)ir u LUZBO d Co., (Opposite the British V CflMMP LUZBO d Co., (Opposite the British THE CAUSES OF THE CORRUPTION OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT HOLY GOSPELS Ojrforb HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY THE CAUSES OF THE CORRUPTION OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT OF THE HOLY GOSPELS BEING THE SEQUEL TO THE TRADITIONAL TEXT OF THE HOLY GOSPELS BY THE LATE JOHN WILLIAM BURGON, B.D. DEAN OF CHICHESTER ARRANGED, COMPLETED, AND EDITED BY EDWARD MILLER, M.A WYKEHAMICAL PREBENDARY OF CHICHESTER LONDON GEORGE BELL AND SONS CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO. 1896 ' Tenet ecclesia nostra, tenuitque semper firmam illam et immotam Tertulliani regulam " Id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio." Quo propius ad veritatis fontem accedimus. eo purior decurrit Catholicae doctrinae rivus.' CAVE'S Pro/eg: p. xliv. ' Interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona, et ambulate in ea.' Jerem. vi. 16. ' In summa, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id ab initio quod ab Apostolis ; pariter utique constabit. id esse ab Apostolis traditum, quod apud Ecclesias Aposto- lorum merit sacrosanctum.' TERTULL. adv. Marc. 1. iv. c. 5. PREFACE THE reception given by the learned world to the First Volume of this work, as expressed hitherto in smaller reviews and notices, has on the whole been decidedly far from discouraging. All have had some word of encomium on our efforts. Many have accorded praise and signified their agreement, some- times with unquestionable ability. Some have pro- nounced adverse opinions with considerable candour and courtesy. Others in opposing have employed arguments so weak and even irrelevant to the real question at issue, as to suggest that there is not after all so much as I anticipated to advance against our case. Longer examinations of this important matter are doubtless impending, with all the interest attaching to them and the judgements involved : but I beg now to offer my acknowledgements for all the words of encouragement that have been uttered. Something however must be said in reply to an attack made in the Guardian newspaper on May 20, because it represents in the main the position occupied by some members of an existing School. I do not linger over an offhand stricture upon my ' adhesion to the extravagant claim of a second- century origin for the Peshitto,' because I am 2032703 vi PREFACE. content with the companionship of some of the very first Syriac scholars, and with the teaching given in an unanswered article in the Church Quarterly Review for April, 1895. Nor except in passing do I remark upon a fanciful censure of my account of the use of papyrus in MSS. before the tenth century as to which the reviewer is evidently not versed in information recently collected, and de- scribed for example in Sir E. Maunde Thompson's Greek and Latin Palaeography, or in Mr. F. G. Kenyon's Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, and in an article in the just mentioned Review which appeared in October, 1894. These obser- vations and a large number of inaccuracies shew that he was at the least not posted up to date. But what will be thought, when attention is drawn to the fact that in a question whether a singular set of quotations from the early Fathers refer to a passage in St. Matthew or the parallel one in St. Luke, the peculiar characteristic of St. Matthew ' them that persecute you ' is put out of sight, and both passages (taking the lengthened reading of St. Matthew) are represented as having equally only four clauses ? And again, when quotations going on to the succeeding verse in St. Matthew (v. 45) are stated dogmatically to have been wrongly referred by me to that Evangelist ? But as to the details of this point in dispute, I beg to refer our readers to pp. 144-153 of the present volume. The reviewer appears also to be entirely unacquainted with the history of the phrase \jLovoytvr\s @eoy in St. John i. 1 8, which, as may be read on pp. 215-218, was introduced by heretics and harmonized with PREFACE. Vli Arian tenets, and was rejected on the other side. That some orthodox churchmen fell into the trap, and like those who in these days are not aware of the pedigree and use of the phrase, employed it even for good purposes, is only an instance of a strange phenomenon. We must not be led only by first impressions as to what is to be taken for the genuine words of the Gospels. Even if phrases or passages make for orthodoxy, to accept them if condemned by evidence and history is to alight upon the quick- sands of conjecture. A curious instance of a fate like this has been supplied by a critic in the Athenaeum, who, when contrasting Dean Burgon's style of writing with mine to my discredit, quotes a passage of some length as the Dean's which was really written by me. Surely the principle upheld by our oppo- nents, that much more importance than we allow should be attributed to the 'Internal evidence of Readings and Documents,' might have saved him from error upon a piece of composition which characteristically proclaimed its own origin. At all events, after this undesigned support, I am the less inclined to retire from our vantage ground. But it is gratifying on all accounts to say now, that such interpolations as in the companion volume I was obliged frequently to supply in order to fill up gaps in the several MSS. and in integral portions of the treatise, which through their very frequency would have there made square brackets unpleasant to our readers, are not required so often in this part of the work. Accordingly, except in instances of pure editing or in simple bringing up viii PREFACE. to date, my own additions or insertions have been so marked off. It will doubtless afford great satisfaction to others as well as the admirers of the Dean to know what was really his own writing : and though some of the MSS., especially towards the end of the volume, were not left as he would have prepared them for the press if his life had been prolonged, yet much of the book will afford, on what he regarded as the chief study of his life, excellent examples of his style, so vigorously fresh and so happy in idiomatic and lucid expression. But the Introduction, and Appendix II on 'Con- flation ' and the ' Neutral Text,' have been neces- sarily contributed by me. I am anxious to invite attention particularly to the latter essay, because it has been composed upon request, and also because unless it contains some extraordinary mistake it exhibits to a degree which has amazed me the baselessness of Dr. Hort's theory. The manner in which the Dean prepared piece- meal for his book, and the large number of frag- ments in which he left his materials, as has been detailed in the Preface to the former volume, have necessarily produced an amount of repetition which I deplore. To have avoided it entirely, some of the MSS. must have been rewritten. But in one instance I discovered when it was too late that after searching for, and finding with difficulty and treating, an example which had not been supplied, I had forestalled a subsequent examination of the same passage from his abler hand. However I hope that in nearly all, if not all cases, each treatment involves some new contribution to the question PREFACE. ix discussed ; and that our readers will kindly make allowance for the perplexity which such an assem- blage of separate papers could not but entail. My thanks are again due to the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D., Fellow of Hertford College, for much, advice and suggestion, which he is so capable of giving, and for his valuable care in looking through all the first proofs of this volume ; to ' M. W.,' Dean Burgon's indefatigable secretary, who in a pure labour of love copied out the text of the MSS. before and after his death ; also to the zealous printers at the Clarendon Press, for help in unravelling intricacies still remaining in them. This treatise is now commended to the fair and candid consideration of readers and reviewers. The latter body of men should remember that there was perhaps never a time when reviewers were them- selves reviewed by many intelligent readers more than they are at present. I cannot hope that all that we have advanced will be finally adopted, though my opinion is unfaltering as resting in my belief upon the Rock ; still less do I imagine that errors may not be discovered in our work. But I trust that under Divine Blessing some not un- important contribution has been made towards the establishment upon sound principles of the reverent criticism of the Text of the New Testa- ment. And I am sure that, as to the Dean's part in it, this trust will be ultimately justified. EDWARD MILLER. 9 BRADMORE ROAD, OXFORD : Sept. 2, 1896. CONTENTS, INTRODUCTION. PACE The Traditional Text established by evidence especially before St. Chrysostom corruption early rise of it Galilee of the Gentiles Syrio- Low- Latin source various causes and forms of corruption . pp. 1-9 CHAPTER I. GENERAL CORRUPTION. 1. Modern re-editing difference between the New Testament and other books immense number of copies ordinary causes of error Doctrinal causes. 2. Elimination of weakly attested readings nature of inquiry. 3. Smaller blemishes in MS5. unimportant except when constant. 4. Most mistakes arose from inadvertency : many from unfortunate design pp. 10-23 CHAPTER II. ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. I. PURE ACCIDENT. 1. St. John x. 29. 2. Smaller instances, and Acts xx. 24. 3. St. Luke ii. 14. 4. St. Mark xv. 6; vii. 4 ; vi. 22. 5. St. Mark viii. i ; vii. 14 St. John xiii. 37 pp. 24-35 CHAPTER III. ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. II. HOMOEOTELEUTON. St. Luke ii. 15 St. John vi. n ; vi. 55 81. Matt xxiii. 14; xix. 9 St. Luke xvi. 21 . . pp. 36-41 x ji CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV. ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. III. FROM WRITING IN UNCIALS. PAG 1. St. John iv. 35-36. 2. St. Luke xv. 17 St. John v. 44. 3. Acts xxvii. 14 St John iv. 15 St. Luke xvii. 37 St Matt. xxii. 23 and other passages. 4. SL John v. 4 St. Luke xxiii. n St. Matt. iv. 23. 5. 2 St. Peter i. 21 Heb. vii. i. 6. St Matt, xxvii. 17. .. ... pp. 42-55 CHAPTER V. ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. IV. ITACISM. 1. Various passages St. John xii. i, 2 ; 41. 2. Rev. i. 5 Other passages St. Mark vii. 19. 3. St. Mark iv. 8. 4. Titus ii. 5 . pp. 56-66 CHAPTER VI. ACCIDENTAL CAUSES DF CORRUPTION. V. LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. 1. Lectionaries of the Church Liturgical influence Antiquity of the Lectionary System. 2. St. John xiv. i Acts iii. i Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark. 3. St. Luke vii. 31 ; ix. i Other passages. 4. St. Mark xv. 28. 5. Acts iii. i St. Matt. xiii. 44; xvii. 23. 6. St. Matt. vi. 13 (doxology ir. the Lord's Prayer) . . . pp. 67-88 CHAPTER VII. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. I. HARMOSISTIC INFLUENCE. 1. St. Mark xvi. 9. 2. 5t. Luke xxiv. i other examples. 3. Chiefly intentional Diatesssrons St. Matt. xvii. 25, 26 Har- monized narratives Other examp.es pp. 89-99 CHAPTER VIII. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. II. ASSIMILATION. 1. Transfer from one Gospel tc another. 2. Not entirely inten- tional Various passages. 3. St. John xvi. 16. 4. St. John xiii. 21-25. 5. St Mark i. i, 2 Other examples St. Matt. xii. 10 (St. Luke xiv. 3) and others. 6. St. Mark *i. n. 7. St. Mark xiv. 70 pp. 100-122 CONTENTS. xiii CHAPTER IX. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. III. ATTRACTION. PAGE 1. St. John vi. 71 and xiii. 26. 2. Acts xx. 24 2 Cor. iii. 3 pp. 123-127 CHAPTER X. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. IV. OMISSION. 1. Omissions a class of their own Exemplified from the Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark Omission the besetting fault of transcribers. 2. The onus probandi rests upon emitters. 3. St. Luke vi. i ; and other omissions. 4. St. Matt. xxi. 44. 5. St. Matt. xv. 8. 6. St. Matt. v. 44 Reply to the Reviewer in the Guardian. 7. Shorter Omissions pp. 128-156 CHAPTER XI. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. V. TRANSPOSITION. 1. St. Mark i. 5; ii. 3 Other instances. 2. St Luke xiii. 9; xxiv. 7. 3. Other examples St. John v. 27 Transpositions often petty, but frequent pp. 157-163 VI. SUBSTITUTION. 4. If taken with Modifications, a large class Various instances pp. 164-165 VII. ADDITION. 5. The smallest of the four St. Luke vi. 4 St. Matt. xx. 28. 6. St. Matt viii. 13; xxiv. 36 St. Mark iii. 16 Other examples pp. 166-171 CHAPTER XII. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. VIII. GLOSSES. 1. Not so numerous as has been supposed St. Matt. xiii. 36 St. Mark vii. 3. 2. St. Luke ix. 23. 3. St. John vi. 15 ; xiii. 24; xx. 18 St. Matt. xxiv. 31. 4. St. John xviii. 14 St. Mark vi. n. 5. St. Mark xiv. 41 St. John ix. 22. 6. St. John xii. 7. 7. St. John xvii. 4. 8. St Luke i. 66. 9. St. Luke v. 7 Acts xx. 4 pp. 172-190 xiv CONTENTS. CHAPTER XIII. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. IX. CORRUPTION BY HERETICS. PAGE 1. This class very evident Began in the earliest times Appeal to what is earlier still Condemned in all ages and countries. 2. The earliest depravers of the Text Tatian's Diatessaron. 3. Gnostics St. John i. 3-4. 4. St. John x. 14, 15. 5. Doctrinal Matrimony St. Matt i. 19 pp. 191-210 CHAPTER XIV. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. X. CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 1. St. Luke xix. 41 ; ii. 40. 2. St. John viii. 40; and i 18. 3. i Cor. xv. 47. 4. St. John iii. 13. 5. St. Luke ix. 54-56 pp. 211-231 APPENDIX I. PERICOPE DE ADULTERA pp . 232-265 APPENDIX II. DR. HORT'S THEORY OF CONFLATION AND THE NEUTRAL TEXT pp . 266-286 INDEX OF SUBJECTS pp . 287-288 INDEX OF PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DISCUSSED . . . .* . . pp 289 290 THE CAUSES OF THE CORRUPTION OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT OF THE HOLY GOSPELS. INTRODUCTION. IN the companion volume to this, the Traditional Text, that is, the Text of the Gospels which is the resultant of all the evidence faithfully and exhaustively presented and estimated according to the best procedure of the courts of law, has been traced back to the earliest ages in the existence of those sacred writings. We have shewn, that on the one hand, amidst the unprecedented advantages afforded by modern conditions of life for collecting all the evidence bearing upon the subject, the Traditional Text must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a laborious revision of the Received Text ; and that on the other hand it must, as far as we can judge, differ but slightly from the Text now generally in vogue, which has been generally received during the last two and a half centuries. The strength of the position of the Traditional Text lies in its being logically deducible and to be deduced from all the varied evidence which the case supplies, when it has been sifted, proved, passed, weighed, compared, com- pounded, and contrasted with dissentient testimony. The contrast is indeed great in almost all instances upon II. B 2 INTRODUCTION. which controversy has gathered. On one side the vast mass of authorities is assembled : on the other stands a small group. Not inconsiderable is the ad- vantage possessed by that group, as regards numerous students who do not look beneath the surface, in the general witness in their favour borne by the two oldest MSS. of the Gospels in existence. That advantage however shrinks into nothing under the light of rigid examination. The claim for the Text in them made at the Semiarian period was rejected when Semiarianism in all its phases fell into permanent disfavour. And the argument advanced by Dr. Hort that the Traditional Text was a new Text formed by successive recensions has been refuted upon examination of the verdict of the Fathers in the first four centuries, and of the early Syriac and Latin Versions. Besides all this, those two manu- scripts have been traced to a local source in the library of Caesarea. And on the other hand a Catholic origin of the Traditional Text found on later vellum manuscripts has been discovered in the manuscripts of papyrus which existed all over the Roman Empire, unless it was in Asia, and were to some degree in use even as late as the ninth century ; before and during the employment of vellum in the Caesarean school, and in localities where it was used in imitation of the mode of writing books which was brought well-nigh to perfection in that city. It is evident that the turning-point of the controversy between ourselves and the Neologian school must lie in the centuries before St. Chrysostom. If, as Dr. Hort maintains, the Traditional Text not only gained supremacy at that era but did not exist in the early ages, then our contention is vain. That Text can be Traditional only if it goes back without break or intermission to the original autographs, because if through break or intermission it ceased or failed to exist, it loses the essential feature of VERDICT OF THE EARLIEST CENTURIES. 3 genuine tradition. On the other hand, if it is proved to reach back in unbroken line to the time of the Evangelists, or to a period as near to them as surviving testimony can prove, then Dr. Hort's theory of a ' Syrian ' text formed by recension or otherwise just as evidently falls to the ground. Following mainly upon the lines drawn by Dean Burgo'n, though in a divergence of my own devising, I claim to have proved Dr. Hort to have been conspicuously wrong, and our maintenance of the Traditional Text in unbroken succession to be eminently right. The school opposed to us must disprove our arguments, not by discrediting the testimony of the Fathers to whom all Textual Critics have appealed including Dr. Hort, but by demonstrating if they can that the Traditional Text is not recognized by them, or they must yield eventually to us l . In this volume, the other half of the subject will be discussed. Instead of exploring the genuine Text, we shall treat of the corruptions of it, and shall track error in its ten thousand forms to a few sources or heads. The origination of the pure Text in the inspired writings of the Evangelists will thus be vindicated anew by the evident paternity of deflections from it discoverable in the natural defects or iniquities of men. Corruption will the more shew itself in true colours : Quinquaginta atris immanis hiatibus hydra 2 : and it will not so readily be mistaken for genuineness, when the real history is unfolded, and the mistakes are accounted for. It seems clear that corruption arose in the 1 It must be always borne in mind, that it is not enough for the purpose of the other side to shew that the Traditional Text was in a minority as regards attestation. They must prove that it was nowhere in the earliest ages, if they are to establish their position that it was made in the third and fourth centuries. Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 95. 'A hydra in her direful shape, With fifty darkling throats agape.' Altered from Conington's version, Aen. vi. 576. B 2 4 INTRODUCTION. very earliest age. As soon as the Gospel was preached, the incapacity of human nature for preserving accuracy until long years of intimate acquaintance have bred familiarity must have asserted itself in constant distortion more or less of the sacred stories, as they were told and retold amongst Christians one to another whether in writing or in oral transmission. Mistakes would inevitably arise from the universal tendency to mix error with truth which Virgil has so powerfully depicted in his description of ' Fame': Tarn ficti pravique tenax, quam nuntia veri 1 . And as soon as inaccuracy had done its baleful work, a spirit of infidelity and of hostility either to the essentials or the details of the new religion must have impelled such as were either imperfect Christians, or no Christians at all, to corrupt the sacred stories. Thus it appears that errors crept in at the very first commencement of the life of the Church. This is a matter so interesting and so important in the history of corruption, that I must venture to place it again before our readers. Why was Galilee chosen before Judea and Jerusalem as the chief scene of our Lord's Life and Ministry, at least as regards the time spent there ? Partly, no doubt, because the Galileans were more likely than the other inhabitants of Palestine to receive Him. But there was as I venture to think also another very special reason. ' Galilee of the nations ' or ' the Gentiles,' not only had a mixed population 2 and a provincial dialect 3 , but lay contiguous to the rest of Palestine on the one side, and ' How oft soe'er the truth she tell, What's false and wrong she loves too well.' Altered from Conington, Aen. iv. 188. * Strabo, xvi, enumerates amongst its inhabitants Egyptians, Arabians, and Phoenicians. 3 Studia Biblica, i. 50-55. Dr. Neubauer, On the Dialects spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ. CORRUPTION AT THE FIRST. 5 on others to two districts in which Greek was largely spoken, namely, Decapolis and the parts of Tyre and Sidon, and also to the large country of Syria. Our Lord laid foundations for a natural growth in these parts of the Chris- tian religion after His death almost independent as it seems of the centre of the Church at Jerusalem. Hence His crossings of the lake, His miracles on the other side, His retirement in that little understood episode in His life when He shrank from persecution l , and remained secretly in the parts of Tyre and Sidon, about the coasts of Decapolis, on the shores of the lake, and in the towns of Caesarea Philippi, where the traces of His footsteps are even now indicated by tradition 2 . His success amongst these outlying popu- lations is proved by the unique assemblage of the crowds of 5000 and 4000 men besides women and children. What wonder then if the Church sprang up at Damascus, and suddenly as if without notice displayed such strength as to draw persecution upon it ! In the same way the Words of life appear to have passed throughout Syria over con- genial soil, and Antioch became the haven whence the first great missionaries went out for the conversion of the world. Such were not only St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Barnabas, but also as is not unreasonable to infer many of that assemblage of Christians at Rome whom St. Paul enumerates to our surprise in the last chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. Many no doubt were friends whom the Apostle of the Gentiles had met in Greece and elsewhere : but there are reasons to shew that some at least of them, such as Andronicus and Junias or Junia 3 and Herodion, may probably have passed along 1 Isaac Williams, On the Study of the Gospels, 341-352. 2 My devoted Syrian friend, Miss Helanie Baroody, told me during her stay in England that a village is pointed out as having been traversed by our Lord on His way from Caesarea Philippi to Mount Hermon. 3 It is hardly improbable that these two eminent Christians were some of those whom St. Paul found at Antioch when St. Barnabas brought him there, 6 INTRODUCTION. the stream of commerce that flowed between Antioch and Rome 1 , and that this interconnexion between the queen city of the empire and the emporium of the East may in great measure account for the number of names well known to the apostle, and for the then flourishing condition of the Church which they adorned. It has been shewn in our first volume that, as is well known to all students of Textual Criticism, the chief amount of corruption is to be found in what is termed the Western Text ; and that the corruption of the West is so closely akin to the corruption which is found in Syriac remains, that practically they are included under one head of classification. What is the reason of this phenomenon ? It is evidently derived from the close commercial alliance which subsisted between Syria and Italy. That is to say, the corruption produced in Syria made its way over into Italy, and there in many instances gathered fresh con- tributions. For there is reason to suppose, that it first arose in Syria. We have seen how the Church grew of itself there without regular teaching from Jerusalem in the first beginnings, or any regular supervision exercised by the Apostles. In fact, as far as the Syrian believers in Christ at first consisted of Gentiles, they must perforce have been regarded as being outside of the covenant of promise. Yet there must have been many who revered the stories told about our Lord, and felt extreme interest and delight in them. The story of King Abgar illustrates the history : but amongst those who actually heard our Lord preach there must have been very many, probably a majority, who were uneducated. They would easily learn from the and thus came to know intimately as fellow- workers (iiriarjfioi ev rots airoaroKois, o\ KaL irpb f/jiov ytyoraffiv ev Xpiffrw). Most of the names in Rom. xvi are either Greek or Hebrew. 'Jam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes Et linguam et mores . . . vexit.' Juv. Sat. iii. 62-3. SYRIA AND THE WEST. 7 Jews, because the Aramaic dialects spoken by Hebrews and Syrians did not greatly differ the one from the other. What difference there was, would not so much hinder the spread of the stories, as tend to introduce alien forms of speech and synonymous words, and so to hinder absolute accuracy from being maintained. Much time must neces- sarily have elapsed, before such familiarity with the genuine accounts of our Lord's sayings and doings grew up, as would prevent mistakes being made and disseminated in telling or in writing. The Gospels were certainly not written till some thirty years after the Ascension. More careful examination seems to place them later rather than earlier. For myself, I should suggest that the three first were not published long before the year 70 A. D. at the earliest ; and that St. Matthew's Gospel was written at Pella during the siege of Jerusalem amidst Greek surroundings, and in face of the necessity caused by new conditions of life that Greek should become the ecclesiastical language. The Gospels would thus be the authorized versions in their entirety of the stories constituting the Life of our Lord ; and corruption must have come into existence, before the antidote was found in complete documents accepted and commissioned by the authorities in the Church. I must again remark with much emphasis that the foregoing suggestions are offered to account for what may now be regarded as a fact, viz., the connexion between the Western Text, as it is called, and Syriac remains in regard to corruption in the text of the Gospels and of the Acts of the Apostles. If that corruption arose at the very first spread of Christianity, before the record of our Lord's Life had assumed permanent shape in the Four Gospels, all is easy. Such corruption, inasmuch as it beset the oral and written stories which were afterwards incor- porated in the Gospels, would creep into the authorized 8 INTRODUCTION. narrations, and would vitiate them till it was ultimately cast out towards the end of the fourth and in the suc- ceeding centuries. Starting from the very beginning, and gaining additions in the several ways described in this volume by Dean Burgon, it would possess such vigour as to impress itself on Low-Latin manuscripts and even on parts of the better Latin ones, perhaps on Tatian's Diatessaron, on the Curetonian and Lewis manuscripts of the fifth century, on the Codex Bezae of the sixth : also on the Vatican and the Sinaitic of the fourth, on the Dublin Palimpsest of St. Matthew of the sixth, on the Codex Regius or L of the eighth, on the St. Gall MS. of the ninth in St. Mark, on the Codex Zacynthius of the eighth in St. Luke, and a few others. We on our side admit that the corruption is old even though the manu- scripts enshrining it do not date very far back, and cannot always prove their ancestry. And it is in this admission that I venture to think there is an opening for a meeting of opinions which have been hitherto opposed. In the following treatise, the causes of corruption are divided into (I) such as proceeded from Accident, and (II) those which were Intentional. Under the former class we find (i) those which were involved in pure Accident, or (2) in what is termed Homoeoteleuton where lines or sentences ended with the same word or the same syllable, or (3) such as arose in writing from Uncial letters, or (4) in the confusion of vowels and diphthongs which is called Itacism, or (5) in Liturgical Influence. The remaining instances may be conveniently classed as Intentional, not because in all cases there was a settled determination to alter the text, for such if any was often of the faintest character, but because some sort of design was to a greater or less degree embedded in most of them. Such causes were (i) Harmonistic Influence, (2) Assimilation, (3) Attraction ; such instances too in their main character THE VARIOUS CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. 9 were (4) Omissions, (5) Transpositions, (6) Substitutions, (7) Additions, (8) Glosses, (9) Corruption by Heretics, (10) Corruption by Orthodox. This dissection of the mass of corruption, or as perhaps it may be better termed, this classification made by Dean Burgon of the numerous causes which are found to have been at work from time to time, appears to me to be most interesting to the inquirer into the hidden history of the Text of the Gospels, because by revealing the influences which have been at work it sheds light upon the entire controversy, and often enables the student to see clearly how and why certain passages around which dispute has gathered are really corrupt. Indeed, the vast and myste- rious ogre called corruption assumes shape and form under the acute penetration and the deft handling of the Dean, whose great knowledge of the subject and orderly treat- ment of puzzling details is still more commended by his interesting style of writing. As far as has been possible, I have let him in the sequel, except for such clerical corrections as were required from time to time and have been much fewer than his facile pen would have made, speak entirely for himself. CHAPTER I. GENERAL CORRUPTION. WE hear sometimes scholars complain, and with a certain show of reason, that it is discreditable to us as a Church not to have long since put forth by authority a revised Greek Text of the New Testament. The chief writers of antiquity, say they, have been of late years re-edited by the aid of the best Manuscripts. Why should not the Scriptures enjoy the same advantage? Men who so speak evidently misunderstand the question. They assume that the case of the Scriptures and that of other ancient writings are similar. Such remonstrances are commonly followed up by state- ments like the following: That the received Text is that of Erasmus : that it was constructed in haste, and without skill : that it is based on a very few, and those bad Manuscripts : that it belongs to an age when scarcely any of our present critical helps were available, and when the Science of Textual Criticism was unknown. To listen to these advocates for Revision, you would almost suppose that it fared with the Gospel at this instant as it had fared with the original Copy of the Law for many years until the days of King Josiah 1 . Yielding to no one in my desire to see the Greek of the 1 2 Kings xxii. 8 = 2 Chron. xxxiv. 15. REVISION. II New Testament judiciously revised, I freely avow that recent events have convinced me, and I suppose they have convinced the public also, that we have not among us the men to conduct such an undertaking. Better a thousand times in my judgement to leave things as they are, than to risk having the stamp of authority set upon such an unfor- tunate production as that which appeared on the i7th May, 1 88 1, and which claims at this instant to represent the combined learning of the Church, the chief Sects, and the Socinian 1 body: Now if the meaning of those who desire to see the commonly received text of the New Testament made absolutely faultless, were something of this kind : That they are impatient for the collation of the copies which have become known to us within the last two centuries, and which amount already in all to upwards of three thousand : that they are bent on procuring that the ancient Versions shall be re-edited ; and would hail with delight the announcement that a band of scholars had combined to index every place of Scripture quoted by any of the Fathers : if this were meant, we should all be entirely at one ; especially if we could further gather from the pro- gramme that a fixed intention was cherished of abiding by the result of such an appeal to ancient evidence. But unfortunately something entirely different is in contem- plation. Now I am bent on calling attention to certain features of the problem which have very generally escaped attention. It does not seem to be understood that the Scriptures of the New Testament stand on an entirely different footing from every other ancient writing which can be named. A few plain remarks ought to bring this fact, for a fact it 1 [This name is used for want of a better. Churchmen are Unitarians as well as Trinitarians. The two names in combination express our Faith. We dare not alienate either of them.] 12 GENERAL CORRUPTION. is, home to every thoughtful person. And the result will be that men will approach the subject with more caution, with doubts and misgivings, with a fixed determination to be on their guard against any form of plausible influence. Their prejudices they will scatter to the winds. At every step they will insist on proof. In the first place, then, let it be observed that the New Testament Scriptures are wholly without a parallel in respect of their having been so frequently multiplied from the very first. They are by consequence contained at this day in an extravagantly large number of copies [pro- bably, if reckoned under the six classes of Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse, Evan- gelistaries, and Apostolos, exceeding the number of four thousand]. There is nothing like this, or at all approaching to it. in the case of any profane writing that can be named 1 . And the very necessity for multiplying copies, a neces- sity which has made itself felt in every age and in every clime, has perforce resulted in an immense number of variants. Words have been inevitably dropped, vowels have been inadvertently confounded by copyists more or less competent : and the meaning of Scripture in countless places has suffered to a surprising degree in consequence. This first. But then further, the Scriptures for the very reason because they were known to be the Word of God became a mark for the shafts of Satan from the beginning. They were by consequence as eagerly solicited by heretical teachers on the one hand, as they were hotly defended by the orthodox on the other. Alike from friends and from foes therefore, they are known to have experienced injury, and that in the earliest age of all. Nothing of the kind can be predicated of any other ancient writings. This 1 See The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Burgon and Miller), p. 21, note i. PECULIAR CONDITIONS. 13 consideration alone should suggest a severe exercise of judicial impartiality, in the handling of ancient evidence of whatever sort. For I request it may be observed that I have not said and I certainly do not mean that the Scriptures them- selves" have been permanently corrupted either by friend or foe. Error was fitful and uncertain, and was contradicted by other error : besides that it sank eventually before a manifold witness to the truth. Nevertheless, certain manuscripts belonging to a few small groups particular copies of a Version individual Fathers or Doctors of the Church, these do, to the present hour, bear traces incon- testably of ancient mischief. But what goes before is not nearly all. The fourfold structure of the Gospel has lent itself to a certain kind of licentious handling of which in other ancient writings we have no experience. One critical owner of a Codex con- sidered himself at liberty to assimilate the narratives : another to correct them in order to bring them into (what seemed to himself) greater harmony. Brevity is found to have been a paramount object with some, and Transposition to have amounted to a passion with others. Conjectural Criticism was evidently practised largely : and almost with as little felicity as when Bentley held the pen. Lastly, there can be no question that there was a certain school of Critics who considered themselves competent to improve the style of the HOLY GHOST throughout. [And before the members of the Church had gained a familiar acquaintance with the words of the New Testament, blunders continually crept into the text of more or less heinous importance.] All this, which was chiefly done during the second and third centuries, introduces an element of difficulty in the hand- ling of ancient evidence which can never be safely neglected : and will make a thoughtful man suspicious of every various reading which comes in his way, especially if it is attended ! 4 GENERAL CORRUPTION. with but slender attestation. [It has been already shewn in the companion volume] that the names of the Codexes chiefly vitiated in this sort prove to be BSCDL ; of the Versions, the two Coptic, the Curetonian, and certain specimens of the Old Latin; of the Fathers, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and to some extent Eusebius. Add to all that goes before the peculiar subject-matter of the New Testament Scriptures, and it will become abundantly plain why they should have been liable to a series of assaults which make it reasonable that they should now at last be approached by ourselves as no other ancient writings are, or can be. The nature of GOD, His Being and Attributes: the history of Man's Redemption : the soul's eternal destiny: the mysteries of the unseen world: concerning these and every other similar high doctrinal subject, the sacred writings alone speak with a voice of absolute authority. And surely by this time enough has been said to explain why these Scriptures should have been made a battle-field during some centuries, and especially in the fourth ; and having thus been made the subject of strenuous contention, that copies of them should exhibit to this hour traces of those many adverse influences. I say it for the last time, of all such causes of depravation the Greek Poets, Tragedians, Philosophers, Historians, neither knew nor could know anything. And it thus plainly appears that the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is to be handled by ourselves in an entirely different spirit from that of any other book. 2. I wish now to investigate the causes of the corruption of the Text of the New Testament. I do not entitle the present a discussion of 'Various Readings,' because I con- sider that expression to be incorrect and misleading 1 . 1 See Traditional Text, chapter ii, 6, p. 32. ELIMINATION. 15 Freely allowing that the term ' variae lectiones,' for lack of a better, may be allowed to stand on the Critic's page, I yet think it necessary even a second time to call attention to the impropriety which attends its use. Thus Codex B differs from the commonly received Text of Scripture in the Gospels alone in 7578 places ; of which no less than 2877 are instances of omission. In fact omissions constitute by far the larger number of what are commonly called ' Various Readings.' How then can those be called ' various readings ' which are really not readings at all ? How, for example, can that be said to be a ( various reading' of St. Mark xvi. 9-20, which consists in the circumstance that the last 12 verses are left out by two MSS. ? Again, How can it be called a 'various reading' of St. John xxi. 25, to bring the Gospel abruptly to a close, as Tischendorf does, at v. 24 ? These are really nothing else but indica- tions either of a mutilated or else an interpolated text. And the question to be resolved is, On which side does the corruption lie ? and, How did it originate ? Waiving this however, the term is objectionable on other grounds. It is to beg the whole question to assume that every irregularity in the text of Scripture is a 'various reading.' The very expression carries with it an assertion of importance ; at least it implies a claim to consideration. Even might it be thought that, because it is termed a ' various reading,' therefore a critic is entitled to call in question the commonly received text. Whereas, nine divergences out of ten are of no manner of significance and are entitled to no manner of consideration, as every one must see at a glance who will attend to the matter ever so little. ' Various readings ' in fact is a term which belongs of right to the criticism of the text of profane authors : and, like many other notions which have been imported from the same region into this department of inquiry, it only tends to confuse and perplex the judgement. 16 GENERAL CORRUPTION. No variety in the Text of Scripture can properly be called a ' various reading,' of which it may be safely declared that it never has been, and never will be, read. In the case of profane authors, where the MSS. are for the most part exceedingly few, almost every plausible substitution of one word for another, if really entitled to alteration, is looked upon as a various reading of the text. But in the Gospels, of which the copies are so numerous as has been said, the case is far otherwise. We are there able to convince ourselves in a moment that the supposed 'various reading ' is nothing else but an instance of licentiousness or inattention on the part of a previous scribe or scribes, and we can afford to neglect it accordingly 1 . It follows there- fore, and this is the point to which I desire to bring the reader and to urge upon his consideration, that the number of 'various readings' in the New Testament properly so called has been greatly exaggerated. They are, in reality, exceedingly few in number ; and it is to be expected that, as sound (sacred) Criticism advances, and principles are established, and conclusions recognized, instead of becoming multiplied they will become fewer and fewer, and at last will entirely disappear. We cannot afford to go on dis- puting for ever ; and what is declared by common consent to be untenable ought to be no longer reckoned. That only in short, as I venture to think, deserves the name of a Various Reading which comes to us so respectably recommended as to be entitled to our sincere consideration and respect ; or, better still, which is of such a kind as to inspire some degree of reasonable suspicion that after all it may prove to be the true way of exhibiting the text. 1 [Perhaps this point may be cleared by dividing readings into two classes, viz. (i) such as really have strong evidence for their support, and require examination before we can be certain that they are corrupt; and (2) those which afford no doubt as to their being destitute of foundation, and are only interesting as specimens of the modes in which error was sometimes introduced. Evidently, the latter class are not ' various ' at all.] NATURE OF INQUIRY. IJ The inquiry therefore on which we are about to engage, grows naturally out of the considerations which have been already offered. We propose to ascertain, as far as is practicable at the end of so many hundred years, in what way these many strange corruptions of the text have arisen. Very often we shall only have to inquire how it has come to pass that the text exhibits signs of perturbation at a certain place. Such disquisitions as those which follow, let it never be forgotten, have no place in reviewing any other text than that of the New Testament, because a few plain principles would suffice to solve every difficulty. The less usual word mistaken for the word of more frequent occurrence ; clerical carelessness ; a gloss finding its way from the margin into the text ; such explanations as these would probably in other cases suffice to account for every ascertained corruption of the text. But it is far otherwise here, as I propose to make fully apparent by and by. Various disturbing influences have been at work for a great many years, of which secular productions know absolutely nothing, nor indeed can know. The importance of such an inquiry will become apparent as we proceed ; but it may be convenient that I should call attention to the matter briefly at the outset. It frequently happens that the one remaining plea of many critics for adopting readings of a certain kind, is the inexplicable nature of the phenomena which these readings exhibit. ' How will you possibly account for such a reading as the present,' (say they,) ' if it be not authentic ?' Or they say nothing, but leave it to be inferred that the reading they adopt, in spite of its intrinsic improbability, in spite also of the slender amount of evidence on which it rests, must needs be accepted as true. They lose sight of the corre- lative difficulty: How comes it to pass that the rest of the copies read the place otherwise ? On all such occasions it is impossible to overestimate the importance of detecting II. C T 8 GENERAL CORRUPTION. the particular cause which has brought about, or which at least will fully account for, this depravation. When this has been done, it is hardly too much to say that a case presents itself like as when a pasteboard mask has been torn away, and the ghost is discovered with a broad grin on his face behind it. The discussion on which I now enter is then on the Causes of the various Corruptions of the Text. [The reader shall be shewn with illustrations to what particular source they are to be severally ascribed. When representative passages have been thus labelled, and the causes are seen in opera- tion, he will be able to pierce the mystery, and all the better to winnow the evil from among the good.] 3. When I take into my hands an ancient copy of the Gospels, I expect that it will exhibit sundry inaccuracies and imperfections : and I am never disappointed in my expectation. The discovery however creates no uneasiness, so long as the phenomena evolved are of a certain kind and range within easily definable limits. Thus : T. Whatever belongs to peculiarities of spelling or fashions of writing, I can afford to disregard. For example, it is clearly consistent with perfect good faith, that a scribe should spell Kpaftarrov l in several different ways : that he should write OVTO> for ovrw?, or the contrary : that he should add or omit what grammarians call the v e^eAxuo-rtKoV. The questions really touched by irregularities such as these concern the date and country where the MS. was produced ; not by any means the honesty or animus of the copyist. The man fell into the method which was natural to him, or which he found prevailing around him ; and that was all. 1 [I.e. generally xpafiarrov, or else Kpaftarov, or even KpaficucTov seldom found as xpdfifiaTTov, or spelt in the corrupt FREQUENT CASES. 19 { Itacisms ' therefore, as they are called, of whatever kind, by which is meant the interchange of such vowels and diphthongs as i-et, at-e, rj-t, TJ-OI-V, o-a>, 7j-ei, need excite no uneasiness. It is true that these variations may occa- sionally result in very considerable inconvenience : for it will sometimes happen that a different reading is the consequence. But the copyist may have done his work in perfect good faith for all that. It is not he who is respon- sible for the perplexity he occasions me, but the language and the imperfect customs amidst which he wrote. 2. In like manner the reduplication of syllables, words, clauses, sentences, is consistent with entire sincerity of purpose on the part of the copyist. This inaccuracy is often to be deplored ; inasmuch as a reduplicated syllable often really affects the sense. But for the most part nothing worse ensues than that the page is disfigured with errata. 3. So, on the other hand, the occasional omission of words, whether few or many, especially that passing from one line to the corresponding place in a subsequent line, which generally results from the proximity of a similar ending, is a purely venial offence. It is an evidence of carelessness, but it proves nothing worse. 4. Then further, slight inversions, especially of ordinary words ; or the adoption of some more obvious and familiar collocation of particles in a sentence ; or again, the oc- casional substitution of one common word for another, as eiTre for eAeye, (jxavrja-av for Kpaav, and the like ; need not provoke resentment. It is an indication, we are willing to hope, of nothing worse than slovenliness on the part of the writer or the group or succession of writers. 5. I will add that besides the substitution of one word for another, cases frequently occur, where even the intro- duction into the text of one or more words which cannot be thought to have stood in the original autograph of the c a 20 GENERAL CORRUPTION. Evangelist, need create no offence. It is often possible to account for their presence in a strictly legitimate way. But it is high time to point out, that irregularities which fall under these last heads are only tolerable within narrow limits, and always require careful watching ; for they may easily become excessive or even betray an animus ; and in either case they pass at once into quite a different category. From cases of excusable oscitancy they de- generate, either into instances of inexcusable licentiousness, or else into cases of downright fraud. 