153 • 
 
 CORN ELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 L I BRARY 
 
 The Robert M. and Laura Lee Lintz 
 Book Endowment for the Humanities 
 
 Class of 1924 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 3 1924 096 083 328 
 
a Cornell University 
 J Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924096083328 
 
A GUIDE TO THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
V 
 
 t 
 
 A GUIDE 
 
 TO THE 
 
 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 BY EDWARD MILLER, M.A. 
 
 RECTOR OF BUCKNELL, OXON. 
 
 ,0( Xdyot Mov oil fii) napfXduiai. — St. Matt. xxiv. 35. 
 " Truth crushed to earth shall rise again." — Bryant. 
 
 GEORGE BELL AND SONS, YORK STREET, 
 
 COVENT GARDEN, LONDON. 
 
 1886. 
 
CHISWICK PRESS: — C. WHITTINCHAM AND CO., TOIIKS COURT, 
 CHANCERY LANR, 
 
 U 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 TO THOSE 
 
 WHO, 
 
 WHETHER AT THE OUTSET OF THE WORK, OR AT THE CLOSE, 
 
 HAVE KINDLY GIVEN HELP OR ENCOURAGEMENT, 
 
 €i)i» little Crratise 
 
 TS GRATEFULLY INSCRIBED, 
 
 WITH THE PRAYER, 
 
 THAT IT MAY MINISTER IN SOME DEGREE, HOWEVER HUMBLE, 
 
 TO THE ASCERTAINMENT AND ACCEPTANCE 
 
 OF 
 
 The Genuine Words of Holy Scripiure. 
 
 20221 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THE ensuing treatise is intended to be a brief Manual 
 on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament for 
 ordinary students of the Bible, and to induce those who 
 may be disposed to enter more deeply into the important 
 subject of it to prosecute further research in "The Plain 
 Introduction " of Dr. Scrivener, the learned works of Dean 
 Burgon, and in other well-known sources of information upon 
 Textual Criticism. 
 
 The foot-notes will ordinarily indicate how much 1 have 
 been indebted to the labours of other men in a work which 
 pretends to be little more than a faithful representation of 
 stores accumulated by the learned, and an independent esti- 
 mate of the conclusions drawn by them. 
 
 To the Dean of Chichester I am indebted for many pre- 
 vious hints which I have found invaluable during my prose- 
 cution of a task both laborious and difficult. The under- 
 taking of it was originally pressed upon me from without, 
 and I am myself convinced that some such assistance as is 
 here offered to the general Reader is greatly needed at this 
 time. But I lay down my pen with the conviction derived 
 from the accomplishment of my work, that every Reader 
 who would really understand, and form an opinion for him- 
 self upon the great questions at stake, must bestow on the 
 problem which has suddenly emerged into prominence a 
 
▼iii PREFACE. 
 
 considerable amount of individual, unprejudiced attention. 
 He will be able to see with which of the contending parties 
 the Truth must lie : but he must approach the problem in a 
 calm, judicial spirit, must require Proof (as far as Proof is 
 attainable) instead of putting up with Hypothesis, and above 
 all must never cease to exercise a large amount of vigilant 
 sagacity, — in fact, of Common Sense. 
 
 My thanks are also due to the Rev. R. Huichison, M.A., 
 Rector of Woodeaton, and late Scholar of Exeter College, 
 Oxford, who has kindly helped me in correcting the proof 
 sheets. 
 
 E. M. 
 
 BucKNELL Rectory, 
 
 Ember Week, Sept., 1885. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Introduction. Importance of the Subject. 
 
 The question stated — seven instances of serious change— others also 
 advocated — the number introduced into the Revised Version — more 
 into other editions — the subject not generally known— importance of it 
 — plan of the work PP- '-S- 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 history of textual criticism. 
 
 First Part. Earlier Stages. 
 
 The natural growth of the science influenced by investigation and 
 ■discovery PP- ^'7- 
 
 I. Infancy : — The New Testament not printed till the sixteenth 
 century— I. ComplutensianPolyglott. 2. Erasmus. 3. Robert Stephen, 
 Theodore Beza, and the Elzevirs— the Received Text . pp. 7-12. 
 
 II. Childhood: — Introduction of various readings. I. Bishop Walton, 
 Codex A, Courcelles, and Fell. 2. Mill. 3. Bentley, Codex B. 
 
 4. Bengel, Wetstein, Matthaei, Birch, Alter, and Moldenhawer. 
 
 5. Griesbach, families and recensions of manuscripts, and Scholz — 
 the free advance of boyhood pp. 12-19. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 history of textual criticism (continued). 
 
 Second Part. Contemporary Growth . p. 20. 
 III. Youth : — Impatience under an overwhelming mass of materials — 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Extreme Textualism. i. Lachmann— rejects all but a few witnesses. 
 2. Tregelles— follows Lachmann— great services in collating and edit- 
 ing. 3. Tischendorf— amazing labours— discovers the Sinaitic— zigzag 
 course. 4. Drs. Westcott and Hort— ilevelop Lachmann's principles 
 —extreme deference to B — surprising results— followed mainly by Two 
 Members of the Revisers' Company — must we follow them ? pp. 20-30. 
 
 IV. Signs of Coming Maturity :— Opposition. I. Dr. Scrivener— 
 his published works— large-minded principles. 2. Dean Burgon — his 
 works — misrepresented— his sound and wide principles. 3. , Canon 
 Cook — The Bishops Wordsworth, J. G. Reiche, Kuenen and Cobet, 
 Dr. M ichelsen, Vercellone, Ceriani, Abbi Martin — other "iloman 
 Catholics pp. 30-37. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 SCHOOL OF EXTREME TEXTUALISM. 
 
 The origin attributed by the leading masters to Lachmann . p. 38- 
 
 A. Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort. I. Knowledge of Documents 
 derived from date and character a prior requisite ; B and N are the best 
 MSS. 2. Importance of Genealogy, under which these two MSS. are 
 brought back nearly to the Apostolic autographs. 3. Four families, 
 sc. (a) Syrian, made in a recension at Antioch, (b) Western, (c) Alexan- 
 drian, and {d) Neutral, which is the best. 4. Of these, two are corrupt 
 {b and c) ; the Neutral alone reaches back to earliest times ; Syrian 
 shewn to be worthless by analysis, want of antiquity, and internal 
 evidence. 5. Hence N B together nearly always right, and B alone 
 seldom wrong ........ pp. 38"44- 
 
 B. Refutation. I. Too easy to be true, grounded on only part of 
 the evidence, and destitute of real proof. 2. Sound sense is violated, 
 and opinion unsupported by facts is balanced by opinions of other 
 masters. 3. Genealogy affords an unsafe analogy, and in fact points 
 the opposite way. B and K are also condemned for want of descendants. 
 4. The theory about Families is disallowed by other Doctors, and 
 lacks evidence. 5. The " Syrian," or Traditional Text, is not proved 
 to be posterior, whether by an imaginary recension, or by a fanciful 
 theory of conflation, or by ignoring proof of early existence, or by sup- 
 posed internal evidence. 6. The characters of B and K not superfine ; 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 they were rejected by the Church, were the products of Semiarian times, 
 are condemned by experts, and are full of blunders . pp. 44-59. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE RIVAL SCHOOL. 
 
 The tenets of the Rival School already implied — I. They do not 
 maintain the Received Text, and are not indiscriminate in the use of 
 authorities. 2. Insist that all authorities should be weighed and em- 
 ployed ; and thus widen the basis. 3. They maintain the Traditional 
 Text, which the Church of all ages has acknowledged, and no age 
 therefore can reject — extreme importance of this part of the contention ; 
 hence the need of a history of the Traditional Text — the question 
 depends upon a just estimate of proportion . . . pp. 60-64. 
 
 CHAPTER VL 
 
 HISTORY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT TILL THE ERA OF 
 ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 Difference between Sacred and Classical Textual Criticism. I. Con- 
 jectural Emendation inadmissible. 2. God the Holy Ghost the Pre- 
 server as well as Inspirer of the Holy Scriptures. 3. Corporate as 
 well as individual productions pp. 65-68. 
 
 Early Corruption derived from oral teaching, tampering with the text 
 by heretics, carelessness of scribes, ignorance of Greek or of doctrine — 
 Gnosticism — Marcion — Tatian — evidence of corruption . pp. 68-72. 
 
 Exceeding care employed by the faithful — Traditional Text — Peshito 
 — Old Latin Versions — Egyptian pp. 72-77. 
 
 Alexandria — Origen — followers of Origen — Eusebius — persecution of 
 Diocletian^-celebrated order of Constantine — transcription of B and K 
 
 PP- 77-83- 
 
 Proofs of the Traditional Text in this period found amidst corruption 
 in its subsequent supremacy, in the MSS. used by the Fathers, and in 
 contemporaneous Versions . . .... pp. 83-85. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT FROM THE ERA OF ST. 
 CHRYSOSTOM TILL THE INVENTION OF PRINTING. 
 
 The previous period an era of speculation — the great Patristic Era — 
 commentaries, dictionaries, and grammars — punctuation — breathings — 
 spelling — improvement in the art of Transcription — monasteries — 
 ibraries — canon of Holy Scripture — supremacy of the Traditional Text 
 
 pp. 86-94. 
 
 Gothic Version — Codex Alexandrinus (A) — Parisian Codex (C) — the 
 Fathers not uncritical — Uncial manuscripts — Versions — Vulgate — 
 Armenian — Georgian— Ethiopian— other Uncials . pp. 94-100. 
 
 Cursive manuscripts— their value— their agreement with the Uncials 
 — Lectionaries — other Versions— undisputed predominance of the Tra- 
 ditional Text PP- 100-104. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 
 
 I. (a) Uncial manuscripts — in Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, 
 Pauline Epistles, and Apocalypse .... pp. 105-106. 
 
 (^) Cursive manuscripts— their value and vast number pp. 106-107. 
 Table of Uncials pp. 108- 109. 
 
 II. Lectionaries and Liturgies — lectionary-system— their value-— 
 influence in mischief— Evangelistaria — Praxapostoli— Liturgies 
 
 pp. IIO-112. 
 
 III. Versions— Table — value— drawbacks— Old Latin pp. 113-115. 
 
 IV. Ecclesiastical Writers— drawbacks— value— the oldest class of 
 manuscripts, but at second hand .... pp. I16-117. 
 
 The field to be explored— MSS. at first hand wanting in antiquity 
 
 p. 117. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM. 
 
 No evidence must be discarded— responsibility of the Church— 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 I. The first object the discovery of the Traditional Text — begin with 
 • the Received Text. 2. All evidence must be mastered — and followed. 
 3. Internal Evidence not on a par with External proof— seven canons — 
 conclusion pp. 118-122. 
 
 Appendix I. The last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel 
 
 pp. 125-127. 
 
 „ II. The First Word from the Cross . pp. 127-128. 
 
 ,, III. The Record of the strengthening Angel, the Agony, 
 
 and the Bloody Sweat . . pp. 128-130. 
 
 „ IV. The Angelic Hymn . . .pp. 130-131. 
 
 ,, V. The Doxology in the Lord's Prayer pp. 131- 133. 
 
 ,, VI. The Son of God's Eternal Existence in Heaven 
 
 PP- 133-134. 
 ,, VII. God manifested in The Flesh . pp. 134-137. 
 
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 
 
 2, 
 
 
 20, 
 
 3. 
 
 
 8. 
 
 3. 
 
 
 9. 
 
 7. 
 
 
 2, 
 
 9, 
 
 
 20, 
 
 '3. 
 
 
 21, 
 
 14. 
 
 
 13. 
 
 Page 2, line 17, rM// knowy^r knew. 
 
 xxiv. 5l,^rxxiv. 15. 
 may have been pierced, for was pierced, 
 the full./or its full, 
 affected, yi»r effected, 
 manuscript, for manuscripts, 
 appeared, _/^r apeared. 
 
 contributed a vast amount of information in his 
 invaluable Prolegomena, _/br invaluable Prolegomena. 
 21, line 14, r^ai/ manuscripts, y^r manuscript. 
 
 27, .. 4. >. Arian,/^^ Asian. 
 
 28, noted, add: — The form is however found in some Latin in- 
 scriptions. 
 
 46, line I, read may have been pierced, yir was pierced. And at 
 foot of page add the following note : — Two suppositions are pre- 
 sented by Drs. Westcott and Hort as ' alone compatible with 
 the whole evidence,' viz. (i) that the words are genuine, or (2) a 
 ' very early interpolation.' — " Notes on Select Readings," p. 22. 
 Compare margin of Revised Version. 
 48, line 27, after analogy, add: — There is therefore no certain foun- 
 dation in genealogical considerations on which we can thrust 
 back beyond a few years any common original of B and H, even 
 supposing that it may have been several generations anterior to 
 them. 
 54, note 3, read'n. l^for ii. 14. 
 56, ,, 2, ,, collating, _/0r collecting. 
 
 59, add at end of note : — Besides participating in all except eighteen 
 of the blunders of B just enumerated, N indulges in a large crop 
 of its own. Thus : — 
 
 (i) Unsupported, or scarcely supported, omissions: — Matt. 
 V. 45 (5 words) ; XV. 18, 19 (9) ; xxiii. 8 (5) ; xxiv. 35 (verse) ; 
 XXV. 43 (5) ; xxvi. 62, 63 (16); Mark vi. 7, 8 (8); 28 (13); 
 X. 3o(«3); 35-37 (verse and 5 words); xv. 47— xvi. I (14); 
 Luke iii. I (2); v. 26 (9); vi. 55 (7— gross nonsense); viii. 
 20 (4); ix. 38, 39 (verse and 4); xxii. 25 (2); xv. 10 (10); 
 xvi. 15 (verse); 17 (7); xix. 20, 21 (verse and 14 — utter non- 
 sense) ; XX. 3 (5) ; 4 (4) ; 5, 6 (19), &c., &c. None of these 
 omissions is accepted even by Tischendorf, and most of 
 them are corrected by N'= (cent. vii.). 
 (2) General blunders : — 
 e.g. Matt. xiii. 35 (Psalm 78 in the book of Isaiah); Mark 
 i. 28 (Capernaum in Judea?); xiv, 30, 68, 72 (attempt to 
 reconcile St. Mark with the rest by making the cock crow 
 only once) ; Luke i. 26 (Nazareth in Judea) ; ii. 37 (Anna a 
 
widow of 74 years); xxiv. 13 (Emmaus 160 furlongs from 
 Jerusalem); John ii. 3 (vapid paraphrase); Acts viii. 5 
 (Philip in Csesarea, not Samaria); x. 20 (missionaries 
 preached to Evangelists) ; xiv. 9 (the impotent man did not 
 hear St. Paul speak) ; Heb. ii. 4 [fitputfidiQ for luptafioio) ; 
 iii. 8 (in the temptation and in the day of t^e temptation) ; 
 &c., &c. 
 (3) Mis-spellings: — 
 e.g. in St. Luke, PtpXriPXTifterov (v. 18) ; ouJj'tvoe (viii. 43); 
 . oa0pov(c (xi. 40) ; trotaai for iroirjaai (xi. 42) ; anoawoXuiXoc 
 (xix. 10);— besides Itacisms e/ hoc genus omne (such as 
 iraptno-Oni, xiv. 18, for TrapairtiffSai) almost innumerable. 
 Page 73, line 23, read The robustness of that stem, for That robustness 
 of the stem. 
 ,, 74, line 14, read Syriac,_/<7r Syrian. 
 >i 74i .. '9. '»/'"' l«nown add and of that text, ». e. the Curetonian, 
 
 we have only 1 786 verses. 
 ,, 75, line I, read Syriac twice for Syrian. 
 ,, 75, note 4, read the middle of Cent. '^.,for early in. 
 ,, 77, add nsanote :—'Vhe\t\\tie: three Dialectsof Coptic, viz., Bahiric 
 or Memphitic, Sahidic or Thebaic, and Bashmuric or Elear- 
 chian. 
 ,, 78, line 26. Instead of the sentence. Indeed .... Apostles, &c., 
 read thus: Indeed, it is very questionable whether he did not 
 select occasionally from his dissonant authorities, and settle for 
 himself and his followers, though with restrained criticism, some 
 of the readings in the works of the Evangelists and Apostles. 
 It is certain that he did much more than this, &c. 
 79, note I, add at end. But his disclaimer (torn. iiL, p. 671), 
 in which he says that he considered it dangerous to attempt on 
 the New Testament what he had done over the Old, proves 
 that he attempted no regular recension. 
 „ 89, note 4, read Prolegomena/or Prologomena. 
 .. 93, .. '. »> contravenes_/^r controvenes. 
 
 95, line 6, „ Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, for 
 
 Cyril Lucas, Bishop of Alexandria. 
 98 line II, add. To this must now be added the Codex Beratmus 
 " I*), which through the influence of Professor Duchesne was 
 examined by M. Pierre Batiffol at Berat or Belgrade m Albania 
 in April, 1885, and described some months after. 
 „ 100, line 12, add. Also the Codex Beratinus (*), like the last a 
 purple Manuscript, and containing St. Matthew and St. Mark 
 almost complete, though it is probable that both these two date 
 from very eaHy in the sixth century or from the end of the tilth 
 „ 108, insert Beratinus before Kossanensis, Berat before Rossano, and 
 
 <t> before 2. 
 ,, 108, read Purpurcus/<7r Purpurens. 
 „ 117, note, r<rfl</45o>r4ii, rt«</ 14459/'"' 12150- 
 ., 121, line 20, read itacism/jr italicism. 
 „ \2b, Wnc 6, add ^ after "Z. 
 ,, 128, line 23, rem/ authenticity y&raulhencity. 
 
 A GUIDE TO THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 introduction. 
 
 Importance of the Subject. 
 
 WHAT is the genuine Greek — what the true Text of 
 the New Testament ? Which are the very words 
 which were written by the Evangelists and Apostles of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ under the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost ? 
 Have we up to this period received and used for the infor- 
 mation of our faith and the guidance of our lives a Form 
 of Text, which in a vast number of particulars, many of 
 which are of great importance, has been fabricated by the 
 device or error of men ? 
 
 This question has been raised in the research of recent 
 times, which has brought to light an amount of evidence 
 residing in ancient copies and translations of the New 
 Testament, that has led many eminent scholars to reject, as 
 being in their estimation corruptions of the pure Text, 
 various passages which have endeared themselves to Chris- 
 tians in the course of centuries. Thus, according to prin- 
 ciples largely adopted, 
 
 (a) The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 St. Mark must be cast aside, and an abrupt close made 
 after the words, ' for they were afraid.' 
 
 (b) In the Lord's Prayer as given by St. Luke (xi. 2-4), 
 the following clauses must be excised : — * Our .... 
 which art in Heaven'; 'Thy will be done, as in 
 Heaven, so on earth' ;—* but deliver us from evil.' 
 
 (c) The Doxology must be omitted from the Lord's' 
 Prayer in St. Matthew (vL 13), and so all record of it 
 lost in the Gospels. 
 
 (d) Vv. 43, 44 must no longer be reckoned in the 22nd 
 chapter of St. Luke, and thereby the account must 
 disappear of the strengthening Angel and the ' Bloody 
 Sweat,' as well as the evangelical record of ' the Agony in 
 the Garden.' 
 
 (e) The first of our Lord's seven Sayings from the Cross 
 (St. Luke xxiii. 34) must be regarded as unauthentic, 
 « Father, forgive them, for they knew not what they 
 
 do.' 
 
 (f) Also St. Luke's assertion of the Ascent mto Heaven 
 (xxiv. 15),— an omission of the more importance, 
 because St. Mark's account of the same event, which 
 included also the session at the Right Hand of God, is 
 supposed under these principles to have vanished with 
 the last twelve verses of his Gospel. 
 
 (g) St. Luke's recital of the Institution of the Holy Sacra- 
 ment (xxii. 19, 20) must be lost, except as far as ' This 
 is My Body.' 
 
 These seven instances, which might be multiplied ex- 
 tensively by the addition of other omissions,— such as of the 
 descending angel and the cure wrought in the pool of 
 Bethesda, of the last cry in St. Mark's description of the 
 centurion's faith, of the greater part of St. Luke's account of 
 
 I 
 
 RESULTS OF RECEN7 CRITICISM. 3 
 
 the Inscription on the Cross, of St. Peter's visit to the 
 Sepulchre in the same Gospel, of the salutation ' Peace be 
 unto you,' of the Lord shewing His Hands and His Feet, of 
 the word ' broken,' whereby a gash is made and a blank 
 space left in St. Paul's grand version of the Institution of the 
 Holy Sacrament, and others too numerous to recount here 
 — not to do more than allude to startling statements, such 
 as that our Lord's Side was pierced before death, and that 
 the sun was eclipsed at its full,' — may teach all who revere 
 and love the Word of God what precious points are at 
 stake. If the changes advocated by the modem school leave 
 enough behind in Holy Writ to support without doubt the 
 essentials of the Faith of Christendom, yet they are so 
 momentous in themselves as to produce a painful wrench in 
 earnest affections which have attached themselves to words 
 familiar and deeply loved from childhood, and to prove that, at 
 least to first appearance, general and special attention should 
 be directed to what may really be a corruption of the Holy 
 Scriptures. Besides this, the number of alterations, amounting 
 in the most moderate of the new recensions to 5,337,' reveals 
 the formidable nature of the operations that are threatened. 
 If the majority of these alterations are small, it must be 
 remembered that the instance taken is one which presents 
 much less change than other editions of the New Testa- 
 
 ' St. John V. 3, 4 : St. Mark xv. 39 : St. Luke xxiii. 38 : xxiv. 12 : 
 xxiv. 36 : xxiv. 40 : I Cor. ix. 24, (cXw^tvov : St. Matt, xxvii, 49 : 
 St. Luke xxiii. 45. ^(cXtiVorroc, which, as Dean Burgon truly says 
 (" Revision Revised," p. 65), ' means an eclipse of the sun and no other 
 thing,' though the Revisers translate it 'the sun's light failing.' 
 
 * The number of changes in the Greek Text of the Revised Version 
 as estimated by Dr. Scrivener (Burgon, "The Revision Revised," p. 
 405). The changes in the English of the Revised Version are said to 
 amount to 36,191. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ment. Enough is shown to establish beyond doubt that 
 it is the duty of all Christians, who take an intelligent inte- 
 rest in the controversies of their day, not to sit still when 
 such concerns are in jeopardy. 
 
 Yet at the present time there are comparatively few per- 
 sons, clerical or lay, who have an intelligent acquaintance 
 with the grounds on which this important question rests. 
 The subject at first sight presents a forbidding aspect to 
 most minds : — the exceedingly valuable treatises on it are 
 too full of learning, and too long for such as are not really 
 students to master : — and the hurry and haste of modem 
 life demand a simpler mode of treatment. 
 
 It is therefore with the hope of presenting the- chief 
 features of Textual Criticism, or such elementary con- , 
 siderations as are immediately involved in determining 
 the Greek Text of the New Testament, to readers in a 
 clear and not uninteresting way, that in deference to the 
 urgent solicitations of some who enter deeply into the 
 controversy, the composition of this little treatise has been 
 undertaken. Inexpressibly dear to all true Christians, 
 whether they range themselves on the one side or the other, 
 must be the very expressions, — the sentences, the phrases, 
 the words, and even the rhythm and the accents, — of the 
 genuine utterance of the Holy Spirit of God. The general 
 sentiment of Christianity has applied with plenary enlarge- 
 ment the warning given at the close of the last Book in the 
 Bible against addition or omission.' ' Let no man add to 
 the words of the Holy Scriptures or detract anything from 
 them,' said one of the most renowned of the Fathers." ' Let 
 
 ' Rev. xxii. i8, 19. 
 
 ' Atbanasius, "Ex Festali Epistola," xxxix. (t, ii. p. 39, Ed. Colon). 
 
 OBJECTS OF THE TREATISE. 
 
 them fear the woe which is destined for them who add to or 
 take away,' was the consentient admonition of another.' 
 
 The leading points in the contention on either side will 
 be given in the Narrative. The questions in debate are 
 questions of fact, and must be decided by the facts of 
 history, the origin and nature of the documents on which 
 they depend, and due regard to the proportion of the 
 Christian Faith. They cannot be settled piecemeal. 
 All the counts of the case must be before the court. An 
 attempt will therefore be now made to represent with all 
 candour the chief grounds on which opinion should rest, 
 as they have been set forth in the career of the Science of 
 Textual Criticism, in the principal arguments employed by 
 the Rival Schools of the present day, in the history of the 
 transmission of the New Testament from age to age, and in 
 ' the leading Materials of Criticism ; and it will be our duty 
 to deduce in conclusion the main principles that ought to 
 regulate critical operations in any endeavour to revise and 
 remodel the Sacred Text. 
 
 ' Tertullian, "Adv. Hermogenem," xxii. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 history of textual criticism. 
 
 First Part. Earlier Stages, (i) Infancy :— Forma- 
 tion OF THE ' Received Text.' (2) Childhood : — 
 Critical Operations before 1830. 
 
 THE Science of sacred Textual Criticism is the child of 
 circumstances, and has been fostered by the zeal and 
 industry of learned men. It has arisen from the jarge 
 number of existing Copies of the New Testament, which has 
 now, so far as inquiry has extended, reached no less than some 
 two thousand.' These primary sources of information are 
 further augmented by Translations into various languages, 
 and by quotations occurring in the works of early Ecclesias- 
 tical Writers. Accordingly, as these numerous witnesses 
 render evidence which is discordant in thousands of parti- 
 culars, there is plainly a need of guiding principles and of a 
 recognised system in estimating their testimony. Thus the 
 Science of sacred Textual Criticism has been gradually grow- 
 ing almost since the time of the invention of printing. 
 
 And as was natural, its growth and tendency have been 
 largely influenced from time to time by the materials that 
 research and discovery have continually produced. When 
 new Manuscripts have been brought to light, or the verdict 
 of old ones has been ascertained by the slow process of col- 
 
 • 2003. Burgon, "The Revision Revised," p. 521. Dean Burgon 
 added 374 in 1883. Dr. Scrivener, including these 374, reckons 2094. 
 " Plain Introduction," Appendix, p. xxx, 3rd edition. 
 
 THE INFANCY. 
 
 lation, the importation of fresh evidence has necessarily 
 effected the conclusions previously drawn. A science de. 
 pending upon facts that can be ascertained only after pro- 
 tracted processes of investigation, cannot but be late in 
 coming to maturity. At the present time, hundreds of 
 Manuscripts are waiting to be collated, various Versions 
 need re-editing, and indexes have to be provided of the 
 quotations in the Fathers, before all that is to be said upon 
 controverted points can be collected with exact accuracy. 
 Besides that, the relative value of the various classes and 
 subdivisions of evidence cannot yet be determined so as to 
 meet with universal acceptance. 
 
 Four Periods in the history of Textual Criticism may be 
 distinguished, so far as it has been yet evolved, viz.. Infancy, 
 Childhood, Impetuous Youth, and Incipient Maturity. 
 
 I. The Infancy. 
 
 Although a folio edition of the Bible in Latin was printed 
 by Gutenberg as early as a.d. 1455, none in the original 
 Greek appeared till the beginning of the sixteenth century. 
 The demand at the time was not great. Greek Scribes 
 dependent upon employment for their living abounded in 
 Europe after the capture of Constantinople in 1453. Print- 
 ing would be much more difficult in the unfamiliar Greek 
 type : and the prevalence of clever and graceful abbrevia- 
 tions made the work of copying at once more rapid and 
 more artistic. Therefore half a century passed by before the 
 Church saw the accomplishment of a task so formidable, of 
 which the want was at once so easily and so well supplied. 
 
 I. Cardinal Ximenes, founder of the University of Alcalk, 
 and an eminent patron of literature, was first in the field. In 
 
8 
 
 THE INFANCY. 
 
 the course of his advancement he had passed from a dungeon, 
 where he had spent six years of his life, to the Archbishopric 
 of Toledo and the Regency of Castile; and in his later days 
 laid out the vast income of his See upon charitable or public 
 objects. Having collected together as many Manuscripts 
 as he could, he set Lopez de Stunica and other learned 
 editors to the work in 1502, on which he expended more 
 than 50,000 ducats, or about ;;^23,ooo. It was intended to 
 commemorate the birth of Charles V. But many years 
 elapsed ere the completion of the New Testament in Greek 
 and Latin on Jan. 10, 15 14; and the book was not pub- 
 lished till 1520, after Ximenes' death, and did not get into 
 general circulation till two years after. 
 
 The Complutensian Polyglott — for such was the title,, 
 derived from the Latin name {Complutum) of Alcalk — was 
 said by the editors to have been constructed from selected 
 Manuscripts of great age and accuracy, supplied by Pope 
 Leo X., who was the patron of the undertaking. Attempts 
 have been made without success to ascertain what these 
 Manuscripts were. The only result is that we must abide by 
 the assertion of the editors and the character of the work. 
 The Complutensian is admitted to be a fair but not by any 
 means a faultless edition of the text that had already been 
 in vogue, as is universally admitted, for upwards of a thou- 
 sand years. 
 
 2. But the Complutensian Polyglott was actually antici- 
 pated in publication by a Greek Testament in Germany. 
 
 Froben, the printer of Basle, hearing of the operations in 
 Spain, and wishing to forestall them, sent to Erasmus, who 
 was then staying in England, and pressed him earnestly to 
 undertake the office of editor. Erasmus received the first 
 overtures on April 17, 1515. But such was the haste made 
 
 THE COMPLUTENSIAN AND ERASMUS. 
 
 that the New Testament was printed before the end of 
 February, 1516. Erasmus had however, as it appears, made 
 some preparations of his own before he heard from Froben. 
 He seems to have used what copies he could procure, but 
 in a few cases where he either found or supposed his Greek 
 authorities to be deficient, he translated from the Vulgate 
 into Greek.' 
 
 Erasmus' first edition made its way into Spain, where the 
 Complutensian was lying complete, but awaiting the Pope's 
 imprimatur for publication. Stunica found fault with it in 
 the spirit of rivalry : but the fine old Cardinal replied, 
 ' Would that all the Lord's people were prophets ! produce 
 better if thou canst ; condemn not the industry of another.' ■* 
 
 Erasmus was, however, attacked by Stunica, and also by 
 Edward Lee, afterward Archbishop of York, because he had 
 omitted' the testimony of the heavenly Witnesses in i John v. 
 7, as well as on other grounds. Erasmus replied that he could 
 not find the passage in his Greek manuscripts, and that 
 even some Latin copies did not give it. But at length he 
 promised that if any Greek manuscripts were produced 
 containing the words, he would in future insert them. It is 
 remarkable that the celebrated Vatican Codex (B) was 
 on this occasion for the first time appealed to on a point of 
 textual criticism.' In course of time the Codex Montfor- 
 tianus, now at Dublin, was brought forward, and in conse- 
 quence the passage was printed by Erasmus in his third 
 edition in 1522. A fourth edition exhibited the text in three 
 parallel columns, the Greek, the Latin Vulgate, and a recen- 
 sion of the latter by Erasmus. The last in 1535 contained 
 
 ' This was notably the case in the last six verses of the Revelation. 
 ' Scrivener's "Plain Introduction," p. 431. 
 ' Tregelles, " Printed Text," p. 22. 
 
lO 
 
 THE INFANCY. 
 
 only the Greek. Each successive edition underwent cor- 
 rection, but the last did not differ much from the fourth. 
 Erasmus died at Basle in 1536. 
 
 3. The editions of Robert Stephen, Theodore Beza, and 
 the Elzevirs, complete this period. 
 
 The two first of Stephen, published at Paris respectively 
 in 1546 and 1549, were most elegantly printed with type 
 cast at the expense of Francis I., and are known to connois- 
 seurs by the title ' O mirificam ' from the opening words ex- 
 pressing an encomium upon that king's liberality. The third, 
 in folio, came out in 1550, and for the first time in the his- 
 tory of editions of the Greek Testament contained various 
 readings. Reference was made to sixteen authorities, viz., 
 the Complutensian Polyglott and fifteen manuscripts,'; 
 amongst which the Codex Bezse (D), now at Cambridge, is 
 thought to have been numbered.' Erasmus is not mentioned, 
 although Stephen's two earliest editions were mainly grounded 
 upon Erasmus' readings ; and his third, according to Dr. 
 Scrivener's computation, differs from them conjointly in only 
 361 places.* Robert Stephen did not collate his authorities 
 himself, but employed the services of his son Henry. 
 
 His record of readings in the margin of his folio caused 
 great offence to the doctors of the Sorbonne, and Stephen 
 withdrew to Geneva to escape their enmity. Here he pub- 
 lished in 1 55 1 his fourth edition, almost unchanged in the 
 Greek text from the previous one, but with one remarkable 
 alteration. The chapters, into which Cardinal Hugo, of 
 Santo Caro, had divided the books of the Bible in the 
 thirteenth century, were in this edition first subdivided into 
 
 ' .Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," pp. 121, 438. 
 » " Plain Introduction," p. 436 ; i.e., 334 t™es in the text, and 27 
 in punctuation. 
 
 STEPHEN, BEZA, THE ELZEVIRS. 
 
 verses. His son Henry said that his father made the sub- 
 division 'whilst riding' from Paris to Lyons, probably 
 during the intervals of his exercise. His object was to 
 facilitate reference in a Concordance which he had in 
 prospect.' 
 
 Beza's text did not differ much from Stephen's. He pub- 
 lished five editions, slightly varying upon one another, and 
 ranging from 1565 to 1598. Of these the fourth, published 
 in 1589, has the highest reputation, the fifth having been 
 produced in ' extreme old age.' Besides the advantage of 
 Stephen's collections, Beza was the possessor of two very 
 important MSS., the one already mentioned (D of the 
 Gospels and Acts), which was presented by him to the 
 University of Cambridge, and the Codex Claromontanus 
 (D of St. Paul's Epistles) at Paris, both of which con- 
 tained Greek and Latin texts, being therefore ' bilingual ' 
 manuscripts. 
 
 The Elzevirs — Bonaventure and Abraham — brought out 
 two editions at their celebrated press, one in 1624, and the 
 other in 1633. Their text was made up from those of 
 Stephen and Beza. The latter edition was remarkable from 
 the expression ' Received Text ' occurring for the first time. 
 Addressing the reader they said. ' So you have now a text 
 universally received, in which we give no alteration or 
 corruption.' ^ 
 
 The text of Stephen, which was afterwards carefully repro- 
 
 ' This is the ordinary account. Dr. Gregory however (" Prolego- 
 mena," pp. 164-66) maintains that Stephen Langton was the author of 
 the present division into Chapters, as usual in the West. Some sort of 
 division had been in existence from the first (Ibid. pp. 140-163). 
 
 ' ' Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil 
 immutatum aut corruptum damus,' referring to the edition of 1624. 
 (Pref) 
 
12 
 
 THE CHILDHOOD. 
 
 duced by Mill, has been generally taken in England as the 
 standard or ' Received ' text, and that of the Elzevirs has 
 been thus regarded on the continent. The translators, how- 
 ever of our Authorized Version did not adhere exclusively 
 to any one of the chief editions." When their authorities 
 were at variance, they sometimes in their interpretation of 
 the ' Received Text ' followed Beza, sometimes Stephen, 
 sometimes the Complutensians, Erasmus, or the Latin 
 Vulgate. 
 
 II. The Childhood. 
 
 In the period hitherto indicated, there was hardly any 
 
 weighing of opposed readings. Such as presented themselves ^ 
 
 were ordinarily accepted with implicit confidence. The free 
 
 instincts of infancy guided the Science mainly along a track 
 
 that had previously been trodden with the continued approval 
 
 of the Church for centuries. It would be reckless haste, 
 
 not discerning judgment, that would off-hand condemn 
 
 results thus reached. The copies chiefly followed were 
 
 known to be specimens more or less exact of what had been 
 
 preserved in the Church as the recognised form of the 
 
 '" Thf R-Icdved Text of the sixteenth and seventeenth 
 
 . Dr. Scrivener has collected 252 passages, out of which the trans- 
 
 ,ato. follow Be. against ^^^^^^^^X^l^^^^i^^^' 
 
 ta'r£r.'V^TirrE"it^:rth?^^^^^^^^ 
 
 ueza 111 c^. »* A n r T LL D., Cambridge, 1004, 
 
 by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., U.C.L., \^^.^-, 
 
 pp. 257, 258. 
 
 RECEIVED AND TRADITIONAL TEXTS. 
 
 13 
 
 centuries represented with general, but far from invariable 
 accuracy, the Traditional Text of the previous ages of the 
 Church. But, on the other hand, the Church of later times 
 could not properly rest without ascertaining, by all such wide 
 and deep inquiry as was possible, whether these instinctive 
 processes had issued in well-grounded conclusions. What 
 was right would be proved to be right in full and free investi- 
 gation, if candour and largeness of mind and firmness in 
 faith kept away prejudice and narrowness and unbelief. 
 
 1. In 1657, Brian Walton, afterwards Bishop of Chester, 
 published a Polyglott, to which were appended some various 
 readings both in the fifth and sixth volumes. In company 
 with some colleagues he had devoted himself to this work 
 for twelve years during the dark troubles that had befallen 
 the Church of England. He included various readings from 
 the Codex Alexandrinus (A), now in the British Museum, 
 which had been presented by Cyril Lucar to Charles I. 
 in 1628. There were comprised in his pages also the results 
 of collations of sixteen Manuscripts made by Archbishop 
 Ussher. 
 
 In the next year apeared at Amsterdam a New Testament 
 by Curcellaeus or Courcelles, marked by Socinian tendencies. 
 And soon after, in 1675, Dr. John Fell, Bishop of Oxford, 
 published a small edition, in which collations from fresh 
 Manuscripts were given, and citations were added from the 
 Memphitic or ancient Version of Lower Egypt, and the 
 Gothic, which was made soon after the Goths settled on the 
 confines of the Roman Empire. 
 
 2. But a greater and stronger start was made at the end 
 of the seventeenth century. In large measure through the 
 help of Bishop Fell, who during his lifetime supplied 
 impetus and funds. Dr. John Mill devoted the labour of 
 
>4 
 
 THE CHILDHOOD. 
 
 thirty years to the preparation of a grand New Testament 
 which was intended to surpass Stephen's in beauty as well 
 as in other respects. The good bishop's death in 1686 
 seems to have delayed the work : and it was not till 1707, 
 three years after Archbishop Sharpe obtained for the 
 struggling editor a stall at Canterbury and Royal aid in the 
 prosecution of his purpose, that the volume came out. Mill 
 himself died just a fortnight after the publication. Thence- 
 forward the science of Textual Criticism proceeded upon a 
 new career. 
 
 Mill only attempted to reproduce the text of Stephen, 
 though he has departed from it in a few particulars.* But 
 he added some 30,000 readings, and an invaluable. Prole- 
 gomena. He far excelled all his contemporaries and prede-^ 
 cessors in accuracy of collation and comprehensiveness of 
 method. " Of the criticism of the New Testament in the 
 hands of Dr. John Mill it may be said, that he found the 
 edifice of wood, and left it marble." ' 
 
 3. We now come to the grand design of the great Richard 
 Bentley, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, which broke 
 forth with lofty promise but never reached realization. He 
 unfolded his plan to Archbishop Wake in a long letter, in 
 which after explaining his own studies he professes his 
 belief that he should be able to restore the Text of the New 
 Testament to the form in which it was couched at the time 
 of the Council of Nicaea. He was led in his enthusiasm to 
 add, ' so that there shall not be twenty words, or even par- 
 ticles, difference.' After describing the history of the Vul- 
 gate, and the editorial labours since the invention of printing, 
 
 ' Dr. Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 450 and note, has speci- 
 fied instances of this deflection. 
 
 ' Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 448. 
 
 MILL, BENTLEY, AND BENGEL. 
 
 IS 
 
 he concludes : ' In a word, I find that by'^g 2000 errors 
 
 ?one .'' ,^°f '' ''"'^^*^' ^"^ '' '"^"y °"t of the Protestant 
 Pope Stephen s, I can set out an edition of each in columns 
 w. hout using any book under 900 years old, that shall so 
 exactly agree word for word, and, what at first amazed me 
 order for order, that no two tallies, nor two indentures can 
 agree better.' ' 
 
 This was in 1716, and in four years his plan was definitely 
 made up. John Walker, fellow of Trinity College, who had 
 already been employed in collating MSS. in Paris for the 
 edition, was announced as 'overseer and corrector of the 
 press John Walker continued to labour; and Bentley 
 himsel too, so far as other occupations and the strife with 
 the Fellows of his College would allow him : but the edition 
 never came out. He bequeathed a valuable collection of 
 papers to his nephew, who made no use of them. After the 
 death of t e latter, they were published, including amongs 
 several collations one which he had procured, and had go 
 afterwards corrected, of the Vatican Manuscript (B) This 
 was transcribed by Woide and printed. 
 
 4. A step in advance was next made by Bengel in 17,4 
 1 he large number of authorities that had now come to iLht" 
 
 tr^stedT'^Dir''-"™'"', ^^^-^'^^J^^" equally to'be 
 ru ed ? Did revision simply consist in a process of mar- 
 
 shalhng the witnesses on the right and left, and then counting 
 
 heads? or had these witnesses special characters of thdf 
 
 own, which must be investigated and known in order to the 
 
 formation of a true estimate of their credibility? 
 
 Bengel therefore suggested that inquiries should be made 
 
 into the origin of each," ' whether taken singly or in pairs, or 
 
 Ellis, 
 
 'Bentieii Cri.ica Sacra," Introductory Preface, p. xv. 
 
i6 
 
 THE CHILDHOCD. 
 
 associations, or families, tribes, and nations : ' * so that they 
 should be reduced to a genealogical table illustrating their 
 several features and relationships. He divided manuscripts 
 generally into African and Asiatic. In his text he was the 
 first to depart on principle from the received standard.' He 
 introduced the division of the New Testament into para- 
 graphs, with which we have become familiar. 
 
 Bengel was followed by Wetstein, who enlarged greatly 
 the materials ready for criticism. He spent many years in 
 collation, including in these labours about one hundred and 
 two Manuscripts. He was the first to cite the Manuscripts 
 under their present designation, quoting from A to O of the 
 Uncials in the Gospels, and i — 112 of the Cursives.' He 
 attached great importance to the Codex Alexandrinus (A), 
 the oldest then generally known. He shed much light upon 
 the Versions, or early Translations into other languages. 
 And he also laboured, though it is thought not so success- 
 fully, upon the Fathers. His services were so considerable 
 that Bishop Marsh was of opinion that he had accomplished 
 more than all his predecessors put together.* His edition 
 of the Greek Testament came out in 1751-2. 
 
 Most important service was rendered in the collection and 
 collation of existing manuscripts by C. F. Matthaei, Andrew 
 Birch, and others. Matthaei, a Thuringian by birth, who 
 held the Professorship of Classical Literature at Moscow, 
 found in that capital a large number of Manuscripts brought 
 
 ' Bengel, " Apparatus Criticus," p. 387. 
 
 * Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 457. 
 
 ' Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 460. Uncial Manuscripts are 
 those which are written in Capital Letters : Cursives, in the running 
 hand of ordinary writing. Uncials are designated for convenience .by 
 capital letters, and Cursives by numerals. 
 
 * TregeUes, " Printed Text," p. 77. v 
 
 set a bright example to all who come aftf^r },,•,« u- n 
 ..on, will „™ai„ a „ea™ra for all "L " "" """• 
 
 About the same period Alter was doing work at Vi-nn, 
 s.m.lar m kind, but inferior in degree l^AK,l Tt' 
 assistance of Adier anri m„u i And Birch, with the 
 Garmany.andSpA. ''°"'™''''™' l^"""-" i" Ka.y, 
 
 vast l^lVZTml'"'^'"''' ?"" ""^ *' —1 
 in consequence anotherar 'f "*'" '"""*"'<'• A"" 
 accumulated Iten^l^friS^r^; "- ^-f^ '"e 
 a pupil of Seml^r f^ii 7 ""'""• -'°'^" James Griesbach, 
 
 considered that the testimony of two of these class "shn^H 
 prevail aga nst the thirrl H.-^fU classes should 
 
 -".ence. .„a T\:^::^^^,^asz 
 
 ; Scrivener, "Plain Introduction." p. 46, 
 Burgon, "The Revision Revised," p 246. 
 C 
 
i8 
 
 THE CHILDHOOD. 
 
 afterwards shewed,' there was no ground for them beyond 
 speculation. Nothing that can be termed historical evidence 
 has been produced for any such operations having been ac- 
 complished as would account for Griesbach's classes. 
 
 But Griesbach also carefully edited a Greek Testament, 
 and thoroughly examined the citations of Holy Scripture 
 made by Origen. This latter operation, of which the results 
 may be seen in his Symbola Critica, affords a specimen of 
 what must be done in the case at least of the more important 
 Ecclesiastical Writers before all the evidence adducible can 
 be brought to bear upon controverted points. 
 
 Griesbach carries us into the present century : he died in 
 1812. The work was continued by John Martin Augustine 
 Scholz, who added, though with much incorrectness, a large ^ 
 amount of materials to the stores previously known. His 
 contribution consists of no less than 616 Cursive manus- 
 cripts. But confidence cannot be reposed in his productions, 
 as has been shewn more than once.' It is remarkable that he 
 modified Griesbach's theory of supposed Recensions of 
 manuscripts, including the Western of Griesbach amongst 
 the Alexandrian, and thus making two instead of three. 
 " In the Alexandrian family," says Dr. Scrivener, " he in- 
 cluded the whole of Griesbach's Western recension, from 
 which, indeed, it seems vain to distinguish it by any broad 
 line of demarcation." ' 
 
 ' Burgon, "The Revision Revised," p. 380 and notes. Cook, "Re- 
 vised Version," pp. 4-7. J. G. Reiche, " Commentarius Criticus," 
 torn, iii., Observatio Prtevia. 
 
 ' Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 474. and note, in which he 
 quotes from Dean Burgon's letters to the "Guardian." 
 
 ' Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 475- 'The untenable point of . 
 Griesbach's system, even supposing that it had historic basis, was the 
 impossibility of drawing an actual line of distinction between his 
 
 VIGOROUS GROWTH. 
 
 4. 
 
 19 
 
 Such was the growth of the Science till towards the 
 middle of the present century. It was the natural develop- 
 ment of boyhood, invigorated and enlarged by constant 
 action, and extending freely on all sides. There was con- 
 tinually an amplification of materials, and operations were 
 progressively prosecuted over wider and wider fields. Theory 
 was pursued less actively, and with not so happy results 
 Different minds succeeded in different provinces; hardly 
 any one in all. ' We are thankful,' says Dr. Davidson, ' to 
 the collators of manuscripts for their great labour. But it 
 may be doubted whether they be often competent to make 
 the best critical text out of existing materials. ... We should 
 rather see the collator and the editor of the text dissociated. 
 We should like to have one person for each department.' ' 
 Alexandrian and Western recensions. '-Tregelles, "Printed Text," 
 
 "iriSSxt •> ^::" '-'• "•• ''■ '°^-5' ''--^ ^y Tregelles. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 HISTORY OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 
 
 Part II. Contemporary Growth. (3) Youth :— Lach- 
 
 MANN AND THE SEVERAL DOCTORS OF THE EXTREME 
 
 School. (4) Signs of Maturity :— Other Doctors. 
 Widening of the Basis. 
 
