THE TRADITIONAL TEXT

HOLY GOSPELS

TTaci
Toic 'Ari'oic eN Xpicrc^ 'Ihcoy Phil.

OXFORD : HORACE HART
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

THE

TRADITIONAL TEXT

OF THE

HOLY GOSPELS

vindicated and established

BY THE LATE
JOHN WILLIAM BURGON, B.D.
DEAN OF CHICHESTER

ARRANGED, COMPLETED, AND EDITED
BY
EDWARD MILLER, M.A.
WYKEHAMICAL PREBENDARY OF CHICHESTER ; EDITOR OF THE FOURTH EDITION OF DR. SCRIVENEr'S
' PLAIN INTRODUCTION TO THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ' ; AND
AUTHOR OF * A GUIDE TO THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT '

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 Proleg. p. xliv.
' Interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona, et
ambulate in ea.' — Jerem. vi. i6.
' 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 fuerit sacrosanctum.' — Tertull. adv. Marc. 1. iv. c. 5.

M^-

PREFACE

The death of Dean Burgon in 1888, lamented
by a large number of people on the other side
of the Atlantic as -well as on this, cut him off
in the early part of a task for which he had
made preparations during more than thirty years.
He laid the foundations of his system with
much care and caution, discussing it with his
friends, such as the late Earl of Selborne to whom
he inscribed The Last Twelve Verses, and the
present Earl of Cranbrook to whom he dedicated
The Revision Revised, for the purpose of sounding
the depths of the subject, and of being sure that
he was resting upon firm rock. In order to enlarge
the general basis of Sacred Textual Criticism,
and to treat of the principles of it scientifically
and comprehensively, he examined manuscripts
widely, making many discoveries at home and
in foreign libraries ; collated some himself and
got many collated by other scholars ; encour
aged new and critical editions of some of the
chief Versions ; and above all, he devised and
superintended a collection of quotations from the
New Testament to be found in the works of the
Fathers and in other ecclesiastical writings, going

VI PREFACE.
far beyond ordinary indexes, which may be found
in sixteen thick volumes amongst the treasures of
the British Museum. Various events led him
during his life-time to dip into and publish some
of his stores, such as in his Last Twelve Verses
of St. Mark, his famous Letters to Dr. Scrivener
in the Guardian Newspaper, and in The Revision
Revised. But he sedulously amassed materials for
the greater treatise up to the time of his death.
He was then deeply impressed with the incom
plete state of his documents ; and gave positive
instructions solely for the publication of his Text
of the Gospels as marked in the margin of one
of Scrivener's editions of the New Testament, of
his disquisition on ' honeycomb ' which as exhibiting
a specimen of his admirable method of criticism
will be found in Appendix I of this volume, and
perhaps of that on o^o^ in Appendix II, leaving
the entire question as to publishing the rest to
his nephew, the Rev. W. F. Rose, with the help of
myself, if I would undertake the editing required,
and of others.
The separate papers, which were committed to
my charge in February, 1889, were contained in
forty portfolios, and according to my catalogue
amounted to 2,383. They were grouped under
various headings, and some were placed in one
set as 'Introductory Matter' ready for the printer.
Most had been copied out in a clear hand, especially
by 'M.W.' mentioned in the Preface ofthe Revision
Revised, to whom also I am greatly indebted for
copying others. The papers were of lengths varying
from fourteen pages or more down to a single

PREFACE. vii
sentence or a single reference. Some were almost
duplicates, and a very few similarly triplicates.
After cataloguing, I reported to Mr. Rose, sug
gesting a choice between three plans, viz.,
I. Publishing separately according to the Dean's
instructions such papers as were judged to be fit
for publication, and leaving the rest : —
2. To put together a Work on the Principles of
Textual Criticism out of the MSS., as far as they
would go : —
3. To make up what was ready and fit into
a Book, supplying from the rest of the materials
and from elsewhere what was wanting besides
filling up gaps as well as I could, and out of the
rest (as well as from the Dean's published works)
to construct brief notes on the Text which we had
to publish.
This report was sent to Dr. Scrivener, Dean
Goulburn, Sir Edward Maunde Thompson, and
other distinguished scholars, and the unanimous
opinion was expressed that the third of these plans
should be adopted.
Not liking to encounter
Tot et tanta negotia solus,
I invited at the opening of 1890 the Rev. G. H.
Gwilliam, Fellow of Hertford College, and the
Rev. Dr. Waller, Principal of St. John's Hall,
Highbury — a man of mathematical accuracy — to
read over at my house the first draft of a large
portion of Volume I. To my loss, Dr. Waller has
been too busy since that time to afford me any
help, except what may be found in his valuable

Vlll PREFACE.
comparison of the texts of the Peshitto and Cure-
tonian printed in Appendix VI : but Mr. Gwilliam
has been ready with advice and help all along
which have been of the greatest advantage to me
especially on the Syriac part of the subject, and
has looked through all the first proofs of this
volume. It was afterwards forced upon my mind that if
possible the Indexes to the Fathers ought to be
included in the work. Indeed no book could ade
quately represent Dean Burgon's labours which did
not include his apparatus criticus in that province of
Textual Criticism, in which he has shewn himself so
facile princeps, that no one in England, or Germany,
or elsewhere, has been as yet able to come near
him. With Sir E. Maunde Thompson's kind help,
I have been able to get the part of the Indexes
which relates to the Gospels copied in type-writing,
and they will be published in course of time, God
willing, if the learned world evinces sufficient interest
in the publication of them.
Unfortunately, when in 1890 I had completed
a first arrangement of Volume II, my health gave
way ; and after vainly endeavouring for a year to
combine this severe toil with the conduct of a living,
I resigned the latter, and moved into Oxford to
devote myself exclusively to the important work of
turning the unpublished results of the skilful faith
fulness and the indefatigable learning of that ' grand
scholar' — to use Dr. Scrivener's phrase — towards
the settlement of the principles that should regulate
the ascertainment of the Divine Words constitutincr
the New Testament.

PREFACE. IX
The difficulty to be surmounted lay in the fact
that after all was gathered out of the Dean's remains
that was suitable for the purpose, and when gaps
of smaller or greater size were filled, as has been
done throughout the series of unfinished and un
connected MSS., there was still a large space to
cover without the Master's help in covering it.
Time and research and thought were alike
necessary. Consequently, upon advice, I accepted
an offer to edit the fourth edition of Scrivener's
Plain Introduction, and although that extremely
laborious accomplishment occupied far more time
than was anticipated, yet in the event it has greatly
helped the execution of my task. Never yet, before
or since Dean Burgon's death, has there been such
an opportunity as the present. The general ap
paratus criticus has been vastly increased ; the field
of palaeography has been greatly enlarged through
the discoveries in Egypt ; and there is a feeling
abroad that we are on the brink of an improvement
in systems and theories recently in vogue.
On returning to the work, I found that the key
to the removal of the chief difficulty in the way
of such improvement lay in an inflow of light upon
what may perhaps be termed as to this subject the
Pre-manuscriptal Period, — hitherto the dark age of
Sacred Textualism, which precedes what was once
' the year one ' of Palaeography. Accordingly,
I made a toilsome examination for myself of the
quotations occurring in the writings of the Fathers
before St. Chrysostom, or as I defined them in
order to draw a self-acting line, of those who died
before 400 a. d., with the result that the Traditional

X PREFACE.
Text is found to stand in the general proportion
of 3 : 2 against other variations, and in a much
higher proportion upon thirty test passages. After
wards, not being satisfied with resting the basis
of my argument upon one scrutiny, I went again
through the writings of the seventy-six Fathers
concerned (with limitations explained in this book),
besides others who yielded no evidence, and I found
that although several more instances were conse
quently entered in my note-book, the general results
remained almost the same. I do not flatter myself
that even now I have recorded all the instances
that could be adduced : — any one who is really ac
quainted with this work will know that such a feat
is absolutely impossible, because such perfection
cannot be obtained except after many repeated
efforts. But I claim, not only that my attempts
have been honest and fair even to self-abnegation,
but that the general results which are much more
than is required by my argument, as is explained
in the body of this work, abundantly establish the
antiquity of the Traditional Text, by proving the
superior acceptance of it during the period at stake
to that of any other.
Indeed, these examinations have seemed to
me, not only to carry back the Traditional Text
satisfactorily to the first age, but to lead also to
solutions of several difficult problems, which are
now presented to our readers. The wealth of
MSS. to which the Fathers introduce us at second
hand can only be understood by those who may
go through the writings of many of them with this
view ; and outnumbers over and over again before

PREFACE. xi
the year looo all the contemporaneous Greek
MSS. which have come down to us, not to speak of
the years to which no MSS. that are now extant
are in the opinion of all experts found to belong.
It is due both to Dean Burgon and to myself to
say that we came together after having worked on
independent lines, though I am bound, to acknow
ledge my great debt to his writings. I At first we
did not agree thoroughly in opinion, but I found
afterwards that he was right and I was wrong.
It is a proof of the unifying power pf our prin
ciples, that as to our system there is now absolutely
no difference between us, though on n^inor points,
generally outside of this immediate sulbject, we do
not always exactly concur. Though \l have the
Dean's example for altering his writings largely
even when they were in type, as he never failed
to do, yet in loyalty I have delayed alterations as
long as I could, and have only made \ them when
I was certain that I was introducing^ some im
provement, and more often than not jipon advice
proffered to me by others.
Our coincidence is perhaps explaiijied by our
having been born when Evangelical | earnestness
affected all religious life, by our having been trained
under the High Church movement, and at least in
my case mellowed under the more modterate widen
ing caused by influences which prevailed in Oxford
for some years after 1848. Certainlji^, the com
prehensiveness and exhaustiveness ^ — -jprobably in
imitation of German method — which !had before
characterized Dr. Pusey's treatment of iany subject,
and found an exemplification in Professoir Freeman's

Xll , PREFACE.
historical researches, and which was as I think to
be seen in the action of the best spirits of the
Oxford of 1848-56 — to quote my own experience,
— lay at the root and constituted the life of
Burgon's system, and the maintenance of these
principles so far as we could at whatever cost
formed the^ link between us. To cast away at
least nineteen-twentieths of the evidence on points
and to draw conclusions from the petty remainder,
seems to us to be necessarily not less even than
a crime and a sin, not only by reason of the
sacrilegious ' destructiveness exercised thereby upon
Holy Writ, but also because such a method is
inconsistent iwith conscientious exhaustiveness and
logical method. Perfectly familiar with all that
can be and is advanced in favour of such proce
dure, must we not say that hardly any worse
pattern tharii this in investigations and conclusions
could be presented before young men at the critical
time when they are entering upon habits of forming
judgements (which are to carry them through life ?
Has the over-specialism which has been in vogue
of late yearii promoted the acceptance of the theory
before us, because it may have been under special
izing influences forgotten, that the really accom
plished man should aim at knowing something of
everything else as well as knowing everything of
the thing to which he is devoted, since narrowness
in investigaition and neglect of all but a favour
ite theory is likely to result from so exclusive an
attitude ?
The importance of the question at stake is often
underrated. Dr. Philip Schaff in his well-known

PREFACE. xiit
' Companion ' (p. 176), — as Dr. E. Nestle of Ulm in
one of his brochures (' Ein ceterum censeo zur
neutestamentlichen Textkritik ') which he has kindly
sent me, has pointed out, — observes that whereas
Mill reckoned the variations to amount to 30,000,
and Scrivener supposed that they have since in
creased to four times as much, they 'cannot now
fall much short of 1 50,000.' This amount is appal
ling, and most of them are of a petty character.
But some involve highly important pa,ssages, and
even Hort has reckoned (Introductionj p. 2) that
the disputed instances reach about one-ejghth of the
whole. Is it too strong therefore to say, that we
live over a volcano, with a crust of earth of not too
great a thickness lying between ?
The first half of our case is novv- presented
in this Volume, which is a complete ' treatise in
itself. A second will I hope follow at an early
date, containing a disquisition on the Causes of
the Corruption of the Traditional Text ; and,
I am glad to say, will consist almost exclusively
of Dean Burgon's own compositions. I ask from
Critics who may not assent to all our conclusions
a candid consideration of our case, which is rested
solely upon argument and reason throughout. This
explanation made by the Dean of his system in
calmer times and in a more didactic form cannot,
as I think, fail to remove much prejudice. If we
seem at first sight anywhere to leap from reason
ing to dogmatism, our readers will discover,
I believe, upon renewed observation that at least
from our point of view that is not so. If we
appear to speak too positively, we hav(^ done this,

XIV PREFACE.
not from confidence in any private judgement, but
because we are sure, at least in our own minds,
that we express the verdict of all the ages and
all the countries.
May the great Head of the Church bless our
effort on behalf of the integrity of His Holy W^ord,
if not according to our plan and purpose, yet in
the way that seemeth Him best!

EDWARD MILLER.

9 Bradmore Road, Oxford :
Hpiphqmy 1896.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.

PAGE

Sacred Textual Criticism — introduced by Origen — settled first in the
fourth and before the eighth centuries — fresh rise after the invention
of printing — infancy— childhood — -youth — incipient maturity — Tra
ditional Text not identical with the Received Text . . . pp. i-5
1
CHAPTER I.
Preliminary Grounds.
§ 1. Importance ofthe subject — need of new advance and of candour
in investigation. § 2. Sacred Textual Criticisra different from Pro
fane — the New Testament assailed from the first. § 3. (5verruling
Providence — unique conditions, and overwhelming mass of evidence.
§ 4. Authority of the Church — Hort's admission — existence and
descent of the Received Text. § 5. The question one of the raany
against the few — the plea of antiquity on the side of the few virtually
a claim to subtle divination — irapossibility of compromise . . pp. 6—18
CHAPTER IL
Principles. ,
§ 1. Two chief branches of inquiry — collection of evidence^— employ
ment of evidence. § 2. Providential multiplication of Copies, ordinary
and lectionary — of Versions — of Patristic quotations. § 3. Similarity
between later Uncials and Cursives — overestimate of the oldest Uncials
— Copies the most important class of evidence — but not so old virtually
as the earliest Versions and Fathers. § 4. Search for the reiadings of
the autographs — the better attested, the genuine reading — need of tests
or notes of truth — seven proposed. § 5. Mere antiquity of an authority
not enough — ^yet antiquity a most important principle. § 6. ' Various
readings' a misleading phrase — Corruption patent in B and X — four
proofs that their text, not the Traditional, has been fabricated —
Scrivener's mistake in supposing that the true texts must be sought
in the oldest uncials — their constant disagreement with one another —
self-impoverishment of some Critics  pp. 19-39

xvi CONTENTS.
CHAPTER III.
The Seven Notes of Truth.
PAGE
§ 1. Antiqt'ity :¦ — the more ancient, probably the better testimony —
but not the sole arbiter. § 2. Number : — much fallacy in ' witnesses
are to be weighed not counted' — used to champion the very few against
the very many — number necessarily a powerful, but not the sole note
of truth — Heb. iv. 2. § 3. Variety : — a great help to Number— various
countries — various ages — no collusion — St. Matt. x. 8. § 4. Weight, or
Respectability: — witnesses must be (i) respectable — (2) MSS. must not
be transcripts of one another — (3} Patristic evidence must not be
copied — (4) MSS. from one archetype = between one and two copies —
(51 any collusion impairs weight — (6) a Version outweighs any single
MS. — (7) also a Father — weight of single MSS. to be determined by
peculiar characteristics. § 5. Continuity : — value of Unbroken Tradition
— weakening effects of smaller chasms — fatal consequence of the
admitted chasn of fifteen centuries. § 6. Context : — (a) Context of
meaning — i Cor. xiii. 5 — (b) Context of readings — St. Matt. xvii. 21 —
xi. 2-3 and St. Luke vii. 19 — consistency in immediate context . pp. 40-67
CHAPTER IV.
The Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts.
§ 1. The seven Old Uncials— some understanding necessary between
the two schools — dialogue with a Biblical Student — the superior
antiquity of B and N a reasonable presumption that they are the purest —
yet nearly 300 years between them and the autographs — no proof that
their archetype was much older than they — conflict with the evidence
of Versions and Fathers which are virtually much older — any superior
excellence in their text merely the opinion of one school balanced by the
other — Mai's editions of B — antiquity, number, variety, and continuity
against that school — also weight — Traditional Text virtually older — ¦
proof that the text of B and X was derived from the Traditional text,
not vice versa — alleged recensions no proof to the contrary — nor ' con
flation,' prove^ to be unsound — their disagreement with one another
proved by passages. § 2. St. John v. 4 — St. Luke xi. 2-4. § 3. The
' Marys' of the Gospels. § 4. Jona and John. § 5. The foregoing
instances typical — our appeal only to facts  pp. 68-89
CHAPTER V.
The Antiquity of the Traditional Text.
I. Witness of the Early Fathers.
§ 1. Involuiitary witness of Dr. Hort : — though he denied the antiquity
of the Traditional Text — no detailed examination of Dr. Horfs theory
intended in this didactic treatise — his admission that we have the period

CONTENTS. xvii PAGE
of the Church since St. Chrysostom — driven to label the evidence of
those centuries with the unhappy epithet ' Syrian ' — foisting ir to history
his ' phantom recensions ' — facts, not theory. § 2. Testimony ofthe Ante-
Chrysostora Writers : — two examinations made of all their :}uotations
of the Gospels — trustworthiness of their writings on this po nt — many
of their quotations not capable of use — general hst — proporti(m of 3 : 2
for Traditional Text — verdict of those Writers on thirty test passages —
proportion of 3 : i — validity of these lists — mistakes of Hort ^ind others
respecting separate Fathers — antiquity of corruption, though subor
dinate, also established — list of Early Traditional deponents — Later
Traditional — Western or Syrio-Low-Latin — Alexandrian — lessons from
these groups .... 1 . pp. 90-122

CHAPTER VI.
The Antiquity of the Traditional Text.
II. Witness of the Early Syriac Versions.
Startling rise of Christianity in Syria — weakness of Cureton's
arguments for the superior antiquity of the Curetonian — not helped
by the heretical Lewis Codex — the idea of a Vulgate Peshitio founded
upon a false parallel — traced to the fifth century by the universal use
ofthe Peshitto by Nestorians, Monophysites, Christians of S;. Thomas,
and Maronites — very early date proved by numerous MSS. of the same
period — attested in the fourth by Ephraem Syrus and Aphrastes — mi'st
have been in existence before — proved back by its agreement with the
Traditional Text — the petty Curetonian an unequal combatant-j-objection
that the Text of the Curetonian and Lewis was the older — [inaccurate
advocacy of the Lewis — the age of these MSS. to be decidled by the
known facts — Mepharreshe or distinct Gospels to replace thq Mehallete
or mixed Gospels of Tatian . pp. 123-134

CHAPTER VII.
The Antiquity of the Traditional Ti;xT.
HI. Witness of the Western or Syrio-Loiu-Latin Text.
Wiseman wrong in supposing that all Old Latin Texts came from one
stem — the prirna facie inference from similarity of language open to
delusion — contrast of other Versions — table of the Old Latin MSS., as
b

XVIU CONTENTS. PAGE
used by Tischendorf — no very generic difference — comparison under
the thirty tes- passages — variety of synonyms denotes variety of
sources — direct evidence of Augustine and Jerome — translations must
have been made by all who wanted them in the bilingual Roman
Empire — origin of Wiseman's idea in an etymological blunder — Diez's
subsequent teaching — the deflection in the language of the Old Latin
MSS. due to the Low-Latin dialects of the Italian Peninsula, the
' Itala ' of St. .\ugustine being in the most classical of later Latin —
Syriacization of the Codex Bezae, and the teaching of the Ferrar
group — pre-Evangelistic corruption carried to Rome from Antioch, and
afterwards foisted into the Gospels — the Synoptic problem — the
Traditional Text thus attested from the first by Fathers and
Versions  . pp. 135-147

CHAPTER VIII.
Alexandria and Caesarea.
§ 1. Alexandrian Readings, and the Alexandrian School : — Text, or
Readings ? — list of early Alexandrian Fathers — the thirty test passages
in Bohairic — no Alexandrian MSS. of the period — instability — Origen
the leading figure — elemental and critical — the cradle of criticism.
§ 2. Caesarean iSchool : — dates from 231 a. d., when Origen moved to
Caesarea — his witness to both texts — Pamphilus — Eusebius really
prefers the T\ aditional — Palestine a central situation — coalition of
readings — Eusebius' fifty MSS. probably included all sorts — Acacius
more probably jthe scribe of B, and of the six leaves of N — vellum came
into prominent use at Caesarea — an Asiatic product — older MSS.
written on papyrus — papyrus used till the tenth century — cursive hand
on papyrus led to the ' Cursives' . . . . pp. 148-158
CHAPTER IX.
The Old Uncials. The Influence of Origen.
§ 1. Superstif ious deference to B — and x — products of the Semi- Arian
or Homoean School — (i) dated from that time — (2) condemned when
Arianism was finally condemned — (3) agree with Origenism — (4) pro
duced at Alexandria — colophons in N under Esther and Ezra, and
agreement with Codex Pamphili — written accordingly at Caesarea.
§ 2. Origen :— his writings much studied by the ancients — of the same
class as B and X , proved from various passages — Gal. iii. i — St. Matt.
xiv. 19, XV. 35-7^St. John xiii. 26 — St. Luke iv. 8 — St. John viii. 38.
§3. Sceptical character of all the three .... pp. 159-171

CONTENTS. xix
CHAPTER X.
The Old Uncials. Codex D.
l'\GK
§ 1. Parallel and connexion between the settlements of the Canon
and the Text — end of the controversy after the last General Council —
Origenism finally condemned then — no rest in Roman Empire till
then — the art of writing on vellum then perfected — existence of better
copies than B and X during the early Uncial period — A, $, and S.
§ 2. Codex D : — strange character — I. Assimilation on a large scale —
St. Mark iii. 26— St. Luke xix. 27 — St. Matt. xx. 28 — St. Luke xiv. 8-10 —
II. Extreme licentiousness— St. Mark iv. 1. § 3. St. Luke iii. 23-38.
§ 4. St. Luke xxii. 20, and St. Mark xv. 43-4. § 5. St. Luke i. 65 —
St. Mark xiv. 72, &c. §6. Bad features in D and its family. §7. Clum
siness and tastelessness in the Old Uncials. § 8. St. John ix. 36, xiv.
22, St. Matt. i. 18, St. Luke xviii. 14, St. John xvii. 2 -delicate points
thus rubbed off ...... . . pp. 172-195
CHAPTER XI.
The later Uncials and the Cursives.
§ I. Nature of Tradition — many streams — great period of the two
St. Gregories, St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom — Canon of St. Augustine —
Uncials and Cursives do not differ in kind — Cursives different enough
to be independent witnesses — not copies of Cod. A — a small minority
of real dissentients — era of greater perfection from end of seventh
century — expression by the majority of later Uncials and the Cursives
of the settled judgement of the Church. § 2. The text of the Cursives
not debased — (i) the Traditional Text already proved to go back to the
first — (2) could not have been formed out of non-existing materials —
(3) superior to the text of B and N — proved by the consentience of
Copies, Versions, Fathers, and superior under all the Notes of Truth.
§ 3. St. Luke xix. 42. § 4. St. Matt. xx. 22-23. § 5- St. Matt.
iv. 17-22, St. Mark i. 14-20, St. Luke v. i-ii. § 6. St. Mark a. 23-24.
§ 7. St. Luke xvi. 9. § 8. St. John xvd. 13. § 9. St. Matt. viii. 5-13.
§ 10. St. Luke XX. 14. § II. Familiarity through collation with the
Cursive copies will reveal the general excellence of their text . pp. 196-223
CHAPTER XIL
Conclusion.
Recapitulation — quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, the
principle of the Traditional Text — an exhaustive case — and very strong
— answers to objections — (i) antiquity of B and N — (2) witnesses
must be weighed first — (3) charge of conflation, Eph. v. 30 — weak

^x CONTENTS.
PAGE
pleas — (4) Genealogy explained — only true in a limited measure —
reduces sorae groups of MSS. to one archetype each — advance of this
plea solely as an excuse for B and X — which were founders of an
obscure faraily dating from Caesarea, with huge gaps in their descent —
perfect genealogy of the Traditional Text through many lines of descent
— attested contemporaneously by numerous Fathers — proved step by
step back to the earliest days — the Traditional Text contrasted with
the Neologian in three ways, viz. — (I) wide and deep against narrow
ness — (II) founded on facts, not on speculation — (III) increasing now
in strength, instead of daily getting out of date — the verdict of the
Church, and therefore Resting on the Rock . . pp. 224-239

Appendix I.
Honeycomb — mo fiekiooiov Krjpiov . pp. 240-252
Appendix II.
"ogos — Vinegar . pp. 253-258
Appendix III.
The Rich Young Man pp. 259-278
Appendix IV.
St. Mark i. i . . . pp 279-286
Appendix V.
The Sceptical Character of B and N pp. 287-291
Appendix VI.
The Peshitto and Curetonian pp. 292-297
Appendix VII.
The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel pp. 298-307
Appendix VIII.
New Editions of the Peshitto-Syriac and the
Harkleian Versions ... -pp. 308-309

General Index . . pp. 311-315
Index of Passages of the New Testament
commented on . . pp. 316-317

THE TRADITIONAL TEXT OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT.

INTRODUCTION.
A FEW remarks at the outset of this treatise, which was
left imperfect by Dean Burgon at his unexpected death,
may make the object and scope of it more intelligible to
many readers.
Textual Criticism of the New Testament is a close
inquiry into what is the genuine Greek — the true text of
the Holy Gospels, of the Acts of the Apostles, of the
Pauline and Apostolic Epistles, and the Revelation. In
asmuch as it concerns the text alone, it is confined to the
Lower Criticism according to German nomenclature, just
as a critical examination of meaning, with all its attendant
references and connexions, would constitute the Higher
Criticism. It is thus the necessary prelude of any scientific
investigation of the language, the purport, and the teaching
of the various books of the New Testament, and ought
itself to be conducted upon definite and scientific principles.
The object of this treatise is to lead to a general settle
ment of those principles. For this purpose the Dean has
stripped the discussion of all adventitious disguise, and has
pursued it lucidly into manifold details, in order that no
B

2 INTRODUCTION.
employment of difficult terms or involved sentences may
shed any mystification over the questions discussed, and
that all intelligent people who are interested in such
questions- — and who is not? — ^may understand the issues
and the proofs of them.
In the very earliest times much variation in the text of
the New Testament, and particularly of the Holy Gos
pels — for we shall treat mainly of these four books as
constituting the most important province, and as afifording
a smaller area, and so being more convenient for the
present inquiry : — much diversity in words and expression,
I say, arose in the Church. In consequence, the school
of scientific Theology at Alexandria, in the person of
Origen, first found it necessary to take cognizance of the
matter. When Origen moved to Caesarea, he carried his
manuscripts with him, and they appear to have formed the
foundation of the celebrated library in that city, which was
afterwards amplified by Pamphilus and Eusebius, and also
by Acacius and Euzoius^, who were all successively bishops
of the place. During the life of Eusebius, if not under
his controlling care, the two oldest Uncial Manuscripts in
existence as hitherto discovered, known as B and N, or the
Vatican and Sinaitic, were executed in handsome form and
exquisite caligrapliy. But shortly after, about the middle
of the fourth century — as both schools of Textual Critics
agree— a text differing from that of B and f< advanced in
general acceptance ; and, increasing till the eighth century
in the predominance won by the end of the fourth, became
so prevalent in Christendom, that the small number of MSS.
agreeing with B and K forms no sort of comparison with
the many which vary from those two. Thus the problem
of the fourth century anticipated the problem of the nine-
' See Jerome, Epist. 34 (Migne, xxii. p. 44S). Cod. V. of Philo has the
following inscription : — Eufoi'os irriaicoiros iv <ra)juariois avfueaiaaro, i.e. tran
scribed on vellum from papyrus. Leopold Cohn's edition of Philo, De
Opiliciis Mnndi, Vratislaw, 1889.

SCHOOLS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 3
teenth. Are we for the genuine text of the New Testament
to go to the Vatican and the Sinaitic MSS. and the few
others which mainly agree with them, or are we to follow
the main body of New Testament MSS., which by the end
of the century in which those two were produced entered
into possession of the field of contention, and have con
tinued in occupation of it ever since ? This is the problem
which the following treatise is intended to solve, that is to
say, which of these two texts or sets of readings is the
better attested, and can be traced back through the stronger
evidence to the original autographs.
A few words are now needed to describe and account
for the present position of the controversy.
After the discovery of printing in Europe, Textual
Criticism began to rise again. The career of it may be
divided into four stages, which may be termed respectively,
Infancy, Childhood, Youth, and Incipient Maturity ^
I. Erasmus in 1516 edited the New Testament from
a very small number of manuscripts, probably only five,
in repute at the time ; and six years afterwards appeared
the Complutensian edition under Cardinal Ximenes, whicli
had been printed two years before that of Erasmus.
Robert Stephen, Theodore Beza, and the Elzevirs, also, as
is well known, published editions of their own. In the
latter edition of the Elzevirs, issued in 1633, occurred for
the first time the widely-used expression ' Textus Receptus.'
The sole object in this period was to adhere faithfully to
the text received everywhere.
II. In the next, evidence from Manuscripts, Versions, and
Fathers was collected, chiefly by Mill and Wetstein. Bent
ley thought of going back to the fourth century for decisive
evidence. Bengel and Griesbach laid stress upon families
and recensions of manuscripts, and led the way in departing
' See my Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp. 7-37.
George Bell and Sons, 1886.
B 3

4 INTRODUCTION.
from the received standard. Collation of manuscripts was
carried on by these two critics and by other able scholars,
and largely by Scholz. There was thus an amplification of
materials, and a crop of theories. Much that was vague
and elemental was intermingled with a promise of a great
deal that would prove more satisfactory in the future.
III. The leader in the next advance was Lachmann,
who began to discard the readings of the Received Text,
supposing it to be only two centuries old. Authorities
having already become inconveniently multitudinous, he
limited his attention to the few which agreed with the
oldest Uncials, namely, L or the Regius at Paris, one or two
other fragments of Uncials, a few Cursives, the Old Latin
Manuscripts, and a few of the oldest Fathers, making up
generally some six or seven in all upon each separate reading.
Tischendorf, the discoverer of N, the twin-sister of B, and
the collator of a large number of MSS.\ followed him in
the main, as did also Tregelles. And Dr. Hort, who, with
Bishop Westeott, began to theorize and work when Lach-
mann's influence was at the highest, in a most ingenious
and elaborate Introduction maintained the cause of the
two oldest Uncials — especially B — and their small band of
followers. Admitting that the Received Text dates back
as far as the middle of the fourth century, Hort argued
that it was divided by more than two centuries and a half
from the original Autographs, and in fact took its rise at
Antioch and should be called 'Syrian,' notwithstanding the
predominance which he acknowledged that it has enjoyed
since the end of the fourth century. He termed the
readings of which B and N are the chief exponents ' the
Neutral Text,' and held that that text can be traced back
to the genuine Autographs ^.
' For an estimate of Tischendorf's great labour, see an article on Tischen
dorf 's Greek Testament in the Quarterly Review for July, 1S95.
' Dr. Hort's theory, which is generally held to supply the philosophical
explanation of the tenets maintained in the school of critics who support B

TRADITIONAL TEXT. 5
IV. I have placed the tenets of the opposite school last
as exhibiting signs of Incipient Maturity in the Science,
not because they are admitted to be so, that being not the
case, but because of their intrinsic merits, which will be
unfolded in this volume, and becau.se of the immense
addition recently made of authorities to our store, as well
as on account of the indirect influence exercised of late
by discoveries pursued in other quarters^. Indeed, it is
sought to establish a wider stock of ruling authorities, and
a sounder method in the use of them. The leaders in the
advocacy of this system have been Dr. Scrivener in a modi
fied degree, and especially Dean Burgon. First, be it
understood, that we do not advocate perfection in the
Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires
revision. In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon ^,
about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in
St. Matthew's Gospel alone. What we maintain is the
Traditional Text. And we trace it back to the earliest
ages of which there is any record. We trust to the fullest
testimony and the most enlightened view of all the evidence.
In humble dependence upon God the Holy Ghost, Who we
hold has multiplied witnesses all down the ages of the
Church, and Whose cause we believe we plead, we solemnly
call upon those many students of the Bible in these days
who are earnest after truth to weigh without prejudice what
we say, in the prayer that it may contribute something
towards the ascertainment of the true expressions employed
in the genuine Word of GOD.
and N as pre-eminently the sources of the correct text, may be studied in his
Introduction. It is also explained and controverted in my Textual Guide,
pp. 38-59 ; and has been powerfully criticized by Dean Burgon in The Revision
Revised, Article III, or in No. 306 of the Quarterly Review, without reply.
' Quarterly Review, July 1895, ' Tischendorf's Greek Testament.'
' See Preface.

CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY GROUNDS.
§1-
In the ensuing pages I propose to discuss a problem
of the highest dignity and importance ^ : namely, On what
principles the true text of the New Testament Scriptures
is to be ascertained? My subject is the Greek text of
those Scriptures, particularly of the four Gospels; my
object, the establishment of that text on an intelligible
and trustworthy basis.
That no fixed principles were known to exist before 1880
is proved by the fact that the most famous critics not only
differed considerably from one another, but also from them
selves. Till then all was empiricism in this department.
A section, a chapter, an article, a pamphlet, a tentative
essay — all these indeed from time to time appeared : and
some were excellent of their kind. But we require some
thing a vast deal more methodical, argumentative, and
' It is remarkable, that in quarters where we should have looked for more
scientific procedure the importance of the Textual Criticism of the New Testa
ment is underrated, upon a plea that theological doctrine may be established
upon passages other than those of which the text has been impugned by the
destructive school. Yet (a) in all cases consideration of the text of an author
must perforce precede consideration of inferences from the text — Lower Criticism
must be the groundwork of Higher Criticism ; (i) confirmatory passages cannot
be thrown aside in face of attacks upon doctrine of every possible character ;
(c) Holy Scripture is too unique aud precious to admit of the study of the several
words of it being interesting rather than important ; (d) many of the passages
which Modern Criticism would erase or suspect — such as the last Twelve Verses
of St. Mark, the first Word from the Cross, and the thrilling description of the
depth of the Agony, besides numerous others — are valuable in the extreme ;
and, («) generally speaking, it is impossible to pronounce, especially amidst the
thought and life seething everywhere round ns, what part of Holy Scripture is
not, or may not prove to be, of the highest importance as well as interest. — E. M.

NEED OF A NEW TREATISE. 7
complete, than is compatible with such narrow limits.
Even where an account of the facts was extended to
greater length and was given with much fullness and ac
curacy, there was an absence of scientific principle suflScient
to guide students to a satisfactory and sound determina
tion of difficult questions. Teschendorf's last two editions
differ from one another in no less than 3,572 particulars.
He reverses in every page in 1872 what in 1859 he offered
as the result of his deliberate judgement. Every one,
to speak plainly, whether an expert or a mere beginner,
seemed to consider himself competent to pass sentence on
any fresh reading which is presented to his notice. We
were informed that 'according to all principles of sound
criticism ' this word is to be retained, that to be rejected :
but till the appearance of the dissertation of Dr. Hort
no one was so obliging as to tell us what the principles
are to which reference is confidently made, and by the
loyal application of which we might have arrived at the
same result for ourselves. And Hort's theory, as will be
shewn further on, involves too much violation of principles
generally received, and is too devoid of anything like proof,
ever to win universal acceptance. As matters of fact easily
verified, it stands in sharp antagonism to the judgement
passed by the Church all down the ages, and in many
respects does not accord with the teaching of the most
celebrated critics of the century who preceded him.
I trust I shall be forgiven, if in the prosecution of the
present inquiry I venture to step out of the beaten track,
and to lead my reader forward in a somewhat humbler
style than has been customary with my predecessors.
Whenever they have entered upon the consideration of
principles, they have always begun by laying down on
their own authority a set of propositions, some of which
so far from being axiomatic are repugnant to our judge
ment and are found as they stand to be even false. True

8 PRELIMINARY GROUNDS.
that I also shall have to begin by claiming assent to a few
fundamental positions : but then I venture to promise that
these shall all be self-evident. I am very much mistaken
if they do not also conduct us to results differing greatly
from those which have been recently in favour with many
of the most forward writers and teachers.
Beyond all things I claim at every thoughtful reader's
hands that he will endeavour to approach this subject
in an impartial frame of mind. To expect that he will
succeed in divesting himself of all preconceived notions as
to what is likely, what not, were unreasonable. But he is
invited at least to wear his prejudices as loose about him
as he can ; to be prepared to cast them off if at any time
he has been shewn that they are founded on misappre
hension ; to resolve on taking nothing for granted which
admits of being proved to be either true or false. And,
to meet an objection which is sure to be urged against
me, by proof of course I do but mean the nearest approach
to demonstration, which in the present subject-matter is
attainable. Thus, I request that, apart from proof of some sort,
it shall not be taken for granted that a copy of the New
Testament written in the fourth or fifth century will
exhibit a more trustworthy text than one written in the
eleventh or twelfth. That indeed of two ancient documents
the more ancient might not unreasonably have been expected
to prove the more trustworthy, I am not concerned to
dispute, and will not here discuss such a question ; but the
probabilities of the case at all events are not axiomatic.
Nay, it will be found, as I am bold enough to say, that in
many instances a fourteenth-century copy of the Gospels
may exhibit the truth of Scripture, while the fourth-century
copy in all these instances proves to be the depositary of
a fabricated text. I have only to request that, until the
subject has been fully investigated, men will suspend their

SACRED TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 9
judgement on this head : taking nothing for granted which
admits of proof, and regarding nothing as certainly either
true or false which has not been shewn to be so.
§3.
That which distinguishes Sacred Science from every
other Science which can be named is that it is Divine, and
has to do with a Book which is inspired ; that is, whose
true Author is God. For we assume that the Bible is to be
taken as inspired, and not regarded upon a level with the
Books of the East, which are held by their votaries to be
sacred. It is chiefly from inattention to this circumstance
that misconception prevails in that department of Sacred
Science known as ' Textual Criticism.' Aware that the New
Testament is like no other book in its origin, its contents,
its history, many critics of the present day nevertheless
permit themselves to reason concerning its Text, as if they
entertained no suspicion that the words and sentences of
which it is composed were destined to experience an extra
ordinary fate also. They make no allowances for the
fact that influences of an entirely different kind from any
with which profane literature is acquainted have made
themselves felt in this department, and therefore that even
those principles of Textual Criticism which in the case of
profane authors are regarded as fundamental are often out
of place here.
It is impossible that all this can be too clearly appre
hended. In fact, until those who make the words of the
New Testament their study are convinced that they move
in a region like no other, where unique phenomena await
them at every step, and where seventeen hundred and
fifty years ago depraving causes unknown in every other
department of learning were actively at work, progress
cannot really be made in the present discussion. Men
must by all means disabuse their minds of the prejudices

ID PRELIMINARY GROUNDS.
which the study of profane literature inspires. Let me
explain this matter a little more particularly, and establish
the reasonableness of what has gone before by a few plain
considerations which must, I think, win assent. I am not
about to offer opinions, but only to appeal to certain un
deniable facts. What I deprecate, is not any discriminating
use of reverent criticism, but a clumsy confusion of points
essentially different.
No sooner was the work of Evangelists and Apostles
recognized as the necessary counterpart and complement of
God's ancient Scriptures and became the ' New Testament,'
than a reception was found to be awaiting it in the world
closely resembling that which He experienced Who is the
subject of its pages. Calumny and misrepresentation, per
secution and murderous hate, assailed Him continually.
And the Written Word in like manner, in the earliest
age of all, was shamefully handled by mankind. Not
only was it confused through human infirmity and mis
apprehension, but it became also the object of restless
malice and unsparing assaults. Marcion, Valentinus,
Basilides, Heracleon, Menander, Asclepiades, Theodotus,
Hermophilus, Apollonides, and other heretics, adapted the
Gospels to their own ideas. Tatian, and later on Ammonius,
created confusion through attempts to combine the four
Gospels either in a diatessaron or upon an intricate arrange
ment made by sections, under which as a further result the
words of one Gospel became assimilated to those of another ^
Want of familiarity with the sacred words in the first ages,
carelessness of scribes, incompetent teaching, and ignorance
of Greek in the West, led to further corruption of the Sacred
Text. Then out of the fact that there existed a vast number
of corrupt copies arose at once the need of Recension, which
was carried on by Origen and his school. This was a fatal
' See below. Vol. II. throughout, and a remarkable passage quoted from
Caius or Gaius by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised (Quarterly Review,
No. 306), pp. 323-324.

EARLY CORRUPTION. II
necessity to have made itself felt in an age when the first
principles of the Science were not understood ; for ' to
correct ' was too often in those days another word for
' to corrupt.' And this is the first thing to be briefly
explained and enforced : but more than a counterbalance
was provided under the overruling Providence of God.
§3.
Before our Lord ascended up to Heaven, He told His
disciples that He would send them the Holy Ghost, Who
should supply His place and abide with His Church for
ever. He added a promise that it should be the office of
that inspiring Spirit not only ' to bring to their remem
brance all things whatsoever He had told them ^' but also
to ' guide' His Church ' into all the Truth,' or, 'the whole
Truth^' {itaaav rrjv aXyOeiav). Accordingly, the earliest great
achievement of those days was accomplished on giving to
the Church the Scriptures of the New Testament, in which
authorized teaching was enshrined in written form. And
first, out of those many Gospels which incompetent persons
had ' taken in hand ' to write or to compile out of much
floating matter of an oral or written nature, He guided
them to discern that four were wholly unlike the rest — were
the very Word of God.
There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine
Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind
the Scriptures of Truth, straightway abdicated His office ;
took no further care of His work ; abandoned those pre
cious writings to their fate. That a perpetual miracle was
wrought for their preservation — that copyists were protected
against the risk of error, or evil men prevented from adul
terating shamefully copies of the Deposit — no one, it is
presumed, is so weak as to suppose. But it is quite a
different thing to claim that all down the ages the sacred
' St. John xiv. 26. ^ gt. John xvi. 13.

12 PRELIMINARY GROUNDS.
writings must needs have been God's peculiar care ; that
the Church under Him has watched over them with
intelligence and skill ; has recognized which copies exhibit
a fabricated, which an honestly transcribed text ; has
generally sanctioned the one, and generally disallowed the
other. I am utterly disinclined to believe — so grossly
improbable does it seem — that at the end of 1800 years
995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove un
trustworthy ; and that the one, two, three, four or five which
remain, whose contents were till yesterday as good as
unknown, will be found to have retained the secret of what
the Holy Spirit originally inspired. I am utterly unable
to believe, in short, that God's promise has so entirely
failed, that at the end of 1800 years much of the text of
the Gospel had in point of fact to be picked by a German
critic out of a waste-paper basket in the convent of St.
Catherine ; and that the entire text had to be remodelled
after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had
remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had pro
bably owed their survival to that neglect ; whilst hundreds
of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed
their witness to copies made from them.
I have addressed what goes before to persons who
sympathize with me in my belief. To others the argu
ment would require to be put in a different way. Let it
then be remembered, that a wealth of copies existed in
early times ; that the need of zealous care of the Holy
Scriptures was always felt in the Church ; that it is only
from the Church that we have leariij which are the books
of the Bible and which are not ; that in the age in which
the Canon was settled, and which is presumed by many
critics to have introduced a corrupted text, most of the
intellect of the Roman Empire was found within the
Church, and was directed upon disputed questions ; that
in the succeeding ages the art of transcribing was brought

DIVINE SUPERINTENDENCE. 13
to a high pitch of perfection ; and that the verdict of all
the several periods since the production of those two
manuscripts has been given till a few years ago in favour
ofthe Text which has been handed down : — let it be further
borne in mind that the testimony is not only that of all
the ages, but of all the countries : and at the very least so
strong a presumption will ensue on behalf of the Traditional
Text, that a powerful case indeed must be constructed to
upset it. It cannot be vanquished by theories grounded
upon internal considerations — often only another name for
personal tastes — , or for scholarly likes or dislikes, or upon
fictitious recensions, or upon any arbitrary choice of favourite
manuscripts, or upon a strained division of authorities into
families or groups, or upon a warped application of the
principle of genealogy. In the ascertainment of the facts
of the Sacred Text, the laws of evidence must be strictly
followed. In questions relating to the inspired Word, mere
speculation and unreason have no place. In short, the
Traditional Text, founded upon the vast majority of
authorities and upon the Rock of Christ's Church, will, if
I mistake not, be found upon examination to be out of all
comparison superior to a text of the nineteenth century,
whatever skill and ingenuity may have been expended upon
the production or the defence of it.
§4.
For due attention has never yet been paid to a circum
stance which, rightly apprehended, will be found to go
a great way towards establishing the text of the New
Testament Scriptures on a solid basis. I refer to the fact
that a certain exhibition ofthe Sacred Text — that exhibition
of it with which we are all most familiar — rests on eccle
siastical authority. Speaking generally, the Traditional Text
of the New Testament Scriptures, equally with the New
Testament Canon, rests pn the authority of the Church

14 PRELIMINARY GROUNDS.
Catholic. 'Whether we like it, or dislike it' (remarked
a learned writer in the first quarter of the nineteenth cen
tury), ' the present New Testament Canon is neither more
nor less than the probat of the orthodox Christian bishops,
and those not only of the first and second, but of the third
and fourth, and even subsequent centuries ^' In like manner,
whether men would or would not have it so, it is a plain
fact that the Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament
is neither more nor less than the probat of the orthodox
Greek Christian bishops, and those, if not as we maintain
of the first and second, or the third, yet unquestionably
of the fourth and fifth, and even subsequent centuries.
For happily, the matter of fact here is a point on which
the disciples of the most advanced of the modern school
are entirely at one with us. Dr. Hort declares that ' The
fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally
is, beyond all question, identical with the dominant
Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian text of the second half of
the fourth century. . . . The bulk of extant MSS. written
from about three or four to ten or eleven centuries later
must have had in the greater number of extant variations
a common original either contemporary with, or older than,
our oldest MSS.^' And again, 'Before the close of the
fourth century, as we have said, a Greek text, not materially
differing from tbe almost universal text of the ninth century
and the Middle Ages, was dominant, probably by authority,
at Antioch, and exercised much influence elsewhere^.' The
mention of 'Antioch' is, characteristically of the writer,
purely arbitrary. One and the same Traditional Text,
except in comparatively few particulars, has prevailed in
the Church from the beginning till now. Especially de
serving of attention is the admission that the Text in
'¦ Rev. John Oxlee's sermon on Luke xxii. 28-30 (1821), p. 91 fThree
Sermons on the power, origin, and succession of the Christian Hierarchy, and
especially that of the Church of England).
' Westeott and Hort, Introduction, p. 92. s Ibid. p. 142.

THE TEXT NECESSARILY TRADITIONAL. 15
question is of the fourth century, to which same century the
two oldest of our Sacred Codexes (B and N) belong. There
is observed to exist in Church Lectionaries precisely the
same phenomenon. They have prevailed in unintermitted
agreement in other respects from very early times, probably
from the days of St. Chrysostom \ and have kept in the
main without change the form of words in which they were
originally cast in the unchangeable East.
And really the problem comes before us (God be
praised !) in a singularly convenient, a singularly intelli
gible form. Since the sixteenth century — we owe this also
to the good Providence of God — one and the same text
of the New Testament Scriptures has been generally re
ceived. I am not defending the ' Textus Receptus ' ; I am
simply stating the fact of its existence. That it is without
authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skilful revision in
every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be
absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text. Its
existence, nevertheless, is a fact from which there is no
escaping. Happily, Western Christendom has been con
tent to employ one and the same text for upwards of
three hundred years. If the objection be made, as it
probably will be, 'Do you then mean to rest upon the
five manuscripts used by Erasmus ? ' I reply, that the
copies employed were selected because they were known
to represent with accuracy the Sacred Word ; that the
descent of the text was evidently guarded with jealous care,
just as the human genealogy of our Lord was preserved ;
that it rests mainly upon much the widest testimony; and
that where any part of it conflicts with the fullest evidence
attainable, there I believe that it calls for correction.
The question therefore which presents itself, and must
needs be answered in the affirmative before a single
syllable of the actual text is displaced, will always be one
' Scrivener, Plain Introduction, ed. 4, Vol. I. pp. 75-76.

l6 PRELIMINARY GROUNDS.
and the same, viz. this : Is it certain that the evidence in
favour of the proposed new reading is sufficient to warrant
the innovation ? For I trust we shall all be agreed that in
the absence of an affirmative answer to this question, the
text may on no account be disturbed. Rightly or wrongly
it has had the approval of Western Christendom for three
centuries, and is at this hour in possession of the field.
Therefore the business before us might be stated somewhat
as follows: What considerations ought to determine our
acceptance of any reading not found in the Received Text,
or, to state it more generally and fundamentally, our
preference of one reading before another ? For until some
sort of understanding has been arrived at on this head,
progress is impossible. There can be no Science of Textual
Criticism, I repeat — and therefore no security for the in
spired Word — so long as the subjective judgement, which
may easily degenerate into individual caprice, is allowed
ever to determine which readings shall be rejected, which
retained. In the next chapter I shall discuss the principles which
must form the groundwork of the Science. Meanwhile
a few words are necessary to explain the issue lying between
myself and those critics with whom I am unable to agree.
I must, if I can, come to some understanding with them ; and
I shall use all clearness of speech in order that my meaning
and my position may be thoroughly apprehended.
§5.
Strange as it may appear, it is undeniably true, that the
whole of the controversy may be reduced to the following
narrow issue : Does the truth of the Text of Scripture
dwell with the vast multitude of copies, uncial and cursive,
concerning which nothing is more remarkable than the
marvellous agreement which subsists between them ? Or is
it rather to be supposed that the truth abides exclusively

THE MANY AGAINST FE'W. 17
with a very little handful of manuscripts, which at once
differ from the great bulk of the witnesses, and — strange to
say — also amongst themselves ?
The advocates of the Traditional Text urge that the
Consent without Concert of so many hundreds of copies,
executed by different persons, at diverse times, in widely
sundered regions of the Church, is a presumptive proof of
their trustworthiness, which nothing can invalidate but
some sort of demonstration that they are untrustworthy
guides after all.
The advocates of the old uncials— for it is the text
exhibited by one or more of five Uncial Codexes known
as ABXCD which is set up with so much confidence —
are observed to claim that the truth must needs reside
exclusively with the objects of their choice. They seem to
base their claim on ' antiquity ' ; but the real confidence of
many of them lies evidently in a claim to subtle divination,
which enables them to recognize a true reading or the true
text when they see it. Strange, that it does not seem to
have struck such critics that they assume the very thing
which has to be proved. Be this as it may, as a matter of
fact, readings exclusively found in Cod. B, or Cod. N, or
Cod. D are sometimes adopted as correct. Neither Cod. A
nor Cod. C are ever known to inspire similar confidence.
But the accession of both or either as a witness is always
acceptable. Now it is remarkable that all the five Codexes
just mentioned are never found, unless I am mistaken,
exclusively in accord.
This question will be more fully discussed in the follow
ing treatise. Here it is only necessary further to insist
upon the fact that, generally speaking, compromise upon
these issues is impossible. Most people in these days
are inclined to remark about any controversy that the
truth resides between the two combatants, and most of us
would like to meet our opponents half-way. The present
C

l8 PRELIMINARY GROUNDS.
contention unfortunately does not admit of such a decision.
Real acquaintance with the numerous points at stake
must reveal the impossibility of effecting a settlement like
that. It depends, not upon the attitude, or the temper,
or the intellects of the opposing parties: but upon the
stern and incongruous elements of the subject-matter of
the struggle. Much as we may regret it, there is positively
no other solution.
Indeed there exist but two rival schools of Textual
Criticism. And these are irreconcilably opposed. In the
end, one of them will have to give way : and, vac victis !
unconditional surrender will be its only resource. When
one has been admitted to be the right, there can no place
be found for the other. It will have to be dismissed from
attention as a thing utterly, hopelessly in the wrong ^.
'¦ Of course this trenchant passage refers only to the principles of the school
found to fail. A school may leave fruits of research of a most valuable kind,
and yet be utterly in error as to the inferences involved in such and other facts.
Dean Burgon amply admitted this. The following extract from one of the
many detached papers left by the author is appended as possessing both illus
trative and personal interest : —
' Familiar as all such details as the present must of necessity prove to those
who have made Textual Criticism their study, they may on no account be with
held. I am not addressing learned persons only. I propose, before I lay down
my pen, to make educated persons, wherever they may be found, partakers of
my own profound conviction that for the most part certainty is attainable on
this subject-maUer ; but that tl:e decrees of the popular school — at the head of
which stand many of the great critics of Christendom — are utterly mistaken.
Founded, as I venture to think, on entirely false premisses, their conclusions
almost invariably are altogether wrong. And this I hold to be demonstrable ;
and I propose in the ensuing pages to establish the fact. If I do not succeed,
I shall pay the penalty for my presumption and my folly. But if I succeed —
and I wish to have jurists and persons skilled in the law of evidence, or at
least thoughtful and unprejudiced persons, wherever they are to be found, and
no others, for my judges,— if I establish my position, I say, let my father and
my mother's son be kindly remembered by the Church of Christ when he has
departed hence.'

CHAPTER II.
PRINCIPLES. §1-
The object of Textual Criticism, when applied to the
Scriptures of the New Testament, is to determine what the
Apostles and Evangelists of Christ actually wrote — the
precise words they employed, and the very order of them.
It is therefore one of the most important subjects which can
be proposed for examination ; and unless handled unskil
fully, ought to prove by no means wanting in living interest.
Moreover, it clearly takes precedence, in synthetical order
of thought, of every other department of Sacred Science, so
far as that rests upon the great pillar of Holy Scripture.
Now Textual Criticism occupies itself chiefly with two
distinct branches of inquiry, (i) Its first object is to collect,
investigate, and arrange the evidence supplied by Manu
scripts, Versions, Fathers. And this is an inglorious task,
which demands prodigious labour, severe accuracy, un
flagging attention, and can never be successfully conducted
without a considerable amount of solid learning. (2) Its
second object is to draw critical inferences ; in other words,
to discover the truth of the text — the genuine words of
Holy Writ. And this is altogether a loftier function, and
calls for the exercise of far higher gifts. Nothing can be
successfully accomplished here without large and exact
knowledge, freedom from bias and prejudice. Above all,
there must be a clear and judicial understanding. The
C 3

20 PRINCIPLES.
logical faculty in perfection must energize continually:
or the result can only be mistakes, which may easily
prove calamitous.
My next step is to declare what has been hitherto
effected in either of these departments, and to characterize
the results. In the first-named branch of the subject, till
recently very little has been attempted : but that little
has been exceedingly well done. Many more results have
been added in the last thirteen years : a vast amount of
additional evidence has been discovered, but only a small
portion of it has been thoroughly examined and collated.
In the latter branch, a great deal has been attempted : but
the result proves to be full of disappointment to those who
augured much from it. The critics of this century have
been in too great a hurry. They have rushed to con
clusions, trusting to the evidence which was already in their
hands, forgetting that only those conclusions can be
scientifically sound which are drawn from all the materials
that exist. Research of a wider kind ought to have pre
ceded decision. Let me explain and establish what I have
been saying.
§2.
It was only to have been anticipated that the Author
of the Everlasting Gospel — that masterpiece of Divine
Wisdom, that miracle of superhuman skill — would shew
Himself supremely careful for the protection and preserva
tion of His own chiefest work. Every fresh discoVery of
the beauty and preciousness of the Deposit in its e^g^P'^I
structure does but serve to deepen the conviction tlfe
a marvellous provision must needs have been made iff
God's eternal counsels for the effectual conservation of the
inspired Text.
Yet it is not too much to assert that nothing which
man's inventive skill could have devised nearly comes up

MULTITUDINOUS EVIDENCE. 21
to the actual truth of the matter. Let us take a slight but
comprehensive view of what is found upon investigation,
as I hold, to have been the Divine method in respect of
the New Testament Scriptures.
I. From the very necessity of the case, copies of the
Gospels and Epistles in the original Greek were multiplied
to an extraordinary extent all down the ages and in every
part of the Christian Church. The result has been that,
although all the earliest have perished, there remains to
this day a prodigious number of such transcripts ; some of
them of very high antiquity. On examining these with
care, we discover that they must needs have been {a) pro
duced in different countries, (b) executed at intervals during
the space of one thousand years, {c) copied from originals
no longer in existence. And thus a body of evidence has
been accumulated as to what is the actual text of Scripture,
such as is wholly unapproachable with respect to any other
writings in the world ^. More than two thousand manu
script copies are now (1888) known to exist ^-
' There are, however, in existence, about 200 MSS. of the Iliad aud Odyssey
of Homer, and about ifo of Virgil. But in the case of many books the existing
authorities are but scanty. Thus there are not many more than thirty of
Aeschylus, and they are all said by W. Dindorf to be derived from one of the
eleventh century ; only a few of Demosthenes, of which the oldest are of the
tenth or eleventh century : only one authority for the first six books of the
Annals of Tacitus (see also Madvig's Introduction) : only one of the Clemen
tines : only one of the Didache, &c. See Gow's Companion to School Classics,
Macmillan & Co. 1888.
^ ' I had already assisted my friend Prebendary Scrivener in greatly enlarging
Scholz's list. We had, in fact, raised the enumeration of " Evangelia " [copies
of Gospels] to 621 : of ''Acts and Catholic Epistles" to 239: of "Paul" to 281 :
of " Apocalypse " to 108 : of" Evangelistaria " [Lectionaiy copies of Gospels]
to 299 ; ofthe book called " Apostolos" [Lectionary copies of Acts and Epistles]
to 81 — making a total of 1639. But at the end of a protracted and somewhat
laborious correspondence with the custodians of not a few great continental
libraries, I am able to state that our available " Evangelia '' amount to at least
739 : our " Acts and Cath. Epp." to 261 : our " Paul " to 338 ; our " Apoc."
to 122 : our " Evst." to 415 : our copies of the " Apostolos " to 128— making
a total of 2003. This shews an increase of three hundred and seventy-four.'
Revision Revised, p. 521. But since the publication of Dr. Gregory's Prole
gomena, and of the fourth edition of Dr. Scrivener's Plain Introduction to the

22 PRINCIPLES.
It should be added that the practice of reading Scripture
aloud before the congregation — a practice which is observed
to have prevailed from the Apostolic age — has resulted
in the increased security of the Deposit : for ( i) it has led
to the multiplication, by authority, of books containing
the Church Lessons ; and (2) it has secured a Hving wit
ness to the ipsissima verba of the Spirit — in all the Churches
of Christendom. The ear once thoroughly familiarized
with the words of Scripture is observed to resent the
slightest departure from the established type. As for its
tolerating important changes, that is plainly out of the
question. II. Next, as the Gospel spread from land to land, it
became translated into the several languages of the ancient
world. For, though Greek was widely understood, the com
merce and the intellectual predominance of the Greeks,
and the conquests of Alexander having caused it to be
spoken nearly all over the Roman Empire, Syriac and
Latin Versions were also required for ordinary reading,
probably even in the very age of the Apostles. And thus
those three languages in which ' the title of His accusation '
was written above His cross — not to insist upon any abso
lute identity between the Syriac of the time with the then
'Hebrew' of Jerusalem — became from the earliest time
the depositaries of the Gospel of the World's Redeemer.
Syriac was closely related to the vernacular Aramaic of
Palestine and was spoken in the adjoining region : whilst
Latin was the familiar idiom of all the Churches of the
West. Thus from the first in their public assemblies, orientals
Criticism of the New Testament, after Dean Burgon's death, the list has been
largely increased. In the fourth edition of the Introduction (Appendix F,
p. 397*) the total number under tlie six classes of ' Evangelia,' ' Acts and
Catholic Epistles,' 'St. Paul,' 'Apocalypse,' 'Evangelistaria,' and' Apostolos,'
has reached (about) 3,829, and may be reckoned when all have come in at over
4,000. The separate MSS. (some in the reckoning just given being counted
more than once) are already over 3,000.

COPIES, VERSIONS, FATHERS. 23
and occidentals alike habitually read aloud the writings of
the Evangelists and Apostles. Before the fourth and fifth
centuries the Gospel had been further translated into the
peculiar idioms of Lower and Upper Egypt, in what are
now called the Bohairic and the Sahidic Versions, — of
Ethiopia and of Armenia, — of Gothland. The text thus
embalmed in so many fresh languages was clearly, to a
great extent, protected against the risk of further change ;
and these several translations remain to this day as wit
nesses of what was found in copies of the New Testament
which have long since perished.
III. But the most singular provision for preserving the
memory of what was anciently read as inspired Scriptures
remains to be described. Sacred Science boasts of a litera
ture without a parallel in any other department of human
knowledge. The Fathers of the Church, the Bishops
and Doctors of primitive Christendom, were in some in
stances voluminous writers, whose works have largely come
down to our times. These men often comment upon,
freely quote, habitually refer to, the words of Inspira
tion : whereby it comes to pass that a host of unsuspected
witnesses to the truth of Scripture are sometimes pro
ducible. The quotations of passages by the Fathers are
proofs of the readings which they found in the copies used
by them. They thus testify in ordinary quotations, though
it be at second hand : and sometimes their testimony has
more than usual value when they argue or comment upon
the passage in question. Indeed, very often the manu
scripts in their hands, which so far live in their quotations,
are older — perhaps centuries older — than any copies that
now survive. In this way, it will be perceived that a three
fold security has been provided for the integrity of the
Deposit: — Copies, — Versions, — Fathers. On the relation
of each of which heads to one another something par
ticular has now to be delivered.

24 PRINCIPLES. §3.
Manuscript copies are commonly divided into Uncial,
i. e. those which are written in capital letters, and Cursive or
' minuscule,' i. e. these which are written in ' running ' or
small hand. This division though convenient is misleading.
The earliest of the ' Cursives ' are more ancient than the
latest of the ' Uncials ' by full one hundred years ^. The later
body of the Uncials belongs virtually, as will be proved, to
the body of the Cursives. There is no merit, so to speak, in
a MS. being written in the uncial character. The number
of the Uncials is largely inferior to that of the Cursives,
though they usually boast a much higher antiquity. It
will be shewn in a subsequent chapter that there is now, in
the face of recent discoveries of Papyrus MSS. in Egypt,
much reason for inferring that Cursive MSS. were largely
derived from MSS. on Papyrus, just as the Uncials them
selves were, and that the prevalence for some centuries of
Uncials took its rise from the local library of Caesarea.
For a full account of these several Codexes, and for many
other particulars in Sacred Textual Criticism, the reader is
referred to Scrivener's Introduction, 1894.
Now it is not so much an exaggerated, as an utterly
mistaken estimate of the importance of the Textual decrees
of the five oldest of these Uncial copies, which lies at the
root of most of the criticism of the last fifty years. We
are constrained in consequence to bestow what will appear
to some a disproportionate amount of attention on
those five Codexes : viz. the Vatican Codex B, and the
Sinaitic Codex H, which are supposed to be both of
the fourth century: the Alexandrian Codex A, and the
fragmentary Parisian Codex C, which are assigned to the
fifth : and lastly D, the Codex Bezae at Cambridge, which
is supposed to have been written in the sixth. To these
1 Evan. 481 is dated A.D. 835 ; Evan. S. is dated a.D. 949.

VARIETY IN COPIES. 25
may now be added, as far as St. Matthew and St. Mark are
concerned, the Codex Beratinus <P, and the Rossanensian
Codex S, both of which are of the early part of the sixth
century or end of the fifth. But these two witness generally
against the two oldest, and have not yet received as much
attention as they deserve. It will be found in the end that
we have been guilty of no exaggeration in characterizing
B, N, and D at the outset, as three of the most corrupt
copies in existence. Let not any one suppose that the age
of these five MSS. places them upon a pedestal higher than
all others. They can be proved to be wrong time after time
by evidence of an earlier period than that which they
can boast.
Indeed, that copies of Scripture, as a class, are the most
important instruments of Textual Criticism is what no
competent person will be found to deny. The chief reasons
of this are their continuous text, their designed embodi
ment of the written Word, their number, and their variety.
But we make also such great account of MSS., because
(i) they supply unbroken evidence to the text of Scripture
from an early date throughout history until the invention
of printing ; (2) they are observed to be dotted over every
century of the Church after the first three ; (3) they are the
united product of all the patriarchates in Christendom.
There can have been no collusion therefore in the prepara
tion of this class of authorities. The risk of erroneous
transcription has been reduced to the lowest possible
amount. The prevalence of fraud to a universal extent
is simply a thing impossible. Conjectural corrections of
the text are pretty sure, in the long run, to have become
effectually excluded. On the contrary, the testimony of
Fathers is fragmentary, undesigned, though often on that
account the more valuable, and indeed, as has been already
said, is often not to be found ; yet occasionally it is very
precious, whether from eminent antiquity or the clearness of

26 PRINCIPLES.
their verdict: while Versions, though on larger details they
yield a most valuable collateral evidence, yet from their
nature are incapable of rendering help upon many important
points of detail. Indeed, in respect of the ipsissima verba
of Scripture, the evidence of Versions in other languages
must be precarious in a high degree.
Undeniable it is, that as far as regards Primitiveness,
certain of the Versions, and not a few of the Fathers, throw
Manuscripts altogether in the shade. We possess no actual
copies of the New Testament so old as the Syriac and the
Latin Versions by probably more than two hundred years.
Something similar is perhaps to be said of the Versions
made into the languages of Lower and Upper Egypt,
which may be of the third century ^. Reasonable also it
is to assume that in no instance was an ancient Version
executed from a single Greek exemplar : consequently.
Versions enjoyed both in their origin and in their acceptance
more publicity than of necessity attached to any individual
copy. And it is undeniable that on countless occasions
the evidence of a translation, on account of the clearness
of its testimony, is every bit as satisfactory as that of an
actual copy of the Greek.
But I would especially remind my readers of Bentley's
golden precept, that ' The real text of the sacred writers
does not now, since the originals have been so long lost,
lie in any MS. or edition, but is dispersed in them all.'
This truth, which was evident to the powerful intellect of
that great scholar, lies at the root of all sound Textual
Criticism. To abide by the verdict of the two, or five, or
seven oldest Manuscripts, is at first sight plausible, and is
the natural refuge of students who are either superficial, or
who wish to make their task as easy and simple as possible.
But to put aside inconvenient witnesses is contrary to all
principles of justice and of science. The problem is more
' Or, as some think, at the end of the second century.

ORIGINAL READINGS. 27
complex, and is not to be solved so readily. Evidence of
a strong and varied character may not with safety be cast
away, as if it were worthless.
§4.
We are constrained therefore to proceed to the con
sideration of the vast mass of testimony which lies ready
to our hands. And we must just as evidently seek for
principles to guide us in the employment of it. For it is
the absence of any true chart of the ocean that has led
people to steer to any barren island, which under a guise of
superior antiquity might at first sight present the delusive
appearance of being the only safe and sure harbour.
I. We are all, I trust, agreed at least in this, — That the
thingwhich we are always in search of is the Text of Scripture
as it actually proceeded from the inspired writers themselves.
It is never, I mean, ' ancient readings ' which we propose
as the ultimate object of our inquiries. It is always the
oldest Reading of all which we desire to ascertain ; in other
words, the original Text, nothing else or less than the very
words of the holy Evangelists and Apostles themselves.
And axiomatic as this is, it requires to be clearly laid down.
For sometimes critics appear to be engrossed with the one
solicitude to establish concerning the readings for which
they contend, that at least they must needs be very ancient.
Now, since all readings must needs be very ancient
which are found in very ancient documents, nothing has
really been achieved by proving that such and such
readings existed in the second century of our era : — unless
it can also be proved that there are certain other attendant
circumstances attaching to those readings, which constitute
a fair presumption, that they must needs be regarded as the
only genuine wording of the passage in question. The Holy
Scriptures are not an arena for the exercise or display of the
ingenuity of critics.

28 PRINCIPLES.
2. I trust it may further be laid down as a fundamental
principle that of two possible ways of reading the Text,
that way which is found on examination to be the better
attested and authenticated — by which I mean, the reading
which proves on inquiry to be supported by the better
evidence — must in every instance be of necessity presumed
to be the actual reading, and is to be accepted accordingly
by all students.
3. I will venture to make only one more postulate, viz.
this : That hitherto we have become acquainted with no
single authority which is entitled to dictate absolutely on
all occasions, or even on any one occasion, as to what shall
or shall not be regarded as the true Text of Scripture. We
have here no one infallible witness, I say, whose solitary
dictum is competent to settle controversies. The problem
now to be investigated, viz. what evidence is to be held to
be ' the best,' may doubtless be stated in many ways : but
I suppose not more fairly than by proposing the following
question, — Can any rules be offered whereby in any case of
conflicting testimony it may be certainly ascertained which
authorities ought to be followed? The court is full of
witnesses who contradict one another. How are we to
know which of them to believe? Strange to say, the
witnesses are commonly, indeed almost invariably, observed
to divide themselves into two camps. Are there no rules
discoverable by which it may be probably determined with
which camp of the two the truth resides ?
I proceed to offer for the reader's consideration seven
Tests of Truth, concerning each of which I shall have some
thing to say in the way of explanation by-and-by. In the
end I shall ask the reader to allow that where these seven
tests are found to conspire, we may confidently assume that
the evidence is worthy of all acceptance, and is to be-
implicitly followed. A reading should be attested then by
the seven following

seven tests of truth. 29
Notes of Truth.
I. Antiquity, or Primitiveness ;
2. Consent of Witnesses, or Number ;
3. Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity ;
4. Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight ;
5. Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition;
6. Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context ;
7. Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness.
§5.
The full consideration of these Tests of Truth must be post
poned to the next chapter. Meanwhile, three discussions
of a more general character demand immediate attention.
I. Antiquity, in and by itself, will be found to avail
nothing. A reading is to be adopted not because it is old,
but because it is the best attested, and therefore the oldest.
There may seem to be paradox on my part : but there is
none. I have admitted, and indeed insist upon it, that the
oldest reading of all is the very thing we are in search of:
for that must of necessity be what proceeded from the
pen of the sacred writer himself. But, as a rule, fifty
years, more or less, must be assumed to have intervened
between the production of the inspired autographs and the
earliest written representation of them now extant. And
precisely in that first age it was that men evinced them
selves least careful or accurate in guarding the Deposit, —
least critically exact in their way of quoting it ; — whilst the
enemy was most restless, most assiduous in procuring its
depravation. Strange as it may sound, — distressing as the
discovery must needs prove when it is first distinctly
realized, — the earliest shreds and scraps — for they are at
first no more — that come into our hands as quotations of
the text of the New Testament Scriptures are not only
disappointing by reason of their inexactness, their frag
mentary character, their vagueness ; but they are often

30 PRINCIPLES.
demonstrably inaccurate. I proceed to give one example
out of many.
' My God, My God, wherefore hast thou forsaken me ? '
fxe eyKaTfkmes ; So it is in St. Matt, xxvii. 46 : so in St.
Mark xv. 34. But because, in the latter place, NB, one
Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Bohairic Versions, besides
Eusebius, followed by L and a few cursives, reverse the
order of the last two words, the editors are unanimous in
doing the same thing. They have yet older authority,
however, for what they do. Justin M. (a.D. 164) and the
Valentinians (A.D. 150) are with them. As far therefore
as antiquity goes, the evidence for reading ey/carAiTre's jxe
is really wondrous strong.
And yet the evidence on the other side, when it is
considered, is perceived to be overwhelming^. Add the
discovery that iyKaTfXnres /ne is the established reading of
the familiar Septuagint, and we have no hesitation what
ever in retaining the commonly Received Text, because the
secret is out. KB were sure to follow the Septuagint,
which was so dear to Origen. Further discussion of the
point is superfluous.
I shall of course be asked, — Are we then to understand
that you condemn the whole body of ancient authorities as
untrustworthy .? And if you do, to what other authorities
would you have us resort ?
I answer : — So far from regarding the whole body of
ancient authorities as untrustworthy, it is precisely 'the
whole body of ancient authorities' to which I insist that
we must invariably make our appeal, and to which we
must eventually defer. I regard them therefore with more
than reverence. I submit to their decision unreservedly.
Doubtless I refuse to regard any one of those same
most ancient nianuscripts — or even any two or three
' ACS (* in St. Matt.) with fouiteen other uncials, most cursives, four Old
Latin, Gothic, St. Irenaeus, &c. &c.

VALUE OF REAL ANTIQUITY. 3 1
of them — as oracular. But why ? Because I am able to
demonstrate that every one of them singly is in a high
degree corrupt, and is condemned upon evidence older than
itself. To pin my faith therefore to one, two, or three of
those eccentric exemplars, were indeed to insinuate that the
whole body of ancient authorities is unworthy of credit.
It is to Antiquity, I repeat, that I make my appeal : and
further, I insist that the ascertained verdict of Antiquity
shall be accepted. But then, inasmuch as by ' Antiquity '
I do not even mean any one single ancient authority, how
ever ancient, to the exclusion of, and in preference to, all the
rest, but the whole collective body, it is precisely ' the body
of ancient authorities ' which I propose as the arbiters.
Thus, I do not mean by ' Antiquity ' either (i) the Peshitto
Syriac : or (2) Cureton's Syriac : or (3) the Old Latin
Versions : or (4) the Vulgate : or (5) the Egyptian, or
indeed (6) any other of the ancient Versions: — not (7)
Origen, nor (8) Eusebius, nor (9) Chrysostom, nor (10)
Cyril, — nor indeed (11) any other ancient Father standing
alone: neither (12) Cod. A, — nor (13) Cod. B, — nor (14)
Cod. C, — nor (15) Cod. D, — nor (16) Cod. N', — nor in fact
(17) any other individual Codex that can be named. I
should as soon think of confounding the cathedral hard by
with one or two of the stones which compose it. By
Antiquity I understand the whole body of documents which
convey to me the mind of Antiquity, — transport me back
to the primitive age, and acquaint me, as far as is now
possible, with what was its verdict.
And by parity of reasoning, I altogether decline to accept
as decisive the verdict of any two or three of these in
defiance of the ascertained authority of all, or a majority
of the rest.
In short, I decline to accept a fragment of Antiquity,
arbitrarily broken off, in lieu of the entire mass of ancient
witnesses. And further than this, I recognize other Notes

32 PRINCIPLES.
of Truth, as I have stated already; and I shall prove this
position in my next chapter.
§6.
II. The term ' various readings ' conveys an entirely
incorrect impression of the grave discrepancies discoverable
between a little handful of documents — of which Codexes
B-N ofthe fourth century, D of the sixth, L of the eighth,
are the most conspicuous samples — and the Traditional
Text of the New Testament. The expression 'various
readings' belongs to secular literature and refers to phe
nomena essentially different from those exhibited by the
copies just mentioned. Not but what ' various readings,'
properly so called, are as plentiful in sacred as in profane
codexes. One has but to inspect Scrivener's Full and
Exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the
Gospels (1853) to be convinced of the fact. But when
we study the New Testament by the light of such Codexes
as BNDL, we find ourselves in an entirely new region of
experience ; confronted by phenomena not only unique
but even portentous. The text has undergone apparently
an habitual, if not systematic, depravation ; has been
manipulated throughout in a wild way. Influences have
been demonstrably at work which altogether perplex the
judgement. The result is simply calamitous. There are
evidences of persistent mutilation, not only of words and
clauses, but of entire sentences. The substitution of one
expression for another, and the arbitrary transposition of
words, are phenomena of such perpetual occurrence, that
it becomes evident at last that what lies before us is not
so much an ancient copy, as an ancient recension of the
Sacred Text. And yet not by any means a recension in
the usual sense of the word as an authoritative revision :
but only as the name may be applied to the product of
individual inaccuracy or caprice, or tasteless assiduity

THE TEXT OF B AND ti INFERIOR. 33
on the part of one or many, at a particular time or in a long
series of years. There are reasons for inferring, that we
have alighted on five specimens of what the misguided piety
of a primitive age is known to have been fruitful in pro
ducing. Of fraud, strictly speaking, there may have been
little or none. We should shrink from imputing an evil
motive where any matter will bear an honourable interpreta
tion. But, as will be seen later on, these Codexes abound
with so much licentiousness or carelessness as to suggest
the inference, that they are in fact indebted for their pre
servation to their hopeless character. Thus it would
appear that an evil reputation ensured their neglect in
ancient times ; and has procured that they should survive
to our own, long after multitudes which were much better
had perished in the Master's service. Let men think of
this matter as they will, — whatever in fact may prove to
be the history of that peculiar Text which finds its chief
exponents in Codd. B{<DL, in some copies of the Old
Latin, and in the Curetonian Version, in Origen, and to
a lesser extent in the Bohairic and Sahidic Translations, —
all must admit, as a matter of fact, that it differs essentially
from the Traditional Text, and is no mere variation of it.
But why, it will be asked, may it not be the genuine
article ? Why may not the ' Traditional Text ' be the
fabrication ?
I. The burden of proof, we reply, rests with our oppo
nents. The consent without concert of (suppose) 990 out
of looo copies, — of every date from the fifth to the four
teenth century, and belonging to every region of ancient
Christendom, — is a colossal fact not to be set aside by any
amount of ingenuity. A predilection for two fourth-
century manuscripts closely resembling one another, yet
standing apart in every page so seriously that it is easier
to find two consecutive verses in which they differ than
two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree : — such
D

34 PRINCIPLES.
a preference, I say, apart from abundant or even definitely
clear proof that it is well founded, is surely not entitled
to be accepted as conclusive.
2. Next, — Because, — although for convenience we have
hitherto spoken of Codexes BNDL as exhibiting a single
text,— it is in reality not one text but fragments of many,
which are to be met with in the little handful of authorities
enumerated above. Their witness does not agree together.
The Traditional Text, on the contrary, is unmistakably one.
3. Further, — Because it is extremely improbable, if not
impossible, that the Traditional Text was or could have
been derived from such a document as the archetype of
B-N: whereas the converse operation is at once obvious
and easy. There is no difficulty in producing a short text by
omission of words, or clauses, or verses, from a fuller text :
but the fuller text could not have been produced from the
shorter by any development which would be possible under
the facts of the case ^. Glosses would account for changes
in the archetype of B-K, but not conversely ^.
4. But the chief reason is, — Because, on making our
appeal unreservedly to Antiquity — to Versions and Fathers
as well as copies, — the result is unequivocal. The Tra
ditional Text becomes triumphantly established, — the
eccentricities of BKD and their colleagues become one
and all emphatically condemned.
' See Vol. II.
^ All such questions are best understood by observing an illustration. In
St. Matt. xiii. 36, the disciples say to our Lord, ' Explain to us ((ppaaov ^/uv)
the parable of the tares' The cursives (and late uncials) are all agreed iu this
reading. Why then do Lachmann and Tregelles (not Tischendorf) exhibit
Smaaiprjaov ? Only because they find Siaaa<j>rj<Tov in B. Had they known that
the first reading of S exhibited that reading also, they would have been more
confident than ever. But what pretence can there be for assuming that the
Traditional reading of all the copies is untrustworthy in this place ? The plea
of antiquity at all events cannot be urged, for Origen reads <l>paaov four times.
The Versions do not help us. What else is Siaaaip^qaov but a transparent
Gloss ! Aiaaatpijaov (elucidate) explains fpaaov, but (ppaaov (tell) does not explain
Staaacfiriaov.