6. Thus, if it be observed in the case of a Codex (a) that entire sentences or significant clauses are habitually omitted : (b) that again and again in the course of the same page the phraseology of the Evangelist has upon clear evidence been seriously tampered with : and (c) that interpolations here and there occur which will not admit of loyal interpretation : we cannot but learn to regard with habitual distrust the Codex in which all these notes are found combined. It is as when a witness, whom we suspected of nothing worse than a bad memory or a random tongue or a lively imagination, has been at last convicted of deliberate suppression of parts of his evidence, misrepre- sentation of facts, in fact, deliberate falsehood. 7. But now suppose the case of a MS. in which words or clauses are clearly omitted with design ; where ex- pressions are withheld which are confessedly harsh or critically difficult, whole sentences or parts of them which have a known controversial bearing ; Suppose fur- ther that the same MS. abounds in worthless paraphrase, and contains apocryphal additions throughout : What are we to think of our guide then? There can be but one opinion on the subject. From habitually trusting, we shall entertain inveterate distrust. We have ascertained his character. We thought he was a faithful witness, but we now find from experience of his transgressions that INADVERTENCY. 21 we have fallen into bad company. His witness may be false no less than true : confidence is at an end. 4. It may be regarded as certain that most of the aber- rations discoverable in Codexes of the Sacred Text have arisen in the first instance from the merest inadvertency of the scribes. That such was the case in a vast number of cases is in fact demonstrable. [Inaccuracy in the ap- prehension of the Divine Word, which in the earliest ages was imperfectly understood, and ignorance of Greek in primitive Latin translators, were prolific sources of error. The influence of Lectionaries, in which Holy Scripture was cut up into separate Lections either with or without an introduction, remained with habitual hearers, and led them off in copying to paths which had become familiar. Acquaintance with ' Harmonies ' or Diatessarons caused copyists insensibly to assimilate one Gospel to another. And doctrinal predilections, as in the case of those who belonged to the Origenistic school, were the source of lapsing into expressions which were not the verba ipsissima of Holy Writ. In such cases, when the inadvertency was genuine and was unmingled with any overt design, it is much to be noted that the error seldom propagated itself extensively.] But next, well-meant endeavours must have been made at a very early period ' to rectify ' (biop6ovv) the text thus un- intentionally corrupted ; and so, what began in inadvertence is sometimes found in the end to exhibit traces of design, and often becomes in a high degree perplexing. Thus, to cite a favourite example, it is clear to me that in the earliest age of all (A.D. 100?) some copyist of St. Luke ii. 14 (call him X) inadvertently omitted the second EN in the Angelic Hymn. Now if the persons (call them Y and Z) whose business it became in turn to reproduce the early 22 GENERAL CORRUPTION. copy thus inadvertently depraved, had but been content both of them to transcribe exactly what they saw before them, the error of their immediate predecessor (X) must infallibly have speedily been detected, remedied, and for- gotten, simply because, as every one must have seen as well as Y and Z, it was impossible to translate the sentence which results, em yfjs elp^vri avOpwirois evboKia. Reference would have been made to any other copy of the third Gospel, and together with the omitted preposition (et>) sense would have been restored to the passage. But unhappily one of the two supposed Copyists being a learned grammarian who had no other copy at hand to refer to, undertook, good man that he was, proprio Marte to force a meaning into the manifestly corrupted text of the copy before him : and he did it by affixing to evboKia the sign of the genitive case (s). Unhappy effort of misplaced skill ! That copy [or those copies] became the immediate progenitor [or progenitors] of a large family, from which all the Latin copies are descended ; whereby it comes to pass that Latin Christendom sings the Hymn 'Gloria in excelsis ' incorrectly to the present hour, and may possibly sing it incorrectly to the end of time. The error committed by that same venerable Copyist survives in the four oldest copies of the passage extant, B* and N*, A and D, though happily in no others, in the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Gothic, alone of Versions ; in Irenaeus and Origen (who contradict themselves), and in the Latin Fathers. All the Greek authorities, with the few exceptions just recorded, of which A and D are the only consistent witnesses, unite in condemning the evident blunder 1 . 1 I am inclined to believe that in the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles, some person or persons of great influence and authority executed a Revision of the N. T. and gave the world the result of such labours in a 'corrected Text.' The guiding principle seems to have been to seek to abridge the Text, to lop off whatever seemed redundant, or which might in any way be spared, and to eliminate from one Gospel whatever expressions occurred UNFORTUNATE DESIGN. 23 I ohce hoped that it might be possible to refer all the Corruptions of the Text of Scripture to ordinary causes : as, careless transcription, divers accidents, misplaced critical assiduity, doctrinal animus, small acts of un- pardonable licence. But increased attention and enlarged acquaintance with the subject, have convinced me that by far the larger number of the omissions of such Codexes as NBLD must needs be due to quite a different cause. These MSS. omit so many words, phrases, sentences, verses of Scripture, that it is altogether incredible that the proximity of like endings can have much to do with the matter. Inadvertency may be made to bear the blame of some omissions : it cannot bear the blame of shrewd and signi- ficant omissions of clauses, which invariably leave the sense complete. A systematic and perpetual mutilation of the inspired Text must needs be the result of design, not of accident l . [It will be seen therefore that the causes of the Cor- ruptions of the Text class themselves under two main heads, viz. (I.) Those which arose from Inadvertency, and (II.) Those which took their origin in Design.] elsewhere in another GospeL Clauses which slightly obscured the speaker's meaning ; or which seemed to hang loose at the end of a sentence ; or which introduced a consideration of difficulty : words which interfered with the easy flow of a sentence : every thing of this kind such a personage seems to have held himself free to discard. But what is more serious, passages which occasioned some difficulty, as the pericope de aduliera ; physical perplexity, as the troubling of the water ; spiritual revulsion, as the agony in the garden : all these the re- viser or revisers seem to have judged it safest simply to eliminate. It is difficult to understand how any persons in their senses could have so acted by the sacred deposit ; but it does not seem improbable that at some very remote period there were found some who did act in some such way. Let it be observed, however, that unlike some critics I do not base my real argument upon what appears to me to be a not unlikely supposition. 1 [Unless it be referred to the two converging streams of corruption, as described in The Traditional Text.] CHAPTER II. ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. I. PURE ACCIDENT. [IT often happens that more causes than one are com- bined in the origin of the corruption in any one passage. In the following history of a blunder and of the fatal consequences that ensued upon it, only the first step was accidental. But much instruction may be derived from the initial blunder, and though the later stages in the history come under another head, they nevertheless illustrate the effects of early accident, besides throwing light upon parts of the discussion which are yet to come.] 1- We are sometimes able to trace the origin and progress of accidental depravations of the text: and the study is as instructive as it is interesting. Let me invite attention to what is found in St. John x. 29 ; where, instead of, * My Father, who hath given them [viz. My sheep] to Me, is greater than all,' Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, are for reading, ' That thing which My (or the) Father hath given to Me is greater (i. e. is a greater thing) than all.' A vastly different proposition, truly ; and, whatever it may mean, wholly inadmissible here, as the context proves. It has been the result of sheer accident moreover, as I proceed to explain. St. John certainly wrote the familiar words, 6 mm/p \LOV PURE ACCIDENT. 25 6s Se'SoW jtxot, fj.eCa>v TravTMv eori. But, with the licentious- ness [or inaccuracy] which prevailed in the earliest age, some remote copyist is found to have substituted for os 8e'8a)Ke, its grammatical equivalent 6 8e8a>Kws. And this proved fatal ; for it was only necessary that another scribe should substitute jj.elov for pftfav (after the example of such places as St. Matt. xii. 6, 41, 42, &c.), and thus the door had been opened to at least four distinct deflections from the evangelical verity, which straightway found their way into manuscripts: (i) o 8ea>K(os . . . /lei^coi; of which reading at this day D is the sole representative : (2) o? 8e6coKe ... p,eiov which survives only in AX: (3) o SeSojjce . . . ptifav which is only found in NL : (4) o 8e8coKe . . . fjLiov which is the peculiar property of B. The ist and 2nd of these sufficiently represent the Evangelist's meaning, though neither of them is what he actually wrote ; but the 3rd is untranslatable : while the 4th is nothing else but a desperate attempt to force a meaning into the 3rd, by writing peitjov for ptifav ; treating o not as the article but as the neuter of the relative 6's. This last exhibition of the text, which in fact scarcely yields an intelligible meaning and rests upon the minimum of manuscript evidence, would long since have been for- gotten, but that, calamitously for the Western Church, its Version of the 'New Testament Scriptures was executed from MSS. of the same vicious type as Cod. B x . Accord- ingly, all the Latin copies, and therefore all the Latin Fathers 2 , translate, 'Pater [meus] quod dedit mihi, majus omnibus est V The Westerns resolutely extracted a mean- ing from whatever they presumed to be genuine Scripture : 1 See the passages quoted in Scrivener's Introduction, II. 270-2, 4th ed. 2 Tertull. (Prax. c. 22): Ambr. (ii. 576, 607, 689 bis): Hilary (930 bis, 1089): Jerome (v. 208): Augustin (iii 2 . 615) : Maximinus, an Arian bishop (ap. Aug. viii. 651). 3 Pater (or Pater meus) quod dedit mihi (or mihi dedit), majus omnibus est (or majus est omnibus : or omnibus majus est). 26 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. and one can but admire the piety which insists on finding sound Divinity in what proves after all to be nothing else but a sorry blunder. What, asks Augustine, was 'the thing, greater than all,' which the Father gave to the SON ? To be the Word of the Father (he answers), His only- begotten Son and the brightness of His glory x . The Greeks knew better. Basil 2 , Chrysostom 3 , Cyril on nine occasions 4 , Theodoret 5 as many as quote the place invariably exhibit the textus rcceptus 6s ... /xet^coz;, which is obviously the true reading and may on no account suffer molestation. ' But,' I shall perhaps be asked, ' although Patristic and manuscript evidence are wanting for the reading 6 5c8coKe /xot . . . fjLfifav, is it not a significant circumstance that three translations of such high antiquity as the Latin, the Bohairic, and the Gothic, should concur in supporting it ? and does it not inspire extraordinary confidence in B to find that B alone of MSS. agrees with them ? ' To which I answer, It makes me, on the contrary, more and more distrustful of the Latin, the Bohairic and the Gothic versions to find them exclusively siding with Cod. B on such an occasion as the present. It is obviously not more ' significant ' that the Latin, the Bohairic, and the Gothic, should here conspire with than that the Syriac, the Sahidic, and the Ethiopic, should here combine against B. On the other hand, how utterly insignificant is the testimony of B when opposed to all the uncials, all the cursives, and all the Greek fathers who quote the place. So far from inspiring me with confidence in B, the present indication of the fatal sympathy of that Codex with the corrupt copies from which confessedly many of the Old Latin were executed, confirms 1 iii a . 615. He begins, ' Quid dedit Filio Pater majus omnibus ? Ut ipsi ille esset unigenitus Filius? ' 2 3"- 3 viii. 363 bis. 4 i. 188 : ii. 567 : Hi. 792 : iv. 666 (ed. Pusey) : v 1 . 326, 577, 578 : ap. Mai ii. 13: iii. 336. 4 v. 1065 ( = Dial ap. Athanas. ii. 555). PURE ACCIDENT. 27 me in my habitual distrust of it. About the true reading of St. John x. 29, there really exists no manner of doubt. As for the ' old uncials ' they are (as usual) hopelessly at variance on the subject. In an easy sentence of only 9 words, which however Tischendorf exhibits in conformity with no known Codex, while Tregelles and Alford blindly follow Cod. B, they have contrived to invent five ' various readings,' as may be seen at foot 1 . Shall we wonder more at the badness of the Codexes to which we are just now invited to pin our faith ; or at the infatuation of our guides ? I do not find that sufficient attention has been paid to grave disturbances of the Text which have resulted from a slight clerical error. While we are enumerating the various causes of Textual depravity, we may not fail to specify this. Once trace a serious Textual disturbance back to (what for convenience may be called) a ' clerical error,' and you are supplied with an effectual answer to a form of inquiry which else is sometimes very perplexing : viz. If the true meaning of this passage be what you sup- pose, for what conceivable reason should the scribe have misrepresented it in this strange way, made nonsense, in short, of the place ? . . . I will further remark, that it is always interesting, sometimes instructive, after detecting the remote origin of an ancient blunder, to note what has been its subsequent history and progress. Some specimens of the thing referred to I have already given in another place. The reader is invited to acquaint himself with the strange process by which the ' 276 souls ' who suffered shipwreck with St. Paul (Acts xxvii. 37), have since dwindled down to ' about 76 V He is further 1 Viz. + (jiov ABD : - p.ov X | os A : o BSD | SeSoj/tev BKA : SfSco/ius \ pfifav ND : /tof AB | /*ei. Ttavroiv eanv A : iravrajv /<. eonv BSD. 2 The Revision Revised, p. 51-3. 28 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. requested to note how ' a certain man ' who in the time of St. Paul bore the name of ' Justus ' (Acts xviii. 7), has been since transformed into ' Titus,' ' Titus Justus', and even ' Titius Justus^! But for a far sadder travestie of sacred words, the reader is referred to what has happened in St. Matt. xi. 23 and St. Luke x. 15, where our SAVIOUR is made to ask an unmeaning question instead of being permitted to announce a solemn fact concerning Caper- naum ' 2 . The newly-discovered ancient name of the Island of Malta, Melitene 3 , (for which geographers are indebted to the adventurous spirit of Westcott and Hort), may also be profitably considered in connexion with what is to be the subject of the present chapter. And now to break up fresh ground. Attention is therefore invited to a case of attraction in Acts xx. 24. It is but the change of a single letter (Ao'yoT for Ao'yoN), yet has that minute deflection from the truth led to a complete mangling of the most affecting perhaps of St. Paul's utterances. I refer to the famous words oAA' ovSez/os Xoyov Tioiov^ai, ow6e H\ e/xauro), a>s TeAeia>o-ai TOV bpo^ov /xov /iera \apas : excellently, because idiomatically, rendered by our Translators of 16 n, 'But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy.' For ovbfL'os AoTON, (the accusative after TTOIOU/XCU), some one having substituted ovbevbs AoTOT, a reading which survives to this hour in B and C 4 , it became necessary to find something else for the verb to govern. TT)V -^v^v was at hand, but oi8e IXCD stood in the way. Ou5e ex^ must therefore go 5 ; and go it did, as B, C, and tf remain to 1 The Revision Revised, p. 53-4. a Jbid. p. 54-6. 3 Ibid. p. 177-8. 4 Also in Ammonius the presbyter, A.D. 458 see Cramer's Cat. p. 334-5, last line, \6yov is read besides in the cursives Act. 36, 96, 105. 5 I look for an approving word from learned Dr. Field, who wrote in 1875 1 The real obstacle to our acquiescing in the reading of the T. R. is, that if the words ouSt x w nad once formed a part of the original text, there is no possibility PURE ACCIDENT. 29 attest. TijAiav should have gone also, if the sentence was to be made translatable ; but rt/xtay was left behind l . The authors of ancient embroilments of the text were sad bunglers. In the meantime, Cod. N inadvertently retained St. Luke's word, AOFON ; and because tf here follows B in every other respect, it exhibits a text which is simply unintelligible 2 . Now the second clause of the sentence, viz. the words ov8e e^co rr\v \j/v\^v [JLOV n^iav e/xanrw, may on no account be surrendered. It is indeed beyond the reach of suspicion, being found in Codd. A, D, E, H, L, P, 13, 31, in fact in every known copy of the Acts, except the discordant NBC. The clause in question is further witnessed to by the Vulgate 3 , by the Harkleian 4 , by Basil 5 , by Chrysos- tom 6 , by Cyril 7 , by Euthalius 8 , and by the interpolator of accounting for the subsequent omission of them.' The same remark, but con- siderably toned down, is found in his delightful Otium Norvicense, P. iii, p. 84. 1 B and C read d\\' ovtitvos \6jov iroiovfj.at TTJV ^/v\^v ri/tiav 4/iaura) : which is exactly what Lucifer Calarit. represents, ' sed pro nihilo aestimo animam meant caram esse mihi' (Galland. vi. 241). a N reads a\\' ovSevbs \6-yov iroiovfMi rfjv ifivxrjv n^iav e/Jtavry us rtXfiwffoj rov Kp6[J.ov HQV. 3 ' Sed nihil horum [rovrcav is found in many Greek Codd.] vereor, nee facto animam meam pretiosiorem qtiam me! So, the Cod. Amiat. It is evident then that when Ambrose (ii. 1040) writes ' nee f ado animam meam cariorem mihi,' he is quoting the latter of these two clauses. Augustine (iii 1 . 516), when he cites the place thus, ' Non enim facto animam meatn preliosiorem quant me' ; and elsewheie (iv. 268) 'pretiosam mihi' ; also Origen (interp. iv. 628 c), ' sed ego non facia cariorem animam meam mihi' ; and even the Coptic, ' sed anima mea, dico, non est pretiosa mihi in aliquo verbo ' : these evidently summarize the place, by making a sentence out of what survives of the second clause. The Latin of D exhibits ' Sed nihil horum cura est mihi : neque habeo ipsam animam caram mihi' * Dr. Field says that it may be thus Graecized d\\' ovSeva Ko^ov TTOIOV/MU, ov8% \f\6yiarai pot ^fx 1 ? M 01 ^ ri Tifttor. 5 ii. 296 e, exactly as the T. R. 6 Exactly as the T. R., except that he writes r^v ^vx^v without pov (ix. 332). So again, further on (334 b), ov e^'" Tiptav rty IHOMTOV tf/vxrif. This latter place is quoted in Cramer's Cat. 334. 7 Ap. Mai ii. 336 5t KOI rfjs C'"'? 5 Karatppovtiv virtp TOV Te\eiuffat rov Sponov, ovSe rf)v ^vx^v ftprj iroifTo6ai Tipiav tavrif. 8 \6yov (x<, oiiSJ noiovpai r^v ^vxqv Tipiav ffiavTw, wffrf K.T.\. (ap. Galland. x. 222). 30 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. of Ignatius *. What are we to think of our guides (Tischen- dorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers) who have nevertheless surrendered the Traditional Text and presented us instead with what Dr. Field, who is indeed a Master in Israel, describes as the impossible aAA' ovbei-os \6yov TTOLovfj.aL TTJV ^rvx^v ripiav e/xaurw 2 ? The words of the last-named eminent scholar on the reading just cited are so valuable in themselves, and are observed to be so often in point, that they shall find place here: 'Modern Critics,' he says, 'in deference to the authority of the older MSS., and to certain critical canons which prescribe that preference should be given to the shorter and more difficult reading over the longer and easier one, have decided that the T. R. in this passage is to be replaced by that which is contained in those older MSS. 1 In regard to the difficulty of this reading, that term seems hardly applicable to the present case. A difficult reading is one which presents something apparently incon- gruous in the sense, or anomalous in the construction, which an ignorant or half-learned copyist would endeavour, by the use of such critical faculty as he possessed, to remove ; but which a true critic is able, by probable explanation, and a comparison of similar cases, to defend against all such fancied improvements. In the reading before us, dAX' ovbevbs Ao'you Troiov^ai TTJV ^fv^iji' Tipiav e/xaurw, it is the con- struction, and not the sense, which is in question ; and this is not simply difficult, but impossible. There is really no way of getting over it ; it baffles novices and experts alike V When will men believe that a reading vouched for by only d\\' ouSti/fo \6yov trotoC/xcu rwv Sfivwv, ovSl ?xMTTot? evSoKta, St. Luke ii. 14), left out the preposition. An unintelligible clause was the consequence, as has been explained above (p. zi): which some one next sought to remedy by adding to evSo/cux the sign of the genitive (C). Thus the Old Latin translations were made. That this is the true history of a blunder which the latest Editors of the New Testament have mistaken for genuine Gospel, is I submit certain 2 . Most Latin copies (except 14 3 ) exhibit ' pax hominibus bonae voluntatis,' as well as many Latin Fathers 4 . On the other hand, the preposition GN is 1 Surprising it is how largely the text of this place has suffered at the hands of Copyists and Translators. In A and D, the words troiov p.a.1 and ex 10 have been made to change places. The latter Codex introduces //ot after ex 01 , for efjiavTy writes tfiavrov, and exhibits TOV Tf\ttuJaai without cuy. C writes us TO re\eiu>aai. SB alone of Codexes present us with Te\etwffca for reteiuxrai, and are followed by Westcott and Hort alone of Editors. The Peshitto (' sed mihi nihili aestimatur anima mea '), the Sahidic (' sed non facio animam meant in ulld re '), and the Aethiopic (' sed non reputo animam meam nihil quidquam '), get rid of npiav as well as of ovSe t'x. 0} - So much diversity of text, and in such primitive witnesses, while it points to a remote period as the date of the blunder to which attention is called in the text, testifies eloquently to the utter perplexity which that blunder occasioned from the first. 2 Another example of the same phenomenon, (viz. the absorption of N by the first syllable of AN^P^wots) is to be seen in Acts iv. 12, where however the error has led to no mischievous results. :l For those which insert in (14), and those which reject it (25), see Words- worth's edition of the Vulgate on this passage. 4 Of Fathers: Ambrose i. 1298 Hieronymus i. 448', 693, 876: ii. 213: iv. 34, 92 : v. 147 : vi. 638 : vii. 241, 281, 283, Augustine 34 times, Optatus (Galland. v. 472, 487), Gaudentius Brix. (ap. Sabat.), Chromatius Ag. (Gall. viii. 337), Orosius (ib. ix. 134), Marius M. (ib. viii. 672), Maximus Taur. (ib. ix. 355), Sedulius (ib. 575), Leo M. (ap. Sabat.), Mamertus Claudianus 32 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. retained in every known Greek copy of St. Luke without exception, while the reading evSoKtas is absolutely limited to the four uncials ABtfD. The witness of antiquity on this head is thus overwhelming and decisive. 4. In other cases the source, the very progress of a blunder, is discoverable. Thus whereas St. Mark (in xv. 6) cer- tainly wrote Zva Seoyuoy, ONTT6P TJTOVVTO, the scribe of A, who evidently derived his text from an earlier copy in uncial letters is found to have divided the Evangelist's syllables wrongly, and to exhibit in this place ON . TT- PHTOUNTO. The consequence might have been predicted. NAB transform this into ON FTAPHTOYNTO: which ac- cordingly is the reading adopted by Tischendorf and by Westcott and Hort. Whenever in fact the final syllable of one word can possibly be mistaken for the first syllable of the next, or vice versa, it is safe sooner or later to have misled some- body. Thus, we are not at all surprised to find St. Mark's a 7rape'Aa/3oi; (vii. 4) transformed into cure/) lAa/3oy, but only by B. [Another startling instance of the same phenomenon is supplied by the substitution in St. Mark vi. 22 of Trjs Ovyarpos avrov c Hpw8ta5o? for r?)? Ovyarpos avTrjs T% 'HpcoSta- 809. Here a first copyist left out rrjs as being a repetition of the last syllable of avrrjs, and afterwards a second at- tempted to improve the Greek by putting the masculine pronoun for the feminine (AYTOY for AYTHC). The con- sequence was hardly to have been foreseen.] Strange to say it results in the following monstrous figment : that the fruit of Herod's incestuous connexion with Herodias had been a daughter, who was also named (Gall. x. 431), Vigilius Taps. (ap. Sabat.), Zacchaeus (Gall. ix. 241), Caesarius Arel. (ib. xi. n), ps.-Ambros. ii. 394, 396, Hormisdas P. (Cone. iv. 1494, 1496), 52 Bps. at 8th Council of Toledo (Cone. vi. 395), &c., &c. PURE ACCIDENT. 33 Herodias ; and that she, the King's own daughter, was the immodest one l who came in and danced before him, ' his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee/ as they sat at the birthday banquet. Probability, natural feeling, the obvious requirements of the narrative, History itself , for Josephus expressly informs us that * Salome,' not ' Herodias,' was the name of Herodias' daughter 2 , all reclaim loudly against such a perversion of the truth. But what ought to be in itself conclusive, what in fact settles the question, is the testimony of the MSS., of which only seven (KBDLA with two cursive copies) can be found to exhibit this strange mistake. Accordingly the reading AYTOY is rejected by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf and Alford. It has nevertheless found favour with Dr. Hort ; and it has even been thrust into the margin of the revised Text of our Authorized Version, as a reading having some probability. This is indeed an instructive instance of the effect of accidental errors another proof that NBDL cannot be trusted. Sufficiently obvious are the steps whereby the present erroneous reading was brought to perfection. The im- mediate proximity in MSS. of the selfsame combination of letters is observed invariably to result in a various reading. AYTHCTHC was safe to part with its second THC on the first opportunity, and the definitive article (njs) once lost, the substitution of AYTOY for AYTHC is just such a mistake as a copyist with ill-directed in- telligence would be sure to fall into if he were bestowing sufficient attention on the subject to be aware that the person spoken of in verses ao and 31 is Herod the King. [This recurrence of identical or similar syllables near together was a frequent source of error. Copying has 1 See Wetstein on this place. a Antiqq. i. 99, xviii. 5. 4. II. D 34 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. always a tendency to become mechanical : and when the mind of the copyist sank to sleep in his monotonous toil, as well as if it became too active, the sacred Text suffered more or less, and so even a trifling mistake might be the seed of serious depravation.] 5. Another interesting and instructive instance of error originating in sheer accident, is supplied by the reading in certain MSS. of St. Mark viii. i. That the Evangelist wrote Tra/rTTo'AAou o^Xov 'the multitude being very great,' is certain. This is the reading of all the uncials but eight, of all the cursives but fifteen. But instead of this, it has been proposed that we should read, 'when there was again a great multitude,' the plain fact being that some ancient scribe mistook, as he easily might, the less usual compound word for what was to himself a far more familiar expression : i. e. he mistook IIAMnOAAOT for IIAAIN nOAAOT. This blunder must date from the second century, for ' iterum ' is met with in the Old Latin as well as in the Vulgate, the Gothic, the Bohairic, and some other versions. On the other hand, it is against ' every true principle of Textual Criticism ' (as Dr. Tregelles would say), that the more difficult expression should be abandoned for the easier, when forty-nine out of every fifty MSS. are ob- served to uphold it ; when the oldest version of all, the Syriac, is on the same side ; when the source of the mistake is patent ; and when the rarer word is observed to be in St. Mark's peculiar manner. There could be in fact no hesitation on this subject, if the opposition had not been headed by those notorious false witnesses NBDL, which it is just now the fashion to uphold at all hazards. They happen to be supported on this occasion by GMNA and PURE ACCIDENT. 35 fifteen cursives : while two other cursives look both ways and exhibit "naXiv Tra/^TroAAou. In St. Mark vii. 14, iidXiv was similarly misread by some copyists for Tiavra, and has been preserved by NBDLA (flAAIN for nANTA) against thirteen uncials, all the cursives, the Peshitto and Armenian. So again in St. John xiii. 37. A reads bvvaarai JMH by an evident slip of the pen for Svra/utat croi. And in xix. 31 /xeyaAH H H/x,epa has become /xeydArj r/jue'pa in NAEF and some cursive copies. D 2 CHAPTER III. ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. II. HOMOEOTELEUTON. No one who finds the syllable OI recurring six times over in about as many words, e. g. /ecu eyeWro, s for: /3pw(ris, /ecu TO at/xa fj.ov a\t]6S>s eari 77o'o-is. The transcriber of tf by a very easy mistake let his eye pass from one akr]d&s to another, and character- istically enough the various correctors allowed the error to remain till it was removed in the seventh century, though the error issued in nothing less than. ' My Flesh is drink indeed.' Could that MS. have undergone the test of fre- quent use ?] But it requires very little familiarity with the subject to be aware that occasions must inevitably be even of frequent occurrence when the result is calamitous, and even perplexing, in the extreme. The writings of Apostles and Evangelists, the Discourses of our Divine LORD Him- self, abound in short formulae ; and the intervening matter on such occasions is constantly an integral sentence, which occasionally may be discovered from its context without evident injury to the general meaning of the place. Thus [ver. 14 in St. Matt, xxiii. was omitted in an early age, owing to the recurrence of oval vfj.lv at the beginning, by some copyists, and the error was repeated in the Old Latin versions. It passed to Egypt, as some of the Bohairic copies, the Sahidic, and Origen testify. The Vulgate is not quite consistent : and of course tf BDLZ, HOMOEOTELEUTON. 39 a concord of bad witnesses especially in St. Matthew, follow suit, in company with the Armenian, the Lewis, and five or more cursives, enough to make the more emphatic the condemnation by the main body of them. Besides the verdict of the cursives, thirteen uncials (as against five) including and 2, the Peshitto, Harkleian, Ethiopic, Arabian, some MSS. of the Vulgate, with Origen (iii. 838 (only in Lat.)) ; Chrysostom (vii. 707 (bis] ; ix. 755) ; Opus Imperf. 185 (bis)', 186 (bis) ; John Damascene (ii. 517); Theophylact (i. 124) ; Hilary (89 ; 725) ; Jerome (iv. 276 ; v. 52 ; vi. 138 ; vii. 185)]. Worst of all, it will sometimes of necessity happen that such an omission took place at an exceedingly remote period ; (for there have been careless scribes in every age :) and in consequence the error is pretty sure to have propagated itself widely. It is observed to exist (suppose) in several of the known copies ; and if, as very often is the case, it is discoverable in two or more of the 'old uncials,' all hope of its easy extirpation is at an end. Instead of being loyally recognized as a blunder, which it clearly is, it is forthwith charged upon the Apostle or Evangelist as the case may be. In other words, it is taken for granted that the clause in dispute can have had no place in the sacred autograph. It is henceforth treated as an un- authorized accretion to the text. Quite idle henceforth becomes the appeal to the ninety-nine copies out of a hundred which contain the missing words. I proceed to give an instance of my meaning. Our SAVIOUR, having declared (St. Matt. xix. 9) that whosoever putteth away his wife d JAT) t-nl -jropvcia, nal -yap.r](rri aXXrjv, p.oi\a.TaL', adds KOL 6 a.TTo\\v^vr]v ya^cras /zoix&Tai. Those five words are not found in Codd. KDLS, nor in several copies of the Old Latin nor in some copies of the Bohairic, and the Sahidic. Tischendorf and Tregelles accordingly reject them. 40 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. And yet it is perfectly certain that the words are genuine. Those thirty-one letters probably formed three lines in the oldest copies of all. Hence they are observed to exist in the Syriac (Peshitto, Harkleian and Jerusalem), the Vulgate, some copies of the Old Latin, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic, besides at least seventeen uncials (including B^>S), and the vast majority of the cursives. So that there can be no question of the genuineness of the clause. A somewhat graver instance of omission resulting from precisely the same cause meets us a little further on in the same Gospel. The threefold recurrence of TU>V in the expression T(I)N \/axuoz/ ICON TriTrroVT CO N (St. Luke xvi. 21), has (naturally enough) resulted in the dropping of the words \l/ix^ v T & v out of some copies. Unhappily the sense is not destroyed by the omission. We are not surprised therefore to discover that the words are wanting in NBL : or to find that KBL are supported here by copies of the Old Latin, and (as usual) by the Egyptian versions, nor by Clemens Alex. 1 and the author of the Dialogus 2 . Jerome, on the other hand, condemns the Latin reading, and the Syriac Versions are observed to approve of Jerome's verdict, as well as the Gothic. But what settles the question is the fact that every known Greek MS., except those three, witnesses against the omission : besides Ambrose 3 , Jerome 4 , Eusebius 5 Alex., Gregory G Naz., Asterius 7 , Basil 8 , Ephraim 9 Syr., Chrysostom 10 , and Cyril 11 of Alexandria. Perplexing it is notwithstanding to discover, and distressing to have to record, that all the recent Editors of the Gospels are more or less agreed in I P. 23 2 - 2 Ap. Orig. i. 827. 3 Ambrose i. 659, 1473, 1491 ; places which shew how insecure would be an inference drawn from i. 543 and 665. 4 Hieron. v. 966 ; vi. 969. 5 Ap. Mai ii. 516, 520. 6 i. 370. 7 P. 12- ii. 169. ii. 142. 10 i. 715, 720; ii. 662 (bis\ 764 ; vii. 779. II v 2 . 149 (luc. text, 524). HOMOEOTELEUTON. 41 abolishing ' the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table.' [The foregoing instances afford specimens of the influence of accidental causes upon the transmission from age to age of the Text of the Gospels. Before the sense of the exact expressions of the Written Word was impressed upon the mind of the Church, when the Canon was not definitely acknowledged, and the halo of antiquity had not yet gathered round writings which had been recently com- posed, severe accuracy was not to be expected. Errors would be sure to arise, especially from accident, and early ancestors would be certain to have a numerous progeny ; besides that evil would increase, and slight deviations would give rise in the course of natural development to serious and perplexing corruptions. In the next chapter, other kinds of accidental causes will come under consideration.] CHAPTER IV. ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. III. FROM WRITING IN UNCIALS. I- CORRUPT readings have occasionally resulted from the ancient practice of writing Scripture in the uncial character, without accents, punctuation, or indeed any division of the text. Especially are they found in places where there is something unusual in the structure of the sentence. St. John iv. 35~6 (AevKcu eiVt Trpbs 6fpt.crp.bv 17817) has suffered in this way, owing to the unusual position of 7/877. Certain of the scribes who imagined that 7/8rj might belong to ver. 36, rejected the Kv : (d) Trpbs Oepicrfjiov. 'O dfpifav, K.r.A.. 1 It is clearly unsafe to draw any inference from the mere omission of 778;; in ver. 35, by those Fathers who do not shew how they would have begun ver. 36 as Eusebius (see below, note 2), Theodoret (i. 1398 : ii. 233), and Hilary (78. 443. 941. 1041). FROM WRITING IN UNCIALS. 43 The only point of importance however is the position of 77877 : which is claimed for ver. 35 by the great mass of the copies : as well as by Origen 1 , Eusebius 2 , Chrysostom 3 , Cyril 4 , the Vulgate, Jerome of course, and the Syriac. The Italic copies are hopelessly divided here 5 : and Codd. NBMII do not help us. But 7/877 is claimed for ver. 36 by CDEL, 33, and by the Curetonian and Lewis ( = KOL 7)817 o Oepifav) : while Codex A is singular in beginning ver. 36, 77817 Kai, which shews that some early copyist, with the correct text before him, adopted a vicious punctuation. For there can be no manner of doubt that the commonly received text and the usual punctuation is the true one: as, on a careful review of the evidence, every unprejudiced reader will allow. But recent critics are for leaving out KCU (with NBCDL) : while Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Tre- gelles (marg,\ are for putting the full stop after Trpbs depia-^ov and (with ACDL) making 7/8/7 begin the next sentence, which (as Alford finds out) is clearly inadmissible^ 2. Sometimes this affects the translation. Thus, the Revisers propose in the parable of the prodigal son, ' And I perish here with hunger ! ' But why ' here ? ' Because I answer, whereas in the earliest copies of St. Luke the words stood thus, r(x)AAIMGJAnOAAYMAI, some careless scribe after writing rOJA, reduplicated the three last letters (Cx)A): he mistook them for an independent word. 1 i. 219 : iii. 158 : iv. 248, 250 bis, 251 bis, 252, 253, 255 bis, 256, 257. Also iv. 440 note, which = cat 01 iv. 21. 2 dem. 440. But not in es. 426 : theoph. 262, 275- 3 vii. 488, 662 : ix. 32. * i. 397. 98. (Palladius) 611 : iii. 57. So also in iv. 199, troi/xos 77877 nyxk TO TTtffTtVtlV. 5 Ambrose, ii. 279, has 'Et qui metit? Iren. lnt substitutes ' nam ' for ' ef,' and omits 'jam. 1 Jerome 9 times introduces 'jam' before ' albae sitnt.' So Aug. (iii. 2 417) : but elsewhere (iv. 639 : v. 531) he omits the word altogether. 44 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. Accordingly in the Codex Bezae, in R and U and about ten cursives, we encounter eyo> be o>8e. The inventive faculty having thus done its work it remained to superadd ' trans- position,' as was done by NBL. From eyo> Se o>8e Ai/xco, the sentence has now developed into eyco 8e At/^co oi/cw] TOU itarpos fxou : but such copies must have existed in the second century. The Peshitto, the Cureton and Lewis recognize the three words in question ; as well as copies of the Latin with which Jerome 3 , Augustine 4 and Cassian 5 were acquainted. The phrase ' in domo patris mei ' has accordingly established itself in the Vulgate. But surely we of the Church of England who have been hitherto spared this second blunder, may reasonably (at the end of 1700 years) refuse to take the first downward step. Our LORD intended no contrast whatever between two 1 ' Hie ' is not recognized in Ambrose. Append, ii. 367. 2 The Fathers render us very little help here. Ps.-Chrys. twice (viii. 34 : x. 838) has 70; 5t SiSf : once (viii. 153) not. John Damascene (ii. 579) is without the ui5(. 3 i. 76 : vi. 16 (not vi. 484). * iii.a 259 (not v. 511). 4 P- 45- FROM WRITING IN UNCIALS. 45 localities but between two parties. The comfortable estate of the hired servants He set against the abject misery of the Son : not the house wherein the servants dwelt, and the spot where the poor prodigal was standing when he came to a better mind. These are many words ; but I know not how to be briefer. And, what is worthy of discussion, if not the utterances of 'the Word made flesh ? ' If hesitation to accept the foregoing verdict lingers in any quarter, it ought to be dispelled by a glance at the context in NBL. What else but the instinct of a trained understanding is it to survey the neighbourhood of a place like the present? Accordingly, we discover that in ver. 16, for ye/xiVat TTJI> KoiAiay OVTOV diro, NBDLR present us with Xoprao-^Tji/ai ex : and in ver. 22, the prodigal, on very nearly the same authority (NBDUX), is made to say to his father, IIoiTjow /ue o>? fva r<3z> fjuaOiaiv vov : Which certainly he did not say *. Moreover, NBLX and the Old Latin are for thrusting in raxy (D raxeoos) after ffcveyKaTc. Are not these one and all confessedly fabricated readings ? the infelicitous attempts of some well-meaning critic to improve upon the inspired original ? From the fact that three words in St. John v. 44 were in the oldest MSS. written thus, MONO Y0YOY (i.e. povov 0eoC ov), the middle word (Oeov) got omitted from some very early copies ; whereby the sentence is made to run thus in English, ' And seek not the honour which cometh from the only One.' It is so that Origen 2 , Eusebius 3 , Didymus 4 , besides the two best copies of the Old Latin, exhibit the place. As to Greek MSS., the error survives only in B at the present day, the preserver of an Alexandrian error. 1 [The prodigal was prepared to say this ; but his father's kindness stopped him : a feature in the account which the Codexes in question ignore.] a iii. 687. But in i. 228 and 259 he recognizes Oeov. s Ap. Mai vii. 135. * Praep. xiii. 6, povov rov kvos (vol. ii. 294). 46 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. 3. St. Luke explains (Acts xxvii. 14) that it was the 'typhonic wind called Euroclydon ' which caused the ship in which St. Paul and he sailed past Crete to incur the harm and loss ' so graphically described in the last chapter but one of the Acts. That wind is mentioned nowhere but in this one place. Its name however is sufficiently intelligible ; being compounded of Evpos, the 'south-east wind,' and KAvStoy, ' a tempest : ' a compound which happily survives intact in the Peshitto version. The Syriac translator, not knowing what the word meant, copied what he saw, ' the blast ' (he says) ' of the tempest l , which [blast] is called Tophonikos Euroklldon.' Not so the licentious scribes of the West. They insisted on extracting out of the actual ' Euroclydon,' the imaginary name ' Euro-aquilo/ which accordingly stands to this day in the Vulgate. (Not that Jerome himself so read the name of the wind, or he would hardly have explained ' Eurielion ' or ' Enriclion ' to mean ' commiscens, sive deorsum ducens 2 .') Of this feat of theirs, Codexes N and A (in which EYPOKAYAWN has been perverted into EYPAKYACON) are at this day the sole surviving Greek witnesses. Well may the evidence for ' Euro-aquilo ' be scanty ! The fabricated word col- lapses the instant it is examined. Nautical men point out that it is 'inconsistent in its construction with the principles on which the names of the intermediate or compound winds are framed : ' ' E iironotus is so called as intervening immediately be- tween Eurus and Notus, and as partaking, as was thought, of the qualities of both. The same holds true of Libono tus, as being interposed between Libs and Notus. Both these compound winds lie in the same quarter or quadrant of the circle with the winds of which they are composed, and 1 Same word occurs in St. Mark iv. 37. 2 iii. 101. FROM WRITING IN UNCIALS. 47 no other wind intervenes. But Eurus and Aquilo are at 90 distance from one another; or according to some writers, at 105 ; the former lying in the south-east quarter, and the latter in the north-east : and two winds, one of which is the East cardinal point, intervene, as Caecias and SubsolanusV Further, why should the wind be designated by an im- possible Latin name ? The ship was ' a ship of Alexandria' (ver. 6). The sailors were Greeks. What business has ' Aquilo' here? Next, if the wind did bear the name of ' Euro-aquilo,' why is it introduced in this marked way (avffjios TV(j)u>viK.6s, 6 naXovfjitvos) as if it were a kind of curiosity ? Such a name would utterly miss the point, which is the violence of the wind as expressed in the term Euroclydon. But above all, if St. Luke wrote EYPAK-, how has it come to pass that every copyist but three has written EYPOK-? The testimony of B is memorable. The original scribe wrote EYPAKYACJN 2 : the secunda manus has corrected this into EYPYKAYACON, which is also the reading of Euthalius 3 . The essential circumstance is, that not YACON but YACON has all along been the last half of the word in Codex B 4 . 1 Falconer's Dissertation on St. Paul's Voyage, pp. 16 and 12. 2 Let the learned Vercellone be heard on behalf of Codex B : ' Antequam manum de tabula amoveamus, e re fore videtur, si, ipso codice Vaticano inspecto, duos injectos scrupulos eximamus. Cl. Tischendorfius in nuperrima sua editione scribit (Proleg. p. cclxxv), Maium ad Act. xxvii. 14, codici Vaticano tribuisse a prima manu cvp 6py for en' avTOwpa>. Readings of Euroclydon 6YPAKYACON B (sic) 6YPAKYACJN NA CYPAKHAGON 6YTPAKHACON 6YPAKAHACJN Peshitto. 6YPAKYKACON Euroaquilo Vulg. 6YPOKAYAGJN HLP EYPAKAYAOJN Syr. Harkl. YPYKAYAO)N B FROM WRITING IN UNCIALS. 49 it has actually come to pass. K A I ot aerot is met with in many ancient authorities. But NLB also transposed the clauses, and substituted eTrLa-vva-^Orja-ovTai for avva^O^a-ovTai. The self-same casualty, viz. nai elicited out of the insertion of et and the transposition of the clauses, is discoverable among the Cursives at St. Matt. xxiv. 28, the parallel place : where by the way the old uncials distinguish them- selves by yet graver eccentricities 1 . How can we as judicious critics ever think of disturbing the text of Scripture on evidence so precarious as this? It is proposed that we should henceforth read St. Matt, xxii. 23 as follows : ' On that day there came to Him Sadducees saying that there is no Resurrection.' A new incident would be in this way introduced into the Gospel narrative: resulting from a novel reading of the passage. Instead of ot Aeyovres, we are invited to read Aeyovres, on the authority of NBDMSZP and several of the Cursives, besides Origen, Methodius, Epiphanius. This is a respect- able array. There is nevertheless a vast preponderance of numbers in favour of the usual reading, which is also found in the Old Latin copies and in the Vulgate. But surely the discovery that in the parallel Gospels it is otrtves \fyova- iv avaaraa-iv pir) fivai (St. Mark xii. 1 8) and ot avTiXtyovres avaa-Taviv pr) elvai (St. Luke xx. 27) may be considered as decisive in a case like the present. Sure I am that it will be so regarded by any one who has paid close attention to the method of the Evangelists. Add that the origin of the mistake is seen, the instant the words are inspected as they must have stood in an uncial copy: CAAAOYKAIOIOIAETONTES and really nothing more requires to be said. The second 01 was safe to be dropped in a collocation of letters like 1 Oirov (ov N) yap ( yap NBDL) fav (av D) ro VTU(M (acufM N). II. E 50 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. that. It might also have been anticipated, that there would be found copyists to be confused by the antecedent KAI. Accordingly the Peshitto, Lewis, and Curetonian render the place ' et dicentes ; ' shewing that they mistook KAI Ol AETONTES for a separate phrase. 4. The termination TO (in certain tenses of the verb), when followed by the neuter article, naturally leads to confusion ; sometimes to uncertainty. In St. John v. 4 for instance, where we read in our copies KO! erapao-o-e TO vSaip, but so many MSS. read erapcio-a-ero, that it becomes a perplexing question which reading to follow. The sense in either case is excellent: the only difference being whether the Evangelist actually says that the Angel ' troubled ' the water, or leaves it to be inferred from the circumstance that after the Angel had descended, straightway the water 4 was troubled.' The question becomes less difficult of decision when (as in St. Luke vii. 21) we have to decide between two expressions c%api and Kv/Ke,the repenting malefactor is made to say, ' Jesus ! remember me, when Thou comest in Thy kingdom 4 .' Speaking of our SAVIOUR'S triumphal entry into Jerusa- lem, which took place ' the day after ' ' they made Him a supper/ and Lazarus 'which had been dead, whom He raised from the dead,' ' sat at the table with Him * (St. John xii. i, 2), St. John says that ' the multitude which had been with Him when He called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised Him from the dead bare testimony ' (St. John xii. 17). The meaning of this is best understood by a reference to St. Luke xix. 37, 38, where it is explained that it was the sight of so many acts of Divine Power, the chiefest of all being the raising of Lazarus, which moved the crowds to yield the memorable testimony recorded by St. Luke in ver. 38, by St. John in ver. i3 5 . But Tischendorf and Lachmann, who on the authority of D and four later uncials read os OVTOS was thought to be a clear mistake, and the weaker word was accordingly omitted. No doubt Latins and others who did not understand Greek well con- sidered also that OVTUS was redundant, and this was the cause of its being omitted in the Vulgate. But really oi'rws, being sufficiently authenticated 1 , is exactly in consonance with Greek usage and St. John's style 2 , and adds consider- ably to the graphic character of the sacred narrative. St. John was reclining (dyajce/!