found: viz. Οὔτε πλείονα τὸν ἀριθμόν, οὔτε ἀλάττονα ἀνδέχεται εἶναι τὰ εὐαγγέλια; ἐπεὶ γὰρ ... Germanus also (a.d.715, ap. Gall. xiii. 215) quoting the place, confirms the reading ἐν τοῖς προφήταις,—which must obviously have stood in the original.619.Note, that he actually reads“The beginning of the Gospel of the Son of God,”—omitting the words“Jesus Christ”: not, of course, as disallowing them, but in order the more effectually to emphasize the Divine Sonship ofMessiah.620.Ἐγώ φησι (sc.ὁ Μάρκος) τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου ἀπὸ Ἰωάννου ποιήσομαι; Εὐαγγελίου δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ, οὕτω γὰρ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις γέγραπται, ὅτι υἱός ἐστι Θεοῦ.... δύνασαι δὲ τό, ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, συνάψαι τῷ, ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου; ἵνα τὴν ἀρχὴν ποιήσομαι τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου τοῦ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ τοῖς προφήταις περὶ Ἰωάννου εἰρημένον. This is the first scholium in the Catena as edited by Possinus,—p. 6. What follows is a well-known scholium of the same Catena, (the first in Cramer's ed.), which C. F. Matthaei (N. T. ii. 20) prints from six of his MSS.:—Ἰωάννην οὖν τὸν τελευταῖον τῶν προφητῶν ἀρχὴν εἶναι τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου φησὶν ὁ Μάρκος, ἐπιφέρων“ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις; Ἰδοὺ κ.τ.λ.”621.Ap.Hieron. vii. 17.622.vi. 330diserte.623.ii. 413.624.a.d.890. De objectionibus Manichaeorum,ap.Galland. xiii. 667.625.i. 1529 d.626.Cons. 39.627.E2of the Acts and Cath. Epp. (Laudianus) in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, of the sixth century.628.This observation is due to Dr. Salmon; see the Note appended to Lecture IX of his Historical Introduction to the New Testament (5th edition, p. 147).629.This fact was first pointed out by Dr. Gwynn in a memorandum communicated by him to Dr. Scrivener, who inserted it in his Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3rd edition, p. xii; cp. 4th edition, vol. I, p. 94), and I am indebted to the same source for this admirable amplification of part of that memorandum.630.A sufficient facsimile of the page in question (29ro) is given by Dean Burgon in his Last Twelve Verses, reproduced from a photograph.631.On the contrary, in Tatian's Diatessaron γυναικί is left out and μεμνηστευμένη is translated. For the Curetonian, see above, p.295.