 BUT now came a change. The impetuosity of youth 
 lacked the patience to await a further growth of the 
 Science and to abstain from drawing conclusions till all the 
 evidence had been gathered out of all quarters, thoroughly 
 examined, sorted, and duly valued. A short and easy 
 method of decision was sought and taken. It was too hard 
 a lot to leave the inheritance of the promised land to a 
 coming generation. If the evidence were too unwieldy 
 to be managed in the mass, some was valuable, and some 
 not at all. Why not select the valuable, and be guided 
 by the verdicts it gave? 
 
 So arose the School of Extreme Textuahsm. 
 I Lachmann,the celebrated philologist and critic, pub- 
 lished with the aid of Philip Buttmann, an edition of the 
 New Testament in two volumes, one of which came out m 
 ,842, and the other in 1850, and both of them at Berhn 
 where he was a professor. His first principle, at which he had 
 hinted in a small edition eleven years before, was to discard 
 
 LACHMANN. 
 
 21 
 
 the readings of the ' Received Text,' as being in his opinion 
 only about two centuries old ; whereas they conflicted with 
 what he conceived to be better authority. His main object 
 was to restore, according to the design of Bentley, the text 
 of the fourth century, which he supposed had been lost. 
 For this purpose he laid aside all the later manuscripts, and 
 confined himself to the few olde"r ones. He also admitted 
 the earliest Latin versions which existed before St. Jerome 
 effected the Vulgate revision. And lastly, he employed 
 the testimony of a few of the oldest Fathers. 
 
 Thus in the Gospels he had the guidance of the Alexan- 
 drian (A.), the Vatican (B.), the Parisian (C), and four 
 fragments,' besides an occasional use' of the Cambridge 
 manuscript (D) : — the old Italian manuscript in Latin: — 
 and the quotations of St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Origen, 
 Lucifer, and Hilary. He made a clean sweep of all the 
 rest, — a very satisfactory process as far as easiness of revi- 
 sion was concerned, — choosing a 'voluntary' and comfort- 
 able * poverty ' of materials, with a haughty disregard of the 
 earnest labours of his predecessors." Of his manuscripts, 
 only one, the Vatican B, really conducted him into the 
 fourth century, and of that he could then use only imperfect 
 collations. The most important part of his work has been 
 considered to be the toil which he expended upon the old 
 Latin texts, and his vindication of their critical value, 
 though that is not now held to be quite so high as his esti- 
 mate would make it. 
 
 2. Lachmann was succeeded by Samuel Prideaux Tre- 
 geiles, whose labours were much more prolific. Brought up 
 
 ' r, Q, T, Z. 
 
 '^ Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," pp. 478, 9. Tregelles, "Printed 
 Text," p. 104. 
 
22 
 
 YOUTH. 
 
 amongst the Society of Friends, he passed through the body 
 of Plymouth Brethren into the position of a lay member of 
 the Church of England.' The most important part of his 
 work is to be found in his editions, and especially his colla- 
 tions of manuscripts. He edited two, the " Codex Zacyn- 
 thius"(a), belonging to the British and Foreign Bible Society, 
 and the fragment O. He collated with great accuracy* 
 eighteen Uncials, and thirteen Cursives, And he devoted 
 much attention to Versions and Fathers, especially to Origen 
 and Eusebius.' 
 
 He discussed Lachmann's method, in his "Account of 
 the Printed Text of the New Testament," and accepted 
 unreservedly the first principle. ' To Lachmann miist be 
 conceded this, that he led the way in casting aside the so- 
 called Textus Receptus, and boldly placing the New Testa- 
 ment wholly and entirely on the basis of actual authority.'* 
 With this utter disregard of the Received Text, Tregelles 
 went on to the endorsement of the next principle, which was 
 found in drawing a line of demarcation between the critical 
 aids that are to be neglected as valueless, and those upon 
 which dependence was to be placed. He divided manu- 
 scripts into three classes. The assent of those which were 
 anterior to the seventh century was held by him to be 
 essential for the settlement of any reading. The Cursives, 
 dating since the tenth century, were erroneously regarded by 
 him as in general opposed to the ancient copies. And the 
 later Uncials, between the seventh and the eleventh centuries, 
 appeared to him to be divided in their agreement between 
 the modern and the ancient. So that the only trustworthy 
 
 ' Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 48?- 
 
 *" Plain Introduction," p. 486. 
 
 3 Ibid. * " Printed Text," p. 99- 
 
 TREGELLES AND TISCHENDORF. 
 
 23 
 
 authorities were the oldest of these.' In a similar spirit, he 
 attended to none but the earliest Versions, and to those 
 sparingly, and cited no Fathers later than Eusebius in the 
 earlier half of the fourth century. The reasons for this latter 
 limit are : (i) because Eusebius ' is on the line of demarcation 
 between the earlier text, and that which afterwards became 
 widely diffused ; and (2) because of the absolute necessity of 
 confining such an examination between such limits as it might 
 be practicable for one individual to reach in any moderate 
 number of years.' " Tregelles died in 1875, before his Greek. 
 Testament was fully out. 
 
 3. But the most conspicuous figure in this school was 
 Constantine Tischendorf, a man of the most remarkable 
 energy and success, who in the services that he rendered in 
 assembling materials for Textual Criticism, and in present- 
 ing them for employment to establish the genuineness of 
 any reading, has out-topped even the most considerable 
 figures in the long line of his predecessors. The eighth 
 edition of his Greek Testament is an amazing monument of 
 the incessant toil which occupied a life that ended on Dec. 
 7, 1874, shortly before the completion of his sixtieth year. 
 
 A record of his contributions to the critical aids to 
 Textual Criticism has been given by Dr. Caspar Renfe 
 Gregory, who with some assistance from Professor Ezra 
 Abbot, has written the first part of the " Prolegomena " to 
 Tischendorfs Greek Testament. Tischendorf discovered 
 
 ' "Printed Text," p. 180. "Prolegomena to Greek New Testa- 
 ment," ix. He virtually rejected all Uncials later than the end of 
 the sixth century, except L. X., A., 0, and all Cursives whatever, 
 except I, 33, 69, i.e., all that sided with the Textus Receptus. 
 
 ' "Prolegomena," xviii. Home and Tregelles "Introduction to 
 the New Testament," p. 342. ' P. 91. 
 
24 
 
 YOUTH. 
 
 fifteen Uncials, including the great Sinaitic manuscript (t^), 
 besides using for the first time twenty-three ; he edited 
 twenty-one, copied out four, and collated thirteen, not to 
 reckon much labour spent upon more than thirty others, 
 and toil of a smaller kind that is scarce recorded. 
 
 In the year 1844, whilst travelling under the patronage of 
 Frederick Augustus King of Saxony, in quest of manu- 
 scripts, Tischendorf reached the Convent of St. Catherine, 
 on Mount Sinai. Here observing some old-looking docu- 
 ments in a basketful of papers ready for lighting the stove, 
 he picked them out, and discovered that they were forty- 
 three vellum leaves of the Septuagint Version. He was 
 allowed to take these : but in the desire of saving the other 
 parts of the manuscript of which he heard, he explained 
 their value to the monks, who being now enlightened would 
 only allow him to copy one page, and refused to sell him 
 the rest. On his return he published in 1846 what he had 
 succeeded in getting, under the title of the " Codex Fride- 
 rico-Augustanus," inscribed to his benefactor. In 1859, he 
 was again in the East, being sent by Alexander II., Em- 
 peror of Russia, and was received at the convent as an 
 emissary from the Great Protector of the Eastern Church. 
 One night in a conversation with the steward, he was 
 shewn a manuscript, ' written on loose leaves and wrapped 
 in a red cloth,' and was allowed to examine it. He sat up 
 all night with his treasure, for as he said, ' it seemed wicked to 
 sleep.' He found a complete New Testament, a large portion 
 of the Septuagint, the Epistle of St. Barnabas, and a fragment 
 of the Shepherd of Hermas. After this, he was allowed to 
 copy the manuscript, and the Codex was in course of time 
 presented to the Emperor, and is now at St. Petersburg.' 
 
 ' "Christian Remembrancer," xlvi., p. 194. Scrivener's "Plain 
 
 TISCHENDORF. 
 
 25 
 
 Before the discovery of this important manuscript, Tis- 
 chendorf had issued seven editions of his Greek Testament. 
 In these, so far as the third, he had paid scarcely any 
 attention to the Cursive manuscripts. After that edition, 
 the course of his studies led him to introduce their record 
 into his lists of authorities on passages. The consequence 
 was that his seventh edition has been calculated to differ from 
 the third in 1,296 instances, 'in no less than 595 of which 
 (430 of the remainder being mere matters of spelling) he 
 returned to the readings of the Received Text, which he had 
 before deserted, but to which fresh materials and larger 
 experience had brought him back.'* The eighth edition 
 was constructed with the help of the newly discovered 
 Sinaitic manuscript (N) and his attachment to the treasure 
 that he had rescued proved too much for him. He altered 
 his seventh edition in no less than 3,369 instances, generally 
 in compliance with the Sinaitic copy, ' to the scandal,' as 
 Dr. Scrivener justly remarks, ' of the science of Comparative 
 Criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for discern- 
 ment and accuracy.'^ 
 
 Much therefore as we may and must ever feel indebted to 
 Tischendorf for the invaluable results of his labours, we 
 cannot regard him as a man of sober and solid judgment. 
 His zigzag course does not impress us with the soundness of 
 any position upon which he found himself throughout it. 
 
 4. But the principles of this School of Textualists have 
 reached their most complete exposition in the " Introduction 
 to the Greek Testament," edited by Professors Westcott and 
 Hort. This edition was founded upon labour in the case 
 
 Introduction, pp. 87, 88. Tischendorf, " Codex Sinaiticus, "Proleg.," 
 p. xxii. Scrivener, "Codex Sinaiticus," vii — ix. 
 
 ' Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 529. = Ibid. 
 
26 
 
 YOUTH. 
 
 of both those erudite men extending through nearly thirty 
 years, including the period when as Revisers they were 
 assisting in the Revision of the English Translation. 
 Copies were however printed privately and placed in the 
 hands of all the Revisers. It was not till the revision was 
 out that they became public property. And shortly after- 
 wards an elaborate and ingenious Introduction was pub- 
 lished, from the hand, as is stated, of Dr. Hort.* 
 
 The object of the Introduction is evidently to reduce to a 
 definite system the principles of Lachmann, and to advance 
 grounds upon which the testimony of a few authorities 
 standing by themselves may be accepted in preference to 
 the verdict of the great majority of witnesses. Accordingly 
 it is argued that a text which is found in the fourth century, 
 although it was rejected and lay in all but oblivion through- 
 out the succeeding ages,* is the genuine form and therefore 
 must be followed. This doctrine leads to the exaltation of 
 B and K — but especially B ' — into such an unique position, 
 that after an examination of these principles and their appli- 
 cation, an observer unacquainted with the history of manu- 
 scripts would imagine that these two very far surpassed all 
 others both in antiquity and in an indisputable purity of 
 expression. And indeed an attempt is made, based upon a 
 large amount of speculation, but the very slenderest degree 
 of evidence, to add a couple of centuries to their virtual 
 age. But it must ever be remembered that A and C are 
 nearly as ancient as B and N. Indeed, one opinion makes 
 
 ' P. 1 8. Yet it is true that, ' barely the smallest vestige of historical 
 evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accom- 
 plished editors.' Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 531. ^ 
 
 ■'■ Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," pp. 91. 92. "o. '42- Vol. 1., 
 
 pp. 547. 550- 
 
 ' WestcoU and Hort, "Introduction, pp. 171. "o. 
 
 DRS. WESTCOTT AND HORT. 
 
 27 
 
 A only about fifty years younger than B the eldest of the 
 pair.' Besides which, according to dates now admitted, B 
 and probably N were produced under the dark gloom of 
 Asian ascendency ; A and C in the light of the most intel- 
 lectual period of the early Church. 
 
 This deference to B, amounting almost to a superstitious 
 adulation,* leads the two learned Professors to follow it when- 
 ever it is supported by only slight testimony from other quar- 
 ters.^ Thus they adopt all the readings already enumerated 
 in the Introduction to this little Treatise, and a vast number 
 of others of the same kind.^ 
 
 For example, they make St. Mark " declare that the 
 dancing-girl who demanded the head of John the Baptist was 
 Herod Antipas' own daughter, and that her name was Hero- 
 dias, in flat contradiction to the account in St. Matthew as 
 edited by themselves, and at variance also with the his- 
 tory of the family, as given by Josephus.' Again, the Lord 
 is represented by them in St. Luke' as preaching in the 
 synagogues of Judea at the very time which He is said by 
 St. Matthew and St. Mark to have spent in doing the same 
 in the synagogues of Galilee, and when He ought to have 
 been in the latter part of the Holy Land according to the 
 context of the passage itself. Also in Acts x. 19, the Holy 
 Spirit is described as telling St. Peter that two men were 
 
 ' Cooke, " Revised Version," p. 185. 
 
 '■ Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," pp. 529, 530. 
 
 ' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction, 230-246. 
 
 ' Pp. 2, 3 : — Occasionally, as in St. Luke xxli. 19, 20 ; xxiv. 3, 6, 
 9, 12, 36, 40, 52, even against the authority of B and N. 
 
 ' St. Mark vi. 22. ahroX) for aurijc. The context in St. Mark is 
 against this reading, which is besides ungrammatical. 
 
 • St. Matt. xiv. 6. Josephus, " Antiq;," xyiii., 5, §§. I, 2, 4. 
 
 ' St. Luke iv. 44. 'Xovhaxa^ for roXiXaiof. St. Matt. iv. 23, St. 
 Mark i. 39. 
 
 APTS 
 
 •$ 
 
28 
 
 YOUTH. 
 
 seeking Him, when the seventh verse had made it clear that 
 there were three, viz., two of Cornelius' servants and a sol- 
 dier who was his constant attendant,' And in Acts xii. 25, 
 St. Paul and St. Barnabas are said to have returned from 
 Jerusalem to Jerusalem, when they were really going back 
 from Jerusalem to Antioch. Lastly, — not to make the speci- 
 men instances too numerous, — the Professors omit, and the 
 Revisers too, 'the precious verse' (St. Matt. xvii. 21) 
 ' which declares that this kind goeth not out but by prayer 
 and fasting,' notwithstanding that only three manuscripts, B 
 and N and 33, testify by themselves for the omission against 
 a very host of varied witnesses.' 
 
 This servile submission to B, in the face of copious testi- 
 mony, may be also seen in th"eir presentment of proper names.'. 
 Such are Melitene for Melita, evidently a transcriptional blun- 
 der,' Nazara in two places only for Nazareth,* Beezebul for 
 Beelzebul,' Joanes for Joannes,' the uncouth trunks Koum 
 and Golgoth," and— also a transcriptional mistake— the 
 singular appellative Titius Justus.' They have also, with 
 
 ' Also Acts xi. II. .... 
 
 ^ Dean Burgon, "The Revision Revised," p. 91. 92, supplies these 
 witnesses. Omission of verses is very common with these editors. 
 
 ' MEL1THHNH202. By eliding the article v, and attaching the 
 first syllable of v^toc to M.X.'r.j. Acts xxviii. I. See Burgon, " Re- 
 vision Revised," p. 177- The letters in the oldest Uncial Manuscnpts 
 had no spaces between them. „ r u 
 
 * St. Matt. iv. 13 : St. Luke iv. l6. They read elsewhere Na?api« 
 
 and XnSnpfr. 
 
 ■ E. ;'. St. Matt. x. 25. , . r 
 
 ^ Though only due to the scribe of B, i.e. also m the parts of h 
 
 written by that scribe. " Introduction," p. 159- c. i i ' 
 
 ' Si. Mark V. 41 : St.. Matt, xxvii. 33= «t- ^I^"- "^'^ " = ^'•^°'"' 
 
 ""'f' ONOMATIIOU2TOU. Insert a second T between the last syl- 
 
 \ 
 
 EXTREME RESULTS. 
 
 29 
 
 more reason and authority on their side, but with needless 
 eccentricity, changed the order of Books, placing the 
 Catholic Epistles before those of St. Paul. 
 
 To such results as these Professors Westcott and Hort 
 have been guided in obedience to inexorable theory. Never- 
 theless, they have here and there sacrificed their consistency 
 to some extent, as, for example, when they have shrunk from 
 disfiguring St. Paul's exquisite description of Charity by the 
 assertion that Charity ' seeketh not what is not her own,' and 
 therefore that she adds to numerous sublime traits a freedom 
 from gross violations of the eighth and tenth commandments. 
 But this fitful courage does not keep them from admitting 
 that such a bathos as this might possibly not have offended 
 the inspired taste of St. Paul, inasmuch as they have placed 
 in their margin this stupid blunder of the scribe of B.' 
 
 The Theory of the Cambridge Professors that leads to 
 such results will be explained and sifted in the next chapter. 
 But one feature in it must be noticed here. The authors 
 adduce the slenderest support from actual evidence : in- 
 genious as it is, their course of reasoning is ' entirely destitute 
 of historical foundation.' ^ Dr. Hort gives no array of autho- 
 rities in text or notes, and does not build up his theory upon 
 acknowledged or produced facts. 
 
 The system thus unfolded has derived greater prominence 
 from its having been mainly adopted by ' Two Members of 
 the New Testament Company' in their defence of the 
 
 lable of Ai'o/iart and the first two of 'Xovarov, and Ttriou is made imme- 
 diately, and is due alone to B. 
 
 ' oh t,r\Tti rd ^1) t'aur^c after a faulty MS. used by Clement of 
 Alexandria (252 Potter, 92 Migne), who, however (947 Potter, 345 
 Migne), gives the true words. 
 
 ' Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 537. 
 
30 
 
 S/GfiTS OF COMING MATURITY. 
 
 Revisers' Greek Text. No one can read their pamphlet/ 
 or examine the readings admitted by a majority of the 
 Revisers and defended by them, without seeing that, although 
 their action is in some respects independent of Drs. Westcott 
 and Hort, they generally uphold the principles advocated by 
 those learned men. Indeed, alterations depending only upon 
 B and J<, and sometimes upon B alone with some other 
 support, are frequently preferred in the Revised Version 
 before readings of the Textus Receptus, notwithstanding 
 that the latter are so numerously and strongly attested, that 
 on no other grounds except extreme deference to those 
 Uncials could such a verdict be rejected. 
 
 The championship and support of men so learned and 
 illustrious must carry great weight. And the question arises ^ 
 whether it be not so strong as to lead all who admire their 
 great qualities to abide by their conclusions. Or is it 
 possible, that as in the history of much human opinion, even 
 they may have been induced to take a wrong turn in early 
 days, and that they have been led into a valley attractive in 
 itself but whence the best views have been excluded ? Strange 
 as such a conclusion might seem, the results of the present 
 inquiry seem to point imperatively in no other direction. 
 And such is the contention of men quite as eminent in this 
 province as the upholders of the opinions just described. 
 
 IV. Signs of Coming Maturity. 
 
 Textual Criticism would not be governed by the principles 
 that underlie all movements of human thought, if the 
 strenuous pursuance of so limited a course as the one 
 
 ' "The Revisers and The Greek Text of the New Testament," by 
 Two Members of the New Testament Company, 1882. 
 
 DR. SCRIVENER. 
 
 31 
 
 I 
 
 recently followed did not provoke a departure in another 
 direction. Accordingly strong opposition was made within 
 the Revisers' Company by a stout minority headed by Dr. 
 Scrivener the first textual critic of the day, and tacitly sup- 
 ported by Members of the Company who had ceased to act, 
 as well as by other deep students of the subject, such as 
 Dean Burgon and Canon Cook. And their advocacy has 
 been developed into the teaching of a Rival and rising 
 School, under which the basis is widened, and the building 
 is being constructed out of all the materials within reach. 
 
 I. The labour spent by Dr. Scrivener upon Textual 
 Criticism is well known from his admirable Introduction 
 to the Science, a handbook ' which leaves hardly anything, 
 if anything, to be desired. Dr. Scrivener's candour, and 
 patient and conscientious consideration of every point that 
 presents itself, and of every opinion resting upon intelligence, 
 are conspicuous in all that he has written upon this subject. 
 And his accuracy, a matter of extreme importance in these 
 matters, stands at the very top of editorial and collational 
 work. ' Let the truth be told,' says the Dean of Chichester, 
 * C. F. Matthrei and he [i.e. Dr. Scrivener] are the only two 
 scholars who have collated any considerable number of 
 sacred codices with the needful amount of accuracy.' ' 
 
 In 1853, Dr. Scrivener published 'A full and exact Colla- 
 tion of about twenty Greek manuscripts of the Holy Gospels.' 
 In his Introduction he said : 'The following pages comprise 
 a humble yet earnest attempt to revive among the country- 
 men of Bentley and Mill some interest in a branch of 
 
 ' " A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for 
 the use of Biblical Students," by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., 
 LL.D., &c., 3rd edition, 1883. 
 
 " "The Revision Revised," p. 246. 
 
32 
 
 S/GJ\^S OF COMING MATURITY. 
 
 Biblical learning which, for upwards of a century, we have 
 tacitly abandoned to continental scholars.' The success of 
 this attempt, if limited in these earlier days of Dr. Scrivener's 
 influence to comparatively a small band of scholars, never- 
 theless has been conspicuous. This work was followed in 
 1859 by 'An exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis . . . 
 to which is added a Full Collection of Fifty Manuscripts.' 
 To both of these works valuable Introductions are prefixed, 
 explanatory of the principles of the Science, and containing 
 discussions upon controverted questions, such as whether 
 there are families of Manuscripts, and against the partial use 
 of only a few authorities, as advocated by Lachmann and 
 Tregelles. In 1864, he published 'A Full Collation of the 
 Codex Sinaiticus' (K), with corrections of errata in Tischen- ^^ 
 dorf 's editions of the same manuscript. And in the same 
 year he edited for the University of Cambridge a handsome 
 volume containing the great Cambridge manuscript (D). 
 Such, with his ' Plain Introduction ' already noticed, have 
 been his chief, but by no means his only works. 
 
 The hne taken by Dr. Scrivener has uniformly been that 
 all evidence must be employed in comparative or Textual 
 Criticism. Yet not all indiscriminately; but each being 
 assigned its proper value. Thus he by no means accedes 
 to the proposal of neglecting the Received Text. But, on 
 the other hand, he has ever admitted that revision is required, 
 and has been ready to submit to the clear verdict of evidence. 
 He would proceed with far-sighted and wide-viewed caution ; 
 and would urge that everything possible should be done to 
 make all documents of whatever sort ready to minister in 
 their several places to well-pondered conclusions. 
 
 2. Of about the same age as Dr. Scrivener, but in the en- ' 
 joyment of better health, the Dean of Chichester is a re- 
 
 DEAN BURGON. 
 
 33 
 
 doubtable champion upon the same side. His first Book in 
 this department was a vindication of " The Last Twelve 
 Verses of St. Mark's Gospel," published in 1871, in which ac- 
 cording to the award of the first living judge, he ' has thrown 
 a stream of light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous 
 tone of his book misbecome one who is conscious of having 
 triumphantly maintained a caUse which is very precious to 
 him.' Even so unfavourable a judge as Mr, Hammond 
 admits the cogency and success of his arguments.* Another, 
 marked with the natural impetuosity of Dean Burgon's contro- 
 versial style, but bristling with learning, and built upon re- 
 markably strong and detailed foundations, which, as it 
 appears, many of his opponents have not the patience to 
 examine accurately, is "The Revision Revised," a republica- 
 tion of Articles in the " Quarterly Review," with additions, 
 chiefly upon the disputed text in the First Epistle to St. 
 Timothy." Besides these books the Dean is constantly at 
 work, and is believed to have copious materials for future 
 publication. And his "Letters from Rome" (1862), and 
 sundry letters from time to time in the " Guardian " news- 
 paper, as well as contributions to editions of Dr. Scrivener's 
 " Plain Introduction," to the last of which he has added 
 particulars of three hundred and seventy-four manuscripts 
 previously unknown to the world of letters, are results of toil 
 which has been continued for many years. 
 ' Dean Burgon has incurred much misrepresentation. He 
 does not maintain the faultlessness of the Received Text ; 
 he is not a devoted adherent of the Alexandrian Codex (A) ; 
 
 ' "Outlines of Textual Criticism," &c., by C. E. Hammond, 
 M.A., 3rd ed., pp. 116-23. 
 
 " I Timothy iii. 16. Geif ijistead of the advocated 8c or 8. See 
 below, "Appendix," vii. 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 STGNS OF COMING MATURITY. 
 
 he does not simply count his authorities, or follow the largest 
 number, irrespectively of their weight and value. But he 
 urges that all should be taken into account ; 'that the Truth 
 of the Text of Scripture is to be elicited exclusively from the 
 consentient testimony of the largest number of the best 
 Copies, Fathers, Versions ; ' * that that is the Truth which 
 • enjoys the earliest, the fullest, the widest, the most respect- 
 able, and — above all things — the most varied attestation ; ' * 
 that all the existing Copies must be assembled and accu- 
 rately collated, the Versions edited, and the Fathers indexed 
 before a revision of the Greek Text can be successfully ac- 
 complished;' that evidence and examination prove con- 
 vincingly that the Vatican (B)and the Sinaitic (K) manuscripts 
 exhibit really bad, instead of good, texts;* and that all must , 
 be rested upon definite external attestation, not upon the 
 shifting sands of conjecture, opinion, taste, and other internal 
 sources of inference.' It should be added, that Dean Burgon 
 surpasses everyone in acquaintance with Patristic evidence of 
 readings. 
 
 3. Another learned maintainer of this view of the contro- 
 versy is Canon Cook, the editor in chief of the " Speaker's 
 Commentary." His controversy with the Bishop of Durham 
 upon the rendering of the last petition in the Lord's Prayer, 
 on which his last and longest letter has remained as yet 
 unanswered, and his treatise upon the " Revised Version of 
 the First Three Gospels," have been important contributions 
 to the literature of this subject. Calm, moderate, weighty in 
 argument, learned, persuasive, he has controverted the main 
 positions of the opposed School in the latter of these two 
 
 ' "The Revision Revised," p. 518. 
 
 » Ibid., p. 339. ' Ibi'l- PP- '25, 247. note. 
 
 « Ibid., pp. 11-17, 249, 262-265. ' Ibid., pp. 19-20, 253. 
 
 CANON COOK AND OTHERS. 
 
 35 
 
 works with great cogency. He maintains that the Vatican 
 (B) and Sinaitic (K) Codices have been unduly exalted ; 
 that the Alexandrian (A), which in the Gospels fairly repre- 
 sents the text used by St. Chrysostom and his great contem- 
 poraries, is superior to them; that the former two were 
 probably written under the direction of Eusebius ; and that 
 the theories and arguments of Drs. Westcott and Hort are 
 destitute of solid foundation. 
 
 Also those eminent Scholars, Bishops Christopher and 
 Charles Wordsworth — ' Par nobile Fratrum ' — the loss of 
 the first of whom we are now deploring,' have spoken upon 
 the same side in Charges delivered to the Clergy of their 
 Dioceses, deprecating amongst other things * too much 
 confidence in certain favourite manuscripts.' " 
 
 Nor is this contention without contemporary support upon 
 the Continent. In 1862, Dr. J. G. Reiche warned scholars 
 against the dangerous principles introduced by Lachmann, 
 and the almost superstitious veneration that was then paid to 
 Lachmann's text. And especially he spoke against the prac- 
 tice introduced by that learned scholar of consulting only a 
 few witnesses, observing especially that several of the Ver- 
 sions are older than any manuscripts.' In i860, writing from 
 Leyden, A. Kuenen and C. G. Cobet, in the Preface to an 
 
 • Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, Charge, Nov. 1881. 
 
 ' I cannot pass on w^ithout a tribute to the fearless faithfulness, the 
 vast mass of learning ever at hand, the open munificence, and the 
 administrative capacity of that great man. 
 
 ' Cui Pudor, et Justitiae soror, 
 Incorrupta Fides, nudaque Veritas, 
 Quando ullum invenient parem ? ' 
 
 ' " Commentarius Criticus," Tomus iii. Ep. ad Heb. et Ep. Cath. 
 continens. Observatio prxvia. Cook, "Revised Version," pp. 4-7. 
 Burgon, "The Revision Revised," pp. 380-81. 
 
36 
 
 S/GNS OF COMING MATURITY. 
 
 edition of the Vatican Codex, protested against the notion 
 that because that was the oldest manuscript it therefore pos- 
 sessed an authority paramount to that of all others. On the 
 contrary, they asserted, proving the assertion with a copious 
 array of evidence, that ' there is no kind of error that is not 
 frequently found in that manuscript as in all the rest.' ' 
 Also at the beginning of r884, Dr. J. H. A. Michelsen, in 
 the " Theologisch Tijdschrift," a monthly magazine pub- 
 lished at Leyden, submitted the text of B and K to a vigorous 
 examination. From internal proofs, such as glosses intro- 
 duced from other passages, readings plainly bad where better 
 exist, and omissions of verses and paragraphs, all copiously 
 illustrated, he drew the conclusion that the so-called Neutral 
 Text is not so good as the advocates of it claim, and directed 
 attention to the dangerous traversing of the principle, ' Quod 
 semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,' which is involved 
 in the acceptance of that form of Text 
 
 Besides these, we may reckon the strong sentiment pre- 
 vailing in the Roman Branch of the Church. Vercellone, 
 the editor of B, now no more, held no such opinions as those 
 of Extreme Textualism. Ceriani, of Milan, and a learned 
 writer in the " Dublin Review," ' seem to represent what is 
 held in those quarters. And the Abbfe Martin, of Paris, in 
 his elaborate " Fascicules " maintains the same side of the 
 controversy. 
 
 It will be seen from this sketch, that so far from ques- 
 tions being already settled amongst the learned and ripe 
 for a general decision which would enjoy universal assent, 
 two Rival Schools are now contending for the ascendency. 
 
 > "Novum Testamentum, ad fid. Cod, Vat., ed. A. Kuentfn et 
 C. G. Cobet," Prsefatio, p. xiii. &c 
 
 ' Jan. 1884. On "New Testament Vaticanism." 
 
 I 
 
 THE TWO RIVAL SCHOOLS. 
 
 37 
 
 The one, of German origin, is strongly and ably maintained 
 in England, and reckons large support amongst Biblical 
 Scholars. The other, headed by the first Textual Critic of 
 the day, and earnestly advocated by accomplished Theolo- 
 gians, counts also among its adherents Roman Catholics 
 in England and on the Continent, including experts in Italy 
 and elsewhere. Therefore careful and respectful considera- 
 tion is further necessary, in order that after contrasting and 
 weighing the several characteristics of both Schools, we 
 may know from solid considerations which of the two to 
 follow. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 the school of extreme textualism. 
 
 Theory of Westcott and Hort explained and 
 
 REFUTED. 
 
 ' A NEW period began in 1831, when for the first time a 
 Xx. text was constructed directly from the ancient docu- 
 ments without the intervention of any printed edition, and 
 when the first systematic attempt was made to substitute 
 scientific method for arbitrary choice in the discrimination 
 of various readings.' So the leading masters in the First of 
 the Rival Schools attribute its foundation to Lachmann.' 
 Drs. Westcott and Hort began with Lachmann's principles," 
 and after many years have brought them to their natural 
 and extreme development in the elaborate system which they 
 have constructed, and which is in the main accepted and 
 upheld by other adherents of this School.' 
 
 Therefore the chief characteristics of the teaching of this 
 School, so far as they have been hitherto unfolded in public, 
 may be derived from Dr. Hort's elaborate Introduction. 
 
 So far as they are peculiar to the School, they are suscep- 
 tible of classification under the following heads : — Internal 
 
 ' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 13. 
 
 ' Ibid., p. 16. 
 
 ' So the two members of the Revisers' Company ; Professor Sanday 
 in the "Contemporary Review," Dec. 1881 ; Archdeacon Farrar, "Ex- 
 positor," 1882 ; and a writer in the "Church Quarterly," Jan. 1882. 
 
 THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT EXPLAINED, 
 
 39 
 
 Evidence, Genealogy, Families or Groups, the worthlessness 
 of the Syrian Text (so-called), and the super-eminent excel- 
 lence of B and the other representatives of the (so-termed) 
 Neutral Text.' 
 
 I. In dealing with the divergent evidence which is con- 
 stantly presented in different passages, two main considera- 
 tions, so Dr. Hort tells us, offer themselves, viz.. Which is 
 in itself the most probable reading ? and. What is the cha- 
 racter of the documents by which it is supported ? Now a 
 reading may in the first place be recommended by its own 
 likelihood. It may make better sense than the rival word, 
 or phrase, or clause, or sentence. It may be more in keep- 
 ing with the author's style of writing, or his matter of com- 
 position, as gathered from other passages. But Dr. Hort 
 lays no stress on all this, and urges that the most important 
 part of what is called Internal Evidence consists in acquaint- 
 ance with the character of the Documents themselves in 
 which the readings are found. Hence his first principle : — 
 ' Knowledge of Documents should precede Final Judgments 
 upon Readings.' ' 
 
 Now the character of a Document, he says, depends, 
 {a) chiefly upon its date, {b) next upon the purity or cor- 
 ruption of its text. The character of the text may be dis- 
 covered by a large comparison of its readings with other 
 ascertained readings, according to careful methods.' Judged 
 in this manner, the Vatican MS. especially, and the Sinaitic 
 also, are predominant, not only by reason of their un- 
 
 ' These terms, Syrian, Alexandrian, Neutral, as used by the two 
 Professors, can only be employed under protest, till they can be proved 
 to have anything but an imaginary existence. 
 
 ' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," pp. 30-39. The entire ac- 
 count is too involved to give here. 
 
40 
 
 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. 
 
 rivalled antiquity, but also because of the excellence of 
 their text. 
 
 2. But now, as Dr. Hort argues, another important factor 
 comes into sight. Scribes transcribed from documents, 
 and thus one document became the parent of the next. 
 So we are introduced to the use of arguments derived 
 from Genealogy. ' All trustworthy restoration of corrupted 
 texts is founded upon the study of their history, that is of 
 the relations of descent or affinity which connect the several 
 documents." In this way, one manuscript may be found, 
 as Dr. Hort thinks, to have proceeded from another, and 
 the weight of authority from both becomes only the weight 
 of authority possessed by the earlier of the two. Again, 
 two or more documents are observed to be so similar to one *. 
 another that they must have been transcribed either directly, 
 or through one or more intervening ancestors, from a 
 common originaL Accordingly, their united authority, 
 how many soever they are, does not exceed the authority of 
 their single original. But • identity of reading implies iden- 
 tity of origin ; ' and the outlines of such a common original 
 may be deciphered in the resemblances of manuscripts, and 
 the purity of a text inferred in discarding individual traces 
 of corruption. Thus Dr. Hort concludes, upon close exami- 
 nation, that B and ^? were derived from a common original 
 much older than themselves, ' the date of which cannot be 
 later than the early part of the second century, and may 
 well be yet earlier.' This would bring our chief documen- 
 tary authority nearly back to the Apostolic autographs, and 
 would invest it with paramount importance. 
 
 3. The same conclusion is reached by Dr. Hort frorp a 
 consideration of the families or groups into which docu- 
 
 ' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 40. 
 
 , 
 
 I 
 
 THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT EXPLAINED. 41 
 
 ments are divided by him. History shews that one mainly 
 uniform text has prevailed from the present time as far back 
 as the second half of the fourth century. This he denomi- 
 nates the ' Syrian' text (i.), which he declares to have derived 
 its origin from a recension made at Antioch, and to have 
 come thence to Constantinople, since Antioch was the * true 
 ecclesiastical parent of Constantinople.' ' Enthroned thus 
 in the Eastern capital, it became dominant in the Christian 
 world. But there are said by him to have been three other 
 texts ' which can be identified through numerous readings 
 distinctively attested by characteristic groups of extant 
 documents.' These are called by Dr. Hort (ii.) the Western, 
 which was found in Italy, Africa, and other parts of the 
 West, as well as originally in Syria, and dealt largely in 
 paraphrase and interpolation, as may be seen in the Cam- 
 bridge Codex Bezae (D), its chief existing representative ; 
 (iii.) the Alexandrian, of which but little evidence remains; 
 and (iv.) the Neutral, which is free from the peculiarities of 
 either, and of which there are traces, ' indubitable and signi- 
 ficant,' 'in the remains of Clement and Origen, together 
 with the fragment of Dionysius Jind Peter of Alexandria,' 
 and ' in a certain measure in the works of Eusebius of 
 Cjesarea, who was deeply versed in the theological literature 
 of Alexandria.' ' 
 
 4. It appears, therefore, Dr. Hort continues, that of these 
 four types of text, two are affected with peculiar traces of 
 corruption, viz., the Western which degenerated into para- 
 phrase, and ' incorporation of extraneous matter,' and the 
 Alexandrian, which is oppressed with minor faults, such as 
 ' incipient paraphrase and skilful assimilation.' The Neutral 
 alone of the remaining two reached back to earliest times. 
 
 ' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 143. " Ibid., p. 127. 
 
EXTREME TEXTUALISM. 
 
 The Syrian is represented as worthless, because it was made 
 up in the fourth century, as is attempted to be proved in the 
 following manner : — 
 
 (i.) The analysis of certain passages, of which eight are 
 given, is declared by Dr. Hort to prove that the ' Syrian ' 
 Text was made up by an eclectic combination of the read- 
 ings of other texts into one ' conflate ' reading. For instance, 
 in St. Mark vi. 33, at the end of the verse, the 'Neutral' 
 reading is said to be Koi irpoiiXeoy ahrovt, the 'Western' 
 trvvfjXfiov aiiTov, both of which are snpposed to be com- 
 bined in the 'Syriac' into rai irpo^Xflov avrovt, mi ffvyijXdoi' 
 vpd<: avToy. Dr. Hort argues at some length that the last 
 phrase spoils St. Mark's diction. And from this and similar 
 instances he draws the conclusion that at some authori-- 
 tative revision the other texts were blended into a 'form 
 lucid and complete, smooth and attractive, but appre- 
 ciably impoverished in sense and force, more fitted for 
 cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent 
 study.' 
 
 (2.) The same conclusion is supposed to be reachrtl by 
 the evidence of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, none of whom — it 
 is contended — exhibit a ' Syrian ' Text. The Latin Fathers, 
 of course, quote the Western ; and they are said to be fol- 
 lowed by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Methodius, 
 and Eusebius.' In the works of Clement of Alexandria, it 
 is maintained that non-Western as well as Western quota- 
 tions are discoverable, but no 'Syrian;' and in those of 
 Origen all the other kinds of texts can be found, but none. 
 Dr. Hort thinks, of a distinctively 'Syrian ' character. 
 
 (3.) This position, as Dr. Hort argues, is confirmed >by. 
 
 ' Westcottand Hort, " Introduction," p. 1 13. 
 
 THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT EXPLAINED. 43 
 
 the internal evidence of various passages, though it is ad- 
 mitted that the authors of the ' Syrian ' Text ' may have 
 copied from some other equally ancient and perhaps purer 
 text now otherwise lost.' * But Dr. Hort says that examina- 
 tion shews that this text was made up by revisers from the 
 rest, sometimes by following one or other, sometimes by 
 modification, or by combination, or pruning, or by intro- 
 ducing changes of their own when they had none to follow." 
 
 Hence, Dr. Hort concludes that 'all distinctively Syrian 
 readings may be set aside at once as certainly originating 
 after the middle of the third century, and therefore, as far 
 as transmission is concerned, corruptions of the apostolic 
 text.' He even asserts that they can attest nothing by 
 themselves, and do not always add strength to attestations of 
 the other texts, because they may themselves be only derived 
 from the original autographs through those very texts. 
 
 5. It follows, he thinks, that the Neutral, where it can be 
 verified, remains as alone the pure representative of the un- 
 alloyed Scriptures of the New Testament. It has been 
 already declared that, in his opinion, B and K, the leading 
 MSS. which set forth this text, enjoy a special pre-eminence, 
 because of their superior antiquity, and by reason of their 
 purity of text. 
 
 Accordingly, with slight exception, 'readings of hf B should 
 be accepted as the true readings until strong internal evidence 
 is found to the contrary, and no readings of tij B can safely 
 be rejected absolutely, though it is sometimes right to place 
 them only on an alternative footing, especially where they re- 
 ceive no support from Versions or Fathers.' Of the two, B 
 is the purer, which ' must be regarded as having preserved 
 
 ' Westcott and Hort, "Introduction," p. 115. " Ibid., p. 118. 
 
44 
 
 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. 
 
 not only a very ancient text, but a very pure line of very 
 ancient text,' ' 1>J having on its way fallen upon ' at least two 
 early aberrant texts.' * When therefore B stands with any 
 other leading manuscript alone without Ji?, its readings nearly 
 always ' have the ring of genuineness.' ' And ' even when 
 B stands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly re- 
 jected.' ' 
 
 Such, so far as the present limits will admit, are the lead-' 
 ing points in the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort. If it 
 has been improperly portrayed, this is not due to any want 
 of desire to do justice to it. 
 
 And indeed even what has been here said, and still more 
 the elaborate treatises in the Introduction and at the end of 
 the text of the Greek Testament, must impress all persons^ 
 deeply with the patient ingenuity, the critical acumen, and 
 the mastery of the subject evinced by those distinguished 
 scholars. 
 
 But whether this Theory has a strong and solid foundation, 
 and will endure the shock of the long examination and 
 vigorous analysis that it is sure to encounter, or indeed 
 whether it has any foundation at all, is quite another matter. 
 The solution which it offers in all difficulties is too suspi- 
 ciously easy. It almost amounts to this : — ' Do not trouble 
 yourself about other authorities, but attend to B and X, which 
 will supply all you want.' How can it be right to cast to the 
 winds at least four-fifths of the evidence — if it be not vastly 
 more— and to draw the inferences solely from the remainder ? 
 Such a course cannot but carry with it its own condemna- 
 tion. And on 'studying and testing the Theory, the first 
 thing that strikes a man of logical mind is, that he sees an. 
 
 ' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 251. ' Ibid., p. 249. 
 ' Ibid., p. 227. * Ibid., Preface, p. 557- 
 
 THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT REFUTED. 45 
 
 ambitious and lofty outline, which upon closer examination 
 turns out to be merely cloud reared upon cloud. There 
 is no firm footing for the feet of an inquirer. The impal- 
 pable and shadowy nature of the investigation contrasts 
 strangely with the gravity and earnestness of the writer. 
 There is abundance of considerations, surmises, probabili- 
 ties, generalizations, made both from known particulars of 
 history and from details lying in the memories or in the 
 private note-books of the authors ; but an array of facts 
 strong enough to establish satisfactorily each stage in ad- 
 vance is wholly wanting, whilst the leaps made in ardent 
 speculation here and there over wide chasms reveal the in- 
 security of the country traversed. Proofs are required : and 
 no real proofs are offered. Seldom indeed has a theory been 
 advanced with so few facts for its basis. 
 
 Passing now to the examination of the general considera- 
 tions that are presented, we find too little stress laid upon 
 such Internal Evidence as is grounded upon clear facts or 
 sound sense, and too much upon a classification of docu- 
 ments which rests exclusively upon individual opinion. The 
 real judge of Internal Evidence is the sanctified intellect, 
 applying the 9onclusions, not of separate minds of a peculiar 
 cast, not of single schools of opinion neutralized by other 
 schools, but of the corporate thought of the Church, resting 
 upon a clear foundation of sense or fact, ascertained in a 
 vigorous exercise of mental power. And the illumination of 
 the sanctified intellect proceeds from the Great Inspirer of 
 the Holy Scriptures themselves, the true Interpreter of their 
 form and meaning, the Source of all the mental strength in 
 the world, the Holy Spirit of the Eternal God. But we do 
 not hear from the Extreme Textualist School of any such 
 judgment, and so they leave their common sense behind 
 
EXTREME TEXTUALISM. 
 
 46 
 
 them, and we are told that the Lord's side was pierced 
 before death, that the sun was eclipsed when the moon was 
 full, and that it is possible that St. Paul may have added to 
 the high traits of Charity that she actually refrains from 
 seeking what is not her own. On the other hand, such in- 
 ferences as are drawn from the natural or known proclivities 
 of copyists must be employed sparingly, and cannot support 
 much weight in the face of positive attestation. And judg- 
 ments upon the Internal character of documents, unless 
 generally accepted within the boundaries of the Science, or 
 supported by definite, produced, clear reasons, cannot be 
 accepted as foundations to build upon. Even pure anti- 
 quity, when evidence is scanty, is too rude an instrument of 
 relative decision. The comparative assessment of the value oC 
 ancient origin is not of necessity measured by centuries or de- 
 cades, because some of the associations of the earliest ages were 
 
 far from good, and any document may reflect them, whilst 
 another of later date maybe more free from such disturbing 
 influences. We do not go back merely to Ante-Nicene times for 
 the Canon of Scripture, or we might find cause to include the 
 Epistle of St. Barnabas in the list of books. At the same 
 time, if we light upon a pure strain of the best antiquity, 
 we cknnot fai! to be on the right track. Agam, there may 
 be a great variety of opinions upon the punty of any text. 
 Drs Westcott and Hort, and others, rate B and N very high. 
 It may perhaps be more than doubted whether such would 
 be thi verdict of critics, if they approached them without 
 knowing what they were. Dr. Scrivener, in his calm and 
 dispassionate manner, places the estimate some way down. 
 Dean Burgon. upon plain and definite grounds rates them 
 very low. Kuenen and Cobet say that B is full of errors. 
 Till agreement is reached, it is evident that reasons so shift- 
 
 I 
 
 THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT REFUTED. 47 
 
 ing and unstable can constitute no real pillar of support for 
 any superstructure.' 
 
 Next of Genealogy. Here evidently lurk the pitfalls which 
 are involved in an analogy made the groundwork of an 
 argument. The reasoning is correct, so far as it is impos- 
 sible for a good copy to be made from a bad exemplar, 
 though to a slight extent external influence, such as the re- 
 collection in the copyist of a better guide, may somewhat 
 improve the offspring, like good companionship or the effects 
 of study ; or secondly, as to the probability that better as 
 well as worse features will be reproduced in the copies made 
 from it. Again, we are told that, ' so far as genealogical re- 
 lations are discovered with perfect certainty,' ' being directly 
 involved in historical facts,' ' their immediate basis is his- 
 torical, not speculative.' " But indeed inasmuch as ' no single 
 step in the descent can be produced, in other words, no 
 genealogical evidence exists," all is precarious instead of 
 
 ' Dr. Hort goes so far as to admit the use of conjectural emenda- 
 tion. ("Introd.," p. 7.) Well may Dean Burgon say, 'Conjectural 
 Emendation can be allowed no place whatever in the Textual Criti- 
 cism of the New Testament.' This is an established principle 
 (Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 490-1.) It is too dangerous an 
 instrument in the hand of any man, and wholly devoid of authority, 
 which is of the essence of Holy Writ. Besides, the wealth of illustra- 
 tion makes it scarce anywhere needed. "When ... it was clear 
 that the channels of transmission was sufficient to supply evidence on 
 the text, there was no one thing as to which critical editors were more 
 unanimous than in the rejection of all conjecture in the formation of 
 a text." — Tregelles, "Introduction to the Critical Study," &c., pp. 
 149, 150. 
 
 "^ Westcott and Hart, " Introduction," p. 63. 
 
 ^ Dean Burgon, " The Revision Revised," p. 256. The Dean 
 further shows (p. 257) that close relationship is known only in three 
 instances, (i) F. and G. ; (2) 13, 69, 124, and 346; and (3) B and 
 N ; and that these are related as brothers (or sisters) or cousins, not in 
 
48 
 
 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. 
 
 being historical, and there are no premisses and therefore 
 no inference. Between the actual facts and the supposed 
 conclusion often lies a long space into which speculation is 
 but too apt to enter. 
 