THE TRADITIONAL A SUPERIOR TEXT. 35
All these, in the mean time, are points concerning which
something has been said already, and more will have to be
said in the sequel. Returning now to the phenomenon
adverted to at the outset, we desire to explain that whereas
' Various Readings,' properly so called, that is to say, the
Readings which possess really strong attestation — for more
than nineteen-twentieths of the ' Various Readings ' com
monly quoted are only the vagaries of scribes, and ought
not to be called ' Readings ' at all — do not require classifi
cation into groups, as Griesbach and Hort have classified
them ; ' Corrupt Readings,' if they are to be intelligently
handled, must by all means be distributed under distinct
heads, as will be done in the Second Part of this work.
III. ' It is not at all our design ' (remarks Dr. Scrivener)
' to seek our readings from the later uncials, supported as
they usually are by the mass of cursive manuscripts ; but
to employ their confessedly secondary evidence in those
numberless instances wherein their elder brethren are hope
lessly at variance^.' From which it is plain that in this
excellent writer's opinion, the truth of Scripture is to be
sought in the first instance at the hands of the older
uncials : that only when these yield conflicting testimony
may we resort to the ' confessedly secondary evidence ' of
the later uncials : and that only so may we proceed to
inquire for the testimony of the great mass of the cursive
copies. It is not difficult to foresee what would be the
result of such a method of procedure.
I venture therefore respectfully but firmly to demur to
the spirit of my learned friend's remarks on the present,
and on many similar occasions. His language is calculated
to countenance the popular belief (i) That the authority
of an uncial codex, because it is an uncial, is necessarily
greater than that of a codex written in the cursive character :
an imagination which upon proof I hold to be groundless.
' Plain Introduction, I. 277. 4th edition.
D a

36 PRINCIPLES.
Between the text of the later uncials and the text of the
cursive copies, I fail to detect any separative difference :
certainly no such difference as would induce me to assign
the palm to the former. It will be shewn later on in this
treatise, that it is a pure assumption to take for granted, or
to infer, that cursive copies were all descended from the
uncials. New discoveries in palaeography have ruled that
error to be out of court.
But (2) especially do I demur to the popular notion, to
which I regret to find that Dr. Scrivener lends his powerful
sanction, that the text of Scripture is to be sought in the
first instance in the oldest of the uncials. I venture to
express my astonishment that so learned and thoughtful
a man should not have seen that before ceitain ' elder
brethren ' are erected into a supreme court of judicature,
some other token of fitness besides that of age must be
produced on their behalf. Whence, I can but ask — , whence
is it that no one has yet been at the pains to establish the
contradictory of the following proposition, viz. that Codexes
BNCD are the several depositaries of a fabricated and
depraved text : and that BND, for C is a palimpsest, i. e,
has had the works of Ephraem the Syrian written over it
as if it were of no use, are probably indebted for their very
pi'eservation solely to the fact that they were anciently
recognized as untrustworthy documents ? Do men indeed
find it impossible to realize the notion that there must have
existed such things as refuse copies in the fourth, fifth,
sixth, and seventh centuries as well as in the eighth, ninth,
tenth, and eleventh ? and that the Codexes which we call
BNCD may possibly, if not as I hold probably, have been
of that class ^ ?
Now I submit that it is a sufficient condemnation of
' It is very remarkable that the sum of Eusebius' own evidence is largely
against those uncials. Yet it seems most probable that he had B and N executed
from the aKptPrj or 'critical' copies of Origen. See below. Chapter IX.

NO SPECIAL AUTHORITY IN OLDEST UNCIALS. 37
Codd. BNCD as a supreme court of judicature (1) That
as a rule they are observed to be discordant in their judge
ments : (2) That when they thus differ among themselves
it is generally demonstrable by an appeal to antiquity that
the two principal judges B and N have delivered a mistaken
judgement : (3) That when these two differ one from the
other, the supreme judge B is often in the wrong : and
lastly (4) That it constantly happens that all four agree,
and yet all four are in error.
Does any one then inquire, — But why at all events may
not resort be had in the first instance to Codd. BNACD ? —
I answer, — Because the inquiry is apt to prejudice the
question, pretty sure to mislead the judgement, only too
likely to narrow the issue and render the Truth hopelessly
difficult of attainment. For every reason, I am inclined to
propose the directly opposite method of procedure, as at
once the safer and the more reasonable method. When I
learn that doubt exists, as to the reading of any particular
place, instead of inquiring what amount of discord on the
subject exists between Codexes ABNCD (for the chances
are that they will be all at loggerheads among themselves),
I inquire for the verdict as it is given, by the main body of
the copies. This is generally unequivocal. But if (which
seldom happens) I find this a doubtful question, then in
deed I begin to examine the separate witnesses. Yet even
then it helps me little, or rather it helps me nothing, to
find, as I commonly do, that A is on one side and B on
the other, — except by the way that wherever N B are seen
together, or when D stands apart with only a few allies,
the inferior reading is pretty sure to be found there also.
Suppose however (as commonly happens) there is no
serious division, — of course, significance does not attach
itself to any handful of eccentric copies, — but that there is
a practical unanimity among the cursives and later uncials:
I cannot see that a veto can rest with such unstable and

38 PRINCIPLES.
discordant authorities, however much they may singly add
to the weight of the vote already tendered. It is as a
hundred to one that the uncial or uncials which are with
the main body of the cursives are right, because (as will be
shown) in their consentience they embody the virtual de
cision of the whole Church ; and that the dissentients — be
they few or many — are wrong. I inquire however, — What
say the Versions? and last but not least, — What say the
Fathers ?
The essential error in the proceeding I object to is best
illustrated by an appeal to elementary facts. Only two of
the ' five old uncials ' are complete documents, B and N :
and these being confessedly derived from one and the
same exemplar, cannot be regarded as two. The rest of
the ' old uncials ' are lamentably defective. — ^From the
Alexandrian Codex (A) the first twenty-four chapters of
St. Matthew's Gospel are missing : that is, the MS. lacks
870 verses out of 1,071. The same Codex is also without
126 consecutive verses of St. John's Gospel. More than
one-fourth of the contents of Cod. A are therefore lost ^. —
D is complete only in respect of St. Luke: wanting 119
verses of St. Matthew, — 5 verses of St. Mark, — 166 verses of
St. John. — On the other hand. Codex C is chiefly defective
in respect of St. Luke's and St. John's Gospel ; from the
former of which it omits 643 (out of 1,151) verses ; from
the latter, 513 (out of 880), or far more than the half in
either case. Codex C in fact can only be described as
a collection of fragments : for it is also without 260 verses
of St. Matthew, and without 116 of St. Mark.
The disastrous consequence of all this to the Textual
Critic is manifest. He is unable to compare ' the five old
uncials ' together except in respect of about one verse in
three. Sometimes he finds himself reduced to the testi
mony of ANB: for many pages together of St. John's
' Viz. 996 verses out of 3,780.

THE FIVE OLD UNCIALS DEFECTIVE. 39
Gospel, he is reduced to the testimony of NBD. Now,
when the fatal and peculiar sympathy which subsists
between these three documents is considered, it becomes
apparent that the Critic has in effect little more than two
documents before him. And what is to be said when (as
from St. Matt. vi. 20 to vii. 4) he is reduced to the witness of
two Codexes,— and those, NB? Evident it is that whereas
the Author of Scripture hath bountifully furnished His
Church with (speaking roughly) upwards of 2,300 ^ copies
of the Gospels, by a voluntary act of self-impoverishment,
some Critics reduce themselves to the testimony of little
more than one : and that one a witness whom many judges
consider to be undeserving of confidence.
' Miller's Scrivener (4th edition). Vol. I. Appendix F. p. 397*. 1326 + 73 +
980 = 2379.

CHAPTER III.
the SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.
§ 1. Antiquity.
The more ancient testimony is probably the better
testimony. That it is not by any means always so is
a familiar fact. To quote the known dictum of a competent
judge : ' It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,
that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament
has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years
after it was composed ; that Irenaeus and the African
Fathers and the whole Western, with a portion of the
Syriac Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those
employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephen, thirteen
centuries after, when moulding the Textus Receptus^.'
Therefore Antiquity alone affords no security that the
manuscript in our hands is not infected with the corruption
which sprang up largely in the first and second centuries.
But it remains true, notwithstanding, that until evidence
has been produced to the contrary in any particular instance,
the more ancient of two witnesses may reasonably be pre
sumed to be the better informed witness. Shew me for
example that, whereas a copy of the Gospels (suppose
Cod. B) introduces the clause ' Raise the dead ' into our
Saviour's ministerial commission to His Apostles (St. Matt.
X. 8), — another Codex, but only of the fourteenth century
' Scrivener's Introduction, Ed. iv (1894), Vol. II. pp. 264-265.

ANTIQUITY. 41
(suppose Evan. 604 (Hoskier)), omits it ; — am I not bound
to assume that our LORD did give this charge to His
Apostles ; did say to them, veKpovs eyelperf ; and that the
words in question have accidentally dropped out of the
sacred Text in that later copy? Show me besides that in
three other of our oldest Codexes (NCD) the place in St.
Matthew is exhibited in the same way as in Cod. B ; and
of what possible avail can it be that I should urge in reply
that in three more MSS. of the thirteenth or fourteenth
century the text is exhibited in the same way as in Evan.
604? There is of course a strong antecedent probability, that
the testimony which comes nearest to the original auto
graphs has more claim to be the true record than that which
has been produced at a further distance from them. It is
most likely that the earlier is separated from the original
by fewer links than the later : — though we can affirm this
with no absolute certainty, because the present survival of
Uncials of various dates of production shews that the exist
ence of copies is measured by no span like that of the life
of men. Accordingly as a general rule, and a general rule
only, a single early Uncial possesses more authority than
a single later Uncial or Cursive, and a still earlier Version or
Quotation by a Father must be placed before the reading
of the early Uncial.
Only let us clearly understand what principle is to guide
us, in order that we may know how we are to proceed. Is
it to be assumed, for instance, that Antiquity is to decide
this matter? by which is meant only this, — That, of two or
more conflicting readings, that shall be deemed the true
reading which is observed to occur in the oldest known
document. Is that to be our fundamental principle ? Are
we, in other words, to put up with the transparent fallacy
that the oldest reading must of necessity be found in the
oldest document ? Well, if we have made up our minds

42 THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.
that such is to be our method, then let us proceed to con
struct our text chiefly by the aid of the Old Latin and
Peshitto Versions, — the oldest authorities extant of a con
tinuous text : and certainly, wherever these are observed
to agree in respect of any given reading, let us hear nothing
about the conflicting testimony of N or B, which are of the
fourth century ; of D, which is of the sixth ; of L, which is
of the eighth.
But if our adversaries shift their ground, disliking to be
' hoist with their own petard,' and if such a solution standing
alone does not commend itself to our own taste, we must
ask. What is meant by Antiquity ?
For myself, if I must assign a definite period, I am
disposed to say the first six or seven centuries of our era.
But I observe that those who have preceded me in these
inquiries draw the line at an earlier period. Lachmann
fixes A.D. 400 : Tregelles (ever illogical) gives the begin
ning of the seventh century : Westeott and Hort, before
the close of the fourth century. In this absence of agree
ment, it is found to be both the safest and the wisest course
to avoid drawing any hard and fast line, and in fact any
line at all. Antiquity is a comparative term. What is
ancient is not only older than what is modern, but when
constantly applied to the continuous lapse of ages includes
considerations of what is more or less ancient. Codex E
is ancient compared with Codex L : Cod. A compared with
Cod. E : Ccd. N compared with Cod. A : Cod. B though
in a much lesser degree compared with Cod. N : the Old
Latin and Peshitto Versions compared with Cod. B :
Clemens Romanus compared with either. If we had the
copy of the Gospels which belonged to Ignatius, I suppose
we should by common consent insist on following it almost
implicitly. It certainly would be of overwhelming authority.
Its decrees would be only not decisive. [This is, I think,
too strong : there might be mistakes even in that. — E. M.]

ANTIQUITY AND NUMBER. 43
Therefore by Antiquity as a principle involving more or
less authority must be meant the greater age of the earlier
Copies, Versions, or Fathers. That which is older will
possess more authority than that which is more recent : but
age will not confer any exclusive, or indeed paramount,
power of decision. Antiquity is one Note of Truth : but
even if it is divorced from the arbitrary selection of
Authorities which has regulated too much the employment
of it in Textual Criticism, it cannot be said to cover the
whole ground. § 2. N number.
II. We must proceed now to consider the other Notes,
or Tests : and the next is Number.
I. That ' witnesses are to be weighed — not counted,' —
is a maxim of which we hear constantly. It may be said
to embody much fundamental fallacy.
2. It assumes that the 'witnesses' we possess, — meaning
thereby every single Codex, Version, Father — , (i) are
capable of being weighed : and (2) that every individual
Critic is competent to weigh them : neither of which pro
positions is true.
3. In the very form ofthe maxim, — ' Not to be counted —
but to be weighed,' — the undeniable fact is overlooked that
' number ' is the most ordinary ingredient of weight, and
indeed in matters of human testimony, is an element which
even cannot be cast away. Ask one of Her Majesty's
Judges if it be not so. Ten witnesses (suppose) are called
in to give evidence : of whom one resolutely contradicts
what is solemnly deposed to by the other nine. Which of
the two parties do we suppose the Judge will be inclined to
believe ?
4. But it may be urged — would not the discovery of the
one original autograph of the Gospels exceed in ' weight '
any ' number ' of copies which can be named ? No doubt

44 THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.
it would, I answer. But only because it would be the
original document, and not ' a copy ' at all : not ' a witness '
to the fact, but the very fact itself. It would be as if in the
midst of a trial, — turning, suppose, on the history of the
will of some testator — , the dead man himself were to step
into Court, and proclaim what had actually taken place.
Yet the laws of Evidence would remain unchanged : and in
the very next trial which came on, if one or two witnesses
out of as many hundred were to claim that their evidence
should be held to outweigh that of all the rest, they would
be required to establish the reasonableness of their claim to
the satisfaction of the Judge : or they must submit to the
inevitable consequence of being left in an inconsiderable
minority. 5. Number then constitutes Weight, or in other words, —
since I have used ' Weight ' here in a more general sense
than usual,— is a Note of Truth. Not of course absolutely,
as being the sole Test, but caeteris paribus, and in its own
place and proportion. And this, happily, our opponents
freely admit : so freely in fact, that my only wonder is that
they do not discover their own inconsistency.
6. But the axiom in question labours under the far graver
defect of disparaging the Divine method, under which in
the multitude of evidence preserved all down the ages pro
vision has been made as matter of hard fact, not by weight
but by number, for the integrity of the Deposit. The
prevalent use of the Holy Scriptures in the Church caused
copies of them to abound everywhere. The demand enforced
the supply. They were read in the public Services of the
Church. The constant quotation of them by Ecclesiastical
Writers from the first proves that they were a source to
Christians of continual study, and that they were used as
an ultimate appeal in the decision of knotty questions.
They were cited copiously in Sermons. They were em
ployed in the conversion of the heathen, and as in the case

NUMBER. 45
of St. Cyprian must have exercised a strong influence in
bringing people to believe.
Such an abundance of early copies must have ensured
perforce the production of a resulting abundance of other
copies made everywhere in continuous succession from them
until the invention of printing. Accordingly, although
countless numbers must have perished by age, use, destruc
tion in war, and by accident and other causes, nevertheless
63 Uncials, 737 Cursives, and 414 Lectionaries are known
to survive of the Gospels alone ^- Add the various Versions,
and the mass of quotations by Ecclesiastical Writers, and
it will at once be evident what materials exist to constitute
a Majority which shall outnumber by many times the
Minority, and also that Number has been ordained to be
a factor which cannot be left out of the calculation.
7. Another circumstance however of much significance
has yet to be stated- Practically the Axiom under con
sideration is discovered to be nothing else but a plausible
proposition of a general character intended to shelter the
following particular application of it : — ' We are able '—says
Dr. Tregelles — ' to take the few documents . . . and safely
discard . . . the f^ or whatever else their numerical propor
tion may be ^.' Accordingly in his edition of the Gospels,
the learned writer rejects the evidence of all the cursive
Codexes extant but three. He is mainly followed by the rest
of his school, including Westeott and Hort.
Now again I ask, — Is it likely, is it in any way credible,
that we can be warranted in rejecting the testimony of
(suppose) 1490 ancient witnesses, in favour of the testimony
borne by (suppose) ten ? Granting freely that two of these
ten are older by 50 or 100 years than any single MS. of
the 1490 I confidently repeat the question. The respective
'¦ But see Miller's edition of Scrivener's Introduction, I. 397*, App. F, where
the numbers as noiu known are given as 73, 1326, 980 respectively.
" Account of the Printed Text, p. 138.

46 THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.
dates of the witnesses before us may perhaps be thus stated.
The ten MSS. so confidently relied upon date as follows,
speaking generally : —
2 about A.D. 330-340.
I » 550-
I „ 75°-
6 (say),, 950 to A.D. 1350.
The 1490 MSS. which are constantly observed to bear
consentient testimony against the ten, date somewhat thus: —
I . . A.D. 400.
s . . „ 450-
2 . . „ 500.
16 (say) „ 650 to A. D. 850.
1470 ¦ • » 850 to A.D. 1350.
And the question to which I invite the reader to render an
answer is this : — By what process of reasoning, apart from
an appeal to other authorities, (which we are going to make
by-and-by), can it be thought credible that the few witnesses
shall prove the trustworthy guides, — and the many witnesses
the deceivers ?
Now those many MSS. were executed demonstrably at
different times in different countries. They bear signs in
their many hundreds of representing the entire area of the
Church, except where versions were used instead of copies
in the original Greek. Many of them were written in
monasteries where a special room was set aside for such
copying. Those who were in trust endeavoured with the
utmost pains and jealousy to secure accuracy in the tran
scription. Copying was a sacred art. And yet, of multitudes
of them that survive, hardly any have been copied from any
of the rest. On the contrary, they are discovered to differ
among themselves in countless unimportant particulars ; and
every here and there single copies exhibit idiosyncrasies
which are altogether startling and extraordinary. There
has therefore demonstrably been no collusion — no assimila-

NUMBER. 47
tion to an arbitrary standard, — no wholesale fraud. It is
certain that every one of them represents a MS., or a
pedigree of MSS., older than itself; and it is but fair to
suppose that it exercises such representation with tolerable
accuracy. It can often be proved, when any of them exhibit
marked extravagancy, that such extravagancy dates back
as far as the second or third century. I venture to think —
and shall assume until I find that I am mistaken — that,
besides the Uncials, all the cursive copies in existence
represent lost Codexes of great antiquity with at least the
same general fidelity as Ev. i, ^^, 69, which enjoy so much
favour in some quarters only because they represent lost
MSS. demonstrably of the same general type as Codd.
NBD^.
It will be seen that the proofs in favour of Number being
a recognized and powerful Note of Truth are so strong,
that nothing but the interests of an absorbing argument
can prevent the acknowledgement of this position. It is
doubtless inconvenient to find some 1490 witnesses con
travening some ten, or if you will, twenty favourites : but
Truth is imperative and knows nothing ofthe inconvenience
or convenience of Critics.
8. When therefore the great bulk of the witnesses, — in
the proportion suppose of a hundred or even fifty to one, —
yield unfaltering testimony to a certain reading ; and the
remaining little handful of authorities, while advocating
a different reading, are yet observed to be unable to agree
among themselves as to what that different reading shall
precisely be, — then that other reading concerning which all
that discrepancy of detail is observed to exist, may be
regarded as certainly false.
I will now give an instance of the general need of the
testimony of Number being added to Antiquity, in order
to establish a Reading.
' This (general position will be elucidated in Chapters IX and XI.

48 THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.
There is an obscure expression in the Epistle to the
Hebrews,— Alford speaks of it as ' almost a locus desperatus '
— which illustrates the matter in hand not unaptly. The
received reading of Heb. iv. a, — 'not being mixed [viz.
the word preached] with faith in them that heard it,-'- is
supported by the united testimony of the Peshitto and of
the Latin versions ^. Accordingly, the discovery that N
also exhibits a-vyKeKepaajievoi determined Tischendorf, who
however stands alone with Scholz, to retain in this place
the singular participle. And confessedly the note of
Antiquity it enjoys in perfection ; as well as yields a suffi
ciently intelligible sense. But then unfortunately it proves
to be incredible that St. Paul can have been the author of
the expression ^. All the known copies but four ^ read not
(TvyKeKpap-f vos but -jueVouy. So do all the Fathers who are
known to quote the place * : — Macarius ^, Chrysostom ^,
Theodorus of Mopsuestia ', Cyril *, Theodoret ^, Damas
cene ^"j Photius ^^, Theophylactus ^^ Oecumenius '^- The
testimony of four of the older of these is even express :
and such an amount of evidence is decisive. But we are

' So also the Georgian and Sclavonic versions (the late Dr. Malan).
^ The Traditional view of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is
here maintained as superior both in authority and evidence to any other.
' N, 31. 41. 114-
* Tischendorf wrongly adduces Irenaeus. Read to the end of III. c. 19, § i.
'' .4jf>. Galland. vii. 1 78.
^ xii. 64 c, 65 b. Km 'opa tl Sav^iaorar ovk uinv, ov ovyetpwvrjoaif, dW', ov
avviKpaOrjoav. See by all means Cramer's Cat. p. 451.
' Ap. Cramer, Cat. p. 177. Ou -^hp ^aav Kard rfjv mcmv Tofs k-ra'yyiKBeiai
<Tvvqp.p.iVOt' off€v ovrojs uvayfajoreoy, " fxrj ovyKficepaafievovs Trj moTCi tois
aKovcOaoi.'^ * vi. 15 d. ^hpa -ydp ifieKKov /card tuv laov rpo-nov avvavaicipvdaSai tc dAX^-
Aoi J, KaOdntp dfif\(i xat olvos iiSari, k.t.\. After this, it becomes of little moment
that the same Cyril should elsewhere (i. 394) read avyKeicpafievos kv mcTti
TOiS aKovaaGL.
' iii. 566. After quoting the place, Thdrt. proceeds, Ti ydp aivqav ^ tov
0€oS €Trayy€\ia TciJt . . . pif/ . . . otov Tuis rov Qfov \6yois dvaxpaSivTas ;
" ii. 234. " Ap. Cecum. 12 j;^ g^^^
" From Dr. Malan, who informs me that the Bohairic and Ethiopic exhibit
' iheir heart was not mixed with ' : which represents the same reading.

NUMBER AND VARIETY. 49
able to add that of the Harkleian, Bohairic, Ethiopic, and
Armenian versions. However uncongenial therefore the
effort may prove, there can be no doubt at all that we must
henceforth read here, — 'But the word listened to did not
profit them, because they were not united in respect of
faith with those who listened [and believed] ' : or words to
that effect ^. Let this then be remembered as a proof that,
besides even the note of Variety to some extent super
added to that of Antiquity, it must further be shewn on
behalf of any reading which claims to be authentic, that it
enjoys also the .support of a multitude of witnesses : in
other words that it has the note of Number as well ^
And let no one cherish a secret suspicion that because
the Syriac and fhe Latin versions are such venerable
documents they must be held to outweigh all the rest,
and may be right in this matter after all. It will be found
explained elsewhere that in places like the present, those
famous versions are often observed to interpret rather than
to reproduce the inspired verity : to discharge the office of
a Targum rather than of a translation. The sympathy
thus evinced between K and the Latin should be observed :
the significance of it will come under consideration after
wards. § 3. Variety.
I must point out in the next place, that Evidence on any
passage, which exhibits in perfection the first of the two
foregoing characteristics — that of Antiquity, may never
theless so easily fall under suspicion, that it becomes in
the highest degree necessary to fortify it by other notes of
Truth. And there cannot be a stronger ally than Variety.
' So Theophylactus (ii. 670), who (with all the more trustworthy authorities)
writes avymicpanivovs. For this sense of the verb, see Liddell and Scott's Lex.,
and especially the instances in Wetstein.
2 Yet Tischendorf says, ' Dubitare nequeo quin lectio Sinaitica hujus loci
menterti scriptoris recte red'dat atque omnium sit verissima.'
E

50 THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.
No one can doubt, for it stands to reason, that Variety
distinguishing witnesses massed together must needs con
stitute a most powerful argument for believing such Evidence
to be true. Witnesses of different kinds ; from different
countries ; speaking different tongues : — witnesses who can
never have met. and between whom it is incredible that there
should exist collusion of any kind : — such witnesses deserve
to be listened to most respectfully. Indeed, when witnesses
of so varied a sort agree in large numbers, they must needs be
accounted worthy of even implicit confidence. Accordingly,
the essential feature of the proposed Test will be, that
the Evidence of which ' Variety ' is to be predicated shall
be derived from a variety of sources. Readings which are
witnessed to by MSS. only; or by ancient Versions only:
or by one or more of the Fathers only : — whatever else
may be urged on their behalf, are at least without the full
support of this note of Truth ; unless there be in the case of
MSS. a sufficient note of Variety within their own circle.
It needs only a slight acquaintance with the principles
which regulate the value of evidence, and a comparison with
other cases enjoying it of one where there is actually no
variety, to see the extreme importance of this third Test.
When there is real variety, what may be called hole-and-
corner work, — conspiracy, — influence of sect or clique, — are
impossible. Variety it is which imparts virtue to mere
Number, prevents the witness-box from being filled with
packed deponents, ensures genuine testimony. False
witness is thus detected and condemned, because it agrees
not with the rest. Variety is the consent of independent
witnesses, and is therefore eminently Catholic. Origen or
the Vatican and the Sinaitic, often stand all but alone,
because there are scarce any in the assembly who do not
hail from other parts with testimony different from theirs,
whilst their own evidence finds little or no verification.
It is precisely this consideration which constrains us to

VARIETY.

51

pay supreme attention to the combined testimony of the
Uncials and of the whole body ofthe Cursive Copies. They
are {a) dotted over at least looo years : {b) they evidently
belong to so many divers countries, — ^Greece, Constanti
nople, Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, Alexandria, and other
parts of Africa, not to say Sicily, Southern Italy, Gaul,
England, and Ireland : (c) they exhibit so many strange
characteristics and peculiar sympathies : (d) they so clearly
represent countless families of MSS., being in no single
instance absolutely identical in their text, and certainly
not being copies of any other Codex in existence, — that
their unanimous decision I hold to be an absolutely irre
fragable evidence of the Truth ^. If, again, only a few of
these copies disagree with the main body of them, I hold
that the value of the verdict of the great majority is but
slightly disturbed. Even then however the accession of
another class of confirmatory evidence is most valuable.
Thus, when it is perceived that Codd. NBCD are the only
uncials which contain the clause veKpoiis kydpin in St. Matt.
X. 8, already spoken of, and that the merest fraction of the
cursives exhibit the same reading, the main body of the
cursives and all the other uncials being for omitting it, it is
felt at once that the features of the problem have been
very nearly reversed. On such occasions we inquire eagerly
for the verdict of the most ancient of the Versions : and
when, as on the present occasion, they are divided, — the
Latin and the Ethiopic recognizing the clause, the Syriac
and the Egyptian disallowing it, — an impartial student will
eagerly inquire with one of old time, — ' Is there not here
a prophet of the LORD besides, that we might inquire of
him ? ' He will wish to hear what the old Fathers have to
say on this subject. I take the liberty of adding that when
he has once perceived that the text employed by Origen
' See below. Chapter XI, where the character and authority of Cursive
Manuscripts are considered. E a

52 THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.
corresponds usually to a surprising extent with the text repre
sented by Codex B and some of the Old Latin Versions,
he will learn to lay less stress on every fresh instance of
such correspondence. He will desiderate greater variety
of testimony, — the utmost variety which is attainable.
The verdict of various other Fathers on this passage supplies
what is wanted '- Speaking generally, the consentient
testimony of two, four, six, or more witnesses, coming to us
from widely sundered regions is weightier by far than the
same number of witnesses proceeding from one and the same
locality, between whom there probably exists some sort of
sympathy, and possibly some degree of collusion. Thus
when it is found that the scribe of B wrote ' six conjugate
leaves of Cod. N ^,' it is impossible to regard their united
testimony in the same light as we should have done, if one
had been produced in Palestine and the other at Constanti
nople. So also of primitive Patristic testimony. The
combined testimony of Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria ; —
Isidore of Pelusium, a city at the mouth of the Nile ; — and
Nonnus of Panopolis in the Thebaid, is not nearly so
weighty as the testimony of one of the .same three writers
in conjunction with Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, and
with Chrysostom who passed the greater part of his life at
Antioch. The same remark holds true of Versions. Thus,
the two Egyptian Versions when they conspire in witnessing
to the same singular reading are entitled to far less attention

' The evidence on the passage is as follows : —
For the insertion : —
X* sic. BC**2DPA, I, 13, 33, 108, 157, 346, and about ten more. Old
Latin (except f ), Vulgate, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Hilary, Cyril Alex. (2),
Chrysostom (2).
Against : —
EFGKLMSUVXrn. The rest of the Cursives, Peshitto (Pusey and
Gwilliam found it in no copies), Sahidic, Eusebius, Basil, Jerome,
Chrysostom, in lac, Juvencus. Compare Revision Revised, p. 108, note.
'^ By the Editor. See Miller's Scrivener, Introduction (4th ed.). Vol. I. p. 96,
note I, and below. Chapter IX.

VARIETY AND WEIGHT. 53
than one of those same Versions in combination with the
Syriac, or with the Latin, or with the Gothic.
§ 4. Weight, or Respectability.
We must request our readers to observe, that the term
' weight ' may be taken as regards Textual Evidence in two
senses, the one general and the other special. In the general
sense, Weight includes all the notes of truth,— it may relate
to the entire mass of evidence ; — or else it may be employed
as concerning the value of an individual manuscript, or
a single Version, or a separate Father. Antiquity confers
some amount of Weight : so does Number : and so does
Variety also, as well as each of the other notes of truth.
This distinction ought not to be allowed to go out of
sight in the discussion which is now about to occupy our
attention. We proceed then to consider Weight in the .special sense
and as attached to single Witnesses.
Undeniable as it is, {a) that ancient documents do not
admit of being placed in scales and weighed ; and {b) that
if they did, the man does not exist who is capable of con
ducting the operation, — there are yet, happily, principles
of sound reason, — considerations based on the common
sense of mankind, learned and unlearned alike, — by the
aid of which something may be effected which is strictly
analogous to the process of weighing solid bodies in an
ordinary pair of scales. I proceed to explain.
I. In the first place, the witnesses in favour of any given
reading should be respectable. ' Respectability ' is of course
a relative term ; but its use and applicability in this depart
ment of Science will be generally understood and admitted
by scholars, although they may not be altogether agreed
as to the classification of their authorities. Some critics
will claim, not respectability only, but absolute and oracular

54 THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.
authority for a certain set of ancient witnesses, — which
others will hold in suspicion. It is clear however that
respectability cannot by itself confer pre-eminence, much
less the privilege of oracular decision. We listen to any
one whose character has won our respect : but dogmatism
as to things outside of actual experience or mathematical
calculation is the prerogative only of Revelation or inspired
utterance ; and if assumed by men who have no authority
to dogmatize, is only accepted by weak minds who find
a relief when they are able
' jurare in verba magistri.'
' To swear whate'er the master says is true.*
And if on the contrary certain witnesses are found to range
themselves continually on the side which is condemned
by a large majority of others exhibiting other notes of
truth entitling them to credence, those few witnesses must
inevitably lose in respectability according to the extent and
frequency of such eccentric action.
2. If one Codex (z) is demonstrably the mere transcript
of another Codex (/), these may no longer be reckoned
as two Codexes, but as one Codex. It is hard therefore
to understand how Tischendorf constantly adduces the
evidence of ' E of Paul ' although he was perfectly well
aware that E is ' « 7nere transcript of the Cod. Claro-
montanus ^ ' or D of Paul. Or again, how he quotes the
cursive Evan. 102 ; because the readings of that unknown
seventeenth-century copy of the Gospels are ascertained to
have been derived from Cod. B itself^.
3. By strict parity of reasoning, when once it has been
ascertained that, in any particular instance. Patristic testi
mony is not original but derived, each successive reproduc
tion of the evidence must obviously be held to add nothing
at all to the weight of the original statement. Thus, it
used to be the fashion to cite (in proof of the spuriousness
' Miller's Scrivener, I. p. 176. 2 j[,;j_ p_ ^^g

WEIGHT. 55
of ' the last twelve verses ' of St. Mark's Gospel) the
authority of ' Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of An
tioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome ^,' — to which were added
' Epiphanius and Caesarius ^,' — ' Hesychius of Jerusalem
and Euthymius ^.' In this enumeration, the names of
Gregory, Victor, Severus, Epiphanius and Caesarius were
introduced in error. There remains Eusebius, — whose
exaggeration {a) Jerome translates, (b) Hesychius (sixth
century) copies, and (c) Euthymius (a.D. iii6) refers to*
and Eusebius himself neutralizes ^ The evidence therefore
(such as it is) collapses hopelessly : being reducible probably
to a random statement in the lost treatise of Origen on
St. Mark^, which Eusebius repudiates, even while in his
latitudinarian way he reproduces it. The weight of such
testimony is obviously slight indeed.
4. Again, if two, three, or four Codexes are discovered by
reason of the peculiarities of text which they exhibit to
have been derived, — nay, confessedly are derived — from
one and the same archetype, — those two, three, or four
Codexes may no longer be spoken of as if they were
so many. Codexes B and N, for example, being cer
tainly the twin products of a lost exemplar, cannot in
fairness be reckoned as = 2. Whether their combined
evidence is to be estimated at = 1-75, 1-50, or 1-25, or
as only i-o, — let diviners decide. May I be allowed to
suggest that whenever they agree in an extraordinary
reading their combined evidence is to be reckoned at about
1-50 : when in an all but unique reading, at 1-25 : when the
reading they contain is absolutely unique, as when they
exhibit a-V(TTp((poiJ.hoov be avrSv in St. Matt. xvii. 22, they
should be reckoned as a single Codex ? Never, at all
events can they be jointly reckoned as absolutely two.
» Tregelles' Printed Text, Sec, p. 247.
2 Tischendorf, N. T., p. 322. ' Tischendorf and Alford.
* Burgon's Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 38-69 ; also p. 267.
= Ad Marinum. Ibid. p. 265. « Ibid. pp. 235-6.

56 THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.
I would have them cited as B-N. Similar considerations
should be attached to F and G of St. Paul, as being ' in
dependent transcripts of the same venerable archetype^,'
and to Evan. 13, 69, 124, 346, ^^6, 561, and perhaps
348, 624, 788 ^, as being also the representatives of only
one anterior manuscript of uncertain date.
5. It requires further to be pointed out that when once
a clear note of affinity has been ascertained to exist between
a small set of documents, their exclusive joint consent is
henceforward to be regarded with suspicion : in other
words, their evidential Weight becomes impaired. For
instance, the sympathy between D and some Old Latin
copies is so marked, so constant, in fact so extraordinary,
that it becomes perfectly evident that D, though only of
the sixth century, must represent a Greek or Latin Codex
of the inaccurate class which prevailed in the earliest age
of all, a class from which some of the Latin translations
were made ^-
6. I suppose it may be laid down that an ancient Version
outweighs any single Codex, ancient or modern, which can
be named : the reason being, that it is scarcely credible
that a Version— the Peshitto, for example, an Egyptian,
or the Gothic— can have been executed from a single
exemplar. But indeed that is not all. The first of the
above-named Versions and some of the Latin are older, —
perhaps by two centuries — than the oldest known copy.
From this it will appear that if the only witnesses pro
ducible for a certain reading were the Old Latin Versions
and the Syriac Version on the one hand,— Codd. B-N on
the other,— the united testimony of the first two would
' Miller's Scrivener, I. p. i8i.
^ Ferrar and Abbott's Collation of Four Important Manuscripts, Abbe Martin,
Qaalre MSS. importants, J. Rendel Harris, On the Origin of the Ferrar Group
(C. J. Clay and Sons), 1893. Miller's Scrivener, L p. 398*, App. F.
^ See below. Chapter X. Also Mr. Rendel Harris' 'Study of Codex Bezae'
in the Cambridge Texts and Studies.

WEIGHT. 57
very largely overbalance the combined testimony ofthe last.
If B or if N stood alone, neither of them singly would be
any match for either the Syriac or the Old Latin Versions,
— still less for the two combined.
7. The cogency of the considerations involved in the
last paragraph becomes even more apparent when Patristic
testimony has to be considered.
It has been pointed out elsewhere ^ that, in and by itself,
the testimony of any first-rate Father, where it can be had,
must be held to outweigh the solitary testimony of any
single Codex which can be named. The circumstance
requires to be again insisted on here. How to represent
the amount of this preponderance by a formula, I know
not : nor as I believe does any one else know. But the
fact that it exists, remains, and is in truth undeniable.
For instance, the origin and history of Codexes ABNC is
wholly unknown : their dates and the places of their
several production are matters of conjecture only. But
when we are listening to the articulate utterance of any
of the ancient Fathers, we not only know with more or
less of precision the actual date of the testimony before us,
but we even know the very diocese of Christendom in
which we are standing. To such a deponent we can
assign a definite amount of credibility, whereas in the
estimate of the former class of evidence we have only
inferences to guide us.
Individually, therefore, a Father's evidence, where it can be
certainly obtained — caeteris paribus, is considerably greater
than that of any single known Codex. Collectively, however,
the Copies, without question, outweigh either the Versions
by themselves, or the Fathers by themselves. I have met
— very rarely I confess — but I have met with cases where
the Versions, as a body, were opposed in their testimony
to the combined witness of Copies and Fathers. Also,
' Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, p. 21, &c. ; Revision Revised, p. 297.

58 THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.
but very rarely, I have known the Fathers, as a body,
opposed to the evidence of Copies and Versions. But
I have never known a case where the Copies stood alone
— with the Versions and the Fathers united against them.
I consider that such illustrious Fathers as Irenaeus and
Kippolytus, — -Athanasius and Didymus, — Epiphanius and
Basil, — the two Gregories and Chrysostom, — Cyril and
Theodoret, among the Greeks, — Tertullian and Cyprian, —
Hilary and Ambrose, — Jerome and Augustine, among the
Latins, — are more respectable witnesses by far than the
same number of Greek or Latin Codexes. Origen, Clemens
Alexandrinus, and Eusebius, though first-rate Authors,
were so much addicted to Textual Criticism themselves,
or else employed such inconsistent copies, — that their
testimony is that of indifferent witnesses or bad judges.
As to the Weight which belongs to separate Copies, that
must be determined mainly by watching their evidence.
If they go wrong continually, their character must be low.
They are governed in this respect by the rules which hold
good in life. We shall treat afterwards of the character
of Codex D, of t^, and of B.
§ 5. Continuity.
In proposing Continuous Existence as another note of
a genuine reading, I wish to provide against those cas6s
where the Evidence is not only ancient, but being derived
from two different sources may seem to have a claim to
variety also. I am glad to have the opportunity thus
early of pointing out that the note of variety may not
fairly be claimed for readings which are not advocated
by more than two distinct specimens of ancient evidence.
But just now my actual business is to insist that some sort
of Continuousness is requisite as well as Antiquity, Number,
Variety, and Weight.
We can of course only know the words of Holy Scripture

WEIGHT AND CONTINUITY. 59
according as they have been handed down to us ; and in
ascertaining what those words actually were, we are driven
perforce to the Tradition of them as it has descended to
us through the ages of the Church. But if that Tradition
is broken in the process of its descent, it cannot but be
deprived of much of the credit with which it would
otherwise appeal for acceptance. A clear groundwork of
reasonableness lay underneath, and a distinct province was
assigned, when quod semper was added to qtiod ubique et
quod ab omnibus. So there is a Catholicity of time, as
well as of space and of people : and all must be claimed
in the ascertainment and support of Holy Writ.
When therefore a reading is observed to leave traces
of its existence and of its use all down the ages, it comes
with an authority of a peculiarly commanding nature.
And on the contrary, when a chasm of greater or less
breadth of years yawns in the vast mass of evidence which
is ready for employment, or when a tradition is found
to have died out, upon such a fact alone suspicion or
grave doubt, or rejection must inevitably ensue.
Still more, when upon the admission of the Advocates
of the opinions which we are opposing the chasm is no
longer restricted but engulfs not less than fifteen centuries
in its hungry abyss, or else when the transmission ceased
after four centuries, it is evident that according to an
essential Note of Truth, those opinions cannot fail to be
self-destroyed as well as to labour under condemnation
during more than three quarters of the accomplished life
of Christendom.
How Churchmen of eminence and ability, who in other
respects hold the truths involved in Church manship, are
able to maintain and propagate such opinions without
surrendering their Churchmanship, we are unable to
explain. We would only hope and pray that they may
be led to see the inconsistencies of their position. And

6o THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.
to Others who do not accept Church doctrine we would
urge that, inasmuch as internal evidence is so uncertain
as often to face both ways, they really cannot rest upon
anything else than continuous teaching if they would
mount above personal likings and dislikings to the posses
sion of definite and unmistakable support. In fact all
traditional teaching which is not continuous must be like
the detached pieces of a disunited chain.
To put the question in the most moderate form, my
meaning is, that although it is possible that no trace may
be discoverable in any later document of what is already
attested by documents of the fourth century to be the
true reading of any given place of Scripture, yet it is
a highly improbable circumstance that the evidence should
entirely disappear at such a very early period. It is
reasonable to expect that if a reading advocated by Codexes
N and B, for instance, and the Old Latin Versions, besides
one or two of the Fathers, were trustworthy, there ought
to be found at least a fair proportion of the later Uncial and
the Cursive Copies to reproduce it. If, on the contrary,
many of the Fathers knew nothing at all about the matter ;
if Jerome reverses the evidence borne by the Old Latin ;
if the later Uncials, and if the main body of the Cursives
are silent also : — what can be said but that it is altogether
unreasonable to demand acceptance for a reading which
comes to us upon such a very slender claim to our
confidence? That is the most important inference : and it is difficult
to see how in the nature of the case it can be got over.
But in other respects also : — when a smaller break occurs
inthe transmission, the evidence is proportionally injured.
And the remark must be added, that in cases where there
is a transmission by several lines of descent which, having
in other respects traces of independence, coincide upon
a certain point, it is but reasonable to conclude that those

CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT. 6l
lines enjoy, perhaps, a silent, yet a parallel and unbroken
tradition all down the ages till they emerge. This prin
ciple is often illustrated in the independent yet consentient
testimony of the whole body of the Cursives and later
Uncials ^¦

§ 6. Context.
A prevailing fallacy with some critical writers on the
subject to which the present volume is devoted, may be thus
described. In the case of a disputed reading, they seem
to think that they do enough if they simply marshal the
authorities for and against, and deliver an oracular verdict.
In critical editions of the Greek text, such a summary
method is perhaps unavoidable. But I take leave to point
out that in Sacred Textual Criticism there are several
other considerations which absolutely require attention
besides, and that those considerations ought to find ex
pression where the space permits. It is to some of these
that I proceed now to invite the reader's attention.
A word, — a phrase, — a clause,- — or even a sentence or
a paragraph,— must have some relation to the rest of the
entire passage which precedes or comes after it. There
fore it will often be necessary, in order to reach all the
evidence that bears upon a disputed question, to examine
both the meaning and the language lying on both sides
of the point in dispute. We do not at present lay so
much stress upon the contextual meaning, because people
are generally not unready to observe it, and it is often
open to much difference of opinion:— we refrain espe
cially, because we find from experience that there is in
' See more upon this point in Chapters V, XI. Compare St, Augustine's Canon :
' Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nee conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est,
non nisi auctoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur.' C. Donatist.
iv. 24.

62 THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.
the case of the New Testament always enough external
evidence of whose existence no doubt can be entertained
to settle any textual question that can arise.
Nevertheless, it may be as well to give a single instance.
In I Cor. xiii. 5- Codex B and Clement of Alexandria
read ro fxr) eavriis instead of ra eavTrjs, i.e. ' charity seeketh
not what does not belong to her,' instead of ' seeketh not
her own.' That is to say, we are invited, in the midst
of that magnificent passage which is full of lofty principles,
to suppose that a gross violation of the eighth command
ment is forbidden, and to insert a commonplace repudia
tion of gross dishonesty. We are to sink suddenly
from a grand atmosphere down to a vulgar level. In
fact, the light shed on the words in question from the
context on either side of course utterly excludes such a
supposition ; consequently, the only result is that we are
led to distrust the witnesses that have given evidence
which is so palpably absurd.
But as regards the precise form of language employed,
it will be found also a salutary safeguard against error
in every instance, to inspect with severe critical exactness
the entire context of the passage in dispute. If in certain
Codexes that context shall prove to be confessedly in a
very corrupt state, then it becomes even self-evident that
those Codexes can only be admitted as witnesses with
considerable suspicion and reserve.
Take as an illustration of what I have been saying the
exceedingly precious verse, ' Howbeit, this kind goeth not
out but by prayer and fasting ' (St. Matt. xvii. 21), which has
met with rejection by the recent school of critics. Here
the evidence against the verse is confined to B and the
first reading of {< amongst the Uncials, Evan. ^^ alone of
the Cursives, e and ff^ of the Old Latin Versions, as well
as the Curetonian and the Lewis, Jerusalem, Sahidic, a few
Bohairic copies,- a few Ethiopic, and the Greek of Eusebius'

CONTEXT. 63
Canons :— evidence of a slight and shifty character, when
contrasted with the witness of all the other Uncials and
Cursives, the rest of the Versions, and more than thirteen
of the Fathers beginning with Tertullian and Origen \
It is plain that the stress of the case for rejection, since
N being afterwards corrected speaks uncertainly, rests
such as it is upon B ; and that if the evidence of that
MS. is found to be unworthy of credit in the whole
passage, weak indeed must be the contention which con
sists mainly of such support.
Now if we inspect vv. 19, ao, aa, and 23, to go no
farther, we shall discover that the entire passage in B is
wrapped in a fog of error. It differs from the main body
of the witnesses in ten places ; in four of which its
evidence is rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Westeott and Hort, and the Revisers ^ ; in two more by
the Revisers ^ ; and of the remaining four, it is supported
in two by only N and severally by one or six Cursives, and
in the other two by only N and D with severally four or
five Cursive copies *.
Inspection of the Context therefore adds here strong
confirmation: — though indeed in this instance to have
recourse to such a weapon is to slay the already slain.
St. Matthew (xi. 2, 3) relates that John Baptist ' having
heard in the prison the works of CHRIST, sent two
of his Disciples' {b-vo tS>v fxaOriTuv avrov) with the inquiry,
' Art Thou He that should come ^, or are we to look for
another {enpov) ? ' So all the known copies but nine. So.
the Vulgate, Bohairic, Ethiopic. So Origen. So Chry
sostom. It is interesting to note with what differences
' See Revision Revised, pp. 91, 206, and below. Chapter V.
' KoS' iSiav, iSwrjOriiiev, TpiTjfiepa, dyaffTijffCTOi.
' pLiTa0a, ivBfV.
* ffv<rTped>opi€Vuv, oKtyoTTiariav ; omission of 'Irjaovs, Ktyft.
' 6 I/)x<5a'«'0s> fof which D absurdly substitutes <5 ipya^uiifvos, ' he that
worketh.'

64 THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.
of expression St. Luke reproduces this statement. Having
explained in ver. i8 that it was the Forerunner's disciples
who brought him tidings concerning CHRIST, St. Luke
(vii. 19) adds that John ' called for certain two' {bvo Ttrds)
of them, and 'sent them to Jesus': thus emphasizing,
while he repeats, the record of the earlier Evangelist.
Inasmuch however as hepov means, in strictness, ' the other
of tivo,' in order not to repeat himself, he substitutes akXov
for it. Now all this is hopelessly obscured by the oldest
amongst our manuscript authorities. It in no wise sur
prises us to find that Tivds has disappeared from D, the
Peshitto, Latin, Bohairic, Gothic, and Ethiopic. The word
has disappeared from our English version also. But it
offends us greatly to discover that (i) NBLRXE (with
Cyril) obliterate &\\ov from St. Luke vii. 19, and thrust
erepov into its place,^ — as clear an instance of vicious assi
milation as could anywhere be found : while (2) for bvo (in
St. Matt. xi. 3) NBCDPZA write bta: which is acquiesced
in by the Peshitto, Harkleian, Gothic and Armenian Ver
sions. The Old Latin Versions prevaricate as usual : two
read, mittens duos ex discipulis suis : all the rest, — mittens
discipulos suos, — which is the reading of Cureton's Syriac
and the Dialogus (p. 819), but of no known Greek MS. ^
Lastly (3) for 'Itjo-oCi' in St. Luke, BLRH substitute Kvpiov.
What would be thought of us if we were freely imposed
upon by readings so plainly corrupt as these three ?
But light is thrown upon them by the context in
St. Luke. In the thirteen verses which immediately
follow, Tischendorf himself being the j'udge, the text has
experienced depravation in at least fourteen particulars^.
' So, as it seems, the Lewis, but the column is defective.
^ Viz. Ver. 20; dTriaTfiKtV for dirfffTaAKe;/, NB ; 'irepw for aWov, XDLX^.
Ver. 22, omit on, NBLXH ; insert ical before Koxpoi, NBDFrA*.*. ; insert xat
before tttoixoI, NFX. Ver. 23, ts dv for ts idv, ND. Ver. 24, tois 6'x^ois for npts
Tovs ox^-ous, ND and eight others ; l^rfXSaTt for l^fXijAuflorf , NAEDLH. Ver. 25,
Ifij/XfloTf for f^iXfiKiecTf, NABDLH. Ver. 26, cf^XSaTC for i^tX-qX^ieaTf, NBDLa.
Ver. 28, insert dp.Tiv before Kiyai, NLX ; omit ¦irpo(fi^riTr]s, NBKLMX. Ver. 3b,'

CONTEXT AND INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 65
With what reason can the same critic straightway insist
on other readings which rest exclusively upon the same
authorities which the fourteen readings just mentioned
claim for their support?
This Note of Truth has for its foundation the well-known
law that mistakes have a tendency to repeat themselves in
the same or in other shapes. The carelessness, or the
vitiated atmosphere, that leads a copyist to misrepresent
one word is sure to lead him into error about another. The
ill-ordered assiduity which prompted one bad correction
most probably did not rest there. And the errors com
mitted by a witness just before or just after the testimony
which is being sifted was given cannot but be held to be
closely germane to the inquiry.
So too on the other side. Clearness, correctness, self-
collectedness, near to the moment in question, add to the
authority of the evidence. Consequently, the witness of the
Context cannot but be held to be positively or negatively,
though perhaps more often negatively than positively, a
very apposite Note of Truth.
§ 7. Internal Evidence.
It would be a serious omission indeed to close this
enumeration of Tests of Truth without adverting to those
Internal Considerations which will make themselves heard,
and are sometimes unanswerable.
Thus the reading of -navTUiv (masculine or neuter) which
is found in Cod. B (St. Luke xix. 37) we reject at once
because of its grammatical impossibility as agreeing with
8wci/xeo)i/ (feminine) ; and that of KapbCais (2 Cor. iii. 3)
according to the witness of ANBCDEGLP on the score
of its utter impossibility^ Geographical reasons are suffi-
omit tis iavTovs, ND. Ver. 32, a X.C7C1 for Kiyovres, N*B. See Tischendorf,
eighth edition, in loco. The Concordia discors will be noticed.
' The e.\planation given by the majority of the Revisers has only their
English Translation to recommend it, ' in tables that are hearts of flesh ' for
F

66 THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.
ciently strong against reading with Codd. NTKNII fKarov
Kal k^Kovra in St. Luke xxiv. 13 (i.e. a hundred and
threescore furlongs), to make it of no manner of importance
that a few additional authorities, as Origen, Eusebius, and
Jerome, can be produced in support of the same manifestly
corrupt reading. On grounds of ordinary reasonableness
we cannot hear of the sun being eclipsed when the moon
was full, or of our Lord being pierced before death.
The truth of history, otherwise sufficiently attested both
by St. Matthew and Josephus, absolutely forbids avrov
(NBDLA) to be read for aw^y (St. Mark vi. 22), and in
consequence the wretched daughter of Herodias to be
taken to have been the daughter of Herod.
In these and such-like instances, the Internal reasons
are plain and strong. But there is a manifest danger,
when critics forsake those considerations which depend
upon clear and definite points, and build their own inven
tions and theories into a system of strict canons which
they apply in the teeth of manifold evidence that has
really everything to recommend it. The extent to which
some critics are ready to go may be seen in the monstrous
Canon proposed by Griesbach, that where there are more
readings than one of any place, that reading which favours
orthodoxy is an object of suspicion^. There is doubtless
some reason in the Canon which asserts that ' The harder
the reading, the less likely it is to have been invented, and
the more likely it is to be genuine,' under which Seureporpwro)
hv ¦nXa^l /capdims oapKivais. In the Traditional reading (a) irXa^l aapxivais
answers to irAaft KiOtvats ; and therefore oapidvais would agree with irXafi, not
with KapStats. {h) The opposition between KiOivais and xapSiais oapKLvais ¦would
be weak indeed, the latter being a mere appendage in apposition to TrAaf/, and
would therefore be a blot in St. Paul's nervous passage. (<r) The apposition is
harsh, ill-balanced (contrast St. Mark viii. 8), and unlike Greek: Dr. Hort is
driven to suppose jrA.afi to be a ' primitive interpolation.' The faultiness of
a majority of the Uncials is corrected by Cursives, Versions, Fathers.
' 'Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspecta merito habetur, quae
orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifeste prae ceteris favet.' N. T. Prolegomena,
I. p. Ixvi.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 67
(St. Luke vi. i) must receive additional justification. But
people are ordinarily so constituted, that when they have
once constructed a system of Canons they place no limits
to their operation, and become slaves to them.
Accordingly, the true reading of passages must be
ascertained, with very slight exception indeed, from the
preponderating weight of external evidence, judged accord
ing to its antiquity, to number, variety, relative value,
continuousness, and with the help of the context. Internal
considerations, unless in exceptional cases they are found in
strong opposition to evident error, have only a subsidiary
force. Often they are the product of personal bias, or
limited observation : and where one scholar approves,
another dogmatically condemns. Circumstantial evidence
is deservedly rated low in the courts of justice: and lawyers
always produce witnesses when they can. The Text of
Holy Scripture does not vary with the weathercock accord
ing to changing winds of individual or general opinion or
caprice : it is decided by the Tradition of the Church as
testified by eye-witnesses and written in black and white
and gold in all countries of Christendom, and all down the
ages since the New Testament was composed.
I desire to point out concerning the foregoing seven
Notes of Truth in Textual Evidence that the student can
never afford entirely to lose sight of any of them. The
reason is because although no doubt it is conceivable that
any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to
establish almost any reading which can be named, prac
tically this is never the case. And why? Because we
never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest
possible measure. No Test ever attains to perfection, or
indeed can attain. An approximation to the Test is all
that can be expected, or even desired. And sometimes
we are obliged to put up with a very slight approximation
indeed. Their strength resides in their co-operation.
F 2

CHAPTER IV.
THE VATICAN AND SINAITIC MANUSCRIPTS.
§ 1-
No progress is possible in the department of ' Textual
Criticism ' until the superstition — for we are persuaded that
it is nothing less— which at present prevails concerning
certain of ' the old uncials ' (as they are called) has been
abandoned. By 'the old uncials' are generally meant,
[i] The Vatican Codex (B),— and [2] the Sinaitic Codex
(X), — which by common consent are assigned to the
fourth century : [3] the Alexandrian (A), and [4] the
Cod. Ephraemi rescriptus (C), — which are given to the
fifth century : and [5] the Codex Bezae (D), — which is
claimed for the sixth century : to which must now be added
[6] the Codex Beratinus (O), at the end of the fifth, and
[7] the Codex Rossanensis (2), at the beginning of the sixth
century. Five of these seven Codexes for some unexplained
reason, although the latest of them (D) is sundered from the
great bulk of the copies, uncial and cursive, by about as
many centuries as the earliest of them (BtC) are sundered
from the last of their group, have been invested with
oracular authority and are supposed to be the vehicles of
imperial decrees. It is pretended that what is found in
either B or in N or in D, although unsupported by any
other manuscript, may reasonably be claimed to exhibit
the truth of scripture, in defiance of the combined evidence
of all other documents to the contrary. Let a reading be
advocated by B and N in conjunction, and it is assumed as
a matter of course that such evidence must needs outweigh

QUESTION PROPOSED. 69
the combined evidence of all other MSS. which can be
named. But when (as often happens) three or four of
these ' old uncials ' are in accord, — especially if (as is not
unfrequently the case) they have the support of a single
ancient version (as the Bohairic), — or a solitary early
Father (as Origen), it seems to be deemed axiomatic that
such evidence must needs carry all before it ^.
I maintain the contradictory proposition, and am pre
pared to prove it. I insist that readings so supported are
clearly untrustworthy and may be dismissed as certainly
unauthentic. But let us in this chapter seek to come to some under
standing with one another. My method shall be to ask
a plain question which shall bring the matter to a clear
issue. I will then (1) invent the best answers I am able to
that question : and then (2) to the best of my ability —
I will dispose of these answers one by one. If the reader
(i) is able to assign a better answer,— or (2) does not deem
my refutation satisfactory ,^he has but to call me publicly
to account : and by the rejoinder I shall publicly render
either he, or I, must be content to stand publicly dis
credited. If I knew of a fairer way of bringing this by no
means recondite matter to a definite issue, the reader may
be well assured I should now adopt it^. — My general
question is, — Why throughout the Gospels are B and N
accounted so trustworthy, that all but the absolute disposal
of every disputed question about the Text is held to depend
upon their evidence ?
And I begin by asking of a supposed Biblical Student, —
Why throughout the Gospels should Codex B and N be
deemed more deserving of our confidence than the other
Codexes ?
' See Hort's Introduction, pp. 210-370.
" I have retained this challenge though it has been rendered nugatory by
the Dean's lamented death, in order to exhibit his absolute sincerity and
fearlessness. — E. M.

70 THE VATICAN AND SINAITIC MANUSCRIPTS.
Biblical Student. Because they are the most ancient of
our Codexes.
Dean Burgon. This answer evidently seems to you to
convey an axiomatic truth : but not to me. I must
trouble you to explain to me why ' the most ancient of
our Codexes ' must needs be the purest ?
B. S. I have not said that they ' must needs be the
purest': and I request you will not impute to me any
thing which I do not actually say.
The Dean. Thank you for a most just reproof. Let us
only proceed in the same spirit to the end, and we shall
arrive at important results. Kindly explain yourself there
fore in your own way.
B. S. I meant to say that because it is a reasonable
presumption that the oldest Codexes will prove the purest,
therefore Bt^ — being the oldest Codexes of the Gospels —
may reasonably be expected to be the best.
The Dean. So far happily we are agreed. You mean,
I presume, that inasmuch as it is an admitted principle
that the stream is purest at its source, the antiquity of B
and N creates a reasonable presumption in their favour.
Is that what you mean ?
B. S. Something of the kind, no doubt. You may
go on.
The Dean. Yes, but it would be a great satisfaction
to me to know for certain, whether you actually do, or
actually do not mean what I suppose : — viz., to apply the
principle, id verum esse quod primum, I take you to mean
that in B and N we have the nearest approach to the
autographs of the Evangelists, and that therefore in them
we have the best evidence that is at present within reach
of what those autographs actually were. I will now go on
as you bid me. And I take leave to point out to you, that
it is high time that we should have the facts of the case
definitely before us, and that we should keep them steadily

DEFECTIVE ANTIQUITY. 71
in view throughout our subsequent discussion. Now all
critics are agreed, that B and N were not written earlier
than about 340, or say before 330 A. D. You will admit
that, I suppose?
B. S. I have no reason to doubt it.
The Dean. There was therefore an interval of not far
short of three hundred years between the writing of the
original autographs and the copying of the Gospels in
B and K ^. Those two oldest Codexes, or the earliest of
them, are thus found to be separated by nearly three
centuries from the original writings, — or to speak more
accurately, — by about two centuries and three-quarters
from three of the great autographs, and by about 250
years from the fourth. Therefore these MSS. cannot be
said to be so closely connected with the original autographs
as to be entitled to decide about disputed passages what
they were or were not. Corruption largely infected the
several writings^, as I shall shew at some length in some
subsequent chapters, during the great interval to which
I have alluded.
B. S. But I am surprised to hear you say this. You
must surely recollect that B and N were derived from one
and the same archetype, and that that archetype was
produced 'in the early part of the second century if not
earlier ^' and was very close to the autographs, and that
they must be accordingly accurate transcripts of the
autographs, and —
The Dean. I must really pray you to pause : — you
have left facts far behind, and have mounted into cloud-
land. I must beg you not to let slip from your mind, that
we start with a fact, so far as it can be ascertained, viz.
the production of B and K, about the middle of the fourth
^ Here the Dean's MS. ceases, and the Editor is responsible for what follows.
The MS. was marked in pencil, ' Very rough— but worth carrying on.'
* See a passage from Caius quoted in The Revision Revised, p. 323.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 28. » Hort, Introduction, p. 223.

72 THE VATICAN AND SINAITIC MANUSCRIPTS.
century. You have advanced from that fact to what is
only a probable opinion, in which however I am agreed
with you, viz. that B and N are derived from one and the
same older manuscript. Together therefore, I pray you
will not forget, they only count nearly as one. But as to
the age of that archetype — forgive me for saying, that —
unintentionally no doubt but none the less really — you
have taken a most audacious leap. May I ask, however,
whether you can quote any ancient authority for the date
which you have affixed ?
B. S. I cannot recollect one at the present moment.
The Dean. No, nor Dr. Hort either, — for I perceive
that you adopt his speculation. And I utterly deny that
there is any probability at all for such a suggestion : — nay,
the chances are greatly, if not decisively, against the
original from which the lines of B and K diverged, being
anything like so old as the second century. These MSS.
bear traces of the Origenistic school, as I shall afterwards
shew ^. They have too much method in their error for it
to have arisen in the earliest age : its systematic character
proves it to have been the growth of time. They evince
effects, as I shall demonstrate in due course, of heretical
teaching, Lectionary practice, and regular editing, which
no manuscript could have contracted in the first ages of
the Church.
B. S. But surely the differences between B and hf, which
are many, prove that they were not derived immediately
from their common ancestor, but that some generations
elapsed between them. Do you deny that ?
The Dean. I grant you entirely that there are many
differences between them, — so much the worse for the
value of their evidence. But you must not suffer yourself
to be misled by the figure of genealogy upon points where
it presents no parallel. There were in manuscripts no
' See Appendix V, and below. Chapter IX.

THEIR ARCHETYPE NOT VERY OLD. 73
periods of infancy, childhood, and youth, which must
elapse before they could have a progeny. As soon as
a manuscript was completed, and was examined and passed,
it could be copied : and it could be copied, not only once
a year, but as often as copyists could find time to write
and complete their copies^. You must take also another
circumstance into consideration. After the destruction of
manuscripts in the persecution of Diocletian, and when the
learned were pressing from all quarters into the Church,
copies must have been multiplied with great rapidity.
There was all the more room for carelessness, inaccuracy,
incompetency, and capricious recension. Several genera
tions of manuscripts might have been given off in two or
three years. — But indeed all this idea of fixing the date of
the common ancestor of B and K is based upon pure specu
lation : — Textual Science cannot rest her conclusions upon
foundations of sand like that. I must bring you back to
the Rock : I must recall you to facts. B and N were
produced in the early middle, so to speak, of the fourth
century. Further than this, we cannot go, except to say —
and this especially is the point to which I must now request
your attention, — that we are in the possession of evidence
older than they are.
B. S. But you do not surely mean to tell me that
other Uncials have been discovered which are earlier than
these ?
The Dean. No: not yet: though it is possible, and
perhaps probable, that such MSS. may come to light,
not in vellum but in papyrus ; for as far as we know,
• As a specimen of how quickly a Cursive copy could be written by an
accomplished copyist, we may note the following entry from Dean Burgon's
Letters in the Guardian to Dr. Scrivener, in a letter dated Jan. 29, 1873.
' Note fuither, that there is . . . another copy of the O. T. in one volume . .
at the end of which is stated that Nicodemus o ikvos, the scribe, began his task
on the 8th of June and finished it on the 15th of July, A.D. 1334, working
very hard — as he must have done indeed.'

74 THE VATICAN AND SINAITIC MANUSCRIPTS.
B and N mark the emergence into prominence of the
' Uncial ' class of great manuscripts ^. But though there
are in our hands as yet no older manuscripts, yet we have
in the first place various Versions, viz., the Peshitto of the
second century ^, the group of Latin Versions ^ which begin
from about the same time, the Bohairic and the Thebaic
of the third century, not to speak of the Gothic which was
about contemporary with your friends the Vatican and
Sinaitic MSS. Next, there are the numerous Fathers who
quoted passages in the earliest ages, and thus witnessed to
the MSS. which they used. To take an illustration,
I have cited upon the last twelve verses of St. Mark's
Gospel no less than twelve authorities before the end of
the third century, that is down to a date which is nearly
half a century before B and N appeared. The general
mass of quotations found in the books of the early Fathers
witnesses to what I say *. So that there is absolutely no
reason to place these two MSS. upon a pedestal by them
selves on the score of supreme antiquity. They are eclipsed
in this respect by many other authorities older than they
are. Such, I must beg you to observe, is the verdict, not
of uncertain speculation, but of stubborn facts.
B. S. But if I am not permitted to plead the highest
antiquity on behalf of the evidence of the two oldest
Uncials, —
The Dean. Stop, I pray you. Do not imagine for
a single instant that I wish to prevent your pleading any
thing at all that you may fairly plead. Facts, which refuse
to be explained out of existence, not myself, bar your way.
Forgive me, but you must not run your head against
a brick wall.
B. S. Well then ¦', I will meet you at once by asking
' See below. Chapter VIII. § 2. 2 See Chapter VI.
' See Chapter VIL * See next Chapter.
' Another fragment found in the Dean's papers is introduced here.

DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT THEM. 75
a question of my own. Do you deny that B and N are the
most precious monuments of their class in existence ?
The Deaji. So far from denying, I eagerly assert that
they are. Were they offered for sale to-morrow, they
would command a fabulous sum. They might fetch
perhaps .^100,000. For aught I know or care they may
be worth it. More than one cotton-spinner is worth — or
possibly several times as much.
B. S. But I did not mean that. I spoke of their
importance as instruments of criticism.
The Dean. Again we are happily agreed. Their im
portance is unquestionably first-rate. But to come to the
point, will you state plainly, whether you mean to assert
that their text is in your judgement of exceptional
purity ?
B. S. I do.
The Dean. At last there we understand one another.
I on the contrary insist, and am prepared to prove, that
the text of these two Codexes is very nearly the foulest in
existence. On what, pray, do you rely for your opinion
which proves to be diametrically the reverse of mine ^ ?
B. S. The best scholars tell me that their text, and
especially the text of B, is of a purer character than
any other : and indeed I myself, after reading B in
Mai's edition, think that it deserves the high praise given
to it.
The Dean. My dear friend, I see that you have been
taken in by Mai's edition, printed at Leipzig, and published
in England by Williams & Norgate and D. Nutt. Let
me tell you that it is a most faulty representation of B.
It mixes later hands with the first hand. It abounds in
mistakes. It inserts perpetually passages which are no
where found in the copy. In short, people at the time
fancied that in the text of the mysterious manuscript in
' Here the fragment ends.

76 THE VATICAN AND SINAITIC MANUSCRIPTS.
the Vatican they would find the verba ipsissima of the
Gospels : but when Cardinal Mai was set to gratify them,
he found that B would be unreadable unless it were edited
with a plentiful correction of errors. So the world then
received at least two recensions of B mixed up in this edition,
whilst B itself remained behind. The world was generally
satisfied, and taken in. But I am sorry that you have
shared in the delusion.
B. S. Well, of course I may be wrong : but surely you
will respect the opinion of the great scholars.
The Dean. Of course I respect deeply the opinion of
any great scholars : but before I adopt it, I must know
and approve the grounds of their opinion. Pray, what in
this instance are they?
B. S. They say that the text is better and purer than
any other.
The Dean. And I say that it is nearly the most corrupt
known. If they give no special grounds except the fact
that they think so, it is a conflict of opinion. There is
a balance between us. But from this deadlock I proceed
to facts. Take for example, as before, the last twelve
verses of St. Mark. On the one side are alleged B and N, —
of which B by the exhibition of a blank space mutely
confesses its omission, and K betrays that it is double-
minded^; one Old Latin MS. {k), two Armenian MSS.,
two Ethiopic, and an Arabic Lectionary; an expression of
Eusebius, who elsewhere quotes the passage, which was
copied by Jerome and Severus of Antioch, saying that
the verses were omitted in some copies. L of the eighth
century, and a few Cursives, give a brief, but impossible,
termination. On the other side I have referred to^ six
witnesses of the second century, six of the third, fifteen of
the fourth, nine of the fifth, eight of the sixth and seventh,
' See Dr. Gwynn's remarks which are quoted below, Appendix VII.
'' The Revision Revised, p. 423. Add a few more; see Appendix VII.

CONDEMNED UNDER THE NOTES OF TRUTH. 77
all the other Uncials, and all the other Cursives, including
the universal and immemorial Liturgical use. Here, as
you must see, B and ti, in faltering tones, and with
only an insignificant following, are met by an array of
authorities, which is triumphantly superior, not only in
antiquity, but also in number, variety, and continuousness.
I claim also the superiority as to context, internal con
siderations, and in weight too.
B. S. But surely weight is the ground of contention
between us.
The Dean. Certainly, and therefore I do not assume
my claim till I substantiate it. But before I go on to do
so, may I ask whether you can dispute the fact of the four
first Notes of Truth being on my side ?
B. S. No : you are entitled to so much allowance.
The Dean. That is a very candid admission, and just
what I expected from you, Now as to Weight. The
passage just quoted is only one instance out of many.
More will abound later on in this book : and even then
many more must of necessity remain behind. In point of
hard and unmistakable fact, there is a continual conflict
going on all through the Gospels between B and N and
a few adherents of theirs on the one side, and the bulk of
the Authorities on the other, and the nature and weight of
these two Codexes may be inferred from it. They will be
found to have been proved over and over again to be bad
witnesses, who were left to survive in their handsome
dresses whilst attention was hardly ever accorded to any
services of theirs. Fifteen centuries, in which the art of
copying the Bible was brought to perfection, and printing
invented, have by unceasing rejection of their claims
sealed for ever the condemnation of their character, and
so detracted from their weight.
B. S. Still, whilst I acknowledge the justice of much
that you have said, I cannot quite understand how the

78 THE VATICAN AND SINAITIC MANUSCRIPTS.
text of later copies can be really older than the text of
earlier ones.
The Dean. You should know that such a thing is quite
possible. Copies much more numerous and much older
than B and N live in their surviving descendants. The
pedigree of the Queen is in no wise discredited because
William the Conqueror is not alive. But then further than
this. The difference between the text of B and J' on the
one side and that which is generally represented by A and
4> and 2 on the other is not of a kind depending upon date,
but upon recension or dissemination of readings. No
amplification of B and K could by any process of natural
development have issued in the last twelve verses of
St. Mark. But it was easy enough for the scribe of B
not to write, and the scribe of N consciously ^ and de
liberately to omit, verses found in the copy before him,
if it were determined that they should severally do so. So
with respect to the 2,556 omissions of B. The original
text could without any difficulty have been spoilt by leav
ing out the words, clauses, and sentences thus omitted :
but something much more than the shortened text of B
was absolutely essential for the production of the longer
manuscripts. This is an important point, and I must say
something more upon it.
First then^. Cod. B is discovered not to contain in the
Gospels alone 237 words, 45a clauses, 748 whole sentences,
which the later copies are observed to exhibit in the same
places and in the same words. By what possible hypothesis
will such a correspondence of the Copies be accounted for,
if these words, clauses, and sentences are indeed, as is
pretended, nothing else but spurious accretions to the
text? Secondly, the same Codex throughout the Gospels
' Dr. Gwynn, Appendix VII.
"^ Another MS. coraes iu here.