Footnotes1.See Jerome, Epist. 34 (Migne, xxii. p. 448). Cod. V. of Philo has the following inscription:—Εὐζόϊος ἐπίσκοπος ἐν σωματίοις ἀνενέωσατο, i.e. transcribed on vellum from papyrus. Leopold Cohn's edition of Philo, De Opiticiis Mundi, Vratislaw, 1889.2.See my Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp. 7-37. George Bell and Sons, 1886.3.For an estimate of Tischendorf's great labour, see an article on Tischendorf's Greek Testament in the Quarterly Review for July, 1895.4.Dr. Hort's theory, which is generally held to supply the philosophical explanation of the tenets maintained in the school of critics who support B and א as pre-eminently the sources of the correct text, may be studied in his Introduction. It is also explained and controverted in my Textual Guide, pp. 38-59; and has been powerfully criticized by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised, Article III, or in No. 306 of the Quarterly Review, without reply.5.Quarterly Review, July 1895,“Tischendorf's Greek Testament.”6.See Preface.7.It is remarkable, that in quarters where we should have looked for more scientific procedure the importance of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is underrated, upon a plea that theological doctrine may be established upon passages other than those of which the text has been impugned by the destructive school. Yet (a) in all cases consideration of the text of an author must perforce precede consideration of inferences from the text—Lower Criticism must be the groundwork of Higher Criticism; (b) confirmatory passages cannot be thrown aside in face of attacks upon doctrine of every possible character; (c) Holy Scripture is too unique and precious to admit of the study of the several words of it being interesting rather than important; (d) many of the passages which Modern Criticism would erase or suspect—such as the last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, the first Word from the Cross, and the thrilling description of the depth of the Agony, besides numerous others—are valuable in the extreme; and, (e) generally speaking, it is impossible to pronounce, especially amidst the thought and life seething everywhere round us, what part of Holy Scripture is not, or may not prove to be, of the highest importance as well as interest.—E. M.8.See below, Vol. II. throughout, and a remarkable passage quoted from Caius or Gaius by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised (Quarterly Review, No. 306), pp. 323-324.9.St. John xiv. 26.10.St. John xvi. 13.11.Rev. John Oxlee's sermon on Luke xxii. 28-30 (1821), p. 91 (Three Sermons on the power, origin, and succession of the Christian Hierarchy, and especially that of the Church of England).12.Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 92.13.Ibid. p. 142.14.Scrivener, Plain Introduction, ed. 4, Vol. I. pp. 75-76.15.Of course this trenchant passage refers only to the principles of the school found to fail. A school may leave fruits of research of a most valuable kind, and yet be utterly in error as to the inferences involved in such and other facts. Dean Burgon amply admitted this. The following extract from one of the many detached papers left by the author is appended as possessing both illustrative and personal interest:—“Familiar as all such details as the present must of necessity prove to those who have made Textual Criticism their study, they may on no account be withheld. I am not addressing learned persons only. I propose, before I lay down my pen, to make educated persons, wherever they may be found, partakers of my own profound conviction that for the most part certainty is attainable on this subject-matter; but that the decrees of the popular school—at the head of which stand many of the great critics of Christendom—are utterly mistaken. Founded, as I venture to think, on entirely false premisses, their conclusions almost invariably are altogether wrong. And this I hold to be demonstrable; and I propose in the ensuing pages to establish the fact. If I do not succeed, I shall pay the penalty for my presumption and my folly. But if I succeed—and I wish to have jurists and persons skilled in the law of evidence, or at least thoughtful and unprejudiced persons, wherever they are to be found, and no others, for my judges,—if I establish my position, I say, let my father and my mother's son be kindly remembered by the Church of Christ when he has departed hence.”16.There are, however, in existence, about 200 MSS. of the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer, and about 150 of Virgil. But in the case of many books the existing authorities are but scanty. Thus there are not many more than thirty of Aeschylus, and they are all said by W. Dindorf to be derived from one of the eleventh century: only a few of Demosthenes, of which the oldest are of the tenth or eleventh century: only one authority for the first six books of the Annals of Tacitus (see also Madvig's Introduction): only one of the Clementines: only one of the Didachè, &c. See Gow's Companion to School Classics, Macmillan & Co. 1888.17.“I had already assisted my friend Prebendary Scrivener in greatly enlarging Scholz's list. We had, in fact, raised the enumeration of‘Evangelia’[copies of Gospels] to 621: of‘Acts and Catholic Epistles’to 239: of‘Paul’to 281: of‘Apocalypse’to 108: of‘Evangelistaria’[Lectionary copies of Gospels] to 299: of the book called‘Apostolos’[Lectionary copies of Acts and Epistles] to 81—making a total of 1629. But at the end of a protracted and somewhat laborious correspondence with the custodians of not a few great continental libraries, I am able to state that our available‘Evangelia’amount to at least 739: our‘Acts and Cath. Epp.’to 261: our‘Paul’to 338: our‘Apoc.’to 122: our‘Evst.’to 415: our copies of the‘Apostolos’to 128—making a total of 2003. This shews an increase of three hundred and seventy-four.”Revision Revised, p. 521. But since the publication of Dr. Gregory's Prolegomena, and of the fourth edition of Dr. Scrivener's Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, after Dean Burgon's death, the list has been largely increased. In the fourth edition of the Introduction (Appendix F, p. 397) the total number under the six classes of“Evangelia,”“Acts and Catholic Epistles,”“St. Paul,”“Apocalypse,”“Evangelistaria,”and“Apostolos,”has reached (about) 3,829, and may be reckoned when all have come in at over 4,000. The separate MSS. (some in the reckoning just given being counted more than once) are already over 3,000.18.Evan. 481 is dateda.d.835; Evan. S. is dateda.d.949.19.Or, as some think, at the end of the second century.20.ACΣ (Φ in St. Matt.) with fourteen other uncials, most cursives, four Old Latin, Gothic, St. Irenaeus, &c. &c.21.See Vol. II.22.All such questions are best understood by observing an illustration. In St. Matt. xiii. 36, the disciples say to our Lord,“Explain to us (φράσον ἡμῖν) the parable of the tares.”The cursives (and late uncials) are all agreed in this reading. Why then do Lachmann and Tregelles (not Tischendorf) exhibit διασάφησον? Only because they find διασάφησον in B. Had they known that the first reading of א exhibited that reading also, they would have been more confident than ever. But what pretence can there be for assuming that the Traditional reading of all the copies is untrustworthy in this place? The plea of antiquity at all events cannot be urged, for Origen reads φράσον four times. The Versions do not help us. What else is διασάφησον but a transparent Gloss? Διασάφησον (elucidate) explains φράσον, but φράσον (tell) does not explain διασάφησον.23.Plain Introduction, I. 277. 4th edition.24.It is very remarkable that the sum of Eusebius' own evidence is largely against those uncials. Yet it seems most probable that he had B and א executed from the ἀκριβῆ or“critical”copies of Origen. See below,Chapter IX.25.Viz. 996 verses out of 3,780.26.Miller's Scrivener (4th edition), Vol. I. Appendix F. p. 397. 1326 + 73 + 980 = 2379.27.Scrivener's Introduction, Ed. iv (1894), Vol. II. pp. 264-265.28.But see Miller's edition of Scrivener's Introduction, I. 397. App. F, where the numbers asnowknown are given as 73, 1326, 980 respectively.29.Account of the Printed Text, p. 138.30.This general position will be elucidated in ChaptersIXandXI.31.So also the Georgian and Sclavonic versions (the late Dr. Malan).32.The Traditional view of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is here maintained as superior both in authority and evidence to any other.33.א, 31, 41, 114.34.Tischendorf wrongly adduces Irenaeus. Read to the end of III. c. 19, § 1.35.Ap. Galland. vii. 178.36.xii. 64 c, 65 b. Καὶ ὅρα τι θαυμαστῶς; οὐκ εἶπεν, οὐ συνεφώνησαν, ἀλλ᾽, οὐ συνεκράθησαν. See by all means Cramer's Cat. p. 451.37.Ap. Cramer, Cat. p. 177. Οὐ γὰρ ἦσαν κατὰ τὴν πίστιν τοῖς ἐπαγγελθεῖσι συνημμένοι; ὄθεν οὔτως ἀναγνωστέον,“μὴ συγκεκερασμένους τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσι.”38.vi. 15 d. Ἄρα γὰρ ἔμελλον κατὰ τὸν ἴσον τρόπον συνανακιρνᾶσθαι τε ἀλλήλοις, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ οἶνος ὕδατι, κ.τ.λ. After this, it becomes of little moment that the same Cyril should elsewhere (i. 394) read συγκεκραμένος ἐν πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασι.39.iii. 566. After quoting the place, Thdrt. proceeds, Τί γὰρ ὤνησεν ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπαγγελία τοὺς ... μὴ ... οἷον τοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγοις ἀνακραθέντας.40.ii. 234.41.Ap. Oecum.42.ii. 670.43.From Dr. Malan, who informs me that the Bohairic and Ethiopic exhibit“their heartwas not mixed with”: which represents the same reading.44.So Theophylactus (ii. 670), who (with all the more trustworthy authorities) writes συγκεκραμένους. For this sense of the verb, see Liddell and Scott's Lex., and especially the instances in Wetstein.45.Yet Tischendorf says,“Dubitare nequeo quin lectio Sinaitica hujus loci mentem scriptoris recte reddat atque omnium sit verissima.”46.See below, ChapterXI, where the character and authority of Cursive Manuscripts are considered.47.The evidence on the passage is as follows:—For the insertion:—א* etc. BC*ΦΣDPΔ, 1, 13, 33, 108, 157, 346, and about ten more. Old Latin (except f), Vulgate, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Hilary, Cyril Alex. (2), Chrysostom (2).Against:—EFGKLMSUVXΓΠ. The rest of the Cursives, Peshitto (Pusey and Gwilliam found it in no copies), Sahidic, Eusebius, Basil, Jerome, Chrysostom,in loc., Juvencus. Compare Revision Revised, p. 108, note.48.By the Editor. See Miller's Scrivener, Introduction (4th ed.), Vol. I. p. 96, note 1, and below, ChapterIX.49.Miller's Scrivener, I. p. 176.50.Ibid. p. 208.51.Tregelles' Printed Text, &c., p. 247.52.Tischendorf, N. T., p. 322.53.Tischendorf and Alford.54.Burgon's Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 38-69; also p. 267.55.Ad Marinum. Ibid. p. 265.56.Ibid. pp. 235-6.57.Miller's Scrivener, I. p. 181.58.Ferrar and Abbott's Collation of Four Important Manuscripts, Abbè Martin,Quatre MSS. importants, J. Rendel Harris, On the Origin of the Ferrar Group (C. J. Clay and Sons), 1893. Miller's Scrivener, I. p. 398, App. F.59.See below, ChapterX. Also Mr. Rendel Harris'“Study of Codex Bezae”in the Cambridge Texts and Studies.60.Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, p. 21, &c.; Revision Revised, p. 297.61.See more upon this point in ChaptersV,XI. Compare St. Augustine's Canon:“Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur.”C. Donatist. iv. 24.62.See Revision Revised, pp. 91, 206, and below, ChapterV.63.καθ᾽ ἰδίαν, ἐδυνήθημεν, τριημέρᾳ, ἀναστήσεται.64.μετάβα ἔνθεν.65.συστρεφομένων, ὀλιγοπιστίαν; omission of Ἰησοῦς, λέγει.66.ὁ ἐρχόμενος, for which D absurdly substitutes ὁ ἐργαζόμενος,“he that worketh.”67.So, as it seems, the Lewis, but the column is defective.68.Viz. Ver. 20, ἀπέστειλεν for ἀπέσταλκεν, אB; ἕτερον for ἄλλον, אDLXΞ. Ver. 22, omit ὅτι, אBLXΞ; insert καὶ before κωφοί, אBDFΓΔ*Λ; insert καὶ before πτωχοί, אFX. Ver. 23, ὂς ἂν for ὂς ἐάν, אD. Ver. 24, τοῖς ὄχλοις for πρὸς τοὺς ὄχλους, אD and eight others; ἐξήλθατε for ἐξεληλύθατε, אABDLΞ. Ver. 25, ἐξήλθατε for ἐξεληλύθατε, אABDLΞ. Ver. 26, ἐξήλθατε for ἐξεληλύθατε, אBDLΞ. Ver. 28, insert ἀμὴν before λέγω, אLX; omit προφήτης, אBKLMX. Ver. 30, omit εἰς ἑαυτούς, אD. Ver. 32, ἂ λέγει for λέγοντες, א*B. See Tischendorf, eighth edition,in loco. TheConcordia discorswill be noticed.69.The explanation given by the majority of the Revisers has only their English Translation to recommend it,“in tables that are hearts of flesh”for ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις. In the Traditional reading (a) πλαξὶ σαρκίναις answers to πλαξὶ λιθίναις; and therefore σαρκίναις would agree with πλαξὶ, not with καρδίαις. (b) The opposition between λιθίναις and καρδίαις σαρκίναις would be weak indeed, the latter being a mere appendage in apposition to πλαξί, and would therefore be a blot in St. Paul's nervous passage. (c) The apposition is harsh, ill-balanced (contrast St. Mark viii. 8), and unlike Greek: Dr. Hort is driven to suppose πλαξί to be a“primitive interpolation.”The faultiness of a majority of the Uncials is corrected by Cursives, Versions, Fathers.70.“Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspecta merito habetur, quae orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifeste prae ceteris favet.”N.T. Prolegomena, I. p. lxvi.71.See Hort's Introduction, pp. 210-270.72.I have retained this challenge though it has been rendered nugatory by the Dean's lamented death, in order to exhibit his absolute sincerity and fearlessness.—E. M.73.Here the Dean's MS. ceases, and the Editor is responsible for what follows. The MS. was marked in pencil,“Very rough—but worth carrying on.”74.See a passage from Caius quoted in The Revision Revised, p. 323. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 28.75.Hort, Introduction, p. 223.76.See AppendixV, and below, ChapterIX.77.As a specimen of how quickly a Cursive copy could be written by an accomplished copyist, we may note the following entry from Dean Burgon's Letters in the Guardian to Dr. Scrivener, in a letter dated Jan. 29, 1873.“Note further, that there is ... another copy of the O.T. in one volume ... at the end of which is stated that Nicodemus ὁ ξένος, the scribe, began his task on the 8th of June and finished it on the 15th of July,a.d.1334, working very hard—as he must have done indeed.”78.See below, ChapterVIII. § 2.79.See ChapterVI.80.See ChapterVII.81.See next Chapter.82.Another fragment found in the Dean's papers is introduced here.83.Here the fragment ends.84.See Dr. Gwynn's remarks which are quoted below, AppendixVII.85.The Revision Revised, p. 423. Add a few more; see AppendixVII.86.Dr. Gwynn, Appendix VII.87.Another MS. comes in here.88.The MS. ceases.89.Hort, Introduction, pp. 95-99.90.ו-צאו ללכת ארצה בנען ויבאו ארצה בנען׃91.An instance is afforded in St. Mark viii. 7, where“the Five Old Uncials”exhibit the passage thus:A. και ταυτα ευλογησας ειπεν παρατεθηναι και αυτα.א*. και ευλογησας αυτα παρεθηκεν.א1. και ευλογησας ειπεν και ταυτα παρατιθεναι.B. ευλογησας αυτα ειπεν και ταυτα παρατιθεναι.C. και ευλογησας αυτα ειπεν και ταυτα παραθετε.D. και ευχαριστησας ειπεν και αυτους εκελευσεν παρατιθεναι.Lachmann, and Tischendorf (1859) follow A; Alford, and Tischendorf (1869) follow א; Tregelles and Westcott, and Hort adopt B. They happen to be all wrong, and the Textus Receptus right. The only word they all agree in is the initial καί.92.After this the MSS. recommence.93.SΠ mark the place with asterisks, and Λ with an obelus.94.In twelve, asterisks: in two, obeli.95.The MS., which has not been perfect, here ceases.96.In the Syriaconeform appears to be used foralltheMarys([Syriac characters] Mar-yam, also sometimes, but not always, spelt in theJerusalem Syriac[Syriaic characters] = Mar-yaam), also forMiriamin the O. T., forMariamnethe wife of Herod, and others; in fact, wherever it is intended to represent a Hebrew female name. At Rom. xvi. 6, the Peshitto has [Syriaic characters] = Μαρία obviously as a translation of the Greek form in the text which was followed. (See Thesaurus Syriacus, Payne Smith, coll. 2225, 2226.)In Syriac literature [Syriac characters] = Maria occurs from time to time as the name of some Saint or Martyr—e.g. in a volume of Acta Mart. described by Wright in Cat. Syr. MSS. in B. M. p. 1081, and which appears to be a fifth-century MS.On the hypothesis that Hebrew-Aramaic was spoken in Palestine (paceDrs. Abbot and Roberts), I do not doubt thatonly oneform (cf. Pearson, Creed, Art. iii. and notes) of the name was in use,“Maryam,”a vulgarized form of“Miriam”; but it may well be that Greek Christians kept the Hebrew form Μαριαμ for the Virgin, while they adopted a more Greek-looking word for the other women. This fine distinction has been lost in thecorruptUncials, while observed in thecorrectUncials and Cursives, which is all that the Dean's argument requires.—(G. H. G.)97.The MSS. continue here.98.LXX.99.St. John xix. 25. As the passage issyndeton, the omission of the καί which would be necessary if Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ were different from ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αἰτοῦ could not be justified. Compare, e.g., the construction in the mention of four in St. Mark xiii. 3. In disregarding the usage requiring exclusively eithersyndetonorasyndeton, even scholars are guided unconsciously by theirEnglishexperience.—(Ed.)100.The genitive Μαρ᾽ας is used in the Textus Receptus in Matt. i. 16, 18; ii. 11; Mark vi. 3; Luke i. 41. Μαριάμ is used in the Nominative, Matt. xiii. 55; Luke i. 27, 34, 39, 46, 56; ii. 5, 19. In the Vocative, Luke i. 30. The Accusative, Matt. i. 20; Luke ii. 16. Dative, Luke ii. 5; Acts i. 14. Μαριάμ occurs for another Mary in the Textus Receptus, Rom. xvi. 6.101.Serapion, Bp. of Thmuis (on a mouth of the Nile)a.d.340 (ap.Galland. v. 60 a).102.Basil, i. 240 d.103.Epiphanius, i. 435 c.104.Chrysostom, iii. 120 d e; vii. 180 a, 547 equat.; viii. 112 a c (nine times).105.Asterius, p. 128 b.106.Basil Opp. (i. Append.) i. 500 e (cf. p. 377 Monitum).107.Cyril, iv. 131 c.108.A gives Ιωνα; א, Ιωαννης; C and D are silent. Obvious it is that the revised text of St. John i. 43 and of xxi. 15, 16, 17,—must stand or fall together. In this latter place the Vulgate forsakes us, and אB are joined by C and D. On the other hand, Cyril (iv. 1117),—Basil (ii. 298),—Chrysostom (viii. 525 c d),—Theodoret (ii. 426),—Jo. Damascene (ii. 510 e),—and Eulogius ([a.d.580.]ap.Photium, p. 1612), come to our air. Not that we require it.109.“Araba”(instead of“abara”) is a word which must have exercised so powerful and seductive an influence over ancient Eastern scribes,—(having been forthirty-four centuriesthe established designation of the sterile Wady, which extends from the Southern extremity of the Dead Sea to the North of the Arabian Gulf)—that the only wonder is it did not find its way into Evangelia. See Gesenius on ערבה (Ἄραβα in the LXX of Deut. ii. 8, &c. So in the Revised O. T.).110.The MSS. have ceased.111.See AppendixV.112.See Preface.113.This chapter and the next three have been supplied entirely by the Editor.114.See also Miller's Textual Guide, chapter IV. No answer has been made to the Dean's strictures.115.See Dr. Scrivener's incisive criticism of Dr. Hort's theory, Introduction, edit. 4, ii. 284-296.116.The Revision Revised, pp. 323-324, 334.117.Yet Marcion and Tatian may fairly be adduced as witnesses upon individual readings.118.E.g.“Many of the verses which he [Origen] quotes in different places shew discrepancies of text that cannot be accounted for either by looseness of citation or by corruption of the MSS. of his writings.”Hort, Introduction, p. 113. See also the whole passage, pp. 113-4.119.See Hort. Introduction, p. 160. The most useful part of Irenaeus' works in this respect is found in the Latin Translation, which is of the fourth century.120.Or Magnus, or Major, which names were applied to him to distinguish him from his brother who was called Alexandrinus, and to whom some of his works have been sometimes attributed. Macarius Magnus or Aegyptius was a considerable writer, as may be understood from the fact that he occupies nearly 1000 pages in Migne's Series. His memory is still, I am informed, preserved in Egypt. But in some fields of scholarship at the present day he has met with strange neglect.121.The names of many Fathers are omitted in this list, because I could not find any witness on one side or the other in their writings. Also Syriac writings are not here included.122.See The Revision Revised, p. 123.123.The Revision Revised, p. 92.124.I have mentioned here only cases where the passage is quoted professedly from St. Matthew. The passage as given in St. Mark x. 17-18, and in St. Luke xviii. 18-19, is frequently quoted without reference to any one of the Gospels. Surely some of these quotations must be meant for St. Matthew.125.For the reff. see below, AppendixII.126.Compare The Revision Revised, pp. 162-3.127.For reff. see Vol. II. viii. For Mark i. 1, Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, see AppendixIV.128.The Revision Revised, pp. 423-440. Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-51. The latitudinarian Eusebius on the same passage witnesses on both sides.129.The Revision Revised, pp. 420-1; Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-3.130.The Revision Revised, pp. 79-82. The Dean alleges more than forty witnesses in all. What are quoted here, as in the other instances, are only the Fathers before St. Chrysostom.131.Ibid. pp. 82-5.132.The Revision Revised, pp. 61-65.133.Ibid. pp. 90-1.134.See below, AppendixI.135.Many of the Fathers quote only as far as οὐδὲ ἕν. But that was evidently a convenient quotation of a stock character in controversy, just as πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο was even more commonly. St Epiphanius often quotes thus, but remarks (Haer. II. (lxix.) 56, Ancor. lxxv.), that the passage goes on to ὁ γέγονεν.136.See The Revision Revised, p. 133.137.Ibid. pp. 220-1.138.Tischendorf quotes these on the wrong side.139.The Revision Revised, pp. 217-8.140.Ibid. pp. 23-4. See also an article in Hermathena, Vol. VIII., No. XIX., 1893, written by the Rev. Dr. Gwynn with his characteristic acuteness and ingenuity.141.Hort, Introduction, pp. 128, 127.142.Ibid. p. 113.143.It may perhaps be questioned whether Justin should be classed here: but the character of his witness, as on Matt. v. 44, ix. 13, and Luke xxii. 43-44, is more on the Traditional side, though the numbers are against that.144.Athanasius in his“Orationes IV contra Arianos”used Alexandrian texts. See IV.145.According to Pliny (N. II. v. 18), the towns of Decapolis were: 1. Scythopolis the chief, not far from Tiberias (Joseph. B. J. III. ix. 7); 2. Philadelphia; 3. Raphanae; 4. Gadara; 5. Hippos; 6. Dios; 7. Pella; 8. Gerasa; 9. Canatha (Otopos, Joseph.); 10. Damascus. This area does not coincide with that which is sometimes now marked in maps and is part of Galilee and Samaria. But the Gospel notion of Decapolis, is of a country east of Galilee, lying near to the Lake, starting from the south-east, and stretching on towards the mountains into the north. It was different from Galilee (Matt. iv. 25), was mainly on the east of the sea of Tiberias (Mark v. 20, Eusebius and Jerome OS2. pp. 251, 89—“around Pella and Basanitis,”—Epiphanius Haer. i. 123), extended also to the west (Mark vii. 31), was reckoned in Syria (Josephus, passim,“Decapolis of Syria”), and was generally after the time of Pompey under the jurisdiction of the Governor of Syria. The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes it well as“situated, with the exception of a small portion, on the eastern side of the Upper Jordan and the sea of Tiberias.”Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, to which I am indebted for much of the evidence given above, is inconsistent. The population was in a measure Greek.146.Εἰς τὰς κώμας Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου. What a condensed account of His sojourn in various“towns”!147.See Ancient Syriac Documents relative to the Earliest Establishment of Christianity in Edessa and the neighbouring countries, &c. edited by W. Cureton, D.D., with a Preface by the late Dr. Wright, 1864.148.Cureton's Preface to“An Antient Recension, &c.”149.Philip E. Pusey held that there was a revision of the Peshitto in the eighth century, but that it was confined to grammatical peculiarities. This would on general grounds be not impossible, because the art of copying was perfected by about that time.150.See AppendixVI.151.This position is demonstrated in full in an article in the Church Quarterly Review for April, 1895, on“The Text of the Syriac Gospels,”pp. 123-5.152.The Text of the Syriac Gospels, pp. 113-4: also Church Times, Jan. 11, 1895. This position is established in both places.153.Yet some people appear to think, that the worse a text is the more reason there is to suppose that it was close to the Autograph Original. Verily this is evolution run wild.154.Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed.,“Syriac Literature,”by Dr. W. Wright, now published separately under the same title.155.Dr. Scrivener, Introduction (4th Edition), II. 7.156.See also Miller's Edition of Scrivener's Introduction (4th), II. 12.157.Another very ancient MS. of the Peshitto Gospels is the Cod. Philipp. 1388, in the Royal Library, Berlin (in Miller's Scrivener the name is speltPhillipps). Dr. Sachau ascribes it to the fifth, or the beginning of the sixth century, thus making it older than the Vatican Tetraevangelicum, No. 3, in Miller's Scrivener, II. 12. A full description will be found in Sachau's Catalogue of the Syr. MSS. in the Berlin Library.The second was collated by Drs. Guidi and Ugolini, the third, in St. John, by Dr. Sachau. The readings of the second and third are in the possession of Mr. Gwilliam, who informs me that all three support the Peshitto text, and are free from all traces of any pre-Peshitto text, such as according to Dr. Hort and Mr. Burkitt the Curetonian and Lewis MSS. contain. Thus every fresh accession of evidence tends always to establish the text of the Peshitto Version more securely in the position it has always held until quite recent years.The interesting feature of all the above-named MSS. is the uniformity of their testimony to the text of the Peshitto. Take for example the evidence of No. 10 in Miller's Scrivener, II. 13, No. 3, in Miller's Scrivener, II. 12, and Cod. Philipp. 1388. The first was collated by P. E. Pusey, and the results are published in Studia Biblica, vol. i,“A fifth century MS.”158.Dr. W. Wright's article in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Dr. Hort could not have been aware of this fact when he spoke of“the almost total extinction of Old Syriac MSS.”: or else he lamented a disappearance of what never appeared.159.p. 107.160.See Patrologia Syriaca, Graffin, P. I. vol. ii. Paris, 1895.161.See in St. Matt. alone (out of many instances) v. 22 (the translation of εἰκῆ), ix. 13 (of εἰς μετάνοιαν), xi. 23 (“which art exalted”), xx. 16 (of πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσι κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί), xxvi. 42 (ποτήριον), 28 (καινῆς); besides St. Luke ii. 14 (εὐδοκία), xxiii. 45 (ἐσκοτίσθη), John iii. 13 (though“from heaven”), xxi. 25 (the verse).162.Doctrine of Addai, xxxv. 15-17.163.H. E. iv. 29.164.Haer. xlvi. 1.165.Canons.166.Haer. i. 20.167.The Earliest Life of Christ, Appendix VIII.168.The MS. is mutilated at the beginning of the other three Gospels.169.It appears almost, if not quite, certain that this is the true meaning. Payne Smith's Thesaurus Syriacus, coll. 3303-4.170.The Lewis Codex was in part destroyed, as not being worth keeping, while the leaves which escaped that fate were used for other writing. Perhaps others were treated in similar fashion, which would help to account for the fact mentioned in note 2, p.129.171.Plain Introduction, II. 43-44.172.Essays on Various Subjects, i. Two Letters on some parts of the controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, pp. 23, &c. The arguments are more ingenious than powerful. Africa, e.g., had no monopoly of Low-Latin.173.The numerator in these fractions denotes the number of times throughout the Gospels when the text of the MS. in question agrees in the selected passages with the Textus Receptus: the denominator, when it witnesses to the Neologian Text.174.Once in k bycomperireprobably a slip forcorripere. Old Latin Texts, III. pp. xxiv-xxv.175.“Tot sunt paene (exemplaria), quot codices,”Jerome, Epistola ad Damascum.“Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas,”“interpretum numerositas,”“nullo modo numerari possunt,”De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 16, 21.176.De Doctr. Christ. ii. 16.177.Scrivener's Plain Introduction, II. 44, note 1.178.See Diez, Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen, as well as Introduction to the Grammar of the Romance Languages, translated by C. B. Cayley. Also Abel Hovelacque, The Science of Language, English Translation, pp. 227-9.“The Grammar of Frederick Diez, first published some forty years ago, has once for all disposed of those Iberian, Keltic, and other theories, which nevertheless crop up from time to time.”Ibid. p. 229. Brachet, Grammar of the French Language, pp. 3-5; Whitney, Language and the Study of Language, pp. 165, &c., &c.179.“Syro-Latin”is doubtless an exact translation of“Syro-Latinus”: but as we do not say“Syran”but“Syrian,”it is not idiomatic English.180.This is purely my own opinion. Dean Burgon followed Townson in supposing that the Synoptic Evangelists in some cases saw one another's books.181.Isaiah xxxv. 8, 9.182.Introduction, pp. 127, &c.183.Probably Alexandrian reading.184.Probably Alexandrian reading.185.Probably Alexandrian reading.186.Probably Alexandrian reading.187.Probably Alexandrian reading.188.Probably Alexandrian reading.189.Probably Alexandrian reading.190.Probably Alexandrian reading.191.Probably Alexandrian reading.192.In Matt. xv. 14, quoted and translated by Dr. Bigg in his Bampton Lectures on The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 123.193.Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, p. 236, and note z.194.Above, p.100.195.Hort, Introduction, p. 143.196.Eusebius suggested the Homoean theory, but his own position, so far as he had a position, is best indicated as above.197.Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 35. Plin. at. Hist. xiii. 11.198.τὰ βιβλία, μάλιστα τὰς μεμβράνας, 2 Tim. iv. 13.199.Palaeography, p. 36.200.See above, p.2.201.Palaeography, pp. 27-34. Paper was first made in China by a man named Ts'ai Lun, who lived abouta.d.90. He is said to have used the bark of a tree; probably Broussonetia papyrifera, Vent. from which a coarse kind of paper is still made in northern China. The better kinds of modern Chinese paper are made from the bamboo, which is soaked and pounded to a pulp. See Die Erfindung des Papiers in China, von Friedrich Hirth. Published in Vol. I. of theT'oung Pao(April, 1890). S. J. Brille: Leide. (Kindly communicated by Mr. H. A. Giles, H. B. M. Consul at Ningpo, author of“A Chinese-English Dictionary.”&c., through my friend Dr. Alexander Prior of Park Terrace, N. W., and Halse House, near Taunton.)202....