BS iSr'2- CjQANELL L I BRARY The Robert M. and Laura Lee Lintz Book Endowment for the Humanities Class of 1924 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 1 924 088 195 833 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/details/cu31924088195833 en H en H en o Q H cn THE EEVISED VERSION FIEST THEEE GOSPELS OONSIDBBBD IK ITS BEARINGS UPON THE RECORD OF OUR LORD'S WORDS AND OF INCIDENTS IN HIS LIFE By F. C. cook, M.A., CANON or eziter; chaplain in ordinabt to tri queen; LATE PREACHER OF LINCOLN'S INN; BOITOB or THE ' BPEAKEB'S OOHHENTAST.' LONDON: JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 1882. The rlfht of TramlaUm <• rttmta r\ TO THE MASTERS OF THE BENCH AND OTHER MEMBERS OF TBB HON. SOCIETY OF LINCOLN'S INN ■>^ ^hegt ^agte a« glebkattb IN GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE OF UNVARTINO KINDNESS Br THEIR LATE PREAOHBR ,']f?i>04 TABLE OF CONTENTS. FinST PART— pp. 1-22. Conditions of Revision .. Object of this Work Warning of Professor Reiche The Sinaitic MS Neglect of the Warning and its Results Greek Text of the Revisers Grounds on which it is Commended Extent of Resources How far they are Used Early Fathers and Versions Limits of the present Inquiry .. Authorities cited in this Work .. rAoi 1 2 3 8 9 11 13 14 15 IG 18 21 SECOND PART.-ExAMiNATioN of Pabsaqes altebed in the Revised Version — pp. 23-127. Section I.— FacU or Sayings preceding or connected with the Nativity .. Matthew i. 7, 8, 10, 11 6 18 .. Holy Spirit for Holy Ghost The Angelic Salutation, Luke 1. 28 The Angelic Proclamation, Luke ii. 14 Section II.— From the Nativity to the Baptism Luke ii. 40 43 .. PAOI 23-32 23 24 25 26 26 27 33-41 33 33 Vi TABLE OF CONTENTS. Luke ii. 40 Mark i. 1 „ 2 Important Testimony of Irenaeus Mark i. 5 .. •• * • Section III.— The Baptism, Temptation, and first Ministra- tions of our Lord Mark L ft-11 Luke iv. 4-5 .. Mark i. 14 Mark i. 27 Sectxoh IV.- — The Sennon on the Mount Matthew ▼.4,6 .. *f 22 .1 It 37, 39 .. »i 44 .. ft vi. 1 .. •* 4 .. (I 10,12 .. ft 13 •• t* II n II •• »i 18, 21, 25, 33 II 26 .. II vii 2, 4 .. n 13, 14 .. Luke vi , 20-49 ., Section V.— To the Close of our Lord's Ministrations in Galilee.. Mark i. 40 Matt. viii. 6, 8 Luke vL 1 Mark ii. 16 26 Luke IT. 18-20 Mark vii. 19 rioE 34 35 36 38 41 42-47 42 43 44 46 48-67 48 49 60 50 51 63 64 66 68 61 62 63 64 65 66 68-79 68 68 69 69 69 71 72 . TABLE OP CONTENTS. Matt. xiii. 35 .. „ xvii. 21, and Mark is. 29 .. Mark ix. 43-50 Section VI.— From Galileo to Jerusalem Luke ix. 54, 55 „ xi. 2-4 ',, « X. 1, 15 „ 41, 42 Matt. xix. 9 Mark x. 17-22 Matthew xix. 16, 17 Luke XV. 21 .. Section VII.— At Jerusalem Mark xi. 3 8 .. .. .. 26 The Last Supper, Matt. xxvi. 26-29 Luke xxii. 19 Gethsemane, Matt. xxvi. 42 Mark xiv. 35, 40 Luke xxiL 43, 44 The first Word on.the Cross, Luke xxiii. 34 Darkening of the Sun, Luke xxiii. 45 Inscription on the Cross, Luke xxiii. 38 .. The Crucifixion, Matt, xxvil. 32-56 Matthew xxvii. 49 Mark xv. 39 Section VIII.— Events connected witli and following the Resurrection Matt, xxviii. .. Luke xxiv. 3 .. 12 .. 36, 40 Mack xvi.'9 seq. The Ascension and Session at the Right Hand of God, Mark xvi. 19, and Luke xxiv. 51 VII FACI 73 74 77 80-93 80 85 87 88 89 90 91 92 94-116 95 96 97 98 98 100 100 101 105 110 112 113 113 115 117-127 117 117 118 119 120 126 Till TABLE OF CONTENTS. THIRD PART— pp. 12ft-250. Section L— On Results of PreoediDg Inquiry Sectios II. — Clasnfication of Innovations Section III. — Result of Classification Section IV. — On Value of K and B Section V. — ^Eusebian Recension Section VL — ^The Alexandrian CJodox Section VIL— Theory of Syrian Recension Section VIIL— Theory of Conflate Readings Section IX. — Answers by Members of the Committee Revisers Section X. — Recapitulation and Conclusion of rAoi 128 136 142 148 169 184 igs 206 219 239 THE REVISED VEBSION OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. FIRST PART. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. § 1. In considering the points which are discussed in the Condition, of following pages, I would ask the reader to keep before his ''""''°- mind the conditions under which the consent of the Southern Convocation was given to the work of Revision. The iirst proposal was made by the late Bishop of Win- chester (Dr. S. Wilberforce), and seconded by the present Bishop. of Gloucester and Bristol, on the 10th of February, 1870. It was accepted by the Upper House of Convocation, and passed, the same day, in the following terms : "That a Committee of both Houses be appointed to report on the desirableness of a Revision of the Authorized Version of the Old and New Testaments, whether by mar- ginal notes or otherwise, in those passages where plain and clear errors, whether in the Hebrew or Greek text originally adopted by the translators, or in the translations made from the same, shall on due investigation be found to exist." A report, in accordance with this resolution, was laid be- fore the Lower House of Convocation on the 10th of May, n 2 BEVISED YEBBIOM OF FQtST THBEE GOSPELS. 1870 ; and the following resolntiona were then adopted after fall discoBsion : (1) That it is desirable that a Revision of the Authorised Version of the Holy Scriptures be undertaken. (2) That the Revision be so conducted as to comprise both marginal renderings and such emendations as it may be found necessary to insert in the text of the Authorized Version. (3) That in the above resolutions, we do not contemplate any new translation of the Bible, or any alteration of the language, except where, in the judgment of the most com- petent scholars, such change is necessary. (4) That in such necessary changes, the style of the lan- guage employed in the existing Version be closely followed. (5) That it is desirable that Convocation should nominate a body of its own members to undertake the work of Revi- sion, who shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any [tie] eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong. These resolutions are called FUNDAMENTAL by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol in the Preface to the Revised, Version, p. x. It should be observed that great stress was laid upon these conditions by the proposers and seconders of the reso-. lutions in both Houses. I must call special attention to the words of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol which I quoted in my ' Second tetter to the Bishop of London,' p. 6 : " We may be satisfied with the attempt to correct plain and clear errors, but there it is 'our duty to stj«>." See Chronicle of Convocation. Feb. 1870, p. 83. The question, therefore, in reference to every alteration is, ^ first, whether it removes a plain and clear error and is thus necessary ; and, secondly, whether such alteration is correct. Objtetofthu § 2. The principal object of this work is to examine in work. PRBLIHINABY CONSIDEBATIONS. 3 detail certain alterations in the Revised Version, whether adopted in the text or suggested in the margin, which affect incidents in our Lord's life, or which are connected with His works and teaching as recorded in the synoptical Gospels. Alterations are peculiarly important which rest upon changes in the Greek text, and to these I invite special attention; but some changes in the English Version demand, and will receive, due consideration. I will, however, on the present occasion, pass over alto- gether, or with slight notice, changes which affect the style of the Revision, without introducing a new sense, or seriously modifying the sense presented in the Authorized Version. These changes in style have produced a strong and a very general impression, which certainly is the reverse of favourable; they have even found severe censors among staunch defenders* of the Revised Version, and have been criticized most effectively by Sir Edmund Beckett; but they are of secondary importance in reference to the point with which I am exclusively concerned, that is to say, the bear- ings of certain alterations upon the veracity of the sacred writers, or upon points connected with fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. § 3. Before I enter upon the examination of the passages Wtrsing e( in question, I venture to invite attention to a fact which ^^' appears to be little known, but which has peculiar interest in connection with discussions which have been raised, and appear likely to be carried on with increasing force, in * I refer among others to Dean Perowne, quoted In an article on the ReTisers' style by Dr. Banday in the Expotitor, April 1882. Dr. Sanday ■ays: "Viewed with reference to its avowed object, it is nothing less than a failure." Dr. Sanday's article is of importance both because of the learning and great ability of the writer, and his prominent position among the defenders of the Oreeic text adopted by the ReTiseni. B 2 4 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. reference to the new revision of the text, and to the grounds on which it is defended in Dr. Hort's 'Introduction ' to the recent edition of the New Testament, which agrees sub- BtantiaUy with the Greek text pubUshed by the Eevisers at Oxford, under the superintendence of Archdeacon Palmer. The fact to which I refer is this: some twenty-eight years ago, a German critic, remarkable for extent and accuracy of learning, and for soundness and sobriety of judgment, emphatically called the attention of scholars, and specially of theologians, to the bearings of the enormous changes introduced into the text of the New Testament by the critical school of which at that time Lachmann was the chief representative. The critic was Dr. J. G. Eeiche, and the remarks in question are in his work entitled ' Commentarius Criticus in Novum Testamentum." The first volume contains a full dis- cussion of the most difficult and weighty passages in the Epistles to the Komans and Corinthians ; the second volume deals with the minor Epistles of St. Paul; the third with the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles. The passage which I now adduce occurs in the preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews. Reiche begins by observing, (1) that Lachmann adopted without any inquiry the conjecture of Griesbach ("funda- mentis admodum infirmis superstructam "), that two forms of the Greek text were introduced about the middle of the second century, one of which was generally adopted in the East, the other in the West ; (2) that he produced a new text founded on the three oldest manuscripts then known to scholars. A, B, and C (the Alexandrian and Vatican Codices, and the incomplete but valuable codex known as Ephreemi Eescriptus), with ""occasional reference to others of the same age and character, always comparing their readings with citati#^s in the works of Origen; (3) when, however. