Footnotes

1.

Any one who desires to see this charge established, is invited to read from page 399 to page 413 of what follows.

2.

Dr. Newth. See pp. 37-9.

3.

See pp. 24-9: 97, &c.

4.

See below, pp. 1 to 110.

5.

This will be found more fully explained from pp. 127 to 130: pp. 154 to 164: also pp. 400 to 403. See also the quotations on pp. 112 and 368.

6.

See below, pp. 113 to 232.

7.

See below, pp. 235 to 366.

8.

Gospel of the Resurrection, p. viii.

9.

Reference is made to a vulgar effusion in the “Contemporary Review” for March 1882: from which it chiefly appears that Canon (now Archdeacon) Farrar is unable to forgive S. Mark the Evangelist for having written the 16th verse of his concluding chapter. The Venerable writer is in consequence for ever denouncing those “last Twelve Verses.” In March 1882, (pretending to review my Articles in the “Quarterly,”) he says:—“In spite of Dean Burgon's Essay on the subject, the minds of most scholars are quite unalterably made up on such questions as the authenticity of the last twelve verses of S. Mark.” [Contemporary Review, vol. xli. p. 365.] And in the ensuing October,—“If, among positive results, any one should set down such facts as that ... Mark xvi. 9-20 ... formed no part of the original apostolic autograph ... He, I say, who should enumerate these points as being beyond the reach of serious dispute ... would be expressing the views which are regarded as indisputable by the vast majority of such recent critics as have established any claim to serious attention.” [Expositor, p. 173.] It may not be without use to the Venerable writer that he should be reminded that critical questions, instead of being disposed of by such language as the foregoing, are not even touched thereby. One is surprised to have to tell a “fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,” so obvious a truth as that by such writing he does but effectually put himself out of court. By proclaiming that his mind is “quite unalterably made up” that the end of S. Mark's Gospel is not authentic, he admits that he is impervious to argument and therefore incapable of understanding proof. It is a mere waste of time to reason with an unfortunate who announces that he is beyond the reach of conviction.

10.

No. xxviii., page 436. If any one cares to know what the teaching was which the writer in the “Church Quarterly” was intending to reproduce, he is invited to read from p. 296 to p. 300 of the present volume.

11.

Contemporary Review, (Dec. 1881),—p. 985 seq.

12.

Q. R. (No. 304,) p. 313.—The passage referred to will be found below (at p. 14),—slightly modified, in order to protect myself against the risk of future misconception. My Reviewer refers to four other places. He will find that my only object in them all was to prove that codices a b א c d yield divergent testimony; and therefore, so habitually contradict one another, as effectually to invalidate their own evidence throughout. This has never been proved before. It can only be proved, in fact, by one who has laboriously collated the codices in question, and submitted to the drudgery of exactly tabulating the result.

13.

“Damus tibi in manus Novum Testamentum idem profecto, quod ad textum attinet, cum ed. Millianâ,”—are the well known opening words of the “Monitum” prefixed to Lloyd's N. T.—And Mill, according to Scrivener, [Introduction, p. 399,] “only aims at reproducing Stephens' text of 1550, though in a few places he departs from it, whether by accident or design.” Such places are found to amount in all to twenty-nine.

14.

See below, pp. 257-8: also p. 390.

15.

The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, &c.—Macmillan, pp. 79.

16.

See below, pp. 369 to 520.

17.

Pages 371-2.

18.

Pamphlet, pp. 77: 39, 40, 41.

19.

See below, p. 425.

20.

Pages 424-501.

21.

From January till June 1883.

22.

Pamphlet, p. 76.

23.

E.g. pages 252-268: 269-277: 305-308.

24.

E.g. pages 302-306.

25.

Page 354.

26.

On that day appeared Dr. Hort's “Introduction and Appendix” to the N. T. as edited by himself and Dr. Westcott.

27.

“Charge,” published in the Guardian, Dec. 20, 1882, p. 1813.

28.

Preface to History of the English Bible (p. ix.),—1868.

29.

Preface to Pastoral Epistles (p. xiv.),—1861.

30.

The Authorized Version of the N. T. (p. 3),—1858.

31.

The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ translated out of the Greek: being the Version set forth a.d. 1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Revised a.d. 1881. Printed for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881.

32.

The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version. Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881. Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version. [Edited by the Ven. Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.

33.

On Revision,—pp. 215-6.

34.

Tertullian, bis.

35.

Hieron. Opp. ii. 177 c (see the note).

36.

Apud Hieron. iii. 121.

37.

iv. 617 c (ed. Pusey).

38.

P. 272.

39.

i. 548 c; viii. 207 a.

40.

iv. 205.

41.

A reference to the Journal of Convocation, for a twelvemonth after the proposal for a Revision of the Authorized Version was seriously entertained, will reveal more than it would be convenient in this place even to allude to.

42.

We derive our information from the learned Congregationalist, Dr. Newth,—Lectures on Bible Revision (1881), p. 116.

43.

On Revision, pp. 26-7.

44.

Dr. Scrivener's Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edition, 1874 (pp. 607), may be confidently recommended to any one who desires to master the outlines of Textual Criticism under the guidance of a judicious, impartial, and thoroughly competent guide. A new and revised edition of this excellent treatise will appear shortly.

45.

Studious readers are invited to enquire for Dr. Scrivener's Full and exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels (hitherto unexamined), deposited in the British Museum, the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, &c., with a Critical Introduction. (Pp. lxxiv. and 178.) 1853. The introductory matter deserves very attentive perusal.—With equal confidence we beg to recommend his Exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, a Græco-Latin Manuscript of S. Paul's Epistles, deposited in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge; to which is added a full Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, containing various portions of the Greek New Testament, in the Libraries of Cambridge, Parham, Leicester, Oxford, Lambeth, the British Museum, &c. With a Critical Introduction (which must also be carefully studied). (Pp. lxxx. and 563.) 1859.—Learned readers can scarcely require to be told of the same learned scholar's Novum Testamentum Textûs Stephanici, a.d. 1550. Accedunt variæ Lectiones Editionum Bezæ, Elzeviri, Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, Tregellesii. Curante F. H. A. Scrivener, A.M., D.C.L., LL.D. [1860.] Editio auctior et emendatior. 1877.—Those who merely wish for a short popular Introduction to the subject may be grateful to be told of Dr. Scrivener's Six Lectures on the Text of the N. T. and the Ancient MSS. which contain it, chiefly addressed to those who do not read Greek. 1875.

46.

Scrivener's Plain Introduction,—p. 118.

47.

Bezæ Codex Cantabrigiensis: being an exact Copy, in ordinary Type, of the celebrated Uncial Græco-Latin Manuscript of the Four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, written early in the Sixth Century, and presented to the University of Cambridge by Theodore Beza, a.d. 1581. Edited, with a Critical Introduction, Annotations, and Facsimiles, by Frederick H. Scrivener, M.A., Rector of S. Gerrans, Cornwall. (Pp. lxiv. and 453.) Cambridge, 1864. No one who aspires to a competent acquaintance with Textual Criticism can afford to be without this book.

48.

On the subject of codex א we beg (once for all) to refer scholars to Scrivener's Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament. To which is prefixed a Critical Introduction. [1863.] 2nd Edition, revised. (Pp. lxxii. and 163.) 1867.

49.

Bishop Ellicott's Considerations on Revision, &c. (1870), p. 40.

50.

The epithet “cursive,” is used to denote manuscripts written in “running-hand,” of which the oldest known specimens belong to the IXth century. “Uncial” manuscripts are those which are written in capital letters. A “codex” popularly signifies a manuscript. A “version” is a translation. A “recension” is a revision. (We have been requested to explain these terms.)

51.

Considerations on Revision, p. 30.

52.

Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g. at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction. We do but insist, (1) That it is an incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely preferable to the “New Greek Text” of the Revisionists. And, (2) That to be improved, the Textus Receptus will have to be revised on entirely different “principles” from those which are just now in fashion. Men must begin by unlearning the German prejudices of the last fifty years; and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of facts.

53.

Scrivener's Introduction, pp. 342-4.

54.

Ut suprà, p. 46. We prefer to quote the indictment against Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, from the pages of Revisionists.

55.

“Ex scriptoribus Græcis tantisper Origene solo usi sumus.”—Præfatio, p. xxi.

56.

Scrivener's Plain Introd. p. 397.

57.

Ut suprà, p. 48.

58.

Ut suprà, p. 47.

59.

Prebendary Scrivener, ibid. (ed. 1874), p. 429.

60.

Ibid. p. 470.

61.

Ibid.

62.

Concilia, i. 852.

63.

Ut suprà, p. 47.

64.

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

65.

From the Preface prefixed to the “limited and private issue” of 1870, p. vi.

66.

Ut suprà, p. xv.

67.

Ibid. p. xviii.

68.

Ibid. p. xvi.

69.

Ibid. pp. xviii., xix.

70.

[Note,—that I have thought it best, for many reasons, to retain the ensuing note as it originally appeared; merely restoring [within brackets] those printed portions of it for which there really was no room. The third Article in the present volume will be found to supply an ample exposure of the shallowness of Drs. Westcott and Hort's Textual Theory.] While these sheets are passing through the press, a copy of the long-expected volume reaches us. The theory of the respected authors proves to be the shallowest imaginable. It is briefly this:—Fastening on the two oldest codices extant (b and א, both of the IVth century), they invent the following hypothesis:—“That the ancestries of those two manuscripts diverged from a point near the autographs, and never came into contact subsequently.” [No reason is produced for this opinion.] Having thus secured two independent witnesses of what was in the sacred autographs, the Editors claim that the coincidence of א and b must “mark those portions of text in which two primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission had not come to differ from each other through independent corruption:” and therefore that, “in the absence of specially strong internal evidence to the contrary,” “the readings of א and b combined may safely be accepted as genuine.” But what is to be done when the same two codices diverge one from the other?—In all such cases (we are assured) the readings of any “binary combination” of b are to be preferred; because “on the closest scrutiny,” they generally “have the ring of genuineness;” hardly ever “look suspicious after full consideration.” “Even when b stands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.” [We are not told why.] But, (rejoins the student who, after careful collation of codex b, has arrived at a vastly different estimate of its character,)—What is to be done when internal and external evidence alike condemn a reading of B? How is “mumpsimus” for example to be treated?—“Mumpsimus” (the Editors solemnly reply) as “the better attested reading”—(by which they mean the reading attested by b,)—we place in our margin. “Sumpsimus,” apparently the right reading, we place in the text within ††; in token that it is probably “a successful ancient conjecture.” We smile, and resume:—But how is the fact to be accounted for that the text of Chrysostom and (in the main) of the rest of the IVth-century Fathers, to whom we are so largely indebted for our critical materials, and who must have employed codices fully as old as b and א: how is it, we ask, that the text of all these, including codex a, differs essentially from the text exhibited by codices b and א?—The editors reply,—The text of Chrysostom and the rest, we designate “Syrian,” and assume to have been the result of an “editorial Revision,” which we conjecturally assign to the second half of the IIIrd century. It is the “Pre-Syrian” text that we are in search of; and we recognize the object of our search in codex b. We stare, and smile again. But how then does it come to pass (we rejoin) that the Peschito, or primitive Syriac, which is older by full a century and a half than the last-named date, is practically still the same text?—This fatal circumstance (not overlooked by the learned Editors) they encounter with another conjectural assumption. “A Revision” (say they) “of the Old Syriac version appears to have taken place early in the IVth century, or sooner; and doubtless in some connexion with the Syrian revision of the Greek text, the readings being to a very great extent coincident.” And pray, where is “the Old Syriac version” of which you speak?—It is (reply the Editors) our way of designating the fragmentary Syriac MS. commonly known as “Cureton's.”—Your way (we rejoin) of manipulating facts, and disposing of evidence is certainly the most convenient, as it is the most extraordinary, imaginable: yet is it altogether inadmissible in a grave enquiry like the present. Syriac scholars are of a widely different opinion from yourselves. Do you not perceive that you have been drawing upon your imagination for every one of your facts? We decline in short on the mere conjectural ipse dixit of these two respected scholars to admit either that the Peschito is a Revision of Cureton's Syriac Version;—or that it was executed about a.d. 325;—or that the text of Chrysostom and the other principal IVth-century Fathers is the result of an unrecorded “Antiochian Revision” which took place about the year a.d. 275. [But instead of troubling ourselves with removing the upper story of the visionary structure before us,—which reminds us painfully of a house which we once remember building with playing-cards,—we begin by removing the basement-story, which brings the entire superstructure in an instant to the ground.] For we decline to admit that the texts exhibited by b א can have “diverged from a point near the sacred autographs, and never come into contact subsequently.” We are able to show, on the contrary, that the readings they jointly embody afford the strongest presumption that the MSS. which contain them are nothing else but specimens of those “corrected,” i.e. corrupted copies, which are known to have abounded in the earliest ages of the Church. From the prevalence of identical depravations in either, we infer that they are, on the contrary, derived from the same not very remote depraved original: and therefore, that their coincidence, when they differ from all (or nearly all) other MSS., so far from marking “two primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission” of the inspired autographs, does but mark what was derived from the same corrupt common ancestor; whereby the supposed two independent witnesses to the Evangelic verity become resolved into a single witness to a fabricated text of the IIIrd century. It is impossible in the meantime to withhold from these learned and excellent men (who are infinitely better than their theory) the tribute of our sympathy and concern at the evident perplexity and constant distress to which their own fatal major premiss has reduced them. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. Doubt,—unbelief,—credulity,—general mistrust of all evidence, is the inevitable sequel and penalty. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort solemnly assured their brother Revisionists that “the prevalent assumption, that throughout the N. T. the true text is to be found somewhere among recorded readings, does not stand the test of experience;”[P. xxi.] and they are evidently still haunted by the same spectral suspicion. They see a ghost to be exorcised in every dark corner. “The Art of Conjectural Emendation” (says Dr. Hort) “depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation founded on knowledge and method.”[Introd. p. 71.] Specimens of the writer's skill in this department abound. One occurs at p. 135 (App.) where, in defiance of every known document, he seeks to evacuate S. Paul's memorable injunction to Timothy (2 Tim. i. 13) of all its significance. [A fuller exposure of Dr. Hort's handling of this important text will be found later in the present volume.] May we be allowed to assure the accomplished writer that in Biblical Textual Criticism, “Conjectural Emendation” has no place?