“the science of palaeography, which now stands on quite a different footing from what it had twenty, or even ten, years ago. Instead of beginning practically in the fourth century of our era, with the earliest of the great vellum codices of the Bible, it now begins in the third century before Christ....”Church Quarterly Review for October, 1894, p. 104.203....“it is abundantly clear that the textual tradition at about the beginning of the Christian era is substantially identical with that of the tenth or eleventh century manuscripts, on which our present texts of the classics are based. Setting minor differences aside, the papyri, with a very few exceptions, represent the same texts as the vellum manuscripts of a thousand years later.”Church Quarterly, pp. 98, 99. What is here represented as unquestionably the case as regards Classical manuscripts is indeed more than what I claim for manuscripts of the New Testament. The Cursives were in great measure successors of papyri.204.Introduction, p. 16. He began it in the year 1853, and as it appears chiefly upon Lachmann's foundation.205.By the Editor.206.Tischendorf's fourteen brief days' work is a marvel of accuracy, but must not be expected to be free from all errors. Thus he wrongly gives Ευρακυλων instead of Ευρακυδων, as Vercellone pointed out in his Preface to the octavo ed. of Mai in 1859, and as may be seen in the photographic copy of B.207.Cf. Scrivener's Introduction, (4th ed.) II. 283.208.See Kuenen and Cobet's Edition of the Vatican B, Introduction.209.Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf's 8th Ed. of New Testament, (I) p. 286.210.See AppendixV.211.Constantine died in 337, and Constantius II reigned till 360.212.In his Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp. 291-4, Dean Burgon argued that a lapse of about half a century divided the date of א from that of B. But it seems that afterwards he surrendered the opinion which he embraced on the first appearance of א in favour of the conclusion adopted by Tischendorf and Scrivener and other experts, in consequence of their identifying the writing of the six conjugate leaves of א with that of the scribe of B. See above, pp.46,52.213.The Revision Revised, p. 292.214.The above passage, including the last paragraph, is from the pen of the Dean.215.See above, Introduction, p.2.216.It is remarkable that Constantine in his Semi-Arian days applied to Eusebius, whilst the orthodox Constans sent a similar order afterwards to Athanasius. Apol. ad Const. § 4 (Montfaucon, Vita Athan. p. xxxvii),ap.Wordsworth's Church History, Vol. II. p. 45.217.See Canon Cook's ingenious argument. Those MSS. are handsome enough for an imperial order. The objection of my friend, the late Archdeacon Palmer (Scrivener's Introduction, I. 119, note), which I too hastily adopted on other grounds also in my Textual Guide, p. 82, note 1, will not stand, because σωματία cannot mean“collections [of writings],”but simply, according to the frequent usage of the word in the early ages of the Church,“vellum manuscripts.”The difficulty in translating τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά“of three or four columns in a page”is not insuperable.218.Scrivener, Vol. II. 269 (4th ed.).219.Scrivener, Vol. I. 55 (4th ed.).220.The colophon is given in full by Wilhelm Bousset in a number of the well-known“Texte und Untersuchungen,”edited by Oscar von Gebhardt and Adolf Harnack, entitled“Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament,”p. 45. II. Der Kodex Pamphili, 1894, to which my notice was kindly drawn by Dr. Sanday.221.Miller's Scrivener, I. 183-4. By Euthalius, the Deacon, afterwards Bp. of Sulci.222.Introduction, p. 267. Dr. Hort controverts the notion that B and א were written at Alexandria (not Caesarea), which no one now maintains.223.By the Dean.224.See AppendixIV, and Revision Revised, p. 132. Origen, c. Celsum, Praef. ii. 4; Comment. in John ix. Followed here only by א*.225.See Last Twelve Verses, pp. 93-99. Also pp. 66, note, 85, 107, 235.226.Migne, viii. 96 d. Ταῦτα ἐγένετο ἐν Βηθανίᾳ. ὅσα δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει, ἐν Βηθαβαρᾷ, φησιν; ἡ γὰρ Βηθανία οὐχὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐπήμου ἦν; ἀλλ᾽ ἐγγύς που τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων. This speedily assumed the form of ascholium, as follows:—Χρὴ δὲ γινώσκειν, ὅτι τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν Βηθαβαρᾷ περιέχει; ἡ γὰρ Βηθανία οὐχὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγγύς που τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων:—which is quoted by the learned Benedictine editor of Origen in M. iv. 401 (at top of the left hand column),—evidently from Coisl. 23, our Evan. 39,—since the words are found in Cramer, Cat. ii. 191 (line 1-3).227.Origen, i. 265; coll. 1. 227, 256.228.Origen, Comment. in John vi.229.The word is actually transliterated into Syriac letters in the Peshitto.230.See The Revision Revised, pp. 358-61.231.vii. 52.232.vii. 418.233.A name by which Origen was known.234.Imbecillitatem virium mearum sentiens, Origenis Commentarios sum sequatus. Scripsit ille vir in epistolam Pauli ad Galatas quinque proprie volumina, et decimum Stromatum suorum librum commatico super explanatione ejus sermone complevit.—Praefatio, vii. 370.235.iii. 509-10.236.686-7.237.vii. 117-20.238.vii. 537 seq.239.I endeavour in the text to make the matter in hand intelligible to the English reader. But such things can scarcely be explained in English without more words than the point is worth. Origen says:—κἀκεῖ μὲν κελεύει τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνακλιθῆναι (Matt. xiv. 19), ἢ ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τοῦ χόρτου. (καὶ γὰρ ὁ Λουκᾶς (ix. 14) κατακλίνατε αὐτούς, ἀνέγραψε; καὶ ὁ Μάρκος (vi. 39), ἐπέταξε, φησίν, αὐτοῖς πάντας ἀνακλῖναι;) ἐνθάδε δὲ οὐ κελεύει, ἀλλὰ παραγγέλλει τῷ ὄχλῳ ἀνακλιθῆναι. iii. 509 f, 510 a.240.The only other witnesses are from Evan. 1, 33, and the lost archetype of 13, 124, 346. The Versions do not distinguish certainly between κελεύω and παραγγέλλω. Chrysostom, the only Father who quotes this place, exhibits ἐκέλευσε ... καὶ λαβών (vii. 539 c).241.Lectio ab omni parte commendatur, et a correctore alienissima: βαψω και δωσω ab usu est Johannis, sed elegantius videbatur βαψας επιδωσω vel δωσω.242.Luke iv. 8.243.Πρὸς μὲν τὸν Πέτρον εἶπεν; ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ; πρὸς δὲ τὸν διάβολον. ὕπαγε, Σατανᾶ, χώρις τῆς ὀπίσω μου προσθήκης; τὸ γὰρ ὀπίσω τοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἶναι ἀγαθόν ἐστι. iii. 540. I believe that Origen is the sole cause of the perplexity. Commenting on Matt. xvi. 23 υπαγε οπισω μου Σατανα (the words addressed to Simon Peter), he explains that they are a rebuke to the Apostle for having for a time at Satan's instigationdesisted from following Him. Comp. (he says) these words spoken to Peter (υπ. οπ. μου Σ.) with those addressed to Satan at the temptationwithout theοπισω μου“for to bebehind Christis a good thing.”... I suppose he had before him a MS. of St. Mat.,withoutthe οπισω μου. This gloss is referred to by Victor of Antioch (173 Cat. Poss., i. 348 Cramer). It is even repeated by Jerome on Matt. vii. 21 d e: Non ut plerique putant eâdem Satanas et Apostolus Petrus sententiâ condemnantur. Petro enim dicitur,“Vade retro me, Satana;”id est“Sequere me, qui contrarius es voluntati meae.”Hic vero audit,“Vade Satana:”et non ei dicitur“retro me,”ut subaudiatur,“vade in ignem aeternum.”Vade Satana(Irenaeus, 775, also Hilary, 620 a). Peter Alex, has υπαγε Σατανα, γεγραπται γαρ, ap. Routh, Reliqq. iv. 24 (on p. 55). Audierat diabolus a Domino,Recede Sathanas, scandalum mihi es. Scriptum est,Dominum Deum tuum adorabis et illi soli servies, Tertullian, Scorp. c. 15. Οὐκ εἶπεν Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου; οὐ γὰρ ὑποστρέψαι οἷός τε; ἀλλά; Ὕπαγε Σατανᾶ, ἐν οἶς ἐπελέξω.—Epist. ad Philipp. c. xii. Ignat. Interpol. According to some Critics (Tisch., Treg., W.-Hort) there isnoυπαγε οπισω μου Σ. in Lu. iv. 8, andonlyυπαγε Σ. in Matt. iv. 10, so that υπαγε οπισω μου Σατανα occurs inneitheraccounts of the temptation. But I believe υπαγε οπισω μου Σ. is the correct reading inbothplaces. Justin M. Tryph. ii. 352. Origen interp. ii. 132 b (Vade retro), so Ambrose, i. 671; so Jerome, vi. 809 e; redi retro S., Aug. iv. 47 e; redi post me S., Aug. iii. 842 g. Theodoret, ii. 1608. So Maximus Taur., Vigil. Tapa. Vade retro S.ap.Sabattier.“Vade post me Satana.Et sine dubio ire post Deum servi est.”Et iterum quod ait ad ilium,“Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et ipsi soli servies.”Archelaus et Man. disput. (Routh, Reliqq. v. 120),a.d.277. St. Antony the monk,apudAthanas.“Vita Ant.”i. 824 c d (= Galland. iv. 647 a).a.d.300.Retro vade Satana, ps.-Tatian (Lu.), 49. Athanasius, i. 272 d, 537 c, 589 f. Nestorius ap. Marium Merc. (Galland. viii. 647 c)Vade retro S.but onlyVade S.viii. 631 c. Idatius (a.d.385)apudAthanas. ii. 605 b. Chrys. vii. 172bis(Matt.) J. Damascene, ii. 450. ps.-Chrys. x. 734, 737. Opus Imperf. ap. Chrys. vi. 48bis. Apocryphal Acts, Tisch. p. 250.244.See ver. 44.245.St. John viii. 40; xv. 15.246.Orig., Euseb., Epiph., both Cyrils, Didymus, Basil, Chrysostom.247.For the sceptical passages in B and א see AppendixV.248.By the Editor.249.Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25) divides the writings of the Church into three classes:—1. The Received Books (ὁμολογούμενα), i.e. the Four Gospels, Acts, the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Revelation (?).2. Doubtful (ἀντιλεγόμενα), i.e. James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude (cf. ii. 23fin.).3. Spurious (νόθα), Acts of St. Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation of St. Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, the so-called Διδαχαί, Revelation of St. John (?).This division appears to need confirmation, if it is to be taken as representing the general opinion of the Church of the time.250.See Westcott, Canon, &c. pp. 431-9.251.See particularly Haddan's Remains, pp. 258-294, Scots on the Continent. The sacrifice of that capable scholar and excellent churchman at a comparatively early age to the toil which was unavoidable under want of encouragement of ability and genius has entailed a loss upon sacred learning which can hardly be over-estimated.252.The reader is now in the Dean's hands. See Mr. Rendel Harris' ingenious and suggestive“Study of Codex Bezae”in the Cambridge Texts and Studies, and Dr. Chase's“The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezae.”But we must demur to the expression“Old Syriac.”253.Introduction, p. 149.254.The same wholesale corruption of the deposit prevails in what follows, viz. the healing of the paralytic borne of four (v. 17-26), and the call of St. Matthew (27-34): as well as in respect of the walk through the cornfields on the Sabbath day (vi. 1-5), and the healing of the man with the withered hand (6-11). Indeed it is continued to the end of the call of the Twelve (12-19). The particulars are too many to insert here.255.καθως ερεθη δια του προφητου, instead of ὅπως πληρωθῇ διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.256.Υμεις δε ζητειτε εκ μικρου αυξησαι, και εκ μειζονος ελαττον ειναι.257.I.e. a b c d e ff1.2g1.2h m n.258.Scrivener's Introduction, I. 130 (4th ed.). The reader will recollect the suggestion given above in ChapterVIIthat some of these corruptions may have come from the earliest times before the four Gospels were written. The interpolation just noticed may very well have been such a survival.259.The number of the generations in St. Luke's Gospel is 18.260.Num. xxxiii. coll. xxi. 18, 19 and Deut. x. 6, 7.261.Note, that whereas the Ἰεχονίας of St. Matt. i. 11 isJehoiakim, and the Ἰεχονίας of ver. 12,Jehoiachin,—Cod. D writes them respectively Ιωακειμ and Ιεχονιας.262.Cureton's Syriac is the only known copy of the Gospels in which the three omitted kings are found in St. Matthew's Gospel: which, I suppose, explains why the learned editor of that document flattered himself that he had therein discovered the lost original of St. Matthew's Gospel. Cureton (Pref., p. viii) shews that in other quarters also (e.g. by Mar Yakub the Persian, usually known as Aphraates) 63 generations were reckoned from Adam toJesusexclusive:thatnumber being obtained by adding 24 of St. Matthew's names and 33 of St. Luke's to the 3 names common to both Evangelists (viz. David, Salathiel, and Zorobabel); and to these, adding the 3 omitted kings.The testimony of MSS. is not altogether uniform in regard to the number of names in the Genealogy. In the Textus Receptus (including ourSaviour'sname and the name of the DivineAuthorof Adam's being) the number of the names is 77. So Basil made it; so Greg. Naz. and his namesake of Nyssa; so Jerome and Augustine.263.ἡ δὲ Μαρία (D—η) Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία Ἰωσῆ (D Ιακωβου) ἐθεώρουν (D εθεασαντο) ποῦ (D οπου) τίθεται (D τεθειται). Καὶ διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου, Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη (Domits the foregoing thirteen words) (D + πορευθεισαι) ἠγόρασαν ἀρώματα, ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι (D—ελθουσαι) ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν (D αυτ. αλειψ.) καὶ (D + ερχορται) λίαν (D—λιαν) πρωῒ τῆς (D—της) μιᾶς σαββάτων (D σαββατου) ἔρχονται (Dsee above) ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον, ἀνατείλαντος (D ανατελλοντος) τοῦ ἡλίου. καὶ ἕλεγον πρὸς ἑαυτὰς (D εαυτους), Τίς ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν (D ημιον αποκ.) τὸν λίθον ἐκ (D απο) τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου? (D + ην γαρ μεγας σφοδρα). Καὶ ἀναβλέψασαι θεωροῦσιν (D ερχονται και ευρισκουσιν) ὅτι ἀποκεκίλισται ὁ λίθος (D αποκεκυλισμενον τον λιθον). ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα. (Dsee above.) καὶ ... εἶδον νεανίσκον (D νεαν. ειδ.) καθήμενον.... καὶ ἐξεθαμβήθησαν (D εθανβησαν). ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς (D και λεγει αυτοις) (D + ο αγγελος). Μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε (D φοβεισθαι) (D + τον) Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν (D—τον Ναζ.) ... ἴδε (D ειδετε) ὁ τόπος (D εκει τοπον αυτον) ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν. ἀλλ᾽ (D αλλα) ὑπάγετε (D + και) εἴπατε ... ὅτι (D + ιδου) προάγει (D προαγω) ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν; ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν (D μη) ὄψεοθε, καθὼς εἶπεν (D ειρηκα) ὑμῖν. St. Mark xv. 47-xvi. 7.264.So for example at the end of the same passage in St. Luke, the difficult αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο (ii. 2) becomes αυτη εγενετο απογραφη πρωτη; ἐπλήσθησαν is changed into the simpler ετελεσθησαν; φόβος μέγας (ii. 9) after ἐφοβήθησαν into σφοδρα; και (ii. 10) is inserted before παντὶ τῷ λαῷ.265.Yet not unfrequently the Greek is unique in its extravagance, e.g. Acts v. 8; xiii. 14; xxi. 28, 29.266.Cureton's Syriac is closely allied to D, and the Lewis Codex less so.267.See b c e f ff2i l q Vulg.268.So b e g2Curetonian, Lewis.269.St. Chrysostom (vii. 84. d), Origen (iii. 902. dint.), Victor of Antioch (335) insert the καί.270.So too ἀνακειμένους (BCLΔ. 42) for συνανακειμένους (St. Mark vi. 26): omit δὲ (אBC*LΔ. six curs.) in καὶ ἄλλα δὲ πλοῖα (iv. 36): ἐγείρουσιν (אB*C*ΔΠ. few curs.) for διεγείρουσιν (iv. 38): ἔθηκεν (אBC2DL. few curs.) for κατέθηκεν (xv. 46): μέγαλα (א*etc 6BD*L) for μεγαλεῖα (St. Luke i. 49): ἀναπεσών (אcBC*KLXΠ* few curs.) for ἐπιπεσών (St. John xiii. 25): &c., &c.271.Owing to differences of idiom in other languages, it is not represented here in so much as a single ancient Version.272.“Est enimτοῦ ΓΑΡofficium inchoare narrationem.”Hoogeveen, De Partic. Cf. Prom. Vinct. v. 666. See also St. Luke ix. 44.273.Dem. Ev. 320 b.274.ii. 597: 278.275.i. 1040 b.276.viii. 314 a: (Eclog.) xii. 694 d.277.Ap.Cyril, v2. 28 a.278.v1. 676 e.279.30 b (=Gall. xiii. 109 d).280.So, in Garnier's MSS. of Basil ii. 278 a, note. Also in CyrilapudMai ii. 378.281.So Mill,Prolegg.1346 and 1363.—Beza says roundly,“Quod plerique Graeci codices scriptum habentἢ γὰρ ἐκεινος,sane non intelligo; nisi dicam γάρ redundare.”282.ἠπερ ἐκεῖνος is exhibited by the printed text of Basil ii. 278 a.283.ὑπὲρ αὐτόν is found in Basil ii. 160 b:—ὑπὲρ ἐκεῖνον, in Dorotheus (a.d.596) ap. Galland. xii. 403 d:—ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον, in Chrysostom iv. 536 a; vi. 142 d—(where one of the Manuscripts exhibits παρὰ τὸν Φαρισαῖον).—Nilus the Monk has the same reading (ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον),—i. 280.284.Accordingly, παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον is found in Origen i. 490 b. So also reads the author of the scholium in Cramer's Cat. ii. 133,—which is the same which Matthaei (in loc.) quotes out of Evan. 256. And so Cyril (ap.Mai, ii. 180),—παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν Φαρισαῖον.—Euthymius (a.d.1116), commenting on the traditional text of Luke xviii. 14 (see Matthaei'sPraefat.i. 177), says ΓΑΡ ὅ ἐκεῖνος ἢγουν οὐκ ἐκεῖνος.285.The μᾶλλον is obviously added by way of interpretation, or to help out the meaning. Thus, in Origen (iv. 124 d) we meet with μᾶλλον αὐτοῦ:—in Chrysostom (i. 151 c), μᾶλλον ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον: and in Basil Sel. (p. 184 c), μᾶλλον ἢ ὁ Φαρισαῖος.286.It is found however in ps.-Chrysostom (viii. 119 c):—in Antiochus Mon. (p. 1102 = ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 1579 c): and in Theophylact (i. 433 c). At p. 435 b, the last-named writes ἢ ἐκεῖνος, ἀντὶ τοῦ ΠΑΡ᾽ ὃ ἐκεῖνος.287.Introduction, p. 135.288.For all this section except the early part of“4”the Editor is responsible.289.See above, p.61, note.290.481 of the Gospels: from St. Saba, now at St. Petersburg.291.The Evangelistaria 118, 192. Scrivener, Introduction, I. pp. 335, 340.292.Scrivener, I. App. F, p. 398*. Of these, 205 and 209 are probably from the same original. Burgon, Letters inGuardianto Dr. Scrivener.293.I am not of course asserting that any known cursive MS. is an exact counterpart of one of the oldest extant Uncials. Nor even that every reading however extraordinary, contained in Codd. BאD, is also to be met with in one of the few Cursives already specified. But what then? Neither do any of the oldest Uncials contain all the textual avouchings discoverable in the same Cursives.The thing asserted is only this: that, as a rule, every principal reading discoverable in any of the five or seven oldest Uncials, is also exhibited in one or more of the Cursives already cited or in others of them; and that generally when there is consent among the oldest of the Uncials, there is also consent among about as many of the same Cursives. So that it is no exaggeration to say that we find ourselves always concerned with the joint testimony of the same little handful of Uncial and Cursive documents: and therefore, as was stated at the outset, if the oldest of the Uncials had never existed, the readings which they advocate would have been advocated by MSS. of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries.294.Manuscript Evangelia in foreign Libraries, Letters in theGuardianfrom Dean Burgon to Dr. Scrivener,Guardian, Jan. 29, 1873.“You will not be dating it too early if you assign it to the seventh century.”295.The other uncials which have a tendency to consort with B and א are of earlier date. Thus T (Codex Borgianus I) of St. Luke and St. John is of the fourth or fifth century, R of St. Luke (Codex Nitriensis in the British Museum) is of the end of the sixth, Z of St. Matthew (Codex Dublinensis), a palimpsest, is of the sixth: Q and P, fragments like the rest, are respectively of the fifth and sixth.296.By the Editor.297.Above, pp.80-81.298.Hort, Introduction, p. 135.299.ChaptersV,VI,VII.300.Vercell.:—Si scires tu, quamquam in hac tuâ die, quae ad pacem tuam.So Amiat. and Aur.:—Si cognovisses et tu, et quidem in hâc die tuâ, quae ad pacem tibi.301.Mai, iv. 129.302.Ibid., and H. E. iii. 7.303.Montf. ii. 470.304.Montf. i. 700.305.iii. 321;interp.977; iv. 180.306.i. 220: also theVet. interp.,“Si cognovisses et tu.”And soap. Epiph.i. 254 b.307.iii. 321, 977.308.Evan. Conc.184, 207.309.In all 5 places.310.Mor.ii. 272 b.311.205.312.In Luc.(Syr.) 686.313.Int.iii. 977.314.iv. 180.315.In Luc.(Syr.) 607.316.In their usual high-handed way, these editorsassume, without note or comment, that Bא are to be followed here. The“Revisers”of 1881do the same. Is this to deal honestly with the evidence and with the English reader?317.Viz.—εἰ ἔγνως τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην σου, καί γε ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σου ταύτῃ.318.Viz.—εἰ καὶ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ ἔγνως τὴν εἰρήνην σου.319.It is omitted by Eus. iv. 129, Basil ii. 272, Cod. A, Evann. 71, 511, Evst. 222, 259. For the second σου still fewer authorities exhibit σοι, while some few (as Irenaeus) omit it altogether.320.“Hanc diem tuam.Si ergo dies ejus erat, quanto magis et tempus ejus!”p. 184, and so 207.321.“Having been wholly unsuccessful [in their fishing], two of them, seated on the shore, were occupying their time in washing,—and two, seated in their boat ... were mending—their nets.”(Farrar's Life of Christ, i. 241-2.) The footnote appended to this“attempt to combineas far as it is possiblein one continuous narrative”the“accounts of the Synoptists,”is quite a curiosity.322.St. Luke v. 5.323.Ibid., verses 1, 2.324.St. Matt. iv. 18-St. Mark i. 16.325.St. Luke v. 3.326.As in St. Matt, xxvii. 2, 60; St. Luke v. 4; xiii. 16; St. John xviii. 24; xxi. 15; Acts xii. 17; Heb. iv. 8, &c., &c.327.lavabant retia, it. vulg. The one known exception is (1) the Cod. Rehdigeranus [VII] (Tischendorf).328.The same pair of authorities areuniquein substituting βαπτίσαντες (for βαπτίζοντες) in St. Matt. xxviii. 19; i.e. the Apostles were to baptize people first, and make them disciples afterwards.329.אC exhibit ἔπλυναν: A (by far the purest of the five“old uncials”) retains the traditional text.330.P. 938.331.So does Aphraates, a contemporary of B and א, p. 392.332.Gen. xxv. 8, 17; xxxv. 29; xlix. 33. Also Jer. xlii. 17, 22; Lament. i. 20; Job xiii. 19; Ps. ciii. 30.333.268, 661.334.942, 953 (Lat Tr.).335.162, 338 (Lat. Tr.), 666.336.ap.Phot. 791.337.i. 353.338.iii. 120.339.i. 861.340.280.341.i. 920; iii. 344; iv. 27; vi. 606.342.vi. 520.343.i. 859 b.344.3. 772.345.Mai, 2.346.i. 517.347.388.348.In one place of the Syriac version of his Homilies on St. Luke (Luc. 110), the reading is plainly ἵνα ὅταν ἐκλίπητε: but when the Greek of the same passage is exhibited by Mai (ii. 196, line 28-38) it is observed to be destitute of the disputed clause. On the other hand, at p. 512 of the Syriac, the reading is ἐκλίπῃ. But then the entire quotation is absent from the Greek original (Mai, ii. 349, line 11 from bottom). In Mai, ii. 380, Cyril's reading is certainly ἐκλίπητε.349.Eus.mare330,-ps251 (—πᾶσαν).350.Cyrhr270.351.e,inducet vobis veritatem omnem:m,disseret vobis omnem veritatem.352.docebit vos omnem veritatem(ii. 301).353.Cod.am.(which exhibitsdocebit vos in omnem, &c.) clearly confuses two distinct types.354.א om. πάσῃ.355.Cyr. Alex. iv. 347; v. 369, 593.356.D, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς ὁδηγήσει ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ.357.So Cod. b,deducet vos in veritate omni. Cod. c,docebit vos in veritate omni.358.Did. 278, 446, 388 (προσ), 443 (—την).359.Epiph. i. 898; ii. 78.360.Bas. iii. 42 (προσ): and so Evan. 249. Codd. of Cyril Alex. (ἐπί).361.Chrys. viii. 527: also 460, 461 (—την).362.Theod.ant541,ap.Wegn.363.Cyr. Alex.txtiv. 923: v. 628.364.Thdt. iii. 15 (ἐκεῖ. ος ὑμ. ὁδ.).365.Tert. i. 762, 765, 884; ii. 11, 21. Hil. 805, 959. Jer. ii. 140. 141. There are many lesser variants:—“(diriget vos Tert. i. 884, deducet vos Tert. ii. 21, Vercell. vos deducet; i. 762 vos ducet: Hil. 805, vos diriget) in omnem veritatem.”Some few (as D, Tert. i. 762; ii. 21. Cod. a, Did. 388. Thdrt. iii. 15) prefix ἐκεῖνος.366.Pet. Alex.ap.Routh, p. 9.367.Did. 55.368.Orig. i. 387, 388.369.Cyr. Alex. iv. 925, 986.370.εἰς τὴν ἁλήθ. πᾶσαν L., Tr., W.-H.: ἐν τῇ ἁληθ. πάσῃ T.371.Introduction, p. 135. The rest of his judgement is unfounded in fact. Constant and careful study combined with subtle appreciation will not reveal“feebleness”or“impoverishment”either in“sense”or“force.”372.These are the Dean's words to the end of the paragraph.373.Revised Version, &c., pp. 205-218.374.Introduction, i. 292-93.375.Ephes. v. 30.376.718 (Mass. 294), Gr. and Lat.377.In loc.ed. Swete, Gr. and Lat.378.i. 95, 267.379.iii. 215 b, 216 a; viii. 272 c; xi. 147 a b c d.380.Ap.Cramer, vi. 205, 208.381.iii. 434.382.(a.d.560), 1004 a, 1007 a.383.ii. 190 e.384.Rufinus (iii. 61 c) translates,—“quia membra sumus corporis ejus,et reliqua.”What else can this refer to but the very words in dispute?385.Ap.Galland. iii. 688 c:—ὅθεν ὁ Ἀπόστολος εὐθυβόλως εἰς Χριστὸν ἀνηκόντισε τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἀδάμ; οὕτως γὰρ ἂν μάλιστα ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν συμφωνήσει γεγονέναι. And lower down (e, and 689 a):—ὅπως αὐξηθῶσιν οἱ ἐν αὐτῷ οἰκοδομηθέντες ἅπαντες, οἱ γεγεννημένοι διὰ τοῦ λουτροῦ, ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν καὶ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς ἁγιωσύνης αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῆς δόξης προσειληφότες; ὀστᾶ γὰρ καὶ σάρκα Σοφίας ὁ λέγων εἶναι σύνεσιν καὶ ἀρετήν, ὀρθότατα λέγει. From this it is plain that Methodius read Ephes. v. 30 as we do; although he had before quoted it (iii. 614 b)withoutthe clause in dispute. Those who give their minds to these studies are soon made aware that it is never safe to infer from the silence of a Father that he disallowed the words he omits,—especially if those words are in their nature parenthetical, or supplementary, or not absolutely required for the sense. Let a short clause be beside his immediate purpose, and a Father is as likely as not to omit it. This subject has been discussed elsewhere: but it is apt to the matter now in hand that I should point out that Augustinetwice(iv. 297 c, 1438 c) closes his quotation of the present place abruptly:“Apostolo dicente,Quoniam membra sumus corporis ejus.”And yet, elsewhere (iii. 794), he gives the words in full.It is idle therefore to urge on the opposite side, as if there were anything in it, the anonymous commentator on St. Luke in Cramer's Cat. p. 88.386.i. 1310 b. Also Ambrosiaster, ii. 248 d.387.Ap.Galland. vii. 262 e (a.d.372).388.Ibid. 314 c.389.Mai, iii. 140.390.vii. 659 b.391.See above, end of note 2.392.Concil. iv. 50 b.393.Hort, Introduction, p. 40.394.Ibid. p. 46.395.Miller's Scrivener, Introduction, I. p. 177.396.Introduction, I. Appendix F, p. 398*.397.Introduction, II. 337, note 1. And for Dean Burgon's latest opinion on the date of א see above, pp.46,52,162. The present MS., which I have been obliged to abridge in order to avoid repetition of much that has been already said, was one of the Dean's latest productions. See AppendixVII.398.Since Dean Burgon's death, there has been reason to identify this set of readings with the Syrio-Low-Latin Text, the first origin of which I have traced to the earliest times before the Gospels were written—by St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and of course St. John.399.So with St. Athanasius in his earlier days. See above, p.119, note 2.400.Miller's Scrivener, Introduction, I. 138.401.pp.2,155.402.Hort, Introduction, p. 2.403.Hort, Introduction, p. 7.404.Quarterly Review, No. 363, July, 1895.405.St. John xxi. 9-13.406.In Studia Biblica et Eccles. II. vi. (G. H. Gwilliam), published two years after the Dean's death, will be found a full description of this form of sections.407.As far as we know at present about Tatian's Diatessaron, he kept these occurrences distinct.—Ed.408.“Origenes, quum in caeteris libris omnes vicerit, in Cantico Canticorum ipse se vicit.”—Hieron. Opp. iii. 499; i. 525.409.After quoting Luke xxiv. 41, 42in extenso, he proceeds,—βλέπεις πῶς πεπλήρωται τό; Ἔφαγον ἄρτον μου μετὰ μέλιτος μου (p. 210 b): and καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀναστασιν ἕλεγεν, Ἔφαγον τὸν ἄρτον μετὰ μέλιτος μου. ἔδωκαν γὰρ αὐτῷ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου (p. 341 a).410.Ἄρτος γίνεται, οὐκέτι ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἐσθιόμενος ... ἀλλ᾽ ὄψον ἑαυτῷ τὸ μέλι ποιούμενος. And, ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν προφανεὶς τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἄρτος ἐστί, τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδυνόμενος,—i. 624 a b. See more concerning this quotation below, p.249note.411.Epiph. i. 143.412.Ephr. Syr. ii. 48 e.413.Or whoever else was the author of the first Homily of the Resurrection, wrongly ascribed to Gregory Nyss. (iii. 382-99). Hesychius was probably the author of the second Homily. (Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 57-9.) Both arecompilationshowever, into which precious passages of much older Fathers have been unscrupulously interwoven,—to the infinite perplexity of every attentive reader.414.ApudGreg. Nyss. iii. 399 d.415.Epiph. i. 652 d.416.In Joanne legimus quod piscantibus Apostolis, in littore steterit, et partem assi piscis, favumque comederit, quae verae resurrectionis indicia sunt. In Jerusalem autem nihil horum fecisse narratur.—Hieron. i. 825 a.417.Not from Eusebius' Qu. ad Marinum apparently. Compare however Jerome, i. 824 d with Eusebius (ap.Mai), iv. 295 (cap. x).418.See Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 51-6.419.i. 444 b.420.P. 172.421.iv. 1108 c.422.Athanas. i. 644: καὶ φαγὼν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν, ΛΑΒΩΝ ΤΑ ΕΠΙΛΟΙΠΑ ἀπέδωκεν αὐτοῖς. This passage reappears in the fragmentary Commentary published by Mai (ii. 582), divested only of the words καὶ ἀπὸ μελ. κηρ.—The characteristic words (in capitals) do not appear in Epiphanius (i. 143 c), who merely says καὶ ἔδωκε τοῖς μαθηταῖς,—confusing the place in St. Luke with the place in St. John.423.Aug. iii. P. 2, 143 (a.d.400); viii. 472 (a.d.404).424.To the 9 specified by Tisch.—(Evann. 13, 42, 88 (τα περισσευματα), 130 (το επαναλειφθεν), 161, 300, 346, 400, 507),—add Evan. 33, in which the words καὶ τὰ ἐπίλοιπα ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς have been overlooked by Tregelles.425.Πρὸς τούτοις οὐδὲ τραγημάτων κηρίων ἀμοίρους περιορατέον τοὺς δειπνοῦντας κατὰ Λόγον.—p. 174.426.i. 384.427.iii. 477.428.ApudMai, iv. 294, 295bis.429.“Ibi τὸ κηρίον praeterire non poterat [sc.Origenes] si in exemplis suis additamentum reperisset.”(From Tischendorf's note on Luke xxiv. 42.)430.iv. 1108 b c.431.Κατεδήδοκε γὰρ τὸ προκομισθὲν ἰχθύδιον, ἤτοι τὸ εξ αὐτοῦ μέρος.—Ibid. d. Similarly in the fragments of Cyril's Commentary on St. Luke, he is observed to refer to the incident of the piece of broiled fish exclusively. (Mai, ii. 442, 443, which reappears in P. Smith, p. 730.)432.iii. P. i. p. 51. For the honeycomb, see iii. P. ii. p. 143 a: viii. 472 d.433.i. 215.434.“Favospost fella gustavit.”—De Coronâ, c. 14 (i. p. 455).435.ii. 444 a.436.i. 384; iii. 477.437.Opp. iii. 932-85: with which comp. Galland. xiv. Append. 83-90 and 91-109.438.Cat. (1628), p. 622. Cordier translates from“Venet. 