/xevos) on his left arm over the bosom of the robe ( and o may be seen in St. Luke xv. 24, 32, where curoAeoAws has gained so strong a hold that it is found in the Received Text for aTroAcoAo'?, which last being the better attested appears to be the right reading 2 . But the instance which requires the most atten- tion is KaOapifyv in St. Mark vii. 19, and all the more because in The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, the alteration into Kadaptfav is advocated as being ' no part of the Divine discourse, but the Evangelist's inspired comment on the SAVIOUR'S words 3 .' Such a question must be decided strictly by the testimony, not upon internal evidence which in fact is in this case absolutely decisive neither way, for people must not be led by the attractive view opened by KaOapifav, and KaOdpi&v bears a very intelligible meaning. When we find that the uncial evidence is divided, there being eight against the change (3>2KMUVTII), and eleven for it (KABEFGHLSXA) ; that not much is advanced by the versions, though the Peshitto, the Lewis 1 See St. John iv. 6 : Acts xx. u, xxvii. 17. The beloved Apostle was there- fore called o (maTrjdios. See Suicer. s. v. Westcott on St. John xiii. 25. 2 24. diro\cu\ws. K a ABD &c. avo\w\6s. N*GKMRSXrn*. Most curs. 32. ) in St. Mark iv. 8. Our LORD says that the seed which ' fell into the good ground ' ' yielded by (ev) thirty, and by (kv) sixty, and by (>) an hundred.' Tischendorf notes that besides all the uncials which are furnished with accents and breathings (viz. EFGHKMUVTI) 'nearly 100 cursives ' exhibit h here and in ver. 20. But this is to misrepresent the case. All the cursives may be declared to exhibit tv, e.g. all Matthaei's and all Scrivener's. I have myself with this object ex- amined a large number of Evangelia, and found Iv in all. The Basle MS. from which Erasmus derived his text 1 exhibits tv, though he printed Hv out of respect for the Vulgate. The Complutensian having ev, the reading of the Textus Receptus follows in consequence : but the Tra- ditional reading has been shewn to be ev, which is doubtless intended by N in Cod. A. Codd. NCA (two ever licentious and A similarly so throughout St. Mark) substitute for the preposition tv the preposition ets, (a sufficient proof to me that they under- stand N to represent ev, not Zv): and are followed by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the Revisers. As for the char- 1 Evan. 2. See Hoskier, Collation of Cod. Evan. 604, App. F. p. 4. 64 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. tered libertine B (and its servile henchman L), for the first tv (but not for the second and third) it substitutes the preposition I C : while, in ver. 20, it retains the first tv, but omits the other two. In all these vagaries Cod. B is followed by Westcott and Hort l . 1 [The following specimens taken from the first hand of B may illustrate the kakigraphy, if I may use the expression, which is characteristic of that MS. and also of N. The list might be easily increased. I. Proper Names. Itaavrjs, generally: Iaavvr]s, Luke i. 13*, 60, 63; Acts iii. 4; iv. 6, 13, 19; xii. 25; xiii. 5, 25; xv. 37; Rev. i. i, 4, 9 ; xxii. 8. Btf{t&ov\, Matt. x. 25 ; xii. 24, 27 ; Mark iii. 22 ; Luke xi. 15, 18, 19. NaCaper, Matt. ii. 23 ; Luke i. 26 ; John i. 46, 47. Nafcpa, Matt. iv. 13. Naap0, Matt. xxi. n ; Luke ii. 51 ; iv. 16. Mapia for Mapia/i, Matt. i. 20 ; Luke ii. 19. Mopta/* for Mapta, Matt. xxvii. 6 1 ; Mark xx. 40; Luke x. 42 ; xi. 32 ; John xi. 2 ; xii. 3 ; xx. 16, 18. See Traditional Text, p. 86. Kovp, Mark v. 41. To\yoO, Luke xix. 17. i, Iapa.T]\fiTai, Iffparj\iTCU. Mcacrrjs, MCDVO^S. Aa\/j.avowOa, Mark viii. IO. loxr?? (Joseph of Arimathea), Mark xv. 45. Ica, Matt, xxvii. 57, 59 ; Mark xv. 42 ; Luke xxiii. 50 ; John xix. 38. II. Mis-spelling of ordinary -words. Ka0' i8iav, Matt. xvii. i, 19; xxiv. 3 ; Mark iv. 34; vi. 31, &c. KO.T iSiai/, Matt. xiv. 13, 23 ; Mark vi. 32 ; vii. 33, &c. , Matt. xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25 ; Luke xxii. 18. yewrjiw., Matt. iii. 7 ; xii. 34 ; xxiii. 33 ; Luke iii. 7 (the well-known A similar confusion between "ffvtais and ytvvrjffis, Matt, i, and between (ytvriQrjv and (^(vvr}9rjv, and ytytvTjfjat and yeyti'i'Tjfiai. See Kuenen and Cobet N. T. ad fid. Cod. Vatican! Ixxvii. III. Itacisms. Kptivta, John xii. 48 (K/>JI/?). Kpivca, Matt. vii. i ; xix. 28 ; Luke vi. 37 ; vii. 43 ; xii. 57, &c. T/Mt>, Ti/iw, Matt. xv. 4, 5, 8 ; xix. 19 ; xxvii. 9 ; Mark vii. 6, 10, &c. (Vf^pfi^riOrj (Matt. ix. 30) for kvt^pi^aaro. dvaK\tiOr)vai (Mark vi. 39) for avaieXivai. a tiros for afros (Mark iv. 28). IV. Bad Grammar. rS> oiKoStairoTri fireKaKtaav for rov olKoSfffir6TTjv laX. (Matt. x. 25). KaraTraTTjaovfftv for -atuaiv (Matt. vii. 6). S av airier era* (Matt. xiv. 7). OTO.V 5i dieoveTf (Mark xiii. 7). V. Impossible words. (fj.vj]ffT(Vfi(vr]v (Luke i. 27). ovpavov for ovpavlov (ii. 13). avri^rfrow (Luke ii. 44). Komovmv (Matt. vi. 38). -iip&row (Matt. xv. 23). (Mark iv. 32). j^ffs for v/*y. v/wfs for J^ts.] ITACISM. 65 4. St. Paul l in his Epistle to Titus [ii. 5] directs that young women shall be ' keepers at home,' olitovpovs. So, (with five exceptions,) every known Codex 2 , including the corrected tf and D, HKLP; besides 17, 37, 47. So also Clemens Alex. 3 (A.D. 1 80), Theodore of Mopsuestia 4 , Basil 5 , Chrysostom 6 , Theodoret 7 , Damascene 8 . So again the Old Latin (domum custodientes^\ the Vulgate (domus curam habentes 10 ), and Jerome (habentes domns dili- gentiam} : and so the Peshitto and the Harkleian versions, besides the Bohairic. There evidently can be no doubt whatever about such a reading so supported. To be olnovpos was held to be a woman's chiefest praise 12 : KaAA-tcrroy Zpyov olKovpos, writes Clemens Alex. 13 ; assigning to the wife as her proper province 14 . On the contrary, ' gadding about from house to house ' is what the Apostle, writing to Timothy 15 , expressly condemns. But of course the decisive consideration is not the support derived from internal evidence ; but the plain fact that antiquity, variety, respect- ability, numbers, continuity of attestation, are all in favour of the Traditional reading. 1 This paper on Titus ii. 5 was marked by the Dean as being ' ready for press.' It was evidently one of his later essays, and was left in one of his later portfolios. 2 All Matthaei's 16, all Rinck's 7, all Reiche's 6, all Scrivener's 13, &c., &c. 3 622. 4 Ed. Swete, ii. 247 (domos suas bene regentes) ; 248 (domus proprias optime regant). 5 ii. (Elk.} 291 a, 309 b. 6 xi. 750 a, 751 be d ij otKovptis at olKovofuxri. 7 iii. 704. 8 ii. 271. ' Cod. Clarom. 10 Cod. Amiat., and August, iii'. 804. 11 vii. 716 c, 718 b (Bene domum regere, 718 c). 12 KOT-' OIKOV olnovpovaiv uffre -napfftvoi (Soph. Oed. Col. 343). 'Olxovpos est quasi proprium vocabulum mulierum: o'movpyos est scribarum commentum,' as Matthnei, whose note is worth reading, truly states. Wetstein's collections here should by all means be consulted. See also Field's delightful Otium Norv., PP- I35- 6 - 13 P. 293, lin. 4 (see lin. 2). 14 P. 288, lin. 20. 15 i Tim. v. 13. II. F 66 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. Notwithstanding this, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, because they find olKovpyovs in tf*ACD*F-G, are for thrusting that ' barbarous and scarcely intelligible ' word, if it be not even a non-existent *, into Titus ii. 5. The Revised Version in consequence exhibits ' workers at home,' which Dr. Field may well call an 'unnecessary and most tasteless innovation.' But it is insufficiently attested as well, besides being a plain perver- sion of the Apostle's teaching. [And the error must have arisen from carelessness and ignorance, probably in the West where Greek was not properly understood.] So again, in the cry of the demoniacs, ri rjfj.lv KOI ). Many of the Latin copies preface this with et haec eo dicente. Now, the established formula of the lectionaries here is, 1'op.iKos TIS TTpoa-rj\dev r<5 T., which explains why the Cure- tonian, the Lewis, with 33, ' the queen of the cursives,' as their usual leader in aberrant readings is absurdly styled, so read the place : while D, with one copy of the Old Latin, stands alone in exhibiting, dveWrj 8e TIS VO/XIKO'S. Four Codexes (NBLH) with the Curetonian omit the second KCU which is illegible in the Lewis. To read this place in its purity you have to take up any ordinary cursive copy. 4. Take another instance. St. Mark xv. 28 has been hitherto read in all Churches as follows : ' And the Scrip- ture was fulfilled, which saith, " And He was numbered with the transgressors."' In these last days however the discovery is announced that every word of this is an un- authorized addition to the inspired text. Griesbach indeed only marks the verse as probably spurious ; while Tregelles is content to enclose it in brackets. But Alford, Tischen- 76 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. dorf, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers eject the words KCti t-TrArjpw^Tj ?/ ypct^rj 17 Ae'youcra, KOI piera avo^^v eAoyiVtfrj from the text altogether. What can be the reason for so extraordinary a proceeding? Let us not be told by Schulz (Griesbach's latest editor) that ' the quotation is not in Mark's manner ; that the formula which introduces it is John's : and that it seems to be a gloss taken from Luke xxii. 37.' This is not criticism but dictation, imagination, not argument. Men who so write forget that they are assuming the very point which they are called upon to prove. Now it happens that all the L T ncials but six and an immense majority of the Cursive copies contain the words before us : that besides these, the Old Latin, the Syriac, the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Bohairic versions, all concur in exhibiting them : that the same words are expressly recognized by the Sectional System of Eusebius ; having a section ( i. e. -g-) to themselves which is the weightiest sanction that Father had it in his power to give to words of Scripture. So are they also recognized by the Syriac sectional system ( - g - ), which is diverse from that of Eusebius and independent of it. What then is to be set against such a weight of ancient evidence? The fact that the follow- ing six Codexes are without this 28th verse, tfABCDX, together with the Sahidic and Lewis. The notorious Codex k (Bobiensis) is the only other ancient testimony producible ; to which Tischendorf adds ' about forty-five cursive copies.' Will it be seriously pretended that this evidence for omitting ver. 28 from St. Mark's Gospel can compete with the evidence for retaining it? Let it not be once more insinuated that we set numbers before antiquity. Codex D is of the sixth century ; Cod. X not older than the ninth : and not one of the four Codexes which remain is so old, within perhaps two centuries, as LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. 77 either the Old Latin or the Peshitto versions. We have Eusebius and Jerome's Vulgate as witnesses on the same side, besides the Gothic version, which represents a Codex probably as old as either. To these witnesses must be added Victor of Antioch, who commented on St. Mark's Gospel before either A or C were written 1 . It will be not unreasonably asked by those who have learned to regard whatever is found in B or tf as oracular, ' But is it credible that on a point like this such authorities as NABCD should all be in error? ' It is not only credible, I answer, but a circumstance of which we meet with so many undeniable examples that it ceases to be even a matter of surprise. On the other hand, what is to be thought of the credibility that on a point like this all the ancient versions (except the Sahidic) should have conspired to mislead mankind ? And further, on what intelligible principle is the consent of all the other uncials, and the whole mass of cursives, to be explained, if this verse of Scripture be indeed spurious ? I know that the rejoinder will be as follows : ' Yes, but if the ten words in dispute really are part of the inspired verity, how is their absence from the earliest Codexes to be accounted for ? ' Now it happens that for once I am able to assign the reason. But I do so under protest, for I insist that to point out the source of the mistakes in our oldest Codexes is no part of a critic's business. It would not only prove an endless, but also a hopeless task. This time, however, I am able to explain. If the reader will take the trouble to inquire at the Bibliotheque at Paris for a Greek Codex numbered ' 71,' an Evangelium will be put into his hands which differs from any that I ever met with in giving singularly minute and full rubrical directions. At the end of St. Mark xv. 27, he will read as follows : ' When thou readest the sixth Gospel 1 Investigate Possinus, 345, 346, 348. 78 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. of the Passion, also when thou readest the second Gospel of the Vigil of Good Friday, stop here : skip verse 28 : then go on at verse 29.' The inference from this is so obvious, that it would be to abuse the reader's patience if I were to enlarge upon it, or even to draw it out in detail. Very ancient indeed must the Lectionary practice in this particular have been that it should leave so fatal a trace of its operation in our four oldest Codexes : but it has left it 1 . The explanation is evident, the verse is plainly genuine, and the Codexes which leave it out are corrupt. One word about the evidence of the cursive copies on this occasion. Tischendorf says that ' about forty-five ' of them are without this precious verse of Scripture. I venture to say that the learned critic would be puzzled to produce forty-five copies of the Gospels in which this verse has no place. But in fact his very next statement (viz. that about half of these are Lectionaries), satisfactorily explains the matter. Just so. From every Lectionary in the world, for the reason already assigned, these words are away ; as well as in every MS. which, like B and K, has been depraved by the influence of the Lectionary practice. And now I venture to ask, What is to be thought of that Revision of our Authorized Version which omits ver. 28 altogether ; with a marginal intimation that ' many ancient authorities insert it ' ? Would it not have been the course of ordinary reverence, I was going to say of truth and fairness, to leave the text unmolested : with a mar- ginal memorandum that just 'a very few ancient authorities leave it out ' ? 5. A gross depravation of the Text resulting from this cause, which nevertheless has imposed on several critics, 1 It is surprising to find so great an expert as Griesbach in the last year of his life so entirely misunderstanding this subject. See his Comment. Crit. Part ii. p. 190. ' Nee ulla . . . debuerint.' LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. 79 as has been already said, is furnished by the first words of Acts iii. The most ancient witness accessible, namely the Peshitto, confirms the usual reading of the place, which is also the text of the cursives : viz. 'Eui TO O.VTO 5e IleVpos /cat 'Iwavvris K.T.A.. So the Harkleian and Bede. So Codex E. The four oldest of the six available uncials conspire however in representing the words which immediately precede in the following unintelligible fashion : 6 Se Kvptos 7rpo^ofj,fvovs KaO' fffidpav tirl TO O.VTO. Tltrpos of K.T.A. How is it to be thought that this strange and vapid presentment of the passage had its beginning ? It results, I answer, from the ecclesiastical practice of beginning a fresh lection at the name of Peter/ prefaced by the usual formula ' In those days.' It is accordingly usual to find the liturgical word a.pxn indicative of the beginning of a lection, thrust in between cm TO aiiTo be and ITeYpos. At a yet earlier period I suppose some more effectual severance of the text was made in that place, which unhappily misled some early scribe l . And so it came to pass that in the first instance the place stood thus : 6 8e Kvpios -n-poo-en'flei TOVS trwofi4vov? K0.0' rjfjLfpav Tr\ e/cKA.7)cria eirl TO CIVTO, which was plainly intolerable. What I am saying will commend itself to any unpreju- diced reader when it has been stated that Cod. D in this place actually reads as follows : Ka.6rjiJ.epav tirl TO O.VTO kv ry KK\r](r(.q. 'Ey 8e rais ^le'pais Tcurrcus Ilerpo? /c.rA. : the scribe with simplicity both giving us the liturgical formula with which it was usual to introduce the Gospel for the Friday after Easter, and permitting us to witness the perplexity with which the evident surplusage of 777 KK\r]crtq eTri TO OVTO' occasioned him. He inverts those two expressions and thrusts in a preposition. How obvious it now was to solve the difficulty by getting rid of TJ) rovs ff2 g 1 ' 2 k 1), Vulgate, Curetonian, Bohairic, Ethiopic, does but further shew that such an amount of 1 Bede, Retr. in. D (add. of tv r. fKK\.}. Brit. Mus. Addit. 16, 184. fol. 152 b. Vulgate. 8 So the place stands in Evan. 64. The liturgical notes are printed in a smaller type, for distinction. LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. 8l evidence in and by itself is wholly insufficient to determine the text of Scripture. When therefore I see Tischendorf, in the immediately preceding verse (xiii. 43) on the sole authority of KB and a few Latin copies, omitting the word aitoveiv, and again in the present verse on very similar authority (viz. ND, Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Curetonian, Lewis, Bohairic, together with five cursives of aberrant character) trans- posing the order of the words TTCLVTU o6bpa (St. Matt. xvii. 23) comes to be omitted in K and several other copies. The previous lesson ends at ey'e/>0?/o-eTai, the next lesson begins at Tipovo>v, (which must needs be of very high antiquity, for it is mentioned by Irenaeus 1 , and may be as old as 2 Tim. iv. 18 itself;) the doxology, I say, which formed part of the Church's liturgy, though transcribed 10,000 times, could never by possibility have resulted in the unvarying doxology found in MSS. of St. Matt. vi. 13, 'For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.' On the other hand, the inference from a careful survey of so many Oriental liturgies is inevitable. The universal prevalence of a doxology of some sort at the end of the LORD'S Prayer ; the general prefix ' for thine ' ; the pre- vailing mention therein of ' the kingdom and the power and the glory ' ; the invariable reference to Eternity : all this constitutes a weighty corroboration of the genuineness of the form in St. Matthew. Eked out with a confession of faith in the Trinity, and otherwise amplified as piety or zeal for doctrinal purity suggested, every liturgical formula of the kind is clearly derivable from the form of words in St. Matt. vi. 13. In no conceivable way, on the other hand, could that briefer formula have resulted from the (lAXd itai 77^as tirt T^S 'Ev^apiffrias Xt'-yoiras, ' is roiis aluvas ruy cuwvcur' *.T.X. Contra Haer. lib. i. c. 3. LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. 85 practice of the ancient Church. The thing, I repeat, is simply impossible. What need to point out in conclusion that the Church's peculiar method of reciting the LORD'S Prayer in the public liturgy does notwithstanding supply the obvious and suf- ficient explanation of all the adverse phenomena of the case ? It was the invariable practice from the earliest time for the Choir to break off at the words ' But deliver us from evil.' They never pronounced the doxology. The doxology must for that reason have been omitted by the critical owner of the archetypal copy of St. Matthew from which nine extant Evangelia, Origen, and the Old Latin version originally derived their text. This is the sum of the matter. There can be no simpler solution of the alleged difficulty. That Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose recognize no more of the LORD'S Prayer than they found in their Latin copies, cannot create surprise. The wonder would have been if they did. Much stress has been laid on the silence of certain of the Greek Fathers concerning the doxology although they wrote expressly on the LORD'S Prayer ; as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa *, Cyril of Jerusalem, Maximus. Those who have attended most to such subjects will however bear me most ready witness, that it is never safe to draw inferences of the kind proposed from the silence of the ancients. What if they regarded a doxology, wherever found, as hardly a fitting subject for exegetical comment? But however their silence is to be explained, it is at least quite certain that the reason of it is not because their copies of St. Matthew were unfurnished with the doxology. Does any one seriously imagine that in A. D. 650, when Maximus wrote, Evangelia were, in this respect, in a different state from what they are at present ? 1 But the words of Gregory of Nyssa are doubtful. See Scrivener, Introduc- tion, ii. p. 325, note i. 86 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. The sum of what has been offered may be thus briefly stated : The textual perturbation observable at St. Matt. vi. 13 is indeed due to a liturgical cause, as the critics suppose. But then it is found that not the great bulk of the Evangelia, but only Codd. NBDZ, I, 17, 118, 130, 209, have been victims of the corrupting influence. As usual, I say, it is the few, not the many copies, which have been led astray. Let the doxology at the end of the LORD'S Prayer be therefore allowed to retain its place in the text without further molestation. Let no profane hands be any more laid on these fifteen precious words of the LORD JESUS CHRIST. There yet remains something to be said on the same subject for the edification of studious readers ; to whom the succeeding words are specially commended. They are requested to keep their attention sustained, until they have read what immediately follows. The history of the rejection of these words is in a high degree instructive. It dates from 1514, when the Com- plutensian editors, whilst admitting that the words were found in their Greek copies, banished them from the text solely in deference to the Latin version. In a marginal annotation they started the hypothesis that the doxology is a liturgical interpolation. But how is that possible, seeing that the doxology is commented on by Chrysostom ? ' We presume,' they say, ' that this corruption of the original text must date from an antecedent period.' The same adverse sentence, supported by the same hypothesis, was reaffirmed by Erasmus, and on the same grounds ; but in his edition of the N.T. he suffered the doxology to stand. As the years have rolled out, and Codexes DBZtf have successively come to light, critics have waxed bolder and bolder in giving their verdict. First, Grotius, Hammond, Walton ; then Mill and Grabe ; next Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach ; lastly Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, LITURGICAL INFLUENCE. 87 Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers have denounced the precious words as spurious. But how does it appear that tract of time has strengthened the case against the doxology ? Since 1514, scholars have become acquainted with the Peshitto version ; which by its emphatic verdict, effectually disposes of the evidence borne by all but three of the Old Latin copies. The AiSax*? of the first or second century, the Sahidic version of the third century, the Apostolic Constitutions (2), follow on the same side. Next, in the fourth century come Chrysostom, Ambrose, ps.-Caesarius, the Gothic version. After that Isidore, the Ethiopic, Cureton's Syriac. The Harkleian, Armenian, Georgian, and other versions, with Chrysostom (2), the Opus Imperfectum, Theophylact, and Euthymius (2), bring up the rear 1 . Does any one really suppose that two Codexes of the fourth century (Btf), which are even notorious for their many omissions and general accuracy, are any adequate set-off against such an amount of ancient evidence ? L and 33, generally the firm allies of BD and the Vulgate, forsake them at St. Matt. vi. 13 : and dispose effectually of the adverse testimony of D and Z, which are also balanced by and 2. But at this juncture the case for rejecting the doxology breaks down : and when it is discovered that every other uncial and every other cursive in existence may be appealed to in its support, and that the story of its liturgical origin proves to be a myth, what must be the verdict of an impartial mind on a survey of the entire evidence ? The whole matter may be conveniently restated thus : Liturgical use has indeed been the cause of a depravation of the text at St. Matt. vi. 13 ; but it proves on inquiry to be the very few MSS., not the very many, which have been depraved. 1 See my Textual Guide, Appendix V. pp. 131-3 (G. Bell & Sons). I have increased the Dean's list with a few additional authorities. 88 ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. Nor is any one at liberty to appeal to a yet earlier period than is attainable by existing liturgical evidence ; and to suggest that then the doxology used by the priest may have been the same with that which is found in the ordinary text of St. Matthew's Gospel. This may have been the case or it may not. Meanwhile, the hypothesis, which fell to the ground when the statement on which it rested was disproved, is not now to be built up again on a mere conjecture. But if the fact could be ascertained, and I am not at all concerned to deny that such a thing is possible, I should regard it only as confirmatory of the genuineness of the doxology. For why should the litur- gical employment of the last fifteen words of the LORD'S Prayer be thought to cast discredit on their genuineness ? In the meantime, the undoubted fact, that for an indefinitely remote period the LORD'S Prayer was not publicly recited by the people further than ' But deliver us from evil,' a doxology of some sort being invariably added, but pro- nounced by the priest alone, this clearly ascertained fact is fully sufficient to account for a phenomenon so ordinary [found indeed so commonly throughout St. Matthew, to say nothing of occurrences in the other Gospels] as really not to require particular explanation, viz. the omission of the last half of St. Matthew vi. 13 from Codexes tfBDZ. CHAPTER VII. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. I. HARMONISTIC INFLUENCE. [IT must not be imagined that all the causes of the depravation of the text of Holy Scripture were instinctive, and that mistakes arose solely because scribes were overcome by personal infirmity, or were unconsciously the victims of surrounding circumstances. There was often more design and method in their error. They, or those who directed them, wished sometimes to correct and improve the copy or copies before them. And indeed occasionally they desired to make the Holy Scriptures witness to their own peculiar belief. Or they had their ideas of taste, and did not scruple to alter passages to suit what they fancied was their enlightened judgement. Thus we can trace a tendency to bring the Four Records into one harmonious narrative, or at least to excise or vary statements in one Gospel which appeared to conflict with parallel statements in another. Or else, some Evangelical Diatessaron, or Harmony, or combined narrative now forgotten, exercised an influence over them, and whether consciously or not, since it is difficult always to keep designed and unintentional mistakes apart, and we must not be supposed to aim at scientific exactness in the arrangement adopted in this analysis, induced them to adopt alterations of the pure Text. 90 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. We now advance to some instances which will severally and conjointly explain themselves.] 1. Nothing can be more exquisitely precise than St. John's way of describing an incident to which St. Mark (xvi. 9) only refers ; viz. our LORD'S appearance to Mary Magdalene, the first of His appearances after His Resur- rection. The reason is discoverable for every word the Evangelist uses : its form and collocation. Both St. Luke (xxiv. 3) and previously St. Mark (xvi. 5) expressly stated that the women who visited the Sepulchre on the first Easter morning, ' after they had entered in ' (eiVc AfloCo-cu), saw the Angels. St John explains that at that time Mary was not with them. She had separated herself from their company ; had gone in quest of Simon Peter and ' the other disciple.' When the women, their visit ended, had in turn departed from the Sepulchre, she was left in the garden alone. ' Mary was standing [with her face] towards the sepulchre weeping, outside V All this, singular to relate s was completely misunder- stood by the critics of the two first centuries. Not only did they identify the incident recorded in St. John xx. n, 12 with St. Mark xv. 5 and St. Luke xxiv. 3, 4, from which, as we have seen, the first-named Evangelist is careful to distinguish it ; not only did they further identify both places with St. Matt, xxviii. 2, 3 2 , from which they are 1 Mapia Si tiarqKfi -a pus TO p.vrjp.(iov tcKaiovaa. efo> (St. John xx. n). Comp. the expression irpos TO I2 - HARMONISTIC INFLUENCE. 91 clearly separate ; but they considered themselves at liberty to tamper with the inspired text in order to bring it into harmony with their own convictions. Some of them accordingly altered irpos TO ^vrj^lov into vpos TW ^vrj^Cta (which is just as ambiguous in Greek as ' at the sepulchre ' in English x ), and efco they boldly erased. It is thus that Codex A exhibits the text. But in fact this depravation must have begun at a very remote period and prevailed to an extraordinary extent : for it disfigures the best copies of the Old Latin, (the Syriac being doubtful) : a memorable circumstance truly, and in a high degree suggestive. Codex B, to be sure, reads elorTj/cei Ttpos TO> /wTj/xetw, ea> K\aiovaa, merely transposing (with many other authorities) the last two words. But then Codex B substitutes e\0ov(rai for da-f\6ova-aL in St. Mark xvi. 5, in order that the second Evangelist may not seem to contradict St. Matt, xxviii. a, 3. So that, according to this view of the matter, the Angelic appearance was outside the sepulchre 2 . Codex tf, on the contrary, is thorough. Not content with omitting lfo>, (as in the next verse it leaves out bvo, in order to prevent St. John xx. 12 from seeming to contradict St. Matt, xxviii. 2, 3, and St. Mark xvi. 5), it stands alone in reading 'EN TW /uz^/zei'o). (C and D are lost here.) When will men learn that these ' old uncials ' are ignes fatui, not beacon lights ; and admit that the texts which they exhibit are not only inconsistent but corrupt ? There is no reason for distrusting the received reading of the present place in any particular. True, that most of the uncials and many of the cursives read 717)6? TW ^Tj/xeio) : but so did neither Chrysostom 3 nor Cyril * read the place. And if the Evangelist himself had so written, is it credible 1 Consider o 5e Tlfrpos (larri/cu irp&s ry Ovpa lw (St. John xviii. 16). Has not this place, by the way, exerted an assimilating influence over St. John xx. n ? a Hesychius, qu. 51 (apud Cotelerii Eccl. Gr. Mon. iii. 43), explains St. Mark's phrase kv rois 5eiofy as follows : Srj\ovoTi rov fgairepov arrr]\cuov, 3 viii. 513. * iv. 1079. 92 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. that a majority of the copies would have forsaken the easier and more obvious, in order to exhibit the less usual and even slightly difficult expression ? Many, by writing TTpbs TO> /xmj/xeui), betray themselves ; for they retain a sure token that the accusative ought to end the sentence, I am not concerned however just now to discuss these matters of detail. I am only bent on illustrating how fatal to the purity of the Text of the Gospels has been the desire of critics, who did not understand those divine compositions, to bring them into enforced agreement with one another. The sectional system of Eusebius, I suspect, is not so much the cause as the consequence of the ancient and inveterate misapprehensions which prevailed in respect of the history of the Resurrection. It is time however to proceed. 2- Those writers who overlook the corruptions which the text has actually experienced through a mistaken solicitude on the part of ancient critics to reconcile what seemed to them the conflicting statements of different Evangelists, are frequently observed to attribute to this kind of officious- ness expressions which are unquestionably portions of the genuine text. Thus, there is a general consensus amongst critics of the destructive school to omit the words KO.L rives o-vv ai/rcus from St. Luke xxiv. i. Their only plea is the testimony of NBCL and certain of the Latin copies, a conjunction of authorities which, when they stand alone, we have already observed to bear invariably false witness. Indeed, before we proceed to examine the evidence, we discover that those four words of St. Luke are even required in this place. For St. Matthew (xxvii. 61), and St. Mark after him (xv. 47), had distinctly specified two women as witnesses of how and where our LORD'S body was laid. Now they were the same women apparently who prepared the spices and ointment and hastened therewith at break of HARMONISTIC INFLUENCE. 93 day to the sepulchre. Had we therefore only St. Matthew's Gospel we should have assumed that ' the ointment-bearers,' for so the ancients called them, were but two (St. Matt, xxviii. i). That they were at least three, even St. Mark shews by adding to their number Salome (xvi. i). But in fact their company consisted of more than four ; as St. Luke explains when he states that it was the same little band of holy women who had accompanied our SAVIOUR out of Galilee (xxiii. 55, cf. viii. 2). In anticipation therefore of what he will have to relate in ver. 10, he says in ver. i, ' and certain with them.' But how, I shall be asked, would you explain the omis- sion of these words which to yourself seem necessary? And after insisting that one is never bound to explain how the text of any particular passage came to be corrupted, I answer, that these words were originally ejected from the text in order to bring St. Luke's statement into harmony with that of the first Evangelist, who mentions none but Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses. The proof is that four of the same Latin copies which are for the omission of nai nyes ), respecting which the details are given in the second Appendix to the Traditional Text.] [Observe yet another instance of harmonizing propen- sities in the Ancient Church.] In St. Luke's Gospel iv. 1-13, no less than six copies of the Old Latin versions (bcfgMq) besides Ambrose (Com. St. Luke, 1340), are observed to transpose the second and third temptations ; introducing verses 9-12 between verses 4 and 5 ; in order to make the history of the Temptation as given by St. Luke correspond with the account given by St. Matthew. The scribe of the Vercelli Codex (a) was about to do the same thing ; but he checked himself when he had got as far as ' the pinnacle of the temple,' which he seems to have thought as good a scene for the third temptation as ' a high mountain,' and so left it. 3. A favourite, and certainly a plausible, method of account- ing for the presence of unauthorized matter in MSS. is to suggest that, in the first instance, it probably existed only in the shape of a marginal gloss, which through the inad- vertence of the scribes, in process of time, found its way into the sacred text. That in this way some depravations of Scripture may possibly have arisen, would hardly I pre- sume be doubted. But I suspect that the hypothesis is generally a wholly mistaken one; having been imported into this subject-matter (like many other notions which are HARMONISTIC INFLUENCE. 95 quite out of place here), from the region of the Classics, where (as we know) the phenomenon is even common. Especially is this hypothesis resorted to (I believe) in order to explain those instances of assimilation which are so frequently to be met with in Codd. B and tf. Another favourite way of accounting for instances of assimilation, is by taking for granted that the scribe was thinking of the parallel or the cognate place. And cer- tainly (as before) there is no denying that just as the familiar language of a parallel place in another Gospel presents itself unbidden to the memory of a reader, so may it have struck a copyist also with sufficient vividness to persuade him to write, not the words which he saw before him, but the words which he remembered. All this is certainly possible. But I strongly incline to the suspicion that this is not by any means the right way to explain the phenomena under discussion. I am of opinion that such depravations of the text were in the first instance intentional. I do not mean that they were introduced with any sinister motive. My meaning is that [there was a desire to remove obscurities, or to reconcile incongruous passages, or generally to improve the style of the authors, and thus to add to the merits of the sacred writings, instead of detracting from them. Such a mode of dealing with the holy deposit evinced no doubt a failure in the part of those who adopted it to understand the nature of the trust committed to the Church, just as similar action at the present day does in the case of such as load the New Testament with ' various readings/ and illustrate it as they imagine with what are really insinuations of doubt, in the way that they prepare an edition of the classics for the purpose of enlarging and sharpening the minds of youthful students. There was intention, and the intention was good : but it was none the less productive of corruption.] 96 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. I suspect that if we ever obtain access to a specimen of those connected Gospel narratives called Diatessarons, which are known to have existed anciently in the Church, we shall be furnished with a clue to a problem which at present is shrouded in obscurity, and concerning the solution of which, with such instruments of criticism as we at present possess, we can do little else but conjecture. I allude to those many occasions on which the oldest docu- ments extant, in narrating some incident which really presents no special difficulty, are observed to diverge into hopeless variety of expression. An example of the thing referred to will best explain my meaning. Take then the incident of our LORD'S paying tribute, set down in St. Matt. xvii. 25, 26. The received text exhibits, ' And when he [Peter] had entered (ore dvTJXOfv) into the house, JESUS was beforehand with him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon ? Of whom do earthly kings take toll or tribute ? of their sons or of strangers ? ' Here, for ore da-rjXOev, Codex B (but no other uncial) substitutes kKBovra : Codex K (but no other) eureA- OOVTO. : Codex D (but no other) ereA0oVri : Codex C (but no other) ore rjk6ov : while a fifth lost copy certainly con- tained ela\66vT(v ; and a sixth, eXdovrwv avr&v. A very fair specimen this, be it remarked in passing, of the con- cordia discors which prevails in the most ancient uncial copies l . How is all this discrepancy to be accounted for ? The Evangelist proceeds, ' Peter saith unto Him (Ae'yet avrw 6 Ile'rpos), Of strangers.' These four words C retains, but continues 'Now when he had said, Of strangers' (EITTOVTOS 8e avrov, ano T>V dAAor/nW) ; which unauthorized clause, all but the word avrov, is found also in 8, but in no other uncial. On the other hand, for Ae'yei avrw 6 ITe'rpos, tf (alone of uncials) substitutes 'O 8e e$7) : and B (also alone 1 Traditional Text, pp. 81-8. HARMONISTIC INFLUENCE. 97 of uncials) substitutes EuroWos 8e, and then proceeds ex- actly like the received text : while D merely omits 6 ITerpo?. Again I ask, How is all this discrepancy to be explained l ? As already hinted, I suspect that it was occasioned in the first instance by the prevalence of harmonized Gospel narratives. In no more loyal way can I account for the perplexing phenomenon already described, which is of perpetual recurrence in such documents as Codexes END, Cureton's Syriac, and copies of the Old Latin version. It is well known that at a very remote period some eminent persons occupied themselves in constructing such exhi- bitions of the Evangelical history : and further, that these productions enjoyed great favour, and were in general use. As for their contents, the notion we form to ourselves of a Diatessaron, is that it aspired to be a weaving of the fourfold Gospel into one continuous narrative : and we suspect that in accomplishing this object, the writer was by no means scrupulous about retaining the precise words of the inspired original. He held himself at liberty, on the contrary, (a) to omit what seemed to himself superfluous clauses : (b] to introduce new incidents : (c] to supply pic- turesque details : (d) to give a new turn to the expression : (e) to vary the construction at pleasure : (/) even slightly to paraphrase. Compiled after some such fashion as I have been describing, at a time too when the preciousness of the inspired documents seems to have been but imperfectly apprehended, the works I speak of, recommended by their graphic interest, and sanctioned by a mighty name, must have imposed upon ordinary readers. Incautious 1 I am tempted to inquire, By virtue of what verifying faculty do Lachmann and Tregelles on the former occasion adopt the reading of N ; Tischendorf, Alford, W. and Hort, the reading of B ? On the second occasion, I venture to ask, What enabled the Revisers, with Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, West- cott and Hort, to recognize in a reading, which is the peculiar property of B, the genuine language of the HOLY GHOST ? Is not a superstitious reverence for B and N betraying for ever people into error ? II. H 98 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. owners of Codexes must have transferred without scruple certain unauthorized readings to the margins of their own copies. A calamitous partiality for the fabricated document may have prevailed with some for whom copies were executed. Above all, it is to be inferred that licentious and rash Editors of Scripture, among whom Origen may be regarded as a prime offender, must have deliberately introduced into their recensions many an unauthorized gloss, and so given it an extended circulation. Not that we would imply that permanent mischief has resulted to the Deposit from the vagaries of individuals in the earliest age. The Divine Author of Scripture hath abundantly provided for the safety of His Word written. In the multitude of copies, in Lectionaries, in Versions, in citations by the Fathers, a sufficient safeguard against error hath been erected. But then, of these multitudinous sources of protection we must not be slow to avail ourselves impartially. The prejudice which would erect Codexes B and N into an authority for the text of the New Testament from which there shall be no appeal : the superstitious reverence which has grown up for one little cluster of authorities, to the disparagement of all other evidence wheresoever found ; this, which is for ever landing critics in results which are simply irrational and untenable, must be unconditionally abandoned, if any real progress is to be made in this department of inquiry. But when this has been done, men will begin to open their eyes to the fact that the little handful of documents recently so much in favour, are, on the contrary, the only surviving witnesses to corruptions of the Text which the Church in her corporate capacity has long since deliberately rejected. But to proceed. [From the Diatessaron of Tatian and similar attempts to harmonize the Gospels, corruption of a serious nature has ensued in some well-known places, such as the transference HARMONISTIC INFLUENCE. 99 of the piercing of the LORD'S side from St. John xix. 34 to St. Matt, xxvii. 49 1 , and the omission of the words ' and of an honeycomb' (/cat OTTO TOV jueXto-crtou KTjptou 2 ).] Hence also, in Cureton's Syriac 3 , the patch-work supple- ment to St. Matt. xxi. 9 : viz. : TroAXol 8e (St. Mark xi. 8) ets inrdvTria-iv avrov. KCU (St. John xii. 13) i]pavTo . . . alvftv TOV Qeov . . . trepl TTCKT&V &v etSov (St. Luke xix. 37). This self-evident fabrication, ' if it be not a part of the original Aramaic of St. Matthew,' remarks Dr. Cure- ton, ' would appear to have been supplied from the parallel passages of Luke and John conjointly.' How is it that even a sense of humour did not preserve that eminent scholar from hazarding the conjecture, that such a self- evident deflection of his corrupt Syriac Codex from the course all but universally pursued is a recovery of one more genuine utterance of the HOLY GHOST ? 1 Revision Revised, p. 33. 2 Traditional Text, Appendix I, pp. 244-252. 3 The Lewis MS. is defective here. II 2 CHAPTER VIII. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. II. ASSIMILATION. 1- THERE results inevitably from the fourfold structure of the Gospel, from the very fact that the story of Redemp- tion is set forth in four narratives, three of which often ran parallel. this practical inconvenience : namely, that some- times the expressions of one Evangelist get improperly transferred to another. This is a large and important subject which calls for great attention, and requires to be separately handled. The phenomena alluded to, which are similar to some of those which have been treated in the last chapter, may be comprised under the special head of Assimilation. It will I think promote clearness in the ensuing discussion if we determine to consider separately those instances of Assimilation which may rather be regarded as deliberate attempts to reconcile one Gospel with another : indications of a fixed determination to establish harmony between place and place. I am saying that between ordinary cases of Assimilation such as occur in every page, and extraordinary instances where per fas et nefas an enforced Harmony has been established, which abound indeed, but are by no means common, I am disposed to draw a line. This whole province is beset with difficulties : and the ASSIMILATION. IOI matter is in itself wondrously obscure. I do not suppose, in the absence of any evidence direct or indirect on the subject, at all events I am not aware that at any time has there been one definite authoritative attempt made by the Universal Church in her corporate capacity to remodel or revise the Text of the Gospels. An attentive study of the phenomena leads me, on the contrary, to believe that the several corruptions of the text were effected at different times, and took their beginning in widely different ways. I suspect that Accident was the parent of many ; and well meant critical assiduity of more. Zeal for the Truth is accountable for not a few depravations : and the Church's Liturgical and Lectionary practice must insensibly have produced others. Systematic villainy I am persuaded has had no part or lot in the matter. The decrees of such an one as Origen, if there ever was another like him, will account for a strange number of aberrations from the Truth : and if the Diatessaron of Tatian could be recovered 1 , I suspect that we should behold there the germs at least of as many more. But, I repeat my conviction that, how- ever they may have originated, the causes [are not to be found in bad principle, but either in infirmities or influences which actuated scribes unconsciously, or in a want of understanding as to what is the Church's duty in the transmission from generation to generation of the sacred deposit committed to her enlightened care.] 2. i. When we speak of Assimilation, we do not mean that a writer while engaged in transcribing one Gospel was so completely beguiled and overmastered by his recollections of the parallel place in another Gospel, that, forsaking the expressions proper to the passage before him, he uncon- 1 This paper bears the date 1877 : but I have thought best to keep the words with this caution to the reader. 102 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. sciously adopted the language which properly belongs to a different Evangelist. That to a very limited extent this may have occasionally taken place, I am not concerned to deny : but it would argue incredible inattention to what he was professing to copy, on the one hand, astonishing familiarity with what he was not professing to copy, on the other, that a scribe should have been capable of offending largely in this way. But in fact a moderate acquaintance with the subject is enough to convince any thoughtful person that the corruptions in MSS. which have resulted from accidental Assimilation must needs be inconsiderable in bulk, as well as few in number. At all events, the phenomenon referred to, when we speak of ' Assimilation,' is not to be so accounted for : it must needs be explained in some entirely different way. Let me make my meaning plain : (a) We shall probably be agreed that when the scribe of Cod. N, in place of fiacravicrai ^juas (in St. Matt. viii. 29), writes j/juas aTroAeVai. it may have been his memory which misled him. He may have been merely thinking of St. Mark i. 24, or of St. Luke iv. 34. (d) Again, when in Codd. NB we find rao-o-o'/iews thrust without warrant into St. Matt. viii. 9, we see that the word has lost its way from St. Luke vii. 8 ; and we are prone to suspect that only by accident has it crept into the parallel narrative of the earlier Evangelist. (c) In the same way I make no doubt that TTOTO/XO) (St. Matt. iii. 6) is indebted for its place in NBC, &c., to the influence of the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel (i. 5) ; and I am only astonished that critics should have been beguiled into adopting so clear a corruption of the text as part of the genuine Gospel. (d) To be brief: the insertion by tf of afeXQt (in St. Matt. vii. 4) is confessedly the result of the parallel passage in St. Luke vi. 42. The same scribe may be thought to ASSIMILATION. 