71.

Scrivener, Introduction, p. 453.—Stunica, it will be remembered, was the chief editor of the Complutensian, or first printed edition of the New Testament, (1514).

72.

προσέφορον αὐτῷ,—S. Matt. ix. 2.

73.

Scrivener, Plain Introd. p. 472.

74.

The words omitted are therefore the following 22:—ἡμῶν, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ... γενηθήτω τὸ θελημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ... ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.

75.

Companion to the Revised Version, p. 61.

76.

The last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark, vindicated against recent critical Objectors and established, by the Rev. J. W. Burgon,—pp. 334, published by Parker, Oxford, 1871.

77.

As Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Chr. Wordsworth,—the learned Bishops of Chester and Lincoln. It is right to state that Bp. Ellicott “considers the passage doubtful.” (On Revision, p. 36.) Dr. Scrivener (it is well known) differs entirely from Bp. Ellicott on this important point.

78.

Lectures on Bible Revision, pp. 119-20.

79.

τὰς ἀληθεῖς ῥήσεις Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου.—Clemens Rom., c. 45.

80.

Should the Revised New Testament be authorized?—p. 42.

81.

Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered,—by Canon Cook,—pp. 221-2.

82.

At p. 34 of his pamphlet in reply to the first two of the present Articles.

83.

On Revision, pp. 30 and 49.

84.

Words of the N. T. p. 193.

85.

Companion to the Revised Version, p. 63.

86.

Ibid. p. 62.

87.

Viz. Eusebius,—Macarius Magnes,—Aphraates,—Didymus,—the Syriac Acts of the App.,—Epiphanius,—Ambrose,—Chrysostom,—Jerome,—Augustine. It happens that the disputation of Macarius Magnes (a.d. 300-350) with a heathen philosopher, which has recently come to light, contains an elaborate discussion of S. Mark xvi. 17, 18. Add the curious story related by the author of the Paschal Chronicle (a.d. 628) concerning Leontius, Bishop of Antioch (a.d. 348),—p. 289. This has been hitherto overlooked.

88.

Scrivener's Introduction, p. 515.

89.

Tisch. specifies 7 Latin copies. Origen (iii. 946 f.), Jerome (vii. 282), and Leo (ap. Sabatier) are the only patristic quotations discoverable.

90.

i. 459

91.

i. 374; ii. 714; iv. 15.

92.

vii. 47; viii. 13.

93.

Dem. Ev. pp. 163, 342.

94.

i. 180, 385.

95.

In loc. Also in Luc. xix. 29 (Cat. Ox. 141).

96.

De Trin. p. 84; Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 450, 745.

97.

i. 845,—which is reproduced in the Paschal Chronicle, p. 374.

98.

P. 180; cf. p. 162.

99.

i. 154, 1047.

100.

i. 355, 696, 6; 97 iii. 346.

101.

Gr. iii. 434.

102.

Ap. Galland. ix. 754.

103.

i. 587; ii. 453, 454; vi. 393; vii. 311, 674; viii. 85; xi. 347. Also Cat. in Ps. iii. 139.

104.

Ap. Chrys. vi. 424; cf. p. 417.

105.

In Luc. pp. 12, 16, 502 ( = Mai, ii. 128). Also Mai, ii. 343, Hom. de Incarn. p. 109. Opp. ii. 593; v.1 681, 30, 128, 380, 402, 154; vi. 398. Maii, iii.2 286.

106.

i. 290, 1298; ii. 18; iii. 480.

107.

Ap. Galland. ix. 446, 476. Concil. iii. 1001, 1023.

108.

Concil. iii. 1002.

109.

Ap. Galland. ix. 629.

110.

Concil. iii. 1095.

111.

Concil. iii. 829 = Cyr. Opp. vi. 159.

112.

Nov. Auctar. i. 596.

113.

Montf. ii. 152, 160, 247, 269.

114.

Hexaem. ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 899.

115.

Ap. Galland. xii. 308.

116.

Ed. Combefis, 14, 54; ap. Galland. xiii. 100, 123.

117.

Ap. Galland. xiii. 235.

118.

ii. 836.

119.

Ap. Galland. xiii. 212.

120.

E.g. Chrys. Opp. viii.; Append. 214.

121.

P. 6 d.

122.

Ap. Galland. iii. 809.

123.

ii. 602.

124.

ii. 101, 122, 407.

125.

iii. 447.

126.

ii. 298.

127.

ii. 804; iii. 783; v. 638, 670, 788; viii. 214, 285; x. 754, 821.

128.

Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 960.

129.

Of the ninety-two places above quoted, Tischendorf knew of only eleven, Tregelles adduces only six.—Neither critic seems to have been aware that “Gregory Thaum.” is not the author of the citation they ascribe to him. And why does Tischendorf quote as Basil's what is known not to have been his?

130.

But then, note that c is only available for comparison down to the end of ver. 5. In the 9 verses which have been lost, who shall say how many more eccentricities would have been discoverable?

131.

Companion to the Revised Version, pp. 62, 63. Words of the N. T. p. 193.

132.

Words of the N. T. p. 193.

133.

Drs. Westcott and Hort (consistently enough) put them on the self-same footing with the evidently spurious ending found in l.

134.

True, that a separate volume of Greek Text has been put forth, showing every change which has been either actually accepted, or else suggested for future possible acceptance. But (in the words of the accomplished editor), “the Revisers are not responsible for its publication.” Moreover, (and this is the chief point,) it is a sealed book to all but Scholars. It were unhandsome, however, to take leave of the learned labours of Prebendary Scrivener and Archdeacon Palmer, without a few words of sympathy and admiration. Their volumes (mentioned at the beginning of the present Article) are all that was to have been expected from the exquisite scholarship of their respective editors, and will be of abiding interest and value. Both volumes should be in the hands of every scholar, for neither of them supersedes the other. Dr. Scrivener has (with rare ability and immense labour) set before the Church, for the first time, the Greek Text which was followed by the Revisers of 1611, viz. Beza's N. T. of 1598, supplemented in above 190 places from other sources; every one of which the editor traces out in his Appendix, pp. 648-56. At the foot of each page, he shows what changes have been introduced into the Text by the Revisers of 1881.—Dr. Palmer, taking the Text of Stephens (1550) as his basis, presents us with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the “Authorized Version,” and relegates the displaced Readings (of 1611) to the foot of each page.—We cordially congratulate them both, and thank them for the good service they have rendered.

135.

The number is not excessive. There were about 600 persons aboard the ship in which Josephus traversed the same waters. (Life, c. iii.)

136.

ii. 61 and 83.

137.

Isaiah xiv. 15.

138.

S. Matthew xxi. 1-3. S. Mark xi. 1-6. S. Luke xix. 29-34.

139.

א d l read—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε: C*,—αὐτον ΠΑΛΙΝ ἀποστελλει ὡδε: b,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ αὐτον ὡδε: Δ,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε: yscr—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ.

140.

iii. 722, 740.

141.

iii. 737, iv. 181.

142.

S. Matt. xxi. 8.

143.

Exod. x. 21-23.

144.

S. Matth. xxvii. 45; S. Mark xv. 33; S. Lu. xxiii. 44.

145.

Ap. Epiphan. i. 317 and 347.

146.

Intenebricatus est sol—a: obscuratus est sol—b: tenebricavit sol—c.

147.

Ap. Routh, Opusc. i. 79.

148.

i. 90, 913; ap. Epiph. i. 1006.

149.

Syr. ii. 48. So also Evan. Conc. pp. 245, 256, 257.

150.

Mai, Scriptt. Vett. vi. 64.

151.

i. 305.

152.

Ap. Mai, ii. 436; iii. 395. Also Luc. 722.

153.

i. 288, 417.

154.

P. 233.

155.

Ed. by Wright, p. 16.

156.

“Sol mediâ die tenebricavit.” Adv. Jud. c. xiii.

157.

iii. 922-4. Read the whole of cap. 134. See also ap. Galland. xiv. 82, append., which by the way deserves to be compared with Chrys. vii. 825 a.

158.

ἀλλ᾽ ἦν σκότος θεοποίητον, διότι τὸν Κύριον συνέβη παθεῖν.—Routh, ii. 298.

159.

εἶτ᾽ ἐξαίφνης κατενεχθὲν ψηλαφητὸν σκότος, ἡλίου τὴν οἰκείαν αὐγὴν ἀποκρύψαντος, p. 29.

160.

ὅτι γὰρ οὐκ ἠν ἔκλειψις [sc. τὸ σκότος ἐκεῖνο] οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ. τρεῖς γὰρ ὥρας παρέμεινιν; ἡ δὲ ἔκλειψις ἐν μιᾷ καιροῦ γίνεται ῥοπῇ.—vii. 825 a.

161.

i. 414, 415; iii. 56.

162.

Ap. Mai, iv. 206. But further on he says: αὐτίκα γοῦν ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει οὐχ ἥλιος μόνον ἐσκότασεν κ.τ.λ.—Cyril of Jerusalem (pp. 57, 146, 199, 201, 202) and Cosmas (ap. Montf. ii. 177 bis) were apparently acquainted with the same reading, but neither of them actually quotes Luke xxiii. 45.

163.

“In quibusdam exemplaribus non habetur tenebræ factæ sunt, et obscuratus est sol: sed ita, tenebræ factæ sunt super omnem terram, sole deficiente. Et forsitan ausus est aliquis quasi manifestius aliquid dicere volens, pro, et obscuratus est sol, ponere deficiente sole, existimans quod non aliter potuissent fieri tenebræ, nisi sole deficiente. Puto autem magis quod insidiatores ecclesiæ Christi mutaverunt hoc verbum, quoniam tenebræ factæ sunt sole deficiente, ut verisimiliter evangelia argui possint secundum adinventiones volentium arguere illa.” (iii. 923 f. a.)

164.

vii. 235. “Qui scripserunt contra Evangelia, suspicantur deliquium solis,” &c.

165.

This rests on little more than conjecture. Tisch. Cod. Ephr. Syr. p. 327.

166.

Ἐκλείποντος is only found besides in eleven lectionaries.

167.

The Thebaic represents “the sun setting;” which, (like the mention of “eclipse,”) is only another interpretation of the darkness,—derived from Jer. xv. 9 or Amos viii. 9 (“occidit sol meridie”). Compare Irenæus iv. 33. 12, (p. 273,) who says that these two prophecies found fulfilment in “eum occasum solis qui, crucifixo eo, fuit ab horâ sextâ.” He alludes to the same places in iv. 34. 3 (p. 275). So does Jerome (on Matt. xxvii. 45),—“Et hoc factum reor, ut compleatur prophetia,” and then he quotes Amos and Jeremiah; finely adding (from some ancient source),—“Videturque mihi clarissimum lumen mundi, hoc est luminare majus, retraxisse radios suos, ne aut pendentem videret Dominum; aut impii blasphemantes suâ luce fruerentur.”