494”(our“Evan. 466”).439.What follows is obtained (June 28, 1884) by favour of Sig. Veludo, the learned librarian of St. Mark's, from the Catena on St. Luke's Gospel at Venice (cod. 494 = our Evan. 466), which Cordier (in 1628) translated into Latin. The Latin of this particular passage is to be seen at p. 622 of his badly imagined and well-nigh useless work. The first part of it (συνέφαγε ... ἐναπογράψονται) is occasionally found as a scholium, e.g. in Cod. Marc. Venet. 27 (our Evan. 210), and is already known to scholars from Matthaei's N. T. (note on Luc. xxiv. 42). The rest of the passage (which now appears for the first time) I exhibit for the reader's convenience parallel with a passage of Gregory of Nyssa's Christian Homily on Canticles. If the author of what is found in the second column is not quoting what is found in the first, it is at least certain that both have resorted to, and are here quoting from the same lost original:—Συνέφαγεν δὲ καὶ τῷ ὀπτῷ ἰχθύῳ (sic) τὸ κηρίον τοῦ μέλιτος; δηλῶν ὡς οἱ πυρωθέντες διὰ τῆς θείας ἐνανθρωπήσεως καὶ μετασχόντες αὐτοῦ τῆς θεότητος, ὡς μέλι μετ᾽ ἐπιθυμίας τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ παραδέξονται; κηρῷ ὤσπερ τοὺς νόμους ἐναπογράψαντες; ὅτι ὁ μὲν τοῦ πάσχα[Transcriber's Note: The following two paragraphs were side-by-side columns in the original.]ἄρτος ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἠσθίετο καὶ ὁ νόμος διεκελεύτο;πρὸς γὰρ τὸ παρὸν ἡ πικρία;ὁ δὲ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἄρτος τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδύνετο;ὄψον γὰρ ἑαυτοῖς τὸ μέλι ποιησόμεθα, ὅταν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ κηρῷ ὁ καρπὸς τῆς ἀρετῆς καταγλυκαίνει τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια.Anon.apud Corderium(fol. 58): see above.... ἄρτος ... οὐκέτι ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἐσθιόμενος, ὡς ὁ νόμος διακελεύεται;πρὸς γὰρ τὸ παρόν ἐστιν ἡ πικρίς;(... ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦ κυρίου προσφανεὶς τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἄρτος ἐστί, τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδυνόμενος.)ἀλλ᾽ ὄψον ἑαυτῷ τὸ μέλι ποιούμενος, ὅταν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ ὁ καρπὸς τῆς ἀρετῆς καταγλυκαίνῃ τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια.Greg. Nyss.in Cant. (Opp. i. a); the sentence in brackets being transposed.Quite evident is it that, besides Gregory of Nyssa,Hesychius(or whoever else was the author of the first Homily on the Resurrection) had the same original before him when he wrote as follows:—ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ὁ πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα σῖτος ὁ ἄζυμος, ὄψον τὴν πικρίδα ἔχει, ἴδωμεν τίνι ἡδόσματι ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἄρτος ἡδύνεται. ὁρᾶς τοῦ Πέτρου ἁλιεύοντος ἐν ταῖς χεροὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἄρτον καὶ κηρίον μέλιτος νόησον τί σοι ἡ πικρία τοῦ βίου κατασκευάζεται. οὐκοῦν ἀναστάντες καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐκ τῆς τῶν λόγων ἀλείας, ἤδη τῷ ἄρτῳ προσδράμωμεν, ὂν καταγλυκαίνει τὸ κηρίον τῆς ἀγαθῆς ἐλπίδος. (ap. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 399 c d.)440.So Matthaei:“Haec interpretatio sapit ingenium Origenis.”(N.T. iii. 498.)441.Καὶ ἔφαγε κηρίον καὶ ἰχθύν,—ii. 240. From the fragment De Resurrectione preserved by John Damascene,—ii. 762a.442.See above, note 1, p.247.443.See above, note 1, p.248.444.i. 644 (see above, p.244, n. 7).445.i. 624 (see above, p.242, n. 3).446.pp. 210, 431 (see above, p.243).447.i. 652 d (see above, p.247).448.i. 825 a; ii. 444 a.449.See above, note 1, p.245.450.iv. 1108.451.ApudGalland. ix. 633.452.Varim. i. 56.453.ApudGreg. Nyss. iii. 399.454.See above, p.248, note 6.455.“The words could hardly have been an interpolation.”(Alford,in loc).456.Scrivener's Introd. II. p. 358.457.It is well known that Dean Burgon considered B, א, and D to be bad manuscripts. When I wrote my Textual Guide, he was angry with me for not following him in this. Before his death, the logic of facts convinced me that he was right and I was wrong. We came together upon independent investigation. I find that those MSS. in disputed passages are almost always wrong—mainly, if not entirely, the authors of our confusion. What worse could be said of them? And nothing less will agree with the facts from our point of view. Compromise on this point which might be amiable shrinks upon inquiry before a vast array of facts.—E. M.458.Compare Epiphanius (i. 143 c)ut supra(Haer. xxx. c. 19) with Irenaeus (iii. c. ii, § 9):“Hi vero qui sunt a Valentino ... in tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum estVeritatis Evangeliumtitulent.”459.See above, p.243.460.There is reason for thinking that the omission was an Alexandrian reading. Egyptian asceticism would be alien to so sweet a food as honeycomb. See above, p.150. The Lewis Cod. omits the words. But it may be remembered that it restricts St. John Baptist's food to locusts“and the honey of the mountain.”—E. M.461.Ἐσμυρμισμένον οἶνον, Mark xv. 23.462.Ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον, Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37).463.Πλήσαντες σπόγγον ὄξους, καὶ ὑσσώπῳ περιθέντες, John xix. 29.464.Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37).465.Καὶ εἰθέως δραμὰν εἰς ἐξ αὐτῶν, Matt. xxvii. 48 (= Mark xv. 36).466.Not so the author of the Syriac Canons. Like Eusebius, he identifies (1) Matt. xxvii. 34 with Mark xv. 23; and (2) Matt. xxvii. 48 with Mark xv. 36 and Luke xxiii. 36; but unlike Eusebius, he makes John xix. 29 parallel with these last three.467.The former,—pp. 286-7: the latter,—p. 197. The Cod. Fuld. ingeniously—“Et dederunt ei vinum murratum bibere cum felle mixtum”(Ranke, p. 154).468.Evann. 1, 22, 33, 63, 69, 73, 114, 122, 209, 222, 253, 507, 513.469.§7.470.Pp. 526, 681 (Mass. 212, 277).471.De Spect. writtena.d.198 (see Clinton, App. p. 413), c. xxx.-i. p. 62.472.“‘Et dederunt ei biberoacetumet fel.’Pro eo quod dulci suo vino eos laetificarat,acetumei porrexerunt; pro felle autem magna ejus miseratio amaritudinem gentium dulcem fecit.”Evan. Conc. p. 245.473.Celsus τὸ ὄξος καὶ τὴν χολὴν ὀνειδίζει τῷ Ἰησοῦ,—writes Origen (i. 416 c d e), quoting the blasphemous language of his opponent and refuting it, but accepting the reference to the Gospel record. This he does twice, remarking on the second occasion (i. 703 b c) that such as Celsus are for ever offering toJesus“gall andvinegar.”(These passages are unknown to many critics because they were overlooked by Griesbach.)—Elsewhere Origen twice (iii. 920 d e, 921 b) recognizes the same incident, on the second occasion contrasting the record in Matt. xxvii. 34 with that in Mark xv. 23 in a way which shews that he accounted the places parallel:—“Et hoc considera, quod secundum Matthaeum quidem Jesus accipiensacetum cum felle permixtumgustavit, et noluit bibere: secundum Marcum autem, cum daretur etmyrrhatum vinum, non accepit.”—iii. 921 b.474.Lib. i. 374 and viii. 303 (assigned by Alexander to the age of Antoninus Pius),ap.Galland. i. 346 a, 395 c. The line (εἰς δὲ τὸ βρῶμα χολήν, καὶ εἰς δίψαν ὄξος ἔδωκαν) is also found in Montfaucon's Appendix (Palaeogr. 246). Sibyll. lib. i. 374, Gall. i. 346 a εἰς δὲ τὸ βρῶμα χολήν, καὶ εἰς πότον ὄξος ἄκρατον; ibid. viii. 303, 395 c ... πιεῖν ὄξος ἔδωκαν; quoted by Lactantius, lib. iv. c. 18,a.d.320, Gall. iv. 300 a ... εἰς δίψαν ὄξος ἔδωκαν, which is the way the line is quoted from the Sibyl in Montfaucon's Appendix (Pal. Graec. 246). Lactantius a little earlier (Gall. iv. 299 b) had said,—“Dederunt ei cibum fellis, et miscuerunt ei aceti potionem.”475.Referring to the miracle at Cana, where (viz. in p. 55) the statement is repeated. Evan. Conc. p. 245. See above, note 5.476.ApudMontf. ii. 63; Corderii, Cat in Luc. p. 599.477.The Tractatus [ii. 305 b] at the end of the Quaestt. ad Antiochum (Ath. ii. 301-6), which is certainly of the date of Athanasius, and which the editor pronounces to be not unworthy of him (Praefat. II. viii-ix).478.Opusc. ed. Augusti, p. 16.479.Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 393.480.Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 409.481.Οὐ σπογγιὰ χολῇ τε καὶ ὄξει διάβροχος, οἵαν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τῷ εὐεργέτῃ τὴν φιλοτησίαν ἐνδεικνύμενοι διὰ τοῦ καλάμου προτείνουσι.—i. 624 b (where it should be noted that the contents of verses 34 and 48 (in Matt. xxvii) are confused).482.i. 481 a, 538 d, 675 b. More plainly in p. 612 e,—μιᾶς τῆς χολῆς, ἑνὸς ὄξους, δι᾽ ὧν τὴν πικρὰν γεῦσιν ἐθεραπεύθημεν (= Cat. Nic. p. 788).483.ii. 48 c, 284 a.484.Lib. iv. c. 18. See above, last page, note 7.485.vii. 236 c d, quoted next page.486.“Refertur etiam quod aceto potatus sit, vel vino myrrhato, quod est amarius felle.”Rufinus, in Symb. § 26.487.vii. 819 a b (= Cat. Nic. p. 792). See also a remarkable passage ascribed to Chrys. in the Catena of Nicetas, pp. 371-2.488.“Jesusde felle una cum acetoamaritudinis libavit.”(Hom. translated by Aucher from the Armenian.—Venice. 1827, p. 435).489.ApudMai, N. Bibl. PP. iii. 455.490.ApudMai, ii. 66; iii. 42. Is this the same place which is quoted in Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410?491.ApudGalland. v. 332.492.Or Acta Pilati, pp. 262, 286.493.P. 85.494.P. 16.495.Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410.496.p. 87.497.x. 829.498.ii. 84, 178.499.Cramer, Cat. i. 235.500.i. 228, 549.501.vii. 236 c d.502.St. John i. 1-3, 14; xx. 31.503.1 St. John ii. 18, 22, 23; iv. 1, 2, 3, 15; v. 10, 11, 12, 20; 2 St. John ver. 7, 9, 10. So St. Jude ver. 4.504.So Athanasius excellently:—ὁ θεὸς συναριθμήσας ἑαυτὸν μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὴν σάρκα αὐτοῦ τοῦτο εἶπε, καὶ πρὸς τὸν νοῦν τοῦ προσελθόντος αὐτῷ; ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἄνθρωπον αὐτὸν ἐνόμιζε μόνον καὶ οὐ θεόν, καὶ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν νοῦν ἡ ἀπόκρισις. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἄνθρωπον, φησί νομίζεις με καὶ οὐ θεόν, μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀγαθός; οὐ γὰρ διαφέρει [is not an attribute or adornment of] ἀνθρωπίνη φύσει τὸ ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ θεῷ.—i. 875 a. So Macarius Magnes, p. 13.—See also below, note 2, p.262.505.So, excellently Cyril Alex. V. 310 d, Suicer's Thesaurus; see Pearson on the Creed, on St. Matt. xix. 17.506.So Marcion (ap.Epiph.),—εἶπέ τισ πρὸς αὐτόν; διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τί ποιήσος ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; ὁ δέ, μή με λέγετε ἀγαθόν, εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ [i. 339 a]. Note, that it was thus Marcion exhibited St. Luke xviii. 18, 19. See Hippol. Phil. 254,—Τί με λέγετε ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός.507.So Arius (ap.Epiphanium),—εἶτα πάλιν φησὶ ὁ μανιώδης Ἀρείος, πῶς εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς ὁ Θεός. ὡς αὐτοῦ ἀργουμένον τὴν ἀγαθότητα [i. 742 b].—From this, Arius inferred a separate essence:—καὶ ἀφώρισεν ἑαυτὸν ἐντεῦθεν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας τε καὶ ὑποστάσεως. τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἐστι γελοιῶδες [i. 780 c].—Note, that this shews how St. Luke's Gospel was quoted by the Arians.508.E.g. ps.-Tatian, Evan. Conc. 173, 174.—Ambrose, ii. 473 e-476 d.—Gregory Naz. i. 549.—Didymus, Trin. 50-3.—Basil, i. 291 c.—Epiphanius, i. 780-1.—Macarius Magnes, 12-14.—Theodoret, v. 930-2.—Augustine is very eloquent on the subject.509.ii. 689. See the summary of contents at p. 281.510.Thus, Valentinus (ap.Clem. Alex.),—εἶς δέ ἐστιν ἀγαθός, οὖ παρουσία ἡ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ φανέρωσις ... ὁ μόνος ἀγαθὸς Πατήρ [Strom. ii. 409].—Heracleon (ap.Orig.),—ὁ γὰρ πέμψας αὐτὸν Πατήρ, ... οὗτος καὶ μόνος ἀγαθός, καὶ μείζων τοῦ πεμφθέντος [iv. 139 b].—Ptolemaeus to Flora (ap.Epiphanium),—καὶ εἰ ὁ τέλειος Θεὸς ἀγαθός ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἔστιν; ἕνα γὰρ μόνον εἴναι ἀγαθὸν Θεόν, τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Πατέρα, ὁ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν ἀπεφῄνατο, ὂν αὐτὸς ἐφανέρωσεν [i. 221 c].—The Marcosian gloss was,—εἶς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [ap.Irenaeum, p. 92].—The Naassenes substituted,—εἶς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ὂς ἀνατελεῖ τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ. [ap.Hippolyt. Philosoph. 102].—Marcion introduced the same gloss even into St. Luke's Gospel,—εἶς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ [ap.Epiphan. i. 339 d, and comp. 315 c].511.Εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς ουρανοῖς—Tryph. c. 101 [vol. ii. 344].512.“Unus tantum”(ait)“est bonus, Pater qui in coelis est.”—Evan. Conc. p. 173 and on p. 169,—“Unus tantum”(ait)“est bonus”: ast post haec non tacuit, sed adjecit“Pater.”513.Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν; ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς εἶς ἐστιν (ap.Galland. ii. 752 d). And so at p. 759 a and d, adding—ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. This reference will be found vindicated below: in note 8, p.269.514.For the places in Clemens Alex. see below, note 3, p.263.—The places in Origen are at least six:—Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός ὁ Πατήρ [i. 223 c, 279 a, 586 a; iv. 41 d: and the last nine words, iv. 65 d, 147 a].—For the places in ps.-Tatian, see below, note 2, p.263.—The place in theDialogusis foundap.Orig. i. 804 b:—λέγοντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Πατήρ—words assigned to Megethius the heretic.515.Didymus,—οὐκ εἶπεν μὲν οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Πατήρ; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός [p. 51].—And Ambrose,—“Circumspectione coelesti non dixit,Nemo bonus nisi unus Pater, sedNemo bonus nisi unus Deus”[ii. 474 b].—And Chrysostom,—ἐπήγαγεν, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός. καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατήρ μου, ἵνα μάθῃς ὅτι οὐκ ἐξεκάλυψεν ἑαυτὸν τῷ νεανίσκῳ [vii. 628 b: quoted by Victor, Ant. in Cat. p. 220].—And Theodoret (wrongly ascribed to Maximus, ii. 392, 396),—Οὐκ εἴρηται, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Πατήρ. ἀλλ᾽, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός [v. p. 931]. Epiphanius [see the references above, in note 1, p.261] expressly mentions that this unauthorized addition (to Luke xviii. 18) was the work of the heretic Marcion.516.“Dicendo autem‘Quid me vocas bonum,’opinionem eius qui interrogaverat suo responso refutavit,quia iste putabat Christum de hâc terrâ et sicut unum ex magistris Israelitarum esse,”—ps.-Tatian, Evan. Conc. p. 174.—“Dives per adulationem honoravit Filium ...sicut homines sociis suis grata nomina dare volunt.”Ibid. p. 168.517.Apol. i. c. 16 [i. 42],—quoted below in note 2, p.265.518.“Cui respondit,‘Non est aliquis bonus,’ut tu putasti,‘nisi tantum unus Deus Pater’...‘Nemo’(sit)‘bonus, nisi tantum unus, Pater qui est in coelis’[Evan. Conc. p. 169].‘Non est bonus, nisi tantum unus’[Ibid.].‘Non est bonus, nisi tantum unus qui est in coelis’[p. 170].‘Non est bonus nisi tantum unus’”[p. 173].519.Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁπηνίκα διαρρήδην λέγει; Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατήρ μου, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [p. 141]. And overleaf,—ἀλλὰ καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατὴρ αὐτοῦ [p. 142]. Tischendorf admits the reference.520.i. 315 b. The quotation is given below, in note 7, p.269.521.Praep. Evan. 542 b; Ps. 426 d;ap.Mai, iv. 101.522.Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός (p. 12).523.ii. 242 e and 279 e. (See also i. 291 e and iii. 361 a.)524.vii. 628 b,—οὐ γὰρ εἶπε, τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐκ εἱμὶ ἀγαθός; ἀλλ᾽, οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός ... εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ θεός. See also vii. 329.525.i. 875 a. The quotation is proved to be from St. Matt. xix. (17-21) by all that follows.526.ii. 691 d; 694 b c. See below, note 10, p.267.527.Trin. 50, 51.528.“Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus”:—iv. 383 c; v. 488 b; viii. 770 d, 772 b.529.v. P. i. 310 d, and 346 a (= 672 b).530.v. 931-3. Note that Ambrose, Didymus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, all four hang together in this place, which is plain from the remark that is common to all four, quoted above in note 1, last page. There is nothing to shew from which Gospel Nilus (ii. 362) quotes the words οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶ; ὁ Θεός.531.p. 1028, unequivocally.532.Ap.Chrys. vi. 137 d, 138 b.533.Besides these positive testimonies, the passage is quoted frequently as it is given in St. Mark and St. Luke,but with no special reference. Surely some of these must refer to St. Matthew?534.For other instances of this indiscreet zeal, see Vol. II.535.BאDL. 1, 22, 479, Evst. 5.536.Καὶ προσελθόντος αὐτῷ τινος καὶ εἰπόντος; Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων; Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα.—Apol. I. c. 16 [vol. i. p. 42]. And so in Tryph. c. 101 [vol. ii. p. 344],—λέγοντος αὐτῷ τινος; Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ; κ.τ.λ.537.“Ad iudicem dives venit, donis dulcis linguae eum capturus.”(The reference, therefore, is to St. Matthew's Gospel: which is further proved by the quotation lower down of the latter part of ver. 17: also by the inquiry,—“Quid adhuc mihi deest?”)“Ille dives bonum eum vocavit.”“Dives Dominum‘Magistrum bonum’vocaverat sicut unum ex bonis magistris.”—Evan. Conc. 168, 169.538.Ap.Irenaeum,—p. 92. See below, note 2, p.267.539.Ap.Hippolytum, Philosoph. 102. See below, note 3, p.267.540.Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν (ap.Galland. ii. 759 d: comp. 752 b). For the reference, and its indication, see below, note 8, p.269.541.Comment. in Matt. xv. (in loc).542.i. 875 a,—clearly a quotation from memory of St. Matt. xix. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.543.Adv. Eunom. i. 291 e,—ἀγαθὲ διδάσκαλε, ἀκούσας. Again in ii. 242 c, and 279 e, expressly. See also iii. 361 a.544.Καθὼς ἀπεκρίνατο τῷ προσελθόντι καὶ εἰπόντι, Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τί ποιήσω ἵνα ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχω;—Catech. 299.545.iii. 296 d (certainly from St. Matthew).546.Προσῄει θωπεύων τῇ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ προσηγορίᾳ τὸ Κύριον ... Διδάσκαλον ἀγαθὸν ὀνομάζων.—Contr. Eunom. ii. 692 b. Also πρὸς τὸν νεάνισκον ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸν προσαγορεύσαντα; Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; (ap.Mai, iv. 12).547.Ὁ νεανίσκος ἐκεῖνος ... προσελθὰν διελέγετο φάσκων; Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ,—p. 12.548.vii. 628 b.549.lib. iii. 503.550.994 c.551.Ap.Sabatier.552.vii. 147-8.553.iii.1761 d; iii.282 d [ibi enim etbonumnominavit]; iv. 1279 g; v. 196 g.554.Ap.Sabatier.555.v. P. i. 346 a (= 672 b),—προσέρχεταί τις ἐν τοῖς εὐανγελίοις, καὶ φησί ... Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ.556.Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;—v. 931. See note 1, p.262.557.Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut vitam aeternam possideam?—(ap.Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 138 b).558.Λέγοντος αὐτῷ τινός, Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, ἀπεκρίνατο; Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [Tryph. c. 101, vol. ii. 344]. And see the place (Apol. i. 16) quoted above, note 2, p.265.559.Marcosians (ap.Irenaeum),—Καὶ τῷ εἰπόντι αὐτῷ, Διδάσκαλέ ἀγαθέ, τὸν ἀληθῶς ἀγαθὸν Θεὸν ὡμολογηκέναι εἰπόντα, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [p. 92]. No one who studies the question will affect to doubt that this quotation and the next are from St. Matthew's Gospel.560.The Naassenes (ap.Hippolytum),—Τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος λεγόμενον; Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθος, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ὄς ἀνατελεῖ τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους, καὶ βρἐχει ἐπὶ ὁσίους καὶ ἀμαρτωλούς [Philosoph. 102]. See the remark in the former note 5, p. 265.561.See below, note 8, p.269.562.“Cur vocas me bonum, quum in eo quod a me discere vis, iustus sim?”—Evan. Conc. p. 168. And so in pp. 173, 174. See above, note 3, p.265.563.This is in fact a double testimony, for the difficulty had been raised by the heathen philosopher whom Macarius is refuting. Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;—pp. 12 and 13 (ed. 1876). See above, note 6, p.263.564.i. 875 a. See last page, note 9.565.ii. 279 e.566.Quid me vocas bonum?—703.567.ii. 692 d. Alsoap.Mai, iv. 7, 12 (πρὸς τὸν νεάνισκον).568.vii 628 b. The place is quoted in note 1, p.262.569.v.1346 a (προσέρχεταί τις ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις κ.τ.λ.) = p. 672 b.570.v. 931,—which clearly is a reproduction of the place of Chrysostom (vii. 628 b) referred to in the last note but one. Read the whole page.571.Ap.Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 138 b.572.Καὶ ἰδού, εἶς προσελθὼν εἶπεν αὐτῷ; Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω, ἵνα σχῶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον (but at the end of eight lines, Origen exhibits (like the five authorities specified in note 8, next page) ἵνα ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω?) ... Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ (but τοῦ six lines lower down) ἀγαθοῦ? εἶς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός.—in Matt. iii. 664ab. And so p. 665c. Cf. 666b.573.See above, note 2, p.261.574.See above, note 2, p.261.575.See above, note 2, p.261.576.a e ff1omitbone; b c f ff2g1-2h-q Vulg. insert it; a b c e ff1. 2g1h l Vulg. writede bono, f qbonum; a b c ff1. 21 Vulg. writeunus; f g1h m qnemo.577.See above, p.149.578.This wild performance is unique in its testimony (see below, p.277). Cureton renders the text thus:—“Why askest thou me concerning good? for One is good,God.”And Mrs. Lewis thus:—“Why askest thou me concerning the good? for One is the good one.”579.Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ Θεός.—i. 315b.580.Αὐτὸς ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν τῷ εἰπόντι Φαρισαίῳ, Τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω? πρῶτον ἔφη, Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν. ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς εἶς ἐστιν, ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (ap.Galland. ii. 759 d e).—Note, the reference is certainly to St. Matthew's Gospel, as all that follows proves: the inquiry in ver. 16 (by assimilation from Luke xviii. 18) being similarly exhibited in א, L,—Irenaeus, Int. p. 241; Orig. iii. 664b; Cyril, Alex. v.1310d; Basil, ii. 279e; and Chrysostom, iii. 182; vii. 627-8; viii. 234.581.Eusebius—Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός,—Praep. Evan. 542b.—The last seven words are also found in Ps. (ed. Montf.) 426d; andap.Mai, iv. 101.582.Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσας, ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; ὁ δέ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός. (Note, that all but the last seven words exactly = א, L, and Basil, ii. 279e.)—V.1310d.—But elsewhere (also quoting St. Matthew) Cyril exhibits—διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ ... τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός.—Ibid. p. 346a (= p. 672b).583.Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός.—p. 1028.584.Magister, quid boni faciam, ut habeam vitam aeternam.Cui Dominus, Quid me vocas bonum(703):—Unus enim bonus est, aitDominus (489). But elsewhere,Magister bone, quid boni faciam(994c).585.Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut habeam vitam aeternam? Qui dicit ei, Quid me interrogas de bono? Unus est bonus Deus?.—vii. 147-8.586.For“bone,”see above, note 12, p.266: for“nemo,”&c, see note 12, p.263.587.1 Sam. xiv. 20.588.p. 299.589.Epiphanius [i. 339d], and Hippolytus [Phil. 254], shew that Marcion so read Luke xviii. 19.—Epiphanius [i. 742 b] quotes Arius. See the words above, in notes 3, 4, p.260.590.Six Lectures on the Text (1875),—p. 130.591.Plain Introduction (ed. 4), II. p. 329.592.Matt. xix. 20 = Mark x. 20 = Luke xviii. 21.593.iii. 669 cd.594.Πρόσχες οὖν εἰ δυνάμεθα πρὸς τὴν προκειμένην ζήτησιν ... οὕτως ἀπαντῆσαι, ὅτι μήποτε τό; ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλουσίον σου ὡς ἑαυτόν. ὑπονοεῖσθαι δυναται, ὡς οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐνταῦθα παρειλῆφθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπό τινος τὴν ἀκρίβειαν μὴ νοήσαντος τῶν λεγομένων, προστεθεῖσθαι.—iii. 670 a b.595.Καὶ εὶ μὲν μὴ καὶ περὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφωνία ἦν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν ἀντιγράφων ὤστε πάντα τὰ κατὰ Ματθαîον μὴ συνᾴδειν ἀλλήλοις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ εὐαγγέλια, κ.τ.λ.—iii. 671 b.596.Νυνὶ δέ δηλονότι πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥᾳθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομὲνων, εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορθώσει προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων.—iii. 671 c.597.See above, pp.152-4.598.W.-Hort, p. 287.599.So Cureton renders St. Luke xviii. 19.600.“Scriptum est in evangelio quodam quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos,...Dixit ei alter divitum:Magister quid boni faciens vivam?”—(Orig. Vet. Interp. iii. 670.) I suppose the mention of εἶς προσελθών, in ver. 16, suggested this.601.The Marcionite Gospel exhibited Μή με λέγετε ἀγαθόν (Hippol. Phil. 254; Epiph. i. 315 c).—Comp. the Clement. Hom. (ap.Galland. ii. 752 b, 759 a d).602.Hammond, quoted approvingly by Scrivener,—I. 328 (cd. 4).603.C. R. Gregory's Prolegomena, p. 7.604.Printed Text, pp. 133-8.605.Introduction (1883),—pp. 573-6. [Also Vol. II. (1894), pp. 327-9. I did not as Editor think myself entitled to alter Dr. Scrivener's expressed opinion. E. M.]606.It is right to state that Tischendorf thought differently.“Videtur illud huic quidem loco parum apte illatum.”He can only bring himself to admit that the text had been“jam Irenaei tempore nobili additamento auctum.”He insists that it is absurd, as well as at variance with the entire history of the sacred text, to suppose that the title“Son of God”has here been removed by unscrupulous Unbelief, rather than thrust in by officious Piety.607.v. 10; vii. 17; and in the Vulgate. Twice however (viz. i. 311 and vi. 969) Jeromeomitsthe clause.608.In Joan. iv. 15, 16.—See also contra Cels. i. 389 d e f, where Origen says the same thing more briefly. The other places are iv. 125 and 464.609.Οὔτε ἐπιστήμην τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἔχουσι, τὴν τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἀρχὴν μὴ παραλαβόντες; ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν Ἠσαΐα τῷ προφήτῃ.adv.Manichaeos (ap.Galland. v. 61).610.ap.Galland. v. 329.611.i. 250.612.ap.Galland. iv. 55.613.p. 42.614.a.d.400. De Sigill.ap.Chrys. xii. 412:—ὁ μακάριος Μάρκος, καθεὶς ἑαυτὸν εἶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, καὶ θαρσήσας τοῖς προγεγυμνασμένοις, λέγει μὲν“υἱὸν Θεοῦ,”ἀλλ᾽ εὐθέως συνέστειλε τὸν λόγον, καὶ ἐκολόβωσε τὴν ἔννοιαν, ἵνα μαλάξῃ τὸν ἀκροατήν. ἐπάγει οὖν εὐθέως τὰ κατὰ τὸν Βαπτιστήν, λέγων,“ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν Ἠσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ ἰδου”κ.τ.λ. ἔδειξε τὴν λαμπάδα τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ εὐθέας ἀπέκρυψε.615.i. 427:—ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ... ὡς γέγραπται ἐν Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ ... φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ.616.i. 506 (lib. iii. cap. xvi).617.i. 461 (lib. iii. cap. x).618.Midway between the two places cited above, Irenaeus shews how the four Gospels may be severally identified with the four living creatures described in the Apocalypse. He sees the lion in St. John, who says:“In the beginning was the Word: and ... all things were made by him: and without him was not anything made:”the flying eagle in St. Mark, because he begins his gospel with an appeal to“the prophetic spirit which comes down upon men from on high; saying,‘The beginning of the Gospel ... as it is written in the prophets.’Hence the Evangelists' concise and elliptical manner, which is a characteristic of prophecy”(lib. iii. cap. xi. § 8, p. 470). Such quotations as these (18 words being omitted in one case, 5 in the other) do not help us. I derive the above notice from the scholium in Evan. 238 (Matthaei's e,—N. T. ii. 21); Curzon's“73. 8.”The lost Greek of the passage in Irenaeus was first supplied by Grabe from a MS. of the Quaestiones of Anastasius Sinaita, in the Bodleian (Barocc. 206, fol. πβ). It is the solution of the 144th Quaestio. But it is to be found in many other places besides. In Evan. 238, by the way, twelve more of the lost words of Irenaeus are found: viz. Οὔτε πλείονα τὸν ἀριθμόν, οὔτε ἀλάττονα ἀνδέχεται εἶναι τὰ εὐαγγέλια; ἐπεὶ γὰρ ... Germanus also (a.d.715, ap. Gall. xiii. 215) quoting the place, confirms the reading ἐν τοῖς προφήταις,—which must obviously have stood in the original.619.Note, that he actually reads“The beginning of the Gospel of the Son of God,”—omitting the words“Jesus Christ”: not, of course, as disallowing them, but in order the more effectually to emphasize the Divine Sonship ofMessiah.620.Ἐγώ φησι (sc.ὁ Μάρκος) τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου ἀπὸ Ἰωάννου ποιήσομαι; Εὐαγγελίου δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ, οὕτω γὰρ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις γέγραπται, ὅτι υἱός ἐστι Θεοῦ.... δύνασαι δὲ τό, ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, συνάψαι τῷ, ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου; ἵνα τὴν ἀρχὴν ποιήσομαι τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου τοῦ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ τοῖς προφήταις περὶ Ἰωάννου εἰρημένον. This is the first scholium in the Catena as edited by Possinus,—p. 6. What follows is a well-known scholium of the same Catena, (the first in Cramer's ed.), which C. F. Matthaei (N. T. ii. 20) prints from six of his MSS.:—Ἰωάννην οὖν τὸν τελευταῖον τῶν προφητῶν ἀρχὴν εἶναι τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου φησὶν ὁ Μάρκος, ἐπιφέρων“ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις; Ἰδοὺ κ.τ.λ.”621.Ap.Hieron. vii. 17.622.vi. 330diserte.623.ii. 413.624.a.d.890. De objectionibus Manichaeorum,ap.Galland. xiii. 667.625.i. 1529 d.626.Cons. 39.627.E2of the Acts and Cath. Epp. (Laudianus) in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, of the sixth century.628.This observation is due to Dr. Salmon; see the Note appended to Lecture IX of his Historical Introduction to the New Testament (5th edition, p. 147).629.This fact was first pointed out by Dr. Gwynn in a memorandum communicated by him to Dr. Scrivener, who inserted it in his Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3rd edition, p. xii; cp. 4th edition, vol. I, p. 94), and I am indebted to the same source for this admirable amplification of part of that memorandum.630.A sufficient facsimile of the page in question (29ro) is given by Dean Burgon in his Last Twelve Verses, reproduced from a photograph.631.On the contrary, in Tatian's Diatessaron γυναικί is left out and μεμνηστευμένη is translated. For the Curetonian, see above, p.295.