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 5 those authorities differed, he called in the well-known Codex Bezse, D, for the Gospels; D and E for the Acts; and a second D (the Codex Claromontanus) for the Pauline Epistles, as the best witnesses for the Western recension, especially when they are supported by the old Italic Ver- sions, the Vulgate, and early Latin Fathers ; (4) that all other manuscripts, all other Versions and Fathers were utterly neglected by him, as inferior in authority, or com- pletely superfluous; (5) that according to Lachmann and his followers, the one true object of all criticism is to as- certain the text received in the East and West in the fourth century. Seiche then gives expression to an opinion of extreme gravity, which, on account of its bearing upon burning questions of our own time, I will here quote in his own words: " Fato quodam sinistro accidit, ut theologi, quorum res agi videbatur, maximam partem, Philologi celeberrimi auctoritate capti, non tantum ea, quse ille sibi proposuit, nempe textum quarto seculo iri orienti divulgatum eruere et restituere, reapse effecisse persuaderi passi sint, sed etiam miro errore textum Lachmannianum omnium huc- usque editorum optime testatum maximeque a mendis im- munem et sincerum reprtesentare, quippe a luculentissimis testibus secundum claras et certas artis criticae regulaa efibrmatum, arbitrarentur. Quo sensim factum est, ut Lachmannianus textus fere eandem, quam olim textus receptus habuit, auctoritatem superstitiosam apud multos nacta sit, et ut vulgo tanquam res indubia ponatur, paucos istos libros MSS., quos Zachmanmis solos adhibuit, ceteris exclusis, non tantum antiquissimse, quae Zachmanno vide- batur, sed primariae et sincerse scripturse testes sponsores- que esse locupletissimos et spectatissimos, prse quibus ceteri testes nihil fere valeant, qupestionemque de externa lectionis 6 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. alicujus auctoritate, productis libris istie, pnesertim si pauci alii cam iifl concinerent, deciaam et judicatam esse." Each point noted in this paragraph demands serious con- sideration, (1) The strange oversight of theologians, whose special interests were concerned ; (2) their persuasion that Lachmann had succeeded in his purpose of discovering and restoring the text generally received in the fourth century throughout the East; (3) their far more serious error in believing that Lachmann's text was the best attested, most free from faults, and purest of all hitherto edited, being derived from the most trustworthy sources, under the guidance of clear and certain rules of the art of criticism ; (4) the result being that the text of Lachmann was ere long r^arded by many with the superstitious reverence which had formerly attached to the Textus Receptus; (5) and again that it became generally accepted as an indis- putable fact that those four manuscripts, which Lachmann used exclusively, were not only the best authorities for the readings which that critic held to be the most ancient, but for the original and unadulterated text of Holy Writ; (6) that compared with these, other witnesses are wholly without authority, and that the question about the external evidence for any reading, when those manuscripts are adduced, especially should they be supported by a few others, is to be regarded as finally and decisively settled. I will ask the reader to compare these statements with the views set forth, authoritatively and repeatedly, by Dr. Hort in his 'Introduction,' especially in reference to the supreme exceltence and unrivalled authority of the text of B— with which, indeed, the Greek text of "Westcott and Hort is, with some unimportant exceptions, substantially identical, coinciding in more than nine tenths of the passages which, as materially afiecting tW character of the synoptic Gospels, I have to discuss. • PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 7 Beiche then observes that he fully admits the value of those MSS., A, B, G, D, which often retain true readings, either alone or in combination with a few other authorities ; but that it is equally true that it is impossible to deny that in very many places (pennultis locis) they have false readings, partly attributable to negligence, partly intentional; more- over, that one and all they are either later than, or contem- porary with, ancient Versions (a point to which I shall have to refer presently). Eeiche then states a fact of primary import- ance (to which some of our own best critics, e.g. Dr. Scrivener, bear witness, but which seems to be strangely overlooked by others), that in the earliest ages the stupidity and licence (socordia et liccntia) of copyists was far greater than at any later period, the result being that the most ancient MSS. are tainted with the most numerous and most serious errors (plurimis et gravissimis mendis inquinatos). Moreover that those MSS., to which critics in Germany attach exclu- sive importance, are of Egyptian, or rather Alexandrian origin, so that all belong to one fanuly, a fact evidenced by their singular consent in peculiar readings ; and lastly that all documents of the N. T. coming from Alexandria, at that time the home of over-bold criticism, abound in readings which are manifestly false, "a male sedulis grammaticis natis." These statements Eeiche confirms by a detailed examina- tion of readings in the Epistle to the Hebrews. He shows that separately and collectively those MSS. have imques- tionably false readings, especially of omission. I do not expect that these statements will be generally admitted, to their full extent, by English critics; but they prove at least that the charges brought against the text based upon those MSS. rest on positive scientific grounds, and are not, as seems to be assumed, attributable to a theological bias or mere prejudice on the part of those who 8 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. ^ venture to diBtnut the authorities which have influenced the Bevisers in their numerous innovations. Th. Siuitie § 4. Since Reiche addressed this warning to his countrymen ^^*'^^ one considerable addition has been made to the evidences on which modem critics rely. I speak of the Sinaitic Codex— well known by the sign M. In many very impor- tant readings that MS. agrees with B, the Vatican Codex ; differing however to a great extent from A, C, and still more, as might be expected, from D, the most ancient Western manuscript. To that new MS. Tischendorf, its discoverer and editor, attached, as was natural under the circiunstances, immense importance; unfortunately, indeed, such exclasive importance that he went back from the position he had taken in his seventh edition, the best and moat interesting for its text, and in his eighth edition in- tiwludfed more than 3000 variations, of which tlie larger portion have been given up as untenable by later editors. The effect produced by the first production of this manu- script, conspicuous for its beauty and for its unquestionable antiquity, and by the high authority of Tischendorf, was so great in England that the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in seconding the motion of Dr. S. Wilberforce, then Bishop of Winchester, for the new Revision, on February 10, 1870, said that "in the Alexandrian manuscript a portion, and a very important portion, of St. Matthew's Gospel is wanting.* We know also that in the celebrated Vatican manuscript the Pastoral Epistles, the Apocalypse, and I think a portion of the Epistle to the Hebrews are wanting ; and here we have mysteriously, by the gootl providence of God, the Sinaitic manuscript, which, in the judgment of the • The AlezAndrisn Codex now begin* with Matthew xxv. 8 ; a fact to be borne In mind In reference to all paasages Uken from the preceding chnplere of that Ooniiel, and discussed in the following notlcen. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. f illustrious editor, takes tlus first place among the manuscripts of the New Testament, vouchsafed to us perfect and entire." — Chronicle of Convocation, 1870, p. 80. § 5. Tlie tendency which Reiche deplores has led in Neglect of ihu Germany to results on which I need not here dwelL As a "h'/^nf*. general statement it may be said that the effect has been to q>>«n««»- cast discredit on the great majority of uncials, still more upon the whole mass of cursives, and to detract from the authority of the early Fathers and early Versions to the extent in which they differ from what I may venture to call the Origenistic recension.* In England Alford, with hesi- tating steps, Tregelles, witli bolder strides, have adopted many of the most serious innovations. The outcome of the whole process is presented in the most authoritative form, with consummate skill and in the most jieremptory style, by Dr. Hort in the ' Introduction ' to the critical edition of West- cott and Hort, published immediately after the appearance .of the Revised Version. There is, however, one great difference between the earlier critics of the school and its chief representatives in England. Even Lachmann and, still more decidedly, Tischendorf attached considerable weight to the evidence of the two very ancient MSS. A and C, and allowed some weight to the other uncials when they agree with each other and those two manuscripts ; but the two eminent critics whose counsels evidently predominated in the Committee of Revisers, assign to the Vatican Codex B an authority so pre-eminent, that, with one very extraordinary exception (see further on, p. 16) • Tlie grounds for this oiiinion will bo considered further on. Hero I will simply sny that, with some important exceptions, the nume- rous citations in the works of Origen agree with the Vatican OmIojc, especially where it is supiwrtcd by the Sinaitic. 