168.

Our old friend of Halicarnassus (vii. 37), speaking of an eclipse which happened b.c. 481, remarks: ὁ ἥλιος ἐκλιπὼν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἕδρην.

169.

For it will be perceived that our Revisionists have adopted the reading vouched for only by codex b. What c* once read is as uncertain as it is unimportant.

170.

Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet, p. 60.

171.

On the Revised Version, p. 14.

172.

πολλὰ κατὰ γνώμην αὐτοῦ διεπράττετο, as (probably) Victor of Antioch (Cat. p. 128), explains the place. He cites some one else (p. 129) who exhibits ἠπόρει; and who explains it of Herod's difficulty about getting rid of Herodias.

173.

καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν, will have been the reading of that lost venerable codex of the Gospels which is chiefly represented at this day by Evann. 13-69-124-346,—as explained by Professor Abbott in his Introduction to Prof. Ferrar's Collation of four important MSS., etc. (Dublin 1877). The same reading is also found in Evann. 28 : 122 : 541 : 572, and Evst. 196. Different must have been the reading of that other venerable exemplar which supplied the Latin Church with its earliest Text. But of this let the reader judge:—“Et cum audisset illum multa facere, libenter,” &c. (c: also “Codex Aureus” and γ, both at Stockholm): “et audito eo quod multa faciebat, et libenter,” &c. (g2 q): “et audiens illum quia multa faciebat, et libenter,” &c. (b). The Anglo-Saxon, (“and he heard that he many wonders wrought, and he gladly heard him”) approaches nearest to the last two. The Peschito Syriac (which is without variety of reading here) in strictness exhibits:—“And many things he was hearing [from] him and doing; and gladly he was hearing him.” But this, by competent Syriac scholars, is considered to represent,—καὶ πολλὰ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ, ἐποίει; καὶ ἡδέως ἤκουεν αὐτοῦ.—Cod. Δ is peculiar in exhibiting καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλά, ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν,—omitting ἐποίει, καί.—The Coptic also renders, “et audiebat multa ab eo, et anxio erat corde.” From all this, it becomes clear that the actual intention of the blundering author of the text exhibited by א b l was, to connect πολλά, not with ἠπόρει, but with ἀκούσας. So the Arabian version: but not the Gothic, Armenian, Sclavonic, or Georgian,—as Dr. S. C. Malan informs the Reviewer.

174.

Note, that tokens abound of a determination anciently to assimilate the Gospels hereabouts. Thus, because the first half of Luke ix. 10 (ϟα / η) and the whole of Mk. vi. 30 (ξα / η) are bracketed together by Eusebius, the former place in codex a is found brought into conformity with the latter by the unauthorized insertion of the clause καὶ ὅσα ἐδίδαξαν.—The parallelism of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Lu. ix. 10 is the reason why d exhibits in the latter place ἀν- (instead of ὑπ)εχώρησε.—In like manner, in Lu. ix. 10, codex a exhibits εἰς ἔρημον τόπον, instead of εἰς τόπον ἔρημον; only because ἔρημον τόπον is the order of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Mk. vi. 32.—So again, codex א, in the same verse of S. Luke, entirely omits the final clause πόλεως καλουμένης Βηθσαῖδά, only in order to assimilate its text to that of the two earlier Gospels.—But there is no need to look beyond the limits of S. Mark vi. 14-16, for proofs of Assimilation. Instead of ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη (in ver. 14), b and א exhibit ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν—only because those words are found in Lu. ix. 7. a substitutes ἀνέστη (for ἠγέρθη)—only because that word is found in Lu. ix. 8. For ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν, c substitutes ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν—only because S. Matth. so writes in ch. xiv. 2. d inserts καὶ ἔβαλεν εἰς φυλακήν into ver. 17—only because of Mtt. xiv. 3 and Lu. iii. 20. In א b l Δ, βαπτίζοντος (for βαπτιστοῦ) stands in ver. 24—only by Assimilation with ver. 14. (l is for assimilating ver. 25 likewise), Κ Δ Π, the Syr., and copies of the old Latin, transpose ἐνεργοῦσιν αἱ δυνάμεις (in ver. 14)—only because those words are transposed in Mtt. xiv. 2.... If facts like these do not open men's eyes to the danger of following the fashionable guides, it is to be feared that nothing ever will. The foulest blot of all remains to be noticed. Will it be believed that in ver. 22, codices א b d l Δ conspire in representing the dancer (whose name is known to have been “Salome”) as another “Herodias”—Herod's own daughter? This gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of history—a reading as preposterous as it is revolting, and therefore rejected hitherto by all the editors and all the critics—finds undoubting favour with Drs. Westcott and Hort. Calamitous to relate, it also disfigures the margin of our Revised Version of S. Mark vi. 22, in consequence.

175.

i.e. “And” is omitted by b l Δ: “immediately” by א c: “with tears” by א a b c l Δ: “Lord” by א a b c d l.—In S. Mark vi. 16—(viz. “But when Herod heard thereof, he said [This is] John whom I beheaded. He is risen [from the dead],”)—the five words in brackets are omitted by our Revisers on the authority of א b (d) l Δ. But א d further omit Ἰωάννην: c d omit ὁ: א b d l omit ὅτι. To enumerate and explain the effects of all the barbarous Mutilations which the Gospels alone have sustained at the hands of א, of b, and of d—would fill many volumes like the present.

176.

Chrysostom, vii. 825.

177.

On the Creed, Art. iv. “Dead:” about half-way through.

178.

The Coptic represents ὅτι ἐξέπνευσε.

179.

Namely, of ἘΝ τῇ Βας. σου, which is the reading of every known copy but two; besides Origen, Eusebius, Cyril Jer., Chrysostom, &c. Only b l read ΕἸΣ,—which Westcott and Hort adopt.

180.

i. 261.

181.

i. 936, 1363.

182.

i. 158.

183.

P. 301.

184.

Ap. Galland. vi. 53.

185.

P. 396.

186.

vii. 431.

187.

“Ut ab additamenti ratione alienum est, ita cur omiserint in promptu est.”

188.

But then, 25 (out of 320) pages of d are lost: d's omissions in the Gospels may therefore be estimated at 4000. Codex a does not admit of comparison, the first 24 chapters of S. Matthew having perished; but, from examining the way it exhibits the other three Gospels, it is found that 650 would about represent the number of words omitted from its text.—The discrepancy between the texts of b א d, thus for the first time brought distinctly into notice, let it be distinctly borne in mind, is a matter wholly irrespective of the merits or demerits of the Textus Receptus,—which, for convenience only, is adopted as a standard: not, of course, of Excellence but only of Comparison.

189.

Viz. the 1st, the 7th to 12th inclusive, and the 15th.

190.

Concerning “the singular codex d,”—as Bp. Ellicott phrases it,—see back, pages 14 and 15.

191.

Bp. Ellicott On Revision,—p. 42. Concerning the value of the last-named authority, it is a satisfaction to enjoy the deliberate testimony of the Chairman of the Revisionist body. See below, p. 85.

192.

i. 156.

193.

ii. 254.

194.

i. 344

195.

iv. 220, 1218.

196.

In Luc. 664 (Mai, iv. 1105).

197.

ii. 653.

198.

“In Lucâ legimus duos calices, quibus discipulis propinavit,” vii. 216.

199.

Τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον; τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον, ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον.

200.

P. 1062.

201.

ii. 747.

202.

i. 1516. See below, p. 82.

203.

Abbott's Collation of four important Manuscripts, &c., 1877.

204.

ii. 354.

205.

Pp. 543 and 681 ( = ed. Mass. 219 and 277).

206.

Contra Noet. c. 18; also ap. Theodoret iv. 132-3.

207.

Ap. Galland. xix.; Append. 116, 117.

208.

Evan. Conc. pp. 55, 235.

209.

Ap. Epiph. i. 742, 785.

210.

It is § 283 in his sectional system.

211.

P. 1121.

212.

ii. 43; v. 392; vi. 604. Also Evan. Conc. 235. And see below, p. 82.

213.

Pp. 394, 402.

214.

i. 551.

215.

[i. 742, 785;] ii. 36, 42.

216.

v. 263; vii. 791; viii. 377.

217.

ii. 39.

218.

Ap. Theod. Mops.

219.

In loc. bis; ap. Galland. xii. 693; and Mai, Scriptt. Vett. vi. 306.

220.

Concilia, iii. 327 a.

221.

Ap. Mai, iii. 389.

222.

Concilia, iii. 1101 d.

223.

Schol. 34.

224.

i. 692; iv. 271, 429; v. 23. Conc. iii. 907 e.

225.

Concilia, iii. 740 d.

226.

Ap. Galland. vi. 16, 17, 19.

227.

Ap. Cosmam, ii. 331.

228.

i. 544.

229.

In Dionys. ii. 18, 30.

230.

Ap. Galland. xii. 693.

231.

Ibid. 688.

232.

Pp. 108, 1028, 1048.

233.

Epist. 138

234.

P. 1061.

235.

ii. 747.

236.

iv. 901, 902, 1013, 1564.

237.

P. 373.

238.

Ap. Galland. ix. 40.

239.

Ibid. xi. 693.

240.

Let their own account of the matter be heard:—“The documentary evidence clearly designates [these verses] as an early Western interpolation, adopted in eclectic texts.”—“They can only be a fragment from the Traditions, written or oral, which were for a while at least locally current:”—an “evangelic Tradition,” therefore, “rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second century.”

241.

Consider the places referred to in Epiphanius.

242.

The Editors shall speak for themselves concerning this, the first of the “Seven last Words:”—“We cannot doubt that it comes from an extraneous source:”—“need not have belonged originally to the book in which it is now included:”—is “a Western interpolation.” Dr. Hort,—unconscious apparently that he is at the bar, not on the bench,—passes sentence (in his usual imperial style)—“Text, Western and Syrian” (p. 67).—But then, (1st) It happens that our Lord's intercession on behalf of His murderers is attested by upwards of forty Patristic witnesses from every part of ancient Christendom: while, (2ndly) On the contrary, the places in which it is not found are certain copies of the old Latin, and codex d, which is supposed to be our great “Western” witness.

243.

Dr. Hort's N. T. vol. ii. Note, p. 68.

244.

Ap. Eus. Hist. Eccl. ii. 23.

245.

P. 521 and ... [Mass. 210 and 277.]

246.

Ed. Lagarde, p. 65 line 3.

247.

ii. 188. Hær. iii. 18 p. 5.

248.

Ap. Gall. iii. 38, 127.

249.

Ibid. ii. 714. (Hom. xi. 20.)

250.

Evan. Conc. 275.

251.

Ap. Routh, v. 161.

252.

He places the verses in Can. x.

253.

i. 1120.

254.

iii. 289.

255.

Cat. in Ps. iii. 219.

256.

i. 290.

257.

15 times.

258.

ii. 48, 321, 428; ii. (syr.) 233.

259.

Evan. Conc. 117, 256.

260.

i. 607.

261.

Pp. 232, 286.

262.

P. 85.

263.

Pp. 11, 16. Dr. Wright assigns them to the IVth century.

264.

Eph. c. x.

265.

ii. 166, 168, 226.

266.

6 times.

267.

Ap. Mai, ii. 197 ( = Cramer 52); iii. 392.—Dr. Hort's strenuous pleading for the authority of Cyril on this occasion (who however is plainly against him) is amusing. So is his claim to have the cursive “82” on his side. He is certainly reduced to terrible straits throughout his ingenious volume. Yet are we scarcely prepared to find an upright and honourable man contending so hotly, and almost on any pretext, for the support of those very Fathers which, when they are against him, (as, 99 times out of 100, they are,) he treats with utter contumely. He is observed to put up with any ally, however insignificant, who even seems to be on his side.

268.

Ap. Theod. v. 1152.

269.

Pp. 423, 457.

270.

Cat. in Ps. i. 768; ii. 663.

271.

Pp. 1109, 1134.

272.

i. 374.

273.

P. 93.

274.

ii. 67, 747.

275.

i. 814; ii. 819; v. 735.

276.

P. 88.

277.

Ap. Chrys. vi. 191.

278.

11 times.

279.

P. 782 f.

280.

12 times.

281.

More than 60 times.

282.

Ap. Cypr. (ed. Baluze), &c. &c.