OMISSIONS IN B. 79
exhibits 394 times words in a certain order, which however
is not the order advocated bythe great bulk of the Copies.
In consequence of what subtle influence will it be pre
tended, that all over the world for a thousand years the
scribes were universally induced to deflect from the
authentic collocation of the same inspired words, and
always to deflect in precisely the same way?
But Cod. B also contains 937 Gospel words, of which by
common consent the great bulk of the Cursive Copies
know nothing. Will it be pretended that in any part of
the Church for seven hundred years copyists of Evangelia
entered into a grand conspiracy to thrust out of every fresh ¦
copy of the Gospel self-same words in the self-same
places ^ ?
You will see therefore that B, and so K, since the same
arguments concern one as the other, must have been
derived from the Traditional Text, and not the Traditional
Text from those two Codexes.
B. S. You forget that Recensions were made at Edessa
or Nisibis and Antioch which issued in the Syrian Texts,
and that that was the manner in which the change which
you find so difficult to understand was brought about.
The Dean. Excuse me, I forget no such thing ; and
for a very good reason, because such Recensions never
occurred. Why, there is not a trace of them in history : it
is a mere dream of Dr. Hort : they must be ' phantom
recensions,' as Dr. Scrivener terms them. The Church of
the time was not so unconscious of such matters as Dr. Hort
imagines. Supposing for a moment that such Recensions
took place, they must have been either merely local occur
rences, in which case after a controversy on which history is
silent they would have been inevitably rejected by the other
Churches in Christendom ; or they must have been general
operations of the Universal Church, and then inasmuch as
' The MS. ceases.

8o THE VATICAN AND SINAITIC MANUSCRIPTS.
they would have been sealed with the concurrence of fifteen
centuries, I can hardly conceive greater condemnations of
B and N. Besides, how could a text which has been in fact
Universal be ' Syrian ' ? We are on terra firma, let me
remind you, not in the clouds. The undisputed action of
fifteen centuries is not to be set aside by a nickname.
B. S. But there is another way of describing the process
of change which may have occurred in the reverse direction
to that which you advocate. Expressions which had been
introduced in different groups of readings were combined
by ' Conflation ' into a more diffuse and weaker passage.
Thus in St. Mark vi. '^•>)i ^^ two clauses xat -nporiKQov avro^v?,
Kal avvfjXdov airrov, are made into one conflate passage,
of which the last clause is 'otiose' after avvibpafiov exei
occurring immediately before ^.
The Dean. Excuse me, but I entirely disagree with
you. The whole passage appears to me to savour of the
simplicity of early narratives. Take for example the well-
known words in Gen. xii. 5, ' and they went forth to go
into the land of Canaan ; and into the land of Canaan
they came^.' A clumsy criticism, bereft of any fine
appreciation of times and habits unlike the present, might
I suppose attempt to remove the latter clause from
that place as being ' otiose' But besides, your explana
tion entirely breaks down when it is applied to other
instances. How could conflation, or mixture, account for
occurrence of the last cry in St. Mark xv. 39, or of vv. 43-
44 in St. Luke xxii describing the Agony and Bloody
Sweat, or of the first Word from the Cross in St. Luke
xxiii. 34, or of the descending angel and the working of
the cure in St. John v. 3-4, or of St. Peter's visit to the
sepulchre in St. Luke xxiv. 12, or what would be the
foisting of verses or passages of different lengths into
' Hort, Introduction, pp. 95-99.
= : m-2 ns-iN W3»i I5J33 nsiN nabij ws-i
'-it; t ;- T- •--; t ;- vvt : ••-

CONFLATION A DREAM. Bl
the numerous and similar places that I might easily
adduce ? If these were all transcribed from some previous
text into which they had been interpolated, they would
only thrust the difficulty further back. How did they
come there ? The clipped text of B and N — so to call it
— could not have been the source of them. If they were
interpolated by scribes or revisers, the interpolations are
so good that, at least in many cases, they must have
shared inspiration with the Evangelists. Contrast, for
example, the real interpolations of D and the Curetonian.
It is at the least demonstrated that that hypothesis requires
another source of the Traditional Text, and this is the argu
ment now insisted on. On the contrary, if you will discard
your reverse process, and for ' Conflation ' will substitute
' Omission ' through careles.sness, or ignorance of Greek,
or misplaced assiduity, or heretical bias, or through some
of the other causes which I shall explain later on, all will
be as plain and easy as possible. Do you not see that ?
No explanation can stand which does not account for all
the instances existing. Conflation or mixture is utterly
incapable of meeting the larger number of cases. But
you will find before this treatise is ended that various
methods will be described herein with care, and traced
in their actual operation, under which debased texts of
various kinds were produced from the Traditional Text.
B. S. I see that there is much probability in what you
say : but I retain still some lingering doubt.
The Dean. That doubt, I think, will be removed by the
next point which I will now endeavour to elucidate. You
must know that there is no agreement amongst the allies,
except so far as the denial of truth is concerned. As soon
as the battle is over, they at once turn their arms against
one another. Now it is a phenomenon full of suggestion,
that such a Concordia discors is conspicuous amongst B
and N and their associates. Indeed these two Codexes are
G

82 THE VATICAN AND SINAITIC MANUSCRIPTS.
individually at variance with themselves, since each of
them has undergone later correction, and in fact no less
than eleven hands from first to last have been at work
on N, which has been corrected and re-corrected back
wards and forwards like the faulty document that it is.
This by the way, but as to the continual quarrels of these
dissentients ^, which are patent when an attempt is made
to ascertain how far they agree amongst themselves, I must
request your attention to a few points and passages ^
§ 2. St. John V. 4.
When it is abruptly stated that ^?BCD — four out of
' the five old uncials ' — omit from the text of St. John's
Gospel the account of the angel descending into the pool
and troubling the water,— it is straightway supposed that
the genuineness of St. John v. 4 must be surrendered.
But this is not at all the way to settle questions of this
kind. Let the witnesses be called in afresh and examined.
Now I submit that since these four witnesses omitting
A, (besides a multitude of lesser discrepancies,) are unable
to agree among themselves whether ' there was at Jeru
salem a sheep-/W (N), or 'a pool at the sheep-gate' :
whether it was 'surnamed' (BC), or 'named' (D), or
neither (N) : — which appellation, out of thirty which have
been proposed for this pool, they will adopt, — seeing that
' An instance is afforded in St. Mark viii. 7, where ' the Five Old Uncials'
exhibit the passage thus :
A. xai TavTa €v\oyT]ffas et-nev irapaTsBjjvai leai avra.
a*. Kai fvXoyrjoas avra TrapiOyxev.
N\ xai fvXoyTjoas ctTrei/ xat Tavra irapartOevai.
B. xat €v\oyrjaas avra utrev xai Tavra irapariOevai.
C. Kai €v\oyTjaas avra cnrcv xat Tavra TTapaOcre.
D. xai fvxapiOTTjoas enrev xai aVTOvs exiXfvOfV irapaTiOfvai.
Lachmann, and Tischendorf (1859) follow A ; Alford, and Tischendorf (1869)
follow N ; Tregelles and V\'estcott, and Hort adopt B. They happen to be all
wrong, and the Textus Receptus right. The only word they all agree in is the
initial xai.
' After this the MSS. recommence.

CONCORDIA DISCORS. 83
C is for ' Bethesda ' ; B for ' Bethsaida ' ; K for ' Bethzatha ' ;
D for ' Belzetha ' :— whether or no the crowd was great,
of which they all know nothing, — and whether some were
' paralytics,' — a fact which was evidently revealed only to
D : — to say nothing of the vagaries of construction dis
coverable in verses 11 and 12: — when, you see, at last
these four witnesses conspire to suppress the fact that an
Angel went down into the pool to trouble the water ; —
this concord of theirs derives suggestive illustration from
their conspicuous discord. Since, I say, there is so much
discrepancy hereabouts in B and N and their two associates
on this occasion, nothing short of unanimity in respect of
the thirty-two contested words — five in verse 3, and twenty-
seven in verse 4 — would free their evidence from sus
picion. But here we make the notable discovery that only
three of them omit all the words in question, and that the
second Corrector of C replaces them in that manuscript.
D retains the first five, and surrenders the last twenty-
seven : in this step D is contradicted by another of the ' Old
Uncials,' A, whose first reading retains the last twenty-
seven, and surrenders the first five. Even their satellite L
forsakes them, except so far as to follow the first hand
of A. Only five Cursives have been led astray, and they
exhibit strikingly this Concordia discors. One (157) follows
the extreme members of the loving company throughout.
Two (18, 314) imitate A and L : and two more {"i,^, 134)
have the advantage of D for their leader. When wit
nesses prevaricate so hopelessly, how far can you believe
them? Now — to turn for a moment to the other side — this is
a matter on which the translations and such Fathers as
quote the passage are able to render just as good evidence
as the Greek copies : and it is found that the Peshitto,
most of the Old Latin, as well as the Vulgate and the
Jerusalem, with Tertullian, Ammonius, Hilary, Ephraem
G a

84 THE VATICAN AND SINAITIC MANUSCRIPTS.
the Syrian, Ambrose (two), Didymus, Chrysostom (eight),
Nilus (four), Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria (five), Augustine
(two), and Theodorus Studita, besides the rest of the
Uncials \ and the Cursives ^ with the slight exception
already mentioned, are opposed to the Old Uncials ^
Let me next remind you of a remarkable instance of
this inconsistency which I have already described in my
book on The Revision Revised (pp. 34-3^)- 'The five
Old Uncials ' (KABCD) falsify the Lord's Prayer as given
by St. Luke in no less than forty-five words. But so little
do they agree among themselves, that they throw them
selves into six different combinations in their departures
from the Traditional Text ; and yet they are never able
to agree among themselves as to one single various
reading : while only once are more than two of them
observed to stand together, and their grand point of union
is no less than an omission of the article. Such is their
eccentric tendency, that in respect of thirty-two out of the
whole forty-five words they bear in turn solitary evidence.

§ 3.
I should weary you, my dear student, if I were to take
you through all the evidence which I could amass upon
this disagreement with one another, — this Concordia discors.
But I would invite your attention for a moment to a few
points which being specimens may indicate the continued
divisions upon Orthography which subsist between the
Old Uncials and their frequent errors. And first*, how
' Sn mark the place with asterisks, and A with an obelus.
^ In twelve, asterisks : in two, obeli.
^ The MS., which has not been perfect, here ceases.
* In the Syriac one form appears to be used for all the Marys (ji^yo-
Mar-yam, also sometimes, but not always, spelt in the Jerusalem Syriac
<a\^;ia = Mar-ySam), also for Miriam in the O. T., for Mariamne the wife of
Herod, and others ; in fact, wherever it is intended to represent a Hebrew
female name. At Rom. xvi. 6, the Peshitto has Hjjc = Ma/jla, obviously as

DISCORDANCE IN ORTHOGRAPHY. 85
do they write the ' Mary's ' of the Gospels, of whom in
strictness there are but three ?
'The Mother of Jesus V as most of us are aware, was
not 'Mary' (Mapia) at all; but ' Mariam' (Mapidp.), —
a name strictly identical with that of the sister of Moses ^-
We call her ' Mary' only because the Latins invariably write
her name ' Maria.' So complete an obliteration of the
distinction between the name of the blessed Virgin — and
that of (1) her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas^, of (2) Mary
Magdalene, and of (3) Mary the sister of Lazarus, may be
deplored, but it is too late to remedy the mischief by full
1800 years. The question before us is not that ; but
only — how far the distinction between ' Mariam ' and
' Maria ' has been maintained by the Greek copies ?
Now, as for the cursives, with the memorable exception
of Evann. i and 33, — which latter, because it is disfigured
by more serious blunders than any other copy written in
the cursive character, Tregelles by a mauvaise plaisanterie
designates as ' the queen of the cursives,' — it may be said
at once that they are admirably faithful. Judging from
the practice of fifty or sixty which have been minutely
a translation of the Greek form in the text which was followed. (See Thesaurus
Syriacus, Payne Smith, coll. 2221;, 2226.)
In Syriac literature \.» ;2sD = Maria occurs from time to time as the name of
some Saint or Martyr— e. g. iu a volume of Acta Mart, described by Wright in
Cat. Syr. MSS. in B. M. p. 1081, and which appears to be a fifth-century MS.
On the hypothesis that Hebrew-Aramaic was spoken in Palestine (pace
Drs. Abbot and Roberts), I do not doubt that only one form (cf. Pearson, Creed,
Art. iii. and notes) of the name was in use, ' Maryam,' a vulgarized form of
'Miriam'; but it may well be that Greek Christians kept the Hebrew form
Mapiapi for the Virgin, while they adopted a more Greek-looking word for the
other women. This fine distinction has been lost in the corrupt Uncials, while
observed in the correct Uncials and Cursives, which is all that the Dean's
argument requires.— (G. H. G.)
• The MSS. continue here. "^ LXX.
^ St. John xix. 25. As the passage is syndeton, the omission ofthe «ot which
would be necessary if Mapia 17 tov K\aird were different from ^ dScAif ij t^s
fiTjTpos aiiTov could not be justified. Compare, e. g., the construction in the
mention of four in St. Mark xiii. 3. In disregarding the usage requiring
exclusively either syndeton or asyndeton, even scholars are guided unconsciously
by their English experience.— (Ed.)

86 THE VATICAN AND SINAITIC MANUSCRIPTS.
examined with this view, the traces of irregularity are so
rare that the phenomenon scarcely deserves notice. Not
so the old uncials. Cod. B, on the first occasion where
a blunder is possible ^ (viz. in St. Matt. i. 20), exhibits Mapia
instead of Mapidju: — so does Cod. C in xiii. 55,— Cod. D in
St. Luke i. 30, 39, 56 : ii. 5, 16, 34,— Codd. CD in St. Luke
by NBC, in St. Matt. i. 34, 38, 46,— Codd. END, in ii. 19.
On the other hand, the Virgin's sister (Mapia), is twice
written Maptnju : viz. by C, in St. Matt xxvii. ^6 ; and by N,
in St. John xix. 25 : — while Mary Magdalene is written
Maptaju by ' the five old uncials ' no less than eleven times :
viz. by C, in St. Matt, xxvii. S^, — by N, in St. Luke xxiv. 10,
St. John xix. 25, xx. 11, — by A, in St. Luke viii. 2, — by NA,
in St. John xx. i, — by NC, in St. Matt, xxviii. i, — by NB,
in St. John xx. 16 and 18, — by BC, in St. Mark xv. 40, —
by NBC, in St. Matt, xxvii. 61.
Lastly, Mary (Mapia) the sister of Lazarus, is called
Mapiap, by Cod. B in St. Luke x. 42 : St. John xi. 2 : xii.
3 ; — by BC, in St. Luke xi. 32 ; — ^by NC, in St. Luke x.
39. — I submit that such specimens of licentiousness or
inattention are little calculated to conciliate confidence in
Codd. BNCD. It is found that B goes wrong nine times :
D, ten (exclusively in respect of the Virgin Mary) : C,
eleven : N, twelve. — Evan. 33 goes wrong thirteen times : i,
nineteen times. — A, the least corrupt, goes wrong only twice.
§4.
Another specimen of a blunder in Codexes BNL33 is
afforded by their handling of our Lord's words, — 'Thou
art Simon the son of Jona.' That this is the true reading
of St. John i. 43 is sufficiently established by the fact that
' The genitive Map 'as is used in the Textus Receptus in Matt. i. i6, iS ; ii.
1 1 ; Mark vi. 3 ; Luke i. 41. Mapidpi is used in the Nominative, Matt. xiii. 55 ;
Luke i. 27, 34, 39, 46, 56 ; ii. 5, 19. In the Vocative, Luke i. 30. The
Accusative, Matt. i. 20; Luke ii. 16. Dative, Luke ii. 6: Acts i. 14-
Maptap occurs for another Mary in the Textus Receptus, Rom. xvi. 6.

BLUNDERS IN NAMES. 87
it is the reading of all the Codexes, uncial and cursive
alike, — excepting always the four vicious specimens speci
fied above. Add to the main body of the Codexes the
Vulgate, Peshitto and Harkleian Syriac, the Armenian,
Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic versions : — besides several
ofthe Fathers, such as Serapion^, — BasiP, — Epiphanius^, —
Chrysostom *, — Asterius ^, — and another (unknown) writer
of the fourth century ® : — with Cyril ^ of the fifth, — and a
body of evidence has been adduced, which alike in respect
of its antiquity, its number, its variety, and its respecta
bility, casts such witnesses as B-N entirely into the shade.
When it is further remembered that we have preserved
to us in St. Matt. xvi. 17 our Saviour's designation of
Simon's patronymic in the vernacular of Palestine, * Simon
Bar-jona,' which no manuscript has ventured to disturb,
what else but irrational is the contention of the modem
School that for 'Jona' in St. John i. 43, we are to read
' John ' ? The plain fact evidently is that some second-
century critic supposed that -Jonah' and 'John' are iden
tical : and of his weak imagination the only surviving
witnesses at the end of 1700 years are three uncials and
one cursive copy, — a few copies of the Old Latin (which
fluctuate between 'Johannis,' 'Johanna,' and 'Johna'), —
the Bohairic Version, and Nonnus. And yet, on the
strength of this slender minority, the Revisers exhibit in
their text, ' Simon the son of John,' — and in their margin
volunteer the information that the Greek word is ' Joanes,'
— which is simply not the fact : IcoarTjs being the reading
of no Greek manuscript in the world except Cod. B *.
' Serapion, Bp. of Thmuis (on a mouth of the Nile) A. D. 340 (ap. Galland.
V. 60 a).
^ Basil, i. 240 d. " Epiphanius, i. 435 c.
* Chrysostom, iii. 120 d e ; vii. 180 a, 547 e quat. ; viii. 112 ac (nine times).
^ Asterius, p. 128 b.
" Basil Opp. (i. Append.) i. 500 e (cf. p. 377 Monitum).
' Cyril, iv. 131 c.
' A gives Imia ; N, laavvT]! ; C and D are silent. Obvious it is that the

88 THE VATICAN AND SINAITIC MANUSCRIPTS.
Again, in the margin of St. John i. 28 we are informed
that instead of Bethany — the undoubted reading of the
place, — some ancient authorities read ' Betharabah.' Why,
there is not a single ancient Codex, — not a single ancient
Father, — not a single ancient Version, — which so reads the
place ^ §5.
B. S. But^ while I grant you that this general dis
agreement between B and N and the other old Uncials
which for a time join in their dissent from the Traditional
Text causes the gravest suspicion that they are in error,
yet it appears to me that these points of orthography are
too small to be of any real importance.
The Dean. If the instances just given were only excep
tions, I should agree with you. On the contrary, they
indicate the prevailing character of the MSS. B and N
are covered all over with blots ^, — N even more so than B.
How they could ever have gained the characters which
have been given them, is passing strange. But even great
scholars are human, and have their prejudices and other
weaknesses; and their disciples follow them everywhere
as submissively as sheep. To say nothing of many great
scholars who have never explored this field, if men of
ordinary acquirements in scholarship would only eman
cipate themselves and judge with their own eyes, they
would soon see the truth of what I say.
revised text of St. John i. 43 and of xxi. 15, 16, 17, — must stand or fall
together. In this latter place the Vulgate forsakes us, and NB are joined by
C and D. On the other hand, Cyril (iv. 11 17), — Basil (ii. 298), — Chrysostom
(viii. 525 c d), — Theodoret (ii. 426), — Jo. Damascene (ii. 510 e),— and Eulogins
([a. d. 580] ap. Photium, p. 1612), come to our aid. Not that we require it.
' ' Araba ' (instead of ' abara ') is a word which must have exercised so
powerful and seductive an influence over ancient Eastern scribes, — (having been
for thirty four centuries the established designation of the sterile Wady, which
extends from the Southern extremity of the Dead Sea to the North of the
Arabian Gulf) — that the only wonder is it did not find its way into Evangeha.
See Gesenius on HJIS? CApo^^a in the LXX of Deut. ii. 8, &c. So in the
Revised O. T.).
" The MSS. have ceased. ' See Appendix V.

TO BE DECIDED BY FACTS. 89
B. S. I should assent to all that you have told me,
if I could only have before me a sufficient number of
instances to form a sound induction, always provided that
they agree with these which you have quoted Those which
you have just given are enough as specimens : but forgive
me when I say that, as a Biblical Student, I think I ought
to form my opinions upon strong, deep, and wide founda
tions of facts.
The Dean. So far from requiring forgiveness from me,
you deserve all praise. My leading principle is to build
solely upon facts, — upon real, not fancied facts, — not upon
a few favourite facts, but upon all that are connected with
the question under consideration. And if it had been
permitted me to carry out in its integrity the plan which
I laid down for myself^, — that however has been withheld
under the good Providence of Almighty GOD. — Neverthe
less I think that you will discover in the sequel enough
to justify amply all the words that I have used. You
will, I perceive, agree with me in this, — That whichever
side of the contention is the most comprehensive, and rests
upon the soundest and widest induction of facts, — that
side, and that side alone, will stand.
' See Preface.

CHAPTER V.
THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT \
I. Witness of the Early Fathers.
§ 1. Involuntary Evidence of Dr. Hort.
Our readers will have observed, that the chief obstacle
in the way of an unprejudiced and candid examination of
the sound and comprehensive system constructed by Dean
Burgon is found in the theory of Dr. Hort. Of the
internal coherence and the singular ingenuity displayed in
Dr. Hort's treatise, no one can doubt : and I hasten to pay
deserved and sincere respect to the memory of the highly
accomplished author whose loss the students of Holy
Scripture are even now deploring. It is to his arguments
sifted logically, to the judgement exercised by him upon
texts and readings, upon manuscripts and versions and
Fathers, and to his collisions with the record of history, that
a higher duty than appreciation of a Theologian however
learned and pious compels us to demur.
But no searching examination into the separate links
and details of the argument in Dr. Hort's Introduction to
his Edition of the New Testament will be essayed now.
Such a criticism has been already made by Dean Burgon
in the 306th number of the Quarterly Review, and has
' This chapter and the next three have been supplied entirely by the
Editor.

INVOLUNTARY WITNESS OF DR. HORT. 91
been repubhshed in The Revision Revised V The object
here pursued is only to remove the difficulties which
Dr. Hort interposes in the development of our own treatise.
Dr. Hort has done a valuable service to the cause of
Textual Criticism by supplying the rationale of the attitude
of the School of Lachmann. We know what it really
means, and against what principles we have to contend.
He has also displayed a contrast and a background to the
true theory ; and has shewn where the drawing and
colouring are either ill-made or are defective. More than
all, he has virtually destroyed his own theory.
The parts of it to which I refer are in substance briefly
the following :
' The text found in the mass of existing MSS. does not
date further back than the middle of the fourth century.
Before that text was made up, other forms of text were in
vogue, which may be termed respectively Neutral, Western,
and Alexandrian. The text first mentioned arose in Syria
and more particularly at Antioch. Originally there had
been in Syria an Old-Syriac, which after Cureton is to be
identified with the Curetonian. In the third century, about
250 A. D., " an authoritative revision, accepted by Syriac
Christendom," was made, of which the locality would be
either Edessa or Nisibis, or else Antioch itself. "This
revision was grounded probably upon an authoritative
revision at Antioch " (p. 137) of the Greek texts which
called for such a recension on account of their " growing
diversity and confusion." Besides these two, a second
revision of the Greek texts, or a third counting the Syriac
revision, similarly authoritative, was completed at Antioch
" by 350 or thereabouts " ; but what was now " the Vulgate
Syriac " text, that is the Peshitto, did not again undergo
any corresponding revision. From the last Greek revision
' See also Miller's Textual Guide, chapter iv. No answer has been made to
the Dean's strictures.

92 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
issued a text which was afterwards carried to Constanti
nople — "Antioch being the true ecclesiastical parent of
Constantinople" — and thenceforward became the Text
dominant in Christendom till the present century. Never
theless, it is not the true Text, for that is the " Neutral "
text, and it may be called " Syrian." Accordingly, in in
vestigations into the character and form of the true Text,
" Syrian " readings are to be " rejected at once, as proved
to have a relatively late origin." '
A few words will make it evident to unprejudiced
judges that Dr. Hort has given himself away in this part
of his theory.
I. The criticism of the Canon and language of the
Books of the New Testament is but the discovery and
the application ofthe record of Testimony borne in history
to those books or to that language. For a proof o|f this
position as regards the Canon, it is sufficient to refer to
Bishop Westcott's admirable discussion upon the Canon
of the New Testament. And as with the Books generally,
so with the details of those Books — their paragraphs, their
sentences, their clauses, their phrases, and their words. To
put this dictum into other terms : — The Church, all down
the ages, since the issue of the original autographs, has
left in Copies or in Versions or in Fathers manifold
witness to the books composed and to the words written.
Dr. Hort has had the unwisdom from his point of view
to present us with some fifteen centuries, and — I must in
duty say it — the audacity to label those fifteen centuries of
Church Life with the title ' Syrian,' which as used by him
I will not characterize, for he has made it amongst his
followers a password to contemptuous neglect. Yet those
fifteen centuries involve everything. They commenced when
the Church was freeing herself from heresy and formulating
her Faith. They advanced amidst the most sedulous care
of Holy Scripture. They implied a consentient record from

INVOLUNTARY WITNESS OF DR. HORT. 93
the first, except where ignorance, or inaccuracy, or care
lessness, or heresy, prevailed. And was not Dr. Hort
aware, and do not his adherents at the present day know,
that Church Life means nothing arbitrary, but all that is
soundest and wisest and most complete in evidence, and
most large-minded in conclusions? Above all, did he fancy,
and do his followers imagine, that the Holy Ghost who
inspired the New Testament could have let the true Text
of it drop into obscurity during fifteen centuries of its life,
and that a deep and wide and full investigation (which
by their premisses they will not admit) must issue in the
proof that under His care the Word of GOD has been
preserved all through the ages in due integrity? — This
admission alone when stripped of its disguise, is plainly
fatal to Dr. Hort's theory.
2. Again, in order to prop up his contention, Dr. Hort
is obliged to conjure up the shadows of two or three
'phantom revisions,' of which no recorded evidence exists ^-
We must never forget that subjective theory or individual
speculation are valueless, when they do not agree with facts,
except as failures leading to some better system. But
Dr. Hort, as soon as he found that he could not maintain
his ground with history as it was, instead of taking back
his theory and altering it to square with facts, tampered
with historical facts in order to make them agree with
his theory. This is self-evident : no one has been able to
adduce, during the quarter of a century that has elapsed
since Dr. Hort published his book, passages to shew that
Dr. Hort was right, and that his supposed revisions
really took place. The acute calculations of Adams and
Leverrier would have been very soon forgotten, if Neptune
had not appeared to vindicate their correctness.
But I shall not leave matters here, though it is evident
' See Dr. Scrivener's incisive criticism of Dr. Hort's theory. Introduction,
edit. 4, ii. 284-296.

94 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
that Dr. Hort is confuted out of his own mouth. The
fifteen centuries of dominant evidence, which he admits
to have been on our side, involve the other centuries that
had passed previously, because the Catholic Church of
Christ is ever consistent with itself, and are thus virtually
decisive of the controversy ; besides the collapse of his
theory when superimposed upon the facts of history and
found not to coincide with them. I proceed to prove
from the surviving records of the first three or four cen
turies, during the long period that elapsed between the
copying of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. and the days
of the Evangelists, that the evidence of Versions and
Fathers is on our side.
And first ofthe Fathers.

§ 2. Testimony of the Ante- Chrysostom Writers.
No one, I believe, has till now made a systematic
examination of the quotations occurring in the writings
of the Fathers who died before A. D. 400 and in public
documents written prior to that date. The consequence is
that many statements have been promulgated respecting
them which are inconsistent with the facts of the case.
Dr. Hort, as I shall shew, has offended more than once in
this respect. The invaluable Indexes drawn up by Dean
Burgon and those who assisted him, which are of the
utmost avail in any exhaustive examination of Patristic
evidence upon any given text, are in this respect of little
use, the question here being. What is the testimony of all
the Fathers in the first four centuries, and of every separate
Father, as to the MSS. used by them or him, upon the
controversy waged between the maintainers of the Tradi
tional Text on the one side, and on the other the defenders
of the Neologian Texts? The groundwork of such an

TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS. 95
examination evidently lies not in separate passages of the
Gospels, but in the series of quotations from them found
in the works of the collective or individual Fathers of the
period under consideration.
I must here guard myself. In order to examine the
text of any separate passage, the treatment must be ex
haustive, and no evidence if possible should be left out.
The present question is of a different kind. Dr. Hort
states that the Traditional Text, or as he calls it ' the
Syrian,' does not go back to the earliest times, that is as
he says, not before the middle of the fourth century. In
proving my position that it can be traced to the very first,
it would be amply sufficient if I could shew that the
evidence is half on our side and half on the other. It is
really found to be much more favourable to us. We fully
admit that corruption prevailed from the very first ^ : and
so, we do not demand as much as our adversaries require
for their justification. At all events the question is of
a general character, and does not depend upon a little
more evidence or a little less. And the argument is
secondary in its nature : it relates to the principles of the
evidence, not directly to the establishment of any particular
reading. It need not fail therefore if it is not entirely ex
haustive, provided that it gives a just and fair representation
of the whole case. Nevertheless, I have endeavoured to
make it exhaustive as far as my power would 1 admit,
having gone over the whole field a second time, and having
employed all the care in either scrutiny that I could com
mand. The way in which my investigation has been accomplished
is as follows : — A standard of reference being absolutely
necessary, I have kept before me a copy of Dr. Scrivener's
Cambridge Greek Testament, A.D. 1887, in which the dis
puted passages are printed in black type, although the
' The Revision Revised, pp. 323-324, 334.

96 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
Text there presented is the Textus Receptus from which
the Traditional Text as revised by Dean Burgon and here
after to be published differs in many passages. It follows
therefore that upon some of these the record, though not
unfavourable to us, has many times been included in our
opponents' column. I have used copies of the Fathers in
which the quotations were marked, chiefly those in Migne's
Series, though I have also employed other editions where
I could find any of superior excellence as well as Migne.
Each passage with its special reading was entered down in
my note-book upon one column or the other. Successive
citations thus fell on either side when they witnessed upon
the disputed points so presented. But all doubtful quota
tions (under which head were included all that were not
absolutely clear) were discarded as untrustworthy witnesses
in the comparison that was being made ; and all instances
too of mere spelling, because these latter might have been
introduced into the text by copyists or editors through an
adaptation to supposed orthography in the later ages when
the text of the Father in question was copied or printed.
The fact also that deflections from the text more easily
catch the eye than undeviating rejection of deflections was
greatly to the advantage of the opposite side. And lastly,
where any doubt arose I generally decided questions against
my own contention, and have omitted to record many
smaller instances favourable to us which I should have
entered in the other column. From various reasons the
large majority of passages proved to be irrelevant to this
inquiry, because no variation of reading occurred in them,
or none which has been adopted by modern editors. Such
were favourite passages quoted again and again as the two
first verses of St. John's Gospel, ' I and My Father are one,'
' I am the way, the truth, and the life,' ' No man knoweth
the Father but the Son,' and many others. In Latin
books, more quotations had to be rejected than in Greek,

WITNESS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. 97
because the verdict of a version cannot be so close as the
witness of the original language.
An objection may perhaps be made, that the texts of
the books of the Fathers are sure to have been altered in
order to coincide more accurately with the Received Text.
This is true of the Ethica, or Moralia, of Basil, and of the
Regulae brevius Tractatae, which seem to have been read
constantly at meals, or were otherwise in continual use in
Religious Houses. The monks of a later age would not
be content to hear every day familiar passages of Holy
Scripture couched in other terms than those to which they
were accustomed, and which they regarded as correct. This
fact was perfectly evident upon examination, because these
treatises were found to give evidence for the Textus Re
ceptus in the proportion of about 6:1, whereas the other
books of St. Basil yielded according to a ratio of about
8:3. For the same reason I have not included Marcion's
edition of St. Luke's Gospel, or Tatian's Diatessaron, in
the list of books and authors, because such representations
of the Gospels having been in public use were sure to have
been revised from time to time, in order to accord with the
judgement of those who read or heard them. Our readers
will obsei-ve that these were self-denying ordinances, because
by the inclusion of the works mentioned the list on the
Traditional side would have been greatly increased. Yet
our foundations have been strengthened, and really the
position of the Traditional Text rests so firmly upon
what is undoubted, that it can afford to dispense with
services which may be open to some suspicion ^. And the
natural inference remains, that the difference between the
witness of the Ethica and the Regulae brevius Tractatae on
the one hand, and that of the other works of Basil on the
' Yet Marcion and Tatian may fairly be adduced as witnesses upon individual
readings. H

98 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
other, suggests that too much variation, and too much which
is evidently characteristic variation, of readings meets us in
the works of the several Fathers, for the existence of any
doubt that in most cases we have the words, though perhaps
not the spelling, as they issued originally from the author's
pen ^ Variant readings of quotations occurring in different
editions of the Fathers are found, according to my ex
perience, much less frequently than might have been
supposed. Where I saw a difference between MSS. noted
in the Benedictine or other editions or in copies from the
Benedictine or other prints, of course I regarded the
passage as doubtful and did not enter it. Acquaintance
with this kind of testimony cannot but render its general
trustworthiness the more evident. The habit of quotation
of authorities from the Fathers by Tischendorf and all
Textual Critics shews that they have always been taken
to be in the main trustworthy. It is in order that we may
be on sure ground that I have rejected many passages on
both sides, and a larger number of cases of pettier testi
mony on the Traditional side.
In the examination of the Greek Fathers, Latin Trans
lations have generally been neglected (except in the case
of St. Irenaeus ^), because the witness of a version is second
hand, and Latin translators often employed a rendering
with which they were familiar in representing in Latin
passages cited from the Gospels in Greek. And in the
case even of Origen and especially of the later Fathers
before A. D. 400, it is not certain whether the translation,
such as that of Rufinus, comes within the limit of time
prescribed. The evidence of the Father as to whether he
' E. g. ' Many of the verses which he [Origen] quotes in different places shew
discrepancies of text that cannot be accounted for either by looseness of citation
or by corruption of the MSS. of his writings.' Hort, Introduction, p. 113.
See also the whole passage, pp. 113-4.
' See Hort, Introduction, p. 160. The most useful part of Irenaeus' works
in this respect is found in the Latin Translation, which is of the fourth century.

WITNESS OF THE EARLY FATHERS.

99

used a Text or Texts of one class or another is of course
much better exhibited in his own Greek writing, than
where some one else has translated his words into Latin.
Accordingly, in the case of the Latin Fathers, only the
clearest evidence has been admitted. Some passages
adduced by Tischendorf have been rejected, and later
experience has convinced me that such rejections made in
the earlier part of my work were right. In a secondary
process like this, if only the cup were borne even, no harm
could result, and it is of the greatest possible importance
that the foundation of the building should be sound.
The general results will appear in the annexed Table.
The investigation was confined to the Gospels. For want
of a better term, I have uniformly here applied the title
' Neologian ' to the Text opposed to ours.

Fathers. Traditional Text.
Patres Apostolici and Didachfe
Epistle to Diognetus 
Papias 
Justin Martyr 
Heracleon 
Gospel of Peter 
Seniores apud Irenaeum . . .
Athenagoras 
Irenaeus (Latin as well as Greek)
Hegesippus 
Theophilus Antiochenus .... 2
Testament of Abraham .... 4
Epistola Viennensium et Lugdunensium i
Clement of Alexandria  82
Tertullian  • • • • 74
Clementines  18
Kippolytus  26
Callixtus (Pope) ....... i
Pontianus (Pope)  o

Neologian.

II
17 I
2 2
3
63 2

4
o o
20 7
o o 1
41 o 4oo
72
65 7
II o 2

3"

H 3

234

IDO THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.

Fathers. Traditional Text.
Brought forward  311
Origen  460
Julius Africanus  i
Gregory Thaumaturgus ....11
Novatian  6
Cornelius (Pope)  4
Synodical Letter  i
Cyprian  100
Concilia Carthaginiensia .... 8
Dionysius of Alexandria ....12
Synodus Antiochena  3
Acta Pilati  5
Theognostus  o
Archelaus (Manes)  11
Pamphilus  5
Methodius  14
Peter of Alexandria  7
Alexander Alexandrinus .... 4
Lactantius  o
Juvencus  i
Arius  2
Acta Philippi  2
Apostolic Canons and Constitutions . 6 1
Eusebius (Caesarea)  315
Theodorus Heracleensis .... 2
Athanasius  179
Firmicus Maternus  3
Julius (Pope)  I
Serapion  5
Eustathius  7
Macarius Aegyptius or Magnus ' . . 36

1577

Neologian. 234
491 I
3 4 I2
96 4 5 III
2 I

o I
2 I
I
28
214 o
119 I
2 I2
17
1252

' Or Magnus, or Major, which names were applied to him to distinguish
him from his brother who was called Alexandrinus, and to whom some of his
works have been sometimes attributed. Macarius Magnus or Aegyptius was
a considerable writer, as may be understood from the fact that he occupies
nearly 1000 pages in Migne's Series. His memory is still, I am informed,
preserved in Egypt. But in some fields of scholarship at the present day he
has met with strange neglect.

WITNESS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. lOI

I
8i

3
272

Fathers. Traditional Text.
Brought forward  15-7
Hilary (Poictiers)  73
Candidus Arianus  o
Eunomius 
Didymus 
Victorinus of Pettau  4
Faustinus  4
Zeno 
Basil 
Victorinus Afer  14
Lucifer of Cagliari  17
Titus of Bostra  44
Cyril of Jerusalem  54
Pacianus  2
Optatus  10
Quaestiones ex Utroque Test. . . 13
Gregory of Nyssa  91
Philastrius  7
Gregory of Nazianzus  18
Amphilochius  27
Epiphanius  123
Ambrose  169
Macarius Magnes  11
Diodorus of Tarsus  i
Evagrius Ponticus  4
Esaias Abbas  i
Nemesius  o
Philo of Carpasus '  9

Neologian. 1252 39 I
o
36 3
o 5
105 14
20
24
32 2
3
6
28 6
4
10
7877 5
o oo I
2

2630 1753
The testimony therefore of the Early Fathers is empha
tically, according to the issue of numbers, in favour of the
Traditional Text, being about 3 : 2. But it is also necessary
to inform the readers of this treatise, that here quality con
firms quantity. A list will now be given of thirty important
' The names of many Fathers are omitted in this list, because I could not
find any witness on one side or the other in their writings. Also Syriac writings
are not here included.

I02 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
passages in which evidence is borne on both sides, and it
will be seen that 530 testimonies are given in favour of the
Traditional readings as against 170 on the other side. In
other words, the Traditional Text beats its opponent in a
general proportion of 3 to i. This result supplies a fair idea
of the two records. The Neologian record consists mainly
of unimportant, or at any rate of smaller alterations, such
as bebcoKa for eStoxa, 6 ovpavios for 6 ev o^iipavois, ^o^ela-Oe for
(l)opr]drJTe, disarrangements of the order of words, omissions
of particles, besides of course greater omissions of more
or less importance. In fact, a great deal of the variations
suggest to us that they took their origin when the Church
had not become familiar with the true readings, the verba
ipsissima, of the Gospels, and when an atmosphere of much
inaccuracy was spread around. It will be readily under
stood how easily the text of the Holy Gospels might have
come to be corrupted in oral teaching whether from the
pulpit or otherwise, and how corruptions must have so
embedded themselves in the memories and in the copies of
many Christians of the day, that it needed centuries before
they could be cast out. That they were thus rooted
out to a large extent must have been due to the loving
zeal and accuracy of the majority. Such was a great
though by no means the sole cause of corruption. But
before going further, it will be best to exhibit the testi
mony referred to as it is borne by thirty of the most
important passages in dispute. They have been selected
with care : several which were first chosen had to be
replaced by others, because of their absence from the
quotations of the period under consideration. Of course,
the quotations are limited to that period. Quotations are
made in this list also from Syriac sources. Besides my own
researches. The Last Twelve Verses, and The Revision
Revised, of Dean Burgon have been most prolific of
apposite passages. A reference here and there has been

WITNESS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. 103
added from Resch's Ausser-Canonische Paralleltexte zu
den Evangelien, Leipzig, 1894-5.
I. St. Matt. i. 25. UpoiTOTOKov.
On the Traditional side : —
Tatian (Diatessaron).
Athanasius (c. Apoll. i. 20 ; ii.
15).
Basil(Adv. Eunom. iv. (291); in
S.Xti.Gen.5; 1-392; ii.599.
600).
Didymus (Trin. iii. 4).

Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vii. 9).
Gregory Nyss. (ii. 229).
Ephraem Syrus (Commentary
on Diatessaron).
Epiphanius (Haer. II. li. 5 ; III.
Ixxxviii. 17, &c. — 5 times).
Ambrose (De Fid. L xiv. 89) '.

Against : — I can discover nothing.
2. St. Matt. V. 44 (some of the clauses).

Traditional :
Didachfe (§ 1).
Polycarp (x.).
Justin M. (Apol. i. 15).
A thenagoras (Leg. pro Christian.
II).
Tertullian (De Patient, vi.).
Theophilus Ant. (Ad Autoly-
cum).
Clemens Alex. (Paed.i. 8; Strom.
iv. 14; vii. 14).
Origen (De Orat. i. ; Cels. viii.
35; 41)-
Eusebius (Praep. Ev. xiii. 7 ;
Comment, in Isai. 66 ; Com
ment, in Ps. 3 ; 108).
Athanasius (De Incarnat. c.
Arian. 3; 13).
Against : —
Cyprian (De Bono Patient, v. ;
De Zelo xv. ; Test, ad Jud.
iii. 49).
Irenaeus (Haer. III. xviii. 5).

Separate clauses are quoted by —
Apost. Const, (i. i, all the
clauses; vii. i).
Gregory Naz. (Orat. iv. 124).
Gregory Nyss. (In Bapt. Christ. ;
In S. Stephanum).
Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii.).
Philo of Carpasus (I. 7).
Pacianus (Epist. ii.).
Hilary (Tract, in Ps. cxviii. 9. 9 ;
10. 16).
Ambrose (De Abrahamo ii. 30;
In Ps. xxxviii. 10 ; In Ps. cxviii.
12.51).
Aphraates (Dem. ii.).
Apocryphal Acts ofthe Gospels
(p. 89).

Origen (Comment, on St. John
XX. xv. ; xxvii.).
Eusebius (Dem. Evan. xiii. 7).
Gregory Nyss. (In Bapt. Christ.).

See The Revision Revised, p. 123

104 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.

3. St. Matt. vi. 13. Doxology.
Traditional : —
Didachfe (viii, with variation). with variation).
Apostol. Const, (iii. 18 ; vii. 25, Ambrose (De Sacr. vi. 5. 24).
Against (?), i.e. generally silent about it : —
Tertullian (De Orat. 8). Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xxiii., Myst. 5,
Cyprian (De Orat. Dom. 27). 18).
Origen (De Orat. 18). Gregory Nyss. is doubtful (De
Orat. Dom. end).
4. St. Matt. vii. 13, 14. 'H Tn;A.?j.
Traditional : —

Hippolytus (In Susannam v. 18).
Testament of Abraham (5 times).
Origen (Select, in Ps. xvi. ;
Comment, in Matt. xii. 12).
Against : —
Hippolytus (Philosoph. v. i.
I — bis).
Origen (Cels. vi. 17; Select, in Ps.
xlv. 2 ; cxvii.; c. Haeres. v. 8).
Cyprian (De Hab. Virg. xxi. ;
Test, ad Jud. iii. 6).
Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. iii. 4 ;
Comment, in Ps. 3).
Clemens Alex. (Strom. IV.ii.; vi.;
v. 5 ; Cohort, ad Gent. p. 79).

Ambrose (Epist. I. xxviii. 6).
Esaias Abbas.
Philo of Carpasus (iii. 73).

Basil (Hom. in Ps. xxxiii. 4 ;
xlv. 2).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. iii. 7).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Fornicarios).
Ambrose (Exposit. in Luc. iv.
37).
Philo of Carpasus (i. 7).
Macarius Aegypt. (Hom. xxviii.).
Lucifer (De Athan. ii. ; Morien-
dum esse).

5. St. Matt. ix. 13.
Traditional : —

els jxeravoLav. Mark ii. 17.

Barnabas (5).
Justin M. (Apol. i. 15).
Irenaeus (III. v. 2).
Origen (Comment, in Joh.
xxviii. 16).
Eusebius(Comment.in Ps. cxlvi.).

Hilary (Comment, in Matt, ad
loc).
Basil (De Poenitent. 3 ; Hom.
in Ps. xlviii. i ; Epist. Class. I.
xlvi. 6).

WITNESS OF THE EARLY FATHERS.

105

Against : —
Clemens Rom. (ii. 2).
6. St. Matt. xi. 27.
Traditional : —
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. vi. i).
Archelaus^Manes (xxxvii.).
Clementines (Recog. ii. 47 ;
Hom. xvii. 4 ; xviii. 4 ; 13).
Athanasius (Matt. xi. 27 — com
menting upon it ; De Incarn.
c. Arian. 7; 13; 47; 48; c.
Arianos iii. 26; 49; c. Sabell.
Greg. 4).
Didymus (De Trin. iii. 36).
Against : —
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. I. xx. 3 ;
II. vi. I ; IV. vi. 3).
Clemens Alex. (Cohort, ad Gent.
i. end ; Paed. i. 5 ; Strom, i.
28; V. 13; vii. 10; 18; Quis
Div. Salv. viii.).
Justin M. (Apol. i. 63 — bis ;
Dial. c. Tryph. 100).
Origen (Cels. vi. 17; Comm. in
Joh. i. 42).
Synodus Antiochena.

Hilary (in Mark ii. 17).
Po'uXriTai anoKoXv^ai.

Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 314).
Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium i.
15).
Ambrose (De Fide V. xvi. 201 ;
De Spin S. II. xi. 123).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. i.).
Hilary (Comment, in Matt, ad
loc. ; De Trin. ii. 10 ; vi. 26 ;
ix. 50 ; Frag. xv.).
Quaestiones ex N. T. (124).
Athanasius (Hist. Arian. xii. ; c.
Arian.i.12; 39; iv. 23; Serm.
Maj. de Fide, 28).
Didymus (De Trin. ii. 16).
Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. i. 11;
De Eccles. Theol. I. xv ; xvi.).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 311).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vi. 6; x. i).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. i. 34.
18; ii. 54. 4; iii. 65. 4; 76.
4; 29; Ancor. 67).

7. St. Matt. xvii. 21. The Verse
Traditional : — ExXoynl ex t.

Clement Alex
Trpoff) XV.
Origen (Comment, in Matt. xiii.
7; Hom. i.).
Athanasius (De Virg. vii.).
Basil (De Jejun. Hom. i. 9 ; Reg.
fus. tract, xviii. : Hom. de

Jejun. iii.).
Juvencus (iii. vv. 381-2).
Ambrose (In Ps. xlv. 9 ; Epist.
Class. I. xlii. n).
Hilary (Comment, in Matt, ad
loc).

Io6 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
Against : — none, so far as I can find.
8. St. Matt, xviii. ii. The Verse.
Traditional : —
Origen (ii. 147 ; Cone. v. 675). Ambrose (De Interpell. Dav. IV.
Tertullian (Pudic. 9; Resurr. ii. 4; Expos, in Luc. vii. 209 ;
9). De Fid. Res. II. 6) K
Against : — none, so far as I can find.
aya9e, and irepl tov ayadov.

9. St. Matt. xix. 16, 17.
Traditional : —
Clemens Alex. (Strom, v. 10).
Origen — dyade (Comment, in
Matt. xv. 10).
Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 21).
Athanasius (De Incarn. c. Arian.
7).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xviii. 30).
Against : —
Origen (Praep. Evan. xi. 19;
Comment, in Matt. xv. 10. —
bis).
Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 21).

Gregory Naz. (i. 529).
Hilary (Comment, in Matt, ad
loc).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. I. iii.
34- 18).
Macarius Magnes (i. 9) ^

Novatian (De Trin. xxx.).
Hilary — omits aya6e (Comment.
in loc).

ID. St. Matt, xxiii. 38. epr]p,os. St. Luke xiii. 35.
Traditional : —

C}'prian (Test, ad Jud. i. 6).
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. xxxvi.
8 ; xxxvii. 5).
Clemens Alex. (Paed. i. 9).
Methodius (Serm. de Simeone
et Anna).
Origen (Hom. in Jerem. vii. —

bis ; X. ; xiii. ; Select, in Jere-
miam xv. ; in Threnos iv. 6).
Apostol. Const, (vi. 5).
Eusebius (Dem. Evan. II. iv.
(38) — four times ; IV. xvi.
(189); VI. (291); viii. (401);
X. (481); Eclog. Proph. IV.

' The Revision Revised, p. 92.
^ I have mentioned here only cases where the passage is quoted professedly
from St. Matthew. The passage as given in St. Mark x. 17-18, and in St. Luke
xviii. iS-ig, is frequently quoted without reference to any one of the Gospels.
Surely some of these quotations must be meant for St. Matthew.

WITNESS OF THE EARLY FATHERS.

107

i. ; Comment, in Ps. 73 — bis ;
77; 79; in Isaiam 7-8; De
Theophan. vii. — tris).
Basil (Comment, in Isaiam i. 20).
Against : —
Didymus (Expos, in Ps. 67).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. I.

Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiii. 32).
Philo of Carpasus (iii. 83).
Ambrose (In Ps. xliii. 69 ; In
Cant. Cant. iv. 54).

iii. 40).
Zeno (xiv. 2).

II. St. Matt, xxvii. 34. "O^os and oij'oi'.

Traditional : —
Gospel of Peter (§ 5).
Acta Philippi (§26).
Barnabas (§ 7).
Irenaeus. Tertullian. Celsus.
Origen. Against : —
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.
Macarius Magnes (ii. 12).

Eusebius of Emesa.
Theodore of Heraclea.
Didymus. Gregory Naz.
Gregory Nyss.
Ephraem Syrus.
Titus of Bostra.

Gospel of Nicodemus '

12. St. Matt, xxviii. 2. aTro rrjs dvpas.
Traditional : —
Gospel of Nicodemus. Eusebius (ad Marinum, ii. 4).
Acta Philippi. Greg. Nyss. (De Christ. Resurr.
Apocryphal Acts of the Aposdes. I. 390, 398)^?
Com.pare also Acta Pilati (aTro rov (TTOjxaTos rov a-ir-qXaiov,
and e.< tov livrjijieiov), and Gospel of Peter (em Trjs Ovpas —
firl rfjs Ovpas).
Against : —
Dionysius Alex. (Epist. Canon. Origen (c. Celsum, ii. 70).
ad Basilidem). Apostol. Can. (vii. i).

' For the reff. see below. Appendix II.
^ Compare The Revision Revised, pp. 162-3.

Io8 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.

13. St. Matt, xxviii. 19.
Traditional : —

^a-miCovTes.

Irenaeus (c. Haeres. III. xvii. i).
Hippolytus (c. Haeres. Noet.
14).
Apostolic Canons (pp. 29 ; 43 ;
49 (Lagarde) ; Const, ii. 26 ;
iv. I ; vii. 22).
Concilia Carthaginiensia (vii. —
tris).
Ps. Justin (Expos. Rect. Fid. v.).
Tertullian (De Baptismo xiii.).
Cyprian (Epist. ad Jubaianum v.;
xxv. 2 tingentes ; Ixiii. 1 8 ;
ad Novatianum Heret. iii. —
3rd cent. ; Testimon. II.
xxvi. tingentes).
Eusebius (c. Marcell. I. i.).
Athanasius (Epist. Encycl. i. ;
Epist. ad Scrap, i. 6; 28; ii.
6 ; iii. 6 ; iv. 5 ; de Syn. 23 ;
De Titulis Ps. 148).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 299 ; De
Fide 4 ; De Bapt. I. i ; ii. 6 ;
Against : — none.

Epist. Class. I. viii. 11; II.
ccx. 3).
Didymus (De Trin. i. 30; 36;
ii. 5 ; iii. 23).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xvi. 4).
Hilary (Comment, in Matt, ad
loc; c Auxentium 14; De
Syn. xxix.; De Trin. ii. i).
Amphilochius (Epist. Synod.).
Gregory Nyss. (c Eunom. xi. ;
In Bapt. Christ. ; In Christ.
Resurr. — bis; Epist. v.; xxiv.).
Victorinus of Pettau (In Apoc.
i- 15)-
Optatus (De Schism. Don. v. 5).
Firmicus Maternus (De Error.
Profan. Relig. xxv.).
Ambrose (De Joseph, xii. 71).
Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium
iv. 18).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. iii. 73.
3 ) 74' 5 1 civaK€(pa\aia>ois, end).

14. St. Mark i. 2. tois -npocji^riTaLS . . . 'Hcraia.

Traditional : —
Titus of Bostra.
Origen.Porphyry. Against : —
Irenaeus (III. xi. 8).
Origen (Cels. ii. 4 ; Comment.
in John i. 14).

Irenaeus (III. xvi. 3).
Eusebius.Ambrose \

Titus of Bostra (Adv. Manich.
iii. 4).
Epiphanius.

' For reff. see Vol. II. viii. For Mark i. i, TioC tov &eov, see Appendix IV.

WITNESS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. 109

Basil (Adv. Eunom. ii. 15).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. II. i.
51).

Serapion.
Victorinus of Pettau (In Apoc.
S. Joann.).

15. St. Mark xvi. 9-20. Last Twelve Verses.

Traditional : —
Papias (Eus. H. E. iii. 39).
Justin Martyr (Tryph. 53 ; Apol.
i- 45)-
Irenaeus (c Haer. III. x. 6 ; iv.
56).
Tertullian (De Resurr. Cam.
xxxvii. ; Adv. Praxeam xxx.).
Clementines (Epit. 141).
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet.
ad fin.).
Vincentius (2nd Council of
Carthage — Routh, Rell. Sacr.
iii. p. 124).
Acta Pilati (xiv. 2).
Apost. Can. and Const, (can. i ;
V. 7; 19; vi. 15; 30; viii. i).
Eusebius (Mai, Script. Vett.
Nov. Collect, i. p. i).

Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiv. 27).
Sj'riac Table of Canons.
Macarius Magnes (iii. 16; 24).
Aphraates (Dem. i. — bis).
Didymus (Trin. ii. 12).
Syriac Acts of the Aposdes.
Epiphanius (Adv. tIaer. I. xliv.
6).
Gregory Nyss. (In Christ. Resurr.
ii.).
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospel
—Wright (4; 17; 24).
Ambrose (Hexameron vi. 38 ;
De Interpell. ii.5 j Apol. proph.
David II. iv. 26; Luc, vii.
81; De Poenit. I. viii. 35 ; De
Spir. S. II. xiii. 151).

Against : —
Eusebius (Mai, Script. Vett. Nov. Collect, i. p. i) '-
16. St. Luke i. 28. evXoyr)ix.ivr}, k.t.X.
Traditional : —
Tertullian (De Virg. Vel. vi.). Aphraates (Dem. ix.).
Eusebius (Dem. Evan. vii. 329). Ambrose (Exposit. in loc).
Against : —
Titus of Bostra (Exposit. in loc ; Adv. Manich. iii.).

^ The Revision Revised, pp. 423-440. LastTwelvft Verses, pp. 42-51. The
latitudinarian Eusebius on the same passage witnesses, on both sides.

no THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
17. St. Luke ii. 14. EiiSokio.
Traditional : —
Irenaeus (III. x. 4). Athanasius (De Tit. Pss. Ps.

Origen (c Celsum i. 60 ; Selecta
in Ps. xlv. ; Comment, in
Matt. xvii. ; Comment, in
Joh. i. 13).
Apostol. Const, (vii. 47 ; viii. 1 2).
Methodius (Serm. de Simeon, et
Anna).
Eusebius (Dem. Ev. iv. (163);
vii. (342) ).
Gregory Thaumaturgus (De
Fid. Cap. 12).
Aphraates (Dem. ix. ; xx.).
Titus of Bostra (Expos, in Luc.
ad loc).
Against : —
Irenaeus (III. x. 4).
Optatus (De Schism. Don. iv. 4).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xii. 72).

cxlviii.).
Didymus (De Trin. i. 27;
Expos, in Ps. Ixxxiv.).
Basil (In S. Christ. Gen. 5).
Gregory Naz. (Or. xlv. i.).
Philo of Carpasus (iii. 167).
Epiphanius (Haer. I. 30. 29 ; III.
78. 15).
Gregory Nyss. (In Ps. xiv. ; In
Cant. Cant. xv. ; In Diem
Nat. Christ. 1 138 ; De Occurs.
Dom. 1 156).
Ephraem Syr.^ (Gr. iii. 434).

Ambrose (Exposit. in Luc. ad
loc).
Juvencus (II. v. 174).

'OXCyoiv XP^^'^ ecTTiv, ¦q evos.
Evagrius Ponticus.

18. St. Luke X. 41-2.
Traditional : — ¦
Basil (Const. Monast. i. i).
Macarius Aegypt. (De Orat.).
Against : —
Titus of Bostra (Exposit. in Luc. ad loc. But pepipvas).
19. St. Luke xxii. 43-4. Ministering Angel and Agony.
Traditional : —

Justin M. (Tryph. 103).
Irenaeus (Haer. Ill, xxii. 2 ; IV.
xxxv. 3).
Tatian (Ciasca, 556).
Hippolytus (c Haer. Noet. 5;
18).
Marcion (ad loc).

Dionysius Alex. (Hermen. in
Luc. ad loc).
Eusebius (Sect. 283).
Athanasius (Expos, in Ps. Ixviii.).
Ephraem Syrus (ap. Theodor.
Mops.).
Gregory Naz. (xxx. 16).

'¦ The Revision Revised, pp. 420-1 ; Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-3.

WITNESS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. Ill

Didymus (Trin. iii. 21). Epiphanius (Haer. II. (2) Ixix.
Titus of Bostra (In Luc. ad 19; 59; Ancor. 31; 37).
loc). Arius(Epiph.Haer.lxix.i9; 61)'
Against : — none.
20. St. Luke xxiii. 34. Our Lord's Prayer for His
murderers.
Traditional : —

Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. ii. 23).
Ps. Justin (Quaest. et Respons.
108 — bis).
Irenaeus (c Haer. III. xviii. 5).
Archelaus (xliv.).
Marcion (in loc).
Hippolytus (c. Noet. 18).
Clementines (Recogn. vi. 5 ;
Hom. xi. 20).
Apost. Const, (ii. 16; v. 14).
Athanasius (De Tit. Pss., Ps. cv.).
Eusebius (canon x.).
Didymus (Trin. iii. 21).
Amphilochius (Orat. in d. Sab-
bati).
Hilary (De Trin. i. 32).
Ambrose (De Joseph, xii. 6() ;
Against : — none.
21. St. Luke xxiii. 38.
Traditional : —
Marcion (ad loc).
Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. II. xiv.).
Gospel of Peter (i. 11).
Acta Pilati (x. i).
Against : — none.

De Interpell. III. ii. 6; In
Ps. CXVIIL iii. 8; xiv. 28;
Expos. Luc. v. 77; X. 62;
Cant. Cant. i. 46).
Gregory Nyss. (De Perf. Christ.
anim. forma— bis).
Titus of Bostra (Comment. Luc.
ad loc. — bis).
Acta Pilad (x. 5).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. 290).
Gregory Naz. (Orat. iv. 78).
Ephraem Syr. (ii. 321).
Acta Philippi (§ 26).
Quaestiones ex Utroque Test.
(N.T. 67; MixtaelL (i) 4).
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels
(Wright), 11; (16) I

The Superscription.
Gregory Nyss. (In Cant. Cant.
vii.).
Titus of Bostra (In Luc. ad
loc).

' The Revision Revised, pp. 79-82. The Dean alleges more than forty witnesses
in all. What are quoted here, as in the other instances, are only the Fathers
before St. Chrysostom.
" Ibid. pp. 82-5.

112 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.

22. St. Luke xxiii. 45. tcTKOTiaO-q.

Traditional : —
Marcion (ad loc).
Gospel of Peter (§ 5).
Acta Pilati.
Anaphora Pilad (§ 7).
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 18).
Tertullian (Adv. Jud. xiii.).
Athanasius (De Incarn. Verb.
49 ; ad Adelph. 3 ; ap. Epiph.
Against : —
Origen (Cels. ii. 35).

i. 1006).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiii. 24).
Macarius Magnes (iii. 17).
Julius Africanus (Chronicon, v.
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels
(Wright, p. 16).
Ephraem Syrus (ii. 48).

Acta Pilati.

Eusebius mentions the reading eKXi-novTos, but appears
afterwards to condemn it ¦'.
23. St. Luke xxiv. 40. The Verse.
Traditional : —

Marcion (ad loc).
Tertullian (De Carne Christi 5).
Athanasius (ad Epictet. 7 ;
quoted by Epiph. i. 1003).
Against : — none.

Eusebius (ap. Mai, ii. 294).
Ambrose (ap. Theodoret, iv.
141).
Epiphanius (Haer. III. Ixxvii. 9) ^

24. St. Luke xxiv. 42.
Traditional : —
Marcion (ad loc).
Justin Martyr (bis).
Clemens Alex.
Tertullian. Against : —
Clemens Alex. Paed. i. 5 ^

aTTo ixeXiao'Lov K'qpLov.

Athanasius (c Arian. iv. 35).
Cyril Jerus. (bis).
Gregory Nyss.
Epiphanius.

' The Revision Revised, pp. 61-65.
^ Ibid. pp. 90-1. s See below, Appendix I.

WITNESS OF THE EARLY FATHERS.

"3

25. St. John i. 3-4. Full stop at the end of the Verse?
Traditional : —
Athanasius (Serm. in Nativ.
Christ, iii.).
Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 19).
Didymus (De Trin. I. xv.).
Gregory Nyss. (c Eunom. i. p.
348— bis; ii. p. 450; p. 461;
Against : — ¦
Irenaeus (I. viii. 5 (2) ; III. xi. i).
Theodotus (ap. Clem. Alex. vi.).
Hippolytus (Philosoph. V. i. 8 ;
17)-
Clemens Alex. (Paed. ii. 9).
Valendnians (ap. Epiph. Haer.
I. (xxxi.) 27).
Origen (c Cels. vi. 5 ; Princip.
II. ix. 4 ; IV. i. 30 ; In Joh.
i. 22; 34; ii. 6; 10; I2;.i3—
bis; in Rom. iii. 10; 15; c.
Haer. v. 151).

26. St. John i. 18.
Traditional : —
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. III. xi. 6 ;
IV. XX. 6).
Tertullian (Adv. Praxean xv.).
Hippolytus (c Haeres. Noed 5).
Synodus Antiochena.
Archelaus (Manes) (xxxii.).
Origen (Comment, in Joh. vi.
2 ; c Celsum ii. 71).
Eusebius (De Eccles. Theol. I.
ix. ; II. xi. ; xxiii.).
Alexander Alex. (Epist).
' Many of the Fathers quote only as far as ovUl 'iv. But that was evidently
a convenient quotation of a stock character in controversy, just as iidvTa Si avTov
iyivfTO was even more commonly. St. Epiphanius often quotes thus, but re
marks (Haer. II. (Ixix.) 56, Ancor. Ixxv.), that the passage goes on to S 7€7oi'«i'.
I

p. 468; iv. p. 584; v.p. 591).
Epiphanius (Haer. I. (xliii.) i; II.
(li.) 12; (Ixv.) 3; (Ixix.) 56;
Ancoratus Ixxv.).
Alexandrians and Egyptians
(Ambrose In Ps. 36).
Eusebius (de Eccles. Theol. II.
xiv.).
Basil (c Eunom. V. 303).
Gregory Nyss. (De Cant. Cant.
Hom. ii.).
Candidus Arianus (De General.
Div.).
Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium I.
iv. 33; 41).
Hilary (De Trin. i. lo).
Ambrose (In Ps. xxxvi. 35 (4) ;
De Fide III. vi. 41-2— tris) ^
O y\.ovoyevr]s Tlos.
Gregory Naz. (Orat. xxix. 17).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vii. 11).
Didymus (In Ps. cix.).
Athanasius (De Deer. Nic. Syn.
xiii. ; xxi. ; c Arianos ii. 62 ;
iv. 26).
Titus of Bostra (Adv. Mani-
chaeos iii. 6).
Basil (De Spir. S. xi. ; Hom.
xxviii. 3 ; Epist.
Sermons xv. 3).

in Ps.
ccxxxiv.

114 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.

Gregory Nyss. (c Eunom. ii.
p. 522).
Hilary (De Trin. iv. 8; 42; vi.
39; 4°)-
Ambrose (De Interpell. I. x.
30; De Benedict, xi. 51;
Expos, in Luc. i. 25 — bis ; ii.
12; De Fide III. iii. 24; De
Against : —
Irenaeus (IV. xx. 11).
Theodotus (ap. Clem. vi.).
Clemens Alex. (Strom, v. 12).
Origen (Comment, in Joh. II.
29; XXXIL 13).
Eusebius (Yios or Qfds, De Eccles.
Theol. I. ix-x.).
Didymus (De Trin. i. 1 5 ; ii. 5 ; 1 6 ).
27. St. John iii. 13.
Traditional : —
Hippolytus (c Haer. Noet. 4).
Novatian (De Trin. 13).
Athanasius (i. 1275; Frag. p.
1222, apud Panopl. Euthym.
zyg-)-
Origen (In Gen. Hom. iv. 5 ; In
Rom. viii. 2 — bis).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. 2).
Amphilochius (Sentent. et
Excurs. xix.).
Didymus (De Trin. III. ix.).

Spir. S. I. i. 26).
Eustathius (De Engastr. 18).
Faustinus (De Trin. ii. 5 — tris).
Quaest. ex Utroque Test. (71;
91).
Victorinus Afer (De General.
Verb. xvi. ; xx. ; Adv. Arium
i. 2 — bis; iv. 8; 32).
Arius (ap. Epiph. 73 — Tisch.).
Basil (De Spiritu Sanct. vi. ; c.
Eunom. i. p. 623).
Gregory Nyss. (c Eunom. iii.
P- 577— bis; 581)-
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. II.
(Ixv.) 5; IIL (Ixx.) 7).

'O oyv ev T(Z Ovpavi2.
Theodorus Heracleensis (In Is.
liii. 5).
Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii.).
Epiphanius (Haer. II. Ivii. 7).
Eustathius (De Engastr. 18).
Zeno (xii. i).
Hilary (Tract, in Ps. ii. 11;
cxxxviii. 22 ; De Trin. x. 16).
Ambrose (In Ps. xxxix. 17 ; xliii.
39; Expos, in Luc. vii. 74).
Aphraates (Dem. viii.).

Against: — some Fathers quote as far as these words
and then stop, so that it is impossible to know whether
they stopped because the words were not in their copies,
or because they did not wish to quote further. On some
occasions at least it is evident that it was not to their
purpose to quote further than they did, e.g. Greg. Naz.

WITNESS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. II5
Ep. ci. Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. ii.) is only less doubtful ^
See Revision Revised, p. 134, note.
28. St. John X. 14. yivda-KOfxai ¦vtiO t&v efjiSiv.
Traditional : —
Macarius Aegypt. (Hom. vi.). Gregory Naz. (orat. xv. end ;
xxxiii. 15).
Against : —
Eusebius (Comment, in Isaiam 8). Basil (Hom. xxi. ; xxiii.).
Epiphanius (Comm. inPs.lxvi.)^
29. St. John xvii. 24. oUs (or o).
Traditional : —
Irenaeus (c Haeres. IV. xiv. i). Hilary (Tract, in Ps. Ixiv. 5 ;
"Cyprian (De Mortal, xxii. ; Test. De Trin. ix. 50).
ad Jud. iii. 58) ^ Ambrose (De Bon. Mort. xii.
Clemens Alex. (Paed. i. 8). 54 ; De Fide V. vi. 86 ; De
Athanasius (De Tit. Pss. Ps. iii.). Spirit. S. II. viii. 76).
Eusebius (De Eccles. Theol. iii. Quaestiones ex N. T. (75)*-
17 — bis; c. Marcell. p. 292).
Against : —
Clemens Alex. (140 — Tisch.).
30. St. John xxi. 25. The Verse.
Traditional : —
Origen (Princ II. vi. ; vol. ii. iii. ap. Gall. iv. pp. 9, 15).
1 = 81; In Matt. XIV. 12; Eusebius (Mai, iv. 297; Eus.
In Luc. Hom. xxvii; xxix; H. E. vi. 25; Lat. iii. 964).
In Joh. I. 11; V. ap. Eus. Gregory Nyss. (c Eunom. xii. —
H. E. VI. 25 ; XIII. 5 ; XIX. bis).
2; XX. 27; Cat. Corder. Gregory Naz. (Orat. xxviii. 20).
p. 474). Ambrose (Expos. Luc. I. 11).
Pamphilus (Apol. pro Orig. Pref.; Philastrius (Gall. vii. 499) "^
Against : — none.
' See The Revision Revised, p. 133. " Ibid. pp. 230-1.
2 Tischendorf quotes these on the wrong side.
* The Revision Revised, pp. 217-8.
' Ibid. pp. 23-4. See also an article in Hermathena, Vol. VIII., No. XIX.,
1893, written by the Rev. Dr. Gwynn with his characteristic acuteness and
ingenuity. I 2

Il6 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
As far as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are
concerned, the question may now be put and answered.
Do they witness to the Traditional Text as existing from
the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence,
both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testi
mony, enable us to reply, not only that the Traditional
Text was in existence, but that it was predominant, during
the period under review. Let any one who disputes
this conclusion make out for the Western Text, or the
Alexandrian, or for the Text of B and N, a case from the
evidence of the Fathers which can equal or surpass that
which has been now placed before the reader.
An objection may be raised by those who are not well
acquainted with the quotations in the writings of the
Fathers, that the materials of judgement here produced are
too scanty. But various characteristic features in their
mode of dealing with quotations should be particularly
noticed. As far as textual criticism is concerned, the
quotations of the Fathers are fitful and uncertain. They
quote of course, not to hand down to future ages a
record of readings, but for their own special purpo.se
in view. They may quote an important passage in dis
pute, or they may leave it wholly unnoticed. They often
quote just enough for their purpose, and no more. Some
passages thus acquire a proverbial brevity. Again, they
write down over and over again, with unwearied richness
of citation, especially from St. John's Gospel, words which
are everywhere accepted : in fact, all critics agree upon
the most familiar places. Then again, the witness of the
Latin Fathers cannot always be accepted as being free
from doubt, as has been already explained. And the
Greek Fathers themselves often work words of the New
Testament into the roll of their rhetorical sentences, so
that whilst evidence is given for the existence of a verse,
or a longer passage, or a book, no certain conclusions can

WITNESS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. 1 17
be drawn as to the words actually used or the order of
them. This is particularly true of St. Gregory of Nazianzus
to the disappointment of the Textual Critic, and also of
his namesake of Nyssa, as well as of St. Basil. Others,
like St. Epiphanius, quote carelessly. Early quotation
was usually loose and inaccurate. It may be mentioned
here, that the same Father, as has been known about
Origen since the days of Griesbach, often used conflicting
manuscripts. As will be seen more at length below,
corruption crept in from the very first.
Some ideas have been entertained respecting separate
Fathers which are not founded in truth. Clement of
Alexandria and Origen are described as being remarkable
for the absence of Traditional readings in their works ^.
Whereas besides his general testimony of 82 to 72 as we
have seen, Clement witnesses in the list just given 8 times
for them to 14 against them ; whilst Origen is found 44
times on the Traditional side to 27 on the Neologian.
Clement as we shall see used mainly Alexandrian texts
which must have been growing up in his days, though he
witnesses largely to Traditional readings, whilst Origen
employed other texts too. Hilary of Poictiers is far from
being against the Traditional Text, as has been frequently
said: though in his commentaries he did not use so
Traditional a text as in his De Trinitate and his other
works. The texts of Hippolytus, Methodius, Irenaeus,
and even of Justin, are not of that exclusively Western
character which Dr. Hort ascribes to them ^. Traditional
readings occur almost equally with others in Justin's works,
and predominate in the works of the other three.
But besides establishing the antiquity of the Traditional
Text, the quotations in the early Fathers reveal the
streams of corruption which prevailed in the first ages, till
they were washed away by the vast current of the trans-
' Hort, Introduction, pp. 12S, 127. ^ Ibid. p. 113.

Il8 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
mission of the Text of the Gospels. Just as if we ascended
in a captive balloon over the Mississippi where the volume
of the Missouri has not yet become intermingled with the
waters of the sister river, so we may mount up above
those ages and trace by their colour the texts, or rather
clusters of readings, which for some time struggled with
one another for the superiority. But a caution is needed.
We must be careful not to press our designation too far.
We have to deal, not with distinct dialects, nor with
editions which were separately composed, nor with any
general forms of expression which grew up independently,
nor in fact with anything that would satisfy literally the
full meaning of the word ' texts,' when we apply it as it has
been used. What is properly meant is that, of the variant
readings of the words of the Gospels which from whatever
cause grew up more or less all over the Christian Church,
so far as we know, some have family likenesses of one
kind or another, and may be traced to a kindred source.
It is only in this sense that we can use the term Texts,
and we must take care to be moderate in our conception
and use of it.
The Early Fathers may be conveniently classed, accord
ing to the colour of their testimony, the locality where
they flourished, and the age in which they severally lived,
under five heads, viz.. Early Traditional, Later Traditional,
Syrio-Low Latin, Alexandrian, and what we may perhaps
call Caesarean. I. Early Traditional. Traditiotial. Neologian.
Patres Apostolici and Didache . . 1 1 ... 4

Epistle to Diognetus . . . . i
Papias  I
Epistola Viennensium et Lugdunensium i
Hegesippus  2
Seniores apud Irenaeum .... 2
18

WITNESS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. I19
Neologian.

Traditional.
Brought forward  18
Justin^  17
Athenagoras  3
Gospel of Peter  2
Testament of Abraham  4
Irenaeus  63
Clementines  18
Hippolytus  26
151

II. Later Traditional.
Gregory Thaumaturgus .... 11
Cornelius  4
Synodical Letter ... ... i
Archelaus (Manes) . ....11
Apostolic Constitutions and Canons 61
Synodus Antiochena  3
Concilia Carthaginiensia .... 8
Methodius  14
Alexander Alexandrinus .... 4
Theodorus Heracleensis .... 2
Tims of Bostra  44
Athanasius ( — except Contra Arianos)^ 122
Serapion  5
Basil  272
Eunomius  r
Cyril of Jerusalem  54
Firmicus Maternus  3
Victorinus of Pettau  4
Gregory of Nazianzus  18
Hilary of Poictiers  73

715

20 I
o
o
41 7
II
84

3 I
22
28 I
4 8
oo
24
63 I
105 o
32 I
3
4
39

321

' It may perhaps be questioned whether Justin should be classed here : but
the character of his witness, as on Matt. v. 44, ix. 13, and Luke xxii. 43-44, is
more on the Traditional side, though the numbers are against that.
2 Athanasius in his ' Orationes IV contra Arianos ' used Alexandrian texts.
See IV.

I20 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.

Traditional.
Brought forward  715
Eustathius  7
Macarius Aegyptius or Magnus . . 36
Didymus  81
Victorinus Afer  14
Gregory of Nyssa  91
Faustinus  4
Optatus  10
Pacianus  2
Philastrius  7
Amphilochius (Iconium) ... 27
Ambrose  . 169
Diodorus of Tarsus  i
Epiphanius  123
Acta Pilati  5
Acta Philippi  2
Macarius Magnes  11
Quaestiones ex Utroque Testamento 13
Evagrius Ponticus  4
Esaias Abbas  i
Philo of Carpasus  9

Neologian. 321 2
J7
36 1428 o 3 2
6
10
77 o
78 I I
56oo 2

1332

609

III. Western or Syrio-Low Latin.
Theophilus Antiochenus .... 2
Callixtus and Pontianus (Popes) . . i
Tertullian  -74
Novatian  6
Cyprian  .... 100
Zeno, Bishop of Verona .... 3
Lucifer of Cagliari  17
Lactantius  o
Juvencus (Spain)  i
Julius (Pope) ?  I
Candidus Arianus . . .0
Nemesius (Emesa)  o

4 2
65 4
96 .6
20 I
22 I I

205

203

WITNESS OF THE EARLY FATHERS.