103 have written TO> instead of rot? aue'/xot? in St. Matt, viii. 26, only because he was so familiar with TW avipy in St. Luke viii. 24 and in St. Mark iv. 39. The author of the prototype of tfBD (with whom by the way are some of the Latin versions) may have written ^ere in St. Matt. xvi. 8, only because he was thinking of the parallel place in St. Mark viii 17. "H0arro ayavaKTelv (St. Matt. XX. 24) can only have been introduced into tf from the parallel place in St. Mark x. 41, and may have been supplied memoriter. St. Luke xix. 21 is clearly not parallel to St. Matt. xxv. 24 ; yet it evidently furnished the scribe of tf with the epithet in place of a/cAr/po?. The substitution by N of ov St. Matt, xxvii. 15 for ov tfOeXov may seem to be the result of inconvenient familiarity with the parallel place in St. Mark xv. 6 ; where, as has been shewn l , instead of ovTTtp PTOVVTO, tf AB viciously exhibit ov TrapTjrowro, which Tischendorf besides Westcott and Hort mistake for the genuine Gospel. Who will hesitate to admit that, when NL exhibit in St. Matt. xix. 16, instead of the words 7701770-00 ira \ fayv alwviov, the formula which is found in the parallel place of St. Luke xviii. 18, viz. TrotTjo-as farjv altoviov KXripovofjiricra), those unauthorized words must have been derived from this latter place? Every ordinary reader will be further prone to assume that the scribe who first inserted them into St. Matthew's Gospel did so because, for whatever reason, he was more familiar with the latter formula than with the former. (e) But I should have been willing to go further. I might have been disposed to admit that when NDL introduce into St. Matt. x. 12 the clause Xeyovres, dp-r\vr\ ro> ot/co) rovrw (which last four words confessedly belong exclusively to St. Luke x. 5), the author of the depraved original from which NDL were derived may have been only yielding to the suggestions of an inconveniently good memory : may 1 Above, p. 32. 104 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. have succeeded in convincing himself from what follows in verse 13 that St. Matthew must have written, 'Peace be to this house ; ' though he found no such words in St. Matthew's text. And so, with the best intentions, he may most probably have inserted them. (/) Again. When tf and Evan. 61 thrust into St. Matt, ix. 24 (from the parallel place in St. Luke viii. 53) the clause elboTfs OTL cnrfOavev, it is of course conceivable that the authors of those copies were merely the victims of excessive familiarity with the third Gospel. But then, although we are ready to make every allowance that we possibly can for memories so singularly constituted, and to imagine a set of inattentive scribes open to inducements to recollect or imagine instead of copying, and possessed of an inconvenient familiarity with one particular Gospel, it is clear that our complaisance must stop somewhere. Instances of this kind of licence at last breed suspicion. Systematic ' assimilation ' cannot be the effect of accident. Consider- able interpolations must of course be intentional. The discovery that Cod. D, for example, introduces at the end of St. Luke v. 14 thirty-two words from St. Mark's Gospel (i. 45 ii. I, 6 5e tgf\da>v down to Ka^a/avaov/x), opens our eyes. This wholesale importation suggests the inquiry, How did it come about ? We look further, and we find that Cod. D abounds in instances of ' Assimilation ' so unmistakably intentional, that this speedily becomes the only question, How may all these depravations of the sacred text be most satisfactorily accounted for ? [And the answer is evidently found in the existence of extreme licentiousness in the scribe or scribes responsible for Codex D, being the product of ignorance and carelessness com- bined with such looseness of principle, as permitted the exercise of direct attempts to improve the sacred Text by the introduction of passages from the three remaining Gospels and by other alterations.] ASSIMILATION. 105 3. Sometimes indeed the true Text bears witness to itself, as may be seen in the next example. The little handful of well-known authorities (NBDL, with a few copies of the Old Latin, and one of the Egyptian Versions 1 ), conspire in omitting from St. John xvi. 16 the clause on eyw vTrayco -npos TOV Ylarepa : for which reason Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort omit those six words, and Lachmann puts them into brackets. And yet, let the context be considered. Our SAVIOUR had said (ver. 16), 'A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me, because I go to the FATHER.' It follows (ver. 17), 'Then said some of His disciples among themselves, What is this that He saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me : and, Because I go to the FATHER? ' Now, the context here, the general sequence of words and ideas in and by itself, creates a high degree of probability that the clause is genuine. It must at all events be permitted to retain its place in the Gospel, unless there is found to exist an overwhelming amount of authority for its exclusion. What then are the facts ? All the other uncials, headed by A and I b (both of the fourth century), every known Cursive all the Versions, (Latin, Syriac, Gothic, Coptic, &c.) are for retaining the clause. Add, that Nonnus 2 (A. D. 400) recognizes it : that the texts of Chrysostom 3 and of Cyril 4 do the same; and that both those Fathers (to say nothing of Euthymius and Theophy- lact) in their Commentaries expressly bear witness to its genuineness : and, With what shew of reason can it any 1 The alleged evidence of Origen (iv. 453) is nil; the sum of it being that he takes no notice whatever of the forty words between oif/ea6f pe (in ver. 16), and TOVTO ri tariv (in ver. 18). 2 Nonnus, to/xat tls ytvvrjT^pa. 3 viii. 465 a and c. * iv. 932 and 933 c. 106 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. longer be pretended that some Critics, including the Revisers, are warranted in leaving out the words ? ... It were to trifle with the reader to pursue this subject further. But how did the words ever come to be omitted? Some early critic, I answer, who was unable to see the exquisite proprieties of the entire passage, thought it desirable to bring ver. 16 into conformity with ver. 19, where our LORD seems at first sight to resyllable the matter. That is all ! Let it be observed and then I will dismiss the matter that the selfsame thing has happened in the next verse but one (ver. 18), as Tischendorf candidly acknowledges. The TOVTO ri eortz; of the Evangelist has been tastelessly assimilated by BDLY to the rt eoriy TOVTO which went immediately before. 4. Were I invited to point to a beautifully described incident in the Gospel, I should find it difficult to lay my finger on anything more apt for my purpose than the transaction described in St. John xiii. 21-25. It belongs to the closing scene of our SAVIOUR'S Ministry. ' Verily, verily, I say unto you,' (the words were spoken at the Last Supper), ' one of you will betray Me. The disciples there- fore looked one at another, wondering of whom He spake. Now there was reclining in the bosom of JESUS (rjv be ava.Kfiij.fvos ev TW Ko'Airo) TOV 'I.) one of His disciples whom JESUS loved. To him therefore Simon Peter motioneth to inquire who it may be concerning whom He speaketh. He then, just sinking on the breast of Jesus (eTriTreo-cby be fKflvos ovTcas ITU ro OT7/00S TOV '[.) [i. c. otherwise keeping his position, see above, p. 60], saith unto Him, LORD, who is it?' The Greek is exquisite. At first, St. John has been simply ' reclining (cW/cei/xe^os) in the bosom ' of his Divine Master : that is, his place at the Supper is the next adjoin- ASSIMILATION. 107 ing His, for the phrase really means little more. But the proximity is of course excessive, as the sequel shews. Understanding from St. Peter's gesture what is required of him, St. John merely sinks back, and having thus let his head fall (fTmtecruiv) on (or close to) His Master's chest (f-nl TO (TTrj9os), he says softly, ' LORD, who is it ? ' . . . The moment is perhaps the most memorable in the Evangelist's life: the position, one of unutterable privilege. Time, place, posture, action, all settle so deep into his soul, that when, in his old age, he would identify himself, he describes himself as 'the disciple whom JESUS loved; who also at the Supper' (that memorable Supper!) 'lay (aveTteo-ev l ) on JESUS' breast,' (literally, ' upon His chest/ em TO rrTrj6os avTov), and said, 'LORD, who is it that is to betray Thee?' (ch. xxi. 20). . . . Yes, and the Church was not slow to take the beautiful hint. His language so kindled her imagination that the early Fathers learned to speak of St. John the Divine, as 6 eTito-r^to?, ' the (recliner) on the chest 2 .' Now, every delicate discriminating touch in this sublime picture is faithfully retained throughout by the cursive copies in the proportion of about eighty to one. The great bulk of the MSS., as usual, uncial and cursive alike, establish the undoubted text of the Evangelist, which is here the Received Text. Thus, a vast majority of the MSS., with tf AD at their head, read (mirea-aw in St. John xiii. 25. Chrysostom 3 and probably Cyril 4 confirm the same reading. 1 = ava-Keipevos + 'an-Tttawv . [Used not to suggest over-familiarity (?).] 2 Beginning with Anatolius Laodicenus, A. D. 270 (ap. Galland. iii. 548). Cf. Routh, Rell. i. 42. 3 OVK avaKfirai povov, a\\a xal rw arrjOei fTrnriirrfi (Opp. viii. 423 a). T/ 5 icai (imriiTTei TW arrjGei (ibid. d). Note that the passage ascribed to 'Apolinarius' in Cord. Cat. p. 342 (which includes the second of these two references) is in reality part of Chrysostom's Commentary on St. John (ubi supra, c d). 4 Cord. Cat. p. 341. But it is only in the Keipevov (or text) that the verb is found, Opp. iv. 735. 108 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. So also Nonnus *. Not so B and C with four other uncials and about twenty cursives (the vicious Evan. 33 being at their head), besides Origen 2 in two places and apparently Theodorus of Mopsuestia 3 . These by mischievously assimilating the place in ch. xiii to the later place in ch. xxi in which such affecting reference is made to it, hopelessly obscure the Evangelist's meaning. For they substitute avaiifo-tov ovv fKflvos K.T.A. It is exactly as when children, by way of improving the sketch of a great Master, go over his matchless outlines with a clumsy pencil of their own. That this is the true history of the substitution of avairf(ru>v in St. John xiii. 25 for the less obvious t-nntevvv is certain. Origen, who was probably the author of all the mischief, twice sets the two places side by side and elaborately compares them ; in the course of which opera- tion, by the way, he betrays the viciousness of the text which he himself employed. But what further helps to explain how easily ava^ea-^v might usurp the place of 677i7reo- 4 , is the discovery just noticed, that the ancients from the earliest period were in the habit of identifying St. John, as St. John had identified himself, by calling him ' the one that lay (6 a.va.TTev) upon the LORD'S chest' The expression, derived from St. John xxi. 20, is employed by Irenaeus 5 (A.D. 178) and by Polycrates 6 (Bp. of Ephesus A. D. 196); by Origen 7 and by Ephraim Syrus 8 : by 1 6 Se Opaoiis oti iraX/io) | arr]0(aiv axpavrotat irtaoJv ire^iX^eVoy avT)p. 9 iv. 437 c : 440 d. 3 Ibid. p. 342. 4 Even Chrysostom, who certainly read the place as we do, is observed twice to glide into the more ordinary expression, viz. viii. 423, line 13 from the bottom, and p. 424, line 18 from the top. 5 o inl TO arrjOos avrov dvavtawv (iii. I, l). 6 & em To 1 arrjOos TOV Kvpiov dvatrtauv (ap. Euseb. iii. 31). 7 T 8? ire pi TOV dvaireaovros im ^i> arfjOos \eyfiv TOV 'Irjaov (ibid. vi. 25. Opp. iv. 95). 8 o tnl TO) OTTjOti TOV \oyfa avairfffuv (Opp. ii. 49 a. Cf. 133 c). ASSIMILATION. 109 Epiphanius l and by Palladius 2 : by Gregory of Nazianzus 3 and by his namesake of Nyssa 4 : by pseudo-Eusebius 5 , by pseudo-Caesarius 6 , and by pseudo-Chrysostom 7 . The only wonder is, that in spite of such influences all the MSS. in the world except about twenty-six have retained the true reading. Instructive in the meantime it is to note the fate which this word has experienced at the hands of some Critics. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, have all in turn bowed to the authority of Cod. B and Origen. Bishop Lightfoot mistranslates 8 and contends on the same side. Alford informs us that (inTreo-wv has surreptitiously crept in ' from St. Luke xv. 20 ' : (why should it ? how could it ?) ' avcnrf(ra>v not seeming ap- propriate/ Whereas, on the contrary, ava-nta-vv is the invariable and obvious expression, (irnrea-dv the unusual, and, till it has been explained, the unintelligible word. Tischendorf, who had read eTrnreo-ftw in 1848 and avairea-utv in 1859, in 1869 reverts to his first opinion; advocating with parental partiality what he had since met with in Cod. K. Is then the truth of Scripture aptly represented 1 (As quoted by Polycrates) : Opp. i. 1062 : ii. 8. 2 TOV (Is TO TJJS ffcxpias arrjOos TTHTTUJS t-navatrtaovTos (ap. Chrys, xiii. 55). 3 o tm TO ffT7j(?os TOV 'Ir)v in St. Matt. ii. 23, through misappre- hension of the Evangelist's meaning. What is to be thought of Cod. tf for introducing the name of * Isaiah ' into St. Matt. xiii. 35, where it clearly cannot stand, the quotation being confessedly from Ps. Ixxviii. 2 ; but where nevertheless Porphyry 2 , Eusebius 3 , and pseudo-Jerome 4 certainly found it in many ancient copies ? 2. Next, for the testimony of the Uncial Codexes NBDLA : If any one will be at the pains to tabulate the 900 5 new ' readings ' adopted by Tischendorf in editing St. Mark's Gospel, he will discover that for 450, or just half of them, all the 450, as I believe, being corruptions of the text, NBL are responsible : and further, that their 1 Thus Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Words- worth, Green, Scrivener, M c Clellan, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers. 3 In pseudo- Jerome's Brev. in Psalm., Opp. vii. (ad calc.) 198. 3 Mont. i. 462. 4 Ubi supra. 5 Omitting trifling variants. ASSIMILATION. 113 responsibility is shared on about 200 occasions by D : on about 265 by C : on about 350 by A 1 . At some very remote period therefore there must have grown up a vicious general reading of this Gospel which remains in the few bad copies : but of which the largest traces (and very discreditable traces they are) at present survive in NBCDLA. After this discovery the avowal will not be thought extraordinary that I regard with unmingled sus- picion readings which are exclusively vouched for by five of the same Codexes : e. g. by NBDLA. 3. The cursive copies which exhibit ' Isaiah ' in place of ' the prophet,' reckoned by Tischendorf at ' nearly twenty-five/ are probably less than fifteen 2 , and those, almost all of suspicious character. High time it is that the inevitable consequence of an appeal to such evidence were better understood. 4. From Tischendorf's list of thirteen Fathers, serious deductions have to be made. Irenaeus and Victor of Antioch are clearly with the Textus Receptus. Serapion, Titus, Basil do but borrow from Origen ; and, with his argument, reproduce his corrupt text of St. Mark i. 2. The last-named Father however saves his reputation by leaving out the quotation from Malachi ; so, passing directly from the mention of Isaiah to the actual words of that prophet. Epiphanius (and Jerome too on one occasion 3 ) does the same thing. Victorinus and Augus- tine, being Latin writers, merely quote the Latin version (' sicut scriptum est in Isaia propheta '), which is without variety of reading. There remain Origen (the faulty character of whose Codexes has been remarked upon 1 NBL are exclusively responsible on 45 occasions : + C (i. e. NBCL), on 27 : + D, on 35: + A, on 73: + CD, on 19: +CA, on 118 : +DA (i.e. NBDLA), on 42 : + CDA, on 66. 2 In the text of Evan. 72 the reading in dispute is not found: 205, 206 are duplicates of 209 : and 222, 255 are only fragments. There remain I, 22, 33, 61, 63, 115, 131, 151, 152, 161, 184, 209, 253, 372, 391 : of which the six at Rome require to be re-examined. 3 v. 10. II. I 114 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. already), Porphyry 1 the heretic (who wrote a book to convict the Evangelists of mis-statements 2 , and who is therefore scarcely a trustworthy witness), Eusebius, Jerome and Severianus. Of these, Eusebius 3 and Jerome 4 deliver it as their opinion that the name of ' Isaiah ' had obtained admission into the text through the inadvertency of copyists. Is it reasonable, on the slender residuum of evidence, to insist that St. Mark has ascribed to Isaiah words confessedly written by Malachi ? ' The fact,' writes a recent editor in the true spirit of modern criticism, 'will not fail to be observed by the careful and honest student of the Gospels.' But what if ' the fact ' should prove to be ' a fiction ' only ? And (I venture to ask) would not ' carefulness ' be better employed in scrutinizing the adverse testimony? 'honesty' in admitting that on grounds precarious as the present no indictment against an Evangelist can be seriously maintained ? This proposal to revive a blunder which the Church in her corporate capacity has from the first refused to sanction (for the Evangelistaria know nothing of it) carries in fact on its front its own sufficient condemnation. Why, in the face of all the copies in the world (except a little handful of suspicious character), will men insist on imputing to an inspired writer a foolish mis-statement, instead of frankly admitting that the text must needs have been corrupted in that little handful of copies through the officiousness of incompetent criticism ? And do any inquire, How then did this perversion of the truth arise ? In the easiest way possible, I answer. 1 Ap. Hieron. vii. 17. 8 ' Evangelistas arguere falsitatis, hoc impiorum est, Celsi, Porphyrii, Juliani.' Hieron. i. 311. * fpatais Toivvv larl a introduced in defiance of the best authorities into the parable of Lazarus (xvi. 20), have simply been transplanted thither out of the parable of the prodigal son. The reader has now been presented with several examples of Assimilation. Tischendorf, who habitually overlooks the phenomenon where it seems to be sufficiently con- Il8 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. spicuous, is observed constantly to discover cases of Assimilation where none exist. This is in fact his habitual way of accounting for not a few of the omissions in Cod. tf . And because he has deservedly enjoyed a great reputation, it becomes the more necessary to set the reader on his guard against receiving such statements without a thorough examination of the evidence on which they rest. 6. The value may I not say. the use ? of these delicate differences of detail becomes apparent whenever the genuine- ness of the text is called in question. Take an example. The following fifteen words are deliberately excluded from St. Mark's Gospel (vi. n) by some critics on the authority of NBCDLA, a most suspicious company, and three cursives ; besides a few copies of the Old Latin, including the Vulgate : d/i?/y Aeyco vij.lv, aveKTorepov eorai 2o8oVot? T) Fo/xoppois fv ^juepa Kpurecos, r) rfj Tro'Aet eKeiin;. It is pretended that this is nothing else but an importation from the parallel place of St. Matthew's Gospel (x. 15). But that is impossible : for, as the reader sees at a glance, a delicate but decisive note of discrimination has been set on the two places. St. Mark writes, SoBojxOIS *H Fop-oppOIS : St. Matthew, TH 2o8o>ilN KAl Fo/xoppON. And this threefold, or rather fourfold, diversity of expression has existed from the beginning ; for it has been faithfully retained all down the ages : it exists to this hour in every known copy of the Gospel, except of course those nine which omit the sentence altogether. There can be therefore no doubt about its genuineness. The critics of the modern school (Lach- mann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort) seek in vain to put upon us a mutilated text by omitting those fifteen words. The two places are clearly inde- pendent of each other. ASSIMILATION. 119 It does but remain to point out that the exclusion of these fifteen words from the text of St. Mark, has merely resulted from the influence of the parallel place in St. Luke's Gospel (ix. 5), where nothing whatever is found 1 corresponding with St. Matt. x. 5 St. Mark vi. u. The process of Assimilation therefore has been actively at work here, although not in the way which some critics suppose. It has resulted, not in the insertion of the words in dispute in the case of the very many copies ; but on the contrary in their omission from the very few. And thus, one more brand is set on NBCDLA and their Latin allies, which will be found never to conspire together exclusively except to mislead. 7. Because a certain clause (e.g. /ecu ?/ XaXia o-ou 6/xota^ei in St. Mark xiv. 70) is absent from Codd. KBCDL, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort entirely eject these five precious words from St. Mark's Gospel, Griesbach having already voted them ' probably spurious.' When it has been added that many copies of the Old Latin also, together with the Vulgate and the Egyptian versions, besides Eusebius, ignore their existence, the present writer scarcely expects to be listened to if he insists that the words are perfectly genuine notwithstanding. The thing is certain however, and the Revisers are to blame for having surrendered five precious words of genuine Scripture, as I am going to shew. i . Now, even if the whole of the case were already before the reader, although to some there might seem to exist a prima facie probability that the clause is spurious, yet even so, it would not be difficult to convince a thoughtful man that the reverse must be nearer the truth. For let the 1 Compare St. Mark vi. 7-13 with St. Luke ix. 1-6. 120 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. parallel places in the first two Gospels be set down side by side : St. Matt. xxvi. 73. St. Mark xiv. 70. (l) 'AXrjd&s KOI (rv (i) 'A\T70<2 Tijs KapS'tas 7rvi is omitted from some MSS. Westcott and Hort and the Revisers accordingly exhibit the text of that place as follows : 'Eye'yero 8e tv o-a/3/3aT&> StaTropeiWflai avrbv 8ia crTrop^woy. Now I desire to be informed how it is credible that so very difficult and peculiar a word as this, for indeed the expression has never yet been satisfactorily explained, should have found its way into every known Evangel ium except NBL and a few cursives, if it be spurious? How it came to be here and there omitted, is intelligible enough. / \n- u i. ,.*u r j < TO N CABBATO) (a) One has but to glance at the Cod. tf, AeY TPOnP WTO) in order to see that the like ending (TGJ) in the superior line, fully accounts for the omission of the second line. () A proper lesson begins at this place ; which by itself would explain the phenomenon, (c) Words which the OMISSION. 133 copyists were at a loss to understand, are often observed to be dropped : and there is no harder word in the Gospels than bevTepoirpMTos. But I repeat, will you tell us how it is conceivable that [a word nowhere else found, and known to be a crux to commentators and others, should have crept into all the copies except a small handful ?] In reply to all this, I shall of course be told that really I must yield to what is after all the weight of external evidence : that Codd. NBL are not ordinary MSS. but first-class authorities, of sufficient importance to outweigh any number of the later cursive MSS. My rejoinder is plain : Not only am I of course willing to yield to external evidence, but it is precisely 'external evidence' which makes me insist on retaining Seure/ooTrpcoro) OTTO ^eArcriou Krjptou apas TOV uravpov KCU av(f)epfTo ets roy ovpavov orav ejcAiTTTjre the 1 4th verse of St. Matthew's xxiiird chapter and the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel. For my own part, I entirely deny the cogency of the proposed proof, and I have clearly already established the grounds of my refusal. Who then is to be the daysman between us? We are driven back on first principles, in order to ascertain if it may not be possible to meet on some common ground, and by the application of ordinary logical principles of reasoning to clear our view. [As to these we must refer the reader to the first volume of this work. Various cases of omission have been just quoted, and many have been discussed elsewhere. Accordingly, it will not be necessary to exhibit this large class of corruptions at the length which it would otherwise demand. But a few more instances are required, in order that the reader may see in this connexion that many passages at least which the opposing school designate as Interpolations are really genuine, and that students may be placed upon their guard against the source of error that we are discussing.] 134 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. 4. And first as to the rejection of an entire verse. The 44th verse of St. Matt, xxi, consisting of the fifteen words printed at foot l , is marked as doubtful by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers : by Tischendorf it is rejected as spurious. We insist that, on the contrary, it is indubitably genuine ; reasoning from the antiquity, the variety, the respectability, the largeness, or rather, the general unanimity of its attestation. For the verse is found in the Old Latin, and in the Vul- gate, in the Peshitto, Curetonian, and Harkleian Syriac, besides in the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. It is found also in Origen 2 , ps.-Tatian 3 Aphraates 4 , Chrysostom 5 , Cyril Alex. 6 , the Opus Imperfectum 7 , Jerome 8 , Augustine 9 : in Codexes BNC3>ZXZAIIEFG HKLMSUV, in short, it is attested by every known Codex except two of bad character, viz. D, 33 ; together with five copies of the Old Latin, viz. a b e ff l ff 2 . There have therefore been adduced for the verse in dispute at least five witnesses of the second or third century : at least eight of the fourth : at least seven if not eight of the fifth : after which date the testimony in favour of 1 teal o vfaaiv iirl TOV \iOov TOVTOV ffw6\aa&rjffTcu' (<(>' ov 5' &v vtffri, ai/rcv. 2 iv. 25 d, 343d. What proves these two quotations to be from St. Matt. xxi. 44, and not from St. Luke xx. 18, is, that they alike exhibit expressions which are peculiar to the earlier Gospel. The first is introduced by the formula oii5jroT dveyvure (ver. 42 : comp. Orig. ii. 794 c), and both exhibit the expres- sion ?ri TOV KiOov TOVTOV (ver. 44), not iir' tictivov TOV \i6ov. Vainly is it urged on the opposite side, that was 6 -ntawv belongs to St. Luke, whereas ical 6 vfffuv is the phrase found in St. Matthew's Gospel. Chrysostom (vii. 672) writes war 6 mirTcuv while professing to quote from St. Matthew ; and the author of Cureton's Syriac, who had this reading in his original, does the same. 3 P- 193- 4 P. ii. * vii. 672 a [freely quoted as Greg. Naz. in the Catena of Nicetas, p. 669] xii. 27 d. Ap. Mai, ii. 401 dis. T Ap. Chrys. vi. 171 c. 8 vii. 171 d. 9 ill*. 86, 245 : v. 500 e, 598 d. OMISSION. 135 this verse is overwhelming. How could we be justified in opposing to such a mass of first-rate testimony the solitary evidence of Cod. D (concerning which see above, Vol. I. c. viii.) supported only by a single errant Cursive and a little handful of copies of the Old Latin versions, [even although the Lewis Codex has joined this petty band ?] But, says Tischendorf, the verse is omitted by Origen and by Eusebius, by Irenaeus and by Lucifer of Cagliari, as well as by Cyril of Alexandria. I answer, this most insecure of arguments for mutilating the traditional text is plainly inadmissible on the present occasion. The critic refers to the fact that Irenaeus 1 , Origen 2 , Eusebius 3 and Cyril 4 having quoted ' the parable of the wicked husband- men ' in extenso (viz. from verse 33 to verse 43). leave off at verse 43. Why may they not leave off where the parable leaves off? Why should they quote any further ? Verse 44 is nothing to their purpose. And since the Gospel for Monday morning in Holy Week [verses 18-43], in every known copy of the Lectionary actually ends at verse 43, why should not their quotation of it end at the same verse ? But, unfortunately for the critic, Origen and Cyril (as we have seen, the latter expressly,) elsewhere actually quote the verse in dispute. And how can Tischendorf maintain that Lucifer yields adverse testimony 5 ? That Father quotes nothing but verse 43, which is all he requires for his purpose 6 . Why should he have also quoted verse 44, which he does not require? As well might it be main- tained that Macarius Egyptius 7 and Philo of Carpasus 8 omit verse 44, because (like Lucifer) they only quote verse 43. I have elsewhere explained what I suspect occasioned the omission of St. Matt. xxi. 44 from a few Western i 682-3 (Massuet 277). 2 iii. 786. 3 Theoph. 235-6 ( = Mai, iv. 122). * ii. 660 a, b, c. 5 'Praeterit et Lucifer.' 6 Ap. Galland. vi. 191 d. 7 Ibid. vii. 20 c. 8 Ibid. ix. 768 a. 136 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. copies of the Gospels 1 . Tischendorfs opinion that this verse is a fabricated imitation of the parallel verse in St. Luke's Gospel 2 (xx. 18) is clearly untenable. Either place has its distinctive type, which either has maintained all down the ages. The single fact that St. Matt. xxi. 44 in the Peshitto version has a sectional number to itself 3 is far too weighty to be set aside on nothing better than suspicion. If a verse so elaborately attested as the present be not genuine, we must abandon all hope of ever attaining to any certainty concerning the Text of Scripture. In the meantime there emerges from the treatment which St. Matt. xxi. 44 has experienced at the hands of Tischendorf, the discovery that, in the estimation of Tischendorf, Cod. D [is a document of so much importance as occasionally to outweigh almost by itself the other copies of all ages and countries in Christendom.] 5. I am guided to my next example, viz. the text of St. Matt. xv. 8, by the choice deliberately made of that place by Dr. Tregelles in order to establish the peculiar theory of Textual Revision which he advocates so strenuously ; and which, ever since the days of Gries- bach, has it must be confessed enjoyed the absolute confidence of most of the illustrious editors of the New 1 [I am unable to find any place in the Dean's writings where he has made this explanation. The following note, however, is appended here] : With verse 43, the long lesson for the Monday in Holy-week (ver. 18-43) comes to an end. Verse 44 has a number all to itself (in other words, is sect. 265) in the fifth of the Syrian Canons, which contains whatever is found exclusively in St. Matthew and St. Luke. 2 ' Omnino ex Lc. assumpta videntur.' 3 The section in St. Matthew is numbered 265, in St. Luke, 274 : both being referred to Canon V, in which St. Matthew and St. Luke are exclusively com- pared. OMISSION. 137 Testament. This is, in fact, the second example on Tregelles' list. In approaching it, I take leave to point out that that learned critic unintentionally hoodwinks his readers by not setting before them in full the problem which he proposes to discuss. Thoroughly to understand this matter, the student should be reminded that there is found in St. Matt. xv. 8, and parallel to it in St. Mark vii. 6, ST. MATT. ST. MARK. ' Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah ' Well did Isaiah prophesy of prophesy of you saying, " This you, hypocrites, as it is written, people draweth nigh unto Me " This people honoureth Me with their mouth and honoureth with their lips (OVTOS 6 \abs rots me with their lips (cyyi&t poi x tV, neat is far from Me." ' rots xe/'Xeo-t fie TifjLa-), but their heart is far from Me." ' The place of Isaiah referred to, viz. ch. xxix. 13, reads as follows in the ordinary editions of the LXX : KOI ei^e Kvpios, eyyt^et juot 6 Xabs OVTOS kv ra> oro/zan O.VTOV, KOL cv Tols \L\(TLV ailT&V Tl/^WCTl JU.6. Now, about the text of St. Mark in this place no question is raised. Neither is there any various reading worth speaking of in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred in respect of the text in St. Matthew. But when reference is made to the two oldest copies in existence, B and N, we are presented with what, but for the parallel place in St. Mark, would have appeared to us a strangely abbrevi- ated reading. Both MSS. conspire in exhibiting St. Matt, xv. 8, as follows : 6 Xabs OVTOS rois xeiXea-i jue rt/ia. So that six words (eyyi'^a //ot and rw oro'/nari OVT&V, KOI) are not recognized by them : in which peculiarity they are coun- tenanced by DLT, two cursive copies, and the follow- ing versions : Old Latin except f, Vulgate, Curetonian, Lewis, Peshitto, and Bohairic, (Cod. A, the Sahidic and Gothic versions, being imperfect here.) To this evidence, 138 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. Tischendorf adds a phalanx of Fathers : Clemens Romanus (A.D. 70), Ptolemaeus the Gnostic (A. D. 150), Clemens Alexandrinus (A.D. 190), Origen in three places (A.D. 210), Eusebius (A. D. 325), Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysos- tom : and Alford supplies also Justin Martyr (A. D. 150). The testimony of Didymus (A. D. 350), which has been hitherto overlooked, is express. Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, are naturally found to follow the Latin copies. Such a weight of evidence may not unreasonably inspire Dr. Tregelles with an exceeding amount of confidence. Accordingly he declares ' that this one passage might be relied upon as an important proof that it is the few MSS. and not the many which accord with ancient testimony.' Availing himself of Dr. Scrivener's admission of ' the possibility that the disputed words in the great bulk of the MSS. were inserted from the Septuagint of Isaiah xxix. 13 V Dr. Tregelles insists ' that on every true principle of textual criticism, the words must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from the Prophet. This naturally explains their introduction,' (he adds) ; ' and when once they had gained a footing in the text, it is certain that they would be multiplied by copyists, who almost always preferred to make passages as full and complete as possible' (p. 139). Dr. Tregelles therefore relies upon this one passage, not so much as a ' proof that it is the few MSS. and not the many which accord with ancient testimony ' ; for one instance cannot possibly prove that ; and that is after all beside the real question ; but, as a proof that we are to regard the text of Codd. BN in this place as genuine, and the text of all the other Codexes in the world as corrupt. The reader has now the hypothesis fully before him by which from the days of Griesbach it has been proposed to account for the discrepancy between ' the few copies ' on 1 Vol. i. 13. OMISSION. 139 the one hand, and the whole torrent of manuscript evidence on the other. Now, as I am writing a book on the principles of Textual Criticism, I must be allowed to set my reader on his guard against all such unsupported dicta as the preceding, though enforced with emphasis and recommended by a deservedly respected name. I venture to think that the exact reverse will be found to be a vast deal nearer the truth : viz. that undoubtedly spurious readings, although they may at one time or other have succeeded in obtaining a footing in MSS., and to some extent may be observed even to have propagated themselves, are yet discovered to die out speedily ; seldom indeed to leave any considerable number of descendants. There has always in fact been a process of elimination going on, as well as of self-propagation : a corrective force at work, as well as one of deterioration. How else are we to account for the utter disappearance of the many monstra potitts quam variae lectiones which the ancients nevertheless insist were prevalent in their times? It is enough to appeal to a single place in Jerome, in illustration of what I have been saying 1 . To return however from this digression. We are invited then to believe, for it is well to know at the outset exactly what is required of us, that from the fifth century downwards every extant copy of the Gospels except five (DLT C , 33, 124) exhibits a text arbitrarily inter- polated in order to bring it into conformity with the Greek version of Isa. xxix. 13. On this wild hypothesis I have the following observations to make : i. It is altogether unaccountable, if this be indeed a true account of the matter, how it has come to pass that in no single MS. in the world, so far as I am aware, has this conformity been successfully achieved : for whereas the 1 Letter to Pope Damasus. See my book on St. Mark, p. 28. 140 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. Septuagintal reading is eyyifei P.OL 6 Xaos OVTOS EN r<3 orofwm ATTOT, xai EN TOIS xt\e aro'ju,cm avr&v, KOI (v were anciently absent from the Septua- gintal rendering of Isaiah xxix. 13: the second, (b) that the place of Isaiah was freely quoted by the ancients without the initial words eyyt't fxot. And after this discovery will any one be so perverse as to deny that on the contrary it must needs be Codexes B and N*, and not the great bulk of the MSS., which exhibit a text corrupted by the influence of the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah xxix. 13? The precise extent to which the assimilating influence of the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel has been felt by the copyists, I presume not to determine. The essential point is that the omission from St. Matthew xv. 8 of the words Tw oro'/icm O.VT&V, /ecu, is certainly due in the first instance to the ascertained Septuagint omission of those very words in Isaiah xxix. 13. But that the text of St. Mark vii. 6 has exercised an assimilating influence on the quotation from Isaiah is demonstrable. For there can be no doubt that Isaiah's phrase (retained by St. Matthew) is 6 Aaos OVTOS, St. Mark's OVTOS 6 Aao'y. And yet, when Clemens Romanus quotes Isaiah, he begins OVTOS 6 Aao's 4 ; and so twice does Theodoret 5 . The reader is now in a position to judge how much 1 Opp. pp. 143 and 206. P. 577 is allusive only. * Opp. vii. 158 c: ix. 638 b. 3 Opp. ii. 1345 : iii. 763-4. * xv : on which his learned editor (Bp. Jacobson) pertinently remarks, ' Hunc locum Prophetae Clemens exhibuisset sicut a Christo laudatum, S. Marc, vii. 6, si pro airtanv dedisset dire'x.' 5 Opp. i. 1502 : iii. 1114. OMISSION. 143 attention is due to Dr. Tregelles' dictum 'that this one passage may be relied upon' in support of the peculiar views he advocates : as well as to his confident claim that the fuller text which is found in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred ' must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from the prophet.' It has been shewn in answer to the learned critic that in the ancient Greek text of the prophet the 'amplification' he speaks of did not exist: it was the abbreviated text which was found there. So that the very converse of the phenomenon he supposes has taken place. Freely accepting his hypothesis that we have here a process of assimilation, occasioned by the Septuagintal text of Isaiah, we differ from him only as to the direction in which that process has manifested itself. He assumes that the bulk of the MSS. have been conformed to the generally received reading of Isaiah xxix. 13. But it has been shewn that, on the contrary, it is the two oldest MSS. which have experienced assimilation. Their prototypes were depraved in this way at an exceedingly remote period. To state this matter somewhat differently. In all the extant uncials but five, and in almost every known cursive copy of the Gospels, the words TW oro'/^cm CLVT&V, KCU are found to belong to St. Matt. xv. 8. How is the presence of those words to be accounted for ? The reply is obvious : By the fact that they must have existed in the original autograph of the Evangelist. Such however is not the reply of Griesbach and his followers. They insist that beyond all doubt those words must have been imported into the Gospel from Isaiah xxix. But I have shewn that this is impossible ; because, at the time spoken of, the words in question had no place in the Greek text of the prophet. And this discovery exactly reverses the problem, and brings out the directly opposite result. For now we discover that we have rather to inquire how is the absence of the words in question from those few MSS. out of the 144 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. mass to be accounted for? The two oldest Codexes are convicted of exhibiting a text which has been corrupted by the influence of the oldest Septuagint reading of Isaiah xxix. 13. I freely admit that it is in a high degree remarkable that five ancient Versions, and all the following early writers, Ptolemaeus 1 , Clemens Alexandrinus 2 , Origen 3 , Didymus 4 , Cyril 5 , Chrysostom 6 , and possibly three others of like antiquity 7 , should all quote St. Matthew in this place from a faulty text. But this does but prove at how extremely remote a period the corruption must have begun. It probably dates from the first century. Especially does it seem to shew how distrustful we should be of our oldest authorities when, as here, they are plainly at variance with the whole torrent of manuscript authority. This is indeed no ordinary case. There are elements of distrust here, such as are not commonly encountered. 6. What I have been saying is aptly illustrated by a place in our LORD'S Sermon on the Mount : viz. St. Matt. v. 44 ; which in almost every MS. in existence stands as follows : (1) ayaTrare TOVS f^Opovs VJJL&V, (2) evAoyctre TOVS Karapco/xeVous ijuas, (3) KaAws Troteire rois ^icrova-iv 8 Vfjias, (4) KOI TTpO(TfV\(r9 VTTfp T&V fTTf]pfa^6vT(aV V/iS?, (5) KCU blU>K.OVTV 8ia>KoWa>z> v/>ta?. (which amounts to a rejection of the second, third, and fourth clauses ;) and that he is supported therein by Btf , (besides a few cursives) the Curetonian, the Lewis, several Old Latin MSS., and the Bohairic 2 , seems to critics of a certain school a circumstance fatal to the credit of those clauses. They are aware that Cyprian 3 , and they are welcome to the information that Tertullian 4 once and Theodoret once 5 [besides Irenaeus 6 , Eusebius 7 , and Gregory of Nyssa 8 ] exhibit the place in the same way. So does the author of the Dialogus contra Marcionitas 9 , whom however I take to be Origen. Griesbach, on far slenderer evidence, was for obelizing all the three clauses. But Lachmann, Tre- gelles, Tischendorf and the Revisers reject them entirely. I am persuaded that they are grievously mistaken in so doing, and that the received text represents what St. Matthew actually wrote. It is the text of all the uncials but two, of all the cursives but six or seven ; and this alone ought to be decisive. But it is besides the study of this place, if (on my own responsibility) I subjoin a representation of the same words in Latin : (1) Diligite inimicos vestros, (2) benedicite maledicentes vos, (3) benefacite odientibus vos, (4) et orate pro calumniantibus vos, (5) et perseqnentibus vos. 1 Opp. iv. 324 bis, 329 bis, 351. Gall. xiv. App. 106. 2 ' A large majority, all but five, omit it. Some add it in the margin.' Traditional Text, p. 149. 3 Opp. p. 79, cf. 146. * Scap. c. i. 5 Opp. iv. 946. 6 Haer. III. xviii. 5. 7 Dem. Evan. xiii. 7. 8 In Bapt. Christ. * Orig. Opp. i. 812. II. L 146 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. reading of the Peshitto, the Harkleian, and the Gothic ; as well as of three copies of the Old Latin. Let us however inquire more curiously for the evidence of Versions and Fathers on this subject ; remembering that the point in dispute is nothing else but the genuine- ness of clauses 2, 3, 4. And here, at starting, we make the notable discovery that Origen, whose practice was relied on for retaining none but the first and the fifth clauses, himself twice l quotes the first clause in connexion with the fourth : while Theodoret, on two occasions 2 , con- nects with clause i what he evidently means for clause 2 ; and Tertullian once if not twice connects closely clauses i, 2; and once, clauses i, 2, 5 3 . From which it is plain that neither Origen nor Theodoret, least of all Tertullian, can be held to disallow the clauses in question. They recognize them on the contrary, which is simply a fatal circumstance, and effectively disposes of their supposed hostile evidence. But in fact the Western Church yields unfaltering testimony. Besides the three copies of the Old Latin which exhibit all the five clauses, the Vulgate retains the first, third, fifth and fourth. Augustine 4 quotes consecu- tively clauses i, 3, 5 : Ambrose 5 clauses i, 3, 4, 5 i, 4, 5: Hilary 6 , clauses i, 4, 5, and (apparently) 2, 4, 5 : Lucifer 7 , clauses i, 2, 3 (apparently), 5: pseudo-Epiphanius 8 con- nects clauses i, 3, i, 3, 5: and Pacian 9 , clauses 5, 2. Next we have to ascertain what is the testimony of the Greek Fathers. And first we turn to Chrysostom 10 who (besides quoting 1 Opp. i. 768 : iv. 353. 2 Opp. i. 827 : ii. 399. 8 Spect. c. 1 6 : (Anim. c. 35) : Pat. c. 6. * [In Ep. Joh. IV. Tract, ix. 3 (i, 3 (ver. 45 &c.)) ; In Ps. cxxxviii. 27 (i, 3) ; Serm. XV. 8 (i, 3, 5) ; Serm. LXII. in lac. (i, 3, 4, 5).] 5 In Ps. xxxviii. 2. 6 Opp. pp. 303, 297. 7 Pro S. Athanas. ii. 8 Ps. cxviii. 10. 16 ; 9. 9. * Ep. ii. 10 Opp. iii. 167: iv. 619: v. 436: ii. 340: v. 56: xii. 654: ii. 258: iii. 41 : iv. 267 : xii. 425. OMISSION. 147 the fourth clause from St. Matthew's Gospel by itself five times) quotes consecutively clauses i, 3 iii. 167; i, 4 iv. 619 ; 2, 4 v. 436 ; 4, 3 ii. 340, v. 56, xii. 654 ; 4, 5 ii. 258, iii. 341 ; i, 2, 4 iv. 267 ; i, 3, 4, 5 xii. 425 ; thus recognizing them all. Gregory Nyss. 1 quotes connectedly clauses 3, 4, 5. Eusebius 2 , clauses 4, 52, 4, 5 i, 3, 4, 5. The Apostolic Constitutions 3 (third century), clauses i, 3, 4, 5 (having immediately before quoted clause 2,) also clauses 2, 4, i. Clemens Alex. 4 (A.D. 192), clauses i, 2, 4. Athenagoras 5 (A.D. 177), clauses i, 2, 5. Theophilus 6 (A.D. 168), clauses i, 4. While Justin M. 7 (A.D. 140) having paraphrased clause i, connects therewith clauses 2 and 4. And Polycarp 8 (A.D. 108) apparently connects clauses 4 and 5. Didache 9 (A.D. ico?) quotes 2, 4, 5 and combines i and 3 (PP- 5> 6). In the face of all this evidence, no one it is presumed will any more be found to dispute the genuineness of the generally received reading in St. Matt. v. 44. All must see that if the text familiarly known in the age immediately after that of the Apostles had been indeed the bald, curt thing which the critics imagine, viz. TOVS txdpovs vpStv, crdf. inrep rG>v biMKovrav vp.as, by no possibility could the men of that age in referring to St. Matt. v. 44 have freely mentioned ' blessing those who curse, doing good to those who hate, and praying for those who despitefully use.' Since there are but two 1 Opp. iii. 379. a Praep. 654: Ps. 137, 699: Es. 589. 3 Pp. 3, 198. * Op?- P- 605 and 307. 5 Leg. pro Christian, ii. 6 Ad Autolycum, iii. 14. 7 Opp. i. 40. 8 Ad Philipp. c. 12. i. L 2 148 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. alternative readings of the passage, one longer, one briefer, every clear acknowledgement of a single disputed clause in the larger reading necessarily carries with it all the rest. This result of ' comparative criticism ' is therefore respect- fully recommended to the notice of the learned. If it be not decisive of the point at issue to find such a torrent of primitive testimony at one with the bulk of the Uncials and Cursives extant, it is clear that there can be no Science of Textual Criticism. The Law of Evidence must be held to be inoperative in this subject-matter. Nothing deserving of the name of ' proof will ever be attainable in this department of investigation. But if men admit that the ordinarily received text of St. Matt. v. 44 has been clearly established, then let the legitimate results of the foregoing discussion be loyally recognized. The unique value of Manuscripts in declaring the exact text of Scripture the conspicuous inadequacy of Patristic evidence by themselves, have been made apparent : and yet it has been shewn that Patristic quota- tions are abundantly sufficient for their proper purpose, which is. to enable us to decide between conflicting readings. One more indication has been obtained of the corruptness of the text which Origen employed, concerning which he is so strangely communicative, and of which Btf are the chief surviving examples ; and the probability has been strengthened that when these are the sole, or even the principal witnesses, for any particular reading, that reading will prove to be corrupt. Mill was of opinion, (and of course his opinion finds favour with Griesbach, Tischendorf, and the rest,) that these three clauses have been imported hither from St. Luke vi. 27, 28. But, besides that this is mere un- supported conjecture, how comes it then to pass that the order of the second and third clauses in St. Matthew's OMISSION. 