283.

On Revision,—p. 42 note. See above, p. 78 note.

284.

Eclog. Proph. p. 89.

285.

In Luc. 435 and 718.

286.

See pages 93 to 97.

287.

i. 1528.

288.

So Sedulius Paschalis, ap. Galland. ix. 595.

289.

iii. 2.

290.

Euseb. Ecl. Proph. p. 89: Greg. Nyss. i. 570.—These last two places have hitherto escaped observation.

291.

See above, pp. 49-50, note 2.

292.

Viz., thus:—ἦν δὲ καὶ ἐπιγραφὴ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων οὗτος.

293.

Dean Alford, in loc.

294.

ὁ Λουκᾶς μιᾷ λέγει τῶν σαββάτων ὄρθρου βαθέος φέρειν ἀρώματα γυναῖκας ΔΎΟ τὰς ἀκολουθησάσας ἀυτῷ, αἵ τινες ἦσαν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας συνακολουθήσασαι, ὅτε ἔθαπτον αὐτὸν ἐλθοῦσαι ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα; αἵτινες ΔΎΟ, κ.τ.λ.,—ad Marinum, ap. Mai, iv. 266.

295.

Ps. i. 79.

296.

Dem. 492.

297.

Ap. Mai, iv. 287, 293.

298.

i. 364.

299.

Ap. Mai, ii. 439.

300.

Ap. Galland. xi. 224.

301.

Cat. in Joann. p. 453.

302.

Ps.-Chrys. viii. 161-2. Johannes Thessal. ap. Galland. xiii. 189.

303.

Ap. Mai, iv. 293 bis; 294 diserte.

304.

i. 506, 1541.

305.

iii. 91.

306.

iv. 1108, and Luc. 728 ( = Mai, ii. 441).

307.

iii.2 142; viii. 472.

308.

So Tertullian:—“Manus et pedes suos inspiciendos offert” (Carn. c. 5). “Inspectui eorum manus et pedes suos offert” (Marc. iv. c. 43). Also Jerome i. 712.

309.

De Resur. 240 (quoted by J. Damascene, ii. 762).

310.

Ap. Mai, iv. 294.

311.

i. 906, quoted by Epiph. i. 1003.

312.

Ap. Theodoret, iv. 141.

313.

i. 49.

314.

i. 510; ii. 408, 418; iii. 91.

315.

iv. 1108; vi. 23 (Trin.). Ap. Mai, ii. 442 ter.

316.

iv. 272.

317.

Cat. in Joan. 462, 3.

318.

i. 303.

319.

See above, pp. 78 and 85.

320.

iii. 579.

321.

ii. 114 (ed. 1698).

322.

ii. 9, 362, 622.

323.

ii. 309; iv. 30; v. 531; vii. 581.

324.

vi. 79.

325.

Ep. i. (ap. Gall. i. p. xii.)

326.

ii. 464.

327.

Text, pp. 565 and 571.

328.

Append. p. 14.

329.

We depend for our Versions on Dr. S. C. Malan: pp. 31, 44.

330.

ii. 147. Conc. v. 675.

331.

Cord. Cat. i. 376.

332.

vii. 599, 600 diserte.

333.

Ap. Photium, p. 644.

334.

Three times.

335.

i. 663, 1461, ii. 1137.

336.

Pp. 367, 699.

337.

vii. 139.

338.

Ap. Galland. vi. 324.

339.

iii. P. i. 760.

340.

Text, p. 572.

341.

Append. p. 14.

342.

ἔτι δὲ ἀπιστούντων αὐτῷ, καὶ θαυμαζόντων ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς.

343.

Viz. from ch. xix. 7 to xx. 46.

344.

We take leave to point out that, however favourable the estimate Drs. Westcott and Hort may have personally formed of the value and importance of the Vatican Codex (b), nothing can excuse their summary handling, not to say their contemptuous disregard, of all evidence adverse to that of their own favourite guide. They pass by whatever makes against the reading they adopt, with the oracular announcement that the rival reading is “Syrian,” “Western,” “Western and Syrian,” as the case may be. But we respectfully submit that “Syrian,” “Western,” “Western and Syrian,” as Critical expressions, are absolutely without meaning, as well as without use to a student in this difficult department of sacred Science. They supply no information. They are never supported by a particle of intelligible evidence. They are often demonstrably wrong, and always unreasonable. They are Dictation, not Criticism. When at last it is discovered that they do but signify that certain words are not found in codex b,—they are perceived to be the veriest foolishness also. Progress is impossible while this method is permitted to prevail. If these distinguished Professors have enjoyed a Revelation as to what the Evangelists actually wrote, they would do well to acquaint the world with the fact at the earliest possible moment. If, on the contrary, they are merely relying on their own inner consciousness for the power of divining the truth of Scripture at a glance,—they must be prepared to find their decrees treated with the contumely which is due to imposture, of whatever kind.

345.

Marcion (Epiph. i. 317);—Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266);—Epiphanius (i. 348);—Cyril (Mai, ii. 438);—John Thessal. (Galland. xiii. 188).

346.

[The discussion of this text has been left very nearly as it originally stood,—the rather, because the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16 will be found fully discussed at the end of the present volume. See Index of Texts.]

347.

Companion to the Revised Version, &c., by Alex. Roberts, D.D. (2nd edit.), pp. 66-8.

348.

Of this, any one may convince himself by merely inspecting the 2 pages of codex a which are exposed to view at the British Museum.

349.

For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading (17, 73, 181), the second proves (on enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an abridgment of Œcumenius, who certainly read Θεός; and the last is non-existent.

350.

Concilia, ii. 217 c.

351.

viii. 214 b.

352.

A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude of proofs that Christ is God, Gregory says:—Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαῤῥήδῃν βοᾷ; ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι. ii. 693.

353.

Τοῦτο ἡμῖν τὸ μέγα μυστήριον ... ὁ ἐνανθρωπήσας δι᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ πτωχεύσας Θεός, ἵνα ἀναστήσῃ τὴν σάρκα. (i. 215 a.)—Τί τὸ μέγα μυστήριον?... Θεὸς ἄνθρωπος γίνεται. (i. 685 b.)

354.

De Trin. p. 83—where the testimony is express.

355.

Θεὸς γὰρ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.—Concilia, i. 853 d.

356.

Cramer's Cat. in Rom. p. 124.

357.

One quotation may suffice:—Τὸ δὲ Θεὸν ὄντα, ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνεσχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ... τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἐκπλήξεως γέμον. ὂ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγεν; καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστέριον; ποῖον μέγα; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί; καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ Θεός, κ.τ.λ. i. 497. = Galland. xiv. 141.

358.

The following may suffice:—μέγα γὰρ τότε τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς ὢν καὶ ὁ Λόγος; ἐδικαιώθη δὲ καὶ ἐν πνεύματι. v. p. ii.; p. 154 c d.—In a newly-recovered treatise of Cyril, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is quoted at length with Θεός, followed by a remark on the ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθεὶς Θεός. This at least is decisive. The place has been hitherto overlooked.

359.

i. 92; iii. 657; iv. 19, 23.

360.

Apud Athanasium, Opp. ii. 33, where see Garnier's prefatory note.

361.

Καθ᾽ ὂ γὰρ ὑπῆρχε Θεὸς [sc. ὁ Χριστὸς] τοῦτον ᾔτει τὸν νομοθέτην δοθῆναι πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι ... τοιγαροῦν καὶ δεξάμενα τὰ ἔθνη τὸν νομοθέτην, τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα Θεόν. Cramer's Cat. iii. 69. The quotation is from the lost work of Severus against Julian of Halicarnassus.

362.

Galland. xii. 152 e, 153 e, with the notes both of Garnier and Gallandius.

363.

i. 313; ii. 263.

364.

Ap. Athanas. i. 706.

365.

iii. 401-2.

366.

Ap. Phot. 230.

367.

Contra Hær. Noet. c. 17.

368.

Ap. Clem. Al. 973.

369.

Cap. xii.

370.

Ad Eph. c. 19, 7; ad Magn. c. 8.

371.

See Scrivener's Plain Introd. pp. 555-6, and Berriman's Dissertation, pp. 229-263. Also the end of this volume.

372.

i. 887 c.

373.

ii. 74 b.

374.

See above, p. 98.

375.

As, that stupid fabrication, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; (in S. Matth. xix. 17):—the new incidents and sayings proposed for adoption, as in S. Mark i. 27 (in the Synagogue of Capernaum): in S. John xiii. 21-6 (at the last supper): in S. Luke xxiv. 17 (on the way to Emmaus):—the many proposed omissions, as in S. Matth. vi. 13 (the Doxology): in xvi. 2, 3 (the signs of the weather): in S. Mark ix. 44 & 46 (the words of woe): in S. John v. 3, 4 (the Angel troubling the pool), &c. &c. &c.

376.

It cannot be too plainly or too often stated that learned Prebendary Scrivener is wholly guiltless of the many spurious “Readings” with which a majority of his co-Revisionists have corrupted the Word of God. He pleaded faithfully,—but he pleaded in vain.—It is right also to state that the scholarlike Bp. of S. Andrews (Dr. Charles Wordsworth) has fully purged himself of the suspicion of complicity, by his printed (not published) remonstrances with his colleagues.—The excellent Bp. of Salisbury (Dr. Moberly) attended only 121 of their 407 meetings; and that judicious scholar, the Abp. of Dublin (Dr. Trench) only 63. The reader will find more on this subject at the close of Art. II.,—pp. 228-30.

377.

Eusebius,—Basil,—Chrysostom (in loc.),—Jerome,—Juvencus,—omit the words. P. E. Pusey found them in no Syriac copy. But the conclusive evidence is supplied by the Manuscripts; not more than 1 out of 20 of which contain this clause.

378.

“Revised Text” of S. Luke vi. 48.

379.

“Authorized Version,” supported by a c d and 12 other uncials, the whole body of the cursives, the Syriac, Latin, and Gothic versions.

380.

“Revised Text” of S. Luke v. 39.

381.

“Authorized Version,” supported by a c and 14 other uncials, the whole body of the cursives, and all the versions except the Peschito and the Coptic.

382.

Address at Lincoln Diocesan Conference,—p. 16.

383.

On Revision,—p. 99.

384.

Dial. capp. 88 and 103 (pp. 306, 310, 352).

385.

P. 113.

386.

Ap. Galland. iii. 719, c d.

387.

iv. 15 (ap. Gall. iv. 296 b).

388.

42 b, 961 e, 1094 a.

389.

Ap. Galland. iv. 605 (ver. 365-6).

390.

Ap. Aug. viii. 423 e.

391.

“Vox illa Patris, quæ super baptizatum facta est Ego hodie genui te,” (Enchirid. c. 49 [Opp. vi. 215 a]):— “Illud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa voce sonuisse quod in Psalmo scriptum est, Filius meus es tu: ego hodie genui te, quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus Græcis non inveniri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus confirmari possit, quid aliud quam utrumque intelligendum est quolibet verborum ordine de cælo sonuisse?” (De Cons. Ev. ii. c. 14 [Opp. iii. P. ii. 46 d e]). Augustine seems to allude to what is found to have existed in the Ebionite Gospel.

392.

Epiphanius (i. 138 b) quotes the passage which contains the statement.

393.

Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως—οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς: also—ἀνθρώπων.

394.

For my information on this subject, I am entirely indebted to one who is always liberal in communicating the lore of which he is perhaps the sole living depositary in England,—the Rev. Dr. S. C. Malan. See his Seven Chapters of the Revision of 1881, revised,—p. 3. But especially should the reader be referred to Dr. Malan's learned dissertation on this very subject in his Select Readings in Westcott and Hort's Gr. Text of S. Matth.,—pp. 1 to 22.

395.

So Dr. Malan in his Select Readings (see above note 1),—pp. 15, 17, 19.

396.

“Liber genituræ Jesu Christi filii David, filii Abraham” ... “Gradatim ordo deducitur ad Christi nativitatem.”—De Carne Christi, c. 22.

397.