'i'his indeed may bo inferred from Roicho's nccoimt of the prvati and the marginal note. It is of impori»nce, since it disguises the evident reference m v. 1 to the first book in the Pentateuch, and obUterates the clear distinction drawn by the Evangelist between the genealogy and the nativity. ,. . The external evidence for each of the two readings is weighty but not conclusive. For the Eevised Version stand, as usual. K, B, supported by C, P, and Z and three other uncials of less authority. For the old reading 7^i/r.;«? eight uncials, including L (showing a fluctuation in the Alexandrian recen- sion), and nearly all cursives. The authority of the MSS. which favour the new reading is materiaUy affected by their extreme carelessness and irregularity in reference to orthography. , t v a The old Versions, with the exception of the Italic and Vulgate, have generally different words here and in v. 1. Of the early Fathers Tischendorf cites Didymus of Alex- andria as reading 'y^in,ai<:. Chrysostom discusses both words, 7^.enge 442). ■ I i.e. " in what belongs to my Father," We want an English expression equally comprehensive. An unnecessary and unsatisfactory change. EVENTS PBEPAEATORT TO OUR LORD'S APPEARANCE AS TEACHER AND KING.* Here we have first to notice the strange and significant changes in the introductory matter of St, Mark's Gospel (1) Mark i. 1. — First I must call attention to the omission in the first clause of " Son of God," vlov deov or toO Beov, suggested in the margin. r notice it with surprise and sorrow. The words are emphatic ; they denote with singular force and distinctness the special characteristic of St. Mark's Gospel. As the first Gospel brings before us most prominently the theocratic King, the Son of David the king (see above, p. 24) expected by the Hebrews; so the second Gospel dwells specially upon all manifestations of the Son of God, in His widest sphere of action, in His relations to Hebrews and Gentiles. I would venture to refer to my own note on the words in the ' Speaker's Commentary.' It states not my own view merely, but that of some of the most thoughtful and clear- sighted interpreters of Holy Writ. To obliterate this charac- teristic trait seems to me an act of singular temerity. We inquire on what authority the Revisers rely. The answer will surely astonish most readers. They have actually but one uncial MS., one which they seldom follow in doubtful cases, the Sinaitic Codex, K, corrected, however, by the diorthota, a contemporary hand ; and two cursives, 28, 255. Against the omission, their own highest authority B; the authority to which they attach special importance when it countenances omissions, D ; also L, and in a word all other uncials, all other cursives, and without any excep- D 2 36 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. tion all ancient Voreions. See too the testimony of Irenaeus (lib. iii. c. xvL § 3), quoted a little further on. As to the omission in K, corrected as it was by the first hand, I do not attribute it to any doctrinal prepossession, but simply to the characteristic negligence, or the haste, of the first transcriber. The words, if inserted, as they were by the first corrector (see Tischehdorf, Cod. Sin. p. xlviii.), would have altered the arrangement in tntxpi and given the hasty transcriber some trouble. See my remarks on the signs of extreme haste in this Codex, Part III. Section iv. Tischendorf, however, alleges patristic authority. To that authority I should attach the very highest importance; but it seems to me evident, on referring to the passages which he quotes, that the words were omitted simply on the ground that they had no bearing upon the points in question. I cannot but regard this omission as a plain and dear error, and one of serious importance in the Revised Version. (2) Mark I 2. — The Revisers alter the text; instead of " the Prophets," they have " Isaiah the Prophet," informing us in the margin that " some ancient authorities " support the Authorized Version.* They ought surely to have said many. Now one thing is certain. The statement which assigns the two prophecies to Isaiah, as it stands in the R. V., w a plain and clear error. The first prophecy belongs to Malachi. The question is simply this. Is the error to be attributed to St. Mark, or to a transcriber ? The ancient critics who adopted it as a recognized reading agreed in one point. To whomsoever it is to be attributed, it was an error of the transcriber. So Eusebius, ypa4>ia)d\fJM, and Jerome, adopting his words, "nomen Isaire putamus additum sciiptoris vitio." There is no question as to its being a very ancient error, however it may have been introduced; and critics who rest exclusively on the oldest extant MSS. could not but accept it, certainly as the oldest and most general, and therefore, in their minds, the only true reading. They have for them K, B, D.L, A-^.e. the EusAian recension supported by the corrupt representative MS. of the Western recension— twenty-five cursives, the Sahidic, and the Vulgate ; also two, not the most important, Syriac Versions, and some copies of the Coptic. Against them A, E, F, G"pp, H. K, M, P, S, U, V, F, 11, uncials remarkable eitlier for general correctness, or for tlieir general agreement with the Eusebian recension ; the majority of cursives ; two of the best Versions, one independent and of the highest value, the Peshito, the other important for its general accuracy, and in this case as belonging usually to the opposite school, viz. the Coptic, confirmed in this instance by the yEtliiopic and Armenian. As to other external authorities it is admitted that the greater number of the Fathers in the East and West, from the fourth century downwards, agree with the new text. One authority however, which, in my opinion, outweiglis all those of later centuries, sc. Irenseus, ought to be admitted as most decidedly supporting the reading " in the Prophets." At a merely superficial glance his evidence may be regarded as ambiguous. In one passage (see below) where the text is quoted without special reference to its bearing we find " in the Prophet Isaiah." But in another passage Irenseus has occa- sion to point out distinctly and fully the whole drift and purport of the second Gospel ; and that passage proves in- controvertibly that he had before liim, and kneyr that his adversaries had before them, the reading which alone exonerates 38 REVISED VEnSION OP FIRST THREE GOSPELS. the Evangelist from the charge of ignorance, or inconceivable carelessness. I will quote it at length, both because of its signal importance, and its bearings not merely upon this question, but upon the structure of the Gospel, and espe- cially upon its integrity— see further on, p. 123 : "Quapropter et Marcus interpres et sectator Petri initium evangelicsB conscriptionis fecit sic: 'Initium evangelii Jesu Christi Filii Dei, quemadmodum scriptum est in prophetis: Ecce, mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui prsepa- rabit viam tuam. Vox clamantis in deserto: Parate viam Domini, rectas facite semitas ante Deum nostrum.' Mani- feste initium evangelii esseMicens sanctm-um prophetarum Voces;, et eum, quem ipsi Dominum et Deum confessi sunt, hunc Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi praemonstrans, qui et promiserit ei angelum suum ante faciem ejus missurum ; qui erat Joannes, 'in spiritu et virtute Heli«e' damans in eremo: 'Parate viam Domini, rectas facite semitas ante Deum nostrum.' Quoniam quidem non alium et alium prophetae annuntiabant Deum, sed unum et eundem, variis autem significationibus et multis appellationibus : multus enim et dives Pater quemadmodum in eo libro qui ante - hunc est, ostendimus; et ex ipsis autem prophetis proce- dente nobis sermoBe ostendemus. In fine autem evangelii ait Marcus : ' et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est eis, receptus est in caelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei ; ' confirmans quod a propheta dictum est: 'Dixit Dominus Domino meo: Sede a dextris meis, quoadusque ponam inimicos tuos suppedaneum pedum tuorum,' " Lib, iii, c, x. § 6, p. 461, ed. Stieren. This full statement leaves no room for doubt as to the testimony of Irenseus, and consequently to the general recep- tion of the old reading in the second century, nearly two hundred years earlier than the oldest witness that can be adduced for the other reading. EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. II. 39 In another passage Irenseus refers to the passage in distinct terms, lib. iii. xvi. 3, where the context, as Massuet observes, proves decisively that this was the true reading in the original Greek. (See Stieren's ed. torn. ii. p. 880.) Here is the passage: "Propter hoc et Marcus ait: 'Initium evangelii Jesu Christi Filii Dei, qnemadmodum scriptum est in prophetis : ' unum et eunden^ sciens Filium Dei Jesum Christum, quia prophetia annuntiatus est," &c. This passage should be noted in reference to the question previously dis- cussed, p. 36. Once however Irenreus has the" name Isaiah, both in the Latin interpretation and in th^ Greek, as it stands in a very inaccurate form in Anastasius Sinaita (see the nof^s in Stieren's edition, lib. iii. c. xi. § 8, p. 467). It should be borne in mind, not only that the citation in the ' Hodegoa ' of Anastasius is loose and inexact, but that the writer, who lived towards the end of the seventh century, was a monk in the convent where the Codex Sinaiticus was lately found, and was doubtless the great authority from a much earlier time. Anastasius would naturally, as a matter of course, in quoting the passage in Irenseus, use the reading with which he was familiar, probably the only one of which he was cognizant. It is unlikely that Irensus should have had two different texts before him, and we have no alter- native but to admit a corruption in this one, or in the two other passages ; if so there can be no doubt that the true reading is that which alone is supported by the context. In questions where external authorities are divided all critics agree as to the propriety of inquiring into internal evidence ; and (1) in the first place as to the usage of the writer. Now St. Mark differs from other EvangeUsts in that in his own person he never quotes a prophet by name ; once he records a name expressly cited by our Lord ; in ch. xiii. 14, where tlie name Daniel occurs, it is held by critics 40 BEVISED VEB8I0N OF FIB8T THREE GOSPELS. to be an interpolation from Matt. xxiv. 15. (2) It is cer- tain that the writer of the Gospel knew that the two pro- phecies here quoted came from distinct sources, since that of Malachi is translated from the Hebrew, that of Isaiah is taken from the Septuagint. (3) The instances of interpo- lation of the name of Isaiah are striking, and, in every case where the reading is at all doubtful, of great importance. One of the most remarkable occurs in Matt. xiii. 35, where Isaiah is interpolated in the Codex Sinaiticus, and adopted as the true reading by Tischendorf (see further on, p. 73). In Matt. i. 22, D and some early Italic MSB. interpolate Isaiah. The former instance is peculiarly instructive as a gross error, the latter as