Footnotes1.See Jerome, Epist. 34 (Migne, xxii. p. 448). Cod. V. of Philo has the following inscription:—Εὐζόϊος ἐπίσκοπος ἐν σωματίοις ἀνενέωσατο, i.e. transcribed on vellum from papyrus. Leopold Cohn's edition of Philo, De Opiticiis Mundi, Vratislaw, 1889.2.See my Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp. 7-37. George Bell and Sons, 1886.3.For an estimate of Tischendorf's great labour, see an article on Tischendorf's Greek Testament in the Quarterly Review for July, 1895.4.Dr. Hort's theory, which is generally held to supply the philosophical explanation of the tenets maintained in the school of critics who support B and א as pre-eminently the sources of the correct text, may be studied in his Introduction. It is also explained and controverted in my Textual Guide, pp. 38-59; and has been powerfully criticized by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised, Article III, or in No. 306 of the Quarterly Review, without reply.5.Quarterly Review, July 1895,“Tischendorf's Greek Testament.”6.See Preface.7.It is remarkable, that in quarters where we should have looked for more scientific procedure the importance of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is underrated, upon a plea that theological doctrine may be established upon passages other than those of which the text has been impugned by the destructive school. Yet (a) in all cases consideration of the text of an author must perforce precede consideration of inferences from the text—Lower Criticism must be the groundwork of Higher Criticism; (b) confirmatory passages cannot be thrown aside in face of attacks upon doctrine of every possible character; (c) Holy Scripture is too unique and precious to admit of the study of the several words of it being interesting rather than important; (d) many of the passages which Modern Criticism would erase or suspect—such as the last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, the first Word from the Cross, and the thrilling description of the depth of the Agony, besides numerous others—are valuable in the extreme; and, (e) generally speaking, it is impossible to pronounce, especially amidst the thought and life seething everywhere round us, what part of Holy Scripture is not, or may not prove to be, of the highest importance as well as interest.—E. M.8.See below, Vol. II. throughout, and a remarkable passage quoted from Caius or Gaius by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised (Quarterly Review, No. 306), pp. 323-324.9.St. John xiv. 26.10.St. John xvi. 13.11.Rev. John Oxlee's sermon on Luke xxii. 28-30 (1821), p. 91 (Three Sermons on the power, origin, and succession of the Christian Hierarchy, and especially that of the Church of England).12.Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 92.13.Ibid. p. 142.14.Scrivener, Plain Introduction, ed. 4, Vol. I. pp. 75-76.15.Of course this trenchant passage refers only to the principles of the school found to fail. A school may leave fruits of research of a most valuable kind, and yet be utterly in error as to the inferences involved in such and other facts. Dean Burgon amply admitted this. The following extract from one of the many detached papers left by the author is appended as possessing both illustrative and personal interest:—“Familiar as all such details as the present must of necessity prove to those who have made Textual Criticism their study, they may on no account be withheld. I am not addressing learned persons only. I propose, before I lay down my pen, to make educated persons, wherever they may be found, partakers of my own profound conviction that for the most part certainty is attainable on this subject-matter; but that the decrees of the popular school—at the head of which stand many of the great critics of Christendom—are utterly mistaken. Founded, as I venture to think, on entirely false premisses, their conclusions almost invariably are altogether wrong. And this I hold to be demonstrable; and I propose in the ensuing pages to establish the fact. If I do not succeed, I shall pay the penalty for my presumption and my folly. But if I succeed—and I wish to have jurists and persons skilled in the law of evidence, or at least thoughtful and unprejudiced persons, wherever they are to be found, and no others, for my judges,—if I establish my position, I say, let my father and my mother's son be kindly remembered by the Church of Christ when he has departed hence.”16.There are, however, in existence, about 200 MSS. of the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer, and about 150 of Virgil. But in the case of many books the existing authorities are but scanty. Thus there are not many more than thirty of Aeschylus, and they are all said by W. Dindorf to be derived from one of the eleventh century: only a few of Demosthenes, of which the oldest are of the tenth or eleventh century: only one authority for the first six books of the Annals of Tacitus (see also Madvig's Introduction): only one of the Clementines: only one of the Didachè, &c. See Gow's Companion to School Classics, Macmillan & Co. 1888.17.“I had already assisted my friend Prebendary Scrivener in greatly enlarging Scholz's list. We had, in fact, raised the enumeration of‘Evangelia’[copies of Gospels] to 621: of‘Acts and Catholic Epistles’to 239: of‘Paul’to 281: of‘Apocalypse’to 108: of‘Evangelistaria’[Lectionary copies of Gospels] to 299: of the book called‘Apostolos’[Lectionary copies of Acts and Epistles] to 81—making a total of 1629. But at the end of a protracted and somewhat laborious correspondence with the custodians of not a few great continental libraries, I am able to state that our available‘Evangelia’amount to at least 739: our‘Acts and Cath. Epp.’to 261: our‘Paul’to 338: our‘Apoc.’to 122: our‘Evst.’to 415: our copies of the‘Apostolos’to 128—making a total of 2003. This shews an increase of three hundred and seventy-four.”Revision Revised, p. 521. But since the publication of Dr. Gregory's Prolegomena, and of the fourth edition of Dr. Scrivener's Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, after Dean Burgon's death, the list has been largely increased. In the fourth edition of the Introduction (Appendix F, p. 397) the total number under the six classes of“Evangelia,”“Acts and Catholic Epistles,”“St. Paul,”“Apocalypse,”“Evangelistaria,”and“Apostolos,”has reached (about) 3,829, and may be reckoned when all have come in at over 4,000. The separate MSS. (some in the reckoning just given being counted more than once) are already over 3,000.18.Evan. 481 is dateda.d.835; Evan. S. is dateda.d.949.19.Or, as some think, at the end of the second century.20.ACΣ (Φ in St. Matt.) with fourteen other uncials, most cursives, four Old Latin, Gothic, St. Irenaeus, &c. &c.21.See Vol. II.22.All such questions are best understood by observing an illustration. In St. Matt. xiii. 36, the disciples say to our Lord,“Explain to us (φράσον ἡμῖν) the parable of the tares.”The cursives (and late uncials) are all agreed in this reading. Why then do Lachmann and Tregelles (not Tischendorf) exhibit διασάφησον? Only because they find διασάφησον in B. Had they known that the first reading of א exhibited that reading also, they would have been more confident than ever. But what pretence can there be for assuming that the Traditional reading of all the copies is untrustworthy in this place? The plea of antiquity at all events cannot be urged, for Origen reads φράσον four times. The Versions do not help us. What else is διασάφησον but a transparent Gloss? Διασάφησον (elucidate) explains φράσον, but φράσον (tell) does not explain διασάφησον.23.Plain Introduction, I. 277. 4th edition.24.It is very remarkable that the sum of Eusebius' own evidence is largely against those uncials. Yet it seems most probable that he had B and א executed from the ἀκριβῆ or“critical”copies of Origen. See below,Chapter IX.25.Viz. 996 verses out of 3,780.26.Miller's Scrivener (4th edition), Vol. I. Appendix F. p. 397. 1326 + 73 + 980 = 2379.27.Scrivener's Introduction, Ed. iv (1894), Vol. II. pp. 264-265.28.But see Miller's edition of Scrivener's Introduction, I. 397. App. F, where the numbers asnowknown are given as 73, 1326, 980 respectively.29.Account of the Printed Text, p. 138.30.This general position will be elucidated in ChaptersIXandXI.31.So also the Georgian and Sclavonic versions (the late Dr. Malan).32.The Traditional view of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is here maintained as superior both in authority and evidence to any other.33.א, 31, 41, 114.34.Tischendorf wrongly adduces Irenaeus. Read to the end of III. c. 19, § 1.35.Ap. Galland. vii. 178.36.xii. 64 c, 65 b. Καὶ ὅρα τι θαυμαστῶς; οὐκ εἶπεν, οὐ συνεφώνησαν, ἀλλ᾽, οὐ συνεκράθησαν. See by all means Cramer's Cat. p. 451.37.Ap. Cramer, Cat. p. 177. Οὐ γὰρ ἦσαν κατὰ τὴν πίστιν τοῖς ἐπαγγελθεῖσι συνημμένοι; ὄθεν οὔτως ἀναγνωστέον,“μὴ συγκεκερασμένους τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσι.”38.vi. 15 d. Ἄρα γὰρ ἔμελλον κατὰ τὸν ἴσον τρόπον συνανακιρνᾶσθαι τε ἀλλήλοις, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ οἶνος ὕδατι, κ.τ.λ. After this, it becomes of little moment that the same Cyril should elsewhere (i. 394) read συγκεκραμένος ἐν πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασι.39.iii. 566. After quoting the place, Thdrt. proceeds, Τί γὰρ ὤνησεν ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπαγγελία τοὺς ... μὴ ... οἷον τοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγοις ἀνακραθέντας.40.ii. 234.41.Ap. Oecum.42.ii. 670.43.From Dr. Malan, who informs me that the Bohairic and Ethiopic exhibit“their heartwas not mixed with”: which represents the same reading.44.So Theophylactus (ii. 670), who (with all the more trustworthy authorities) writes συγκεκραμένους. For this sense of the verb, see Liddell and Scott's Lex., and especially the instances in Wetstein.45.Yet Tischendorf says,“Dubitare nequeo quin lectio Sinaitica hujus loci mentem scriptoris recte reddat atque omnium sit verissima.”46.See below, ChapterXI, where the character and authority of Cursive Manuscripts are considered.47.The evidence on the passage is as follows:—For the insertion:—א* etc. BC*ΦΣDPΔ, 1, 13, 33, 108, 157, 346, and about ten more. Old Latin (except f), Vulgate, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Hilary, Cyril Alex. (2), Chrysostom (2).Against:—EFGKLMSUVXΓΠ. The rest of the Cursives, Peshitto (Pusey and Gwilliam found it in no copies), Sahidic, Eusebius, Basil, Jerome, Chrysostom,in loc., Juvencus. Compare Revision Revised, p. 108, note.48.By the Editor. See Miller's Scrivener, Introduction (4th ed.), Vol. I. p. 96, note 1, and below, ChapterIX.49.Miller's Scrivener, I. p. 176.50.Ibid. p. 208.51.Tregelles' Printed Text, &c., p. 247.52.Tischendorf, N. T., p. 322.53.Tischendorf and Alford.54.Burgon's Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 38-69; also p. 267.55.Ad Marinum. Ibid. p. 265.56.Ibid. pp. 235-6.57.Miller's Scrivener, I. p. 181.58.Ferrar and Abbott's Collation of Four Important Manuscripts, Abbè Martin,Quatre MSS. importants, J. Rendel Harris, On the Origin of the Ferrar Group (C. J. Clay and Sons), 1893. Miller's Scrivener, I. p. 398, App. F.59.See below, ChapterX. Also Mr. Rendel Harris'“Study of Codex Bezae”in the Cambridge Texts and Studies.60.Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, p. 21, &c.; Revision Revised, p. 297.61.See more upon this point in ChaptersV,XI. Compare St. Augustine's Canon:“Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur.”C. Donatist. iv. 24.62.See Revision Revised, pp. 91, 206, and below, ChapterV.63.καθ᾽ ἰδίαν, ἐδυνήθημεν, τριημέρᾳ, ἀναστήσεται.64.μετάβα ἔνθεν.65.συστρεφομένων, ὀλιγοπιστίαν; omission of Ἰησοῦς, λέγει.66.ὁ ἐρχόμενος, for which D absurdly substitutes ὁ ἐργαζόμενος,“he that worketh.”67.So, as it seems, the Lewis, but the column is defective.68.Viz. Ver. 20, ἀπέστειλεν for ἀπέσταλκεν, אB; ἕτερον for ἄλλον, אDLXΞ. Ver. 22, omit ὅτι, אBLXΞ; insert καὶ before κωφοί, אBDFΓΔ*Λ; insert καὶ before πτωχοί, אFX. Ver. 23, ὂς ἂν for ὂς ἐάν, אD. Ver. 24, τοῖς ὄχλοις for πρὸς τοὺς ὄχλους, אD and eight others; ἐξήλθατε for ἐξεληλύθατε, אABDLΞ. Ver. 25, ἐξήλθατε for ἐξεληλύθατε, אABDLΞ. Ver. 26, ἐξήλθατε for ἐξεληλύθατε, אBDLΞ. Ver. 28, insert ἀμὴν before λέγω, אLX; omit προφήτης, אBKLMX. Ver. 30, omit εἰς ἑαυτούς, אD. Ver. 32, ἂ λέγει for λέγοντες, א*B. See Tischendorf, eighth edition,in loco. TheConcordia discorswill be noticed.69.The explanation given by the majority of the Revisers has only their English Translation to recommend it,“in tables that are hearts of flesh”for ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις. In the Traditional reading (a) πλαξὶ σαρκίναις answers to πλαξὶ λιθίναις; and therefore σαρκίναις would agree with πλαξὶ, not with καρδίαις. (b) The opposition between λιθίναις and καρδίαις σαρκίναις would be weak indeed, the latter being a mere appendage in apposition to πλαξί, and would therefore be a blot in St. Paul's nervous passage. (c) The apposition is harsh, ill-balanced (contrast St. Mark viii. 8), and unlike Greek: Dr. Hort is driven to suppose πλαξί to be a“primitive interpolation.”The faultiness of a majority of the Uncials is corrected by Cursives, Versions, Fathers.70.“Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspecta merito habetur, quae orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifeste prae ceteris favet.”N.T. Prolegomena, I. p. lxvi.71.See Hort's Introduction, pp. 210-270.72.I have retained this challenge though it has been rendered nugatory by the Dean's lamented death, in order to exhibit his absolute sincerity and fearlessness.—E. M.73.Here the Dean's MS. ceases, and the Editor is responsible for what follows. The MS. was marked in pencil,“Very rough—but worth carrying on.”74.See a passage from Caius quoted in The Revision Revised, p. 323. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 28.75.Hort, Introduction, p. 223.76.See AppendixV, and below, ChapterIX.77.As a specimen of how quickly a Cursive copy could be written by an accomplished copyist, we may note the following entry from Dean Burgon's Letters in the Guardian to Dr. Scrivener, in a letter dated Jan. 29, 1873.“Note further, that there is ... another copy of the O.T. in one volume ... at the end of which is stated that Nicodemus ὁ ξένος, the scribe, began his task on the 8th of June and finished it on the 15th of July,a.d.1334, working very hard—as he must have done indeed.”78.See below, ChapterVIII. § 2.79.See ChapterVI.80.See ChapterVII.81.See next Chapter.82.Another fragment found in the Dean's papers is introduced here.83.Here the fragment ends.84.See Dr. Gwynn's remarks which are quoted below, AppendixVII.85.The Revision Revised, p. 423. Add a few more; see AppendixVII.86.Dr. Gwynn, Appendix VII.87.Another MS. comes in here.88.The MS. ceases.89.Hort, Introduction, pp. 95-99.90.ו-צאו ללכת ארצה בנען ויבאו ארצה בנען׃91.An instance is afforded in St. Mark viii. 7, where“the Five Old Uncials”exhibit the passage thus:A. και ταυτα ευλογησας ειπεν παρατεθηναι και αυτα.א*. και ευλογησας αυτα παρεθηκεν.א1. και ευλογησας ειπεν και ταυτα παρατιθεναι.B. ευλογησας αυτα ειπεν και ταυτα παρατιθεναι.C. και ευλογησας αυτα ειπεν και ταυτα παραθετε.D. και ευχαριστησας ειπεν και αυτους εκελευσεν παρατιθεναι.Lachmann, and Tischendorf (1859) follow A; Alford, and Tischendorf (1869) follow א; Tregelles and Westcott, and Hort adopt B. They happen to be all wrong, and the Textus Receptus right. The only word they all agree in is the initial καί.92.After this the MSS. recommence.93.SΠ mark the place with asterisks, and Λ with an obelus.94.In twelve, asterisks: in two, obeli.95.The MS., which has not been perfect, here ceases.96.In the Syriaconeform appears to be used foralltheMarys([Syriac characters] Mar-yam, also sometimes, but not always, spelt in theJerusalem Syriac[Syriaic characters] = Mar-yaam), also forMiriamin the O. T., forMariamnethe wife of Herod, and others; in fact, wherever it is intended to represent a Hebrew female name. At Rom. xvi. 6, the Peshitto has [Syriaic characters] = Μαρία obviously as a translation of the Greek form in the text which was followed. (See Thesaurus Syriacus, Payne Smith, coll. 2225, 2226.)In Syriac literature [Syriac characters] = Maria occurs from time to time as the name of some Saint or Martyr—e.g. in a volume of Acta Mart. described by Wright in Cat. Syr. MSS. in B. M. p. 1081, and which appears to be a fifth-century MS.On the hypothesis that Hebrew-Aramaic was spoken in Palestine (paceDrs. Abbot and Roberts), I do not doubt thatonly oneform (cf. Pearson, Creed, Art. iii. and notes) of the name was in use,“Maryam,”a vulgarized form of“Miriam”; but it may well be that Greek Christians kept the Hebrew form Μαριαμ for the Virgin, while they adopted a more Greek-looking word for the other women. This fine distinction has been lost in thecorruptUncials, while observed in thecorrectUncials and Cursives, which is all that the Dean's argument requires.—(G. H. G.)97.The MSS. continue here.98.LXX.99.St. John xix. 25. As the passage issyndeton, the omission of the καί which would be necessary if Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ were different from ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αἰτοῦ could not be justified. Compare, e.g., the construction in the mention of four in St. Mark xiii. 3. In disregarding the usage requiring exclusively eithersyndetonorasyndeton, even scholars are guided unconsciously by theirEnglishexperience.—(Ed.)100.The genitive Μαρ᾽ας is used in the Textus Receptus in Matt. i. 16, 18; ii. 11; Mark vi. 3; Luke i. 41. Μαριάμ is used in the Nominative, Matt. xiii. 55; Luke i. 27, 34, 39, 46, 56; ii. 5, 19. In the Vocative, Luke i. 30. The Accusative, Matt. i. 20; Luke ii. 16. Dative, Luke ii. 5; Acts i. 14. Μαριάμ occurs for another Mary in the Textus Receptus, Rom. xvi. 6.101.Serapion, Bp. of Thmuis (on a mouth of the Nile)a.d.340 (ap.Galland. v. 60 a).102.Basil, i. 240 d.103.Epiphanius, i. 435 c.104.Chrysostom, iii. 120 d e; vii. 180 a, 547 equat.; viii. 112 a c (nine times).105.Asterius, p. 128 b.106.Basil Opp. (i. Append.) i. 500 e (cf. p. 377 Monitum).107.Cyril, iv. 131 c.108.A gives Ιωνα; א, Ιωαννης; C and D are silent. Obvious it is that the revised text of St. John i. 43 and of xxi. 15, 16, 17,—must stand or fall together. In this latter place the Vulgate forsakes us, and אB are joined by C and D. On the other hand, Cyril (iv. 1117),—Basil (ii. 298),—Chrysostom (viii. 525 c d),—Theodoret (ii. 426),—Jo. Damascene (ii. 510 e),—and Eulogius ([a.d.580.]ap.Photium, p. 1612), come to our air. Not that we require it.109.“Araba”(instead of“abara”) is a word which must have exercised so powerful and seductive an influence over ancient Eastern scribes,—(having been forthirty-four centuriesthe established designation of the sterile Wady, which extends from the Southern extremity of the Dead Sea to the North of the Arabian Gulf)—that the only wonder is it did not find its way into Evangelia. See Gesenius on ערבה (Ἄραβα in the LXX of Deut. ii. 8, &c. So in the Revised O. T.).110.The MSS. have ceased.111.See AppendixV.112.See Preface.113.This chapter and the next three have been supplied entirely by the Editor.114.See also Miller's Textual Guide, chapter IV. No answer has been made to the Dean's strictures.115.See Dr. Scrivener's incisive criticism of Dr. Hort's theory, Introduction, edit. 4, ii. 284-296.116.The Revision Revised, pp. 323-324, 334.117.Yet Marcion and Tatian may fairly be adduced as witnesses upon individual readings.118.E.g.“Many of the verses which he [Origen] quotes in different places shew discrepancies of text that cannot be accounted for either by looseness of citation or by corruption of the MSS. of his writings.”Hort, Introduction, p. 113. See also the whole passage, pp. 113-4.119.See Hort. Introduction, p. 160. The most useful part of Irenaeus' works in this respect is found in the Latin Translation, which is of the fourth century.120.Or Magnus, or Major, which names were applied to him to distinguish him from his brother who was called Alexandrinus, and to whom some of his works have been sometimes attributed. Macarius Magnus or Aegyptius was a considerable writer, as may be understood from the fact that he occupies nearly 1000 pages in Migne's Series. His memory is still, I am informed, preserved in Egypt. But in some fields of scholarship at the present day he has met with strange neglect.121.The names of many Fathers are omitted in this list, because I could not find any witness on one side or the other in their writings. Also Syriac writings are not here included.122.See The Revision Revised, p. 123.123.The Revision Revised, p. 92.124.I have mentioned here only cases where the passage is quoted professedly from St. Matthew. The passage as given in St. Mark x. 17-18, and in St. Luke xviii. 18-19, is frequently quoted without reference to any one of the Gospels. Surely some of these quotations must be meant for St. Matthew.125.For the reff. see below, AppendixII.126.Compare The Revision Revised, pp. 162-3.127.For reff. see Vol. II. viii. For Mark i. 1, Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, see AppendixIV.128.The Revision Revised, pp. 423-440. Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-51. The latitudinarian Eusebius on the same passage witnesses on both sides.129.The Revision Revised, pp. 420-1; Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-3.130.The Revision Revised, pp. 79-82. The Dean alleges more than forty witnesses in all. What are quoted here, as in the other instances, are only the Fathers before St. Chrysostom.131.Ibid. pp. 82-5.132.The Revision Revised, pp. 61-65.133.Ibid. pp. 90-1.134.See below, AppendixI.135.Many of the Fathers quote only as far as οὐδὲ ἕν. But that was evidently a convenient quotation of a stock character in controversy, just as πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο was even more commonly. St Epiphanius often quotes thus, but remarks (Haer. II. (lxix.) 56, Ancor. lxxv.), that the passage goes on to ὁ γέγονεν.136.See The Revision Revised, p. 133.137.Ibid. pp. 220-1.138.Tischendorf quotes these on the wrong side.139.The Revision Revised, pp. 217-8.140.Ibid. pp. 23-4. See also an article in Hermathena, Vol. VIII., No. XIX., 1893, written by the Rev. Dr. Gwynn with his characteristic acuteness and ingenuity.141.Hort, Introduction, pp. 128, 127.142.Ibid. p. 113.143.It may perhaps be questioned whether Justin should be classed here: but the character of his witness, as on Matt. v. 44, ix. 13, and Luke xxii. 43-44, is more on the Traditional side, though the numbers are against that.144.Athanasius in his“Orationes IV contra Arianos”used Alexandrian texts. See IV.145.According to Pliny (N. II. v. 18), the towns of Decapolis were: 1. Scythopolis the chief, not far from Tiberias (Joseph. B. J. III. ix. 7); 2. Philadelphia; 3. Raphanae; 4. Gadara; 5. Hippos; 6. Dios; 7. Pella; 8. Gerasa; 9. Canatha (Otopos, Joseph.); 10. Damascus. This area does not coincide with that which is sometimes now marked in maps and is part of Galilee and Samaria. But the Gospel notion of Decapolis, is of a country east of Galilee, lying near to the Lake, starting from the south-east, and stretching on towards the mountains into the north. It was different from Galilee (Matt. iv. 25), was mainly on the east of the sea of Tiberias (Mark v. 20, Eusebius and Jerome OS2. pp. 251, 89—“around Pella and Basanitis,”—Epiphanius Haer. i. 123), extended also to the west (Mark vii. 31), was reckoned in Syria (Josephus, passim,“Decapolis of Syria”), and was generally after the time of Pompey under the jurisdiction of the Governor of Syria. The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes it well as“situated, with the exception of a small portion, on the eastern side of the Upper Jordan and the sea of Tiberias.”Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, to which I am indebted for much of the evidence given above, is inconsistent. The population was in a measure Greek.146.Εἰς τὰς κώμας Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου. What a condensed account of His sojourn in various“towns”!147.See Ancient Syriac Documents relative to the Earliest Establishment of Christianity in Edessa and the neighbouring countries, &c. edited by W. Cureton, D.D., with a Preface by the late Dr. Wright, 1864.148.Cureton's Preface to“An Antient Recension, &c.”149.Philip E. Pusey held that there was a revision of the Peshitto in the eighth century, but that it was confined to grammatical peculiarities. This would on general grounds be not impossible, because the art of copying was perfected by about that time.150.See AppendixVI.151.This position is demonstrated in full in an article in the Church Quarterly Review for April, 1895, on“The Text of the Syriac Gospels,”pp. 123-5.152.The Text of the Syriac Gospels, pp. 113-4: also Church Times, Jan. 11, 1895. This position is established in both places.153.Yet some people appear to think, that the worse a text is the more reason there is to suppose that it was close to the Autograph Original. Verily this is evolution run wild.154.Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed.,“Syriac Literature,”by Dr. W. Wright, now published separately under the same title.155.Dr. Scrivener, Introduction (4th Edition), II. 7.156.See also Miller's Edition of Scrivener's Introduction (4th), II. 12.157.Another very ancient MS. of the Peshitto Gospels is the Cod. Philipp. 1388, in the Royal Library, Berlin (in Miller's Scrivener the name is speltPhillipps). Dr. Sachau ascribes it to the fifth, or the beginning of the sixth century, thus making it older than the Vatican Tetraevangelicum, No. 3, in Miller's Scrivener, II. 12. A full description will be found in Sachau's Catalogue of the Syr. MSS. in the Berlin Library.The second was collated by Drs. Guidi and Ugolini, the third, in St. John, by Dr. Sachau. The readings of the second and third are in the possession of Mr. Gwilliam, who informs me that all three support the Peshitto text, and are free from all traces of any pre-Peshitto text, such as according to Dr. Hort and Mr. Burkitt the Curetonian and Lewis MSS. contain. Thus every fresh accession of evidence tends always to establish the text of the Peshitto Version more securely in the position it has always held until quite recent years.The interesting feature of all the above-named MSS. is the uniformity of their testimony to the text of the Peshitto. Take for example the evidence of No. 10 in Miller's Scrivener, II. 13, No. 3, in Miller's Scrivener, II. 12, and Cod. Philipp. 1388. The first was collated by P. E. Pusey, and the results are published in Studia Biblica, vol. i,“A fifth century MS.”158.Dr. W. Wright's article in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Dr. Hort could not have been aware of this fact when he spoke of“the almost total extinction of Old Syriac MSS.”: or else he lamented a disappearance of what never appeared.159.p. 107.160.See Patrologia Syriaca, Graffin, P. I. vol. ii. Paris, 1895.161.See in St. Matt. alone (out of many instances) v. 22 (the translation of εἰκῆ), ix. 13 (of εἰς μετάνοιαν), xi. 23 (“which art exalted”), xx. 16 (of πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσι κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί), xxvi. 42 (ποτήριον), 28 (καινῆς); besides St. Luke ii. 14 (εὐδοκία), xxiii. 45 (ἐσκοτίσθη), John iii. 13 (though“from heaven”), xxi. 25 (the verse).162.Doctrine of Addai, xxxv. 15-17.163.H. E. iv. 29.164.Haer. xlvi. 1.165.Canons.166.Haer. i. 20.167.The Earliest Life of Christ, Appendix VIII.168.The MS. is mutilated at the beginning of the other three Gospels.169.It appears almost, if not quite, certain that this is the true meaning. Payne Smith's Thesaurus Syriacus, coll. 3303-4.170.The Lewis Codex was in part destroyed, as not being worth keeping, while the leaves which escaped that fate were used for other writing. Perhaps others were treated in similar fashion, which would help to account for the fact mentioned in note 2, p.129.171.Plain Introduction, II. 43-44.172.Essays on Various Subjects, i. Two Letters on some parts of the controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, pp. 23, &c. The arguments are more ingenious than powerful. Africa, e.g., had no monopoly of Low-Latin.173.The numerator in these fractions denotes the number of times throughout the Gospels when the text of the MS. in question agrees in the selected passages with the Textus Receptus: the denominator, when it witnesses to the Neologian Text.174.Once in k bycomperireprobably a slip forcorripere. Old Latin Texts, III. pp. xxiv-xxv.175.“Tot sunt paene (exemplaria), quot codices,”Jerome, Epistola ad Damascum.“Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas,”“interpretum numerositas,”“nullo modo numerari possunt,”De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 16, 21.176.De Doctr. Christ. ii. 16.177.Scrivener's Plain Introduction, II. 44, note 1.178.See Diez, Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen, as well as Introduction to the Grammar of the Romance Languages, translated by C. B. Cayley. Also Abel Hovelacque, The Science of Language, English Translation, pp. 227-9.“The Grammar of Frederick Diez, first published some forty years ago, has once for all disposed of those Iberian, Keltic, and other theories, which nevertheless crop up from time to time.”Ibid. p. 229. Brachet, Grammar of the French Language, pp. 3-5; Whitney, Language and the Study of Language, pp. 165, &c., &c.179.“Syro-Latin”is doubtless an exact translation of“Syro-Latinus”: but as we do not say“Syran”but“Syrian,”it is not idiomatic English.180.This is purely my own opinion. Dean Burgon followed Townson in supposing that the Synoptic Evangelists in some cases saw one another's books.181.Isaiah xxxv. 8, 9.182.Introduction, pp. 127, &c.183.Probably Alexandrian reading.184.Probably Alexandrian reading.185.Probably Alexandrian reading.186.Probably Alexandrian reading.187.Probably Alexandrian reading.188.Probably Alexandrian reading.189.Probably Alexandrian reading.190.Probably Alexandrian reading.191.Probably Alexandrian reading.192.In Matt. xv. 14, quoted and translated by Dr. Bigg in his Bampton Lectures on The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 123.193.Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, p. 236, and note z.194.Above, p.100.195.Hort, Introduction, p. 143.196.Eusebius suggested the Homoean theory, but his own position, so far as he had a position, is best indicated as above.197.Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 35. Plin. at. Hist. xiii. 11.198.τὰ βιβλία, μάλιστα τὰς μεμβράνας, 2 Tim. iv. 13.199.Palaeography, p. 36.200.See above, p.2.201.Palaeography, pp. 27-34. Paper was first made in China by a man named Ts'ai Lun, who lived abouta.d.90. He is said to have used the bark of a tree; probably Broussonetia papyrifera, Vent. from which a coarse kind of paper is still made in northern China. The better kinds of modern Chinese paper are made from the bamboo, which is soaked and pounded to a pulp. See Die Erfindung des Papiers in China, von Friedrich Hirth. Published in Vol. I. of theT'oung Pao(April, 1890). S. J. Brille: Leide. (Kindly communicated by Mr. H. A. Giles, H. B. M. Consul at Ningpo, author of“A Chinese-English Dictionary.”&c., through my friend Dr. Alexander Prior of Park Terrace, N. W., and Halse House, near Taunton.)202....