A friendly critic complains that we do not specify which editions of the Fathers we quote. Our reply is—This [was] a Review, not a Treatise. We are constrained to omit such details. Briefly, we always quote the best Edition. Critical readers can experience no difficulty in verifying our references. A few details shall however be added: Justin (Otto): Irenæus (Stieren): Clemens Al. (Potter): Tertullian (Oehler): Cyprian (Baluze): Eusebius (Gaisford): Athanas. (1698): Greg. Nyss. (1638): Epiphan. (1622): Didymus (1769): Ephraem Syr. (1732): Jerome (Vallarsi): Nilus (1668-73): Chrysostom (Montfaucon): Cyril (Aubert): Isidorus (1638): Theodoret (Schulze): Maximus (1675): John Damascene (Lequien): Photius (1653). Most of the others (as Origen, Greg. Nazianz., Basil, Cyril of Jer., Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine), are quoted from the Benedictine editions. When we say “Mai,” we always mean his Nova Biblioth. PP. 1852-71. By “Montfaucon,” we mean the Nov. Coll. PP. 1707. It is necessity that makes us so brief.

398.

Concilia, iii. 521 a to d.

399.

i.2 340.

400.

P. 889 line 37 (γένησιν).

401.

i. 943 c.

402.

i. 735.

403.

v.1 363, 676.

404.

Concil. iii. 325 ( = Cyril v.2 28 a).

405.

vii. 48; viii. 314.

406.

In Matth. ii. 16.

407.

Ps.-Athanas. ii. 306 and 700: ps.-Chrysost. xii. 694.

408.

P. 470.

409.

Gall. ix. 215.

410.

Trin. 188.

411.

i. 250 b.

412.

i. 426 a (γένησις).

413.

Διαφέρει γένεσις καὶ γέννησις; γένεσις μὲν γάρ ἐστι παρὰ Θεοῦ πρώτη πλάσις, γέννησις δὲ ἡ ἐκ καταδίκης τοῦ θανάτου διὰ τὴν παράβασιν ἐξ ἀλλήλων διαδοχή.—Galland. xiv. Append. pp. 73, 74.

414.

[dated 22 May a.d. 359] ap. Athan. i. 721 d.

415.

i. 722 c.

416.

P. 20 of the newly-recovered Diatessaron, translated from the Armenian. The Exposition is claimed for Ephraem Syrus.

417.

Dr. Malan, Seven Chapters of the Revision, revised, p. 7.

418.

See below, note 13.

419.

See p. 122, note 11.

420.

i. 938, 952. Also ps.-Athan. ii. 409, excellently.

421.

Trin. 349.

422.

P. 116.

423.

i. 392; ii. 599, 600.

424.

ii. 229.

425.

See p. 122, note 11.

426.

i. 426, 1049 (5 times), 1052-3.

427.

vii. 76.

428.

Galland. ix. 636.

429.

P. 6 (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς: which is also the reading of Syrev and of the Sahidic. The Memphitic version represents τὸν υἱόν.)

430.

i. 276.

431.

Gal. xiii. 662.

432.

In Cat.

433.

ii. 462.

434.

“Ex hoc loco quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios filios habuisse Mariam, dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi qui habeat et fratres” (vii. 14). He refers to his treatise against Helvidius, ii. 210.

435.

Preface to Pastoral Epistles,—more fully quoted facing p. 1.

436.

The Preface (quoted above facing p. 1,) is dated 3rd Nov. 1868.

437.

Lectures on Biblical Revision, (1881) pp. 116 seqq. See above, pp. 37-9.

438.

On Revision, pp. 30 and 49.

439.

The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST, translated out of the Greek: being the Version set forth a.d. 1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Revised a.d. 1881. Printed for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881. The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version. Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881. Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version. [Edited by the Ven. Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881. The New Testament in the Original Greek. The Text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. Cambridge and London, 1881.

440.

Malan's Gospel of S. John translated from the Eleven oldest Versions.

441.

Int. ii. 72; iv. 622 dis.

442.

C. Noet. § 4.

443.

i. 1275.

444.

Trin. 363.

445.

Ap. Gall. v. 67.

446.

i. 282.

447.

i. 486.

448.

Ep. ad Paul. Sam. Concil. i. 872 e; 889 e.

449.

Ap. Galland. iv. 563.

450.

vii. 546; viii. 153, 154, 277.

451.

iii. 570; iv. 226, 1049, 1153.

452.

iv. 150 (text); vi. 30, 169. Mai, ii. 69.

453.

Concilia, iii. 1102 d.

454.

Quoted by Leontius (Gall. xii. 693).

455.

In Cat. Cord. 96.

456.

Ibid. p. 94.

457.

Cat. in Ps. ii. 323 and 343.

458.

Ap. Photium, p. 281.

459.

Montf. ii. 286.

460.

i. 288, 559, 567.

461.

Ps.-Athan. ii. 464. Another, 625. Another, 630. Ps.-Epiphan. ii. 287.

462.

i. 863, 903, 1428.

463.

Gall. iii. 296.

464.

32 dis.; 514; 1045 dis.

465.

Gall. vi. 192.

466.

iv. 679.

467.

Ap. Athan. ii. 646.

468.

Gall. v. 124.

469.

Ibid. iii. 628, 675.

470.

Ibid. ix. 367.

471.

Ibid. ix. 493.

472.

Let the Reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts of the several Versions above enumerated, and mentally assign each Father to his own approximate locality: then let him bear in mind that 995 out of 1000 of the extant Manuscripts agree with those Fathers and Versions; and let him further recognize that those MSS. (executed at different dates in different countries) must severally represent independent remote originals, inasmuch as no two of them are found to be quite alike.—Next, let him consider that, in all the Churches of the East, these words from the earliest period were read as part of the Gospel for the Thursday in Easter week.—This done, let him decide whether it is reasonable that two worshippers of codex b—a.d. 1881—should attempt to thrust all this mass of ancient evidence clean out of sight by their peremptory sentence of exclusion,—“Western and Syrian.” Drs. Westcott and Hort inform us that “the character of the attestation marks” the clause (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ), “as a Western gloss.” But the “attestation” for retaining that clause—(a) Comes demonstrably from every quarter of ancient Christendom:—(b) Is more ancient (by 200 years) than the evidence for omitting it:—(c) Is more numerous, in the proportion of 99 to 1:—(d) In point of respectability, stands absolutely alone. For since we have proved that Origen and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, Ambrose and Jerome, recognize the words in dispute, of what possible Textual significancy can it be if presently (because it is sufficient for their purpose) the same Fathers are observed to quote S. John iii. 13 no further than down to the words “Son of Man”? No person, (least of all a professed Critic,) who adds to his learning a few grains of common sense and a little candour, can be misled by such a circumstance. Origen, Eusebius, Proclus, Ephraim Syrus, Jerome, Marius, when they are only insisting on the doctrinal significancy of the earlier words, naturally end their quotation at this place. The two Gregories (Naz. [ii. 87, 168]: Nyss. [Galland. vi. 522]), writing against the Apolinarian heresy, of course quoted the verse no further than Apolinaris himself was accustomed (for his heresy) to adduce it.... About the internal evidence for the clause, nothing has been said; but this is simply overwhelming. We make our appeal to Catholic Antiquity; and are content to rest our cause on External Evidence;—on Copies, on Versions, on Fathers.

473.

Pp. 798, 799.

474.

iii. 414.

475.

Ant. c. 50; Consum. c. 28.

476.

Hist. Eccl. v. 8.

477.

Ἐμβατεῦσαι;—Ἐπιβῆναι τὰ ἔνδον ἐξερευνῆσαι ἣ σκοπῆσαι. Phavorinus, quoted by Brüder.

478.

Viz. S. Luke iv. 39: Acts x. 17: xi. 11: xxii. 20.

479.

S. Luke ii. 9 (where “came upon” is better than “stood by them,” and should have been left): xxiv. 4: Acts xii. 7: xxii. 13: xxiii. 11.

480.

S. Luke xx. 1: xxi. 34 (last Day): Acts iv. 1: vi. 12: xvii. 5 (“assault”): xxiii. 27: xxviii. 2 (a rain-storm,—which, by the way, suggests for τὸν ἐφεστῶτα a different rendering from “the present”).

481.

S. Luke ii. 38.

482.

S. Luke x. 40.

483.

Cf. ch. xi. 20. So in Latin, Illa plurima sacrificia. (Cic. De Fin. 2. 20. 63.)

484.

“The context” (says learned Dr. Field) “is too strong for philological quibbles.” The words “can by no possibility bear any other meaning.”—Otium Norvicense, p. 40.

485.

Στρατιώτης ὂς πρὸς τὸ φονεύειν τέτακται,—Theophylact, i. 201 e. Boys quotes Seneca De Irá:—Tunc centurio supplicio præpositus condere gladium speculatorem jussit.

486.

Trench, Study of Words, p. 106.

487.

Otium Norvicense, pars tertia, 1881, pp. 155.

488.

Compare Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. 6. 8), τοὺς Συριστὶ ἐπισταμένους. The plena locutio is found in Nehem. xiii. 24,—οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτῶν ἥμισυ λαλοῦντες Ἁζωτιστί, καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐπιγινώσκοντες λαλεῖν Ἰουδαιστί (quoted by Wetstein).

489.

Cf. Acts i. 23; xvii. 31. The Latin is “statuerunt” or “constituerunt.” The Revisionists give “appointed” in the second of these places, and “put forward” in the first. In both,—What becomes of their uniformity?

490.

P. 279.

491.

καὶ τὸν δικαστὴν εἷλεν ὁ τέως κατάδικος εἶναι νομιζόμενος καὶ τὴν νίκην αὐτὸς ὁ χειρωθεὶς ὁμολογεῖ λαμπρᾷ τῇ φωνῇ παρόντων ἁπάντων λέγων, ἐν ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. x. 307 b. (= xii. 433 a).

492.

ἐν ὀλίγῳ; τουτέστι παρὰ μικρόν. ix. 391 a.

493.

καὶ τὸν δικάζοντα μικροῦ μεταπεῖσαι, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον λέγειν, ἐν ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. ii. 516 d.

494.

iii. 399 d.

495.

v. 930 (παρ᾽ ὀλίγον).

496.

MS. Note in his copy of the N. T.

497.

And the Revisionists: for see Rom. xi. 4.

498.

Yet even here they cannot abstain from putting in the margin the peculiarly infelicitous alternative,—“Why didst thou forsake Me?”

499.

As in Rom. vi. 2: ix. 13. 1 Cor. i. 27: vi. 20: ix. 11. Ephes. iv. 20, &c. &c.

500.

Comp. S. Matth. viii. 1, 5, 23, 28; ix. 27, 28; xxi. 23.

501.

Ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς.

502.

ii. 155.

503.

Routh, Rell. iii. 226 ad calc.

504.

Ap. Mai, iv. 266.

505.

ii. 1324.

506.

ii. 380.

507.

Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 403.

508.

So also Heb. xi. 17, 28. And see the Revision of S. James i. 11.

509.

Comp. ἀφίεμεν in S. Lu. xi. 4. In the case of certain Greek verbs, the preterite in form is invariably present in signification. See Dr. Field's delightful Otium Norvicense, p. 65.

510.

See above, pp. 98-106. Also infra, towards the end.

511.

As in S. Matth. xi. 11 and 2 Tim. iv. 17, where δέ is rendered “notwithstanding:”—Phil. i. 24 and Heb. xii. 11, where it is “nevertheless.”

512.

Eight times in succession in 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, δέ is not represented in the A. V. The ancients felt so keenly what Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the A. V. ventured to exhibit, that as often as not they leave out the δέ,—in which our Revisionists twice follow them. The reader of taste is invited to note the precious result of inserting “and,” as the Revisionists have done six times, where according to the genius of the English language it is not wanted at all.

513.

38 times in the Genealogy, S. Matth. i.

514.

Rom. xiv. 4: xv. 20.

515.

Rom. ix. 22.

516.

1 Cor. xii. 27.

517.

Gal. ii. 4.

518.

Act xxvii. 26.

519.

Rom. iii. 22.

520.

Ephes. iv. 1.

521.

2 Cor. v. 8.

522.

S. Mark xv. 31.

523.

S. Mark vi. 29.

524.

1 Cor. x. 1.

525.

S. Matth. vi. 30.

526.

S. John xx. 4.

527.

2 Cor. i. 23.

528.

2 Cor. vii. 13.

529.

2 Cor. ii. 12.

530.

2 Pet. iii. 13.

531.

S. Matth. ii. 22.

532.

1 Cor. xii. 20.

533.

1 S. John i. 3.

534.

S. Matth. xxv. 39.

535.

Acts viii. 3.

536.

Rom. xii. 6.

537.

S. Matth. vi. 29.

538.

As in S. Matth. vii. 9: xii. 29: xx. 15. Rom. iii. 29.

539.

S. Matth. xx. 15: xxvi. 53. Rom. iii. 29: vi. 3: vii. 1.

540.