exemplifying a very mischievous habit of early transcribers. (4) No argument is urged more frequently by modem critics than that clear indications of assimilation are fatal to any contested reading. But in this passage as given in the Eevised Version we have a clear case of assimi- lation to Matt, iii, 2, the passage most likely to be in the mind of the copyist In fact St. Luke and St. Matthew quote also the prophecy of Malachi, but withmt mentioning his name. (5) It was natural that a scribe or editor should introduce the name of the prophet best known to himself and to his readers;, first probably in the margin as a gloss, which at an early period was transferred to the text. Possibly this process may have occurred in other passages; in one there can be no doubt that an equally gross error was im- puted without any authority to St. Matthew, who in a very early text, of Western origin, remarkable for " socordia et licentia," is made to assign our Lord's quotation from the Psalms to Isaiah : an error retained by the Sinaitic Codex and adduced triumphantly by Tischendorf as a proof of its venerable antiquity. I must also repeat my observation in the 'Speaker's Commentary, New Testament,' vol. i. p. 210, that the reading EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. II. 41 i:'- iv Ty 'Hmpared, indeed, with portions of equal extent in the other Evan- gelists, especially St. Mark and St. Luke, the number of textual innovations is less than might be expected; but some of them are of vital importance. (1) V. 4, 6. — ^We first observe in the Beatitudes that a transposition of w. 4 and 6 is noticed, and, as the Preface leads us to conclude, is to some extent commended, in the marginal note. The transposition is somewhat startling, since it disturbs the sequence of thoughts brought out clearly and forcibly by Chrysostom; nor do I see any internal grounds for presenting it as worthy of consideration. The reader will be surprised to find on referring to critical editions that it is supported by one uncial only, D, — most remarkable for recklessness and caprice — followed by one cursive only; against the whole body of MSS., uncial (including of course K, B) and cursive, and the most weighty authorities, the best ancient Versions, and those early Fathers who deal specially with the interpretation. The fact that the change is supported by some MSS. of the early EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. 49 Italic, and countenanced by notices of some ancient Fathers, e.g. Origen, might justify a notice in a new critical edition of the New Testament, but in a work intended for general readers, such a statement as that in the margin is unnecessary and misleading. (2) V. 22. — We next observe the omission of the word eiicf), rendered ivitlunU a caiise, in v. 22. The omission of a qualification of the general statement, whosoever is angry ioith his brother, rests on the authority of K, B, and (according to Tischendorf *) one other uncial. A; but from notices in some early Fathers it may be inferred that the Gredk text in some ancient and wide-spread recensions omitted elicrj ; and provided that full force were allowed to the present participle 6pyi{6fievo<;, tliat word might be dispensed witli. This, however, is not the case with the rendering in our Authorized Version, which is retained by the Eevisers. To "be angry" does not imply, as the Greek does, habitual A persistent anger, at once sinful, and perilous to him who indulges it. If, therefore, the reading be admitted, we object to the rendering as conveying, if not a false, cer- tainly an incomplete, impression as to our Lord's meaning. And again, considering the very scanty evidence for the omission, and the immense preponderance of authorities against it, we maintain that it ought not to have been adopted in the text. Here I must remark that the words invariably used in the margin when it refers to k and B, sc. " the two oldest MSS.," though literally correct, are practically misleading. The reader would scarcely infer from them that other MSS., such as A, C, are nearly equal in antiquity and conjointly of great authority ; or again, that the evidence * I must refer the reader to the exhaustive discussion of this reading in the Quarterly Rtvitw, April 1882, pp. 373 seq. A ought not to have been cited as supporting K, B. E 50 REVISED VERSION OF FIRBT THREE GOSPELS. of K and B in many cases is opposed to that of Versions and Fathers at once more ancient and more trustworthy. This is especially important in cases of omission, for which those two MSS. are notorious, and, in spite of the assertion of Dr. Hort, demonstrably conspicuous. This point however will be discussed in the third division of my work. I am glad to observe that the Bevisers do not notice a very grave omission, that of the last portion of v. 32, which Westcott and Hort enclose in double brackets. The only uncial manuscript which omits it is D, followed by one cursive, supported by some MSS. of early Italic, and by a notice of Jerome that " nonnulli codices, et grseci et latini," have it not. Although the Revisers neither adopt it nor notice it in their margin, it is right to call attention to it as an instance of the singular habit of the two critics of accept- ing the testimony of D in cases of omission, a habit which in some instances has led to very serious innovations in the Bevised Version. (3) V. 37, 39. — I have examined these two passages, and stated the results at considerable length in my ' Second Letter to the Bishop of London,' pp. 14-17. Here I will simply call attention to two points, the inconsistency of the Bevisers' rendering in v. 37 and v. 39 ; and the very serious inferences necessarily drawn from the statement thus attri- buted to our Lord, that all oaths originate with Satan, and that it is wrong to resist an evil man. I cannot but regard the rejection of the plain, consistent, intelligible, and thoroughly scriptural rendering of these passages in the Authorized Version, as a breach of the contract which bound the Revisers to confine their innovation to cases of plain and clear error and to make no changes that were not necessary. (4) V. 44. — We now come to an omission which for character and extent is perfectly astounding. In v. 44 all EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. 51 these words, bless litem that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and again, despitefully use you and, are rejected, absolutely, without any marginal notice, of course therefore without the shadow of apology. Yet this enormous omission rests on the sole authority of K and B, and one cursive which almost invariably follows them, sc. 1. Some MSS. of early Italic and Coptic support the omission, and the clauses are also passed over by some early Fathers, not however in a way which justifies the assertion that they were unknown to them. On the other side we have (1) all other uncials, including of course those which are independent of the Alexandrian recension, e.g. D and E; and those which in doubtful passages all but invariably support K, B ; (2) the best and earliest Versions ; and (3) a phalanx of early Fathers, Irenseus, Theophilus Ant, Athenagoras, Clement Alex., Eusebius, and even Origen, who, among them, bear witness to every word of the omitted clause. This, is really a crucial test of the value of the two oldest MSS. The omission is fatal to their authority. It may be attributed to the haste of the transcribers — a point to which I shall have occasion to refer presently — or to their extreme carelessness. It is one of the worst cases in which they severally or conjointly mutilate the teaching of our Lord. I can scarcely realize the feelings of a devout reader, on whose memory those sacred loving words are graven in characters of light. Is he to be taught that some unknown daring interpolator went farther than our Blessed Lord in enjoining charity ? This seems to me one of the most indefensible innovations in the new Revision. (5) vi. 1. — In this verae we meet at once with an expres- sion which must be singularly perplexing to ordinary readers. They will scarcely be able to conjecture what the words E 2 52 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. do not your rightemisness can possibly mean. They stand without explanation, and for my own part I must confess that I do not know what meaning is attached to them by the Eevisere. I presume that they adopt, together with the new word, the exposition of the Latin Fathers, who identify y«t8«lefie}>, the Revisers have intro- duced the (wrist, a^Kafuv. Now the true rendering of that new reading would be we forgave : but the Revisers render it as though, instead of the aorist, they had the perfect tense before them ; in their English text they say we have forgiven.* The necessity of thus altering thtf tense, in direct opposi- tion to a rule to which the Revisers attach great importance, adhering to it in many instances where it is scarcely consis- tent with English idiom, ought surely to have constrained them to question the correctness of the reading. Had they given a literal translation, its unsuitableness would have • T cannot but call to mind the witty and very true observation of Canon Evans : " One may bo tempted to examine the rare curiosity of an aorift buried alive in a perfect."— ilr/waiYor, 1882, p. 168. EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. 