149 Gospel is the reverse of the order in St. Luke's? No. I believe that there has been excision here: for I hold with Griesbach that it cannot have been the result of accident l . 1 Theodore! once (iv. 946) gives the verse as Tischendorf gives it : bat on two other occasions (i. 827 : ii. 399) the same Theodoret exhibits the second member of the sentence thus, euAo-ytrre TOVS SI&KOVTO.S v/j.ds (so pseud.-Athan. ii. 95 ), which shews how little stress is to be laid on such evidence as the first- named place furnishes. Origen also (iv. 324 bis, 329 bis, 351) repeatedly gives the place as Tischendorf gives it but on one occasion, which it will be observed is fatal to his evidence (i. 768 \ he gives the second member thus, iv. 353 : teal iTpoaevx f vQ f vntp ruiv eirrjpea.^tiVTaii' V/J.CLS. .. i. 4. Next observe how Clemens Al. (605) handles the same place : dyairdre TOVS ex^povs vfjioiv, fv^offirt TOVS icarapoififvovs vfMS, ical irpoa(vx fo '9 f virep TWV fTrrjpea^ovTcav vjuv, /cat TO, ofwta. .'. I, 2, 4. 3, ^. Justin M. (i. 40) quoting the same place from memory (and with exceeding licence), yet is observed to recognize in part both the clauses which labour under suspicion: .*. i, 2, 4. 3, 5. fvxto-0 vntp TWV ex^puiv vfuav aat aya.irS.Te TOVS fuffovvTas vftds, which roughly represents xal evXoyttTt TOVS KaTapoi^tvovs v^uv at tvxeaOe iiirlp TUV ti ^OVTOJV vfj.ds. The clause which hitherto lacks support is that which regards TOVJ i/nds. But the required help is supplied by Irenaeus (i. 521), who (loosely enough) quotes the place thus, Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro eis, qui vos oderunt. :. i (made up of 3, 4). 2, 5. And yet more by the most venerable witness of all, Polycarp, who writes : ad Philipp. c. 12 : Orate pro perseqtientibus et odientibus vos. .: 4, 5. 1,2,3. I have examined [Didache] Justin, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Hippolytus, Cyril Al., Greg. Naz., Basil, Athan., Didymus, Cyril Hier., Chrys., Greg. Nyss., Epiph., Theod., Clemens. And the following are the results : Didache. Ev\oyttrt roiis Karaptufitvovs vfuv, KOI irpoatvxfO'Of vvtp TWV Vfuav, vrjffTfVfTt 6e inrep TWV SicaKovTOiv vfias . . . vfitis Se dyairdrt TOVS VIMS. .'. 2, 3, 4, 5. Aphraates, Dem. ii. The Latin Translation runs : Diligite inimicos vestros, benedicite ei qui vobis maledicit, orate pro eis qui vos vexunt et persequuntur. Eusebius Prae 654. .-. 2, 4, 5, omitting i, 3. Ps 699. .'. 4, 5, omitting i, 2, 3. Es 589. .'. i, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2. Clemens Al. 605. .-. i. 2, 4, omitting 3, 5. Greg. Nyss. iii. 379. .'. 3, 4, 5, omitting i, 2. Vulg. Diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos, et orate pro persequentibus et calumniantibus vos. .-. I, 3, 5, 4, omitting 2. 150 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. [I take this opportunity to reply to a reviewer in the Guardian newspaper, who thought that he had reduced the authorities quoted from before A. D. 400 on page 103 of The Traditional Text to two on our side against seven, or rather six *, on the other. Let me first say that on this perilous field I am not surprised at being obliged to re-judge or withdraw some authorities. I admit that in the middle of a long catena of passages. I did not lay Hilary, 297. Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro calumniantibns vos ac persequentibus vos. .". 2, 4, 5, omitting \!f^ first and third. Hilary, 303. Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac persequentibus vos. /. 1,4, 5, omitting the second and third. Cf. 128. Cyprian, 79 v cf. 146). Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro his qui vos persequuntur. .-. I, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4. Tertullian. Diligite ' v enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit,) et orate pro maledi- centibus vos which apparently is meant for a quotation of i, 2. .-. I, 2, omitting 3, 4, 5. Tertullian. Diligite enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit,) et maledicentibus bene- dicite, et orate pro persecutoribus vestris which is a quotation of i, a, 5. .-. i, 2, 5, omitting 3, 4. Tertullian. Diligere inimicos, et orare pro eis qni vos perseqnuntur. .-. 1,5, omitting 2, 3, 4. Tertullian. Inimicos diligi, maledicentes benedict .'. i, 2, omitting 3, 4, 5. Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite Us qui oderunt vos : orate pro calumniantibus et persequentibus vos. .. i, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2. Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros, orate pro calumniantibns et perse- quentibus vos. .. I, 4, 5, omitting 2, 3. Augustine. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite his qui vos oderunt : et orate pro eis qni vos perseqnuntur. .-. I, 3, 5, omitting a, 4. ' Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac perse- quentibus vos.' Hilary, 297. Cyril Al. twice (i. 270: ii. 807) quotes the place thus, ev voitiTf TOVS f \0povs vfjsvr. /tat vpofftvxfaOf inrtp ranr tnjpta6irrcjy VIMS. Chrys. (iii. 355) says avriy yap elvtv, fv\(o8( iiwtp rwv t\6pan' [yfuav^ and repeats the quotation at iii. 340 and xii. 453. So Tertull. (Apol. c. 31), pro inimicis deum orare, et persccutoribus nostris bone precari. .-. 1,5. If the lost Greek of Irenaeus (i. 521) were recovered, we should probably find dyavarf roin txOpovs vpajv, not i!poofv\fo6t vf\p riav fjuaovvrtuv vftds: and of Polycarp (ad Philipp. c, 12), wpofftvxrOt vf\p raiv SKUKOVTOJV KOI fuaovvr- (3), 4 (4), pt. ver. 45; (Strom, vii. K&VT(av ?), but the passage more like 14), favours St. Matt. St. Luke, the context more like St. Origen (De Orat. i), i, 4 (4), virep and Matt., ver. 45. in the middle of two quotations Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christian, n), from St. Matthew; (Cels. viii. 45), !, 2 (3), 5. ver. 45. 1,4 (4), virep and all ver. 45. Tertullian (De Patient, vi), i, 2 (3), Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xiii. 7), 2 (3), 5, pt. ver. 45. Add Apol. c. 31. 1,5. 4 (4), 5, all ver. 45 ; (Comment, in OMISSION. 153 will be seen by any one who compares the verifications with the reviewer's list, how his failure to observe the points just explained has led him astray. The effect upon the list given in The Traditional Text will be that before the era of St. Chrysostom twenty-five testi- monies are given in favour of the Traditional Text of St. Matt. v. 44, and adding Tertullian from the Dean nine against it. And the totals on page 102, lines 2 and 3 will be 522 and 171 respectively.] 7. Especially have we need to be on our guard against conniving at the ejection of short clauses consisting of from twelve to fourteen letters, which proves to have been the exact length of a line in the earliest copies. When such omissions leave the sense manifestly imperfect, no evil consequence can result. Critics then either take no notice of the circumstance, or simply remark in passing that the omission has been the result of accident. In this way, [ot Trarepfs OVT&V, though it is omitted by Cod. B in St. Luke vi. 26, is retained by all the Editors : and the strange reading of Cod. tf in St. John vi. 55, omitting two lines, was corrected on the manuscript in Is. 66), i, 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, also ver. Hilary (Tract, in Ps. cxviii. 9. 9), 2 45; (In Ps. cviii), 4, 5. (3), 4 (4), 5 ; (ibid. 10. 16), i, 4 Apost. Const, (i. 2), i, 3 (2), 4 (4), (4), 5. (The reviewer omits 'ac 5, vwfp and ver. 45. persequentibus vos ' in both cases.) Greg. Naz. (Orat. iv. 124), 2 (3), 4 Ambrose (In Ps. xxxviii. 2), i, 3, 4, 5; (4), 5, vnfpft/xfffOat. (In Ps. xxxviii. 10), 1,4 (4), 5. Greg. Nyss. (In Bapt. Christi), 3 (2), Aphraates (Dem. ii), i, 2 (3), 4 (4), 4 (4), 5> v*tp> ver. 45. 5, eOviicoi. Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii) omits 4 (4), Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles but quotes ver. 44 ... end of chap- (p. 89), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4 (4), ver. 45. ter. Number = 25. Pacianus (Epist. ii), 2 (3), 5. 154 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. the seventh century, and has met with no assent in modern times]. HPAP CAPZMOYAAH0COC [eCTIBPCOCICKAl TOAIMAMOYAAH0COC] eCTITTOCIC But when, notwithstanding the omission of two or three words, the sense of the context remains unimpaired, the clause being of independent signification, then great danger arises lest an attempt should be made through the officiousness of modern Criticism to defraud the Church of a part of her inheritance. Thus [KCU 01 (St. Luke viii. 45) is omitted by Westcott and Hort, and is placed in the margin by the Revisers and included in brackets by Tregelles as if the words were of doubtful authority, solely because some scribe omitted a line and was followed by B, a few cursives, the Sahidic, Curetonian, Lewis, and Jerusalem Versions]. When indeed the omission dates from an exceedingly remote period ; took place, I mean, in the third, or more likely still in the second century ; then the fate of such omitted words may be predicted with certainty. Their doom is sealed. Every copy made from that defective original of necessity reproduced the defects of its proto- type : and if (as often happens) some of those copies have descended to our times, they become quoted henceforward as if they were independent witnesses 1 . Nor is this all. Let the taint have been communicated to certain copies of the Old Latin, and we find ourselves confronted with formidable because very venerable foes. And according to the recently approved method of editing the New Testament, the clause is allowed no quarter. It is de- 1 See Traditional Text, p. 55. OMISSION. 155 clared without hesitation to be a spurious accretion to the Text. Take, as an instance of this, the following passage in St. Luke xii. 39. ' If (says our LORD) ' the master of the house had known in what hour OKA6TTTHC PXTAi [erpHrop HCCNKAlJ OYKANA HKN his house to be broken through.' Here, the clause within brackets, which has fallen out for an obvious reason, does not appear in Codd. tf and D. But the omission did not begin with tf. Two copies of the Old Latin are also without the words ey/srjyopTjo-ey /ecu, which are wanting besides in Cureton's Syriac. Tischendorf accordingly omits them. And yet, who sees not that such an amount of evidence as this is wholly insufficient to warrant the ejection of the clause as spurious ? What is the ' Science ' worth which cannot preserve to the body a healthy limb like this ? [The instances of omission which have now been examined at some length must by no means be regarded as the only specimens of this class of corrupt passages l . Many more will occur to the minds of the readers of the present volume and of the earlier volume of this work. In fact, omissions are much more common than Additions, or Transpositions, or Substitutions : and this fact, that omis- sions, or what seem to be omissions, are apparently so common, to say nothing of the very strong evidence where- with they are attested when taken in conjunction with the natural tendency of copyists to omit words and passages, cannot but confirm the general soundness of the position. 1 For one of the two most important omissions in the New Testament, viz. the Pericope de Adultera, see Appendix I. See also Appendix II. 156 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. How indeed can it possibly be more true to the infirmities of copyists, to the verdict of evidence on the several passages, and to the origin of the New Testament in the infancy of the Church and amidst associations which were not literary, to suppose that a terse production was first produced and afterwards was amplified in a later age with a view to 'lucidity and completeness 1 ,' rather than that words and clauses and sentences were omitted upon definitely understood principles in a small class of docu- ments by careless or ignorant or prejudiced scribes? The reply to this question must now be left for candid and thoughtful students to determine]. 1 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 134. CHAPTER XI. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. V. TRANSPOSITION, VI. SUBSTITUTION, AND VII. ADDITION. 1. ONE of the most prolific sources of Corrupt Readings, is TRANSPOSITION, or the arbitrary inversion of the order of the sacred words, generally in the subordinate clauses of a sentence. The extent to which ' this prevails in Codexes of the type of BKCD passes belief. It is not merely the occasional writing of ravra -navTa for -navra raCra, or 6 Xaos OVTOS for OVTOS 6 Xaos, to which allusion is now made : for if that were all, the phenomenon would admit of loyal explanation and excuse. But what I speak of is a systematic putting to wrong of the inspired words throughout the entire Codex ; an operation which was evidently regarded in certain quarters as a lawful exercise of critical ingenuity, perhaps was looked upon as an elegant expedient to be adopted for improving the style of the original without materially interfering with the sense. Let me before going further lay before the reader a few specimens of Transposition. Take for example St. Mark i. 5> * a t e/Jaimfouro is unreasonably turned into Ttavrts KCU whereby the meaning of the Evangelical record becomes 158 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. changed, for Traire? is now made to agree with ' JUTCU, and the Evangelist is represented as making the very strong assertion that all the people of Jerusalem came to St. John and were baptized. This is the private property of BDLA. And sometimes I find short clauses added which I prefer to ascribe to the misplaced critical assiduity of ancient Critics. Confessedly spurious, these accretions to the genuine text often bear traces of pious intelligence, and occasionally of considerable ability. I do not suppose that they ' crept in ' from the margin : but that they were inserted by men who entirely failed to realize the wrongness of what they did, the mischievous conse- quences which might possibly ensue from their well-meant endeavours to improve the work of the HOLY GHOST. [Take again St. Mark ii. 3, in which the order in Trpos avrov TrapaXvTLKov (frfpovres, is changed by KBL into (ptpovres 77730? avrov TrapaXvTiKov. A few words are needed to explain to those who have not carefully examined the passage the effect of this apparently slight alteration. Our Lord was in a house at Capernaum with a thick crowd of people around Him : there was no room even at the door. Whilst He was there teaching, a company of people come to Him (Ip^ovrat Trpbs avrov], four of the party carrying a paralytic on a bed. When they arrive at the house, a few of the company, enough to represent the whole, force their way in and reach Him : but on looking back they see that the rest are unable to bring the paralytic near to Him (Trpoo-e'yyto-at avrw 1 ). Upon which they all go out and uncover the roof, take up the sick man on his bed, and the rest of the familiar story unfolds itself. Some officious scribe wished to remove all antiquity arising from the separation of ai is transitive here, like ("TY'fr i n Gen. xlviii. 10, 13: 2 Kings iv. 6 : Isaiah xlvi. 1 3. TRANSPOSITION. 159 from alpofjifvov which agrees with it, and transposed (frfpovTes to the verb it is attached to, thus clumsily excluding the exquisite hint, clear enough to those who can read between the lines, that in the ineffectual attempt to bring in the paralytic only some of the company reached our Lord's Presence. Of course the scribe in question found followers in NBL.] It will be seen therefore that some cases of transposition are of a kind which is without excuse and inadmissible. Such transposition consists in drawing back a word which occurs further on, but is thus introduced into a new context, and gives a new sense. It seems to be assumed that since the words are all there, so long as they be preserved, their exact collocation is of no moment. Trans- positions of that kind, to speak plainly, are important only as affording conclusive proof that such copies as END preserve a text which has undergone a sort of critical treatment which is so obviously indefensible that the Codexes themselves, however interesting as monuments of a primitive age, however valuable commercially and to be prized by learned and unlearned alike for their unique importance, are yet to be prized chiefly as beacon-lights preserved by a watchful Providence to warn every voyaging bark against making shipwreck on a shore already strewn with wrecks l . Transposition may sometimes be as conveniently illus- trated in English as in Greek. St. Luke relates (Acts ii. 45, 46) that the first believers sold their goods ' and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily/ &c. For this, Cod. D reads, ' and parted them daily to all men as every man had need. And they continued in the temple.' 1 The following are the numbers of Transpositions supplied by B, X, and D in the Gospels: 13, 2,098: N, 2,299: D, 3,471. See Revision Revised, PP- 12, 13. 160 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. 2. It is difficult to divine for what possible reason most of these transpositions were made. On countless occasions they do not in the least affect the sense. Often, they are incapable of being idiomatically represented, in English. Generally speaking, they are of no manner of import- ance, except as tokens of the licence which was claimed by disciples, as I suspect, of the Alexandrian school [or exercised unintentionally by careless or ignorant Western copyists]. But there arise occasions when we cannot afford to be so trifled with. An important change in the meaning of a sentence is sometimes effected by transposing its clauses ; and on one occasion, as I venture to think, the prophetic intention of the Speaker is obscured in consequence. I allude to St. Luke xiii. 9, where under the figure of a barren fig-tree, our LORD hints at what is to befall the Jewish people, because in the fourth year of His Ministry it remained unfruitful. ' Lo, these three years,' (saith He to the dresser of His Vineyard), ' come I seeking fruit on this fig-tree, and find none ; cut it down ; why cumbereth it the ground ? ' ' Spare it for this year also,' (is the rejoinder), ' and if it bear fruit, well : but if not, next year thou shalt cut it down.' But on the strength of KBLT W , some recent Critics would have us read, ' And if it bear fruit next year, well : but if not, thou shalt cut it down ' : which clearly would add a year to the season of the probation of the Jewish race. The limit assigned in the genuine text is the fourth year: in the corrupt text of NBLT W , two bad Cursives, and the two chief Egyptian versions, this period becomes extended to the fifth. To reason about such transpositions of words, a weari- some proceeding at best, soon degenerates into the veriest trifling. Sometimes, the order of the words is really TRANSPOSITION. l6l immaterial to the sense. Even when a different shade of meaning is the result of a different collocation, that will seem the better order to one man which seems not to be so to another. The best order of course is that which most accurately exhibits the Author's precise shade of meaning : but of this the Author is probably the only competent judge. On our side, an appeal to actual evidence is obviously the only resource : since in no other way can we reasonably expect to ascertain what was the order of the words in the original document. And surely such an appeal can be attended with only one result : viz. the unconditional rejection of the peculiar and often varying order advocated by the very few Codexes, a cordial acceptance of the order exhibited by every document in the world besides. I will content myself with inviting attention to one or two samples of my meaning. It has been made a question whether St. Luke (xxiv. 7) wrote, Xeyav, "On 8i Toy vlov TOV avOpu>TTov Trapaoodrjvai, as all the MSS. in the world but four, all the Versions, and all the available Fathers' J evidence from A. D. 150 downwards attest: or whether he wrote, Aeyo)!/ TOV vlov TOV av6pu>^ov on Set TrapaboOrjvai, as tfBCL, and those four documents only would have us believe ? [The point which first strikes a scholar is that there is in this reading a familiar classicism which is alien to the style of the Gospels, and which may be a symptom of an attempt on the part of some early critic who was seeking to bring them into agreement with ancient Greek models.] But surely also it is even obvious that the corre- spondence of those four Codexes in such a particular as this must needs be the result of their having derived the reading from one and the same original. On the contrary, 1 Marcion (Epiph. i. 317): Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266): Epiphanius (i. 348) : Cyril (Mai, ii. 438) : John Thess. (Gall. xiii. 188). II. M 162 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. the agreement of all the rest in a trifling matter of detail like the present can be accounted for in only one way, viz., by presuming that they also have all been derived through various lines of descent from a single document : but that document the autograph of the Evangelist. [For the great number and variety of them necessitates their having been derived through various lines of descent. Indeed, they must have the notes of number, variety, as well as continuity, and weight also.] 3. On countless occasions doubtless, it is very difficult perhaps impossible to determine, apart from external evidence, which collocation of two or more words is the true one, whether e. g. lx et C^v f r instance or farjv ? r\yipQr\ 2 , xu>\ovs, rv^Xovs or rv(f)Xovs, xcoAcw 3 , shall be preferred. The burden of proof rests evidently with innovators on Traditional use. Obvious at the same time is it to foresee that if a man sits down before the Gospel with the deliberate intention of improving the style of the Evangelists by transposing their words on an average of seven (B), eight (N), or twelve (D) times in every page, he is safe to convict himself of folly in repeated instances, long before he has reached the end of his task. Thus, when the scribe of K, in place of e^ovaiav !8 avrw Koi Kpiaiv iroielv 4 , presents us with KCU Kplcriv eSooKej; avrw f^ova-iav Troielv, we hesitate not to say that he has written nonsense 5 . And when BD instead of aV eo-TrjKOTuv, we cannot but conclude that 1 St. John v. 26, in N. * St. Mark ii. 12, in D. 3 St. Lnke xiv. 13, in KB. 4 St. John v. 27. 5 'Nee aliter' (says Tischendorf) 'Tertull.' (Prax. 21), ' et judidum dedit illifacere in potestate! But this (begging the learned critic's pardon) is quite a different thing. TRANSPOSITION. 163 the credit of those two MSS. must be so far lowered in the eyes of every one who with true appreciation of the niceties of Greek scholarship observes what has been done. [This characteristic of the old uncials is now commended to the attention of students, who will find in the folios of those documents plenty of instances for examination. Most of the cases of Transposition are petty enough, whilst some, as the specimens already presented to the reader indicate, constitute blots not favourable to the general reputation of the copies on which they are found. Indeed, they are so frequent that they have grown to be a very habit, and must have propagated themselves. For it is in this secondary character rather than in any first inten- tion, so to speak, that Transpositions, together with Omissions and Substitutions and Additions, have become to some extent independent causes of corruption. Origin- ally produced by other forces, they have acquired a power of extension in themselves. It is hoped that the passages already quoted may be found sufficient to exhibit the character of the large class of instances in which the pure Text of the original Autographs has been corrupted by Transposition. That it has been so corrupted, is proved by the evidence which is generally overpowering in each case. There has clearly been much intentional perversion : careless- ness also and ignorance of Greek combined with inveterate inaccuracy, characteristics especially of Western corruption as may be seen in Codex D and the Old Latin versions, must have had their due share in the evil work. The result has been found in constant slurs upon the sacred pages, lessening the beauty and often perverting the sense, a source of sorrow to the keen scholar and reverent Christian, and reiterated indignity done in wantonness or heedlessness to the pure and easy flow of the Holy Books.] M 2 CHAPTER XI (continued}. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. VI. SUBSTITUTION. 4. [ALL the Corruption in the Sacred Text may be classed under four heads, viz. Omission, Transposition, Substitution, and Addition. We are entirely aware that, in the arrange- ment adopted in this Volume for purposes of convenience, Scientific Method has been neglected. The inevitable result must be that passages are capable of being classed under more heads than one. But Logical exactness is of less practical value than a complete and suitable treatment of the corrupted passages that actually occur in the four Gospels. It seems therefore needless to supply with a scrupulous- ness that might bore our readers a disquisition upon Substitution which has not forced itself into a place amongst Dean Burgon's papers, although it is found in a fragmentary plan of this part of the treatise. Substituted forms or words or phrases, such as OC (os) for 0C (Oeo's) 1 TjTro'pei for eTTotei (St. Mark vi. 20), or OVK ot8are boKifj-d^eiv for So/a/xa^ere (St. Luke xii. 56), have their own special causes of substitution, and are naturally and best con- sidered under the cause which in each case gave them birth. 1 See the very learned, ingenious, and satisfactory disquisition in The Re- vision Revised, pp. 424-501. SUBSTITUTION. 165 Yet the class of Substitutions is a large one, if Modifica- tions, as they well may be, are added to it l . It will be readily concluded that some substitutions are serious, some of less importance, and many trivial. Of the more important class, the reading of a/xaprrjju.aros for Kpurecos (St. Mark iii. 29) which the Revisers have adopted in compliance with tf BLA and three Cursives, is a specimen. It is true that D reads a/iaprta? supported by the first corrector of C, and three of the Ferrar group (13, 69, 346): and that the change adopted is supported by the Old Latin versions except f, the Vulgate, Bohairic, Armenian, Gothic, Lewis, and Saxon. But the opposition which favours Kpurecu? is made up of A, C under the first reading and the second correction, 4>2 and eleven other Uncials, the great bulk of the Cursives, f, Peshitto, and Harkleian, and is superior in strength. The internal evidence is also in favour of the Traditional reading, both as regards the usage of evokes, and the natural meaning given by /cpurea)?. 'A/zapr?^xaro9 has clearly crept in from ver. 28. Other instances of Substitution may be found in the well-known St. Luke xxiii. 45 (TOV fjXiov fK\movTos), St. Matt. xi. 27 (/3ovA.Tjrai d-TroKaAityai), St. Matt, xxvii. 34 (olvov for oos], St. Mark i. 2 ('Ho-cua for TOIS npocpri- TCUS), St. John i. 1 8 (6 Movoyevris eo's being a substitution made by heretics for 6 Movoytvrjs Tlo's), St. Mark vii. 31 (8ia I,Lb>vos for /cat 2t8<2z>os). These instances may perhaps suffice : many more may suggest themselves to intelligent readers. Though most are trivial, their cumulative force is extremely formidable. Many of these changes arose from various causes which are described in many other places in this book.] 1 The numbers are : B, substitutions, 935 ; modifications, 1,132 ; total, 2,067. x, 1,114; *. 26 5; 2 .379- D, 2,121; 1,772; 3,893. Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13. CHAPTER XI (continued). CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. VII. ADDITION. 5. [TiiE smallest of the four Classes, which upon a pure survey of the outward form divide among themselves the surface of the entire field of Corruption, is that of Additions l . And the reason of their smallness of number is discoverable at once. Whilst it is but too easy for scribes or those who have a love of criticism to omit words and passages under all circumstances, or even to vary the order, or to use another word or form instead of the right one, to insert anything into the sacred Text which does not proclaim too glaringly its own unfitness in a word, to invent happily is plainly a matter of much greater difficulty. Therefore to increase the Class of Insertions or Additions or Interpolations, so that it should exceed the Class of Omissions, is to go counter to the natural action of human forces. There is no difficulty in leaving out large numbers of the Sacred Words : but there is much difficulty in placing in the midst of them human words, possessed of such a character and clothed in such an uniform, as not to betray to keen observation their earthly origin. 1 B has 536 words added in the Gospels: X, 839: D, 2,213. Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13. The interpolations of D are notorious. ADDITION. 167 A few examples will set this truth in clearer light. It is remarkable that efforts at interpolation occur most copiously amongst the books of those who are least fitted to make them. We naturally look amongst the repre- sentatives of the Western school where Greek was less understood than in the East where Greek acumen was imperfectly represented by Latin activity, and where translation into Latin and retranslation into Greek was a prolific cause of corruption. Take then the following passage from the Codex D (St. Luke vi. 4) : ' On the same day He beheld a certain man working on the sabbath, and said to him, " Man, blessed art thou if thou knowest what thou doest ; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law." ' And another from the Curetonian Syriac (St. Matt. xx. 28), which occurs under a worse form in D. ' But seek ye from little to become greater, and not from greater to become less. When ye are invited to supper in a house, sit not down in the best place, lest some one come who is more honourable than thou, and the lord of the supper say to thee, " Go down below," and thou be ashamed in the presence of them that have sat down. But if thou sit down in the lower place, and one who is inferior to thee come in, the lord also of the supper will say to thee, " Come near, and come up, and sit down," and thou shalt have greater honour in the presence of them that have sat down.' Who does not see that there is in these two passages no real ' ring of genuineness ' ? Take next some instances of lesser insertions.] 6. Conspicuous beyond all things in the Centurion of Capernaum (St. Matt. viii. 13) was his faith. It occasioned wonder even in the Son of Man. Do we not, in the 168 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. significant statement, that when they who had been sent returned to the house, ' they found the servant whole that had been sick 1 ,' recognize by implication the assur- ance that the Centurion, because he needed no such confirmation of his belief, went not with them ; but enjoyed the twofold blessedness of remaining with CHRIST, and of believing without seeing ? I think so. Be this however as it may, NCEMUX besides about fifty cursives, append to St, Matt. viii. 13 the clearly apocryphal statement, ' And the Centurion returning to his house in that same hour found the servant whole.' It does not improve the matter to find that Eusebius -, besides the Harkleian and the Ethiopic versions, recognize the same appendix. We are thankful, that no one yet has been found to advocate the adoption of this patent accretion to the inspired text. Its origin is not far to seek. I presume it was inserted in order to give a kind of finish to the story 3 . 1 St. Luke vii. 10. 2 Theoph. p. 212. 3 An opposite fate, strange to say, has attended a short clause in the same narrative, which however is even worse authenticated. Instead of ouS lv ry 'lffparj\ Toaavrrjv iriffTiv evpov (St. Matt. viii. TO), we are invited hence- forth to read nap' ovStvi TO2 with thirteen other Uncials and the Greek MSS. It is notorious that a few copies of the Old Latin 1 and the Egyptian versions exhibit the same depravation. Cyril habitually employed an Evangelium which was disfigured in the same way 2 . But are we out of such materials as these to set about reconstructing the text of Scripture ? 1 This disquisition is made up in part from the Dean's materials. 1 Augustine once (iv. 322), though he quotes the place nearly twenty times in the usual way. 2 iii. 833, also Opp. v. 544, ed. Pusey. 170 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. of Adamantius and Pierius mentioned by Jerome l ; (b) all the Cursives, as far as is known (except the aforenamed) ; (c] the Vulgate, with the Peshitto, Harkleian, Lewis, Bohairic, and the Sahidic ; (d] Jerome (in the place just now quoted), St. Basil who contrasts the text of St. Matthew with that of St. Mark, Didymus, who is also express in declaring that the three words in dispute are not found in St. Matthew (Trin. 195), St. John Damascene (ii. 346), Apollonius Philosophus (Galland. ix. 247), Euthymius Zigabenus (in loc.), Paulinus (iii. 12), St. Ambrose (ii. 656 a ), and Anastasius Sinaita (Migne, Ixxxix. 941). Theophylact (i. 133), Hesychius Presb. (Migne, Ixiii. 142) Eusebius (Galland, ix. 580), Facundus Herm. (Galland. xi. 782), Athanasius (ii. 660), quote the words as from the Gospel without reference, and may therefore refer to St. Mark. Phoebadius (Galland. v. 251), though quoted against the Addition by Tischendorf, is doubtful. On which side the balance of evidence inclines, our readers will judge. But at least they cannot surely justify the assertion made by the majority of the Revisers, that the Addition is opposed only by ' many authorities, some ancient,' or at any rate that this is a fair and adequate description of the evidence opposed to their decision. An instance occurs in St. Mark iii. 16 which illustrates the carelessness and tastelessness of the handful of authorities to which it pleases many critics to attribute ruling authority. In the fourteenth verse, it had been already stated that our Lord 'ordained twelve, 1 /cat eTroujtre ScodeKa ; but because NBA and C (which was corrected in the ninth century with a MS. of the Ethiopic) reiterate these words two verses 1 ' In quibusclam Latinis codicibus additum est, neque Filius : quum in Graecis, et maxima Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeatur adscriptum. Sed quia in nonnullis legitur, disserendum videtur.' Hier. vii. 199 a. 'Gaudet Anus et Eunomius, quasi ignorantia magistri gloria discipulorum sit, et dicunt : " Non potest aequalis esse qui novit et qui ignorat." ' Ibid. 6. In vi. 919, we may quote from St. Mark. ADDITION. 171 further on, Tischendorf with Westcott and Hort assume that it is necessary to repeat what has been so recently told. Meanwhile eighteen other uncials (including A<&2 and the third hand of C) ; nearly all the Cursives ; the Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Lewis, Harkleian, Gothic, Armenian, and the other MSS. of the Ethiopic omit them. It is plainly unnecessary to strengthen such an opposition by researches in the pages of the Fathers. Explanation has been already given, how the introductions to Lections, and other Liturgical formulae, have been added by insertion to the Text in various places. Thus 6 'lr,crovs has often been inserted, and in some places remains wrongly (in the opinion of Dean Burgon) in the pages of the Received Text. The three most important additions to the Received Text occur, as Dean Burgon thought, in St. Matt. vi. 18, where Iv rw (fxivepu has crept in from v. 6 against the testimony of a large majority both of Uncial and of Cursive MSS, : in St. Matt. xxv. 13, where the clause (v fj 6 vibs row avdpairov epx trat seemed to him to be condemned by a superior weight of authority: and in St. Matt, xxvii. 35, where the quotation (iva irX-qp^efi . . . cfidXov K\rjpov) must be taken for similar reasons to have been originallv a gloss.] CHAPTER XII. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. VIII. GLOSSES. 1- ( GLOSSES,' properly so called, though they enjoy a con- spicuous place in every enumeration like the present, are probably by no means so numerous as is commonly supposed. For certainly every unauthorized accretion to the text of Scripture is not a ' gloss ' : but only those explanatory words or clauses which have surreptitiously insinuated themselves into the text, and of which no more reasonable account can be rendered than that they were probably in the first instance proposed by some ancient Critic in the way of useful comment, or necessary expla- nation, or lawful expansion, or reasonable limitation of the actual utterance of the SPIRIT. Thus I do not call the clause veKpovs eyetpere in St. Matt. x. 8 'a gloss.' It is a gratuitous and unwarrantable interpolation, nothing else but a clumsy encumbrance of the text l . [Glosses, or scholia, or comments, or interpretations, are of various kinds, but are generally confined to Additions or Substitutions, since of course we do not omit in order to explain, and transposition of words already placed in lucid order, such as the sacred Text may be reasonably supposed to have observed, would confuse rather than illustrate the meaning. A clause, added in Hebrew fashion 2 , which may perhaps appear to modern taste to 1 See The Traditional Text, pp. 51-52. 2 St. Mark vi. 33. See The Traditional Text, p. 80. GLOSSES. 173 be hardly wanted, must not therefore be taken to be a gloss.] Sometimes a 'various reading' is nothing else but a gratuitous gloss ; the unauthorized substitution of a common for an uncommon word. This phenomenon is of frequent occurrence, but only in Codexes of a remarkable type like Btf CD. A few instances follow : i. The disciples on a certain occasion (St. Matt. xiii. 36), requested our LORD to 'explain' to them (4>PACON ^juu>, 'they said ') the parable of the tares. So every known copy, except two : so, all the Fathers who quote the place, viz. Origen, five times l , Basil 2 , J. Damascene 3 . And so all the Versions 4 . But because B-K, instead of (j>pdo-ov, exhibit AIACA(|>HCON ('make clear to us'), which is also once the reading of Origen 5 , who was but too well acquainted with Codexes of the same depraved character as the archetype of B and tf, Lachmann, Tregelles (not Tischendorf), Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers of 1 88 1, assume that biao-d^crov (a palpable gloss) stood in the inspired autograph of the Evangelist. They therefore thrust out (j)pd ' declare to us ' and in St. Matthew xv. 15 the very same words, there being no various reading in either of these two passages. The inference is, that the translators had the same Greek word in each place, especially considering that in the only other place where, besides St. Matt. xiii. 36, v. 1., Siaaafytiv occurs, viz. St. Matt, xviii. 31, they render Sifad^rjffav by O_VO( = they made known. Since (ppafav only occurs in St. Matt. xiii. 36 and xv. 15, we cannot generalize 174 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. a. Take another instance. Hvyfj-fj, the obscure expres- sion (A leaves it out) which St. Mark employs in vii. 3 to denote the strenuous frequency of the Pharisees' cere- monial washings, is exchanged by Cod. N, but by no other known copy of the Gospels, for irvKva, which last word is of course nothing else but a sorry gloss. Yet Tischendorf degrades Trw/p-p and promotes vvKvd to honour, happily standing alone in his infatuation. Strange, that the most industrious of modern accumulators of evidence should not have been aware that by such extravagances he marred his pretension to critical discernment ! Origen and Epiphanius the only Fathers who quote the place both read TruyjurJ. It ought to be universally admitted that it is a mere waste of time that we should argue out a point like this 1 . 2. A gloss little suspected, which not without a pang of regret I proceed to submit to hostile scrutiny, is the expression ' daily' (/ca0' yufpav) in St. Luke ix. 23. Found in the Peshitto and in Cureton's Syriac, but only in some Copies of the Harkleian version 2 : found in most Copies about the Peshitto rendering of this verb. Conversely, >a*> is used as the rendering of other Greek words besides fypafav, e. g. of tiriXvtiv, St. Mark iv. 34 ; of Sitpnr]vvt iv, St. Luke xxiv. 27; of Stavoiytii', St. Luke xxiv. 32 and Acts xvii. 3. On the whole I have no doubt (though it is not susceptible of proof} that the Peshitto had, in both the places quoted above, typaaov. N.B. The Cureton and Lewis have, in St. Matt. xiii. 36, flu.3 ) _ _ , in xv. 15, \ in ,, xviii. 31, for the 8i(aa(pr]ffav, ocu, The Cureton (Lewis defective) has a word often used in Syriac for ' shew,' ' declare.' [Rev. G. H. Gwilliam.] 1 In St. Mark vii. 3, the translators of the Peshitto render whatever Greek they had before them by ^]iZ^, which means ' eagerly,' 'sedulously'; cf. use of the word for airovtiaiais, St. Luke vii. 4 ; (mpe^us, St. Luke xv. 8. The Root means ' to cease ' ; thence ' to have leisure for a thing ' : it has nothing to do with ' Fist.' [Rev. G. H. Gwilliam.] a Harkl. Marg. in loc., and Adler, p. 115. GLOSSES. 175 of the Vulgate, but largely disallowed by copies of the Old Latin l : found also in Ephraem Syrus 2 , but clearly not recognized by Origen 3 : found again in tf AB and six other uncials, but not found in CDE and ten others : the expression referred to cannot, at all events, plead for its own retention in the text higher antiquity than can be pleaded for its exclusion. Cyril, (if in such a matter the Syriac translation of his Commentary on St. Luke may be trusted.) is clearly an authority for reading *a0' r)p. \6ycv TOV Kvpiov KaraKoXovOovcra, TOV aravpov avrov KaO' T|[Afpav ai'pfiv, ojs ytypcnrrai' TOVT' effriv, eToifioas t\ovaa VTroptveiv Sia XpiaTov iraacLv 0\iif/iv ai -neipaa^ov, K.T.\. (ii. 326 e). In the same spirit, further on, he exhorts to constancy and patience, TOV eirl TOV Kvpiov 9a.vo.rov (v tiriOvfua vavTOTt irpo o^>6a\uMiv exovTfs, ical (KO.OWS fipTjrai VTTO TOV Kvpiov) KaO' Tjtxcpav TOV o-ravpov aipovrS, o !r)ffi, Trfpitytpf roy Qavarov TOVTOV, Kal /ca6' f/ntpav eroifios ffo irpos cHfxLffiv (vii. 557 b). Again, commenting on ch. xix. 21, Af npo- rjyovufvois a.Ko\ov9tiv rta Kpiarca' rovrian, -navra ra trnp' avrov Kf\fv6/j.fva irottiV, irpos crc/xrydy (Tvai (Toifiov, ical Odvarov Ka0rjfj.fpivi,v (p. 629 e) : words which Chrysostom immediately follows up by quoting ch. xvi. 24 (630 a). 5 i. 949 b, ' Quotidie (inquit Apostolus) manor propter vestra/n salutem. Et Dominus, juxta antiqua exemplaria, Nisi quis tulerit crucem steam quotidie, et scquutusfuerit me, nonpoiest meusesse discipulus ' Commenting on St. Matt. x. 38 (vol. vii. p. 65 b), Jerome remarks, 'in alio Evangelic scribitur, Qui non accipit crucem suam quotidie* : but the corresponding place to St. Matt. x. 38, in the sectional system of Eusebius (Greek and Syriac), is St. Luke xiv. 27. GLOSSES. 177 familiarity with the 'antiqua exemplaria ' referred to by the Critic ; and we freely avow that we have learned to reckon them among the least reputable of our acquaintance. Are they not represented by those Evangelia, of which several copies are extant, that profess to have been ' transcribed from, and collated with, ancient copies at Jerusalem ' ? These uniformly exhibit nad' fmepav in St. Luke ix. 23 l . But then, if the phrase be a gloss, it is obvious to inquire, how is its existence in so many quarters to be accounted for ? Its origin is not far to seek. Chrysostom, in a certain place, after quoting our LORD'S saying about taking up the cross and following Him, remarks that the words ' do not mean that we are actually to bear the wood upon our shoulders, but to keep the prospect of death steadily before us, and like St. Paul to " die daily " V The same Father, in the two other places already quoted from his writings, is observed similarly to connect the SAVIOUR'S mention of ' bearing the Cross ' with the Apostle's announce- ment 'I die daily.' Add, that Ephraem Syrus 3 , and Jerome quoted already, persistently connect the same two places together ; the last named Father even citing them in immediate succession ; and the inference is unavoidable. The phrase in St. Luke ix. 23 must needs be a very ancient as well as very interesting expository gloss, imported into the Gospel from i Cor. xv. 31, as Mill 4 and Matthaei 5 long since suggested. Sincerely regretting the necessity of parting with an expression with which one has been so long familiar, we cannot suffer the sentimental plea to weigh with us when the Truth of the Gospel is at stake. Certain it is that but for Erasmus, we should never have known the regret : for it was he that introduced /ca#' f]fj.epav into the Received 1 Viz. Evan. 473 (2P). 2 ii. 66 c, d. 1 See above, p. 175, note 2. * Proleg. p. cxlvi. 5 N. T. (1803), L 368. II. N 178 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. Text. The MS. from which he printed is without the expression : which is also not found in the Complutensian. It is certainly a spurious accretion to the inspired Text. [The attention of the reader is particularly invited to this last paragraph. The learned Dean has been sneered at for a supposed sentimental and effeminate attachment to the Textus Receptus. He was always ready to reject words and phrases, which have not adequate support ; but he denied the validity of the evidence brought against many texts by the school of Westcott and Hort, and therefore he refused to follow them in their surrender of the passages.] 3. Indeed, a great many ' various readings,' so called, are nothing else but very ancient interpretations, fabricated readings therefore, of which the value may be estimated by the fact that almost every trace of them has long since disappeared. Such is the substitution of - prjo-fv in St. John vi. 15 ; which, by the way, Tischendorf thrusts into his text on the sole authority of tf, some Latin copies including the Vulgate, and Cureton's Syriac l : though Tregelles ignores its very existence. That our LORD'S ' withdrawal ' to the mountain on that occasion was of the nature of 'flight,' or 'retreat' is obvious. Hence Chry- sostom and Cyril remark that He 'fled to the mountain.' And yet both Fathers (like Origen and Epiphanius before them) are found to have read dvexwprjo-ez;. Almost as reasonably in the beginning of the same verse might Tischendorf (with N) have substituted a for iva Trou/o-axny avrov, on the plea that Cyril 2 says, avrov dm5eicu KCU /SacriAe'a. We may on no account suffer ourselves to be imposed upon by such shallow pretences for tampering with the text of Scripture : or the deposit 1 Lewis here agrees with Peshitto. a iv. 745. GLOSSES. 179 will never be safe. A patent gloss, rather an interpreta- tion, acquires no claim to be regarded as the genuine utterance of the HOLY SPIRIT by being merely found in two or three ancient documents. It is the little handful of documents which loses in reputation, not the reading which gains in authority on such occasions. In this way we are sometimes presented with what in effect are new incidents. These are not unfrequently discovered to be introduced in defiance of the reason of the case ; as where (St. John xiii. 24) Simon Peter is represented (in the Vulgate) as actually saying to St. John, 'Who is it concerning whom He speaks?' Other copies of the Latin exhibit, ' Ask Him who it is,' &c. : while NBC (for on such occasions we are treated to any amount of apocryphal matter) would persuade us that St. Peter only required that the information should be furnished him by St. John : ' Say who it is of whom He speaks.' Some- times a very little licence is sufficient to convert the oratio obliqtia into the recta. Thus, by the change of a single letter (in NBX) Mary Magdalene is made to say to the disciples ' / have seen the LORD ' (St. John xx. \ 8). But then, as might have been anticipated, the new does not altogether agree with the old. Accordingly D and others paraphrase the remainder of the sentence thus, ' and she signified to them what He had said unto her.' How obvious is it to foresee that on such occasions the spirit of officiousness will never know when to stop ! In the Vulgate and Sahidic versions the sentence proceeds, ' and He told these things unto me.' Take another example. The Hebraism juera a-aX-niyyos (jxavfis jueyaArjs (St. Matt. xxiv. 31) presents an uncongenial ambiguity to Western readers, as our own incorrect A. V. sufficiently shews. Two methods of escape from the difficulty suggested themselves to the ancients : (a) Since ' a trumpet of great sound ' means nothing else but ' a loud N 2 180 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. trumpet/ and since this can be as well expressed by o-aATTtyyo? /xeyaArj?, the scribes at a very remote period are found to have omitted the word ^toz^s. The Peshitto and Lewis (interpreting rather than translating) so deal with the text. Accordingly, (frcavijs is not found in NLA and five cursives. Eusebius 1 , Cyril Jerus. 