121

IV. Alexandrian. Traditional.
Heracleon  i
Clement of Alexandria  82
Dionysius of Alexandria ....12
Theognostus  o
Peter of Alexandria  7
Arius  2
Athanasius (Orat. c Arianos) ... 57

Neologian. 7
72 5 I
8 I
56

161

150

V. Palestinian or Caesarean.
Julius Africanus (Emmaus) ... i
Origen  460
Pamphilus of Caesarea  5
Eusebius of Caesarea .... 315

781

I
• 491 r
. 214

707

The lessons suggested by the groups of Fathers just
assembled are now sufficiently clear.
I. The original predominance of the Traditional Text is
shewn in the list given of the earliest Fathers. Their
record proves that in their writings, and so in the Church
generally, corruption had made itself felt in the earliest
times, but that the pufe'^waters generally prevailed.
II. The tradition ife also carried on through the majority
of the Fathers who/succeeded them. There is no break
or interval : the witness is continuous. Again, not the
slightest confirmation is given to Dr. Hort's notion that
^a revision or recension was definitely accomplished at
^tioch in the middle of the fourth century. There was
a gradual improvement, as the Traditional Text gradually
established itself against the forward and persistent in
trusion of corruption. But it is difficult, if not altogether
impossible, to discover a ripple on the surface betokening

122 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
any movement ih^the depths such as a revision or recension
would necessitate^
III. A source of corruption is found in Low- Latin MSS.
and especially in Africa. The evidence of the Fathers
shews that it does not appear to have been so general as
the name ' Western ' would suggest. But this will be
a subject of future investigation. There seems to have
been a connexion between, some parts of the West in this
respect with Syria, or rather with part of Syria.
IV. Another source of corruption is fixed at Alexandria.
This, as in the last case, is exactly what we should expect,
and will demand more examination.
V. Syria and Egypt, — Europe, Asia, and Africa, — seem
to meet in Palestine under Origen.
But this points to a later time in the period under in
vestigation. We must now gather up the depositions of the
earliest Versions.

CHAPTER VL
THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
n. Witness of the Early Syriac Versions.
The rise of Christianity and the spread of the Church
in Syria was startling in its rapidity. Damascus and
Antioch shot up suddenly into prominence as centres of
Christian zeal, as if they had grown whilst men slept.
The arrangement of places and events which occurred
during our Lord's Ministry must have paved the way to
this success, at least as regards principally the nearer of the
two cities just mentioned. Galilee, the scene of the first
year of His Ministry — ' the acceptable year of the Lord ' —
through its vicinity to Syria was admirably calculated for
laying the foundation of such a development. The fame
of His miracles and teaching extended far into the country.
Much that He said and did happened on the Syrian side of
the Sea of Galilee. Especially was this the case when,
after the death of John the Baptist had shed consternation
in the ranks of His followers, and the Galilean populace
refused to accompany Him in His higher teaching, and the
wiles of Herod were added as a source of apprehension to
the bitter opposition of Scribes and Pharisees, He spent
some months between the Passover and the Feast of
Tabernacles in the north and north-east of Palestine. If
Damascus was not one of the ' ten cities i,' yet the report
' According to Pliny (N. H. v. i8), the towns of Decapolis were : i. Scytho
polis the chief, not far from Tiberias (Joseph. B. J. III. ix. 7); 2. Philadelphia;

124 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
of His twice feeding thousands, and of His stay at Caesai'Ca
Philippi and in the neighbourhood^ of Hermon, must
have reached that city. The seed must have been sown
which afterwards sprang up men knew not how.
Besides the evidence in the Acts of the Apostles, accord
ing to which Antioch following upon Damascus became
a basis of missionary effort hardly second to Jerusalem,
the records and legends of the Church in Syria leave but
little doubt that it soon spread over the region round about.
The stories relating to Abgar king of Edessa, the fame of
St. Addaeus or Thaddaeus as witnessed particularly by his
Liturgy and 'Doctrine,' and various other Apocryphal
Works ^, leave no doubt about the very early extension of
the Church throughout Syria. As long as Aramaic was
the chief vehicle of instruction, Syrian Christians most
likely depended upon their neighbours in Palestine for
oral and written teaching. But when— probably about
the time of the investment of Jerusalem by Vespasian and
Titus and the temporary removal of the Church's centre
to Bella — through the care of St. Matthew and the other
3. Raphanae; 4. Gadara ; 5. Hippos ; 6. Dios ; 7. Pella ; 8. Gerasa ; 9. Canatha
(Otopos, Joseph.); 10. Damascus. This area does not coincide with that
which is sometimes now marked in maps and is part of Galilee and Samaria.
But the Gospel notion of Decapolis, is of a country east of Galilee, lying
near to the Lake, starting from the south-east, and stretching on towards the
mountains into the north. It was different from Galilee (Matt. iv. 25), was
mainly on the east of the sea of Tiberias (Marie v. 20, Eusebius and Jerome
08^ pp. 251, 89 — 'around Pella and Basanitis,' — Epiphanius Haer. i. 123),
extended also to the west (Mark vii. 31), was reckoned in Syria (Josephus,
passim, ' Decapolis of Sjria ') , and was generally after the tirae of Pompey under
the jurisdiction of the Governor of Syria. The Encyclopaedia Britannica
describes it well as ' situated, with the exception of a small portion, on the
eastern side of the Upper Jordan and the sea of Tiberias.' Smith's Dictionary
of the Bible, to which I am indebted for much of the evidence given above, is
inconsistent. The population was in a measure Greek.
' Eis TOS xaipas Kaioapelas T^s ^iAiVttoii. What a condensed account of His
sojourn in various ' towns ' !
^ See Ancient Syriac Documents relative to the Earliest Establishment of
Christianity in Edessa and the neighbouring countries, &c. edited by W. Cureton,
D.D., with a Preface by the late Dr. Wright, 1864.

early GROWTH OF THE CHURCH IN SYRIA. 125
Evangelists the Gospel was written in Greek, some regular
translation was needed and doubtless was made.
So far both Schools of Textual Criticism are agreed.
The question between them is, was this Translation the
Peshitto, or was it the Curetonian ? An examination into
the facts is required : neither School has any authority to
issue decrees.
The arguments in favour of the Curetonian being the
oldest form of the Syriac New Testament, and of the
formation of the Peshitto in its present condition from it,
cannot be pronounced to be strong by any one who is
accustomed to weigh disputation. Doubtless this weak
ness or instability may with truth be traced to the nature
of the case, which will not yield a better harvest even to
the critical ingenuity of our opponents. May it not with
truth be said to be a symptom of a feeble cause ?
Those arguments are mainly concerned with the internal
character of the two texts. It is asserted^ (1) that the
Curetonian was older than the Peshitto which was brought
afterwards into closer proximity with the Greek. To this
we may reply, that the truth of this plea depends upon
the nature of the revision thus claimed ^. Dr. Hort was
perfectly logical when he suggested, or rather asserted
dogmatically, that such a drastic revision as was necessary
for turning the Curetonian into the Peshitto was made in
the third century at Edessa or Nisibis. The difficulty lay
in his manufacturing history to suit his purpose, instead
of following it. The fact is, that the internal difference
between the text of the Curetonian and the Peshitto is so
great, that the former could only have arisen in very queer
times such as the earliest, when inaccuracy and looseness,
' Cureton's Preface to ' An Antient Recension, &c.'
" Philip E. Pusey held that there was a revision of the Peshitto in the
eighth century, but that it was confined to grammatical peculiarities. This
would on general grounds be not impossible, because the art of copying was
perfected by about that time.

126 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
infidelity and perverseness, might have been answerable
for anything. In fact, the Curetonian must have been
an adulteration of the Peshitto, or it must have been partly
an independent translation helped from other sources : from
the character of the text it could not have given rise to it ^.
Again, when (2) Cureton lays stress upon ' certain
peculiarities in the original Hebrew which are found in
this text, but not in the Greek,' he has not found others to
follow him, and (3) the supposed agreement with the
Apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews, as regards
any results to be deduced from it, is of a similarly slippery
nature. It will be best to give his last argument in his
own words : — ' It is the internal evidence afforded by the
fact that upon comparing this text with the Greek of
St. Matthew and the parallel passages of St. Mark and
St. Luke, they are found to exhibit the same phenomena
which we should, a priori, expect certainly to discover,
had we the plainest and most incontrovertible testimony
that they are all in reality translations from such an
Aramaic original as this.' He seems here to be trying to
establish his position that the Curetonian was at least
based on the Hebrew original of St. Matthew, to which he
did not succeed in bringing over any scholars.
The reader will see that we need not linger upon these
arguments. When interpreted most favourably they carry
us only a very short way towards the dethronement of the
great Peshitto, and the instalment of the little Curetonian
upon the seat of judgement. But there is more in what
other scholars have advanced. There are resemblances
between the Curetonian, some of the Old- Latin texts, the
Codex Bezae, and perhaps Tatian's Diatessaron, which
lead us to assign an early origin to many of the peculiar
readings in this manuscript. Yet there is no reason, but
all the reverse, for supposing that the Peshitto and the
' See Appendix VI.

CURETONIAN AND PESHITTO. 127
Curetonian were related to one another in line-descent.
The age of one need have nothing to do with the age of
the other. The theory of the Peshitto being derived from
the Curetonian through a process of revision like that
of Jerome constituting a Vulgate rests upon a false
parallel^- There are, or were, multitudes of Old-Latin
Texts, which in their confusion called for some recension :
we only know of two in Syriac which could possibly have
come into consideration. Of these, the Curetonian is but
a fragment : and the Codex Lewisianus, though it includes
the greater part of the Four Gospels, yet reckons so many
omissions in important parts, has been so determinedly
mutilated, and above all is so utterly heretical ", that it
must be altogether rejected from the circle of purer texts of
the Gospels. The disappointment caused to the adherents
ofthe Curetonian, by the failure of the fresh MS. which had
been looked for with ardent hopes to satisfy expectation,
may be imagined. Noscitur a sociis : the Curetonian is
admitted by all to be closely allied to it, and must share
in the ignominy of its companion, at least to such an
extent as to be excluded from the progenitors of a Text
so near to the Traditional Text as the Peshitto must ever
have been °-
But what is the position which the Peshitto has occupied
till the middle of the present century? What is the
evidence of facts on which we must adjudicate its claim ?
Till the time of Cureton, it has been regarded as the
Syriac Version, adopted at the time when the translation
of the New Testament was made into that language, which

' This position is demonstrated in full in an article in the Church Quarterly
Review for April, 1895, on 'The Text ofthe Syriac Gospels,' pp. 123-5.
' The Text of the Syriac Gospels, pp. 113-4 '¦ ^'^o Church Times, Jan. 11,
1895. This position is established in both places.
^ Yet some people appear to think, that the worse a text is the more reason
there is to suppose that it was close to the Autograph Original. Verily this is
evolution run wild.

128 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
must have been either the early part of the second century,
or the end of the first, — adopted too in the Unchangeable
East, and never deposed from its proud position. It can
be traced by facts of history or by actual documents to
the beginning of the golden period of Syriac Literature
in the fifth century, when it is found to be firm in its
sway, and it is far from being deserted by testimony suffi
cient to track it into the earher ages of the Church.
The Peshitto in our own days is found in use amongst
the Nestorians who have always kept to it\ by the
Monophysites on the plains of Syria, the Christians of
St. Thomas in Malabar, and by 'the Maronites on the
mountain-terraces of Lebanon ^.' Of these, the Maronites
take us back to the beginning of the eighth century when
they as Monothelites separated from the Eastern Church ;
the Monophysites to the middle of the fifth century ; the
Nestorians to an earlier date in the same century. Hostile
as the two latter were to one another, they would not
have agreed in reading the same Version of the New
Testament if that had not been well established at the
period of their separation. Nor would it have been thus
firmly established, if it had not by that time been generally
received in the country for a long series of years.
But the same conclusion is reached in the indubitable
proof afforded by the MSS. of the Peshitto Version which
exist, dating from the fifth century or thereabouts. Mr.
Gwilliam in the third volume of Studia Biblica et Eccle-
siastica '^ mentions two MSS. dating about 450 A.D., besides
four ofthe fifth or sixth century, one of the latter, and three
which bear actual dates also of the sixth. These, with
the exception of one in the Vatican and one belonging

' Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed., 'Syriac Literature,' by Dr. W. Wright,
now published separately under the same title.
' Dr. Scrivener, Introduction (4th Edition), II, 7.
^ See also Miller's Edition of Scrivener's Introduction (4th), II. 12.

WITNESS OF THE SYRIAC VERSIONS. 129
to the Earl of Crawford, are from the British Museum
alone^. So that according to the manuscriptal evidence
the treasures of little more than one library in the world
exhibit a very apparatus criticus for the Peshitto, whilst
the Curetonian can boast only one manuscript and that in
fragments, though of the fifth century. And it follows
too from this statement, that whereas only seven uncials
of any size can be produced from all parts of the world of
the Greek Text of the New Testament before the end
of the sixth century, no less than eleven or rather twelve
of the Peshitto can be produced already before the same
date. Doubtless the Greek Text can boast certainly two,
perhaps three, of the fourth century : but the fact cannot but
be taken to be very remarkable, as proving, when compared
with the universal Greek original, how strongly the local
Peshitto Version was established in the century in which
' commences the native historical literature of Syria ^.'
The commanding position thus occupied leads back
virtually a long way. Changes are difficult to introduce in
'the unchangeable East.' Accordingly, the use of the
' Another very ancient MS. of the Peshitto Gospels is the Cod. Philipp. 1 388,
in the Royal Library, Berlin (in Miller's Scrivener the name is spelt Phillipps).
Dr. Sachau ascribes it to the fifth, or the beginning of the sixth century, thus
making it older than the Vatican Tetraevangelicum, No. 3, in Miller's Scrivener,
II, 12. A full description will be found in Sachau's Catalogue ofthe Syr. MSS.
in the Berlin Library.
The second was collated by Drs. Guidi aud Ugolini, the third, in St. John,
by Dr. Sachau. The readings of the second and third are in the possession of
Mr. Gwilliam, who informs me that all three support the Peshitto text, and
are free from all traces of any pre-Peshitto text, such as according to Dr. Hort
and Mr. Burkitt the Curetonian and Lewis MSS. contain. Thus every fresh
accession of evidence tends always to establish the text of the Peshitto Version
more securely in the position it has always held until quite recent years.
The interesting feature of all the above-named MSS. is the uniformity of
their testimony to the text of the Peshitto. Take for example the evidence of
No. 10 in Miller's Scrivener, II. 13, No. 3, in Miller's Scrivener, II. 12, and
Cod. Philipp. 1388. The first was collated by P. E. Pusey, and the results
are published in Studia Biblica, vol. i, ' A fifth century MS.'
" Dr. W. Wright's article in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Dr. Hort could not
have been aware of this fact when he spoke of ' the almost total extinction of
Old Syriac MSS.' : or else he lamented a disappearance of what never appeared.
K

130 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
Peshitto is attested in the fourth century by Ephraem
Syrus and Aphraates. Ephraem ' in the main used the
Peshitto text' — is the conclusion drawn by Mr. F. H.
Woods in the third volume of Studia Biblica ^. And as far
as I may judge from a comparison of readings ^, Aphraates
witnesses for the Traditional Text, with which the Peshitto
mainly agrees, twenty-four times as against four. The
Peshitto thus reckons as its supporters the two earliest of
the Syrian Fathers.
But the course of the examination of all the primitive
Fathers as exhibited in the last section of this work suggests
also another and an earlier confirmation of the position
here taken. It is well known that the Peshitto is mainly
in agreement with the Traditional Text. What therefore
proves one, virtually proves the other. If the text in the
latter case is dominant, it must also be in the former. If,
as Dr. Hort admits, the Traditional Text prevailed at
Antioch from the middle of the fourth centuiy, is it not
more probable that it should have been the continuance
of the text from the earliest times, than that a change
should have been made without a record in history, and
that in a part of the world which has been always alien
to change? But besides the general traces of the Tradi
tional Text left in patristic writings in other districts of the
Church, we are not without special proofs in the parts
about Syria. Though the proofs are slight, they occur
in a period which in other respects was for the present
purpose almost ' a barren and dry land where no water is.'
Methodius, bishop of Tyre in the early part of the fourth
century, Archelaus, bishop in Mesopotamia in the latter
half of the third, the Synodus Antiochena in A.D. 265, at
a greater distance Gregory Thaumaturgus of Neocaesarea
in Pontus who flourished about 243 and passed some time
at Caesarea in Palestine, are found to have used mainly
' p. 107. ' See Patrologia Syriaca, Graffin, P. I. vol. ii. Paris, 1895.

WITNESS OF THE SYRIAC VERSIONS. I31
Traditional MSS. in Greek, and consequently witness to
the use of the daughter text in Syriac. Amongst those
who employed different texts in nearly equal proportions
were Origen who passed his later years at Caesarea and
Justin who issued from the site of Sychar. Nor is there
reason, whatever has been said, to reject the reference
made by Melito of Sardis about A.D. 170 in the words
6 Svpos. At the very least, the Peshitto falls more naturally
into the larger testimony borne by the quotations in the
Fathers, than would a text of such a character as that
which we find in the Curetonian or the Lewis Codex.
But indeed, is it not surprising that the petty Curetonian
with its single fragmentary manuscript, and at the best its
short history, even with so discreditable an ally as the
Lewis Codex, should try conclusions with what we may
fairly term the colossal Peshitto ? How is it possible that
one or two such little rills should fill so great a channel ?
But there is another solution of the difficulty which has
been advocated by the adherents of the Curetonian in
some quarters since the discovery made by Mrs. Lewis. It
is urged that there is an original Syriac Text which lies at
the back of the Curetonian and the Codex Lewisianus, and
that this text possesses also the witness of the Diatessaron
of Tatian : — that those MSS. themselves are later, but that
the Text of which they give similar yet independent speci
mens is the Old Syriac, — the first Version made from the
Gospels in the earliest ages of the Church.
The evidence advanced in favour of this position is of
a speculative and vague nature, and moreover is not always
advanced with accuracy. It is not ' the simple fact that no
purely " Antiochene " [i.e. Traditional] reading occurs in the
Sinai Palimpsest ^.' It is not true that ' in the Diatessaron
' See in St. Matt, alone (out of many instances) v. 2 2 (the translation of
eix^), ix. 13 (of f'ls fifTavoiav), xi. 23 ('which art exalted'), xx. 16 (of iroAXoi
yap (iai kAtjtoi, oKiyoi ii ixMxToi), xxvi. 42 (iroT^piov), 28 (xaivijs) ; besides
K a

132 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
Joseph and Mary are never spoken of as husband and
wife,' because in St. Matt. i. 19 Joseph is expressly called
'her husband,' and in verse 24 it is said that Joseph
' took unto him Mary his wife' It should be observed that
besides a resemblance between the three documents in
question, there is much divergence. The Cerinthian heresy,
which is spread much more widely over the Lewis Codex
than its adherents like to acknowledge, is absent from the
other two. The interpolations of the Curetonian are not
adopted by the remaining members of the trio. The Dia
tessaron, as far as we can judge, — for we possess no copy
either in Greek or in Syriac, but are obliged to depend
upon two Arabic Ver.sions edited recently by Agostino
Ciasca, a Latin Translation of a commentary on it by
Ephraem Syrus, and quotations made by Aphraates or
Jacobus Nisibenus — , diff'ers very largely from either.
That there is some resemblance between the three we
admit : and that the two Codexes are more or less made
up from very early readings, which we hold to be corrupt,
we do not deny. What we assert is, that it has never yet
been proved that a regular Text in Syriac can be con
structed out of these documents which would pass muster
as the genuine Text of the Gospels ; and that, especially in
the light shed by the strangely heretical character of one
of the leading associates, such a text, if composed, cannot
with any probability have formed any stage in the trans
mission of the pure text of the original Version in Syriac
to the pages of the Peshitto. If corruption existed in the
earliest ages, so did purity. The Word of GOD could not
have been dragged only through the mire.
We are thus driven to depend upon the leading historical
facts of the case. What we do know without question is
this : — About the year 170 A D., Tatian who had sojourned
St. Luke ii. 14 (evSoxia), xxiii. 45 (iaxoTiaBrj), John iii. 13 (though 'from
heaven'), xxi. 25 (the verse).

WITNESS OF THE SYRIAC VERSIONS. 133
for some time at Rome drew up his Diatessaron, which is
found in the earlier half of the third century to have been
read in Divine service at Edessa ^ This work was current
in some parts of Syria in the tim.e of Eusebius 2, to which
assertion some evidence is added by Epiphanius^ Rab-
bOla, bishop of Edessa, A.D. 41 2-435 *, ordered the presbyters
and deacons of his diocese to provide copies of the distinct
or Mepharreshe Gospels. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus
near the Euphrates^, writes in 453 A.D., that he had turned
out about two hundred copies of Tatian's Diatessaron from
his churches, and had put the Gospels ofthe four Evangelists
in their place. These accounts are confirmed by the testi
mony of many subsequent writers, whose words together
with those to which reference has just been made may be
seen in Mr. Hamlyn Hill's book on the Diatessaron ". It
must be added, that in the Curetonian we find ' The
Mepharrhha Gospel of Matthew ',' and the Lewis Version
is termed ' The Gospel of the Mepharreshe four books ' ;
and that they were written in the fifth century.
Such are the chief facts : what is the evident corollary ?
Surely, that these two Codexes, which were written at the
very time when the Diatessaron of Tatian was cast out of
the Syrian Churches, were written purposely, and possibly
amongst many other MSS. made at the same time, to
supply the place of it — copies of the Mephai'reshe, i.e.
Distinct or Separate * Gospels, to replace the Mehallete or
Gospel of the Mixed. When the sockets are found to
have been prepared and marked, and the pillars lie fitted
and labelled, what else can we do than slip the pillars
into their own sockets } They were not very successful
^ Doctrine of Addai, xxxv. 15-1". ^ H. E. iv. 29.
^ Haer. xlvi. i. ' Canons. = Haer. i. 20.
« The Earliest Life of Christ, Appendix VIIL
' The MS. is mutilated at the beginning of the other three Gospels.
' It appears almost, if not quite, certain that this is the true meaning. Payne
Smith's Thesaurus Syriacus, coll. 3303-4.

134 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
attempts, as might have been expected, since the Peshitto,
or in some places amongst the Jacobites the Philoxenian
or Harkleian, entirely supplanted them in future use, and
they lay hidden for centuries till sedulous inquiry unearthed
them, and the ingenuity of critics invested them with an
importance not their own ^-
What was the origin of the mass of floating readings, of
which some were transferred into the text of these two
Codexes, will be considered in the next section. Students
should be cautioned against inferring that the Diatessaron
was read in service throughout Syria. There is no evidence
to warrant such a conclusion. The mention of Edessa and
Cyrrhus point to the country near the upper Euphrates ;
and the expression of Theodoret, relating to the Diates
saron being used ' in churches of our parts,' seems to hint
at a circumscribed region. Plenty of room was left for
a predominant use of the Peshitto, so far as we know : and
no reason on that score can be adduced to counterbalance
the force of the arguments given in this section in favour of
the existence from the beginning of that great Version.
Yet some critics endeavour to represent that the Peshitto
was brought first into prominence upon the supersession of
the Diatessaron, though it is never found under the special
title of Mepharresha. What is this but to disregard the
handposts of history in favour of a pet theory ?
' The Lewis Codex was in part destroyed, as not being worth keeping,
while the leaves which escaped that fate were used for other writing. Perhaps
others were treated in similar fashion, which would help to account for the
fact mentioned in note 2, p. 129.

CHAPTER VIL
THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
in. Witness of the Western or
Syrio-Low-Latin Text.
There are problems in what is usually termed the
Western Text of the New Testament, which have not yet,
as I believe, received satisfactory treatment. Critics, in
cluding even Dr. Scrivener i, have too readily accepted
Wiseman's conclusion ^ that the numerous Latin Texts all
come from one stem, in fact that there was originally only
one Old-Latin Version, not several.
That this is at first sight the conclusion pressed upon
the mind of the inquirer, I readily admit. The words and
phrases, the general cast and flow of the sentences, are so
similar in these texts, that it seems at the outset extremely
difficult to resist the inference that all of them began from
the same translation, and that the differences between them
arose from the continued effect of various and peculiar
circumstances upon them and from a long course of copying.
But examination will reveal on better acquaintance certain
obstinate features which will not allow us to be guided
by first appearances. And before investigating these, we
may note that there are some considerations of a general
character which take the edge off this phenomenon.
' Plain Introduction, II. 43-44.
" Essays on Various Subjects, i. Two Letters on some parts of the con
troversy concerning I John v. 7, pp. 23, &c. The arguments are more
ingenious than powerful. Africa, c. g., had no monopoly of Low-Latin.

136 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
Supposing that Old-Latin Texts had a mulriform origin, they
must have gravitated towards more uniformity of expres
sion: intercourse between Christians who used different
translations of a single original must, in unimportant points
at least, have led them to greater agreement. Besides this,
the identity of the venerated original in all the cases, except
where different readings had crept into the Greek, must
have produced a constant likeness to one another, in all
translations made into the same language and meant to
be faithful. If on the other hand there were numerous
Versions, it is clear that in those which have descended to
us there must have been a survival of the fittest.
But it is now necessary to look closely into the evidence,
for the answers to all problems must depend upon that,
and upon nothing but that.
The first point that strikes us is that there is in this
respect a generic difference between the other Versions and
the Old-Latin. The former are in each case one, with no
suspicion of various origination. Gothic, Bohairic, Sahidic,
Armenian (though the joint work of Sahak and Mesrop
and Eznik and others), Ethiopic, Slavonic :— each is one
Version and came from one general source without doubt
or question. Codexes may differ : that is merely within
the range of transcriptional accuracy, and has nothing to
do with the making of the Version. But there is no pre
eminent Version in the Old-Latin field. Various texts
compete with difference enough to raise the question.
Upon disputed readings they usually give discordant
verdicts. And this discord is found, not as in Greek
Codexes where the testifying MSS. generally divide into
two hostile bodies, but in greater and more irregular
discrepancy. Their varied character may be seen in the
following Table including the Texts employed by Tischen
dorf, which has been constructed from that scholar's notes
upon the basis of the chief passages in dispute, as revealed

WITNESS OF THE SYRIO-LOW-LATIN TEXT. 137
in the text ofthe Revised Version throughout the Gospels,
the standard being the Textus Receptus : —

Brixianus, f  W" * = about V*
Monacensis, q  W=l +
Claromontanus, h (only in St. Matt.) 4f =-|-t-
Colbertinus, c  i5|.= about }^
Fragm. Sangall. n  | = i
Veronensis, b  i,lr=f +
Sangermanensis II, g^  §v—i
Corbeiensis II, ff^  rM — f ~
Sangermanensis I, g'^ • . ¦ ¦ Ts- = f ~
Rehdigeranus, 1  ^o|=|-[-
Vindobonensis, i  f'l=l^ +
Vercellensis, a  lff=^ —
Corbeiensis I, ff'  f^— 2 —
Speculum, m . . .... t'f = J —
Palatinus, e  t5V=^ +
Frag. Ambrosiana, s . . ... t = -i-
Bobiensis, k  M—l +

Looking dispassionately at this Table, the reader will
surely observe that these MSS. shade off from one another
by intervals of a somewhat similar character. They do
not fall readily into classes : so that if the threefold division
of Dr. Hort is adopted, it must be employed as not mean
ing very much. The appearances are against all being
derived from the extreme left or from the extreme right.
And some current modes of thought must be guarded
against, as for instance when a scholar recently laid down
as an axiom which all critics would admit, that k might be
taken as the representative of the Old-Latin Texts, which
would be about as true as if Mr. Labouchere at the present
day were said to represent in opinion the Members of the
House of Commons.
* The numerator in these fractions denotes the number of times throughout
the Gospels when the text of the MS. in question agrees in the selected
passages with the Textus Receptus : the denominator, when it witnesses to the
Neologian Text.

138 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
The sporadic nature of these Texts may be further
exhibited, if we take the thirty passages which helped us
in the second section of this chapter. The attestation
yielded by the Old-Latin MSS. will help still more in the
exhibition of their character.

Traditional.

Neologian.

St.

Matt.

i, 25 .
.f. ff'.g'.q. . .
. b. c g '¦. k.
V. 44 •
(i) c f. h. . . .
(2) a. b. c. f. h.
. a. b. ir^ g'l k. 1.
vi. 13 .
• -f-g'-q 
.a. b. c. ff'-g''. I.
vii. 13 .
. . f. flf^g'lq. . .
. a. b. c h. k. m.
ix. 13 .
• ¦ c. g'-^ 
. a. b. f. fF'. h. k. 1. q.
xi. 27 .
. . All.
xvii. 21
. .'Most'a. b. c(?)g
'..c ff'.
xviii. II
xix. 17
. e. ff^
(l) ayade
. . b. c f. ffl g'-^ h. q
. a. e. ff^
(2) Tl jie €
7^^}f.q. . . .
f a. b. c e, ff'-l g\ h. 1.
•t (Vulg.)
K.T
(3) els ioT. 6 ay. f. g ^ m, q. . .
.b. c ff'M. (Vulg.)
xxiii. 38
(Lk. xiii
.35) All — except . .
.ffl
xxvii. 34
. . c f. h. q. . . .
. a. b. ff>-lg". 1. (Vulg,)
xxviii. 2
. .f. h 
.a. b. c ff'-^g^M. n.
„ 19
. .All.
St.
Mark
i. 2 .
. All.
xvi. g-20
. . All — except .
. k.
St.
Luke
i. 28 .
. . All.
ii. 14
. All.
X. 41-42
. .f.g'-^q.(Vulg.)
. a. b. c e. ff''. i. 1.
xxii. 43-44 . a. b. c. e. flf^g''
i.l.q. . .
.f.
xxiii. 34
. . c e. f. ff^- 1. .
. a. b. d.
„ 38
. . All — except
. a.
,. 45
. .a.b. cef. ff^
l.q.
WITNESS OF THE SYRIO-LOW-LATIN TEXT. 139
Traditional. Neologian.
(St. Luke) xxiv. 40 . . c. f. q  a. b. d. e. ff'. 1.
„ 42 . . a. b. f. ff''. 1. q. . . . e.
St. John i. 3-4 . . . c (Vulg.)  a. b. e. ffl q.
„ 18 . . .a. b. ce. f. ff''.
l.q.
iii. 13. . . All.
X. 14  All.
xvii. 24 . . All (Vulg.) .... Vulg. MSS.
xxi. 25 . . All.
It will be observed that in all of these thirty passages,
Old-Latin MSS. witness on both sides and in a sporadic
way, except in three on the Traditional side and six on
the Neologian side, making nine in all against twenty-one.
In this respect they stand in striking contrast with all the
Versions in other languages as exhibiting a discordance in
their witness which is at the very least far from suggesting
a single source, if it be not wholly inconsistent with such
a supposition. Again, the variety of synonyms found in these texts is so
great that they could not have arisen except from variety
of origin. Copyists do not insert ad libitum different modes
of expression. For example, Mr. White has remarked
that eTTLTipLav is translated ' in no less than eleven different
ways,' or adding arguere, in twelve, viz. by
admonere emendare minari praecipere
co^mminari imperare obsecrare prohibere
corripere^ {¦ncrepare ohjurgare arguere (r).
It is true that some of these occur on the same MS.,
but the variety of expression in parallel passages hardly
agrees with descent from a single prototype. Greek MSS.
differ in readings, but not in the same way. Similarly
' Once in k by comperire probably a slip for corripere. Old Latin Texts,
III. pp. xxiv-xxv.

140 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
Sofafo), which occurs, as he tells us, thirty-seven times in
the Gospels, is rendered by clarifico, glorifico, honorem
accipio, honorifico, honoro, magnifico, some passages present
ing four variations. So again, it is impossible to under
stand how crvvoxf\ in the phrase crvvo-^j] eOv&v (St. Luke
xxi. 25) could have been translated by compressio (Vercel
lensis, a), occur sus {^rixrAr\\s.s, f), pressura [others), co7tflictio
(Bezae, d), if they had a common descent. They represent
evidently efforts made by independent translators to express
the meaning of a difficult word. When we meet with possi-
debo and haereditabo for KX-qpovopiria-oy (St. Luke x. 35) lumen
and htx for ^G>s (St. John i. 9), antegalli cantttm and antequam
gallus cantet for T:pi.v aXeKTopa (f>u>vrjcrai. (St. Matt. xxvi. 34),
locum and praedium and ifi agro for xu>ptov (xxvi. 3^), transfer
a ¦me calicem istum and transeat a me calix isie for irapeXOiTOi
air' fjuoC ro -woTi^piov tovto (xxvi. 39) ; — when we fall upon
vox venit de caelis, vox facta est de caelis, vox de caelo facta
est, vox de caelis, and the like ; or qui inihi bene complacuisti,
charissimus in te complacui, dilcctus in quo bene placuit mihi,
dilectus in te bene sensi (St. Mark i. 11), or adsumpsit [autem
. . . diiodecim), adsumens, convocatis (St. Luke xviii. 31) it is
clear that these and the instances of the same sort occurring
everywhere in the Old-Latin Texts must be taken as finger
posts pointing in many directions. Various readings in
Greek Codexes present, not a parallel, but a sharp contrast.
No such profusion of synonyms can be produced from them.
The arguments which the Old-Latin Texts supply in
ternally about themselves are confirmed exactly by the
direct evidence borne by St. Augustine and St. Jerome.
The well-known words of those two great men who must
be held to be competent deponents as to what they found
around them, even if they might fall into error upon the
events of previous ages, prove (1) that a very large number
of texts then existed, (2) that they differed greatly from
one another, (3) that none had any special authority, and

WITNESS OF THE SYRIO-LOW-LATIN TEXT. 141
(4) that translators worked on their own independent lines ^-
But there is the strongest reason for inferring that Augus
tine was right when he said, that 'in the earliest days of
the faith whenever any Greek codex fell into the hands
of any one who thought that he had slight familiarity
[aliquantulu'm facultatis) with Greek and Latin, he was
bold enough to attempt to make a translation ^.' For
what else could have happened than what St. Augustine
says actually did take place? The extraordinary value
and influence of the sacred Books of the New Testament
became apparent soon after their publication. They were
most potent forces in converting unbelievers : they swayed
the lives and informed the minds of Christians : they were
read in the services of the Church. But copies in any
number, if at all, could not be ordered at Antioch, or
Ephesus, or Rome, or Alexandria. And at first no doubt
translations into Latin were not to be had. Christianity
grew almost of itself under the viewless action of the HOLY
Ghost : there were no administrative means of making
provision. But the Roman Empire was to a great extent
bihngual. Many men of Latin origin were acquainted more
or less with Greek. The army which furnished so many
converts must have reckoned in its ranks, whether as officers
or as ordinary soldiers, a large number who were accom
plished Greek scholars. All evangelists and teachers would
have to explain the new Books to those who did not under
stand Greek. The steps were but short from oral to written
teaching, from answering questions and giving exposi
tion to making regular translations in fragments or books
and afterwards throughout the New Testament. The
resistless energy of the Christian faith must have demanded
such offices on behalf of the Latin-speaking members of the
' ' Tot sunt paene (exemplaria), quot codices,' Jerome, Epistola ad
Damascum. ' Latinornm interpretum infinita varietas,' ' interpretum numero-
sitas,' 'nuUo modo numerari possunt,' De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 16, 21.
» De Doctr. Christ, ii. 16.

142 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
Church, and must have produced hundreds of versions,
fragmentary and complete. Given the two languages side
by side, under the stress of the necessity of learning and
the eagerness to drink in the Words of Life, the information
given by St. Augustine must have been amply verified.
And the only wonder is, that scholars have not paid more
attention to the witness of that eminent Father, and have
missed seeing how natural and true it was.
It is instructive to trace how the error arose. It came
chiefiy, if I mistake not, from two ingenious letters of
Cardinal Wiseman, then a young man, and from the
familiarity which they displayed with early African Lite
rature. So Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tregelles,
Scrivener, and Westeott and Hort, followed him. Yet an
error lies at the root of Wiseman's argument which, if the
thing had appeared now, scholars would not have let pass
unchallenged and uncorrected.
Because the Bobbian text agreed in the main with the
texts of Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Primasius,
Wiseman assumed that not only that text, but also the
dialectic forms involved in it, were peculiar to Africa and
took their rise there. But as Mr. White has pointed out ^,
' that is because during this period we are dependent almost
exclusively on Africa for our Latin Literature' Moreover,
as every accomplished Latin scholar who is acquainted
with the history of the language is aware, Low-Latin took
rise in Italy, when the provincial dialects of that Peninsula
sprang into prominence upon the commencement of the
decay of the pure Latin race, occurring through civil and
foreign wars and the sanguinary proscriptions, and from
the consequent lapse in the predominance in literature
of the pure Latin Language. True, that the pure Latin
and the Low-Latin continued side by side for a long time,
the former in the best literature, and the latter in ever
' Scrivener's Plain Introduction, IL 44, note I.

WITNESS OF THE SYRIO-LOW-LATIN TEXT. 143
increasing volume. What is most apposite to the question,
the Roman colonists in France, Spain, Portugal, Provence,
and Walachia, consisted mainly of Italian blood which
was not pure Latin, as is shewn especially in the veteran
soldiers who from time to time received grants of land
from their emperors or generals. The six Romance Lan
guages are mainly descended from the provincial dialects
of the Italian Peninsula. It would be contrary to the
action of forces in history that such and so strong a change
of language should have been effected in an outlying
province, where the inhabitants mainly spoke another
tongue altogether. It is in the highest degree improbable
that a new form of Latin should have grown up in Africa,
and should have thence spread across the Mediterranean,
and have carried its forms of speech into parts of the exten
sive Roman Empire with which the country of its birth
had no natural communication. Low-Latin was the early
product of the natural races in north and central Italy,
and from thence followed by well-known channels into
Africa and Gaul and elsewhere ^. We shall find in these
truths much light, unless I am deceived, to dispel our
darkness upon the Western text.
The best part of Wiseman's letters occurs where he
proves that St. Augustine used Italian MSS. belonging to
what the great Bishop of Hippo terms the ' Itala,' and
pronounces to be the best of the Latin Versions. Evidently
the ' Itala ' was the highest form of Latin Version — highest,
that is, in the character and elegance of the Latin used in
it, and consequently in the correctness of its rendering. So
' See Diez, Grammatik der Romanischen .Sprachen, as well as Introduction
to the Grammar of the Romance Languages, translated by C. B. Cayley. Also
Abel Hovelacque, The Science of Language, English Translation, pp. 227-9.
' The Grammar of Frederick Diez, first published some forty years ago, has
once for all disposed of those Iberian, Keltic, and other theories, which never
theless crop up from time to time.' Ibid. p. 229. Brachet, Gramm.ir of the
French Language, pp. 3-5 ; Whitney, Language and the Study of Language,
pp. 165, Sec, &c.

144 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
here we now see our way. Critics have always had some
difficulty about Dr. Hort's ' European ' class, though there
is doubtless a special character in b and its following. It
appears now that there is no necessity for any embarrass
ment about the intermediate MSS., because by unlocalizing
the text supposed to be African we have the Low-Latin
Text prevailing over the less educated parts of Italy, over
Africa, and over Gaul, and other places away from Rome
and Milan and the other chief centres.
Beginning with the Itala, the other texts sink gradually
downwards, till we reach the lowest of all. There is thus
no bar in the way of connecting that most remarkable
product of the Low-Latin Text, the Codex Bezae, with any
others, because the Latin Version of it stands simply as
one of the Low-Latin group
Another difficulty is also removed. Amongst the most
interesting and valuable contributions to Sacred Textual
Criticism that have come from the fertile conception and
lucid argument of Mr. Rendel Harris, has been the proof
of a closer connexion between the Low-Latin Text, as
I must venture to call it, and the form of Syrian Text
exhibited in the Curetonian Version, which he has given
in his treatment of the Ferrar Group of Greek MSS. Of
course the general connexion between the two has been
long known to scholars. The resemblance between the
Curetonian and Tatian's Diatessaron, to which the Lewis
Codex must now be added, on the one hand, and on the
other the less perfect Old-Latin Texts is a commonplace
in Textual Criticism. But Mr. Harris has also shewn that
there was probably a Syriacization of the Codex Bezae,
a view which has been strongly confirmed on general points
by Dr. Chase : and has further discovered evidence that the
text of the Ferrar Group of Cursives found its way into
and out of Syriac and carried back, according to Mr. Harris'
ingenious suggestion, traces of its sojourn there. Dr. Chase

WITNESS OF THE SYRIO-LOW-LATIN TEXT. 145
has very recently shed more light upon the subject in his
book called 'The Syro- Latin Element of the Gospels ^'
So all these particulars exhibit in strong light the connexion
between the Old-Latin and the Syriac. If we are dealing,
not so much with the entire body of Western Texts, but
as I contend with the Low-Latin part of them in its wide
circulation, there is no difficulty in understanding how such
a connexion arose. The Church in Rome shot up as
noiselessly as the Churches of Damascus and Antioch.
How and why? The key is given in the sixteenth chapter
of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. How could he have
known intimately so many of the leading Roman Chris
tians, unless they had carried his teaching along the road
of commerce from Antioch to Rome? Such travellers,
and they would by no means be confined to the days of
St. Paul, would understand Syriac as well as Latin. The
stories and books, told or written in Aramaic, must have
gone through all Syria, recounting the thrilling history of
redemption before the authorized accounts were given in
Greek. Accordingly, in the earliest times translations must
have been made from Aramaic or Syriac into Latin, as
afterwards from Greek. Thus a connexion between the
Italian and Syrian Churches, and also between the teaching
given in the two countries, must have lain embedded in
the foundations of their common Christianity, and must
have exercised an influence during very many years after.
This view of the interconnexion of the Syrian and Old-
Latin readings leads us on to what must have been at first
the chief origin of corruption. ' The rulers derided Him ' :
' the common people heard Hiin gladly.' It does not,
I think, appear probable that the Gospels were written
till after St. Paul left Jerusalem for Rome. Literature of
a high kind arose slowly in the Church, and the great
' 'Syro-Latin' is doubtless an exact translation of 'Syro-Latinus' : but as
we do not say ' Syran ' but ' Syrian,' it is not idiomatic English.
L

146 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
missionary Apostle was the pioneer. It is surely impos
sible that the authors of the Synopric Gospels should have
seen one another's writings, because in that case they would
not have differed so much from one another \ The effort
of St. Luke (Pref), made probably during St. Paul's im
prisonment at Caesarea (Acts xxiv. 23), though he may
not have completed his Gospel then, most likely stimulated
St. Matthew. Thus in time the authorized Gospels were
issued, not only to supply complete and connected accounts,
but to become accurate and standard editions of what had
hitherto been spread abroad in shorter or longer narratives,
and with more or less correctness or error. Indeed, it is
clear that before the Gospels were written many erroneous
forms of the stories which made up the oral or written
Gospel must have been in vogue, and that nowhere are
these more likely to have prevailed than in Syria, where
the Church took root so rapidly and easily. But the read
ings thus propagated, of which many found their way,
especially in the West, into the wording of the Gospels
before St. Chrysostom, never could have entered into the
pure succession. Here and there they were interlopers
and usurpers, and after the manner of such claimants, had
to some extent the appearance of having sprung from the
genuine stock. But they were ejected during the period
elapsing from the fourth to the eighth century, when the
Text of the New Testament was gradually purified.
This view is submitted to Textual students for verifi
cation. We have now traced back the Traditional Text to the
earliest times. The witness of the early Fathers has
established the conclusion that there is not the slightest
' This is purely my own opinion. Dean Eurgon followed Townson in
supposing that the Synoptic Evangelists in some cases saw one another's
books.

WITNESS OF THE SYRIO-LOW-LATIN TEXT. 147
uncertainty upon this point. To deny it is really a piece
of pure assumption. It rests upon the record of facts. Nor
is there any reason for hesitation in concluding that the
career of the Peshitto dates back in like manner. The Latin
Texts, like others, are of two kinds : both the Traditional
Text and the forms of corruption find a place in them. So
that the testimony of these great Versions, Syriac and
Latin, is added to the testimony of the Fathers. There
are no grounds for doubting that the causeway of the
pure text of the Holy Gospels, and by consequence of
the rest of the New Testament, has stood far above the
marshes on either side ever since those sacred Books were
written. What can be the attraction of those perilous
quagmires, it is hard to understand. 'An highway shall
be there, and a way ' ; ' the redeemed shall walk there ' ;
' the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein ^.'
'¦ Isaiah xxxv. 8, 9.

L 2

CHAPTER VIII.

ALEXANDRIA AND CAESAREA.
§ 1. Alexandrian Readings, and the Alexandrian
School.
What is the real truth about the existence of an
Alexandrian Text ? Are there, or are there not, sufficient
elements of an Alexandrian character, and of Alexandrian
or Egyptian origin, to constitute a Text of the Holy
Gospels to be designated by that name ?
So thought Griesbach, who conceived Origen to be the
standard of the Alexandrian text. Hort, who appears to
have attributed to his Neutral text much of the native
products of Alexandria ^, speaks more of readings than of
text. The question must be decided upon the evidence
of the case, which shall now be in the main produced.
The Fathers or ancient writers who may be classed as
Alexandrian in the period under consideration are the
following : —

Heracleon .
Clement of Alexandria
Dionysius of Alexandria
TheognosiusPeter of Alexandria .
Arius Athanasius (c Arianos)

Traditional.

Neologian.

I

7

82

72

12

5

0

I

7

8

2

I

,•^7

56

161

150

' Introduction, pp. 127, &c.

ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL. 149
Under the thirty places already examined, Clement,
the most important of these writers, witnesses 8 times for
the Traditional reading and 14 times for the Neologian.
Origen, who in his earlier years was a leader of this
school, testifies 44 and 27 times respectively in the order
stated. The Version which was most closely connected with
Lower Egypt was the Bohairic, and under the same thirty
passages gives the ensuing evidence : —
Matt. i. 25. Omits. One MS. says the Greek has 'her
first-born son.'
„ V. 44. Large majority, all but 5, omit. Some add
in the margin.
,, vi. 13. Only 5 MSS. have the doxology.
,, vii. 13. All have it.
,, ix. 13. 9 have it, and 3 in margin : 12 omit, besides
the 3 just mentioned.
,, xi. 27. All have PuiXrjTai.
„ xvii. 21. Only 6 MSS. have it, besides 7 in margin or
interlined: 1 1 omit wholly.
„ xviii. II. Only 4 have it.
„ xix. 16. Only 7 have 'good,' besides a few corrections :
12 omit,
„ „ 17. Only I has it.
10. ,, xxiii. 38. Only 6 have it.
II. „ xxvii. 34. One corrected and one which copied the
correction. All the rest have oimv '.
12. „ xxviii. 2. All have it.
13. „ „ 19- All have it.
14. Mark i. 2. All (i.e. 25) give, 'Hoata.
15. „ xvi. 9-20. None wholly omit: 2 give the alternative ending.
16. Luke i. 28. Only 4-1-2 corrected have it: 12 omit.
17. „ ii. 14. All have fiSoKi'a.
18. „ X. 41—2. '0\iya>v Se (3 Omit) eOTi XP^''° V ^""^ '¦ I OmitS
fl ivos. 2 corrected add ' of them.'
19. „ xxii. 43-4. Omitted by 18 ^
20. „ xxiii. 34. All omit '.
' Probably Alexandrian readings.

22.

)J

23-

„ XJ

24.

)J )

2,5-

John i.

26.

)) )>

2 7.

„ iii,

28.

„ X.

150 ALEXANDRIA AND CAESAREA.
21. Luke xxiii. 38. All omit except 5 ' (?).
45. All have ekXittoi/toj '.
40. All have it.
42. All omit'.
3-4. All (except i which pauses at oiSe ev) have it.
The Sahidic is the other way.
1 8. All have Ot dr '.
13. Omitted by 9.
14. All have ' mine know me.' The Bohairic has
no passive : hence the error '.
29. „ xvii. 24. The Bohairic could not express ous: hence
the error '.
30. ,, xxi. 25. All have it.
The MSS. differ in number as to their witness in each place.
No manuscripts can be adduced as Alexandrian : and
in fact we are considering the ante-manuscriptal period.
All reference therefore to manuscripts would be consequent
upon, not a factor in, the present investigation.
It will be seen upon a review of this evidence, that the
most striking characteristic is found in the instability of
it. The Bohairic wabbles from side to side. Clement
witnesses on both sides upon the thirty places but mostly
against the Traditional text, whilst his collected evidence
in all cases yields a slight majority to the latter side
of the contention. Origen on the contrary by a large
majority rejects the Neologian readings on the thirty
passages, but acknowledges them by a small one in his
habitual quotations. It is very remarkable, and yet
characteristic of Origen, who indeed changed his home
from Alexandria to Caesarea, that his habit was to adopt
one of the most notable of Syrio-Low-Latin readings in
preference to the Traditional reading prevalent at Alex
andria. St. Ambrose (in Ps. xxxvi. 3^) in defending the
reading of St. John i. 3-4, 'without Him was not anything
made : that which was made was life in Him,' says that
' Probably Alexandrian readings.

ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL. 151
Alexandrians and Egyptians follow the reading which is
now adopted everywhere except by Lachmann, Tregelles,
and W.-Hort. It has been said that Origen was in the
habit of using MSS. of both kinds, and indeed no one can
examine his quotations without coming to that conclusion.
Therefore we are led first of all to the school of Christian
Philosophy which under the name of the Catechetical
School has made Alexandria for ever celebrated in the
early annals of the Christian Church. Indeed Origen was
a Textual Critic. He spent much time and toil upon the
text of the New Testament, besides his great labours on
the Old, because he found it disfigured as he says by
corruptions ' some arising from the carelessness of scribes,
some from evil licence of emendation, some from arbitrary
omissions and interpolations ^.' Such a sitting in judgement,
or as perhaps it should be said with more justice to Origen
such a pursuit of inquiry, involved weighing of evidence
on either side, of which there are many indications in
his works. The connexion of this school with the school
set up at Caesarea, to which place Origen appears to have
brought his manuscripts, and where he bequeathed his
teaching and spirit to sympathetic successors, will be
carried out and described more fully in the next section.
Origen was the most prominent personage by far in the
Alexandrian School. His fame and influence in this
province extended with the reputation of his other writings
long after his death. 'When a writer speaks of the
" accurate copies," what he actually means is the text of
Scripture which was employed or approved by Origen ^.'
Indeed it was an elemental, inchoate school, dealing in an
academical and eclectic spirit with evidence of various
kinds, highly intellectual rather than original, as for ex-
' In Matt. XV. 14, quoted and translated by Dr. Bigg in his Bampton Lectures
on The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 123.
'' Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, p. 236, and note z.

152 ALEXANDRIA AND CAESAREA.
ample in the welcome given to the Syrio-Low-Latin
variation of St. Matt. .xix. 16, 17, and addicted in some
degree to alteration of passages. It would appear that
besides this critical temper and habit there was to some
extent a growth of provincial readings at Alexandria or
in the neighbourhood, and tbat modes of spelling which
were rejected in later ages took their rise there. Specimens
of the former of these peculiarities may be seen in the
table of readings just given from the Bohairic Version.
The chief effects of Alexandrian study occurred in the
Caesarean school which now invites our consideration.

§ 2. Caesarean School.
In the year 231, as seems most probable, Origen finally
left Alexandria. His head-quarters thenceforward may be
said to have been Caesarea in Palestine, though he travelled
into Greece and Arabia and stayed at Neo-Caesarea in
Cappadocia with his friend and pupil Gregory Thauma
turgus. He had previously visited Rome: so that he must
have been well qualified by his experience as well as
probably by his knowledge and collection of MSS. to lay
a bi"oad foundation for the future settlement of the text.
But unfortunately his whole career marks him out as
a man of uncertain judgement. Like some others, he was
a giant in learning, but ordinary in the use of his learning.
He vvas also closely connected with the philosophical
school of Alexandria, from which Arianism issued.
The leading figures in this remarkable School of
Textual Criticism at Caesarea were Origen and Eusebius,
besides Pamphilus who forms the link between the two.
The ground-work of the School was the celebrated library
in the city which was formed upon the foundation supplied
by Origen, so far as the books in it escaped the general
destruction of MSS. that occurred in the persecution

CAESAREAN SCHOOL. 153
of Diocletian. It is remarkable, that although there seems
little doubt that the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. were
amongst the fruits of this school, as will be shewn in the
next chapter, the witness of the writings of both Origen
and Eusebius is so favourable as it is to the Traditional
Text. In the case of Origen there is as already stated ^
not far from an equality between the totals on either side,
besides a majority of 44 to 27 on the thirty important
texts : and the numbers for Eusebius are respectively
31,5 to 214, and 41 to 11.
Palestine was well suited from its geographical position
to be the site of the junction of all the streams. The very
same circumstances which adapted it to be the arena of
the great drama in the world's history drew to its shores
the various elements in the representation in language of
the most characteristic part of the Word of God. The
Traditional Text would reach it by various routes : the
Syrio-Low-Latin across the sea and from Syria : the Alex
andrian readings from the near neighbourhood. Origen in
his travels would help to assemble all. The various alien
streams would thus coalesce, and the text of B and N
would be the result. But the readings of MSS. recorded by
Origen and especially by Eusebius prove that in this broad
school the Traditional Text gained at least a decided pre
ponderance according to the private choice of the latter
scholar. Yet, as will be shewn, he was probably, not the
writer of B and of the six conjugate leaves in f^, yet as
the executor of the order of Constantine the superintendent
also in copying those celebrated MSS. Was he then in
fluenced by the motives of a courtier in sending such texts
as he thought would be most acceptable to the Emperor ?
Or is it not more in consonance with the facts of the case
— especially as interpreted by the subsequent spread in
' Above, p. 100.

154 ALEXANDRIA AND CAESAREA.
Constantinople of the Traditional Text^ — , that we should
infer that the fifty MSS. sent included a large proportion of
Texts of another character ? Eusebius, the Homoiousian or
Semi-Arian, would thus be the collector of copies to suit
different tastes and opinions, and his scholar and successor
Acacius, the Homoean, would more probably be the writer
of B and of the six conjugate leaves of N^ The trimming
character of the latitudinarian, and the violent forwardness
of the partisan, would appear to render such a supposition
not unreasonable. Estimating the school according to prin
ciples of historical philosophy, and in consonance with both
the existence of the Text denoted by B and X and also
the subsequent results, it must appear to us to be transi
tional in character, including two distinct and incongruous
solutions, of which one was afterwards proved to be the
right by the general acceptation in the Church that even
Dr. Hort acknowledges to have taken place.
An interesting inquiry is here suggested with respect
to the two celebrated MSS. just mentioned. How is it
that we possess no MSS. of the New Testament of any
considerable size older than those, or at least no other such
MSS. as old as they are ? Besides the disastrous results of
the persecution of Diocletian, there is much force in the
reply of Dean Burgon, that being generally recognized as
bad MSS. they were left standing on the shelf in their
handsome covers, whilst others which were more correct
were being thumbed to pieces in constant use. But the
discoveries made since the Dean's death enables me to
suggest another answer which will also help to enlarge our
view on these matters.
The habit of writing on vellum belongs to Asia. The
first mention of it that we meet with occurs in the 58th
' Hort, Introduction, p. 143.
^ Eusebius suggested the Homoean theory, but his own position, so far as he
had a position, is best indicated as above.

CAESAREAN SCHOOL. 155
chapter of the 5th book of Herodotus, where the historian
tells us that the lonians wrote on the skins of sheep and
goats because they could not get 'byblus,' or as we best
know it, papyrus. Vellum remained in comparative ob
scurity till the time of Eumenes II, King of Pergamum.
That intelligent potentate, wishing to enlarge his library
and being thwarted by the Ptolemies who refused out of
jealousy to supply him with papyrus, improved the skins
of his country^, and made the 'charta Pergamena,' from
whence the term parchment has descended to us. It will
be remembered that St. Paul sent to Ephesus for 'the
books, especially the parchments^.' There is evidence
that vellum was used at Rome : but the chief materials
employed there appear to have been waxen tablets and
papyrus. Martial, writing towards the end of the first
century, speaks of vellum MSS. of Homer, Virgil, Cicero,
and Ovid ^. But if such MSS. had prevailed generally,
more would have come down to us. The emergence of
vellum into general use is marked and heralded by the
products of the library at Caesarea, which helped by the
rising literary activity in Asia and by the building of
Constantinople, was probably the means of the introduction
of an improved employment of vellum. It has been already
noticed *, that Acacius and Euzoius, successively bishops
of Caesarea after Eusebius, superintended the copying of
papyrus manuscripts upon vellum. Greek uncials were
not unlike in general form to the square Hebrew letters
used at Jerusalem after the Captivity. The activity in
Asiatic Caesarea synchronized with the rise in the use of
vellum. It would seem that in moving there Origen
deserted papyrus for the more durable material.
' Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 35. Plin.
at. Hist. xiii. 11.
2 T^ ^iP\ia, pnKiOTa Tds piefiPpdvas, 2 Tim. iv. 13.
^ Palaeography, p. 36. ' See above, p. 2.

156 ALEXANDRIA AND CAESAREA.
A word to explain my argument. If vellum had been
in constant use over the Roman Empire during the first
three centuries and a third which elapsed before B and f<
were written, there ought to have been in existence some
remains of a material so capable of resisting the tear and
wear of u.se and time! As there are no vellum MSS. at
all except the merest fragments dating from before
330 A. D., we are perforce driven to infer that a material
for writing of a perishable nature was generally employed
before that period. Now not only had papyrus been for
' long the recognized material for literary use,' but we can
trace its employment much later than is usually supposed.
It is true that the cultivation of the plant in Egypt began
to wane after the capture of Alexandria by the Mahom-
medans in 638 A. D., and the destruction of the famous
libraries : but it continued in existence during some
centuries afterwards. It was grown also in Sicily and
Italy. ' In France papyrus was in common use in the
sixth century.' Sir E. Maunde Thompson enumerates
books now found in European Libraries of Paris, Genoa,
Milan, Vienna, Munich, and elsewhere, as far down as the
tenth century. The manufacture of it did not cease in
Egypt till the tenth century. The use of papyrus did not
lapse finally till paper was introduced into Europe by the
Moors and Arabs ^, upon which occurrence all writing was
executed upon tougher substances, and the cursive hand
drove out uncial writing even from parchment.
^ Palaeography, pp. 27-34. Paper was first made in China by a man named
¦^r iffl Ts'ai Lun, who lived about A. D. 90. He is said to have used the
bark of a tree ; probably Broussonetia papyiifera, Vent, from which a coarse
kind of paper is still made in northern China. The better kinds of modern
Chinese paper are made from the bamboo, which is soaked and pounded to
a pulp. See Die Erfindung des Papiers in China, voii Friedrich Hirth. Pub
lished in Vol. I. of the r'azw^/'aa (April, 1890). S.J. Brille: Leide. (Kindly
communicated by Mr. H. A. Giles, H. B. M. Consul at Ningpo, author of
'A Chinese-English Dictionary.' &c., throuLjh my friend Dr. Alexander Prior
of Park Terrace, N. W., and Halse House, near Taunton.)

CAESAREAN SCHOOL. 157
The knowledge of the prevalence of papyrus, as to which
any one may satisfy himself by consulting Sir E. Maunde
Thompson's admirable book, and of the employment of
the cursive hand before Christ, must modify many of the
notions that have been widely entertained respecting the
old Uncials.
1. In the first place, it will be clear that all the Cursive
MSS. are not by any means the descendants of the
Uncials. If the employment of papyrus in the earliest
ages of the Christian Church was prevalent over by far
the greater part of the Roman Empire, and that description
is I believe less than the facts would warrant, — then more
than half of the stems of genealogy must have originally
consisted of papyrus manuscripts. And further, if the use
of papyrus continued long after the date of B and S, then
it would not only have occupied the earliest steps in the
lines of descent, but much later exemplars must have
carried on the succession. But in consequence of the
perishable character of papyrus those exemplars have
disappeared and live only in their cursive posterity. This
aspect alone of the case under consideration invests the
Cursives with much more interest and value than many
people would nowadays attribute to them.
2. But beyond this conclusion, light is shed upon the
subject by the fact now established beyond question, that
cursive handwriting existed in the world some centuries
before Christ ^. For square letters (of course in writing inter
spersed with circular lines) we go to Palestine and Syria,
and that may not impossibly be the reason why uncial
Greek letters came out first, as far as the evidence of extant
remains can guide us, in those countries. The change
' . . . 'the science of palaeography, which now stands on quite a different
footing from what it had twenty, or even ten, years ago. Instead of beginning
practically in the fourth century of our era, with the earliest of the great vellum
codices of the Bible, it now begins in the third century before Christ. . . .'
Church Quarterly Review for October, 1894, p. 104.

158 ALEXANDRIA AND CAESAREA.
from uncial to cursive letters about the tenth century is
most remarkable. Must it not to a great extent have arisen
from the contemporary failure of papyrus which has been
explained, and from the cursive writers on papyrus now
trying their hand on vellum and introducing their more
easy and rapid style of writing into that class of manu
scripts'^? If so, the phenomenon shews itself, that by the
very manner in which they are written. Cursives mutely
declare that they are not solely the children of the Uncials.
Speaking generally, they are the progeny of a marriage
between the two, and the papyrus MSS. would appear to
have been the better half.
Such results as have been reached in this chapter and
the last have issued from the advance made in discovery
and research during the last ten years. But these were not
known to Tischendorf or Tregelles, and much less to Lach
mann. They could not have been embraced by Hort in
his view of the entire subject when he constructed his
clever but unsound theory some forty years ago ^. Surely
our conclusion must be that the world is leaving that
school gradually behind.
' . . . ' it is abundantly clear that the textual tradition at about the beginning ''
of the Christian era is substantially identical with that of the tenth or eleventh
century manuscripts, on which our present texts of the classics are based.
Setting minor differences aside, the papyri, with a very few exceptions, represent
the same texts as the vellum manuscripts of a thousand years later.' Church
Quarterly, pp. 98, 99. What is here represented as unquestionably the case as
regards Classical manuscripts is indeed more than what I claim for manuscripts
of the New Testament. The Cursives were in great measure successors of
papyri. '' Introduction, p. 16. He began it in the 3 ear 1853, and as it appears
chiefly upon Lachmann 's foundation.

CHAPTER IX.
THE OLD UNCIALS. THE INFLUENCE OF ORIGEN.
§ 1^
CODEX B was early enthroned on something like specu
lation, and has been maintained upon the throne by what
has strangely amounted to a positive superstition. The
text of this MS. was not accurately known till the edition
of Tischendorf appeared in 1867^: and yet long before
that time it was regarded by many critics as the Queen
of the Uncials. The collations of Bartolocci, of Mico, of
Rulotta, and of Birch, were not trustworthy, though they
far surpassed Mai's two first editions. Yet the prejudice
in favour of the mysterious authority that was expected to
issue decrees from the Vatican^ did not wait till the clear
light of criticism was shed upon its eccentricities and its
defalcations. The same spirit, biassed by sentiment not
ruled by reason, has remained since more has been dis
closed of the real nature of this Codex*.
A similar course has been pursued with respect to
Codex N. It was perhaps to be expected that human
infirmity should have infiuenced Tischendorf in his treat
ment of the treasure-trove by him : though his character
^ By the Editor.
^ Tischendorf's fourteen brief days' work is a marvel of accuracy, but must
not be expected to be free from all errors. Thus he wrongly gives Evpaxv\aiv
instead of EvpaxvSaiv, as Vercellone pointed out in his Preface to the octavo ed.
of Mai in 1859, and as may be seen in the photographic copy of B.
' Cf. Scrivener's Introduction, (4th ed.) II. 283.
' See Kuenen and Cobet's Edition ofthe Vatican B, Introduction.

l6o THE OLD UNCIALS.
for judgement could not but be seriously injured by the
fact that in his eighth edition he altered the mature con
clusions of his seventh in no less than 3,572^ instances,
chiefly on account of the readings in his beloved Sinaitic
guide. Yet whatever may be advanced against B may be alleged
even more strongly against N. It adds to the number of
the blunders of its associate : it is conspicuous for habitual
carelessness or licence: it often by itself deviates into
glaring errors ^- The elevation of the Sinaitic into the
first place, which was effected by Tischendorf as far as his
own practice was concerned, has been applauded by only
very few scholars : and it is hardly conceivable that they
could maintain their opinion, if they would critically and
impartially examine this erratic copy throughout the New
Testament for themselves.
The fact is that B and N* were the products of the school
of philosophy and teaching which found its vent in
Semi-Arian or Homoean opinions. The proof of this
position is somewhat difficult to give, but when the nature
of the question and the producible amount of evidence are
taken into consideration, is nevertheless quite satisfactory.
In the first place, according to the verdict of all critics
the date of these two MSS. coincides with the period when
Semi-Arianism or some other form of Arianism were in the
ascendant in the East, and to all outward appearance
swayed the Universal Church. In the last years of his
rule, Constantine was under the domination of the
Arianizing faction; and the reign of Constantius II over
all the provinces in the Roman Empire that spoke Greek,
during which encouragement was given to the great
heretical schools of the time, completed the two central
' Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf's 8th Ed. of New Testament, (I)
p. 286.
¦¦' See Appendix V.

WRITTEN IN UNFAVOURABLE TIMES. l6l
decades of the fourth century ^ It is a circumstance that
cannot fail to give rise to suspicion that the Vatican and
Sinaitic MSS. had their origin under a predominant influ
ence of such evil fame. At the very least, careful investi
gation is necessary to see whether those copies were in fact
free from that influence which has met with universal
condemnation. Now as we proceed further we are struck with another
most remarkable coincidence, which also as has been
before noticed is admitted on all hands, viz. that the
period of the emergence of the Orthodox School from
oppression and the settlement in their favour of the great
Nicene controversy was also the time when the text of
B and N sank into condemnation. The Orthodox side
under St. Chrysostom and others became permanently
supreme : so did also the Traditional Text. Are we then
to assume with our opponents that in the Church con
demnation and acceptance were inseparable companions?
That at first heresy and the pure Text, and afterwards or
thodoxy and textual corruption, went hand in hand ? That
such ill-matched couples graced the history of the Church ?
That upon so fundamental a matter as the accuracy of the
written standard of reference, there was precision of text
when heretics or those who dallied with heresy were in
power, but that the sacred Text was contaminated when
the Orthodox had things their own way? Is it indeed
come to this, that for the pure and undefiled Word of GoD
we must search, not amongst those great men who under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit ascertained and settled for
ever the main Articles of the Faith, and the Canon of Holy
Scripture, but amidst the relics of those who were unable
to agree with one another, and whose fine-drawn subtleties
in creed and policy have been the despair of the historians,
' Constantine died in 337, and Constantius II reigned till 360.
M

l62 THE OLD UNCIALS.
and a puzzle to students of Theological Science ? It is not
too much to assert, that Theology and History know no
such unscientific conclusions.
It is therefore a circumstance full of significance that
Codexes B and K were produced in such untoward times \
and fell into neglect on the revival of orthodoxy, when
the Traditional Text was permanently received. But the
case in harid rests also upon evidence more direct than this.
The influence which the writings of Origen exercised on
the ancient Church is indeed extraordinary. The fame of
his learning added to the splendour of his genius, his vast
Biblical achievements and his real insight into the depth
of Scripture, conciliated for him the admiration and regard
of early Christendom. Let him be freely allowed the
highest praise for the profundity of many of his utterances,
the ingenuity of almost all. It must at the same time
be admitted that he is bold in his speculations to the
verge, and beyond the verge, of rashness ; unwarrantedly
confident in his assertions ; deficient in sobriety ; in his
critical remarks even foolish. A prodigious reader as well
as a prodigious writer, his words would have been of
incalculable value, but that he seems to have been so
saturated with the strange speculations of the early
heretics, that he sometimes adopts their wild method ;
and in fact has not been reckoned among the orthodox
Fathers of the Church.
But (and this is the direction in which the foregoing
remarks have tended) Origen's ruling passion is found to
have been textual criticism^. This was at once his forte

' In his Last Tvvelve Verses of St, Mark, pp. 291-4, Dean Burgon argued
that a lapse of about half a century divided the date of N from that of B. But
it seems that afterwards he surrendered the opinion which he embraced on the
first appearance of N in favour of the conclusion adopted by Tischendorf and
Scrivener and other experts, in consequence of their identifying the writing of the
six conjugate leaves of X with that of the scribe of B. See above, pp. 46, 52.
^ The Revision Revised, p. 292.

ORIGEN AND THE LIBRARY AT CAESAREA. 163
and his foible. In the library of his friend Pamphilus at
Caesarea were found many Codexes that had belonged to
him, and the autograph of his Hexapla, which was seen
and used by St. Jerome^ In fact, the collection of books
made by Pamphilus, in the gathering of which at the very
least he was deeply indebted to Origen, became a centre
from whence, after the destruction of copies in the persecu
tion of Diocletian, authority as to the sacred Text radiated
in various directions. Copying from papyrus on vellum
was assiduously prosecuted there ^. Constantine applied
to Eusebius for fifty handsome copies ^, amongst which it
is not improbable that the manuscripts [croip.aTi,a) B and N
were to be actually found *¦ But even if that is not so, the
Emperor would not have selected Eusebius for the order,
if that bishop had not been in the habit of providing
copies : and Eusebius in fact carried on the work which
he had commenced under his friend Pamphilus, and in
which the latter must have followed the path pursued by
Origen. Again, Jerome is known to have resorted to this
quarter^, and various entries in MSS. prove that others
did the same^. It is clear that the celebrated library of
Pamphilus exerci.sed great infiuence in the province of
' The above passage, including the last paragraph, is from the pen of the
Dean. ^ See above. Introduction, p. 2.
'¦' It is remarkable that Constantine in his Semi-Arian days applied to
Eusebius, whilst the orthodox Constans sent a similar order afterwards to
Athanasius. Apol. ad Const. § 4 (Montfaucon, Vita Athan. p. xxxvii), ap.
Wordsworth's Church History, Vol. II. p. 45.
* See Canon Cook's ingenious argument. Those MSS. are handsome enough
for an imperial order. The objection of my friend, the late Archdeacon Palmei:
(Scrivener's Introduction, I. 119, note), which I too hastily adopted on other
grounds also in my Textual Guide, p. 82, note i, will not stand, because
oapiaTia cannot mean 'collections [of writings],' but simply, according to the
frequent usage of the word in the early ages of the Church, ' vellum manu
scripts.' The difficulty in translating Tpiaad xal Terpaaad ' of three or four
columns in a page ' is not insuperable.
° Scrivener, Vol. II. 269 ,(4th ed.).
" Scrivener, Vol. I. 55 (4th ed.).
M 2

164 THE OLD UNCIALS.
Textual Criticism ; and the spirit of Origen was powerful
throughout the operations connected with it, at least till
the Origenists got gradually into disfavour and at length
were finally condemned at the Fifth General Council in
A.D. S53-
But in connecting B and N with the Library at Caesarea
we are not left only to conjecture or inference. In a well-
known colophon affixed to the end of the book of Esther
in N by the third corrector, it is stated that from the
beginning of the book of Kings to the end of Esther the
MS. was compared with a copy ' corrected by the hand of
the holy martyr Pamphilus,' which itself was written and
corrected after the Hexapla of Origen^. And a similar
colophon may be found attached to the book of Ezra,
It is added that the Codex Sinaiticus [robe to rgC^os) and
the Codex Pamphili [to avrb ¦naXaidiTaTov fii^Xiov) manifested
great agreement with one another. The probability that
N was thus at least in part copied from a manuscript exe
cuted by Pamphilus is established by the facts that a certain
' Codex Marchalianus ' is often mentioned which was due
to Pamphilus and Eusebius ; and that Origen's recension
of the Old Testament, although he published no edition
of the Text of the New, possessed a great reputation. On
the books of Chronicles, St. Jerome mentions manuscripts
executed by Origen with great care, which were published
by Pamphilus and Eusebius. And in Codex H of St. Paul
it is stated that that MS. was compared with a MS. in the
library of Caesarea ' which was written by the hand of the
holy Pamphilus^.' These notices added to the frequent
' The colophon is given in fyll by Wilhelm Bousset in a number of the
well-known ' Texte und Untersuchungen,' edited by Oscar von Gebhardt and
Adolf Harnack, entitled 'Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament,' p. 45.
II. Der Kodex Pamphili, 1894, to which my notice was kindly drawn by
Dr. Sanday.
" Miller's Scrivener, I. 183-4. ^y Euthalius, the Deacon, afterwards Bp, of
Sulci.

B AND N PROBABLY WRITTEN AT CAESAREA. 165
reference by St. Jerome and others to the critical [aKpififi)
MSS., by which we are to understand those which were
distinguished by the approval of Origen or were in con
sonance with the spirit of Origen, shew evidently the
position in criticism which the Library at Caesarea and
its illustrious founder had won in those days. And it is
quite in keeping with that position that K should have
been sent forth from that ' school of criticism.'
But if K was, then B must have been ; — at least, if the
supposition certified by Tischendorf and Scrivener be true,
that the six conjugate leaves of K were written by the
scribe of B. So there is a chain of reference, fortified by
the implied probability which has been furnished for us
from the actual facts of the case.
Yet Dr. Hort is ' inclined to surmise that B and N were
both written in the West, probably at Rome ; that the
ancestors of B were wholly Western (in the geographical,
not the textual sense) up to a very early time indeed ;
and that the ancestors of N were in great part Alexandrian,
again in the geographical, not the textual sense ^.' For
this opinion, in which Dr. Hort stands alone amongst
authorities, there is nothing but ' surmise ' founded upon
very dark hints. In contrast with the evidence just brought
forward there is an absence of direct testimony: besides
that the connexion between the Western and Syrian Texts
or Readings, which has been recently confirmed in a very
material degree, must weaken the force of some of his
arguments. § 2^-
The points to which I am anxious rather to direct
attention are (1) the extent to which the works of
Origen were studied by the ancients : and (2) the curious
' Introduction, p. 267. Dr. Hort controverts the notion that B and N were
written at Alexandria (not Caesarea), which no one now maintains.
^ By the Dean.

l66 THE OLD UNCIALS.
discovery that Codexes NB, and to some extent D, either
belong to the same class as those with which Origen was
chieflj' familiar ; or else have been anciently manipulated
into conformity with Origen's teaching. The former seems
to me the more natural supposition ; but either inference
equally satisfies my contention : viz. that Origen, and mainly
BKD, are not to be regarded as wholly independent
authorities, but constitute a class.
The proof of this position is to be found in various
passages where the influence of Origen may be traced,
such as in the omission of Tlod tov (s)eov — ' The Son of
God ' — in Mark i. i ^ ; and of ev 'Ec^eVaj — ' at Ephesus ' —
in Eph. i. I '^ ; in the substitution of Bethabara (St. John
i. a8) for Bethany^ ; in the omission of the second part of
the last petition the Lord's Prayer in St. Luke*, of epTrpoa-
6ev p-ov yiyovev in John i. 27^.
He is also the cause why the important qualification
elKi] (' without a cause ') is omitted by BN from St. Matt.
V. 22 ; and hence, in opposition to the whole host of Copies,
Versions", Fathers, has been banished from the sacred
Text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, W.-Hort and the Revisers I
To the same influence, I am persuaded, is to be attributed
the omission from a little handful of copies (viz. A, B-N,
D* F-G, and 17*) of the clause r?; aX-qOeia /ni) -nelOecrQai.
^ See Appendix IV, and Revision Revised, p. 132. Origen, c. Celsum, Praef.
ii, 4 ; Comment, in John ix. Followed here only by N *.
^ See Last Twelve Verses, pp. 93-99. Also pp, 66, note, 85, IC7, 2-;,^^.
^ Migne, viii. 96 d. Tavra 'eyevtTo ev B-qBavia. oaa Se tuv dvTiypdipmv dxpi0ea-
Tfpov exei, ev BriBa0ap^, (p-qaiv. fj ydp Brjffavia oiixi irepav tov 'lopSdvov, oiSi eiri
Tris ep-qp-ov ^v dXK' eyyvs nov toiv 'lepoaoKvpwv. This speedily assumed the form
of a scholium, as follows : — X/)^ 5^ yivuiaxeiv, Sti rd dxpi0jj toiv dvTiypdfav 'ev
BriBaPapa irepiexei' 4 ydp BiiBavia ovxi irepav toO 'lupSdvov, dW eyyvs nov toiv
'lepoaoXvpav :^which is quoted by the learned Benedictine editor of Origen in
M. iv. 401 (at top of the left hand column), — evidently from Coisl. 23, our
Evan. 39, — since the words are found iu Cramer, Cat, ii. 191 (line 1-3).
* Origen, i. 265 ; coll. i. 227, 256.
° Origen, Comment, in John vi.
'^ The word is actually transliterated into Syriac letters in the Peshitto.
' See The Revision Revised, pp. 358-61.