65 been self-evident. It makes the petitioner, at the time When he asks for forgiveness, declare that he forgave, or had already forgiven. The use of the aorist in such idiomatic expressions as iir^veara, iBe^dfi/t)V, rjadriv, airhnvera, ix4pi)V, IftaOov and the like, rests on a different ground — they are used to show the previous impression of the speaker. The present tense, on the contrary — ^that which the Bevisers retain in St. Luke's report of the Prayer — implies that when- ever we offer that Prayer, we plead our will, intention, or our habit of extending to all who trespass against us such forgiveness as we seek for ourselves. The new reading states, as an accomplished fact, that before the petition was offered, the petitioner had forgiven all trespasses, or remitted all debts due to him from every erring brother. But we have to inquire what authority is adduced for this reading. Of course we find N, B, the former, however, corrected by a contemporary hand. B is supported by Z and two cursives which belong to the same recension, 1, 124. On the other side are twelve uncials, five of them, D, E, L, A, n, with an old Hellenistic form aUfi€v. We cannot but infer that Origen had that reading before him, and that the variation in the citation is attri- butable to carelessness either on the part of Origen or more probably of his transcribers and editors. The alleged testimony of St. Basil, ' Hom. de Jejunio,' § 4 (p. 606 a), would be very weighty, if the homily were written by him, and if, as might be inferred from Tischendorfs notice, he were in that passage quoting the words of the Prayer ; but he is simply applying its general teaching to a special case, in which the petitioner is represented as pleading an accomplished act. But the homily itself is spurious and ought not to have been quoted at all. Gamier, the Benedic- tine editor, says of it (Prsef § xviii.), " Nihil unquam minus Basilianum vidi." Gregory of Nyssa, tom. i. p. 753 b, appears to have read aiefiev. I should wish "to know what is the MS. authority for either or both these distinct and irreconcileable readings. The general result is surely that this very considerable innovation is disguised by a loose inaccurate rendering, and Apposed to an overwhelming preponderance of authorities. (c) The Doxology. — The last and crowning alteration in ! the Revisers' text of the Lord's Prayer is the total omission of the Doxology. In a marginal note we are told that some ancient authorities support it, but with variations, a state- ment which of course implies that no dependence is to be placed upon their testimony. In my ' Second Letter to the Bishop of London ' I have referred to this omission. In support of the rejected clause I have noticed the immense preponderance of authorities, especially the consensus of all the Greek Fathers, from Clirysostom onwards, who deal with the interpretation of the Prayer, all of whom agree with that great expositor in main- taining its important bearings upon the preceding petitions. I have also observed that a probable cause may be- found for its general omission in early Latin Versions and Fathers, viz., its separation in all the Western liturgies from the preceding petitions by the intercalated Embolismus; to this I may add that in the controversies with the Marcionites, which occupied to so great an extent the minds of early Latin Fathers, the form of the Prayer found in St. Luke's Gospel would naturally be quoted, since no question was raised as to the reception of that Gospel. I will now briefly state the authorities on which the llevisers rely and those which tliey reject. Of course we find N, B, supported however by D and Z (Western and Alexandrian), the early Italic, the Vulgate, the Latin Fathers TertuUian and Cyprian, and Origen. That is, the Eusebian recension of the third and fourth centuries, the Western from the second to the fifth or sixth. On the other side are all other uncials, including those which in doubtful cases, as a rule, agree with B. Unfortu- nately two most important witnesses here fail us, A and C. Were the missing portion of the MS. of A extant, there can be little doubt as to its testimony ; it generally agrees with 58 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE' GOSPELS. E and G, which are here supported by K, L, M, S, U, V, A, and n, independent witnesses ; and by nearly all cursive MSS. ; also by one independent and important MS. of the early Italic, / (the Codex Brixianus) ; by all the Syriac "Versions, three independent witnesses, each weighty, and collectively of the highest importance ; the, Gothic, Slavonic, and, note this, the two Egyptian Versions, Sahidic and CJoptic, followed by the iEthiopic. The variation to which the Revisers refer suffices to prove the absolute independence of this " cloud of wit- nesses ; " it certainly does not detract from their authority in a passage where the general import is all in all. The Revisers would have been justified had they given a marginal note stating an omission from some ancient autho- rities ; it might be too much to expect that the critics by whom they were guided would consent to add that of the MSS. which they follow, two are conspicuous for omissions, that one, Z, belongs to the same recension, and that the other, D, is notorious for negligence and caprice. I have also to add that we now learn from Dr. Kennedy's • Ely Lectures ' that Dr. Scrivener, as might be expected from his previous statements, holds that there are not sufficient grounds for such omission. To expunge the whole clause from the text was a stretch of arbitrary power against which, in my opinion. Churchmen are entitled to remonstrate strongly; and for which it is scarcely conceivable that Convocation will accept the re- sponsibility. » From the alterations in the text I pass on to alterations in the rendering. (8) In addition to that alteration which has been already discussed, we find (a) bring for lead, a change questionable as to English idiom, and generally admitted to be unnecessary. The word lead surely expresses the full meaning of etVej/cy*!;?, whether as regards its etymology, = cattse to go (see MuUer, \ P t EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. 59 • Englische Etymologic,' ».».), or its general use. The Bishop of Durham, a very high authority as to the sense of the Greek, states that in his opinion the change is a necessary one, but he does not state what precise shade of meaning he considers sufficiently important to compel or justify the change. In fact, so far as I can judge, most readers wiU find it difficult to ascertain whether bring or lead is the stronger term. Dr. Kennedy says that in both Gospels the Greek means bring, and that lead is an over strong and painful word drawn from the Vulgate ; he attributes it indeed to Jerome's characteristic violence. It is strange that so learned , a man should not have referred to the early Italic Versions before he pronounced this sentence upon Jerome. In all the MSS. of early Italic we have one and the same rendering, ne nos inducas — the only one, in fact, which appears to have been known to the Latin Fathers, see the expositions of the Lord's Prayer by Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine. On the other hand I should rather have understood the word bring to denote an act independent of, or controlling, the will of the petitioner. I believe that readers will generally agree in preferring the English of the old translators to that of the Revisers.* (b) Daily. — This word is retained, but with an exposition in the margin which is scarcely consistent with its natural and obvious meaning. The reader may, and probably will, understand that exposition, for the coming day, to refer to a supply of food sufficient for the day in which the petition is ♦ I subjoin this note RS expressing the judgment of an able scholar : — " I suppose the Revisers would defend themselves by saying that ' lead ' implies an action on the will, ' bring ' an action of external (iircum- stanccs, and the latter is what the Greek implies. But the distinction is too subtle for ordinary readers and the change is useless and unnecessary." This is in fact the ground taken by Mr. Humphry, an excellent authority ; but it certainly implies that " bring" is a stronger and, I should suppose, therefore a more painful word than "lead." CO RUVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. offered. Such, however, is not the meaning attached to it by the Revisers ; if, as may be assumed, they adopt the Bishop of Durham's learned and able exposition. He holds that the word means " the bread of to-morrow," a meaning which could have been clearly stated in the margin, had the Eevisers accepted his arguments as conclusive. I will not here enter upon the very difficiilt contro- versy as to the exact meaning and etymology of eVtowo-to?, a word absolutely unknown in classic or Hellenistic Greek. I may observe that in the corrupt so-called Gospel of the Hebrews, the woi-d "to-morrow" is adopted, yet that most of the old Versions (I believe all but one, the Memphitic, which has pA.CTi *•«• to-morrow), and, so far as I am aware, all early Christian Fathers, understood it to refer to the supply of our immediate wants. Chrysostom explains it as itfniiieptK, without note or comment, as a point generally imderstood ; and to go much further back, Clement of Alexandria (Strom, viii. c. xiii.) regards it as the proper antithesis to Treptowo-ws.* When, however, the alternative derivation from iiruiv, with reference to cVtowra, was gene- rally adopted, it was as generally understood by the Fathers to refer to spiritual food, the food of the eternal morrow. See the collection of passages in Dr. McCleUan's ' Gtrapels.' Here we gladly welcome the retention of the old word in the text ; but the marginal exposition of the Greek, if correct in sense, is, to say the least, obscure and misleading in expression. To use the words of a learned friend, " The fact is that the bread that we pray for is ' future,' in the same sense in which all objects of prayer are ' future.' But the marginal explanation of the Eevisers leads to a supposition * I wouW specially call attention to the whole context of this passage. Clement, like his great namesake of Rome (see my ' Second Letter to the Bishop of Ijondon,' p. 67), gives what may be regarded as a paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer, and, like him, discards all reforonce to Satan. f EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. r.i that in this instance we are to think of a more distant future." The Syriac of Cureton renders the word amlna, i.e. con- stant, to be relied upon. Cureton in his preface, at p. xviii., says truly that " we have, v. 11, ' constant of the day,' amina d'ydma, which agrees exactly with quotidianum of the old Latin, a, I, e, and with the reading of Cyprian. The Gothic Version also uses a term meaning continual" The Gothic word is sinteinan, in the nominative sinteins, which probably means contintmis, nearly equivalent to dailT/, as indeed Massman renders it in his vocabulary to XJlfila. (c) Deliver us from evil. — I must refer to my very long discussion of this passage, to which an answer by the Bishop of Durham may be looked for. Here I will simply notice the facts (1) that the new rendering " the evil one " is an inno- vation in language, the word wicked being invariably used by the Authorized Version in speaking of Satan; (2) that it narrows the broad, comprehensive sense of the Greek; (3) that it implies incompleteness in the deliverance already accomplished by our Lord ; (4) that it has no counterpart or justification in the New Testament ; (5) that it is opposed to the interpretation adopted by all the Churches of "Western Christendom; and (6) that it absolutely ignores the safe- guard supplied by the Doxology, on which special stress is laid by all the best expositors of the Greek Church, from Chrysostom onwards. 