“the science of palaeography, which now stands on quite a different footing from what it had twenty, or even ten, years ago. Instead of beginning practically in the fourth century of our era, with the earliest of the great vellum codices of the Bible, it now begins in the third century before Christ....”Church Quarterly Review for October, 1894, p. 104.203....“it is abundantly clear that the textual tradition at about the beginning of the Christian era is substantially identical with that of the tenth or eleventh century manuscripts, on which our present texts of the classics are based. Setting minor differences aside, the papyri, with a very few exceptions, represent the same texts as the vellum manuscripts of a thousand years later.”Church Quarterly, pp. 98, 99. What is here represented as unquestionably the case as regards Classical manuscripts is indeed more than what I claim for manuscripts of the New Testament. The Cursives were in great measure successors of papyri.204.Introduction, p. 16. He began it in the year 1853, and as it appears chiefly upon Lachmann's foundation.205.By the Editor.206.Tischendorf's fourteen brief days' work is a marvel of accuracy, but must not be expected to be free from all errors. Thus he wrongly gives Ευρακυλων instead of Ευρακυδων, as Vercellone pointed out in his Preface to the octavo ed. of Mai in 1859, and as may be seen in the photographic copy of B.207.Cf. Scrivener's Introduction, (4th ed.) II. 283.208.See Kuenen and Cobet's Edition of the Vatican B, Introduction.209.Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf's 8th Ed. of New Testament, (I) p. 286.210.See AppendixV.211.Constantine died in 337, and Constantius II reigned till 360.212.In his Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp. 291-4, Dean Burgon argued that a lapse of about half a century divided the date of א from that of B. But it seems that afterwards he surrendered the opinion which he embraced on the first appearance of א in favour of the conclusion adopted by Tischendorf and Scrivener and other experts, in consequence of their identifying the writing of the six conjugate leaves of א with that of the scribe of B. See above, pp.46,52.213.The Revision Revised, p. 292.214.The above passage, including the last paragraph, is from the pen of the Dean.215.See above, Introduction, p.2.216.It is remarkable that Constantine in his Semi-Arian days applied to Eusebius, whilst the orthodox Constans sent a similar order afterwards to Athanasius. Apol. ad Const. § 4 (Montfaucon, Vita Athan. p. xxxvii),ap.Wordsworth's Church History, Vol. II. p. 45.217.See Canon Cook's ingenious argument. Those MSS. are handsome enough for an imperial order. The objection of my friend, the late Archdeacon Palmer (Scrivener's Introduction, I. 119, note), which I too hastily adopted on other grounds also in my Textual Guide, p. 82, note 1, will not stand, because σωματία cannot mean“collections [of writings],”but simply, according to the frequent usage of the word in the early ages of the Church,“vellum manuscripts.”The difficulty in translating τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά“of three or four columns in a page”is not insuperable.218.Scrivener, Vol. II. 269 (4th ed.).219.Scrivener, Vol. I. 55 (4th ed.).220.The colophon is given in full by Wilhelm Bousset in a number of the well-known“Texte und Untersuchungen,”edited by Oscar von Gebhardt and Adolf Harnack, entitled“Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament,”p. 45. II. Der Kodex Pamphili, 1894, to which my notice was kindly drawn by Dr. Sanday.221.Miller's Scrivener, I. 183-4. By Euthalius, the Deacon, afterwards Bp. of Sulci.222.Introduction, p. 267. Dr. Hort controverts the notion that B and א were written at Alexandria (not Caesarea), which no one now maintains.223.By the Dean.224.See AppendixIV, and Revision Revised, p. 132. Origen, c. Celsum, Praef. ii. 4; Comment. in John ix. Followed here only by א*.225.See Last Twelve Verses, pp. 93-99. Also pp. 66, note, 85, 107, 235.226.Migne, viii. 96 d. Ταῦτα ἐγένετο ἐν Βηθανίᾳ. ὅσα δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει, ἐν Βηθαβαρᾷ, φησιν; ἡ γὰρ Βηθανία οὐχὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐπήμου ἦν; ἀλλ᾽ ἐγγύς που τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων. This speedily assumed the form of ascholium, as follows:—Χρὴ δὲ γινώσκειν, ὅτι τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν Βηθαβαρᾷ περιέχει; ἡ γὰρ Βηθανία οὐχὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγγύς που τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων:—which is quoted by the learned Benedictine editor of Origen in M. iv. 401 (at top of the left hand column),—evidently from Coisl. 23, our Evan. 39,—since the words are found in Cramer, Cat. ii. 191 (line 1-3).227.Origen, i. 265; coll. 1. 227, 256.228.Origen, Comment. in John vi.229.The word is actually transliterated into Syriac letters in the Peshitto.230.See The Revision Revised, pp. 358-61.231.vii. 52.232.vii. 418.233.A name by which Origen was known.234.Imbecillitatem virium mearum sentiens, Origenis Commentarios sum sequatus. Scripsit ille vir in epistolam Pauli ad Galatas quinque proprie volumina, et decimum Stromatum suorum librum commatico super explanatione ejus sermone complevit.—Praefatio, vii. 370.235.iii. 509-10.236.686-7.237.vii. 117-20.238.vii. 537 seq.239.I endeavour in the text to make the matter in hand intelligible to the English reader. But such things can scarcely be explained in English without more words than the point is worth. Origen says:—κἀκεῖ μὲν κελεύει τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνακλιθῆναι (Matt. xiv. 19), ἢ ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τοῦ χόρτου. (καὶ γὰρ ὁ Λουκᾶς (ix. 14) κατακλίνατε αὐτούς, ἀνέγραψε; καὶ ὁ Μάρκος (vi. 39), ἐπέταξε, φησίν, αὐτοῖς πάντας ἀνακλῖναι;) ἐνθάδε δὲ οὐ κελεύει, ἀλλὰ παραγγέλλει τῷ ὄχλῳ ἀνακλιθῆναι. iii. 509 f, 510 a.240.The only other witnesses are from Evan. 1, 33, and the lost archetype of 13, 124, 346. The Versions do not distinguish certainly between κελεύω and παραγγέλλω. Chrysostom, the only Father who quotes this place, exhibits ἐκέλευσε ... καὶ λαβών (vii. 539 c).241.Lectio ab omni parte commendatur, et a correctore alienissima: βαψω και δωσω ab usu est Johannis, sed elegantius videbatur βαψας επιδωσω vel δωσω.242.Luke iv. 8.243.Πρὸς μὲν τὸν Πέτρον εἶπεν; ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ; πρὸς δὲ τὸν διάβολον. ὕπαγε, Σατανᾶ, χώρις τῆς ὀπίσω μου προσθήκης; τὸ γὰρ ὀπίσω τοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἶναι ἀγαθόν ἐστι. iii. 540. I believe that Origen is the sole cause of the perplexity. Commenting on Matt. xvi. 23 υπαγε οπισω μου Σατανα (the words addressed to Simon Peter), he explains that they are a rebuke to the Apostle for having for a time at Satan's instigationdesisted from following Him. Comp. (he says) these words spoken to Peter (υπ. οπ. μου Σ.) with those addressed to Satan at the temptationwithout theοπισω μου“for to bebehind Christis a good thing.”... I suppose he had before him a MS. of St. Mat.,withoutthe οπισω μου. This gloss is referred to by Victor of Antioch (173 Cat. Poss., i. 348 Cramer). It is even repeated by Jerome on Matt. vii. 21 d e: Non ut plerique putant eâdem Satanas et Apostolus Petrus sententiâ condemnantur. Petro enim dicitur,“Vade retro me, Satana;”id est“Sequere me, qui contrarius es voluntati meae.”Hic vero audit,“Vade Satana:”et non ei dicitur“retro me,”ut subaudiatur,“vade in ignem aeternum.”Vade Satana(Irenaeus, 775, also Hilary, 620 a). Peter Alex, has υπαγε Σατανα, γεγραπται γαρ, ap. Routh, Reliqq. iv. 24 (on p. 55). Audierat diabolus a Domino,Recede Sathanas, scandalum mihi es. Scriptum est,Dominum Deum tuum adorabis et illi soli servies, Tertullian, Scorp. c. 15. Οὐκ εἶπεν Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου; οὐ γὰρ ὑποστρέψαι οἷός τε; ἀλλά; Ὕπαγε Σατανᾶ, ἐν οἶς ἐπελέξω.—Epist. ad Philipp. c. xii. Ignat. Interpol. According to some Critics (Tisch., Treg., W.-Hort) there isnoυπαγε οπισω μου Σ. in Lu. iv. 8, andonlyυπαγε Σ. in Matt. iv. 10, so that υπαγε οπισω μου Σατανα occurs inneitheraccounts of the temptation. But I believe υπαγε οπισω μου Σ. is the correct reading inbothplaces. Justin M. Tryph. ii. 352. Origen interp. ii. 132 b (Vade retro), so Ambrose, i. 671; so Jerome, vi. 809 e; redi retro S., Aug. iv. 47 e; redi post me S., Aug. iii. 842 g. Theodoret, ii. 1608. So Maximus Taur., Vigil. Tapa. Vade retro S.ap.Sabattier.“Vade post me Satana.Et sine dubio ire post Deum servi est.”Et iterum quod ait ad ilium,“Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et ipsi soli servies.”Archelaus et Man. disput. (Routh, Reliqq. v. 120),a.d.277. St. Antony the monk,apudAthanas.“Vita Ant.”i. 824 c d (= Galland. iv. 647 a).a.d.300.Retro vade Satana, ps.-Tatian (Lu.), 49. Athanasius, i. 272 d, 537 c, 589 f. Nestorius ap. Marium Merc. (Galland. viii. 647 c)Vade retro S.but onlyVade S.viii. 631 c. Idatius (a.d.385)apudAthanas. ii. 605 b. Chrys. vii. 172bis(Matt.) J. Damascene, ii. 450. ps.-Chrys. x. 734, 737. Opus Imperf. ap. Chrys. vi. 48bis. Apocryphal Acts, Tisch. p. 250.244.See ver. 44.245.St. John viii. 40; xv. 15.246.Orig., Euseb., Epiph., both Cyrils, Didymus, Basil, Chrysostom.247.For the sceptical passages in B and א see AppendixV.248.By the Editor.249.Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25) divides the writings of the Church into three classes:—1. The Received Books (ὁμολογούμενα), i.e. the Four Gospels, Acts, the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Revelation (?).2. Doubtful (ἀντιλεγόμενα), i.e. James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude (cf. ii. 23fin.).3. Spurious (νόθα), Acts of St. Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation of St. Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, the so-called Διδαχαί, Revelation of St. John (?).This division appears to need confirmation, if it is to be taken as representing the general opinion of the Church of the time.250.See Westcott, Canon, &c. pp. 431-9.251.See particularly Haddan's Remains, pp. 258-294, Scots on the Continent. The sacrifice of that capable scholar and excellent churchman at a comparatively early age to the toil which was unavoidable under want of encouragement of ability and genius has entailed a loss upon sacred learning which can hardly be over-estimated.252.The reader is now in the Dean's hands. See Mr. Rendel Harris' ingenious and suggestive“Study of Codex Bezae”in the Cambridge Texts and Studies, and Dr. Chase's“The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezae.”But we must demur to the expression“Old Syriac.”253.Introduction, p. 149.254.The same wholesale corruption of the deposit prevails in what follows, viz. the healing of the paralytic borne of four (v. 17-26), and the call of St. Matthew (27-34): as well as in respect of the walk through the cornfields on the Sabbath day (vi. 1-5), and the healing of the man with the withered hand (6-11). Indeed it is continued to the end of the call of the Twelve (12-19). The particulars are too many to insert here.255.καθως ερεθη δια του προφητου, instead of ὅπως πληρωθῇ διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.256.Υμεις δε ζητειτε εκ μικρου αυξησαι, και εκ μειζονος ελαττον ειναι.257.I.e. a b c d e ff1.2g1.2h m n.258.Scrivener's Introduction, I. 130 (4th ed.). The reader will recollect the suggestion given above in ChapterVIIthat some of these corruptions may have come from the earliest times before the four Gospels were written. The interpolation just noticed may very well have been such a survival.259.The number of the generations in St. Luke's Gospel is 18.260.Num. xxxiii. coll. xxi. 18, 19 and Deut. x. 6, 7.261.Note, that whereas the Ἰεχονίας of St. Matt. i. 11 isJehoiakim, and the Ἰεχονίας of ver. 12,Jehoiachin,—Cod. D writes them respectively Ιωακειμ and Ιεχονιας.262.Cureton's Syriac is the only known copy of the Gospels in which the three omitted kings are found in St. Matthew's Gospel: which, I suppose, explains why the learned editor of that document flattered himself that he had therein discovered the lost original of St. Matthew's Gospel. Cureton (Pref., p. viii) shews that in other quarters also (e.g. by Mar Yakub the Persian, usually known as Aphraates) 63 generations were reckoned from Adam toJesusexclusive:thatnumber being obtained by adding 24 of St. Matthew's names and 33 of St. Luke's to the 3 names common to both Evangelists (viz. David, Salathiel, and Zorobabel); and to these, adding the 3 omitted kings.The testimony of MSS. is not altogether uniform in regard to the number of names in the Genealogy. In the Textus Receptus (including ourSaviour'sname and the name of the DivineAuthorof Adam's being) the number of the names is 77. So Basil made it; so Greg. Naz. and his namesake of Nyssa; so Jerome and Augustine.263.ἡ δὲ Μαρία (D—η) Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία Ἰωσῆ (D Ιακωβου) ἐθεώρουν (D εθεασαντο) ποῦ (D οπου) τίθεται (D τεθειται). Καὶ διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου, Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη (Domits the foregoing thirteen words) (D + πορευθεισαι) ἠγόρασαν ἀρώματα, ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι (D—ελθουσαι) ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν (D αυτ. αλειψ.) καὶ (D + ερχορται) λίαν (D—λιαν) πρωῒ τῆς (D—της) μιᾶς σαββάτων (D σαββατου) ἔρχονται (Dsee above) ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον, ἀνατείλαντος (D ανατελλοντος) τοῦ ἡλίου. καὶ ἕλεγον πρὸς ἑαυτὰς (D εαυτους), Τίς ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν (D ημιον αποκ.) τὸν λίθον ἐκ (D απο) τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου? (D + ην γαρ μεγας σφοδρα). Καὶ ἀναβλέψασαι θεωροῦσιν (D ερχονται και ευρισκουσιν) ὅτι ἀποκεκίλισται ὁ λίθος (D αποκεκυλισμενον τον λιθον). ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα. (Dsee above.) καὶ ... εἶδον νεανίσκον (D νεαν. ειδ.) καθήμενον.... καὶ ἐξεθαμβήθησαν (D εθανβησαν). ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς (D και λεγει αυτοις) (D + ο αγγελος). Μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε (D φοβεισθαι) (D + τον) Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν (D—τον Ναζ.) ... ἴδε (D ειδετε) ὁ τόπος (D εκει τοπον αυτον) ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν. ἀλλ᾽ (D αλλα) ὑπάγετε (D + και) εἴπατε ... ὅτι (D + ιδου) προάγει (D προαγω) ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν; ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν (D μη) ὄψεοθε, καθὼς εἶπεν (D ειρηκα) ὑμῖν. St. Mark xv. 47-xvi. 7.264.So for example at the end of the same passage in St. Luke, the difficult αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο (ii. 2) becomes αυτη εγενετο απογραφη πρωτη; ἐπλήσθησαν is changed into the simpler ετελεσθησαν; φόβος μέγας (ii. 9) after ἐφοβήθησαν into σφοδρα; και (ii. 10) is inserted before παντὶ τῷ λαῷ.265.Yet not unfrequently the Greek is unique in its extravagance, e.g. Acts v. 8; xiii. 14; xxi. 28, 29.266.Cureton's Syriac is closely allied to D, and the Lewis Codex less so.267.See b c e f ff2i l q Vulg.268.So b e g2Curetonian, Lewis.269.St. Chrysostom (vii. 84. d), Origen (iii. 902. dint.), Victor of Antioch (335) insert the καί.270.So too ἀνακειμένους (BCLΔ. 42) for συνανακειμένους (St. Mark vi. 26): omit δὲ (אBC*LΔ. six curs.) in καὶ ἄλλα δὲ πλοῖα (iv. 36): ἐγείρουσιν (אB*C*ΔΠ. few curs.) for διεγείρουσιν (iv. 38): ἔθηκεν (אBC2DL. few curs.) for κατέθηκεν (xv. 46): μέγαλα (א*etc 6BD*L) for μεγαλεῖα (St. Luke i. 49): ἀναπεσών (אcBC*KLXΠ* few curs.) for ἐπιπεσών (St. John xiii. 25): &c., &c.271.Owing to differences of idiom in other languages, it is not represented here in so much as a single ancient Version.272.“Est enimτοῦ ΓΑΡofficium inchoare narrationem.”Hoogeveen, De Partic. Cf. Prom. Vinct. v. 666. See also St. Luke ix. 44.273.Dem. Ev. 320 b.274.ii. 597: 278.275.i. 1040 b.276.viii. 314 a: (Eclog.) xii. 694 d.277.Ap.Cyril, v2. 28 a.278.v1. 676 e.279.30 b (=Gall. xiii. 109 d).280.So, in Garnier's MSS. of Basil ii. 278 a, note. Also in CyrilapudMai ii. 378.281.So Mill,Prolegg.1346 and 1363.—Beza says roundly,“Quod plerique Graeci codices scriptum habentἢ γὰρ ἐκεινος,sane non intelligo; nisi dicam γάρ redundare.”282.ἠπερ ἐκεῖνος is exhibited by the printed text of Basil ii. 278 a.283.ὑπὲρ αὐτόν is found in Basil ii. 160 b:—ὑπὲρ ἐκεῖνον, in Dorotheus (a.d.596) ap. Galland. xii. 403 d:—ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον, in Chrysostom iv. 536 a; vi. 142 d—(where one of the Manuscripts exhibits παρὰ τὸν Φαρισαῖον).—Nilus the Monk has the same reading (ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον),—i. 280.284.Accordingly, παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον is found in Origen i. 490 b. So also reads the author of the scholium in Cramer's Cat. ii. 133,—which is the same which Matthaei (in loc.) quotes out of Evan. 256. And so Cyril (ap.Mai, ii. 180),—παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν Φαρισαῖον.—Euthymius (a.d.1116), commenting on the traditional text of Luke xviii. 14 (see Matthaei'sPraefat.i. 177), says ΓΑΡ ὅ ἐκεῖνος ἢγουν οὐκ ἐκεῖνος.285.The μᾶλλον is obviously added by way of interpretation, or to help out the meaning. Thus, in Origen (iv. 124 d) we meet with μᾶλλον αὐτοῦ:—in Chrysostom (i. 151 c), μᾶλλον ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον: and in Basil Sel. (p. 184 c), μᾶλλον ἢ ὁ Φαρισαῖος.286.It is found however in ps.-Chrysostom (viii. 119 c):—in Antiochus Mon. (p. 1102 = ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 1579 c): and in Theophylact (i. 433 c). At p. 435 b, the last-named writes ἢ ἐκεῖνος, ἀντὶ τοῦ ΠΑΡ᾽ ὃ ἐκεῖνος.287.Introduction, p. 135.288.For all this section except the early part of“4”the Editor is responsible.289.See above, p.61, note.290.481 of the Gospels: from St. Saba, now at St. Petersburg.291.The Evangelistaria 118, 192. Scrivener, Introduction, I. pp. 335, 340.292.Scrivener, I. App. F, p. 398*. Of these, 205 and 209 are probably from the same original. Burgon, Letters inGuardianto Dr. Scrivener.293.I am not of course asserting that any known cursive MS. is an exact counterpart of one of the oldest extant Uncials. Nor even that every reading however extraordinary, contained in Codd. BאD, is also to be met with in one of the few Cursives already specified. But what then? Neither do any of the oldest Uncials contain all the textual avouchings discoverable in the same Cursives.The thing asserted is only this: that, as a rule, every principal reading discoverable in any of the five or seven oldest Uncials, is also exhibited in one or more of the Cursives already cited or in others of them; and that generally when there is consent among the oldest of the Uncials, there is also consent among about as many of the same Cursives. So that it is no exaggeration to say that we find ourselves always concerned with the joint testimony of the same little handful of Uncial and Cursive documents: and therefore, as was stated at the outset, if the oldest of the Uncials had never existed, the readings which they advocate would have been advocated by MSS. of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries.294.Manuscript Evangelia in foreign Libraries, Letters in theGuardianfrom Dean Burgon to Dr. Scrivener,Guardian, Jan. 29, 1873.“You will not be dating it too early if you assign it to the seventh century.”295.The other uncials which have a tendency to consort with B and א are of earlier date. Thus T (Codex Borgianus I) of St. Luke and St. John is of the fourth or fifth century, R of St. Luke (Codex Nitriensis in the British Museum) is of the end of the sixth, Z of St. Matthew (Codex Dublinensis), a palimpsest, is of the sixth: Q and P, fragments like the rest, are respectively of the fifth and sixth.296.By the Editor.297.Above, pp.80-81.298.Hort, Introduction, p. 135.299.ChaptersV,VI,VII.300.Vercell.:—Si scires tu, quamquam in hac tuâ die, quae ad pacem tuam.So Amiat. and Aur.:—Si cognovisses et tu, et quidem in hâc die tuâ, quae ad pacem tibi.301.Mai, iv. 129.302.Ibid., and H. E. iii. 7.303.Montf. ii. 470.304.Montf. i. 700.305.iii. 321;interp.977; iv. 180.306.i. 220: also theVet. interp.,“Si cognovisses et tu.”And soap. Epiph.i. 254 b.307.iii. 321, 977.308.Evan. Conc.184, 207.309.In all 5 places.310.Mor.ii. 272 b.311.205.312.In Luc.(Syr.) 686.313.Int.iii. 977.314.iv. 180.315.In Luc.(Syr.) 607.316.In their usual high-handed way, these editorsassume, without note or comment, that Bא are to be followed here. The“Revisers”of 1881do the same. Is this to deal honestly with the evidence and with the English reader?317.Viz.—εἰ ἔγνως τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην σου, καί γε ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σου ταύτῃ.318.Viz.—εἰ καὶ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ ἔγνως τὴν εἰρήνην σου.319.It is omitted by Eus. iv. 129, Basil ii. 272, Cod. A, Evann. 71, 511, Evst. 222, 259. For the second σου still fewer authorities exhibit σοι, while some few (as Irenaeus) omit it altogether.320.“Hanc diem tuam.Si ergo dies ejus erat, quanto magis et tempus ejus!”p. 184, and so 207.321.“Having been wholly unsuccessful [in their fishing], two of them, seated on the shore, were occupying their time in washing,—and two, seated in their boat ... were mending—their nets.”(Farrar's Life of Christ, i. 241-2.) The footnote appended to this“attempt to combineas far as it is possiblein one continuous narrative”the“accounts of the Synoptists,”is quite a curiosity.322.St. Luke v. 5.323.Ibid., verses 1, 2.324.St. Matt. iv. 18-St. Mark i. 16.325.St. Luke v. 3.326.As in St. Matt, xxvii. 2, 60; St. Luke v. 4; xiii. 16; St. John xviii. 24; xxi. 15; Acts xii. 17; Heb. iv. 8, &c., &c.327.lavabant retia, it. vulg. The one known exception is (1) the Cod. Rehdigeranus [VII] (Tischendorf).328.The same pair of authorities areuniquein substituting βαπτίσαντες (for βαπτίζοντες) in St. Matt. xxviii. 19; i.e. the Apostles were to baptize people first, and make them disciples afterwards.329.אC exhibit ἔπλυναν: A (by far the purest of the five“old uncials”) retains the traditional text.330.P. 938.331.So does Aphraates, a contemporary of B and א, p. 392.332.Gen. xxv. 8, 17; xxxv. 29; xlix. 33. Also Jer. xlii. 17, 22; Lament. i. 20; Job xiii. 19; Ps. ciii. 30.333.268, 661.334.942, 953 (Lat Tr.).335.162, 338 (Lat. Tr.), 666.336.ap.Phot. 791.337.i. 353.338.iii. 120.339.i. 861.340.280.341.i. 920; iii. 344; iv. 27; vi. 606.342.vi. 520.343.i. 859 b.344.3. 772.345.Mai, 2.346.i. 517.347.388.348.In one place of the Syriac version of his Homilies on St. Luke (Luc. 110), the reading is plainly ἵνα ὅταν ἐκλίπητε: but when the Greek of the same passage is exhibited by Mai (ii. 196, line 28-38) it is observed to be destitute of the disputed clause. On the other hand, at p. 512 of the Syriac, the reading is ἐκλίπῃ. But then the entire quotation is absent from the Greek original (Mai, ii. 349, line 11 from bottom). In Mai, ii. 380, Cyril's reading is certainly ἐκλίπητε.349.Eus.mare330,-ps251 (—πᾶσαν).350.Cyrhr270.351.e,inducet vobis veritatem omnem:m,disseret vobis omnem veritatem.352.docebit vos omnem veritatem(ii. 301).353.Cod.am.(which exhibitsdocebit vos in omnem, &c.) clearly confuses two distinct types.354.א om. πάσῃ.355.Cyr. Alex. iv. 347; v. 369, 593.356.D, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς ὁδηγήσει ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ.357.So Cod. b,deducet vos in veritate omni. Cod. c,docebit vos in veritate omni.358.Did. 278, 446, 388 (προσ), 443 (—την).359.Epiph. i. 898; ii. 78.360.Bas. iii. 42 (προσ): and so Evan. 249. Codd. of Cyril Alex. (ἐπί).361.Chrys. viii. 527: also 460, 461 (—την).362.Theod.ant541,ap.Wegn.363.Cyr. Alex.txtiv. 923: v. 628.364.Thdt. iii. 15 (ἐκεῖ. ος ὑμ. ὁδ.).365.Tert. i. 762, 765, 884; ii. 11, 21. Hil. 805, 959. Jer. ii. 140. 141. There are many lesser variants:—“(diriget vos Tert. i. 884, deducet vos Tert. ii. 21, Vercell. vos deducet; i. 762 vos ducet: Hil. 805, vos diriget) in omnem veritatem.”Some few (as D, Tert. i. 762; ii. 21. Cod. a, Did. 388. Thdrt. iii. 15) prefix ἐκεῖνος.366.Pet. Alex.ap.Routh, p. 9.367.Did. 55.368.Orig. i. 387, 388.369.Cyr. Alex. iv. 925, 986.370.εἰς τὴν ἁλήθ. πᾶσαν L., Tr., W.-H.: ἐν τῇ ἁληθ. πάσῃ T.371.Introduction, p. 135. The rest of his judgement is unfounded in fact. Constant and careful study combined with subtle appreciation will not reveal“feebleness”or“impoverishment”either in“sense”or“force.”372.These are the Dean's words to the end of the paragraph.373.Revised Version, &c., pp. 205-218.374.Introduction, i. 292-93.375.Ephes. v. 30.376.718 (Mass. 294), Gr. and Lat.377.In loc.ed. Swete, Gr. and Lat.378.i. 95, 267.379.iii. 215 b, 216 a; viii. 272 c; xi. 147 a b c d.380.Ap.Cramer, vi. 205, 208.381.iii. 434.382.(a.d.560), 1004 a, 1007 a.383.ii. 190 e.384.Rufinus (iii. 61 c) translates,—“quia membra sumus corporis ejus,et reliqua.”What else can this refer to but the very words in dispute?385.Ap.Galland. iii. 688 c:—ὅθεν ὁ Ἀπόστολος εὐθυβόλως εἰς Χριστὸν ἀνηκόντισε τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἀδάμ; οὕτως γὰρ ἂν μάλιστα ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν συμφωνήσει γεγονέναι. And lower down (e, and 689 a):—ὅπως αὐξηθῶσιν οἱ ἐν αὐτῷ οἰκοδομηθέντες ἅπαντες, οἱ γεγεννημένοι διὰ τοῦ λουτροῦ, ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν καὶ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς ἁγιωσύνης αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῆς δόξης προσειληφότες; ὀστᾶ γὰρ καὶ σάρκα Σοφίας ὁ λέγων εἶναι σύνεσιν καὶ ἀρετήν, ὀρθότατα λέγει. From this it is plain that Methodius read Ephes. v. 30 as we do; although he had before quoted it (iii. 614 b)withoutthe clause in dispute. Those who give their minds to these studies are soon made aware that it is never safe to infer from the silence of a Father that he disallowed the words he omits,—especially if those words are in their nature parenthetical, or supplementary, or not absolutely required for the sense. Let a short clause be beside his immediate purpose, and a Father is as likely as not to omit it. This subject has been discussed elsewhere: but it is apt to the matter now in hand that I should point out that Augustinetwice(iv. 297 c, 1438 c) closes his quotation of the present place abruptly:“Apostolo dicente,Quoniam membra sumus corporis ejus.”And yet, elsewhere (iii. 794), he gives the words in full.It is idle therefore to urge on the opposite side, as if there were anything in it, the anonymous commentator on St. Luke in Cramer's Cat. p. 88.386.i. 1310 b. Also Ambrosiaster, ii. 248 d.387.Ap.Galland. vii. 262 e (a.d.372).388.Ibid. 314 c.389.Mai, iii. 140.390.vii. 659 b.391.See above, end of note 2.392.Concil. iv. 50 b.393.Hort, Introduction, p. 40.394.Ibid. p. 46.395.Miller's Scrivener, Introduction, I. p. 177.396.Introduction, I. Appendix F, p. 398*.397.Introduction, II. 337, note 1. And for Dean Burgon's latest opinion on the date of א see above, pp.46,52,162. The present MS., which I have been obliged to abridge in order to avoid repetition of much that has been already said, was one of the Dean's latest productions. See AppendixVII.398.Since Dean Burgon's death, there has been reason to identify this set of readings with the Syrio-Low-Latin Text, the first origin of which I have traced to the earliest times before the Gospels were written—by St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and of course St. John.399.So with St. Athanasius in his earlier days. See above, p.119, note 2.400.Miller's Scrivener, Introduction, I. 138.401.pp.2,155.402.Hort, Introduction, p. 2.403.Hort, Introduction, p. 7.404.Quarterly Review, No. 363, July, 1895.405.St. John xxi. 9-13.406.In Studia Biblica et Eccles. II. vi. (G. H. Gwilliam), published two years after the Dean's death, will be found a full description of this form of sections.407.As far as we know at present about Tatian's Diatessaron, he kept these occurrences distinct.—Ed.408.“Origenes, quum in caeteris libris omnes vicerit, in Cantico Canticorum ipse se vicit.”—Hieron. Opp. iii. 499; i. 525.409.After quoting Luke xxiv. 41, 42in extenso, he proceeds,—βλέπεις πῶς πεπλήρωται τό; Ἔφαγον ἄρτον μου μετὰ μέλιτος μου (p. 210 b): and καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀναστασιν ἕλεγεν, Ἔφαγον τὸν ἄρτον μετὰ μέλιτος μου. ἔδωκαν γὰρ αὐτῷ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου (p. 341 a).410.Ἄρτος γίνεται, οὐκέτι ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἐσθιόμενος ... ἀλλ᾽ ὄψον ἑαυτῷ τὸ μέλι ποιούμενος. And, ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν προφανεὶς τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἄρτος ἐστί, τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδυνόμενος,—i. 624 a b. See more concerning this quotation below, p.249note.411.Epiph. i. 143.412.Ephr. Syr. ii. 48 e.413.Or whoever else was the author of the first Homily of the Resurrection, wrongly ascribed to Gregory Nyss. (iii. 382-99). Hesychius was probably the author of the second Homily. (Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 57-9.) Both arecompilationshowever, into which precious passages of much older Fathers have been unscrupulously interwoven,—to the infinite perplexity of every attentive reader.414.ApudGreg. Nyss. iii. 399 d.415.Epiph. i. 652 d.416.In Joanne legimus quod piscantibus Apostolis, in littore steterit, et partem assi piscis, favumque comederit, quae verae resurrectionis indicia sunt. In Jerusalem autem nihil horum fecisse narratur.—Hieron. i. 825 a.417.Not from Eusebius' Qu. ad Marinum apparently. Compare however Jerome, i. 824 d with Eusebius (ap.Mai), iv. 295 (cap. x).418.See Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 51-6.419.i. 444 b.420.P. 172.421.iv. 1108 c.422.Athanas. i. 644: καὶ φαγὼν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν, ΛΑΒΩΝ ΤΑ ΕΠΙΛΟΙΠΑ ἀπέδωκεν αὐτοῖς. This passage reappears in the fragmentary Commentary published by Mai (ii. 582), divested only of the words καὶ ἀπὸ μελ. κηρ.—The characteristic words (in capitals) do not appear in Epiphanius (i. 143 c), who merely says καὶ ἔδωκε τοῖς μαθηταῖς,—confusing the place in St. Luke with the place in St. John.423.Aug. iii. P. 2, 143 (a.d.400); viii. 472 (a.d.404).424.To the 9 specified by Tisch.—(Evann. 13, 42, 88 (τα περισσευματα), 130 (το επαναλειφθεν), 161, 300, 346, 400, 507),—add Evan. 33, in which the words καὶ τὰ ἐπίλοιπα ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς have been overlooked by Tregelles.425.Πρὸς τούτοις οὐδὲ τραγημάτων κηρίων ἀμοίρους περιορατέον τοὺς δειπνοῦντας κατὰ Λόγον.—p. 174.426.i. 384.427.iii. 477.428.ApudMai, iv. 294, 295bis.429.“Ibi τὸ κηρίον praeterire non poterat [sc.Origenes] si in exemplis suis additamentum reperisset.”(From Tischendorf's note on Luke xxiv. 42.)430.iv. 1108 b c.431.Κατεδήδοκε γὰρ τὸ προκομισθὲν ἰχθύδιον, ἤτοι τὸ εξ αὐτοῦ μέρος.—Ibid. d. Similarly in the fragments of Cyril's Commentary on St. Luke, he is observed to refer to the incident of the piece of broiled fish exclusively. (Mai, ii. 442, 443, which reappears in P. Smith, p. 730.)432.iii. P. i. p. 51. For the honeycomb, see iii. P. ii. p. 143 a: viii. 472 d.433.i. 215.434.“Favospost fella gustavit.”—De Coronâ, c. 14 (i. p. 455).435.ii. 444 a.436.i. 384; iii. 477.437.Opp. iii. 932-85: with which comp. Galland. xiv. Append. 83-90 and 91-109.438.Cat. (1628), p. 622. Cordier translates from“Venet. 