S. John xvi. 32.

541.

S. Luke xix. 23.

542.

2 Cor. xiii. 1.

543.

S. Luke xii. 2.

544.

S. Luke xviii. 7.

545.

S Luke xiv. 21.

546.

1 S. John ii. 27.

547.

1 S. John i. 2.

548.

S. Mark ix. 39.

549.

Acts xxiii. 3.

550.

Consider S. Matth. iii. 16,—ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος: and ver. 6,—ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ.

551.

ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συνανεστράφη.

552.

Galland. iv. 6 b bis.

553.

P. 279.

554.

ix. 400.

555.

ii. 707.

556.

The circumstance is noticed and explained in the same way by Dr. Field in his delightful Otium Norvicense.

557.

Concilia, iv. 79 e.

558.

Thus Cyril addresses one of his Epistles to Acacius Bp. of Melitene,—Concilia, iii. 1111.

559.

See Dr. Field's delightful Otium Norvicense (Pars tertia), 1881, pp. 1-4 and 110, 111. This masterly contribution to Sacred Criticism ought to be in the hands of every student of Scripture.

560.

See Hesychius, and the notes on the place.

561.

Notes designed to illustrate some expressions in the Gk. Test. by a reference to the lxx., &c. By C. F. B. Wood, Præcentor of Llandaff,—Rivingtons, 1882, (pp. 21,)—p. 17:—an admirable performance, only far too brief.

562.

Μὴ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ῥῆμα?

563.

Οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ πᾶν ῥῆμα.

564.

[Pointed out to me by Professor Gandell,—whose exquisite familiarity with Scripture is only equalled by his readiness to communicate his knowledge to others.]

565.

μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς and ἐνταφιασμός,—S. Mark xiv. 3 and 8: S. John xii. 3 and 7. Hear Origen (apud Hieron. iii. 517):—“Non de nardo propositum est nunc Spiritui Sancto dicere, neque de hoc quod oculis intuemur, Evangelista scribit, unguento; sed de nardo spirituali.” And so Jerome himself, vii. 212.

566.

Ps. xxxiii. 18 (ἐγγὺς Κύριος τοῖς συντετριμμένοις τὴν καρδίαν): Is. lvii. 15.

567.

Consider Ignatius, ad Ephes. c. xvii. Also, the exquisite remark of Theod. Heracl. in Cramer's Cat.

568.

We prefer that readers should be reminded, by the varied form, of the Greek original. In the extreme case (Acts vii. 45: Hebr. iv. 8), is it not far more edifying that attention should be in this way directed to the identity of the names “Joshua” and “Jesus,” than that the latter word should be entirely obliterated by the former;—and this, only for the sake of unmistakeably proclaiming, (what yet must needs be perfectly manifest, viz.) that “Joshua” is the personage spoken of?

569.

So, in S. Luke xxiii. 25, and Acts iii. 14: xiii. 28,—still following Tyndale.

570.

Acts xii. 20.

571.

Eph. iii. 13.

572.

For, as the story plainly shows (2 Sam. vii. 2, 3; 1 Chron. xvii. 1, 2), it was only “in his heart” to build God an house (1 Kings viii. 17, 18). Hence Cranmer's “he would fain” have done so.

573.

Acts xvi. 29.

574.

Col. i. 9.

575.

S. Matth. xiv. 15, 22, 23 (= S. Mark vi. 36, 45, [and note the substitution of ἀποταξάμενος in ver. 46]: S. Luke ix. 12): and xv. 32, 39 (= S. Mark viii. 9).

576.

S. Matt. xiii. 36: and S. Mark iv. 36.

577.

Acts xii. 13.

578.

Acts xvi. 16.

579.

Verses 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31.

580.

Twice he calls it μνῆμα.

581.

Ch. xxvii. 61, 64, 66; xxviii. 1.

582.

Except in 2 Tim. iii. 16,—where πρὸς διδασκαλίαν is rendered ad docendum.

583.

Except in Rom. xii. 7,—where ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ is rendered “on teaching.”

584.

Except in Rom. xvi. 17, where they render it “doctrine.”

585.

And yet, since upwards of 50 times we are molested with a marginal note to inform us that διδάσκαλος means “Teacher”—διδασκαλία (rather than διδαχή) might have claimed to be rendered “teaching.”

586.

Viz. Rom. xii. 7: 1 Tim. iv. 13, 16: v. 17: 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16.—Rom. xv. 4.

587.

Eight times in Rev. xvi.

588.

S. Matth. xxvi. 7. S. Mark xiv. 3. S. Luke vii. 37.

589.

γλωσσόκομον. Consider the LXX. of 2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11.

590.

ζώνας.

591.

E.g. S. Matth. xxvi. 48. S. Luke ii. 12.

592.

Δύναμις is rendered “miracle” in the R. V. about half-a-dozen times.

593.

Acts iv. 16, 22.—On the other hand, “sign” was allowed to represent σημεῖον repeatedly in the A. V., as in S. Matth. xii. 38, &c., and the parallel places: S. Mark xvi. 17, 20: S. John xx. 30.

594.

Canon Cook's Revised Version of the first three Gospels considered, &c.—p. 26: an admirable performance,—unanswered, because unanswerable.

595.

Dr. Vance Smith's Revised Texts and Margins,—p. 45.

596.

S. Matth. xvii. 15: S. Mk. ix. 18, 20, 22, 26: S. Lu. ix. 39, 42.

597.

Consider our Lord's solemn words in Mtt. xvii. 21,—“But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting,”—12 words left out by the R. V., though witnessed to by all the Copies but 3: by the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian Versions: and by the following Fathers:—(1) Origen, (2) Tertullian, (3) the Syriac Clement, (4) the Syriac Canons of Eusebius, (5) Athanasius, (6) Basil, (7) Ambrose, (8) Juvencus, (9) Chrysostom, (10) Opus imp., (11) Hilary, (12) Augustine, (13) J. Damascene, and others. Then (it will be asked), why have the Revisionists left them out? Because (we answer) they have been misled by b and א, Cureton's Syriac and the Sahidic,—as untrustworthy a quaternion of witnesses to the text of Scripture as could be named.

598.

The word is only not banished entirely from the N. T. It occurs twice (viz. in Rom. i. 20, and Jude ver. 6), but only as the rendering of ἀῖδιος.

599.

S. Matth. xxv. 46.

600.

Clemens Al. (p. 71) says:—τὰσ γραφὰς ὁ Ἀπόστολος Θεοπνεύστους καλεῖ, ὠφελίμους οὔσας. Tertullian,—Legimus omnem Scripturam ædificationi habilem, divinitus inspirari. Origen (ii. 443),—πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος οὖσα ὠφελιμός ἐστι. Gregory Nyss. (ii. 605),—πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος λέγεται. Dial. (ap. Orig. i. 808),—πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος λέγεται παρὰ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου. So Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, &c.

601.

See Archdeacon Lee on Inspiration, pp. 261-3, reading his notes.

602.

S. John xvi. 15.

603.

Study by all means Basil's letter to Amphilochius, (vol. iii. p. 360 to 362.)—Ἔστιν οὖν ὁ νοῦς ὁ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ τοιοῦτος; Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ ὥρας, οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὔτε οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἄν ὁ Υἱὸς ἔγνω, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατέρ; ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτῷ ὑπῆρχε δεδομένη ἡ γνῶσις ... τουτέστιν, ἡ αἰτία τοῦ εἰδέναι τὸν Υἱὸν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός; καὶ ἀβίαστός ἐστι τῷ εὐγνωμόνως ἀκούοντι ἡ ἐξήγησις αὕτη. ἐπειδὴ οὐ πρόσκειται τὸ μόνος; ὡς καὶ παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ.—(p. 362 c.) Basil says of this interpretation—ἂ τοίνυν ἐκ παιδὸς παρὰ τῶν πατέρων ἠκούσαμεν.

604.

Notes, p. 109.

605.

Celebre effugium, (as Dr. Routh calls it,) quod ex falsâ verborum constructione Critici quidam hæreticis pararunt. Reliqq. iii. 322-3.

606.

c alone has a point between ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων and Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τους αἰῶνας. But this is an entirely different thing from what is noted in the margin.

607.

MS. communication from the Rev. S. C. Malan.

608.

i. 506.

609.

Opusc. i. 52, 58; Phil. 339.

610.

iv. 612.

611.

Routh, Reliqq. Sac. iii. 292, and 287. (Concil. i. 845 b. c.)

612.

Concilia, i. 873 d: 876 a.

613.

vi. c. 26.

614.

i. 414, 415, 429, 617, 684, 908.

615.

i. 282. And in Cat. 317.

616.

Trin. 21, 29, 327, 392. Mai, vii. 303.

617.

ii. 596 a, (quoted by the Emp. Justinian [Concil. v. 697] and the Chronicon Paschale, 355), 693, 697; iii. 287. Galland. vi. 575.

618.

i. 481, 487, 894, 978; ii. 74.

619.

Ap. Cyril (ed. Pusey), v. 534.

620.

Ap. Gall. iii. 805.

621.

Ap. Gall. iv. 576.

622.

Ap. Phot. col. 761, 853.

623.

Ap. Gall. vi. 8, 9, 80.

624.

Ap. Gall. vii. 618, and ap. Hieron. i. 560.

625.

Concilia, iii. 522 e ( = iv. 297 d = ap. Gall. viii. 667). Also, Concilia (Harduin), i. 1413 a.

626.

Ap. Gall. ix. 474.

627.

Ap. Gall. ix. 690, 691 ( = Concil. iii. 1230, 1231).

628.

Homilia (Arm.), p. 165 and 249.

629.

i. 464, 483; vi. 534; vii. 51; viii. 191; ix. 604, 653; x. 172.

630.

v.1 20, 503, 765, 792; v.2 58, 105, 118, 148; vi. 328. Ap. Mai, ii. 70, 86, 96, 104; iii. 84 in Luc. 26.

631.

Concilia, iii. 1099 b.

632.

i. 103; ii. 1355; iii. 215, 470; iv. 17, 433, 1148, 1264, 1295, 1309; v. 67, 1093.

633.

Cramer's Cat. 160.

634.

Ibid. in Act. 40.

635.

P. 166.

636.

Concilia, ii. 195.

637.

Ap. Gall. xii. 251.

638.

Ap. Gall. xii. 682.

639.

ii. 64.

640.

i. 557; ii. 35, 88.

641.

Prax. 13, 15—“Christum autem et ipse Deum cognominavit, Quorum patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in ævum.”

642.

P. 287.

643.

Ap. Gall. iii. 296, 313.

644.

i. 1470; ii. 457, 546, 609, 790.

645.

Concilia, ii. 982 c.

646.

78, 155, 393, 850, 970, 1125, 1232.

647.

i. 870, 872.

648.

Ap. Gall. viii. 157.

649.

Ap. Gall. vii. 589, 590.

650.

Ap. Gall. viii. 627.

651.

709, 711.

652.

Ap. Gall. x. 722.

653.

Ap. Gall. xi. 233, 237.

654.

Concilia, iii. 1364, 1382.

655.

Ap. Gall. 352, 357.

656.

Ibid. 674.

657.

ii. 16, 215, 413.

658.

i. 839; v. 769; xii. 421.

659.

Those of our readers who wish to pursue this subject further may consult with advantage Dr. Gifford's learned note on the passage in the Speaker's Commentary. Dr. Gifford justly remarks that “it is the natural and simple construction, which every Greek scholar would adopt without hesitation, if no question of doctrine were involved.”

660.

Note, that this has been the language of the Church from the beginning. Thus Tertullian,—“Aquam adituri ... contestamur nos renuntiare diabolo, et pompæ et angelis ejus” (i. 421): and Ambrose,—“Quando te interrogavit, Abrenuntias diabolo et operibus ejus, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio. Abrenuntias sæculo et voluptatibus ejus, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio” (ii. 350 c): and Ephraem Syrus,—Ἀποτάσσομαι τῷ Σατανᾷ καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ (ii. 195 and iii. 399). And Cæsarius of Arles,—“Abrenuntias diabolo, pompis et operibus ejus ... Abrenuntio” (Galland. xi. 18 e).

661.

2 Tim. iv. 18.

662.

S. John xvii. 24.

663.

P. 140.

664.

Marcell. p. 192.

665.

In loc. diserte.

666.

Eth. ii. 297.

667.

viii. 485.

668.

Text, iv. 1003; Comm. 1007, which are two distinct authorities, as learned readers of Cyril are aware.

669.

Concilia, iii. 356 d.