1 must add that so far from the Eevisers being all but unanimous in their interpretation of the passage, four have publicly declared their dissent. One other scholar,* well known for his learning and soundness in the faith, was * I refer to Mr. Humphry. In his pamphlet entitled 'A Word on the Revised Version of the New Testament,' p. 25, he informs us that " he resisted it as long as he could," and that the change was finally adopted after the circulation of a paper in its defence by one of the members. G2 REVIBRD VERSION OF FIRST THREE OQSPELB. decidedly adverse to its adoption, and struggled against it to the last ; and lastly, Dr. Kennedy, in the Dedication prefixed to hifl ' Ely Lectures on the Bevised Version,' published this year, writes thus, p. x. : " Once I voted for placing 'evil one' in the margin ; later on, feeling the strength of the argument for the masculine, I did not vote, and I am afraid I still doubt on which side the scale of obligation preponderates." In a subsequent lecture he doubts whether the protest of the margin ought not to content " those who hold to the concrete sense," p. 72. The Bishop of Lincoln, who in a brief note on the Gospel of St. Matthew had previously adopted the new rendering, has lately written to me saying that " there can be no doubt that the Bevisers acted ultra vires in making the alteration ; and that the general term evil is preferable to the evil one." I express no further opinion upon this point. The reader will decide whether my arguments or those which have been, or will be, adduced by the Bishop of Durham, preponderate ; or rather, whether his arguments amount to a proof that our Authorized Version is a plain and clear error. FROM THE lord's PRAYER TO THE END OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. Few changes are suggested by the Bevisers so far as regards the Gospel of St. Matthew. (9) One omission, c. vi. 18, rests on good authority ; two, of no importance theologically, are noticeable from a critical point of view ; in v. 21, aov for v/i&v is adopted from k and B against all MSS. and Versions ; and in v. 25, ^ for xal follows B alone. In v. 33 the Bevisers omit toO 6eov, following k, B, against all MSS. and Versions, and the distinct testimony of the early Fathers, Justin- Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyprian. EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. 63 (10) vi. 25. — The Bevisers seem to claim and to receive much credit for the substitution of " be not anxious" in place of " take no thought." It is selected by my old friend Arch- deacon Allen, as one of those changes which justify a demand for immediate adoption, and Dr. Farrar, in the Con- temporary Bevieio, defends the use of the word " anxious " — strange, as he admits, to the present New Testament — as necessary, on the ground of its correcting a wrong impression, and precluding practical misuse. This opinion is shared by persons whose judgment is very weighty, both as scholars, and as practically acquainted with the impression made upon the generality of readers by the words in the Authorized Version. To me, however, the old rendering appears prefer- able. The word fiepi/ivda comprises all forms of mental agitation, whether painful and distressing, or merely specu- lative — in short, preoccupation of the thoughts about future contingencies. The word " anxious " is not sufficiently comprehensive ; it narrows the sense ; it is true as far as it extends, but it certainly does not cover the meaning and practical bearings involved in the significant but somewhat rare word fiepifivdm as used in classical and biblical Greek.* * Apart from this |)assage and the corresponding clause in St. Luke the word occurs hut twice in the Gospels : Matthew x. 19, where it means turning over in one's miud, casting about for topics in an apologetic speech, a process which of course is accompanied with anxiety, but is mainly objectionable on the ground of its involving mental distraction, 'llie Christian, as St. Peter writes, ihouid be alivayt ready to give an anitoer, a condition which is the true preservative against undue excitement. In Luke X. 41 (where the lievisers have " thou art anxious " In the text, hut tuggest omiuion in the margin), it is connected with TvpfidCg and applies to unnecessary worrying about small domestic matters. It occurs four times in St. Paul's Epistles: twice in 1 Corinthians, vii. 23-24, and xii.35. 2f In the latter passage it is commended, being an unselfish though tfulness : 80, too, in Phil. ii. 20 ; in Phil. iv. 6 Bishop Ellicott renders it he anxious, a rendering adopted by the Revisers, and also by Dean Gwynne in the ' Siieaker's Commentary ;' a shade of meaning which is appropriate to that passage, but is far from exhausting the significance of tlie verb. 04 KEVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. Our Lord would not merely save His followers from distressful thoughts, from painful anxieties, but heal them of the disease of worldliness, of which one of the .very commonest and most mischievous symptoms is the feeling throroughly well ex- pressed by the words " taking thought," a process sometimes painful, but always attractive and engrossing to the specu- lator, the day-dreamer, the busy housewife, the over-careful parent. The Revisers would scarcely venture to reject that phrase as an archaism. It is familiar to the readers of Shakespeare, and ought to have been impressed upon the minds of Christians generally, with all its train of associa- tions and practical bearings. It is said, however, to be generally misunderstood. If that be the case, a brief marginal note might surely suffice. The removal of, the word from the text seems to me a palpable infringement of one fundamental resolution of Convocation. I trust that wlien the range of language has been fully considered, the old, pregnant, comprehensive, and adequate rendering take no thought will be preserved. If, indeed, it need to be explained, great care should be taken that the exposition be true, neither narrowing the sense, as the word "anxious" certainly does, nor widening it so as to include due care, the wise foresight which our Lord repeatedly enjoins, which He condemns the careless and thoughtless for neglecting. The other alterations in St. Matthew's account of the Sennon on the Mount are not of importance. (11) In c. vii. 2, fierfytjdijaeTai for avTtfi€Tpr}6ijaeTat is a correction supported by aU uncial MSS. The old reading is evidently a gloss, a good one, but not to be retained in the text. (12) vii. 4. ex for otto. — The word ix is physically correct, but av6 is better as referring to the intention. The new reading follows K, B, against all other uncials. In V. 5, iie is generally adopted. The intention has been EXAMINATION OF PASSAQES, SECT. IV. 65 tnarked sufficiently by the old reading in the preceding clause ; the act itself is now distinctly described. ^ (13) vii. 13. — The marginal note suggests the omission of ^ irvKr], the gate, which has all uncials but one in its favour and all Versions, except the early Italic. The preference thus given to K" is hardly to be accounted for save on the ground that omissions, in the Revisers' judgment, have a prima facie claim to acceptance. In the Appendix to Westcott and Hort's 'Introduction,' p. 10, Dr. Hort has a highly ingenious, but over-subtle, discussion in defence of the omission. It can scarcely convince any one .who has not adopted the general views of the two critics. (14) For oTt in v. 14, the marginal note suggests rt : How narrow is the gate. For this change there is strong support, but it is notice- able that neither N nor B, the chief authorities with the Revisers, has that reading. The cursive MSS. are divided ; Tischendorf says " Sn al. baud dubie mu." That is, very many certainly have the old reading. I doubt both the new reading — which seems to me less in accordance with our Lord's noble and simple style — and the rendering. Can tI mean how ? It is a meaning which seems to me wholly without support. The rest of the discourse is left untouched in St. Matthew. (15) But we must here call attention to the treatment of the discourse as recorded by St. Luke, vi. 20-49. In those twenty-nine verses twenty alterations are made, twelve of them omissions of the usual character, resting on the usual authorities, but of no material importance. In V. 35, the very difficult reading ixTjUva for /irfiiv is suggested in the margin as read by some ancient authorities. The rendering in the text, never despairing, is not satisfactory ; that in the margin, despairing of no man, is intelligible, but seems to me to savour of Alexandrian subtlety. F 66 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. For the old reading there is an enormous preponderance of MSS., including B and its ordinary satellites. The new rests on k, with H and IT, authorities followed by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, but comparatively seldom by Westcott and Hort. But the discourse, as reported by St. Luke, is disfigured at its close, v. 48, by an innovation, unsurpassed for its absurdity, in most absolute and direct opposition to our Lord's own teaching as recorded by both Evangelists. Instead of it was founded on a roch, or, as the marginal note renders the old reading, it had been founded on the rock, the Revised Version introduces into the text because it had been well builded. A reason for the fall of the house is thus given totally different from that which is distinctly pointed out by our Lord's words in the preceding verse, and is distinctly recorded by St, Matthew. The fall of the house, in fact, had absolutely nothing to do with the superstructure ; it was simply and entirely owing to the insecurity of the soil on which it stood. The choice of the foundation is the distinctive characteristic of the two classes of builders. It may be assumed as an undoubted fact that our Lord's own teaching is correctly reported by St. Matthew. Whether He delivered the discourse on two several occasions or not, has little to do with the present question. One thing is sure : His teaching was consistent ; His meaning was not open to ambiguity. The question is simply this. Does St. Luke himself report incorrectly our Lord's words, does he grievously misrepresent them ? or has some tasteless, reckless innovator, whether care- lessly or intentionally, introduced, first, probably, a senseless gloss, then a mischievous corruption, into the Gospel ? The special charactenstics of St. Luke's Gospel, remark- EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. 