494”(our“Evan. 466”).439.What follows is obtained (June 28, 1884) by favour of Sig. Veludo, the learned librarian of St. Mark's, from the Catena on St. Luke's Gospel at Venice (cod. 494 = our Evan. 466), which Cordier (in 1628) translated into Latin. The Latin of this particular passage is to be seen at p. 622 of his badly imagined and well-nigh useless work. The first part of it (συνέφαγε ... ἐναπογράψονται) is occasionally found as a scholium, e.g. in Cod. Marc. Venet. 27 (our Evan. 210), and is already known to scholars from Matthaei's N. T. (note on Luc. xxiv. 42). The rest of the passage (which now appears for the first time) I exhibit for the reader's convenience parallel with a passage of Gregory of Nyssa's Christian Homily on Canticles. If the author of what is found in the second column is not quoting what is found in the first, it is at least certain that both have resorted to, and are here quoting from the same lost original:—Συνέφαγεν δὲ καὶ τῷ ὀπτῷ ἰχθύῳ (sic) τὸ κηρίον τοῦ μέλιτος; δηλῶν ὡς οἱ πυρωθέντες διὰ τῆς θείας ἐνανθρωπήσεως καὶ μετασχόντες αὐτοῦ τῆς θεότητος, ὡς μέλι μετ᾽ ἐπιθυμίας τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ παραδέξονται; κηρῷ ὤσπερ τοὺς νόμους ἐναπογράψαντες; ὅτι ὁ μὲν τοῦ πάσχα[Transcriber's Note: The following two paragraphs were side-by-side columns in the original.]ἄρτος ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἠσθίετο καὶ ὁ νόμος διεκελεύτο;πρὸς γὰρ τὸ παρὸν ἡ πικρία;ὁ δὲ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἄρτος τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδύνετο;ὄψον γὰρ ἑαυτοῖς τὸ μέλι ποιησόμεθα, ὅταν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ κηρῷ ὁ καρπὸς τῆς ἀρετῆς καταγλυκαίνει τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια.Anon.apud Corderium(fol. 58): see above.... ἄρτος ... οὐκέτι ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἐσθιόμενος, ὡς ὁ νόμος διακελεύεται;πρὸς γὰρ τὸ παρόν ἐστιν ἡ πικρίς;(... ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦ κυρίου προσφανεὶς τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἄρτος ἐστί, τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδυνόμενος.)ἀλλ᾽ ὄψον ἑαυτῷ τὸ μέλι ποιούμενος, ὅταν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ ὁ καρπὸς τῆς ἀρετῆς καταγλυκαίνῃ τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια.Greg. Nyss.in Cant. (Opp. i. a); the sentence in brackets being transposed.Quite evident is it that, besides Gregory of Nyssa,Hesychius(or whoever else was the author of the first Homily on the Resurrection) had the same original before him when he wrote as follows:—ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ὁ πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα σῖτος ὁ ἄζυμος, ὄψον τὴν πικρίδα ἔχει, ἴδωμεν τίνι ἡδόσματι ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἄρτος ἡδύνεται. ὁρᾶς τοῦ Πέτρου ἁλιεύοντος ἐν ταῖς χεροὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἄρτον καὶ κηρίον μέλιτος νόησον τί σοι ἡ πικρία τοῦ βίου κατασκευάζεται. οὐκοῦν ἀναστάντες καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐκ τῆς τῶν λόγων ἀλείας, ἤδη τῷ ἄρτῳ προσδράμωμεν, ὂν καταγλυκαίνει τὸ κηρίον τῆς ἀγαθῆς ἐλπίδος. (ap. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 399 c d.)440.So Matthaei:“Haec interpretatio sapit ingenium Origenis.”(N.T. iii. 498.)441.Καὶ ἔφαγε κηρίον καὶ ἰχθύν,—ii. 240. From the fragment De Resurrectione preserved by John Damascene,—ii. 762a.442.See above, note 1, p.247.443.See above, note 1, p.248.444.i. 644 (see above, p.244, n. 7).445.i. 624 (see above, p.242, n. 3).446.pp. 210, 431 (see above, p.243).447.i. 652 d (see above, p.247).448.i. 825 a; ii. 444 a.449.See above, note 1, p.245.450.iv. 1108.451.ApudGalland. ix. 633.452.Varim. i. 56.453.ApudGreg. Nyss. iii. 399.454.See above, p.248, note 6.455.“The words could hardly have been an interpolation.”(Alford,in loc).456.Scrivener's Introd. II. p. 358.457.It is well known that Dean Burgon considered B, א, and D to be bad manuscripts. When I wrote my Textual Guide, he was angry with me for not following him in this. Before his death, the logic of facts convinced me that he was right and I was wrong. We came together upon independent investigation. I find that those MSS. in disputed passages are almost always wrong—mainly, if not entirely, the authors of our confusion. What worse could be said of them? And nothing less will agree with the facts from our point of view. Compromise on this point which might be amiable shrinks upon inquiry before a vast array of facts.—E. M.458.Compare Epiphanius (i. 143 c)ut supra(Haer. xxx. c. 19) with Irenaeus (iii. c. ii, § 9):“Hi vero qui sunt a Valentino ... in tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum estVeritatis Evangeliumtitulent.”459.See above, p.243.460.There is reason for thinking that the omission was an Alexandrian reading. Egyptian asceticism would be alien to so sweet a food as honeycomb. See above, p.150. The Lewis Cod. omits the words. But it may be remembered that it restricts St. John Baptist's food to locusts“and the honey of the mountain.”—E. M.461.Ἐσμυρμισμένον οἶνον, Mark xv. 23.462.Ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον, Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37).463.Πλήσαντες σπόγγον ὄξους, καὶ ὑσσώπῳ περιθέντες, John xix. 29.464.Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37).465.Καὶ εἰθέως δραμὰν εἰς ἐξ αὐτῶν, Matt. xxvii. 48 (= Mark xv. 36).466.Not so the author of the Syriac Canons. Like Eusebius, he identifies (1) Matt. xxvii. 34 with Mark xv. 23; and (2) Matt. xxvii. 48 with Mark xv. 36 and Luke xxiii. 36; but unlike Eusebius, he makes John xix. 29 parallel with these last three.467.The former,—pp. 286-7: the latter,—p. 197. The Cod. Fuld. ingeniously—“Et dederunt ei vinum murratum bibere cum felle mixtum”(Ranke, p. 154).468.Evann. 1, 22, 33, 63, 69, 73, 114, 122, 209, 222, 253, 507, 513.469.§7.470.Pp. 526, 681 (Mass. 212, 277).471.De Spect. writtena.d.198 (see Clinton, App. p. 413), c. xxx.-i. p. 62.472.“‘Et dederunt ei biberoacetumet fel.’Pro eo quod dulci suo vino eos laetificarat,acetumei porrexerunt; pro felle autem magna ejus miseratio amaritudinem gentium dulcem fecit.”Evan. Conc. p. 245.473.Celsus τὸ ὄξος καὶ τὴν χολὴν ὀνειδίζει τῷ Ἰησοῦ,—writes Origen (i. 416 c d e), quoting the blasphemous language of his opponent and refuting it, but accepting the reference to the Gospel record. This he does twice, remarking on the second occasion (i. 703 b c) that such as Celsus are for ever offering toJesus“gall andvinegar.”(These passages are unknown to many critics because they were overlooked by Griesbach.)—Elsewhere Origen twice (iii. 920 d e, 921 b) recognizes the same incident, on the second occasion contrasting the record in Matt. xxvii. 34 with that in Mark xv. 23 in a way which shews that he accounted the places parallel:—“Et hoc considera, quod secundum Matthaeum quidem Jesus accipiensacetum cum felle permixtumgustavit, et noluit bibere: secundum Marcum autem, cum daretur etmyrrhatum vinum, non accepit.”—iii. 921 b.474.Lib. i. 374 and viii. 303 (assigned by Alexander to the age of Antoninus Pius),ap.Galland. i. 346 a, 395 c. The line (εἰς δὲ τὸ βρῶμα χολήν, καὶ εἰς δίψαν ὄξος ἔδωκαν) is also found in Montfaucon's Appendix (Palaeogr. 246). Sibyll. lib. i. 374, Gall. i. 346 a εἰς δὲ τὸ βρῶμα χολήν, καὶ εἰς πότον ὄξος ἄκρατον; ibid. viii. 303, 395 c ... πιεῖν ὄξος ἔδωκαν; quoted by Lactantius, lib. iv. c. 18,a.d.320, Gall. iv. 300 a ... εἰς δίψαν ὄξος ἔδωκαν, which is the way the line is quoted from the Sibyl in Montfaucon's Appendix (Pal. Graec. 246). Lactantius a little earlier (Gall. iv. 299 b) had said,—“Dederunt ei cibum fellis, et miscuerunt ei aceti potionem.”475.Referring to the miracle at Cana, where (viz. in p. 55) the statement is repeated. Evan. Conc. p. 245. See above, note 5.476.ApudMontf. ii. 63; Corderii, Cat in Luc. p. 599.477.The Tractatus [ii. 305 b] at the end of the Quaestt. ad Antiochum (Ath. ii. 301-6), which is certainly of the date of Athanasius, and which the editor pronounces to be not unworthy of him (Praefat. II. viii-ix).478.Opusc. ed. Augusti, p. 16.479.Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 393.480.Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 409.481.Οὐ σπογγιὰ χολῇ τε καὶ ὄξει διάβροχος, οἵαν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τῷ εὐεργέτῃ τὴν φιλοτησίαν ἐνδεικνύμενοι διὰ τοῦ καλάμου προτείνουσι.—i. 624 b (where it should be noted that the contents of verses 34 and 48 (in Matt. xxvii) are confused).482.i. 481 a, 538 d, 675 b. More plainly in p. 612 e,—μιᾶς τῆς χολῆς, ἑνὸς ὄξους, δι᾽ ὧν τὴν πικρὰν γεῦσιν ἐθεραπεύθημεν (= Cat. Nic. p. 788).483.ii. 48 c, 284 a.484.Lib. iv. c. 18. See above, last page, note 7.485.vii. 236 c d, quoted next page.486.“Refertur etiam quod aceto potatus sit, vel vino myrrhato, quod est amarius felle.”Rufinus, in Symb. § 26.487.vii. 819 a b (= Cat. Nic. p. 792). See also a remarkable passage ascribed to Chrys. in the Catena of Nicetas, pp. 371-2.488.“Jesusde felle una cum acetoamaritudinis libavit.”(Hom. translated by Aucher from the Armenian.—Venice. 1827, p. 435).489.ApudMai, N. Bibl. PP. iii. 455.490.ApudMai, ii. 66; iii. 42. Is this the same place which is quoted in Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410?491.ApudGalland. v. 332.492.Or Acta Pilati, pp. 262, 286.493.P. 85.494.P. 16.495.Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410.496.p. 87.497.x. 829.498.ii. 84, 178.499.Cramer, Cat. i. 235.500.i. 228, 549.501.vii. 236 c d.502.St. John i. 1-3, 14; xx. 31.503.1 St. John ii. 18, 22, 23; iv. 1, 2, 3, 15; v. 10, 11, 12, 20; 2 St. John ver. 7, 9, 10. So St. Jude ver. 4.504.So Athanasius excellently:—ὁ θεὸς συναριθμήσας ἑαυτὸν μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὴν σάρκα αὐτοῦ τοῦτο εἶπε, καὶ πρὸς τὸν νοῦν τοῦ προσελθόντος αὐτῷ; ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἄνθρωπον αὐτὸν ἐνόμιζε μόνον καὶ οὐ θεόν, καὶ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν νοῦν ἡ ἀπόκρισις. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἄνθρωπον, φησί νομίζεις με καὶ οὐ θεόν, μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀγαθός; οὐ γὰρ διαφέρει [is not an attribute or adornment of] ἀνθρωπίνη φύσει τὸ ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ θεῷ.—i. 875 a. So Macarius Magnes, p. 13.—See also below, note 2, p.262.505.So, excellently Cyril Alex. V. 310 d, Suicer's Thesaurus; see Pearson on the Creed, on St. Matt. xix. 17.506.So Marcion (ap.Epiph.),—εἶπέ τισ πρὸς αὐτόν; διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τί ποιήσος ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; ὁ δέ, μή με λέγετε ἀγαθόν, εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ [i. 339 a]. Note, that it was thus Marcion exhibited St. Luke xviii. 18, 19. See Hippol. Phil. 254,—Τί με λέγετε ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός.507.So Arius (ap.Epiphanium),—εἶτα πάλιν φησὶ ὁ μανιώδης Ἀρείος, πῶς εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς ὁ Θεός. ὡς αὐτοῦ ἀργουμένον τὴν ἀγαθότητα [i. 742 b].—From this, Arius inferred a separate essence:—καὶ ἀφώρισεν ἑαυτὸν ἐντεῦθεν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας τε καὶ ὑποστάσεως. τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἐστι γελοιῶδες [i. 780 c].—Note, that this shews how St. Luke's Gospel was quoted by the Arians.508.E.g. ps.-Tatian, Evan. Conc. 173, 174.—Ambrose, ii. 473 e-476 d.—Gregory Naz. i. 549.—Didymus, Trin. 50-3.—Basil, i. 291 c.—Epiphanius, i. 780-1.—Macarius Magnes, 12-14.—Theodoret, v. 930-2.—Augustine is very eloquent on the subject.509.ii. 689. See the summary of contents at p. 281.510.Thus, Valentinus (ap.Clem. Alex.),—εἶς δέ ἐστιν ἀγαθός, οὖ παρουσία ἡ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ φανέρωσις ... ὁ μόνος ἀγαθὸς Πατήρ [Strom. ii. 409].—Heracleon (ap.Orig.),—ὁ γὰρ πέμψας αὐτὸν Πατήρ, ... οὗτος καὶ μόνος ἀγαθός, καὶ μείζων τοῦ πεμφθέντος [iv. 139 b].—Ptolemaeus to Flora (ap.Epiphanium),—καὶ εἰ ὁ τέλειος Θεὸς ἀγαθός ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἔστιν; ἕνα γὰρ μόνον εἴναι ἀγαθὸν Θεόν, τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Πατέρα, ὁ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν ἀπεφῄνατο, ὂν αὐτὸς ἐφανέρωσεν [i. 221 c].—The Marcosian gloss was,—εἶς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [ap.Irenaeum, p. 92].—The Naassenes substituted,—εἶς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ὂς ἀνατελεῖ τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ. [ap.Hippolyt. Philosoph. 102].—Marcion introduced the same gloss even into St. Luke's Gospel,—εἶς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ [ap.Epiphan. i. 339 d, and comp. 315 c].511.Εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς ουρανοῖς—Tryph. c. 101 [vol. ii. 344].512.“Unus tantum”(ait)“est bonus, Pater qui in coelis est.”—Evan. Conc. p. 173 and on p. 169,—“Unus tantum”(ait)“est bonus”: ast post haec non tacuit, sed adjecit“Pater.”513.Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν; ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς εἶς ἐστιν (ap.Galland. ii. 752 d). And so at p. 759 a and d, adding—ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. This reference will be found vindicated below: in note 8, p.269.514.For the places in Clemens Alex. see below, note 3, p.263.—The places in Origen are at least six:—Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός ὁ Πατήρ [i. 223 c, 279 a, 586 a; iv. 41 d: and the last nine words, iv. 65 d, 147 a].—For the places in ps.-Tatian, see below, note 2, p.263.—The place in theDialogusis foundap.Orig. i. 804 b:—λέγοντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Πατήρ—words assigned to Megethius the heretic.515.Didymus,—οὐκ εἶπεν μὲν οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Πατήρ; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός [p. 51].—And Ambrose,—“Circumspectione coelesti non dixit,Nemo bonus nisi unus Pater, sedNemo bonus nisi unus Deus”[ii. 474 b].—And Chrysostom,—ἐπήγαγεν, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός. καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατήρ μου, ἵνα μάθῃς ὅτι οὐκ ἐξεκάλυψεν ἑαυτὸν τῷ νεανίσκῳ [vii. 628 b: quoted by Victor, Ant. in Cat. p. 220].—And Theodoret (wrongly ascribed to Maximus, ii. 392, 396),—Οὐκ εἴρηται, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Πατήρ. ἀλλ᾽, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός [v. p. 931]. Epiphanius [see the references above, in note 1, p.261] expressly mentions that this unauthorized addition (to Luke xviii. 18) was the work of the heretic Marcion.516.“Dicendo autem‘Quid me vocas bonum,’opinionem eius qui interrogaverat suo responso refutavit,quia iste putabat Christum de hâc terrâ et sicut unum ex magistris Israelitarum esse,”—ps.-Tatian, Evan. Conc. p. 174.—“Dives per adulationem honoravit Filium ...sicut homines sociis suis grata nomina dare volunt.”Ibid. p. 168.517.Apol. i. c. 16 [i. 42],—quoted below in note 2, p.265.518.“Cui respondit,‘Non est aliquis bonus,’ut tu putasti,‘nisi tantum unus Deus Pater’...‘Nemo’(sit)‘bonus, nisi tantum unus, Pater qui est in coelis’[Evan. Conc. p. 169].‘Non est bonus, nisi tantum unus’[Ibid.].‘Non est bonus, nisi tantum unus qui est in coelis’[p. 170].‘Non est bonus nisi tantum unus’”[p. 173].519.Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁπηνίκα διαρρήδην λέγει; Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατήρ μου, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [p. 141]. And overleaf,—ἀλλὰ καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατὴρ αὐτοῦ [p. 142]. Tischendorf admits the reference.520.i. 315 b. The quotation is given below, in note 7, p.269.521.Praep. Evan. 542 b; Ps. 426 d;ap.Mai, iv. 101.522.Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός (p. 12).523.ii. 242 e and 279 e. (See also i. 291 e and iii. 361 a.)524.vii. 628 b,—οὐ γὰρ εἶπε, τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐκ εἱμὶ ἀγαθός; ἀλλ᾽, οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός ... εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ θεός. See also vii. 329.525.i. 875 a. The quotation is proved to be from St. Matt. xix. (17-21) by all that follows.526.ii. 691 d; 694 b c. See below, note 10, p.267.527.Trin. 50, 51.528.“Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus”:—iv. 383 c; v. 488 b; viii. 770 d, 772 b.529.v. P. i. 310 d, and 346 a (= 672 b).530.v. 931-3. Note that Ambrose, Didymus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, all four hang together in this place, which is plain from the remark that is common to all four, quoted above in note 1, last page. There is nothing to shew from which Gospel Nilus (ii. 362) quotes the words οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶ; ὁ Θεός.531.p. 1028, unequivocally.532.Ap.Chrys. vi. 137 d, 138 b.533.Besides these positive testimonies, the passage is quoted frequently as it is given in St. Mark and St. Luke,but with no special reference. Surely some of these must refer to St. Matthew?534.For other instances of this indiscreet zeal, see Vol. II.535.BאDL. 1, 22, 479, Evst. 5.536.Καὶ προσελθόντος αὐτῷ τινος καὶ εἰπόντος; Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων; Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα.—Apol. I. c. 16 [vol. i. p. 42]. And so in Tryph. c. 101 [vol. ii. p. 344],—λέγοντος αὐτῷ τινος; Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ; κ.τ.λ.537.“Ad iudicem dives venit, donis dulcis linguae eum capturus.”(The reference, therefore, is to St. Matthew's Gospel: which is further proved by the quotation lower down of the latter part of ver. 17: also by the inquiry,—“Quid adhuc mihi deest?”)“Ille dives bonum eum vocavit.”“Dives Dominum‘Magistrum bonum’vocaverat sicut unum ex bonis magistris.”—Evan. Conc. 168, 169.538.Ap.Irenaeum,—p. 92. See below, note 2, p.267.539.Ap.Hippolytum, Philosoph. 102. See below, note 3, p.267.540.Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν (ap.Galland. ii. 759 d: comp. 752 b). For the reference, and its indication, see below, note 8, p.269.541.Comment. in Matt. xv. (in loc).542.i. 875 a,—clearly a quotation from memory of St. Matt. xix. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.543.Adv. Eunom. i. 291 e,—ἀγαθὲ διδάσκαλε, ἀκούσας. Again in ii. 242 c, and 279 e, expressly. See also iii. 361 a.544.Καθὼς ἀπεκρίνατο τῷ προσελθόντι καὶ εἰπόντι, Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τί ποιήσω ἵνα ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχω;—Catech. 299.545.iii. 296 d (certainly from St. Matthew).546.Προσῄει θωπεύων τῇ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ προσηγορίᾳ τὸ Κύριον ... Διδάσκαλον ἀγαθὸν ὀνομάζων.—Contr. Eunom. ii. 692 b. Also πρὸς τὸν νεάνισκον ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸν προσαγορεύσαντα; Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; (ap.Mai, iv. 12).547.Ὁ νεανίσκος ἐκεῖνος ... προσελθὰν διελέγετο φάσκων; Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ,—p. 12.548.vii. 628 b.549.lib. iii. 503.550.994 c.551.Ap.Sabatier.552.vii. 147-8.553.iii.1761 d; iii.282 d [ibi enim etbonumnominavit]; iv. 1279 g; v. 196 g.554.Ap.Sabatier.555.v. P. i. 346 a (= 672 b),—προσέρχεταί τις ἐν τοῖς εὐανγελίοις, καὶ φησί ... Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ.556.Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;—v. 931. See note 1, p.262.557.Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut vitam aeternam possideam?—(ap.Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 138 b).558.Λέγοντος αὐτῷ τινός, Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, ἀπεκρίνατο; Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [Tryph. c. 101, vol. ii. 344]. And see the place (Apol. i. 16) quoted above, note 2, p.265.559.Marcosians (ap.Irenaeum),—Καὶ τῷ εἰπόντι αὐτῷ, Διδάσκαλέ ἀγαθέ, τὸν ἀληθῶς ἀγαθὸν Θεὸν ὡμολογηκέναι εἰπόντα, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [p. 92]. No one who studies the question will affect to doubt that this quotation and the next are from St. Matthew's Gospel.560.The Naassenes (ap.Hippolytum),—Τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος λεγόμενον; Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθος, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ὄς ἀνατελεῖ τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους, καὶ βρἐχει ἐπὶ ὁσίους καὶ ἀμαρτωλούς [Philosoph. 102]. See the remark in the former note 5, p. 265.561.See below, note 8, p.269.562.“Cur vocas me bonum, quum in eo quod a me discere vis, iustus sim?”—Evan. Conc. p. 168. And so in pp. 173, 174. See above, note 3, p.265.563.This is in fact a double testimony, for the difficulty had been raised by the heathen philosopher whom Macarius is refuting. Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;—pp. 12 and 13 (ed. 1876). See above, note 6, p.263.564.i. 875 a. See last page, note 9.565.ii. 279 e.566.Quid me vocas bonum?—703.567.ii. 692 d. Alsoap.Mai, iv. 7, 12 (πρὸς τὸν νεάνισκον).568.vii 628 b. The place is quoted in note 1, p.262.569.v.1346 a (προσέρχεταί τις ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις κ.τ.λ.) = p. 672 b.570.v. 931,—which clearly is a reproduction of the place of Chrysostom (vii. 628 b) referred to in the last note but one. Read the whole page.571.Ap.Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 138 b.572.Καὶ ἰδού, εἶς προσελθὼν εἶπεν αὐτῷ; Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω, ἵνα σχῶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον (but at the end of eight lines, Origen exhibits (like the five authorities specified in note 8, next page) ἵνα ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω?) ... Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ (but τοῦ six lines lower down) ἀγαθοῦ? εἶς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός.—in Matt. iii. 664ab. And so p. 665c. Cf. 666b.573.See above, note 2, p.261.574.See above, note 2, p.261.575.See above, note 2, p.261.576.a e ff1omitbone; b c f ff2g1-2h-q Vulg. insert it; a b c e ff1. 2g1h l Vulg. writede bono, f qbonum; a b c ff1. 21 Vulg. writeunus; f g1h m qnemo.577.See above, p.149.578.This wild performance is unique in its testimony (see below, p.277). Cureton renders the text thus:—“Why askest thou me concerning good? for One is good,God.”And Mrs. Lewis thus:—“Why askest thou me concerning the good? for One is the good one.”579.Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ Θεός.—i. 315b.580.Αὐτὸς ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν τῷ εἰπόντι Φαρισαίῳ, Τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω? πρῶτον ἔφη, Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν. ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς εἶς ἐστιν, ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (ap.Galland. ii. 759 d e).—Note, the reference is certainly to St. Matthew's Gospel, as all that follows proves: the inquiry in ver. 16 (by assimilation from Luke xviii. 18) being similarly exhibited in א, L,—Irenaeus, Int. p. 241; Orig. iii. 664b; Cyril, Alex. v.1310d; Basil, ii. 279e; and Chrysostom, iii. 182; vii. 627-8; viii. 234.581.Eusebius—Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός,—Praep. Evan. 542b.—The last seven words are also found in Ps. (ed. Montf.) 426d; andap.Mai, iv. 101.582.Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσας, ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; ὁ δέ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός. (Note, that all but the last seven words exactly = א, L, and Basil, ii. 279e.)—V.1310d.—But elsewhere (also quoting St. Matthew) Cyril exhibits—διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ ... τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός.—Ibid. p. 346a (= p. 672b).583.Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός.—p. 1028.584.Magister, quid boni faciam, ut habeam vitam aeternam.Cui Dominus, Quid me vocas bonum(703):—Unus enim bonus est, aitDominus (489). But elsewhere,Magister bone, quid boni faciam(994c).585.Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut habeam vitam aeternam? Qui dicit ei, Quid me interrogas de bono? Unus est bonus Deus?.—vii. 147-8.586.For“bone,”see above, note 12, p.266: for“nemo,”&c, see note 12, p.263.587.1 Sam. xiv. 20.588.p. 299.589.Epiphanius [i. 339d], and Hippolytus [Phil. 254], shew that Marcion so read Luke xviii. 19.—Epiphanius [i. 742 b] quotes Arius. See the words above, in notes 3, 4, p.260.590.Six Lectures on the Text (1875),—p. 130.591.Plain Introduction (ed. 4), II. p. 329.592.Matt. xix. 20 = Mark x. 20 = Luke xviii. 21.593.iii. 669 cd.594.Πρόσχες οὖν εἰ δυνάμεθα πρὸς τὴν προκειμένην ζήτησιν ... οὕτως ἀπαντῆσαι, ὅτι μήποτε τό; ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλουσίον σου ὡς ἑαυτόν. ὑπονοεῖσθαι δυναται, ὡς οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐνταῦθα παρειλῆφθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπό τινος τὴν ἀκρίβειαν μὴ νοήσαντος τῶν λεγομένων, προστεθεῖσθαι.—iii. 670 a b.595.Καὶ εὶ μὲν μὴ καὶ περὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφωνία ἦν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν ἀντιγράφων ὤστε πάντα τὰ κατὰ Ματθαîον μὴ συνᾴδειν ἀλλήλοις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ εὐαγγέλια, κ.τ.λ.—iii. 671 b.596.Νυνὶ δέ δηλονότι πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥᾳθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομὲνων, εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορθώσει προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων.—iii. 671 c.597.See above, pp.152-4.598.W.-Hort, p. 287.599.So Cureton renders St. Luke xviii. 19.600.“Scriptum est in evangelio quodam quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos,...Dixit ei alter divitum:Magister quid boni faciens vivam?”—(Orig. Vet. Interp. iii. 670.) I suppose the mention of εἶς προσελθών, in ver. 16, suggested this.601.The Marcionite Gospel exhibited Μή με λέγετε ἀγαθόν (Hippol. Phil. 254; Epiph. i. 315 c).—Comp. the Clement. Hom. (ap.Galland. ii. 752 b, 759 a d).602.Hammond, quoted approvingly by Scrivener,—I. 328 (cd. 4).603.C. R. Gregory's Prolegomena, p. 7.604.Printed Text, pp. 133-8.605.Introduction (1883),—pp. 573-6. [Also Vol. II. (1894), pp. 327-9. I did not as Editor think myself entitled to alter Dr. Scrivener's expressed opinion. E. M.]606.It is right to state that Tischendorf thought differently.“Videtur illud huic quidem loco parum apte illatum.”He can only bring himself to admit that the text had been“jam Irenaei tempore nobili additamento auctum.”He insists that it is absurd, as well as at variance with the entire history of the sacred text, to suppose that the title“Son of God”has here been removed by unscrupulous Unbelief, rather than thrust in by officious Piety.607.v. 10; vii. 17; and in the Vulgate. Twice however (viz. i. 311 and vi. 969) Jeromeomitsthe clause.608.In Joan. iv. 15, 16.—See also contra Cels. i. 389 d e f, where Origen says the same thing more briefly. The other places are iv. 125 and 464.609.Οὔτε ἐπιστήμην τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἔχουσι, τὴν τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἀρχὴν μὴ παραλαβόντες; ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν Ἠσαΐα τῷ προφήτῃ.adv.Manichaeos (ap.Galland. v. 61).610.ap.Galland. v. 329.611.i. 250.612.ap.Galland. iv. 55.613.p. 42.614.a.d.400. De Sigill.ap.Chrys. xii. 412:—ὁ μακάριος Μάρκος, καθεὶς ἑαυτὸν εἶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, καὶ θαρσήσας τοῖς προγεγυμνασμένοις, λέγει μὲν“υἱὸν Θεοῦ,”ἀλλ᾽ εὐθέως συνέστειλε τὸν λόγον, καὶ ἐκολόβωσε τὴν ἔννοιαν, ἵνα μαλάξῃ τὸν ἀκροατήν. ἐπάγει οὖν εὐθέως τὰ κατὰ τὸν Βαπτιστήν, λέγων,“ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν Ἠσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ ἰδου”κ.τ.λ. ἔδειξε τὴν λαμπάδα τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ εὐθέας ἀπέκρυψε.615.i. 427:—ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ... ὡς γέγραπται ἐν Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ ... φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ.616.i. 506 (lib. iii. cap. xvi).617.i. 461 (lib. iii. cap. x).618.Midway between the two places cited above, Irenaeus shews how the four Gospels may be severally identified with the four living creatures described in the Apocalypse. He sees the lion in St. John, who says:“In the beginning was the Word: and ... all things were made by him: and without him was not anything made:”the flying eagle in St. Mark, because he begins his gospel with an appeal to“the prophetic spirit which comes down upon men from on high; saying,‘The beginning of the Gospel ... as it is written in the prophets.’Hence the Evangelists' concise and elliptical manner, which is a characteristic of prophecy”(lib. iii. cap. xi. § 8, p. 470). Such quotations as these (18 words being omitted in one case, 5 in the other) do not help us. I derive the above notice from the scholium in Evan. 238 (Matthaei's e,—N. T. ii. 21); Curzon's“73. 8.”The lost Greek of the passage in Irenaeus was first supplied by Grabe from a MS. of the Quaestiones of Anastasius Sinaita, in the Bodleian (Barocc. 206, fol. πβ). It is the solution of the 144th Quaestio. But it is to be found in many other places besides. In Evan. 238, by the way, twelve more of the lost words of Irenaeus are found: viz. Οὔτε πλείονα τὸν ἀριθμόν, οὔτε ἀλάττονα ἀνδέχεται εἶναι τὰ εὐαγγέλια; ἐπεὶ γὰρ ... Germanus also (a.d.715, ap. Gall. xiii. 215) quoting the place, confirms the reading ἐν τοῖς προφήταις,—which must obviously have stood in the original.619.Note, that he actually reads“The beginning of the Gospel of the Son of God,”—omitting the words“Jesus Christ”: not, of course, as disallowing them, but in order the more effectually to emphasize the Divine Sonship ofMessiah.620.Ἐγώ φησι (sc.ὁ Μάρκος) τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου ἀπὸ Ἰωάννου ποιήσομαι; Εὐαγγελίου δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ, οὕτω γὰρ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις γέγραπται, ὅτι υἱός ἐστι Θεοῦ.... δύνασαι δὲ τό, ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, συνάψαι τῷ, ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου; ἵνα τὴν ἀρχὴν ποιήσομαι τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου τοῦ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ τοῖς προφήταις περὶ Ἰωάννου εἰρημένον. This is the first scholium in the Catena as edited by Possinus,—p. 6. What follows is a well-known scholium of the same Catena, (the first in Cramer's ed.), which C. F. Matthaei (N. T. ii. 20) prints from six of his MSS.:—Ἰωάννην οὖν τὸν τελευταῖον τῶν προφητῶν ἀρχὴν εἶναι τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου φησὶν ὁ Μάρκος, ἐπιφέρων“ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις; Ἰδοὺ κ.τ.λ.”621.Ap.Hieron. vii. 17.622.vi. 330diserte.623.ii. 413.624.a.d.890. De objectionibus Manichaeorum,ap.Galland. xiii. 667.625.i. 1529 d.626.Cons. 39.627.E2of the Acts and Cath. Epp. (Laudianus) in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, of the sixth century.628.This observation is due to Dr. Salmon; see the Note appended to Lecture IX of his Historical Introduction to the New Testament (5th edition, p. 147).629.This fact was first pointed out by Dr. Gwynn in a memorandum communicated by him to Dr. Scrivener, who inserted it in his Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3rd edition, p. xii; cp. 4th edition, vol. I, p. 94), and I am indebted to the same source for this admirable amplification of part of that memorandum.630.A sufficient facsimile of the page in question (29ro) is given by Dean Burgon in his Last Twelve Verses, reproduced from a photograph.631.On the contrary, in Tatian's Diatessaron γυναικί is left out and μεμνηστευμένη is translated. For the Curetonian, see above, p.295.