TRACES OF ORIGEN IN B AND N.

167

('that you should not obey the truth') Gal. iii. i. Jerome
duly acknowledges those words while commenting on
St. Matthew's GospeP ; but when he comes to the place
in Galatians ^, he is observed, first to admit that the clause
' is found in some copies,' and straightway to add that
'inasmuch as it is not found in the copies of Adamantius^,
he omits it.' The clue to his omission is supplied by his
own statement that in writing on the Galatians he had
made Origen his guide *. And yet the words stand in the
Vulgate.

For: —
C D° E K L P, 46 Cursives.
Vulg. Goih. Harkl. Arm. Ethiop.
Orig. ii. 373.
Cyril Al. ii. 737.
Ephr. Syr. hi. 203.
Macarius Magnes (or rather the
heathen philosopher with
whom he disputed), — 128.
ps.-Athanas. ii. 454.
Against : —
NABD*FG 17*-
d e f g — fu.
Peshitto, Bohairic.
Chrys.
Euthal. cod.

Theodoret ii. 40.
J. Damascene ii. 163.
Theodorus Studita, — 433, 11 36.
Hieron. vii. 418. c. Legitur in
quibusdam codicibus, ' Quis
vos fascinavit non credere
veritad?' Sed hoc, quia in
exemplaribus Adamantii non
habetur, omisimus.

Exemplaria Adamantii.
Cyril 429.
Theodoret i. 658 (= Mai vii^ 1 50).
Theodorus Mops.
Hier. vii. 418. c.

In a certain place Origen indulges in a mystical expo
sition of our Lord's two miracles of feeding^ ; drawing
marvellous inferences, as his manner is, from the details of

1 vii. 52. ' Vll. 418.
' A name by which Origen was known.
* Imbecillitatem virium mearum sentiens, Origenis Commentarios sum
sequutus. Scripsit ille vir in epistolam Pauli ad Galatas quinque proprie
volumina, et decimum Stromatum suorum librum commatico super explanatione
ejus sermone complevit. — Praefatio, vii. 370.
= iii. jog-io.

l68 THE OLD UNCIALS.
either miracle. We find that Hilary', that Jerome^, that
Chrysostom ^, had Origen's remarks before them when they
in turn commented on the miraculous feeding of the 4000.
At the feeding of the 5000, Origen points out that our LORD
'commands the multitude to sit down' (St. Matt. xiv. 19):
but at the feeding of the 4000, He does not 'command'
but only 'directs' them to sit down (St. Matt. xv. 35*)...
From which it is plain that Origen did not read as we do in
St. Matt. XV. 3^, Kal eKeXevae Tois oxXols — but irap^riyyeiXe r&J
oxAo) ava-necreiv ; which is the reading of the parallel place
in St. Mark (viii. 6). We should of course have assumed
a slip of memory on Origen's part ; but that NBD are
found to exhibit the text of St. Matt. xv. 35 in conformity
with Origen^ He is reasoning therefore from a MS. which
he has before him ; and remarking, as his unfortunate
manner is, on what proves to be really nothing else but
a palpable depravation of the text.
Speaking of St. John xiii. 26, Origen remarks, — ' It is
not written " He it is to whom I shall give the sop " ; but
with the addition of " I shall dip " : for it says, " I shall dip
the sop and give it." ' This is the reading of BCL and is
adopted accordingly by some Editors. But surely it is
a depravation of the text which may be ascribed with
confidence to the officiousness of Origen himself. Who, at
all events, on such precarious evidence would surrender the
established reading of the place, witnessed to as it is by
' 686-7. '' vii. 117-20. = vii. 537 seq.
? I endeavour in the text to make the matter in hand intelligible to the
English reader. But such things can scarcely be explained in English without
more words than the point is worth. Origen says : — xdxei jilv xeKevei tovs
ox^.ovs dvaxKiBfivai (Matt. xiv. 19), ^ dvaneaeiv km tov X'^P^ov. (xal ydp 6
Aovxds (ix, 14) xaTaxXivaTe a-vTo-us, dveypaipe- xat 6 Mapxos (vi. 39), lirero^e,
cpTiaiv, aiiTois itdvTas dvaxXivai-) evBdSe SI ov xt\evei, dWd -napayyeKKei Ta ox>^q>
dvaxKiBrivai. iii. 509 f, 510 a.
' The only other witnesses are from Evan. 1, 33, and the lost archetype of
13) 124, 346. The Versions do not distinguish certainly between xeXevco and
¦napayyeXXa. Chrysostom, the only Father who quotes this place, exhibits
exeKevoe . . . xal Ka^ojv (vii. 539 c).

TRACES OF ORIGEN. 169
every other known MS. and by several of the Fathers ?
The grounds on which Tischendorf reads l3d-\j/o) to ^wixiov
Kal bciaoi airu, are characteristic, and in their way a
curiosity^. Take another instance of the same phenomenon. It is
plain, from the consent of (so to speak) all the copies, that
our Saviour rejected the Temptation which stands second
in St. Luke's Gospel with the words, — ' Get thee behind
Me, Satan 2.' But Origen officiously points out that this
(quoting the words) is precisely what our LORD did not
say. He adds a reason, — ' He said to Peter, " Get thee
behind Me, Satan " ; but to the Devil, " Get thee hence,"
without the addition " behind Me " ; for to be behind Jesus
is a good thing ^.'
'¦ Lectio ab omni parte commendatur, et a correctoie alienissima : ySa^tu xai
Swaw ab usu est Johannis, sed elegantius videbatur 0a\f>as e^mSaaai vel Swaa.
2 Luke iv. S.
^ Ilpus p.ev TOV TleTpov elirev vwaye bniaoi piov, "XaTavd' npos Si Tdv Sid0o\ov.
uTra-ye, ^aTavd, x'^P^s ttjs diriaoj p.ov -npoaB^riXTis' to ydp uniaoi tov 'liiaov eivai dyaBov
eoTi. iii. 540. I believe that Origen is the sole cause of the perplexity. Com
menting on Matt. xvi. 23 vnaye oniaai pov ^aTava (the words addressed to -Simon
Peter), he e.xplains that they are a rebuke to the Apostle for having for a time at
Satan's instigation desisted from following Him. Comp. (he says) these words
spoken to Peter (vn. on. pov S.) with those addressed to Satan at the temptation
¦without the^oniaoj piov 'for to be behind Ch-rist is a good thing.' ... I suppose he
had before him a MS. of St. Matt, without the oniaw nov. This gloss is referred
to by Victor of Antioch (173 Cat. Poss., i. 348 Cramer). It is even repeated by
Jerome on Matt. vii. 2 1 d e : Non ut plerique putant eadem Satanas et Apostolus
Petrus sententiS condemnantur. Petro enim dicitur, ' Vade retro me, Satana ;'
id est ' Sequere me, qui contrarius es voluntati meae.' Hie vero audit, ' Vade
Satana: ' et non ei dicitur '«/ro me^ ut suliaudiatur, ' vade in ignem aeternum.'
Vade Satana (Irenaeus, 775, also Hilary, 620 a). Peter Alex, has vnaye Sarara,
yeypanTai yap, ap. Routh, Reliqq. iv. 24 (on p. 55). Audierat diabolus a
Domino, Recede Sathanas, scandalum mihi es. Scriptum est, Dominum Deum
tuum adorabis et illi soli servies, Tertullian, Scorp. l>. 15. Ovx eTnev ""Cnaye
oniaw piov ov ydp vnoOTpetpai oios Te- dkxd' "Tnaye ^aTavd, ev oh eneke^cu. —
Epist. ad Philipp. c. xii. Ignat. Interpol. According to some Critics ('lisch.,
Treg., W.-Hort) there is no vnaye omaco /tou 2. in Lu. iv. 8, and only vnaye 2.
in Matt. iv. 10, so that i;7ra7e omaa pov SaTava occurs in neither accounts ofthe
temptation. But I believe i/7ra7c omaai /iou 2. is the correct reading in both
places. Justin M. Tryph. ii. 352. Origen interp. ii. 132 b (Vade retro), so
Ambrose, i. 671 ; so Jerome, vi. 809 e; redi retro S., Aug. iv. 47 e ; redi post
me S., Aug. iii. 842 g. Theodoret, ii. 1608. So Maximus Tanr., Vigil. Taps.

lyo THE OLD UNCIALS.
Our Saviour on a certain occasion (St. John viii. 38) thus
addressed his wicked countrymen : — ' I speak that which
I have seen with My Father; and ye likewise do that
which you have seen with your father.' He contrasts His
own gracious doctrines with their murderous deeds ; and
refers them to their respective 'Fathers,' — to 'My Father,'
that is, God ; and to 'your father,' that is, the DeviP.
That this is the true sense of the place appears plainly
enough from the context. ' Seen with ' and ' heard from ^ '
are the expressions employed on such occasions, because
sight and hearing are the faculties which best acquaint
a man with the nature of that whereof he discourses.
Origen, misapprehending the matter, maintains that GOD
is the ' Father ' spoken of on either side. He I suspect it
was who, in order to support this view, erased ' My ' and
' your ' ; and in the second member of the sentence, for
' seen with,' substituted ' heard from ' ; — as if a contrast had
been intended between the manner of the Divine and of
the human knowledge, — which would be clearly out of
place. In this way, what is in reality a revelation, becomes
converted into a somewhat irrelevant precept : ' I speak
the things which I have seen with the Father.' ' Do ye
the things which ye have heard from the Father,' — which
is how Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford exhibit
the place. Cyril Alex, employed a text thus impaired.
Origen also puts ver. 39 into the form of a precept (eo-re . . .

Vade retro S. ap. Sabattier. ' Vade post me Satana. Et sine dubio ire post
Deum servi est.' Et iterum quod ait ad ilium, 'Dominum Deum tuum adorabis,
et ipsi soli servies' Archelaus et Man. disput. (Routh, Reliqq. v. 1 20), A. D. 277.
St. Antony the monk, a/Wi/ Athanas. ' Vita Ant.' i. 824 c d ( = Galland. iv. 647 a).
A.D. 300. Retro vade Satana, ps.-Tatian (Lu.), 49. Athanasius, i. 272 d,
537 c, 589 f. Nestorius ap. Marium Merc. (Galland. viii. 647 c) Vade retro S.
but only Vade S. viii. 631c. Idatius (A.D. 385) a/«i/ Athanas, ii. 605 b.
Chrys, vii. 172 bis (Matt.) J. Damascene, ii. 450. ps.-Chrys. x. 734, 737. Opus
Imperf ap. Chrys. vi. 48 bis. Apocryphal Acts, Tisch. p. 250.
' See ver, 44.
^ St. John viii. 40; xv. ij.

TRACES OF SCEPTICISM. 171
¦noieiTe); but he has all the Fathers^ (including himself),
— all the Versions, — all the copies against him, being
supported only by B.
But the evidence against ' the restored reading ' to which
Alford invites attention, (viz. omitting p,ov and substituting
¦ijKo-va-aTe ¦napa roC Darpo's for ecupaKaTe Trapa ru Harpt vjx&v)
is overwhelming. Only five copies (BCLTX) omit p.ov :
only four (BLT, 13) omit i/mSy : a very little handful are for
substituting ¦qKovaaTe with the genitive for IcopdrnTe. Chrys,,
Apolinaris, Cyril Jerus,, Ammonius, as well as every ancient
version of good repute, protest against such an exhibition
of the text In ver. 39, only five read eo-re (NBDLT):
while TToietre is found only in Cod. B. Accordingly, some
critics prefer the imperfect eTrotetre, which however is only
found in NDLT. ' The reading is remarkable' says Alford.
Yes, and clearly fabricated. The ordinary text is right.
§3.
Besides these passages, in which there is actual evidence
of a connexion subsisting between the readings which they
contain and Origen, the sceptical character of the Vatican
and Sinaitic manuscripts affords a strong proof of the
alliance between them and the Origenistic School. It
must be borne in mind that Origen was not answerable
for all the tenets of the School which bore his name,
even perhaps less than Calvin was responsible for all that
Calvinists after him have held and taught. Origenistic
doctrines came from the blending of philosophy with
Christianity in the schools of Alexandria where Origen
was the most eminent of the teachers engaged ^-
' Orig., Euseb., Epiph., both Cyrils, Didymus, Basil, Chrysostom.
' For the sceptical passages in B and N see Appendix V.

CHAPTER X.
THE OLD UNCIALS. CODEX D.
§ 1^-
It is specially remarkable that the Canon of Holy
Scripture, which hke the Text had met with opposition,
was being settled in the later part of the century in which
the?e two manuscripts were produced, or at the beginning
of the next. The two questions appear to have met
together in Eusebius. His latitudinarian proclivities seem
to have led him in his celebrated words ^ to lay undue
stress upon the objections felt by some persons to a few of
the Books of the New Testament ; and cause us therefore
not to wonder that he should also have countenanced those
who wished without reason to leave out portions of the
Text. Now the first occasion, as is well known, when we
find all the Books of the New Testament recognized with
authority occurred at the Council of Laodicea in 363 A. D.,
if the passage is genuine ^, which is very doubtful ; and the
» By the Editor.
' Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25) divides the writings of the Church into
three classes : —
I. The Received Books (opoKoyovpevd), i, c. the Four Gospels, Acts, the
Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, i Peter, 1 John, and the Revelation (?).
2. Doubtful (dvTiXeyupeva), i. c. James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude {ci.
ii. 23/».).
3. Spurious (v68a), Acts of St. Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation of
St. Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, the so-called AiSaxai, Revelation of
St. John (?).
This division appears to need confirmation, if it is to be taken as representing
the general opinion of the Church of the time.
^ See Westeott, Canon, &c. pp, 431-9.

THE CANON AND THE TEXT. 173
settlement of the Canon which was thus initiated, and was
accomplished by about the end of the century, was followed,
as was natural, by the settlement of the Text. But inas
much as the latter involved a large multitude of intricate
questions, and corruption had crept in and had acquired
a very firm hold, it was long before universal acquiescence
finally ensued upon the general acceptance effected in the
time of St. Chrysostom. In fact, the Nature of the Divine
Word, and the character of the Written Word, were con
firmed about the same time: — mainly, in the period
when the Nicene Creed was re-asserted at the Council of
Constantinople in 381 A.D. ; for the Canon of Holy Scripture
was fixed and the Orthodox Text gained a supremacy over
the Origenistic Text about the same time: — and finally,
after the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 A. D.,
at which the acknowledgement of the Natures of the Son
of Man was placed in a position superior to all heresy;
for it was then that the Traditional Text began in nearly
perfect form to be handed down with scarce any opposition
to future ages of the Church.
Besides the multiplicity of points involved, three special
causes delayed the complete settlement of the Text, so far
as the attainment was concerned all over the Church of
general accuracy throughout the Gospels, not to speak of
all the New Testament.
I. Origenism, going beyond Origen, continued in force
till it was condemned by the Fifth General Council in
553 A. D., and could hardly have wholly ended in that year.
Besides this, controversies upon fundamental truths agitated
the Church, and implied a sceptical and wayward spirit
which would be ready to sustain alien variations in the
written Word, till the censure passed upon Monothelitism
at the Sixth General Council in 680 A.D.
2. The Church was terribly tried by the overthrow of the
Roman Empire, and the irruption of hordes of Barbarians :

174 THE OLD UNCIALS.
and consequently Churchmen were obliged to retire into
extreme borders, as they did into Ireland in the fifth
century ^, and to spend their energies in issuing forth from
thence to reconquer countries for the Kingdom of Christ.
The resultant paralysis of Christian effort must have been
deplorable. Libraries and their treasures, as at Caesarea
and Alexandria under the hands of Mahommedans in the
seventh century, were utterly destroyed. Rest and calm
ness, patient and frequent study and debate, books and
other helps to research, must have been in those days hard
to get, and were far from being in such readiness as to
favour general improvement in a subject of which extreme
accuracy is the very breath and life.
3. The Art of Writing on Vellum had hardly passed its
youth at the time when the Text advocated by B and N
fell finally into disuse. Punctuation did but exist in the
occasional use of the full stop : breathings or accents were
perhaps hardly found : spelling, both as regards consonants
and vowels, was uncertain and rudimental. So that the
Art of transcribing on vellum even so far as capital letters
were concerned, did not arrive at anything like maturity
till about the eighth century.
But it must not be imagined that manuscripts of sub
stantial accuracy did not exist during this period, though
they have not descended to us. The large number of
Uncials and Cursives of later ages must have had a goodly
assemblage of accurate predecessors from which they were
copied. It is probable that the more handsome and less
correct copies have come into our hands, since such would
have been not so much used, and might have been in the
possession of the men of higher station whose heathen
' See particulaily Haddan's Remains, pp. 258-294, Scots on the Continent.
The sacrifice of that capable scholar and excellent churchman at a comparatively
early age to the toil which was unavoidable under want of encouragement of
ability and genius has entailed a loss upon sacred learning which can hardly be
over-estimated.

DELAY IN THE SETTLEMENT OF THE TEXT. 175
ancestry had bequeathed to them less orthodox tenden
cies, and the material of many others must have been
too perishable to last. Arianism prevailed during much of
the sixth century in Italy, Africa, Burgundy, and Spain.
Ruder and coarser volumes, though more accurate, would
be readily surrendered to destruction, especially if they
survived in more cultured descendants. That a majority of
such MSS. existed, whether of a rougher or more polished
sort, both in vellum and papyrus, is proved by citations of
Scripture found in the Authors of the period. But those
MSS. which have been preserved are not so perfect as the
others which have come from the eighth and following
centuries. Thus Codex A, though it exhibits a text more like the
Traditional than either B or K, is far from being a sure
guide. Codex C, which was written later in the fifth
century, is only a fragmentary palimpsest, i. e it was
thought to be of so little value that the books of
Ephraem the Syrian were written over the Greek : it
contains not more than two-thirds of the New Testament.
and stands as to the character of its text between A and
B. Codex Q, a fragment of 235 verses, and Codex I of
135, in the same century, are not large enough to be taken
into consideration here. Codexes * and 2, recently dis
covered, being products of the end of the fifth or beginning
of the sixth, and containing St Matthew and St. Mark
nearly complete, are of a general character similar to A,
and evince more advancement in the Art. It is unfortu
nate indeed that only a fragment of either of them, though
that fragment in either case is pretty complete as far as it
goes, has come into our hands. After them succeeds
Codex D, or Codex Bezae, now in the Cambridge Library,
having been bequeathed to the University by Theodore
Beza, whose name it bears. It ends at Acts xxii. 29.

176 THE OLD UNCIALS.
§2. CODEX D'.
No one can pretend fully to understand the character of
this Codex who has not been at the pains to collate every
word of it with attention. Such an one will discover that
it omits in the Gospels alone no less than 3,704 words ;
adds to the genuine text 2,213; substitutes 2,121 ; trans
poses 3,471, and modifies 1,772. By the time he has
made this discovery his esteem for Cod. D will, it is pre
sumed, have experienced serious modification. The total
of 13,281 deflections from the Received Text is a formid
able objection to explain away. Even Dr. Hort speaks
of ' the prodigious amount of error which D contains ^.'
But the intimate acquaintance with the Codex which he
has thus acquired has conducted him to certain other
results, which it is of the utmost importance that we
should particularize and explain.
I. And first, this proves to be a text which in one
Gospel is often assimilated to the others. And in fact the
assimilation is carried sometimes so far, that a passage
from one Gospel is interpolated into the parallel passage in
another. Indeed the extent to which in Cod. D interpo
lations from St. Mark's Gospel are inserted into the Gospel
according to St. Luke is even astounding. Between verses
14 and 15 of St. Luke v. thirty-two words are interpolated
from the parallel passage in St. Mark i. 45-ii. i : and
in the loth verse of the vith chapter twelve words are
introduced from St. Mark ii. 27, 28. In St. Luke iv.
37, rj oKo-q, ' the report,' from St. Mark i. 28, is sub
stituted for ^x"^' ' ^h^ sound,' which is read in the other
manuscripts. Besides the introduction into St. Luke i. 64
' The reader is now in the Dean's hands. See Mr. Rendel Harris' ingenious
and suggestive ' Study of Codex Bezae ' in the Cambridge Texts and Studies,
and Dr. Chase's ' The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezae.' But
we must demur to the expression ' Old Syriac'
^ Introduction, p. 149.

CODEX D. 177
of eXvd-q from St. Mark vii. 35, ^^'hich will be described
below, in St. Luke v. 27 seven words are brought from
the parallel passage in St. Mark ii. 14, and the entire
passage is corrupted^. In giving the Lord's Prayer in
St. Luke xi. 2, the scribe in fault must needs illustrate the
Lord's saying by interpolating an inaccurate transcription
of the warning against 'vain repetitions' given by Him
before in the Sermon on the Mount. Again, as to inter
polation from other sources, grossly enough, St. Matt. ii. 2,3
is thrust in at the end of St. Luke ii. 39 ; that is to say,
the scribe of D, or of some manuscript from which D was
copied, either directly or indirectly, thought fit to explain
the carrying of the Holy Child to Nazareth by the explana
tion given by St. Matthew, but quoting from memory
wrote ' by the prophet ' in the singular, instead of ' by the
prophets ' in the plural ^. Similarly, in St. Luke iv. 31
upon the mention of the name of Capernaum, D must
needs insert from St. Matt. iv. 13, ' which is upon the sea-
coast within the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim '
{TTfv ¦napadaXaa-CTLOv [sic) ev opiois Za^ovXoiv xat Ne^9a\ei/*).
Indeed, no adequate idea can be formed of the clumsiness,
the coarseness of these operations, unless some instances
are given : but a few more must suffice.
I. In St. Mark iii. 26, our LoRD delivers the single
statement, 'And if Satan is risen against himself [avea-Te
eif}' eavTov) and is divided [koI p.e\i.epi<TTat) he cannot stand,
but hath an end [aXXa TeXos e^ei).' Instead of this, D ex
hibits, ' And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against
himself : his kingdom cannot stand, but hath the end [aXXa
• The same wholesale corruption of the deposit prevails in what follows,
viz. the healing of the paralytic borne of four (v. 17-26), and the call of
St. Matthew (27-34) • ^ '^^^ ^^ ^° respect ofthe walk through the cornfields
on the Sabbath day (vi. 1-5), and the healing of the man with the withered
hand (6-1 1). Indeed it is continued to the end of the call of the Twelve
(12-19). The particulars are too many to insert here.
' xaBas epeBrj Sia tov npoiprjTov, instead of onais irkr/pwB^ Sid toiv npo(j>r]Tuiv.
N

178 THE OLD UNCIALS.
TO TeXos exei).' Now this is clearly an imitation, not
a copy, of the parallel place in St. Matt. xii. 26, where
also a twofold statement is made, as every one may see.
But the reply is also a clumsy one to the question asked
in St. Mark, but not in St. Matthew, ' How can Satan cast
Out Satan?' Learned readers however will further note
that it is St. Matthew's ep.epi<Tdr], where St. Mark wrote
iiep.epi(TTai, which makes the statement possible for him
which is impossible according to the representation given
by D of St. Mark.
2. At the end of the parable of the pounds, the scribe
of D, or one of those whom he followed, thinking that the
idle servant was let off too easily, and confusing with this
parable the other parable of the talents, — blind of course
to the difference between the punishments inflicted by
a ' lord ' and those of a new-made king, — inserts the 30th
verse of St. Matt. xxv. at the end of St. Luke xix. 27.
3. Again, after St. Matt. xx. 28, when the LORD had
rebuked the spirit of ambition in the two sons of Zebedee,
and had directed His disciples not to seek precedence,
enforcing the lesson from His own example as shewn in
giving His Life a ransom for many, D inserts the following
tasteless passage : ' But ye seek to increase from a little,
and from the greater to be something less^.' Nor is this
enough : — an addition is also made from St. Luke xiv.
8-10, being the well-known passage about taking the
lowest room at feasts. But this additional interpolation
is in style and language unlike the words of any Gospels,
and ends with the vapid piece of information, ' and this
shall be useful to thee' It is remarkable that, whereas D
was alone in former errors, here it becomes a follower in
one part or other of the passage of twelve Old Latin
manuscripts ^ : and indeed the Greek in the passage in D is
* T^eis Se ^-qTeiTe ex pixpov av^riaai, xai ex pei^ovos eXaTTOv eivai.
' Le. abcdeff'-=gi-"hmn.

CODEX D. 179
evidently a version of the Syrio-Low-Latin. The following
words, or forms of words or phrases, are not found in the
rest of the N. T. : ¦napaKXifjOevTes (aor. part, rogati or vocati),
avoKXivea-Oe [reciimbite], e^iy^vTas [eminentioribus) , bei'nvo-
kXtjtmp [invitator caenae), eu Kara) x'^P^'- [adhuc infra accede),
rJTTova TOTTOV [loco inferiori), T\TTmv [inferior), a-vvaye eTi avoi
[collige adhuc superitis). These Latin expressions are taken
from one or other of the twelve Old Latin MSS. Outside of
the Latin, the Curetonian is the sole ally, the Lewis being
mutilated, ofthe flighty Old Uncial under consideration.
These passages are surely enough to represent to the
reader the interpolations of Codex D, whether arising from
assimilation or otherwise. The description given by the
very learned editor of this MS. is in the following words : —
'No known manuscript contains so many bold and exten
sive interpolations (six hundred, it is said, in the Acts
alone), countenanced, where they are not absolutely un
supported, chiefly by the Old Latin and the Curetonian
version^.' II. There are also traces of extreme licentiousness in this
copy of the Gospels which call for distinct notice. Some
times words or expressions are substituted : sometimes the
sense is changed, and utter confusion introduced : delicate
terms or forms are ignored : and a general corruption
ensues. I mean for example such expressions as the following,
which are all found in the course of a single verse (St. Mark
iv. i).
St. Mark relates that once when our Saviour was
teaching ' by the sea-side ' [irapd) there assembled so vast
a concourse of persons that ' He went into the ship, and
' Scrivener's Introduction, I. 130 (4th ed.). The reader will recollect the
suggestion given above in Chapter VII that some of these corruptions may
ha.ve come from the earliest times before the four Gospels were written. The
interpolation just noticed may very well have been such a survival.
N a

l8o THE OLD UNCIALS.
sat in the sea,' all the multitude being 'on the land,
towards the sea ' : i.e. with their faces turned in the
direction of the ship in which He was sitting. Was
a plain story ever better told?
But according to D the facts of the case were quite
different. First, it was our Saviour who was teaching
' towards the sea ' [-rrpos). Next, in consequence of the
crowd. He crossed over, and ' sat on the other side of the
sea' [Ttepav). Lastly, the multitude — followed Him, I sup
pose ; for they also — ' were on the other side of the sea '
[irepav). . . Now I forgive the scribe for his two transposi
tions and his ungrammatical substitution of 6 Xaos ior oxXos.
But I insist that a MS. which circulates incidents after
this fashion cannot be regarded as trustworthy. Verse 2
begins in the same licentious way. Instead of, — ' And He
taught them many things [troXXd) in parables,' we are in
formed that ' He taught them in many parables' [iroXXals).
Who will say that we are ever safe with such a guide ?
§3.
All are aware that the two Evangelical accounts of our
Lord's human descent exhibit certain distinctive features.
St. Matthew distributes the 42 names in ' the book of the
generations of jESUS Christ, the son of David, the son
of Abraham,' into three fourteens ; and requires us to
recognize in the 'lexovCas of ver. 1 1 a different person (viz.
Jehoiakim) from the 'lexovCas of ver. 12 (viz. Jehoiachin).
Moreover, in order to produce this symmetry of arrange
ment, he leaves out the names of 3 kings, — Ahaziah, Joash,
Amaziah : and omits at least 9 generations of Zorobabel's
descendants 1. The mystical coixespondence between the
42 steps in our Saviour's human descent from Abraham,
and the 42 stations ofthe Israelites on their way to Canaan ^
' The number ofthe generations in St. Luke's Gospel is 18.
' Num. xxxiii. coll. xxi. 18, 19 and Deut. a. 6, 7.

CODEX D. l8l
has been often remarked upon. It extends to the fact
that the stations also were, historically, far more than 42.
And so much for what is contained in St. Matthew's
Gospel. St. Luke, who enumerates the 77 steps of his genealogy
in backward order, derives the descent of ' jESUS, the son
of Joseph ' from ' Adam, the son of GOD.' He traces our
Lord's descent from David and again from Zorobabel
through a different line of ancestry from that adopted by
St. Matthew. He introduces a second ' Cainan ' between
Arphaxad and Sala (ver. 35, 36). The only names which
the two tables of descent have in common are these five, —
David, Salathiel, Zorobabel, Joseph, jESUS.
But Cod. D— (from which the first chapter of St. Matthew's
Gospel has long since disappeared) — in St. Luke iii. exhibits
a purely fabricated table of descent. To put one name for
another, — as when A writes ' Shem ' instead of Seth : to
misspell a name until it ceases to be recognizable, — as when
N writes ' Balls ' for Boaz : to turn one name into two by
cutting it in half, — as where {'^ writes ' Admin ' and ' Adam '
instead of Aminadab : or again, in defiance of authority,
to leave a name out, — as when A omits Mainan and Pharez ;
or to put a name in, — as when Verona Lat. (b) inserts
' Joaram ' after Aram : — with all such instances of licence
the ' old Uncials ' have made us abundantly famihar. But
we are not prepared to find that in place of the first 18
names which follow those of 'jESUS' and 'Joseph' in
St. Luke's genealogy (viz. Heli to Rhesa inclusive), D in
troduces the 9 immediate ancestors of Joseph (viz. Abiud
to Jacob) as enumerated by St. Matthew, — thus abbreviating
St. Luke's genealogy by 9 names. Next, — ' Zorobabel '
and ' Salathiel ' being common to both genealogies, — in
place of the ao names found in St. Luke between Salathiel
and David (viz. Neri to Nathan inclusive), Cod. D presents
us with the 15 royal descendants of David enumerated by

l82 THE OLD UNCIALS.
St. Matthew (viz. Solomon to Jehoiachin ^ inclusive) ; —
infelicitously inventing an imaginary generation, by styling
Jehoiakim 'the son of Eliakim,' — being not aware that
' Jehoiakim ' and ' Eliakim ' are one and the same person :
and, in defiance of the first Evangelist, supplying the names
of the 3 kings omitted by St. Matthew (i. 8), viz. Ahaziah,
Joash, and Amaziah. Only 34 names follow in Cod. D ;
the second ' Cainan ' being omitted. In this way, the
number of St. Luke's names is reduced from 77 to 66.
A more flagrant instance of that licentious handling of
the deposit which was a common phenomenon in Western
Christendom is seldom to be met with^. This particular
fabrication is happily the peculiar property of Cod. D ; and
we are tempted to ask, whether it assists in recommend
ing that singular monument of injudicious and arbitrary
textual revision to the favour of one of the inodern schools
of Critics.
We repeat that the ill treatment which the deposit has
experienced at the hands of those who fabricated the text
of Cod. D is only to be understood by those who will be
'¦ Note, that whereas the 'lexovias of St. Matt. i. ii \s Jehoiakim, and the
'\exovias of ver. 1 2, Jehoiachin, — Cod. D writes them respectively laiaxeip and
lexovias. ^ Cureton's Syriac is tlie only known copy of the Gospels in which the three
omitted kings are found in St. Matthew's Gospel : which, I suppose, explains
why the learned editor of that document flattered himself that he had therein
discovered the lost original of St. Matthew's Gospel. Cureton (Pref, p. viii)
shews that in other quarters also (e. g. by Mar Yakub the Persian, usually
known as Aphraates) 63 generations were reckoned from Adam to Jesus
exclusive ; that number being obtained by adding 24 of St. Matthew's
names and 33 of St. Luke's to the 3 names common to both Evangelists
(viz. David, Salathiel, and Zorobabel) ; and to these, adding the 3 omitted
kings. The testimony of MSS. is not altogether uniform in regard to the number of
names in the Genealogy. In the Textus Receptus (including our Saviour's
name and the name of the Divine Author of Adam's being) the number of
the names is 77. So Basil made it ; so Greg. Naz. and his namesake of Nyssa ;
so Jerome and Augustine.

codex d. 183
at the pains to study its readings throughout. Constantly
to substitute the wrong word for the right one ; or at all
events to introduce a less significant expression : on count
less occasions to mar the details of some precious incident ;
and to obscure the purpose of the Evangelist by tastelessly
and senselessly disturbing the inspired text, — this will be
found to be the rule with Cod. D throughout. As another
example added to those already cited : — In St. Luke xxii,
D omits verse 20, containing the Institution of the Cup,
evidently from a wish to correct the sacred account by
removing the second mention of the Cup from the record
of the third Evangelist.
St. Mark (xv. 43) informs us that, on the afternoon of the
first Good Friday, Joseph of Arimathaea ' taking courage
went in [elarjXOe) to Pilate and requested to have the body
(o-a)p.a) of Jesus ' : that ' Pilate wondered [eOavpLoa-ev) [at
hearing] that He was dead [riOvriKe) already: and sending
for the centurion [who had presided at the Crucifixion]
inquired of him if [jESUS] had been dead long?' (et 7raA.at
aireOave )
But the author of Cod. D, besides substituting ^went'
[rfXOev) for 'went ift,' — 'corpse' (Trrujoia) for 'body' (which
by the way he repeats in ver. 45), — and a sentiment of
' continuous wonder' [eOaiip.aCev) for the fact of astonishment
which Joseph's request in.spired, — having also substituted
the prosaic TeOv-fjKei for the graphic TeOvqKe ni the Evangelist,
— represents Pilate as inquiring of the centurion ' if [indeed
Jesus] was dead already?' (et ^6jj TeOvriKei ; si jam mortuus
esset?), whereby not only is all the refinement of the
original lost, but the facts of the case also are seriously
misrepresented. For Pilate did not doubt Joseph's tidings.
He only wondered at them. And his inquiry was made
not with a view to testing the veracity of his informant, but
for the satisfaction of his own curiosity as to the time
when his Victim had expired.

184 THE OLD UNCIALS.
Now it must not be supposed that I have fastened unfairly
on an exceptional verse and a half (St. Mark xv. half of
V. 43 and all v. 44) of the second Gospel. The reader is
requested to refet to the note ^, where he will find set down
a collation of eight consecutive verses in the selfsame
context : viz. St. Mark xv. 47 to xvi. 7 inclusive ; after an
attentive survey of which he will not be disposed to deny
that only by courtesy can such an exhibition of the original
verity as Cod. D be called ' a copy ' at all. Had the
genuine text been copied over and over again till the crack
of doom, the result could never have been this. There are
in fact but 117 words to be transcribed : and of these no
less than 67 — much more than half — have been either
omitted (21), or else added (11) ; substituted (10), or else
transposed (n); depraved (la, as by writing avareXXovTos
ior avaTeiXavTos), or actually blundered (a, as by writing
epxovTai ¦Tjp.iov for epxovTai. 71y.lv). Three times the construc
tion has been altered, — once indeed very seriously, for the
Angel at the sepulchre is made to personate Christ.
Lastly, five of the corrupt readings are the result of
Assimilation. Whereas the evangelist wrote Kal avaj3Xe-^jraa-ai
OeujpovaLv otl airoKeK^vXicTTaL 6 XiOos, what else but a licentious

1 fl Se Mapia (D — i/) MaySa\rivfi xai Mapia 'laia^ (D Iaxw0ov) eBeapovv (D
eBeaaavTo) iroC (D onov) TiBeTai (D TeBeiTai). Kal Siayevopevov tov oa^BaTov,
Mapia ^ MaySa\rjvri xal Mapia ¦q tou 'laxw^ov xal 2aAa)/ji; (D omits the foregoing
thirteen ¦words) (D + iropevBetaai) ¦i^ySpaaav dpajpoTa, 'iva eXBovaai CD — eKBovaai)
dKei^fiwaiv avTdv (D out. aKeiip.) xai (T> + epxopTai) Xiav (T)-\iav) npw'i r^s
(D-T7;s) liids aamaTwv (D aa$0aTOv) epxovrai (D see above) enl to pivripeiov,
dvareiXaVTOs (D avaTeWovros) Toi) ^\iov. xal eXeyov nphs eavrds (D faurous),
Ti! dnoxvX'iaei ¦fipiv (D ripiov airo/c.) Tbv KiBov ex (D o;ro) t^s B-upas roi! pvqueiov;
(D + Tjr yap fieyas aipoSpa). Kai dvaHXeipaaai Beaipovaiv (D epxov-cu xai evpi-
axovaiv) oti d-noxexiXiOTai d XiBos (D anoxexvXia pevov tov XiBov) • ^v ydp peyas
a<p6Spa. (D see above.) xal ... . eiSov veaviaxov (D veav. eiS.) xaB-qpevov . . . .
xal e^eBaperiBriaav (D eeavPrjaav). 6 Si Xeyei avTais (D «ai Xeyei avTois)
(B + oayyeXos). M^ exBap.l3eiaee (T) ^ofieiaBai) (T> + tov) 'lyaoSv C^reiTe tov
Naiaprivbv (B-tov Naf.) . . . .'iSe (D eiSeTe) 6 Toirof (D exei tottoi/ avTov) 'onov
eBrixav avTdv. dXX' (D aAA.a) uird7fTe (D + Kai) el-naTe . . . . 'oti (D + i5ou)
npodyei (D npoayai) ipds eis T^y TaXiXaiav exei avrbv (D pe) ofeaBe, xaBdis
einev (D eipTjxa) vpXv. St. Mark xv. 47 — xvi. 7.

CODEX D. 185
paraphrase is the following, — epxovrai Kat evpicTKovcriv airo-
KeKvXiap.evov tov XlOov? This is in fact a fabricated, not an
honestly transcribed text : and it cannot be too clearly
understood that such a text (more or less fabricated,
I mean) is exhibited by Codexes BKD throughout.

It is remarkable that whenever the construction is some
what harsh or obscure, D and the Latin copies are observed
freely to transpose, — to supply, — and even slightly to
paraphrase,— in order to bring out the presumed meaning
of the original. An example is furnished by St Luke
i. 6^, where the Evangelist, having related that Zacharias
wrote — ' His name is John,' adds, — ' and all wondered.
And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue,
and he spake praising GOD.' The meaning of course is that
his tongue ' was loosed.' Accordingly D actually supplies
eX^vOrj, — the Latin copies, 'resoluta est.' But D does more.
Presuming that what occasioned the 'wonder' was not so
much what Zacharias wrote on the tablet as the restored
gift of speech, it puts that clause first, — ingeniously trans
posing the first two words (irapaxprj^a Kat) ; the result of
which is the following sentence: — 'And immediately his
tongue was loosed ; and all wondered. And his mouth was
opened, and he spake praising GOD'  In the next
verse it is related that ' fear came upon all who dwelt round
about them.' But the order of the words in the original
being unusual (koI eyeveTO eut TravTas cj)6l3os tovs TrepioLKovvTas
avTo^vs), D and the Latin copies transpose them : (indeed
the three Syriac do the same) : but D b c gratuitously in
troduce an epithet, — Kat eyeveTo ^o^os p,eyas em navTas tovs
nrepioiKovvTas avTuv  In ver. 70, the expression
tS)v air' albivos iTpocl)i^T&v a-vTov appearing harsh was (by
transposing the words) altered into this, which is the easy

l86 THE OLD UNCIALS.
and more obvious order : 'npo(^r\T(xiv avTov tuiv air' aimvos 
So again in ver. 71 : the phrase aoiT^qpiav e^ kxOp5>v seeming
obscure, the words 6k x^Vo's (which follow) were by D
substituted for ef. The result [awT-qpiav eK xetp^y exOpSiv
rjp.&v [compare ver. 74], koI ¦ndvTwv t&v pnao-vvToov rjpias) is
certainly easier reading : but — like every other change
found in the same context — it labours under the fatal
condemnation of being an unauthorized human gloss.
The phenomenon however which perplexes me most in
Cod. D is that it abounds in fabricated readings which
have nothing whatever to recommend them. Not con
tented with St. Luke's expression ' to thrust out a little
[oXiyov) from the land ' (v. 3), the scribe writes ocrov ocrov.
In ver. 5. instead of ' I will let down the net ' [xaXdoM t6
biKTvov) he makes St. Peter reply, ' I will not neglect
to obey ' [ov p,r] ¦jTapaKOva-op.ai). So, for ' and when they had
this done,' he writes 'and when they had straightway let
down the nets ' : and immediately after, instead of bieppi]-
yvvTo be to biKTVov avT&v we are presented with coore ra
6tKrva p-r}arcreo-9ai. It is very difficult to account for this,
except on an hypothesis which I confess recommends itself
to me more and more : viz. that there were in circulation in
some places during the earliest ages of the Church Evan
gelical paraphrases, or at least free exhibitions of the chief
Gospel incidents, — to which the critics resorted ; and from
which the less judicious did not hesitate to borrow
expressions and even occasionally to extract short passages.
Such loose representations of passages must have prevailed
both in Syria, and in the West where Greek was not so
well understood, and where translators into the vernacular
Latin expressed themselves with less precision, whilst they
attempted also to explain the passages translated.
This notion, viz. that it is within the province of a Copyist
to interpret the original before him, clearly lies at the root
of many a so-called ' various reading.'

CODEX D. 187
Thus for the difficult einjiaXbiv hXaie (in St. Mark xiv. 7a),
'when he thought thereon' (i.e. 'when in self-abandon
ment he flung himself upon the thought '), ' he wept,' D
exhibits Kat fip^aTo nXaieiv, ' and he began to weep,' a much
easier and a very natural expression, only that it is not
the right one, and does not express all that the true words
convey. Hence also the transposition by D and some Old
Latin MSS. of the clause ¦^v -yap p.eyas o-cjbo'Spa ' for it was
very great ' from xvi. 4, where it seems to be out of place,
to ver. 3 where it seems to be necessary. Eusebius is
observed to have employed a MS. similarly corrupt.
Hence again the frequent unauthorized insertion of
a nominative case to determine the sense: e.g. 6 ciyyeAos
'the angel,' xvi. 6, 6 8e 'lajo-?;^ 'Joseph,' xv. 46, or the sub
stitution of the name intended for the pronoun, — as rrj?
EXicra^eb (sic) for avTrjs in St. Luke i. 41.
Hence in xvi. 7, instead of, ' He goeth before you into
Galilee, there shall ye see Him as He said unto you,' —
D exhibits, — ' Behold, I go before you into Galilee, there
shall ye see Me, as I told you.' As if it had been thought
allowable to recall in this place the fact that our SAVIOUR
had once (St. Matt. xxvi. 32, St. Mark xiv. a8) spoken these
words in His own person.
And in no other way can I explain D's vapid substi
tution, made as if from habit, of "a Galilean city' for
' a city of Galilee, named Nazareth ' in St. Luke i. 26.
Hence the frequent insertion of a wholly manufactured
clause in order to impart a little more clearness to the
story — as of the words to 6vop.a avTov ' his name ' (after
KX7]0ria-eTaL ' shall be called ') — into St. Luke i. 60.
These passages afford expressions of a feature in this
Manuscript to which we must again invite particular
attention. It reveals to close observation frequent indica
tions of an attempt, not to supply a faithful representation
of the very words of Holy Scripture and nothing more

l88 THE OLD UNCIALS.
than those words, but to interpret, to illustrate, — in
a word, — to be a Targum. Of course, such a design or
tendency is absolutely fatal to the accuracy of a transcriber.
Yet the habit is too strongly marked upon the pages of
Codex D to admit of any doubt whether it existed or not^.
In speaking of the character of a MS. one is often con
strained to distinguish between the readings and the scribe.
The readings may be clearly fabricated : but there may be
evidence that the cop3'ist was an accurate and painstaking
person. On the other hand, obviously the scribe may have
been a considerable blunderer, and yet it may be clear that
he was furnished with an admirable archetype. In the
case of D we are presented with the alarming concurrence
of a fabricated archetype and either a blundering scribe, or
a course of blundering scribes.
But then further, — One is often obliged (if one would be
accurate) to distinguish between the penman who actually
produced the MS., and the critical reader for whom he
toiled. It would really seem however as if the actual
transcriber of D, or the transcribers of the ancestors of D,
had invented some of those monstrous readings as they went
on. The Latin version which is found in this MS. exactly
reflects, as a rule, the Greek on the opposite page : but
sometimes it bears witness to the admitted truth of Scrip
ture, while the Greek goes off" in alia omnia ^.
§ 6.
It will of course be asked, — But why may not D be in
every respect an exact copy, — line for line, word for word,
letter for letter, — of some earlier archetype? To establish
' So for example at the end of the same passage in St. Luke, the difficult
avTti 71 dnoypa(pri npuTrj eyeveTo (ii. 2) becomes gutt; eyeveTO anoypa<pri npcoTrj ;
enXriaSrianv is changed into the simpler ereXfaBrjaav ; cpo/Sos peyas (ii. 9) after
etjio^riBTiaav into a<)ioSpa ; xai (ii. 10) is inserted before navTl Ta XaS.
'' Yet not unfrequently the Greek is unique in its extravagance, e.g. Acts v. 8 ;
xiii. 14; xxi. 28, 29.

CODEX D. 189
the reverse of this, so as to put the result beyond the reach
of controversy, is impossible. The question depends upon
reasons purely critical, and is not of primary importance.
For all practical purposes, it is still Codex D of which
we speak. When I name ' Codex D ' I mean of course
nothing else but Codex D according to Scrivener's reprint
of the text. And if it be a true hypothesis that the actual
Codex D is nothing else but the transcript of another
Codex strictly identical with itself, then it is clearly
a matter of small importance of which of the two I speak.
When ' Codex D ' is cited, it is the contents of Codex D
which are meant, and no other thing.
And upon this point it may be observed, that D is chiefiy
remarkable as being the only Greek Codex ^ which exhibits
the highly corrupt text found in some of the Old Latin
manuscripts, and may be taken as a survival from the
second century.
The genius of this family of copies is found to have
been — •
I. To substitute one expression for another, and generally
to paraphrase.
a. To remove difficulties, and where a difficult expres
sion presented itself, to introduce a conjectural emendation
of the text. For example, the passage already noticed
about the Publican going down to his house 'justified
rather than theother' is altered into 'justified more than
that Pharisee ' [p.aXXov irap eKeivov tov 't'apiaaiov. St. Luke
xviii. 14)^.
3. To omit what might seem to be superfluous. Thus
the verse, ' Lord, he hath ten pounds ' (St. Luke xix. 25)
is simply left out^-
Enough has been surely said to prove amply that the
text of Codex D is utterly untrustworthy. Indeed, the
'¦ Cureton's Syriac is closely allied to D, and the Lewis Codex less so.
' See b c e f ff M 1 q Vulg. ' So b e g^ Curetonian, Lewis.

igo THE OLD UNCIALS.
habit of interpolation found in it, the constant tendency to
explain rather than to report, the licentiousness exhibited
throughout, and the isolation in which this MS. is found,
except in cases where some of the Low- Latin Versions and
Cureton's Syriac, and perhaps the Lewis, bear it company,
render the text found in it the foulest in existence.
What then is to be thought of those critics who upon the
exclusive authority of this unstable offender and of a few
of the Italic copies occasionally allied with it, endeavour
to introduce changes in face of the opposition of all other
authorities ? And since their ability is unquestioned, must
we not seek for the causes of their singular action in the
theory to which they are devoted ?
§ 7.
Before we take leave of the Old Uncials, it will be well
to invite attention to a characteristic feature in them, which
is just what the reader would expect who has attended to
all that has been said, and which adds confirmation to the
doctrine here propounded.
The clumsy and tasteless character of some at least of
the Old Uncials has come already under observation. This
was in great measure produced by constantly rubbing off
delicate expressions which add both to the meaning and
the symmetry of the Sacred Record. We proceed to give
a few exafnples, not to prove our position, since it must
surely be evident enough to the eyes of any accomplished
scholar, but as specimens, and only specimens, of the loss
which the Inspired Word would sustain if the Old Uncials
were to be followed. Space will not admit of a full discus
sion of this matter.
An interesting refinement of expression, which has been
hopelessly obscured through the proclivity of NBD to fall
into error, is found in St. Matt. xxvi. 71. The Evangelist
describing the second of St. Peter's denials notes that the

DELICATE POINTS RUBBED OFF. I91
damsel who saw him said to the bystanders, ' This man
too {Kai) was with Jesus of Nazareth.' The three MSS.
just mentioned omit the Kat. No other MS., Uncial or
Cursive, follows them. They have only the support of the
unstable Sahidic ^. The loss inflicted is patent : comment
is needless. Another instance, where poverty of meaning would be
the obvious result if the acceptance by some critics of the
lead of the same trio of Uncials were endorsed, may be
found in the description of what the shepherds did when
they had seen the Holy Child in the manger. Instead of
' they made known abroad ' [bt,eyv(ipi.a-av), we should simply
have ' they made known ' {eyvcipicrav). We are inclined to
say, ' Why this clipping and pruning to the manifest dis
advantage of the sacred deposit.' Only the satellite L and
H and six Cursives with a single passage from Eusebius
are on the same side. The rest in overwhelming majority
condemn such rudeness ^- § 8.
The undoubtedly genuine expression Kat n's eort, Kvpie
(which is the traditional reading of St. John ix. 36), loses
its characteristic KAI in Cod, ^^*AL, — though it retains it
in the rest of the uncials and in all the cursives. The Kat
is found in the Complutensian, — because the editors fol
lowed their copies : it is not found in the Textus Receptus
only because Erasmus did not as in cases before mentioned
follow his. The same refinement of expression recurs in
the Traditional Text of ch. xiv. 2a (Kvpte, KAi rt yeyovev),
' St. Chrysostom (vii. 84. d), Origen (iii. 902. d int.), Victor of Antioch (335)
insert the xai.
^ So too dvaxeipevovs (BCLA. 42) for avvavaxeipivovs (St. Mark vi. 26) :
omit Si (XBC*LA. six curs.) in xal dXXa Sl nXoia (iv. 36) : eyeipovaiv (XB*C*An.
few curs.) for Sieyeipovaiv (iv. 38) : eBijxev (XBC^DL. few curs,) for xaTeB-qxev
(xv. 46): peyo-Xa (N*«"'BD*L) for peyaXeta (St. Luke i. 49): dvaneaaiv
(X"BC*KLXn'* few curs.) for emneaiiv (St. John xiii. 25) : &c., cScc.

192 THE OLD UNCIALS.
and experienced precisely the same fate at the hands of the
two earliest editors of the printed Greek Text. It is also
again faithfully upheld in its integrity by the whole body
of the cursives, — always excepting ' 33.' But (as before)
in uncials of bad character, as BDL (even by AEX) the
Kai is omitted, — for which insufficient reason it has been
omitted by the Revisers likewise, — notwithstanding the
fact that it is maintained in all the other uncials. As is
manifest in most of these instances, the Versions, being
made into languages with other idioms than Greek, can
bear no witness ; and also that these delicate embellish
ments would be often brushed off" in quotations, as well as
by scribes and so-called correctors.
We have not far to look for other instances of this.
St. Matthew (i. 18) begins his narrative, — p.vt]a-TevOei(rr]s FA^P
Tris \j.r\Tpos aiiTov Mapias tio 'Itocr?;^. Now, as readers of
Greek are aware, the little untranslated (because untrans-
lateable) word exhibited in capitals^ stands with peculiar
idiomatic force and propriety immediately after the first
word of such a sentence as the foregoing, being employed
in compliance with strictly classical usage ^ : and though it
might easily come to be omitted through the carelessness
or the licentiousness of copyists, yet it could not by any
possibility have universally established itself in copies of
the Gospel — as it has done — had it been an unauthorized
accretion to the text. We find it recognized in St. Matt. i.
18 by Eusebius^, by Basil*, by Epiphanius^, by Chrysos
tom^, by Nestorius'', by Cyril^ by Andreas Cret. ^ : which
is even extraordinary ; for the yap is not at all required for
purposes of quotation. But the essential circumstance as
'¦ Owing to differences of idiom in other languages, it is not represented here
in so much as a single ancient Version.
" ' Est enim toS TAP ojicium inchoare narrationem.' Hoogeveen, De Partie.
Cf Prom. Vinct. v. 666. See also St. Luke ix. 44.
^ Dem. Ev. 320 b. * ii. 597 : 278. ° i. 1040 b.
' viii. 314a: (Eclog.) xii. 694 d. ' Ap. Cyril, v''. 28 a.
' v'. 6766. '30 b ( = Gall. xiii. 109 d).

CODEX D. 193
usual is, that ydp is found besides in the whole body of the
manuscripts. The only uncials in fact which omit the
idiomatic particle are four of older date, viz. B{<C*Z.
This same particle {yap) has led to an extraordinary
amount of confusion in another place, where its idiomatic
propriety has evidently been neither felt nor understood, —
viz. in St. Luke xviii. 14. 'This man' (says our Lord)
' went down to his house justified rather than ' (^ ydp) ' the
other.' Scholars recognize here an exquisitely idiomatic
expression, which in fact obtains so universally in the
Traditional Text that its genuineness is altogether above
suspicion. It is vouched for by 16 uncials headed by A,
and by the cursives in the proportion of 500 to i. The
Complutensian has it, of course : and so would the Textus
Receptus have it, if Erasmus had followed his MS. : but
'praefero ' (he says) ' quod est usitatius apud probes autores.'
Uncongenial as the expression is to the other languages of
antiquity, r\ yap is faithfully retained in the Gothic and in
the Harkleian Version ^ Partly however, because it is of
very rare occurrence and was therefore not understood ^,
and partly because when written in uncials it easily got
perverted into something else, the expression has met with
a strange fate. HTAP is found to have suggested, or else
to have been mistaken for, both HTTEP = and YITEP *• The
prevailing expedient however was, to get rid of the H, — to
turn TAP into TTAP, — and, for sKetws to write eKetz'oi;^. The
'¦ So, in Gamier's MSS. of Basil ii. 278 a, note. Also in Cyril apud Mai
ii. 378.
^ So Mill, Pro/eg^. 1346 and 1363. — Beza says roundly, ' Quod plerique
Graeci codices scriptum habent ^ ydp exeivos, sane non inteUigo ; nisi dicam
ydp redundare.'
^ I'/irip exeivos is exhibited by the printed text of Basil ii. 278 a.
* vnip avrdv is found in Basil ii. 160b: — iinip exeivov, in Dorotheus (a.D. 596)
ap. Galland. xii. 403d: — i^nip Tdv ^apaaiov, in Chrysostom iv. 536 a; vi. 142 d —
(where one of the Manuscripts exhibits napd tov ^apiaaiov). — Nilus the Monk
has the same reading (vnip Tdv ^apiacuov), — i. 280.
^ Accordingly, nap' iKcri/ox is found in Origen i. 490 b. So also reads the author
O

194 THE OLD UNCIALS.
uncials which exhibit this strange corruption of the text
are exclusively that quaternion which have already come
so often before us, — viz. BNDL. But D improves upon
the blunder of its predecessors by writing, like a Targum,
/LtaAXoK TTAP' alKelvov (sic), and by adding (with the Old
Latin and the Peshitto) tov 4)ap to-atoy,— an exhibition of the
text which (it is needless to say) is perfectly unique'.
And how has the place fared at the hands of some
Textual critics? Lachmann and Tregelles (forsaken by
Tischendorf) of course follow Codd. BNDL. The Revisers
(with Dr. Hort) — not liking to follow BNDL, and unable
to adopt the Traditional Text, suffer the reading of the
Textus Receptus (^ eKeivos) to stand, — though a solitary
cursive (Evan, i) is all the manuscript authority that can
be adduced in its favour. In effect, r) eKeivos may be said to
be without manuscript authority ^-
The point to be noticed in all this is, that the true read
ing of St. Luke xviii. 14 has been faithfully retained by the
MSS. in all countries and all down the ages, not only by
the whole body of the cursives, but by every uncial in
existence except four. And those four are BNDL.
But really the occasions are without number when
minute words have dropped out of KB and their allies, —
and yet have been faithfully retained, all through the
centuries, by the later Uncials and despised Cursive copies.
In St. John xvii. a, for instance we read — bo^aaov aov tov
of the scholium in Cramer's Cat. ii. 133, — which is the same which Matthaei
(in loc.) quotes ont of Evan. 256. And so Cyril (ap. Mai, ii. 180), — nap' exeivov
tUv ^apiaaiov. — Euthymius (A.D. 1116), commenting on the traditional text
of Luke xviii. 14 (see Matthaei's Praefat. i. 177), says TIAP 8 exeivos ^70ui/ oiix
exeivos. ^ The pdXXov is obviously added by way of interpretation, or to help out the
meaning. Thus, in Origen (iv. 1 24 d) we meet with pdXXov avToii : — in
Chrysostom (i. 151 c), pdXXov vnip tov ^aptaatov : and in Basil Sel. (p. 184 c),
pdXXov ij & ^apiaaios.
" It is found however in ps.- Chrysostom (viii. 119 c): — in Antiochus Mon.
(p. 1102 = ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 1579 c) : and in Theophylact (i. 433 c). At
p. 435 b, the last-named writes ^ exeivos, dvH toC TIAP' & exeliios.

CODEX D. 195
vlov, tva KAI' 6 vlo^ COY bo^da^rj ae : where Kat is omitted by
NABCD : and aov (after 6 vlos) by NBC. Some critics
will of course insist that, on the contrary, both words are
spurious accretions to the text of the cursives ; and they
must say so, if they will. But does it not sensibly impair
their confidence in K to find that it, and it only, exhibits
XeXdXrjKev (for eXdXrjaev) in ver. I, — bdao) avT& (for bdarj
aiiTois) in ver. 2, while UB are peculiar in writing 'Ir/aovs
without the article in ver. 1 ?
Enough has surely been said to exhibit and illustrate
this rude characteristic of the few Old Copies which out
of the vast number of their contemporaries are all that
we now possess. The existence of this characteristic is
indubitable and undoubted : it is in a measure acknow
ledged by Dr. Hort in words on which we shall remark
in the ensuing chapter^ Our readers should observe
that the ' rubbing off" process has by no means been
confined to particles like Kai and ydp, but has extended
to tenses, other forms of words, and in fact to all kinds
of delicacies of expression. The results have been found
all through the Gospels : sacred and refined meaning, such
as accomplished scholars will appreciate in a moment,
has been pared off" and cast away. If people would
only examine B, N and D in their bare unpresentableness,
they would see the loss which those MSS. have sustained,
as compared with the Text supported by the overwhelming
mass of authorities : and they would refuse to put their trust
any longer in such imperfect, rudimentary, and ill-trained
guides. ' Introduction, p. 135.

O 2

CHAPTER XL
THE LATER UNCIALS AND THE CURSIVES.
The nature of Tradition is very imperfectly understood
in many quarters ; and mistakes respecting it lie close to
the root, if they are not themselves the root, of the chief
errors in Textual Criticism. We must therefore devote
some space to a brief explanation of this important element
in our present inquiry.
Tradition is commonly likened to a stream which, as is
taken for granted, contracts pollution in its course the further
it goes. Purity is supposed to be attainable only within
the neighbourhood of the source: and it is assumed that
distance from thence ensures proportionally either greater
purity or more corruption.
Without doubt there is much truth in this comparison :
only, as in the case of nearly all comparisons there are
limits to the resemblance, and other features and aspects
are not therein connoted, which are essentially bound up
with the subject believed to be illustrated on all points in
this similitude.
In the first place, the traditional presentment of the
New Testament is not like a single stream, but resembles
rather a great number of streams of which many have
1 For all this section except the early part of ' 4 ' the Editor is responsible.

TRADITION. 197
remained pure, but some have been corrupted. One
cluster of bad streams was found in the West, and, as is
most probable, the source of very many of them was in
Syria : another occurred in the East with Alexandria and
afterwards Caesarea as the centre, where it was joined by
the currents from the West. A multitude in different parts
of the Church were kept wholly or mainly clear of these
contaminants, and preserved the pure and precise utterance
as it issued from the springs of the Written Word.
But there is another pitfall hidden under that imperfect
simile which is continually employed on this subject either
by word of mouth or in writing. The Tradition of the
Church does not take shape after the model of a stream or
streams rolling in mechanical movement and unvaried flow
from the fountain down the valley and over the plain.
Like most mundane things, it has a career. It has passed
through a stage when one manuscript was copied as if
mechanically from another that happened to be at hand.
Thus accuracy except under human infirmity produced
accuracy ; and error was surely procreative of error. After
wards came a period when both bad and good exemplars
offered themselves in rivalry, and the power of refusing the
evil and choosing the good was in exercise, often with much
want of success. As soon as this stage was accomplished,
which may be said roughly to have reached from Origen
till the middle of the fourth century, another period com
menced, when a definite course was adopted, which was
followed with increasing advantage till the whole career
was fixed irrevocably in the right direction. The period of
the two Gregories, Basil, Chrysostom, and others, was the
time when the Catholic Church took stock of truth and
corruption, and had in hand the duty of thoroughly casting
out error and cleansing her faith. The second part of the
Creed was thus permanently defined ; the third part which,
besides the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, relates to His action

198 THE LATER UNCIALS AND THE CURSIVES.
in the Church, to the Written Word, inclusive both of
the several books generally and the text of those books, to
the nature of the Sacraments, to the Ministry, to the
character of the unity and government of the Church, was
on many points delayed as to special definition by the ruin
soon dealt upon the Roman Empire, and by the ignorance
of the nations which entered upon that vast domain : and
indeed much of this part of the Faith remains still upon
the battlefield of controversy.
But action was taken upon what may be perhaps termed
the Canon of St. Augustine': 'What the Church of the time
found prevailing throughout her length and breadth, not
introduced by regulations of Councils, but handed down
in unbroken tradition, that she rightly concluded to have
been derived from no other fount than Apostolic authority.'
To use other words, in the accomplishment of her
general work, the Church quietly and without any public
recension examined as to the written Word the various
streams that had come down from the Apostles, and
followed the multitude that were purest, and by gradual
filtration extruded out of these nearly all the corruption
that even the better lines of descent had contracted.
We have now arrived at the period, when from the
general consentience of the records, it is discovered that
the form of the Text of the New Testament was mainly
settled. The settlement was effected noiselessly, not by
public debate or in decrees of general or provincial councils,
yet none the less completely and permanently. It was the
Church's own operation, instinctive, deliberate, and in the
main universal. Only a few witnesses here and there
lifted up their voices against the prevalent decisions,
themselves to be condemned by the dominant sense of
Christendom. Like the repudiation of Arianism, it was
' See above, p. 61, note.

FALLACIES. 199
a repentance from a partial and temporary encouragement
of corruption, which was never to be repented of till it was
called in question during the general disturbance of faith
and doctrine in the nineteenth century. Doubtless, the
agreement thus introduced has not attained more than
a general character. For the exceeding number of
questions involved forbids all expectation of an universal
coincidence of testimony extending to every single case.
But in the outset, as we enter upon the consideration of
the later manuscripts, our way must be cleared by the
removal of some fallacies which are widely prevalent
amongst students of Sacred Textual Criticism.
It is sometimes imagined (i) that Uncials and Cursives
difTer in kind ; (2) that all Cursives are alike ; (3) that all
Cursives are copies of Codex A, and are the results of
a general Recension ; and (4) that we owe our knowledge
of the New Testament entirely to the existing Uncials. To
these four fallacies must be added an opinion which stands
upon a higher footing than the preceding, but which is no
less a fallacy, and which we have to combat in this chapter,
viz. that the Text of the later Uncials and especially the
Text of the Cursives is a debased Text.
I. The real difference between Uncials and Cursives is
patent to all people who have any knowledge of the
subject. Uncials form a ruder kind of manuscripts,
written in capital letters with no space between them
till the later specimens are reached, and generally with
an insufficient and ill-marked array of stops. Cursives
show a great advance in workmanship, being indited, as
the name suggests, in running and more easily flowing
letters, with ' a system of punctuation much the same as in
printed books.' As contrasted with one another. Uncials
as a class enjoy a great superiority, if antiquity is con
sidered ; and Cursives are just as much higher than the
sister class, if workmanship is to be the guiding principle

200 THE LATER UNCIALS AND THE CURSIVES.
of judgement. Their differences are on the surface, and are
such that whoso runs may read.
But Textual Science, like all Science, is concerned, not
with the superficial, but with the real ; — not with the dress
in which the text is presented, but with the text itself ; —
not again with the bare fact of antiquity, since age alone is
no sure test of excellence, but with the character of the
testimony which from the nature of the subject-matter
is within reach. Judging then the later Uncials, and
comparing them with the Cursives, we make the discovery
that the texts of both are mainly the same. Indeed,
they are divided by no strict boundary of time : they over
lap one another. The first Cursive is dated May 7, 835 ' :
the last Uncials, which are Lectionaries, are referred to the
eleventh, and possibly to the twelfth, century ^ One,
Codex A, is written partly in uncials, and partly in cursive
letters, as it appears, by the same hand. So that in the
ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries both uncials and
cursives must have issued mainly and virtually from the
same body of transcribers. It follows that the difference
lay in the outward investiture, whilst, as is found by
a comparison of one with another, there was a much more
important similarity of character within.
2. But when a leap is made from this position to another
sweeping assertion that all cursives are alike, it is necessary
to put a stop to so illicit a process. In the first place,
there is the small handful of cursive copies which is
associated with B and N. The notorious i, — handsome
outwardly like its two leaders but corrupt in text, — 33,
118, 131, 157, 205, 2093, and others;— the Ferrar Group,
containing 13, 69, 124, 346, 556, 561, besides 348, 624, 788;—
' 481 ofthe Gospels: from St. Saba, now at St. Petersburg.
2 The Evangelistaria il8, 192. Scrivener, Introduction, I. pp. 335, 340.
= Scrivener, L App. F, p. 398'*. Of these, 205 and 209 are probably from
the same original. Burgon, Letters in Guardian to Dr. Scrivener.

CHARACTER OF THE CURSIVES. 201
these are frequently dissentients from the rest of the Cur
sives. But indeed, when these and a few others have been
subtracted from the rest and set apart in a class by them
selves, any careful examination of the evidence adduced on
important passages will reveal the fact that whilst almost
always there is a clear majority of Cursives on one side,
there are amply enough cases of dissentience more or less
to prove that the Cursive MSS. are derived from a multi
plicity of archetypes, and are endued almost severally with
what may without extravagance be termed distinct and
independent personality. Indeed, such is the necessity of
the case. They are found in various countries all over
the Church. Collusion was not possible in earlier times
when intercommunication between countries was extremely
limited, and publicity was all but confined to small areas.
The genealogies of Cursive MSS., if we knew them, would
fill a volume. Their stems must have been extremely
numerous ; and like Uncials, and often independently of
Uncials, they must have gone back to the vast body of
early papyrus manuscripts.
3. And as to the Cursives having been copies of
Codex A, a moderate knowledge of the real character
of that manuscript, and a just estimate of the true value
of it, would effectually remove such a hallucination. It
is only the love of reducing all knowledge of intricate
questions to the compass of the proverbial nutshell, and
the glamour that hangs over a very old relic, which has
led people, when they had dropped their grasp of B, to
clutch at the ancient treasure in the British Museum. It is
right to concede all honour to such a survival of so early
a period : but to lift the pyramid from its ample base, and
to rest it upon a point like A, is a proceeding which hardly
requires argument for its condemnation. And next, when
the notion of a Recension is brought forward, the answer
is What and when and how and where? In the absence

202 THE LATER UNCIALS AND THE CURSIVES.
of any sign or hint of such an event in records of the past,
it is impossible to accept such an explanation of what is
no difficulty at all. History rests upon research into
documents which have descended to us, not upon imagina
tion or fiction. And the sooner people get such an idea
out of their heads as that of piling up structures upon
mere assumption, and betake themselves instead to what is
duly attested, the better it will be for a Science which
must be reared upon well authenticated bases, and not
upon phantom theories.
4. The case of the Cursives is in other respects strangely
misunderstood, or at least is strangely misrepresented.
The popular notion seems to be, that we are indebted
for our knowledge of the true text of Scripture to the
existing Uncials entirely ; and that the essence of the
secret dwells exclusively with the four or five oldest of
those Uncials. By consequence, it is popularly supposed
that since we are possessed of such Uncial Copies, we
could afford to dispense with the testimony of the Cursives
altogether. A more complete misconception of the facts
of the case can hardly be imagined. For the plain truth is
that all the phenomena exhibited by the Uncial MSS. are
reproduced by the Cursive Copies. A small minority of
the Cursives, just as a small minority of the Uncials, are
probably the depositaries of peculiar recensions.
It is at least as reasonable to assert that we can afford
entirely to disregard the testimony of tV Uncials, as
to pretend that we can afford entirely to disregard the
testimony of the Cursives. In fact of the two, the former
assertion would be a vast deal nearer to the truth. Our
inductions would in many cases be so fatally narrowed, if
we might not look beyond one little handful of Uncial
Copies. But the point to which the reader's attention is specially
invited is this: — that so far from our being entirely

SIMILARITY TO UNCIALS. 203
dependent on Codexes B{<CD, or on some of them,
for certain of the most approved corrections of the
Received Text, we should have been just as fully aware of
every one of those readings if neither B nor N, C nor D,
had been in existence. Those readings are every one to
be found in one or more of the few Cursive Codexes which
rank by themselves, viz. the two groups just mentioned
and perhaps some others. If they are not, they may be
safely disregarded ; they are readings which have received
no subsequent recognition '.
Indeed, the case of the Cursives presents an exact
parallel with the case of the Uncials. Whenever we
observe a formal consensus of the Cursives for any reading,
there, almost invariably, is a grand consensus observable
for the same reading of the Uncials.
The era of greater perfection both in the outer present
ment and in the internal accuracy of the text of copies of
the New Testament may be said, as far as the relics which
have descended to us are concerned, to have commenced
with the Codex Basiliensis or E of the Gospels. This
beautiful and generally accurate Codex must have been
written in the seventh century^. The rest of the later
'¦ I am not of course asserting that any known cursive MS. is an exact
counterpart of one of the oldest extant Uncials. Nor even that every reading
however extraordinary, contained in Codd. BXD, is also to be met with in one of
the few Cursives already specified. But what then ? Neither do any of the oldest
Uncials contain all the textual avouchings discoverable in the same Cursives.
The thing asserted is only this : that, as a rule, every principal reading
discoverable in any of the five or seven oldest Uncials, is also exhibited in one
or more of the Cursives already cited or in others of them ; and that generally
when there is consent among the oldest of the Uncials, there is also consent
among about as many of the same Cursives. So that it is no exaggeration to
say that we find ourselves always concerned with the joint testimony of the
same little handful of Uncial and Cursive documents : and therefore, as was
stated at the outset, if the oldest of the Uncials had never existed, the readings
which they advocate would have been advocated by MSS. of the eleventh, twelfth,
thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries.
^ Manuscript Evangelia in foreign Libraries, Letters in the Guardian from
Dean Burgon to Dr. Scrivener, Guardian, Jan. 29, 1873. 'You will not be
dating it too early if you assign it to the seventh century.'

204 THE LATER UNCIALS AND THE CURSIVES.
Uncials are ordinarily found together in a large or
considerable majority: whilst there is enough dissent to
prove that they are independent witnesses, and that error
was condemned, not ignored. Thus the Codex Regius
(L, eighth century), preserved at Paris, generally follows B
and N : so does the Codex Sangallensis (A, ninth century),
the Irish relic of the monastery of St. Gall, in St. Mark
alone : and the Codex Zacynthius [a, an eighth century
palimpsest) now in the Library of the Bible Society, in
St. Luke^- The isolation of these few from the rest of
their own age is usually conspicuous. The verdict of the
later uncials is nearly always sustained by a large majority.
In fact, as a rule, every principal reading discoverable in
any of the oldest Uncials is also exhibited in one, two, or
three of the later Uncials, or in one or more of the small
handful of dissentient Cursives already enumerated. Except
indeed in very remarkable instances, as in the case of the
last twelve verses of St. Mark, such readings are generally
represented : yet in the later MSS. as compared with the
oldest there is this additional feature in the representation,
that if evidence is evidence, and weight, number, and
variety are taken into account, those readings are altogether
condemned. § 2\
But we are here confronted with the contention that
the text of the Cursives is of a debased character. Our
opponents maintain that it is such that it must have been
compounded from other forms of text by a process of con-
' The other uncials which have a tendency to consort with B and X are of
earlier date. Thus T (Codex Borgianus I) of St. Luke and St. John is of the
fourth or fifth century, R of St, Luke (Codex Nitriensis in the British Museum)
is of the end of the sixth, Z of St. Matthew (Codex Dublinensis), a palimpsest,
is of the sixth : Q and P, fragments like the rest, are respectively of the fifth
and sixth.
- By the Editor.

EXCELLENCE OF THE CURSIVE TEXT. 205
flation so called, and that in itself it is a text of a character
greatly inferior to the text mainly represented by B and K.
Now in combating this opinion, we are bound first to
remark that the burden of proof rests with the opposite
side. According to the laws which regulate scientific
conclusions, all the elements of proof must be taken into
consideration. Nothing deserves the name of science in
which the calculation does not include all the phenomena.
The base of the building must be conterminous with the
facts. This is so elementary a principle that it seems
needless to insist more upon it.
But then, this is exactly what we endeavour to accom
plish, and our adversaries disregard. Of course they have
their reasons for dismissing nineteen-twentieths of the
evidence at hand : but — this is the point — it rests with
them to prove that such dismissal is lawful and right.
What then are their arguments? Mainly three, viz. the
supposed greater antiquity of their favourite text, the
superiority which they claim for its character, and the
evidence that the Traditional Text was as they maintain
formed by conflation from texts previously in existence.
Of these three arguments, that from antiquity has been
already disposed of, and illustration of what has been already
advanced will also be at hand throughout the sequel of this
work. As to conflation, a proof against its possible applic
ability to the Traditional Text was supplied as to particles
and other words in the last chapter, and will receive illustra
tion from instances of words of a greater size in this. Con
flation might be possible, supposing for a moment that other
conditions favoured it, and that the elements to be conflated
were already in existence in other texts. But inasmuch
as in the majority of instances such elements are found
nowhere else than in the Traditional Text, conflation as
accounting for the changes which upon this theory must
have been made is simply impossible. On the other hand.

2o6 THE LATER UNCIALS AND THE CURSIVES.
the Traditional Text might have been very easily chipped
and broken and corrupted, as will be shewn in the second
part of this Treatise, into the form exhibited by B and N^
Upon the third argument in the general contention, we
undertake to say that it is totally without foundation. On
the contrary, the text of the Cursives is greatly the superior
of the two. The instances which we proceed to give as
specimens, and as specimens only, will exhibit the propriety
of language, and the taste of expression, in which it is pre
eminent^. Let our readers judge fairly and candidly, as we
doubt not that they will, and we do not fear the result.
But before entering upon the character of the later text,
a few words are required to remind our readers of the
effect of the general argument as hitherto stated upon this
question. The text of the later Uncials is the text to
which witness is borne, not only by the majority of the
Uncials, but also by the Cursives and the Versions and
the Fathers, each in greater numbers. Again, the text of
the Cursives enjoys unquestionably the support of by very
far the largest number among themselves, and also of the
Uncials and Versions and Fathers. Accordingly, the text
of which we are now treating, which is that of the later
Uncials and the Cursives combined, is incomparably
superior under all the external Notes of Truth. It pos
sesses in nearly all cases older attestation ^ : there is no sort
of question as to the greater number of witnesses that bear
evidence to its claims : nor to their variety : and hardly
ever to the explicit proof of their continuousness ; which
indeed is also generally— nay, universally — implied owing
to the nature of the case : their weight is certified upon
strong grounds : and as a matter of fact, the context in
nearly all instances testifies on their side. The course of
doctrine pursued in the history of the Universal Church is
' Above, pp, 80-81. ^ Hort, Introduction, p. 135.
¦' Chapters V, VI, VII.