 For instance, when Dr. Hort argues that the similarity to 
 one another of those numerous Uncials in what he terms the 
 Syrian class shows that they came from one ancestor, and 
 that although they largely outnumber X and B, they can 
 therefore have at the best only the authority of one ancestor 
 set against another ancestor, he entirely disregards the pre- 
 sumption that a larger number of descendants came from a 
 larger number of ancestors, and that the majority may be 
 only thrust back from one generation to a previous one. 
 In truth, the argument from genealogy — such as it is^— con-, 
 ducts the unprejudiced inquirer to results the very opposite 
 to those of Dr. HorL 
 
 Again, when it is assumed that the common ancestor of 
 N and B came into existence in the early part of the second 
 century, there is, so far as genealogy is concerned, a lofty 
 disregard of the obvious truth that generations might be 
 propagated as fast as the pens of scribes would admit ; and 
 that after the wholesale destruction of copies in the persecu- 
 tion of Diocletian and Galerius, it is almost certain that 
 transcription must have proceeded at a rapid rate. Gene- 
 alogy therefore is misleading, for it supplies no warrant for 
 any conclusion as to time, and in fact suggests an untrue 
 analogy. If on other grounds this is a speculative inference, 
 the instinct of such experienced scholars as Drs. Westcott 
 and Hort is entitled to respectful consideration. But it 
 
 any direct line of genealogy. To these three instances must now be 
 added, since the discovery of 2, the affinity between 2 and N. Scrive- 
 ner, " Plain Introduction," p. 159. 
 
 \ 
 
 ZTl fs^'""?'' ^ °''" ^*"'^"^^ '"^'^ themselves, 
 Sd^l^r:;:::!:;-^ '-'-'- -- -"-^enticated 
 
 Sid! nVn" ''"",'•'"' °^ ^""'"'"^y '""^t be regarded on the 
 s.de of descendants as well as of ancestors. Manuscripts in 
 
 gStrofVr'^ r 'T '^^" ^-^ely copied. Ct 
 Canon of ScH^"' °'^''''' °'^'^ ^^^S°"«^' ^^^ the 
 dorr/ ^ """" ''"''^' ""^ '^' Faith of Christen- 
 
 tZeTtTT''' °' ^'^ ^^'"^ °^ P"^« '^-^^' that the 
 learned let the true type preserved in at least two pre 
 
 emmently good ones languish in obscurity and diusi? Yet 
 
 w list the other form of Text numbers it's many hundred^ 
 
 deZlL aS ^" '"°""^'^ ^"J'^hing else than a 
 
 men^! / ""^^™'«.ng condemnation of the two docu- 
 
 ame undrr Tf ;°''''?"'^' ^^"^^^^ ^"'^ of manuscripts 
 inTZ^ U "'"•^"" '"""^ '''''' ^"^ ^he succeed- 
 
 2«,-H '^ '' '"conceivable that, amidst the wealth of 
 d ssKlent documents, and at a time when the literary intellect 
 of the world was occupied with ecclesiastical question and 
 he monuments of past authorship were being stored Ihere 
 could have ex.sted such neglect of the purity of the sacred 
 
 Th T H ''' '^'""'^ " '' ^^^^" ^- g-te'd by Dr. H "t 
 The abundance of contemporary commentaries forbids such 
 a uppositton. Therefore the Vatican and Sinaitic mlnu 
 
 r:f^^rjinr^^"^^^^''^"-^^^-----^^^^^ 
 
 C Z of St. Matthew.'kX luke. Q. an/p^" ''' " '" '' '''''^' 
 See below, Chapter VII. 
 
 E 
 
5° 
 
 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. 
 
 Again, the theory of Families, or groups, of manuscripts 
 cannot stand in any definite or clearly cut shape. Since it 
 was first proposed by Bentley, it has passed through constant 
 modifications. The foundations laid by one master have 
 been disturbed by his successor, whose own excavations and 
 masses of cement have been re-made by the next. The 
 difficulties to which the constructors of an inexorable theory 
 have been driven are shown by the severing of one manu- 
 script, after the example of Solomon's award, into portions 
 supposed to belong to three Families. Dr. Scrivener is 
 surely right in describing this process as ' that violent and 
 most unlikely hypothesis, that Cod. A follows the Byzantine 
 class of authorities in the Gospels, the Western in the Acts 
 and Catholic Epistles, and the Alexandrian in St. Paul.' ' 
 
 But it may be asked, is there then no truth at all in the 
 assignment of characters to manuscripts, or in any sort of 
 grouping ? And the answer of a candid inquirer must be 
 that there may perhaps be an amount of justice in the con- 
 notation of characteristic features, but that great care must 
 be taken not to lay too much stress upon it, and certainly 
 not to draw a few broad and dark lines separating one 
 province from another. And especially, generalizations con- 
 structed upon such induction as the case admits, must be 
 employed most sparingly in deductive arguments, or logic 
 will stand aghast. 
 
 And as to the Families, or groups, suggested by Dr. West- 
 cott and Hort, there are no doubt a number of documents 
 
 ' " Plain Introduction," p. 472. 'Quae cum ita sint, sequitur exercen- 
 tibus rem criticam summa opus esse cautione in adhibenda classium sive 
 recensionum distinctione : quam ut summam normam aut fundamentum' 
 ponere et temerarium et fnistra est.' — Tischendorf, quoted by Dr. Caspar 
 Rene Gregory, Prolegomena, 1884, p. 196. 
 
 _™^ O,. ^^STCOTT ^UD m^r REFUTED. „ 
 
 are also Wes,^"'^„T J ,?'" °° *' """'■ "ere 
 theexis,e„cerao.lfa " Alexandrian readings. Bu, 
 
 ■Neuera, ; .e.e/i^L'^^rxs Vrt:.:™: *'-'■■' 
 
 vv« «« ' °' *"^ scantiest. 
 
 .» .he region of pnre specniL:: 11.":^ ^"^JZ 
 
 result of Ihtrf' " ■'''''■ °' '*'"*■'• "' A-tioch.. The 
 
 3.z'*:LT,xiittttrrhr 
 oT:;iLr?:err-*^"^^*°»^^^^ 
 
 :ra„:r--rr„^ri~^^^^ 
 
 ; Westco't and Hort. " Introduction," pp. ,36. ,37. 
 
 BurgwsSL!rs:n£trr""'^"'V^^^^^^^^ -' ^-" 
 
 authoritntive recenTon . ° '^ t p'"''' °^'^' ^"PPOsition of any 
 at oil. ,n The Revision Revised," pp. 272.28,^ 
 
 i 
 
52 
 
 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. 
 
 this at Antioch, and resulted in the formation of the ' Syrian ' 
 Text of the Gospels in Greek, which was formed upon the 
 Vulgate, or common Syriac Version. What proof exists any- 
 where of such an important proceeding? A recension, 
 be it observed, so thorough and so sweeping in its effects, 
 that, according to the theory under consideration, it must 
 have placed the text it produced in such a commanding 
 situation that it has reigned for fifteen centuries without a 
 rival. How could this have occurred without an achieve- 
 ment so great and famous that the report of it must have 
 gone abroad? Surely this must have been another Council 
 of Nicaea, or at least a Council of Ariminum. Such results 
 could not have issued from a mystery like that of the view- 
 less wind. Yet there is positively no record in the history—^ 
 not to speak of a Council of the Church — but of any single 
 incident justifying the assumption that such an authoritative 
 revision ever took place.' Never surely was there such an 
 attempt before made to foist such pure fiction into history. 
 But besides that, the arguments for the formation of a new 
 text in the Fourth century thoroughly break down. 
 
 (i.) The evidence in only the eight' instances given is 
 certainly not enough to establish the existence of such a 
 ' conflation,' or a combination of supposed other texts into 
 one eclectic reading throughout the New Testament. But 
 supposing for a moment that these eight were specimens of 
 what constantly occurs, who, from internal evidence alone, 
 can say dogmatically which is posterior — the entire text, or 
 the respective portions of it? Surely the integral whole, 
 
 ' See Burgon's, "The Revision Revised," pp. 272-88; and Cook's 
 " Revised Version," pp. 195-204. Dr. Scrivener calls the two supposed 
 recensions 'phantom revisions.' " Plain Introduction," p. 534. 
 
 ' Westcott and Hort, Introduction. 
 
 THEORYOF^UTESTCOTT AND HORT REFUTED. 53 
 
 Which Dr. Hort (p. ^^J^T^dii^uTir^ss 'lucidity and 
 completeness,' and to be ' entirely blameless on e h r "e 
 
 diction has the better title to be held to have been the 
 
 must be a possible fault wuh all copyists; • and indubitable 
 
 offenders m this respect. With reference to the character 
 
 cot and H 'rl'' ,"''" """'^ "°^ "g^^« ^'''^ I^«- West- 
 rutednet^^^ '"'""''^'^''^^^'^^^"^^^ 
 
 (2.) As to the alleged absence of readings of the Tradi 
 uonal Text from the writings of the Ante-Lene FaT^er:, 
 Dr. Hort draws largely upon his imagination and his wishes 
 The persecution of Diocletian is here also the parent of 
 much ,3,, of information. But is there really such a deU 
 of these readmgs in the works of the Early Fathers as i 
 supposed? Dr. Scrivener' maintains that Dr. Hor speak 
 Zl::irT'\ Besidesthis,Dean Burgon has'cl ed 
 fiftv H •' f "^'''''^'^^ ^' '^' New School more than 
 
 sal" Are ^h ™ *'"'"^'""^ ^"^'"^^ "^^ «- P- 
 sages. Are these ten testimonies on an average to each 
 
 ■ St. Jerome traces transcriptional error to three sources :_ 
 (1) Vel a vitiosis interpretibus male edita 
 
 III v!l * Pr''TP':°"b"« ™P"i'is emendata perversius, 
 {3) Velahbrarnsdormitantibusadditasunt.' 
 Praefatio ad Damasum. 
 ^ See note at the end of the chapter. 
 " Plain Introduction," pp. 533-540 
 ' La^t twelve verses of St. Mark ; ', Tim. iii. ,6; St Luke xxii 
 
S4 
 
 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. 
 
 passage to be reckoned as alien to the Traditional Text, or 
 not rather as evident indications of an earlier origin reach- 
 ing back to the Apostolic age ? Besides the Fathers, some 
 of the Versions — notably the Peshito, which is referred by 
 the best critics to the second century ' — that are older than 
 any MSS., give frequent support to the readings of the 
 Traditional Text. 
 
 (3.) What is said about Internal Evidence is much too 
 vague and misty to sustain so strong a conclusion. And it 
 is balanced with the candid admission, that after all the 
 peculiar readings of the Received Text may perhaps be 
 derived from ' some equally ancient and perhaps purer text 
 now otherwise lost." What seems to Dr. Westcott and Dr. 
 Hort to constitute internal evidence in each instance does 
 not seem so to others. Where is the rock amidst this peri- 
 lous sand-drift ? 
 
 We are driven therefore to the characters of K and B as 
 the last refuge of the Theory under examination. 
 
 And we cannot but be struck with the great argument in 
 their favour. They are the oldest MSS. in existence. They 
 are extremely handsome, and in some respects are complete.' 
 Their verdict in the opinion of nearly all judges is entitled 
 to respectful attention. 
 
 But besides that they are not much older than A and C, 
 how can Drs. Westcott and Hort get over the central fact 
 that these MSS. have hardly any following in the ages after 
 
 vellous. It is to be hoped that he will communicate to the Church the 
 treasures that he must have been long amassing. 
 
 » See below. Chapter VI. 
 
 ' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 115. 
 
 • N is the only complete Uncial copy of the New Testament. B ends 
 at Heb. ii. 14, but is complete so far, except in its numerous omissions. 
 
 r 
 
 THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT REFUTED. 55 
 
 them, and so have been condemned by Catholic antiquity ? 
 They were probably produced about a.d. 330-340,' a short 
 time before the Canon of Holy Scripture was settled, when 
 the general subject of the Holy Scriptures must have come 
 under discussion. They just antedated the most intelligent 
 period of the early Church, when the finest intellects in the 
 world were engaged in ascertaining the exact lineaments of 
 ' The Faith once delivered to the saints.' How could these 
 men have escaped from spending particular care upon the 
 Sacred Text? We learn that St. Jerome did so upon the 
 Latin Versions. And the fact, acknowledged over and over 
 again by Dr. Hort, that one uniform text has prevailed from 
 that period till now, surely alone constitutes a decisive con- 
 demnation of this so-called ' Neutral Text' 
 
 The period too of the production of these two MSS. is in- 
 structive. It was when the Church was all but Semiarian : 
 of this there is no doubt. But it appears also extremely 
 probable that they were made under the direction of Euse- 
 bius of Caesarea, a leader of the Semiarian party. The scribe 
 of the Vatican B is supposed by Tischendorf, with the agree- 
 ment of Dr. Scrivener and by the admission of Dr. Hort, to 
 have written part of the Sinaitic ^?.' The date of the execu- 
 tion, as fixed upon other grounds, was about the time when 
 Eusebius was commissioned by Constantine to prepare fifty 
 manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures, and send them to Con- 
 stantinople. These two MSS. stand unrivalled for the beauty 
 of their caligraphy, and of the vellum on which they are 
 written, and in all respects are just what we should expect 
 
 ' See Cook, "Revised Version," p. 1 60. 
 
 " I.e., ' six conjugate leaves of Cod. H, being three pairs in three 
 distant quires, one of them containing the conclusion of St. Mark's 
 Gospel.' " Plain Introduction," p. 92, note t. 
 
S6 
 
 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. 
 
 to have been produced in obedience to an imperial man- 
 date.' 
 
 And, as has been already stated, the text of these two 
 manuscripts is not so perfect as would be necessary, if they 
 were worthy to be placed upon the high pedestal that is 
 prepared for them by their ardent advocates. Dean Burgon 
 after collations extending through many years has supplied 
 figures which it seems impossible to withstand.' The marks 
 of carelessness spread over them, especially prevailing in N^are 
 incompatible with perfection. Tischendorf, after collating B, 
 speaks of the blemishes that occur throughout.' Dr. Dobbin 
 reckons 2,556 omissions in B as far as Heb. ix. 14, where 
 it terminates.* Vercellone, the editor, tells of ' perpetual 
 omissions,' 'of half a verse, a whole verse, and even of 
 several verses.' ' This is just what examination reveals : 
 and ^C is unquestionably worse. Yet doubtless in the tem- 
 perate words of Dr. Scrivener, ' we accord to Cod. B at 
 least as much weight as to any document in existence.' ' 
 But we cannot agree with those who rate either it or the 
 Sinaitic extravagantly high : and the fact that these two are 
 frequently found with a few others in a small minority must 
 
 ' See below, Chapter VII. Canon Cook, "The Revised Version," 
 pp. 159-183, argues this admirably. Dean Burgon thinks otherwise. 
 
 = " Revision Revised," p. I4, 94-5, 249, cf. 376, 384-6. My own 
 figures, derived from a smaller collation of the five Uncials, agree 
 mainly with those of the Dean, who says that ' the task of laboriously 
 collecting the five "old uncials" throughout the Gospels, occupied me 
 for five-and-a-half years, and taxed me severely.' (P. 376.) 
 
 ' " Universa Scripturae Vaticanse Vitiositas." 
 
 * "Dublin University Magazine," 1859, p. 620. Dr. Dobbin calcu- 
 lates 330 in St. Matthew, 365 in St. Mark, 439 in St. Luke, 357 in St. 
 John, 384 in the Acts, and 681 in the Epistles. 
 
 ' Burgon's " Lettere from Rome," p. 18. 
 
 * See "Plain Introduction," p. 116. 
 
 i. 
 
 r 
 
 THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT REFUTED. 
 
 57 
 
 make us always examine their testimony, unless it is strongly 
 supported, with suspicion and care.' 
 
 ' Character of B. 
 Judged by the ordinary rules of criticism, the text of B is far from 
 being of such a superior character as to warrant the excessive submis- 
 sion that Extreme Textualists claim for it. Thus, besides serious 
 blemishes which have been already mentioned (above, pp. 27-29), we find 
 in the face of superior readings well attested : — 
 
 (i.) Omissions of an entire verse, or of a longer passage, having all 
 the appearance of being intrinsically genuine : — 
 
 Matt. xii. 47 ; xvi. 2, 3 (a verse and eight words) ; xviii. 1 1 ; xxiii. 
 14 ; Mark vii. 16 ; ix. 44, 46 ; xi. 26 ; Luke xvii. 36 ; xxiii. 17 ; John v. 
 3, 4 (a verse and five words) ; Acts xxiv. 6, 7, 8 (a verse and fourteen 
 words) ; xxviii. 29 ; Rom. xv. 24. 
 
 (2.) Similar omissions of more than three words :— 
 Matt. v. 44 (12 words) ; xx. 16 (7) ; 22 (6) ; 23 (7) ; xxviii. 9 (7) ; 
 Mark vi. II (IS) ; 33 (4) ; 36 (4) ; viii. 26 (6) ; x. 7 (6) ; 24 (5) ; xi. 
 8 (5) ; xii. 30 (4) ; 33 (5) ; Luke i. 28 (angelic salutation, 4), iv. 4 (5) ; 
 S (S) ; vi. 45 (5) ; viii. 16 (6) ; 43 (6) ; ix. 55, 56 (24) ; x. 22 (8) ; xi. 44 
 (4) ; xvii. 19 (5) ; 24 (4) ; xxii. 64 (6) ; xxiv, I (4) ; 42 (4) ; John i. 27 
 (7) ; iii. 13 (5) ; viii 59 (7) ; xiii. 32 (6) ; xvi. 16 (6) ; Acts xv. 18 (7) ; 
 24 (6) ; xviii. 21 (II) ; xxi. 22 (4) ; 25 (6) ; Col. iii. 6 (5) ; I Thess. i. 
 I (8) ; Heb. ii. 7 (9); vii. 21 (4). 
 (3.) Short but important omissions : — 
 
 Matt. i. 25. aurijc rov npioroTOKov ; v. 22. tUrj ; vi. 4, 18. Iv Tip 
 ^vtpy ; xxvi. 28. (caevi^f (Words of Institution) ; Mark ix. 29. icni 
 vriaTiiif; x. 6. Otot ; 21. apaf: rbv aravpov ; xiii. 18. ») ,pvy^ v/ioiv ; 
 XIV. 22-24. payiTt-Tb-Kmvrtg (Words of Institution) ; 68. icai rjXiKTwp 
 lipiiiVTiaev ; Luke vi. i. StvTepoirpioTif) ; 26. 01 irariptQ avrdv; xxiv. 53. 
 alyoWTte Kai; John vi. 51. i)^ fyj, Idiaat ; xiv. 4. xai . . olfart ; Acts 
 iii. 6. lyiipai Kai ; x. 30. vifaTtiuv xai ; 2 Cor. v. 14. tl ; Eph. i. I. iv 
 'E0£<rv; 15. TTJv ayairi'iv tS,v. Also the frequent omissions of the 
 article, of avrhQ, of KvpioQ, of !> lijaovi, and of similar subjects, imports 
 an ungraceful baldness into the text. That many of these omissions, 
 at the least, came from carelessness is shown by several passages being 
 written twice over. — Scrivener, p. 116. 
 (4.) Readings inferior to those of the Traditional Text :— 
 Matt. xi. 16. TtatSioiQ . . . U, k.t.\. instead of agreeing participles. 
 
58 
 
 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. 
 
 The arguments therefore advanced by the School of Ex- 
 treme, or as perhaps it should be called, Extravagant 
 Textualism, break down all along the line. And we are 
 
 Matt. XV. 13. omission of rt'^Xuv. 
 
 xvi. 12. rStv apTiov for row oftrov. 
 
 xvii. 22. <rv(Trpt^ofiivu>v for AvaaTpupofiivuv, 
 23. ry TpiiffiefKf for ry rpiry vfiipf. 
 Mark ii. 5, 9. afiti'rai for aftdiTai, i.e., his sins were not then ac- 
 tually forgiven I 
 
 iii. 29. Ivoxot aitoviov aiiapriifiaros for KphtiDQ. 
 
 xvi, 4. avaxiKvKtarcu for iiroKiKvXiVTai. 
 Luke ii. 14. ti' avOptiiiroic ivSokioq. No rhythm and inferior sense. 
 
 xii. 56. Clumsy repetition of ovc oif arc ^oc(/ja{(ii> for ^oiC(/ia{cr(. 
 
 xxii. 55. TTipiaipavTbiv SI nvp for u^diTiov. 
 Acts xxvii. 13. irtpuXoi/rtf for ntpitXGovTtc. 
 Rom. V. I. vapavoQ for aapKiKof;. 
 
 1 Cor. iii. I. aapKtvoic for oapKiKois. 
 James i. 20. ipya^crai for icaripyaZirai. 
 
 2 Pet. ii. 12. roi <p9ctpr]<rovTai for Kara^QapifaovTai. 
 5. Changes obviously injurious to the sense : — 
 
 Matt. xi. 23. Too like a jeer, instead of dignified sorrow. 
 
 xiv. 29. ^XOtv for IMtiv. St. Peter failed in the coming, 
 xxviii. 19. PavriaavTts for /3a5rri?. — supposing that disciples 
 were to be made after, instead of by, Baptism. 
 Mark vii. 3. cia Zidwcof. A geographical solecism. 
 Luke X. 42. 6\iyiMiv ti xP^ia lariv f) irof. 
 
 xvi. 12. I'lfUTtpof for vfiirfpov, — a patent blunder. 
 Acts xxT. 13. dairaaafitvoi for ioTraaofuvot, i.e., greeted Festus first, 
 
 and then went to see him ! 
 I Cor. xiii. 3. cav^^^irw^m for cavdi^trw/ini. 
 I Thess. ii. 7. vrimoi for VJmot. 
 Tit ii. 5. oUovpyovs ufaOai for oiKovpovf. 
 
 (6) Changes spoiling or injuring the Grammar :— 
 Matt. viii. 5. iloiKdovTog airrov npoatjXGtv avrif. 
 
 XV. 32. I'lfiipai (or rifiipaf. Awkward change of grammatical 
 subject. 
 39. t6v TrXaiiov. 
 xxi. 19. ov pTiKfrt yivriTai. 
 Mark iii. 28. liXaa^ijfilcu oaa lav l3\aiT<^ripri<Tiii<nv (offof av). ■ 
 
 'I 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 TI/EO/i Y OF WESTCOTT AND HORT REFUTED. 59 
 
 driven to seek a secure position amongst the entrenchments 
 of the Rival School. 
 
 Mark vi. 21. Bvyarphz f>PX>\<'ap.ivr,z the subject to rtpuiv. 
 XI. 19. 'irav hjiviTo. 
 
 22. 8 Idv teiry. 
 xiii, 14. rd pSiXvyfia . . , lartjKOTa. 
 xiv, 35. ImTTTev for t,rtatv .--glaringly the wrong tense. 
 Luke xv.i, 6. t'xtre (for dxirc) iXiytre av. 
 Acts xvi. 13. 06 ivofitZo^iv (for IvofiHtro) irpoatvx^ tlva,. 
 
 xin. 7. T&v ^apiaaiuv Kai (omit tUv) -SaSSovKaiwv. 
 Rom, V. I. Ixutptv for ixofuv. 
 
 I Pet. iii. I. \va KcpSt,9riaovTai (for — awvrm). So Luke xiv, lo. 
 'iva Ipti. 
 
 This list might be easily and largely increased, besides that bad 
 spell.ng-to call a spade a spade-is constant in this manuscript. See 
 Scrivener, "Pam Introduction," pp, 543.552. Burgon, "TheRevi- 
 s.on Revised, pp. 3,5.3,7. and reff. there given. Cook, "Revised 
 Version, pp. i^e-Ui. Michelsen, in "Theologisch Tijdschrift." 
 Jan. ,844. See also Kuenen and Cobet, '• Novum Test, ad fidem Cod 
 Vaticani." Leyden, ,860. Pncfatio. n is admitted everywhere, except 
 in the fond eyes of Tischendorf and of a few admirers here and there, to 
 be greatly inferior to B. 
 

 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE RIVAL SCHOOL. 
 
 Tenets of the Rival and Sound School stated and 
 
 considered. 
 
 IN treating of Extreme Textualism, so much has been 
 borrowed from the representations of the Rival School, 
 which of late years has perhaps been chiefly known in re- 
 sistance to aggressive tenets, that much less explanation of 
 the principles maintained in it is now needful than would 
 otherwise have been required. Nevertheless the position of 
 the chief doctors in this School must be defined. Their 
 attitude has been frequently and indeed strangely misrepre- 
 sented. Besides which, their teaching is given, not merely 
 in opposition or protest, but in clear and definite expression 
 of principles. 
 
 I. And first, it must be remarked, that it is unjust to in- 
 sinuate that they are set against all revision of the Greek 
 Text. They would not be Textualists at all if they were 
 not ready to adopt what are really the verdicts upon all the 
 evidence. ' Again and again,' says Dean Burgon, ' we shall 
 have to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correc- 
 tion." ' No one can read Dr. Scrivener's " Plain Introduc- 
 tion," a work which every clergyman should possess and 
 study, without observing that so stiff an adhesion to the 
 Text received from the last three centuries has no place m 
 ' " The Revision Revised," p. 21, nole. 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 THEIR SOUND TENETS. 
 
 his thoughts. Quotation or proof of so notorious a circum- 
 stance are absolutely unnecessary. 
 
 Nor again must it be imagined that discrimination in the 
 employment of authorities is repudiated by them. ^Vhilst 
 Dr. Scrivener rejects the idea of families of manuscripts, he 
 allows that grouping in a moderate manner is necessary in 
 order to judge of their character and value. 'Now that 
 theories about the formal recensions of whole classes of 
 these documents have generally been given up as purely 
 visionary, and the very word families has come into disre- 
 pute by reason of the exploded fancies it recalls, we can 
 discern not the less clearly that certain groups of them have 
 in common not only a general resemblance in regard to the 
 readings they exhibit, but characteristic peculiarities attach- 
 ing themselves to each group.' ' It is inevitable that one 
 document should have a high reputation, and another be 
 rated deservedly low. The relative antiquity, the circum- 
 stances attending the production so far as they are known, 
 the nature of the text so far as it reveals itself to clear and 
 definite criticism, are admitted as demanding to be taken 
 into account. Objection is felt to ' the glorification ' of a 
 few, so as to make them almost ' objects of superstition and 
 idolatry : ' but there the objection ceases. 
 
 2. The leading principle of the School is that all autho- 
 rities should be fairly and relatively weighed. The old 
 Uncial manuscripts according to their age and character, 
 the later Uncials of the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, 
 the Cursive manuscripts from the tenth century onwards ; 
 the Versions with reference to their antiquity and excellence ; 
 Lectionaries, as they were accredited and agreed with one 
 another and with other manuscripts; and quotations from 
 
 ' "Plain Introduction," pp. 553, 4. The italics are Dr. Scrivener's. 
 
62 
 
 THE RIVAL SCHOOL. 
 
 Fathers after their ascertained merit* There is much work 
 to be done in editing, collating, and indexing before this vast 
 mass of evidence is ready for use. Thus these men widen the 
 basis, and endeavour to build their superstructure upon the 
 broadest and surest foundation. If it be objected that the 
 work of revision is indeed formidable and must be delayed 
 under this method of proceeding for many years, the answer 
 is ready. It is dangerous to meddle with the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, which are bound up so closely with the Faith. The 
 changes proposed are numerous and momentous : and what 
 if they are found to be really corruptions and depravations 
 of the Sacred Deposit ? Reverence and caution are essen- 
 tial in the things of God. Whatever is done must by all 
 means be well done. A few years, or a life-time or two, 
 long indeed in our sight, are little in the history of mankind, 
 and still less in the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. 
 It is better to aid humbly in a steady and wise advance than 
 to attempt hastily to settle questions, and to end by un- 
 settling them. 
 
 3. Such is the general system of this school of Sound 
 or High Textualists. But in one grand point the school 
 is at issue with the last. Extreme Textualism seems 
 to look upon any support derived from the Traditional 
 or Received Texts as merely supplying to readings a 
 title to be abused and spumed,* instead of securing for 
 them considerations of respect. Yet the fact, admitted 
 several times by Drs. Westcott and Hort,' that the Tradi- 
 tional Text is fifteen hundred years old, ought surely 
 
 ' For particulars, see below, Chapters VIII. IX. 
 2 Any reading labelled by Dr. Hort as 'Syrian,' is summarily 
 rejected by him with something very like ignominy. 
 ' See above, p. 26, note 2. 
 
 THEIR SOUND TENETS. 
 
 63 
 
 \ 
 
 ■ 
 
 ^ 
 
 to ensure for it other treatment. Is is probable that St. 
 Chrysostom, the Gregories, and St. Basil, amidst an abun- 
 dance of early manuscripts, with which our present stores 
 could not be mentioned on the same day in comparison for 
 antiquity and value, would all have been led away in the 
 company of their great contemporaries to prefer an inferior 
 strain of copies ? Is it likely, that if they had missed the 
 right turn, their successors in the following ages would not 
 have discovered that they were on the wrong road, and 
 would have failed to work back into the Royal Highway ? 
 Is it indeed possible that the great King of the new King- 
 dom, Who has promised to be with His subjects 'alway 
 even unto the end of the world,' should have allowed the 
 true text of the written laws of His Kingdom to lurk in 
 obscurity for nearly fifteen hundred years, and a text vitiated 
 in many important particulars to have been handed down 
 and venerated as the genuine form of the Word of God ? 
 Could the effect of the sacred Presence of the Holy Ghost 
 in the Church' be looked for in any more important and 
 peculiar province, than in the preservation of the fashion 
 and lineaments of that body of written records and teaching 
 which He Himself has inspired ? 
 
 Therefore the Rival School of Sound or High Textualists 
 is right in attributing the greatest importance to the Tradi- 
 tional Text, as the Text undoubtedly handed down in the 
 Church, and importance also to the Received Text, as an 
 excellent though by no means an exact exponent of the 
 former of the two. This is a matter of so much moment, that 
 the present inquiry would be far from complete, even in the 
 limited scope which belongs to a concise guide to the main 
 features of Textual Criticism, if it did not include a descrip- 
 tion of the salient points in the history of the Sacred Text, 
 
64 
 
 THE RIVAL SCHOOL. 
 
 SO far as it is known. Error usually arises from our ignoring 
 some essential element. And the question really is, whether 
 we ought to make a clean sweep of the past, except so much 
 as dates of documents are concerned, and rest solely upon 
 the uncertain glimmer of criticism formed centuries after the 
 materials for that criticism were produced, or whether we 
 cannot indeed discover in the course of actual events, so far 
 as they have been made known to us, the virtual determma- 
 tion of this important controversy, and solid grounds of 
 judgment which may compel and sustain a mature and sound 
 
 decision. 
 
 But before entering upon a brief view of such history, one 
 remark is needed as to the nature of the points at issue. 
 
 They depend upon an estimate of proportion,— how much 
 value we ought to attribute to this point, and how much to 
 that The evidence is mainly before us, and its existence is 
 undisputed. This indeed is the pivot upon which judg- 
 ments must turn. As in sculpture, symmetry and beauty of 
 form depend upon each limb and feature b^g represented 
 in due measure, and he carries about with him the true 
 sculptor's eye. who with readiness and precision sees where 
 any part of the outline is enlarged or dimmished or out of 
 pbce ; so in our decisions, whether of a pettier or a more 
 weieh V kind, the greater part of them are involved m the 
 tSThat w; lay, or do not lay. upon the V^^^^ 
 sented to us-in fact, upon the proportion which they seve 
 X as ume in our view. We may indeed err from msuffi- 
 dencyXidence, or narrowness of survey : but more often 
 our success or failure is determined by correctness or error 
 in Lying emphasis, or else by just or false discernment in the 
 formation of our estimate. 
 
 ^ 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT TILL THE ERA OF 
 ST. CHRVSOSTOM. 
 
 Early Corruption. A Pure Line. Early Versions. 
 Rise within the Church of Semi-Sceptical Philo- 
 sophy, AND Production of a Vitiated Text. Proof 
 OF the Prevalence of the Traditional Text. 
 
 COMPARATIVE Criticism must not be prosecuted in 
 the case of the writings of the New Testament upon 
 exactly the same principles as those which prevail in ascer- 
 taining the text of Classical Authors. It is true that gene- 
 rally speaking what is sound in the one case cannot be gain- 
 said in the other. The verdict of the manuscripts must be 
 taken according to the principles dictated by critical acumen 
 and established by experience. But Sacred criticism super- 
 adds some considerations of a very grave nature. 
 
 In the first place, the mass of materials of criticism is so 
 vast, and the wealth of attested readings is so great, that 
 there is no need of any Conjectural Emendation. The sole 
 duty of the Textual Critic is found in assembling, weighing, 
 and balancing the different kinds of evidence that can be 
 brought to bear upon the passage under review. There is 
 no demand therefore for conjecture; it is an ascertainment 
 of facts : besides that conjecture or surmise are entirely ex- 
 
 F 
 
I 
 
 66 
 
 BEFORE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 eluded by reason of the peculiar dignity and loftiness of the 
 subject.' 
 
 Secondly, the position of the Holy Scriptures as inspired 
 by God the Holy Ghost must never be allowed to pass out 
 of recollection. The great Inspirer of the Writings is also 
 Himself the great Guide of the Church. Accordingly, the 
 overruling care exercised by Him according to promise is a 
 factor all through the history which must ever be borne in 
 mind. Not of course that evil has been excluded from co- 
 existing along with the good — such is the universal expe- 
 rience : but nevertheless the Church, as the ' Witness and 
 Keeper of Holy Writ,' has, under His direction, cast out 
 the evil from time to time, and has kept to a generally 
 defined course. Serious errors might have been committed - 
 in the transmission of the works of Homer, or of Thucy- 
 dides, or of Aristotle : and indeed many of the books of the 
 last of these are supposed to have perished. But it can 
 hardly be conceived that the Holy Ghost, after communi- 
 cating His Inspiration in the composition of books, would 
 in the midst of His overruling care have allowed those books 
 to be varied according to changing winds of human opinion 
 and human action, without the maintenance throughout of a 
 form mainly at least free from error. It can scarcely be but 
 that a succession of copies pure from any great corruption 
 must have existed, and existed too in predominance, all 
 down the Church's history. 
 
 Thirdly, although the separate books of the New Testa- 
 
 ' See above, p. 47, note l. Indeed, Conjectural Emendation in 
 editing classical writings must ever be hazardous, and is not now rated 
 nearly so high as it used to be. DindorFs earlier text of Sophocles is 
 much better than his later one. Successive editors usually return tg 
 the unamended text. 
 
 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 67 
 
 rr ''''". ""questionably the productions of separate 
 authors, and bear the traces of a distinct personality in each 
 instance, n would be nevertheless wrong to regard hem- 
 espectally the Gospels-as solely individual compo^^nT 
 In their corporate, apart from their individual aspect, they 
 were embodiments of a Teaching and Faith, which had 
 been imparted to the Church, and taught by the Church 
 
 aft Hhf r H°t ^''' '^'''^''y -""- I-ediat^; 
 after the Lords Ascension and the coming of the Holy 
 
 Ghost, there came into operation a continual exercise of 
 
 oral teaching, which must have gradually assumed definite 
 
 system and recognised fashion and form. Since the events 
 
 of our Lords Life must have been related continually in all 
 
 evangehzmg action, and there must of necessity have been a 
 
 large number of eager narrators, and since the subject too 
 
 was one that must have enlisted all the reverence in their 
 
 souls, there must also have been at work a never-ceasing 
 
 corrective criticism, under which the stories told must have 
 
 become, so to speak, almost stereotyped with few variations ^ 
 
 In course of time, when either the converts demanded 
 
 manuals for elementary information, or Lections were needed 
 
 SvLoIm!- p''°''';""" r "" """"^ '''P'^'' *'"» °n« another of the 
 mTho^r i"' '"'" '''^'""^^ "P°" '''''' ""-i" theories :- 
 
 coi'l^ctumentSrr ''' '' ' ~°" '—'' ^ 
 
 prSr . ^;^::eS:;stir;: -^^ -' ^^^ --- - --^ 
 
 (J) That each Gospel was made up from a permanent tvoe of oml 
 teachmg G.eseler.) See Lee on " Inspiration.' Appendix L. 
 
 theftcts cTTt L^ •" '^ 'V-'' f'P'-^"-. - being truest .0 
 Eus "H F"iii ,r T 5" P^P'^s- '■« '^"P'i W(r,c 0a.v,7f , 
 
68 
 
 BEFORE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 in the celebrations of the Holy Eucharist or in services of 
 Common Worship, or when the want of authorized writings 
 was felt in the studies of the faithful or in arguments with 
 heretics, written records became requisite. The care of the 
 Tradition and of reducing it to writing fell upon a body of 
 men told off for the purpose under the special name of 
 Evangelists.' The foundation of all was pubHc : and it is 
 therefore the more probable, as it is on all grounds possible, 
 that alterations of a lesser kind might have been introduced 
 in what may have been practically successive editions of the 
 Holy Gospels. Besides this, in the presence of such an 
 amount of oral teaching, which had been rendered necessary 
 by the absence of accredited writings for some years, it 
 could scarcely be but that in an early multiplication of- 
 copies, when those writings had been made, mistakes of 
 various kinds would be extensively introduced, and would 
 be very hard to expel. 
 
 Very soon, therefore, after the books of the New Testa- 
 ment were written, corruption began to affect them. Error 
 
 ' Eph. iii. 1 1. Acts xxi. 8. 2 Tim iv. 5. The two functions of 
 Evangelists, i.e. to preach and to have the special care of the Word 
 {ri\v tS>v 9timv tvcrfytkiotv irapaSiSSvcu ypatpifv) is declared by Eusebius, 
 " H. E." iii. 37. St. Matthew wrote for the Hebrew Christians, St. Mark 
 for the Church at Rome— in compliance with request (Eus. " H. E." ii. 15) 
 —and St. Luke for the Corinthian Church. So the couplet attributed 
 to Gregory Nazianxen — 
 
 MarOaiof fiiv lypai^iv 'Efipaioic OavftaTO Xpurrov, 
 M(ipKO£ S' 'Irakiy, Aovkuq 'Axaiialt, 
 
 I.e., for Italy and Achaia, as "E/Spaioic shows, not as Townson takes 
 it, in each of those places. St. Luke, as it appears to me, most pro- 
 bably wrote his Gospel during St. Paul's imprisonment at Caesarea, 
 when that Providential arrangement gave a pause in labour, and an 
 excellent opportunity of collecting materials upon the spot over Judaea,, 
 Galilee, and Samaria. 
 
 
 t 
 
 I 
 
 EARLY CORRUPTION. 
 
 has been said to have arisen from four other sources. First 
 here was a determined wish to alter the Holy Scriptures, so' 
 that they might witness to the heretical doctrines that were 
 from time to time taken up.> Then, on the other hand, it has 
 been asserted that the orthodox have not been free from a 
 form of doing evil that good might come, in that they may 
 perchance have tampered with the sacred Text, in order to 
 convict of error assailants of the Faith. But in recent times 
 especially, this species of error has been vastly exaggerated •» 
 and as far as it did exist it was chiefly found in the middle 
 ages, and on occasions when holiness and uprightness had 
 descended for the moment to lower levels. Next, a great 
 deal of debasement must be attributed to the carelessness of 
 scribes chiefly before the act of transcribing was brought to 
 the perfection which it was reaching after the seventh century. 
 And lastly, and especially in early times, ignorance of the 
 Greek language, or of the doctrine delivered, was a fruitful 
 cause of error. 
 
 In the first years, the scarcity of written records cannot 
 r tt u P'°*^"" """"^ inaccuracy. And the slowness 
 with which the true Faith on the subject became established 
 amongst the newly converted, many of whom were Christians 
 m name more than in anything reaching as far as sound 
 belief, affected not only an universal acceptation of the Ca- 
 nonical Books, but a reception of the text of those books. 
 Gnostic doctrines were soon found in conflict with the words 
 
 ' alpfnif.Si/ rii/^ptSv riyaTrXnff/iara. Eus. "H E " iii zi 
 Mr. Hammond ("Outlines of Textual Criticism") remarks that 
 there app, , ,^^„„g ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^) a^'aU t 
 
 tonsfor dogm.nt.c reasons' exist. See Scrivener, "Plain Ltrodu - 
 tion, p. ,8 note. Th.s is almost a b'de noire with some writers who 
 
70 
 
 BEFORE ST. CHRVSOSTOM. 
 
 and composition of the New Testament. And indeed this 
 could not have been otherwise. For Gnosticism was an at- 
 tempt to combine the existing philosophy with the newly- 
 revealed Christian Teaching. As soon therefore as Christian 
 Doctrines were expressed in an authoritative shape, Gnos- 
 ticism found itself in opposition to them. Thence arose 
 constant attempts to mould the writings that came forth 
 into such form and expression as would not be at va- 
 riance with tenets agreeing with, or not so repugnant as 
 Christianity to, the old philosophy and the ideas previously 
 entertained. 
 
 The Books of the New Testament did not exist soon 
 enough for Simon Magus, Cerinthus, and the other heresi- 
 archs of the first period of Gnosticism, to direct their assaults ' 
 upon them. But Basilides, who lived in the earlier half of 
 the second century,' a native of Alexandria, the chief seat and 
 centre of Gnosticism, rejected the Pastoral Epistles and the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews,' and added other books to those 
 which were canonically recognised.' After him Valentinus 
 is said by Tertullian to have corrected the text and to have 
 boldly maintained that readings introduced by him were 
 older than the words generally received.* Marcion went 
 much further. He divided the New Testament into two 
 parts, ' The Gospel,' and 'The Apostolicon.' Of these, 'the 
 Gospel was a recension of St. Luke with numerous omissions 
 and variations from the received text. The Apostolicon 
 contained the Epistles of St. Paul, excluding the Pastoral 
 
 ' Probably about 117-138 A.D. Wordsworth, "Church History." 
 vol. i., p. 195. 
 » See Westcott, " On the Canon," p. 296, 
 » Enseb. " H. E.," iv. 7. 
 * "De Prsescriptione Hsereticorum," § 30. 
 
 
 ■i 
 
 :, 
 
 I 
 
 EARLY CORRUPTION. 
 
 71 
 
 Epistles and that to the Hebrews.' ' According to Tertul- 
 lian and Epiphanius, he 'mutilated and depraved' the 
 text both of Epistles and Gospels." The followers of these 
 men, as was natural, went beyond their leaders. Nor 
 must Tatian be omitted, a disciple of Justin Martyr, and 
 founder of the Sect of the Encratites. His " Diatessaron," 
 or Harmony of the Gospels, had such a circulation that 
 Theodoret in the fifth century found in the churches of his 
 diocese alone upwards of two hundred copies, and objected 
 so much to the mischievous spirit in which the work had 
 been executed, that he substituted in their room the Gospel 
 of the Four Evangelists." It is surely not wrong to trace to 
 these influences much of the corruption which is repeatedly 
 declared by writers about the end of the second century to 
 have vitiated the sacred Text. 
 
 Thus Dionysius of Corinth says that he must not be sur- 
 prised when people altered his writings by additions and 
 omissions, if they tampered in like manner with the Holy 
 Scriptures.'' St. Irenseus tells the same story, and appears 
 to have had the same fear.» Clement of Alexandria complains 
 
 ' Westcott, "On the Canon," p. 314. Burgon's "Last Twelve 
 Verses," p. 95. 
 
 ■• Westcott, p. 314. The learned Professor doubts however whether 
 this was really true as to the Epistles. Burgon, " Last Twelve Verses," 
 p. 94, note. Dean Burgon, " Revision Revised," pp. 34, 35, traces the 
 mutilation of the Lord's Prayer in St. Luke by B and N to Marcion. 
 
 •• See Burgon's "Last Twelve Verses." pp. 317, 318. The Dean 
 quotes from "Hsret. Fab.," i., 20 (Opp. l_v., 208), which I have veri- 
 fied. On the authority of a scholion, the Dean traces to Tatian (and 
 Diodorus) the strange insertion by B and « of the piercing of the spear 
 into the account of St. Matt, xxvii. 49, before the record of our Lord's 
 death. 
 
 • Euseb., "H. E.,"iv., 23. 
 
 ' Euseb., " H. E.," v., 20. Irenaeus, " Contra Haeres," iv. 6, i. 
 
72 
 
 BEFORE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 of people who introduce change into the Gospels.' An un- 
 known writer, quoted by Eusebius, inveighs against heretics 
 who laid hands without fear upon the Divine Scriptures, 
 under the pretence of correcting them.' Origen speaks of 
 the disagreement between the various manuscripts; and 
 adds, * But now, great in truth has become the diversity of 
 copies, be it from the negligence of certain scribes, or from 
 the evil daring of some who correct what is written, or from 
 those who in correcting add or take away what they think 
 
 fit." ' 
 
 And yet indications are not wanting that exceeding care 
 was taken by the orthodox to preserve the Holy Books in 
 their genuine and unimpaired form. TertuUian, in arguing 
 with heretics, bids them consult the autographs of the 
 Apostles at Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus, or Rome, 
 where they are preserved and read in pubUc* St. Irenaeus 
 refers in one place to ' the approved and ancient copies ' for 
 settling the number 666 in the Revelation ; and in another 
 gives most particular directions as to the careful and correct 
 copying of a book of his own." We cannot be wrong in 
 seeing in this latter instance, as well as in the signatures 
 attached with extreme care to the end of the account of the 
 
 ' Stromata, iv., 6. Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 508 note. 
 
 » Euseb., " H. E.," v., 28. Probably Caius: Mill, " Prolegomena," 
 p. Ixii., Routh, " Reliquix sacrse." 
 
 ' "Comment, on Matt.," Tom. iii., p. 671, De la Rue, quoted by 
 Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 509. I have thought it well to give 
 unaltered Dr. Scrivener's translation, but have verified the quotation. 
 
 « " Ipsje Authenticse Literae. De Praescript. Hseret.," p. 36. and 
 Routh's Note, " Opuscula, " pp. 205, 6, which Dean Burgon kindly points 
 
 » roif tiitovlmoxi: xaX apxciio^z jivrirpa^oic. "Contra Hteres," v. 30, I. 
 Euseb., " H, E," v. 20. 
 
 A PURE LINE. 
 
 73 
 
 .1 
 
 : 
 
 Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, a reflection of the conscientious 
 accuracy, fortified in every way, which must have directed 
 the copying out of the best and accredited manuscripts. And 
 the deep and loving reverence, in which the Holy Scriptures 
 were held, is shewn later on in the severe condemnation of 
 those who gave them up during the violent persecution under 
 Diocletian, and in the fact that a Sect' arose upon the ques- 
 tion of the amount of punishment which should be meted 
 out to such betrayers ' of the Sacred Books. 
 
 But the original autographs perished, and nothing has de- 
 scended to us about them after the expressions employed by 
 TertuUian. 
 
 We are, however, not left to secondary evidence for proof 
 that the Traditional text was used and handed on in Ante- 
 Nicene days. The witness of separate ecclesiastical writers 
 upon controverted passages, proving that they had in their 
 possession manuscripts agreeing with . the Text afterwards 
 adopted generally in the Church, and the renderings of the 
 early Versions, especially the Syriac and Italic, establish 
 satisfactorily this position, as will subsequently appear. 
 
 Early in the second century development in the spread of 
 the Holy Scriptures was made in two directions. 
 