67 able for grace, beauty, keen and loving appreciation of our Lord's teaching, must be borne in mind ; nor should it be forgotten that his whole character was moulded under the influence of St. Paul, who above all things enforced the great principle of attending, if not exclusively, yet invariably and primarily to {Refoundation. For the new reading four uncials, Alexandrian or Eusebian, are solely responsible, sc. N, B, L, H, and two cursives. The Coptic Version has it was well built, but adds the all- important words upon a rock, not the rock (exeit crneXDA.). This reading seems to mark the origin of this wretched variation. First Ka\S)^ was inserted — useless but not affecting the substance — then " a rock " was omitted, giving thus exclusive weight to the interpolated Ka'KM<{. I venture to assert that such a reading as this, having regard to all its bearings, is sufficient to impair, if not altogether to overthrow, the authority of the MSS. which support it. It seems to me very strange that Dr. Hort does not state, in the appendix to his 'Introduction,' his reasons for adopting a reading so extraordinary. (16) What shall we say generally of the treatment of the Sermon on the Mount by the Revisers ? What points of any real importance have they amended ? What points have they damaged ? They have suggested a transposition in the Beatitudes ; they have mutilated some of the most characteristic injunctions of our Lord ; they have left the Lord's Prayer in an incomplete, and I cannot but maintain, a corrupt form ; while they have utterly demolished the principle set forth forcibly and completely in the con- cluding parable as recorded by St. Luke. I ask again whether these changes are not wholly incon- sistent with the conditions proposed by themselves, formally sanctioned by Convocation, and accepted as fundamental in the Preface to the Revised Version. 68 REVISED VERSION OP FIRST THREE GOSPELS SECTION V. To THE Close of our Lord's Ministry in Galilee. (a.) from the sermon on the mount to the parables. Matt. viii.-xiii. ; Mark i. 40-iv. ; Luke viii. (1) I will not dwell on points which do not affect the sub- stance of our Lord's teaching or the verity of the narrative, although in some instances the changes are vexatious, and certainly unnecessary. Thus e.g. in St Mark's account, i. 40, of the healing of the first leper the words which are in sub- stantial, not verbal, accordance with St. Matthew, express- ing deep reverence, " and kneeling down to him " {yovweT&v ainov), are noted in the margin as omitted by some ancient authorities. In this case B and D — the two principal autho- rities, the latter specially in cases of omission, with Westcott and Hort — are supported by two late uncials, G and T, but opposed by K and L, and all other MSS. and ancient Versions. Westcott and Hort in their own edition enclose the words in brackets; evidently they could not persuade theBevisers to adopt their own reading in the text ; unfortunately it is almost equally mischievous in the margin. (2) In the account of the healing of the centurion's servant, Matthew viiL 6, 8, 1 notice with regret that in the margin boy is suggested in place of servant. This apparently countenances an interpretation, repudiated by most com- mentators, that the centurion was entreating on behalf of his own phild ; a point which alters the character of the transaction, and is not without effect upon a grave question touching the harmony of the Gospels. EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. V. 69 Nor do I regard the marginal change in v. 10 as satis- factory. It is certainly obscure, if it does not alter the sense, and the Revisers were evidently imwilling to admit it into their text (3) Luke vi. 1. — I must, however, call special attention to the extraordinary acceptance of a very indefensible omis- sion in the text of Luke vi. 1. There SevTepoirpmrip is omitted altogether in the text, although it is defended in the margin. In the first place the omission of the word affects the narrative. The word is peculiar, it does not occur else- where, but it most probably means tlie first Sunday in the second month {lyar*), precisely the time when wheat would be fully ripe, and it thus gives singular vividness to St Luke's account, impressing readers unconsciously with its exact veracity. In the next place the omission bears upon the cha- racterof the MSS. which alone are responsible forthe blunder.K, B, L. Even Tischendorf rejects it, observing truly " ut ab addi- tamenti ratione alienum est, ita cur omiserint in promptu est." (4) In Mark ii. 16 R, B, and D omit the words "and drinketh " — a point chiefly noticeable as an instance of the singular weight attached by Westcott and Hort to D in cases of omissions, because it is generally remarkable for interpola- tions. In the Gospels that MS. is not less conspicuous for careless or hasty omissions. The Revisers do not accept the omission in their English text, but they allow it a place in the margin. (5) In the 26th verse of this chapter we meet with a very serious innovation, presented in the most distinct form in the Revised Version. Instead of " in the days of Abiathar the High Priest " we are told to read " when Abiathar was , High Priest." The importance of this change might possibly escape the notice of general readers ; but it has been pointed • Sec note in the ' Siicaker's Commentary.' 70 REVISED VERSION OF -FIRST THREE GOSPELS. out forcibly and conclusively by the Quarterly Reviewer, and by the learned Bishop of Lincoln. The old reading simply states the fact that Abiathar, well known as the High Priest appointed by David himself at a much later period, was present when the young David with his attendants ate the shew bread. What the Revisers make our Lord say, is that Abiathar was High Priest at that time. A grosser ana- chronism could scarcely be committed, and here it is dis- tinctly imputed to our Lord Himself, on the authority of St. Mark, the Petrine Evangelist. This extraordinary falsification of well-known history is effected by the simple omission of the definite article (toO) before High Priest. Had evidence of very early omission been adduced the question would still have been whether the gross error was to be imputed to the Evangelist, or to a scribe careless or in haste, and probably unconscious of its bearings, and that question could surely have elicited but one answer. In the case of a secular writer, had such an anachronism, resting on a single word, been detected in a MS. say of Polybius, or any historian of character, no critic would have hesitated to have condemned it as the manifest blunder of a transcriber. But in this instance we find it only in the two ancient MSS. remarkable for the number of their omissions, N and B, followed by two much later uncials, well known as their satellites ; against them stand A and C, two weighty and independent authorities, but little later in point of age, and free from their characteristic defects, with A and 11, and the cursives 1, 33, 69, all five remarkable for their general agreement with t( and B. That this is a plain and dear error, is a fact absolutely indisputable ; and it is attributed by the Revisers, in their new text, to our Ix)rd or to the Evangelist. Can it be doubted that it is a plain and dear error of the Revisers ? EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, BEOT. V. 71 OUR lord's discourse AT KAZARETH. — Luke iv. 18-20. — In this most important discourse, in which, in His own native place, our Lord formally claimed for Himself the fulfilment of one of the most striking Messianic prophecies, especially precious as describing the characteristic features of His personality, we are startled by the omission of the words " to heal the broken-hearted " {v. 19). For this omission we have, as we should expect, the same authorities M and B, supported, however, by later MSS. of the same recension, L and H ; and by D with other early Western witnesses ; also the Coptic and iEthiopic (as edited) Versions. These suffice to prove that the omission existed at an early period, and that it was accepted, probably because it was not noticed, by Egyptian transcribers. Against it are arrayed : — (1) The Hebrew original, which our Lord had in His hands, and which He undoubtedly read in the synagogue without omitting any words, especially words expressive of tenderest sympathy. (2) Abundance of competent and independent witnesses — nine uncials, five of which generally agree with B, most cursives, some of the best MSS. of early Italic and Vulgate, the Syriac in all its forms, the Gothic, and MSS. of iEthiopic; of the Fathers, the earliest, in such a case the most trustworthy, Irenseus. Is it conceivable that any one will venture to assert that these most blessed words are a plain and dear error T As for the omission, I attribute it simply to carelessness on the part of D and those early Italic transcribers who omit the clause, and to the disgraceful habit of cutting down the sacred text, probably attributable to haste in this instance (see further on, p. 170), on the part of the transcribers, or the editors, of the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. Then it must be borne in mind, that, while it is certain that our Lord did read those words, St. Luke, of all writers, inspired or uninspired, was the very last who would fail to 72 REVISED VERBION OF FIRST THREE GOSFELS. record them. It would be against the whole tenour of this Gospel, of which the special characteristic is the promi- nence given to all indications of deep sympathy, of utter tenderness and compassionateness, a characteristic which elicited from the great representative of cultivated scepti- cism the declaration that St Luke's Gospel is "le plus beau livre qu'il y ait" (E. Benan, 'Les Evangiles,' p. -283). - I note this omission as one among many indications of untrustworthiness in the chief ancient authorities followed by the Revisers ; the reader will judge how far it affects the character of the Revised Version. It is not within my general scope to deal with points not directly connected with our Lord's personal history, but it is scarcely possible to pass over the extraordinary historical blunder which, in the margin of the Revised Version, is imputed to St. Mark (vi. 22). The Evangelist is made to say that the dancing girl, daughter of Herodias by her former husband, as Josephus tells us, and, as all critics agree, tells