CURSIVE TEXT. 207
immeasurably in their favour. We have now therefore only
to consider whether their text, as compared with that of
B{<D and their allies, comm.ends itself on the score of
intrinsic excellence. And as to this consideration, if as has
been manifested the text of B-N, and that of D, are bad,
and have been shewn to be the inferior, this must be
the better. We may now proceed to some specimen in
stances exhibiting the superiority of the Later Uncial and
Cursive text.
§3.
Our Saviour's lament over Jerusalem (' If thou hadst
known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which
belong unto thy peace!') is just one of those delicately
articulated passages which are safe to suffer by the process
of transmission. Survey St. Luke's words (xix. 42), Et eyvois
Kal av, Kal, ye ev t-tj rip.epa aov Ta'VTji, to. ¦wpos elp-fjvriv aov, — and
you will perceive at a glance that the vulnerable point in
the sentence, so to speak, is Kat av, Kai ye. In the mean
while, attested as those words are by the Old Latin ^ and by
Eusebius^, as well as witnessed to by the whole body of the
copies beginning with Cod. A and including the lost original
of 13-69-134-346 &c., — the very order of those words
is a thing quite above suspicion. Even Tischendorf admits
this. He retains the traditional reading in every respect.
Eusebius however twice writes Kai. ye av^; once, Kai av ye^;
and once he drops Kat ye entirely^. Origen drops it 3 times".
Still, there is at least a general consensus among Copies,
Versions and Fathers for beginning the sentence with the
characteristic words, et eyvois koX av ; the phrase being
^ Vercell. : — Si scires tu, quamquam in hac tud die, quae ad pacem tuam.
So Amiat. and Aur. : — Si cognovisses et tu, et quidem m hdc die tud, quae ad
pcuem tibi.
2 Mai, iv. 1 29. ^ Ibid., and H. E. iii. 7.
* Montf. ii. 470. ° Montf. i. 700.
* iii. 321; interp. g77 ; iv. iSo,

2o8 THE LATER UNCIALS AND THE CURSIVES.
witnessed to by the Latin, the Bohairic, the Gothic, and
the Harkleian Versions ; by Irenaeus^, — by Origen'', —
by ps.-Tatian^, — by Eusebius*, — by Basil the Great ^ — by
Basil of Seleucia", — by CyriF.
What then is found in the three remaining Uncials,
for C is defective here ? D exhibits et eyvos Kat av, ev ttj
r]p,epa raurrj, ra Trpos eiprjvriv aoi : being supported only by
the Latin of Origen in one place^. Lachmann adopts this
reading all the same. Nothing worse, it must be confessed,
has happened to it than the omission of Kai ye, and of the
former aov. But when we turn to BK, we find that they
and L, with Origen once^, and the Syriac heading prefixed
to Cyril's homilies on St. Luke's GospeP", exclusively
exhibit, — et eyv(os ev tt) rj/xepa tovty] Kai av ra irpos eiprjvrjv :
thus, not only omitting Kat ye, together with the first and
second aov, but by transposing the words koI av — ev Trj
Tjixepa Ta-oTTTj, obliterating from the passage more than half its
force and beauty. This maimed and mutilated exhibition
of our Lord's words, only because it is found in BN, is
adopted by W.-Hort, who are in turn followed by the
Revisers". The Peshitto by the way omits Kat a^v, and
transposes the two clauses which remain'^. The Curetonian
Syriac runs wild, as usual, and the Lewis too ^^
Amid all this conflict and confusion, the reader's attention
is invited to the instructive fact that the whole body of
cursive copies (and all the uncials but four) have retained
' i. 220: also the Vet. interp., ' Si cognovisses et tu.' And so ap. Epiph.
i. 264 b.
' iii. 321, 977. ^ Evan. Cone. 184, 207.
* In all 5 places. ^ Mor. ii. 272 b.
^ 205. ' Jn Luc. (Syr,) 686.
" Int. iii. 977. ' iv. 180.
1° Jn Luc. (Syr.) 607.
" In their usual high-handed way, these editors assume, without note or
comment, that BN are to be followed here. The ' Revisers ' of 188 1 do the
same. Is this to deal honestly with the evidence and with the English reader ?
^ Viz. — £1 eyvais Td npds elprjvijv aov, xai ye ev tt} ^pepa aov Ta^Tr).
^^ Viz. — ei xal ev ttJ ijpepa tootti eyvojs T-tpr eiprivriv aov.

CURSIVE TEXT. 209
in this passage all down the ages uninjured every exquisite
lineament of the inspired archetype. The truth, I say, is
to be found in the cursive copies, not in the licentious
BKDL, which as usual stand apart from one another and
from A. Only in respect of the first aov is there a slight
prevarication on the part of a very few witnesses ^. Note
however that it is overborne by the consent of the Syriac,
the Old Latin and the Gothic, and further that the testimony
of ps.-Tatian is express on this head^. There is therefore
nothing to be altered in the traditional text of St. Luke
xix. 4a, which furnishes an excellent instance of fidelity of
transmission, and of an emphatic condemnation of B-N.

§ 4.
It is the misfortune of inquiries like the present that they
sometimes constrain us to give prominence to minute
details which it is difficult to make entertaining. Let me
however seek to interest my reader in the true reading of
St. Matt. XX. a2, 23 : from which verses recent critical
Editors reject the words, ' and to be baptized with the
baptism that I am baptized with,' Kat 76 ^diTTiajxa o eyu
^aTtTi^op-ai ^aTTTiaOfjvai.
About the right of the same words to a place in the
corresponding part of St. Mark's Gospel (x. 38), there is no
difference of opinion : except that it is insisted that in
St. Mark the clause should begin with ^ instead of Kat.
Next, the reader is requested to attend to the following
circumstance : that, except of course the four (^^BDL) and
Z which omit the place altogether and one other (S), all
the Uncials together with the bulk of the Cursives, and the
' It is omitted by Eus. iv. 129, Basil ii. 272, Cod. A, Evann. 71, 511,
Evst. 222, 259. For the second aov still fewer authorities exhibit aoi : while
some few (as Irenaeus) omit it altogether.
' ' JJanc diem tuam. Si ergo dies ejus erat, quanto magis et tempus ejus ! '
p. 184, and so 207. P

2IO THE LATER UNCIALS AND THE CURSIVES.
Peshitto and Harkleian and several Latin Versions, concur
in reading rj to l3dTTTiap.a in St. Matthew : all the Uncials but
eight (NBCDLWA2), together with the bulk of the Cursives
and the Peshitto, agree in reading koi to jidi:Tiap.a in
St. Mark. This delicate distinction between the first and
the second Gospel, obliterated in the Received Text, is
faithfully maintained in nineteen out of twenty of the
Cursive Copies.
In the meantime we are assured on the authority of
NBDLZ — with most of the Latin Copies, including of
course Hilary and Jerome, the Cureton, the Lewis, and the
Bohairic, besides Epiphanius, — that the clause in question
has no right to its place in St. Matthew's Gospel. So
confidently is this opinion held, that the Revisers, following
Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, have
ejected the words from the Text. But are they right?
Certainly not, I answer. And I reason thus.
If this clause has been interpolated into St. Matthew's
Gospel, how will you possibly account for its presence in
every MS. in the world except 7, viz. 5 uncials and
2 cursives? It is pretended that it crept in by assimila
tion from the parallel place in St. Mark. But I reply, — -
I . Is this credible ? Do you not see the glaring
improbability of such an hypothesis? Why should the
Gospel most in vogue have been assimilated in all the
Copies but seven to the Gospel least familiarly known and
read in the Churches ?
2. And pra}?- when is it pretended that this wholesale
falsification of the MSS. took place ? The Peshitto Syriac
as usual sides with the bulk of the Cursives : but it has been
shewn to be of the second century. Some of the Latin
Copies also have the clause. Codex C, Chrysostom and
Basil of Seleucia also exhibit it. Surely the preponderance
of the evidence is overwhelmingly one way. But then
3. As a matter of fact the clause cannot have come

CONFIRMATORY INSTANCES. 211
in from St. Mark's Gospel, — for the very conclusive reason
that the two places are delicately discriminated. — as on the
testimony of the Cursives and the Peshitto has been shewn
already. And
4, I take upon myself to declare without fear of contra
diction on the part of any but the advocates of the popular
theory that, on the contrary, it is St. Matthew's Gospel
which has been corrupted from St. Mark's. A conclusive
note of the assimilating process is discernible in St. Mark's
Gospel where fj has intruded, — not in St. Matthew's,
5. Why St. Matthew's Gospel was maimed in tliis
place, I am not able to explain. Demonstrable it is that
the Text of the Gospels at that early period underwent
a process of Revision at the hands of men who ap
parently were as little aware of the foolishness as of
the sinfulness of all they did : and that Mutilation was
their favourite method. And, what is very remarkable,
the same kind of infatuation which is observed to attend
the commission of crime, and often leads to its detection,
is largely recognizable here. But the Eye which never
sleeps has watched over the Deposit, and provided Himself
with witnesses.

§5.
Singular to relate, the circumstances under which Simon
and Andrew, James and John were on the last occasion
called to Apostleship (St. Matt. iv. 17-22 : St. Mark i. 14-ao:
St. Luke V. i-ii) have never yet been explained^. The
facts were as follows.
It was morning on the Sea of Galilee. Two boats were
' 'Having been wholly unsuccessful [in their fishing], two of them, seated
on the shore, were occupjing their time in washing, — and two, seated in their
boat . . . were mending. — their nets.' (F'arrar's Life of Christ, i. 241-2.) The
foot-note appended to this ' attempt to combine as far as it is possible in one
continuous narrative ' the 'accounts ofthe Synoptisls,' is quite a curiosity.
P 3

212 THE LATER UNCIALS AND THE CURSIVES.
moored to the shore. The fishermen having ' toiled all the
night and taken nothing^,' — 'were gone out of them and
had washed out [d^^e-nXwav) their nets [to. biKTva)^.' But
though fishing in deep water had proved a failure, they
knew that by wading into the .shallows, they might even
now employ a casting-net with advantage. Accordingly
it was thus that our Saviour, coming by at this very
juncture, beheld Simon and Andrew employed [^dXXovTas
dfj.(f>Li3XrioTpov) ^. Thereupon, entering Simon's boat, ' He
prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the
land*.' The rest requires no explanation. |-
Now, it is plain that the key which unlocks this inter;. -^'^ •
ing story is the graphic precision of the compound / "^^ b
employed, and the well-known usage of the language wY'^Sch
gives to the aorist tense on such occasions as the preP^sent
a pluperfect signification^ The Translators "tJ o" p^, t*- not
understanding the incident, were content, as Tyndale, i\ bl-
lowing the Vulgate^, had been before them, to rendt?'!"-
dneiiXvvav to. biKTva, — ' were washing their nets.' Of this
rendering, so long as the Greek was let alone, no serious
harm could come. The Revisers of 1881, however, by not
only retaining the incorrect trarjiilation ' were washing their
nets,' but, by making the G'-^'^ek taly with the English —
by substituting in short ef.^\..ov for direTrXwav, — have so
effectually darkened the Truth as vo make it simply
irrecoverable by ordinary students. The only point in the
meantime to which the reader's attention is just now
invited is this: — that the compound verb in the aorist
tense [d-aeiiXvvav) has been retained by the whole body of
the Cursives, as transmitted all down the ages : while the
' St. Luke v. 5. ^ Ibid., verses i, 2.
3 St. Matt. iv. 18 = St. Mark i. 16. » St. Luke v. 3.
° As in St. Matt, xxvii. 2, 60 ; St. Luke v. 4; xiii. 16 ; St. John xviii. 24 ;
xxi. 15 ; Acts xii. 17 ; Heb. iv. 8, &c,, &c.
' lavabant retia, it. vulg. The one known exception is (1) the Cod. Rehdi
geranus [VII] (Tischendorf).

CONFIRMATORY INSTANCES. 213
barbarous errXwov is only found at this day in the two
corrupt uncials BD' and a single cursive (Evan. 91)^-

§6.
' How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the
Kingdom of Heaven,' exclaimed our LORD on a memorable
occasion. The disciples were amazed. Replying to their
thoughts, — ' Children,' He added, ' how hard is it for them
that trust in riches to enter into the Kingdom of GOD.'
(St. Mark x. 23, 24). Those familiar words, vouched for by
16 uncials and all the cursives, are quite above suspicion.
But in fact all the Versions support them likewise. There
is really no pretext for disturbing what is so well attested,
not to say so precious. Yet Tischendorf and Westeott and
Hort eject tovs veiroiOoTas eui tois xprjjuacjti' from the text, on
the sole ground that the clause in question is omitted by
NBA, one copy of the Italic (k), and one copy of the
Bohairic. Aware that such a proceeding requires an
apology, — ' I think it unsafe,' says Tischendorf, ' to forsake
in this place the very ancient authorities which I am accus
tomed to follow ' : i. e. Codexes K and B. But of what
nature is this argument ? Does the critic mean that he
must stick to antiquity ? If this be his meaning, then let
him be reminded that Clemens ^, a more ancient authority
than NB by 150 years, — not to say the Latin and the
Syriac Versions, which are more ancient still, — recognizes
the words in question*. Does however the learned critic
mean no more than this, — That it is with him a funda
mental principle of Textual Criticism to uphold at all
1 The same pair of authorities are unique in substituting PanTiaavTes (for
ffanri^ovTes) in St. Matt, xxviii. 19; i.e. the Apostles were to baptize people
first, and make them disciples afterwards.
^ XC exhibit enXvvav : A (by far the purest of the five ' old uncials ') retains
the traditional text.
' p. 938.
* So does Aphraates, a contemporary of B and K, p. 392.

214 THE LATER UNCIALS AND THE CURSIVES.
hazards the authority of B and N ? He cannot mean that ;
as I proceed to explain.
For the strangest circumstance is behind. Immediately
after he has thus (in ver. 24) proclaimed the supremacy of
NB, Tischendorf is constrained to reject the combined
evidence of NBCA. In ver. 26 those 4 copies advocate the
absurd reading XeyovTes irpos AYTON Kat tls bvvoTai ao>0i]vai;
whereas it was evidently to themselves [¦npos eavTovs) that the
disciples said it. Aware that this time the ' antiquissimae
quas sequi solet auctoritates ' stand self-condemned, instead
of ingenuously avowing the fact, Tischendorf grounds his
rejection of Trpos avrov on the consideration that ' Mark
never uses the expression Xeyeiv -npos avTov.' Just as if the
text of one place in the Gospel is to be determined by the
practice of the same Evangelist in another place, — and not
by its own proper evidence ; which in the present instance
is (the reader may be sure) simply overwhelming !
Westeott and Hort erroneously suppose that all the
copies but four, — all the versions but one (the Bohairic), —
may be in error : but that B-N, C, and Cod. A which is
curious in St. Mark, must needs be in the right.
§ 7.
There are many occasions — as I remarked before, —
where the very logic of the case becomes a powerful
argument. Worthless in and by themselves,— in the face,
I mean, of general testimony, — considerations derived from
the very reason of the thing sometimes vindicate their
right to assist the judgement wherever the evidence is
somewhat evenly balanced. But their cogency is felt to be
altogether overwhelming when, after a careful survey of the
evidence alone, we entertain no doubt whatever as to what
must be the right reading of a place. They seem then to
sweep the field. Such an occasion is presented by St. Luke

CONFIRMATORY INSTANCES. 215
xvi. 9, — where our LORD, having shewn what provision the
dishonest steward made against the day when he would
find himself houseless, — the Divine Speaker infers that
something analogous should be done by ourselves with our
own money, — ' in order ' (saith He) ' that when ye fail, ye
may be received into the everlasting tabernacles.' The
logical consistency of all this is as exact, as the choice of
terms in the Original is exquisite : the word employed to
designate Man's departure out of this life (eKAt-n-Tjre), con
veying the image of one fainting or failing at the end of
his race. It is in fact the word used in the LXX to denote
the peaceful end of Abraham, and of Ishmael, and of Isaac,
and of Jacobs
But instead of this, NBDLRn with AX present us with
eKXiTTYj or exAetTrr;, — shewing that the author of this reading
imagined without discrimination, that what our LORD meant
to say was that when at last our money ' fails ' us, we may
not want a home. The rest of the Uncials to the number
of twelve, together with two correctors of N, the bulk of
the Cursives, and the Old Latin copies, the Vulgate,
Gothic, Harkleian, and Ethiopic Versions, with Irenaeus ^,
Clemens Alex. ^, Origen*, Methodius^, Basil ^, Ephraem
Syrus '^, Gregory Naz. *, Didymus ^, Chrysostom ^'^, Seve-
rianus ^^, Jerome ^^, Augustine ^^, Eulogius '*, and Theo
doret ^^ also Aphraates (a. d. 325) ^^, support the reading
eKAtTi-Tjre. Cyril appears to have known both readings ^^
' Gen. xxv. 8, 17; xxxv. 29; xlix. 33. Also Jer. xlii. 17, 22 ; Lament, i. 20;
Job xiii, 19 ; Ps. ciii. 30.
^ 268, 661.
' ap. Phot. 791.
» i. 861.
" vi. 520.
" Mai, 2.
" In one place of the Syriac version of his Homilies on St. Luke (Luc. no),
the reading is plainly iVo 'orav exXin-qTe : but when the Greek of the same
passage is exhibited by Mai (ii. 196, line 2S-38) it is observed to be destitute of
the disputed clause. On the other hand, at p, 512 ofthe Syriac, the reading is
exXinrj. But then the entire quotation is absent from the Greek original (Mai,

' 942. 9.'i3 (Lat.

Tr.). 1 162, 33S (Lat. Tr.), 666,

" i- 353-

' iii. 120.

» 280.

'" i. 920; iii. 344; iv. 27 ; vi. 606.

"^ i. 859 b.

" 3'- 772.

" i. 517-

'» 388.

2l6 THE LATER UNCIALS AND THE CURSIVES.
His testimony, such as it is, can only be divined from his
fragmentary remains; and 'divination' is a faculty to
which I make no pretence.
In p. 349, after del be TrduTois ai/Tovs d-aoTeaelv Trjs o'lKovop-ias.
eT:nrr]b&vTos Oavdrov, Kal t&v koO' rjpds T:pa.yp.dTU>v e^eXKoros.
abid(])VKTov ydp dvOpanra ttovtI tov OavaTOV tov XCvov, — Cyril is
represented as saying (6 lines lower down) Srav avTohs 6 ewt-
yetos eKXei-irri IIAOTTOS, with which corresponds the Syriac
of Luc. 509. But when we encounter the same passage
in Cramer's Catena (p. 122), besides the reference to death,
aTTOTrecrowrat ¦ndvrws rrjs o'lKovop-ias, i'lrntrib&vTos avTois tov
Oavdrov (lines a 1-3), we are presented with orai; avTovs rj
eniyeios eKXei-noi Zcotj, which clearly reverses the testimony.
If Cyril wrote that, he read (like every other Father)
eKAtTTTjre. It is only right to add that eKXi-mri is found
besides in pp. 525, 526 ( = Mai ii. 358) and 57a of Cyril's
Syriac Homilies on St. Luke. This however (like the
quotation in p. 506) may well be due to the Peshitto.
I must avow that amid so much conflicting evidence, my
judgement concerning Cyril's text is at fault.

There is hardly to be found a more precious declaration
concerning the guiding and illuminating office of the Holy
Ghost, than our Lord's promise that ' when He, the Spirit
of Truth shall come. He shall guide you into all the
Truth': 6briyr\aei ¦vp.ds els ¦ndaav tijv dX^rjtieiav (St. John
xvi. 13). Now, the six words just quoted are found to
have experienced an extraordinary amount of perturbation ;
far more than can be due to the fact that they happen to
be the concluding words of a lection. To be brief, — every
ii. 349, line ii from bottom). In Mai, ii. 380, Cyril's reading is certainly
exXinriTe.

CONFIRMATORY INSTANCES. 217
known variety in reading this passage may be brought
under one of three heads : —
I. With the first, — which is in fact a gloss, not a reading
(Strjy/jo-eTat vp.iv ttjv dX-rjOeiav irdaav), — we need not delay
ourselves. Eusebius in two places ^, Cyril Jer.^, copies of
the Old Lating and Jerome* in a certain place, so read the
place. Unhappily the same reading is also found in the
Vulgate ®. It meets with no favour however, and may be
dismissed. a. The next, which even more fatally darkens our
Lord's meaning, might have been as unceremoniously
dealt with, the reading namely of Cod. L [obiiyqaei vp.ds ev
T^fj dXrjOeia nda-rj), but that unhappily it has found favour
with Tischendorf, — I suppose, because with the exception
of Trao-r; it is the reading of his own Cod. N ^. It is thus
that Cyril Alex.^ thrice reads the place : and indeed the
same thing practically is found in D*; while so many copies
of the Old Latin exhibit in omni veritate, or in veritate
omtii^, that one is constrained to inquire. How is ev
dXriOeiq ¦ndaij to be accounted for?
We have not far to look. 'Obriyeiv followed by ev occurs
in the LXX, chiefly in the Psalms, more than 16 times.
Especially must the familiar expression in Ps. xxiv. 5
[obriyrjaov p-e ev rfj dXrjOeiq aov, Dirige me in veritate tua),
by inopportunely suggesting itself to the mind of some
early copyist, have influenced the text of St. John xvi. 13
in this fatal way. One is only astonished that so acute
a critic as Tischendorf should have overlooked so plain
1 Ens. "n"'" 330, ¦!" 251 (—¦ndaav). ^ Cyr >"¦ 270.
^ e, inducet vobis veritatem omnem : m, disseret vobis omnem veritatem.
* docebit vos omnem veritatem (ii. 301).
° Cod. am. (which exhibits docebit vos in omnem, &c.) clearly confuses two
distinct types.
« X om. nda-g. ' Cyr. Alex. iv. 347 ; v. 369, 593.
^ D, exeivos vfids oSriyqaei ev ry dXij&eiq. ndaji.
' So Cod. b, deducet vos in veritate omni. Cod. c, docebit vos in veritate
omni.

2l8 THE LATER UNCIALS AND THE CURSIVES.
a circumstance. The constant use of the Psalm in Divine
Service, and the entire familiarity with the Psalter resulting
therefrom, explains sufficiently how it came to pass, that in
this as in other places its phraseology must have influenced
the memory.
3. The one true reading of the place [obr^yi^aei lif^aj
ets Traaav r^y aArj^etay) is attested by I a of the uncials
(EGHPKMSUFAAn), the whole body of the cursives,
and by the following Fathers, — Didymus \ Epiphanius ^
Basil ^ Chrysostom*, Theodotus, bp. of Antioch*, Cyril
Alex.«, Theodoret '' ; besides Tertullian in five places, Hilary
and Jerome in two ^.
But because the words ¦ndaav ti}v dXi]6eMV are found
transposed in ABY alone of manuscripts, and because Peter
Alex.^, and Didymus'" once, Origen '^ and Cyril Alex. '^
in two places, are observed to sanction the same infelici
tous arrangement (viz. ttjv dX^qOeiav Ttdaav), — Lachmann,
Tregelles, Alford, Westeott and Hort, adopt without
hesitation this order of the words'^. It cannot of course
be maintained. The candid reader in the meantime will
not fail to note that as usual the truth has been preserved
neither by A nor B nor D : least of all by N : but
comes down to us unimpaired in the great mass of MS.
authorities, uncial and cursive, as well as in the oldest
Versions and Fathers.

' Did. 278, 446, 388 (npos), 443 ( — ttiv). " Epiph. i. S98 ; ii. 78.
^ Bas. iii. 42 (npns : and so Evan. 249. Codd, of Cyril Alex. (eni).
* Chrys, viii. 527 : also 460, 461 ( — tjiv). ^ Theod, '"' 541, ap. Wegn.
' Cyr. Alex, "" iv. 923 : v. 628. ' Thdt, iii. 15 (exeiios vp. 65.).
' Tert. i. 762, 765, 884; ii. II, 21. Hil. 805, 959, Jer, ii. 140, 141. There
are many lesser variants : — ' (diriget vos Tert. i. 884, deducet vos Tert. ii. 21,
Vercell. vos deducet ; i. 762 vos ducet : Hil. 805, vos diriget) in omnem
veritatem.' Some few las D, Tert. i. 762 ; ii. 21. Cod. a. Did. 388. Tlidrt. iii.
15) prefix exeivos.
9 Pet. Alex. ap. Routh, p. 9. '» Did. 55.
" Oiig. i. 387, 388. '2 Cyr. Alex. iv. 925, 986.
^^ els T^v dX'i'iB. ndaav L,, Tr., W.-H. : ev Ty uXriB. ndari T.

CONFIRMATORY INSTANCES. 219
§9.
It may have been anticipated by the readers of these
pages that the Divine Author of Scripture has planted here
and there up and down the sacred page — often in most
improbable places and certainly in forms which we should
have least of all imagined — tests of accuracy, by attending
to which we may form an unerring judgement concerning
the faithfulness of a copy of the sacred Text. This is
a discovery which at first astonished me : but on mature
reflection, I saw that it was to have been confidently anti
cipated. Is it indeed credible that Almighty Wisdom —
which is observed to have made such abundant provision
for the safety of the humblest forms of animal life, for the
preservation of common seeds, often seeds of noxious
plants, — should yet have omitted to make provision for the
life-giving seed of His own Everlasting Word ?
For example, strange to relate, it is a plain fact (of
which every one may convince himself by opening a copy
of the Gospels furnished with a sufficient critical apparatus),
that although in relating the healing of the centurion's
servant (St. Matt. viii. 5-13) the Evangelist writes eKarov-
rapxOS in verses 5 and 8, he writes exaroyrapxH instead of
-X12 in ver. 13. This minute variety has been faithfully
retained by uncials and cursives alike. Only one uncial
(viz. N) has ventured to assimilate the two places, writing
eKaTovTapxvs throughout. With the blindness proverbially
ascribed to parental love, Tischendorf follows N, though
the carelessness that reigns over that MS. is visible to all
who examine it.
The matter is a trifle confessedly. But so was the scrap
of a ballad which identified the murderer, another scrap of
it being found with the bullet in the body of the murdered
man. When we find koC disappearing before Kpiaiv (in the

220 THE LATER UNCIALS AND THE CURSIVES.
solemn statement e^ovaiav ebcoKev avT<S [sc. 6 narrjp] KAT
KptVtz; TTotety)', it nothing moves us to discover that 4
Greek Codexes (ABL 33), as many ancient versions 2, and
as many ancient Fathers ^ are without that little but
significant word. The fact that all other Greek copies have
it, is conclusive for retaining it. And why ? Because while
nothing is more easily accounted for than the absence of
Kot in this place from a little handful of documents, quite
inexplicable is its presence in all the rest * except on
the hypothesis that it was found in the autograph of
St. John. §10.
Again, that pathetic anticipation of the lord of the
vineyard (St. Luke xx. 13) that when the servants had once
' seen ' his ' beloved son ' (tSoVrej), they would reverence
him, — disappears under the baneful influence of NBCDLO,
and their little handful of adherents. (Consider in con
nexion with this the latter part of Is. liii. a.) Does not
the very repetition of Ibovres be, in the next verse, seem
to demand the presence of the word which the Cursives
almost to a manuscript have so jealously retained, but
which Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, West
eott and Hort have expunged ? . . . . Then further, the
inward thoughts of the heart, those ¦novrjpol biaXoyiapoi
of which our Saviour elsewhere speaks ^ and which were
never more conspicuous than in the men who compassed
His shameful death, become wellnigh obliterated from the
parable. It was 'within themselves ' (St. Matt. xxi. 38) — Ho
' St. John V. 27. ^ Bohairic, Cureton, Armenian, Ethiopic.
' Origen, ii. 548, 558; iv. 41, 359, 360; Didymus, Trin. iii. 17, ap. Chrys.
viii. 230 a; Paul of Samos, Ath. Gen. v. 168 c; Thdrt. v. iioS.
' In the Old Lat., Peshitto and Harkleian, Chrys. viii. 229 de; Cyril, iv.
235 ; V.' 562 ; v.^ 177, 179 (= Ccnc. iii. 310, 311) ; Gennadius, Cord. Cat. in
Ps i. 69.
= St. Matt. XV. 19.

CONFIRMATORY INSTANCES. 221
themselves' (St. Mark xii. 7), He says, that those sinful
men declared their murderous purpose. Their hearts it
was, not their lips, which spoke. Hence St. Luke says
plainly, 'they thought to themselves' (xx. 14). But we
are now invited on yet slenderer evidence than before,
instead of 8teA. Trpoy eavrovs, to read Trpos dXX^qXovs, which
is certainly wrong  Lastly, that murderous resolve of
the servants, ' This is the heir : come, let us kill him ' (AeCre
diroKreti'ajjLtej'), — which (as every student knows) is nothing
else but a quotation from the Septuagint version of Genesis
(xxxvii. 19), is robbed of its characteristic word in deference
to ARMQn and the Latin copies: Tischendorf, sheltering
himself complacently behind the purblind as well as
tasteless dictum of Schulz, — 'Lucas nunquam usus est
hoc verbo ' : as if that were any reason why he might not
quote the Septuagint ! In this way, the providential care
which caused that the same striking expression should
find place in all the three Evangelists, is frustrated ; and it
might even be overlooked by a reader of the third Gospel
that Joseph is a divinely intended type of our Saviour
Christ. §11.
The instances which have been given in this chapter of the
superiority of the text exhibited in the later Uncials and
the Cursives might have been increased in number to
almost any extent out of the papers left by Dean Burgon.
The reader will find many more illustrations in the rest
of these two volumes. Even Dr. Hort admits that the
Traditional Text which is represented by them is ' entirely
blameless on either literary or religious grounds as re
gards vulgarized or unworthy diction',' while ' repeated and
' Introduction, p. 135. The rest of his judgement is unfounded in fact.
Constant and careful study combined with subtle appreciation will not reveal
' feebleness ' or ' impoverishment ' either in ' sense ' or ' force.'

222 THE LATER UNCIALS AND THE CURSIVES.
diligent study ' can only lead, if conducted with deep and
wide research, to the discovery of beauties and meanings
which have lain unrevealed to the student before.
Let it be always borne in mind, that [a) the later Uncials
and Cursives are the heirs in succession of numerous and
varied lines of descent spread throughout the Church ;
that [b) their verdict is nearly always decisive and clear ;
and that nevertheless [c) such unanimity or majority of
witnesses is not the testimony of mechanical or suborned
testifiers, but is the coincidence, as facts unquestionably
prove, except in certain instances of independent deponents
to the same story.
Let me be allowed to declare' in conclusion that no
person is competent to pronounce concerning the merits
or demerits of cursive copies of the Gospels, who has not
himself, in the first instance, collated with great exactness
at least a few of them. He will be materially assisted, if
it has ever fallen in his way to familiarize himself however
partially with the text of vast numbers. But nothing can
supply the place of exact collation of at least a few copies :
of which labour, if a man has had no experience at all, he
must submit to be assured that he really has no right to
express himself confidently in this subject-matter. He
argues, not from facts, but from his own imagination of
what the facts of the case will probably be. Those only
who have minutely collated several copies, and examined
with considerable attention a large proportion of all the
Sacred Codexes extant, are entitled to speak with authority
here. Further, I venture to assert that no conviction will
force itself so irresistibly on the mind of him who submits
to the labour of exactly collating a few Cursive copies of
the Gospels, as that the documents in question have been
executed with even extraordinary diligence, fidelity, and
skill. That history confirms this conviction, we have only
' These arc the Dean's words to the end of the paragraph.

MATURED SETTLEMENT OF THE CHURCH. 223
to survey the elaborate arrangements made in monasteries
for carrying on the duty, and perfecting the art, of copying
the Holy Scriptures.
If therefore this body of Manuscripts be thus declared
by the excellence of its text, by the evident pains
bestowed upon its production, as well as by the consen
tience with it of other evidence, to possess high character
istics ; if it represents the matured settlement of many
delicate and difficult questions by the Church which after
centuries of vacillation more or less, and indeed less rather
than more, was to last for a much larger number of
centuries ; must it not require great deference indeed from
all students of the New Testament ? Let it always be
remembered, that no single Cursive is here selected from
the rest or advanced to any position whatsoever which
would invest its verdicts with any special authority. It is
the main body of the Cursives, agreeing as they generally
do with the exception of a few eccentric groups or indi
viduals, which is entitled to such respect according to the
measure of their agreement. And in point of fact, the
Cursives which have been collated are so generally con
sentient, as to leave no doubt that the multitude which
needs collation will agree similarly. Doubtless, the later
Uncials and the Cursives are only a class of the general
evidence which is now before us : but it is desirable that
those Textual Students who have been disposed to under
value this class should weigh with candour and fairness
the arguments existing in favour of it, which we have
attempted to exhibit in this chapter.

CHAPTER XIL
CONCLUSION'.
The Traditional Text has now been traced, from the
earliest years of Christianity of which any record of the
New Testament remains, to the period when it was
enshrined in a large number of carefully-written manuscripts
in main accord with one another. Proof has been given
from the writings of the early Fathers, that the idea that
the Traditional Text arose in the middle of the fourth
century is a mere hallucination, prompted by only
a partial acquaintance with those writings. And witness
to the existence and predominance of that form of Text
has been found in the Peshitto Version and in the best
of the Latin Versions, which themselves also have been
followed back to the beginning of the second century or
the end of the first. We have also discovered the truth,
that the settlement of the Text, though mainly made in the
fourth century, was not finally accomplished till the eighth
century at the earliest ; and that the later Uncials, not the
oldest, together with the cursives express, not singly, not
in small batches or companies, but in their main agreement,
the decisions which had grown up in the Church. In so
doing, attention has been paid to all the existing evidence :
none has been omitted. Quod semper, quod ttbique, quod
ab omnibus, has been the underlying principle. The
foundations of the building have been laid as deeply and
as broadly as our power would allow. No other course
would be in consonance with scientific procedure. The

THE ARGUMENT. 225
seven notes of truth have been made as comprehensive as
possible. Antiquity, number, variety, weight, continuity,
context, and internal evidence, include all points of view
and all methods of examination which are really sound. The
characters of the Vatican, Sinaitic, and Bezan manuscripts
have been shewn to be bad, and the streams which led to
their production from Syrlo-Old-Latin and Alexandrian
sources to the temporary school of Caesarea have been
traced and explained. It has been also shewn to be
probable that corruption began and took root even before
the Gospels were written. The general conclusion which
has grown upon our minds has been that the affections of
Christians have not been misdirected ; that the strongest
exercise of reason has proved their instincts to have been
sound and true; that the Text which we have used and
loved rests upon a vast and varied support ; that the
multiform record of Manuscripts, Versions, and Fathers,
is found to defend by large majorities in almost all in
stances those precious words of Holy Writ, which have
been called in question during the latter half of this
century. We submit that it cannot be denied that we have
presented a strong case, and naturally we look to see
what has been said against it, since except in some features
it has been before the World and the Church for some
years. We submit that it has not received due attention
from opposing critics. If indeed the opinions of the other
School had been preceded by, or grounded upon, a search
ing examination, such as we have made in the case of
B and N, of the vast mass of evidence upon which we
rest, — if this great body of testimony had been proved to
be bad from overbalancing testimony or otherwise, — we
should have found reason for doubt, or even for a reversal
of our decisions. But Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf
laid down principles chiefly, if not exclusively, on the score
Q

226 CONCLUSION.
of their intrinsic probability. Westeott and Hort built up
their own theory upon reasoning internal to it, without clear
ing the ground first by any careful and detailed scrutiny.
Besides which, all of them constructed their buildings
before travellers by railways and steamships had placed
within their reach the larger part of the materials which
are now ready for use. We hear constantly the proclama
tion made in dogmatic tones that they are right : no proof
adequate to the strength of our contention has been worked
out to shew that we are wrong.
Nevertheless, it may be best to listen for a moment
to such objections as have been advanced against con
clusions like these, and which it may be presumed will be
urged again.
I. 'After all it cannot be denied that B and N are the
oldest manuscripts of the New Testament in existence,
and that they must therefore be entitled to the deference
due to their age' Now the earlier part of this allegation
is conceded by us entirely : prima facie it constitutes
a very strong argument. But it is really found on examina
tion to be superficial. Fathers and Versions are virtually
older, and, as has been demonstrated, are dead against the
claim set up on behalf of those ancient manuscripts, that
they are the possessors of the true text of the Gospels.
Besides which antiquity is not the sole note of truth any
more than number is. So much has been already said on
this part of the subject, that it is needless to enter into
longer discussion here.
2. ' The testimony of witnesses ought to be weighed
before it is reckoned.' Doubtless : this also is a truism,
and allowance has been made for it in the various ' notes
of truth.' But this argument, apparently so simple, is
really intended to carry a huge assumption involved in
an elaborate maintenance of the (supposed) excellent
character of B and N and their associates. After so much

OPPOSING PLEAS. 227
that has been brought to the charge of those two MSS. in
this treatise, it is unnecessary now to urge more than that
they appeared in strange times, when the Church was con
vulsed to her centre ; that, as has been demonstrated, their
peculiar readings were in a very decided minority in the
period before them ; and, as all admit, were rejected in
the ages that passed after the time of their date.
3. It is stated that the Traditional is a conflate text,
i.e. that passages have been put together from more than
one other text, so that they are composite in construction
instead of being simple. We have already treated this
allegation, but we reply now that it has not been estab
lished : the opinion of Canon Cooke who analysed all the
examples quoted by Hort^, of Scrivener who said they
proved nothing^, and of many other critics and scholars
has been against it. The converse position is maintained,
that, the text of B and N is clipped and mutilated. Take
the following passage, which is fairly typical of the large
class in question : ' For we are members of His Body '
(writes St. Paul ^) ' of His flesh and of His bones ' (eK t^s
aapKos avTov Kal eK t&v oareoiv airov). But those last
9 words are disallowed by recent editors, because they
are absent from B-N, A, 8, and 17, and the margin of 67,
besides the Bohairic version. Yet are the words genuine.
They are found in DFGKLP and the whole body of the
cursives : in the Old Latin and Vulgate and the two Syriac
versions : in Irenaeus*, — in Theodorus of Mopsuestia*,- — in
Nilus ^ — in Chrysostom' more than four times, — in
Severianus*, — in Theodoret",— in Anastasius Sinaita'", —
and in John Damascene^^. They were probably read by
^ Revised Version, &c., pp. 205-218. 2 Introduction, i. 292-93.
' Ephes. V. 30. * 718 (Mass. 294), Gr. aud Lat.
* Jn loc. ed. .Swete, Gr, and Lat. ' i. 95, 267.
' iii. 215 b, 216 a ; viii. 272 c; xi. I47 abed.
' Ap. Cramer, vi. 205, 2c8. ' iii. 434.
'" (a.D. 560), 1004a, 1007 a. " ii. i9oe.
Q 2

228 CONCLUSION.
Origen 1 and by Methodius I Many Latin Fathers, viz.
Ambrose ^, ¦ — Pacian *, — Esaias abb. *, — Victorinus", —
Jerome', — Augustine^ — and Leo P." recognise them.
Such ample and such varied attestation is not to be set
aside by the vapid and unsound dictum ' Western and
Syrian,' — or by the weak suggestion that the words in
dispute are an unauthorized gloss, fabricated from the
LXX version of Gen. ii. 23. That St. Paul's allusion is
to the oracular utterance of our first father Adam, is true
enough : but, as Alford after Bengel well points out, it is
incredible that any forger can have been at work here.
Such questions however, as we must again and again
insist, are not to be determined by internal considerations :
no, — nor by dictation, nor by prejudice, nor by divina
tion, nor by any subjective theory of conflation on which
experts and critics may be hopelessly at issue : but by the
weight of the definite evidence actually producible and
^ Rufinus (iii. 6i c) translates, — 'quia membra sumus corporis ejus, et reliqua'
What else can this refer to but the very words in dispute ?
'^ Ap. Galland. iii. 688 c : — 'oBev b ' h.noaroXos evBv0vXais els Xpiardv dvrjxdvnae
Td KaTd Tdv 'ASdp- ovtqjs ydp dv pdXiaTa ex twv ootqjv avTou xal r^s aapxas
TTIV exxXriaiav avpupcov-qaei yeyovevai. And lower down (e, and 689 a) : — dncos
av^TlBuiaiv oi ev ovtZ oixoSopriBevTes dnavres, ol yeyevvjipevoi Sid tov XovTpov, ea
TUIV oOTOiv xal ex TTJs oapxds, TovTeOTiv ex ttjs dyimavvris avTov, xal ex ttjs S6^7]s
npoaeiXTi(p6Tes' dard ydp xal adpxa ^o(pias d Ae-ycui' eivai avveaiv xat dpeTrjv,
dpBoTara Xeyei. From this it is plain that Methodius read Ephes. v. 30 as we
do; although he had before quoted it (iii, 614b) ¦without the clause in dispute.
Those who give their minds to these studies are soon made aware that it is
never safe to infer from the silence of a Father that he disallowed the words he
omits, — especially if those words are in their nature parenthetical, or supple
mentary, or not absolutely required for the sense. Let a short clause be beside his
Immediate purpose, and a Father is as likely as not to omit it. This subject has
been discussed elsewhere : but it is apt to the matter now in hand that I should
point out that Augustine tiuice (iv. 297 c, 1438 c) closes his quotation of the
present place abruptly : ' Apostolo dicente, Quoniam membra sumus corporis
ejus.' And yet, elsewhere (iii. 794), he gives the words in full.
It is idle therefore to urge on the opposite side, as if there were anything
in it, the anonymous commentator on St. Luke in Cramer's Cat. p. 88.
' i. 1310 b. Also Ambrosiaster, ii. 248 d.
' Ap. Galland. vii. 262 e (a.d. 372). = Ibid. 314 c.
° Mai, iii. 140. ' vii. 659 b.
' See above, end of note 2. ' Concil. iv. 50 b.

CONFLATION. 229
produced on either side. And when, as in the present
instance. Antiquity, Variety of testimony. Respectability
of witnesses, and Number are overwhelmingly in favour
of the Traditional Text, what else is it but an outrage
on the laws of evidence to claim that the same little
band of documents which have already come before us
so often, and always been found in error, even though
aided by speculative suppositions, shall be permitted to
outweigh all other testimony?
To build therefore upon a conflate or composite character
in a set of readings would be contrary to the evidence : — or
at any rate, it would at the best be to lay foundations upon
ground which is approved by one school of critics and
disputed by the other in every case. The determination
of the text of Holy Scripture has not been handed over
to a mere conflict of opposite opinions, or to the uncertain
sands of conjecture.
Besides, as has been already stated, no amount of
conflation would supply passages which the destructive
school would wholly leave out. It is impossible to ' conflate '
in places where BN and their associates furnish no mater
ials for the supposed conflation. Bricks cannot be made
without clay. The materials actually existing are those
of the Traditional Text itself. But in fact these questions
are not to be settled by the scholarly ta.ste or opinions of
either school, even of that which we advocate. They must
rest upon the verdict found by the facts in evidence : and
those facts have been already placed in array.
4. Again, stress is laid upon Genealogy. Indeed, as Dean
Burgon himself goes on to say, so much has lately been
written about ' the principle ' and ' the method ' ' of genea
logy,' that it becomes in a high degree desirable that we
should ascertain precisely what those expressions lawfully
mean. No fair controversialist would willingly fail to
assign its legitimate place and value to any principle ifor

230 CONCLUSION.
which he observes an opponent eagerly contending. But
here is a ' principle ' and here is a ' method ' which are
declared to be of even paramount importance. ' Documents
... are all fragments, usually casual and scattered fragments,
of a genealogical tree of transmission, sometimes of vast
extent and intricacy. The more exactly we are able to
trace the chief ramifications of the tree, and to determine
the places of the several documents among the branches,
the more secure will be the foundations laid for a criti
cism capable of distinguishing the original text from its
successive corruptions \'
The expression is metaphorical ; belonging of right to
families of men, but transferred to Textual Science as
indicative that similar phenomena attend families of
manuscripts. Unfortunately the phenomena attending
transmission, — of Natures on the one hand, of Texts on
the other, — are essentially dissimilar. A diminutive couple
may give birth to a race of giants. A genius has been
known to beget a dunce. A brood of children exhibiting
extraordinary diversities of character, aspect, ability, some
times spring from the same pair. Nothing like this is
possible in the case of honestly-made copies of MSS. The
analogy breaks down therefore in respect of its most essen
tial feature. And yet, there can be no objection to the use
of the term ' Genealogy ' in connexion with manuscripts,
provided always that nothing more is meant thereby than
derivation by the process of copying : nothing else claimed
but that ' Identity of reading implies identity of origin ^.'
Only in this limited way are we able to avail ourselves
of the principle referred to. Of course if it were a well-
ascertained fact concerning three copies (XYZ), that Z was
copied from Y, and Y from X, XYZ might reasonably be
spoken of as representing three descents in a pedigree ;
although the interval between Z and Y were only six
' Hort, Introduction, p. 40. 2 Ibid. p. 46.

GENEALOGY. 231
months, — the interval between Y and X, six hundred years.
Moreover, these would be not three independent authori
ties, but only one. Such a case, however, — (the fact can
not be too clearly apprehended), — is simply non-existent.
What is known commonly lies on the surface : — viz. that
occasionally between two or more copies there exists such
an amount of peculiar textual affinity as to constrain us to
adopt the supposition that they have been derived from
a common original. These peculiarities of text, we tell
ourselves, cannot be fortuitous. Taking our stand on the
true principle that ' identity of reading implies identity of
origin,' we insist on reasoning from the known to the
unknown : and (at our humble distance) we are fully as
confident of our scientific fact as Adams and Le Verrier
would have been of the existence of Neptune had they
never actually obtained sight of that planet.
So far are we therefore from denying the value and
importance of the principle under discussion that we are
able to demonstrate its efficacy in the resolution of some
textual problems which have been given in this work.
Thus E, the uncial copy of St. Paul, is 'nothing better,'
says Scrivener, ' than a transcript of the Cod. Claromon
tanus ' D. ' The Greek is manifestly worthless, and should
long since have been removed from the list of authorities^.'
Tischendorf nevertheless, not Tregelles, quotes it on every
page. He has no business to do so, Codexes D and E, to
all intents and purposes, being strictly one Codex. Thi.i
case, like the two next, happily does not admit of diversity
of opinion. Next, F and G of St. Paul's Epistles, inas
much as they are confessedly derived from one and the
same archetype, are not to be reckoned as two authorities,
but as one.
Again, the correspondence between the nine MSS. of the
Ferrar group— Evann. 13 at Paris, 69 at Leicester, 124 at
' Miller's Sprivener, Introduction, I. p. 177.

232 CONCLUSION.
Vienna, 346 at Milan, 556 in the British Museum, 561 at
Bank House, Wisbech, — and in a lesser degree, 348 at
Milan, 624 at Crypta Ferrata, 788 at Athens, — is so
extraordinary as to render it certain that these copies are
in the main derived from one common archetype^. Hence,
though one of them (788) is of the tenth century, three
(348, 561, 624) are of the eleventh, four (13, 124, 346, 556)
of the twelfth, and one (69) of the fourteenth, their joint
evidence is held to be tantamount to the recovery of a lost
uncial or papyrus of very early date, — which uncial or
papyrus, by the way, it would be convenient to indicate by
a new symbol, as F". standing for Ferrar, since <I> which
was once attributed to them is now appropriated to the
Codex Beratinus. If indicated numerically, the figures
should at all events be connected by a hyphen (13-
69-ia4-346-&c.); not as if they were independent witnesses,
as Tischendorf quotes them. And lastly, B and N are
undeniably, more than any other two Codexes which can
be named, the depositaries of one and the same peculiar,
all but unique, text.
I propose to apply the foregoing remarks to the solution
of one of the most important of Textual problems. That
a controversy has raged around the last twelve verses of
St. Mark's Gospel is known to all. Known also it is that
a laborious treatise was published on the subject in 1871,
which, in the opinion of competent judges, has had the
effect of removing the ' Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark '
beyond the reach of suspicion. Notwithstanding this, at
the end of ten years an attempt was made to revive
the old plea. The passage, say Drs. Westeott and Hort,
' manifestly cannot claim any Apostolic authority ; but is
doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age,'
of which the ' precise date must remain unknown.' It is
'a very early interpolation' (pp. 51, 46). In a word, 'the
' Introduction, I. Appendix F, p. 398*.

B AND N CONDEMNED UNDER GENEALOGY. 233
last twelve verses ' of St. Mark's Gospel, according to
Drs. Westeott and Hort, are spurious. But what is their
ground of confidence ? for we claim to be as competent to
judge of testimony as they. It proves to be ' the unique
criterion supplied by the concord of the independent attes
tations of N and B ' (p. 46).
' Independent attestations' ! But when two copies of
the Gospel are confessedly derived from one and the same
original, how can their ' attestations ' be called ' indepen
dent'? This is however greatly to understate the case.
The non-independence of B and N in respect of St. Mark
xvi. 9-20 is absolutely unique : for, strange to relate, it so
happens that the very leaf on which the end of St. Mark's
Gospel and the beginning of St. Luke's is written (St. Mark
xvi. a-Luke i. 56), is one of the six leaves of Cod. N which
are held to have been written by the scribe of Cod. B.
' The inference,' remarks Scrivener, ' is simple and direct,
that at least in these leaves Codd. BN make but one witness,
not two^.'
The principle of Genealogy admits of a more extended
and a more important application to this case, because
B and N do not stand quite alone, but are exclusively asso
ciated with three or four other manuscripts which may be
regarded as being descended from them. As far as we can
judge, they may be regarded as the founders, or at least
as prominent members of a family, whose descendants
were few, because they were generally condemned by the
generations which came after them. Not they, but other
families upon other genealogical stems, were the more like
to the patriarch whose progeny was to equal the stars of
heaven in multitude.
Least of all shall I be so simple as to pretend to fix the
' Introduction, II. 337, note i. And for Dean Burgon's latest opinion on the
date of N see above, pp. 46, 52, 162. The present MS., which I have been
obliged to abridge in order to avoid repetition of much that has been already
said, was one of the Dean's latest productions. See Appendix VII.

234 CONCLUSION.
precise date and assign a definite locality to the fontal
source, or sources, of our present perplexity and distress.
But I suspect that in the little handful of authorities which
have acquired such a notoriety in the annals of recent
Textual Criticism, at the head of which stand Codexes B
and N, are to be recognized the characteristic features of
a lost family of (once well known) second or third-century
documents, which owed their existence to the mi.sguided
zeal of some well-intentioned but utterly incompetent
persons who devoted themselves to the task of correcting
the Text of Scripture ; but were entirely unfit for the
undertaking ^.
Yet I venture also to think that it was in a great
measure at Alexandria that the text in question was
fabricated. My chief reasons for thinking so are the fol
lowing : (i) There is a marked resemblance between the
peculiar readings of BN and the two Egyptian Versions, —
the Bohairic or Version of Lower Egypt especially, (a) No
one can fail to have been struck by the evident sympathy
between Origen, — who at all events had passed more than
half his life at Alexandria, — and the text in question.
(3) I notice that Nonnus also, who lived in the Thebaid,
exhibits considerable sympathy with the text which I deem
so corrupt. (4) I cannot overlook the fact that Cod. N
was discovered in a. monastery under the sway of the
patriarch of Alexandria, though how it got there no
evidence remains to point out. (5) The licentious hand
ling so characteristic of the Septuagint Version of the
O. T., — the work of Alexandrian Jews, — points in the
same direction, and leads me to suspect that Alexandria
was the final source of the text of B-N. (6) I further
observe that the sacred Text [Keip.evov) in Cyril's Homilies
' Since Dean Burgon's death, there has been reason to identify this set of
readings with the Syrio-Low-Latin Text, the first origin of which I have traced
to the earliest times before the Gospels were written — by St. Matthew,
St. Mark, and St. Luke, and of course St. John.

ALEXANDRIA AND CAESAREA. 235
on St. John is often similar to B-N ; and this, I take for
granted, was the effect of the school of Alexandria, — not
of the patriarch himself. (7) Dionysius of Alexandria
complains bitterly of the corrupt Codexes of his day:
and certainly (8) Clemens habitually employed copies of
a similar kind. He too was of Alexandria^.
Such are the chief considerations which incline me to
suspect that Alexandria contributed largely to our Textual
troubles. The readings of B-N are the consequence of a junction
of two or more streams and then of derivation from a single
archetype. This inference is confirmed by the fact that
the same general text which B exhibits is exhibited also
by the eighth-century Codex L, the work probably of an
Egyptian scribe ^ : and by the tenth-century Codex 33 :
and by the eleventh-century Codex i : and to some extent
by the twelfth-century Codex 69.
We have already been able to advance to another and a
very important step. There is nothing in the history of the
earliest times of the Church to prove that vellum manu
scripts of the New Testament existed in any number
before the fourth century. No such documents have come
down to us. But we do know, as has been shewn above",
that writings on papyrus were transcribed on vellum in the
library of Caesarea. What must we then conclude ? That,
as has been already suggested, papyrus MSS. are mainly
the progenitors of the Uncials, and probably of the oldest
Uncials. Besides this inference, we have seen that it is
also most probable that many of the Cursives were tran
scribed directly from papyrus books or rolls. So that the
Genealogy of manuscripts of the New Testament includes
a vast number of descendants, and many lines of descent,
which ramified from one stem on the original start from
• So with St Athanasius in his earlier days. See above, p. 119, note 2.
2 Miller's Scrivener, Introduction, I. 138. ^ pp. 2, 155.

236 CONCLUSION.
the autograph of each book. The Vatican and the Sinaitic
do not stand pre-eminent because of any great line of
parentage passing through them to a multitudinous pos
terity inheriting the earth, but they are members of a con
demned family of which the issue has been small. The
rejected of the fourth century has been spurned by suc
ceeding centuries. And surely now also the fourth century,
rich in a roll of men conspicuous ever since for capacity
and learning, may be permitted to proclaim its real senti
ments and to be judged from its own decisions, without
being disfranchised by critics of the nineteenth.
The history of the Traditional Text, on the contrary,
is continuous and complete under the view of Genealogy.
The pedigree of it may be commended to the examination
of the Heralds' College. It goes .step by step in unbroken
succession regularly back to the earliest time. The present
printed editions may be compared for extreme accuracy
with the text passed by the Elzevirs or Beza as the text
received by all of their time. Erasmus followed his few
MSS. because he knew them to be good representatives
of the mind of the Church which had been informed under
the ceaseless and loving care of mediaeval transcribers :
and the text of Erasmus printed at Basle agreed in but
little variation with the text of the Complutensian editors
published in Spain, for which Cardinal Ximenes procured
MSS. at whatever cost he could. No one doubts the coin
cidence in all essential points of the printed text with the
text of the Cursives. Dr. Hort certifies the Cursive Text
as far back as the middle of the fourth century. It depends
upon various lines of descent, and rests on the testimony
supplied by numerous contemporary Fathers before the year
1000 A. D., when co-existing MSS. failed to bear witness
in multitudes. The acceptance of it by the Church of
the fifth century, which saw the settlement of the great
doctrinal controversies either made or confirmed, proves

GENEALOGY AND THE TRADITIONAL TEXT. 237
that the seal was set upon the validity of the earliest
pedigrees by the illustrious intellects and the sound faith
of those days. And in the fifth chapter of this work, con
temporary witness is carried back to the first days. There
is thus a cluster of pedigrees, not in one line but in many
parallel courses of descent, not in one country but in
several, ranging over the whole Catholic Church where
Greek was understood, attested by Versions, and illustrated
copiously by Fathers, along which without break in the
continuity the Traditional Text in its main features has
been transmitted. Doubtless something still remains for
the Church to do under the present extraordinary wealth
of authorities. in the verification of some particulars issuing
in a small number of alterations, not in challenging or
changing like the other school anything approaching to
one-eighth of the New Testament ^ : for that we now
possess in the main the very Words of the Holy Gospels
as they issued from their inspired authors, we are taught
under the principle of Genealogy that there is no valid
reason to doubt.
To conclude, the system which we advocate will be seen
to contrast strikingly with that which is upheld by the
opposing school, in three general ways :
I. We have with us width and depth against the narrow
ness on their side. They are conspicuously contracted in
the fewness of the witnesses which they deem worthy of
credence. They are restricted as to the period of history
which alone they consider to deserve attention. They are
confined with regard to the countries from which their
testimony comes. They would supply Christians with
a shortened text, and educate them under a cast-iron
system. We on the contrary champion the many against
the few : we welcome all witnesses, and weigh all testi
mony : we uphold all the ages against one or two, and
* Hort, Introduction, p. 2.

238 CONCLUSION.
all the countries against a narrow space. We maintain
the genuine and all-round Catholicism of real Christendom
against a discarded sectarianism exhumed from the fourth
century. If we condemn, it is because the evidence con
demns. We cling to all the precious Words that have come
down to us, because they have been so preserved to our
days under verdicts depending upon overwhelming proof.
II. We oppose facts to their speculation. They exalt
B and N and D because in their own opinion those copies
are the best. They weave ingenious webs, and invent
subtle theories, because their paradox of a few against the
many requires ingenuity and subtlety for its support.
Dr. Hort revelled in finespun theories and technical terms,
such as ' Intrinsic Probability,' ' Transcriptional Probability,'
' Internal evidence of Readings,' ' Internal evidence of
Documents,' which of course connote a certain amount of
evidence, but are weak pillars of a heavy structure. Even
conjectural emendation ^ and inconsistent decrees^ are not
rejected. They are infected with the theorizing which
spoils some of the best German work, and with the ideal
ism which is the bane of many academic minds, especially
at Oxford and Cambridge. In contrast with this sojourn
in cloudland, we are essentially of the earth though not
earthy. We are nothing, if we are not grounded in facts :
our appeal is to facts, our test lies in facts, so far as we can
we build testimonies upon testimonies and pile facts on
facts. We imitate the procedure of the courts of justice
in decisions resulting from the converging product of all
the evidence, when it has been cross-examined and sifted-
As men of business, not less than students, we endeavour
to pursue the studies of the library according to the best
methods of the world.
III. Our opponents are gradually getting out of date :
the world is drifting away from them. Thousands of
' Hort, Introduction, p. 7. '' Quarterly Review, No. 363, July, 1895.

SOUNDNESS AND WIDTH. 239
manuscripts have been added to the known stores since
Tischendorf formed his system, and Hort began to theorize,
and their handful of favourite documents has become by
comparison less and less. Since the deaths of both of
those eminent critics, the treasures dug up in Egypt
and elsewhere have put back the date of the science of
palaeography from the fourth century after the Christian
era to at least the third century before, and papyrus
has sprung up into unexpected prominence in the ancient
and mediaeval history of writing. It is discovered that
there was no uncial period through which the genealogy
of cursives has necessarily passed. Old theories on those
points must generally be reconstructed if they are to
tally with known facts. But this accession of knowledge
which puts our opponents in the wrong, has no effect on
us except to confirm our position with new proof. Indeed,
we welcome the unlocking of the all but boundless treasury
of ancient wealth, since our theory, being as open as
possible, and resting upon the visible and real, rem.ains
not only uninjured but strengthened. If it were to require
any re-arrangement, that would be only a re-ordering
of particulars, not of our principles which are capacious
enough to admit of any addition of materials of judgement.
We trust to the Church of all the ages as the keeper and
witness of Holy Writ, we bow to the teaching of the HOLY
Ghost, as conveyed in all wisdom by facts and evidence :
and we are certain, that, following no preconceived notions
of our own, but led under such guidance, moved by prin
ciples so reasonable and comprehensive, and observing
rules and instructions appealing to us with such authority,
we are in all main respects
standing UPON THE ROCK.

APPENDIX L
HONEYCOMB — aTro p-eXiaaCov Krjpiov.
[The Dean left positive instructions for the publication of this Dissertation,
as being finished for Press.]
I PROPOSE next to call attention to the omission from
St. Luke xxiv. 42 of a precious incident in the history of
our Lord's Resurrection. It was in order effectually to
convince the Disciples that it was Himself, in His human
body, who stood before them in the upper chamber on the
evening of the first Easter Day, that He inquired, [ver. 41]
' Have ye here any meat ? [ver. 42] and they gave Him
a piece of a broiled fish, AND OF AN honeycomb.' But
those four last words [koI d-no p.eXiaaiov Krjpiov) because they
are not found in six copies of the Gospel, are by Westeott
and Hort ejected from the text. Calamitous to relate, the
Revisers of 1881 were by those critics persuaded to exclude
them also. How do men suppose that such a clause as
that established itself universally in the sacred text, if it
be spurious ? ' How do you suppose,'' I shall be asked in
reply, ' if it be genuine, that such a clause became omitted
from any manuscript at all?'
I answer, — The omission is due to the prevalence in the
earliest age of fabricated exhibitions of the Gospel narra
tive ; in which, singular to relate, the incident recorded in
St. Luke xxiv. 41-43 was identified with that other mysteri
ous repast which St. John describes in his last chapter ^
' St. John xxi. 9-13.

HONEYCOMB. 241
It seems incredible, at first sight, that an attempt would
ever be made to establish an enforced harmony between
incidents exhibiting so many points of marked contrast :
for St. Luke speaks of (i) 'broiled fish [IxO-iios otttov^ and
honeycomb,' (2) which ' they gave Him,' (3) ' and He did
eat ' (4) on the first Easter Day, (5) at evening, (6) in
a chamber, (7) at Jerusalem : — whereas St. John specifies
(1) 'bread, and fish [o^dpiov'] likewise,' (2) which He gave
them, (3) and of which it is not related that Himself par
took. (4) The occasion was subsequent : (5) the time,
early morning : (6) the scene, the sea-shore : (7) the coun
try, Galilee.
Let it be candidly admitted on the other hand, in the
way of excuse for those ancient men, that ' broiled fish '
was common to both repasts ; that they both belong to the
period subsequent to the Resurrection : that the same
parties, our LoRD namely and His Apostles, were con
cerned in either transaction ; and that both are prefaced
by similar words of inquiry. Waiving this, it is a plain
fact that Eusebius in his 9th Canon, makes the two inci
dents parallel ; numbering St. Luke (xxix. 41-3), § 341 ;
and St. John (xxi. 9, 10, 12, first half, and 13), severally
§§ 221, aa3, a25. The Syriac sections which have hitherto
escaped the attention of critical scholars^ are yet more
precise. Let the intention of their venerable compiler — •
whoever he may have been — be exhibited in full. It has
never been done before : —
' (St. Luke xxiv.) ' (St. John xxi.)
'§ 397. [JesusJ said unto '§ 255. Jesus saith unto them,
them. Have ye here any meat ? Children, have ye any meat ?
(ver. 41.) They answered Him, No. (ver. 5.)
'Id.  '§ 259. ... As soon then as
they were come to land, they saw
' In Studia Biblica et Eccles. II. vi. (G. H. Gwilliam), published two years
after the Dean's death, will be found a full description of this form of sections.
R

242 APPENDIX I.
(St. Luke xxiv.) (St. John xxi.)
a fire of coals there, and fish laid
ihereon, and bread, (ver. 9.)
' § 398. And they gave Him a ' § 264. Jesus then comelh and
piece of a broiled fish and of an taketh bread, and giveth them,
honeycomb, (ver. 42.) and fish likewise, (ver. 13.)
' § 399. And He took it and '§ 262. Jesus saith unto them,
did eat before them. (ver. 43.)' Come and dine. (ver. 12.) '
The intention of all this is unmistakable. The places
are deliberately identified. But the mischief is of much
older date than the Eusebian Canons, and must have been
derived in the first instance from a distinct source.
Eusebius, as he himself informs us, did but follow in the
wake of others. Should the Diatessaron of Ammonius or
that of Tatian ever be recovered, a flood of light will for
the first time be poured over a department of evidence
where at present we must be content to grope our way^.
But another element of confusion I suspect is derived
from that lost Commentary on the Song of Solomon in
which Origen is said to have surpassed himself^. Certain
of the ancients insist on discovering in St. Luke xxiv. 42
the literal fulfilment of the Greek version of Cant. v. i,
' I ate my bread with honey.' Cyril of Jerusalem remarks
that those words of the spouse ' were fulfilled ' when ' they
gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and of an honeycomb ^':
while Gregory Nyss. points out (alluding to the same place)
that 'the true Bread,' when Hfe appeared to His Disciples,
'was by honeycomb made sweet*.' Little did those
' As far as we know at present about Tatian's Diatessaron, he kept these
occurrences distinct. — Ed.
^ ' Origenes, quum in caeteris libris omnes vicerit, in Cantico Canticorum
ipse se vicit.' — Hieron. Opp. iii. 499 ; i. 525.
' After quoting Luke xxiv. 41, 42 in extenso, he proceeds, — PXeneis nuis
nenX-qpojTai to' ''Efpayov dpTov pov perd peXiTds pov (p. 2I0b) : and xal perd
TTjv dvaoToatv eXeyiv, ''E4)ayov tov dprov perd peXiTos pov. eSaixav ydp avra
diTo peXiaaiov xrjpiov (p. 341 a).
' "ApTOS yiverai, ovxiri enl mxpiSav eaBi6pevos . . . dXX' oipov iavTcp rd peXi

HONEYCOMB. 243
Fathers imagine the perplexity which at the end of 15
centuries their fervid and sometimes fanciful references to
Scripture would occasion !
I proceed to shew how inveterately the ancients have
confused these two narratives, or rather these two distinct
occasions. ' Who knows not,' asks Epiphanius, ' that our
Saviour ate, after His Resurrection from the dead ? As
the holy Gospels of Truth have it, " There was given unto
Him " [which is a reference to St. Luke], " bread and part
of a broiled fish." [but it is St. John who mentions the
bread] ; — " and He took and ate " [but only according to
St. Luke], "and gave to His disciples,'' [but only according
to St. John. And yet the reference must be to St. Luke's
narrative, for Epiphanius straightway adds,] " as He also
did at the sea of Tiberias ; both eating," [although no eat
ing on His part is recorded concerning that meal,] ''and
distributing^."' Ephraem Syrus makes the same mis
statement. ' If He was not flesh,' he asks, ' who was it, at
the sea of Tiberias, who ate^ ? ' ' While Peter is fishing,'
says Hesychius^, (with plain reference to the narrative in
St. John), 'behold in the Lord's hands bread and honey
comb*': where the 'honeycomb' has clearly lost its way,
and has thrust out the ' fish.' Epiphanius elsewhere even
more fatally confuses the two incidents. ' Jesus ' (he says)
'on a second occasion after His Resurrection ate both
a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb^.' One
would have set this down to sheer inadvertence, but that
noiovpevos. And, d perd t^v dvdoTaaiv npofpavels tois pnd-rjTaTs dpros eari, to)
xTipiai ToC peXiTos ^Svvdpevos, — i. 624 a b. See more concerning this quotation
below, p. 249 note.
' Epiph. i. 143. ' Ephr. Syr. ii. 48 e.
' Or whoever else was the author of the first Homily of the Resurrection,
wrongly ascribed to Gregory Nyss. (iii. 382-99). Hesychius was probably
the author of the second Homily. (Last Twelve Verses, &c,, pp. 57-9 ) Both
are compilations however, into which precious passages of much older Fathers
have been unscrupulously interwoven, — to the infinite perplexity of every
attentive reader.
* Apud Greg. Nyss. iii. 399 d. ' Epiph. i. 652 d.
R 2

244 APPENDIX I.
Jerome circumstantially makes the self-same assertion : —
' In John we read that while the Apostles were fishing. He
stood upon the shore, and ate part of a broiled fish and
honeycomb. At Jerusalem He is not related to have done
anything of the kind'.' From whom can Jerome have
derived that wild statement ^ ? It is certainly not his own.
It occurs in his letter to Hedibia where he is clearly
a translator only^. In another place, Jerome says, ' He
sought fish broiled upon the coals, in order to confirm
the faith of His doubting Apostles, who were afraid to
approach Him, because they thought they saw a spirit,
— not a solid body*': which is a mixing up of St. John's
narrative with that of St. Luke. Clemens Alex., in a pas
sage which has hitherto escaped notice, dehberately affirms
that ' the LoRD blessed the loaves and the broiled fishes
with which He feasted His Disciples^.' Where did he find
that piece of information ?
One thing more in connexion with the ' broiled fish and
honeycomb! Athanasius — and Cyril Alex.^ after him —
rehearse the incident with entire accuracy ; but Athanasius
adds the apocryphal statement that ' He took what remained
over, and gave it unto them''' : which tasteless appendix is
found besides in Cureton's Syriac [not in the Lewis], — in
the Bohairic, Harkleian, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions ;
and must once have prevailed to a formidable extent, for
' In Joanne legimus quod piscantibus Apostolis, in littore steterit, et partem
assi piscis, favumque comederit, quae verae resurrectionis indicia sunt. In
Jerusalem autem nihil horum fecisse narratur. — Hieron. i. 825 a.
^ Not from Eusebius' Qu. ad Marinum apparently. Compare however
Jerome, i. 824 d with. Eusebius (ap. Mai), iv. 295 (cap. x).
' See Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 51-6. * i. 444 b.
" p. 172. ' iv. 1108 c.
' Athanas. i. 644 : xdx (payuiv evuiniov avrSiv, AABfiN TA EniAOinA,
dneSaixev avTois. This passage reappears in the fragmentary Commentary
published by Mai (ii. 582), divested only of the words xal oTro peX. xrip. — The
characteristic words (in capitals) do not appear in Epiphanius (i. 143 c), who
merely says xal eSaixe tois paBrirais, — confusing the place in St. Luke with the
place in St. John.

HONEYCOMB. 245
it has even established itself in the Vulgate^- It is wit
nessed to, besides, by two ninth-century uncials (KH) and
ten cursive copies^. The thoughtful reader will say to him
self, — ' Had only Cod. B joined itself to this formidable
conspiracy of primitive witnesses, we should have had this
also thrust upon us by the new school as indubitable
Gospel : and remonstrances would have been in vain ! '
Now, as all must see, it is simply incredible that these
many Fathers, had they employed honestly-made copies
of St. Luke's and of St. John's Gospel, could have fallen
into such frequent and such strange misrepresentations of
what those Evangelists actually say. From some fabri
cated Gospel — from some ' Diatessaron ' or ' Life of Christ,'
once famous in the Church, long since utterly forgotten, —
from some unauthentic narrative of our Saviour's Death
and Resurrection, I say, these several depravations of the
sacred story must needs have been imported into St. Luke's
Gospel. And lo, out of all that farrago, the only manu
script traces which survive at this distant day, are found in
the notorious B-N, with A, D, L, and U, — one copy each of
the Old Latin (e) and the Bohairic [and the Lewis], — which
exclusively enjoy the unenviable distinction of omitting
the incident of the ' honeycomb ' : while the confessedly
spurious appendix, ' He gave them what remained over,'
enjoys a far more ancient, more varied, and more respect
able attestation. — and yet has found favour with no single
Editor of the Sacred Text : no, nor have our Revisers seen
fit by a marginal note to apprize the ordinary English
reader that ' many uncial authorities ' are disfigured in this
particular way. With this latter accretion to the inspired
verity, therefore, we need not delay ourselves : but that, so
' Aug. iii. P. 2, 143 (A. D. 400) ; viii. 472 (A. D. 404).
^ To the 9 specified by Tisch. — (Evann. 13, 42, 88 (ra ¦nepiaaevpm.Ta), 130
(to enavaXetipBev), i6i, 300, 346, 400, 507, — add Evan. 33, in which the words
xal TO eTiiXoma «6cu/tei' avTois have been overlooked by Tregelles.

246 APPENDIX I.
many disturbing influences having resulted, at the end of
seventeen centuries, in the ehmination of the clause Kat awd
p.eXiaaiov KripCov from six corrupt copies of St. Luke's
Gospel, — a fixed determination or a blundering tendency
should now be exhibited to mutilate the Evangelical narra
tive in respect of the incident which those four words
embody, — this may well create anxiety. It makes critical
inquiry an imperative duty : not indeed for our own satis
faction, but for that of others.
Upon ourselves, the only effect produced by the sight of
half a dozen Evangelia, — whether written in the uncial or
in the cursive character we deem a matter of small account,
— opposing themselves to the whole body of the copies,
uncial and cursive alike, is simply to make us suspicious
of those six Evangelia. Shew us that they have been
repeatedly tried already and as often have been con
demned, and our suspicion becomes intense. Add such
evidence of the operation of a disturbing force as has been
already set before the reader ; and further inquiry in our
own minds we deem superfluous. But we must answer
those distinguished Critics who have ruled that Codexes
B-N, D, L, can hardly if ever err.
The silence of the Fathers is really not of much account.
Some critics quote Clemens Alexandrinus. But let that
Father be allowed to speak for himself. He is inveighing
against gluttony. ' Is not variety consistent with simplicity
of diet?' (he asks); and he enumerates olives, vegetables,
milk, cheese, &c. If it must be flesh, he proceeds, let the
flesh be merely broiled. ' " Have ye here any meat?" said
our Lord to His disciples after His Resurrection. Where
upon, having been by Him taught frugality in respect of
diet, " they gave Him a piece of a broiled fi.sh." . . . Yet may
the fact not be overlooked that those who sup as The Word
approves may partake besides of " honeycomb." The fittest
food, in a word, we consider to be that which requires no

HONEYCOMB. 247
cooking: next, as I began by explaining, cheap and
ordinary articles of diet^.' Shall I be thought unreasonable
if I insist that .so far from allowing that Clemens is ' silent '
concerning the 'honeycomb,' I even regard his testimony
to the traditionary reading of St. Luke xxiv. 42 as express?
At the end of 1700 years, I am as sure that 'honeycomb'
was found in his copy, as if I had seen it with my eyes.
Origen, who is next adduced, in one place remarks
concerning our SAVIOUR — ' It is plain that after His
Resurrection, He ate of a fish ^.' The same Father else
where interprets mystically the circumstance that the
Disciples 'gave Him a piece of a broiled fish^.' Eusebius
in like manner thrice mentions the fact that our LoRD
partook of ' broiled fish* ' after His Resurrection. And
because these writers do not also mention 'honeycomb,'
it is assumed by Tischendorf and his school that the
words Kat OTTO p.eXiaaiov Kr/piov cannot have existed in their
copies of St. Luke^. The proposed inference is plainly
inadmissible. Cyril, after quoting accurately St. Luke
xxiv. 36 to 43 (' honeycomb ' and all) ^, proceeds to remark
exclusively on the incident of the ' fish ' '. Ambrose and
Augustine certainly recognized the incident of ' the honey
comb ' : yet the latter merely remarks that ' to eat fish
with the Lord is better thari to eat lentiles with Esau*;'
while the former draws a mystical inference from 'the
record in the Gospel that Jesus ate broiled fshes^.' Is it
^ Tlpds TOVTois ovSi TpayrjpidToiv XTipiuv dpoipovs nepiopareov tovs SeinvovvTOs
xard Aoyov. — p. 174.
^ i. 384. ' iii. 477. ' Apud Mai, iv. 294, 295 bis.
' ' Ibi TO xripiov praeterire non poterat [j<r. Origenes] si in exemplis suis
additamentum reperisset.' (From Tischendorf's note on Luke xxiv. 42.)
* iv. itoSbc.
' KaTeS-qSoxe ydp rb ¦ irpoxopiaBiv ixBvStov, ^roi to If avrov pepos. — Ibid. d.
Similarly in the fragments of Cyril's Commentary on St. Luke, he is observed
to refer to the incident of the piece of broiled fish exclusively. (Mai, ii. 442,
443, which reappears in P. Smith, p. 730.)
' iii. P. i. p. 51. For the honeycomb, see iii. P. ii. p. 143 a : viii. 472 d.
9 i. 215.