 That robustness of the stem of the Church which grew up 
 at Antioch is indicated in two striking particulars recorded 
 in the Scriptural account. The religion in that place was so 
 genuine and characteristic, that the name was first applied 
 there to the converts which the followers of the Lord have 
 kept ever since. And from that city, replete with vice and 
 degradation but the site of a structure of wondrous holiness 
 and zeal, — preferred as the source of such evangelization 
 
 ' Donatists. 
 
 '^ ' Traditores,' the technical name which was used. 
 
74 
 
 BEFORE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 before Damascus and even Jerusalem, — the great Apostle 
 of the Gentiles was sent forth on his ever famous journeys. 
 
 In the same spirit, the Holy Scriptures were in very early 
 times, whether at Antioch, or in Palestine, or elsewhere, 
 translated into ' a tongue understanded of the people.' No 
 record remains of the occasion when this translation was 
 effected, or of the mode of action, or of the actors. The 
 good was to be wrought, and it was done. Aramaic, or 
 Syriac, was a more flexible language than the Hebrew. The 
 Peshito, or ' Simple ' Version has remained certainly since 
 the sad divisions wrought in the Syrian Church during the 
 fifth century, because the Nestorians and Monophysites, as 
 well as the Christians of St. Thomas in India and the Maro- 
 nites of Lebanon, all use it to this day, and prove therefore 
 by such use that we must go back for its origin at least to 
 the time when they had not separated. And it appears most 
 probable, that it was that which was read at the first in 
 Syria.* Hegesippus, in the second century, seems to speak 
 
 " Since the discovery of the Curetonian Version in Syriac by Arch- 
 deacon Tattam in 1842 and Canon Cureton, Extreme Textualists have 
 maintained that it was older than the Peshito on these main grounds : — 
 
 1. Internal evidence proves that the Peshito cannot have been the 
 
 original text. 
 
 2. The Curetonian is just such a text as may have been so, and would 
 
 have demanded revision. 
 
 3. The parallels of the Latin texts which were revised in the Vulgate 
 
 suggests an authoritative revision between a.d. 250 and 350. 
 These arguments depend upon a supposed historical parallel, and in- 
 ternal evidence. 
 
 The parallel upon examination turns out to be illusory : — 
 
 1. There was a definite recorded revision of the Latin Texts, but none 
 
 of the Syrian. If there had been, it must have left a trace in 
 history. 
 
 2. There was an ' infinita varietas ' (" August. De Doctr. Christ.," ii. 
 
 EARLY VERSIONS. 
 
 75 
 
 of a Syrian translation,' and Melito quotes ' the Syrian ' in 
 170' A.D. Ephraem of Edessa speaks of this Version as 
 used familiarly for the national Scriptures in the fourth 
 century.' The Peshito resembles the Received Text. It may 
 have been actually in the hands of St. John.* It did not 
 include all the Catholic Epistles, or the Revelation. The 
 Peshito has been called ' The Queen of Versions.' 
 
 Soon afterwards, or about the same time, other Versions 
 were made in the West. It was not likely that the great 
 Latin Branch of the Church should continue long without 
 translations of her own. There appear to have been a large 
 number of translations made independently of one another, 
 from the expressions used by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. 
 ' There are almost as many standards of the text as there 
 
 11) of discordant Latin texts, but only one Syriac, so far as is 
 
 known. 
 
 3. Badness in Latin Texts is just what we should expect amongst 
 
 people who were poor Greek scholars, and lived at a distance. 
 
 The Syrians on the contrary were close to Judea, and Greek had 
 
 been known among them for centuries. It was not likely that within 
 
 reach of the Apostles and almost within their lifetime a Version 
 
 should be made so bad as to require to be thrown off afterwards. 
 
 As to internal evidence, the opinion of some experts is balanced by 
 
 the opinion of other experts (see Abbt Martin, " Des Versions Sy- 
 
 riennes," Fasc. 4, obligingly lent me by Dr. Scrivener). The position of 
 
 the Peshito as universally received by Syrian Christians, and believed to 
 
 date back to the earliest times, is not to be moved by mere conjecture, 
 
 and a single copy of another Version. The Abbfe Martin, after minute 
 
 examination, assigns the Curetonian to the opening of seventh century. 
 
 * Euseb., " H. E.," iv., 22, roS SvpuzcoD tirayyiXi'oK. 
 ^ Mill, " Prolegomena," p. cxxvii, o Svpo;. 
 ' Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," pp. 312, 321-4. 
 
 * Bishop Ellicott, " On Revision," pp. 26, 27, quoted by Dean 
 Burgon, " The Revision Revised," p. 9. The Peshito omits the 2nd 
 Ep. of St. Peter, the 2nd and 3rd of St. John, the Epistle of Jude and 
 the Revelation. MSS. exist from early in Cent. V. 
 
76 
 
 BEFORE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 are manuscripts,' said St. Jerome.' And St. Augustine 
 speaks of ' the infinite variety of Latin translations,' and 
 again of ' the multitude of translators.* ' Both of those great 
 Fathers tell of the un trustworthiness of the Versions. And 
 no wonder. Whilst in Syria Greek was well understood, 
 and it must have been easy there to get at the autographs 
 themselves, or at excellent copies made directly from the 
 autographs, in Italy, Africa, and in the other parts of the West, 
 accurate acquaintance with Greek was comparatively rare, 
 and the distance must have led to a large crop of mistakes. 
 Much obscurity hangs over the old Latin Versions : but it 
 appears probable that they included three groups, African, 
 European, and Italian. The Italian was preferred by St. 
 Augustine.' 
 
 Later than the Syrian and Latin translations, but probably 
 dating back as far as the end of the Second Century,* we find 
 the Memphitic and Thebaic Versions. Alexandria very soon 
 became one of the most active centres of Christian teaching. 
 Philosophy and Christianity there came into collision. 
 
 ' "Prefatio ad Damasum :" 'Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est 
 adhibenda, respondeant quibus : tot enim sunt exeniplaria pene quot 
 codices.' 
 
 ^ "De Doctrina Christiana," ii., ii, 15. He speaks again and again 
 of ' diversitates inteqjretuni,' and so forth. 
 
 ' " Old Latin Biblical Texts," i., Introduction, p. xxx, by Professor 
 Wordsworth, who adopts the classification of Westcott and Hort. Pro- 
 fessor Sanday, in " Some Further Remarks on the Corbey St. James 
 (ff.)," No. XI. of the Oxford "Studia Biblica," p. 236, which he has 
 courteously sent me, considers that there were two fundamental main 
 stocks the African and the European. The f family, otherwise called 
 Italian, the Professor supposes, after scholarly and minute analysis, to be 
 a revision of the European. Dr. Hort too considers the Italian class to 
 consist of Revisions. 
 
 ♦ Bishop Lightfoot, in Scrivener's "Plain Introduction," p. 371- 
 
 EARLY VERSIONS. 
 
 77 
 
 i 
 
 The Memphitic, or Bahiric, sometimes but with not so 
 much propriety called the Coptic, Version was the produc- 
 tion of Lower Egypt. It is, speaking broadly, a fair render- 
 ing of the Greek, but generally agrees with B and N and 
 the few MSS of that class. It omits the Apocalypse. 
 
 The Thebaic or Sahidic, was the Version of Upper Egypt. 
 This translation is generally of a character similar to the 
 Memphitic, but having had its field away from Alexandria, 
 does not resemble the class of MSS just mentioned so much 
 as "its neighbour does. The Apocalypse appears not to have 
 formed part of it. 
 
 ' Alexandria may be called the mother of systematic theo- 
 logical science.' ' Situate near to an isthmus uniting two 
 continents and dividing two seas, from a commanding posi- 
 tion of unrivalled convenience it attracted to itself the litera- 
 ture of East and West. Greek language and art had settled 
 down with a ' remarkable after-growth ' into what was termed 
 Alexandrinism.* Asia contributed much of her dreamy 
 philosophy. The traditions of Egyptian lore had not 
 perished. There flourished here a colony of Jews so strong 
 and so greatly Hellenized that they required a translation 
 for themselves of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.' Arid 
 as the instance of Philo shews, they had learned to mingle 
 a tone of Platonism with their Jewish belief. 
 
 It was not unnatural therefore that the celebrated Catecheti- 
 cal School should rise in such a place. Alexandria was soon 
 known as one of the headquarters of the Early Church. 
 
 ' Bishop Chr. Wordsworth, " Church History to Council of Nicaea," 
 p. 251. 
 
 ^ See Mommsen's " History of Rome," vol. iv. pp. 575, 6. 
 
 ' The Septuagint, from the seventy-two translators, six for each 
 tribe. 
 
78 
 
 BEFORE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 From the time of St. Mark, said to have been the first bishop, 
 to the middle of the second century when the school 
 emerged into celebrity under Pantaenus, Christianity was 
 active there. And it was only to be expected, that as the 
 philosophy of the period had in Gnosticism already simu- 
 lated to some extent the form of Christianity, so it would 
 now pursue a second course of action, and would in the 
 next place endeavour to modify the Faith from within the 
 Church. 
 
 Such is the probable account of the rise of Origenism ; 
 and though Origen was no Arian, yet a later offshoot of the 
 same great stock was found in Arianism. And no one can 
 wonder if a line of inferior texts can be traced — with a class 
 of readings which were afterwards thrown aside in the 
 Church — from Origen onwards till the time of the close of 
 the Arian heresy. Debased doctrine, and readings of Holy 
 Scripture afterwards to be rejected, would naturally go hand 
 in hand. 
 
 The employment of corrupt manuscripts has been detected 
 in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, the immediate 
 predecessor of Origen in the Catechetical School, by Dean 
 Burgon. The Dean has produced Clement's quotation of 
 fifteen verses (Mark x. 17-31), and discovers in the 297 
 words of them 112 variations from the Received Text, or a 
 discordance reaching to 38 per cent.' Origen must have 
 used several copies and of various kinds.' Indeed, it is very 
 questionable whether he did not execute an edition, or 
 
 ' The same passage differs from Westcott and Hort's Text in 130 
 words, or 44 per cent. See Burgon, " The Revision Revised," pp. 
 
 326-8. 
 
 =" Abp. Laurence. " Remarks on the Classification of MSS. adopted 
 
 by Griesbach," chap, iii., iv., Appendix. 
 
 
 SEMI-SCEPTICAL SCHOOL. 
 
 79 
 
 recension, of the works of the Evangelists and Apostles. It 
 is certain that he did something like this upon the Old 
 Testament, and there is a probability that at least to some 
 extent he continued the same mode of treatment on to the 
 New.' His authority was widely venerated and followed in 
 later times.' He was a copious and precise commentator 
 upon Holy Scripture, From numerous facts of history, he 
 may be said to have founded a School. 
 
 Among those whom we know unfavourably at this period 
 was Hesychius, probably an Egyptian bishop, who is said by 
 St. Jerome to have introduced bad alterations into copies 
 which went by his name. Another is Lucian, presbyter of 
 Antioch, against whom the same charge is made.' Again, 
 Pamphilus, bishop of Caesarea, the great friend of Eusebius, 
 from whom the latter took his second name (Eusebius Pam- 
 phili) and who set up the famous library at Caesarea, copied 
 out the works of Origen, and kept them there. He was 
 
 ' Origen, on Matt. xix. 19. He speaks of the disagreement of the 
 copies, lie Tr^vra ra Kara Mar6»aior /i^ avviluv dU»;Xoic, o\iomz i^ ica! 
 ra Kara rk Xo.^rd Ei.ayy£X«,. He adds that he has corrected in the 
 Old Testament from other copies, keeping to their consentient testi 
 mony, and has put asterisks vi-here the Hebrew did not give the expres- 
 sion, not liking to expunge entirely, and leaving others to adopt his 
 reading or not, as they thought fit. 
 
 ^ Burgon, " Last Twelve Verses," p. 97 ; "The Revision Revised," 
 p. 292. Cook, " The Revised Version," pp. 155-7. "Letter to Bp. of 
 London." 
 
 ' "Prrefatio ad Damasum." See also Jerome, "Catalogus Scrip- 
 torum Ecclesiasticorum," p. 77. Cook, "Revised Version," p. 152 
 note. St. Jerome tells us that three editions of the Old Testament 
 existed, viz., one of the Septuagint by Hesychius, which was followed 
 m Egypt ; another by Lucian, which was used from Antioch to Con- 
 stantinople ; and the third in Palestine, derived from Origen, and pub- 
 lished by Pamphilus and Eusebius. " Prafatio in Librum Paralipo- 
 menon." Bingham, xiv. 3, 17. 
 
8o 
 
 BEFORE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 said by his disciple and friend ' to have surpassed all of 
 Eusebius' contemporaries in disinterested study of the Holy 
 Scriptures, and in untiring and loving toil in anything that 
 he undertook.' ' Records of his labours undergone in con- 
 junction with Eusebius still remain.' Pierius, a disciple of 
 Origen, is also known as a diligent student of Holy Scrip- 
 ture,' and to have had, as well as Origen, copies that were 
 called by his name.* He was the teacher of Pamphilus, 
 Head of the School in Alexandria, and not wholly orthodox.' 
 So we are brought from Origen to Eusebius. And indeed, 
 the veneration and affection entertained by the latter for the 
 great teacher has been expressed by him frequently in his 
 history. Caesarea was the adopted home of the latter days of _ 
 Origen. He must have spent most of his last twenty years 
 in that city. It was his refuge after troubles in Alexandria : 
 there he was at length ordained. His spirit must have lived 
 on amongst his admirers : and in Eusebius of Csesarea we 
 see a virtual successor to his main opinions and tenets.' 
 ' Euseb., "H. E." " De Martyr. Palxst.," p. il. Scrivener, 
 
 " Plain Introduction," pp. 5>2, 3- „ ^ c -a ,„^ 
 
 " «• Codex Friderico-Augustanus," subscription to Book of Ezra and 
 
 Esther. 
 
 ' Euseb., "H.E.,"vii., 32- . , 
 
 . Jerome on Matt. xxiv. 36 ; Gal. iii. i. See Scrivener, Plain 
 
 '"ltus'et"*"'H.^£" vii. 32. Routh, "Reliqui. Sacr.." iii., Pp. 
 
 "^;rme." Contra Rufinum." vol. i.. § 8. Cook. " Revised Ver- 
 sion " P 168. Eusebius must have been a great student of Holy Scr.p- 
 i°e' \ is to him that we owe the ' Eusebian Canons, and as is pro- 
 labie a o the so-called • Ammonian Sections.' Fau t being found with 
 Tat an's " Diatessaron," because he omitted parts of the Gospels. Am- 
 lols tried to construct a Harmony by arranging the other Gospels in 
 para lei columns with the First, and cut them up into sections mod 
 Tbring them into parallelism with St. Matthew. The particulars of his 
 
 I 
 
 PRODUCTION OF A VITIATED TEXT. 
 
 81 
 
 But during the lifetime of these men a catastrophe 
 occurred which must have affected very greatly the trans- 
 mission of the Holy Scriptures. The persecution of Diocle- 
 tian and Galerius, notwithstanding the care taken and the 
 firmness shewn even unto death, must have caused the de- 
 struction of a large number of manuscripts. Hesychius, 
 Lucian, and Pamphilus suffered martyrdom. And after the 
 storm passed over, there must have been a serious lack of 
 copies of the Holy Scriptures for use in the Church, espe- 
 cially where the large increase of converts added to the 
 number of congregations, and caused the building of fresh 
 churches. 
 
 Towards the end of this long period of history, and whilst 
 Constantine was in the midst of his Semiarian stage, he 
 gave the celebrated order to Eusebius, probably between 
 A.D. 330 and 340,' to send him fifty magnificent copies of 
 the Holy Scriptures. They were to be written on the best 
 vellum by skilful and accomplished penmen, and in a form 
 
 Sections seem to have perished : but Eusebius tells us (Epist. ad Car- 
 pianum. init.) that he himself took the hint from Ammonius. and so 
 constructed his ten Canons, and as it appears the Ammonian Sections. 
 He cut up the Gospels into these Sections. St. Matthew containing 355, 
 St. Mark 233 (or more), St. Luke 342, St. John 232. The Gospels ran 
 continuously throughout, but the Sections marked in the margin afforded 
 a power of reference, and the Canons or Tables supplied an Index accor- 
 ding to which the parallel Sections could be brought together. The first 
 Canon gives 71 places in which all four Evangelists combine : the next 
 three, where three agree, (2) Matt., Mark. Luke ; (3) Matt., Luke, John; 
 (4) Matt.. Mark, John : the next five, where two coalesce ; and the last 
 supplies 251 places peculiar to some one or other of the Evangelists. A 
 reference to the Canon was given in the margin under the number of 
 the Section, thus: ifi. See Burgon, "Last Twelve Verses," pp. 
 125-132, 295-312. Scrivener, pp. 56-62. 
 ' Cook, " Revised Version," p. 160. 
 
 G 
 
82 
 
 BEFORE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 well fitted for use. Orders were at the same time issued to the 
 Governor of the province to supply the materials for the 
 work, which was to be accomplished with all possible speed. 
 Two carriages were placed at the disposal of Eusebius for 
 conveying the copies to Constantinople, and he sent them 
 off soon under the charge of a deacon.^ 
 
 Now there are various reasons for supposing that B and 
 t< were amongst these fifty manuscripts. They are referred 
 by the best judges to about the period of Constantine's 
 letter, to speak generally. In TischendorFs opinion, which 
 is confirmed by Dr. Scrivener,' the scribe of B wrote six 
 ' conjugate leaves' of K. These manuscripts are unrivalled 
 for the beauty of their vellum and for their other grandeur, 
 and are just what we should expect to find amongst such as 
 would be supplied in obedience to an imperial command, 
 and executed with the aid of imperial resources. They are 
 also, as has been already stated, sister manuscripts, as may 
 be inferred from their general resemblance in readings. 
 They abound in omissions, and show marks of such care- 
 lessness as would attend an order carried out with more 
 
 ' Eusebius sent them, rpurwd rat rtrpaisah. " Vit. Const.," iv. 37. 
 There are three interpretations of these words: (i) ' in triple or qua- 
 druple sheets,' in that case it would have been probably rpiirXoa >ca. 
 rtrpairXoa : (2) ' written in three or four vertical columns respectively 
 (Canon Cook), which would exactly describe H and B, only a preposition 
 would be wanted to turn the adjectival into an adverbial expression : 
 (3) combined with ntvHico.ra aai^ana Iv lifSifMuc lyKaTaaKivoii (c. 36). 
 • we sent abroad the collections [of writings] in richly adorned cases, 
 three or four in a case' (Archdeacon Palmer, quoted by Dr. Scnvener). 
 After examining the letters, I am convinced that my friend Archdeacon 
 Palmer is right. See Cook, " Revised Version," p. 162, 3 J Scnvener, 
 
 p. 513, note. „, . . „ 
 
 » Scrivener. "Plain Introduction." p. 92. "Christian Remem- 
 brancer," October, 1867. 
 
 PREVALENCE OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT. 83 
 
 
 \ 
 
 than ordinary expedition. And even the corrector,' who 
 always followed the copyist, did his work with similar care- 
 lessness to the scribe whom he was following.' Besides 
 which, it is expressly stated in N that it was collated with 
 a very old manuscript corrected by Pamphilus after the 
 Hexapla of Origen.' And Caesarea was the place where 
 manuscripts of Pamphilus and Origen would be found. 
 
 There is therefore very considerable foundation for the 
 opinion entertained by many that these two celebrated 
 jnanuscripts owe their execution to the order of Constantine, 
 and show throughout the effects of the care of Eusebius, and 
 the influence of Origen, whose works formed the staple of 
 the Library of Pamphilus, in the city where they were most 
 likely written.* 
 
 Such was probably the parentage, and such the produc- 
 tion of these two celebrated manuscripts, which are the main 
 exponents of a form of Text differing from that which has 
 come down to us from the Era of Chrysostom, and has since 
 that time till very recent years been recognized as mainly 
 supreme in the Church. And the question arises, which of 
 the two was the generally accredited Text in the period which 
 has just passed under review. 
 
 I. Now it must first be remembered that the traces of 
 corruption were very widely spread in the first ages of the 
 Church. It was impossible but that oral transmission from 
 one to another, inaccuracy and unskilfulness in writing, de- 
 
 ' Stop9<jtTri(. 
 
 ' Tischendorf. " Novum Testamentum Vaticanum," Prolegomena, 
 xxiv. Cook, " Revised Version," p. 174. 
 
 ' Subscriptions to Ezra and Esther. It is true that these are in a hand 
 of the seventh century. Scrivener. "Plain Introd.." p. 53, note. 
 
 * Dean Burgon however does notagree with this conclusion, but places 
 N at least half a century after B. " Last Twelve Verses," pp. 293, 4. 
 
84 
 
 BEFORE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 fective apprehension of the Faith, and unbelief m various . 
 phases and degrees, must have given rise to a prohfic 
 progeny of error. Such indeed is the story that we hear m 
 many quarters. But meanwhile, the amazing health and 
 vigour of fresh Faithfulness in those early days found effect 
 in the tree, that though hidden in part at first amidst the 
 rank upgrowth of error shot out in course of time, and at 
 length permanently overtopped the stunted plants that were 
 
 doomed soon to decay. „ ^ , u t 
 
 2. Accordingly, in the next period we shall find the Tra- 
 ditional Text ere long indisputably in the ascendant. Now 
 how could it have been thus supreme, if it had no true 
 title? Unlawful usurpation must have been soon discovered. 
 The fact that the supremacy was acknowledged and not. 
 gainsaid, lays a heavy burden of proof upon those who, 
 fifteen centuries after, seek to question the right and deny 
 
 the sway. ^ . . ,^ 
 
 7. But there is remaining even now to us sufficient de- 
 monstration of the existence and use of the Traditional Text 
 in the first ages. The witness borne by the early Fathers to 
 controverted readings proves that they used Manuscripts 
 belonging to the Traditional Class which were much older 
 than any now in existence. Take, for example, fifteen pas- 
 saees which are at the present time under discussion, and 
 the following Fathers are found to testify upon them to the 
 Traditional readings --Ignatius (x), Papias (i). Justin 
 Martyr (s). Iren^us (6), Tertullian (7). Iheophilus of 
 
 . The passages are, Ma... i. .8; i.,2S; v. 22; v. 44; ^^ ^' ^ 
 vi 20- XVLV20; Luke ii. 14; xxii. 43. 44; xxn.. 34: xm... 45; «'v 
 To; JohnHi-'is/v. 3. 4 ; ACs xx. 28; . Tin., iih .6^ J .V'j;:;! 
 al-^os. entirely Dean Burgon's quo.at.ons. It .s hard to see how any 
 such support can be adduced for the readings of B and n. 
 
 
 PREVALENCE OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT. 85 
 
 Antioch (i), Hegesippus (i), Athenagoras (i), Vincentius (i), 
 Marcion (i), Clement of Alexandria (3), Hippolytus (6), 
 Acta Pilati (2), Origen (11), Dionysius of Alexandria (3), 
 Apostolical Constitutions (6), Ps. Tatian (2), Cyprian (i), 
 Macarius Magnes (2), Julius Africanus (i), Titus of Bostra 
 (2), Archelaus with Manes (i), Ps. Justin (i), Clemen- 
 tine Homilies (i), Arius (i), Eusebius (9), Athanasius (8), 
 Aphraates the Persian (4), Didymus (10), Epiphanius (11), 
 Ephraem Syrus (6), Ps. Ephraem (i), Gregory Nazianzen 
 (9), Gregory of Nyssa (26), Basil (8), Cyril of Jerusalem (2), 
 Lucifer (2), and Leontius (i). That is to say, in 165 places 
 as relating to only 15 chance passages in Holy Scripture 
 Ecclesiastical Writers living before the Era of St. Chrysostom 
 are proved to have followed Manuscripts thus witnessing to 
 the Traditional Text. It should be borne in mind that it 
 was only at the close of this period that t^ and B, the two 
 oldest manuscripts now existing, were produced. 
 
 4. In a similar manner, the Peshito and Italic Versions 
 — including under the latter class the best of the Old Latin 
 Versions ' — were made two hundred years before those two 
 Manuscripts, and — especially the former — support the Tra- 
 ditional Text. Nor is occasional evidence subsequently 
 wanting in the Egyptian Versions which, as has been seen, 
 came out later in the same period. 
 
 There is therefore, as these specimens show, no warrant 
 for asserting that the Traditional Text is not traceable back 
 as far as the earliest age of the Church. The vestiges of it 
 in Ante-Nicene times are of a character agreeing with its 
 unquestionable ascendency in the future. 
 
 ' " August. De Doctr. Christ.," ii. § 15. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 history of the traditional text from the era of 
 st. chrysostom till the invention of printing. 
 
 The Great Patristic Era, Improvement in the Art 
 OF Transcribing. Ancient Libraries. Parallel 
 
 SUPPLIED BY THE LATE SETTLEMENT OF THE CaNON. 
 
 Age of Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers, and' 
 Lectionaries. Eventual supremacy of the Tra- 
 ditional Text. 
 
 THE period of history that we have just surveyed in 
 brief includes the early struggles of the Church. 
 Though there were Christians who had received in trans- 
 mission from the Apostles the Faith in its entirety and in its 
 varied life, and had learned to realize it, and were firm in 
 maintaining it, yet the Church had not yet come through- 
 out her length and breadth to understand and hold it in all 
 its proportion and detail. The work of the great men of the 
 time ' was to construct and not to define. And thus the 
 age was an age of research and thought, but at the same 
 time it was an age of freedom. The fabric of Christian 
 doctrine was not yet consolidated, though the elements 
 which had existed at first separately were already combined. 
 An era of speculation preceded an era of councils ; for it 
 was necessary that all the treasures of the Church should be 
 
 THE GREAT PATRISTIC ERA. 
 
 87 
 
 regarded in their various aspects before they could be rightly 
 arranged.' ' 
 
 But the period that immediately succeeded was vastly dif- 
 ferent. The world of the time had entered at least in name 
 into the Catholic Church. And with the disposition to 
 half-faith which it carried along with it, and which was 
 severely felt for at least two quarters of a century, it brought 
 besides a sense of law and rule and order, as well as also a 
 greater width of observation, and a desire of definition and 
 system and of more uniformity in ritual and belief. 
 
 This period was perhaps the most remarkable of all in 
 the history of the Church. Religious questions were the 
 great questions of the day : the most eminent writers of the 
 time were churchmen : and the subjects of their writings 
 ^ were those of the Catholic Faith. Their great object was to 
 
 I ascertain and unfold the exact lineaments of that which was 
 
 once for alP delivered to the saints. The Creeds and the 
 Canons of great Councils remain as the grand monuments 
 of their united labour. And the works of Athanasius, Cyril 
 of Jerusalem, Hilary, Basil, the Gregories, Ambrose, Chry- 
 sostom, Augustine, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the 
 Great, and others, (if we may mention also some of those 
 who immediately preceded this era) are as beacon-fires still 
 shining to later ages, and telling of the greatness of the men 
 who kindled them. 
 
 Another point in a sister field throws light upon the settle- 
 ment of the Sacred Text which must have silently been 
 effected at this time by the rejection of alien variations. 
 
 ' Westcott, " On the Canon of Holy Scripture," p. 406. 
 
 " St. Jude, p. 3. i'nral. " August. Contra Donatist.," i v. 24. 'Quod 
 universa tenet Ecclesia nee conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est, 
 non nisi auctoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur.' 
 
88 
 
 SINCE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 Classical literature was in the condition which always ensues 
 when a lengthened period of production is succeeded by a 
 time of rest. The treasures of the past are then stored, 
 studied, and regulated. The expressions of the old writers 
 are noted, their style is analysed, and commentators flourish 
 in congenial soil. It is a time of dictionaries and grammars. 
 Accordingly at this time Hesychius— a different man from 
 the Textual editor '—wrote his celebrated lexicon : and the 
 great Grammarians, Charisius, Diomedes, Donatus, and 
 Priscian, pursued their researches and built up their system. 
 And the stirring events of the world, under which literature 
 was surrendered to the studious few, who as time went on 
 worked more and more in retirement from the turmoil of 
 life, caused this period to be long protracted, so that it was 
 not till the eighth or ninth century that the system upon 
 which they laboured reached the measure of perfection that 
 it ultimately attained. 
 
 Thus with regard to punctuation. 'In the papyri of 
 Hyperides, there are no stops at all, in the Herculaneum 
 rolls exceeding few : Codd. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus . . . 
 have a single point here and there on a level with the letters, 
 and occasionally a very small break.' ' It was not till about 
 the seventh century, that the single point alone was used at 
 the head, middle, and foot of letters, to indicate a full-stop, 
 half-stop, or comma respectively. Points were afterwards 
 multiplical (::.,::) to express different powers. 'The 
 Greek interrogation (;) first occurs in the nmth century, 
 and (,) used as a stop a little later." In the early manu- 
 
 > Cf. Dr. Schmidt, in Smith's " Dictionary of Biography," s. v. 
 » See Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 46- ^, , „ , 
 
 • See Scrivener. " Plain Introduction." p. 47- " Globe Encyclo- 
 padia." s. v. ManuscripU. 
 
 \ 
 
 IMPROVEMENT IN THE ART OF TRANSCRIBING. 89 
 
 scripts, there is also no separation of space between the 
 words. 
 
 Again, Breathings do not occur in Greek Manuscripts of 
 the Holy Scriptures till the end of the seventh century, nor 
 indeed Accents. In the ninth century they are found, with 
 slight exception, but not affixed with accuracy. In the 
 seventh or eighth centuries breathings and accents were in- 
 serted in the older manuscripts, Yet they were said to have 
 been originally invented, or more probably reduced to system, 
 by. Aristophanes, librarian at Alexandria about 240 B.C.' 
 
 Besides this, the spelling in the early manuscripts shewed 
 a great defect in the art of expressing sounds by letters, and 
 a want of recognised system in the employment of adopted 
 methods. We find both rough variations of consonants," 
 and confusion between the several vowels and diphthongs.' 
 The latter peculiarity is so common that it has earned for 
 itself the special title of ' Itacism.' There is a tendency just 
 at the present day amongst editors to substitute some of 
 these ruder types of words for those which were previously 
 received, and which are more in accordance with the ortho- 
 graphy now accepted in Classical writings.* But surely this 
 is rather to roll back the wheels of progress. 
 
 So that it would appear that the Art of Writing manuscripts 
 did not reach anything like maturity till about the eighth 
 century. And this is, in truth, held to be the fact. It was 
 perfected in the Monasteries. The first care of St. Benedict 
 
 ' Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 44. 
 
 * Thus oi'Oiv for ovSip ; aapKtvoc for aapKtKng ; MaOOaiov for MarOaiov. 
 ' Thus lytipe or lyfipai ; iSete or e'lSiTt ; ira KavBriaufiax or KavGi'iaofiai. 
 
 Scrivener, p. 11. 
 
 * See " Prologomena " to Tischendorf, 8th edition by Dr. Caspar 
 Rene Gregory, pp. 71-116. Also Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," pp. 
 10, 12, 14. 
 
90 
 
 SINCE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 was that there should be a library in each newly formed 
 monastery. At Monte Cassino there was a large library 
 which was burnt by the Saracens in the ninth century. 
 Bobbio was famous for its palimpsests. St. Gall was ^ also 
 widely known. The Irish Missionaries, such as Columba, 
 Aidan, Boniface, Kilian, were great cultivators of the art, 
 and indeed the Irish, like the Lombards and Anglo-Saxons, 
 had a style of their own.' The beautiful manuscripts, now 
 preserved as invaluable treasures, shew the pitch of perfec- 
 tion to which the art was brought in later times. Manuscripts 
 formed the field of painting : and the schools of modem 
 painters issued originally from the bodies of artistic 
 transcribers. 
 
 But besides the learning, study, and ability spent by the 
 Churchmen of the era succeeding the Arian struggle, the 
 men of that time had special advantages which have not de- 
 scended to our own age. Owing to the jealous and coura- 
 geous care of the Church, a large number of manuscripts 
 must have survived the persecution of Diocletian. These 
 must have been copied, re-copied, and copied again and 
 again, and indeed large libraries existed in various places. 
 
 The libraries of Alexandria were especially celebrated. In 
 the time of Ptolemy Euergetes, the library in the Bruchium 
 contained 490,000 volumes, and that at Serapeum 40,000. 
 The Emperor Aurelian in 273 a.d. destroyed the Bruchium, 
 and probably one of the libraries perished at that time. But 
 though the Serapeum was afterwards pulled down by the 
 command of Theodosius, the libraries in that city were en- 
 larged and increased till the troubles in connection with the 
 Saracens ensued, and they perished in a.d. 640. 
 
 ' Westwood, " Palaeographia Sacra Pictoria." Silvestre's " Paleo- 
 graphy," ed. Sir F. Madden. 
 
 ANCIENT LIBRARIES. 
 
 91 
 
 J 
 
 A library was formed at Constantinople by command of 
 Constantine, and though small at first, it must have grown at 
 length to a great size. Burnt in 477 under the Emperor 
 Zeno, it was again restored. And as the imperial library, it 
 enjoyed a high reputation in the middle ages till the capture 
 ' of the city by the Turks. 
 
 The library of Pamphilus at Caesarea is said to have been 
 increased by Eusebius to 30,000 volumes. This library also 
 fell a victim to the Saracens. In later times, Buda under 
 Matthaeus Corvinus is reported to have possessed 50,000 
 manuscripts, till the city sank into the hands of the Turks 
 in 1527, when the library was destroyed. 
 
 It seems surely clear from these considerations that we of 
 the present time are so inferior to the Churchmen of the 
 age of St. Chrysostom and of the succeeding ages, both in 
 the furniture of our 'apparatus criticus'and in the knowledge 
 of early manuscripts, that it would be rash in the extreme to 
 overrule the verdict which they passed. And this conclu- 
 sion is surely strengthened almost to demonstration, when we 
 take into consideration the overruling care of the Holy 
 Ghost in the Church. For the Church does not act by 
 Councils alone, or solely in Canons or Creeds, but expresses 
 her decisions in the universal operations of her common life. 
 When therefore we are told, and find the information to be 
 true as we shall see, that the text used at Constantinople 
 and by St. Chrysostom became 'the standard New Testa- 
 ment of the East,' ' and 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,' we find ourselves face 
 to face with a silent action of the Church in one of her 
 
 ' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 143; vol. i., p. 550. 
 
92 
 
 SmCE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 grandest periods, and we cannot but yield to her virtual 
 decision. 
 
 ' Slow experience and spiritual instinct decided the prac- 
 tical judgment of the Church. Step by step the books which 
 were stamped with Apostolic authority were separated from 
 the mass of other works which contained the traditions or 
 opinions of less authoritative teachers. Without controversy 
 and without effort " the Gospel and the Apostles " were recog- 
 nised as inspired sources of truth in the same sense as " the 
 Law and the Prophets." In both cases the judgment ap- 
 peared as the natural manifestation of the life of the Chris- 
 tian body, and not as a logical consequence of definite 
 principles.' ' 
 
 This striking description by Dr. Westcott of the settle- 
 ment of the Canon of Holy Scripture is more than illustra- 
 tive of the manner, in which the form of text, which now 
 asserted itself victoriously and for ever, must have come to 
 be generally acknowledged as supreme. The other species 
 of readings went down before it. Practically and as far as 
 recorded use goes, though the Codex Beza (D) was written 
 later, the Western text vanishes. 'The most remarkable 
 fact, standing out in striking contrast to the previous state 
 of things, is the sudden collapse of the Western text after 
 Eusebius.' ' The Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts had ap- 
 peared, but writers are not found to have quoted them, and 
 they have had in succeeding centuries so far as we know only 
 a follower here and there, who again are left successively in 
 rejection and solitude. 
 
 Indeed, so far does this conclusion carry us, that we are 
 led to call in question the excessive value assigned by some 
 
 • Westcott, " On the Canon," p. 350. 
 
 ' Westcott and Hort, "Introduction," p. 141. 
 
 \ 
 
 ;i 
 
 J 
 1 
 
 ■% 
 
 SETTLEMENT OF THE CANON. 
 
 93 
 
 Textualists to the mere antiquity of manuscripts. And 
 taking into account the growth of the art of transcribing, and 
 the lapse of time during the gradual expulsion of error from 
 the text of the New Testament, we are driven to the conclu- 
 sion, that the relative value of manuscripts is not determined 
 by rude antiquity ; but that a manuscript of the seventh or 
 eighth century, or even of later production, may be superior 
 to one of the fourth or fifth, especially if the earlier bear indi- 
 cations of suspicious parentage, or be produced under he- 
 retical associations. Such a manuscript though inferior to 
 another in actual age, yet may deliver a testimony which is 
 virtually much older : because it may witness to Traditional 
 teachings which may be supported by evidence dating back 
 to t"he earliest times. We can understand some German 
 critics, who deeply learned as they are, have no sense of any 
 Catholic authority • or of any guidance of the Church by the 
 Holy Spirit, and who are haunted with the vision of a 
 Church of the future constructed by pressing latent essence 
 out of texts of Scripture and evolving hidden truths out of 
 germs concealed within the secret consciousness of genius, 
 which shall not have too much connection with the past, 
 paying no attention to the silent condemnation of their 
 theory passed by fifteen centuries. With them antiquity is 
 valued according to its distance from now, and its nearness 
 to the original autographs. But when the closest proximity 
 attainable is a matter of nearer three than two centuries, and 
 the Church of the time, with advantages with which those 
 of the present day cannot be compared for a moment, has in 
 
 ' Dr. Michelsen however, writing at Leyden, expressly rejects the ex- 
 treme Textual theory because it controvenes the principle, Quod semper. 
 
 quod ubigue, ab quod omnibus. 
 1884. 
 
 " Theologisch Tijdschrift," Jan., 
 

 94 
 
 SINCE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 tacit but consistent action pronounced upon the question, 
 is it not difficult to see how those who acknowledge the in- 
 fluence of the Holy Ghost in the Church can follow such 
 guidance, except from omission to observe the wide-spread- 
 ing reach of this truth and its application to the problem 
 before us? If such a judgment is universally accepted as 
 valid in the case of the Canon, why has it not equal force 
 in the determination of the Sacred Text ? 
 
 The earliest fact of great importance in the history of this 
 
 period was one of striking interest in the spread of the Church. 
 
 In the fourth century the Goths, upon their advance from the 
 
 wilds of the north to the fair south, were dwelling in Moesia, 
 
 and in one of their raids into the Roman empire carried off 
 
 a Cappadocian family. Ulfilas was afterwards bom amongst 
 
 them, and Gothic became his native language. Brought 
 
 up as a Christian, he and other Goths were forced to leave 
 
 their native country by persecutions on account of their 
 
 religion, and they went under the leadership of Ulfilas 
 
 within the confines of the Roman Empire. He was after- 
 
 wards consecrated bishop by Eusebius, and passed the 
 
 first seven years of his episcopate amongst the Goths in 
 
 succession to Theophilus their first bishop. The last 
 
 thirty-three he spent within the borders of the Roman 
 
 Empire, where he migrated again with a larger number of 
 
 Goths.' 
 
 Finding the need of the Holy Scriptures in his native 
 tongue, he translated into Gothic the Septuagint Version 
 of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New. He was 
 an Arian, but his Version is nearer to the Traditional Text 
 than to any other. Afterwards when the Goths were in 
 
 ' Max MUller, " Lectures on the Science of Language," 4th edition, 
 pp. 188-192. 
 
 GOTHIC VERSION, A, AND C. 
 
 95 
 
 Italy, it was corrupted to some extent from Latin sources.* 
 Its date is about 360 a.d. 
 
 Towards the end of this century, or at the beginning of 
 the fifth,' the great Codex Alexandrinus (A), now in the 
 British Museum, was produced, afterwards the splendid gift 
 of Cyril Lucas, Bishop of Alexandria, to Charles I. This 
 great manuscript is admitted by Westcott and Hort to repre- 
 sent fairly the text used by th§ great writers of its time. It 
 may be regarded as the oldest, and yet an independent, ex- 
 ponent of the Traditional Text as eventually received.' The 
 divergence between A on the one side and B and N on the 
 other, if we may regard those discordant witnesses as one, is 
 greatest in the Gospels. In the Epistles there is much more 
 agreement between them. 
 
 At some time in the fifth century the Codex Ephraemi 
 (C), now at Paris, was executed. It is a palimpsest written 
 over in the twelfth century with some of the works of St. 
 Ephraem the Syrian, according to the custom introduced 
 from very early times on account of the scarcity of vellum.* 
 
 ' Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 405. 
 
 * ' I ventufe to maintain that the limits on both sides may be A.D. 
 380 and A.D. 410, and that the earlier date is more nearly correct.' — 
 Cook, " Revised Version," p. 185. The vi^hole chapter should be con- 
 sidered. Dr. Scrivener is inclined to refer A to the beginning, or else 
 the middle of the fifth century — ' certainly not much later than the end 
 of the fourth century.'—" Plain Introduction," p. 97. Cf. Hort, "In- 
 troduction," p. 75, ' referred by the best judge* to the fifth century.' 
 
 ' ' The serious deflections of A from the " Textus Receptus," amount 
 in all to only 842 (in ill pages) : whereas in C they amount to 1798 : 
 in B. to 2370: in N, to 3392: in D, to 4697.' — Burgon, "Revision Re- 
 vised," p. 14. My own figures — over a smaller area — are similar. 
 
 * Palimpsests were used in the days of Cicero and Catullus. Cicero, 
 "Fam."vii. p. 18,2; "Catullus," xxii. 5. Plutarch, "Moralia," ii. 
 504 D, 779 C. 
 
96 
 
 SINCE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 The original letters were in Bentley's time so difficult to de- 
 cipher, that Wetstein, to whom Bentley paid ;i^so to collate 
 this manuscript, complained that it took him two hours to 
 make out one page. The writing was renewed in 1834 by 
 chemicals. This manuscript consists of fragments through- 
 out the New Testament, amounting nearly to two-thirds of 
 the whole. It lies as to character of text about midway be- 
 tween A and B, inclining somewhat to the latter.' 
 
 Various indications, occurring as if by chance here and there 
 amidst discussions, prove that the learned men of this period 
 were quite alive to the variations of manuscripts, and exer- 
 cised critical judgment in deciding between conflicting read- 
 ings. Thus St. Basil at Caesarea, misled by his authorities 
 as to the correct reading at the opening of the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, refers to the oldest of his manuscripts.' Again, 
 Victor of Antioch,in the eariier half of the fifth century, tells 
 how not finding the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel 
 in several copies, he searched amongst accurate ones, where 
 he found it, and that he especially discovered the passage in 
 a Palestinian exemplar of St. Mark's Gospel' And Severus, 
 at the end of the same century, describes how 'being at Con- 
 stantinople he heard the passage about the piercing of our 
 Lord's side, as supposed to be related by St. Matthew 
 
 ' Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 120. Dean Burgon, whilst 
 preferring it to B and H, suggests that it was used as a palimpest because 
 it was thought to be of slight value (" Revision Revised," p. 325). It is 
 hard to conceive such an use being made of it, if it had been rated high. 
 It was also corrected at different times by three revisers, -another proof 
 of want of confidence in it. 
 
 » Burgon, " Last Twelve Verses," p. 93- " Basil," opp. i., p. 254 E, 
 
 ' Burgon, "Last Twelve Verses," p. 64. Appendix E., p. 288, 
 where the Scholion is given in full. 
 
 
 ". 
 
 
 THE FATHERS NOT UNCRITICAL. 
 
 97 
 
 • 
 
 'i 
 
 strenuously discussed : whereupon had been produced a 
 splendid copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, traditionally said to 
 have been found with the body of the Apostle Barnabas in 
 the island of Cyprus in the time of the Emperor Zeno (a.d, 
 474-491); and preserved in the palace with superstitious 
 reverence in consequence. It contained no record of the 
 piercing of the Saviour's side.' ' It will be observed in these 
 instances that nothing is said about any individual opinion 
 as to what ought to be the reading, but that the question is 
 treated as exclusively one of authority, — what in those days 
 when many ancient copies existed was the verdict of the 
 oldest and best manuscripts.' 
 
 It will be remarked that up to the end of the fifth century 
 we have four large manuscripts. Of these K alone supplies 
 the entire New Testament. Of A the greater part of St. 
 Matthew has perished, that is, as far as xxv. 6, about two 
 chapters in St. John, and about eight in the Second Epistle 
 to the Corinthians.' B is perfect (except for omissions) 
 down to Heb. ix. 14, not including the Pastoral Epistles, 
 which were often placed after the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 that thus came near the middle of St. Paul's Epistles. C is 
 full of large gaps, and, as has been already stated, contains 
 not two-thirds of the whole. Besides these, five other frag- 
 
 ' Burgon, "Last Twelve Verses," p. 315, who refers to Asseraanni, 
 " Bibl. Orient.," ii., pp. 81, 82. 
 
 ° See also Lee "On Inspiration," Appendix G, who quotes Julius 
 Africanus, a.d. 220 (Routh, " Rell. Sacr.," ii., p. 226), Cassiodorus, A.D. 
 469, " De Institutione Divinarum Literarum," Pref. ii., 538, St Augus- 
 tine (besides as already quoted), "De Consensu Evangelistarum," ii., 
 14, iii. 7, adding that ' similar illustrations of the critical spirit with which 
 the Fathers conducted their critical investigations might be multiplied 
 to any extent,' 
 
 ' From John vi. 50 to viii. 52, and from 2 Cor. iv. 13 to xii. 6. 
 
 H 
 
98 
 
 SINCE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 ments ' are extant from the fourth and fifth centuries, of which 
 Q is the largest, containing fragments of 235 verses from the 
 two last Gospels.' 
 
 It should be remarked, that these are only the earliest 
 according to actual discovery. It is quite within the bounds 
 of possibility that research may bring even older manu- 
 scripts to light. The cases of K and of the Codex Rossanensis 
 (I), which was found at Rossano in Calabria in 1879 by 
 Messrs. Oscar von Gebhart and Adolf Hamach, seem to 
 point to some increase accruing to our transcriptional 
 treasures. 
 
 It must also be remembered that some of the Versions are 
 older than any existing manuscripts that have fallen into our 
 hands. The Peshito probably dates ' from early in the secopd 
 century : the old Latin Versions from nearly the same anti- 
 quity : the Memphitic and Thebaic from the end of the same 
 century : the Bashmuric, another Egyptian Version, from the 
 next : and the Curetonian Syriac, of which the date is uncer- 
 tain, must have been made before the Traditional Text was 
 generally received, and indeed as would appear probable, 
 about the latter end of the third or the beginning of the 
 fourth centuries.* Next we come to the Gothic, a contem- 
 porary of B and ^f, though a few years their junior. And 
 the Vulgate meets us about a.d. 384 or 385. 
 
 In 382, Pope Damasus, in consequence of the variety of 
 
 » Viz., N*, T and T*, which are parts of the same MS., I', I', 
 and Q. 
 
 ' Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 138. See below. Chapter 
 VIII. 
 
 ' See above, p. 74. 
 
 * I hazard the suggestion that it was made under the influence of the 
 copies of Lucian, with which St. Jerome finds so much fault. The 
 Curetonian shows great traces of Western corruption. 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 VERSIONS. 
 