670.

iv. 450.

671.

Pp. 235, 321.

672.

i. 412; ii. 566, 649.

673.

Pp. 1017, 1033.

674.

Victricius ap. Gall. viii. 230. Also ps.-Chrys. v. 680.

675.

iii. 966 dis.

676.

Dem. 92.

677.

i. 319.

678.

Trin. 190.

679.

v. 1039, 1069.

680.

ii. 460.

681.

v. 615.

682.

ii. 584. Cyril read the place both ways:—v.2 156, and in Luc. p. 52.

683.

i. 720.

684.

ii. 381; iii. 962; iv. 601.

685.

Ap. Galland. vii. 183.

686.

Ap. Montf. ii. 67.

687.

iii. 333; v. 444; x. 498, 620; xii. 329.

688.

ii. 77; iii. 349.

689.

ii. 252.

690.

“Deseruimus fere quos sequi solemus codices.”

691.

P. 38 ( = Gall. vii. 26).

692.

i. 298, 613.

693.

viii. 351, 352.

694.

iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.

695.

i. 748; iv. 274, 550.

696.

In Dionys. Ar. ii. 192.

697.

As these sheets are passing through the press, we have received a book by Sir Edmund Beckett, entitled, Should the Revised New Testament be Authorized? In four Chapters, the author discusses with characteristic vigour, first, the principles and method of the Revisers, and then the Gospel of S. Matthew, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, as fair samples of their work, with a union of sound sense, forensic skill, and scholarship more skilful than to deserve his cautious disclaimer. Amidst details open, of course, to discussion, abundant proofs are set forth, in a most telling style, that the plea of “necessity” and “faithfulness” utterly fails, in justification of a mass of alterations, which, in point of English composition, carry their condemnation on their face, and, to sum up the great distinction between the two Versions, illustrate “the difference between working by discretion and by rules—by which no great thing was ever done or ever will be.” Sir Edmund Beckett is very happy in his exposure of the abuse of the famous canon of preferring the stranger reading to the more obvious, as if copyists never made stupid blunders or perpetrated wilful absurdities. The work deserves the notice of all English readers.

698.

It has been objected by certain of the Revisionists that it is not fair to say that “they were appointed to do one thing, and have done another.” We are glad of this opportunity to explain. That some corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware: and had those necessary changes been made, we should only have had words of commendation and thanks to offer. But it is found that by Dr. Hort's eager advocacy two-thirds of the Revisionists have made a vast number of perfectly needless changes:—(1) Changes which are incapable of being represented in a Translation: as ἐμοῦ for μου,—πάντες for ἅπαντες,—ὅτε for ὁπότε. Again, since γέννησις, at least as much as γένεσις, means “birth,” why γένεσις in S. Matth. i. 18? Why, also, inform us that instead of ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ πεφυτευμένην, they prefer πεφυτευμένην ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ? and instead of καρπὸν ζητῶν,—ζητῶν καρπόν? Now this they have done throughout,—at least 341 times in S. Luke alone. But (what is far worse), (2) They suggest in the margin changes which yet they do not adopt. These numerous changes are, by their own confession, not “necessary:” and yet they are of a most serious character. In fact, it is of these we chiefly complain.—But, indeed (3), How many of their other alterations of the Text will the Revisionists undertake to defend publicly on the plea of “Necessity”? [A vast deal more will be found on this subject towards the close of the present volume. In the meantime, see above, pages 87-88.]

699.

“We meet in every page” (says Dr. Wordsworth, the learned Bishop of Lincoln,) “with small changes which are vexatious, teasing, and irritating; even the more so because they are small (as small insects sting most sharply), which seem almost to be made merely for the sake of change.”—p. 25.

700.

On the Revision of the English Version, &c. (1870), p. 99.

701.

Bp. Ellicott, Diocesan Progress, Jan. 1882,—p. 19.

702.

Bp. Ellicott, On Revision,—p. 49.

703.

“Qui lxx interpretes non legit, aut minus legit accurate, is sciat se non adeo idoneum, qui Scripta Evangelica Apostolica de Græco in Latinum, aut alium aliquem sermonem transferat, ut ut in aliis Græcis scriptoribus multum diuque fuerit versatus.” (John Bois, 1619.)—“Græcum N. T. contextum rite intellecturo nihil est utilius quam diligenter versasse Alexandrinam antiqui Fœderis interpretationem, e quâ unâ plus peti poterit auxilii, quam ex veteribus Scriptoribus Græcis simul sumtis. Centena reperientur in N. T. nusquam obvia in scriptis Græcorum veterum, sed frequentata in Alexandrinâ versione.” (Valcknaer, 1715-85.)

704.

On the Authorized Version,—p. 3.

705.

Preface, p. xiv.

706.

Quarterly Review, No. 304.

707.

Quarterly Review, No. 305.

708.

At the head of the present Article, as it originally appeared, will be found enumerated Dr. Scrivener's principal works. It shall but be said of them, that they are wholly unrivalled, or rather unapproached, in their particular department. Himself an exact and elegant Scholar,—a most patient and accurate observer of Textual phenomena, as well as an interesting and judicious expositor of their significance and value;—guarded in his statements, temperate in his language, fair and impartial (even kind) to all who come in his way:—Dr. Scrivener is the very best teacher and guide to whom a beginner can resort, who desires to be led by the hand, as it were, through the intricate mazes of Textual Criticism. His Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the use of Biblical Students, (of which a third edition is now in the press,) is perforce the most generally useful, because the most comprehensive, of his works; but we strenuously recommend the three prefatory chapters of his Full and Exact Collation of about twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Gospels [pp. lxxiv. and 178,—1853], and the two prefatory chapters of his Exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, &c., to which is added a full Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, [pp. lxxx. and 563,—1859,] to the attention of students. His Collation of Codex Bezæ (d) is perhaps the greatest of his works: but whatever he has done, he has done best. It is instructive to compare his collation of Cod. א with Tischendorf's. No reader of the Greek Testament can afford to be without his reprint of Stephens' ed. of 1550: and English readers are reminded that Dr. Scrivener's is the only classical edition of the English Bible,—The Cambridge Paragraph Bible, &c., 1870-3. His Preface or “Introduction” (pp. ix.-cxx.) passes praise. Ordinary English readers should enquire for his Six Lectures on the Text of the N. T., &c., 1875,—which is in fact an attempt to popularize the Plain Introduction. The reader is referred to note 1 at the foot of page 243.

709.

“Agmen ducit Carolus Lachmannus (N. T. Berolini 1842-50), ingenii viribus et elegantiâ doctrinæ haud pluribus impar; editor N. T. audacior quam limatior: cujus textum, a recepto longè decedentem, tantopere judicibus quibusdam subtilioribus placuisse jamdudum miramur: quippe qui, abjectâ tot cæterorum codicum Græcorum ope, perpaucis antiquissimis (nec iis integris, nec per eum satis accuratè collatis) innixus, libros sacros ad sæculi post Christum quarti normam restituisse sibi videatur; versionum porrò (cujuslibet codicis ætatem facilè superantium) Syriacæ atque Ægyptiacarum contemptor, neutrius linguæ peritus; Latinarum contrà nimius fautor, præ Bentleio ipso Bentleianus.”—Scrivener's Preface to Nov. Test, textûs Stephanici, &c. See above, p. 238, note.

710.

Scrivener's Introduction, p. 429.

711.

N. T. Part II. p. 2.

712.

No one who attends ever so little to the subject can require to be assured that “The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the variations adopted in the Revised Version,” edited by Dr. Scrivener for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1881, does not by any means represent his own views. The learned Prebendary merely edited the decisions of the two-thirds majority of the Revisionists,—which were not his own.

713.

Those who have never tried the experiment, can have no idea of the strain on the attention which such works as those enumerated in p. 238 (note) occasion. At the same time, it cannot be too clearly understood that it is chiefly by the multiplication of exact collations of MSS. that an abiding foundation will some day be laid on which to build up the Science of Textual Criticism. We may safely keep our “Theories” back till we have collated our MSS.,—re-edited our Versions,—indexed our Fathers. They will be abundantly in time then.

714.

Introduction, p. 18.

715.

See lower part of page 17. Also note at p. 75 and middle of p. 262.

716.

P. 13, cf. p. viii.

717.