248 APPENDIX I.
not obvious that the more conspicuous incident, — that of
the 'broiled fish,'— being common to both repasts, stands
for all that was partaken of on either occasion ? in other
words, represents the entire meal? It excludes neither
the 'honeycomb' of the upper chamber, nor the 'bread'
which was eaten beside the Galilean lake. Tertullian 1,
intending no slight either to the 'broiled fish' or to the
' bread,' makes mention only of our Lord's having ' eaten
honeycomb' after His Resurrection. And so Jerome,
addressing John, bishop of Jerusalem, exclaims, — ' Why
did the Lord eat honeycomb ? Not in order to give thee
licence to eat honey, but in order to demonstrate the truth
of His Resurrection^.' To draw inferences from the rhetorical
silence of the Fathers as if we were dealing with a mathe
matical problem or an Act of Parliament, can only result
in misconceptions of the meaning of those ancient men.
As for Origen, there is nothing in either of the two
places commonly cited from his writings ^, where he only
mentions the partaking of ' fish,' to preclude the belief that
Origen knew of the ' honeycomb ' also in St. Luke xxiv. 42.
We have but fragments of his Commentary on St. Luke *,
and an abridged translation of his famous Commentary
on Canticles. Should these works of his be hereafter
recovered in their entirety, I Strongly suspect that a certain
scholium in Cordier's Catena on St. Luke ^, which contains
a very elaborate recognition of the ' honeycomb,' will be
found to be nothing else but an excerpt from one or other
of them. At foot the learned reader will be gratified by
the sight of the original Greek of the scholium referred to ^,
' ' Favos post fella gustavit.' — De Corona, c. 14 (i. p. 455).
'' ii. 444 a. = i. 384 ; iii. 477.
* Opp. iii. 932-85 : with which comp. Galland. xiv. Append. 83-90 and
91-109. ^ Cat. (1628), p. 622. Cordier translates from ' Venet, 494' (our 'Evan. 466').
' What follows is obtained (June 28, 1884) by favour of Sig. Veludo, the
learned librarian of St. Mark's, from the Catena on St. Luke's Gospel at
Venice (cod. 494 = our Evan. 466), which Cordier (in 1628) translated into

HONEYCOMB. 249
which Cordier so infehcitously exhibits in Latin. He will
at least be made aware that if it be not Origen who there
speaks to us, it is some other very ancient father, whose
testimony to the genuineness of the clause now under con
sideration is positive evidence in its favour which greatly
outweighs the negative evidence of the archetype of B-N.
But in fact as a specimen of mystical interpretation, the
passage in question is quite in Origen's way^ — has all his
fervid wildness, — in all probability is actually his.
Latin. The Latin of this particular passage is to be seen at p. 622 of his
badly imagined and well-nigh useless work. The first part of it (avvecpaye . . .
evanoypdxpovTai) is occasionally found as a scholium, e.g. in Cod. Marc. Venet.
27 (our Evan. 2io'i, and is already known to scholars from Matthaei's N. T.
(note on Luc. xxiv. 42). The rest of the passage (which now appears for the
first time) I exhibit for the reader's convenience parallel with a passage of
Gregory of Nyssa's Christian Homily on Canticles. If the author of what is
found in the second column is not quoting what is found in the first, it is at
least certain that both have resorted to, and are here quoting from the same
lost original; —
^vvecpayev Si xal to) onrw ixBvtp (sic) rb XTipiov tov peXiTos' SriXoiV ws oi
¦nvpajBevTes Sid ttjs Beias evavBpoin^fiaews xal peTaaxdvres avrov ttjs Bedrriros, ws
peXi per' eniBvpias rds evToXds avrov napaSe^ovrai' XTipw oianep Toiis vdpovs
eva-noypd^avres' 'oti d piv tov ndoxa
dpros enl nixpiSaiv •tjaBieTO xal & .... dpTos .... ovxeri enl nixpiSwv
vdpos SiexeXevero' eaBiSpevos, ws b vdpos SiaxeXeverar
npos ydp rb napbv y mxpia' npbs ydp rb napdv eariv fi nixpis'
b Se perd T-qv dvdaraatv dpros rw ( .... 0 perd riiv dvdaraaiv toi)
KTipitp TOV peXiTos fiSovero' Kvpiov npoaipavets tois paOriraTs dpros
eari, tq) xripit^ Toi) peXiros ^Svvupfvos.)
&ipov ydp eavTois rb peXi noiriabpeOa, dAA' o^ov eavru rb peXt noiovpevos,
'orav ev to) 'iSicp xTipw 0 xapnbs t^s 'orav iv rw iSiqt xaipw 6 xapnbs ttis
dptTTjS xarayXvxaivei rd r^s ^vxTJs dperTJs KarayXvxaivrj rd Tris ipvxfis
aiaBriTTipia. aiaBrir-ripia.
Anon, apud Corderium (fol. 58) : Greg. Nyss. in Cant. (Opp. i. a) ;
see above. the sentence in brackets being trans
posed.
Quite evident is it that, besides Gregory of Nyssa, Hesychius (or whoever
else was the author of the first Homily on the Resurrection) had the same
original before him when he wrote as follows : — dXX' eneiS^i o npb toi! ndaxa
aiTos b d^vpos, oijjov t^v nixpiSa exei, XSojpev rivi ^Suapari b perd ri^v dvdaraatv
dpTos iiSvverai. bpds rov Tlerpov aXievovros ev rais x^P^"^ "^^^ xvpiov dprov /cai
XTipiov peXiTOS vdriaov ri aoi ¦^ nixpia rov Piov xaraaxevd^erai. ovxovv dva-
ardvres xal ¦qpeis ex Trjs twv Xdywv dXeias, ^Sti tw dprtp npoaSpdpwpev, bv
xaTayXvxaivei rb xripiov ttjs dyaB^s eX-niSos. (ap. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 399 c d.)
' So Matthaei : ' Haec interpretatio sapit ingenium Origenis.' (N.T. iii. 498.)

250 APPENDIX I.
The question however to be decided is clearly not
whether certain ancient copies of St. Luke were without
the incident of the honeycomb ; but only whether it is
reasonable to infer from the premisses that the Evangehst
made no mention of it. And I venture to anticipate that
readers will decide this question with me in the negative.
That, from a period of the remotest antiquity, certain dis
turbing forces have exercised a baneful influence over this
portion of Scripture is a plain fact : and that their combined
agency should have resulted in the elimination of the
incident of the ' honeycomb ' from a few copies of St. Luke
xxiv. 42, need create no surprise. On the other hand, this
Evangelical incident is attested by the following witnesses : —
In the second century, by Justin M.^, — by Clemens
Alexandrinus^, — by Tertullian 3, — by the Old-Latin, — and
by the Peshitto Version :
In the third century, by Cureton's Syriac, — and by the
Bohairic :
In the fourth century, by Athanasius *, — by Gregory of
Nyssa®,- — by Epiphanius ^ — by Cyril of Jerusalem'', — by
Jerome*, — by Augustine', — and by the Vulgate :
In the fifth century, by Cyril of Alexandria^", — by
Proclus ",^ — by Vigilius Tapsensis ^^, — by the Armenian, —
and Ethiopic Versions :
In the sixth century, by Hesychius and Cod. N^^:
In the seventh century, by the Harkleian Version.
Surely an Evangelical incident attested by so many,
such respectable, and such venerable witnesses as these, is
clearly above suspicion. Besides its recognition in the
' Kal etpaye xvpiov xal ixBvv, — ii. 240. From the fragment De Resnrrectione
preserved by John Damascene, — ii. 762 a.
" See above, note i, p. 247. ' See above, note i, p. 248.
' i. 644 (see above, p. 244, n. 7). ' i. 624 (see above, p. 242, 11. 3).
» pp. 210, 431 (see above, p. 243). ' i. 652 d (see .above, p. 247).
° i. 825 a ; ii. 444 a. ' See above, note i, p. 245.
'° iv. 1 108. " Apud Galland. ix. 633.
"^ Varim. i. 56. " Apud Greg. Nyss. iii. 399.

HONEYCOMB. 251
ancient scholium to which attention has been largely
invited already ^, we find the incident of the ' honeycomb '
recognized by 13 ancient Fathers, — by 8 ancient Versions,
— by the unfaltering Tradition of the universal Church, —
above all, by every copy of St. Luke's Gospel in existence
(as far as is known), uncial as well as cursive — except six.
That it carries on its front the impress of its own genuine
ness, is what no one will deny^. Yet was Dr. Hort for
dismissing it without ceremony. ' A singular interpolation
evidently from an extraneous source, written or oral,' he
says. A singular hallucination, we venture to reply, based
on ideal grounds and 'a system [of Textual Criticism]
hopelessly self-condemned - ; ' seeing that that ingenious
and learned critic has nothing to urge except that the
words in dispute are omitted by B-N, — by A seldom found
in the Gospels in such association, — by D of the sixth
century, — by L of the eighth, — by 11 of the ninth.
I have been so diffuse on this place because I desire
to exhibit an instance shewing that certain perturbations
of the sacred Text demand laborious investigation, — have
a singular history of their own, — may on no account be
disposed of in a high-handed way, by applying to them
any cut and dried treatment, — nay I must say, any arbitrary
shibboleth. The clause in dispute enjoys in perfection
every note of a genuine reading: viz. number, antiquity,
variety, respectability of witnesses, besides continuity of
attestation : every one of which notes are away from that
exhibition of the text which is contended for by my
opponents*. Tischendorf conjectures that the 'honeycomb'
^ See above, p. 248, note 6.
^ ' The words could hardly have been an interpolation.' (Alford, «'« loc )
' Scrivener's Introd. II. p. 358.
* It is well known that Dean Burgon considered B, N , and D to be bad
manuscripts. When I wrote my Textual Guide, he was angry with me for not
following him in this. Before his death, the logic of facts convinced me that he
was right and I was wrong. We came together upon independent investigation.

252 APPENDIX I.
may have been first brought in from the ' Gospel of the
Hebrews.' What if, on the contrary, by the Valentinian
' Gospel of Truth,' — a composition of the second century, —
the ' honeycomb ' should have been first thrust out ^? The
plain statement of Epiphanius (quoted above ^) seems to
establish the fact that his maimed citation was derived
from that suspicious source.
Let the foregoing be accepted as a specimen of the injury
occasionally sustained by the Evangelical text in a very
remote age from the evil influence of the fabricated narra
tives, or Diatessarons, which anciently abounded. The
genuineness of the clause Kot aTro p.eXiaalov Kr\piov, it is
hoped, will never more be seriously called in question.
Surely it has been demonstrated to be quite above
suspicion ^-
I find that those MSS. in disputed passages are almost always wrong— mainly,
if not entirely, the authors of our confusion. What worse could be said of
them ? And nothing less will agree with the facts from our point of view.
Compromise on this point which might be amiable shrinks upon inquiry before
a. vast array of facts. — E. M.
' Compare Epiphanius (i. 143 c) ut supra (Haer. xxx. c. 19) with Irenaeus
(iii. c. II, § 9) : 'Hi vero qui sunt a Valentino ... in tantum processerunt
audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum est Veritatis Evangelium
titulent.' ^ See above, p. 243.
^ There is reason for thinking that the omission was an Alexandrian reading.
Egyptian asceticism would be alien to so sweet a food as honeycomb. See
above, p. 150. The Lewis Cod. omits the words. But it may be remembered
that it restricts St. John Baptist's food to locusts ' and the honey of the
mountain.' — E. M.

APPENDIX IL
"O^os — Vinegar.
[The Dean thought this to be one of his most perfect papers.]
When He had reached the place called Golgotha, there
were some who offered to the Son of Man {eb'ibovv ' were for
giving' Him) a draught of wine drugged with myrrh ^- He
would not so much as taste it. Presently, the soldiers gave
Him while hanging on the Cross vinegar mingled with
gall ^. This He tasted, but declined to drink. At the end
of six hours. He cried, ' I thirst ' : whereupon one of the
soldiers ran, filled a sponge with vinegar, and gave Him
to drink by offering the sponge up to His mouth secured
to the summit of the reed of aspersion : whereby (as
St. John significantly remarks) it covered the bunch of
ceremonial hyssop which was used for sprinkling the
people ^. This time He drank ; and exclaimed, ' It is
finished.' Now, the ancients, and indeed the moderns too, have
hopelessly confused this pathetic story by identifying the
' vinegar and gall ' of St. Matt, xxvii. 34 with the ' myrrhed
wine ' of St. Mark xv. 23 ; shewing therein a want of critical
perception which may reasonably excite astonishment ; for
' 'Eapvppiapevov oTvov, Mark xv. 23.
^ "O^os perd x^^^s pepiypevov, Matt, xxvii. 34 ( = Luke xxiii. 37).
^ UK^qCavTes airoyyov o^ovs, xal vaadtnw nepi&evres, John xix. 29.

254 APPENDIX II.
' wine ' is not ' vinegar,' neither is ' myrrh ' ' gall.' And
surely, the instinct of humanity which sought to alleviate
the torture of crucifixion by administering to our Saviour
a preliminary soporific draught, was entirely distinct from
the fiendish malice which afterwards with a nauseous potion
strove to aggravate the agony of dissolution. Least of all
is it reasonable to identify the leisurely act of the insolent
soldiery at the third hour ^, with what ' one of them ' (evi
dently appalled by the darkness) ' ran ' to do at the ninth^.
Eusebius nevertheless, in his clumsy sectional system,
brackets^ together these three places (St. Matt, xxvii. 34,
St. Mark xv. 23, St. John xix. 29): while moderns (as the ex
cellent Isaac Williams) and ancients (as Cyril of Jerusalem)*
alike strenuously contend that the two first must needs
be identical. The consequence might have been foreseen.
Besides the substitution of * wine ' for ' vinegar ' (oti;oj' for
o£os) which survives to this day in nineteen copies of
St. Matt, xxvii. 34, the words ' and gall ' are found im
properly thrust into four or five copies of St. John xix. 29.
As for Eusebius and Macarius Magnes, they read St. John
xix. 29 after such a monstrous fashion of their own, that
I propose to invite separate attention to it in another
place. Since however the attempt to assimilate the fourth
Gospel to the first (by exhibiting o^os p.eTd xoXrjs in St. John
xix. 29) is universally admitted to be indefensible, it need
not occupy us further.
I return to the proposed substitution of olvov for o^os in
St. Matt, xxvii. 34, and have only to point out that it is as
' Matt, xxvii. 34 ( = Luke xxiii. 37 ^.
^ Kai etSews Spapdiv els e^ avrSiv, Matt, xxvii. 48 ( = Mark xv. 36).
^ Not so the author of the Syriac Canons. Like Eusebius, he identifies
(i) Matt, xxvii. 34 with Mark xv. 23 ; and (2) Matt, xxvii. 48 with Mark xv. 36
and Luke xxiii. 36 ; but unlike Eusebius, he makes John xix. 29 parallel with
these last three.
•• The former,— pp. 286-7: thelaUer,— p. 197. The Cod. Fuld. ingeniously—
' Et dederunt ei vmum murratum bibere cum felle mixtum ' (Kanke, p. 154).

VINEGAR. 255
plain an instan<;e of enforced harmony as can be produced.
That it exists in many copies of the Old-Latin, and lingers
on in the Vulgate : is the reading of the Egyptian, Ethiopic,
and Armenian Versions and the Lewis Cod.; and survives
in BNDKLn, besides thirteen of the cursives^; — all this
will seem strange to those only who have hitherto failed
to recognize the undeniable fact that Codd. B-N DL are
among the foulest in e.xistence It does but prove how
inveterately, as well as from how remote a period, the error
under discussion has prevailed. And yet, the great and old
Peshitto Version, — Barnabas ^, — Irenaeus ^, — Tertullian *, —
Celsus^, — Origen^, — the Sibylline verses in two places''
(quoted by Lactantius), — and ps.-Tatian^, — are more ancient
¦ Evann. i, 22, 33, 63, 69, 73, 114, 122, 209, 222, 253, 507, 513.
^ §7-
^ Pp. 526, 681 (Mass. 212, 277).
* De Spect. written A.D, 198 i^see Clinton, App. p. 413), c. xxx.— i. p. 62.
' ' " Et dederunt ei bibere acetum et fel." Pro eo quod dulci suo vino eos
laetificarat, acetum ei porrexerunt ; pro felle autem magna ejus miseratio
amaritudinem gentium dulcem fecit.' Evan. Cone. p. 245.
° Celsus to of OS Kai T^r xo^^i' bveiSi^ei tS 'Ijyffou, — writes Origen (i. 416 c d e),
quoting the blasphemous language of his opponent and refuting it, but accepting
the reference to the Gospel record. This he does twice, remarking on the
second occasion (i. 703 b c) that such as Celsus are for ever offering to Jesus
' gall and vinegar.' (These passages are unknown to many critics because they
were overlooked by Griesbach.) — Elsewhere Origen twice (iii. 920 de, 921 b)
recognizes the same incident, on the second occasion contrasting the record in
Matt, xxvii. 34 with that in Mark xv. 23 in a way which shews that he accounted
the places parallel : — ' Et hoc considera, quod secundum Matthaeum quidem
Jesus accipiens acetum cum felle permixtum gustavit, et noluit bibere :
secundum Marcum autem, cum daretur et myrrhatum vinum, non accepit.' —
iii. 921 b.
' Lib, i. 374 and viii. 303 (assigned by Alexander to the age of Antoninus
Pius), ap. Galland. i. 346 a, 395 c. The line (e'ls Si rb I3pupa xcXriv, xal eis
Si^av S^os eSaxav,) is also found in Montfaucon's Appendix (Palaeogr. 246).
Sibyll. lib. i. 374, Gall. i. 346 a eis Si rb $pwpa xoXriv, xal eis nbrov o^os dxparov ;
ibid. viii. 303, 395 c . . . nieiv ofos eSaxav ; quoted by Lactantius, lib. iv. c. 18,
A.D. 320, Gall. iv. 300 a . . . «is Siifiav 3£os eSwxav, which is the way the line is
quoted from the Sibyl in Montfaucon's Appendix (Pal. Graec. 246). Lactantius
a little earlier (Gall. iv. 299 b) had said, — ' Dederunt ei cibum fellis, et mis-
cuerunt ei aceti potionem.'
° Referring to the miracle at Cana, where (viz. in p. 55) the statement is
repeated. Evan. Cone. p. 245. See above, note 5.

256 APPENDIX II.
authorities than any of the preceding, and they all yield
adverse testimony.
Coming down to the fourth century, (to which B-N
belong,) those two Codexes find themselves contradicted by
Athanasius^ in two places, — by another of the same name^
who has been mistaken for the patriarch of Alexandria, —
by Eusebius of Emesa ^, — by Theodore of Heraclea *, — by
Didymus ^, — by Gregory of Nyssa ^, — and by his namesake
of Nazianzus'', — by Ephraem Syrus ^ — by Lactantius', —
by Jerome^", — by Rufinus", — by Chrysostom 1^, — by
Severianus of Gabala ^^, — by Theodore of Mopsuestia", — by
Cyril of Alexandria ^°, — and by Titus of Bostra ^®. Now
these are more respectable contemporary witnesses to the
text of Scripture by far than Codexes B-N and D (who
also have to reckon with A, (J), and 2 — C being mute at the
place), as well as outnumber them in the proportion of
24 to 2. To these (8-t-i6 = ) 24 are to be added the
' Apud Montf ii. 63 ; Corderii, Cat, in Luc. p. 599.
' The Tractatus [ii. 305 b] at the end of the Quaestt. ,id Antiochum (Ath. ii.
301-6), which is certainly of the date of Athanasius, and which the editor
pronounces to be not unworthy of him (Praefat. II. viii-ix).
' Opusc. ed. Augusti, p. 16.
' Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 393.
' Cord. Cat. in. Ps. ii. 409.
^ Ou anoyytd xo^V re xal o^ei Stdl3poxos, diav ol 'lovSaioi rw evepyerji t^v
(piXorr}aiav evSeixvvpevoi Std rov xaXdpov nporeivovai. — i. 624 b (where it should
be noted that the contents of verses 34 and 48 (in Matt, xxvii) are confused).
' i. 481 a, 538 d, 675 b. More plainly in p. 612 e,— ^iSs t^s Xo^V^) '""^
o(ovs, 5i' &v rrlv mxpdv yevaiv eBepanevSrjpev ( = Cat. Nic. p. 788).
' ii. 48 c, 284 a.
' Lib. iv, c. 18. See above, last page, note 7.
'" vii. 236 c d, quoted next page.
'^ ' Refertur etiam quod aceto potatus sit, vel vino myrrhato, quod est amarius
felle.' Rufinus, in Symb. § 26.
" vii. 819 a b ( = Cat. Nic, p. 792). See also a remarkable passage ascribed
to Chrys. in the Catena of Nicetas, pp. 371-2.
" 'Jesus de felle una cum aceto amaritudinis libavit.' (Hom. translated by
Aucher from the Armenian, — Venice, 1827, p. 435).
" Apud Mai, N. Bibl. PP. iii. 455.
'=¦ Apud Mai, ii. 66 ; iii. 42. Is this the same place which is quoted in Cord.
Cat. in Ps. ii. 410 ?
" Apud Galland. v. 332.

VINEGAR. 257
Apocryphal ' Gospel of Nicodemus ^,' which Tischendorf
assigns to the third century ; the 'Acts of Philip^,' and the
Apocryphal 'Acts of the Apostles^,' which Dr. Wright
claims for the fourth; besides Hesychius*, Amphilochius^,
ps. -Chrysostom ', Maximus'', Severus of Antioch^, and
John Damascene", — nine names which far outweigh in anti
quity and importance the eighth and ninth-century Codexes
KLn. Those critics in fact who would substitute 'wine'
for ' vinegar ' in St. Matt, xxvii. 34 have clearly no case.
That, however, which is absolutely decisive of the question
against them is the fact that every uncial and ever^y cursive
copy in existence, except the very few specimens already
quoted, attest that the oldest known reading of this place
is the true reading. In fact, the Church has affirmed in
the plainest manner, from the first, that o^os (not oXvov) is
to be read here. We are therefore astonished to find her
deliberate decree disregarded by Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Westeott and Hort, in an attempt on their part
to revive what is a manifest fabrication, which but for
the Vulgate would long since have passed out of the
memory of Christendom. Were they not aware that
Jerome himself knew better ? ' Usque hodie ' (he says)
' Judaei et omnes increduli Dominicae resurrectionis, aceto
et felle potant Jesum; et dant ei vinum myrrhatum ut eum
consopiant, et mala eorum non videat'":' — whereby he both
shews that he read St. Matt, xxvii. 34 according to the
traditional text (see also p. 233 c), and that he bracketed
together two incidents which he yet perceived were essen
tially distinct, and in marked contrast with one another.
But what most offends me is the deliberate attempt of the
Revisers in this place. Shall I be thought unreasonable
' Or Acta Pilati, pp. 262, 286. ^ p. 85. " p. 16.
' Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii, 410. ' p. 87. ^ x. 829.
' ii. 84, 178. « Cramer, Cat. i. 235.
» i. 228, 549. '» vii. 236 cd.
S

258 APPENDIX II.
if I avow that it exceeds my comprehension how such
a body of men can have persuaded themselves that it is
fair to eject the reading of an important place bf Scripture
like the present, and to substitute for it a reading resting
upon so slight a testimony without furnishing ordinary
Christian readers with at least a hint of what they had
done? They have considered the evidence in favour of
' wine ' (in St. Matt, xxvii. 34) not only ' decidedly prepon
derating,' but the evidence in favour oi' vinegar' so slight
as to render the word undeserving even of a place in the
margin. Will they find a sane jury in Great Britain to be
of the same opinion ? Is this the candid and equitable
action befitting those who were set to represent the Church
in this momentous business ?

APPENDIX III.

THE RICH YOUNG MAN.

The eternal Godhead of Christ was the mark at which,
in the earliest age of all, Satan persistently aimed his most
envenomed shafts. St. John, in many a well-known place,
notices this ; begins and ends his Gospel by proclaiming
our Saviour's Eternal Godhead^ ; denounces as 'deceivers,'
' liars,' and ' antichrists,' the heretical teachers of his own
day who denied this^; — which shews that their malice was
in full activity before the end of the first century of our
era ; ere yet, in fact, the echoes of the Divine Voice had
entirely died out of the memory of very ancient men.
These Gnostics found something singularly apt for their
purpose in a famous place of the Gospel, where the blessed
Speaker seems to disclaim for Himself the attribute of
' goodness,' — in fact seems to distinguish between Himself
and GOD Allusion is made to an incident recorded with
remarkable sameness of expression by St. Matthew (xix.
i6, 17), St. Mark (x. 17, 18) and St. Luke (xviii. 18, 19),
concerning a certain rich young Ruler. This man is
declared by all three to have approached our Lord with
one and the same question, — to have prefaced it with one
and the same glozing address, ' Good Master ! ' — and to
' St. John i. 1-3, 14 ; xx. 31.
" I St. John ii. 18, 22, 23 ; iv. i, 2, 3, 15 ; v. lo, 11, 12, 20 ; 2 St. John ver.
7, 9, 10. So St. Jude ver. 4.
S 2

26o APPENDIX III.
have been checked by the object of his adulation with one
and the same reproof; — 'Why dost thou [who takest me
for an ordinary mortal like thyself^] call me good ? No
one is good [essentially good^] save one,' that is ' GoD.'
. . . See, .said some old teachers, fastening blindly on the
letter,— He disclaims being good : ascribes goodness ex
clusively to the Father : separates Himself from very and
eternal God^ . . . The place was accordingly eagerly fas
tened on by the enemies of the Gospel* : while, to vindicate
the Divine utterance against the purpose to which it was
freely perverted, and to establish its true meaning, is found
to have been the endeavour of each of the most illustrious
of the Fathers in turn. Their pious eloquence would fill
a volume °. Gregory of Nyssa devotes to this subject the
eleventh book of his treatise against Eunomius^.
In order to emphasize this impious as well as shallow
gloss the heretic Valentinus (a. D. i2o), — with his
^ So Athanasius excellently : — o Beds avvapiBp-qaas eavrbv perd rwv dvBpwnwv,
xard T^v adpxa avrov tovto elne, ical npbs tov vovv tov npoaeXBovros avrw'
exeivos ydp dvBpainov avrov evopi^e p6vov xal ov Bedv, xal tovtov exei rbv vovv ij
dndxpiats. Ei piv ydp dvBpwnov, <ftriai, vopi^eis pe xal ov Beov, p-q pe Xeye
dyaBov ovSels ydp dyaBis' ov ydp Sia(pepei [is not an attribute or adornment of]
dvBpwniv-Q fpvaei rb dyaBdv, dXXd Bew. — i. 875 a. So Macarius Magnes, p. 13. —
See also below, note 2, p. 262.
" So, excellently Cyril Alex. V. 3iod, Suicer's Thesaurus ; see Pearson on the
Creed, on St. Matt. xix. 17.
^ So Marcion (ap. Epiph.), — elne Ti? npbs avTov SiSdaxaXe dyaBe, ri nocqaos
^WTiv alwviov xXripovopTiaai ; 6 5^, p^ pe Xeyere dyaBov, els eariv dyaBos, b Qebs
b XlaTTip [i. 339 a]. Note, that it was thus Marcion exhibited St. Luke xviii.
18, 19. See Hippol. Phil. 254, — Ti pe Xeyere dyaBuv ; eis eariv dyaBus.
* So Arius (ap. Epiphanium), — elra ndXiv (prial b paviwSris 'Apeios, nws ejnev
b Kvpios, Tl pe Xeyeis dyaBdv ; eis eariv dyaObs b Oeos. cLy avrov dpvovpevov
TTIV dyaBoTTira [i. 742 b]. — From this, Arius inferred a separate essence : — xal
d<pwpiaev eavrov evrevBev dnb tt^s tov Tlarpbs ovaias re xal vnoardaeojs. rb di
ndv ean yeXoiwSes [i. 780 c]. — Note, that this shews how St. Luke's Gospel
was quoted by the Arians.
^ E.g. ps.-Tatian, Evan. Cone. 173, 174. — Ambrose, ii. 473 e-476 d. —
Gregory Naz. i. 549. — Didymus, Trin. 50-3, — Basil, i. 291 c. — Epiphanius,
i. 780-1. — Macarius Magnes, 12-14. — Theodoret, v. 930-2. — Augustine is very
eloquent on the subject
^ ii. 689. See the summary of contents at p. 281.

THE RICH YOUNG MAN. 261
disciples, Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, the Marcosians, the
Naassenes, Marcion (a.D. 150), and the rest ofthe Gnostic
crew, — not only substituted ' One is good ' for ' No one
is good but one,' — but evidently made it a great point
besides tO' introduce the name of the Father, either in
place of, or else in addition to, the name of 'GOD^.' So
plausible a depravation of the text was unsuspiciously
adopted by not a few of the orthodox. It is found in
Justin Martyr^,— in pseudo-Tatian^, — in the Clementine
homilies*. And many who, like Clemens Alex., — Origen, —
the Dialogus, — and pseudo-Tatian (in five places), are careful
to retain the Evangelical phrase ' No one is good but one
[that is] GoD,'— even they are observed to conclude the
sentence with the heretical addition ' THE FATHER s.' I am
not of course denying that the expression is theologically
correct : but only am requesting the reader to note that,
' Thus, Valentinus (ap. Clem. Alex.), — tfi Se 'eariv dyaBbs, o5 napovaia j)
Std rov vlov <pavepwais . . . . b pbvos dyaBbs liaTiip [Strom, ii. 409]. — Heracleon
(ap. Orig.), — o ydp nep\pas avrbv Harelip, .... oStos xal pbvos dyaBbs, xal pei^wv
rod nepipBevTos [iv. 139b]. — Ptolemaeus to Flora (ap. Epiphanium), — xal ei S
reXetos Hebs dyaBos ean xard r^v eavrov <pvaiv, wanep xal eariv eva ydp pdvov
elvai dyadbv Qedv. Tbv eavrov Ilarepa, b ^(urfip -fjpwv dneiprjvaro, bv avrbs e(pavk-
ptoaev [i. 221 c]. — The Marcosian gloss was, — els 'eariv dyaBbs, b HarTjp ev rots
ovpavois [a/. Irenaeum, p. 92]. — The Naassenes substituted, — ets eariv dyaBbs,
b Harrip pov b ev rots ovpavois, bs dvareXei rov iiXtov avrov x.r.X. \ap. Hippolyt.
Philosoph. 102]. — Marcion introduced the same gloss even into St. Luke's
Gospel, — ets eariv dyaBbs, b Qebs b Xlarrip [ap. Epiphan. i. 339 d, and comp.
315 c]. ^
^ Els eariv dyaBbs, b Uar-fip pov 0 ev rots ovpavois. — Tryph. c. loi [vol. ii.
344]- ^ ' Unus tantum ' (ait) ' est bonus. Pater qui in coelis est.' — Evan. Cone.
p. 173 and on p. 169, — ' Unus tantum ' (ait) ' est bonus ': ast post haec non
tacuit, sed adjecit ' Pater.'
' M17 pe Xeye dyadbv b ydp dyaBbs ets eariv (ap. Galland. ii. 752 d). And
so at p. 759 a and d, adding — b n-iriip b ev rois ovpavois. This reference will
be found vindicated below ; in note 8, p. 269.
° For the places in Clemens Alex, see below, note 3, p. 263. — The places
in Origen are at least six:— T( pe Xeyeis dyaBov ; ovSels dyaBbs ei pii els, b Oeos
b Tlariip [i. 223 c, 279 a, 586 a; iv. 41 d: and the last nine words, iv. 65 d,
147 a]. — For the places in ps.-Tatian, see below, note 2, p. 263. — The place in
the Dialogus is found ap. Orig. i. 804 b: — Xeyovros rod Xptarav- ovSels dyaBbs
el p.ri eh 6 narrip — words assigned to Megethins the heretic.

262 APPENDIX IIL
on the present occasion, it is clearly inadmissible ; seeing
that it was no part of our Saviour's purpose, as Didymus,
Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret point out, to reveal
Himself to such an one as the rich young ruler in His
own essential relation to the Eternal Father', — to pro
claim in short, in this chance way, the great mystery of
the Godhead : but only (as the ancients are fond of point
ing out) to reprove the man for his fulsomeness in address
ing one of his fellows (as he supposed) as 'good^.' In the
meantime, the extent to which the appendix under dis
cussion prevails in the Patristic writings is a singular illus
tration of the success with which, within 60 or 70 years of
its coming into being, the text of Scripture was assailed ;
and the calamitous depravation to which it was liable.
Surprising as well as grievous to relate, in every recent
critical recension of the Greek text of St. Matthew's
Gospel, the first four words of the heretical gloss (els eariv
6 dyaOos) have been already substituted for the seven words
before found there [o-vbels dyaOos el /xrj ets, 6 ©eo's); and
(more grievous still) now, at the end of 1700 years, an
effort is being made to establish this unauthorized formula
in our English Bibles also. This is done, be it observed, in
opposition to the following torrent of ancient testimony:—
viz., in the second century, the Peshitto Version, — Justin
' Didymus,— oi/c etnev piv ovSels dyaBbs ei prj els 6 IlaT^p- dXX' ovSeis dyaBbs
el prj els b Beos [p. 51]. — And Ambrose,—' Circumspectione coelesti non dixit.
Nemo bonus nisi unus Pater, sed Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus ' [ii. 474 bl. 
And Chrysostom, — en-qyayev, ei pfi eh 6 Scos. xal ovx elnev, ei pii b TlaT-rip pov,
'iva pdBris 'on ovx e^exdXvipev eavTov tS> veaviaxw [vii. 628 b : quoted by Victor,
Ant, iu Cat. p. 220], — And Theodoret (wrongly ascribed to Maximus, ii, 392,
396), — Ovx elprirai, OvSels dyaBbs, ei pti eh, b UaTiip. dX\', OvSeis dyaBos, ei p^i
els, b ©EcJs [v. p. 931]. Epiphanius [see the reierences above, in note i, p, 261]
expressly mentions that this unauthorized addition (to Luke xviii. 18) was the
work of the heretic Marcion.
2 ' Dicendo autem " Quid me vocas bonum," opinionem eius qui interrogaverat
suo response refutavit, quia isle putabat Christum de hie terrd et sicut unum
ex magistris Jsraelitanwi esse,' — ps.-Tatian, Evan. Cone, p, 174.—' Dives oer
adulationem honors vit Filium . . . sicut homines sociis suis grata nomina dare
volunt.' Ibid. p. 168.

THE RICH YOUNG MAN. 263
Martyr^, — ps.-Tatian (5 times)^,— Clemens Alex, (twice)':
— in the third century, the Sahidic Version, — ps.- Dionysius
Areopag.*: — in the fourth century, Eusebius (3 times)',
Macarius Magnes (4 times)**, — BasiF, — Chrysostom*: —
Athanasius', — Gregory Nyss. (3 times)'", — and Didymus
apparently (twice)'': — in the fifth century. Cod. C, —
Augustine in many places'^, — Cyril Alex.", — and Theodoret
(8 times)'*: — in the sixth century, Antiochus mon.'*, — the
Opus imperf}^ — with theHarkleian and the Ethiopic Version.
. . . When to these 21 authorities have been added all the
known copies, except six of dissentients, — an amount of
ancient evidence has been adduced which must be held to
be altogether decisive of a question like the present'''.
For what, after all, is the proper proof of the genuine
ness of any reading, but the prevailing consent of Copies,
' Apol. i. c. 16 [i. 42I, — quoted below in note 2, p. 265.
'^ ' Cui respondit, " Aon est aliquis bonus'' ut tn putasti, " nisi tantum unus
Deus Pater" .... '^ Nemo" (sit) ^^ bonus, nisi tantum unus, Pater qui est in
coelis'' [Evan. Cone. p. 169]. "Non est bonus, nisi tantum unus" [Ibid.].
" Non est bonus, nisi tantum unus qui est in coelis " [p. 1 70]. ' ' Non est bonus
nisi tantum unus '" [p. 173].
^ Ow p-lp/ dXXd xal bnqvixa SiappfiSriv Xeyei' OvSels dyaBbs, ei pij o narrip p.ov,
b ev Tois ovpavois [p. 141]. And overleaf, — dXXd xal ovSels dya&Ss, el pii 6
IlaTTjp avrov [p. 142]. Tischendorf admits the reference.
* i. 315 b. The quotation is given below, in note 7, p. 269.
° Praep. Evan. 542 b ; Ps. 426 d ; ap. Mai, iv. loi.
^ OvSels d7a9os el prj eh, b Beds (p. 12).
' ii. 242 e and 279 e. (See also i. 291 e and iii. 361 a.)
•* vii. 628 b, — oh ydp elne, ri pe Xeyeis dyoBbv ; ovx eipl dyaBbs' dXX', ovSels
dyaBbs . . . . ei pfi els b Bebs. See also vii. 329.
' i. 875 a. The quotation is proved to be from St. Matt. xix. (17-21) by all
that follows.
" ii. 691 d ; 694bc. See below, note 10, p. 267. '^ Trin. 50, 51.
" ' Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus': — iv. 383 c ; v. 488 b ; viii. 77od, 772 b.
" V. P. i. 310 d, and 346 a ( = 672 b).
" V. 931-3. Note that Ambrose, Didymus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, all four
hang together in this place, which is plain from the remark that is common to
all four, quoted above in note i, last page. There is nothing to shew from
which Gospel Nilus (ii. 362) quotes the words ovSeis dyaBbs, ei pij eh 6 Qeos.
" p. 1028, unequivocally. " Ap. Chrys. vi. 137 d, 138 b.
" Besides these positive testimonies, the passage is quoted frequently as it is
given in St. Mark and St. Luke, but ivith no special reference. Surely some of
these must refer to St. Matthew ?

264 APPENDIX III.
Fathers, Versions? This fundamental truth, strangely
overlooked in these last days, remains unshaken. For
if the universal consent of Copies, when sustained by a free
appeal to antiquity, is not to be held definitive, — what in
the world is? Were the subject less solemn there would
be something diverting in the naivet^ of the marginal note
of the revisers of 1881, — ' Some ancient authorities read . . .
" None is good save one [even] God." ' How many
' ancient authorities ' did the Revisers suppose exhibit
anything else?
But all this, however interesting and instructive, would
have attracted little attention were it not for the far more
serious corruption of the Sacred Text, which has next to
be considered. The point to be attended to is, that at the
very remote period of which we are speaking, it appears
that certain of the Orthodox, — with the best intentions
doubtless, but with misguided zeal, — in order to counteract
the pernicious teaching which the enemies of Christianity
elicited from this place of Scripture, deliberately falsified
the inspired record'. Availing themselves of a slight
peculiarity in St. Matthew's way of exhibiting the words
of the young Ruler,^namely, ' What good thing shall
I do,')— they turned our Lord's reply, ' Why callest thou
me good ?' in the first Gospel, into this, — ' Why askest thou
me concerning the good ? ' The ensuing formula which the
heretics had devised, — ' One there is that is good,' with
some words of appendix concerning God the Father, as
already explained, — gave them no offence, because it occa
sioned them no difficulty. It even suited their purpose
better than the words which they displaced. On the other
hand, they did not fail to perceive that the epithet 'good,'
' Good Master,' if suffered to remain in the text, would
witness inconveniently against them, by suggesting our
' For other instances of this indiscreet zeal, see Vol. II.

THE RICH YOUNG MAN. 265
Lord's actual reply, — viz. ' Why callest thou me good ? '
Accordingly, in an evil hour, they proceeded further to
erase the word dyaOe from their copies. It is a significant
circumstance that the four uncial Codexes (BNDL) which
exclusively exhibit rt ju.e epcoras -nepl roC dyaOov ; are exclu
sively the four which omit the epithet dyaOe.
The subsequent history of this growth of error might
have been foreseen. Scarcely had the passage been pieced
together than it began to shew symptoms of disintegration ;
and in the course of a few centuries, it had so effectually
disappeared, that tokens of it here and there are only to
be found in a few of the earliest documents. First, the
epithet (dyaOe) was too firmly rooted to admit of a sentence
of perpetual banishment from the text. Besides retaining
its place in every known copy of the Gospels except eight',
it survives to this hour in a vast majority of the most
ancient documents. Thus, dyaOe is found in Justin Martyr^
and in ps.-Tatian' : — in the remains of the Marcosian*, —
and of the Naassene* Gnostics ; — as well as in the Peshitto,
— and in the Old Latin versions : — in the Sahidic, — and the
Bohairic version, — besides in the Clementine Homilies^, in
Cureton and Lewis,- — and in the Vulgate: — in Origen'', — in

' BNDL, I, 22, 479, Evst. 5.
I * Kat npoaeX&bvTos avrw nvos xal einbvros' AtSdaxaXe dynBe, dnexp'tvaro
Xiymi' OvSels dyaBbs ei pri pbvos b @ebs b nofqaas rd ndvra. — Apol. I. c. 16
[vol. i, p. 42]. And so in Tryph. c. loi [vol. ii. p. 344], — Xeyovros avrw
Tivos' AtSdaxaXe dyaBe' x.r.X.
' ' Ad iudicem dives venit, donis dulcis linguae eum capturus.' (The
reference, therefore, is to St. Matthew's Gospel : which is further proved by
the quotation lower down of the latter part of ver. 1 7 : also by the inquiry, —
' Quid adhtic mihi deest ? ') ¦ Jlle dives bonum etwi vocavit.' ' Dives
Dominum '¦ Magistrum bonum " vocaverat sicut unum ex bonis magistris' —
Evan. Cone. 168, 169.
* Ap. Irenaeum, — p. 92. See below, note 2, p. 267.
' Ap. Hippolytum, Philosoph. 102. See below, note 3, p. 267.
" M^ pe Xeye d7a9oi' (ap. Galland. ii. 759 d : comp. 752 b). For the
reference, and its indication, see below, note 8, p. 269.
' Comment, in Matt. xv. (in loc).

266 APPENDIX III.
Athanasius', — and in BasiP, — and in Cyril of Jerusalem':
— in Ephraem Syrus*, and in Gregory of Nyssa®: in
Macarius Magnes", — and in Chrysostom': — in Juvencus*,
— Hilary', — Gaudentius '", — Jerome", — and Augustine'^; —
lastly in Vigilius Tapsensis": — in Cyril Alex.'*, — in Theo
doret'®, — in Cod. C, — in the Harkleian Version, — and in the
Optts imperf ectum''^ - So that, at the end of 1700 years,
6 witnesses of the second century, — 3 of the third, — 14 of
the fourth, — 4 of the fifth, — 2 of the sixth, come back
from all parts of Christendom to denounce the liberty
taken by the ancients, and to witness to the genuineness
of the traditional text.
So much then, — (i) For the unauthorized omission of
dyaOe, and — (2) For the heretical substitution of ets eanv
6 dyaOos in the room of oiiSels dyaOos el pr) els 6 ©eo's. We
have still to inquire after the fate of the most conspicuous
fabrication of the three : viz. — (3) The substitution of
Tt pe epcoTas ¦nepl tov dyaOov ; ior ti p,e Xeyeis dyaOov ; What
' i. 875 a,— clearly a quotation from memory of St. Matt. xix. 17, 18, 19,
20, 21.
^ Adv. Eunom. i. 291 e, — dyaBi StSdaxaXe, dxovaas. Again in ii, 242 c, and
279 e, expressly. See also iii. 361 a.
^ KaBws dnexpivaro tw npoaeXBbvn xal einbvri, AtSdaxaXe dyaBe, n notriaw 'iva
(wTiv alwviov exw ; — Catech. 299.
* iii. 296 d (certainly from St. Matthew).
^ Ilpoa^ei Bwnevwv ttj tov dyaBov npoaiiyopiq rb Kvptov .... AiSdaxaXov
dyaBov bvopd^av. — Contr. Eunom. ii. 692 b. Also npbs rbv vedviaxov dyaBbv
avrbv npoaayopevaavra' Tt pe Xey eis dyaBov ; (ap. Mai, iv. 12).
' 'O veaviaxos exeivos .... npoaeXBdv SieXeyiTo fdaxwv AtSdaxaXe dyaBe, —
p, 12.
' vii. 628 b. 8 lib. iii. 503.
° 994 c, i» Ap. Sabatier.
" vii. 147-8,
" iii.' 761 d; iii.' 82 d [ibi enim et bonum nominavit] ; iv. 1279 g; v.
196 g.
'^ Ap. Sabatier.
" V. P. i. 34'i a ( = 672 b), — npoaepxerai tis 'ev tois eiayyeXiois, xal ipriai ....
AiSdaxaXe dyaBe.
" Tt pe Xeyeis dyaBbv ; — v. 931. See note I, p. 262.
" Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut vitam aeternam possideam?—{ap.
Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 13S b).

THE RICH YOUNG MAN. 267
support do the earliest witnesses lend to the inquiry, —
' Why askest thou ¦me concerning the good?' . . . That
patent perversion of the obvious purport of our Saviour's
address, I answer, is disallowed by Justin Martyr'
(a.D. 140), — by the Marcosians^, — and the Naassenes^
(a.D. 150), — by the Clementine homilies*, — and ps.-
Tatian ° (third century) ; — by the Peshitto and the Thebaic
version; — by Macarius Magnes^, — Athanasius'', — and
Basil ^ ; — by Hilary', — Gregory of Nyssa'"; — by Chrysos
tom", — by Cyril Alex.'^, — by Theodoret'^, — by the Opus
imperf ecturn^'^ , — by the Harkleian, — and the Armenian
versions. I have produced 18 witnesses, — 4 belonging to the
second century : 3 to the third : 6 to the fourth : 5 to the
fifth. Moreover they come from every part of ancient
Christendom. Such an amount of evidence, it must be
again declared, is absolutely decisive of a question of this
^ AeyovTos avrw nvos, AiSdaxaXe dyaBe, dnexpivaro' Tt pe Xeyeis dyaBov ; eh
eariv dyaBbs, a Hariip pov b iv tois ovpavois [Tryph. c. 101, vol. ii. 344]. And
see the place (Apol. i. l6'i quoted above, note 2, p. 265.
^ Marcosians {ap. Irenaeum), — Kai to; einbvn avrw, AiSdaxaXe dyaBe, tuv
dXriBws dyaBbv &ebv dipoXoyiix^vat einbvra, Tt pe Xeyeis dyaBbv ; els eariv
dyaBbs, 0 IlaTijp iv rois ovpavois [p. 92]. No one who studies the question will
affect to doubt that this quotation and the next are from St. Matthew's
Gospel. ^ 'J'he Naassenes (ap. Hippolytum), — To vno rov SwTTJpos Xeybpevov Ti pe
Xeyeis dyaBuv ; els eariv dyaBbs, b Harrip pov b ev rots ovpavois, bs dvareXet tov
ijXiov avrov enl Stxaiovs xal dSixovs, xal ^pexei enl baiovs xal dpaprwXovs
[Philosoph. 102]. See the remark in the former note 5, p. 265.
* See below, note 8, p. 269.
' ' Cur vocas me bonum, quum in eo quod a me discere vis, iustus sim ? ' —
Evan. Cone. p. 168. And so in pp. 173, 174. See above, note 3, p. 265.
° This is in fact a double testimony, for the difficulty had been raised by the
heathen philosopher whom Macarius is refuting. Ti pe Xeyeis dyaBov ; — pp.
12 and 13 (ed. 1876). See above, note 6, p. 263.
' i. 875 a, See last page, note 9. ' ii. 279 e.
' Quid me vocas bonum ? — 703.
'" ii. 692 d. Also ap. Mai, iv. 7) 12 (tt^os tov vedviaxov).
" vii 628 b. The place is quoted in note i, p. 262.
^'^ V.' 346 a (npoaepxerai tis iv rots evayyeXiois x.T.X.) = p. 672 b.
" V. 931, — which clearly is a reproduction of the place of Chrysostom
(vii. 628 b) referred to in the last note but one. Read the whole page.
" Ap. Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 138 b.

268 APPENDIX III.
nature. Whether men care more for Antiquity or for
Variety of testimony ; whether Respectability of witnesses
or vastly preponderating Numbers, more impresses the
imagination, — they must needs admit that the door is here
closed against further debate. The traditional text of
St. Matt. xix. 16, 17 is certainly genuine, and must be
allowed to stand unmolested.
For it is high time to inquire, — What, after all, is the
evidence producible on the other side ? The exhibition of
the text, I answer, which recommends itself so strongly to
my opponents that they have thrust it bodily into the
Gospel, is found in its entirety only with that little band
of witnesses which have already so often come before us ;
and always with false testimony. I am saying that Origen'
in the third century,— Codd. B-N in the fourth, — Cod. D
in the fifth,— Cod. L in the eighth, — besides a couple of
cursive Codexes (Evann. i and 22), — are hterally the whole
of the producible evidence for the Revisers' text in its
entirety. Not that even these seven so-called consentient
witnesses are in complete accord among themselves. On
the contrary. The discrepancy between them is perpetual.
A collation of them with the traditional text follows : —
Kat ibov ets ¦npoaeXOcov ei'nev (D [not Orig. BNL] Aeyet)
avTco (BN [not Orig. DL] avroo enre), AibaaKoXe ayaOe (Orig.
BNDL — ayaOe), ti ayaOov ¦noirjaoy (NL [not Orig. BD] Trotrj-
cras) ti a exft) (Orig. BD [not NL] o-x^w) C'^rjv aicoviov (Orig.
064b j,^L [not Orig. ^**'^ BD] fwrjy atcuviov KXr]povop.riaa>) ;
o be enrev avTut, Tt pe Xeyeis ayaOov (Orig. ^^'"^ BNDL
Tt pe epooras [Orig. "*^'' eTiepcoras] Trept tou (Orig. ^^^" D
[not Orig. ''«^<= '^^^'^ BNL] — tov) ayaOov); ovbeis ayaOos et pr]
ets o &eos (BNDL ets eariv o (D [not Orig. BNL] — 0) ayaOos).
^ Kal ISov, els npoaeXBwv elnev avrw' AiSdaxaXe, ri dyaBbv ¦noiTiaw, 'iva ax^
fcui)f alwviov ; (but at the end of eight lines, Origen exhibits (lil<e the five
authorities specified in note 8, next page) 'iva iafjv aitui'ioi' xXripovop-qaw ;) . . . Ti
pe ipur^s nepl toC (but toC six lines lower down) dyaBov ; ets Iittij' 0 dyaBbs.
— in Matt. iii. 664 a b. And so p. 665 c. Cf. 666 b.

THE RICH YOUNG MAN. 269
Can it be possibly reasonable to avow that such an amount
of discrepancy between witnesses which claim to be con
sentient, inspires confidence rather than distrust in every
one of them ?
The reader is next to be told that there survive, as
might have been expected, traces in sundry quarters of
this threefold ancient fraud (as it seems to be rather
than blunder); — as in Justin', and the Marcosian^, and
Naas.sene heretics^; the Latin Versions* ; the Bohairic^ ;
the Cureton and Lewis^; pseudo-Dionysius', the Clementine
homilies^ and Eusebius^ ; Cyril Alex.'" and Antiochus the
monk" (a.D. 614); Hilary'''', Jerome'^ and Augustine'* ;
' See above, note 2, p. 261. ^ See above, note 2, p. 261.
' See above, note 2, p. 261.
' a e ff' omit bone', bcfff'g'"''h-q-Vulg. insert it; a bceff^'^g'hl Vulg.
write de bono, fq bonum. ; a b c ff'"^ 1 Vulg. write unus ; f g' h m q nemo.
¦' See above, p. 149.
^ This wild performance is unique in its testimony (see below, p. 277'.
Cureton renders the text thus : — ' Why askest thou me concerning good ? for
One is good, God.' And Mrs. Lewis thus : — 'Why askest thou me concerning
the good ? for One is the good one.'
' Tt pe epwras nepl tov dyaBov', ovSels dyaBos, el p-?j pbvos b Qeos. — i. 315 b.
^ Avrbs b StSdaxaXos ¦f]pwv rw t'nrbvTi ^apioaiw, Tt rtoi-riaas ^w^v alwviov
xXTipovop-riaw ; npwruv etpii, M77 pe Xeye dyaBbv. b ydp dyaBbs eh eartv, b
narrip b ev rois ovpavois (ap. Galland. ii. 759 d e).' — Note, the reference is
certainly to St. Matthew's Gospel, as all that follows proves : the inquiry in
ver. 16 (by assimilation from Luke xviii. 18) being similarly exhibited in
X, L, — Irenaeus, Int. p. 241; Orig. iii. 664 b ; Cyril, Alex, v.' 310 d ; Basil,
ii. 279^; ^°<i Chrjsostom, iii. 182; vii. 627-8; viii. 234.
* Eusebius — Tt pe epwras nepl rov dyaBov ; OvSeis dyaBbs, el pr] els b Oebs, —
Praep. Evan. 542 b. — The last seven words are also found in Ps. (ed. Montf.)
426 d; and ap. Mai, iv. 101.
^** AiSdaxaXe, ri dyaBbv nofqaas, ^w^v aiwviov xXTipovop-qaw ; b Si elnev avrw,
Ti pe epwras nepl rov dyaBov ; ovSels dyaBbs el p-r] eh b &ebs. (Note, that all
but the last seven words exactly =K, L, and Basil, ii. 279 e.) — V.* 310 d. — But
elsewhere (also quoting St. Matthew) Cyril exhibits — SiSdaxaXe dyaBe . . . ri
pe Xeyeis dyaBbv ; ovSels dyaBbs ei p^ els b Oebs. — Ibid. p. 346 a ( = p. 672 b).
^ Ti pe ipajras nepl rod dya&ov ; ovSeis dyaBbs, ei pil els b Qebs. — p. 1028.
" JSiagister, quid boni faciam, ut habeam vitam aeternam. Cui Dominus,
Quid me vocas bonum (703) : — Unus enim bonus est, ait Dominus (489). But
elsewhere, Magister bone, quid boni faciam (994 c"i.
'^ Magister bone, quid boni faciam. ut habeam vitam aete^mam ? Qui dicit
ei. Quid me interrogas de bono ? Unus est bonus Deus. — vii. 147-8.
" For ' bone,' see above, note 12, p. 266 : for ' nemo,' &c., see note 12, p. 263.

270 APPENDIX III.
besides in Evann. 479 and 604, and Evst. 5. But the
point to be attended to is, that not one of the foregoing
authorities sanctions the text which Lachmann, Tischen
dorf, Tregelles, W.-Hort, and the Revisers of 188 1 unani
mously adopt. This first. And next, that no sooner are
these sixteen witnesses fairly confronted, than they set
about hopelessly contradicting one another : so that it
fares with them as it fared with the Philistines in the days
of Saul : — ' Behold, every man's sword was against his
fellow, and there was a very great discomfiture'.' This
will become best understood by the reader if he will allow
' (I),' to represent the omission of the epithet dyaOe: — '(II),'
the substitution of rt p.e epwras ¦nepl tov dyaOov : — and '(III),'
the substitution of ets eariv 6 dyaOos with or without
appendix. For it will appear that, —
[a) Evan. 479 and Evst. 5j though they witness in favour
of [I), yet witness against (II) and (HI): — and that,
[b) The Latin and the Bohairic Versions, with Jerome
and Evan. 604, though they witness in favour of (II) and
(III), yet witness against (I).
Note, that Cureton and Lewis do the same : but then the
Cureton stultifies itself by omitting from the introductory
inquiry the underlined and clearly indispensable word, —
' What good [thing] must I do ? ' The same peculiarity is
exhibited by the Thebaic Version and by Cyril of Jer.^
Now this is simply fatal to the testimony of Cureton's
Syr. concerning '(II),' — seeing that, without it, the pro
posed reply cannot have been spoken, — It appears further
that, [c) Augustine, though he witnesses in favour of (II), yet
witnesses against both (I) and (III) : — and that,
[d] Hilary, though he witnesses in favour of (III), and
yields uncertain testimony concerning (I), yet witnesses
against (II) : — and that,
' I Sam. xiv. 20. 2 p_ 2gg_

THE RICH YOUNG MAN. 271
[e) Justin M. (in one place) and the Marcosian and
Naassene heretics, together with the Clementine homilies,
though they witness in favour of (III), yet witness against
(I) and (II) :— and that,
if) ps. -Dionysius, Eusebius, and Antiochus mon. (a.D.
614), though they witness in favour of (II), yet witness
again.st (HI).
[g) Cyril also, though he delivers uncertain testimony
concerning (I) and (II), yet witnesses against (HI).
The plain fact is that the place before us exhibits every
chief characteristic of a clumsy fabrication. No sooner had
it with perverse ingenuity been pieced together, than the
process of disintegration set in. The spurious phrases ri pe
epooras Tre/il rov dyaOov, and els eariv dyaOos, having no lawful
dwelling-place of their own, strayed out of the first Gospel
into the third as soon as they were invented. Cureton
in St. Luke xviii. 1 9 has both phrases, Lewis neither, —
Marcion, in his heretical recension of St. Luke's Gospel
(a.D. 150), besides the followers of Arius, adopt the latter'.
' The key of the whole position,' as Scrivener points out,
'is the epithet "good" before "Master" in ver. 16: for if
this be genuine, the only pertinent answer is contained in
the Received Text-.' Precisely so : and it has been proved
to be genuine by an amount of continuous attestation
which is absolutely overwhelming. We just now analyzed
the inconsistent testimony of sixteen ancient authorities ;
and found that only the two cursive copies favour the
omission of dyaOe, while nine of the oldest witnesses are for
retaining it. Concerning the expression rC pe eputras ¦nepl
TOV ayadov, these inconsistent witnesses are evenly divided,
— seven being for it, seven against it. All, in fact, is error,
' Epiphanius [i. 339 d], and Hippolytus [Phil. 254], shew that Marcion so
read Luke xviii. 19. — Epiphanius [i. 742 b] quotes Arius. See the words
above, in notes 3, 4, p. 260.
" Six Lectures on the Text (1875), — p. 130.

272 APPENDIX III.
confusion, discord, the instant we get outside the tradi
tional text.
The reason of all this contrariety has been assigned
already. Before Christianity was a hundred years old, two
opposite evil influences were at work here : one, heretical
— which resulted in (III): the other, orthodox, — which
resulted in (II) and (I). These influences, proceeding from
opposite camps, were the cause that copies got indepen
dently propagated of two archetypes. But the Church, in
her corporate capacity, has declined to know anything of
either. She has been careful all down the ages that the
genuine reading shall be rehearsed in every assembly of
the faithful on the 1 2th SuAday after Pentecost ; and
behold, at this hour it is attested by every copy in the
world — except that little handful of fabricated documents,
which it has been the craze of the last fifty years to cry up
as the only authentic witnesses to the truth of Scripture,
viz. Codd. BNDL and Origen. Now, as to the first two
of these. Dr. Scrivener has pronounced' that (BN), 'subse
quent investigations have brought to light so close a relation
as to render it impossible to regard them as independent
witnesses ; ' while every page of the Gospel bears emphatic
witness to the fact that Codd. BNDL are, as has been said,
the depositaries of a hopelessly depraved text.
But how about Origen? He, in A.D. 250, commenting
on the present place of St. Matthew's Gospel, has a great
deal to say concerning the grievously corrupt condition of
the copies hereabouts. Now, the copies he speaks of must
have been older, by at least 100 years, than either Cod. B
or Cod. N. He makes this admission casually in the course
of some remarks which afford a fair sample of his critical
method and therefore deserve attention : — He infers from
Rom. xiii. 9 that if the rich young ruler really did ' love his
' Plain Introduction (ed. 4), II. p. 329.

THE RICH YOUNG MAN. 273
neighbour as himself,' which, according to the three Evan
gelists, he virtually said he did ', he was perfect ^! Yet our
Saviour's rejoinder to him is, — 'If thou wilt be perfect,' go
and do such and such things. Having thus invented a diffi
culty where none exists, Origen proposes, as a way out of it,
to regard the precept (in St. Matt. xix. 20, — ' Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself) as an unauthorized accretion
to the Text, — the work of some tasteless scribe^. The
reasonableness of suspecting its genuineness (he says) is
heightened by the fact that neither in St. Mark's nor yet
in St. Luke's parallel narrative, are the words found about
'loving one's neighbour as oneself.' As if that were not
rather a reason for presuming it to be genuine 1 To be
sure (proceeds Origen) it would be monstrous to regard
these words, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,'
as an interpolation, were it not for the existence of so
many other discrepancies hereabouts. The copies of St.
Matthew are in fact all at strife among themselves. And
so are the copies of the other Gospels. Vast indeed, and
with this he concludes, is the discrepancy in St. Matthew*:
whether it has proceeded from the carelessness of the
scribes ; — or from criminal audacity on the part of cor
rectors of Scripture; — or whether, lastly, it has been the
result of licentiousness on the part of those who, pretending
to ' correct ' the text, have added or omitted according to
their own individual caprice ^.
'¦ Matt. xix. 20 = Mark x. 20 = Luke xviii. 21.
^ iii. 669 c d.
^ Ilpoaxes oZv el SvvdpeBa rrpbs ttiv npoxetpevTjv ^-firiiaiv . . . ovras dnavrrjaai,
6ti p'qnoTe rb' dyan^aeis rbv irXovaiov aov ws eavrbv. vnovoeiaBai Svvarai, wy
ovx ^""^ rov ^wTTipos ivravBa napetXTJipBai, dXX' vnb nvos r^v dxpipeiav pi)
voriaavros rwv Xeyopevwv, npoareBeiaBai. — iii. 670 a b.
* Kal 61 piv pri xal nepl dXXcov noXXwv Siaipwvia ^v npbs dXXiiXa rwv dvn-
ypdcpwv ware iravra rd xard ^arBaiov prj avvaSeiv dXX-riXois, bpoiws Si xal rd
Xonrd eio77c%a, k.t.X. — iii. 671b.
^ Nvvl Si SrjXovbrt ttoXX-tI yeyovev ^ rijjv dvriypdxpwv Staipopd, etre difb pt^Bvpias
Tivaiv ypaipewv, eire dnb rbXpris rtvSiv poxBrjpds r^s SiopBdiaeojs TWi' ypa<l>opevwv,
T

274 APPENDIX IIL
Now all this is very instructive. Here is the most
famous Critic of antiquity estimating the genuineness of
a clause in the Gospel, not by the amount of external
attestation which it enjoys, but by his own self-evolved
fancies concerning it. As a matter of fact, no extant copy,
Father, or Version is without the clause under discussion.
By proposing therefore that it shall be regarded as spurious,
Origen does but convict himself of rashness and incom
petency. But when this same Critic, — who, by his own
shewing, has had the evil hap to alight on a collection
of singularly corrupt documents, — proceeds to handle a
text of Scripture which has demonstrably had a calamitous
history from the first days of the Gospel until now ; — two
inconvenient questions force themselves on our attention : —
The first, — What confidence can be reposed in his judge
ment? The second — What is there to conciliate our
esteem for the particular Codex from which he happens
to quote ? On the other hand, the reader has been already
shewn by a more open appeal to antiquity than has ever
before been attempted, that the reading of St. Matt.xix. 1 6, 1 7
which is exclusively found in BNDL and the copy from
which Origen quotes, is deficient in external attestation.
Now, when it is considered that BN confessedly represent
one and the same archetype, which may very well have been
of the date of Origen himself, — how is it possible to resist
the conviction that these three are not independent voices,
but echoes of one and the same voice? And, What if
certain Codexes preserved in the library of Caesarea in
Palestine' ; — Codexes which were handled in turn by Origen,
by Eusebius, by Jerome, and which also furnished the
archetype from which B and N were derived ; — what, I say,
if it shall some day come to be generally admitted, that
etre xal dnb rwv rd eavrots Soxovvra ev rri SiopBwaet npoariBevrwv rj dcpaipovv-
TWV. — iii. 671 c.
' See above, pp. 152-4.

THE RICH YOUNG MAN. 275
those Caesarean Codexes are most probably the true fans et
origo of much of our past perplexity and of our present
trouble? Since 'coincidence of reading infallibly implies
identity of ancestry',' are we not even led by the hand
to see that there must have existed in the famous library
of Caesarea a little nest of copies credited, and justly so,
with containing every ' last new thing ' in the way of
Textual Criticism, to which Critics of the type of Origen
and Jerome, and perhaps Eusebius, must have been only
too fond of resorting? A few such critically corrected
copies would furnish a complete explanation of every
peculiarity of reading exhibited exclusively by Codexes
B and N, and [fondled, perhaps with some critical cynicism,
by] those three Fathers.
Yet it is to be remembered, (with reference to the place
before us,) that ' Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome ' are not in
accord here, except in reading rt ^e epwras ¦nepl rov ayadov ; —
for Eusebius differs from Origen and Jerome in proceeding
with the traditional text o'vbels dyadds el p.r} els: while Jerome
and even Origen concur with the traditional text in recog
nizing the epithet dyaOe, — a circumstance which, as already
explained, may be regarded as fatal to the formula rt p.e
epwras k.t.X. which follows.
This however by the way. That so ill- supported a fraud
should have imposed upon Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischen
dorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westeott and Hort, and the Revisers
of 1881, including Scrivener, — is to me unintelligible. The
substituted reading is an impossible one to begin with,
being inconsistent with its context. And although I hold
the introduction of intrinsic probability into these inquiries
to be unlawful, until the truth has been established on
grounds of external evidence ; yet, when that has been
accomplished, not only do internal considerations claim
1 W.-Hort, p. 287.
T 2

276 APPENDIX III.
a hearing, but their effect is often, as in the present case,
entirely to sweep the field. It is impossible, so at least
it seems to me, to survey the narrative by the light of
internal probability, without being overcome by the inco
herence -and essential foolishness of the reading before us.
This is a point which deserves attention.
I. That our Lord actually did remonstrate with the
young ruler for calling Him 'good,' is at least certain.
Both St. Mark (x. 17, i«) and St. Luke (xviii. 18, 19) record
that fact, and the text of neither is disputed. How grossly
improbable then is the statement that He also reproved
the young man for inviting Him to a philosophical dis
cussion concerning ro dya^oV, — which yet the young man
clearly had not done. According to two out of the three
Evangelists, if not to the third also, his question had not
been about the abstract quality; but concerning the
concrete thing, as a means to an end : — ' What good work
must I do in order that I may inherit eternal life?' —
a purely practical question. Moreover, the pretended
inquiry is not touched by the proposed rejoinder, — ' One
there is who is good,' — or ' There is none good but one,
that is God.' Does not the very wording of that rejoinder
shew that it must needs have been preceded by the inquiry,
'Why callest thou Me good?' The young man is told
besides that if he desires to ' inherit eternal life ' he must
keep God's commandments. The question and the answer
in the genuine text are strictly correlative. In the fabri
cated text, they are at cross purposes and inconsistent with
one another in a high degree.
2. Let it however be supposed for an instant that our
Lord's reply actually was, — ' Why askest thou Me con
cerning abstract goodness?' Note what results. Since
it cannot be thought that such an interrogation is sub
stantially equivalent to ' Why callest thou Me good ?' the
saying, — if uttered at all, — must have been spoken in

THE RICH YOUNG MAN. 277
addition. Was it then spoken to the same man ? — ' Yes,'
replies the author of Cureton's Syriac : ' the rejoinder ran
thus,— "Why callest thou Me good?" and, "Why askest
thou Me respecting the good'?'" — 'Not exactly,' remarks
the author of Evan. 251, ' The second of those two inquiries
was interposed after the word " Which?" in ver. 18.' — 'Not
so,' cries the author of the Gospel to the Hebrews. ' The
men who came to our Lord were two in number 2.' There
is reason for suspecting that certain of the early heretics
were of the same opinion ^. Will not every candid reader
admit that the more closely we look into the perplexed
tangle before us, the more intolerable it becomes, — the
more convinced we feel of its essential foolishness ? And —
Is it too much to hope that after this deliberate exposure
of the insufficiency of the evidence on which it rests, no
further efforts will be made to bolster up a reading so
clearly indefensible?
Nothing more, I suppose, need be added. I have been
so diffuse concerning the present place of Scripture because
I ardently desire to see certain of the vexatae quaestiones
in Textual Criticism fairly threshed out and settled. And
this is a place which has been famous from the earliest
times, — a OpvXXovpievov KecftdXaiov as Macarius Magnes (p. 1 2)
calls it, in his reply to the heathen philosopher who had
proposed it as a subject for discussion. It is (in the opinion
of modern critics) ' quite a test passage *.' Tischendorf
made this the subject of a separate dissertation in 1840°,
Tregelles, who discusses it at great length^, informs us
' So Cureton renders St. Luke xviii. 19.
^ ' Scriptum est in evangelic quodam quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos, ....
Dixit ei alter divitum : Magister quid boni faciens vivam ? '¦ — (Orig. Vet.
Interp. iii. 670.) I suppose the mention of els npoaeXBiiv, in ver. 16, suggested
this. ^ The Marcionite Gospel exhibited M^ pe Xeyere dyaBbv (Hippol. Phil. 254 ;
Epiph. i. 315 c). — Comp. the Clement. Hom. (ap. Galland. ii. 752 b, 759 a d).
* Hammond, quoted approvingly by Scrivener, — I. 328 (ed. 4).
" C. R. Gregory's Prolegomena, p. 7. * Printed Text, pp, 133-8.

278 APPENDIX III.
that he even ' relies on this one passage as supplying an
argument on the whole question' which underlies his
critical Recension of the Greek Text. It has caused all
the Critics— Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Alford, W.-Hort, the Revisers, even Scrivener', to go
astray. Critics will spend their strength in vain if they
seek any further to establish on a rational basis alterations
made on the strength of testimony which is both restricted
and is at variance with itself.
Let it be noted that our persistent appeal concerning
St. Matt. xix. 17, 18 has been made to Antiquity. We
reject the proposed innovation as undoubtedly spurious,
because of the importance and overwhelming number of
the witnesses of the second, third, and fourth centuries
which come forward to condemn it ; as well as because of
the plain insufficiency and want of variety in the evidence
which is adduced in its support. Whenever a proposed
correction of the Sacred Text is insufficiently attested, and
especially when that attestation is destitute of Variety, —
we claim that the traditional reading shall stand.
' Introduction (1883),— pp. ,=;73-6. [Also Vol. II. (1894), pp. 327-9. I did
not as Editor think myself entitled to alter Dr. Scrivener's expressed opinion.
E. M.]

APPENDIX IV.

ST. MARK I. I.

St. Mark's Gospel opens as follows : — ' The beginning
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, THE SON OF GOD.' The
slgnificancy of the announcement is apparent when the
opening of St. Matthew's Gospel is considered, — ' The book
of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David.'
Surely if there be a clause in the Gospel which carries
on its front the evidence of its genuineness, it is this'.
But in fact the words are found in every known copy but
three (N, 28, 255) ; in all the Versions ; in many Fathers.
The evidence in its favour is therefore overwhelming. Yet
it has of late become the fashion to call in question the
clause — Ttoi; rov Qeov. Westeott and Hort shut up the
words in brackets. Tischendorf ejects them from the text.
The Revisers brand them with suspicion. High time is it
to ascertain how much of doubt really attaches to the
clause which has been thus assailed.
Tischendorf relies on the testimony of ten ancient
Fathers, whom he quotes in the following order, — Irenaeus,
Epiphanius, Origen, Basil, Titus, Serapion, Cyril of Jeru
salem, Severianus, Victorinus, Jerome. But the learned
' It is right to state that Tischendorf thought differently. ' Videtur illud
huic quidem loco parum apte illatum.' He can only liring himself to admit
that the text had been 'jam Irenaei tempore nobili additamento auctum.' He
insists that it is absurd, as well as at variance with the entire history of the
sacred text, to suppose that the title ' Son of God ' has here been removed by
unscrupulous Unbelief, rather than thrust in by, officious Piety.

28o APPENDIX IV.
critic has to be reminded (i) that pro hac vice, Origen,
Serapion, Titus, Basil, Victorinus and Cyril of Jerusalem are
not six fathers, but only one. Next (2), that Epiphanius
delivers no testimony whatever on the point in dispute.
Next (3), that Jerome' is rather to be reckoned with the
upholders, than the impugners, of the disputed clause :
while (4) Irenaeus and Severianus bear emphatic witness
in its favour. All this quite changes the aspect of the
Patristic testimony. The scanty residuum of hostile
evidence proves to be Origen and three Codexes, — of which
two are cursives. I proceed to shew that the facts are
as I have stated them.
As we might expect, the true author of all the mis
chief was Origen. At the outset of his commentary on
St. John, he writes with reference to St. Mark i. i, — ' Either
the entire Old Testament (represented by John Baptist) is
here spoken of as " the beginning " of the New ; or else,
only the end of it (which John quotes) is so spoken of, on
account of this linking on of the New Testament to the
Old. For Mark says, — " The beginning of the Gospel of
Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold,
I send my messenger, &c. The voice of one, &c." I can
but wonder therefore at those heretics,' — he means the
followers of Basilides, Valentinus, Cerdon, Marcion, and
the rest of the Gnostic crew, — 'who attribute the two
Testaments to two different Gods ; seeing that this very
place sufficiently refutes them. For how can John be " the
beginning of the Gospel," if, as they pretend, he belongs
to another God, and does not recognize the divinity of the
New Testament ? ' Presently, — ' In illustration of the
former way of taking the passage, viz. that John stands
for the entire Old Testament, I will quote what is found
in the Acts [viii. 3^ " Beginning at the same Scripture of
'v. 10; vii. 17; and in the Vulgate. Twice however (viz. i. 311 and
vi. 969) Jerome omits the clause.

ST. MARK I. I. 281
Isaiah, He was brought as a lamb, &c., Philip preached to
the eunuch the Lord Jesus." How could Philip, beginning
at the prophet, preach unto him Jesus, unless Isaiah be
some part of " the beginning of the Gospel'?'" From the
day that Origen wrote those memorable words [a.D. 230],
an appeal to St. Mark i. 1-3 became one of the common
places of Theological controversy. St. Mark's assertion
that the voices of the ancient Prophets, were ' the beginning
of the Gospel' — of whom John Baptist was assumed to
be the symbol, — was habitually cast in the teeth of the
Manichaeans. On such occasions, not only Origen's reasoning, but often
Origen's mutilated text was reproduced. The heretics in
question, though they rejected the Law, professed to hold
fast the Gospel. ' But ' (says Serapion) ' they do not
understand the Gospel ; for they do not receive the
beginning of it: — "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet^.'" What
the author of this curt statement meant, is explained by
Titus of Bostra, who exhibits the quotation word for word
as Serapion, following Origen, had exhibited it before him ;
and adding that St. Mark in this way ' connects the Gospel
with the Law; recognizing the Law as the beginning of
the Gospel ^' How does this prove that either Serapion
or Titus disallowed the words vloi) tov Qeod ? The simple
fact is that they are both reproducing Origen : and besides
availing themselves of his argument, are content to adopt
the method of quotation with which he enforces it.
Next, for the testimony of Basil. His words are, — ' Mark
makes the preaching of John the beginning of the Gospel,
' In Joan. iv. 15, 16. — See also contra Cels. i. 389 d e f, where Origen says
the same thing more briefly. The other places are iv. 125 and 464.
^ Ovre e'ntar'fipTjv rov evayyeXiov exovai, rfiv rwv evayyeXiwv dpx^v p^i rrapa-
Xa^bvres' dpxTj tov evayyeXiov 'lyaov Xptarov. xaBdis yeypanrai ev 'Haata r^
irpocfi^TTj. adv. Manichaeos (ap, Galland, v. 61).
' ap. Galland. v. 329.