 99 
 
 readings and the extensive corruption that prevailed in the 
 Old Latin copies, committed the revision of them to St. 
 Jerome. That great scholar and theologian entered upon 
 his work, which included the Old Testament as well as the 
 New, with great care and prudence, being anxious to make 
 as few alterations as possible. With his Latin copies he 
 compared some ancient Greek exemplars. He soon finished 
 the New Testament, but his translation of the Old was not 
 completed till the beginning of the next century, and was 
 not considered so successful as the former. By degrees his 
 translation won its way, and continued till the time of the 
 Council of Trent to be the recognised Version of the Western 
 Church. In obedience to a decree of that Council, a Re- 
 vision was made under Sixtus V., but was found so faulty, 
 that only two years afterwards the Clementine Bible was 
 issued under Clement VIII. (1592, a.d.), and has held its 
 place to the present day. 
 
 Besides these Versions, the New Testament was translated 
 into Armenian in the fifth century, soon after the Council of 
 Ephesus in a.d. 43 r ; into Georgian about the same time;' 
 and also into Ethiopian at a date which is so uncertain that 
 this Version has been assigned by Dillman to the fourth 
 century, and by Gildemeister and other Orientalists to the 
 sixth or seventh.' 
 
 In the sixth century the Cambridge Manuscript Codex 
 Bezae (D) was produced. It contains the Gospels and the 
 chief part of the Acts but with several omissions, and is one 
 of those which are called 'bilingual' manuscripts, that is, 
 
 ., i.^"" '^'''^"C Select Readings,"p. i8), shews this from the standard 
 History of Georgia," published at St. Petersburg in 1849, and other 
 authorities. 
 
 » Scrivener, "Plain Introduction, " p. 409. 
 
lOO 
 
 SINCE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 containing both a Greek and a Latin version. It is supposed 
 to represent the Western Text, and is extremely inaccurate 
 and full of interpolations. It is said to have six hundred 
 bold and extensive interpolations in the Acts alone.* Its 
 place in St. Paul's Epistles is considered to be filled by the 
 Codex Claromontanus, so called from having been found 
 at Clermont (D. of St. Paul), but as far as the Greek ver- 
 sion is concerned, much more correct than its sister. 
 
 To this time also is referred the Codex Rossanensis 
 (I), which contains the whole of St. Matthew, and St. Mark 
 down to xvi. 14, and is remarkable as the earliest MS. that 
 gives the doxology for the Lord's Prayer in St. Matthew.' 
 Also the Codex Laudianus (E of the Acts), now in the 
 Bodleian library, and various fragments, amongst which are 
 the palimpsest Z at Dublin, and others. 
 
 The seventh century does not appear to be rich in the 
 production of extant copies, unless it be at the end. But in 
 the eighth, ninth, and tenth they not only abound, but with 
 the exception of L, S of St. Luke, and A in St. Mark,' wit- 
 ness to a now settled agreement in the Traditional Text. 
 Perhaps the most noticeable amongst them is the Codex 
 Basiliensis (E) now at Basle, which is usually referred to the 
 eighth century, but is considered by Dean Burgon to belong 
 to the seventh.* 
 
 In the tenth century, cursive writing came into vogue, and 
 
 ' Scrivener, p. 126. . , „ u-» j 
 
 > But the Doxology has much earlier authority m the Peshito and 
 Thebaic, not to mention the Curetonian, in the Liturgies, and in the 
 Apostolic Constitutions, and the Teaching of the Apostles. See Malan, 
 " Select Readings," p. 26. And below. Appendix v. 
 ' Westcott and Hort, "Introduction," p. 171. ^^ 
 
 « Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 127. Burgon, "Guardian 
 newspaper, Jan. 29, 1873. See below. Chapter VIII. 
 
 .1 
 
 'i 
 
 i 
 
 UNCIALS AND CURSIVES. 
 
 lOI 
 
 was used thenceforwards down to the time when copying 
 gave way to printing. No less than 1997 cursive copies are 
 now known to exist in all kinds, that is, inclusive of Gospels, 
 Acts and Catholic Epistles, St. Paul, Apocalypse, and Lec- 
 tionaries of the Gospels and of the Apostles.' With hardly 
 any exception the Cursives witness to the Traditional Text. 
 Only a few, such as i, 33,' as well as 13, 69, 124, 346, 
 and a very few others here and there, follow B and t^. Thus 
 it would appear that the text of those Uncials was advocated 
 by a small minority, and that it was nevertheless condemned, 
 not because it was not known, but on account of its faulty 
 nature. 
 
 The question naturally arises. What is the value of the 
 Cursive Manuscripts ? They were produced so many cen- 
 turies after the Apostles' time, that serious doubts have been 
 entertained about their possessing any critical value at all. 
 
 Now a moderate application of the principle of Genealogy 
 here comes into action. The Cursive Manuscripts were the 
 representatives, not only of a long line of ancestors, but as 
 must follow from the circumstances attending them, of a long 
 line of respectable ancestors, whose character as revealed in 
 their extant descendants proves them not to have degene- 
 rated — speaking generally of them in the mass — in any very 
 considerable degree, unless it be in a few particulars. Their 
 overwhelming number supplies a presumption, and indeed 
 more than a presumption, that their ancestors were also 
 numerous. And their general agreement amongst themselves 
 proves that they express the settled conviction of the Church 
 of their time, whilst their consonance with the mass of the 
 
 * Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. xxx. 
 
 ' Only I and 33 are quoted by Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," 
 p. 171. 
 
t02 
 
 SINCE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 
 
 Uncials that went before them demonstrates their unbroken 
 unison with the ages that lately preceded them. 
 
 But to dream of arraying the Cursives as a body on the 
 one side against the Uncials as an army on the other would 
 be abhorrent to Textual Criticism, and such a notion could 
 only be suggested or imputed by those who are innocent of 
 the facts of the case as well as of the principles accepted by 
 Textual Critics. The Cursive Manuscripts, be it never for- 
 gotten, follow the main body of the Uncials with a very 
 remarkable unanimity. Always excepting some half-dozen — 
 those just mentioned — they bear generally the same wit- 
 ness. As exponents of the Traditional Text, they acquiesce 
 in the lead of the elder testimony which is supplied by Uncial 
 Manuscripts, Versions, and Fathers, and add confirmation to 
 what is otherwise attested. As well suppose that the rank 
 and file of the English Army may be drawn up against the 
 officers, as imagine a general conflict between the Cursives 
 and the Uncials. It should be remembered, though too much 
 stress must not be laid upon this truth, that in the age of the 
 Cursives the Art of Transcribing reached its highest point of 
 perfection. 
 
 It would not be right to leave this long period from the 
 Era of St Chrysostom, even in a short sketch like the pre- 
 sent, without lingering for a moment upon a very important 
 and peculiar class of Manuscripts. Of the Lectionaries the 
 number discovered and catalogued has now mounted up to 
 more than five hundred. These manuscripts date back at 
 least as far as the eighth century, and represent a tradition 
 much earlier than that 
 
 Lectionaries have evidently a peculiar value because of 
 their use in Public Worship, where they would be subjected 
 necessarily to continual criticism. Faults would be corrected, 
 
 LECTIONARIES. VERSIONS, AND FATHERS. 
 
 103 
 
 and a general accuracy ensured ; though no doubt such 
 
 errors as might happen to creep in would keep an obstinate 
 
 hold when once in possession. 
 
 As to Versions, there are two in Syriac to be noticed 
 
 since the beginning of the sixth century, and some of an un- 
 
 scientific order. That called the Jerusalem, of which only 
 
 one manuscript exists, dates back certainly as far as the sixth 
 
 and perhaps to the fifth century. A more important version 
 
 was the Philoxenian, or Harclean. This was made by 
 
 Polycarp, a Rural-Bishop (x«pfTr«oToc), for Xenaias or Phi- 
 
 loxenus, Monophysite Bishop of Mabug, or Hierapolis, in 
 
 A.D. 508. About a hundred years after (a.d. 616) it was 
 
 revised by Thomas of HarkeL ' It is probably the most 
 
 servile version of Scripture ever made.' ' The other Versions 
 
 are :— the Slavonic, of the ninth century j the Anglo-Saxon, 
 
 fi-om the eighth to the eleventh; a Frankish of the ninth ; two 
 
 Persic, of the Gospels only, and of uncertain date; and 
 
 some Arabic translations of small critical value. 
 
 The witness of the Fathers in the early part of this period 
 has been stated to be consentient, and to be consistently in 
 favour of the Traditional Text It has been calculated that 
 there are about a hundred Fathers who wrote before the pro- 
 duction of B, and about two hundred more till the end of 
 the sixth century. 
 
 We have now reached the era when printing was applied 
 to the New Testament, and when therefore the periods cease 
 during which materials were manufactured for the subsequent 
 use of Textual Criticism. 
 
 A few words in retrospect are here necessary. 
 
 The great feature in this period was the rise of the Tra- 
 ditional Te.xt into a predominance which was scarcely dis- 
 ' Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 328. 
 
I04 
 
 THE TRADITIONAL TEXT. 
 
 puted. Corruption of a manifold kind had been infused in 
 the earliest times into the Sacred Writings. When they 
 were hardly emerging from the rude depravation to which 
 they were subjected in many places, they experienced the 
 influence of a School of Semi-sceptical philosophy within 
 the Church, and a small Class of copies varying from the 
 Text afterwards accepted was produced in the times, if not 
 as it appears under the supervision, of a party that was not 
 wholly orthodox. Then ensued an era when the Faith of 
 the Church and the Holy Scriptures were subjected to long 
 and anxious consideration. The main features of the Faith 
 once delivered were defined in Creeds. No special enact- 
 ments embodying formal definition were made upon the 
 Canon or the Text of the Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless, 
 the number of genuine Books, and the true Form of Text, 
 were settled quietly and yet decisively. Divergent tongues 
 were scarcely heard afterwards except to be silenced. The 
 ' still small Voice ' was making Itself felt and acknowledged 
 throughout the whole Body, without rising into loud tones of 
 command, or causing laws to be written down in special or 
 general legislation. 
 
 CHAPTER VHI. 
 
 MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 
 
 I. Manuscripts {a) Uncial, {b) Cursive; H. Lec- 
 
 TIONARIES AND LITURGIES j HI. VERSIONS; IV. ECCLE- 
 SIASTICAL Writers. 
 
 THE research of modern times has collected, as has 
 been already seen, a vast amount of varied evidence 
 upon the Text of the New Testament. We may best 
 arrange their evidence under four Heads, viz., Manuscripts 
 Uncial and Cursive, Lectionaries and Liturgies, Versions, 
 and the Quotations that are found in Ecclesiastical Writers. 
 
 I. {a) Uncial Manuscripts. 
 
 The New Testament was formerly divided into four parts, 
 viz., Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, 
 and the Apocalypse. 
 
 Uncial Manuscripts were originally made up of continuous 
 writing in large letters without any space between the 
 words or sentences. The most ancient letters were upright 
 and square : afterwards they became narrow, or oblong, or 
 leaning ; and the writing gradually assumed a more elaborate 
 and artistic form. The copies of the New Testament that 
 have descended to us are not written upon the reed papyrus, 
 or on wax tablets, or the bark of trees, or any such perish- 
 
io6 
 
 MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 
 
 able substance, but generally on either vellum or the skins 
 of very young calves, or else on parchment or the skins of 
 sheep and goats. The Sinaitic is made up of the skins of 
 antelopes. 
 
 The dates in the following Table (see pp. io8, 109) are 
 taken from Dr. Scrivener's " Plain Introduction," with the 
 exception of E, with respect to which I have followed Dean 
 Burgon, who has carefully examined that manuscript. 
 
 Besides the Uncial Manuscripts which are mentioned in 
 the Table, there are several smaller fragments^ which with 
 the others make up the following number in all : — 
 
 Gospels .... 
 
 . 61 
 
 Acts and Catholic Epistles . 
 
 . 14 
 
 Pauline Epistles . 
 
 . 22 
 
 Apocalypse .... 
 
 • 5 
 
 102 
 
 But in this calculation, as will be observed, inasmuch as the 
 number of authorities in each class is given, those Manu- 
 scripts which include parts of more than one class are, 
 reckoned under each. Thus A and N are reckoned in all 
 four classes, B in three, and D in two. Subtracting these, 
 viz., 7 repetitions in the Acts, 8 in St. Paul, and 4 in the 
 Apocalypse, we have a general total of 83 Uncials. 
 
 {b) Cursive Manuscripts. 
 
 The vast amount of Manuscripts included in this impor- 
 tant class, — important because of their number, of their 
 general consentience in rendering, of the strong body of 
 ancestors which they represent, of the perfection of the art 
 
 
 ', 
 
 UNCIALS AND CURSIVES. 
 
 107 
 
 with which they were executed, and of the generally accepted 
 conclusions of which they are the signs and tokens, — with 
 the one weighty drawback of defect in antiquity — prevents 
 any possibility of a list of them being given in a small work 
 like the present. The most celebrated are the handful of 
 dissentients that follow B and N (see above, p. 10 1), which 
 have been thereby lifted into a prominence beyond their 
 real importance, and the following : — 
 
 13. Regius, collated by Professor W. H. Ferrar. 
 
 20. Regius, 188. 
 
 61. Codex Montfortianus (above, p. 9). 
 
 66. Codex Galei Londinensis. 
 
 69. Codex Leicestriensis. 
 
 71. Lambeth, 528. 
 113. Codex Harleianus, 1810, Brit. Mus. 
 124. Caesar-Vindobon. Nessel. 188, Lambec. 31. 
 237 — 259. Collated by C. F. Matthsei. 
 507 — 517. Collated by Dr. Scrivener. 
 603. &c. &c. &c. 
 
 Dr. Scrivener and Dean Burgon have raised the number 
 'of known Cursives to — 
 
 Gospels 
 
 • 739 
 
 Acts and Catholic Epistles . 
 
 261 
 
 Pauline Epistles .... 
 
 • 338 
 
 Apocalypse . . . . 
 
 . 122 
 
 1460. 
 
 It is improbable, that a list has been yet obtained of all the 
 surviving treasures of this Class. Yet on the other hand, it 
 is scarcely conceivable, that any future discoveries will affect 
 their general testimony to the Traditional Text. 
 
a 
 
 2 
 
 < 
 
 a. 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 Z 
 H 
 U 
 
 &!i 
 
 OS . 
 
 <5 
 
 I I 
 
 ^ I 
 
 « K a 
 'S o 
 
 B ^ 
 
 O < 
 
 (2 g, 
 
 8^8 
 
 Q K 
 
 <5 
 
 o 
 
 <: < 
 
 <^ 
 
 
 , °^ 
 
 •eT 
 
 
 u 
 
 1 
 
 ! 
 
 to 
 
 i I 
 
 u 
 
 M . 
 
 S-2 
 
 ^> 
 
 « 
 
 •Sua 
 
 "5 u5w S 
 
 O o O c 
 V.2 V V g 
 
 >- > > 3 
 
 OO Oi M M 
 
 3^: 
 
 sa 
 
 «* 
 
 <! O O" 
 
 •^Q 
 
 0< NPiZ 
 
 Cm 
 
 JO 
 
 . C 
 
 IS, 
 
 rt *; 
 
 CO 
 
 M S-O'3 
 OT3 « yJJ3 
 
 B B'S 
 
 SS-Sb 
 bSS a.a 
 
 sec o 5 
 
 •c 
 
 S3 
 
 rt.5 
 
 M 
 «l 
 
 5 
 
 n 
 
 n a. 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 
 I i 
 
 S S8 •£ 
 
 « 2 - S 
 
 S E.E Q. 
 
 q BiS 3 3 
 
 rtCQUO O 
 
 'i.aa 
 
 ^ V 3 
 
 3.S 3 
 
 .a 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 w be 
 
 •9 
 
 .S3 
 
 ■1 
 
 •sS- 
 
 "i 
 
 {jw 
 
 n 
 
 i r^ t 
 
 to u 
 
 §<3 
 
 a 
 8 
 
 s 
 
 O 
 
 ■p. 
 
 
 a 
 
 (4 
 
 2 
 u 
 
 <! 
 
 S 
 
 ij 
 
 .3 
 
 >) « 
 
 •s 
 
 > I 
 
 ^ 
 
 Sorts .hF'S .3; 
 
 53 *'->= 
 
 B " 
 
 ■B'S 
 
 W 
 
 |:l< 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 *» ^ 
 
 
 I! 
 
 3 ! 
 
 3 
 
 8"i 
 
 »j 
 
 
 J> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •o 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 2 
 
 •c 
 
 g 
 
 
 B 
 
 .•a 
 
 <5fa 
 
 ^> 
 
 ><m 
 
 KU! £ 
 
 SX 
 
 tacno 
 
 i 
 
 Sod 
 
 f t 
 
 So. 
 
 -■2" rt a 
 
 CjC b.3 
 
 
 1=3 S 
 
 o rt 
 
 
 ^OiS 
 
 a-.s 
 
 V (4 h* 
 
 3 
 
 .a 
 
 u 
 
 9 
 
 §■ 
 s 
 
 n Id f1 
 CP^3> 
 
 > 
 3 
 
 CQ tfi 
 
 .<a 
 
 ^ Rao =.2 
 
 
 §31 
 
 "9-a 
 
 (£c3S 
 
 
 J3 3 
 
 
 •s 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 •3 
 •? 
 
 * t 
 
 8 o 
 bo 
 
 •^§ 
 
 3^ 
 eg 
 
 u w *^ ta-^ 
 
 eOsal 
 ••.B"""sB 
 
 b«rt fc qOT 
 
 .as J I 
 
 j> -O So 
 
 B '•^I'l 
 
 .&« >& ° 
 
 u : ■ 2 « 5 
 1.5 H? a 
 
 -:«='•?!«; 
 
 5 o o 0) — 
 
 .2.1. .1.1 3 
 
 XPQUQQ 
 
no 
 
 MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 
 
 II. Lectionaries and Liturgies. 
 
 The value of this class of evidence, the full force of which 
 was first advocated and explained by Dean Burgon in his 
 •Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel,'* is very con- 
 siderable and peculiar. 
 
 It is evident that what is constantly read under authority 
 in public must have a far greater weight than the writings of 
 any individual author. Such texts must have been con- 
 tinually exposed to general criticism. Whilst therefore it is 
 quite possible that some of the MSS. that have descended 
 to us may not have been subjected to such searching ex- 
 amination, and indeed that in the natural wear and tear of 
 time the best accredited may have been most used and 
 therefore have soonest perished, whilst those that were least 
 in repute may have been preserved because of general neglect, 
 Lectionaries and Liturgies emerge from the full light and 
 the never-ceasing life of the Early Church. Add to this, 
 that both these species of evidence date from the earliest 
 times. The Lectionary-system of the ' Unchangeable East ' 
 has remained from very ancient antiquity, and can be traced 
 back beyond B and N to the times at least of Origen and 
 even Clemens Alexandrinus at the end of the second century. 
 The Manuscripts go back as far as the eighth century : but 
 numerous indications in the works of Ecclesiastical writers 
 carry the reference without doubt to the period just men- 
 tioned.' 
 
 This Lectionary-system was drawn upon the main lines of 
 the practice that previously prevailed in the Synagogues of 
 
 ' Pp. 191-211, 214-S, 217-24, 240, 313-S, 318. 
 ' Burgon, " Last Twelve Verses," pp. 191-211. 
 
 LECTIONARIES AND LITURGIES. 
 
 Ill 
 
 the Jews. There were in their Services, as in ours, two 
 Lessons, one from each of their great divisions of the Old 
 Testament. St. Paul and St. Barnabas found at Antioch in 
 Pisidia the ordinary custom in operation of reading both 
 from the Law and the Prophets.' This habit was continued in 
 the Liturgies by the selections then made both from the 
 Epistles and Gospels, and in the daily Morning and Evening 
 Prayers by the Lessons from the Old and New Testaments. 
 Accordingly, Justin Martyr, writing about a.d. 150, records 
 in his Apology that there were readings during Divine Ser- 
 vice from the Apostles and the Prophets." The new Lec- 
 tionary-system was thus, as well as in other particulars,' 
 grounded upon the old. And thus Lectionaries, as well as 
 Liturgies, constitute a most valuable source of true informa- 
 tion and evidence. 
 
 Several errors may be traced to this influence. Thus the 
 omission of the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel in 
 certain copies, of which B and ^f are the only extant speci- 
 mens, is probably due to the fact that those verses consti- 
 tuted by themselves a Lection, which exactly filling the last 
 page of the Gospel (for St. Mark stood last according to the 
 Western arrangement) dropped off perforce with the last 
 leaf. A copyist, charged to transcribe a copy so mutilated, 
 not unnaturally mistook the end (r/\oc) marking the close 
 of. the previous Lection for the end of the entire Gospel. 
 Again, the two verses in St. Luke that describe the minister- 
 ing Angel and the agony and bloody sweat* were omitted in 
 the ordinary reading of the rest of the passage on the Tues- 
 
 ' Acts xiii. 15. 
 
 ' " ApoL," i. p. 67. Burgon, " Last Twelve Verses," p. 193 note. 
 
 ' E. g., both began in September. Burgon, p. 193. 
 
 '* Luke xxii. 43, 44. 
 
112 
 
 MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 
 
 day after Sexagesima, and were inserted after St. Matt. 
 xxvi. 39 on Maundy Thursday. As marks were put in the 
 Evangelistaria directing the omission, it was even obvious 
 that some copyist would be sure to leave the two verses out 
 altogether. So again, the fourteenth chapter of St. John is 
 made to commence with the words, ' And Jesus said unto 
 his disciples,' as any one may see by referring to the Gospels 
 in our Prayer-Book for St. Philip and St. James' day.^ 
 Similar introductions and insertions were not uncommon, 
 and have crept into the Uncial Manuscripts.' 
 Lectionaries were of two kinds : — 
 
 1. Evangelistaria, or Evangeliaria, consisting of Lessons 
 from the Gospels. Of these 415 Manuscripts are known. 
 
 2. Praxapostoli or Apostoli, containing Lessons from the 
 Acts and Epistles, and amounting to 128, as hitherto 
 reckoned. 
 
 The value of the Quotations in Liturgies rests upon much 
 the same foundation as the verdicts of the Lectionaries. 
 They 'record the witness, not of individuals, but of Churches.' 
 But the quotations are rare. Such however is the render- 
 ing of the 'Gloria in Excelsis' in the Liturgy of St. 
 Clement and in that of St. James. Such again is the general 
 witness in favour of the Doxology as a recognized termina- 
 tion of the Ixjrd's Prayer. 
 
 The Liturgies reach at least as far back as the 4th or 5 th 
 Centuries.' 
 
 » Compare the Gospels for the second, third, and fourth Sundays after 
 Easter. 
 ' See Burgon's " Last Twelve Verses," chapter xi., for numerous 
 
 instances of this kind. 
 •* Daniel, "Codex Liturgicus," Tom, iv., Prolegom., pp. 28-31. 
 
 -; 
 
 J 
 
 ' 
 
 4 
 
 VERSIONS. 
 
 113 
 
 III. Versions. 
 
 The chief Versions have been already noticed. The 
 general dates of them all may be seen together in the fol- 
 lowing Table : — 
 
 Cent. 
 
 SVRIAC. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Egyptian. 
 
 Single Versions. 
 
 II. 
 
 Peshlto (i) 
 
 Old Latin (i) 
 sc. 
 
 a. African 
 
 b. European 
 
 
 
 
 ? Memphitic, or 
 Bahiric (2) 
 
 f Thebaic, or 
 Sahidic (3) 
 
 
 III. 
 
 
 
 7 Memphitic and 
 Thebaic 
 
 
 
 
 Bashmuric, or 
 Elearchian (3) 
 
 
 IV. 
 
 ? Curetonian (3) 
 
 Vulgate (2) 
 
 
 Gothic (a) 
 
 V. 
 
 , erusalem (3) 
 Carkaphensian (3) 
 
 
 
 Armenian (z) 
 Georgian (3) 
 Ethiopian (a)f 
 
 1 
 
 VI. 
 
 Philoxenian (3) 
 A.D. 508. 
 
 
 
 
 VII. 
 
 Harclean (3) 
 
 A.D. 616. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Clementine 
 Revision 
 A.D. 1593. 
 
 
 Slavonic (3) IXth. 
 Anglo-Saxon (4) Vlllth- 
 
 xith. 
 
 Prankish (4) IXth. 
 Persic (4) IXth. 
 Arabic (several) Vlllth, 
 &c. 
 
114 
 
 MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 
 
 The figures here attached to the names of the several Ver- 
 sions denote their relative scale of excellence in a critical 
 light according as Dr. Scrivener has classed them. Some of 
 the Arabic, and one Persic Version, may be ranked in the 
 third class. But the other Persic (and perhaps one Arabic) 
 version being derived from the Peshito Syriac, and the Anglo- 
 Saxon or old English from the Latin Vulgate, can be applied 
 only to the correction of their respective primary trans- 
 lations.* 
 
 The value of this kind of evidence is patent upon an in- 
 sjjection of the Table above. Versions present the most 
 ancient form of continuous text. Some of them are of much 
 earlier date than the oldest Uncials. But to this lofty posi- 
 tion some drawbacks are attached. 
 
 I . The exact reading of a Version may perhaps be very 
 diflficult to ascertain. Questions as to the true form of the 
 text may come into them as they do into the original Greek 
 Text. Old Latin affords an instance before all others,' since 
 it is rather a Group of Versions, African, European, and 
 Italian,' than a single Translation like the rest that can be 
 
 ' " Plain Introduction," p. 309. 
 
 ^ " Old Latin Biblical Texts," i., by Professor Wordsworth, Intro- 
 duction, p. XXX. The chief Texts for Jerome's Vulgate, which Professor, 
 soon to be Bishop, Wordsworth is engaged in editing, are 
 
 Codex Amiatinus, about a. D. 541. am. 
 next, ,, Fuldensis Vlth. . . fuld. or fu. 
 
 perhaps, ,, Forojuliensis Vlth. . . for. 
 
 ' Of these Professor Sanday considers the Italian to be a Revision of 
 the European. See also, pp. 75, 76. Dr. Hort's classification is — 
 
 I. African, e, k, &c. 
 
 II. European, a, c, ff, h, i, &c. 
 
 III. Italian,/ g, Ac. 
 
 " Introduction," pp. 78-84. Wordsworth, p. xxx. 
 
 But no certain conclusions have been reached on this point. 
 
 VERSIONS. 
 
 "S 
 
 determined with more or less accuracy. Thirty-eight codices 
 exist, out of which the highest in repute are:— 
 
 Cod. Vercellensis 
 
 M Veronensis 
 
 „ Coibertinus 
 
 „ Palatinus 
 
 „ Brixianus 
 
 „ Corbeiensis (2) 
 
 „ Sangermanensis (2) 
 
 „ Claromontanus 
 
 „ Vindobonensis 
 
 I, Bobbiensis . 
 
 „ Mai's Speculum 
 
 „ Monacensis. 
 
 Century. 
 IV. 
 
 IV. or V. 
 XI. 
 IV. or V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VIII. . 
 IX. 
 
 IV. or V. 
 v. or VI. 
 IV. or V. 
 VI. or VII. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Letter. 
 
 a. 
 
 b. 
 
 c. 
 e. 
 f. 
 ffi. 
 
 . gr- 
 h. 
 
 k. 
 m. 
 
 q- 
 
 This drawback is not so great in the case of the others, but 
 subtracts from the value of all. 
 
 2. From the nature of Translations, which, to be good 
 must adhere to the idiomatic expression of the language into' 
 which they are made, it follows that great uncertainty must 
 prevail as to the original Greek words. Versions, therefore 
 do not always render decisive evidence upon the question 
 of a smgle Greek expression. On the other hand, the 
 authority of a Version as to the authenticity of a clause, 
 sentence, or longer passage, is unquestionable, and may be 
 much higher than that of a single manuscript, since it has 
 presumably a public character, varying however according to 
 circumstances, and may have a much higher antiquity. 
 
 3- It is evident that only a master of the language can at 
 first hand pronounce upon the Version. 
 
Ii6 
 
 MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 
 
 IV, Ecclesiastical Writers. 
 
 Ecclesiastical writers may be said to surpass even Versions 
 in reaching back to early, or rather the earliest Antiquity. 
 Their authority, especially in confirmation of what is attested 
 by good evidence of other kinds, is often of the highest im- 
 portance. Their variety and number, as representing various 
 parts and epochs of the Church, add greatly to their weight. 
 And the positions, opportunities, and abilities of very many 
 amongst them render their witness nearly always entitled to 
 respectful attention. But some points subtract from their 
 authority in this province. 
 
 Their testimony is seldom continuous, but fragmentary, - 
 and sometimes not to be had when we most need it. They 
 often quote loosely.as if from memory. Sometimes they cite 
 from the copy that they happen to have at the moment, and 
 so the same passage is found in different forms at different 
 places in their writings. 
 
 But for all this, they furnish a most valuable kind of 
 evidence. It is not necessary to attribute to them severally 
 any critical acumen, though there is reason for inferring that 
 more of this was to be found in earlier times than many 
 people suppose. Their chief value is as witnesses to facts. 
 Their evidence may be described as that of Manuscripts at 
 second hand, of which the greater part are either older than, 
 or about as old as, the oldest Manuscripts in existence. 
 They often confirm readings by witnessing to the copies 
 used by them with (so far) unquestionable accuracy. In- 
 deed, this has been the most neglected and undervalued 
 help to criticism, and nevertheless promises to be one of the 
 most important. Unfortunately, their works want to be 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS. 
 
 "7 
 
 edited with this view and indexed, before all the treasures 
 that lie hid at present are ready to the hand of Textual 
 Critics. When that is done, supplies will have been pro- 
 vided for a fresh and real advance. 
 
 Such is the vast field that must thoroughly be explored 
 before a Revision of the Greek Text can be satisfactorily 
 accomplished. Trust must not be reposed in one class of 
 evidence alone. Even Manuscripts of the Greek Testament, 
 superior as they are in most respects to all the other classes, 
 can by no means support a claim to the highest antiquity. • 
 Single Manuscripts are actually surpassed in this respect 
 by Versions' and Fathers, and virtually also by Lectionaries 
 and Liturgies. 
 
 ' It should be observed, with reference to the age of the Peshito, 
 that MSS. of it exist as far back as to a.d. 411, the date of Cod. Add.' 
 12150, which is nearly also the date of A. See "An Account of a 
 Syriac Biblical MS.," &c., No. viii. in the Oxford " Studia Biblica," 
 by the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, who has courteously sent me a copy. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM. 
 
 (i) The Traditional Text, (2) External Evidence, (3) 
 The Seven Canons of Internal Evidence. Conclusion. 
 
 AS the chief parts of the province of the Textual Criti- 
 cism of the New Testament have now been reviewed, 
 we are in a position to arrive at definite conclusions with re- 
 spect to the principles that ought to guide us in the revision 
 of the Sacred Text, 
 
 And first, there can be no sort of question that it would 
 be culpably wrong to throw aside any portions of the exist- 
 ing evidence. Besides the illogical nature of a process that 
 would take no note of materials that must have weight in 
 constructing the premises and determining the conclusion : 
 — to go no further than the formidable project of extirpating 
 the vast mass of multiform proof both known and increasing of 
 a Text other than the one which it is sought in some quarters 
 to establish, and a very questionable attempt to get rid of 
 inconvenient testimony :— the Church is answerable before 
 Almighty God for making due use, and for the preservation 
 from generation to generation, of the materials collected for 
 the maintenance of His Inspired Word. If it be repHed that 
 it is not possible for any one age to deal with so large an 
 amount of matter, the answer is ready that it is our duty in 
 such a case, where we are dealing, not with human circum- 
 
 TRADITIONAL TEXT. 
 
 119 
 
 
 stances but with the things of God, to reverse the poets' 
 maxim, and to say 
 
 Non mihi res, sed me rebus subjungere conor. 
 
 We cannot carve for ourselves the witness of the Sacred 
 Word, but we must conform our dealings to what we find 
 existing. Far better is it to linger in wise and reverent 
 caution, than perhaps to rush in where angels might fear to 
 enter, and to pull down with hasty profanity instead of 
 strengthening the pillars of the Temple. The Great Giver 
 of the Inspired Word is also the Preserver of it in the witness 
 and keeping of Holy Writ. He has spoken during all the 
 the ages, though in the still gentle Voice that Hcis pleased 
 to use, yet by definite and manifest signs and tokens. We 
 must gather these together as far as we are able, and whilst we 
 shrink from refusing to hear their testimony, and from pre- 
 judicing or forcing their decision, we must dutifully and 
 practically collect their verdict. 
 
 I. It will therefore follow that the first object of a Textual 
 Critic should be to discover what is in deed and in fact The 
 Traditional Text. How far does the Received Text 
 accord with it ? For with the Text as now ' Received ' 
 operations must be begun. The burden of proof lies with 
 alterations. Then, in what particulars has human infirmity 
 vitiated in any one age, period, or epoch, that pure Text 
 which may become clear to the view upon a comparison of 
 all the ages ? In the assemblage of the entire body the 
 errors of any individual may be made manifest. General 
 Councils used to correct the mistakes of single bishops.' 
 The Holy Ghost does not eliminate all weakness, but He 
 
 ' See especially, 
 p. 558. Canon VI. 
 
 'Concilium Hispalense (a. d. 619), Mansi," x. 
 
I20 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM. 
 
 guides the awards of the whole Church. Any Father, 
 or Version, or even Lectionary, or copy, however ancient, 
 however likely on all grounds to have escaped blundering, 
 may yet have gone astray. But in the union of them all, 
 and in testimony varied, multiplied, and mainly consentient, 
 there is not only the proverbial strength, but there is also the 
 promised Presence, that descended after the Lord left the 
 earth, and is immanent in the Church onwards to the end. 
 
 II. Hence secondly, all Testimony should be mustered, 
 and due importance assigned to every item in it. The more 
 variety of converging evidence there is found, the more 
 perfectly that all provinces in the Church, and all periods — 
 especiall3f the oldest of them — concur in attestation, so much 
 tlie greater is the weight. The sources of decision will be , 
 discovered in the classes described in the last chapter. There 
 is never (speaking practically) a lack of sufficient evidence : 
 and the conclusions will follow which, whether from in- 
 trinsic importance, or from variety, or from number, are 
 found after wise, enlightened, and discriminating examina- 
 tion to be in the ascendant. 
 
 III. Internal evidence of either kind is a long way inferior 
 to external proof, on which the authenticity of passages will 
 be established, but it is useful in its place. Such are the 
 Seven Canons, viz. ; 
 
 1. The harder the reading, the less likely is it to have 
 been invented, and the more likely to be genuine. 'Pro- 
 clivi lectioni praestat ardua ' (Bengel). Thus oti/rfpoTrpwrj*, 
 'second first,' in St. Luke vi. i, could hardly have been 
 coined. 
 
 2. The more concise reading is better than the more dif- 
 fuse. ' Brevior lectio praeferenda est verbosiori ' (Griesbach). 
 So St. Luke xii. 56, ' Ye hypocrites, ye know how to interpret 
 
 EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 
 
 121 
 
 the face of the earth and the heaven : but how is it that ye 
 know not how to interpret this time ? " The second ' ye 
 know not how to interpret ' (o\jk o'iSart ioKifJia(iir) spoils the 
 simplicity of the text. 
 
 3. That reading is preferable, which will explain the origin 
 of the variation (Tischendorf). Thus Melita (MtXtri) ) for 
 Melitene (Acts xxviii. i), as has been before explained." 
 
 4. The reading which is characteristic of the author is the 
 more probable. Great caution should be exercised in apply- 
 ing this canon, as such varying estimates are formed of 
 authors' styles. But it affords strong confirmation of the 
 authenticity of the celebrated section of the adulteress 
 (' Pericope adulter?e ') since the style of the passage (John vii. 
 53, viii. 11) is just that of St. John. 
 
 5. The special genius and usage of each authority must be 
 taken into account in estimating the weight that it ought to 
 bear. Accordingly we must always suspect the omissions 
 of B, the carelessness of H, and the interpolations of D. 
 
 6. ' Apparent probabilities of erroneous transcription, per- 
 mutation of letters, italicism and so forth,' will naturally be 
 taken into account. So trtpoK (Matt. xi. i6) is evidently for 
 hnlpoig : and the readings 'Titius' or ' Titus Justus ' have 
 plainly arisen from a reiteration of letters.' 
 
 7. Whatever makes nonsense, or injures the meaning or 
 construction, is probably not the true reading.* For example, 
 
 ' " Revised Version." Contrast the neatness of the Authorized. 
 
 ■■' Above, p. 28, note 3. 
 
 ■' Al)ove, p. 29, note i. 
 
 ■ The seventh usually given is Griesbach's, viz., that suspicion must 
 ever rest upon such readings as make especially for orthodoxy. Arch- 
 bishop Magee and Dr. Scrivener have fully disproved the soundness of 
 this imputation cast by sceptics upon the orthodox. " Plain Introduc- 
 tion," pp. 497-9. See above, p. 69, and note 2. The canon which I have 
 
122 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM. 
 
 ' the last' (6 ioxarot) in SL Matt. xxi. 31, the reading of D, 
 making the son who went not to be the obedient son, cannot 
 have been the true production of the Evangelist. 
 
 But all these considerations must be wisely dealt with, and 
 kept in their place. Exaggeration in the estimate of any one 
 of them may lead to false deduction, and authority, as 
 declared in external evidence, must mainly decide all 
 questions. 
 
 The true Guide in all is God the Holy Ghost, Who, reve- 
 rently sought in purity of heart, humility of soul, and wisdom 
 of mind, will in His Own due time and after His Own per- 
 fect counsels lead the Church and Her children to ascertain 
 with sureness, from clear and decisive evidence, the real Form, 
 and Outline of that Sacred Word Which He Himself taught 
 His servants by His Holy Inspiration to deliver. 
 
 May He so receive and direct all our study of His Divine 
 Sayings through the Lord Jesus Christ ! 
 
 placed in the text surely carries its own recommendation. Whatever human 
 element is found in the Inspired Word of God (see Lee on "Inspiration"), 
 nonsense or solecism have no place there. It would be well if more 
 weight were always attributed in Sacred Textual Criticism to sound 
 sense. The best critics employ it with manly strength. For instances, 
 see above, pp. 27-29, and p. 57, note I. 
 
 I 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 AN examination of a few important passages is here ap- 
 pended, which may serve to illustrate the controversy now 
 existing, and to exhibit in their operation the principles already 
 explained. 
 
 The evidence adduced is mainly derived from the eighth 
 edition of Tischendorf 's " Novum Testamentum Graece," Dr. 
 Scrivener's "Plain Introduction," Dean Burgon's " The Revision 
 Revised " and " The Last Twelve Verses of St Mark," Canon 
 Cook's " Revised Version of the First Three Gospels," and Drs. 
 Westcott and Hort's " The New Testament in Greek." 
 
 I. The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel. 
 
 A. Against their authenticity, as alleged : — 
 
 r. mB. L inserts a short and manifestly spurious conclusion 
 before the Twelve Verses. 
 
 2. No Cursives. A few follow L. 
 
 3. One Old Latin MS. (k), two Armenian MSS ; two 
 ^thiopic, and an Arabic Lectionary. 
 
 4. Eusebius, Jerome, and Severus of Antioch, are also 
 quoted. These verses are said to be omitted in the 
 Ammonian Sections. 
 
 5. (a) About twenty-one words and phrases, not found in 
 the rest of St. Mark, are said to occur in these verses, 
 as noptvofini, role /ifr' avrov yfvofiivoiQ, Otdofiai, fura ravra. 
 
 (b). The description of Mary Magdalene, Ap' i/c Ik^ijUiku 
 iirra Satfiovia, is said to be a sign of the introduction of a 
 
126 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 new passage not containing what had gone before, where 
 she has been recently mentioned. 
 
 (c). The note of time irpwt irpwry <ra/3/3a'rov is thought 
 to be needless, and out of place. 
 B. For :— 
 
 1. All other Uncials, i.e. ACDEFGHKMSUVXTAns :— 
 also L. 
 
 2. All Cursives. 
 
 3. (a) Peshito, Harclean, Jerusalem, and Curetonian Syriac. 
 
 (b) All Old Latin except k, and Vulgate. 
 
 (c) Memphitic, and Thebaic. 
 
 (d) Gothic, ytthiopic (except two MSS), Georgian, Ar- 
 
 menian (except two MSS.), Arabic. 
 
 4. All Lectionaries. This passage was read everywhere 
 during the Season of Easter and on Ascension Day. 
 
 5. Fathers : — 
 
 Cent. II. Papias, IrenJEUs, Justin Martyr, Tertullian. 
 „ III. Hippolytus, Vincentius at 7th Council of Car- 
 thage, Acta Pilati. 
 Syriac Table of Canons, Eusebius, Macarius 
 Magnes, Aphraates, Didymus, Syriac Acts of 
 the Apostles, Epiphanius, Leontius, Pseudo- 
 Ephraem, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, 
 Augustine. 
 Leo, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of 
 Antioch, Patricius, Marius Mercator. 
 and VIII. Hesychius, Gregentius, Prosper, 
 John (Abp. of Thessalonica), Modestus 
 (Bp. of Jerusalem). 
 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Remarks. 
 B leaves a whole blank column— 'the only blank one in the 
 whole volume '—i.e., of the New Testament, as well as the rest 
 of the one containing v. 8, thus showing that a passage was left 
 out. Either w was here simply copied from B, a supposition 
 probable on other grounds, and confirmed by Tischendorf's and 
 Scrivener's opinion that the Scribe of B wrote this part of M, in 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 127 
 
 which case we have merely B over again, but without its mute 
 confession of error ; or they both followed here the common 
 archetype from which they were confessedly derived. Eusebius 
 elsewhere witnesses for the verses, and here only mentions 
 loosely that some copies omit them. Jerome and Severus only 
 copy Eusebius' expressions. 
 
 The alleged internal evidence has been demonstrated to be 
 visionary, — a mere mistake : and is accordingly no longer urged 
 by the critics. 
 
 Besides all this, the cause of the omission by careless or in- 
 competent scribes is evident. The error of B and N was clearly 
 derived from a copy of St. Mark, which had lost its last leaf. 
 A mark stood here in the Western copies of the Gospel. It is 
 further not improbable that some scribe mistook the ' End ' of 
 the Lection, TeXoc, for the End of the Gospel, and a few others 
 followed him. The error was ere long discovered. 
 
 This evidence plainly leaves no sort of doubt. No Court of 
 Law could decide against the verses. It is difficult to see how 
 it can be otherwise than discreditable to Textual Science, that 
 the question should be held in some quarters to lie still open. 
 
 II. The First Word from the Cross. 
 (St. Luke xxiii. 34.) 
 
 A. Against their authenticity : — 
 
 1. w' (first corrector), B, D* (first reading). 
 
 2. 38, 82, 435. 
 
 3. Two or three MSS. of Italic (a, b, d.'), Thebaic, two 
 MSS. of Memphitic. 
 
 4. Arethas. 
 
 B. For :— 
 
 1. «* ""'' ' (first reading and third corrector), ACD ^'- ' 
 (second corrector), FGHKLMQSUVrAAn. E puts an • ; 
 — these are all the other Uncials. 
 
 2. All other Cursives. 
 
 3. All other Versions, including the Syrian, and the other 
 Italic and Memphitic MSS. 
 
128 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 4. Ecclesiastical Writers : — 
 Cent. II. Hegesippus, Irenaeus. 
 
 „ III. Hippolytus, Origen, Apostolic Constitutions, 
 Clementine Homilies, ps.-Tatian, Archelaus' 
 disputation with Manes. 
 „ IV. Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Theo- 
 dorus of Heraclea, Basil, Chrysostom, Eph- 
 raem Syrus, ps.-Ephraem, ps.-Dionysius Areo- 
 pagita. Acta Pilati, Syriac Acts of the Apostles, 
 Ps.-Ignatius, ps.-Justin. 
 „ V. Theodoret, Cyril, Eutherius. 
 „ VI. Anastasius Sinaita, Hesychius. 
 „ VII. Antiochus Monachus, Maximus, Andreas 
 
 Creticus. 
 „ VIII. John Damascene, ps.-Chrysostom, ps.-Am- 
 philochius, Opus Imperfectum. 
 Besides Latin Writers, such as Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, 
 
 Augustine, &c., &c. 
 6. This would be a most unlikely interpolation in all ways. 
 The internal evidence is also admitted (Hort, 68) to make 
 eminently for the genuineness of the passage. 
 Evidence is clearly not evidence, if any doubts about the 
 authencity of this passage remain. The errors of a few scribes, 
 in the face of the notorious depravation of the Sacred Text in 
 early times, are no foundation for doubt. 
 
 Ill, The Record of the Strengthening Angel, the 
 Agony, and the Bloody Sweat. 
 
 (St. Luke xxii. 43, 44.) 
 
 A. Against : — 
 
 1. ABRT. In r the verses are obelized, and they are 
 marked with asterisks in ESVAn. 
 
 2. None (see below). Obelized in five, and asterisks in five. 
 A scholion in 34 says that the verses are omitted in some 
 copies. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 129 
 
 . Most Memphitic codices, some Thebaic, some Armenian, 
 and f of Old Latin. Some Armenian insert v. 43. 
 
 . Hilary and Jerome say that some Greek and Latin MSS. 
 omit the passage. Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria 
 did not mention it when they might. John Damascene 
 in one passage omits it. 
 
 For 
 I 
 
 2 
 
 m'DFGHKLMQUXL. Also ESVah and r (see above). 
 
 All Cursives. But 13, 69, 124, 346, insert the verses after 
 St. Matt. xxvi. 39, instead of in St. Luke. 13 inserts v. 43 
 in the right place. 
 
 3. Peshito, Curetonian, Harclean, Jerusalem, Ethiopic, 
 some Thebaic, some Memphitic, some Armenian, all but 
 one Old Latin, and the Vulgate.' 
 
 4. They are thus transferred in all Evangelistaria, the reason 
 being that they were ordered to be read with the passage 
 in St. Matthew on Maundy Thursday, and to be omitted 
 on the Tuesday after Sexagesima. 
 
 5. Cent. II. Justin, Irenaeus. 
 
 „ III. Hippolytus, Dionysius of Alexandria, ps. 
 Tatian. 
 
 „ IV. Arius, Eusebius, Athanasius, Ephraem Syrus, 
 Didymus, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Chry- 
 sostom, ps. Dionysius Areopagita. 
 
 „ V. Julian the Heretic, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, 
 Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Paulus of Emesa, 
 Gennadius, Theodoret, Oriental Bishops in 
 Council, Ps. Cassarius, Theodosius of Alexandria, 
 John Damascene, Maximus, Theodorus the 
 Heretic, Leontinus of Byzantium, Anastasius 
 Sinaita, Photius ; besides the Latins, — Hilary, 
 Jerome, Augustine, Cassian, Paulinus, Facundus ; 
 — i.e. in all ' upwards of forty famous personages 
 from every part of ancient Christendom.' ' 
 
 ' Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 599, note. 
 
 ' Malan, "Select Readings," p. 26, 
 
 • Burgon, " Revision Revised," pp. 80, 81. These lists of the 
 
 ' 
 
13° 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 6 The verses bear every trace of genuineness. Even Dr. 
 Hort admits (p. 67) that ' it would be impossible to regard 
 these verses as a product of the inventiveness of scnbes. 
 The omission by some scribes, and the obela and asterisks 
 inserted by others-evidently as guides in reading-are satis- 
 factorily explained by the Lectionary usage of o™tting the 
 verses in St. Luke, and reading them with the parallel passage 
 in St. Matthew. Even A inserts the mark of the Ammonian 
 Section, and thereby confesses the omission. In the face of so 
 much evidence, it is impossible that any doubt at all should 
 remain. 
 
 IV. The Angelic Hymn. 
 
 iv dvOpwiroic fiiSoKias 
 
 for 
 
 ly Av9pwiroi( tiiSoKia. 
 