Of course this trenchant passage refers only to the principles of the school found to fail. A school may leave fruits of research of a most valuable kind, and yet be utterly in error as to the inferences involved in such and other facts. Dean Burgon amply admitted this. The following extract from one of the many detached papers left by the author is appended as possessing both illustrative and personal interest:—

“Familiar as all such details as the present must of necessity prove to those who have made Textual Criticism their study, they may on no account be withheld. I am not addressing learned persons only. I propose, before I lay down my pen, to make educated persons, wherever they may be found, partakers of my own profound conviction that for the most part certainty is attainable on this subject-matter; but that the decrees of the popular school—at the head of which stand many of the great critics of Christendom—are utterly mistaken. Founded, as I venture to think, on entirely false premisses, their conclusions almost invariably are altogether wrong. And this I hold to be demonstrable; and I propose in the ensuing pages to establish the fact. If I do not succeed, I shall pay the penalty for my presumption and my folly. But if I succeed—and I wish to have jurists and persons skilled in the law of evidence, or at least thoughtful and unprejudiced persons, wherever they are to be found, and no others, for my judges,—if I establish my position, I say, let my father and my mother's son be kindly remembered by the Church of Christ when he has departed hence.”

The evidence on the passage is as follows:—For the insertion:—

א* etc. BC*ΦΣDPΔ, 1, 13, 33, 108, 157, 346, and about ten more. Old Latin (except f), Vulgate, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Hilary, Cyril Alex. (2), Chrysostom (2).

Against:—

EFGKLMSUVXΓΠ. The rest of the Cursives, Peshitto (Pusey and Gwilliam found it in no copies), Sahidic, Eusebius, Basil, Jerome, Chrysostom,in loc., Juvencus. Compare Revision Revised, p. 108, note.

An instance is afforded in St. Mark viii. 7, where“the Five Old Uncials”exhibit the passage thus:

A. και ταυτα ευλογησας ειπεν παρατεθηναι και αυτα.א*. και ευλογησας αυτα παρεθηκεν.א1. και ευλογησας ειπεν και ταυτα παρατιθεναι.B. ευλογησας αυτα ειπεν και ταυτα παρατιθεναι.C. και ευλογησας αυτα ειπεν και ταυτα παραθετε.D. και ευχαριστησας ειπεν και αυτους εκελευσεν παρατιθεναι.

Lachmann, and Tischendorf (1859) follow A; Alford, and Tischendorf (1869) follow א; Tregelles and Westcott, and Hort adopt B. They happen to be all wrong, and the Textus Receptus right. The only word they all agree in is the initial καί.

In the Syriaconeform appears to be used foralltheMarys([Syriac characters] Mar-yam, also sometimes, but not always, spelt in theJerusalem Syriac[Syriaic characters] = Mar-yaam), also forMiriamin the O. T., forMariamnethe wife of Herod, and others; in fact, wherever it is intended to represent a Hebrew female name. At Rom. xvi. 6, the Peshitto has [Syriaic characters] = Μαρία obviously as a translation of the Greek form in the text which was followed. (See Thesaurus Syriacus, Payne Smith, coll. 2225, 2226.)

In Syriac literature [Syriac characters] = Maria occurs from time to time as the name of some Saint or Martyr—e.g. in a volume of Acta Mart. described by Wright in Cat. Syr. MSS. in B. M. p. 1081, and which appears to be a fifth-century MS.

On the hypothesis that Hebrew-Aramaic was spoken in Palestine (paceDrs. Abbot and Roberts), I do not doubt thatonly oneform (cf. Pearson, Creed, Art. iii. and notes) of the name was in use,“Maryam,”a vulgarized form of“Miriam”; but it may well be that Greek Christians kept the Hebrew form Μαριαμ for the Virgin, while they adopted a more Greek-looking word for the other women. This fine distinction has been lost in thecorruptUncials, while observed in thecorrectUncials and Cursives, which is all that the Dean's argument requires.—(G. H. G.)

Another very ancient MS. of the Peshitto Gospels is the Cod. Philipp. 1388, in the Royal Library, Berlin (in Miller's Scrivener the name is speltPhillipps). Dr. Sachau ascribes it to the fifth, or the beginning of the sixth century, thus making it older than the Vatican Tetraevangelicum, No. 3, in Miller's Scrivener, II. 12. A full description will be found in Sachau's Catalogue of the Syr. MSS. in the Berlin Library.

The second was collated by Drs. Guidi and Ugolini, the third, in St. John, by Dr. Sachau. The readings of the second and third are in the possession of Mr. Gwilliam, who informs me that all three support the Peshitto text, and are free from all traces of any pre-Peshitto text, such as according to Dr. Hort and Mr. Burkitt the Curetonian and Lewis MSS. contain. Thus every fresh accession of evidence tends always to establish the text of the Peshitto Version more securely in the position it has always held until quite recent years.

The interesting feature of all the above-named MSS. is the uniformity of their testimony to the text of the Peshitto. Take for example the evidence of No. 10 in Miller's Scrivener, II. 13, No. 3, in Miller's Scrivener, II. 12, and Cod. Philipp. 1388. The first was collated by P. E. Pusey, and the results are published in Studia Biblica, vol. i,“A fifth century MS.”

Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25) divides the writings of the Church into three classes:—

1. The Received Books (ὁμολογούμενα), i.e. the Four Gospels, Acts, the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Revelation (?).

2. Doubtful (ἀντιλεγόμενα), i.e. James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude (cf. ii. 23fin.).

3. Spurious (νόθα), Acts of St. Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation of St. Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, the so-called Διδαχαί, Revelation of St. John (?).

This division appears to need confirmation, if it is to be taken as representing the general opinion of the Church of the time.

Cureton's Syriac is the only known copy of the Gospels in which the three omitted kings are found in St. Matthew's Gospel: which, I suppose, explains why the learned editor of that document flattered himself that he had therein discovered the lost original of St. Matthew's Gospel. Cureton (Pref., p. viii) shews that in other quarters also (e.g. by Mar Yakub the Persian, usually known as Aphraates) 63 generations were reckoned from Adam toJesusexclusive:thatnumber being obtained by adding 24 of St. Matthew's names and 33 of St. Luke's to the 3 names common to both Evangelists (viz. David, Salathiel, and Zorobabel); and to these, adding the 3 omitted kings.

The testimony of MSS. is not altogether uniform in regard to the number of names in the Genealogy. In the Textus Receptus (including ourSaviour'sname and the name of the DivineAuthorof Adam's being) the number of the names is 77. So Basil made it; so Greg. Naz. and his namesake of Nyssa; so Jerome and Augustine.

I am not of course asserting that any known cursive MS. is an exact counterpart of one of the oldest extant Uncials. Nor even that every reading however extraordinary, contained in Codd. BאD, is also to be met with in one of the few Cursives already specified. But what then? Neither do any of the oldest Uncials contain all the textual avouchings discoverable in the same Cursives.

The thing asserted is only this: that, as a rule, every principal reading discoverable in any of the five or seven oldest Uncials, is also exhibited in one or more of the Cursives already cited or in others of them; and that generally when there is consent among the oldest of the Uncials, there is also consent among about as many of the same Cursives. So that it is no exaggeration to say that we find ourselves always concerned with the joint testimony of the same little handful of Uncial and Cursive documents: and therefore, as was stated at the outset, if the oldest of the Uncials had never existed, the readings which they advocate would have been advocated by MSS. of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries.

Ap.Galland. iii. 688 c:—ὅθεν ὁ Ἀπόστολος εὐθυβόλως εἰς Χριστὸν ἀνηκόντισε τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἀδάμ; οὕτως γὰρ ἂν μάλιστα ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν συμφωνήσει γεγονέναι. And lower down (e, and 689 a):—ὅπως αὐξηθῶσιν οἱ ἐν αὐτῷ οἰκοδομηθέντες ἅπαντες, οἱ γεγεννημένοι διὰ τοῦ λουτροῦ, ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν καὶ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς ἁγιωσύνης αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῆς δόξης προσειληφότες; ὀστᾶ γὰρ καὶ σάρκα Σοφίας ὁ λέγων εἶναι σύνεσιν καὶ ἀρετήν, ὀρθότατα λέγει. From this it is plain that Methodius read Ephes. v. 30 as we do; although he had before quoted it (iii. 614 b)withoutthe clause in dispute. Those who give their minds to these studies are soon made aware that it is never safe to infer from the silence of a Father that he disallowed the words he omits,—especially if those words are in their nature parenthetical, or supplementary, or not absolutely required for the sense. Let a short clause be beside his immediate purpose, and a Father is as likely as not to omit it. This subject has been discussed elsewhere: but it is apt to the matter now in hand that I should point out that Augustinetwice(iv. 297 c, 1438 c) closes his quotation of the present place abruptly:“Apostolo dicente,Quoniam membra sumus corporis ejus.”And yet, elsewhere (iii. 794), he gives the words in full.

It is idle therefore to urge on the opposite side, as if there were anything in it, the anonymous commentator on St. Luke in Cramer's Cat. p. 88.

What follows is obtained (June 28, 1884) by favour of Sig. Veludo, the learned librarian of St. Mark's, from the Catena on St. Luke's Gospel at Venice (cod. 494 = our Evan. 466), which Cordier (in 1628) translated into Latin. The Latin of this particular passage is to be seen at p. 622 of his badly imagined and well-nigh useless work. The first part of it (συνέφαγε ... ἐναπογράψονται) is occasionally found as a scholium, e.g. in Cod. Marc. Venet. 27 (our Evan. 210), and is already known to scholars from Matthaei's N. T. (note on Luc. xxiv. 42). The rest of the passage (which now appears for the first time) I exhibit for the reader's convenience parallel with a passage of Gregory of Nyssa's Christian Homily on Canticles. If the author of what is found in the second column is not quoting what is found in the first, it is at least certain that both have resorted to, and are here quoting from the same lost original:—

Συνέφαγεν δὲ καὶ τῷ ὀπτῷ ἰχθύῳ (sic) τὸ κηρίον τοῦ μέλιτος; δηλῶν ὡς οἱ πυρωθέντες διὰ τῆς θείας ἐνανθρωπήσεως καὶ μετασχόντες αὐτοῦ τῆς θεότητος, ὡς μέλι μετ᾽ ἐπιθυμίας τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ παραδέξονται; κηρῷ ὤσπερ τοὺς νόμους ἐναπογράψαντες; ὅτι ὁ μὲν τοῦ πάσχα

[Transcriber's Note: The following two paragraphs were side-by-side columns in the original.]

ἄρτος ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἠσθίετο καὶ ὁ νόμος διεκελεύτο;πρὸς γὰρ τὸ παρὸν ἡ πικρία;ὁ δὲ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἄρτος τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδύνετο;ὄψον γὰρ ἑαυτοῖς τὸ μέλι ποιησόμεθα, ὅταν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ κηρῷ ὁ καρπὸς τῆς ἀρετῆς καταγλυκαίνει τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια.Anon.apud Corderium(fol. 58): see above.

... ἄρτος ... οὐκέτι ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἐσθιόμενος, ὡς ὁ νόμος διακελεύεται;πρὸς γὰρ τὸ παρόν ἐστιν ἡ πικρίς;(... ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦ κυρίου προσφανεὶς τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἄρτος ἐστί, τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδυνόμενος.)ἀλλ᾽ ὄψον ἑαυτῷ τὸ μέλι ποιούμενος, ὅταν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ ὁ καρπὸς τῆς ἀρετῆς καταγλυκαίνῃ τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια.Greg. Nyss.in Cant. (Opp. i. a); the sentence in brackets being transposed.

Quite evident is it that, besides Gregory of Nyssa,Hesychius(or whoever else was the author of the first Homily on the Resurrection) had the same original before him when he wrote as follows:—ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ὁ πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα σῖτος ὁ ἄζυμος, ὄψον τὴν πικρίδα ἔχει, ἴδωμεν τίνι ἡδόσματι ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἄρτος ἡδύνεται. ὁρᾶς τοῦ Πέτρου ἁλιεύοντος ἐν ταῖς χεροὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἄρτον καὶ κηρίον μέλιτος νόησον τί σοι ἡ πικρία τοῦ βίου κατασκευάζεται. οὐκοῦν ἀναστάντες καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐκ τῆς τῶν λόγων ἀλείας, ἤδη τῷ ἄρτῳ προσδράμωμεν, ὂν καταγλυκαίνει τὸ κηρίον τῆς ἀγαθῆς ἐλπίδος. (ap. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 399 c d.)

Midway between the two places cited above, Irenaeus shews how the four Gospels may be severally identified with the four living creatures described in the Apocalypse. He sees the lion in St. John, who says:“In the beginning was the Word: and ... all things were made by him: and without him was not anything made:”the flying eagle in St. Mark, because he begins his gospel with an appeal to“the prophetic spirit which comes down upon men from on high; saying,‘The beginning of the Gospel ... as it is written in the prophets.’Hence the Evangelists' concise and elliptical manner, which is a characteristic of prophecy”(lib. iii. cap. xi. § 8, p. 470). Such quotations as these (18 words being omitted in one case, 5 in the other) do not help us. I derive the above notice from the scholium in Evan. 238 (Matthaei's e,—N. T. ii. 21); Curzon's“73. 8.”

The lost Greek of the passage in Irenaeus was first supplied by Grabe from a MS. of the Quaestiones of Anastasius Sinaita, in the Bodleian (Barocc. 206, fol. πβ). It is the solution of the 144th Quaestio. But it is to be found in many other places besides. In Evan. 238, by the way, twelve more of the lost words of Irenaeus are found: viz. Οὔτε πλείονα τὸν ἀριθμόν, οὔτε ἀλάττονα ἀνδέχεται εἶναι τὰ εὐαγγέλια; ἐπεὶ γὰρ ... Germanus also (a.d.715, ap. Gall. xiii. 215) quoting the place, confirms the reading ἐν τοῖς προφήταις,—which must obviously have stood in the original.

Back to IndexNext