They are as follows:— [1st] S. Mark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion the multitude, when they beheld our Saviour and His Disciples departing in order to cross over unto the other side of the lake, ran on foot thither,—(α) “and outwent them—(β) and came together unto Him” (i.e. on His stepping out of the boat: not, as Dr. Hort strangely imagines [p. 99], on His emerging from the scene of His “retirement” in “some sequestered nook”). Now here, a substitutes συνέδραμον [sic] for συνῆλθον.—א b with the Coptic and the Vulg. omit clause (β).—d omits clause (α), but substitutes “there” (αὐτοῦ) for “unto Him” in clause (β),—exhibits therefore a fabricated text.—The Syriac condenses the two clauses thus:—“got there before Him.”—l, Δ, 69, and 4 or 5 of the old Latin copies, read diversely from all the rest and from one another. The present is, in fact, one of those many places in S. Mark's Gospel where all is contradiction in those depraved witnesses which Lachmann made it his business to bring into fashion. Of Confusion there is plenty. “Conflation”—as the Reader sees—there is none. [2nd] In S. Mark viii. 26, our Saviour (after restoring sight to the blind man of Bethsaida) is related to have said,—(α) “Neither enter into the village”—(β) “nor tell it to any one—(γ) in the village.” (And let it be noted that the trustworthiness of this way of exhibiting the text is vouched for by a c n Δ and 12 other uncials: by the whole body of the cursives: by the Peschito and Harklensian, the Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions: and by the only Father who quotes the place—Victor of Antioch. [Cramer's Cat. p. 345, lines 3 and 8.]) But it is found that the “two false witnesses” (א b) omit clauses (β) and (γ), retaining only clause (α). One of these two however (א), aware that under such circumstances μηδέ is intolerable, [Dr. Hort, on the contrary, (only because he finds it in b,) considers μηδέ “simple and vigorous” as well as “unique” and “peculiar” (p. 100).] substitutes μή. As for d and the Vulg., they substitute and paraphrase, importing from Matt. ix. 6 (or Mk. ii. 11), “Depart unto thine house.” d proceeds,—“and tell it to no one [μηδενὶ εἴπῃς, from Matth. viii. 4,] in the village.” Six copies of the old Latin (b f ff-2 g-1-2 l), with the Vulgate, exhibit the following paraphrase of the entire place:—“Depart unto thine house, and if thou enterest into the village, tell it to no one.” The same reading exactly is found in Evan. 13-69-346: 28, 61, 473, and i, (except that 28, 61, 346 exhibit “say nothing [from Mk. i. 44] to no one.”) All six however add at the end,—“not even in the village.” Evan. 124 and a stand alone in exhibiting,—“Depart unto thine house; and enter not into the village; neither tell it to any one,”—to which 124 [not a] adds,—“in the village.”... Why all this contradiction and confusion is now to be called “Conflation,”—and what “clear evidence” is to be elicited therefrom that “Syrian” are posterior alike to “Western” and to “neutral” readings,—passes our powers of comprehension. We shall be content to hasten forward when we have further informed our Readers that while Lachmann and Tregelles abide by the Received Text in this place; Tischendorf, alone of Editors, adopts the reading of א (μη εις την κωμην εισελθης): while Westcott and Hort, alone of Editors, adopt the reading of b (μηδε εις την κωμην εισελθης),—so ending the sentence. What else however but calamitous is it to find that Westcott and Hort have persuaded their fellow Revisers to adopt the same mutilated exhibition of the Sacred Text? The consequence is, that henceforth,—instead of “Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town,”—we are invited to read, “Do not even enter into the village.” [3rd] In S. Mk. ix. 38,—S. John, speaking of one who cast out devils in Christ's Name, says—(α) “who followeth not us, and we forbad him—(β) because he followeth not us.” Here, א b c l Δ the Syriac, Coptic, and Æthiopic, omit clause (α), retaining (β). d with the old Latin and the Vulg. omit clause (β), but retain (α).—Both clauses are found in a n with 11 other uncials and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Gothic, and the only Father who quotes the place,—Basil [ii. 252].—Why should the pretence be set up that there has been “Conflation” here? Two Omissions do not make one Conflation. [4th] In Mk. ix. 49,—our Saviour says,—“For (α) every one shall be salted with fire—and (β) every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.” Here, clause (α) is omitted by d and a few copies of the old Latin; clause (β) by א b L Δ. But such an ordinary circumstance as the omission of half-a-dozen words by Cod. d is so nearly without textual significancy, as scarcely to merit commemoration. And do Drs. Westcott and Hort really propose to build their huge and unwieldy hypothesis on so flimsy a circumstance as the concurrence in error of א b l Δ,—especially in S. Mark's Gospel, which those codices exhibit more unfaithfully than any other codices that can be named? Against them, are to be set on the present occasion a c d n with 12 other uncials and the whole body of the cursives: the Ital. and Vulgate; both Syriac; the Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions; besides the only Father who quotes the place,—Victor of Antioch. [Also “Anon.” p. 206: and see Cramer's Cat. p. 368.] [5th] S. Luke (ix. 10) relates how, on a certain occasion, our Saviour “withdrew to a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida:” which S. Luke expresses in six words: viz. [1] εἰς [2] τόπον [3] ἔρημον [4] πόλεως [5] καλουμένης [6] Βηθσαϊδά: of which six words,— (a)—א and Syrcu retain but three,—1, 2, 3. (b)—The Peschito retains but four,—1, 2, 3, 6. (c)—b l x Ξ d and the 2 Egyptian versions retain other four,—1, 4, 5, 6: but for πόλεως καλουμένης d exhibits κώμην λεγομένην. (d)—The old Latin and Vulg. retain five,—1, 2, 3, 5, 6: but for “qui (or quod) vocabatur,” the Vulg. b and c exhibit “qui (or quod) est.” (e)—3 cursives retain other five, viz. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6: while, (f)—a c Δ e, with 9 more uncials and the great bulk of the cursives,—the Harklensian, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions,—retain all the six words. In view of which facts, it probably never occurred to any one before to suggest that the best attested reading of all is the result of “conflation,” i.e. of spurious mixture. Note, that א and d have, this time, changed sides. [6th] S. Luke (xi. 54) speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees as (α) “lying in wait for Him,” (β) seeking (γ) to catch something out of His mouth (δ) “that they might accuse Him.” This is the reading of 14 uncials headed by a c, and of the whole body of the cursives: the reading of the Vulgate also and of the Syriac. What is to be said against it? It is found that א b l with the Coptic and Æthiopic Versions omit clauses (β) and (δ), but retain clauses (α) and (γ).—Cod. d, in conjunction with Cureton's Syriac and the old Latin, retains clause (β), and paraphrases all the rest of the sentence. How then can it be pretended that there has been any “Conflation” here? In the meantime, how unreasonable is the excision from the Revised Text of clauses (β) and (δ)—(ζητοῦντες ... ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτόν)—which are attested by a c d and 12 other uncials, together with the whole body of the cursives; by all the Syriac and by all the Latin copies!... Are we then to understand that א b, and the Coptic Version, outweigh every other authority which can be named? [7th] The “rich fool” in the parable (S. Lu. xii. 18), speaks of (α) πάντα τὰ γενήματά μου, καὶ (β) τὰ ἀγαθά μου. (So a q and 13 other uncials, besides the whole body of the cursives; the Vulgate, Basil, and Cyril.) But א d (with the old Latin and Cureton's Syriac [which however drops the πάντα]), retaining clause (α), omit clause (β).—On the other hand, b t, (with the Egyptian Versions, the Syriac, the Armenian, and Æthiopic,) retaining clause (β), substitute τὸν σῖτον (a gloss) for τὰ γενήματα in clause (α). Lachmann, Tisch., and Alford, accordingly retain the traditional text in this place. So does Tregelles, and so do Westcott and Hort,—only substituting τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα. Confessedly therefore there has been no “Syrian conflation” here: for all that has happened has been the substitution by b of τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα; and the omission of 4 words by א d. This instance must therefore have been an oversight.—Only once more. [8th] S. Luke's Gospel ends (xxiv. 53) with the record that the Apostles were continually in the Temple, “(α) praising and (β) blessing God.” Such is the reading of 13 uncials headed by A and every known cursive: a few copies of the old Lat., the Vulg., Syraic, Philox., Æthiopic, and Armenian Versions. But it is found that א b c omit clause (α): while d and seven copies of the old Latin omit clause (β). And this completes the evidence for “Conflation.” We have displayed it thus minutely, lest we should be suspected of unfairness towards the esteemed writers on the only occasion which they have attempted argumentative proof. Their theory has at last forced them to make an appeal to Scripture, and to produce some actual specimens of their meaning. After ransacking the Gospels for 30 years, they have at last fastened upon eight: of which (as we have seen), several have really no business to be cited,—as not fulfilling the necessary conditions of the problem. To prevent cavil however, let all but one, the [7th], pass unchallenged.

718.

The Reader is referred to pp. 17, 75, 249.

719.

E.g. pp. 115, 116, 117, 118, &c.

720.

Referred to below, p. 296.

721.

See above, pages 257 (bottom) and 258 (top).

722.

See above, pp. 37 to 38.

723.

Ibid. p. 39.

724.

To speak with entire accuracy, Drs. Westcott and Hort require us to believe that the Authors of the [imaginary] Syrian Revisions of a.d. 250 and a.d. 350, interpolated the genuine Text of the Gospels, with between 2877 (b) and 3455 (א) spurious words; mutilated the genuine Text in respect of between 536 (b) and 839 (א) words:—substituted for as many genuine words, between 935 (b) and 1114 (א) uninspired words:—licentiously transposed between 2098 (b) and 2299 (א):—and in respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c., altered without authority between 1132 (B) and 1265 (א) words.

725.

Quoted by Canon Cook, Revised Version Considered,—p. 202.

726.

i.e. say from a.d. 90 to a.d. 250-350.

727.

See above, p. 269.

728.

“If,” says Dr. Hort, “an editor were for any purpose to make it his aim to restore as completely as possible the New Testament of Antioch in a.d. 350, he could not help taking the approximate consent of the cursives as equivalent to a primary documentary witness. And he would not be the less justified in so doing for being unable to say precisely by what historical agencies the one Antiochian original”—[note the fallacy!]—“was multiplied into the cursive hosts of the later ages.”—Pp. 143-4.

729.

Preface to the “limited and private issue” of 1870, p. xviii.: reprinted in the Introduction (1881), p. 66.

730.

Ibid.

731.

P. 65 (§ 84). In the Table of Contents (p. xi.), “Personal instincts” are substituted for “Personal discernment.”

732.

The Revisers and the Greek Text,—p. 19.

733.

Introduction,—p. xiii.

734.

Notes, p. 22.

735.

Notes, p. 88.

736.

Notes,—p. 51.

737.

Scrivener's Plain Introduction,—pp. 507-8.

738.

Scrivener's “Introduction,” pp. 513-4.

739.

In S. Matth. i. 25,—the omission of “her first-born:”—in vi. 13, the omission of the Doxology:—in xii. 47, the omission of the whole verse:—in xvi. 2, 3, the omission of our Lord's memorable words concerning the signs of the weather:—in xvii. 21, the omission of the mysterious statement, “But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting:”—in xviii. 11, the omission of the precious words “For the Son of man came to save that which was lost.” In S. Mark xvi. 9-20, the omission of the “last Twelve Verses,”—(“the contents of which are not such as could have been invented by any scribe or editor of the Gospel,”—W. and H. p. 57). All admit that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is an impossible ending. In S. Luke vi. 1, the suppression of the unique δευτεροπρώτῳ; (“the very obscurity of the expression attesting strongly to its genuineness,”—Scrivener, p. 516, and so W. and H. p. 58):—ix. 54-56, the omitted rebuke to the “disciples James and John:”—in x. 41, 42, the omitted words concerning Martha and Mary:—in xxii. 43, 44, the omission of the Agony in the Garden,—(which nevertheless, “it would be impossible to regard as a product of the inventiveness of scribes,”—W. and H. p. 67):—in xxiii. 17, a memorable clause omitted:—in xxiii. 34, the omission of our Lord's prayer for His murderers,—(concerning which Westcott and Hort remark that “few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this”—p. 68):—in xxiii. 38, the statement that the Inscription on the Cross was “in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew:”—in xxiv. 12, the visit of S. Peter to the Sepulchre. Bishop Lightfoot remarks concerning S. Luke ix. 56: xxii. 43, 44: and xxiii. 34,—“It seems impossible to believe that these incidents are other than authentic,”—(p. 28.) In S. John iii. 13, the solemn clause “which is in heaven:”—in v. 3, 4, the omitted incident of the troubling of the pool:—in vii. 53 to viii. 11, the narrative concerning the woman taken in adultery omitted,—concerning which Drs. W. and H. remark that “the argument which has always told most in its favour in modern times is its own internal character. The story itself has justly seemed to vouch for its own substantial truth, and the words in which it is clothed to harmonize with those of other Gospel narratives”—(p. 87). Bishop Lightfoot remarks that “the narrative bears on its face the highest credentials of authentic history”—(p. 28).

740.

To some extent, even the unlearned Reader may easily convince himself of this, by examining the rejected “alternative” Readings in the margin of the “Revised Version.” The “Many” and the “Some ancient authorities,” there spoken of, almost invariably include—sometimes denote—codd. b א, one or both of them. These constitute the merest fraction of the entire amount of corrupt readings exhibited by b א; but they will give English readers some notion of the problem just now under consideration. Besides the details already supplied [see above, pages 16 and 17:—30 and 31:—46 and 47:—75:—249:—262:—289:—316 to 319] concerning b and א,—(the result of laborious collation,)—some particulars shall now be added. The piercing of our Saviour's side, thrust in after Matt. xxvii. 49:—the eclipse of the sun when the moon was full, in Lu. xxiii. 45:—the monstrous figment concerning Herod's daughter, thrust into Mk. vi. 22:—the precious clauses omitted in Matt. i. 25 and xviii. 11:—in Lu. ix. 54-6, and in Jo. iii. 13:—the wretched glosses in Lu. vi. 48: x. 42: xv. 21: Jo. x. 14 and Mk. vi. 20:—the substitution of οινον (for οξος) in Matt. xxvii. 34,—of Θεος (for υιος) in Jo. i. 18,—of ανθρωπου (for Θεου) in ix. 35,—of οὑ (for ῷ) in Rom. iv. 8:—the geographical blunder in Mk. vii. 31: in Lu. iv. 44:—the omission in Matt. xii. 47,—and of two important verses in Matt. xvi. 2, 3:—of ιδια in Acts i. 19:—of εγειραι και in iii. 6;—and of δευτεροπρωτω in Lu. vi. 1:—the two spurious clauses in Mk. iii. 14, 16:—the obvious blunders in Jo. ix. 4 and 11:—in Acts xii. 25—besides the impossible reading in 1 Cor. xiii. 3,—make up a heavy indictment against b and א jointly—which are here found in company with just a very few disreputable allies. Add, the plain error at Lu. ii. 14:—the gloss at Mk. v. 36:—the mere fabrication at Matt. xix. 17:—the omissions at Matt. vi. 13: Jo. v. 3, 4. b (in company with others, but apart from א) by exhibiting βαπτισαντες in Matt. xxviii. 19:—ὡδε των in Mk. ix. 1:—“seventy-two,” in Lu. x. 1:—the blunder in Lu. xvi. 12:—and the grievous omissions in Lu. xxii. 43, 44 (Christ's Agony in the Garden),—and xxiii. 34 (His prayer for His murderers),—enjoys unenviable distinction.—b, singly, is remarkable for an obvious blunder in Matt. xxi. 31:—Lu. xxi. 24:—Jo. xviii. 5:—Acts x. 19—and xvii. 28:—xxvii. 37:—not to mention the insertion of δεδομενον in Jo. vii. 39. א (in company with others, but apart from b) is conspicuous for its sorry interpolation of Matt. viii. 13:—its substitution of εστιν (for ην) in S. John i. 4:—its geographical blunder in S. Luke xxiv. 13:—its textual blunder at 1 Pet. i. 23.—א, singly, is remarkable for its sorry paraphrase in Jo. ii. 3:—its addition to i. 34:—its omissions in Matt. xxiii. 35:—Mk. i. 1:—Jo. ix. 38:—its insertion of Ησαιου in Matt. xiii. 35:—its geographical blunders in Mk. i. 28:—Lu. i. 26:—Acts viii. 5:—besides the blunders in Jo. vi. 51—and xiii. 10:—1 Tim. iii. 16:—Acts xxv. 13:—and the clearly fabricated narrative of Jo. xiii. 24. Add the fabricated text at Mk. xiv. 30, 68, 72; of which the object was “so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter's denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed twice.”