 (St. Luke ii. I4-) 
 
 A. For the alteration :— 
 
 1. H* AB* D. 
 
 2. No Cursives. 
 
 3. Old Latin, Vulgate, and Gothic. 
 
 1 Irensus (but see below), Origen (see however below), 
 
 Hilary, and the Latin Fathers. 
 5. Mozarabic and Ambrosian Liturgies. 
 
 ^ i.^P'b^' EGHKLMPSUVrAAS, i.e. all the rest. 
 
 3* Peshit""Sarclean, Jerusalem, Memphitic, Ethiopic, 
 
 Georgian, Armenian, Slavonic, Arabic. 
 
 A. Cent. II. Irenaeus. , . 
 
 TTI Orieen (3), Apostolic Constitutions (2). 
 
 ;; IV Sus U). Aphraates (2). Titus of Bostra 
 
 Ancient Writers are extracted from the work of the learned Dean, 
 who gives the references in every case. 
 1 Malan, "Select Texts," p. 49- 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 i3» 
 
 (2), Didymus (3), Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril of 
 Jerusalem, Epiphanius (2), Gregory of Nyssa (4), 
 Ephraem Syrus, Philo of Carpasus, Chrj'sostom 
 (9), an Antiochian. 
 Cent. V. Cyril of Alexandria (14), Theodoret (4), Theo- 
 dotus of Ancyra (5), Proclus, Paulus of Emesa, 
 Council of Ephesus, Basil of Selencia. 
 „ VI., VI I., VI 1 1.— 1 3 testimonies.* 
 
 5. The Liturgies of St. James and St. Clement, and the 
 Morning Hymn attached to the Psalms in A. 
 
 6. The rhythm of the hymn would be destroyed, since it con- 
 sists of three parallel and contrasted members, making up 
 one stanza. 
 
 This evidence speaks for itself. The opposed reading is a 
 Western one, which was just strong enough to make itself felt in 
 the East, as the witness of A shows, but got no further. The 
 only consistent MS. evidence for it is found in the Western D. 
 
 V. The Doxology in the Lord's Prayer. 
 (St Matt. vi. 13.) 
 
 A. Against the Passage : — 
 
 1. mBDZ. 
 
 2. 1, 17, 118, 130,209. Some scholia exist to the effect that 
 these words are omitted in some copies. 
 
 3. Nearly all the Old Latin MSS., Vulgate, most Memphitic, 
 Persian of Wheelocke. 
 
 4. Mozarabic, Ambrosian, and other Latin Liturgies. 
 
 5. The silence of the following Fathers : — 
 Tertullian (De Oral. 8). 
 
 Cyprian (De Oral. Dom. 27). 
 Origen (DeOrat. 18). 
 Augustine (Epist. Class, iii. 12). 
 
 (De Serm. D. in Monte). 
 
 (Serm. 56-59). 
 
 (Enchiridion, 115, I16). 
 
 ' Burgon, " Revision Revised," pp. 420, 1. 
 
•32 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 B 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. xxiii.) (Myst. 5, 18.) 
 
 Maximus (Expos. Orat. Dom.) 
 
 Gregory of Nyssa (De Orat. Dom., v. end) may be said 
 to be doubtful. 
 6. It is held that the Doxology was probably introduced, as 
 
 some writers confessedly quote it, from the Greek Litur- 
 gies, where too it was separated by the ' Embolismus,' or 
 
 intercalated paraphrase on ' Deliver us from Evil,' from 
 
 the last petition in the Lord's Prayer. 
 , For : — 
 
 1. XEGKLMSUVAn. [ACPr are deficient here]. 
 
 2. All other Cursives, even 33, which usually sides with »B. 
 
 3. Peshito, Old Latin, (k, f, g', q). Thebaic, Curetonian, 
 Harclean, Jerusalem, Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, Geor- 
 gian, Slavonic, Erpenius' Arabic, Persian of Tawos.^ 
 
 4. Greek Liturgies. The 'Embolismus' was confessedly 
 intercalated between integral parts of the Lord's Prayer, 
 as a paraphrase of a petition. The following have the 
 doxology, though with occasional variations, St James, 
 St. Peter, St. John, St. Mark, St. Clement, St. Dionysius, 
 St. Ignatius, St. Julius, St. Eustathius, St. Chrysostom, 
 St Marutha, St Cyril of Philoxenus, Philoxenus of 
 Hierapolis,Dioscorus, James Baradatus, Matthseus Pastor, 
 James (bp. of Botna), Jamesof Edessa, Moses Bar-Cepha, 
 Philoxenus (bp. of Bagdad), &c., &c.» 
 
 Fathers : ^iSaxJi, 31 (Bryennius) with variation. 
 Apostolical Constitutions (iii. 18) (vii. 25 with varia- 
 tion.) 
 Ambrose (De Sacr. vi. 5. 24.') 
 Caesarius (Dial. I. 29.*) 
 
 ' Malan, "Select Readings," p. 26; "Seven Chapters," pp. 57, 
 86-92 ; Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," pp. S7I-3- 
 
 ' Renaudot, " Liturg. Or.," vol. ii. ; Malan, "Select Readings," 
 p. 26. 
 
 ' St. Ambrose, in " De Sacra.," v. 4, professedly quotes St. Luke. 
 
 * Cf. In "S. Greg. Libr. Sacram, Notse, Migne, Bibl Petr. Lat" 
 78, p. 291. 
 
 5 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 '33 
 
 Chrysostom (In Orat Dom.) (Hom. in Matt xix. 13.) 
 
 Opus Imperfectum (Hom. in Matt xiv.) 
 
 Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. iv. 24.) 
 
 Theophylact (in Mattvi. 13.) 
 
 Euthymius Zigabenus (in Matt xi. 13.) (Contra Mas- 
 salianos, Anath. 7.') 
 6. (a). Under any circumstances, with two Forms, there 
 must have been many omissions by writers who followed 
 the shorter Form. Those who dispute the authenticity 
 of the Doxology as part of the Lord's Prayer, have not 
 only to prove the use of the Prayer without the Doxology 
 but must also disprove the existence of the Doxology as 
 an integral member of the Prayer ;-the omission of it not 
 only by St Luke, but by St. Matthew also. 
 
 (b). The admitted omission ofthe Doxology in St Luke 
 and the fact that the Lord's Prayer in its other Form is 
 
 complete without the Doxology would satisfactorily account 
 for Its bemg left out by some scribes also in St. Matthew 
 besides that this might have arisen solely from the inter- 
 calation of the Embolismus, 
 The evidence is too strong and too anciem, reaching back 
 unmterm.ttedly to the second century, as in the Peshito, the 
 A.5axv, some Old Latin, and the Thebaic, to allow hesitation in 
 receiving the Doxology as an authentic part of the Lord's 
 Prayer, and of St Matthew's Gospel. The omission is due to a 
 Western reading, of a similar character to the last, though some- 
 what more strongly supported. 
 
 VI. The Son of God's Eternal Existence in Heaven. 
 
 O "Uj/ iv T(f Ovpavtf. 
 (St John iii. 13.) 
 
 A. Ag.iinst the genuineness ofthe words :— 
 I. nULT''. <;>/ is omitted by A.* 
 2- 33- 
 
 ' Wrongly quoted by Tischendorf on the other side. 
 
•34 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 3. 'Qv is omitted by Evangelistarium 44. 
 
 4. Ethiopic (?), one MS. of the Memphitic. 
 
 5. Armenian versions of Ephraem's Tatian, Eusebius (2) (?), 
 Cyril of Alexandria (?), Origen (?). 
 
 B. For:— 
 
 1. AEGHKMSUVrAAn. CDF fail us here. 
 
 2. All Cursives, except 33. 
 
 3. All Evangelistaria. 
 
 4. Peshito, Curetonian, Harclean, Jerusalem, Old Latin, 
 Vulgate, Memphitic (except one MS.). Ethiopic (?), 
 Georgian. Armenian. 
 
 5. Origen (2), Hippolytus, Athanasius, Didymus, Aphraates, 
 Basil, Epiphanius, Nonnus, ps. Dionysius Alex., Eusta- 
 thius, Chrysostom (4), Theodoret (4), Cyril of Alexandria 
 (4), Paulus of Emesa, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, John 
 Damascene (3), Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, and 
 eighteen others, &c.' 
 
 6. The hardness of the words renders it impossible for them 
 to have been invented. 
 
 This evidence precludes all doubt. 
 
 VII. God Manifested in the Flesh. 
 (i Tim. iii. 16.) 
 There are three readings, viz., eS {i.e. etof), "OS, and"o. 
 
 A. Evidence for "OS, as claimed : — 
 
 1. M* A*(.?)C*(i')F.>G? 
 
 2. 17, 73, 181 ? 
 
 3. Apostolus 12, 85, 86. 
 
 4. Gothic, Peshito ? Memphitic ? Thebaic .' Armenian^ 
 Ethiopic ? Arabic of Erpenius 1 
 
 5. Cyril of Alexandria ? Epiphanius .' Theodorus of Mop- 
 suestia .'' 
 
 B. Evidence for"0, as claimed : — 
 
 I. D* of St. Paul (Claromontanus). 
 
 ' Burgon, " Revision Revised," p. 133. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 13s 
 
 2. No Cursives. 
 
 3. Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshito? Memphitic? Thebaic? 
 iEthiopic ? Armenian ? 
 
 4. Gelasius of Cyzicus, and an Unknown Writer (App. to 
 Chrysostom). 
 
 C. Evidence claimed for e€<5c (OS) : — 
 
 1. A? KLP. 
 
 2. 260 Cursives, i.e. all except two. 
 
 3. 36 copies of the Apostolus. 
 
 4. Harclean, Georgian, Slavonic. 
 
 5. Cent. in. Dionysius of Alexandria. 
 
 „ IV. Didymus, Gregory Nazianzen, Diodorus of 
 Tarsus, Gregory of Nyssa (22 times), Chrysos- 
 tom (3), a Book Ilipt Sfiof oapKiiaeutt. 
 
 „ V. Cyril of Alexandria (2), Theodoret of Cyrus (4) 
 an anonymous author, Euthalius, Macedonius. 
 
 „ VI. Severus of Antioch. 
 
 , VIII. &c. John Damascene, Epiphanius of Catana 
 Theodorus Studita, some Scholia, CEcumenius, 
 Theophylact, Euthymius. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 (I) Evidence for "OS:— _ 
 
 I. The question whether A witnesses for"Oc or for eS must 
 depend upon the answer to the prior question whether the 
 two cross lines were originally there or not. Now Patrick 
 Young, Huish, Bp. Pearson, Bp. Fell, Mill, Bentley, John 
 Creyk, Berriman, Bengel, Woide in 1765, say that the 
 reading was eS. On the other hand, Griesbach, in 1785, 
 and since that time Davidson, Tregelles, Dr. Westcott, 
 Dr. Hort, and Bp. Ellicott, — Dr. Scrivener in i860 dis- 
 sents—pronounce against the lines. But 
 (a) Berriman added, * If therefore at any time hereafter 
 the old line' (»>. inside the 6) 'should become alto- 
 ' gether undiscoverable, there never will be just cause 
 ' to doubt but that the genuine and original heading 
 'of the MS. waseS.' 
 
«36 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 (b) Woide in 1785 declared that he could not see the 
 lines which he had actually seen in 1765. 
 
 (c) Any one may convince himself by inspection that 
 the MS. is too far gone to admit of any trustworthy 
 opinion being now formed, and as is probable in 
 many a past year. 
 
 There can be no real doubt, therefore, that A did witness 
 for OkJc. The adverse testimonies have been given since 
 Woide spoke; and indeed Griesbach said in 1785 that 
 curious fingers had then rendered any certain conclusion 
 impossible. 
 
 2. As to C, Wetstein, Griesbach, and Tischendorf on one 
 side are balanced by Woide, Mill, Weber, and Parquoi, 
 on the other. A palimpsest is a most unsuitable witness 
 in such a delicate question. C must be held to be 
 neutral. 
 
 3. Both F and G, which are admitted to be copies of the 
 same MS.,' have here a straight line above the two letters 
 slightly inclining upwards. The question is, whether it 
 be the aspirate, in which case they would witness for "Of, 
 or the sign of contraction, as for etof. The arguments 
 appeared to be balanced. F and G must therefore be set 
 aside as neutral. 
 
 4. Cursive ' 181 ' cannot be found. 
 
 5. The Peshito, Memphitic, Thebaic, and Ethiopic Ver- 
 sions, probably witness to "O. 
 
 6. The Armenian and Arabic are indeterminate. 
 
 (II.) The evidence for"0 is admitted not to be very strong. 
 Such as it is, it is against both of the other readings and cannot 
 be held to be confirmatory of either. 
 
 (III.) The comparison of "OS with Gfoc remains : — 
 
 I. ' Proclivi lectioni praestat ardua.' "OS is the harder gram- 
 matically, but 9f6f is decidedly the harder if the sense is 
 consulted, since there could hardly be a more audacious 
 change than to foist this word wrongly into the text. 
 
 ' See above, p. 47, note 3. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 137 
 
 2. "OS is likely to be a degeneration from eS : but not eS 
 from "Op. 
 
 3. When admitted, 0(6c explains nvarripiov, and makes better 
 grammar. 
 
 4. But the burden of decision must, as always, rest upon 
 the evidence. Now 
 
 a. There is no strong leaning either way of Uncials 
 or Versions, though the inclination of Uncials is 
 towards 9<(Sc. 
 
 b. The very remarkable unanimity of the Cursives in- 
 dicates a practical decision of the Church before 
 manuscripts had reached their most perfect condition, 
 i.e. in Uncial times. 
 
 c. The overwhelming testimony of Fathers to MSS. in 
 their use, reaching back further than any existing 
 MSS., adds a very powerful witness. 
 
 On the whole, the evidence decidedly shows that «£6c is 
 genuine. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 [For Alexandrian MS., Vatican MS., (Sr'c., and A, B, Sr'c, see under 
 Codex ; and for Peshito, Vulgate, &'c,, see under Versions.] 
 
 11 
 
 i 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ABBOT, professor Ezra . 23 
 Accents 89 
 
 Acta Pilati 85 
 
 Acts and Catholic Epistles loi, 
 
 106, 107 
 
 Agony and Bloody Sweat 2, ill, 
 
 128-30 
 
 Aidan, St 90 
 
 Alexander II., the emperor . 24 
 Alexandria, 77-8, 70, 89—' 
 
 libraries at 90 
 
 Alexandrian readings ... 51 
 Alexandrian text (so-called) 41, 51 
 
 Alter 17 
 
 Ambrose, St 87 
 
 Ammonian Sections . 80 note 6 
 Angelic Hymn, the . . . 130-1 
 Angelic Salutation .... 57 
 Anglo-Saxon Scribes ... 90 
 
 Antioch 51, 73 
 
 Apocalypse , . . loi, 106, 107 
 
 Apostoli 112 
 
 Apostolical Constitutions . . 85, 
 
 100 note 2 
 
 Aphraates 85 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Archilaus with Manes , . . ■ 85 ^ 
 
 Arianism 78, &c. 
 
 Ariminum, Council of . . , 52 
 
 Aristophanes 88 
 
 Arius 85 
 
 Athanasius, St 85, 87 
 
 Athenagoras 85 
 
 Athos, Mt 17 
 
 Augustine, St 75, 87 
 
 Aurelian 90 
 
 Authorized Version, from what 
 
 text 12 
 
 Autographs, the .... 72, 93 
 
 Barnabas, St., 97 — his epistle 46 
 
 Basil, St 63, 85, 87, 97 
 
 Basilides 70 
 
 Beezebul 28 
 
 Benedict, St 89 
 
 Bengel I5i 16 
 
 Bentley . 14-15, 21, 31, 50, 96 
 
 Beza lo-ii, 12 
 
 Bilingual manuscripts . . 11, 99 
 
 Birch 17 
 
 Boniface 90 
 
I40 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Breathings 88 
 
 British and Foreign Bible 
 
 Society 22 
 
 Bruchiutn 90 
 
 Buda 91 
 
 Burgon, Dean, his works, 33 — 
 misrepresented, 30 — prin- 
 ciples, 34 — great Patristic 
 knowledge, 53 note. Also 
 31, 46, 47 notes I and 2, 
 52 note, 56, 60, 7 1 note, 78, 
 
 100, 106, 107, no, 117 
 Buttmnnn, Philip .... 20 
 
 Caesarea 83 
 
 Caius 71 
 
 Canon of Holy Scripture . . 104 
 Catholic Antiquity .... 93 
 
 Ceriani 36 
 
 Cerinthus 70 
 
 Charisius 88 
 
 Childhood of Textual Criticism 
 
 12-19 
 Chrysostom, St., 17, 35,63,83 
 
 87, 102 — age of . . . 86-91 
 Church, the, silent action of, 
 
 91 — duty of .... 1 18-19 
 Clement of Alexandria 41, 71, 77 
 Clementine Homilies ... 85 
 
 Cobet 35 
 
 Codex — see also Manuscripts. 
 A (Alexandrinus) pre- 
 sented by Cyril Lucar, 
 1 3 — when produced and 
 character, 95. Also 16, 
 21, 26, 33, 35, 50, 97, 106 
 B (Vaticanus) when pro- 
 duced, 81-3 — character, 
 54-9 — blunders, 26-29 
 
 PAGE 
 Codex — see also Manuscripts 
 — {continued). 
 
 — how estimated, 43-4, 
 27. 34. 35. 46, 56. 
 Also 9, 15, 21, 36, 39, 
 40, 48 &c., 88, 92, 95, 
 97, loi, 103, 106, 107, no 
 
 K (Sinaiticus) how found, 
 24-5 — when produced, 
 81-3 — character, 54-9 
 — carelessness, 53 — 
 how estimated, 26, 34, 
 35,46. Also 26, 36, 39, 
 40,48 &c., 88,92,95, 
 
 97, loi, 106, 107, no 
 
 C (Ephraemi, Parisian) 
 date, 95-6 — character, 
 96 . . . Also 21, 26, 97 
 
 D (Bezae, or Cambridge), 
 date, 99 — character, 
 100 . Also n, 41, 92, 106 
 
 D of St Paul (Claromon- 
 tanus) II, 100 
 
 £ (Basiliensis) . . 100, 106 
 
 E of the Acts (Laudia- 
 nus) 100 
 
 F of St. Paul (Augiensis) 32, 
 47 note 3. 
 
 L (Regius), 23 note i, 
 
 49 note I, 100 
 
 ^ (Sangallensis) in St. 
 Mark 100 
 
 S (Zacynthius) . . 22, 100 
 
 2 (Rossanensis) 48 note, 98, 
 100 
 
 Friderico-Augustanus . 24 
 
 Montfortianus (61) . 9, 107 
 
 See also Table, 108, 109, 
 and 21 note I, 22, 49 
 
 f 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 141 
 
 ■ 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Codex — see also Manuscripts 
 — (continued). 
 
 note I, 98, 100, and 
 Uncial Manuscripts, and 
 Cursive Manuscripts. 
 
 Columba 90 
 
 Complutensian Polyglott, 7-8, 10, 12 
 Conjectural Emendation . 65-6, 47 
 
 note I 
 Constantine . . . 81-3, 55, 90 
 Constantinople, library at . 91 
 Cook, Canon, 34-5, 27, 31, 51 
 
 note, 56 note 
 Cornelius' servants .... 28 
 Courcelles, or Curcellreus . 13 
 Corruption of Text, causes 
 
 and extent of ... . 68-72 
 Cry, Our Lord's last ... 2 
 Cure in pool of Bethesda . . 2 
 Cursive Manuscripts, 106-7 — 
 number of, loo-i — value of, 
 101-2— follow the Uncials, 
 102 . . . Also 16, 18, 22, 61 
 
 Cyprian, St 21, 85 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria, St. . . 87 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, St. . . 85, 87 
 Cyril Lucar 13 
 
 Damasus 98 
 
 Dancing-girl 27 
 
 Davidson, Dr. . . .* . . 19 
 Diatessaron, Tatian's ... 71 
 
 Ai5ax»j 100 note 2 
 
 Didymus 85 
 
 Diocletian, persecution of, 48, 73, 90 
 
 Diomedes 88 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria . 41, 85 
 Dionysius of Corinth ... 71 
 Dobbin, Dr. 55 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Donatus 88 
 
 Doxology in the Lord's Prayer, 
 
 131-3, 100, 112 
 
 Eclipse of the sun . . . . 3, 46 
 
 Edessa 51 
 
 Elzevir, Abraham .... n 
 
 Bonaventure .... 11 
 
 Encratites 71 
 
 Ephraem, St 85 
 
 Ps 85 
 
 Epiphanius 71, 85 
 
 Erasmus 8-10, 12 
 
 Eucharist, Holy 68 
 
 Eusebian Canons . . 80 note 6 
 Eusebius . 79-83, 22, 23, 35, 41, 
 
 55. 71, 85, 91 
 
 Evangelistaria, or Evangeliaria, 112 
 
 Evangelists .... 68 and note 
 
 Evidence, External . 61-2, 32, 34, 
 
 118, 120 
 
 Internal, place of, 45-6, 
 
 120 — seven canons, 120-22. 
 Also 39. 54 
 
 Extreme Textualism . . 20-30 
 
 Families of MSS. (so-called), 
 
 40-1, 50-1, 16, 17, 18, 61 
 Fathers, 116-7 — their value, 
 ri6 — Manuscripts at second 
 hand, 116 — older than any 
 existing MSS., 117 — not 
 uncritical, 96-7 — mainly 
 support the Traditional 
 Text, 91, 103 . Also 7, 16, 21, 
 22, 34, 62, 73 
 
 Fell, bp 13 
 
 Ferrar, Professor W. H. . . 107 
 Frederic Augustus .... 24 
 Froben 8 
 
142 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Gebhart, Oscar von ... 98 
 Genealogy ... 40, 47-9, loi 
 Ghost, God the Holy 66, 119, 122 
 Gloria in Excelsis . . 112,130-1 
 
 Gnosticism 70, 78 
 
 God manirested in The Flesh 134-7 
 
 Golgoth 28 
 
 Gospels, Synoptic, whence rose 
 their accordance, 67 note — 
 why written, 68 note — 
 number of MSS. of . 106, 107 
 Gregory, Dr. C. R. . II note, 23 
 
 Nazianzen, St., 63, 
 
 68 note, 85, 87 
 
 of Nyssa, St. . . 63, 85, 87 
 
 Griesbach '7, '8 
 
 Gutenberg 7 
 
 Gwilliam, Rev. G. H. .115 note 
 
 Harkel, Thomas of . . . 103 
 Harnach, Adolph .... 98 
 
 Hegesippus 85 
 
 Hesychius 79, 81 
 
 the Lexicographer . . 88 
 
 Hilary, St 21, 87 
 
 Hippolytus 85 
 
 Hort, Professor, 25-30, 35, 
 
 38-59, 76 note 3, 1 14 note 3 
 
 Hugo, Cardinal lO 
 
 Hyperides 88 
 
 Ignatius, St 84 
 
 Inscription on the Cross . . 3 
 Infancy of Textual Criticism I-12 
 Institution of Holy Eucharist 3, 57 
 Internal Evidence, see Evi- 
 dence. 
 Irenseus, St. . . . 21, 71, 72, 84 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Irish Missionaries .... 90 
 Itacism 89 
 
 Jerome, St. . 21, 53 note i, 55, 75, 
 
 87. 98-9 
 Joanes 28 
 
 Julius Africanus 85 
 
 Justin Martyr , . . 71, 84, 111 
 
 Ps 85 
 
 Kilian, St 90 
 
 Koum 28 
 
 Kuenen 35 
 
 Lachmann, 20-1, 22, 26, 32, 35, 38 
 
 Laurence, abp 9 
 
 Lectionaries, value of, 102-3, 
 1 10-12 — their great virtual 
 antiquity, 1 10, 117— a cause 
 of error . . 109, 61, loi, 117 
 
 Lections 67 
 
 Lee, abp 9 
 
 Leo the Great, St 87 
 
 Leontius 85 
 
 Liturgies 110-12, 100 note 2, 117 
 Lombard Scribes .... 90 
 Lord's Prayer, the, 2— doxo- 
 
 logy in , . . 131.3, 100, 112 
 Lucian . , . . 79, 81, 98 note 4 
 
 Lucifer . « 85 
 
 Luke, St., why he wrote his 
 gospel 68 note 
 
 Macarius Magnes .... 85 
 Manuscripts, 87-90 — relative 
 
 value of, 93, 117. Also 6, 
 
 7, 17. See Codex. 
 Marcion 70, 85 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 143 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Mark, St., 78 — why he wrote 
 
 New Testament, passages 
 
 ■ his gospel, 68 note — last 
 
 quoted from 
 
 —{continued). 
 
 
 twelve verses . 125-7, i, 33, 96, 
 
 St. Matt. 
 
 XV. 32 . . 
 
 • 58 
 
 III 
 
 )> 
 
 — 39 • • 
 
 58 
 
 Marsh, bp 16 
 
 »» 
 
 xvi. 2, 3 . 
 
 57 
 
 Martin, Abbi 36 
 
 
 — 12 . . 
 
 58 
 
 Matthaei, C. F., 16-17, 107— 
 
 II 
 
 xvii. 21 
 
 . 28 
 
 his accuracy . . . . 16, 31 
 
 ft 
 
 — 22 . . 
 
 58 
 
 Matthew, St., why he wrote 
 
 )* 
 
 — 23 . . 
 
 58 
 
 his gospel 68 note 
 
 *i 
 
 xviii. 1 1 . 
 
 57 
 
 Melitene 28, 121 
 
 >f 
 
 XX. 16 . . 
 
 57 
 
 Michelsen, Dr 36 
 
 i> 
 
 — 22 . . 
 
 57 
 
 Mill, Dr. John . . 13-14, 17, 31 
 
 If 
 
 — 23 . . 
 
 57 
 
 Moldenhawer 17 
 
 
 xxi. 19 
 
 S8 
 
 Monasteries 89 
 
 11 
 
 — 3" • • 
 
 122 
 
 Monte Cassino So 
 
 
 xxin. 14 . 
 
 57 
 57 
 
 
 11 
 
 xxvi. 28 . 
 
 Nazara 28 
 
 i» 
 
 — 39 • 
 
 112 
 
 Neutral Text (so-called) . 41, 51 
 
 )» 
 
 xxvii. 33 . . 
 
 57 
 
 New Testament, passages quo- 
 
 i» 
 
 — 49 . . 
 
 3 
 
 ted from — 
 
 >i 
 
 xxvin. 9 . 
 
 57 
 
 St. Matt. i. 25 ... 57 
 
 If 
 
 — 19 . . 
 
 58 
 
 iv. 13 
 
 . . . 28 
 
 St. Mark 
 
 1.39. . . 
 
 27 
 
 — 23 
 
 . . . 27 
 
 II 
 
 ii. 5 ■ • 
 
 58 
 
 ,, V. 22 
 
 . . . 57 
 
 If 
 
 — 9 • • 
 
 58 
 
 — 44 
 
 • • 57 
 
 ff 
 
 Hi. 28 . . 
 
 58 
 
 VI. 4 
 
 • • 57 
 
 ff 
 
 -^29 . . 
 
 5« 
 
 — 13 • 
 
 . 2, 112, 
 
 fi 
 
 V. 41 . . 
 
 28 
 
 
 131 &c. 
 
 11 
 
 VI. II . . . 
 
 57 
 
 „ -18 
 
 • • 57 
 
 If 
 
 — 21 . . . 
 
 59 
 
 viii. 5 
 
 . . . 58 
 
 ff 
 
 — 22 . . 
 
 27 
 
 X. 25 
 
 . . . 28 
 
 ff 
 
 .-33 • ■ 
 
 42, 57 
 
 xi. 16 
 
 . . 57. 1.21 
 
 ff 
 
 -36 . . 
 
 57 
 
 — 23 
 
 . . . 58 
 
 fi 
 
 vu. 3 . . 
 
 58 
 
 xii. 47 
 
 • • 57 
 
 II 
 
 — 16 . . . 
 
 57 
 
 ,, xiv. 6 
 
 . . . 27 
 
 II 
 
 viii. 26 . . 
 
 57 
 
 — 29 
 
 . . 58 
 
 If 
 
 ix. 29 . . . 
 
 57 
 
 XV. 13 
 
 . . 58 
 
 II 
 
 — 44 ■ • • 
 
 57 
 
 — 22 
 
 . . 28 
 
 1, 
 
 - 46 . . . 
 
 57 
 
144 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 
 
 PAGE 1 
 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 New Testament, passages 
 
 
 
 New Testament, passages 
 
 quoted from-- 
 
 -{continued). 
 
 
 
 quoted 
 
 from- 
 
 —{continued). 
 
 
 St. Mark 
 
 X. 6 . . . 
 
 
 57 
 
 St. 
 
 Luke 
 
 xiv. 44 . 
 
 • 57 
 
 j» 
 
 — 7 • 
 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 »» 
 
 xvi. 12 
 
 • 58 
 
 *) 
 
 — 21 . 
 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 »> 
 
 xvii. 6 . . 
 
 • 59 
 
 »» 
 
 — 24 . 
 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 *» 
 
 — 19 . . 
 
 • 57 
 
 f 1 
 
 xi. 8 . 
 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 »f 
 
 -36 . . 
 
 • 57 
 
 »» 
 
 - 19 . 
 
 
 
 59 
 
 
 II 
 
 — 24 . . 
 
 • 57 
 
 i» 
 
 — 22 
 
 
 
 59 
 
 
 »1 
 
 xxii. 19, 20 
 
 • 2, 27 
 
 »> 
 
 — 26 
 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 1* 
 
 — 43.44 
 
 • 2,53. 
 
 »> 
 
 xii. 30 
 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 
 III, ] 
 
 28 &c.' 
 
 )) 
 
 — 33 
 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 »> 
 
 — 55 . . 
 
 • 58 
 
 1 
 
 xiii. 14 
 
 
 
 59 
 
 
 »1 
 
 -64 . . 
 
 57 
 
 1* 
 
 -18 
 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 II 
 
 xxiii. 17 . 
 
 ■ 57 
 
 )» 
 
 xiv. 22 
 
 -24 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 »l 
 
 — 34 . 2, 53, III, 
 
 )* 
 
 -35 
 
 
 
 59 
 
 
 
 
 27 &c. 
 
 «9 
 
 -68 
 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 II 
 
 -38 . . 
 
 3 
 
 »♦ 
 
 XV. 39 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 II 
 
 — 45 • • 
 
 2 
 
 >» 
 
 xvi. 4 
 
 
 
 58 
 
 
 II 
 
 xxiv. I 
 
 57 
 
 »» 
 
 — 9-20 . . 
 
 I, 
 
 53. 
 
 
 l» 
 
 — 3 • • 
 
 27 
 
 
 96, I 
 
 23 
 
 &c. 
 
 
 If 
 
 — 6 . . 
 
 27 
 
 St. Luke 
 
 i. 28 . . 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 *» 
 
 — 9 ■ ■ 
 
 27 
 
 )) 
 
 ii. 14 . ■ 
 
 )3. 
 
 58, 
 
 
 11 
 
 — 12 . . 
 
 . 3. 27 
 
 
 96,1 
 
 25 
 
 &c. 
 
 
 II 
 
 — 15 . . 
 
 2 
 
 )» 
 
 iv. 4 . . 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 II 
 
 -36 . . 
 
 3.27 
 
 »» 
 
 -5 • • 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 II 
 
 — 40 . . 
 
 3.27 
 
 f f 
 
 — 16 . . 
 
 
 28 
 
 
 II 
 
 — 42 . . 
 
 • 57 
 
 It 
 
 — 44 • • 
 
 
 27 
 
 
 II 
 
 — 52 . . 
 
 27 
 
 tf 
 
 vi. I. . . 5 
 
 7. 
 
 120 
 
 
 II 
 
 — S3 • • 
 
 • 57 
 
 )f 
 
 — 26 . . 
 
 
 57 
 
 St. 
 
 John 
 
 i. 27 . . 
 
 57 
 
 f « 
 
 -45 • • 
 viii. 16 . 
 
 
 57 
 57 
 
 
 II 
 
 iii. 13 . . 
 
 • 57.' 
 133 &c. 
 
 »i 
 
 — 43 • • 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 »i 
 
 V. 3. 4 • 
 
 •3.57 
 
 )» 
 
 ix. 55. 56 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 11 
 
 vi. 51 . . 
 
 57 
 
 ) . 
 
 X. 22 . . 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 »» 
 
 vii. 53 — vi 
 
 ii. II 
 
 »? 
 
 — 42 . . 
 
 
 58 
 
 
 
 
 121 
 
 ** 
 
 xi. 2-4 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 *i 
 
 viii. 59 • 
 
 ■ 57 
 
 »* 
 
 xii. 56 . . < 
 
 8. 
 
 120 
 
 
 II 
 
 xiii. 32 . 
 
 • 57 
 
 
 xiv. IG 
 
 , 
 
 . 
 
 59 
 
 
 »» 
 
 xiv. I . . 
 
 112 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 14s 
 
 New Testament, passages 
 quoted from — (continued). 
 
 PAGE 
 
 bt. John xiv 
 
 • 4- 
 
 • • 57 
 
 II 
 
 xvi. 16 
 
 • • 57 
 
 II 
 
 XIX. 17 
 
 . . 28 
 
 Acts 
 
 iii. 6 . 
 
 • • 57 
 
 II 
 
 X. 19 . 
 
 • ■ 27 
 
 11 
 
 — 30 . 
 
 • • 57 
 
 >) 
 
 XI. II . 
 
 , . 28 
 
 II 
 
 xii. 25 
 
 . . 28 
 
 II 
 
 xiii. 7 . 
 
 • • 59 
 
 i» 
 
 XV. 18 . 
 
 • ■ 57 
 
 II 
 
 — 24 . 
 
 • . 57 
 
 11 
 
 XVI. 13 
 
 • • 59 
 
 If 
 
 xviii. 7 
 
 . 28 
 
 n 
 
 — 21 . 
 
 • • 57 
 
 ti 
 
 XXI. 22 
 
 • 57 
 
 II 
 
 — 25 . 
 
 • 57 
 
 11 
 
 xxiv. 6j 7, 
 
 8. 57 
 
 i» 
 
 XXV. 13 
 
 • 58 
 
 II 
 
 xxvii. 13 
 
 • 58 
 
 11 
 
 xxvin. I , 
 
 28, 121 
 
 II 
 
 Rom. 
 
 — 29 . 
 
 V. I 
 
 • 57 
 . 58 
 
 »> 
 
 — — . 
 
 • 59 
 
 1) 
 
 I Cor, iii. 
 
 XV. 24 . , 
 I . . . . 
 
 . 57 
 . 58 
 
 » IX, 
 
 24 
 
 
 3 
 
 M xiii 
 
 • 3 
 
 
 ■ 58 
 
 2 Cor. V. 
 Eph. i. I 
 
 5 
 4 
 
 
 • 29 
 
 • 57 
 
 • 57 
 
 .. - 15 
 Col. iii. 6 
 
 I Thess. i. 
 
 I 
 
 
 . 57 
 • 57 
 ■ 57 
 
 I Tim. iii. 
 Tit. ii. 5 
 Heb. ii. 7 
 
 • 7 • 
 16 
 
 53, 
 
 • 58 
 134 &c. 
 
 • 58 
 . 57 
 
 I PAGE 
 
 New Testament, passages 
 quoted from — {continued). 
 
 Heb. vii, 21 ... . 57 
 
 James i. 20 .... 58 
 
 1 Pet. iii. I .... 59 
 
 2 Pet. ii. 12 .... 58 
 I John V. 7 .... 9 
 
 Nicrea, Council of . . . 14, 52 
 Nisibis 51 
 
 Oral teaching 67 
 
 Origen . 18, 21, 22, 71, 78-80, 85 
 
 Origenism 78 &c. 
 
 Orthodox, no evidence that 
 they depraved Holy Scrip- 
 ture 69, 121 note 5 
 
 Pamphilus, 79, 80, 81, 83— 
 
 library of 91 
 
 Pantsenus yg 
 
 Patristic Era . . . . 86 &c., 104 
 Paragraphs, bible, due to Ben- 
 gel i6 
 
 Paul, St., Pauline Epistles 
 
 loi— number of MSS. of, 106, 107 
 Peace be unto you .... 3 
 Pericope adulterse . , . , 121 
 Peter of Alexandria . ... 41 
 
 Philo -jj 
 
 Philoxenus 103 
 
 Piercing of our Lord's Side . 3, 96 
 
 Pierius go 
 
 Polycarp, St., Martyrdom of, 73 
 
 translator ..... 103 
 
 Praxapostoli . ..... 112 
 
 Priscian gg 
 
 Ptolemy Euergetes .... 90 
 
 Question, nature of the . . 64 
 
146 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Quotations from Ecclesiastical 
 Writers 1 16-7 
 
 Received Text, when first so- 
 called, II — nature of, 12 — 
 relation to Traditional Text, 
 12, 63. 119 — rejected by 
 Lachmann, 21 — by Tregel- 
 les, 22 — how treated by Tis- 
 chendorf, 25 — by Westcott 
 and Hort, 27, 30— by Sound 
 Textualists 32, 33 
 
 Reiche, J. G 17. 35 
 
 Revi-^d Version, number of 
 changes in, 3 note — mainly 
 follows Westcott and Hort, 
 29-30. Also 26, 28, 34, 38 note 
 
 Roman Catholic opinion . . 36 
 
 Sand ay. Professor, 38 note, 
 
 76 note 3, 114 note 3 
 
 Saracens 9°! 9' 
 
 Scholz 18 
 
 Scriptures, the Holy, corpo- 
 rate as well as individual 
 
 productions 67 
 
 Scrivener, Dr., his works and 
 opinions, 30-32, 11, 12 
 note, 18 and notes 2 and 3, 
 26 note I, 46, 50, $2 note, 
 55, 56, 60, 61, 69 note 2, 
 
 82, 106, 107, 114 
 
 Semler 17 
 
 Serapeum 90 
 
 Severus 9^ 
 
 Sharpe, abp 14 
 
 Simon Magus 7° 
 
 Sinai, Mt. ...... 25 
 
 Son of God, the, Eternal 
 Existence of ... . 1 33-4 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Sound Textualism . 30-37, 60-4 
 Stephen, Robert, his editions, 
 
 10, II, 12, 14, IS 
 
 Henry 10, 11 
 
 Stunica 8, 9 
 
 Syrian Text — no foundation 
 
 forthisterm, 39 note, 51-54. 
 
 See Traditional Text. 
 
 Tatian, his diatessaron, 71, 
 
 80 note 6 
 
 Tatian, Ps 85 
 
 Tertullian . . . 71, 72, 73, 84 
 Textual Criticism, prevailing 
 
 ignorance of, 4 — history of 6-37 
 Textualism, Sacred, how dif- 
 fers from Classical . . . 65-8 
 
 Theodoret 71 
 
 Theodosius 90 
 
 Theophilus of Antioch ... 84 
 Tischendorf, his great works 
 and labours, 23-25 — not a 
 trustworthy judge of prin- 
 ciples, 27 . . Also 55, 56, 82 
 Titius or Titus Justus . . 28,121 
 
 Titus of Bostra 85 
 
 Traditional Text, not the same 
 as the Received Text, 12, 
 13, 63, 119 — when settled, 
 91 &c. — the great object of 
 discovery, 119-20 — the true 
 Text, 62-4 — admitted by 
 Extreme Textualists to go 
 back to St. Chrysostom, 23 
 —called " Syrian " and 
 treated as worthless by 
 Westcott and Hort, 42-3— 
 — not a late invention, 51, 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 147 
 
 PAGE 
 
 53-4 — dates from the* first, 
 73, 83-5. Also 51, loi, 
 
 102, 107 
 Transcribing, art of, 7, 88-90, 
 
 93. 102 
 Tregelles, S. P., his labours 
 and books .... 21-3, 32 
 
 Uncial Manuscripts, 105-6 — 
 table of, 108-9 — opposition 
 of Cursives to, a figment, 
 102 ... . Also 16, 22, 60 
 
 Uncouth names in B . . . 28 
 
 Vercellone 36, 56 
 
 Versions, 113-15—tableof, 113 
 — older than manuscripts, 
 117 — value of, 114-5. ■'^o 
 6, 7, 22, j6, 34,43, 61, 73. 102 
 Anglo-Saxon .... 103 
 
 Arabic 103 
 
 Armenian 99 
 
 Bahiric, see Memphitic. 
 
 Bashrauric 98 
 
 Curetonian Syriac, 51, 
 
 74 note, 100 note 2 
 Elearchian, see Bashmuric. 
 
 Ethiopian 99 
 
 Prankish 103 
 
 Georgian 99 
 
 Gothic . . . 94-5, 13, 98 
 
 Harclean 103 
 
 Italic, see Old Latin. 
 Latin, Old, 76 and note 3, 
 
 21,85,98,1x5 
 Memphitic . . 76-7, 13, 98 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Versions — {continued). 
 
 Persic 103 
 
 Peshito, 74-5, 51, 85, 98, 
 
 100 note 2 
 Philoxenian .... 103 
 Sahidic, see Thebaic. 
 
 Slavonic 103 
 
 Thebaic, 76-7, 98, 100 note 2 
 
 Vulgate 98-99 
 
 Victor of Antioch .... 96 
 Vincentius 85 
 
 Wake, abp 14 
 
 Walker, John 15 
 
 Walton, bp 13 
 
 Westcott, Professor, 25-30, 
 
 38-59. 35 
 Western Readings . . . 41, 51 
 
 Wetstein 16, 96 
 
 Woide 15 
 
 Word, the first from the Cross 
 
 127-8, 2 
 Wordsworth, Bp. Christopher 
 
 35 and note 2, 77 
 
 Bp. Charies .... 35. 
 
 Bp. John ... 76 note 3 
 
 Worship, Common .... 68 
 Written records, scarcity of • 
 at first 71 
 
 Xenaias . . . 
 Ximenes, cardinal 
 
 103 
 7-9 
 
 Youth of Textual Science . 20-30 
 
 Zacynthius, see Codex. 
 
 Zeno, emperor 97 
 
THE OXFORD DEBATE 
 
 ON THE 
 
 51 l' 
 
 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 HORACE HART, PRINTER tq THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 I 
 
 HELD AT NEW COLLEGE 
 
 ON MAY 6, 1897 
 
 WITH A PREFACE EXPLANATORY OF THE 
 
 RIVAL SYSTEMS 
 
 / 
 
 LONDON: GEORGE BELL & SONS 
 
 OXFORD : JAMES PARKER & CO. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON BELL & CO. 
 
 1897 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The debate, of which the following pages contain 
 a report, was the result of an offer courteously made by 
 the Rev. Dr. Sanday, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, 
 when I asked him whether those who are devoted to the 
 study of Theology in Oxford would be ready to hear an 
 explanation from me of the system of Textual Criticism 
 advocated by the late Dean Burgon and myself, in order 
 to the removal of misconceptions of it. 
 
 The speeches made in the debate have been referred both 
 in manuscript and in type to the several speakers for their 
 approval and corrections. 
 
 In compliance with a thoughtful suggestion, the ensuing 
 descriptions of the two present systems have been prefixed 
 to the Report of the discussion, for the purpose of reference 
 in the case of readers who have not a familiar acquaintance 
 with them ready for use. And it is hoped that, taken 
 together with the debate, they may form an easy means to 
 many students of the Bible of learning some of the chief 
 points in a very important study and controversy. The 
 former of these two descriptions, according to Dr. Sanday's 
 suggestion, has been taken with the kind leave of the 
 author from Our Bible and the Ancient Monuments, by 
 Frederick G. Kenyon, M.A., D.Litt, of the British Museum. 
 
VI 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 Dr. Kenyon's description has received special praise from 
 Mr. Hort in the Life of his illustrious father. The second 
 I have prepared especially for this little book. 
 
 I. Dr. Hort's System. 
 
 ' Westcott and Hort's Theory. 
 
 ' One critic of earlier days, Griesbach by name, at the end 
 of the last century, essayed the task of grouping, and two 
 distinguished Cambridge scholars of our own day, Bishop 
 Westcott and the late Professor Hort, have renewed the 
 attempt with much greater success. They believe that by 
 far the larger number of our extant MSS. can be shown to 
 contain a revised (and less original) text ; that a compara- 
 tively small group has texts derived from manuscripts 
 which escaped, or were previous to, this revision ; and 
 that, consequently, the evidence of this small group is 
 almost always to be preferred to that of the great mass 
 of MSS. and versions. It is this theory, which has been 
 set out with conspicuous learning and conviction by 
 Dr. Hort, that we propose now to sketch in brief ; for it 
 appears to mark an epoch in the history of New Testa- 
 ment criticism. 
 
 ' Groups of MSS. in New Testament. 
 
 'An examination of passages in which two or more 
 different readings exist shows that one small group of 
 authorities, consisting of the uncial manuscripts B, K, L, 
 a few cursives such as Evan. 33, Act. 61, and the Memphi- 
 tic and Thebaic versions, is generally found in agreement ; 
 another equally clearly marked group consists of D, the 
 Old Latin and Old Syriac versions, and cursives 13, 69, 81 
 of the Gospels, 44, 137, and 180 of the Acts, and Evst. 39, 
 with a few others more intermittently ; while A, C (gener- 
 ally), the later uncials, and the great mass of cursives and 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 vu 
 
 the later versions form another group, numerically over- 
 whelming. Sometimes each of these groups will have 
 a distinct reading of its own ; sometimes two of them will 
 be combined against the third; sometimes an authority 
 which usually supports one group will be found with one 
 of the others. But the general division into groups remains 
 constant and is the basis of the present theory. 
 
 'Combined or "Conflate" Readings. 
 
 ' Next, it is possible to distinguish the origins and relative 
 priority of the groups. In the first place, many passages 
 occur in which the first group described above has one 
 reading, the second has another, and the third combines 
 the two. Thus in the last words of St. Luke's Gospel (as 
 the Variorum Bible shows), N, B, C, L, with the Memphitic 
 and one Syriac version, have "blessing God"; D and the 
 Old Latin have " praising God " ; but A and twelve other 
 uncials, all the cursives, the Vulgate and other versions, 
 have " praising and blessing God." Instances like this occur, 
 not once nor twice, but repeatedly. Now it is in itself 
 more probable that the combined reading in such cases 
 is later than, and is the result of, two separate readings. 
 It is more likely that a copyist, finding two different words 
 in two or more manuscripts before him, would put down 
 both in his copy, than that two scribes, finding a combined 
 phrase in their originals, would each select one part of it 
 alone to copy, and would each select a different one. The 
 motive for combining would be praiseworthy — the desire 
 to make sure of keeping the right word by retaining both ; 
 but the motive for separating would be vicious, since it 
 involves the deliberate rejection of some words of the 
 sacred text. Moreover we;/ know that such combination 
 was actually practised; for, as has been stated above, 
 it is a marked characteristic of Lucian's edition of the 
 Septuagint. 
 
vin 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 ' Localisation of Groups by aid of the Fathers. 
 'At this point the evidence of the Fathers becomes 
 important as to both the time and the place of origin 
 of these combined (or as Dr. Hort technically calls them 
 "conflate") readings. T^hey are found to be characteristic 
 of the Scripture quotations in the works of Chrysostom, 
 who was bishop of Antioch in Syria at the end of the 
 fourth century, and of other writers in or about Antioch 
 at the same time ; and thenceforward it is the predominant 
 text in manuscripts, versions, and quotations. Hence this 
 type of text, the text of our later uncials, cursives, early 
 printed editions, and Authorised Version, is believed to 
 have taken its rise in or near Antioch, and is known as the 
 " Syrian " text. The type found in the second of the groups 
 above described, that headed by D, the Old Latin and Old 
 Syriac, is called the " Western " text, as being especially 
 found in Latin manuscripts and in those which (like D) 
 have both Greek and Latin texts, though it is certain that 
 it had its origin in the East, probably in or near Asia 
 Minor. There is another small group, earlier than the 
 Syrian, but not represented continuously by any one MS. 
 (mainly by C in the Gospels, A, C, in Acts and Epistles, 
 with certain cursives and occasionally N and L), to which 
 Dr. Hort gives the name of" Alexandrian." The remaining 
 group, headed by B, may be best described as the " Neutral " 
 text. 
 