2 , Chrysostom 3 , Theodoret 4 , and even Cyprian 5 are also without the word. (b) A less violent expedient was to interpolate KOI before z;rai vp.as, which latter is the reading of the Old Latin and Peshitto, as well as of the whole body of uncials and cursives alike. Some Critic evidently considered that the words which follow, ' when you go out thencel imply that place, not persons, should have gone before. Accordingly, he substituted ' whatsoever place ' for ' whosoever * ' : another has be- queathed to us in four uncial MSS. a lasting record of his rashness and incompetency. Since however he left behind the words jurjSe aKova-iacnv vp.&v, which immediately follow, who sees not that the fabricator has betrayed him- self? I am astonished that so patent a fraud should have imposed upon Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Lachmann, and Alford, and Westcott and Hort. But in fact it does not stand alone. From the same copies NBLA (with two 1 The attentive student of the Gospels will recognize with interest how grace- fully the third Evangelist St. Luke (ix. 5) has overcome this difficulty. 182 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. others, CD) we find the woe denounced in the same verse on the unbelieving city erased (d/uTji> Ae'yto V/JLLV, dpeKToYepoy lorcu 2o8o^oi? T; Topoppoi.? tv rifJ-epa K/atVecos, 77 rr/ Tro'Aet (Kfivp). Quite idle is it to pretend (with Tischendorf) that these words are an importation from the parallel place in St. Matthew. A memorable note of diversity has been set on the two places, which in all the copies is religiously maintained, viz. SoSo'/xois ^ Fojuoppot?, in St. Mark : yr\ 2o5o'/Koi> KCU Fo/xoppow, in St. Matt. It is simply incredible that this could have been done if the received text in this place had been of spurious origin. 5. The word dWxei in St. Mark xiv. 41 has proved a stumbling-block. The most obvious explanation is probably the truest. After a brief pause 1 , during which the SAVIOUR has been content to survey in silence His sleeping disciples ; or perhaps, after telling them that they will have time and opportunity enough for sleep and rest when He shall have been taken from them ; He announces the arrival of 'the hour,' by exclaiming, 'ATre'x* i, ' It is enough ; ' or, ' It is sufficient ; ' i. e. The season for repose is over. But the ' Revisers ' of the second century did not perceive that arre'xei is here used impersonally 2 . They understood 1 Augustine, with his accustomed acuteness, points out that St. Mark's narrative shews that after the words of ' Sleep on now and take your rest,' our LORD must have been silent for a brief space in order to allow His disciples a slight prolongation of the refreshment which his words had already permitted them to enjoy. Presently, He is heard to say, ' It is enough '(that is, ' Ye have now slept and rested enough ') ; and adds, ' The hour is come. Behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.' ' Sed quia com- memorata non est ipsa interpositio silentii Domini, propterea coartat intel- lectum, ut in illis verbis alia pronuntiatio requiratur.' iii 2 . 106 a, b. The passage in question runs thus : KaOtiidtre ri \otvov KCLI avairavtaOf. a7re'xr ?fKd(v -fj (iipa m iSov, K.T.\. '* Those who saw this, explain the word amiss. Note the Scholion (Anon. GLOSSES. 183 the word to mean ' is fully come ' ; and supplied the supposed nominative, viz. TO re'Aos 1 . Other critics who rightly understood oTre'xei to signify ' sufficit,' still subjoined ' finis.' The Old Latin and the Syriac versions must have been executed from Greek copies which exhibited, aTre'xei TO Te'Ao?. This is abundantly proved by the renderings adest finis (f), consummatus est finis (a) ; from which the change to dWxei TO Te'Aos KAI T\ &pa (the reading of D) was obvious : sufficit finis et hora (d q) ; adest enim consummatio ; et (ff 2 venit) hora (c) ; or, (as the Peshitto more fully gives it), appropinquavit finis, et venit kora z . Jerome put this matter straight by simply writing sttfficit. But it is a suggestive circumstance, and an interesting proof how largely the reading aTre'xei TO rtXos must once have prevailed, that it is frequently met with in cursive copies of the Gospels to this hour 3 . Happily it is an ' old reading ' which finds no favour at the present day. It need not therefore occupy us any longer. As another instance of ancient Glosses introduced to help out the sense, the reading of St. John ix. 22 is confessedly Iva fdv Tts avrov o^oXo-yrjcrrj Xpio-ToV. So all the MSS. but one, and so the Old Latin. So indeed all the ancient versions except the Egyptian. Cod. D alone adds eu'cu: but tlvai must once have been a familiar gloss : for Jerome retains Vat.) in Possinns, p. 321 : a7r'x, rovrtan, irfn\r]paJTai, rXos x TO /car* /te. Last Twelve Verses, p. 226, note. 1 I retract unreservedly what I offered on this subject in a former work (Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 225, 226). I was misled by one who seldom indeed misleads, the learned editor of the Codex Bezae (in loco). 2 So Peshitto. Lewis, venit hora, appropinquat finis. Harkleian, adest consummatio, venit hora. 3 enrex. Vg. sufficit. + ro reAoy, 13, 69, 124, 2P e , c ser , 47, 54, 56, 6l, 184, 346, 348, 439. d, q, sufficit finis et hora. f, adest finis, venit hora. c, ff 2 , a Jest enim consummatio, et (ff 2 venit) hora. a, consummatus est finis, advenit hora. It is certain that one formidable source of danger to the sacred text has been its occasional obscurity. This has resulted, (i) sometimes in the omission of words : Aevrfpoirpcurov. (2) Sometimes in substitution, as Trvypfj. (3) Sometimes in the insertion of unauthorized matter: thus, rb r^Aoy, as above. 184 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. it in the Vulgate : and indeed Cyril, whenever he quotes the place 1 , exhibits rbv Xpio-rbv flvat. Not so however Chrysostom 2 and Gregory of Nyssa 3 . 6. There is scarcely to be found, amid the incidents immediately preceding our SAVIOUR'S Passion, one more affecting or more exquisite than the anointing of His feet at Bethany by Mary the sister of Lazarus, which received its unexpected interpretation from the lips of CHRIST Himself. ' Let her alone. Against the day of My embalming hath she kept it.' (St. John xii. 7.) He assigns to her act a mysterious meaning of which the holy woman little dreamt. She had treasured up that precious unguent against the day, (with the pre- sentiment of true Love, she knew that it could not be very far distant), when His dead limbs would require embalming. But lo, she beholds Him reclining at supper in her sister's house : and yielding to a Divine impulse she brings forth her reserved costly offering and bestows it on Him at once. Ah, she little knew, -she could not in fact have known, that it was the only anointing those sacred feet were destined ever to enjoy! .... In the mean- time through a desire, as I suspect, to bring this incident into an impossible harmony with what is recorded in St. Mark xvi. i, with which obviously it has no manner of connexion, a scribe is found at some exceedingly remote period to have improved our LORD'S expression into this : ' Let her alone in order that against the day of My embalm- ing she may keep it.' Such an exhibition of the Sacred Text is its own sufficient condemnation. What that critic exactly meant, I fail to discover : but I am sure he has spoilt what he did not understand : and though it is quite 1 iii. 105 : iv. 913. So also iv. 614. 2 vi. 283. 3 i. 307. GLOSSES. 185 true that NBD with five other Uncial MSS. and Nonnus, besides the Latin and Bohairic, Jerusalem, Armenian, and Ethiopia versions, besides four errant cursives so exhibit the place, this instead of commending the reading to our favour, only proves damaging to the witnesses by which it is upheld. We learn that no reliance is to be placed even in such a combination of authorities. This is one of the places which the Fathers pass by almost in silence. Chrysostom * however, and evidently Cyril Alex. 2 , as well as Ammonius 3 convey though roughly a better sense by quoting the verse with eTroujo-e for TerTjprjKev. Antiochus 4 is express. [A and eleven other uncials, and the cursives (with the petty exception already noted), together with the Peshitto, Harkleian (which only notes the other reading in the margin), Lewis, Sahidic, and Gothic versions, form a body of authority against the palpable emasculation of the passage, which for number, variety, weight, and internal evidence is greatly superior to the opposing body. Also, with reference to continuity and antiquity it preponderates plainly, if not so decisively ; and the context of D is full of blunders, besides that it omits the next verse, and B and tf are also inaccurate hereabouts 5 . So that the Traditional text enjoys in this passage the support of all the Notes of Truth.] In accordance with what has been said above, for "A$es ami]v' eis TTJV f]fj.epav TOV eira Iva . . . rr/p^o-rj avro. This startling innovation, which destroys the sense of our 1 viii. 392. 2 iv. 696. 3 Cramer's Cat. in loc. 4 1063. 5 E.g. ver. i. All the three officiously insert 6 'Irjaovs, in order to prevent people from imagining that Lazarus raised Lazarus from the dead ; ver. 4, D gives the gloss, euro Kapviarov for 'Icrtcapiiafffj.6s had not yet arrived. GLOSSES. 187 gavest Me to do' (St. John xvii. 4). Two things are stated : first, that the result of His Ministry had been the exhibition upon earth of the FATHER'S ' glory l ' : next, that the work which the FATHER had given the SON to do 2 was at last finished 3 . And that this is what St. John actually wrote is certain : not only because it is found in all the copies, except twelve of suspicious character (headed by N ABCL) ; but because it is vouched for by the Peshitto 4 and the Latin, the Gothic and the Armenian versions 5 : besides a whole chorus of Fathers; viz. Hippolytus 6 , Didymus 7 , Eusebius 8 , Athanasius 9 , Basil 10 , Chrysostom ll , Cyril 12 , ps.-Polycarp 13 , the interpolator of Ignatius 14 , and the authors of the Apostolic Constitutions 15 : together with the following among the Latins: Cyprian 16 , Ambrose 17 , Hilary 18 , Zeno 19 , Cassian 20 , Novatian 21 , certain Arians 22 , Augustine 23 . But the asyndeton (so characteristic of the fourth Gospel) proving uncongenial to certain of old time, D inserted /cat. A more popular device was to substitute the participle (reXetwo-as) for ereAeiWa : whereby our LORD is made to say that He had glorified His FATHER'S Name ' by perfecting ' or ' completing ' ' in that He had finished ' I Consider ii. u and xi. 40 : St. Luke xiii. 17 : Heb. i. 3. a Consider v. 36 and iv. 34. 3 Consider St. John xix. 30. Cf. St. Luke xxii. 37. * Lewis, ' and the work I have perfected ' : Harkleian, ' because the work,' &c., ' because ' being obelized. 5 The Bohairic and Ethiopia are hostile. 6 i. 245 ( = Constt. App. viii. i ; ap. Galland. iii. 199). 7 P. 419. 8 M p. 157. 9 i. 534. lu ii. I9 6 2 3 8 = 39- II v. 256 : viii. 475 bis. ia iii. 542 : iv. 954 : v 1 . 599, 601, 614 : v 2 . 152. In the following places Cyril shews himself acquainted with the other reading, iv. 879: v 1 . 167, 366: vi. 124. 13 Polyc. frg. v (ed. Jacobson). " Ps.-Ignat. 328. 15 Ap. Gall. iii. 215. 16 P. 285. 17 ii. 545- 18 Pp. 510, 816, 1008. But opere consummate, pp. 812, 815. Jerome also once (iv. 563) has opere complete. 19 Ap. Gall. v. 135. 20 P. 367. 21 Ap. Gall. iii. 308. 22 Ap. Aug. viii. 622. * 3 i" 2 . 7 6r : - 6 4- l88 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. the work which the FATHER had given Him to do ; which damages the sense by limiting it, and indeed introduces a new idea. A more patent gloss it would be hard to find. Yet has it been adopted as the genuine text by all the Editors and all the Critics. So general is the delusion in favour of any reading supported by the combined evidence of NABCL, that the Revisers here translate ' I glorified Thee on the earth, having accom- plished (reAetwcras') the work which Thou hast given Me to do : ' without so much as vouchsafing a hint to the English reader that they have altered the text. When some came with the message ' Thy daughter is dead : why troublest thou the Master further ? ' the Evangelist relates that JESUS 'as soon as He heard (ei/0e'oo? ciKovo-as) what was being spoken, said to the ruler of the synagogue, Fear not : only believe.' (St. Mark v. 36.) For this, NBLA substitute ' disregarding (Tiapa- Kovaas) what was being spoken ' : which is nothing else but a sorry gloss, disowned by every other copy, including ACD, and all the versions. Yet does TrapaKovaas find favour with Tischendorf, Tregelles, and others. 8. In this way it happened that in the earliest age the construction of St. Luke i. 66 became misapprehended. Some Western scribe evidently imagined that the popular saying concerning John Baptist, n apa TO TTO.IOLOV TOVTO (tirai, extended further, and comprised the Evangelist's record, KCU \flp Kvpiov r/v /xer' avrov. To support this strange view, KOI was altered into KOI yap, and e 3 . The consequence might have been anticipated. All recent Editors adopt this reading, which however is clearly inadmissible. The received text, wit- nessed to by the Peshitto, Harkleian, and Armenian versions, is obviously correct. Accordingly, A and all the uncials not already named, together with the whole body of the cursives, so read the place. With fatal in- felicity the Revisers exhibit ' For indeed the hand of the LORD was with him.' They clearly are to blame : for indeed the MS. evidence admits of no uncertainty. It is much to be regretted that not a single very ancient Greek Father (so far as I can discover) quotes the place. 9. It seems to have been anciently felt, in connexion with the first miraculous draught of fishes, that St. Luke's statement (v. 7) that the ships were so full that ' they were sinking' (coo-re J3v0iffvScovvfj,ov -yvufftcos i Tim. vi. 20. 2 I Tim. iv. 1-3. 3 ii- !? * -yti/eaXo-y/tu i Tim. i. 4 : Titus iii. 9. Dangerous speculation (a /*TJ lupaictv (fjt^arevojv Col. ii. 18). ' Old wives' fables' (i Tim. i. 4 : iv. 7. Tit. i. 14). 5 See the fragment of Irenaeus in Euseb. H. E. iv. 7. 6 Acts xx. 29. 7 Rev. ii. 6. " Rev. ii. 15. ' Rev. ii. 13. II. O 194 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. Fathers : some Old Latin MSS. 1 , the Bohairic and Sahidic, and coming later on, the Curetonian and Lewis, among the Versions : of the copies Codd. B and tf : and above all, coming later down still, Cod. D : these venerable monu- ments of a primitive age occasionally present us with deformities which it is worse than useless to extenuate, quite impossible to overlook. Unauthorized appendixes, tasteless and stupid amplifications, plain perversions of the meaning of the Evangelists, wholly gratuitous assimi- lations of one Gospel to another, the unprovoked omission of passages of profound interest and not unfrequently of high doctrinal import : How are such phenomena as these to be accounted for? Again, in one quarter, we light upon a systematic mutilation of the text so extra- ordinary that it is as if some one had amused himself by running his pen through every clause which was not absolutely necessary to the intelligibleness of what re- mained. In another quarter we encounter the thrusting in of fabulous stories and apocryphal sayings which disfigure as well as encumber the text How will any one explain all this ? Let me however at the risk of repeating what has been already said dispose at once of an uneasy suspicion which is pretty sure to suggest itself to a person of intelligence after reading what goes before. If the most primitive witnesses to our hand are indeed discovered to bear false witness to the text of Scripture, whither are we to betake ourselves for the Truth ? And what security can we hope ever to enjoy that any given exhibition of the text of Scripture is the true one ? Are we then to be told that in this subject-matter the maxim ' id verius quod prius ' does not hold? that the stream instead of getting purer as we approach the fountain head, on the contrary grows more and more corrupt ? 1 Chiefly the Low Latin amongst them. Tradit. Text. chap. vii. p. 137. CORRUPTION BY HERETICS. 195 Nothing of the sort, I answer. The direct reverse is the case. Our appeal is always made to antiquity ; and it is nothing else but a truism to assert that the oldest reading is also the best. A very few words will make this matter clear ; because a very few words will suffice to explain a circumstance already adverted to which it is necessary to keep always before the eyes of the reader. The characteristic note, the one distinguishing feature, of all the monstrous and palpable perversions of the text of Scripture just now under consideration is this : that they are never vouched for by the oldest documents generally, but only by a few of them, two, three, or more of the oldest documents being observed as a rule to yield conflicting testimony, (which in this subject-matter is in fact contradictory). In this way the oldest witnesses nearly always refute one another, and indeed dispose of one another's evidence almost as often as that evidence is untrustworthy. And now I may resume and proceed. I say then that it is an adequate, as well as a singularly satisfactory explanation of the greater part of those gross depravations of Scripture which admit of no legitimate excuse, to attribute them, however remotely, to those licentious free-handlers of the text who are declared by their contemporaries to have falsified, mutilated, inter- polated, and in whatever other way to have corrupted the Gospel ; whose blasphemous productions of necessity must once have obtained a very wide circulation : and indeed will never want some to recommend and uphold them. What with those who like Basilides and his followers invented a Gospel of their own : what with those who with the Ebionites and the Valentinians inter- polated and otherwise perverted one of the four Gospels until it suited their own purposes : what with those who like Marcion shamefully maimed and mutilated the inspired text : there must have been a large mass of cor- O 2 196 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. ruption festering in the Church throughout the immediate post-Apostolic age. But even this is not all. There were those who like Tatian constructed Diatessarons, or attempts to weave the fourfold narrative into one, ' Lives of CHRIST,' so to speak ; and productions of this class were multiplied to an extraordinary extent, and as we certainly know, not only found their way into the remotest corners of the Church, but established them- selves there. And will any one affect surprise if occasion- ally a curious scholar of those days was imposed upon by the confident assurance that by no means were those many sources of light to be indiscriminately rejected, but that there must be some truth in what they advanced ? In a singularly uncritical age, the seductive simplicity of one reading, the interesting fullness of another, the plausibility of a third, was quite sure to recommend its acceptance amongst those many eclectic recensions which were constructed by long since forgotten Critics, from which the most depraved and worthless of our existing texts and versions have been derived. Emphatically condemned by Ecclesiastical authority, and hopelessly outvoted by the universal voice of Christendom, buried under fifteen centuries, the corruptions I speak of survive at the present day chiefly in that little handful of copies which, calamitous to relate, the school of Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles look upon as oracular : and in conformity with which many scholars are for refashion- ing the Evangelical text under the mistaken title of ' Old Readings.' And now to proceed with my argument. 2. Numerous as were the heresies of the first two or three centuries of the Christian era, they almost all agreed in this ; that they involved a denial of the eternal Godhead CORRUPTION BY HERETICS. 197 of the SON of Man : denied that He is essentially very and eternal GOD. This fundamental heresy found itself hopelessly confuted by the whole tenor of the Gospel, which nevertheless it assailed with restless ingenuity : and many are the traces alike of its impotence and of its malice which have survived to our own times. It is a memorable circumstance that it is precisely those very texts which relate either to the eternal generation of the SON, to His Incarnation, or to the circumstances of His Nativity, which have suffered most severely, and retain to this hour traces of having been in various ways tampered with. I do not say that Heretics were the only offenders here. I am inclined to suspect that the orthodox were as much to blame as the impugners of the Truth. But it was at least with a pious motive that the latter tampered with the Deposit. They did but imitate the example set them by the assailing party. It is indeed the calamitous con- sequence of extravagances in one direction that they are observed ever to beget excesses in the opposite quarter. Accordingly the piety of the primitive age did not think it wrong to fortify the Truth by the insertion, suppression, or substitution of a few words in any place from which danger was apprehended. In this way, I am persuaded, many an unwarrantable ' reading ' is to be explained. I do not mean that ' marginal glosses have frequently found their way into the text ' : that points to a wholly im- probable account of the matter. I mean, that expressions which seemed to countenance heretical notions, or at least which had been made a bad use of by evil men, were deliberately falsified. But I must not further anticipate the substance of the next chapter. The men who first systematically depraved the text of Scripture, were as we now must know the heresiarchs Basilides (fl. 134), Valentinus (fl. 140), and Marcion (fl. 150) : three names which Origen is observed almost 198 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. invariably to enumerate together. Basilides 1 and Valen- tinus 2 are even said to have written Gospels of their own. Such a statement is not to be severely pressed: but the general fact is established by the notices, and those are exceedingly abundant, which the writers against Heresies have cited and left on record. All that is intended by such statements is that these old heretics retained, altered, transposed, just so much as they pleased of the fourfold Gospel : and further, that they imported whatever additional matter they saw fit : not that they rejected the inspired text entirely, and substituted some- thing of their own invention in its place 3 . And though, in the case of Valentinus, it has been contended, apparently with reason, that he probably did not individually go to the same length as Basilides, who, as well in respect of St. Paul's Epistles as of the four Gospels, was evidently a grievous offender 4 , yet, since it is clear that his principal followers, who were also his contemporaries, put forth a composition which they were pleased to style the ' Gospel of Truth 5 ,' it is idle to dispute as to the limit of the 1 ' Ausus fuit et Basilides scribere Evangelium, et suo illud nomine titulare.' Orig. Opp. iii. 933 c : Iren. i. 23 : Clem. Al. 409, 426, 506, 509, 540, 545 : Tertull. c. 46 : Epiph. 24 : Theodor. i. 4. " 'Evangelium habet etiam suum, praeter haec nostra' (De Praescript., ad calcem). 3 Origen (commenting on St. Luke x. 25-28) says, ravra 8 f'pijrai irp$s TOIS dirb Ova\tVTivov } teal Jlaffi\i8ov, KOI rovs dirb MapKicavos. f\ovat "yap icai avrol ras At'is \v T> Ka6' tavrovs evaffe\i Koffpy, KO.I TIJ xrifffi. Heracleon clearly read S ytfovtv kv avry 0$ Tjv. See Orig. iv. 64. In St. John ii. 19, for kv rpiai, he wrote iv Tpirrj. He also read (St. John iv. 18) (for Wire), l dvSpas f) xal Qtov KfK\rjxev, tv y rcL iravra o Ilar^p irpOf0a\e airep/MTiKais. "firo 5% TOVTOV (prjcrl ruv \6yov irpof:i({i\.i) Tlarpl ical fie TOV Tla-rpus j) apxn> /ta ' * K T V y "PX^ S " Aayos. KaXws ovv tlirtv ev dpxy yv 6 Ao-yor fy fap tv ry Tlw. Kai 6 \6yos ?\v irpos TOV @fuv Kal yap 17 'ApxlJ' *at <^ ^ o Acfyos, aKO\ov6cas. Td ycip fie Qeov ftwrjOiv toy taTiv. Ibid. p. 102. Compare the Excerpt. Theod. ap. Clem. Al. c. vi. p. 968. 2 Ap. Orig. 938. 9. 3 So Theodotus (p. 980), and so Ptolemaeus (ap. Epiph. i. 317), and so Heracleon (ap. Orig. p. 954). Also Meletius the Semi-Arian (ap. Epiph. i. 882). 4 See The Traditional Text, p. 113. 5 Clem. Al. always has ou5e tv (viz. pp. 134, 156, 273, 769, 787, 803, 812, 815, 820) : but when he quotes the Gnostics (p. 838) he has ovttv. Cyril, while writing his treatise De Trinitate, read ovSev in his copy. Eusebius, for example, has ovS* tv, fifteen times; ovStv only twice, viz. Praep. 322: Esai. 529. 204 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. to relate, was generally tolerated, became established in many quarters, and meets us still at every step. It was evidently put forward so perseveringly by the Gnostics, with whom it was a kind of article of the faith, that the orthodox at last became too familiar with it. Epiphanius, though he condemns it, once employs it l . Occurring first in a fragment of Valentinus 2 : next, in the Commentary of Heracleon 3 : after that, in the pages of Theodotus the Gnostic (A.D. 192)*: then, in an exposure by Hippolytus of the tenets of the Naaseni 5 , (a subsection of the same school) ; the baseness of its origin at least is undeniable. But inasmuch as the words may be made to bear a loyal interpretation, the heretical construction of St. John i. 3 was endured by the Church for full 200 years. Clemens Alex, is observed thrice to adopt it 6 : Origen 7 and Euse- bius 8 fall into it repeatedly. It is found in Codd. NCD : apparently in Cod. A, where it fills one line exactly. Cyril comments largely on it 9 . But as fresh heresies arose which the depraved text seemed to favour, the Church bestirred herself and remonstrated. It suited the Arians and the Macedonians 10 , who insisted that the HOLY GHOST 1 Opp. ii. 74. 2 Ap. Iren. 102. 3 Ibid. 940. * Ap. Clem. Al. 968, 973. 5 Philosoph. 107. But not when he is refuting the tenets of the Peratae : ovSt tv, & yfyovev. iv avrw Ka ' ffvaraais oparOav re KCLI doparaiv . . . CLVT&S fcLp vitap\aal "yap, on iravra Si' avrov yfyovt, KOI xw^'J avrov Ifivtro ov5 tv. dpa, T) r\v : by which means the Evangelist's meaning becomes unintelligible V But in the meantime, Valentinus, whose example was followed by Theodotus and by at least two of the Gnostic sects against whom Hippolytus wrote, had gone further. The better to conceal St. John's purpose, the heresiarch falsified the inspired text. In the place of, ' What was made in Him, was life,' he substituted ' What was made in Him, is life.' Origen had seen copies so depraved, and judged the reading not altogether improbable. Clement, on a single occasion, even adopted it. It was the approved reading of the Old Latin versions, a memorable indication, by the way, of a quarter from which the Old Latin derived their texts, which explains why it is found in Cyprian, Hilary, and Augustine ; and why Ambrose has so elabor- ately vindicated its sufficiency. It also appears in the Sahidic and in Cureton's Syriac ; but not in the Peshitto, nor in the Vulgate. [Nor in the Bohairic.] In the mean- time, the only Greek Codexes which retain this singular trace of the Gnostic period at the present day, are Codexes K and D. 4. [We may now take some more instances to shew the effects of the operations of Heretics.] iroirmarcav virapxei, ljre8r) iravra 8t' avrov ytyovt. Opp. i. 74 1 - Which is the teaching of Eusebins, Marcell. 333-4. The Macedonians were an offshoot of the Arians. 1 i. 778 D, 779 B. See also ii. 80. * Opp. viii. 40. 206 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. The good Shepherd in a certain place (St. John x. 14, 15) says concerning Himself ' I know My sheep and am known of Mine, even as the FATHER knoweth Me and I know the FATHER ' : by which words He hints at a mysterious knowledge as subsisting between Himself and those that are His. And yet it is worth observing that whereas He describes the knowledge which subsists between the FATHER and the SON in language which implies that it is strictly identical on either side, He is careful to distinguish between the knowledge which subsists between the creature and the CREATOR by slightly varying the expression, thus leaving it to be inferred that it is not, neither indeed can be, on either side the same. GOD knoweth us with a perfect knowledge. Our so-called ' knowledge ' of GOD is a thing different not only in degree, but in kind 1 . Hence the peculiar form which the sentence assumes 2 : yivaxTKca ra fp,d, KCU yiz>a>o-/co> TO. e/xd. This we learn from Epiphanius and from Basil l . Cyril, in a paper where he makes clear reference to the same heretical Gospel, insists that the order of knowledge must needs be the reverse of what the heretics pretended 2 . But then, it is found that certain of the orthodox con- tented themselves with merely reversing the clauses, and so restoring the true order of the spiritual process discussed regardless of the exquisite refinement of expression to which attention was called at the outset. Copies must once have abounded which represented our LORD as say- ing, ' I know My own and My own know Me, even as the FATHER knoweth Me and I know the FATHER ' ; for it is the order of the Old Latin, Bohairic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Lewis, Georgian, Slavonic, and Gothic, though not of the Peshitto, Harkleian, and Armenian; and Eusebius 3 , Nonnus, and even Basil 4 so read the place. But no token of this clearly corrupt reading survives in any known copy of the S( 6 avros Mavrjs . . . rcL l/ia Trpo&ara yivuaKft fie, KCU ytvuaicx r)P& T/pfd^eSa TOV -npayiMTos, d\X' 6 IK &fov @tos /j.ovoyfvf]s. iv. 654 d, 655 a. (Note, that this passage appears in a mutilated form, viz. 121 words are omitted, in the Catena of Corderius, p. 267, where it is wrongly assigned to Chrysostom : an instructive instance.) 3 In Ps. 489 : in Es. 509 : Theoph. 185, 258, 260. 4 ii. 188 a : which is the more remarkable, because Basil proceeds ex- quisitely to shew (1886) that man's ' knowledge ' of GOD consists in his keeping of GOD'S Commandments, (i John ii. 3, 4.) See p. 206, note i. 208 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. Gospels, except NBDL. Will it be believed that never- theless all the recent Editors of Scripture since Lachmann insist on obliterating this refinement of language, and going back to the reading which the Church has long since deliberately rejected, to the manifest injury of the de- posit ? ' Many words about a trifle,' some will be found to say. Yes, to deny GOD'S truth is a very facile pro- ceeding. Its rehabilitation always requires many words. I request only that the affinity between NBDL and the Latin copies which universally exhibit this disfigurement l , may be carefully noted. [Strange to say, the true reading receives no notice from Westcott and Hort, or the Revisers 2 .] 5. DOCTRINAL. The question of Matrimony was one of those on which the early heretics freely dogmatized. Saturninus 3 (A. D. 1 20) and his followers taught that marriage was a production of Hell. We are not surprised after this to find that those places in the Gospel which bear on the relation between man and wife exhibit traces of perturbation. I am not asserting that the heretics themselves depraved the text. I do but state two plain facts: viz. (i) That whereas in the second century certain heretical tenets on the subject of Marriage prevailed largely, and those who advocated as well as those who opposed such teaching relied chiefly on the Gospel for their proofs : (2) It is accordingly found that not only does the phenomenon of 'various readings' prevail in those 1 So Jerome, iv. 484 : vii. 455. Strange, that neither Ambrose nor Augustine should quote the place. 2 See Revision Revised, p. 220. 3 Or Saturnilus T& 5J ^ap.dv not ftwav avb TOV Sarara (f>r}ffiv tlvai. p. 245, 1. 38. So Marcion, 253. CORRUPTION BY HERETICS. 209 places of the Gospel which bear most nearly on the disputed points, but the ' readings ' are exactly of that suspicious kind which would naturally result from a tamper- ing with the text by men who had to maintain, or else to combat, opinions of a certain class. I proceed to establish what I have been saying by some actual examples 1 . St. Matt. xix. 29. St. Mark x. 29. St. Luke xviii. 29. t] yvvaLKa, rj yiwaiKO, t] ywaixa, BD abc Orig. NBDA abc, &c. all allow it. orav 8e ^eyrj* on " TTO.S oorts a^/ce ywat/ca," ov TOVTO <})r)(riv, UXTTC a7rA<3? biacnraa-daL TOVS ya.fj.ovs, K.T.\. Chrys. vii. 636 E. riapaSeiy/xario-ai (in St. Matt. i. 19) is another of the expressions which have been disturbed by the same con- troversy. I suspect that Origen is the author (see the heading of the Scholion in Cramer's Catenae) of a certain uncritical note which Eusebius reproduces in his 'quaes- tiones ad Stephanum 2 ' on the difference between 8eiyj*anVai and TrapaSety/zarurcu ; and that with him originated the sub- stitution of the uncompounded for the compounded verb in this place. Be that as it may, Eusebius certainly read TrapaSeiy/xauVat (Dem. 320), with all the uncials but two (BZ): all the cursives but one (i). Will it be believed that Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott and Hort, on such slender evidence as that are prepared to reconstruct the text of St. Matthew's Gospel ? It sounds so like trifling with a reader's patience to invite his attention to an elaborate discussion of most of the changes introduced into the text by Tischendorf and his colleagues, that I knowingly pass over many hundreds of instances where I am nevertheless perfectly well aware 1 [The MS. breaks off here, with references to St. Mark x. 7, Eph. v. 31-2 (on which the Dean had accumulated a large array of references), St. Mark x. 29-30, with a few references, but no more. I have not had yet time or strength to work out the subject.] 2 Mai, iv. 221. II. P 210 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. of my own strength, my opponent's weakness. Such discussions in fact become unbearable when the points in dispute are confessedly trivial. No one however will deny that when three consecutive words of our LORD are challenged they are worth contending for. We are invited then to believe (St. Luke xxii. 67-8) that He did not utter the bracketed words in the following sentence, ' If I tell you, ye will not believe ; and if I ask you, ye will not answer (Me, nor let Me go).' Now, I invite the reader to inquire for the grounds of this assertion. Fifteen of the uncials (includ- ing AD), and every known cursive, besides all the Latin and all the Syriac copies recognize the bracketed words. They are only missing in KELT and their ally the Bohairic. Are we nevertheless to be assured that the words are to be regarded as spurious? Let the reader then be informed that Marcion left out seven words more (viz. all from, 'And if I ask you ' to the end), and will he doubt either that the words are genuine or that their disappearance from four copies of bad character, as proved by their constant evidence, and from one version is sufficiently explained ? CHAPTER XIV. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. X. CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. I- ANOTHER cause why, in very early times, the Text of the Gospels underwent serious depravation, was mistaken solicitude on the part of the ancient orthodox for the purity of the Catholic faith. These persons, like certain of the moderns, Beza for example, evidently did not think it at all wrong to tamper with the inspired Text. If any expression seemed to them to have a dangerous tendency, they altered it, or transplanted it, or removed it bodily from the sacred page. About the uncritical nature of what they did, they entertained no suspicion : about the immorality of the proceeding, they evidently did not trouble themselves at all. On the contrary, the piety of the motive seems to have been held to constitute a sufficient excuse for any amount of licence. The copies which had undergone this process of castigation were even styled 'corrected,' and doubtless were popularly looked upon as ' the correct copies ' [like our ' critical texts ']. An illustration of this is afforded by a circumstance mentioned by Epiphanius. P 2 212 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. He states (ii. 36) that the orthodox, out of jealousy for the LORD'S Divinity, eliminated from St. Luke xix. 41 the record that our SAVIOUR 'wept.' We will not pause to inquire what this statement may be worth. But when the same Father adds, ' In the uncorrected copies (h rot? abtopdvTois avTiypd^ois) is found " He wept," ' Epiphanius is instructive. Perfectly well aware that the expression is genuine, he goes on to state that ' Irenaeus quoted it in his work against Heresies, when he had to confute the error of the Docetae V ' Nevertheless,' Epiphanius adds, ' the orthodox through fear erased the record.' So then, the process of 'correction ' was a critical process conducted on utterly erroneous principles by men who knew nothing whatever about Textual Criticism. Such recensions of the Text proved simply fatal to the Deposit. To ' correct ' was in this and such like cases simply to 'corrupt.' Codexes END may be regarded as specimens of Codexes which have once and again passed through the -hands of such a corrector or Sioptfoor?/?. St. Luke (ii. 40) records concerning the infant SAVIOUR that ' the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit.' By repeating the selfsame expression which already, viz. in chap. i. 80, had been applied to the Childhood of the Forerunner 2 , it was clearly the design of the Author of Scripture to teach that THE WORD ' made flesh ' submitted to the same laws of growth and increase as every other Son of Adam. The body 'grew,' the spiritual part ' waxed strong.' This statement was nevertheless laid hold of by the enemies of Christianity. How can it be pre- tended (they asked) that He was 'perfect GOD' (re'Aetos 0eos-), of whom it is related in respect of His spirit that 1 Upos TOVS Soicfjoti rov Xpiffr&v TTt^rfvivai \(^ovras. a Td Si TtaiSiov Tjvavf, KOI fKparaiovro -avtv^an. CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 213 he ' waxed strong l ' ? The consequence might have been foreseen. Certain of the orthodox were ill-advised enough to erase the word Ttveupari from the copies of St. Luke il 40; and lo, at the end of 1.500 years, four 'corrected' copies, two Versions, one Greek Father, survive to bear witness to the ancient fraud. No need to inquire which, what, and who these be. But because it is NBDL, Origen 2 , and the Latin, the Egyptian and Lewis which are without the word Trve^/nan, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and the Revisers jump to the conclusion that -nvevp-aTi is a spurious accretion to the Text. They ought to reverse their proceeding; and recognize in the evidence one more indication of the un- trustworthiness of the witnesses. For, how then is it supposed that the word (Trvev^ari) ever obtained its footing in the Gospel? For all reply we are assured that it has been imported hither from St. Luke i. 80. But, we rejoin, How does the existence of the phrase e/cparaiouro Tirev/xaTi in i. 80 explain its existence in ii. 40, in every known copy of the Gospels except four, if in these 996 places, suppose, it be an interpolation? This is what has to be explained. Is it credible that all the remaining uncials, and every known cursive copy, besides all the lectionaries, should have been corrupted in this way : and that the truth should survive exclusively at this time only in the re- maining four; viz. in B-tf, the sixth century Cod. D, and the eighth century Cod. L ? When then, and where did the work of depravation take place ? It must have been before the sixth century, because Leontius of Cyprus 3 quotes it three times and discusses the expression at length : before the fifth, because, besides 1 It is the twenty-fourth and the thirtieth question in the first Dialogus of pseudo-Caesarius (Gall. vi. 17, 20). 2 Opp. iii. 953, 954, with suspicious emphasis. 3 Ed. Migne, vol. 93, p. 1581 a, b (Novum Auct. i. 700). 214 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. Cod. A, Cyril \ Theodoret 2 and ps.-Caesarius 3 recognize the word : before the fourth, because Epiphanius 4 , Theodore of Mopsuestia 5 , and the Gothic version have it : before the third, before nearly all of the second century, because it is found in the Peshitto. What more plain than that we have before us one other instance of the injudicious zeal of the orthodox ? one more sample of the infelicity of modern criticism ? Theodotus and his followers fastened on the first part of St. John viii. 40, when they pretended to shew from Scripture that CHRIST is mere Man 6 . I am persuaded that the reading ' of My Father 7 ,' with which Origen 8 , Epiphanius 9 , Athanasius 10 , Chrysostom n , Cyril Alex. 12 , 1 When Cyril writes (Scholia, ed. Pusey, vol. vi. 568), " Tb 5e iratSiov rjv^afe KO.I fKparaiovro IINETMATI, irKypovutvov 2O3-IA /cot XAPITI." Kairoi Kara vaiv iravTt\(ios tariv ws &tos ical l iSt'oti TT\I]PTros (K yfjs ^ci/coV 6 bevrepos avBptoiros 6 Kvpios e ovpavov. That this place was so read in the first age is certain : for so it stands in the Syriac. These early heretics however of whom St. John speaks, who denied that ' JESUS CHRIST had come in the flesh 3 ,' and who are known to have freely f taken away from the words ' of Scripture 4 , are found to have made themselves busy here. If (they argued) ' the second man ' was indeed ' the Lord- from-Heaven,' how can it be pretended that CHRIST took upon Himself human flesh 5 ? And to bring out this contention of theirs more plainly, they did not hesitate to remove as superfluous the word ' man ' in the second 1 Who quoted Arius' words : ' Subsistit ante tempora et aeones plenus Deus, unigenilus, et immutabilis.' But I cannot yet find Tischendorf s reference. 2 The reading Ttos is established by unanswerable evidence. 3 The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus were the direct precursors of Apolonius, Photinus, Nestorius, &c., in assailing the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation. Their heresy must have been actively at work when St. John wrote his first (iv. I, 2, 3) and second (ver. 7) Epistles. 4 Rev. xxii. 19. * 'ETmrrjoufftv f]niv ol alpfriKol \lfatTtf iSov OVK di/eXajSe frapxa o Sfvr. -yap (frrjaiv Sv6p. 6 K. ovpavov. Chrys. iii. 114 b. CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 219 clause of the sentence. There resulted, ' The first man [was] of the earth, earthy : 6 bwrcpos Kvpios e ovpavov V It is thus that Marcion 2 (A. D. 130) and his followers 3 read the place. But in this subject-matter extravagance in one direction is ever observed to beget extravagance in another. I suspect that it was in order to counteract the ejec- tion by the heretics of avOpairos in ver. 47, that, early in the second century, the orthodox retaining avOpuiros, judged it expedient to leave out the expression 6 Kvpios, which had been so unfairly pressed against them ; and were contented to read, 'the second man [was] from heaven.' A calamitous exchange, truly. For first, (I), The text thus maimed afforded countenance to another form of misbelief. And next, (II), It necessitated a further change in i Cor. xv. 47. (I) It furnished a pretext to those heretics who main- tained that CHRIST was ' Man ' before He came into the World. This heresy came to a head in the persons of Apolinarius 4 and Photinus ; in contending with whom, Greg. Naz. 5 and Epiphanius 6 are observed to argue with disadvantage from the mutilated text. Tertullian 7 , and Cyprian 8 after him, knew no other reading but ' secundus 1 TTJV 7 Hard aapica ytwrjaiv rov Xpiffrov avtXtiv &ovX6[i(voi, lvr]\\aav TO, o SevTfpos avOpaiiros' xal (Troirjaav, 6 SivTtpos Kvpios. Dial. [ap. Orig.] i. 868. Marcion had in fact already substituted Kvpios for avOpoinos in ver. 45 : (' the last Lord became a quickening spirit ' :) [Tertull. ii. 304] a fabricated reading which is also found to have been upheld by Marcion's followers : 6 ta\aros Kvpios ds itv. fw. Dial, ubi supra. eSi yap avrovs, ti ft rei tvayyt\ia Iriiwv, fj.fi itepiTip.vtiv ra tvayy(\ia, nf) fifpr] ru>v (vayye\icav fv((>t\eii', fifj (Ttpa irpoaOfjvai, prjTf \6~yq> ; /iTyre ISia -yvw/iTj rcL tvay~ff\ia irpoaypajpftv. . . . irpoaye-fpaTros : against e/c yrjs e ovpavov : against Xoi'/co? 6 Kvpios. Remove o Kvpto?, and some substitute for it must be invented as a counterpoise to Xx on 6 avOpcairos, T\TOI TO dvOpuirivov irpoff^TjufM, If ovpavov qv, us o av 'Airo\tvapios i\T)pft. 9 Naz. ii. 87 ( = Thdt. iv. 62), 168. Nyss. ii. n. 10 Ap. Epiphan. i. 830. II 559 (with the Text Recept.) : iv. 302 not. n Hippolytus may not be cited in evidence, being read both ways. (Cp. ed. Fabr. ii. 30: ed. Lagarde, 138. 15 : ed. Galland. ii. 483.) Neither may the expression rov Stvrtpov ( ovpavov avGpojirov in Pet. Alex. (ed. Routh, Rell. Sacr. iv. 48) be safely pressed. CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 221 mended itself to Western Christendom, that having been adopted by Ambrose 1 , by Jerome 2 (and later by Augus- tine 3 ,) it established itself in the Vulgate 4 , and is found in all the later Latin writers 5 . Thus then, a third rival reading enters the field, which because it has well- nigh disappeared from Greek MSS., no longer finds an advocate. Our choice lies therefore between the two former: viz. (a) the received, which is the only well- attested reading of the place : and (b] the maimed text of the Old Latin, which Jerome deliberately rejected (A. D. 380), and for which he substituted another even worse attested reading. (Note, that these two Western fabrica- tions effectually dispose of one another.) It should be added that Athanasius 6 lends his countenance to all the three readings. But now, let me ask, Will any one be disposed, after a careful survey of the premisses, to accept the verdict of Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest, who are for bringing the Church back to the maimed text of which I began by giving the history and explaining the origin ? Let it be noted that the one question is, shall 6 Kvpios be retained in the 1 Primus homo de terra, terrenus : secundus homo de caelo caelestis.i. 1168, 1363 : ii. 265, 975. And so ps.-Ambr. ii. 166, 437. 2 ii. 298 : iv. 930 : vii. 296. * The places are given by Sabatier in loc. * Only because it is the Vulgate reading, I am persuaded, does this reading appear in Orig. interp. ii. 84, 85 : iii. 951 : iv. 546. * As Philastrius (ap. Galland. vii. 492, 516). Pacianus (ib. 275). Marius Mercator (ib. viii. 664). Capreolus (ib. ix. 493). But see the end of the next ensuing note. 6 Vol. i. p. 1275, o Sfvrepos av6p. o Kvptos If ovpavov ovpdvios : on which he remarks, (if indeed it be he), ISov yap anv tv TO> ovpavu) ; and certain of the orthodox (as Greg. Naz., Greg. Nyssa, Epiphanius, while contending with him,) shew them- selves not unwilling to argue from the text so mutilated. Origen and the author of the Dialogus once, Eusebius twice, Cyril not fewer than nineteen times, also leave off at the words ' even the Son of Man ' : from which it is insecurely gathered that those Fathers disallowed the clause which follows. On the other hand, thirty-eight Fathers and ten Versions maintain the genuineness of the words 6 &v fv TW ovpavy l . But the decisive circumstance is that, besides the Syriac and the Latin copies which 1 See Revision Revised, pp. 132-5 : and The Traditional Text, p. 114. 224 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. all witness to the existence of the clause, the whole body of the uncials, four only excepted (KBLT b ), and every known cursive but one (33) are for retaining it. No thoughtful reader will rise from a discussion like the foregoing without inferring from the facts which have emerged in the course of it the exceeding antiquity of depravations of the inspired verity. For let me not be supposed to have asserted that the present depravation was the work of Apolinarius. Like the rest, it is probably older by at least 150 years. Apolinarius, in whose person the heresy which bears his name came to a head, did but inherit the tenets of his predecessors in error ; and these had already in various ways resulted in the corruption of the deposit. The matter in hand will be conveniently illustrated by inviting the reader's attention to another famous place. There is a singular consent among the Critics for eliminating from St. Luke ix. 54-6, twenty-four words which embody two memorable sayings of the Son of Man. The entire context is as follows : ' Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, (as Elias did) ? But he turned, and rebuked them, (and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.) (For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.) And they went to another village.' The three bracketed clauses contain the twenty-four words in dispute. The first of these clauses (s KOL 'HAtas e7roi?j avroij. KOL evopev- Oijcrav (Is fTfpav KW/ZTJZ-. Now it may as well be declared at once that Codd. tf BLE 1 g 1 Cyr 1 "* , two MSS. of the Bohairic (d 3, d 2), the Lewis, and two cursives (71, 157) are literally the only authority, ancient or modern, for so exhibiting the text [in all its bare crudeness]. Against them are arrayed the whole body of MSS. uncial and cursive, including ACD ; every known lectionary ; all the Latin, the Syriac (Cur. om. Clause i), and indeed every other known version: besides seven good Greek Fathers beginning 1 Proleg. 418. * The text of St. Lukeix. 