282 APPENDIX IV.
saying, " The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ . . .
as it is written in Isaiah the prophet . . . The voice of one
crying in the wilderness '.'" This certainly shews that
Basil was treading in Origen's footsteps ; but it no more
proves that he disallowed the three words in dispute in
ver. I, than that he disallowed the sixteen words not in
dispute in ver. 2,— -from which it is undeniable that he
omits them intentionally, knowing them to be there. As
for Victorinus (a.D. 290), his manner of quoting the
beginning of St. Mark's Gospel is identical with Basil's^,
and suggests the same observation.
If proof be needed that what precedes is the true account
of the phenomenon before us, it is supplied by Cyril of
Jerusalem, with reference to this very passage. He points
out that 'John was the end of the prophets, for "All the
prophets and the Law were until John ;" but the beginning
of the Gospel dispensation, for it says, " The beginning of
the Gospel of Jesus Christ," and so forth. John was bap
tizing in the wilderness 'l' Cyril has therefore passed
straight from the middle of the first verse of St. Mark i.
to the beginning of ver. 4 : not, of course, because he
disallowed the eight and thirty words which come in
between ; but only because it was no part of his purpose
to quote them. Like Serapion and Titus, Basil and Cyril
of Jerusalem are in fact reproducing Origen : but unlike
the former two, the two last-named quote the Gospel ellip
tically. The liberty indeed which the ancient Fathers
freely exercised, when quoting Scripture for a purpose, —
of leaving out whatever was irrelevant ; of retaining just
so much of the text as made for their argument, — may
never be let slip out of sight. Little did those ancient
men imagine that at the end of some 1500 years a school
of Critics would arise who would insist on regarding every
' i. 250. ^ ap. Galland. iv. 55. ^ P- 42.

ST. MARK I. I. 283
irregularity in such casual appeals to Scripture, as a deli
berate assertion concerning the state of the text 1500 years
before. Sometimes, happily, they make it plain by what
they themselves let fall, that their citations of Scripture
may not be so dealt with. Thus, Severianus, bishop of
Gabala, after appealing to the fact that St. Mark begins
his Gospel by styling our Saviour Tlos ®eov, straightway
quotes ver. i without that record of Divine Sonship, —
a proceeding which will only seem strange to those who
omit to read his context. Severianus is calling attention
to the considerate reserve of the Evangelists in declaring
the eternal Generation of Jesus Christ. ' Mark does indeed
say "Son of God"; but straightway, in order to soothe
his hearers, he checks himself and cuts short that train of
thought ; bringing in at once about John the Baptist :
saying, — " The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ . . .
as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold," &c. No
sooner has the Evangelist displayed the torch of Truth,
than he conceals it'.' How could Severianus have made
his testimony more emphatic ?
And now the reader is in a position to understand what
Epiphanius has delivered. He is shewing that whereas
St. Matthew begins his Gospel with the history of the
Nativity, ' the holy Mark makes what happened at Jordan
the introduction of the Gospel : saying, — The beginning of
the Gospel ... as it is written in Isaiah the prophet . . . The
voice of one crying in the wilderness ^.' This does not of
course prove that Epiphanius read ver. i differently from
' A. D. 400. De Sigill. ap. Chrys. xii, 412 : — 0 paxdpios Mdpxos, xaBels eavrbv eis
rb evayyeXiov, xal Bapa'fiaas rois Tipoyeyvpvaapevots, Xeyei piv ** vibv Qeov," dXX
evBews avveareiXe rbv Xbyov, xal exoXb^wae t^v evvoiav, iva paXd^ri rbv dxpoar-qv.
endyet oZv evBews rd xard rbv 'Bannar-qv, A€7(ui', " a/jx^ toD evayyeXiov 'Iriaov
Xptarov, xaBuis yeypanrai 'ev 'Haaiq rSi npotp^firri ISoii" x.r.X. eSei^e rfiv Xn/xird5a
TTJs dXTiBeias, xal evBeas dnexpvipe.
^ i. 427 : — dpxTj rod evayyeXiov . . . . ws yeypanrai ev 'Uaa'ia tSi npo<j>Tir-ri
.... ((wvri 0OWVTOS- ev. TJ} ep/ipai.

284 APPENDIX IV.
ourselves. He is but leaving out the one and twenty words
(5 in ver. i : 16 in ver. 2) which are immaterial to his
purpose. Our Lord's glorious designation ('Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,') and the quotation from Malachi which
precedes the quotation from Isaiah, stand in this writer's
way : his one object being to reach ' the voice of one crying
in the wilderness.' Epiphanius in fact is silent on the
point in dispute.
But the most illustrious name is behind. Irenaeus
(a.D. 170) unquestionably read Tlov tov &eov in this place.
He devotes a chapter of his great work to the proof that
Jesus is the Christ, — very God as well as very Man ; and
establishes the doctrine against the Gnostics, by citing the
Evangelists in turn. St. Mark's testimony he introduces
by an apt appeal to Rom. i. 1-4, ix. 5, and Gal. iv. 4, 5 :
adding, — ' The Son of God was made the Son of Man, in
order that by Him we might obtain the adoption : Man
carrying, and receiving, and enfolding the Son of God.
Hence, Mark says, — " The beginning of the Gospel of
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the
prophets'."' Irenaeus had already, in an earlier chapter,
proved by an appeal to the second and third Gospels that
Jesus Christ is God. 'Quapropter et Marcus,' (he says)
' interpres et sectator Petri, initium Evangelicae conscrip-
tionis fecit sic : " Initium Evangelii Jesu Christi Filii Dei,
quemadmodum scriptum est in Prophetis," &c.^ ' This at
all events is decisive. The Latin of either place alone
survives : yet not a shadow of doubt can be pretended as
to how the man who wrote these two passages read the
first verse of St. Mark's Gospel ^.
' i. 506 (lib. iii. cap. xvi). ¦¦• i. 461 (lib. iii. cap. x).
^ Midway between the two places cited above, Irenaeus shews how the four
Gospels may be severally identified with the four living creatures described in
the Apocalypse. He sees the lion in St. John, who says ; ' Jn the beginning

ST. MARK I. I. 285
Even more interesting is the testimony of Victor of
Antioch ; for though he reproduces Origen's criticism, he
makes it plain that he will have nothing to say to Origen's
text'. He paraphrases, .speaking in the person of the
Evangelist, the two opening verses of St. Mark's Gospel,
as follows ! — ' I shall make " the beginning of the Gospel "
from John: of the Gospel, I say "of the Son of God:"
for so "it is written in the prophets,'' viz. that He is the
Son of God. . . . Or, you may connect " as it is written in
the prophets " with " Behold, I send my messenger" : in
which case, I shall make "the beginning of the Gospel of
the Son of God" that which was spoken by the prophets
concerning John.' And again, — ' Mark says that John,
the last of the prophets, is "the beginning of the Gospel" :
adding, " as it is written in the prophets. Behold," &c., &c.^'
It is therefore clear how Victor at least read the place.
¦was the Word: and .... all things were made by him : and without him was
not anything made:' the flying eagle in St. Mark, because he begins his
gospel with an appeal to ' the prophetic spirit which comes down upon men
from on high ; saying, " The beginning of the Gospel . ... as it is written in
the prophets." Hence the Evangelists' concise and elliptical manner, which is a
characteristic of prophecy' (lib. iii. cap. xi. § 8, p. 470). Such quotations as
these (18 words being omitted in one case, 5 in the other) do not help us. I
derive the above notice from the scholium in Evan. 238 (Matthaei's e, — N. T.
ii. 21) ; Curzon's ' 73. 8.'
The lost Greek of the passage in Irenaeus was first supplied by Grabe froni
a MS. of the Quaestiones of Anastasius Sinalta) in the Bodleian (Barocc.
206, fol. n0). It is the solution ofthe 144th Quaestio. But it is to be found in
many other places besides. In Evan. 238, by the way, twelve more of the lost
words of Irenaeus are found : viz. Ovre nXeiova rbv dpiBpbv, ovre eXdrrova
evSexerai elvat rd evayyeXia' enel ydp .... Germanus also (A.D. 715. ^p.
Gall. xiii. 215) quoting the place, confirms the reading ev toTs Trpotp-firais , — ,
which must obviously have stood in the original.
'¦ Note, that he actually reads ' The beginning of the Gospel of the Son of
God,' — omitting the words 'Jesus Christ': not, of course, as disallowing
them, but in order the more effectually to emphasize the Divine Sonship of
Messiah. ' 'Eydi cl>Tiai (sc. b Mdpxos) rfiv dpxfjv rov EvayyeXiov dnb 'Iwdvvov noi-fiaopai'
EvayyeXiov Si tov vlov &eov, ovtw ydp ev rots npocprirais yeypanrai, on I'ios ean
Qeov .... Svvaaat Si rb, dis yiypanrat ev rots Trpotp-qrais, avvdipai rw, 'iSov eydi
dnoareXXw rbv dyyeXbv pov 'iva rriv dpx^iv noffjaopat rov EvayyeXiov tov viov
&eov rb rots npotp^qrais nepl 'Iwdvvov eipTjpevov. This is the first scholium in

286 APPENDIX IV.
It is time to close this discussion. That the Codexes
which Origen habitually employed were of the same type
as Cod. N, — and that from them the words Tlov tov Qeov
were absent, — is undeniable. But that is the sum of the
evidence for their omission. I have shewn that Serapion
and Titus, Basil and Victorinus and Cyril of Jerusalem, do
but reproduce the teaching of Origen : that Epiphanius
delivers no testimony either way: while Irenaeus and
Severianus bear emphatic witness to the genuineness of
the clause in dispute. To these must be added Porphyry
(a.D. 270)', Cyril of Alexandria^, Victor of Antioch,
ps.- Athanasius ^ and Photius*, — with Ambrose 5, and
Augustine*^ among the Latins. The clause is found
besides in all the Versions, and in every known copy of
the Gospels but three ; two of which are cursives. On
what principle Tischendorf would uphold the authority of
N and Origen against such a mass of evidence, has never
been explained. In the meantime, the disappearance of
the clause (TtoS tov &eov) from certain of the earliest copies
of St. Mark's Gospel is only too easily accounted for. So
obnoxious to certain precursors of the Gnostic sect was the
fundamental doctrine which it embodies, that St. John
(xx. 31) declares it to have been the very purpose of his
Gospel to establish 'that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God.' What more obvious than that the words at some
very remote period should have been fraudulently removed
from certain copies of the Gospel ?
the Catena as edited by Possinus, — p. 6. What follows is a well-known scholium
of the same Catena, (the first in Cramer's ed.), which C. F. Matthaei (N. T, ii.
20) prints from six of his M.S.S. : —'Iwdwiiv ovv rbv reXevraiov tSi' npoiprirwv
dpx^iv elvat rov EvayyeXiov (prjalv b Mdpxos, emipepuv " dis yeypanrai ev tois
TTpo(pT]rais' 'ISov x.r.X."
' Ap. Hieron. vii. 17. " vi. 330 diserte. ^ ii. 413.
* A. D. 890. De objectionibus Manichaeorum, ap. Galland, xiii. 667.
' i. 1529 d. ^ Cons. 39.

APPENDIX V.

THE SCEPTICAL CHARACTER OF B AND N.
The sceptical character of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS.
affords a strong proof of the alliance between them and
the Origenistic school. Instances found in these Codexes
may be classed thus : —
Note I. The following instances are professedly taken from the
Gospels. Only a few are added from elsewhere.
Note 2. Other Uncials are also added, to indicate by specimens
how far these two MSS. receive countenance or not from other
sources, and also in part how far the same influence enter them.
I. Passages detracting from the Scriptural acknowledge
ment of the Divinity of our Lord : —
Yioi; roi eeov omitted — St. Mark i. i (J^*).
'O Xpiaros 6 Ylbs . . . tov fSvros omitted — St. John vi. 69
(NBC*DL).
Kvpif omitted— St. Mark ix. 24 (NABC*DL).
Toi) Kvpi'oi) 'irjcrov omitted — St. Luke xxiv. 3 (D).
Qeov changed into "Kvpiov — Acts xx. 28 (AC*DES).
Omission of faith in Christ, ft? ipe — St. John vi. 47 (NBLF).
Slur on efficacy of prayer through Christ :
Insert ^t— St. John xiv. 14 (i^BEHUFA).
Transfer ev ra ovopari pov — St. John xxi. 23 ({^BC*LXVA).
Omission of eidiais in the cure — St. Mark vii. 35 (^^BDL\^'<iA)
Cf. St. Mark ii. 12.

288 APPENDIX V.
Judgement-seat of God instead of Christ — Rom. xiv. lo
(N*ABC*D &c.).
'0 i>v ev ra ovpavm omitted — St. John iii. 13 (^^BLFb).
Omission of Kufiie in penitent thief's prayer — St. Luke xxiii. 42
(«BC*DLM*).
„ „ the Ascension in St. Luke, avecfie'pero els rbv oipavov —
St. Luke xxiv. 51 («*D).
Insertion of aide 6 Yi'o's from St. Mark xiii. 32 in St. Matt. xxiv.
36. Cf. Basil to Amphilochius, iii. 360-2 (Revi
sion Revised, p. 210, note).
Omission of Gfos in reference to the creation of man — St. Mark
X. 6 («BCIA). Cf. St. Matt. xii. 30 (BD).
„ ,^ eirdvw mvrwv eariv — St. John iii. 3 1 (f^*D).
„ ^^ 6 Yiof pevei els rbv alaiva — St. John viii. 35 (t^XF).
„ ,, hi.e\6wv hid peaov avrav, Kc^t Trapijyev ovras — St. John
viii, 59 (NBD).
TOV Yibv roij avdpdnrov for r. Y. T. 0601; — St. John ix. 35 (i^BD).
Kvptov for Beov — 2 Pet. i. I (^5).
Omission of oVi eyd> vjrdy<i> npbs rbv nnrepa — St. John Xvi. 6
(fr^BD).
„ Kipios—i Cor. XV. 47 (><*BCD*EFG).
"Os for Os — I Tim. iii. 16 (t^, Revision Revised, pp. 431-43).
"0 for "Os— Col. ii. 10, making the Fulness of the Godhead the
head of all principality and power (BDEFG).
II. Generally sceptical tendency : —
N.B. — Omission is in itself scepdcal.
Uvevpa eeoO instead of TO Uvevpa tov Oeoii — Matt. iii. 16 (4^B).
Cf. Acts xvi. 7, TO livevpa 'ItjctoO for to Uvevpa —
(^^ABC^DE^').
Tevea-is for yevvrjais, slurring the Divine Birth — Matt. i. 18
(NBCPSZA).
Omission of the tide of ' good ' applied to our Lord — Matt.
xix. 16, 17 («BDL).
,, „ the necessity of our Lord to suffer, xal ovras
?8et— St. Luke xxiv. 46 («BC*DL).
„ last Twelve Verses of St. Mark (J^B).
' E2 of the Acts and Cath. Epp. (Laudianus) iu the Bodleian Library at
Oxford, of the sixth century.

SCEPTICAL CHARACTER OF B AND N. 289
Omission of passages relating to Everlasting Punishment (closely
Origenistic) :
alavlov dpaprripaTos for alav. xplaeuis — St. Mark iii.
29 («BLA).
apaprias (D) — ibid.
onov 6 aKoXi}^ avraiv ov reXevra, xal rb nvp ov
a-^ewvTai — St. Mark ix. 44, 46 (i^BCLA).
„ „ the danger of rejecting our Lord - — St. Matt. xxi.
44 (D).
,, ,, (cat naaa Ovaia aK\ SKiaOriaeTai — St. Mark ix. 49 (i^BLA).
,, „ the condemnation of Pharisaic treatment of widows —
St. Matt, xxiii. 14 (NBDLZ).
,, J, Kal TO ^aTTTLtrfxa o e-yoi jSaTTTt^ojitat jSaTTTtu^^i/at — St. Matt.
XX. 22, 23 («BDLZ).
„ ,, aiiTTJs TOV npioTOTOKov — St. Matt. i. 25 (i^BZ).
„ ,, the verse about prayer and fasting — St. Matt. xvii. 21
(«*B).
„ the words giving authority to the Apostles to heal
diseases— St. Mark iii. 15 (4^BC*).
„ „ the forgiveness of sins to those who turn — St. Mark
iv. 12 («BCL).
„ ,, condemnation of cities and mention of the Day of
Judgement— St. Mark vi. 11 («BCDLA).
„ fasting— St. Mark ix. 29 (N*B).
„ taking up the Cross— St. Mark x. 21 (NBCDA).
,, „ the danger of riches — St. Mark x. 24 (J^BA).
„ „ the danger of not forgiving others — St. Mark xi. 26
(NBLSA).
„ „ eiXo-yijpevri crv ev yuvai^lv — St. Luke i. 28 (t^BL).
„ „ dW in\ navTi prjpan Qeov — St. Luke iv. 4 (t^BL).
„ ,, o 8ta/3oXor els opos vfrjXov — St. Luke iv. 5 (J^BL).
„ „ vnaye oniaco pov, Sarava — St. Luke iv. 8 (b^BDLH).
,, ,, reference to Elijah's punishment, and the manner of
spirit — St. Luke ix. 55, 56.
„ „ the saving effect of faith — St. Luke xvii. 19 (B).
„ „ the day of the Son of Man — St. Luke xvii. 24 (BD).
„ ,, the descent of the Angel into Bethesda — St. John v.
3, 4 ($^BC*D).
„ „ ^v iya Smo-ffl — St. John vi. 51 (i^BCLA).
U

290 APPENDIX V.
III. Evincing a 'philosophical' obtuseness to tender
passages : —
Omissions in the records of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament :
thus —
cl>dyere . . . rb . . . xaivris — St. Mark xiv. 22-24 (i^BCD).
Kaiv^s—Sit. Matt. xxvi. 27 {y(S).
Xd^ere, cjidyere .... K\d>pevov — I Cor. xi. 2-4 (i^ABC*).
Omission of Agony in the Garden and strengthening Angel —
St. Luke xxii. 43, 44 (ABRT, first corrector).
„ First Word from the Cross — St. Luke xxiii. 34
[i^^BB*).
Mutilation ofthe Lord's Prayer — St. Luke xi. 2-4 : i.e.
Omission of TjpSiv 6 ev rots ovpavois (t^BL).
^, ,, yevi]6fiTa> rb deKrjpii aov, o)S ev oipava, xal enl T^t
y,. (BL).
,, ,. (iXXa pvaai ripds otto rov novripov (is BL).
Omission oi eiKij — -Matt. v. 22 (t^B).
„ ., the verse telling of our Lord's coming to save what
was lost— St. Matt, xviii. 1 1 (t^BL*).
,, ,, evXoyelre Toiis xarapwpevovs vpds, KoXas noielre tovs
pia-ovvras vpds — St. Matt. V. 44 (fr^B).
„ „ the prophecy of being numbered with the transgressors
—St. Mark XV. 28 (SABC^-'^DX).
„ ev ra (Pavepw—St. Matt. vi. 6 (f^BDZ).
,, „ reference to the last cry — St. Mark xv. 39 (t<5BL).
„ striking on ihe face— St. Luke xxii. 64 (NBLMTH).
„ ,, triple superscription [ypdpp. 'EXXt/k. k. 'Vap. ,<. "E/3paiV.) —
St. Luke xxiii. 38 (BCL). So i^* in St. John xix.
20-21.
,, ,, xal dnb tou pfXiaaiov xripiov — St. Luke Xxiv. 42
(NABDLH).
,, „ xal e^rjTOVv avrbv dnoKrelvai — St. John V. 1 5 (i^BCDL).
XvaavTt for XovaaVTi — Rev. i. 5 ({^AC).
bixaioavvriv for eXeripoaivriv — Matt. vi. I (t<* """BD).
IV. Shewing attempts to classicize New Testament
Greek. These attempts have left their traces, conspicuous
especially for omissions, all over B and N in a multiplicity of

SCEPTICAL CHARACTER OF B AND N. 291
passages too numerous to quote. Their general character
may be gathered in a perusal of Dr. Hort's Introduction,
pp. 223-227, from which passage we may understand how
these MSS. may have commended themselves at periods
of general advancement in learning to eminent scholars
like Origen and Dr. Hort. But unfortunately a Thucy-
didean compactness, condensed and well-pruned according
to the fastidious taste of the study, is exactly that which
does not in the long run take with people who are versed
in the habits of ordinary life, or with scholars who have
been exercised in many fields, as was shewn by the falling
into disuse of Origen's critical manuscripts. The echoes
of the fourth century have surely been heard in the
nineteenth.

APPENDIX VL
THE PESHITTO AND CURETONIAN.
[The Rev. C. H. Waller, D.D., Principal of St. John's Hall, Highbury.]
A CAREFUL collation of the Curetonian Syriac with the
Peshitto would I think leave no doubt on the mind of
any one that the Curetonian as exhibited by Cureton him
self is the later version. But in order to give full effect to
the argument it would be necessary to shew the entire
Curetonian fragment side by side with the corresponding
portions of the Peshitto. Otherwise it is scarcely possible
to realize (i) how entirely the one version is founded upon
the other — (2) how manifestly the Curetonian is an attempt
to improve upon the other ; or (3) how the Curetonian
presupposes and demands an acquaintance with the Gos
pels in general, or with views of Gospel history which
belong to the Church rather than to the sacred text.
Even in those brief passages exhibited by Dr. Scrivener
from both editions this can be made out. And it is
capable of still further illustration from almost every page
of Dr. Cureton's book.
To take the fragments exhibited by Dr. Scrivener first.
[a) In St. Matt. xii. 1-4, where the Peshitto simply translates
the Textus Receptus (not altered by our Revisers), saying
that the disciples were hungry ' and began to pluck ears of
corn and to eat,' the Curetonian amends thus : — ' and the
disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears of corn, and
break them in their hands, and eat,' introducing (as it fre
quently does, e.g. St. Matt. iv. 11, 'for a season' ; St. Matt.

THE PESHITTO AND CURETONIAN. 293
iv. 21, 'laying his hand'; St. Matt. v. 12, 'your fathers';
St. Matt. V. 47, 'what thank have ye?') words borrowed
from St. Luke vi. i.
But in the next verse of the passage, where the words
' on the Sabbath,' are absolutely required in order to make
the Pharisees' question intelligible to the first readers of
St. Matthew, ' Behold, thy disciples do what is not lawful
to do on the Sabbath ' (Textus Receptus and Peshitto ; not
altered by our Revisers), the Curetonian must needs draw
on the common knowledge of educated readers by exhibit
ing the question thus, ' Why are thy disciples doing what
is not lawful to do ? ' an abbreviated reading which leaves
us ignorant what the action objected to might be ; whether
to pluck ears in another man's field, or to rub the grain
from them on the Sabbath day ? On what possible ground
can such emendations as this have the preference of an
tiquity in their favour ?
Again, the shewbread in ver. 4 of this passage is, not as
we have it in the Peshitto, ' the bread of the table of the
Lord,' Uwcj o(jol^» )ja».N., a simple phrase which every
one can understand, but the Old Testament expression,
' face-bread,' reJArf' )a«jkA , which exhibits the translator's
knowledge of the earlier Scriptures, as do his emendations
of the list of names in the first chapter of St. Matthew,
and, if I mistake not, his quotations also.
[b) Or, to turn to St. Mark xvi. 17-20 (the other passage
exhibited by Dr. Scrivener). Both the Peshitto and Cure
tonian shew their agreement, by the points in which they
differ from our received text. ' The Lord Jesus then, after
He had commanded His disciples, was exalted to heaven
and sat on the right hand of GOD '—is the Curetonian
phrase. The simpler Peshitto runs thus. ' Jesus the Lord
then, after He had spoken with them, ascended to heaven,
and sat on the right hand of GOD.' Both alike introduce
the word ' Jesus ' as do our Revisers : but the two slight

294 APPENDIX VI.
touches of improvement in the Curetonian are evident, and
belong to that aspect of the matter which finds expression
in the Creed, and in the obedience of the Church. Who
can doubt which phrase is the later of the two ? A similar
slight touch appears in the Curetonian addition to ver. 17
of ' them that believe on Me ' instead of simply ' them that
believe.' The following points I have myself observed in the
collation of a few chapters of St. Matthew from the two
versions. Their minuteness itself testifies to the improved
character ofthe Curetonian. In St. Matt. v. 32 we have been
accustomed to read, with our Text Received and Revised
and with all other authorities, ' Whosoever shall put away
his wife, except for the cause oi fornication^ So reads the
Peshitto. But whence comes it that the Curetonian Syriac
substitutes here adultery for fornication, and thereby sanc
tions, — not the precept delivered by our Lord, but the
interpretation almost universality placed upon it ? How is
it possible to contend that here the Curetonian Syriac has
alone preserved the true reading? Yet either this must
be the case, or else we have a deliberate alteration of
a most distinct and precise kind, telling us, not what our
Lord said, but what He is commonly supposed to have
meant. Not less curious is the addition in ver. 41, ' Whosoever
shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him two others'.
Our Lord said 'go with him twain,' as all Greek MSS.
except D bear witness. The Curetonian and D and some
Latin copies say practically ' go with him three'- Is this
again an original reading, or an improvement ? It is no
accidental change.
But by far the most striking ' improvements ' introduced
by the Curetonian MS. are to my mind, those which
attest the perpetual virginity of our Lord's Mother. The
alterations of this kind in the first chapter form a group

THE PESHITTO AND CURETONIAN.

295

quite unique.
follows : —

Beginning with ver. 18, we read as

In the Peshitto and our Greek Text
without any variation.
Ver. 16. 'Jacob begat Joseph
the husband of Mary of whom
was born Jesus, who is called
Messiah.' ver. 18. 'Now the birth of
Jesus Christ was on this wise
(Peshitto, and Textus Receptus :
Revised also, but with some
uncertainty).' ver. 19. 'Joseph her husband
being a just man,' &c.

ver. 20. ' Fear not to take
unto thee Mary thy ¦wife.'
ver. 24. 'Joseph . . . did as the
Angel of the Lord had bidden
him, and took unto him Ms ¦wife!

In the Curetonian.
'Jacob begat Joseph to whom
was espoused Mary ihe virgin,
which bare Jesus ihe Messiah.'
' The birth of ihe Messiah was
thus.'

ver. 19. ' foseph, because he
was a righteous man,' &c. [there
is no Greek or Latin authority
with Cn. here].
' Mary thitte espoused'
(Cn. seems to be alone here).

ver. 25. 'And knew her not
until she brought forth [her first
born] a son.'

 ' and took Mary '
(Cn. seems alone in omitdng
' his wife ').
'And purely dwelt with her
until she bare the son ' (Cn.
here is not alone except in
inserting the article).

The absolute omission from the Curetonian Syriac of all
mention of Joseph as Mary's husband, or of Mary as his
wife is very remarkable. The last verse of the chapter
has suffered in other authorities by the loss of the word
' firstborn,' probably owing to a feeling of objection to the
inference drawn from it by the Helvidians. It seems to
have been forgotten (i) that the fact of our Lord's being
a ' firstborn ' in the Levitical sense is proved by St. Luke

296 APPENDIX VI.
from the presentation in the temple (see Neh. x. 36) ; and
(2) that His being called a ' firstborn ' in no way implies that
his mother had other children after him. But putting this
entirely aside, the feeling in favour of Mary's perpetual
virginity on the mind of the translator of the Curetonian
Syriac was so strong as to draw him to four distinct and
separate omissions, in which he stands unsupported by any
authority, of the word ' husband ' jn two places, and in two
others of the word ' wife.'
I do not see how any one can deny that here we have
emendations of the most deliberate and peculiar kind.
Nor is there any family of earlier readings which contains
them, or to which they can be referred. The fact that the
Curetonian text has some readings in common with the
so-called western family of text (e.g. the transposition of
the beatitudes in Matt. v. 4, 5) is not sufificient to justify
us in accounting for such vagaries as this. It is indeed
a ' Western ' superstition which has exalted the Virgin
Mary into a sphere beyond the level of all that rejoice in
God her Saviour. But the question herp suggested is
whether this way of regarding the matter is truly ancient ;
and whether the MS. of an ancient version which exhibits
such singular phenomena on its first page is worthy to be
set above the common version which is palpably its basis.
In the first sentence of the Preface Dr. Cureton states that
it was obtained from a Syrian Monastery dedicated to
St. Mary Deipara. I cannot but wonder whether it never
occurred to him that the cultus of the Deipara, and the
taste which it indicates, may partly explain why a MS. of '
a certain character and bias was ultimately domiciled there.
[See note at the end of this Chapter.]
Shall I be thought very disrespectful if I say that the
study which I have been able to devote to Dr. Cureton's
book has impressed me with a profound distrust of his

THE PESHITTO AND CURETONIAN. 297
scholarship ? ' She shall bare for thee a son,' says he on the
first page of his translation ; — which is not merely bald
and literal, but absolutely un-English in many places.
In Matt. vi. in the first verse we have alms and in the third and
fourth righteousness. An explanation.
In ver. 1 3 the Cn. has the doxology, but with poiver omitied, the
Peshitto not.
In ver. 17. Cn. ijijash thy face and anoint thy head instead of our
text. In ver. 19. Cn. leaves out fipSxns ' rust' and puts in ' where falleth
the moth.'
In X. 42. The discipleship instead of disciple.
In xi. 2. Oifesus instead of Christ.
In xiii. 6. Parable of Sower, a Targum-Yike alteration.
ver. 13a most important Targum.
ver. 33 a ijuise woman took and hid in meal.
xiv. 13 leaves out 'by ship,' and says 'on foot,' where the
Peshitto has ' on dry land,' an odd change, of an opposite kind to
some that I have mentioned.
In St. John iii. 6, Cn. has : ' That which is born of the flesh is
flesh, because of flesh it is born ; and that which is born of the
Spirit is spirit, because God is a spirit, and of God it is born.'
And in ver. 8 : ' So is every one that is born of water and of the
Spirit.' This is a Targum-Yike expansion : possibly anti-Arian.
See Tischendorf's Gr. Test, in loco. All the above changes look
like deliberate emendations of the text.
[It is curious that the Lewis Codex and the Curetonian
both break off from the Tra-ditional account of the Virgin-
birth, but in opposite directions. The Lewis Codex makes
Joseph our Lord's actual Father: the Curetonian treats the
question as described above. That there were two streams
of teaching on this subject, which specially characterized
the fifth century, is well known : the one exaggerating the
Nestorian division of the two Natures, the other tending in
a Eutychian direction. That two fifth-century MSS. should
illustrate these deviations is but natural ; and their survival
not a little remarkable.]

APPENDIX VIL
THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF ST. MARK'S GOSPEL.
It would be a manifest defect, if a book upon Textual
Criticism passing under the name of Dean Burgon were to
go forth without some reference to the present state of the
controversy on the subject, vvhich first made him famous
as a Textual critic.
His argument has been strengthened since he wrote in
the following ways : —
I. It will be remembered that the omission of the verses
has been rested mainly upon their being left out by B and N,
of which circumstance the error is mutely confessed in B by
the occurrence of a blank space, amply sufficient to contain
the verses, the column in question being the only vacant one
in the whole manuscript. It has been generally taken for
granted, that there is nothing in N to denote any con
sciousness on the part of the scribe that something was
omitted. But a closer examination of the facts will shew
that the contrary is the truth. For —
i. The page of N on which St. Mark ends is the recto of
leaf 29, being the second of a pair of leaves (28 and 29),
forming a single sheet (containing St. Mark xiv. 54-xvi. 8,
St. Luke i. 1-56), which Tischendorf has shewn to have
been written not by the scribe of the body of the New
Testament in this MS., but by one of his colleagues who
wrote part of the Old Testament and acted as diorthota
or corrector of the New Testament — and who is further

last TWELVE VERSES. 299
identified by the same great authority as the scribe of B.
This person appears to have cancelled the sheet originally
written by the scribe of N, and to have substituted for it
the sheet as we now have it, written by himself. A cor
rection so extensive and laborious can only have been
made for the purpose of introducing some important
textual change, too large to be effected by deletion, inter
lineation, or marginal note. Thus we are led not only
to infer that the testimony of N is here not independent
of that of B, but to suspect that this .sheet may have been
thus cancelled and rewritten in order to conform its con
tents to those of the corresponding part of B.
ii. This suspicion becomes definite, and almost rises to
a certainty, when we look further into the contents of this
sheet. Its second page (28 v") exhibits four columns of
St. Mark (xv. i6-xvi. i) ; its third page (29 r"), the two
last columns of St. Mark (xvi. 2-8) and the first two of
St. Luke (i. 1-18). But the writing of these six columns
of St. Mark is so spread out that they contain less matter
than they ought ; whereas the columns of St. Luke that
follow contain the normal amount. It follows, therefore,
that the change introduced by the diorthota must have
been an extensive excision from St. Mark : — in other words,
that these pages as originally written must have contained
a portion of St. Mark of considerable length which has
been omitted from the pages as they now stand. If these
six columns of St. Mark were written as closely as the
columns of St. Luke which follow, there would be room
in them for the omitted twelve verses. — More particularly,
the fifth column (the first of page 29 r") is so arranged as to
contain only about five-sixths of the normal quantity of
matter, and the diorthota is thus enabled to carry over
four lines to begin a new column, the sixth, by which
artifice he manages to conclude St. Mark not with a blank
column such as in B tells its own story, but with a column

300 APPENDIX VII.
such as in this MS. is usual at the end of a book, exhibit
ing the closing words followed by an ' arabesque ' pattern
executed with the pen, and the subscription (the rest being
left empty). But, by the very pains he has thus taken
to conform this final column to the ordinary usage of
the MS., his purpose of omission is betrayed even more
conclusively, though less obviously, than by the blank
column of B ^.
iii. A further observation is to be noted, which not only
confirms the above, but serves to determine the place
where the excision was made to have been at the very
end of the Gospel. The last of the four lines of the sixth
and last column of St. Mark (the second column of leaf
29 r") contains only the five letters to yap {\e<^o^ovv~\To yap),
and has the rest of the space (more than half the width
of the column) filled up with a minute and elaborate
ornament executed with the pen in ink and vermilion,
the like of which is nowhere else found in the MS., or
in the New Testament part of B, such spaces being in
variably left unfilled^. And not only so, but underneath,
the usual ' arabesque ' above the subscription, marking the
conclusion of the text, has its horizontal arm extended
all the way across the width of the column, — and not,
as always elsewhere, but halfway or less ^. It seems hardly
possible to regard these carefully executed works of the
pen of the diorthota otherwise than as precautions to guard
against the possible restoration, by a subsequent reviser,
of a portion of text deliberately omitted by him (the
1 This observation is due to Dr. Salmon ; see the Note appended to Lecture IX
of his Historical Introduction to the New Testament (5th edition, p. 147).
^ This fact was first pointed out by Dr. Gwynn in a, memorandum com
municated by him to Dr. Scrivener, who inserted it in his Plain Introduction
to the Criticism of the New Testament (3rd edition, p. xii; cp. 4th edition,
vol. I, p. 94), and I am indebted to the same source for this admirable
amplification of part of that memorandum.
'' A sufficient facsimile of the page in question (29 ?-'') is given by Dean
Burgon in his Last Twelve Verses, reproduced from a photograph.

LAST TWELVE VERSES. 30I
diorthota) from the end of the Gospel. They are evidence
therefore that he knew of a conclusion to the Gospel which
he designedly expunged, and endeavoured to make it
difficult for any one else to reinsert.
We have, therefore, good reason to believe that the
disputed Twelve Verses were not only in an exemplar
known to the scribe of B, but also in the exemplar used
by the scribe of N ; and that their omission (or, more
properly, disappearance) from these two MSS. is due to
one and the same person — the scribe, namely, who wrote
B and who revised N, — or rather, perhaps, to an editor by
whose directions he acted.
2. Some early Patristic evidence has been added to the
stores which the Dean collected by Dr. Taylor, Master of
St. John's College, Cambridge. This evidence may be
found in a book entitled ' The Witness of Hermas ' to the
Four Gospels, published in 1892, of which § 12 in the
Second Part is devoted to ' The ending of St. Mark's
Gospel,' and includes also quotations from Justin Martyr,
and the Apology of Aristides. A fuller account is given
in the Expositor of July 1893, ^"'^ contains references
to the following passages : — Irenaeus iii. 11. 6 (quoting
xvi. 19) ; Justin Martyr, Trypho, § 138 ; Apol. i. 67 ; Trypho,
§ 85 ; Apol. i. 45 ; Barnabas, xv. 9 ; xvi. 7 ; Quarto-deciman
Controversy (Polycarp)? and Clement of Rome, i. 42. The
passages from Hermas are, i. (xvi. 12-13) Sim. ii. i, Vis.
i. I, iii. I, iv. I, and v. 4 ; 2. (xvi. 14) Sim. ix. 141 and 20. 4,
Vis. iii. 8. 3, iii. 'j. 6 ; 3. (xvi. 15-16) Vis. iii, Sim. ix. 16, 2,5 ;
4. (xvi. 17-18) Vis. iv, Mand. i, xii. 2. 2-3, Sim. ix. i. 9, iii. 7,
ix. 26, Mand. xii. 6. 2 ; 5. (xvi. 19-20) Vis. iii. i. Some
of the references are not apparent at first sight, but
Dr. Taylor's discussions in both places should be read
carefully. 3. In my own list given above, p. 109, of the writers
who died before A.D. 400, I have added from my two

302 APPENDIX VII.
examinations of the Ante-Chrysostom Fathers to the list
in The Revision Revised, p. 421, the Clementines, four
references from the Apostolic Canons and Constitutions,
Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, the Apocryphal
Acts of the Apostles, and two references to the four of
St. Ambrose mentioned in 'The Last Twelve Verses,' p. 27.
To these Dr. Waller adds. Gospel of Peter, § 7 [rrevOoijvTes
Kal KXaiovTes), and § 12 [eKXaiopev Kal eXvTTovp.e0a), referring
to the d^na^ Xey6p.evov, as regards the attitude of the Twelve
at the time, in xvi. 10.
4. On the other hand, the recently discovered Lewis
Codex, as is well known, omits the verses. The character
of that Codex, which has been explained above in the
sixth chapter of this work, makes any alliance with it
suspicious, and consequently it is of no real importance
that its testimony, unlike that of B and N, is claimed to
be unswerving.
For that manuscript is disfigured by heretical blemishes
of the grossest nature, and the obliteration of it for the
purpose of covering the vellum with other writing was
attended with circumstances of considerable significance.
In the first chapter of St. Matthew, Joseph is treated
as the father of our Lord (vers. 16, 21, 24) as far as His
body was concerned, for as to His soul even according to
teaching of Gnostic origin He was treated as owing His
nature to the Holy Ghost (ver. 20). Accordingly, the
blessed Virgin is called in the second chapter of St. Luke
Joseph's 'wife,' p.ep.vr]aTevpevr] being left with no equi
valent ^ : and at His baptism, He is described as ' being as
He was called the son of Joseph ' (St. Luke iii. 23). Ac
cording to the heretical tenet that our Lord was chosen
out of other men to be made the Son of God at the
baptism, we read afterwards, ' This is My Son, My chosen '
' On the contrary, in Tatian's Diatessaron yvvaixi is left out aud ixepvTiarev-
pevTi is translated. For the Curetonian, see above, p. 295 .

LAST TWELVE VERSES. 303
(St. Luke ix. 35), ' the chosen of God ' (St. John i. 34),
'Thou art My Son and My beloved' (St. Matt. iii. 17),
' This is My Son Who is beloved ' (St. Mark ix. 7) ; and
we are told of the Holy Ghost descending like a dove
(St. Matt. iii. 16), that It 'abode upon Him.' Various
smaller expressions are also found, but perhaps the most
remarkable of those which have been left upon the manu
script occurs in St. Matt, xxvii. 50, ' And Jesus cried with
a loud voice, and His Spirit went up.' After this, can we
be surprised because the scribe took the opportunity of leav
ing out the Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark which contain
the most detailed account of the Ascension in the Gospels,
as well as the /cat dvec^epero els tov ovpavov oi St. Luke ?
Again, at the time when the manuscript was put out of
use, and as is probable in the monastery of St. Catherine
so early as the year 778 A.D. (Introduction by Mrs. Lewis,
p. xv), the old volume was pulled to pieces, twenty-two
leaves were cast away, the rest used in no regular order,
and on one at least, as we are told, a knife was employed
to eradicate the writing. Five of the missing leaves must
have been blank, according to Mrs. Lewis : but the seventeen
remaining leaves contained passages of supreme importance
as being expressive of doctrine, like St. John i. 1-24,
St. Luke i. 16-39, St. Mark i. i-ii, St. Matt, xxviii. 8-end,
and others. Reading the results of this paragraph in con
nexion with those of the last, must we not conclude that
this manuscript was used for a palimpsest, and submitted
to unusual indignity in order to obliterate its bad record ?
It will be seen therefore that a cause, which for un
challenged evidence rests solely upon such a witness, cannot
be one that will commend itself to those who form their
conclusions judicially. The genuineness of the verses, as
part of the second Gospel, must, I hold, remain unshaken
by such opposition.
5. An ingenious suggestion has been contributed by

304 APPENDIX VII.
Mr. F. C. Conybeare, the eminent Armenian scholar,
founded upon an entry which he discovered in an
Armenian MS. of the Gospels, dated A.D. 986, where
'Ariston Eritzou' is written in minioned uncials at the
head of the twelve verses. Mr. Conybeare argues, in
the Expositor for October, 1893, that 'Ariston Eritzou'
is not the copyist himself, who signs himSelf Johannes,
or an Armenian translator, Ariston or Aristion being
no Armenian name. He then attempts to identify it
with Aristion who is mentioned by Papias in a passage
quoted by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 39) as a disciple of the
Lord. Both the words ' Ariston Eritzou ' are taken to be in
the genitive, as ' Eritzou ' certainly is, and to signify ' Of
or by Aristion the presbyter,' this being the meaning of
the latter word. The suggestion is criticized by Dr. Ad.
Harnack in the Theologische Literaturzeitung, 795, where
Dr. Harnack pronounces no opinion upon the soundness
of it : but the impression left upon the mind after reading
his article is that he is unable to accept it.
It is remarkable that the verses are found in no other
Armenian MS. before iioo. Mr. Conybeare traces the
version of the passage to an old Syrian Codex about the
year 500, but he has not very strong grounds for his
reasoning; and even then for such an important piece of
information the leap to the sub-Apostolic age is a great
one. But there is another serious difficulty in the inter
pretation of this fragmentary expression. Even granting the
strong demands that we may construe over fhe expression
of Papias, ApiaTiaiv koI 6 -npea-^vTepos 'luidvvris, and take
Aristion to have been meant as a presbyter, and that
according to the parallel of Aristion in Eusebius' history
having been transliterated in an Armenian version to
Ariston, Aristion 'the disciple' may be the man mentioned
here, there is a formidable difficulty presented by the word
' Ariston ' as it is written in the place quoted. It ought at

LAST TWELVE VERSES. 305
least to have had a long 6 according to Dr. Harnack, and
it is not in the genitive case as ' Eritzou ' is. Altogether,
the expression is so elliptical, and occurs with such isolated
mystery in a retired district, and at such a distance of
years from the event supposed to be chronicled, that the
wonder is, not that a diligent and ingenious explorer should
advocate a very curious idea that he has formed upon
a very interesting piece of intelligence, but that other
Critics should have been led to welcome it as a key to
a long-considered problem. Are we not forced to see in
this incident an instance of a truth not unfrequently
verified, that when people neglect a plain solution, they
are induced to welcome another which does not include
a tenth part of the evidence in its support ?
Of course the real difficulty in the way of accepting
these verses as the composition of St. Mark lies in the
change of style found in them. That this change is not
nearly so great as it may appear at first sight, any one
may satisfy himself by studying Dean Burgon's analysis of
the words given in the ninth chapter of his ' Last Twelve
Verses of St. Mark.' But it has been the fa.shion in some
quarters to confine ancient writers to a wondrously narrow
form of style in each case, notwithstanding Horace's rough
Satires and exquisitely polished Odes, and Cicero's Letters
to his Friends and his Orations and Philosophical Treatises.
Perhaps the recent flood of discoveries respecting early
Literature may wash away some of the film from our sight.
There seems to be no valid reason why St. Mark should
not have written all the Gospel that goes by his name,
only under altered circumstances. The true key seems to
be, that at the end of verse 8 he lost the assistance of
St. Peter. Before e(f>o^ovvTo ydp, he wrote out St. Peter's
story : after it, he filled in the end from his own acquired
knowledge, and composed in summary. This very volume
may supply a parallel. Sometimes I have transcribed Dean
X

3o5 APPENDIX VII.
Burgon's materials with only slight alteration, where
necessary imitating as I was able his style. In other
places, I have written solely as best I could.
I add two suggestions, not as being proved to be true,
because indeed either is destructive of the other, but such
that one or other may possibly represent the facts that
actually occurred. To meet the charge of impossibility,
it is enough to shew what is possible, though in the
absence of direct evidence it may not be open to any one
to advocate any narrative as being absolutely true.
I. Taking the story of Papias and Clement of Alex
andria, as given by Eusebius (H. E. ii. 15), that St. Mark
wrote his gospel at the request of Roman converts, and
that St. Peter, as it seems, helped him in the writing,
I should suggest that the pause made in efpofiovvro ydp,
so unlike the close of any composition, of any paragraph
or chapter, and still less of the end of a book, that I can
recollect, indicates a sudden interruption. What more
likely than that St. Peter was apprehended at the time,
perhaps at the very moment when the MS. reached that
place, and was carried off to judgement and death ? After
all was over, and the opportunity of study returned,
St. Mark would naturally write a conclusion. He would
not alter a syllable that had fallen from St. Peter's lips.
It would be the conclusion composed by one who had lost
his literary illuminator, formal, brief, sententious, and com
prehensive. The crucifixion of the leading Apostle would
thus impress an everlasting mark upon the Gospel which
was virtually his. Here the Master's tongue ceased : here
the disciple took up his pen for himself.
II. If we follow the account of Irenaeus (Eus. H. E. v. 8)
that St. Mark wrote his Gospel — and did not merely
publish it — after St. Peter's death. Dr. Gwynn suggests to
me that he used his notes made from St. Peter's dictation
or composed with his help up to xvi. 8, leaving at the end

LAST TWELVE VERSES. 307
what were exactly St. Peter's words. After that, he added
from his own stores, and indited the conclusion as I have
already described.
Whether either of these descriptions, or any other
solution of the difficulty, really tallies with the actual
event, I submit that it is clear that St. Mark may very
well have written the twelve verses himself; and that
there is no reason for resorting to Aristion, or to any other
person for the authorship. I see that Mr. Conybeare
expresses his indebtedness to Dean Burgon's monograph,
and expresses his opinion that 'perhaps no one so well
sums up the evidence for and against them ' as he did
(Expositor, viii. p. 241). I tender to him my thanks, and
echo for myself all that he has said.

APPENDIX VIII.
NEW EDITIONS OF THE PESHITTO-SYRIAC AND THE
HARKLEIAN-SYRIAC VERSIONS.
A BOOK representing Dean Burgon's labours in the
province of Sacred Textual Criticism would be incomplete
if notice were not taken in it of the influence exercised
by him upon the production of editions of the two chief
Syriac Versions.
Through his introduction of the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D.
to the late Philip E. Pusey, a plan was formed for the joint
production of an edition of the Peshitto New Testament
by these two scholars. On the early and lamented death
of Philip Pusey, which occurred in the following year,
Mr. Gwilliam succeeded to his labours, being greatly
helped by the Dean's encouragement. He has written
on the Syriac Canons of the Gospels ; and the nature of
his work upon the Peshitto Gospels, now in the press,
may be seen on consulting his article on ' The Materials
for the Criticism of the Peshitto New Testament' in the
third volume of Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, pp. 47—
104, which indeed seems to be sufficient for the Prole
gomena of his edition. A Hst of his chief authorities
was also kindly contributed by him to my Scrivener,
and they are enumerated there, vol. II. pp. 12-13. The
importance of this work, carried on successively by two
such accomplished Syriacists, may be seen from and will
illustrate the sixth chapter of this work.

NEW EDITIONS. 309
In connexion with the Dean, if not on his suggestion,
the late Rev. Henry Deane, B.D., when Fellow of St. John's
College, Oxford, began to collect materials for a new and
critical edition of the Harkleian. His work was carried on
during many years, when ill-health and failing eyesight
put a stop to all efforts, and led to his early death — for on
leaving New College, after having been Tutor there for five
years, I examined him then a boy at the top of Winchester
College. Mr. Deane has left the results of his work
entered in an interleaved copy of Joseph White's ' Sacrorum
Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana ' — named, as
my readers will observe, from the translator Mar Xenaias
or Philoxenus, not from Thomas of Harkel the subsequent
editor. A list ofthe MSS. on which Mr. Deane based his
readings was sent by him to me, and inserted in my
Scrivener, vol. II. p. 29. Mr. Deane added (in a subsequent
letter, dated April 16, 1894) : — 'My labours on the Gospels
shew that the H[arkleian] text is much the same in all
MSS. The Acts of the Apostles must be worked up for
a future edition by some one who knows the work.' Since
his lamented death, putting a stop to any edition by him,
his widow has placed his collation just described in the
Library of St. John's College, where by the permission of
the Librarian it may be seen, and also used by any one
who is recognized as continuing the valuable work of that
accomplished member of the College. Is there no capable
and learned man who will come forward for the purpose ?

GENERAL INDEX.

A or Alexandrian MS., 24, 31, 57,
76, 175, 201, 213 note 2.
N or Sinaitic MS., 2, 24, 31, 32, 49,
57, 174. 219, 235; six conjugate
leaves, 52, 165, 233 ; value, B-N,
65, 68-9; history and character,
153, 160 &c., 233-5 ; sceptical
character, App. V. 287.
Acacius, 2, 155 ; probably the scribe
of B, 154.
Acta Philippi, 100-20.
Acta Pilati, 100-20.
Adamantius, copies of, 167. See
Origen.
Alexander Alexandrinus, 100, 113,
119.
Alexandria, school of, i, 122, 234.
Alexandrians and Egyptians, 113.
Alford, 171.
Ambrose, St., 101-20.
Ammonius, 11, 242.
Amphiloeliius, St., 101-20.
Anaphora Pilati, 112.
Antioch, early Church at, 123-4,
Antiquity, 29-31.
Aphraates, 103-14, 213 note 4;
witnesses to Peshitto, 1 30.
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels,
103-15, 132.
Apollonides, 10.
Apostolic Canons and Constitu
tions, 100, 103—15, 119.
Apostolic Fathers, 99, 118.
Archelaus, 100, 105-13, T19, 130.
Arius, no. III, 114, 121.
Armenian Version, 23, 49, 136.
Asclepiades, 10.
Athanasius, ico, 103-15, 119, 121,
148, 235 note I, 244.
Athenagoras, 99, 103, 115, 119.
Augustine, Su, on Old-Latin Texts,
140-3; canon of, 61 note, 198.

B or Vatican MS., 2, 24, 31, 32, 49,
57, 174 ; number of omissions, 78 ;
history and character, 153, 160 &c,,
233-5 ! sceptical character of, App.
V. 287 ; B and K, their value, 55,
68-89.
Barnabas, St., 104, 107.
Bartolocci, 157.
Basil, St., 97, loi, IC7-15, 117, 197,
281-2.
Basilides, 3.
Bengel, 3.
Beratinus, Codex (*), 25, 26, 175.
Bethabara or Bethany, 88.
Beza, 3.
Bigg, Dr., 151.
Birch, 157.
Bobiensis (ki, 137.
Bohairic Version, 23, 30, 49, 136,
149-50, and passim.
Brixianus (f), 137.
Burgon, Dean, Indexes of, Preface,
94; addition by, to Greek MSS.,
21 note 2.
Burkitt, Mr. F. C, 129 note i.
C.
C or Parisian MS., 24, 31, 51, 57,
76. 175-
Caesarea (Turris Stratonisl, library
of, 2, 152, 163-5, 225, 274. See.
B and X.
Caesarea, School of, 121, 152-8.
Caesarea Philippi, our Lord's stay
at, 124.
Callixtus, 99, 120.
Candidus Arianus, loi, 113, 120.
Canon of the W. T,, 10, 13-14, i6r,
172; settlement of the Canon fol
lowed by that ofthe Text, 173.
Celsus, 107.

312

GENERAL INDEX.

Chase, Dr. F. H., 144, 176 note.
Chrysostom, St., 31, 161, 197.
Ciasca, Agostino, 132.
Claromontanus (h), 137.
Clemens Alex., 58, 62, 99, 103-15,
117, 121, 148, 149, 150, 234, 241,
246.
Clemens Eom., 105.
Clementines, 99, 105, 109, in, 119.
Colbertinus (c), 137.
Complutensian edition, 3.
Concilia Carthaginiensia, 100, 108.
119.
Concordia discors, 17, 81-8.
Conflation, 80-1, 206-7, 227-9.
Consent without Concert, 1 7.
Constans, 163 note 3.
Constantine I, 160, 163 note 3.
Constantinople, Councils of, 173.
Constantius II, 160, 161 note i.
Context, 61-5.
Continuity, 58-61.
Conybeare, Mr. F. C, 304-5, 307.
Cook, Canon, 163 note 4, 227.
Corbeiensis I, II, (ff', ff^), 137.
Cornelius, 100, 119.
Corruption, pre-Evangelistic, 146.
Crawford, the Earl of, 129.
Critical copies, 36 note.
Curetonian Version, 31, 91; date
of, 123-34; origin of text, 144 &c ,
182 note 2; 218 note 11, and
passim.
Curetonian and Peshitto, App. VI.
292.
Cursive MSS., 24, 51, 156-8, 196-
223; in relation to later Uncials,
199-203 ; main body of, not a single
copy, 223; copied in part from
papyrus, 235 ; the first extant, 200.
Cyprian, St., 100, 103-15, 120.
Cyril of Alexandria, St., 31, 119,
247.
Cyril of Jerusalem, St,, loi, 103-15,
282. D.
D or Cod. Bezae, 24, 31, 51, 76, 126,
144, 175-95; sympathy with Old-
Latin MSS., 56.
D and E, Codd. of St. Paul, 54, 231.
A, Cod. Sangallensis, in St. Mark,
204.
Damascus, Early Church at, 1 2 2-4.
Deane, the late Rev. H., and Hark
leian, App. VIII. 309.
Decapolis, 1 23 note.
Delicate expressions rubbed off in
the old Uncials, 190.

Diatessarons, formerly abounded
252
Didachd, 99, 103, 104.
Didymus, loi, 103-15, 119, 120.
Diez, Fried., 143 note.
Diodorus (Tarsus), loi, 120.
Diognetus, Epistle to, 99, 118.
Dionysius Alex., 100, 107, no, 121,
148, 234.
Doctrine and the Text of N.T.,
connexion between, 173.
E.
E, Cod. of Gospels, 203.
E of Paul = D of Paul, 54, 231.
Edessa, 134.
Egyptian Versions, 31.
Elzevirs, 3.
Ephraem Syrus, St., 103, 107, no,
112, 132, 243; witnesses to Peshitto,
130-
Epiphanius, St., loi, 103-15, 117,
120, 133, 243, 283-4.
Erasmus, 3, 15,
Esaias Abbas, loi, 104, 120.
Ethiopic Version, 23, 49, 51, 136.
Eumenes II, 155.
Eunomius, loi.
Eusebian Canons, 242.
Eusebius (Caesarea), 2, 30, 31, 100,
103-15, 121, 133, 152, 162; per
sonally favoured the Traditional
Text, 100, 121, 153; probably not
the scribe of B, 154 ; latitudinarian,
154, 172; on St. Mark xvi., 55, 58,
109, 242.
Eusebius (Emesa), 107.
Eustathius, 100, 114, 120.
Euthalius (Sulci), 164 nole 2.
Evagrius Ponticus, 100, no, 120.
Evan., 102 = B, 54. P.
P of St. Paul, like G, 56.
Fathers, 19, 23, 26, 50, 52 ; value of
quotations by, 57-8, 97-8 ; early,
witness of, 94-122 ; indexes to quo
tations in, by Dean Burgon, Pref,
94-5-
Faustinus, 101, 114, 120.
Ferrar group, 56, 114, 200, 235-6.
Firmicus Maternus, 100, io8, 119.

G of St. Paul, like F, 56.
Genealogy, 229-37.
Genealogy, the, in St. Luke iii., 181-2.
Giles, Mr. H. A., 156 note.
Gothic Version, 23, 136.

GENERAL INDEX.

313

Gregory, Dr. C. R., prolegomena,
160.
Gregory H"az., St., loi, 103-15, 117,
119, 197.
Gregory ETyss., St., lol, 103-15,
117, 120, 249 note, 260.
Gregory Thaumaturgus, St., 100,
no, 119, 130, 152.
Griesbach, 3, 117, 148.
Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., Pref ; in
Studia Biblica, 128, 129 notei, 241
note ; editor of Peshitto, App. VIII.
308.
Gwynn, Rey. Dr., App. VII. 298-
301, 306. H.
H of St. Paul, 164.
Haddan, A. W., 174 note.
Harkleian Version, 49, 1 33-4 ; new
ed., App VIII. 309.
Harnack, Dr., 304-5.
Harris, Mr. J. Rendel, 144 note i,
176.
Hedybia, 244.
Hegesippus, 99, in, 11 S.
Heracleon, 10, 99, 121, 148.
Hermophilus, 10.
Herodotus, 155.
Hesychius, 243.
Hilary, St. (Poictiers), 104-15, 117,
119, 169.
Hill, Rev. J. Hamlyn, 133.
Hippolytus, St., 99, 104-15, 117,
119.
Hort, Dr., 4, 7, 95, 158, 176, 251,
291, a.nd passifn; admissions of, 14;
involuntary witness of, 90—4 ; in
accurate upon the early Fathers,
117, 121 ; fancies of, 129 note 2 ;
B and N written at Rome, 165 ;
W.-Hort, 208 note 11; on the
Traditional Text, 221-2, 236; on
Genealogy, 230. See Conflation.
I.
Internal Evidence, 65-7, 214-5.
Interpolations, 81.
Irenaeus, St., 98, 99, 103-15, 117,
119, 284.
Isaias. See Esaias.
Itala, 143.
'|o}avvT]S or *ludvT]s, 87.
J.
Jacobites, 133.
Jacobus Uisibenus, 132.
Jerome, St., on Old-Latin Texts, I40-
¦i, 244-

Jona and Jonah, 87.
Julius (Pope), 100, 120.
Julius Africanus, 100, 112, 121.
Justin Martyr, St., 30, 99, 103-15,
117, 119 ; ps. Justin, 108, in.
Juvencus, 100, 105, no, 120.

L or Begins, 4, 30, 32, 204.
Lachmann, 4, 90, 158, 225.
Iiactantius, 100, 120.
Daodicea, Council of, 172.
Last Tw^elve Verses, i. e. of St.
Mark, 55, 102, 232, App. VII. 298.
Latin MSS., Old, 4, 30, 31, 49, 51,
64, 126; do not fall strictly into
three classes, 1 36-9 ; Wiseman's
theory of, false, 142 ; did not come
from one stem, 135-46; influenced
by Low-Latin dialects, 135-146;
derived much from Syrian pre-
Evangelistic corruplion, 144-6.
Lectionaries, 22 and note.
Letters in Guardian, Dean Burgon's,
200 note 3.
Lewis Codex, 131-2, 134 note, 144,
302-3, s.n& passim.
Libraries, destruction of, 174.
Library at Caesarea. See Caesarea.
Low-Latin MSS., 122. See Latin
MSS.
Lucifer (Cagliari), loi, 103, 104,
114, 120. M.
Macarius Alexandrinus, 100 note.
Macarius Magnes, loi, 106-12, 120.
Macarius Magnus or Aegyptius,
100, 104, no, 115, 120.
Mai, Cardinal, editions of B, 75, 159.
Manuscripts, multitude of. 24-7,
19, 21 and note 2; six classes of,
22 note; kinds of, 24; value of,
53-6 ; in profane authors, 21 note i.
See Papyrus, Vellum, Uncial,
Cursive.
Marcion, 10, 97, no, in, 112.
Mariam and Mary, 84-6.
Maries, the, in N. T., 84-6.
Mark, St. See Last Twelve Verses.
Maronite use ofthe Peshitto, 128.
Maunde Thompson, Sir E., Pref.,
'5.5-6, 158.
Melito, 131.
Menander, 10.
Methodius, 100, 106, no, 117, 119,
131-
Mico, 137.
Migne's edition of th3 Fathers, 96.

314

GENERAL INDEX.

Mill, 3.
Miller's Textual Guide, 3 note,
91 note.
Miller's Scrivener (Plain Introduc
tion, ed. ^), passim.
Ministry, our Lord's, in the North
and North- West, 123.
Monacensis (9), 137.
Monophysite use of the Peshitto,
128.
Monothelitism, condemned in 680
A.D,, 173. TSS.
M"emesius, loi, 120.
ITeologian Text, 99, 103.
Nestorian use of Peshitto, 128.
Neutral Text (so-called), 4, 92.
Nicodemus, Gospel of, 107, 257.
Notes of Truth, seven, 29, 40-67.
Novatian, 100, 106, 114.
O,
Omissions, 81, 280-1, 291.
Optatus, 100, 108, no, 120.
Origen, 2, 10, 31, 50, 51, 58, 100,
104-15, 117, 121, 122, 130, 162,
169, 242, 247, 255 note 6, 272,
280-1, 291 ; his great influence,
162 ; a Textual Critic, 149-54 ;
founder of the Caes.arean school,
152-3,162-5; character, 152; fancies,
169 note 2 ; critical copies, 274-5.
Origenism, condemned in 553 a.d.,
173-
Orthodox, the, 264.

<t>. See Beratinus.
Pacianus, 100, 103, 120.
Palatinus (e), 137.
Pamphilus, 2, 100, 115, I2i, 152,
163-4.
Paper, first made in China, 156 note.
Papias, 99, 109, 118.
Papyrus MSS., 24, 154-8, 163, 201 ;
copying from, 2, 175, 235.
Parisian Codex. See C.
Paul, St., 145.
Peshitto Version, 31, 91, 123 ; an
tiquity of, 125-134, 210, 224 :
Peshitto and Curetonian, texts of,
App. VI. 292.
Peter (Alexandria), 100, 121, 14S.
Peter, Gospel of, 99, 107, ni, 119.
Peter, St., App. VII. 306.
Philastrius, loi. 103, 120.
Phillips, Cod , 1 29 note.

Philo (Carpasus or Carpasia), loi,
103, 104, 107, no, 120.
Philoxenian. See Harkleian.
Polycarp, 103,
Pontianus, 99, 120,
Porphyry, 108.
Prior, Dr. Alexander, 156 note.
Pusey, P. E,, Pref and 129.
Q
Q,, Cod., 175.
Quaestiones ex Utroque Testa
mento, 101, 105-15, 120.
K.
K, Cod. of St. Luke (Cod. Nitriensis),
204 note.
Kabbula, 133.
Becensions, phantom, 79, 91, 93,
121.
Behdigeranus (1), 137.
Eespectability. See Weight.
Eevision Eevised, the, 91, 102,
passim.
Eevisers, 208 note 11, 212, 245.
Eomanoe languages, origin of, 143.
Eossanensian Codex. See Z.
Eulotta, 157. S.
2 (Rossanensian), Cod., 25, 76, 175.
Sachau, Dr., 129 note.
Sahidic (Thebaic) Version, 23, 136.
Sangallensia Fragmenta (n), 137.
Sangermanensis I (g^), 137.
Scholz, 4.
Scrivener, Dr , Pref, 5, 32, 135, 227,
231, 233,272.
Seniores apud Irenaeum, 99, 118.
Serapion, 100, log, 119.
Sinaitic MS. See X.
Slavonic Version, 136.
Stephen, Rob., 3,
Synodical Letter, loo, 119,
Synodus Antiochena, 100, 105,
113, ng, 130.
Synoptic problem, 146.
Syria, rapid spread of the Church in,
123-4-
Syriao Canons, 109, 254 note.
Syriao Sections, 291.
Syriac Versions, 49, 123-34.
' Syrian,' an audacious nick-name,
91-2.
Syrio-Low-Latin Text, 135-47,
225 ; intercommunication between
Syria and Italy, 145-6.

GENERAL INDEX.

315

T.
T, Cod., 204 note.
Tatian, 97, 103, no.
Tatian's Diatessaron, 126, 132-4,
242, 302 note.
Taylor, Rev. Dr., 300.
Tertullian, 99, 104-15, 120.
Testament of Abraham, 99, 104,
119.
Tests of Truth, seven, 24, 40-67.
Textual Criticism, 1—5 ; importance
of, Pref., 6 note.
Textus Eeceptus, origin ofthe name,
3 ; character of, 5, 15-16, 30 ; im
perfect, 6.
Theodoret (Cyrrhus), 133, 134.
Theodorus Heracleensis, 100, 107,
114, 119.
Theodotus, 10, 113, 114.
Theognotus, 100, 121, 148.
Theophilus Antiochenus, 99, 120.
Theophylact, 49 note i.
Tischendorf, 4, 5 note, 7, 9, 49 note,
98, 99, 136, 158, 160 note 2 ; curious
reasoning, 169 and note i, 225.
Titus of Bostra, loi, 104-15, 119.
Tradition, nature of, 196-9, 224.
Traditional Text, character of, 5,
196-9 ; founded upon the vast ma
jority of authorities, 1 3 ; relation to
the Canon, 13-14, 32, 172-3, 197;
variously attested, 29, 40-7 ; dates
back to the earliest time, 90-147 ;
settled first, 173 ; finally, 173 ; mode
of settlement, 198; continuity of,
224; history of, 236-7; incontro
vertible as a fact, 236.
U. ,
Uncials, 24, 51.
Uncials, later, 196-223. .S«c Cursives.

Valentinians, 10, 30, 113.

Valentinus, 260.
Variety, 49-53.
Vatican MS. See B.
Vellum, 154-8, 174.
Vercellensis (a), 137.
Veronensis (b), 137.
Versions, 19, 22, 26, 50, 52; value
of, 56.
Victor of Antioch, 284.
Victorinus (Afer), loi, 105, 108, 113,
114, 120.
Victorinus (Pettau), 101, 108, 109,
119.
Viennensium et Lugdunensium
Epistola, 99, 118.
Vincentius, 109.
Vindobonensis (i), 137.
Vulgate, 30, 31, and passim.

AV.
"Waller, Rev.Dr.C.H, Pref., App. VI.
292-7, App. VII. 302.
¦Weight, 63-8, 77, 226.
Westeott, Bp. of Durham, 4 ; on the
Canon, 92.
Westeott and Hort, 226, 232.
Western Text, 135-47. See Syrio-
Low-Latin.
Wetstein, 3.
White, Rev. H. J., 139, 142.
Wiseman, Cardinal, 135, 143.
Woods, Rev. F. H,, 130.
Wright, Dr. W., 129 note 2.

X.

=, Cod. Zacynthius, 204
Ximenes, Cardinal, 3, 236.

Z, Cod. Dublinensis, 204 note i.
Zeno, loi, 107, 114, 120.

INDEX II.

PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTED ON.

PACE

PAGE

PAGIi
St. Matthew ;
St. Matthew (eoni.) :
St. Mark cont.):
i. 2-16
. 180-2
XV. 35 ¦
. . .168
ii. 12 . .
. 287
16, 18,
i9>(
• 295
i 62-3, 105,
13 • •
177
20, 24,
2.^ i
xvii. 21
I 138, 149,
17 . .
104
18 .
19
2-3, 288
(289
27-8 .
. . 176
25 • •
ii. 23
j I
03, 138,
22 .
• • • 55
iii. 16 . .
289
(I
49, 289
• 177
xviii. II .
I 106, 138,
i 149, 290
2629 . .
• 177-8 . 28y
iii. 16 . .
288
I 78, 106,
iv. 1 . .
. 179-80
iv. n .
. 293
xix. 16-7
] 138, 149,
12 .
289
13
• 177
' 259, 288
vi. II .
• ¦ '5?
17-22
211-3
XX. 22-3
209-11, 289
22 . .
66
21 .
¦ ¦ 293
28 .
. . 178
33 • ¦
. . . 80
V. 12 .
293
44
. 289
vii. 35 ¦ ¦
. . . 287
22 .
290
xxiii. 14 .
. 289
viii. 6 . .
. 168
.^2, 41
• 294
38 .
106,138,149
7 • •
. . 82 n.
44
\
03.138,
xxiv, 36 .
. . 288
ix. 24 .
. . .287
h
49, 290
XXVI. 32 .
... 187
29 . .
. . .289
47
• 293
34 ¦
140
44-6 .
. 289
vi. I .
. 290
35
. . 140
49
. . .289
6 .
. . 290
39 •
. . 140
A. 6 . .
. 288
13 •
104,
138, 149
71 ¦
T90-1
17-8
• ¦ 259-78
13, 17,
19
¦ • 297
xxvii. 34
. . 253-8
23-4 •
• 213-14
Vll. 13-4
104,
138,149
.., 46 .
... 30
24 .
. . .289
viii. 5-13
. 219-20
xxviii. 2 .
107,138,149
38 .
. . 209-1 1
ix. I 3 .
104,
138, 149
19 .
\ 108, 138,
( 149, 213 n-
xi. 26 . .
. . 289
X. 8 .
51-2
xiii. 32 . .
. . .288
42 .
¦ • 297
xiv. 22-4 .
290
xi. 2 .
297
St. Mark :
28 . .
. 187
2-3
• 63-4
72 . .
. 187
.. ^? •
105,
138, 149
1. I \
166, 279-86,
XV. 23 . .
253-4
xii. 1-4
. . 292
\
287
28 . .
. . . 290
30
. . 288
2 .
108,138,149
39 •
80, 290
Xlii. 6, 13
33
. 297
II .
... 140
43 • •
. . . 190
36 .
. 34 n. 2
14-20 . . 211-13
46. .
. . . 187
XIV. 13
¦ • 297
28 .
... 176
47-xvi. 7
. . .184
19 .
. . ibS
45-"
. I . .176
xvi. 3, 4, 6
. . . 187
INDEX II.

317

PAGE

PAGE
PAGE
St. Mark (cont>j :
St. Luke (
««/.) :
St. John (cont!)
xvi. 7  187
xix. 25 .
. . .189
X. 14 .115,
139,150
/•109, 138,
27 .
... 178
xiv. 14 . .
. 287
I149, 288,
y \ 293, 298-
37 •
42 .
... 65
• ¦ 217-9
xvi. 6 . .
xvii. 24 .115,
. 288
139. 150
V307
XX. 42 .
. . 220-1
xix. 20-1
. 290
xxi. 25 .
. . .140
25 • •
85 n. 3
St. Luke :
i. 26 ... 187
xxii. 43-4
( no, 138,
( 149, 290
29 . .
xxi. 5-13 .
• 253-4
. 241-4
g \ 109, 138,
'* ¦ (149,289
44 •
... 80
23 . .
. 287
64
. . . 290
25 •115,
139,150
41 .... 187
60 .... 187
xxiii. 34
\ 111,138,
( 149, 290
Acts:
64 . . . 176-7
38
\ 111,138,
xvi. 7 . .
. . 288
65,70,71. ;i^'
( 150, 290
XX. 28 .
. . 287
42
. . .288
xxiv. 23
. . 146
ii. 2 . . . 188 n.
45
n2, 13'*, 150
14 .110,138,149
xxiv. 3
. . .287
Romans :
39 .... 177
13
... 66
xiv. 10
2S8
iii. 23-38 .
. 180-2
40
112,139,150
iv. 4 . .
. . 289
41-3
. . 239-52
I Cor. :
5 • •
. . 2S9
112,139,
( 1 50, 290
xi. 2-4 . .
. . 2"0
8
. . 289
42
xvi. 47 . .
. . 288
31 • •
• • 177
46
... 288
37 • •
. . 176
51
. . .288
2 Cor. :
V. I-II .
.211-13
iii. 3 • •
• 65
3 •
. . 186
St. John
14-15 .
. . 176
i- 3-4
• 113,139,1.50
Gal. :
27
. . 177
9
. ... 140
iii. I
. 166-7
vi. I .
• • 293
18
"3-4, •39, '50
10 .
. . 176
El'H. :
vii. iS
. . 64
27
... 166
i. I . .
. . 166
35 ¦
¦ • 177
28
. . .88,166
V. 20 . .
. 227-8
ix. 55-6
. . 289
43
. ... 87
A. 12 .
. . 176
iii. 6
. ... 297
Col.:
25 •
. . 140
13
S 114,139,
ii, 10
. . 288
41-2 . I
10,138,149
• i 150, 28S
xi. 2 .
. • 177
31
. ... 288
I Tim. :
2-4
. 84, 290
T. 3-4
. 80, 82, 289
iii. 16 . .
. . 288
4 •
. . 166
15
. . . . 290
xiv. 8-10
. . 178
vi. 47
. ... 287
Heb.:
22 .
. . .191
51
. ... 289
iv. 2 . .
48-9
xvi. 9 .
. . 215-6
69
. ... 287
xvii. 2 .
• • 194-5
viii. 35
. ... 288
2 Pet. :
19 .
. . .289
38-c
) • • 170-r
i. I . .
. 288
24 .
. . .289
59
. ... 288
xviii. 14 . 189, 193-4
IX. 35
. ... 288
Rev.;
18-19
¦ .259-78
36
. ... 191
i- 5
. . 290
THE END.
O;cforb
HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

BY THE LATE DEAN BURQON.

The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel
According to St. Mark,
VINDICATED AGAINST RECENT CRITICAL
OBJECTORS AND ESTABLISHED.
Demy Svo, 6s. 1871.
' Dean Burgon's brilliant monograph . . . has thrown a stream of
light upon the controversy; nor does the joyous tone of his book
misbecome one who is conscious of having maintained a cause
which is precious to him. ' We may fairly say that his conclusions
have in no essential point been shaken by the elaborate and very
able counter-plea of Dr. Hort.' — Dr. Scrivener.
Oxford and London: JAMES PARKER & Co.

The Revision Revised.
Three Articles reprinted from the Quarterly Review.
To which is added a reply to BiSHOP EllicOTT's
Pamphlet, including a vindication of the Traditional
Reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Second Edition, Demy Svo,
145-. 1B83. 
Lives of Twelve Good Men.
Nerv Edition, Demy '^¦vo, ivith Portraits, 16s. 1891.
London: JOHN MURRAY, Albemarle Street.

EDITED BY THE REV. EDWARD MILLER.

A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of
the New Testament,
FOR THE USE OF BIBLICAL STUDENTS.
By the late F. H. A. SCRIVENER, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D.
Fourth Edition, 2 vols., large Svo, 32J. 1894.
* * Appendixes F and C, published subsequently and containing additional
information, with corrections, may be had gratis of the Publisher or Editor by
possessors of the earlier copies on transmission of postage.
London: GEORGE BELL & SONS, York Street, Covent Garden.

BY THE REV. EDWARD MILLER.

Tiijo vols., Large Post Svo, cloth, reduced price 15J. 1878.
The History and Doctrines of Irvingism,
OR OF THE SO-CALLED CATHOLIC AND
APOSTOLIC CHURCH.
' Mr. Miller has brought to his work the rare qualities of unmistakable
fairness and candour, a thoroughly philosophical mind, untiring patience in
research, and a calm spirit of charity, which must go far to render his
volumes pleasant and profitable reading to the philosophically-minded
student of religious phenomena.' — Church Revieia.
' Mr. Miller has done his work very thoroughly indeed.'— Guardian.
'The theological learning, philosophical insight, and calm and steady
patience in dealing with the adverse argument, are most admirable.' —
Literary Churchman.
London: KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & Co., Limited.

The Church in Relation to the State.
Post Svo, reduced price ^s. 1880,
'To those who desire to understand the true position of the Church and
State question . we would recommend an attentive perusal of the
Rev. Edward Miller's able and thoughtful essay.' — National Church.
To be had of the Author.

A Guide to the Textual Criticism of
the New Testament. O
Crown Svo, 4,?. 1886.
'A vast amount of information, stated with admirable clearness and
precision, and in a form quite intelligible even to those not previously
familiar with the subject.' — Saturday Review.
London: GEORGE BELL & SONS, York Street, Covent Garden.

A Greek Testament Primer,
AN EASY GRAMMAR AND READING BOOK FOR THE USE OF
STUDENTS BEGINNING GREEK.
Second Edition, Extra fcap. Svo, price y.6d. 1893.
' Mr. Miller has done his work with spirit, intelligence, and accuracy.' —
Expositor.
Oxford: CLARENDON PRESS; London: HENRY FROWDE.