 ' The " Syrian " Readings latest. 
 
 'Now among all the Fathers whose writings are left to 
 us from before the middle of the third century (notably 
 IrensEUS, Hippolytus, Clement, Origen, TertuUian, and 
 Cyprian), we find readings belonging to the groups de- 
 scribed as Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral, but no 
 distinctly Syrian readitigs^. On the other hand, we have 
 
 ' The italics are Mr. Kenyon's. 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 IX 
 
 seen that in the latter part of the fourth century, especially 
 in the region of Antioch, Syrian readings are found plenti- 
 fully. Add to this the fact that, as stated above, the 
 Syrian readings often show signs of having been derived 
 from a combination of non-Syrian readings, and we have 
 strong confirmation of the belief, which is the corner-stone 
 of Dr. Hort's theory, that the Syrian type of text originated 
 in a revision of the then existing texts, made about the 
 end of the third century in or near Antioch. The result 
 of accepting this conclusion obviously is, that where the 
 Syrian text diflfers from that of the other groups, it must 
 be rejected as being of later origin, and therefore less 
 authentic ; and when it is remembered that by far the 
 greater number of our authorities contain a Syrian text, 
 the importance of this conclusion is manifest. In spite of 
 their numerical preponderance, the Syrian authorities must 
 be relegated to the lowest place. 
 
 ' The " Western " Group. 
 
 ' Of the remaining groups, the Western text is character- 
 ised by considerable freedom of addition, and sometimes of 
 omission. Whole verses, or even longer passages, are found 
 in manuscripts of this family, which are entirely absent from 
 all other copies. Some of them will be found enumerated 
 in the following chapter in the description of D, the 
 leading manuscript of this class. It is evident that this 
 type of text must have had its origin in a time when 
 strict exactitude in copying the books of the New Testa- 
 ment was not regarded as a necessary virtue. In early 
 days the copies of the New Testament books were made for 
 immediate edification, without any idea that they would be 
 links in a chain for the tlfinsmission of the sacred texts to 
 a distant future ; and a scribe might innocently insert in 
 the narrative additional details which he believed to be 
 true and valuable. Fortunately the literary conscience of 
 
X PREFACE 
 
 Antioch and Alexandria was more sensitive, and so this 
 tendency did not spread very far, and was checked before 
 it had greatly contaminated the Bible text. Western 
 manuscripts often contain old and valuable readings, but any 
 variety which shows traces of the characteristic Western 
 vice of amplification or explanatory addition must be 
 rejected, unless it has strong support outside the purely 
 Western group of authorities. 
 
 'The "Alexandrian" Group. 
 
 ' There remain the Alexandrian and the Neutral groups. 
 The Alexandrian text is represented, not so much by any 
 individual MS. or version, as by certain readings found 
 scattered about in manuscripts which elsewhere belong to 
 one of the other groups. They are readings which have 
 neither Western nor Syrian characteristics, and yet differ 
 from what appears to be the earliest form of the text ; and 
 being found most regularly in the quotations of Origen, 
 Cyril of Alexandria, and other Alexandrian Fathers, as 
 well as in the Memphitic version, they are reasonably 
 named Alexandrian. Their characteristics are such as 
 might naturally be due to such a centre of Greek scholar- 
 ship, since they affect the style rather than the matter, and 
 appear to rise mainly from a desire for correctness of lan- 
 guage. They are consequently of minor importance, and 
 are not always distinctly recognisable. 
 
 •The "Neutral" Group. 
 
 ' The Neutral text, which we believe to represent most 
 nearly the original text of the New Testament, is chiefly 
 recognisable by the absence of the various forms of aber- 
 ration noticed in the other groups. Its main centre is at 
 Alexandria, but it also appears in places widely removed 
 from that centre. Sometimes single authorities of the 
 Western group will part company with the rest of their 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 XI 
 
 
 family and exhibit readings which are plainly both ancient 
 and non- Western, showing the existence of a text preceding 
 the Western, and on which the Western variations have 
 been grafted. This text must therefore not be assigned to 
 any local centre. It belonged originally to all the Eastern 
 world. In many parts of the East, notably in Asia Minor, 
 it was superseded by the text which, from its transference 
 to the Latin churches, we call Western. It remained pure 
 longest in Alexandria, and is found in the writings of the 
 Alexandrian Fathers, though even here slight changes of 
 language were introduced, to which we have given the 
 name of Alexandrian. Our main authority for it at 
 the present day is the great Vatican manuscript known 
 as B, and this is often supported by the equally ancient 
 Sinaitic manuscript (N), and by the other manuscripts and 
 versions named above (p. vi). Where the readings of this 
 Neutral text can be plainly discerned, as by the concur- 
 rence of all or most of these authorities, they may be 
 accepted with confidence in the face of all the numerical 
 preponderance of other texts ; and in so doing lies our best 
 hope of recovering the true words of the New Testament.' 
 
 Reference may also be made, for a short account, to the 
 Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, by his Son 
 (Macmillan & Co.), vol. ii. pp. 344-252 ; and for more 
 information, to Dr. Hort's celebrated Introduction (Macmillan 
 & Co.) published in 1881. 
 
 II. BURGON AND MILLER'S SYSTEM. 
 
 6 1. The True Text. 
 
 ^ f 
 
 The great object of the Textual Criticism of the New 
 Testament is the ascertainment of the actual or genuine 
 words of the original autographs of the writers. Such an 
 ascertainment can only be made with soundness and rest 
 
xu 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 upon a broad basis, if all the evidence that can be collected 
 be sifted and taken into account, and in the case of 
 readings where the evidence is not consistent a balance be 
 struck with all impartiality and justice. The words thus 
 ascertained must constitute the True Text, of which the 
 following must be the essential characteristics : — 
 
 I. It must be grounded upon an exhaustive view of the 
 evidence of Greek copies in manuscript in the first place; 
 and in all cases where they differ so as to afford doubt, 
 of Versions or Translations into other languages, and of 
 Quotations from the New Testament made by Fathers 
 and other early writers. 
 
 3. It must have descended from the actual composition 
 of Books of the New Testament, and must thus possess the 
 highest possible antiquity. 
 
 3. It must be the outcome, not of one stem of descent, 
 but of many. Consentient copies, made by successive 
 transcription in the different countries where the Holy 
 Scriptures were used, revered, and jealously watched, must 
 confirm and check one another. 
 
 4. The descent must be continuous, without break or 
 failure, or it would be no real descent, but a fragmentary 
 or stunted line of genealogy, broken up or prematurely 
 closed. 
 
 5. The Readings, or Text, must be such as to commend 
 themselves to the enlightened judgement of Christendom. 
 
 A. The Neutral Text. 
 
 Judged by these canons, the ' Neutral ' Text of Dr. Hort 
 must be rejected : — 
 
 (i) It rests upon a very few documents arbitrarily 
 selected, and is hopelessly condemned by the vast majority. 
 It cannot reckon, therefore, number or variety. Aspiring 
 to be the expression of the standard work of the Catholic 
 Church, it fails in catholicity. 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 Xlll 
 
 (a) As a collection of readings, apart from separate 
 readings of early date, we maintain that it does not go further 
 back than the School of Caesarea, and that in consequence 
 it does not as a Text possess the highest antiquity. 
 
 (3) It has only one stem by hypothesis, — the probable 
 archetype of B and K (the Vatican and Sinaitic), which 
 Dr. Hort — gratuitously in our contention — thrusts back 
 into the second century. 
 
 (4) It fails in continuity, because (a) there is thus a break 
 or chasm in the earliest period, and {b) because by the 
 admission of Dr. Hort himself it was superseded by 
 the Traditional Text, by him termed ' Syrian,' before the 
 end of the century (fourth) in which the latter Text acquired 
 permanent expression. 
 
 (5) We contend that the Text itself is strangely blurred 
 by numerous omissions of more or less length, including in 
 some instances passages held by its supporters to be 
 genuine extracts from the words or life of our Lord, and 
 by other blemishes. 
 
 B. The Received Text. 
 
 The Textus Receptus, which was adopted in the revival 
 of Greek learning, though it agrees substantially with our 
 Canons, fails under the first, which is the virtual embodiment 
 of them all ; because some of its readings are condemned by 
 the balance struck upon all the evidence which has been 
 assembled under the unprecedented advantages afforded 
 in this century. There remains therefore, in accordance 
 with the Canons already laid down, only 
 
 C. The Traditional Text. 
 
 We maintain, then, that the Traditional Text, duly 
 ascertained according to all the evidence with all fairness 
 of judgement, will represent the Text which issued from 
 the pens of the writers of the New Testament and was used 
 
XIV 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 all over the Church; and which after contracting corruption 
 to a large extent, perhaps in most places, was gradually 
 purged in the main as years went on, though something is 
 left still to be done. 
 
 In the ascertainment of this Text or these Readings, 
 guidance is to be sought under seven Notes of Truth, viz. 
 
 I. Antiquity of witnesses 
 
 a. Number „ 
 
 3. Variety 
 
 4. Weight 
 
 5. Continuity „ 
 
 6. The Context of Passages 
 
 7. Internal Evidence. 
 
 These Seven Notes of Truth, which are essential to the 
 Traditional Text, sufficiently exhibit the agreement of it 
 with the Canons laid down. In fact, coincidence with 
 the first Canon implies coincidence with all the rest. But 
 the age and the uninterrupted existence of the Traditional 
 Text must be further proved. 
 
 Now Dr. Hort has admitted that the Traditional Text 
 has existed ever since the later years of the fourth century. 
 The question remains only as to the period between that 
 date and the issue of the autographs. 
 
 That the Traditional Text existed in that period is 
 proved, in the absence of contemporaneous MSS. (except 
 B and Aleph in the same century), 
 
 (i) By its undeniable prevalence afterwards. Such an 
 almost universal prevalence implies a previous existence 
 widely disseminated, and carried down in numerous stems 
 of descent. 
 
 (2) The verdict of contemporaneous Fathers proves this 
 position amply. 
 
 (3) The witness of the Peshitto and Old Latin Versions 
 confirm it, to say nothing of occasional witness to separate 
 readings found in the Egyptian Versions. 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 XV 
 
 § 2. Origin and Prevalence of Corruption. 
 
 We hold that Corruption arose at the very first propa- 
 gation of stories or accounts of our Lord's Life, probably 
 even before the Gospels were written. It must have 
 infected teaching spread from mouth to mouth, as well zs 
 writings more or less orderly, and more or less authorized. 
 From this source mistakes must have crept in course of 
 time, and in constant process of copying, into the author- 
 ized copies. In early though in later days as well, when 
 or where education was not universal in the Church, and 
 Christians had not yet imbibed familiarity with the words 
 of Holy Scripture, Corruption spread further. A great 
 deal of such Corruption, as we believe, found its way into 
 the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. It was persistent 
 and multiform ; and has been analyzed and explained in 
 our second volume. 
 
 § 3. Dr. HorVs disagreement with us. 
 
 (1) We entirely traverse the assertion, that 'no distinctly 
 Syrian (i. e. Traditional) readings ' are found amongst the 
 earliest Fathers. Very many of the readings in the Tra- 
 ditional Text which are rejected by the other school are 
 supported by those Fathers : and there is no evidence, as 
 we maintain, to show that they pertain to the other side 
 or to any other Text rather than to us, or that readings 
 confessedly old and found in the Traditional Text did not 
 belong to that Text. 
 
 (2) We deny the existence of any Neutral Text, except 
 as a collection, chiefly in B and Aleph, of corrupt readings, 
 though we admit that many of those readings, if not most 
 of them, are of very high antiquity. Considerable danger 
 must attend all systems founded upon Texts or Groups, 
 — valuable as these classifications are for subsidiary em- 
 ployment, — because they open the way more or less to 
 
XVI 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 speculation and are apt to foster a shallow and delusive 
 sciolism instead of a judicial view of evidence. Readings 
 depending upon actual evidence afford the only true basis, 
 though study of the causes of corruption, as well as other 
 investigations, sheds light upon the matter. 
 
 (3) Important points of contention exist with reference 
 to the age of the Peshitto or great Syriac Version (as to 
 which the age of the Curetonian or Lewis is mainly a 
 distinct question), the Theory of the Western Texts and 
 the Latin Versions (or Version), and of Texts in general, 
 as will be seen in the Report of the debate. 
 
 For more information, reference may be made to The 
 Traditional Text, Burgon and Miller (George Bell & 
 Sons), 1896, and The Causes of Corruption (Bells), 1896. 
 Also to Burgon's The Revision Revised, 1883 (John Murray), 
 and to Miller's Textual Guide (Bells), 1885, and upon the 
 question of the Peshitto, to an article in the Church 
 Quarterly Review for April, 1895. 
 
 E. M. 
 
 9, Bradmore Road, Oxford, 
 May 24, 1897. 
 
 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 Dr. Ince :— Gentlemen, I have accepted the invitation 
 of Mr. Miller to preside on this occasion, coming rather 
 as a learner. In some respects it looks as if the old 
 custom of the Divinity Schools was being revived when 
 there was going to be an opponent and respondent on 
 each side, and then it was the duty of the Professor to 
 act as moderator and sum up at the end the results of the 
 debate. Such a moderator ought to be an expert in 
 the subject. I cannot in the least pretend to be an 
 expert. The exigencies of a long life in connexion with 
 a great college which demanded so very much time, both 
 for the tutorial work and for general superintendence, 
 made it impossible for me to devote myself to any special 
 research in such matters as the Textual Criticism of the 
 Text of the Bible, even if one's own special tastes led 
 one m that direction. Therefore that aspect of the old 
 Divinity disputations will be wanting to-day. As I under 
 stand the object of our meeting now is to hear a statement 
 and have a discussion on the two great rival theories as 
 to what the true text and the original text of the New 
 Testament is. It is hardly necessary to say that there 
 IS a strong division of opinion between the maintainers 
 of that which for a long time has been the received text 
 and known as such, and the later theories of the revised 
 
 B 
 
 
2 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 text which have received exposition in the celebrated work 
 of Bishop Westcott and Dr. Hort. Those who maintain 
 either of these two views are to have the opportunity 
 of expressing arguments in favour of it, and especially, 
 I think, it is designed that Mr. Miller, who has taken an 
 enormous amount of trouble and devoted an enormous 
 amount of diligence and labour to the investigation of 
 these subjects, and who stands before the world as the 
 representative of Dean Burgon, may remove some mis- 
 apprehensions which he thinks have existed in the 
 Criticisms which have been directed to the two books 
 which he has brought out in connexion with this great 
 question. I would only like to say that I trust the 
 whole discussion will be conducted in a spirit of absolute 
 judicial impartiality. The question to be determined is, 
 what are the scientific principles to be applied in the 
 definition of the true text of the Bible ? Many of us knew 
 the late Dean Burgon ; I knew him myself very well. 
 Nobody could be more delighted than I was to meet him 
 in private society, or to hear his admirable expositions 
 in the pulpit of St. Mary's. At the same time, I must 
 confess that the vehement tone in which he conducted 
 some of his controversies, and his occasional imputation 
 of motives to those who did not agree with him, rather 
 repelled one. That was an error of a great mind, I think ; 
 and we ought to feel quite sure that an utter absence of 
 any imputation of motives, theological or literary, should 
 distinguish our discussion to-day. I have to say that it 
 is not intended that any resolution whatever should be 
 put ; that is not really the natural sequel to such a dis- 
 cussion. The object is rather, I think, to direct attention, 
 specially in Oxford, to this great question, with the hope 
 that it will be taken up and prosecuted by scholars who ~ 
 have the time to devote to it, because it affects not only 
 Greek and Syriac scholars, but all the early versions must 
 be brought into consideration. Several gentlemen familiar 
 with the question are going to speak, and I am instructed 
 to call upon them in order. If the discussion should be 
 
 PREBENDARY MILLER 
 
 protracted, it may be necessary to limit some of the 
 speeches; possibly no such necessity will arise. I w^ 
 begm by askmg Mr. Miller to open the discussion and 
 state his views on the subject. 
 
 Prebendary Miller.- — Dr. Ince and r.nfi 
 I thint *h^^ it, ^. ^"" trentlemen, 
 
 i think that the attempt to combine scholars upon a 
 general study of the text of Holy Scripture hasTeen 
 rather lost sight of during late years, although it cannot 
 be doubted for a moment that the study is veij important 
 
 to LT f n t? " "°^ '" ^°^"^-I ^""de of course 
 
 u diiu teacn it leel some misg vinp-«! anH 
 are not inc ned to press if- fn tt,„ * ""^g'vings, and 
 Dr Hort HiH T • I extreme extent that 
 
 ur. Hort did. Turning, therefore, to the other system 
 
 the t r '?' ''^ '""°"^ °f P--"ting recendyTo 
 he learned world, I wish to point out in generalterms 
 the chief characteristics of it. Dean Burgon's prindplTs 
 which I advocate, have been T fh;„i, pnnciples, r 
 
 understood, and, . ^^l C^^^l^^^ -^^sTl .^X 
 here were reasons certainly of a personal charact fhS 
 led people to attribute undue importance to some parts 
 of them, and generally not to understand themTn thl 
 proper proportions. This, however should h.h 
 -ind, that Dean Burgon threw ^s who! in elLrid 
 powers, and devoted a very great number of y r'n the 
 
 of some of the ablest men in th. ? ^^"'"^ 
 
 ^ax, was. . r„ „ , „„ ;B';rx^:r:Hs;rr: 
 
 words of Dr. Scnvener, whoso caution and care 
 
 B 3 
 
4 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 I think can hardly be doubted. He says, 'One thing 
 would appear at first sight almost too clear for argument, 
 too self-evident to be disputed, that it is both our wisdom 
 and our duty to weigh the momentous subject at issue 
 in all its parts, shutting out from the mind no source of 
 information which can reasonably be supposed capable 
 of influencing our decision.' The plain English of which 
 is this, that Dr. Scrivener advocated a view which was / 
 supported by the large mass of MSS., against the few. 
 He estimated the vast mass of those MSS. and other 
 evidence which have been discovered and are known, as 
 nineteen-twentieths, and he asks how it can be that one- 
 twentieth shall be supposed to override the verdict of all 
 the rest. Now it is just possible there may be some 
 here who would like to have this exhibited in, say, two 
 instances. Perhaps those of the rest who are familiar with 
 them will pardon me if I bring them before the meeting. 
 I will take first the case of the one, in the first chapter 
 of St. Matthew, verse 25, the question of the word 
 ■npuTOTOKov. You remember it is rejected by some, but 
 it is maintained in what we call the Traditional Text. With 
 regard to the evidence for the maintenance of it, I should 
 like to say that I do not quote Tischendorf entirely by 
 himself. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that I am 
 engaged in preparing a commentary which is intended 
 to go on all the main passages considerably beyond 
 Tischendorf, and I have finished the first ten chapters of 
 St. Matthew, from which both these instances have been 
 taken. The evidence then is as follows : — 
 
 For the word ttpuitotokov (firstborn), the following Uncial 
 MSS. :— C2DEKLMSU VPAn, — thirteen ; — all collated 
 Cursives except two ; — the Old Latin MSS. f ff' g' q, Vul- 
 gate, Peshitto, Harkleian, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, 
 Slavonic; — Tatian, Athanasius (2), Pseudo-Athanasius, 
 Didymus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil (3), Gregory of Nyssa, 
 I'lphraem Syrus, Epiphanius (3), Chrysostom, Proclus, 
 Isidore of Pelusium, John Damascene, Photius, Nicetas, 
 Ambrose, Opus Imperfectum, Augustine (I believe), Jerome. 
 
 PREBENDARY MILLER 5 
 
 For the omission of this word we have only N (the 
 Sinaitic), B (the Vatican), Z (the Dublin Palimpsest— 
 i.e. three Uncials ;— the two Cursives (i, 33):— the Old 
 Latin abcg'k, Bohairic, Curetonian, Lewis; — of the 
 Fathers, Ambrose (3). 
 
 Now it is quite possible that there may be more of the 
 Fathers for this omission, which I think is very probable. 
 Perhaps I may say that I am only beginning my work. 
 Some weeks ago I went into the Bodleian with a number 
 of passages, 1800, which I had taken from Dean Burgon's -^ 
 Indexes to the Quotations in the Fathers, to search out. 
 These did not by any means exhaust the whole of the 
 quotations occurring in the ten chapters, and as I have 
 not been able to finish the investigation I cannot say 
 whether there any more on the other side. It is very 
 probable there are some, but I think only a few. Accord- 
 ingly, this instance will illustrate what is very commonly 
 the case, the difference between the mass of MSS. on the 
 one side and the very few on the other. My second 
 instance is, I think, a very interesting one. We all 
 remember Professor Huxley's paper in the Nineteenth 
 Century about the devils going into the swine, in which 
 he quoted St. Matthew viii. 31, as airoa-TtiKov fmai (send -^ 
 us into the herd of swine). It is a pity that he did not 
 prefer the reading i-nlrpi^ov fnuv aireXBeiv (suffer us to go), 
 which is much the softer of the two and takes off from 
 the harshness of the other. But of course we must 
 proceed upon evidence. Dean Burgon always maintained 
 that it was not a question of opinion, but a question of 
 actual evidence, which should rule us. Now eitiTpefov fnuv 
 &TT(X.0dv is witnessed to by C* (at the end of the fifth century) 
 EKLMSUVXAn, twelve Uncials, — nearly all collated 
 Cursives, the Old Latin fhq, Peshitto, Harkleian,— whilst 
 2 (at the beginning of the ninth century) reads MTpffov 
 fiixiv fl(Te\edv, which is practically the same, and the 
 variations of one Cursive which reads fjixas, and of six 
 which omit fifuv altogether, do not prevent them from 
 being reckoned as supporters of the rest. On the other 
 
6 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 hand, for li-n6(TT(iKov fmas only two Uncial MSS., B N, can 
 be reckoned, — only four Cursives (to follow Tlschendorf, 
 
 for my work here is not complete), i, 22, 33, 118, with 
 
 the Versions abcdff'gikl, Vulgate, Bohairic, Sahidic, 
 Ethiopic, Arabic. 
 
 That will show, what will be perfectly familiar to those 
 who have looked thoroughly into these questions, the 
 extreme difference there is between the two contentions. 
 The remarkable thing is, that that extreme difference is 
 kept up to a very great extent indeed throughout the 
 Gospels. In almost all controverted cases you will find, 
 and this is a misfortune, Aleph and B or one of them, 
 with a very small body on one side and a large body 
 of other MSS. on the other. I say that is»a misfortune, 
 because I think it is that which divides us into two camps, 
 a thing I very much regret. This being so, if you have 
 a very small body of MSS. against all the others, how can 
 it possibly be right to say that the small body should 
 dominate all the rest? Just look at the matter for an 
 instant in this way :— Suppose you are sitting at the elbow 
 of an editor of Agamemnon, or the Trachiniae, or what- 
 ever it may be of Sophocles, you would see that in his 
 very wildest dreams he would never conceive on any 
 difficult passage of such an immense mass of evidence 
 being at hand, as we have in this case on the one side 
 set aside by those few. And yet when one looks at 
 Dr. Hort's system, one finds a large body of evidence 
 frequently thrown entirely aside and virtually cast into 
 the waste-paper basket. I will ask, is that a logical or 
 a proper way of proceeding? Can it be justified intel- 
 lectually, and can it be right, in dealing with Holy 
 Scripture?. The explanation is what has frequently 
 been called by other men the extreme adulation paid to 
 B, especially by Dr. Hort and men of that side. I think 
 some of it is very natural, and that history quite accounts 
 for it. They are the two oldest MSS. ; and in early times, 
 when people had in their view only a small amount of 
 evidence, it was very natural that they should say that these 
 
 PREBENDARY MILLER 
 
 two MSS. which come to us as the earliest, and were 
 therefore nearest to the original autographs, should be right. 
 A great deal of interest was also felt because ' B ' in the 
 Vatican was invested with a certain amount of mystery. 
 People were in the habit of looking for great things to 
 come from Rome, and being unable to learn what it was 
 which was so zealously guarded, they thought it would 
 prove to be the key to all the difficulties when it was 
 discovered. Thus, when another MS. like Aleph was 
 found by Tischendorf, it was only reasonable that great 
 attention should be paid to it. 
 
 Yet when we look on the other side, there are certain 
 points which cast discredit upon those two documents. 
 In the first place, according to all the critics they were • 
 produced in those times after the Council of Nicea when 
 Semi-Arianism or one of those kinds of belief which were 
 associated with it were in the ascendent ; and it was very 
 remarkable that just at the time when the Nicene Creed 
 was finally accepted, towards the end of the century, these 
 MSS. seem to have slipped out of repute. Then also they 
 bear I think upon them traces of a somewhat sceptical ^ 
 tone, sometimes almost going into heresy, which would 
 enable one, as I think, to connect them with the period 
 in which they were produced. They are too incomplete - 
 MSS. There are no breathings or accents and scarcely 
 any stops in B, and there are no breathings or accents 
 except in two passages in Aleph, and the stops are very 
 fitful and uncertain. These MSS. were also, as I have 
 pointed out, condemned within fifty years. There was, 
 I think, a great deal involved in that circumstance. And 
 lastly, they are rejected by evidence virtually older than 
 themselves. Objection was made to Dean Burgon that 
 he did not care for the value of MSS- This is quite 
 untrue as far as feelings were concerned, although 
 of course you must not simply depend upon what a 
 man's feelings are to maintain anything respecting his 
 actions. 
 
 But Dean Burgon did not neglect the special value of 
 
8 
 
 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 separate MSS. At least it will be admitted that he enter- 
 tained and expressed very strong objection, in which many 
 others concurred, to the very high estimate formed by 
 many critics of B and Aleph. If there is on one side 
 a very high admiration for these MSS., there is also on 
 the other side a large number of scholars who have a great 
 objection to them. There are many eminent men on our 
 side, and I think if you set store by the admiration for 
 Aleph and B on the one side you ought to put the 
 objections to them in the other scale. It was said that 
 Dean Burgon merely counted heads, and that the character 
 or weight of MSS. was therefore virtually nothing, it 
 being supposed that he imagined one to be equal to 
 another. But Dean Burgon never adopted this line of 
 argument. Some people are of opinion that he thought 
 a late Cursive was as good as an early Uncial, but this 
 was not the case, and he and those who agree with him 
 have never dreamt of maintaining such a thesis. What 
 we have always said is, that when the mass of the later 
 MSS. go together they outweigh one or two other ones. 
 We never take the Cursives separately. 
 
 In order to controvert the erroneous impression regarding 
 his views that he cared for numbers only and not for 
 weight, Dean Burgon constructed and worked out to a 
 considerable extent his theory about the seven notes of 
 truth, which he maintained were :— Antiquity, number, 
 variety of kinds and countries, weight, continuity, context, 
 and internal evidence. He laid great stress upon antiquity. 
 Of course number is something, for if you multiply 
 evidence by any figure it is surely of more value when 
 it is numerous than when it was single, although one 
 would be almost inclined to suppose that some people 
 imagine that number derogates from the value. 
 
 There is no time now to dwell upon the remaining notes 
 of truth. But there is one other point which I should like 
 to notice before I go further, and that is this. There are 
 three classes of evidence: — Greek MSS., Versions into 
 different languages, and Quotations of the New Testament 
 
 PREBENDARY MILLER 
 
 by the Fathers. Some people suppose that we lay more 
 stress upon the Quotations of the Fathers than upon 
 anything else. That is quite an error ; we lay most stress 
 upon MSS., and anybody who goes carefully into the 
 evidence and into the different passages must I think do 
 the same. Suppose we come to a passage which is not ■ 
 a very important one perhaps, and which is perfectly 
 decided by the copies, we say that there is no necessity 
 to go further and to call in the Versions and the Fathers. 
 The MSS. themselves decide the question, and great care 
 ought to be exercised in applying the other two classes 
 of evidence. I think on some occasions Tischendorf has 
 wrongly quoted Latin MSS. when there is not sufficient 
 evidence to justify such a course, the difference of reading 
 being capable of explanation by the difference of idiom 
 and not necessarily by any question connected with special 
 words. And then again with regard to the Fathers, it is 
 evident that great caution must be employed in dealing 
 with them. You must be cautious how far they are used, 
 but in many respects they are most valuable, especially 
 perhaps in regard to such matters as omissions. For 
 instance in the case, say, of the word ttpoototokov (where 
 the mention shows that it was in the Fathers' copy), or 
 especially when a reference is made not in exact quotation 
 but as an explanation of a passage — then the Fathers 
 become extremely valuable. Another caution is to be urged 
 with respect to Texts of the Fathers, some scholars holding 
 the objection that the words may have been altered. My 
 impression is that if those Texts were looked through 
 thoroughly, these critics would withdraw a great part of 
 their objection. Of course, we wait for the editing of the 
 Fathers, but if we take editions like Stieren's Irenaeus, 
 or Otto's Justin Martyr, we find the changes are very few 
 and small. The principle I venture to lay down therefore 
 is that of the many against the few, and the necessity for 
 a careful consideration and weighing of the evidence. 
 
 Passing from that, I want to draw your attention to 
 another point upon which there has been some misappre- 
 
lO 
 
 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 hension, and that is the claim we make for the acceptance 
 of fifteen centuries impressed upon the Traditional Text. 
 People have thought when we spoke of the Church doing 
 this, that we had in our minds some arbitrary decision 
 to which all people were bound to pay attention. Instead 
 of that, we urge it as a proof of reasonableness. It is well 
 known by those who study the history of the Church, that 
 even the clear and plain decisions of Councils were not 
 taken to be final or to have the authority of General 
 Councils until they were subsequently ratified by the 
 Universal Church. They were examined on all sides, and 
 when they were approved, respect gathered round the 
 Council in question, and the decisions of it became valid 
 and fixed. There was, of course, in the present case, no 
 public controversy ; so far as we know, any such must have 
 been between man and man, and not, at any rate, so public 
 as to descend to us. That I think renders the decision 
 even more strong. Then I wish to remind you that the 
 period to which we refer was the fourth century, which 
 was the great verifying age of the Church. Soon after 
 the time when the Roman Empire became Christian, all 
 the finest intellects in the world were turned towards these 
 subjects, upon which people felt and thought more than 
 upon anything else. As an illustration of this, I may refer 
 you to the great respect paid to-day to the Nicene Creed, 
 or again the respect felt for the Canon of Holy Scripture. 
 When they had decided upon the Canon of the New 
 Testament, surely they must go on to settle the words of 
 the New Testament, and they so seem to have done. But 
 this became a much longer process, because there were 
 but a few books upon each of which the Canon would 
 have to be settled, but innumerable readings. Accordingly, 
 a long period of years would be taken up in the settle- 
 ment of the vast numbers of questions involved. The 
 fortunes of the Roman Empire delayed it very much, and 
 the consequence is that the final settlement has not been 
 made, as we maintain, up to the present time, when our 
 immense collection of evidence puts us in a much better 
 
 PREBENDARY MILLER 
 
 II 
 
 position to form our conclusions than at any previous time. 
 The process of settlement went on until the end of the 
 seventh century, and in saying this I have the agreement 
 also of Dr. Hort. After that time the Traditional Text, 
 which had been mainly received before, was finally settled 
 and accepted. The fact that this was the great verifying 
 age of the Church did not mean that there were any new 
 decisions made : — they made no fresh departure, but they 
 simply ratified what had been in practice in the Church 
 before. This ratification was expressed in the words uttered 
 at the Council of Nicea by all the bishops, to, Apx^ia Hdrj 
 KpaTfiTco, ' Let ancient customs prevail.' Therefore when 
 the question of the Text was settled, it is reasonable to 
 suppose that it was decided that the Traditional Text 
 was the Text which had been mainly read and used from 
 very earliest times, and that it was a part of ancient custom. 
 So that leads us, I think, to see that in Dr. Hort's system, 
 and in other systems before his, there was a narrow view 
 of estimating tradition. I think the authors did not see 
 the vast volume of tradition which descended all over the 
 Church, but were inclined to trace everything through 
 a small body, such as the school at Caesarea. I think 
 we hardly understand the extraordinary attention paid to ' 
 Holy Scriptures in the earliest times. It is very remark- 
 able that many more quotations were found from the Old 
 Testament in the works of the early Fathers, than from 
 the New. And the reason is clear. People outside the 
 Church first had to understand the nature of the One 
 True God, and then to come to Him. They learnt that 
 in the Old Testament, and that was what struck them 
 more than all, and when they had been taught that, they 
 could go on to the teaching of the New. In this way 
 the Holy Scriptures, Old and New, were a most powerful 
 engine, first of all in the conversion of the people and 
 then in teaching them ; and so for their own study they 
 must have had copies all over the Church. They read 
 them also in their services, and wherever there was a 
 church there must have been MSS. of Holy Scriptures in 
 
12 
 
 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 PREBENDARY MILLER 
 
 13 
 
 daily use. When one decayed, it was replaced by another. 
 So there was not a country where there was not some 
 stream or streams of descent, like the Western Text and the 
 Alexandrian. I quite agree that those texts existed ; but 
 besides them there was not a place that did not hand on 
 the tradition, which was carried down as if in rivulets 
 "extending over the whole surface of the Church. If this 
 was the case, it shows the reason why two MSS. of the 
 same text, issuing probably from the school at Caesarea, 
 should not have been accepted all over the Church. There 
 was an immense volume of tradition at variance with them, 
 and that was the reason why their text fell out of general 
 I vogue within fifty years after those MSS. were made. 
 
 You require some proof. I think I have some as far as 
 it goes. You remember that some of the chief men who 
 established the Nicene Creed finally in universal acceptance 
 were St. Basil and the two St. Gregories. It is remarkable 
 that these three Fathers witness very largely, more than 
 almost any others of their time, to the Traditional Text, 
 or rather the traditional readings, and you will remember 
 that all these three came from Cappadocia, two from 
 Neo-Caesarea, and one of the Gregories from Nazianzus, 
 not very far from Caesarea. Does not that seem to show 
 there was a descent genealogically of MSS. in favour of 
 the Traditional Text which taught them to witness so much 
 to it ? There is even a little more proof that such a tra- 
 dition was carried on in those parts. In the early centuries 
 Gregory Thaumaturgus, a pupil of Origen, witnessed to 
 the Traditional Text just about in the same way, and he 
 also lived at Neo-Caesarea. 
 
 This brings us back to the very difficult time before we 
 have any MSS. existing which reaches back to the delivery 
 of the autographs. With respect to that you will re- 
 member, in the first place, that it is now generally 
 understood that the reason why we have no MSS. is, 
 because the New Testament was in early days written 
 upon papyrus, which was of a perishable character, and 
 therefore they have not descended to us. Many of you 
 
 
 will remember that last year, by the kindness of the 
 Margaret Professor, we had in a lecture given by 
 Mr. Kenyon some specimens of papyrus shown us ; and, 
 as a matter of fact, he went rather farther than I am 
 myself disposed to go. But there is no doubt, I fancy, 
 that in the first days they used papyrus, and that is the 
 reason why we have no MSS. in our hands representing 
 those times. Before I go into that subject I think there 
 is a point which is very much deserving of consideration) 
 and I find that it has not only struck myself, but it has 
 struck at any rate one of my learned friends. It is that 
 Dr. Hort has strained the theory of Texts, and that 
 generally among critics the theory of Texts has been 
 strained in its consideration. I am not going to say 
 anything against the theory of Texts generally within 
 due limitations. It was introduced by Bengel, who was 
 followed by Semler and Griesbach and Hug, and it was 
 adopted in this century by others, and especially by 
 Dr. Hort. He slightly altered it by the introduction of 
 what he called the Neutral Text. He considered that in 
 the early times there were three texts: the Western, the 
 Alexandrian, and the Neutral. I should say we doubt 
 very much indeed the existence of the Neutral Text, except 
 in a very particular way which I will describe directly, 
 and upon which I maintain that the evidence is satisfactorily 
 strong. When people read about a Text they are apt to 
 consider that it must be some complete setting of words 
 and expressions. And indeed, what is said and written 
 about it sometimes leads me to suppose that they consider 
 everything written in the West belonged to the Western 
 Text, whereas of course Text is merely a collective word 
 denoting a number of readings in the particular part of 
 the world to which it refers. Besides these, it includes 
 also other readings which belong to the true Text, what- 
 ever that may be. In early times people took the general 
 readings of the New Testament and added some peculiar 
 ones of their own which prevailed especially in the locality, 
 and that was the way in which they made a composite 
 
H 
 
 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 PREBENDARY MILLER 
 
 ^5 
 
 kind of Text, partly belonging to the true Text, and 
 partly coloured with readings of their own. Now what we 
 ought to call them is, I maintain, not Texts but Readings. 
 When you once begin to speak of Texts, and consequently 
 a beginner comes to consider Texts, he naturally clothes 
 the word so to speak with flesh and bones and makes 
 it into something ; whereas if it is merely collective, it is 
 a very different matter. This, I maintain, is the only way 
 of safeguarding them, viz., to call them Readings instead 
 of Texts. It comes to this. Supposing we were to take 
 in the early days a map of the Church, instead of having 
 red or whatever colour it may be in the West, and yellow 
 for Alexandria and so forth, we should dot the world all 
 over. There were everywhere reasons for corruption which 
 must have been produced in early times. It was so pro- 
 duced all about the Christian world, but in certain particular 
 regions you would have more marks, as I maintain, of 
 corruption, and perhaps also slightly different in character- 
 istics. I think that is a very important point, and must 
 lead, if it is not attended to, to mistakes. Dolus latet sub 
 verba Text. 
 
 There are also difficulties in this way. Alexandrian is 
 a very perplexing Text to make out, and with respect to 
 the Western there is a very considerable difficulty there too, 
 because the Old Latin Versions differ so very much among 
 themselves. Beginning with the Brixianus (f) on the one 
 hand and ending with the Bobiensis (k) there is an immense 
 amount of variety, so that on very many passages you are 
 able to use on both sides Old Latin Texts. I think it is 
 much safer to follow to a great extent Dean Burgon's 
 theory, which is worked out very ingeniously upon the 
 various Kinds of Corruption. 
 
 With respect to the origin pf B and Aleph, which will 
 be of course Neutral documents, I believe both came from 
 Origcn, who was the first textual critic. I think Dean 
 Burgon has been hard upon him sometimes. He was 
 a man of wide observation, and had travelled very largely. 
 He went to Rome, besides living at Alexandria, to Arabia 
 
 Petraea thrice, to Caesarea several times, besides spending 
 there the latter part of his life. He also went to Greece, 
 and sojourned in Neo-Caesarea. As you knowj he edited 
 the Old Testament, and prepared an apparatus of MSS. 
 for editing the New. He can frequently be quoted on both 
 sides, for he used MSS. of a different character ; and it 
 seems therefore that he laid his foundations as widely as 
 he could with a view to a future revision or settlement of 
 the Text. Moving from Alexandria he went to live at 
 Caesarea, where he laid the foundation of the school at 
 that place, in which he was followed by those who were 
 successively bishops of that city, Pamphilus, Eusebius, 
 Acacius, and Euzoius. The two latter were engaged, as 
 we are told in a colophon, in copying from papyrus on to / 
 vellum. There are various reasons for concluding, and' 
 I think it is generally admitted now, that the probability 
 is, at least as far as the evidence goes, that the fifty MSS. 
 produced by Eusebius in compliance with the letter from 
 Constantine included the Sinaitic and the Vatican. Now , 
 taking into consideration these fifty MSS., seeing there 
 were forty-eight others, my impression is, that they were 
 according to the school of Origen of different characters. 
 Supposing they were not, but that, as Dr. Hort might say, 
 all the fifty were B's and Alephs, how would he explain 
 this? They went to Constantinople, and were used in 
 the Churches there. Supposing they embodied in them the 
 true Text, they must have had an almost untold influence. 
 They came from the highest school, were exceedingly 
 handsome, and if they all agreed must have impressed 
 their character upon the Church at Constantinople. Yet 
 so soon was the Traditional Text accepted at Constanti- 
 nople, that those in the last century who treated of the 
 earliest Texts styled that Text Constantinopolitan or By- 
 zantine, which Dr. Hort calls Syrian, and which we call 
 the Traditional. How then can this be explained ? I con- 
 clude therefore that these MSS. were not of the same, 
 but of various kinds. 
 
 I have very little more time, and I must very rapidly say 
 
 
i6 
 
 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 what I have to say. The evidence in the early centuries is 
 this. It is first of the MSS., because the Traditional Text 
 from the later part of the fourth century prevailed almost 
 everywhere, and there were after that time hardly any of 
 the others. Supposing it was general, almost universal, 
 everywhere found to prevail, it must have been the 
 successor of copies of the same character which went before 
 it. Therefore the MSS. throw back their character to the 
 earliest age. Secondly, there is the evidence of the Fathers, 
 which I have in our first volume gone through and have 
 shown that by a very large majority they witness to the 
 Traditional Text. With respect to this subject I must 
 point out that those who maintain B and Aleph have 
 a very much more difficult task to perform than we have. 
 We admit that readings of their character go back to the 
 first, but we call them corruptions. We admit they were 
 quite as early and came out immediately after — perhaps 
 even before — the Gospels were written ; but our opponents 
 say that our readings do not go back at all. Therefore we 
 have simply to prove that our readings go back to that 
 time, in order to show that those who are opposed to us 
 are wrong in giving a' late date to the Traditional Text. 
 Then, thirdly, there are the Versions, and of those first 
 comes the Peshitto. With respect to the controversy about 
 the Peshitto, whether that or the Curetonian was the old 
 Syriac Version or not, a great deal of evidence will be 
 given to you by those who have expressly studied the 
 subject. One point I notice which has for me a good deal 
 of interest. By the end of the sixth century the apparatus 
 of MSS. of the Peshitto exceeded the apparatus of the 
 Greek MSS. of the Gospels. Does not that show how 
 very firmly the Peshitto must have been settled? What is 
 settled in the unchangeable East goes on ; and accordingly 
 that seems to be a strong argument, as well as the others, 
 in favour of the early existence of the Peshitto. Next 
 I take the question relating to the revision of the Tradi- 
 tional Text. The Latin Versions, according to my figures, 
 witness in favour of the Traditional Text in the proportion 
 
 PREBENDARY MILLER 
 
 17 
 
 of five to four. You will see here the exclusiveness of 
 Dr. Hort, and I venture to hope the greater broadness 
 of our school. 
 
 There is one point which perhaps I may be allowed to 
 enter upon before I end. It is this. Dr. Hort's system 
 stands of course in our way, and I think there are very 
 great objections to it. The first perhaps that one might 
 notice, which is felt by many people very strongly, is that in 
 order to support it he is obliged to suppose that certain -^ 
 revisions took place of which there is no trace whatever in 
 history. I do not wish to dilate upon that now; but 
 I know there are some, and perhaps several here, who feel 
 that that is a very strong point. Possibly I may mention 
 a little private instance of this. A few years ago at 
 Bournemouth a friend of mine introduced me to the late 
 Dr. Scott, Head Master of Westminster School, who divided 
 the honours at Cambridge in his year with the present 
 distinguished Bishop of Durham. He said, 'If you get 
 Scott upon the "phantom revisions," as we call them, it 
 will delight your soul.' He called upon me : and I intro- 
 duced the subject. It was like turning on a tap ; he was 
 thoroughly indignant at the liberty taken with history by 
 Dr. Hort. I only mention this to show you what is 
 thought by very able men, who are quite capable of 
 judging of history, if they are not actually experts upon 
 this subject. 
 
 There is another point, that of Conflation: I want 
 particularly to mention this. It has been said in the 
 Life of Dr. Hort, that he would not reply to Dean Burgon 
 because he thought that Dean Burgon did not know 
 enough to grapple with and estimate his Inductive Theory. 
 I have my doubts, but I will not say anything about 
 whether Dean Burgon had not examined more Greek MSS. 
 and had a greater command of Patristic quotations than 
 Dr. Hort ; our contention is that Dr. Hort's theory is an 
 Inductive Theory without induction. As a matter of fact, 
 there has been no inductive foundation published.' It now 
 remains in pigeon-holes or MS. books, and the world has 
 
 c 
 
i8 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 not seen it. But I also hold, that it is not supported by 
 any induction adequate to the maintenance of it. Now 
 conflation supplies a field small enough to test this in. 
 Dr. Hort— I speak very briefly (having no time to pay 
 tribute to his many admirable qualities)— only brings 
 forward eight instances —unless perhaps there is one more 
 mentioned just on his way— eight instances to establish 
 a system which is supposed to operate throughout the 
 whole of the Gospels. I say that that is an absurd 
 induction, but I have answered his eight pleas, and in the 
 opinion of one of my critics have had the best of the 
 argument. That however may pass. Eight instances 
 —four from St. Mark, four from St. Luke, none from 
 St Matthew unless it is the one I have just noticed, and 
 none from St. John ! Yet St. John especially is just the 
 writer whom you would have thought would have supplied 
 several such, his writings being quite of the character 
 required. I say that this is an absurd foundation upon 
 which to build up a large doctrine. I tried my best to 
 increase Dr. Hort's number, and I added twenty-four to it, 
 so as to make eight for each Gospel. All these but one 
 answered the conditions at first, but failed in meeting the 
 requirements afterwards. It is quite possible that I have 
 made a mistake, and have been unable to discover what 
 really exists. I am quite prepared to suppose that there 
 may be several. A friend of mine showed me seven which 
 he had found out, where curiously enough, whilst five of 
 the conflations were towards the Traditional Text, the 
 others were towards B or Aleph, and therefore in the 
 wrong direction. In order to satisfy the conditions of this 
 problem, it would be necessary to have at least thirty 
 instances, and these should be typical instances. I give 
 a challenge here to the followeis of Dr. Hort either to 
 produce thirty typical instances or to reject the system 
 altogether. 
 
 Just in conclusion, let me say that although in principle 
 there can be no compromise between idolatry of B and 
 Aleph and an adherence to a broad view of evidence, never- 
 
 PROFESSOR SAND AY 
 
 19 
 
 theless, although no theoretical compromise is possible, 
 I should hope that there may be a practical meeting in 
 many ways : and what I should hope very much is, that 
 some plan may be set on foot from this time by which 
 those who are on different sides on this question may find 
 some sort of agreement and may co-operate one with 
 another in threshing out this great question. It is with 
 that wish that I have done what I could in this debate, 
 proposed to me kindly by the Margaret Professor. I have 
 to thank you all for the attention you have given me, and 
 I only hope some good result may come of our meeting 
 together to-day. 
 