51-6 prefixed to Cyril's fifty-sixth Sermon (p. 353) is the text of B and K, an important testimony to what I suppose may be regarded as the Alexandrine Texlus Keceptus of this place in the fifth century. But then no one supposes that Cyril is individually responsible for the headings of his Sermons. We therefore refer to the body of his discourse ; and discover that the Syriac translator has rendered it (as usual) with exceeding licence. He has omitted to render some such words as the following which certainly stood in the original text : ei&tvcu yap xf"l> Ti *" f jt ^ rtu "^ v * as Kflc P arr l lc ^ Tft XapiTOS, dAX' Ti TTP rportpas ixo/icrot awrflfUK, TOVTO tlvov, irpos "HXiav d4opivT -rfc rvpi KaTeis 8e eTreri/irjo-ei' avrois. KOI eiropeu- drjcrav fls erepaz; K(a^rjv. Now it may as well be declared at once that Codd. tfBLS 1 g 1 Cyr lac 2 , two MSS. of the Bohairic (d 3, d 2), the Lewis, and two cursives (71, 157) are literally the only authority, ancient or modern, for so exhibiting the text [in all its bare c rudeness]. Against them are arrayed the whole body of MSS. uncial and cursive, including ACD ; every known lectionary ; all the Latin, the Syriac (Cur. om. Clause i), and indeed every other known version: besides seven good Greek Fathers beginning 1 Proleg. 418. 2 The text of St. Lukeix. 51-6 prefixed to Cyril's fifty-sixth Sermon (p. 253) is the text of B and N, an important testimony to what I suppose may be regarded as the Alexandrine Textus Receptus of this place in the fifth century. But then no one supposes that Cyril is individually responsible for the headings of his Sermons. We therefore refer to the body of his discourse ; and discover that the Syriac translator has rendered it (as usual) with exceeding licence. He has omitted to render some such words as the following which certainly stood in the original text : dStvai yap xfh> Tt &* /wjirw rfjs vlas KfitpanjieoTtt XapiTOS, d\X' en TTJS TrpoTfpas exopfvoi avvtjOeias, rovro tTirov, irpos 'HXiav acjjopuvres rbv irvpl Kara(p\t^avTa 5h rovs -ntv-rljicovTa Kal rovs fflovpivovs avrojv. (Cramer's Cat. ii. p. 81. Cf. Corderii, Cat. p. 263. Also Matthaei. N. T. in loc., pp. 223-4.) Now the man who wrote that, must surely have read St. Luke ix. 54, 55 as we do. II. Q 226 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. with Clemens Alex. (A.D. 190), and five Latin Fathers beginning with Tertullian (A.D. 190): Cyprian's testi- mony being in fact the voice of the Fourth Council of Carthage, A.D. 253. If on a survey of this body of evidence any one will gravely tell me that the preponderance of authority still seems to him to be in favour of the shorter reason, I can but suggest that the sooner he communicates to the world the grounds for his opinion, the better. (i) In the meantime it becomes necessary to consider the disputed clauses separately, because ancient authori- ties, rivalling modern critics, are unable to agree as to which they will reject, which they will retain. I begin with the second. What persuades so many critics to omit the precious words *cal elirfv, OVK olbare otou irvevp-aros core T^eis. is the discovery that these words are absent from many uncial MSS.,- KABC and nine others ; besides, as might have been confidently anticipated from that fact, also from a fair proportion of the cursive copies. It is impossible to deny that prima facie such an amount of evidence against any words of Scripture is exceedingly weighty. Pseudo-Basil (ii. 271) is found to have read the passage in the same curt way. Cyril, on the other hand, seems to have read it differently. And yet, the entire aspect of the case becomes changed the instant it is perceived that this disputed clause is recog- nized by Clemens x (A.D. 190) ; as well as by the Old Latin, by the Peshitto, and by the Curetonian Syriac : for the fact is thus established that as well in Eastern as in Western Christendom the words under discussion were actually recognized as genuine full a hundred and fifty years before the oldest of the extant uncials came into existence. When it is further found that (besides Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine,) the Vulgate, the Old Egyptian, the Harkleian 1 See the fragment (and Potter's note), Opp. p. 1019 : also Galland. ii. 157. First in Hippoljt., Opp. ed. Fabric, ii. 71. CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 227 Syriac and the Gothic versions also contain the words in question ; and especially that Chrysostom in four places, Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril and Theodoret, besides Antiochus, familiarly quote them, it is evident that the testimony of antiquity in their favour is even overwhelming. Add that in eight uncial MSS. (beginning with D) the words in dispute form part of the text of St. Luke, and that they are recognized by the great mass of the cursive copies, (only six out of the twenty which Scrivener has collated being without them.) and it is plain that at least five tests of genuineness have been fully satisfied. (2) The third clause (6 yap vlbs TOV avOpdnrov OVK fjA#e \l/v\as avdpiT(i)v diroAeo-ai, dX\a o-cocrai) rests on precisely the same solid evidence as the second ; except that the testi- mony of Clemens is no longer available, but only because his quotation does not extend so far. Cod. D also omits this third clause ; which on the other hand is upheld by Tertullian, Cyprian and Ambrose. Tischendorf suggests that it has surreptitiously found its way into the text from St. Luke xix. 10, or St. Matt, xviii. n. But this is impos- sible ; simply because what is found in those two places is essentially different : namely, ??A0 yap 6 vios TOV avdpvTTov {rjrT/crai /cat l troocrai TO cbroAcoAo's. (3 ) We are at liberty in the meantime to note how apt an illustration is here afforded of the amount of consensus which subsists between documents of the oldest class. This divergence becomes most conspicuous when we direct our attention to the grounds for omitting the foremost clause of the three, ws KCU 'HAias firoirja-fv : for here we make the notable discovery that the evidence is not only less weighty, but also different. Codexes B and K are now forsaken by all their former allies except LH and a single cursive copy. True, they are supported by the Curetonian Syriac, the Vulgate and two copies of the Old Latin. But this time 1 In St. Matt, xviii. II, the words frrriaai KCU do not occur. Q2 228 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. they find themselves confronted by Codexes ACD with thirteen other uncials and the whole body of the cursives ; the Peshitto, Coptic, Gothic, and Harkleian versions ; by Clemens, Jerome, Chrysostom, Cyril and pseudo-Basil. In respect of antiquity, variety, respectability, numbers, they are therefore hopelessly outvoted. Do any inquire, How then has all this contradiction and depravation of Codexes NABC(D) come about ? I answer as follows : It was a favourite tenet with the Gnostic heretics that the Law and the Gospel are at variance. In order to establish this, Marcion (in a work called Antitheses) set passages of the New Testament against passages of the Old ; from the seeming disagreement between which his followers were taught to infer that the Law and the Gospel cannot have proceeded from one and the same author 1 . Now here was a place exactly suited to his purpose. The God of the Old Testament had twice sent down fire from heaven to consume fifty men. But ' the Son of Man,' said our Saviour, when invited to do the like, ' came not to destroy men's lives but to save them.' Accordingly, Tertullian in his fourth book against Marcion, refuting this teaching, acquaints us that one of Marcion's ' Con- trasts' was Elijah's severity in calling down fire from Heaven, and the gentleness of CHRIST. ' I acknowledge the severity of the judge,' Tertullian replies ; ' but I recog- nize the same severity on the part of CHRIST towards His Disciples when they proposed to bring down a similar calamity on a Samaritan village V From all of which it 1 Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 468. ' Agnosco iudicis severitatero. E contrario Christi in eandem animadversionem destinantes discipnlos super ilium viculum Samaritarum.' Marc. iv. 23 (see ii. p. 221). He adds, 'Let Marcion also confess that by the same terribly severe judge Christ's leniency was foretold ; ' and he cites in proof Is. xlii. 2 and i Kings xix. 1 2 (' sed in spiriiu miti '). a Augustine (viii. 111-150, 151-182) writes a book against him. And he discusses St. Luke ix. 54-5 on p. 1 39. Addas Adimantus (a disciple of Manes) was the author of a work of the CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 229 is plain that within seventy years of the time when the Gospel was published, the text of St. Luke ix. 54-6 stood very much as at present. But then it is further discovered that at the same remote period (about A.D. 130) this place of Scripture was much fastened on by the enemies of the Gospel. The Manichaean heretics pressed believers with it l . The disciples' appeal to the example of Elijah, and the reproof they incurred, became inconvenient facts. The consequence might be foreseen. With commendable solicitude for GOD'S honour, but through mistaken piety, certain of the orthodox (with- out suspicion of the evil they were committing) were so ill-advised as to erase from their copies the twenty-four words which had been turned to mischievous account as well as to cause copies to be made of the books so mutilated: and behold, at the end of 1,700 years, the calamitous result ! Of these three clauses then, which are closely inter- dependent, and as Tischendorf admits 2 must all three stand or all three fall together, the first is found with ACD, the Old Latin, Peshitto, Clement, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, not with NB the Vulgate or Curetonian. The second and third clauses are found with Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Hark- leian,six Greek and five Latin Fathers, not with NABCD. same kind. Augustine (viii. 606 c) says of it, ' ubi de utroque Testamento velut inter se contraria testimonia proferuntur versipelli dolositate, velut inde ostendatur utrumque ab uno Deo esse non posse, sed alterum ab altero.' Cerdon was the first to promulgate this pestilential tenet (605 a). Then Marcion his pupil, then Apelles, and then Patricius. 1 Titus Bostr. adv. Manichaeos (ap. Galland. v. 329 b), leaving others to note the correspondences between the New and the Old Testament, proposes to handle the ' Contrasts ' : uy>ds avray ras avTiOeads r!av \oyiaiv xvri ff0) P fv - At PP- 339 e > 34 *, b, he confirms what Tertullian says about the calling down of fire from heaven. 2 Verba wy teat 'H. (iroirjaf cur quis addiderit, planum. Eidem interpolator! debentur quae verba arp. Si fireri. aiirots excipiunt. Gravissimum est quod testium additamentum 6 yap vlos, &c. ab eadem manu derivandum est, nee per se solum pro spurio haberi potest ; cohaeret enim cum argumento turn auctori- tate arctissime cum prioribus. (N. T. ed. 1869, p. 544-) 230 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. While K and B are alone in refusing to recognize either first, second or third clause. And this is a fair sample of that ' singular agreement ' which is sometimes said to subsist between 'the lesser group of witnesses.' Is it not plain on the contrary that at a very remote period there existed a fierce conflict, and consequent hopeless divergence of testimony about the present passage ; of which 1,700 years 1 have failed to obliterate the traces? Had NB been our only ancient guides, it might of course have been con- tended that there has been no act of spoliation committed : but seeing that one half of the missing treasure is found with their allies, ACD, Clement Alex., Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, the other half with their allies, Old Latin, Harkleian, Clement, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Jerome, Augus- tine -, it is clear that no such pretence can any longer be set up. 1 Secundo iam saeculo quin in codicibus omnis haec interpolatio circumferri consueverit, dubitari nequit. (Ibid.) 3 The following are the references left by the Dean. I have not had time or strength to search out those which are left unspecified in this MS. and the last. Jerome. Apostoli in Lege versati . . . ulcisci nituntur iniuriam, et imitari Eliam, &c. Dominus, qui non ad iudicandum venerat, sed ad salvandum, &c. . . . increpat eos quod non meminerint doctrinae suae et bonitatis Evangelicae, &c. (i. 857 b, c, d.) Cyprian, Synodical Epistle. 'Filius hominis non venit animas hominum perdere, sed salvare.' p. 98. A.D. 253. Tatian. Veni, inquit, animam salvam facere. (Cam. c. 12 et 10: and Anim. c. 13.) Augustine gives a long extract from the same letter and thus quotes the words twice, x. 76, 482. Cp. ii. 593 a. Kcu 6 Ku/xos irpos rovs anoffTokovs dnovras \v irvpl itoKaaai roi/s fifj St^afjityovs auTous Kara r6i> 'HAi'av OVK oiSarf t]ffl iroiov Tn>(VfMT6s tare. (p. 1019.) Theodoret, iii. 1119. (iroiov.) Epiph. ii. 31. (oiou.) Basil, ii. 271 (Eth.) quotes the whole place. Augustine. Respondit eis Dominus, dicens eos nescire cuius spiritus filii essent, et quod ipse liberare venisset, non perdere. viii. 139 b. Cp. iii. (2), I94b. Cyril Al. M^TTOI TTJS vias KfKpaTrjKuTts xapiTos . . . rovro flirov, rov 'H\iav d(j>i>pS>VTfs rov irvpl K.T.\. Cord. Cat. 263 = Cram. Cat. 81. Also iv. 1017. CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX. 231 The endeavour to establish agreement among the wit- nesses by a skilful distribution or rather dislocation of their evidence, a favourite device with the Critics, involves a fallacy which in any other subject would be denied a place. I trust that henceforth St. Luke ix. 54-6 will be left in undisputed possession of its place in the sacred Text, to which it has an undoubted right. A thoughtful person may still inquire, Can it however be explained further how it has come to pass that the evidence for omitting the first clause and the two last is so unequally divided ? I answer, the disparity is due to the influence of the Lectionaries. Let it be observed then that an ancient Ecclesiastical Lection which used to begin either at St. Luke ix. 44, or else at verse 49 and to extend down to the end of verse 56 l , ended thus, o>s nal 'HAi'as eTroiqo-e ; orpa^eis 8e eTren'/^crei' avroi?. Kal fTtopfv6r]p]v z . It was the Lection for Thursday in the fifth week of the new year ; and as the reader sees, it omitted the two last clauses exactly as Codd. NABC do. Another Ecclesiastical Lection began at verse 51 and extended down to verse 57, and is found to have contained the two last clauses 3 . I wish therefore to inquire .-May it not fairly be presumed that it is the Lectionary practice of the primitive age which has led to the irregularity in this perturbation of the sacred Text ? By a strange slip of memory, Cyril sets down a reproof found in St. Matthew : but this is enough to shew that he admits that some reproof finds record in the Gospel. Chrys. vii. 567 e : x. 305 d : vii. 346 a : ix. 677 c. Opus Imp. ap. Chrys. vi. 211, 219. Didymus. OVK oiSarf oiov irvfVfjiaTos kanv o vlos rov dvOptuirov. De Trin. p. 1 88. 1 Evst. 48 (Matthaei's c) : Evst. 150 (Harl. 5598). 2 See Matthaei, N. T. 1786, vol. ii. p. 17. 3 [I have been unable to discover this Lection.] APPENDIX I. PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. I HAVE purposely reserved for the last the most difficult problem of all : viz. those twelve famous verses of St. John's Gospel (chap. vii. 53 to viii. n) which contain the history of ' the woman taken in adultery,' the pericope de adnltera, as it is called. Altogether indispensable is it that the reader should approach this portion of the Gospel with the greatest amount of experience and the largest preparation. Convenient would it be, no doubt, if he could further divest himself of prejudice ; but that is perhaps impossible. Let him at least endeavour to weigh the evidence which shall now be laid before him in impartial scales. He must do so perforce, if he would judge rightly : for the matter to be discussed is confessedly very peculiar : in some respects, even unique. Let me convince him at once of the truth of what has been so far spoken. It is a singular circumstance that at the end of eighteen centuries two instances, and but two, should exist of a con- siderable portion of Scripture left to the mercy, so to speak, of ' Textual Criticism.' Twelve consecutive Verses in the second Gospel as many consecutive Verses in the fourth are in this predicament. It is singular, I say, that the Providence which has watched so marvellously over the fortunes of the^ Deposit, the Divine Wisdom PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 233 which has made such ample provision for its security all down the ages, should have so ordered the matter, that these two co-extensive problems have survived to our times to be tests of human sagacity, trials of human faithfulness and skill. They present some striking features of correspondence, but far more of contrast, as will presently appear. And yet the most important circum- stance of all cannot be too soon mentioned : viz. that both alike have experienced the same calamitous treatment at the hands of some critics. By common consent the most recent editors deny that either set of Verses can have formed part of the Gospel as it proceeded from the hands of its inspired author. How mistaken is this opinion of theirs in respect of the ' Last twelve verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark,' has been already demonstrated in a separate treatise. I must be content in this place to deal in a far less ceremonious manner with the hostile verdict qf many critics concerning St. John vii. 53-viii. u. That I shall be able to satisfy those persons who profess themselves unconvinced by what was offered concerning St. Mark's last twelve verses, I am not so simple as to expect. But I trust that I shall have with me all candid readers who are capable of weighing evidence impartially, and understanding the nature of logical proof, when it is fully drawn out before them, which indeed is the very qualification that I require of them. And first, the case of the pericope de adultera requires to be placed before the reader in its true bearings. For those who have hitherto discussed it are observed to have ignored certain preliminary considerations which, once clearly apprehended, are all but decisive of the point at issue. There is a fundamental obstacle, I mean, in the way of any attempt to dislodge this portion of the sacred narrative from the context in which it stands, which they seem to have overlooked. I proceed to explain. 234 APPENDIX I. Sufficient prominence has never yet been given to the fact that in the present discussion the burden of proof rests entirely with those who challenge the genuineness of the Pericope under review. In other words, the question before us is not by any means, Shall these Twelve Verses be admitted or, Must they be refused admission into the Sacred Text ? That point has been settled long, long ago. St. John's Twelve verses are in possession. Let those eject them who can. They are known to have occupied their present position for full seventeen hundred years. There never was a time as far as is known when they were not where, and to all intents and purposes what they now are. Is it not evident, that no merely ordinary method of proof, no merely common argument, will avail to dislodge Twelve such Verses as these? ' Twelve such Verses,' I say. For it is the extent of the subject-matter which makes the case so formidable. We have here to do with no dubious clause, concerning which ancient testimony is divided ; no seeming gloss, which is suspected to have overstepped its proper limits, and to have crept in as from the margin ; no importation from another Gospel ; no verse of Scripture which has lost its way ; no weak amplification of the Evangelical meaning ; no tasteless appendix, which encumbers the narrative and almost condemns itself. Nothing of the sort. If it were some inconsiderable portion of Scripture which it was proposed to get rid of by shewing that it is disallowed by a vast amount of ancient evidence, the proceeding would be intelligible. But I take leave to point out that a highly complex and very important incident as related in twelve consecutive verses of the Gospel cannot be so dealt with. Squatters on the waste are liable at any moment to be served with a notice of ejectment : but the owner of a mansion surrounded by broad acres which his ancestors are known to have owned before the Heptarchy, PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 235 may on no account be dispossessed by any such summary process. This to speak without a figure is a connected and very striking portion of the sacred narrative: the description of a considerable incident, complete in itself, full of serious teaching, and of a kind which no one would have ever dared to invent. Those who would assail it success- fully must come forward with weapons of a very different kind from those usually employed in textual warfare. It shall be presently shewn that these Twelve Verses hold their actual place by a more extraordinary right of tenure than any other twelve verses which can be named in the Gospel : but it would be premature to enter upon the proof of that circumstance now. I prefer to invite the reader's attention, next to the actual texture of the pericope de adidtera, by which name (as already explained) the last verse of St. John vii. together with verses I-IT of ch. viii. are familiarly designated. Although external testimony supplies the sole proof of genuineness, it is nevertheless reasonable to inquire what the verses in question may have to say for themselves. Do they carry on their front the tokens of that baseness of origin which their impugners so confidently seek to fasten upon them? Or do they, on the contrary, unmistakably bear the impress of Truth? The first thing which strikes me in them is that the actual narrative concerning ' the woman taken in adultery ' is entirely contained in the last nine of these verses : being preceded by two short paragraphs of an entirely different character and complexion. Let these be first produced and studied : ' and every man went to his own house : but JESUS went to the Mount of Olives.' 'And again, very early in the morningj He presented Himself in the Temple ; and all the people came unto Him : and He sat down and taught them.' Now as every one must see, the former of these two paragraphs is unmistakably not the beginning but the end 236 APPENDIX I. of a narrative. It purports to be the conclusion of some- thing which went before, not to introduce something which comes after. Without any sort of doubt, it is St. John's account of what occurred at the close of the debate between certain members of the Sanhedrin which terminates his history of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles. The verse in question marks the conclusion of the Feast, implies in short that all is already finished. Remove it, and the antecedent narrative ends abruptly. Retain it, and all proceeds methodically ; while an affecting contrast is established, which is recognized to be strictly in the manner of Scripture l . Each one had gone to his home : but the homeless One had repaired to the Mount of Olives. In other words, the paragraph under discussion is found to be an integral part of the immediately antecedent nar- rative : proves to be a fragment of what is universally admitted to be genuine Scripture. By consequence, itself must needs be genuine also 2 . It is vain for any one to remind us that these two verses are in the same predicament as those which follow : are as ill supported by MS. evidence as the other ten : and must therefore share the same fate as the rest. The statement is incorrect, to begin with; as shall presently be shewn. But, what is even better deserving of attention, since con- fessedly these twelve verses are either to stand or else to fall together, it must be candidly admitted that whatever begets a suspicion that certain of them, at all events, must 1 Compare I Sam. xxiv. 22 : ' And Saul went home : but David and his men gat them up into the hold.' \ Kings xviii. 42 : ' So Ahab went up to eat and to drink : and Elijah went up to the top of Car me I, and he cast himself down upon the earth, and put his face between his knees. 1 Esther iii. 15 : 'And the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Shushan was perplexed.' Such are the idioms of the Bible. a Ammonius (Cord. Cat. p. 216), with evident reference to it, remarks that our LORD'S words in verses 37 and 38 were intended as a viaticum which all might take home with them, at the close of this, ' the last, the great day of the feast.' PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 237 needs be genuine, throws real doubt on the justice of the sentence of condemnation which has been passed in a lump upon all the rest. I proceed to call attention to another inconvenient circumstance which some Critics in their eagerness have overlooked. The reader will bear in mind that contending, as I do, that the entire Pericope under discussion is genuine Scripture which has been forcibly wrenched away from its lawful context, I began by examining the upper ex- tremity, with a view to ascertaining whether it bore any traces of being a fractured edge. The result is just what might have been anticipated. The first two of the verses which it is the fashion to brand with ignominy were found to carry on their front clear evidence that they are genuine Scripture. How then about the other extremity ? Note, that in the oracular Codexes B and N immediate transition is made from the words ' out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,' in ch. vii. 52, to the words ' Again therefore JESUS spake unto them, saying,' in ch. viii. 12. And we are invited by all the adverse Critics alike to believe that so the place stood in the inspired autograph of the Evangelist. But the thing is incredible. Look back at what is contained between ch. vii. 37 and 52, and note (a) That two hostile parties crowded the Temple courts (ver. 40-42) : (b] That some were for laying violent hands on our LORD (ver. 44) : (c] That the Sanhedrin, being assembled in debate, were reproaching their servants for not having brought Him prisoner, and disputing one against another 1 (ver. 45-52). How can the Evangelist have proceeded, 1 So Eusebius : "Ore KO.TCL T& aM awa\OivTes ol ruiv 'lovSaicav tdvovs dpxovTfs M rffs 'ItpovvaXrifJ., aweSpiov tnoirjaavro teal aictyii> oirais ainbv auoKtauaiV iv < ol fj.1v Qa.vo.rov aiirov Karetfij^iffavTO' trtpoi 6^ dt>T(\tjov, tls 6 Ni/ro87/>s, IC.T.\. (in Psalmos, p. 230 a). 238 APPENDIX I. ' Again therefore JESUS spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world ' ? What is it supposed then that St. John meant when he wrote such words ? But on the contrary, survey the context in any ordinary copy of the New Testament, and his meaning is perfectly clear. The last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles is ended. It is the morrow and 'very early in the morning.' The Holy One has ' again presented Himself in the Temple ' where on the previous night He so narrowly escaped violence at the hands of His enemies, and He teaches the people. While thus engaged, the time, the place, His own occupation suggesting thoughts of peace and holiness and love, a rabble rout, headed by the Scribes and Pharisees, enter on the foulest of errands ; and we all remember with how little success. Such an interruption need not have occupied much time. The Woman's ac- cusers having departed, our SAVIOUR resumes His discourse which had been broken off. ' Again therefore ' it is said in ver. 12, with clear and frequent reference to what had preceded in ver. 2 ' JESUS spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world.' And had not that saying of His reference as well to the thick cloud of moral darkness which His words, a few moments before, had succeeded in dispelling, as to the orb of glory which already flooded the Temple Court with the effulgence of its rising, His own visible emblem and image in the Heavens ? . . . I protest that with the incident of 'the woman taken in adultery,' so introduced, so dismissed, all is lucid and coherent : without those connecting links, the story is scarcely in- telligible. These twelve disputed verses, so far from ' fatally interrupting the course of St. John's Gospel, if retained in the text Y prove to be even necessary for the 1 Westcott and Hort's prefatory matter (1870) to their revised Text of the New Testament, p. xxvii. PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 239 logical coherency of the entire context in which they stand. But even that is not all. On close and careful inspection, the mysterious texture of the narrative, no less than its 'edifying and eminently Christian' character, vindicates for the Pericope de adultera a right to its place in the Gospel. Let me endeavour to explain what seems to be its spiritual significancy: in other words, to interpret the transaction. The Scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to our SAVIOUR on a charge of adultery. The sin prevailed to such an extent among the Jews that the Divine enactments con- cerning one so accused had long since fallen into practical oblivion. On the present occasion our LORD is observed to revive His own ancient ordinance after a hitherto un- heard of fashion. The trial by the bitter water, or water of conviction \ was a species of ordeal, intended for the vindication of innocence, the conviction of guilt. But according to the traditional belief the test proved in- efficacious, unless the husband was himself innocent of the crime whereof he accused his wife. Let the provisions of the law, contained in Num. v. 16 to 24, be now considered. The accused Woman having been brought near, and set before the LORD, the priest took ' holy water in an earthen vessel,' and put ' of the dust of the floor of the tabernacle into the water.' Then, with the bitter water that causeth the curse in his hand, he charged the woman by an oath. Next, he wrote the curses in a book and blotted them out with the bitter water; causing the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse. Whereupon if she were guilty, she fell under a terrible penalty, her body testifying visibly to her sin. If she was innocent, nothing followed. 1 So in the LXX. See Num. v. 11-31. 240 APPENDIX I. And now, who sees not that the Holy One dealt with His hypocritical assailants, as if they had been the accused parties? Into the presence of incarnate JEHOVAH verily they had been brought : and perhaps when He stooped down and wrote upon the ground, it was a bitter sentence against the adulterer and adulteress which He wrote. We have but to assume some connexion between the curse which He thus traced ' in the dust of the floor of the tabernacle ' and the words which He uttered with His lips, and He may with truth be declared to have ' taken of the dust and put in on the water,' and ' caused them to drink of the bitter water which causeth the curse.' For when, by His Holy Spirit, our great High Priest in His human flesh addressed these adulterers, what did He but present them with living water l ' in an earthen vessel 2 ' ? Did He not further charge them with an oath of cursing, saying, ' If ye have not gone aside to uncleanness, be ye free from this bitter water : but if ye be defiled ' On being presented with which alternative, did they not, self-convicted, go out one by one? And what else was this but their own acquittal of the sinful woman, for whose condemnation they shewed themselves so impatient ? Surely it was ' the water of conviction ' (TO vba>p TOV ekeyiJ.ov) as it is six times called, which they had been compelled to drink ; where- upon, ' convicted (eXeyxo'/xe^oi) by their own conscience/ as St. John relates, they had pronounced the other's acquittal. Finally, note that by Himself declining to ' condemn ' the accused woman, our LORD also did in effect blot out those curses which He had already written against her in the dust, when He made the floor of the sanctuary His 1 book.' Whatever may be thought of the foregoing exposition and I am not concerned to defend it in every detail, on 1 Ver. 17. So the LXX. * 2 Cor. iv. 7 : v. i. PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 24! turning to the opposite contention, we are struck with the slender amount of actual proof with which the assailants of this passage seem to be furnished. Their evidence is mostly negative a proceeding which is constantly observed to attend a bad cause : and they are prone to make up for the feebleness of their facts by the strength of their asser- tions. But my experience, as one who has given a consider- able amount of attention to such subjects, tells me that the narrative before us carries on its front the impress of Divine origin. I venture to think that it vindicates for itself a high, unearthly meaning. It seems to me that it cannot be the work of a fabricator. The more I study it, the more I am impressed with its Divinity. And in what goes before I have been trying to make the reader a partaker of my own conviction. To come now to particulars, we may readily see from its very texture that it must needs have been woven in a heavenly loom. Only too obvious is the remark that the very subject-matter of the chief transaction recorded in these twelve verses, would be sufficient in and by itself to preclude the suspicion that these twelve verses are a spurious addition to the genuine Gospel. And then we note how entirely in St. John's manner is the little ex- planatory clause in ver. 6, ' This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him 1 .' We are struck besides by the prominence given in verses 6 and 8 to the act of writing, allusions to which, are met with in every work of the last Evangelist 2 . It does not of course escape us how utterly beyond the reach of a Western interpolator would have been the insertion of the article so faithfully 1 Compare ch. vi. 6, 71: vii. 39: xi. 13, 51: xii. 6, 33: xiii. n, 28: xxi. 19. 2 Consider ch. xix. 19, 20, 21, 22: xx. 30, 31: xxi. 24, 25.! John i. 4: ii. i, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, 26: v. 13. 2 John c, 12. 3 John 9, 13. Rev. passim, especially i. u, 19: ii. I, &c. : x. 4: xiv. 13: xvii. 8: xix. 9: xx. 12, 15 : xxi. 5, 27 : xxii. 18, 19. II. R 242 APPENDIX I. retained to this hour before \tOov in ver. 7. On complet- ing our survey, as to the assertions that the pericope de adultera 'has no right to a place in the text of the four Gospels,' is 'clearly a Western interpolation, though not Western of the earliest type Y (whatever that may mean), and so forth, we can but suspect that the authors very imperfectly realize the difficulty of the problem with which they have to deal. Dr. Hort finally assures us that ' no accompanying marks would prevent ' this portion of Scrip- ture 'from fatally interrupting the course of St. John's Gospel if retained in the text ' : and when they relegate it accordingly to a blank page at the end of the Gospels within 'double brackets,' in order 'to shew its inferior authority ' ; we can but read and wonder at the want of perception, not to speak of the coolness, which they display. Qnonsqite tandem ? But it is time to turn from such considerations as the foregoing, and to inquire for the direct testimony, which is assumed by recent Editors and Critics to be fatal to these twelve verses. Tischendorf pronounces it ' absolutely certain that this narrative was not written by St. John 2 .' One, vastly his superior in judgement (Dr. Scrivener) declares that ' on all intelligent principles of mere Criticism, the passage must needs be abandoned 3 .' Tregelles is 'fully satisfied that this narrative is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel V Alford shuts it up in brackets, and like Tregelles puts it into his footnotes. W T estcott and Hort, harsher than any of their predecessors, will not, as we have seen, allow it to appear even at the foot of the page. To reproduce all that has been written in disparagement of this precious portion of GOD'S written Word would be a joyless and an unprofitable task. According to Green, 'the 1 Westcott and Hort, ibid. pp. xxvii, xxvi. 3 Novum Testamentum, 1869, p. 829. 3 Plain Introduction, 1894, ii. 364. 4 Printed Texts, 1854, p. 241. PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 243 genuineness of the passage cannot be maintained V Ham- mond is of opinion that ' it would be more satisfactory to separate it from its present context, and place it by itself as an appendix to the Gospel V A yet more recent critic ' sums up,' that ' the external evidence must be held fatal to the genuineness of the passage 3 .' The opinions of Bishops Wordsworth, Ellicott, and Lightfoot, shall be respectfully commented upon by-and-by. In the meantime, I venture to join issue with every one of these learned persons. I con- tend that on all intelligent principles of sound Criticism the passage before us must be maintained to be genuine Scrip- ture ; and that without a particle of doubt. I cannot even admit that ' it has been transmitted to us under circum- stances widely different from those connected with any other passage of Scripture whatever 4 .' I contend that it has been transmitted in precisely the same way as all the rest of Scripture, and therefore exhibits the same notes of genuineness as any other twelve verses of the same Gospel which can be named : but like countless other places it is found for whatever reason to have given offence in certain quarters : and in consequence has experi- enced very ill usage at the hands of the ancients and of the moderns also : but especially of the latter. In other words, these twelve verses exhibit the required notes of genuineness less conspicuously than any other twelve con- secutive verses in the same Gospel. But that is all. The one only question to be decided is the following: On a review of the whole of the evidence, is it more reason- able to stigmatize these twelve verses as a spurious accre- tion to the Gospel ? Or to admit that they must needs be accounted to be genuine ? . . . I shall shew that they are at this hour supported by a weight of testimony which is 1 Developed Criticism, p. 82. * Outlines, &c., p. 103. s Nicholson's Gospel according to the Hebrews, p. 141. 4 Scrivener, ut supra, ii. 368. R a 244 APPENDIX I. absolutely overwhelming. I read with satisfaction that my own convictions were shared by Mill, Matthaei, Adler, Scholz, Vercellone. I have also the learned Ceriani on my side. I should have been just as confident had I stood alone : such is the imperative strength of the evidence. To begin then. Tischendorf (who may be taken as a fair sample of the assailants of this passage) com- mences by stating roundly that the Pericope is omitted by NABCLTXA, and about seventy cursives. I will say at once, that no sincere inquirer after truth could so state the evidence. It is in fact not a true statement. A and C are hereabout defective. No longer possible therefore is it to know with certainty what they either did, or did not, contain. But this is not merely all. I proceed to offer a few words concerning Cod. A. Woide, the learned and accurate l editor of the Codex Alexandrinus, remarked (in 1785) ' Historia adulterae videtur in hoc codice defuisse.' But this modest inference of his, subsequent Critics have represented as an ascertained fact, Tischendorf announces it as ' certissimum.' Let me be allowed to investigate the problem for myself. Woide's calculation, (which has passed unchallenged for nearly a hundred years, and on the strength of which it is now-a- days assumed that Cod. A must have exactly resembled Codd. NB in omitting the pericope de adultera^) was far too roughly made to be of any critical use 2 . Two leaves of Cod. A have been here lost : viz. from the word KaTafiaLviav in vi. 50 to the word Ae'yeis in viii. 52 : a lacuna (as I find by counting the letters in a copy of 1 I insert this epithet on sufficient authority. Mr. Edw. A. Guy, an in- telligent young American, himself a very accurate observer and a competent judge, collated a considerable part of Cod. A in 1875, and assured me that he scarcely ever found any discrepancy between the Codex and Woide's reprint. One instance of italicism was in fact all that had been overlooked in the course of many pages. 3 It is inaccurate also. His five lines contain eight mistakes. Praefat. p. xxx, 86. PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 245 the ordinary text) of as nearly as possible 8,805 letters, allowing for contractions, and of course not reckoning St. John vii. 53 to viii. n. Now, in order to estimate fairly how many letters the two lost leaves actually con- tained, I have inquired for the sums of the letters on the leaf immediately preceding, and also on the leaf immediately succeeding the hiatus ; and I find them to be respectively 4,337 and 4,33 : together, 8,640 letters. But this, it will be seen, is insufficient by 165 letters, or eight lines, for the assumed contents of these two missing leaves. Are we then to suppose that one leaf exhibited somewhere a blank space equivalent to eight lines? Impossible, I answer. There existed, on the contrary, a considerable redundancy of matter in at least the second of those two lost leaves. This is proved by the circumstance that the first column on the next ensuing leaf exhibits the unique phenomenon of being encumbered, at its summit, by two very long lines (containing together fifty-eight letters), for which evidently no room could be found on the page which immediately preceded. But why should there have been any redundancy of matter at all? Something extraordinary must have produced it. What if the Pericope de adultera, without being actually inserted in full, was recognized by Cod. A ? What if the scribe had proceeded as far as the fourth word of St. John viii. 3, and then had suddenly checked himself? We cannot tell what appearance St. John vii. 53-viii. n presented in Codex A, simply because the entire leaf which should have contained it is lost. Enough however has been said already to prove that it is incorrect and unfair to throw NAB into one and the same category, with a ' certissimum,' as Tischendorf does. As for L and A, they exhibit a vacant space after St. John vii. 52, which testifies to the consciousness of the copyists that they were leaving out something. These are therefore witnesses for, not witnesses against, the 246 APPENDIX I. passage under discussion. X being a Commentary on the Gospel as it was read in Church, of course leaves the passage out. The only uncial MSS. therefore which simply leave out the pericope, are the three following NBT : and the degree of attention to which such an amount of evidence is entitled, has been already proved to be wondrous small. We cannot forget moreover that the two former of these copies enjoy the unenviable distinction of standing alone on a memorable occasion : they alone exhibit St. Mark's Gospel mutilated in respect of its twelve concluding verses. But I shall be reminded that about seventy MSS. of later date are without the pericope de adultera : that the first Greek Father who quotes the pericope is Euthymius in the twelfth century : that Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Nonnus, Cosmas, Theophylact, knew nothing of it : and that it is not contained in the Syriac, the Gothic, or the Egyptian versions. Concerning every one of which statements I remark over again that no sincere lover of Truth, supposing him to understand the matter about which he is disputing, could so exhibit the evidence for this particular problem. First, because so to state it is to misrepresent the entire case. Next, because some of the articles of indictment are only half true : in fact are tintme. But chiefly, because in the foregoing enumeration certain considerations are actually suppressed which, had they been fairly stated, would have been found to reverse the issue. Let me now be permitted to conduct this inquiry in my own way. The first thing to be done is to enable the reader clearly to understand what the problem before him actually is. Twelve verses then, which, as a matter of fact, are found dovetailed into a certain context of St. John's Gospel, the Critics insist must now be dislodged. But do the Critics in question prove that they must ? For unless they do, there is no help for it but the pericope de adultera must be PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 247 left where it is. I proceed to shew first, that it is im- possible, on any rational principle to dislodge these twelve verses from their actual context. Next, I shall point out that the facts adduced in evidence and relied on by the assailants of the passage, do not by any means prove the point they are intended to prove ; but admit of a sufficient and satisfactory explanation. Thirdly, it shall be shewn that the said explanation carries with it, and implies, a weight of testimony in support of the twelve verses in dispute, which is absolutely overwhelming. Lastly, the positive evidence in favour of these twelve verses shall be proved to outweigh largely the negative evidence, which is relied upon by those who contend for their removal. To some people I may seem to express myself with too much confidence. Let it then be said once for all, that my confidence is inspired by the strength of the argu- ments which are now to be unfolded. When the Author of Holy Scripture supplies such proofs of His intentions, I cannot do otherwise than rest implicit confidence in them. Now I begin by establishing as my first proposition that, (i) These twelve verses occupied precisely the same position which they now occupy from the earliest period to which evidence concerning the Gospels reaches. And this, because it is a mere matter of fact, is sufficiently established by reference to the ancient Latin version of St. John's Gospel. We are thus carried back to the second century of our era: beyond which, testimony does not reach. The pericope is observed to stand in situ in Codd. b c e ff 2 g h j. Jerome (A.D. 385), after a careful survey of older Greek copies, did not hesitate to retain it in the Vulgate. It is freely referred to and commented on by himself 1 in Palestine : while Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes 1 ii. 630, addressing Rufinus, A.D. 403. Also ii. 748-9. 248 APPENDIX I. it at least nine times l ; as well as Augustine in North Africa (396) about twice as often a . It is quoted besides by Pacian 3 , in the north of Spain (370), by Faustus 4 the African (400), by Rufinus 5 at Aquileia (400), by Chry- sologus 6 at Ravenna (433), by Sedulius 7 a Scot (434). The unknown authors of two famous treatises 8 written at the same period, largely quote this portion of the narrative. It is referred to by Victorius or Victorinus (457), by Vigilius of Tapsus 9 (484) in North Africa, by Gelasius 10 , bp. of Rome (492), by Cassiodorus u in Southern Italy, by Gregory the Great 12 , and by other Fathers of the Western Church. To this it is idle to object that the authors cited all wrote in Latin. For the purpose in hand their evidence is every bit as conclusive as if they had written in Greek, from which language no one doubts that they derived 1 i. 291, 692, 707, 1367 : ii. 668, 894, 1082 : Hi. 892-3, 896-7. 2 i. 30: ii. 527, 529-30: iii 1 . 774: iii 2 . 158, 183, 531-2 (where he quotes the place largely and comments upon it): iv. 149, 466 (largely quoted), 1120: v. 80, 1230 (largely quoted in both places) : vi. 407, 413 : viii. 377, 574. 3 Pacian (A.D. 372) refers the Novatians to the narrative as something which all men knew. ' Nolite in Evangelic legere quod pepercerit Dominus etiam adulterae confitenti, quam nemo damnarat ? ' Pacianus, Op. Epist. iii. Contr. Novat. (A.D. 372). Ap. Galland. vii. 267. 4 Ap. Augustin. viii. 463. 5 In his translation of Eusebius. Nicholson, p. 53. 6 Chrysologns, A.D. 433, Abp. of Ravenna. Venet. 1742. He mystically explains the entire incident. Serm. cxv. 5. 7 Sedulius (A.D. 435) makes it the subject of a poem, and devotes a whole chapter to it. Ap. Galland. ix. 553 and 590. 8 ' Promiss.' De Promissionibus dimid. temp. (saec. iv). Quotes viii. 4, 5, 9. P. 2, c. 22, col. 147 b. Ignot. Auct., De Vocatione omnium Gentium (circa, A.D. 440), ap. Opp. Prosper. Aquit. (1782), i. p. 460-1: ' Adul- teram ex legis constitutione lapidandam . . . liberavit . . . cum executores praecepti de conscientiis territi, trementem ream sub illius iudicio reliquis- sent. . . . Et inclinatus, id est ad humana dimissus ..." digito scribebat in terrain," ut legem mandatorum per gratiae decreta vacuaret,' &c. ' Wrongly ascribed to Idacins. 10 Gelasius P. A.D. 492. Cone. iv. 1235. Quotes viii. 3, 7, 10, n. 11 Cassiodorus, A.D. 514. Venet. 