 Professor Sanday : — I very gladly acknowledge, and 
 I am sure every one here will acknowledge, the chivalrous 
 spirit in which Mr. Miller has prosecuted this controversy, 
 and the chivalrous character of the proposals which he has 
 made to us ; I refer in particular to those for co-operation. 
 But I think that there will be practical difficulties in the 
 way of carrying out these suggestions to any large extent, 
 I think it would be better for each side to prosecute its own 
 studies on its own methods, but I do not see any reason 
 whatever why we should not meet from time to time in 
 a friendly way as we have done this afternoon, and discuss 
 particular points, perhaps somewhat more limited in 
 character than the very broad issue which is put before us 
 to-day. I must try to be as concise as possible, and I will 
 begin by meeting Mr. Miller as far as I can by saying how 
 far I think we can go with him. I think we can go with 
 him first as to the palaeographical conditions of textual 
 criticism. It happens that that side of the subject is one 
 to which I have paid a good deal of attention from time to 
 time myself, and I very gladly bear testimony to what 
 Mr. Miller has said in his books on this subject. He 
 carries me entirely with him as to, for instance, the point 
 he mentions regarding the supersession of papyrus by 
 vellum. This was an important epoch in the history of 
 MSS. There are a number of other points into which 
 I need not at present enter. The second point upon which 
 
 c a 
 
20 
 
 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 I agree with him is the general enumeration of the causes 
 of corruption. I willingly recognize all the causes that he 
 mentions in his book which goes under that title. The 
 only question is as to their application. Unfortunately, 
 this is practically a question of internal evidence, and this 
 internal evidence is constantly ambiguous. One reading 
 may be due to one kind of corruption, and an opposite 
 reading may be due to another kind of corruption, so that 
 the one very often cancels the other. The difference 
 between us is not as to the causes of corruption which are 
 in operation, but as to the application of those causes. 
 Thirdly, there is a point in his books on which Mr. Miller 
 has laid some stress, and that is the influence of the great 
 libraries. There again I agree with him, and in particular 
 regarding that one great library upon which one naturally 
 has one's eye — I mean the library founded by Pamphilus at 
 Caesarea. The reference to this would be specially impor- 
 tant if it were true, as Mr. Miller and many others contend, 
 that the great MSS., the Vatican and the Sinaitic, both 
 came from that library. I confess I think myself that 
 there is a great deal to be said for that view. But it is 
 not quite proved. Dr. Hort thought they were written in 
 Italy, or rather that the Vatican MS. was written in Italy 
 and the Sinaitic probably in Egypt. There are some 
 arguments to be adduced in favour of this view. There is 
 a little peculiarity found in B which is characteristic of the 
 Latin MSS.— a tendency to represent the form 'Israel' by 
 ' Istrael,' the insertion of a ' t.' It is confined to the Acts 
 in B, and there are certain capitulations or chapters, marked 
 in the margin, which are also found in a Latin form. 
 These are, of course, arguments, and we must remember 
 that the great palaeographer. Dr. Ceriani of Milan, was 
 also of opinion that B was written in Italy. There is 
 a great deal to be said on the other side; the question 
 Hs still under discussion. Then, fourthly, I can for myself 
 go with Mr. Miller to a certain extent in thinking that 
 Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort have pressed their preference 
 for these MSS. rather too far. One can make that con- 
 
 PROFESSOR SANDAY 
 
 21 
 
 fession without any breach of principle, without any real 
 inconsistency, because there are other texts almost, if not 
 quite, as early as they are. The Western text and those 
 texts represented by these two MSS. branched off in the 
 second century, and so the true reading may be found in 
 either of those two branches, and occasionally I think it 
 quite possible — as indeed Westcott and Hort themselves 
 thought in the case of certain omissions in the Western 
 authorities— that the right reading may be preserved in 
 the Western branch and not in the branch represented by 
 Aleph and B. After all, they are fallible MSS. You find, 
 but only very occasionally, the same kind of mistakes as in 
 other MSS., and it is, I think, not a safe inference that 
 because a MS. is right in nine cases out of ten, therefore it 
 will be right in the tenth. On this fourth point I can agree 
 with Mr. Miller ; but I am afraid, on the other hand, there 
 is a fundamental difference between us, and that difference 
 is so grave that it would not be easy for us actually to 
 work together at present. We start from opposite ends- 
 Mr. Miller and Dean Burgon started from the Received Text, 
 and I cannot help thinking that the Received Text has so ^ 
 impressed itself upon their minds that it is the standard to 
 which, unconsciously, everything is referred. One can see 
 it in their books ; one almost seems to read the Received 
 Text between the lines. That is one thing, and the other 
 thing is, I think, that one can also read between the lines 
 that strong preference which Mr. Miller has expressed for 
 numbers, for the numerical majority, the mass of MSS. 
 Whether this view is correct is exceedingly doubtful, but 
 one cannot be surprised at finding it advocated. The other 
 view seems a paradox, but it is much less of a paradox 
 than it seems. Take this simple illustration. Suppose you - 
 have a MS. from which, from time to time, fifty copies are 
 made. On Mr. Miller's theory those fifty copies would 
 entirely outweigh the MS. itself, whereas all of them 
 would contain such corruptions as are to be found in the 
 original MS., and each of them would have its own cor- 
 ruptions as well. Clearly, the single MS. is of more value 
 
22 
 
 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 than the whole fifty. That is the principle upon which we 
 go, and I submit, with all deference, that Mr. Miller presents 
 the problem in a wrong way. The real problem is to get 
 at the original archetype, to get as near the autograph as 
 you possibly can. MSS. fall into groups or families, each 
 of which has an archetype. You begin with small families, 
 and try to find what were the readings contained in 
 this small archetype. A group of small families will make 
 a large family, which also has its archetype. The true 
 method of criticism is to work your way backwards, starting 
 from the outside and working your way gradually to the 
 root. I submit that that is the right method of approaching 
 the subject. Another thing which I am glad to see in 
 Mr. Miller's recent book is the prominence which he has 
 given to the history of the text. Hitherto, in Dean Burgon's 
 earlier works that side of the question was certainly not pro- 
 minently put forward. But Dr. Hort lays it down as a prin- 
 ciple that in order to get at the original text you must first 
 have some conception of its history. That is a perfectly 
 sound principle, not confined to the New Testament, but 
 applicable to any text, for which there are a great number 
 of excellent authorities. Of course, if you have only 
 a single MS., and if you have a MS. from which others 
 are copied, as in the case of Sophocles, the problem is 
 a perfectly simple one. The text practically has no history, 
 at least it is only guess-work to decide regarding it. But 
 where you have so many authorities as we have for the 
 Greek Testament, it is possible to a very considerable 
 extent to reconstruct that history. That was the problem 
 which Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort set before themselves, 
 and worked out with extraordinary skill and patience. 
 And perhaps I may be allowed to say that my own 
 experience, so far as it goes, very much confirms their 
 results. To a certain extent that experience is inde- 
 pendent, because I was working on the subject of text 
 before their book came out. The first-fruits of such work 
 as I did upon the subject may be seen in my book on the 
 Gospels in the Second Century, and I have by me at home 
 
 PROFESSOR SANDAY 
 
 23 
 
 numbers of tables which I drew out for myself at that time. 
 They were constructed on the principle of beginning with 
 what was easy, and going from easy readings to difficult 
 ones. This is another mistake which it seems to me has 
 been made by the supporters of the Received Text. They 
 pick out the salient points, and give you all the striking 
 readings. You are not led up to those readings, you are 
 led down to them from the Received Text, and I confess 
 I think that the other method is preferable. When you 
 have examined a number of easy readings you will find 
 principles will gradually form themselves in your mind. 
 Of course I have learnt more than I can say from Westcott 
 and Hort, and I should be only too glad to be allowed to 
 consider myself one of their disciples. But now in view of 
 Mr. Miller's recent books I think we may say that we have 
 two theories of the history of the text confronting each 
 other, this theory of Dr. Hort, and that presented by 
 Mr. Miller. Well, I confess that for myself I have no 
 doubt as to which deserves the preference. Mr. Miller will / 
 forgive me if I say that history as it is presented by him 
 makes upon me the impression of an afterthought, whereas 
 in the case of Dr. Hort it was the very foundation of the 
 whole system. He had to work out the history as an 
 essential and integral part of the theory. I must just say 
 a few words in reply to the points raised by Mr. Miller, 
 and in support of that general view. Mr. Miller objects to 
 Dr. Hort's use of the term ' Texts.' I quite agree with 
 him that it is only a collective name for a number of 
 readings, but it does correspond to certain facts, certain 
 phenomena in the MSS. There is a tendency for MSS. 
 and for other authorities to form into groups, and when 
 you come to examine the readings of those groups you 
 find certain common characteristics running through them. 
 That is all that it means. You may sit lightly to them, 
 especially in the matter of geography, as Mr. Miller 
 pointed out. That is one point. Then I understand that 
 Mr. Miller now lays stress on the authority of the Church ', 
 from the end of the fourth century onwards. I am not 
 
24 
 
 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 sure that I know exactly what he means. Does he think 
 there was an authorized edition? If so, it seems to me 
 hardly consistent with his criticism of what he calls the 
 ' phantom revisions,' because there is no trace of any such 
 authoritative revision. On the contrary, I should say you 
 find writers of that age occasionally referring to differences 
 of reading, and referring to them in the same way that 
 they had done before. They do not appeal to authority. 
 You may occasionally find the statement that the Church 
 reads so and so ; you may find that the ecclesiastical 
 copies have such and such a reading, but more often you 
 find the statement that the ancient copies read so and so. 
 I should like to give Mr. Miller one example. There is 
 a conspicuous reading in which St. Basil who was one of the 
 persons mentioned as supporting this authoritative text — 
 
 Mr. Miller : — Yes, perhaps I may explain. I meant 
 merely the action going through the Church. 
 
 Professor Sanday : — You mean a gradual tendency ? 
 Mr. Miller : — I quite agree. I think it merely grew 
 up, so to speak. I ought to have guarded myself. 
 
 Professor Sanday : — I think you will find, when you 
 come to examine the matter, that Dr. Hort did not mean 
 anything more. I was just going to quote this particular 
 reading of St. Basil. I quite allow that St. Basil has a 
 good many readings which correspond with the Received 
 Text, but he also has a fair proportion of others, and you 
 remember the reading of the first verse of the Epistle 
 to the Ephesians, in which there is an omission of the 
 words fv 'E<f>f(T(a. The authorities for that omission are 
 Aleph and B, alone among the MSS., Origen and Basil, 
 the latter of whom also quotes ancient MSS. If you take 
 St. Jerome you will find the same appeal to MSS., and 
 in particular to the MSS. of Origen, Codices Adamantii et 
 Pierii. There is a special appeal made to them. I am 
 afraid that the view will not hold water that Aleph and B 
 represent the text of Origen. The text they really 
 represent is older than Origen, because there are a great 
 many examples of readings which Origen advocates 
 
 PROFESSOR SANDAY 
 
 25 
 
 strongly, but which are not to be found in Aleph and B. 
 Origen reads ' Bethabara beyond Jordan ' ; Aleph and B 
 have 'Bethany.' In the case of the miracle of the 
 demoniac Origen reads ' Gergesenes,' and defends the 
 reading at considerable length, whereas Aleph and B have 
 ' Gadarenes.' It is true there is a large element of Aleph 
 and B which is attested by Origen. Then it is true there 
 is a tendency for the Text which is ultimately represented 
 in the Received Text, for the Traditional Text as it is 
 called, to gain ground in the latter part of the fourth 
 century, and you would no doubt find it to a considerable 
 extent in Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa. Of 
 course, according to Dr. Hort, the home of this Text 
 really is Antioch, whence it spread. The way in which 
 Dr. Hort accounts for its prevalence in later ages is not 
 by the fact that it was regarded as in any way authori- 
 tative, but simply because of the great influence which 
 Antioch exercised upon Constantinople at the end of the 
 century. You have St. Chrysostom transferred from 
 Antioch to Constantinople as Patriarch, and there are 
 a good many other points tending in the same direction, 
 [its prevalence, therefore, is accounted for partly in that 
 way, and partly also by the fact that the Church very 
 soon afterwards lost its other great provinces. You have 
 the wave of the Mahommedan invasion in the seventh 
 century. First Syria and Palestine were lost, and then 
 Egypt and Africa. Almost all the Christian provinces 
 were blotted out from the map, not entirely or absolutely, 
 but still to a very large extent. Constantinople became 
 the centre of the Christian world, and the Text which 
 prevailed there prevailed all over the Greek-speaking 
 world, because by that time, you will see, the West was 
 purely Latin, and Constantinople was I have no doubt 
 a great centre for the manufacture of MSS. That is the 
 way in which Dr. Hort would account for this set of facts. 
 To the prevalence of the Antiochene Text towards the 
 end of the century there are very large and important 
 cxceptiorisy' The greatest critic of the age, St. Jerome, 
 
26 
 
 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 does not take that Text. Mr. White and Bishop Words- 
 worth have been investigating the character of the Greek 
 MSS. used by St. Jerome in his revision of the Greek Tes- 
 tament. I will not anticipate Mr. White's answer to this 
 question, but I do not think you will find it is Antiochene. 
 Then also I think it would be wrong to identify this Text 
 with the cause of orthodoxy. What greater champion 
 of orthodoxy have you than St. Cyril of Alexandria, and 
 yet you will find he very frequently sides with the two 
 condemned MSS., Aleph and B. Mr. Miller will, perhaps, 
 rather allow me to question that point among the 
 accusations he brought against those two MSS. The 
 number of readings which might be supposed to have 
 any taint of scepticism or heresy about them is exceed- 
 ingly small in these two MSS. They extend over the 
 whole of the New Testament, and readings which have 
 that kind of tendency are very few. To set against them 
 you have very striking examples which tell exactly the 
 other way ; for instance, the great reading, jLtoi'oyerr)? ©eo's, 
 in the first chapter of John. Perhaps some day Mr. Miller 
 will collect and print a few examples, because, although he 
 refers to them in his book, he quotes exceedingly few, and 
 they are not really heresy, as heresy goes. Then, just to 
 bring things to an issue, as I say, Mr. Miller offers us 
 a reconstruction of the history of the Text, and Dr. Hort 
 offers the same. I admit that it is very largely hypo- 
 thetical ; but if Dr. Hort's view is correct, there is no 
 evidence at all of the existence of the particular kind of 
 Text which Mr. Miller prefers further back than the latter 
 part of the third or the beginning of the fourth century. 
 That is his contention — I know Mr. Miller would not allow 
 it for a moment — but he quotes examples of earlier readings, 
 of traditional readings, which are supported by earlier 
 authorities. All that is perfectly allowed for in Dr. Hort's 
 theory. His theory is simply based upon the phenomena 
 of MSS. You have three groups of authorities supporting 
 characteristic readings. There is a group represented by 
 Aleph and B, a group commonly known as the Western 
 
 PROFESSOR SANDAY 
 
 27 
 
 Text, represented by Latin authorities, and primarily also 
 by Syriac authorities. There is no question at all that this 
 group is an exceedingly early one ; in any case it goes 
 back to the second century. You will find readings of that 
 character in writers of the second and third centuries in 
 great abundance. There is also a smaller group, more 
 difficult to distinguish, and yet which is a substantial group, 
 of what are called Alexandrian readings. There is no 
 question that these types of Text were all current in the 
 second and third centuries ; but when you come to look for 
 characteristic readings of what is called the Traditional 
 Text, you do not find them before the fourth century, and 
 Dr. Hort's theory is that that Text was an eclectic Text, 
 produced by a comparison between and a combination of 
 those previously existing Texts. So if you get a tra- 
 ditional reading supported by early authorities, early MSS., 
 early Fathers, and so on. Dr. Hort would say at once, 
 ' That is a Western reading adopted in the Traditional Text.' 
 There are a great many Western readings which are not 
 adopted, but a certain proportion of them are. So that 
 what I say is, that it is all allowed for; you may be quite 
 sure that all these phenomena are allowed for in Dr. Hort's 
 theory. And when I have said that my own experience 
 went to confirm that, all I mean is this : not that there are 
 not a great number of open questions and many doubtful 
 readings, in regard to which it is difficult to make up one's 
 mind, but one has very little difficulty indeed in putting 
 all the phenomena which come before one into their place 
 in the theory. Thus the Lewis MS., which was discovered 
 the other day, and which is of extreme importance, takes 
 its place at once in the scheme of Texts, and its discovery 
 would not have afTected Dr. Hort's conclusions, except to 
 a very infinitesimal degree, because it had all been allowed 
 for beforehand. I am afraid I must say that Mr. Miller's 
 presentation of the history of Texts is not one which we can 
 accept just as it stands. Those readings require a great 
 deal of scrutiny ; it is a delicate and a difficult matter to 
 decide regarding them, especially the further back you go. 
 

 28 
 
 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 An instance has just come, before me. I have had occasion 
 to work at Hilary, who is one of the authorities for reading 
 6 fxoroyei^y vloi in St. John i. i8. It is perfectly true he 
 quotes the passage two or three times, and always in that 
 way, and no doubt that was the reading of the Western MS. 
 But repeatedly — you may count the examples by the score 
 — he has that remarkable phrase Unigenitus Deus. One 
 reading he got from the Latin MSS., and the other from 
 some other source ; probably during his travels in the East 
 he may have heard it pass from mouth to mouth. There 
 is one question Mr. Miller has raised which is of consider- 
 able importance, viz. the character of the Peshitto, which is 
 the sheet anchor of Mr. Miller's theory. It is the oldest 
 text in any case which is of that particular type. So you 
 see it is a question of considerable importance when this 
 version was made. Was it made towards the end of the 
 third century, or was it made in the second ? No doubt it 
 is an argument, and an argument of considerable weight, 
 which impresses the imagination, to quote the fact that 
 there were so many MSS. of the Peshitto in existence as 
 early as the sixth century, and even one or two I think in 
 the fifth century. Still this is not supported by the evidence 
 / of ecclesiastical writers, and in any case there is no proof 
 that the Peshitto goes back to anything like the second 
 century. I have only two other short points with which to 
 deal. One is the question of conflation. Mr. Miller threw 
 out a challenge to the followers of Dr. Hort to produce at 
 least thirty typical instances of his theory of conflation. 
 I think the number is a very good estimate ; I do not 
 suppose there are many more than thirty. I am speaking 
 at a guess. I dare say there may not be more than that 
 number ; but what of that ? If Mr. Miller will allow me 
 to say so, he did not represent Dr. Hort quite justly when 
 he said this was a phenomenon running all through the 
 Gospels. Dr. Hort would not profess that it ran all through 
 I the Gospels. What he says is that occasionally you do 
 find these combined readings — a double reading, repre- 
 senting, say, one the Western Text and the other the reading 
 
 MR. GWILLIAM. 
 
 29 
 
 of Aleph and B, or what might be called the Alexandrian 
 reading. It is not by any means a constant phenomenon. 
 Whatever person or whatever school produced the Tradi- 
 tional Text, did not systematically combine the Texts. They 
 were combined occasionally, and that is all one can say. 
 Also I am prepared to admit for myself that the conflations 
 are not conclusive proof of the rightness of Dr. Hort's 
 theory ; they could only belong to the region of hypothesis. 
 It is all hypothesis. I confess I feel strongly for myself 
 that Dr. Hort's view represents the more probable side of 
 the hypothesis, but at the same time I do not regard them 
 standing alone as conclusive. I will end by venturing to 
 do what Dr. Hort, with his great care and circumspection, 
 has never done. It constantly seems as if his argument was 
 leading up to it, but he never lets the name pass his lips. 
 He thinks there was a revision of some kind ; that is simply 
 a way of describing the phenomena of the MSS. on what 
 appears to be the easiest hypothesis as to their origin. He 
 thinks that a kind of revision took place at that time, and 
 was a more or less continuous revision. I confess it has 
 always seemed to me that that revision was probably 
 connected with Lucian of Antioch and his school, which 
 exercised great influence all through the fourth century. 
 This type of text is prominent in his disciples, most promi- 
 nent indeed in Theodore of Mopsuestia, where it reaches its 
 culmination. The school was in close contact with the 
 Syriac-speaking Churches and writers, and I have always 
 suspected, although I cannot prove it, that this Traditional 
 Text, of which Mr. Miller is so fond, owes its origin 
 ultimately to Lucian of Antioch. 
 
 The Rev. G. H. Gwilliam (Fellow of Hertford) said :— 
 I suppose I may as well, in the first place, declare on what 
 side I am going to speak, although I shall not trouble you 
 by entering very much into the question, as it has hitherto 
 been discussed by Mr. Miller and the Margaret Professor. 
 But I have not the least hesitation in standing up in 
 support of Dean Burgon and Mr. Miller. It is very 
 pleasant to cast aside labour and to disregard a number 
 
\ 
 
 30 
 
 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 of MSS., confining oneself to a few. That is the principle 
 of Lachmann, and is in fact what we are invited to do 
 by the school of Dr. Hort. I shall not attempt to comment 
 upon anything which has been said by the Margaret Pro- 
 fessor, but I will express my surprise at one remark which 
 fell constantly from his lips. Dr. Sanday constantly spoke 
 of Aleph and B as if they agreed in text. I thought 
 everybody knew they do not always agree, and therefore 
 must not be brought as one authority. They are two 
 discordant witnesses. 
 
 Professor Sanday (intervening): — May I be allowed 
 to explain ? What Mr. Gwilliam says is perfectly true, in 
 regard to the agreement of Aleph and B. Dr. Hort laid 
 stress upon their differences and quoted them as two 
 authorities, but Mr. Miller is glad to quote them as only 
 one. No doubt at a certain point Aleph and B had a 
 common ancestor, and it is a question how near that 
 ancestor was to the Autograph on the one hand and the 
 actual MSS. on the other. I perfectly allow that there 
 is a considerable amount of difference as well, but that 
 tells in favour of Dr. Hort rather than against him. 
 
 Mr. Gwilliam : — I do not care in whose favour the 
 difference tells ; I want to arrive at the truth. I maintain 
 that there is a difference between Aleph and B, and indeed 
 between all the oldest MSS.; and I suppose it is in con- 
 sequence of these differences that an appeal is to be made 
 to the Versions. For if there were not these differences 
 between the MSS. I presume we might base our Text 
 upon the Greek MSS. only, and not appeal to translations 
 at all. I think the importance of the Versions may be 
 greatly exaggerated — I speak from my own point of view, 
 and the Margaret Professor will not agree with me. When 
 we have a mass of MSS. handing down to us the Text 
 of the New Testament, what occasion is there to go to 
 the Latin or Egyptian, or what Dr. Sanday was courteous 
 enough to call the sheet anchor of Mr. Miller's position, 
 the Peshitto? This is a subject which demands consider- 
 able attention and is not one to be lightly treated in 
 
 MR. GWILLIAM 
 
 31 
 
 half an hour. Why should I speak ? I would venture to 
 remind you that I have already written upon the subject 
 in several different publications, and it is a very significant 
 circumstance that none has ever attempted to refute any- 
 thing I have said. The sensitiveness of some people about 
 the Peshitto is very remarkable. Having occasion to write 
 in the second volume of the Studia Biblica, which came 
 out in 1890, on a certain Syriac subject, I made some 
 remarks upon the value of the Peshitto. A certain mem- 
 ber of the University said he should be very sorry for 
 such remarks on the subject to issue from the Clarendon 
 Press. In spite of that the remarks did issue and are 
 extant to the present day. In the third volume of the 
 Studia Biblica I more fully discussed the question ; and 
 I may venture to refer those who are interested in the 
 subjected to an article which I wrote upon the same 
 subject in the Critical Revieiv for June, 1896. Lachmann, 
 I believe, said he did not know Syriac, and did not mean 
 to study it. In that he was right, for the Greek MSS. 
 were quite enough for the settlement of the Text of the 
 Greek Testament. Tregelles made a great mistake when 
 he said the Syrians constantly revised their MSS. In 
 co-operation with the late Philip Pusey I set to work to 
 discover what the truth was, and found they did not so 
 revise them. But there is a mass of evidence carrying 
 the Syriac Text back to very early times, and supporting 
 what the Margaret Professor has been kind enough to call 
 the sheet anchor of the position. My friend, Mr. Crawford 
 Burkitt, read a paper before the Church Congress at Norwich, 
 and apologized in a private letter to me for being dog- 
 matic, on the ground that he had not time to argue the 
 question. I cannot allow dogmatism to be on one side. 
 I accepted the apology, and in the same spirit I shall be 
 extremely dogmatic now, for I cannot argue the question 
 in five minutes, and I say that the Curetonian and Lewis 
 MSS. were not the origin of the Peshitto as we have it. 
 The Margaret Professor spoke of them together as if they 
 represented one kind of translation. If he will be so kind 
 
32 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 as to study a book which has been published by a certain 
 gentleman I have the pleasure of seeing in this room, in 
 which the two are compared, he will see that the Lewis 
 and the Curetonian MSS. were not two MSS. of some 
 one version which necessarily preceded the Peshitto. The 
 Margaret Professor very pertinently referred to the prin- 
 ciple of Dr. Hort, that to understand a text we must 
 understand its history. We can know something of the 
 history of the Peshitto. We have these many MSS. and 
 can collate them, and trace out the history, as Pusey 
 and I have done. May I ask those who do not agree with 
 ^ me to remember that I have never said the Peshitto was 
 not preceded by some other form of text. All I say is 
 that we have not got it now, and that the Lewis and 
 Curetonian MSS. were not the origin of the Peshitto. 
 These things I state dogmatically, but I have stated the 
 reasons and argued the point on previous occasions. It 
 appears to me that the difference between my position 
 and those who disagree with the late Philip Pusey and 
 myself is this: They offer conjectures, while we offer argu- 
 ments ; they deal in surmises, while we collect and tabulate 
 and set before the world facts. 
 
 The Rev. A. C. Headlam -.—May I ask what evidence 
 Mr. GwilHam can produce of the early date of the Peshitto, 
 and how far back that evidence will carry it ? 
 
 Mr. Gwilliam :— At least it carries us back to the fifth 
 
 ' century, and it may be granted that the translation was 
 
 not made before the second century. Have you any MSS. 
 
 of Sophocles which carry you back to the date of his 
 
 original writings? 
 
 Mr. Allen said:— In venturing to speak of the relation of 
 the Lewis Codex and the Curetonian Syriac to the Peshitto 
 I do so with the consciousness that I have not made that 
 thorough and systematic examination of the material which 
 alone can enable any one to speak with authority upon 
 a matter still under debate. But since, with hardly an 
 exception, almost every writer who has discussed the 
 question from the linguistic point cf view has found reason 
 
 MR. ALLEN 
 
 33 
 
 to assert with some emphasis, that the internal evidence in 
 favour of the priority of the Lewis and Curetonian MSS. 
 to the Peshitto is clear and unmistakable, I venture to 
 restate some of the reasons for a position which my own 
 slight acquaintance with the evidence persuades me is well 
 grounded. 
 
 There is one point which I shall assume as proved 
 because I do not know that any one (Hilgenfeld alone 
 excepted) has ever seriously disputed it. That is, that the 
 Lewis Codex, the Curetonian, and the Peshitto are three 
 recensions of one and the same version. This I imagine 
 will hardly come within the scope of our consideration 
 to-day. The point that this afternoon may be considered as 
 still open, is the question whether the Lewis Codex and 
 the Curetonian represent prior stages in the development 
 of the Peshitto text, or whether they are corrupted 
 recensions dependent upon it. The following are reasons 
 for holding the former view. I have had occasion from 
 time to time to make use of Mr. Bonus' valuable collation 
 of the Lewis Codex with the Curetonian, and I have found 
 reason to believe that the order in which the three 
 recensions are placed upon his pages, the Lewis Codex 
 first, the Curetonian in the middle, and the Peshitto last, 
 can be justified as the historical order. The Curetonian 
 gives us a text intermediate between the other two. As 
 a test passage I have selected St. Matthew iv. i-i 7, partly 
 because the first twelve verses are discussed in Holzhey's 
 monograph upon the subject, partly because I had 
 previously worked through the same passage in my own 
 note-books, and could therefore test my results by his. 
 
 I find that in these seventeen verses the Peshitto agrees 
 with the Curetonian against the Lewis Codex about 
 twenty-six times, with the Lewis against the Curetonian 
 about thirteen times. That is to say, the Curetonian stands 
 very much nearer to the Peshitto than does the Lewis 
 Codex. Now is it possible that the right order is Peshitto, 
 Curetonian, Lewis ? or that the Curetonian and Lewis are 
 two independent offshoots of the Peshitto? The latter 
 
 D 
 
34 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 hypothesis is precluded by the close verbal agreement of 
 the Lewis and Curetonian against the Peshitto, the former 
 by some cases where the Lewis Codex has a harsh or 
 unexpected rendering which cannot be explained as an 
 alteration of the Peshitto-Curetonian Text, but are intelli- 
 gible if tlie Lewis Codex formed the first stage in the 
 series. Such are verse 6, 'fall from hence,' altered by 
 the Curetonian into ' cast thyself down,' in agreement with 
 the Greek Text; 'arms' in the same verse, which in the 
 Peshitto become 'hands'; v. 9, ' these kingdoms and their 
 glory thou secst' altered in the Curetonian into 'all these 
 things' ; verse 16, 'in sadness and in the shadows of death,' 
 of which the first word is omitted in Curetonian, and is 
 changed in the Peshitto into an equivalent of the Greek x<i>pa- 
 It is of course difficult to prove much from a section of 
 seventeen verses only, and I do not mean to say that diffi- 
 culties do not sometimes arise which it is not easy to explain, 
 the cases e.g. where the Peshitto and Lewis combine 
 against the Curetonian. But every page of the Gospels 
 confirms the impression made as it seems to me by the 
 passage I have discussed that the Lewis Codex represents 
 a prior stage in the Version, that it has been subjected to 
 revision in the Curetonian, and that this again has been 
 revised to harmonize with the Greek Text. And this might 
 be supported by such considerations as that the Lewis 
 Codex gives a much shorter text than that of the Curetonian, 
 and that cases occur where renderings in Lewis which seem 
 to be mistranslations of the Greek have been corrected 
 cither in the Curetonian and the Peshitto or in the latter 
 only: e.g. — 
 
 Matt. xii. 25 ilVm L. C. ' saw,' P. 'knew.' 
 
 John xviii. 4 » L. „ P- » 
 
 Matt, xviii. 20 ov L. ' not ' C. P. ' where.' 
 
 Mark x. 40 dXX' oly L. ' for others,' P. = Gk. 
 Luke iv. 29 Kpr)y^vlaa\. L. ' hang,' P. ' cast. 
 
 John vii. 35 tiia<n:opa.v L. C. ' seed,' P. ' places.' 
 
 If I were discussing the question from a general point of 
 
 MR. BONUS 
 
 35 
 
 view I should of course endeavour to support what has 
 been said by the additional arguments, that the type of 
 text found in the Lewis and Curetonian MSS. finds 
 analogies in such early witnesses as the Diatessaron of 
 Tatian and the quotations of Aphraates, further, that it 
 often finds support in the earliest Greek MSS. and in the 
 Old Latin Versions ; but arguments of this kind open up 
 questions which are for this afternoon debatable ground, 
 and which have been previously discussed. 
 
 In conclusion, I should like to say that the argument 
 against the possibility of the Lewis Codex being a direct 
 link in the development of the Peshitto Text, on the 
 ground of the supposed heretical tendencies of its writer, 
 seems to me unsound and dangerous. If it be true that 
 truth precedes error, it is equally true that inaccurate and 
 unguarded statement of truth has sometimes preceded the 
 scientific expression of it. In a Version of the Gospels so 
 accurate and careful as is the Lewis Codex, the few ex- 
 pressions with which fault has been found can at most have 
 a colour of heresy when detached from their context and 
 isolated. Until we have further evidence which will force 
 us to conclude that the scribe of this codex was heretically 
 inclined, it seems to be more reasonable to look upon these 
 expressions as primitive methods of expression which were 
 afterwards modified. Of course I do not mean that they 
 give us the true reading, but only that they represent 
 a very early stage in the history of the Syriac Text, and 
 that to urge that the Lewis Codex is a corrupted recension 
 of the Peshitto on dogmatic grounds is to misread the 
 evidence. Even if in such case it is certain that the 
 Peshitto retains the true reading and the Lewis Codex 
 a corrupted one, it may still be true that as far as the 
 Syriac Versions are concerned the Lewis Codex presents us 
 with an earlier form of text which has been modified in the 
 Peshitto to harmonize with the Greek Text. 
 
 The Rev. A. Bonus (Pembroke) :— In the very short 
 time allowed me I can only make a few brief observations. 
 Referring for a moment to what has just been said, I should 
 
 D 3 
 
) 
 
 36 
 
 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 like to point out that in the places where the Lewis and 
 Curetonian MSS. differ, the latter agree or tend to agree 
 with the Peshitto in SS. Matthew and John many more 
 times than Lewis agrees or tends to agree with the Peshitto 
 in the same Gospels ; whereas in St. Luke the respective 
 agreements or tendencies to agreement between Cureton 
 and the Peshitto, and between Lewis and the Peshitto, are 
 fairly equal. This is a remarkable circumstance, which 
 demands careful attention. Connected with this there is 
 another point of interest. Lewis, as you are aware, 
 is characterized in parts by the use of the word ' Lord ' 
 instead of the word 'Jesus.' This is the case in St. 
 Matthew, and especially in St. John — I am speaking of 
 course of those parts only of Lewis and Cureton which are 
 available for comparison — but in St. Luke the case seems 
 reversed. Thus, whilst in St. Matthew and St. John Lewis 
 inclined to the use of 'Lord' and Cureton to the use of 
 ' Jesus,' in St. Luke Lewis inclined to the use of ' Jesus ' and 
 Cureton to the use of 'Lord.' These, and some other 
 kindred facts which my collation of the Syriac Gospels 
 brought before me, are important. Do they not indicate 
 that the texts of Lewis and of Cureton are not homo- 
 geneous, or at least that they have been subjected to 
 a varying textual influence ? 
 
 Turning to the Peshitto problem, I should like to say in 
 a few words how the case seems to me to stand. It is 
 generally allowed — I believe by Dr. Sanday among others — 
 that MSS. and quotations carry back our knowledge of the 
 Peshitto roughly speaking to the beginning of the fourth 
 century, say for convenience A.D. 310; and the question is 
 how and when did it come into existence. It would appear 
 that there were, speaking broadly, only two alternatives 
 containing four possibilities — revision or translation. It 
 might then have been the result of the revision of previously 
 existing Syriac texts — a revision conducted gradually, 
 without any one authority ; a revision extending over 
 a long period of time, until at last the Peshitto, as we know 
 it, was evolved. The objection to this theory seems to be 
 
 MR. BONUS 
 
 37 
 
 that there are no traces of such a revision ; if such a process 
 has been gone through, it is next to certain that there will 
 be extensive traces of it in the Peshitto MSS.— traces of 
 irregular revision and of mixture. And if any one says, 
 ' Well, you have the antecedents of the Peshitto in Lewis 
 and Cureton,' that is not the point. The point is that no 
 Peshitto MS. shows any signs of mixture or of irregular 
 revision ; for Mr. Gwilliam and the late Mr. Pusey appear 
 to be quite correct in saying that the variations between 
 Peshitto MSS. are insignificant and are largely only slight 
 changes in grammatical forms. This appears to be the 
 place to remark that I cannot understand how any one can 
 suppose, in the language of Dr. Hort, that ' the Syriac 
 Version, like the Latin Version, underwent revision long 
 after its origin.' The facts seem scarcely at all parallel 
 In the case of the Latin there is historical evidence of 
 revision ; in the case of the Peshitto none. In the case 
 of the Latin there are in existing MSS. abundant traces of 
 sporadic and casual mixture, and of irregular revision ; 
 there is nothing of the kind in the Peshitto MS. 
 
 Professor Sanday (intervening).-— Nobody has ever 
 contended that the Peshitto itself was revised, except in the 
 later forms of the Version known as the Philoxenian and 
 Harclean, but that it was the product of a revision. An 
 analogous case is that of Codex Brixianus and a small 
 group of Latin authorities, which go far to show that there 
 was a revision of the Latin Version before the time of 
 Jerome, of which nothing is known historically '. 
 
 Mr. Bonus: — Of course, where everything is in the 
 dark we can suppose anything. Turning to the second 
 possibility under the first alternative, the Peshitto may be 
 the outcome of an authoritative revision of the Syriac 
 Text. This appears to be Dr. Hort's view, and Dr. Hort 
 seems inclined to suppose that it may have taken place not 
 far from 300 A.D., that is soon after the supposed first 
 Syrian (Greek) revision. I have always felt that there 
 
 ' This explanation was not expressed quite accurately at the time, but is 
 given here in the form which it should have taken. 
 
 D3 
 
38 
 
 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 were at least two formidable objections to this theory, for 
 while fully recognizing the precariousness of arguing from 
 silence, it is certainly hard to understand, if such an 
 authoritative revision had taken place at so comparatively 
 late a date, why no notice was taken of it by Syriac 
 writers. Nor is there merely the difficulty of accounting 
 for the silence of Syriac writers as to any such definite 
 revision, but there is the further difficulty— supposing such 
 a revision had been made — of accounting for their silence 
 as to any authoritative removal of ' old Syriac ' Texts and 
 the imposition of the revised Text on the Syriac Churches, 
 and on the supposition of a definite authoritative revision 
 something of this kind must have taken place. We are 
 told of the removal of Tatian's work, and of the Philoxenian 
 revision. Why are we not told of this important change ? 
 The argument from silence must no doubt be used with 
 caution, but under the circumstances a 'consensus of 
 silence,' as some one has phrased it, deserves serious con- 
 sideration. The first possibility of the second alternative 
 is that the Peshitto may be a direct translation made from 
 the Greek somewhere about 300 A.D., that is soon after 
 Dr. Hort's supposed first Syriac (Greek) revision, and 
 based upon that revision. But the objections to the 
 previous suppositions apply with equal force to this. 
 Lastly, there is the possibility that the Peshitto is a direct 
 translation from the Greek made at a time long anterior to 
 300 A.D., at a time that is to say when literary and 
 ecclesiastical activity in the Syriac Churches was, by com- 
 parison with that of a later age, feeble, when, in the 
 language of Canon Cook, ' such a transaction might have 
 escaped notice or have been passed over as of slight 
 historical importance, not bearing upon the external or- 
 ganization of the Church, or upon controversies which 
 occupied almost exclusively the minds of its chief repre- 
 sentatives.' In conclusion, the only reasonable interpreta- 
 tion of the evidence— largely negative and inferential, no 
 doubt — seems to be that the Peshitto, whether it were the 
 result of revision or whether it were a direct translation 
 
 MR. HEADLAM 
 
 39 
 
 from the Greek, must have come into existence long 
 before the beginning of the fourth century -scarcely later 
 than the latter half of the second century. But if this 
 were so, the Greek text on which it was based must have 
 existed at or before that date. I may add that I quite 
 admit that Texts like those of Lewis or Cureton may have 
 existed in the second century, but even if it were beyond 
 doubt that Aphraates and Tatian used only such Texts that 
 would be no evidence that the Peshitto Text did not exist 
 when either of those writers lived. We could merely argue 
 that if the Peshitto then existed it was not in the proper 
 sense of the word a Vulgate. 
 
 The Rev. A. C. Headlam (All Souls) said :— I have 
 
 worked for a considerable time in some small portions 
 
 of the Bible on Textual Criticism, and I have always 
 
 done so, as far as I could, with my eyes open and with 
 
 a great desire not to be prejudiced in favour of any one 
 
 theory; but I have found the more I have tested them 
 
 the stronger the arguments of Westcott and Hort have 
 
 seemed to appear. There are certain definite scientific 
 
 arguments which they used, and I have read writers on \ 
 
 the other side, and have tried in vain to find them answered, 
 
 but I have rarely found them even understood. That is 
 
 of course only giving my own impression. There is one 
 
 line upon which I am quite unable to follow the arguments, 
 
 and that is upon the relative dates of the Peshitto and 
 
 the Curetonian. Mr. Gwilliam and others constantly 
 
 asserted that all the arguments were against Westcott and 
 
 Hort. I have listened with great care to what has been 
 
 said to-day, and I particularly asked Mr. Gwilliam for the 
 
 evidence of the early date of the Peshitto. I saw at once 
 
 that the evidence he quoted was perfectly useless. He 
 
 told us his evidence dated back as far as the fifth century, 
 
 and argued that therefore it must go back to the second, 
 
 further saying that there was a clear Text without any 
 
 sign of mixture. Upon referring to the earliest Texts of 
 
 the Vulgate you will find those Texts possess hardly any 
 
 signs of mixture. Mixture means that a Text has grown 
 
40 
 
 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 J up and had a long history. If in the fifth Century there 
 were a considerable number of MSS. of the Peshitto which 
 agreed in a remarkable manner, that shows almost con- 
 clusively that the Texts must have been derived from one 
 source, which could not have been very remote. A common 
 argument used with regard to the Gospels is that the 
 extraordinary variety of Texts which confront us, oblige 
 us to throw back the composition of the documents to 
 a very early stage. Mr. Gwilliam's argument compels me 
 to think that the Peshitto must be of a comparatively 
 recent date, and must come from an authoritative edition. 
 I have also listened carefully to Mr. Bonus' argument. 
 It is admitted on both sides that we might go back to 
 the beginning of the fourth century. We want some 
 evidence to connect the Peshitto with an earlier period. 
 If you are going to make that document any evidence 
 at all to overthrow Dr. Hort's conclusions, you must show 
 conclusively that it existed at an earlier period. You 
 cannot overthrow a body of statements built up on a 
 groundwork of facts by mere surmises. That is exactly 
 the position in which we are with regard to the Syriac. 
 I have tried to find any arguments which would tell 
 against Westcott and Hort, and I find that practically 
 Mr. Gwilliam and Mr. Bonus repeat statements which 
 Westcott and Hort would be the very first to admit. I had 
 hoped that the discussion would turn upon further interest- 
 ing questions which have lately arisen. Dr. Salmon's book 
 on Textual Criticism brings us to this position— he criticizes 
 Westcott and Hort, but practically accepts the great con- 
 tention which separates him from Mr. Miller ; he accepts 
 in some form or other the Antiochene revision, though, 
 like Professor Sanday and Dr. Hort himself, he does not 
 think it was quite such a formal revision as some of those 
 who attack the theory think. He then tries to find out 
 whether in certain points the authority of the Western 
 Text cannot be set up. That is really the point at issue 
 before scholars at the present day, whether the Western 
 Text does not really contain some considerable element 
 
 MR. HEADLAM 
 
 41 
 
 of truth. Personally I cannot think it does. Various 
 attempts which have been put forward to set up that 
 Text have failed almost entirely in the main argument, 
 but this much is true, that occasionally as it gives 
 independent tradition it will contain readings which 
 are possibly true, and may help us to correct in certain 
 points the readings of the other group. But it will 
 do so probably as against the Traditional Text, and 
 not in its favour. That is the conclusion I have 
 arrived at from a careful study of portions of St. Paul's 
 Epistles. Here I may add that Dr. Sanday did not refer 
 to the fact that the conclusion we came to with regard to 
 one MS., ' B,' was that we ought to be very careful in using 
 it, because it was found that from time to time the MS. 
 had been exposed, especially in the Epistles, to certain 
 corrupt influences. As a matter of fact, sometimes when ; 
 the MS. stands quite alone and is unsupported by any other 
 authorities, it gives a reading which in some small point, 
 where one would hardly expect it to occur, was that which 
 in all probability was an original reading. One has to be 
 very cautious indeed about taking a reading upon the 
 authority of a single MS., but sometimes we feel inclined 
 to do so. Mr. Miller has asked the question what the -y 
 classical scholar would do when face to face with the mass 
 of evidence contained in the New Testament. We happen 
 to know what a classical scholar has done. Dr. Blass 
 came as a classical scholar to the study of the New 
 Testament and of the Acts of the Apostles. The very 
 first thing he did was to sweep away a whole mass of later 
 authorities, saying that to a classical student like himself, 
 coming to such good authorities as the New Testament 
 was preserved in, it seemed perfectly useless to consider 
 those later authorities which clearly contained a mixed 
 text. As a matter of fact, in the case of most classical 
 texts now, authorities have discovered that the mass of 
 MSS. are derived from one single authority, and it is 
 very rarely indeed that any attention is paid to the great 
 majority of them. 
 
42 
 
 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 Prebendary Miller : — I have only a very few words 
 to say in reply. With respect to the last remark, I think 
 what Dr. Blass did can hardly be justified. It is quite 
 true that that is what a classical scholar has done, but 
 it is surely throwing away evidence which he has no 
 right to do. You might easily go to another scholar, 
 Lachmann, who did the same. They have thought it 
 impossible to deal with so much evidence. It seems to 
 me that it is a very poor reason for casting away a great 
 quantity of evidence because it is beyond your powers 
 to deal with it in one age. Turning to the other point, 
 the Peshitto, it is very curious that there should be 
 such a difference between those who think the Peshitto 
 came from the first, and those who say they cannot find 
 any evidence to show that such was the case. We trace 
 it back in line of evidence. It occurs in the readings of 
 Aphraates and Ephraem Syrus according to accounts, but 
 there is no time to argue the question now. I would rather 
 refer to an article in the Church Quarterly and to a chapter 
 in my first volume. But there is one thing I think ought 
 to be borne in mind, that the Peshitto has not got the 
 . dvTiXfyofifra, or books once not universally received, and 
 that is a very strong reason for supposing that the transla- 
 tion from the Greek took place at a very early date — indeed, 
 before those books were generally in use. I think I said 
 we hold there was no authoritative revision of the Greek, 
 but that the revision merely grew by itself. With respect 
 to Movoy(vr]s &fds, my views have been put forth in my 
 second volume, to which Dr. Sanday referred. That read- 
 ing we hold was introduced by Valentinus for heretical 
 purposes, and it is no credit to these MSS. to bring it 
 forward. Again, he said that history as it is presented by 
 us was an afterthought. Let me say, that as far as I am 
 concerned, that is in no wise the case'. There was another 
 
 ' I made an ineffectual attempt in i88j to review Westcott and Hort's 
 theory m.iinly from an historical point of view, and the historical part of my 
 ' Textual Guide ' was singled out for special praise by Dean Bnrgon, whose 
 own arguments have much that is historical in them. 
 
 PREBENDARY MILLER 
 
 43 
 
 difficulty, you will all remember, in our argument. We 
 were obliged to argue against a great number of scholars, 
 to whose eminence, ability, and knowledge I wish to pay 
 the greatest tribute. Both those volumes are necessarily 
 argumentative. That is not a case where you are so likely 
 to make limitations and look in a wider and more con- 
 ciliatory way. I hope therefore that this consideration 
 will be remembered when any attention is turned to that 
 point. I am very much surprised to find that Dr. Sanday 
 says that Conflation is not a process running through the 
 Gospels. It is quite true Westcott and Hort do not 
 actually say so, but there is great prominence given to 
 Conflation in their work. I expect Dr. Sanday has been 
 guided very much by his own experience of it, and has 
 come to the conclusion that it does not go very far. I am 
 quite sure anybody reading Dr. Hort's book will infer that 
 it holds a very integral place in his theory, and is very 
 important in that theory. I do not think it can be justified, 
 and I am delighted to feel that Dr. Sanday agrees with me 
 upon this point. I do not think it is necessary, after all the 
 argument we have had, to discuss further the subject ^ 
 
 ' Mr. Miller intended to add more remarks, but was prevented by the 
 inexorable approach of the College dinner-hour, which indeed curtailed his 
 reply throughout. Inevitable limits of time hampered all the speakers. 
 
Heckman 
 
 S[ D E R Y, I 
 
 Bound-lb-PIeaje* 
 
 DEC 02 
 
 BINDERY, INC. 
 Bound-lb-PIease*