1729. Quotes viii. n. See ii. p. 96, 3, S-^o. 12 Dialogues, xiv. 15. PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 249 their knowledge, through a translation. But in fact we are not left to Latin authorities. [Out of thirty-eight copies of the Bohairic version the pericope de adultera is read in fifteen, but in three forms which will be printed in the Oxford edition. In the remaining twenty-three, it is left out.] How is it intelligible that this passage is thus found in nearly half the copies except on the hypothesis that they formed an integral part of the Memphitic version ? They might have been easily omitted : but how could they have been inserted ? Once more. The Ethiopic version (fifth century), the Palestinian Syriac (which is referred to the fifth century), the Georgian (probably fifth or sixth century), to say nothing of the Slavonic, Arabic and Persian versions, which are of later date, all contain the portion of narrative in dispute. The Armenian version also (fourth-fifth century) originally contained it ; though it survives at present in only a few copies. Add that it is found in Cod. D, and it will be seen that in all parts of ancient Christendom this portion of Scripture was familiarly known in early times. But even this is not all. Jerome, who was familiar with Greek MSS. (and who handled none of later date than B and tf), expressly relates (380) that the pericope de adultera ' is found in many copies both Greek and Latin 1 .' He calls attention to the fact that what is rendered ' sine peccato' is cbajuaprijToj in the Greek: and lets fall an exegetical remark which shews that he was familiar with copies which exhibited (in ver. 8) cypafav evos eKaorou avrcav ras a/xaprtav, a reading which survives to this day in one uncial (U) and at least eighteen cursive copies of the fourth Gospel 2 . Whence is it let me ask in passing that so 1 ii. 748 : In evangelic secundum loannem in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicihus invenitur de adultera muliere, quae accusata est apud Dominum. 2 fvos tKCLffrov ainuiv ras apaprias. Ev. 95, 40, 48, 64, 73, 100, 122, 127, 142, 234, 264, 267, 274, 433, 115, 121, 604, 736. 250 APPENDIX I. many Critics fail to see that positive testimony like the foregoing far outweighs the adverse negative testimony of NBT, aye, and of AC to boot if they were producible on this point ? How comes it to pass that the two Codexes, tf and B, have obtained such a mastery rather exercise such a tyranny over the imagination of many Critics as quite to overpower their practical judgement? We have at all events established our first proposition: viz. that from the earliest period to which testimony reaches, the incident of ' the woman taken in adultery ' occupied its present place in St. John's Gospel. The Critics eagerly remind us that in four cursive copies (13, 69, 124, 346), the verses in question are found tacked on to the end of St. Luke xxi. But have they then forgotten that ' these four Codexes are derived from a common archetype,' and therefore represent one and the same ancient and, I may add, corrupt copy? The same Critics are reminded that in the same four Codexes [commonly called the Ferrar Group] ' the agony and bloody sweat ' (St. Luke xxii. 43, 44) is found thrust into St. Matthew's Gospel between ch. xxvi. 39 and 40. Such licentiousness on the part of a solitary exemplar of the Gospels no more affects the proper place of these or of those verses than the super- fluous digits of a certain man of Gath avail to disturb the induction that to either hand of a human being appertain but five fingers, and to either foot but five toes. It must be admitted then that as far back as testimony reaches the passage under discussion stood where it now stands in St. John's Gospel. And this is my first position. But indeed, to be candid, hardly any one has seriously called that fact in question. No, nor do any (except Dr. Hort l ) doubt that the passage is also of the remotest antiquity. Adverse Critics do but insist that however ancient, it must needs be of spurious origin : or else that 1 Appendix, p. 88. PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 251 it is an afterthought of the Evangelist : concerning both which imaginations we shall have a few words to offer by- and-by. It clearly follows, indeed it may be said with truth that it only remains, to inquire what may have led to its so frequent exclusion from the sacred Text ? For really the difficulty has already resolved itself into that. And on this head, it is idle to affect perplexity. In the earliest age of all, the age which was familiar with the universal decay of heathen virtue, but which had not yet witnessed the power of the Gospel to fashion society afresh, and to build up domestic life on a new and more enduring basis ; at a time when the greatest laxity of morals prevailed, and the enemies of the Gospel were known to be on the look out for grounds of cavil against Christianity and its Author; what wonder if some were found to remove the pericope de adultera from their copies, lest it should be pleaded in extenuation of breaches of the seventh commandment? The very subject-matter, I say, of St. John viii. 3-11 would sufficiently account for the occasional omission of those nine verses. Moral con- siderations abundantly explain what is found to have here and there happened. But in fact this is not a mere con- jecture of my own. It is the reason assigned by Augustine for the erasure of these twelve verses from many copies of the Gospel J . Ambrose, a quarter of a century earlier, had clearly intimated that danger was popularly appre- i v i. 407 : Sed hoc videlicet infidelium sensus exhorret, ita ut nonnulli modicae fidei vel potius inimici verae fidei, (credo metuentes peccandi impuni- tatem dari mulieribus suis), illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit, auferrent de codicibus suis: quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui dixit, 'lam deinceps noli peccare;' aut ideo non debuerit mulier a medico Deo illius peccati remissioue sanari, ne offenderentur insani. De coniug. adult, ii. cap. 7. i. 707 : Fortasse non mediocrem scrupulum movere potuit impends Evangelii lectio, quae decursa est, in quo advertistis adulteram Chnsto oblatam, eamque sine damnatione dimissam. Nam profecto si quis ea auribus accipiat otiosis, incentivum erroris incurrit, cum leget quod Deus censuerit adulterium non esse damnandutn. 252 APPENDIX I. bended from this quarter l : while Nicon, five centuries later, states plainly that the mischievous tendency of the narrative was the cause why it had been expunged from the Armenian version 2 . Accordingly, just a few Greek copies are still to be found mutilated in respect of those nine verses only. But in fact the indications are not a few that all the twelve verses under discussion did not by any means labour under the same degree of disrepute. The first three (as I shewed at the out- set) clearly belong to a different category from the last nine, a circumstance which has been too much overlooked. The Church in the meantime for an obvious reason had made choice of St. John vii. 37-viii. 12 the greater part of which is clearly descriptive of what happened at the Feast of Tabernacles for her Pentecostal lesson : and judged it expedient, besides omitting as inappropriate to the occasion the incident of the woman taken in adultery, to ignore also the three preceding verses ; making the severance begin, in fact, as far back as the end of ch. vii. 52. The reason for this is plain. In this way the allusion to a certain departure at night, and return early next morning (St. John vii. 53: viii. 1), was avoided, which entirely marred the effect of the lection as the history of a day of great and special solemnity, ' the great day of the Feast.' And thus it happens that the gospel for the day of Pentecost was made to proceed directly from ' Search and look : for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,' in ch. vii. 52, to 'Then spake JESUS unto them, saying, I am the light of the world/ in ch. viii. 13; with which it ends. In other words, an omission which owed its beginning to a moral scruple 1 Epist. 58. Quid scribebat? nisi illud Propheticum (Jer. xxii. 29-30), Terra, terra, scribe has vivos abdicates. " Constt. App. (Gen. iii. 49). Nicon (Gen. iii. 250). I am not certain about these two references. PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 253 was eventually extended for a liturgical consideration ; and resulted in severing twelve verses of St. John's Gospel ch. vii. 53 to viii. n from their lawful context. We may now proceed to the consideration of my second proposition, which is (2) That by the very construction of her Lectionary, the Church in her corporate capacity and official character has solemnly recognized tlie narrative in question as an integral part of St. Johns Gospel, and as standing in its traditional place ', from an exceedingly remote time. Take into your hands at random the first MS. copy of St. John's Gospel which presents itself, and turn to the place in question. Nay, I will instance all the four Evan- gelia which I call mine, all the seventeen which belong to Lord Zouch, all the thirty-nine which Baroness Burdett- Coutts imported from Epirus in 1870-2. Now all these copies (and nearly each of them represents a different line of ancestry) are found to contain the verses in question. How did the verses ever get there ? But the most extraordinary circumstance of the case is behind. Some out of the Evangelia referred to are observed to have been prepared for ecclesiastical use : in other words, are so rubricated throughout as to shew where every separate lection had its 'beginning' (apx??), and where its 'end' (re'Aos). And some of these lections are made up of dis- jointed portions of the Gospel. Thus, the lection for Whitsunday is found to have extended from St. John vii. 37 to St. John viii. 12; beginning at the words TTJ ea-^aT-f] fjiJiepq TTJ /xeyaArj, and ending ro $>$ rijs Alexandrian Readings. It should be added, that w, x, y, z, &c., denote forms of corruption. We do not recognize the ' Neutral ' at all, believing it to be a Caesarean combination or recension, made from previous texts or readings of a corrupt character. The question is, which is the true theory, Dr. Hort's or ours? The general points that strike us with reference to Dr. Hort's theory are: (1) That it is very vague and indeterminate in nature. Given three things, of which X includes what is in Y and Z, upon the face of the theory either X may have arisen by synthesis from Y and Z, or X and Z may owe their origin by analysis to X. (2) Upon examination it is found that Dr. Hort's argu- ments for the posteriority of D are mainly of an internal character, and are loose and imaginative, depending largely upon personal or literary predilections. (3) That it is exceedingly improbable that the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries, which in a most able period had been occupied with discussions on verbal accuracy, should have made the gross mistake of adopting (what was then) a modern concoction from the original CONFLATION. 269 text of the Gospels, which had been written less than three or four centuries before ; and that their error should have been acknowledged as truth, and perpetuated by the ages that succeeded them down to the present time. But we must draw nearer to Dr. Hort's argument. He founds it upon a detailed examination of eight passages, viz. St. Mark vi. 33 ; viii. 26 ; ix. 38 ; ix. 49 ; St. Luke ix. 10 ; xi. 54 ; xii. 18 ; xxiv. 53. i. Remark that eight is a round and divisible number. Did the author decide upon it with a view of presenting two specimens from each Gospel? To be sure, he gives four from the first two, and four from the two last, only that he confines the batches severally to St. Mark and St. Luke. Did the strong style of St. Matthew, with distinct meaning in every word, yield no suitable example for treatment? Could no passage be found in St. John's Gospel, where not without parallel, but to a remarkable degree, extreme simplicity of language, even expressed in alternative clauses, clothes soaring thought and philosophical acuteness ? True, that he quotes St. John v. 37 as an instance of Conflation by the Codex Bezae which is anything but an embodiment of the Traditional or ' Syrian ' Text, and xiii. 24 which is similarly irrelevant. Neither of these instances therefore fill up the gap, and are accordingly not included in the selected eight. What can we infer from this presentment, but that ' Conflation ' is probably not of frequent occurrence as has been imagined, but may indeed be to admit for a moment its existence nothing more than an occasional incident? For surely, if specimens in St. Matthew and St. John had abounded to his hand, and accordingly ' Con- flation ' had been largely employed throughout the Gospels, Dr. Hort would not have exercised so restricted, and yet so round a choice. 2. But we must advance a step further. Dean Burgon as we have seen has calculated the differences between 270 APPENDIX II. B and the Received Text at 7,578, and those which divide tf and the Received Text as reaching 8,972. He divided these totals respectively under 2,877 and 3,455 omissions, 536 and 839 additions, 2,098 and 2,299 transpositions, and 2,067 and 2,379 substitutions and modifications combined. Of these classes, it is evident that Conflation has nothing to do with Additions or Transpositions. Nor indeed with Substitutions, although one of Dr. Hort's instances appears to prove that it has. Conflation is the combination of two (or more) different expressions into one. If therefore both expressions occur in one of the elements, the Con- flation has been made beforehand, and a substitution then occurs instead of a conflation. So in St. Luke xii. 18, B, &c., read rbv a-lrov /cat ra ayaOa pov, which Dr. Hort 1 considers to be made by Conflation into ra yer^ara pov /cat TO. ayaQa pov, because ra yez^juara fj.ov is found in Western documents. The logic is strange, but as Dr. Hort has claimed it, we must perhaps allow him to have intended to include with this strange incongruity some though not many Substitutions in his class of instances, only that we should like to know definitely what substitutions were to be comprised in this class. For I shrewdly suspect that there were actually none. Omissions are now left to us, of which the greater specimens can hardly have been produced by Conflation. How, for instance, could you get the last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, or the Pericope de Adultera, or St. Luke xxii. 43-44, or any of the rest of the forty-five whole verses in the Gospels upon which a slur is cast by the Neologian school ? Consequently, the area of Conflation is greatly reduced. And I venture to think, that supposing for a moment the theory to be sound, it could not account for any large number of variations, but would at the best only be a sign or symptom found every 1 Introduction, p. 103. CONFLATION. 271 now and then of the derivation attributed to the Received Text. 3. But we must go on towards the heart of the question. And first to examine Dr. Hort's eight instances. Unfor- tunately, the early patristic evidence on these verses is scanty. We have little evidence of a direct character to light up the dark sea of conjecture. (i) St. Mark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion the multitude, when they beheld our Saviour and his disciples on their way in a ship crossing to the other side of the lake, ran together ((rvv&pa.\j.ov) from all their cities to the point which He was making for (e/cei), and arrived there before the Lord and His followers (TrporjXdov avrovs), and on His approach came in a body to Him (crvvij\9ov vpos avrov}. And on disembarking (KOI eeA0wi>, i.e. CK TOV TrAotou, ver. 32), &c. It should be observed, that it was only the Apostles who knew that His ultimate object was ' a desert place' (ver. 31, 30): the indiscriminate multitude could only discern the bay or cape towards which the boat was going : and up to what I have described as the disembark- ation (ver. 34), nothing has been said of His movements, except that He was in the boat upon the lake. The account is pictorial. We see the little craft toiling on the lake, the people on the shores running all in one direction, and on their reaching the heights above the place of landing watching His approach, and then descending together to Him to the point where He is going to land. There is nothing weak or superfluous in the description. Though condensed (what would a modern history have made of it ?), it is all natural and in due place. Now for Dr. Hort. He observes that one clause (Kv cannot mean that 'He "came out "of His retirement in some sequestered nook to meet them,' such a nook being not mentioned by St. Mark, whereas i:\olov is ; nor can e/cet denote ' the desert region.' Indeed the position of that region or nook was known before it was reached solely to our Lord and His Apostles : the multitude was guided only by what they saw, or at least by vague surmise. Accordingly, Dr. Hort's conclusion must be reversed. ' The balance of Internal Evidence of Readings, alike from Transcriptional and from Intrinsic Probability, is decidedly' not ' in favour of 8 from a and ft,' but ' of a and ft from 8.' The reading of the Traditional Text is the superior both as regards the meaning, and as to the probability of its CONFLATION. 273 pre-existence. The derivation of the two others from that is explained by that besetting fault of transcribers which is termed Omission. Above all, the Traditional reading is proved by a largely over-balancing weight of evidence. (2) ' To examine other passages equally in detail would occupy too much space.' So says Dr. Hort : but we must examine points that require attention. St. Mark viii. 26. After curing the blind man outside Bethsaida, our Lord in that remarkable period of His career directed him, according to the Traditional reading, (a) neither to enter into that place, /ui7j8e ei* TT\V KWJATJJ; (larfXdrji, nor (/3) to tell what had happened to any inhabi- tant of Bethsaida (/xrjSe enn/s rtvl fv rfi few/*?;). Either some one who did not understand the Greek, or some matter- of-fact and officious scholar, or both, thought or maintained that ri/'l ev rf) KW/ZT/ must mean some one who was at the moment actually in the place. So the second clause got to be omitted from the text of Btf, who are followed only by one cursive and a half (the first reading of i being afterwards corrected), and the Bohairic version, and the Lewis MS. The Traditional reading is attested by ACN2 and thirteen other Uncials, all Cursives except eight, of which six with <& read a consolidation of both clauses, by several versions, and by Theophylact (i. 210) who is the only Father that quotes the place. This evidence ought amply to ensure the genuineness of this reading. But what says Dr. Hort ? ' Here a is simple and vigorous, and it is unique in the New Testament: the peculiar MijSe has the terse force of many sayings as given by St. Mark, but the softening into Mij by K* shews that it might trouble scribes.' It is surely not necessary to controvert this. It may be said however that a is bald as well as simple, and that the very difficulty in /3 makes it probable that that clause was not invented. To take nvl (v rf) Ktofi?/ Hebraistically for nvl rS>v ei> ry KW/XT?, like the II. T 274 APPENDIX II. Ti? fv iiy.lv of St. James v. 19*, need not trouble scholars, I think. Otherwise they can follow Meyer, according to Winer's Grammar (II. 511), and translate the second //rj8e nor even. At all events, this is a poor pillar to support a great theory. (3) St. Mark ix. 38. ' Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, (/3) who doth not follow us, and we forbad him (a) because he followeth not us.' Here the authority for a is tfBCLA, four Cursives, f. Bohairic, Peshitto, Ethiopic, and the Lewis MS. For /3 there are D, two Cursives, all the Old Latin but f and the Vulgate. For the Traditional Text, i. e. the whole passage, ASN + eleven Uncials, all the Cursives but six, the Hark- leian (yet obelizes a) and Gothic versions, Basil (ii. 252), Victor of Antioch (Cramer, Cat. i. 365), Theophylact (i. 219) : and Augustine quotes separately both omissions (a ix. 533, and j3 III. ii. 153). No other Fathers, so far as I can find, quote the passage. Dr. Hort appears to advance no special arguments on his side, relying apparently upon the obvious repetition. In the first part of the verse, St. John describes the case of the man : in the second he reports for our Lord's judge- ment the grounds of the prohibition which the Apostles gave him. Is it so certain that the original text of the passage contained only the description, and omitted the reason of the prohibition as it was given to the non- follower of our Lord ? To me it seems that the simplicity of St. Mark's style is best preserved by the inclusion of both. The Apostles did not curtly forbid the man : they treated him with reasonableness, and in the same spirit St. John reported to his Master all that occurred. Besides this, the evidence on the Traditional side is too strong to admit of it not being the genuine reading. 1 Cp. St. Luke xviii. 2, 3. Its is used with i, St. Luke xi. 15, xxiv. 24 ; St. John vi. 64, vii. 25, ix. 16, xi. 37, 46; Acts xi. 20, xiii. i, &c. CONFLATION. 275 (4) St. Mark ix. 49. For (a) every one shall be salted with fire, (/3) and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt/ The authorities are a. NBLA, fifteen Cursives, some MSS. of the Bohairic, some of the Armenian, and the Lewis. . D, six copies of the Old Latin, three MSS. of the Vulgate. Chromatius of Aquileia (Galland. viii. 338). Trad. Text. AC3>2N and twelve more Uncials, all Cursives except fifteen, two Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, some MSS. of Ethiopic and Armenian, Gothic, Victor of Antioch (Cramer's Cat. i. 368), Theophylact (i. 221). This evidence must surely be conclusive of the genuineness of the Traditional reading. But now for Dr. Hort. 'A reminiscence of Lev. vii. 13 ... has created ft out of a.' But why should not the reminiscence have been our Lord's ? The passage appears like a quotation, or an adaptation, of some authoritative saying. He positively advances no other argument than the one just quoted, beyond stating two points in which the alteration might be easily effected. (5) St. Luke ix. 10. 'He took (His Apostles) and withdrew privately a. Into a city called Bethsaida (a? TroAir K.aKov^vr\v B.). ft. Into a desert place (ei TOTTOV epr/^oy), or Into a desert place called Bethsaida, or of Bethsaida. Trad. Text. Into a desert place belonging to a city called Bethsaida.' The evidence for these readings respectively is a. BLXE, with one correction of tf (C a ), one Cursive, the Bohairic and Sahidic. D reads K(J>WV. ft. The first and later readings (C b ) of K, four Cursives ?, Curetonian, some variant Old Latin (ft 2 ), Peshitto also variant (/3 3 ). T 2 276 APPENDIX II. Trad. Text. A (with fpypov TOTTOV) C + twelve Uncials, all Cursives except three or five, Harkleian. Lewis (omits fpi][j.ov), Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, with Theophylact (i- 332)- Remark the curious character of a and /3. In Dr. Hort's Neutral Text, which he maintains to have been the original text of the Gospels, our Lord is represented here as having withdrawn in private (KOT' ibiav, which the Revisers shirking the difficulty translate inaccurately ' apart ') into the city called Bethsaida. How could there have been privacy of life in a city in those days ? In fact, K.O.T Ibiav necessitates the adoption of TOTTOV fprjfj.ov, as to which the Peshitto (/3 3 ) is in substantial agreement with the Traditional Text. Bethsaida is represented as the capital of a district, which included, at sufficient distance from the city, a desert or retired spot. The group arranged under /3 is so weakly supported, and is evidently such a group of fragments, that it can come into no sort of competition with the Traditional reading. Dr. Hort confines himself to shewing how the process he advocates might have arisen, not that it did actually arise. Indeed, this position can only be held by assuming the conclusion to be established that it did so arise. (6) St. Luke xi. 54. ' The Scribes and Pharisees began to urge Him vehemently and to provoke Him to speak of many things (eve8pe;orres Orjpfvcrai), a. Laying wait for Him to catch something out of His mouth. . Seeking to get some opportunity (a^op^v TIVO) for finding out how to accuse Him ("va (vp dSeA^w avrov ; (3) ix. 13, ds fjifTavoiav ; (4) x. 3, Ae/3/3ctios and 0a58cuos ; (5) xii. 22, rv(f>Xbv KOI and KUH^OV ; (6) xv. 5> Tov irarepa avrov and (77) TTJV /^ujre'pa avrov ; (7) xviii. 35? a^o T&V Kapbi&v v^wv and ra 7rapa777co/^aTa avratv ; and (8) xxvi. 3, ol TrpcfffivTcpoi (KCU) ol Fpa^aret?. I have had some difficulty in making up the number. Of those selected as well as I could, seven are cases of single omission or of one pure omission apiece, though their structure presents a possibility of two members for Conflation ; whilst the Western element comes in sparsely or appears in favour of both the omission and the retention ; and, thirdly, in some cases, as in (2) and (3), the support is not only Western, but universal. Conse- quently, all but (4) are excluded. Of (4) Dr. Hort remarks, (Notes on Select Readings, p. n) that it is ' a case of Conflation of the true and the chief Western Texts,' and accordingly it does not come within the charmed circle. B. From St. Mark we get, (i) i. i, TloS TOV Qtov and 'I CONFLATION. 2 8l Xpiorou ; (2) i. 2, f^Trpoa-Ofv /xoVw ; (3) viii. 54, fKfiaXuv ea> Travras (KOI), or /cparrjo-a? T^S \upbs avrijs ; xi. 4, (dAAa) pvo-ai YHJ.O.S curb rov Trovrjpov, or fj.rj eio-eWyxr/s ?//ias cts -Tretpacr/xoV. In all these cases, examination discloses that they are examples of pure omission of only one of the alternatives. The only evidence against this is the solitary rejection of jue/xyjo-reu//evr/ by the Lewis Codex. D. We now come to St. John. See (i) iii. 15, JATJ 0770X77- TCU, or exr/ (^V cuomoz> ; (2) iv. 14, ov JUT) 811/07077 eis TOV ai&va, or ro vbwp o Swo-co avTtp yevrjaerai cy avra> 7777^ vSaro?, K.r.A. ; (3) iv. 42, 6 Xpio-To'?, or 6 o-a>TT)/> TOU Koo-jtxou ; (4) iv. 51, KOI and Xlyopres ; (5) v. 16, KOI e^rouy avroy 0770- and e8twKoy avro'y ; (6) vi. 51, 771; cyw Swo-co, or ov tya ; (7) ix. i, 25, KCU eiTrey or aneKpiOr] ; (8) xiii. 31, 32, ci 6 0eos fbo^aaOr] 2v avrta, and KO! 6 0eo? (bod(r6T) tv avria. All these instances turn out to be single omissions: a fact which is the more remarkable, because St. John's style so readily lends itself to parallel or antithetical expressions involving the same result in meaning, that we should expect confla- tions to shew themselves constantly if the Traditional Text had so coalesced. How surprising a result : almost too surprising. Does it not immensely strengthen my contention that Dr. Hort took wrongly Conflation for the reverse process? That in the earliest ages, when the Church did not include in her ranks so much learning as it has possessed ever since, the wear and tear of time, aided by unfaith and carelessness, 282 APPENDIX II. made itself felt in many an instance of destructiveness which involved a temporary chipping of the Sacred Text all through the Holy Gospels ? And, in fact, that Conflation at least as an extensive process, if not altogether, did not really exist. THE NEUTRAL TEXT. Here we are brought face to face with the question respecting the Neutral Text. What in fact is it, and does it deserve the name which Dr. Hort and his followers have attempted to confer permanently upon it? What is the relation that it bears to other so-called Texts ? So much has been already advanced upon this subject in the companion volume and in the present, that great conciseness is here both possible and expedient. But it may be useful to bring the sum or substance of those discussions into one focus. 1. The so-called Neutral Text, as any reader of Dr. Hort's Introduction will see, is the text of B and tf and their small following. That following is made up of Z in St. Matthew, A in St. Mark, the fragmentary H in St. Luke, with frequent agreement with them of D, and of the eighth century L ; with occasional support from some of the group of Cursives, consisting of i, 33, 118, 131, 157, 205, 209, and from the Ferrar group, or now and then from some others, as well as from the Latin k, and the Egyptian or other versions. This perhaps appears to be a larger number than our readers may have supposed, but rarely are more than ten MSS. found together, and generally speaking less, and often much less than that. To all general intents and purposes, the Neutral Text is the text of B-tf. 2. Following facts and avoiding speculation, the Neutral Text appears hardly in history except at the Semiarian NEUTRAL TEXT. 283 period. It was almost disowned ever after : and there is no certainty nothing more than inference which we hold, and claim to have proved, to be imaginary and delusive, that, except as represented in the corruption which it gathered out of the chaos of the earliest times, it made any appearance. 3. Thus, as a matter of history acknowledged by Dr. Hort, it was mainly superseded before the end of the century of its emergence by the Traditional Text, which, except in the tenets of a school of critics in the nineteenth century, has reigned supreme ever since. 4. That it was not the original text of the Gospels, as maintained by Dr. Hort, I claim to have established from an examination of the quotations from the Gospels made by the Fathers. It has been proved that not only in number, but still more conclusively in quality, the Traditional Text enjoyed a great superiority of attestation over all the kinds of corruption advocated by some critics which I have just now mentioned 1 . This conclusion is strengthened by the verdict of the early versions. 5. The inferiority of the ' Neutral Text ' is demonstrated by the overwhelming weight of evidence which is mar- shalled against it on passages under dispute. This glaring contrast is increased by the disagreement among them- selves of the supporters of that Text, or class of readings. As to antiquity, number, variety, weight, and continuity, that Text falls hopelessly behind : and by internal evidence also the texts of B and N, and still more the eccentric text of the Western D, are proved to be manifestly inferior. 6. It has been shewn also by evidence, direct as well as 1 An attempt in the Guardian has been made in a review full of errors to 'weaken the effect of my list by an examination of an unique set of details. A correction both of the reviewer's figures in one instance and of my own may be found above, pp. 144-153. There is no virtue in an exact proportion of 3 : 2, or of 6 : I. A great majority will ultimately be found on our side. 284 APPENDIX II. inferential, that B and tf issued nearly together from the library or school of Caesarea. The fact of their being the oldest MSS. of the New Testament in existence, which has naturally misled people and caused them to be credited with extraordinary value, has been referred, as being mainly due, to their having been written on vellum accord- ing to the fashion introduced in that school, instead of the ordinary papyrus. The fact of such preservation is really to their discredit, instead of resounding to their honour, because if they had enjoyed general approval, they would probably have perished creditably many centuries ago in the constant use for which they were intended. Such are the main points in the indictment and in the history of the Neutral Text, or rather to speak with more appropriate accuracy, avoiding the danger of drawing with too definite a form and too deep a shade of the class of readings represented by B and tf. It is interesting to trace further, though very summarily, the connexion between this class of readings and the corruptions of the Original Text which existed previously to the early middle of the fourth century. Such brief tracing will lead us to a view of some causes of the development of Dr. Hort's theory. The analysis of Corruption supplied as to the various kinds of it by Dean Burgon has taught us how they severally arose. This is fresh in the mind of readers, and I will not spoil it by repetition. But the studies of textual critics have led them to combine all kinds of corruption chiefly under the two heads of the Western or Syrio- Low-Latin class, and in a less prominent province of the Alexandrian. Dr. Hort's Neutral is really a combination of those two, with all the accuracy that these phenomena admit. But of course, if the Neutral were indeed the original Text, it would not do for it to be too closely con- nected with one of such bad reputation as the Western, NEUTRAL TEXT. 285 which must be kept in the distance at all hazards. There- fore he represented it all unconsciously no doubt and with the best intention as one of the sources of the Traditional, or as he called it the ' Syrian ' Text. Hence this imputed connexion between the Western and the Traditional Text became the essential part of his framework of Conflation, which could not exist without it. For any permanent purpose, all this handiwork was in vain. To say no more, D, which is the chief representative of the Western Text, is too constant a supporter of the peculiar readings of B and N not to prove its near relationship to them. The ' Neutral ' Text derives the chief part of its support from Western sources. It is useless for Dr. Hort to disown his leading constituents. And on the other hand, the Syrio-Low-Latin Text is too alien to the Tra- ditional to be the chief element in any process, Conflate or other, out of which it could have been constructed. The occasional support of some of the Old Latin MSS. is nothing to the point in such a proof. They are so fitful and uncertain, that some of them may witness to almost anything. If Dr. Hort's theory of Conflation had been sounder, there would have been no lack of examples. ' Naturam expellas furca : tamen nsque recurret.' He was tempted to the impossible task of driving water uphill. Therefore I claim, not only to have refuted Dr. Hort, whose theory is proved to be even more baseless than I ever imagined, but by excavating more deeply than he did, to have discovered the cause of his error. No : the true theory is, that the Traditional Text not in superhuman perfection, though under some superhuman Guidance is the embodiment of the original Text of the New Testament. In the earliest times, just as false doctrines were widely spread, so corrupt readings prevailed in many places. Later on, when Christianity was better 286 APPENDIX II. understood, and the Church reckoned amongst the learned and holy of her members the finest natures and intellects of the world, and many clever men of inferior character endeavoured to vitiate Doctrine and lower Christian life, evil rose to the surface, and was in due time after a severe struggle removed by the sound and faithful of the day. So heresy was rampant for a while, and was then replaced by true and well-grounded belief. With great ability and with wise discretion, the Deposit whether of Faith or Word was verified and established. General Councils decided in those days upon the Faith, and the Creed when accepted and approved by the universal voice was enacted for good and bequeathed to future ages. So it was both as to the Canon and the Words of Holy Scripture, only that all was done quietly. As to the latter, hardly a footfall was heard. But none the less, corruption after short-lived prominence sank into deep and still deeper obscurity, whilst the teaching of fifteen centuries placed the true Text upon a firm and lasting basis. And so I venture to hold, now that the question has been raised, both the learned and the well-informed will come gradually to see, that no other course respecting the Words of the New Testament is so strongly justified by the evidence, none so -sound and large-minded, none so reasonable in every way, none so consonant with intelligent faith, none so productive of guidance and comfort and hope, as to maintain against all the assaults of cor- ruption THE TRADITIONAL TEXT. GENERAL INDEX. N or Sinaitic MS., 2, 196. Accident, 8 ; pure A., 24-35. Addition, 166-7, 270. Ages, earliest, 2. Alexandrian error, 45 ; readings App. II. 268, 284, Alford, passim. Ammonius, 200. Antiquity, our appeal always made to, 194-5. Apolinarius, or -is (or Apoll.), 224, 257- Arians, 204, 218. Assimilation, 100-1 27 ; what it was, 101-2; must be delicately handled, 115. Attraction, 123-7. B. B or Vatican MS., 2, 8, 196; kaki- graphy of, 64 note : virtually with N the ' Neutral ' text, 282. Basilides, 195, 197-9, 2J 8 note 2. Blunder, history of a, 24-7. Bohairic Version, 249, and passim. C. Caesarea, library of, 284. Cerinthus, 201. Clement of Alexandria, 193. Conflation, 266-82. Correctors of MSS., 21. Corruption, first origin of, 3-8 ; classes of 8-9, 23 ; general, 10-23 5 prevailed from the first, 1 2 ; the most corrupt authorities, 8, 14; in early Fathers, 193-4. Curetonian Version, passim. See Traditional Text. Cursive MSS., a group of eccentric, 282 ; Ferrar group, 282. D. D or Codex Bezae, 8. A, or Sangallensis, 8. Damascus, 5. Diatessarons, 89, 96-8, 101. See Tatian. Doxology, in the Lord's Prayer, 81-8. E. Eclogadion, 69. Epiphanius, 205, 211-2. Erasmus, 10. Error, slight clerical, 27-31. Euroclydon, 46. Evangelistaria (the right name), 67. F. Falconer's St. Paul's voyage, 46-7. Fathers, passim ; earliest, 193. Faustinus, 218. Ferrar group of Cursives, 282. Field, Dr., 28 note 5, 30 and note 2. G. Galilee of the Gentiles, 4-5. Genealogy, 22. See Traditional Text. Glosses, 94-5, 98, 172-90; de- scribed, 172. Gospels, the four, probable date of, 7. Guardian, review in, Pref, 150-2, 283 note. Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., 115 note. H. Harmonistic influence, 89-99. Heracleon, 190, 202, 204, 215 note 2. Heretics, corruptions by, 199-210; not always dishonest, 191 ; very numerous, 199 &c. Homoeoteleuton, 36-41; explained, 286 APPENDIX II. understood, and the Church reckoned amongst the learned and holy of her members the finest natures and intellects of the world, and many clever men of inferior character endeavoured to vitiate Doctrine and lower Christian life, evil rose to the surface, and was in due time after a severe struggle removed by the sound and faithful of the day. So heresy was rampant for a while, and was then replaced by true and well-grounded belief. With great ability and with wise discretion, the Deposit whether of Faith or Word was verified and established. General Councils decided in those days upon the Faith, and the Creed when accepted and approved by the universal voice was enacted for good and bequeathed to future ages. So it was both as to the Canon and the Words of Holy Scripture, only that all was done quietly. As to the latter, hardly a footfall was heard. But none the less, corruption after short-lived prominence sank into deep and still deeper obscurity, whilst the teaching of fifteen centuries placed the true Text upon a firm and lasting basis. And so I venture to hold, now that the question has been raised, both the learned and the well-informed will come gradually to see, that no other course respecting the Words of the New Testament is so strongly justified by the evidence, none so sound and large-minded, none so reasonable in every way, none so consonant with intelligent faith, none so productive of guidance and comfort and hope, as to maintain against all the assaults of cor- ruption THE TRADITIONAL TEXT. GENERAL INDEX. A. N or Sinaitic MS., 2, 196. Accident, 8 ; pure A., 24-35. Addition, 166-7, 2 7- Ages, earliest, 2. Alexandrian error, 45 ; readings App. II. 268, 284. Alford, passim. Animonius, 200. Antiquity, our appeal always made to, 194-5. Apolinarius, or -is (or Apoll.), 224, 257- Arians, 204, 218. Assimilation, 100-1 27 ; what it was, 101-2 ; must be delicately handled, 115. Attraction, 123-7. B. B or Vatican MS., 2, 8, 196; kaki- graphy of, 64 note : virtually with N the ' Neutral ' text, 282. Basilides, 195, 197-9, 218 note 2. Blunder, history of a, 24-7. Bohairic Version, 249, and passim. C. Caesarea, library of, 284. Cerinthus, 201. Clement of Alexandria, 193. Conflation, 266-82. Correctors of MSS., 21. Corruption, first origin of, 3-8 ; classes of 8-9, 23 ; general, 10-23 I prevailed from the first, 1 2 ; the most corrupt authorities, 8, 14; in early Fathers, 193-4. Curetonian Version, passim. See Traditional Text. Cursive MSS., a group of eccentric, 282 ; Ferrar group, 282. D. D or Codex Bezae, 8. A, or Sangallensis, 8. Damascus, 5. Diatessarons, 89, 96-8, 101. See Tatian. Doxology, in the Lord's Prayer, 81-8. E. Eclogadion, 69. Epiphanius, 205, 211-2. Erasmus, 10. Error, slight clerical, 27-31. Euroclydon, 46. Evangelistaria (the right name), 67. F. Falconer's St. Paul's voyage, 46-7. Fathers, passim: earliest, 193. Faustinus, 218. Ferrar group of Cursives, 282. Field, Dr., 28 note 5, 30 and note 2. G. Galilee of the Gentiles, 4-5. Genealogy, 22. See Traditional Text. Glosses, 94-5, 98, 172-90; de- scribed, 172. Gospels, the four, probable date of, 7. Guardian, review in, Pref., 150-2, 283 note. Gwilliam, Kev. G. H., 115 note. H. Harmonistic influence, 89-99. Heracleon, 190, 202, 204, 215 note 2. Heretics, corruptions by, 199-210; not always dishonest, 191 ; very numerous, 199 &c. Homoeoteleuton, 36-41; explained, 288 GENERAL INDEX. Inadvertency, 21, 23. Internal evidence, Pref. Interpolations, 166-7. Irenaeus, St., 193. Itaeism, 8, 56-86. J. Justin Martyr, St., 193. L. L or Codex Regius, 8. Lachmann, passim. Last Twelve Verses, 72, 129-30. Latin MSS., Old, passim; Low- Latin, 8. See Traditional Text. Lectionaries, 67-81 ; ecclesiastical prefaces to, "ji. Lewis MS., passim, 194. Liturgical influence, 67-88. M. Macedonians, 204. Manes, 207. Manichaeans, 206. Manuscripts, six classes of, 12; existing number of, 12 ; frequent inaccuracies in, 12; more serious faults, 20-1 ; vnA passim. Marcion, 70, 195, 197, 199, 200, 219. Matrimony, 208. Menologion, 69. Naaseni, 204. ' Neutral Text,' 267, 282-6. O. Omissions, 128-156; the largest of all classes, 128 ; not ' various read- ings,' 128; prejudice in favour of, 130-1 ; proof of, 131-2 ; natural cause of corruption, 270. Origen, 53-5, 98, 101, 111-3, 19, 193, 209. Orthodox, corruption by, 211-31, misguided, 211. P. Papyrus MSS., 2. See Traditional Text. Parallel passages, 95. Pella, 7. Pericope de Adultera, 232-65. Peshitto Version, passim. See Traditional Text. Porphyry, 114. R. Revision, 10-13. Rose, Rev. W. F., 61 note 3. S. 2aj3J3aTOKvpiaicai, 68. Sahidic Version, 194. Saturninus, or Saturnilus, 208 and note 3. Scrivener's Introduction (4th Ed.), Miller's, passim. Semiarianism, 2. Substitution, 164-5, 2 7> 2 77- Synaxarion, 69. T. Tatian's Diatessaron, 8, 98, 101, 196, 200. Textualism of the Gospels, dif- ferent from T. of profane writings, 14. Theodotus, 205, 214. Tischendorf, 112-3, 176, 182, and passim ; misuse of Assimilation, 118. Traditional Text, 1-4; not = Re- ceived Text, i. See Volume on it. Transcriptional Mistakes, 55. Transposition, 157-63; character of, 163, 270. Tregelles, 34, 136, 138. TJ. Uncials, 42-55. V. Valentinus, 197-9, 201, 202-5, 2I 5> 218 note 2. Various readings, 14-16. Vellum, 2. Vercellone, 47 note. Versions, passim. Victorinus Afer, 218. W. "Western Readings or Text, 6, 266-85. Z or Dublin palimpsest, 8. INDEX II. PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DISCUSSED. PAGE PAGE PAGE ST. MATTHEW : ST. MARK : ST. LUKE (cont.) i. 19 . . . . 2O9 i. 2 . . . 1 1 1-5 vii. 3 ... 174 iii. 6 ... . IO2 5 ... 157-8 21 ... *;o 16 . . . I7O-I ii. 3 I58- 9 ix. i . . . 74 iv. 23 ... . 5 I-2 iv. 6 . 63-4 10 ... 275-6 v. 44 . . . 1 44-5 3 v. 36 . . . . 188 54-6 . . 224-31 vi. 13 ... . 81-8 vi. ii . 118-9 , 181-2 x. 15 . . . . 28 18 . . . . 171 32 ... 32-3 25 ... 75 vii. 4 ... . IO2 .. 33 271-3 xi. 54 ... 276-7 viii. 9 ... . IO2 vii. 14 ... 35 xii. 18 . . . 277-8 13 . . . 167-8 19 ... .61-3 29 . . . 155 26 ... 13 31 ... 7 2 -3 xiii. 9 ... 1 60- 1 29 ... . IO2 viii. i ... 34 xiv. 3 ... "7 ix. 24 ... . 104 26 ... 273-4 xv. 1 6 . . . "7 35 74 ix. 38 ... . 271 17 ... 43-5 X. 12 . . . 103 49 ... 275 24 ... . 61 xi. 23 ... 27 x. 16 . . . . 48 32 ... . 61 xii. 10 . . . . 117 xii. 17 . . . . 4 8 xvi. 21 ... 40 xiii. 36 ... 173 xiv. 40 ... . 48 25 . . . . 60 44 ... . 80-1 41 ... 182-3 xvii. 37 . . .48-9 xv. 8 . . . 136-44 70 ... 119-22 xix. 21 . . . . 103 xvi. 8 ... 103 xv. 6 ... 32 41 ... . 212 xix. 9 ... 39 28 . . . 75-3 xxii. 67-8 . . . 210 16 . . . . 103 xvi. 9-20. 72) 129-30 xxiii. ii . . . . 50-1 xx. 24 . . 103 27 ... 51 28 ... xxi. 9 ... 175 99 ST. LUKE: 42 ... xxiv. i ... 57 .92-4 44 ... 134-6 i. 66 . . . 188-9 7 ... . 161 _ ,_Q xxii. 23 ... 49- ;o ii. 14 . .21- 2, 31-2 53 3 7 8 xxiii. 14 ... 38 15 ... 36 xxiv. 15 ... . 116 iii. 14 ... . 2OI ST. JOHN : 31 ... 36 ... 179-80 169-70 29 ... iv. 1-13 . . l6 5 94 i. 3-4 . . 18 . . 215 . 203 -S, 165 xxv. 13 . . . I 7 I v. 7 . 108 ii. 40 . . - 212-4 xxvii. 15 . 103 14 ... . 104 iii. 13 . . . 223-4 ,Q 17 ... 53-5 vi. i . . 132-3 iv. 15 . . . . 48 25-6 . . 35 . 91 171 4 ... 26 ... . 167 153 v. 4 . . . 27 ... 5 . 162 II. u 290 INDEX II. PAGE PAGE ST. JOHN (com ST. JOHN (cont.} : 2 COR. : v. 44 . . 45 xvi. 16 ... . 105 ma i vi. ii . . 37-8 xvii. 4 ... 186-8 o J 15 . . . 38, 178 xviii. 14 ... 180-1 55 153-4 XX. II . . . . 9O-2 TITUS : 71 . . . . 124 ii. 5 . viii. 40 . . . 214-5 ACTS: ix. 22 . . . . 183 ii. 45-6 . . . 159 x. 14-15. . 206-8 iii. i ... 78-bO HEB. : 29 . . 24-7 xviii. 6 ... 27 vii i . . . . xii. i, 2 . 57-9 xx. 4 ... . 190 7 13 . 184-6 99 24 . . 28, xxvii. 14 . . . 124-5 .46-7 2 PET. : xiii. 21-5 . . 106-11 37 27 i. 21 . . .. ; 24 . . 179 xxviii. i ... . 28 25 . . 26 . . . . 60 . . 124 i COR. : REV. 37 35 xv. 47 . . . ', 19-23 i. 5 . . . 125-7 53 52-3 THE END. BY THE SAME AUTHOR AND EDITOR. Demy 8vo, los. 6d. net. The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, VINDICATED AND ESTABLISHED. OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. ' One of the most elaborate treatises on Textual Criticism that has ever been produced . ' Times . ' All scholars, whether they agree or not with Mr. Miller, will feel a debt of gratitude to him for his painstaking labour, and the skill and learning which he has brought to bear. It is no light achievement to have made a book of this kind so readable to the ordinary public ; while the scholar will find nothing assumed, and nothing slurred over, but a solid weight of learning and a reserve of strength underneath its pleasant periods. There are copious references and careful indices. And everything is brought up to the most recent date. . . . ' We wish Mr. Miller good speed in the arduous task yet before him of bringing out to the world the further materials towards a true apprehension of the Textual Problem left behind him by Dean Burgon." Church Times. ' It is impossible to do justice to the elaborate arguments of such a book as this within the compass of an ordinary review, but we trust that they will receive the fullest and most patient examination. Criticism is the careful weighing of evidence with a view to decision, not the tabulating of a series of axioms or the employment of evidence which to many scholars is so much subjectivity .... It is a most able and learned defence of the Traditional Text, and presents, we feel convinced, an exceedingly strong case, which will require very weighty arguments if it is to be confuted.' Record. ' Any who are interested in the text of the Scriptures and who is not ? should make themselves acquainted with Dean Burgon's views.' Rock. ' From this mass of material Mr. Miller has produced, on the whole very successfully, a continuous and orderly treatise.' Tablet. ' The book contains much interesting information, and Mr. Miller shows that he has thoroughly studied the subject.' Athenaeum. OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. ( A body of evidence .... which from many points of view appears to be unanswerable.' Morning Post. ' A brilliant argument for the Traditional Text.' Church Bells. ' Mr. Miller, who was thoroughly in sympathy with Dean Burgon's methods of work, and with the general conclusions at which he had arrived, has now published a volume made up in part of the Dean's papers, with large additions from his own stores ; and for his work every student of the Gospels will be grateful. . . . No one can have anything but welcome for a full discussion of the whole question. . . . \Ve hope that it may be widely read, and that it may stimulate fresh independent study in the region of textual criticism.' Dr. J. H. Bernard in Expository 7'imes. ' ^' e gladly acknowledge the care, industry, and ability with which Dean Burgon's case has been prepared and presented by Mr. Miller. Those who desire to see it at its best should read this book.' Methodist Recorder. ' The reader will find the arguments in favour of the antiquity of the Tra- ditional Text stated and set forth in this volume with great learning and ability.' Scotsman. ' It is impossible not to recognize the enormous labour which has been spent upon the task.' Manchester Guardian. 'The book before us is a fresh effort in this direction, and in clearness of style, in simplicity of arrangement, and in brilliancy of language, it forms a favourable contrast to anything that has proceeded from the opposite school.' C. E. S. M. in Chichester Diocesan Gazette. ' This is a patient and lucid exposition of the views of that school of criticism of which the late Dean Burgon was the great leader. It is most interesting, and Mr. Miller has done his part with singular ability and sincerity.' Bookselling. ' While it would be presumptuous in us, who do not pretend to be qualified to pronounce on such matters, to declare that the author and editor of this book have proved their case against the upholders of the supreme authority of the old uncial versions, we may at least say that their criticism appears to us to have a special importance, in that it shows a greater appreciation of the value of historical evidence than will be found in the work of the scholars of the other party. We shall look forward with interest to the appearance of a second volume, which is promised, on the ' Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text.' Journal of Education. LONDON: GEORGE BELL & SONS, York Street, Covent Garden. University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. APR 2 7 1S 92 DUE 2 WKS FROM DA tKTD ID-URI MAY 2 8 1992 - - - [E RECEIVED