us truly, was the daughter of Herod the Tetrarch. On the absurdities involved in this statement, see the criticism of Dr. Scrivener in his ' Introduction.' It aifects, and that substantially, the character of K, B, D, L, A, following some early transcriber, who, doubtless, in ignorance or carelessness, is responsible for this plain and dear error. In Mark vii. 19, we find the reading KaOapl^mv, i.e. in the rendering " this he said making all meats clean." I entirely agree with the Revisers as to the high probability of their reading. I had some years previously defended it ia my note on the passage in the 'Speaker's Commentary.' But considering the number and the weight of the authorities adverse to the change of reading and of rendering, and the necessity, if it be adopted, of introducing a parenthesis, I EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. V. 73 should certainly not have ventured to do more than give a marginal note. Granted the improvement, can the change be defended as necessary ? (b.) the parables of our lord. « I am happy to observe that no changes of any importance are introduced by the Revisers into the reports of the parables in either of the Evangelists. Minor points I will not here dwell upon, but I will call attention to Matt. xiii. 35 to express my deep thankfulness — a feeling which I am sure will be shared by the immense majority of Christian readers — that the Revisers have rejected totally, leaving it without mention even in the margin, the reading the prophet Isaiah ; especially because this is a corruption not only adopted by Tischendorf, but defended at considerable length in the Prolegomena to his edition of the 'Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum,' p. xxxiv. He assigns to it a foremost place among genuine readings attested by early authorities, but now extant in extremely few MSS., this being found only in K, the Sinaitic MS., and in D. There is no doubt as to its existence in the third century ; it was quoted by Porphyrins as a proof of the gross ignorance of the Evangelist. Jerome, in the fifth century, says that it was expimged from the manuscripts which he himself used. Eusebius, on Ps. 78 tit., gives a very probable account of the origin of the blunder : " Some, not understanding that Asaph was the 'prophet' intended by Matt., added in liis Gospel 'by Isaiah the prophet,' an addition which is not found in the most accurate MSS." Westcott and Hort do not adopt this blunder in their own texL but insert it in their margin, and defend it in their ajipendix, p. 12 seq. Dr. Hort, in a separate note, says, " It is difiBcult not to think 'Ho-afow genuine." That is, it is diffi- 74 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. cult to believe that the Evangelist was not guilty of gross ignorance or of unpardonable negligence. I cannot imagine what the writer of this note thought of the veracity, the biblical knowledge, not to speak of the inspiration, of the Apostle and Evangelist. Whether or not he recommended to the Revisers a similar course, as he might seem to have been bound to do in consistency with his own principles, it is clear that in this case the majority of the Committee shrank from imputing to St. Matthew a state- ment which would imply that the Evangelist was so little acquainted with the two books most frequently cited in the New Testament, viz. the Psalms and Isaiah, that he assigned a prediction, well known as Messianic, to the wrong author. We gladly welcome this somewhat rare indication of caution. Up to the close of our Lord's ministerial work in Galilee, no points seem to call for special attention, save the two following, which are of grave import in their bearings upon our Lord's teaching. The first point is the total omission from the text of the Revised Version in St. Matthew's Gospel (xvii. 21) of the passage in which our Lord states that " this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting," and of the last words " and fasting " from St. Mark's Gospel (ix. 29). In both cases the old reading is noticed in the margin ; in St. Matthew, as resting on many authorities, some ancient ; in St. Mark, as supported by many ancient authorities. Before we inquire into the weight of authorities favouring, or adverse to, the innovation, we are entitled to ask whether, in face of the amount of authorities thus admitted to be opposed to it, the Revisers were justified in so serious a mutilation of our Lord's teaching, especially in reference to a question which has been long contested between Church- men of different schools, and to a point wliich has been EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. V. 75 defended with equal zeal and learning by some of the chief representatives of Anglican theology. The rejection implies that the word " fasting " is a plain and clear error, a sentence warmly applauded by the representatives of one school of religious thought, but inflicting a severe and power- ful blow upon others. This last consideration would of course have no weight, supposing the evidence to be conclusive, but it certainly imposed upon the Revisers the duty of the utmost caution ; they are bound to prove a plain and dear error, and that in face, as they admit, of many ancient authorities. We now have to examine the authorities. What we find from Tischendorf's eighth edition is, that in St. Matthew the whole clause is omitted on the authority of k",* B, one cursive (33), the Sahidic Version, and the Memphitic (according to some MS. or MSS. ?). Now the clause is given in full by aU other uncials (eighteen are cited by Tischendorf himself), including those which, in doubtful cases, usually agree with B ; all other cursives, all the best Versions, sc. Italic, Vulgate, Syriac, and, according to the best editions, the Mempliitic ; a complete phalanx of Fathers, even Orujen, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Cluy- sostom, and all later Greek expositors; so Tischendorf, to whom the Quarterly Reviewer, p. 357, adds Athanasius, Basil, TertuUian, and others. Surely the Revisers must see that their marginal note, telling us that soms of the authorities which support the old reading are ancient, is seriously misleading. Tischendorf, whose opinion, as must be supposed, is adopted by the Revisers, regards it as an interpolation from St. Mark. * I observe that the omission occurs in fol. 10 of N ; now this leaf is one of those which according to Tischendorf were written by the scribe of B ; Dr. Ilort (§ 288) accepts Tischendorfs statement We have thus the testimony of one scribe only. See further on (p. 234). / 76 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREJE GOSPELS. Two Evangelists, it seems, cannot agree in their report of our Lord's own words without exposing themselves to the attack of captious or unwary critics. If an assimilation had been shown on good grounds to be probable, the usual and natural course would have been to have looked for it in the second Gospel, certainly not in the first, which, above all things, is conspicuous for its full and accurate records of our Lord's words. ' We turn, however, to the Gospel of St. Mark, There we find that the same two uncials, k" and B, stand absolutely alone among all manuscripts — alone, that is, with one singu- larly weak exception, k, an inferior codex of early Italic: Without any shadow of support from Greek or Latin Fathers, they end the sentence with vpoffevxji' Let the reader consider the varied and complete weight of the authorities adverse to this mutilation. Not to speak of a corrector of K, they include the three ancient and inde- pendent MSS., A, C, and D, six uncials, for the most part satellites of B, all cursives, and all Versions. The process by which this strange mutilation is effected calls for notice. First, St. Matthew's account is rejected as an interpolation from the second Gospel, so that the reader's apprehension as to the effect of the omission is somewhat relieved, whatever he may think of the arbitrary assumption ; but then on turning to St. Mark he finds that the special words about which he felt anxious, or certainly interested, whether his prepossessions were in favour of the old or of the new reading, are expunged from the text. Other innovations are undoubtedly of greater moment, as affecting vital doctrines ; but in the entire range of biblical criticism I do not remember a more arbitrary or less defen- sible mutilation, affecting two Gospels, and an emphatic declaration of our Lord. EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. V. (C.) THE CLOSE OF OUR LORD'S WORK IN GALILEE. 77 Mark ix. 43-50. — We now come to an address to the disciples, of singular interest as marking, I may say as summarizing, our Saviour's special injunctions to the Twelve ; of singular and emphatic solemnity, impressing upon them the highest characteristic of Cliristian ethics, an address recorded with peculiar fulness and vividness by St. Mark, doubtless in the exact form delivered to him by St. Peter, on whose spirit every word must have been impressed in characters of fire.* (1) We miss the emphatic reiteration, to the importance ^/\d awful solemnity of which St. Augustine and other Fathers called special attention. In this case it has peculiar importance as exemplifying a marked characteristic of our Lord's teaching, brought out most frequently and vividly in St. Mark's Gospel. The margin tells us that vv. 44 and 46 are omitted by the " best ancient authorities;" That is K, B, of course, supported, however, by C, and two of their usual followers, L and A, and four cursives only. But the verse stands in A, D (two perfectly independent witnesses), N, X, T, 11, in all nine good uncials, aU other cursives, the best MSS. of early Italic, the Vulgate, Syriac, and iEthiopic. To these must be added the express and pointed testimony of Augustine, "non eum*piguit uno loco eadem verba ter dicdre," quoted by Tischendorf. (2) We then miss a sentence, which, if I am not totally mistaken as to its meaning and bearing, gives a most practical and forcible point to the whole discourse, drawing out most distinctly the characteristic which above all others * I venture to call attention to my own notes on this passage, Mark ix. 143-50, in the ' Speaker's Commentary.' See also Jablonski, ed. Te Water, f tom. ii. pp. 458-485. 78 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. marks the true disciples of Christ. Onr Lord has denounced in most awful tenns the destiny of the impenitent, every one {sc. of those named in the preceding verse) shall be salted with fire; and (He then adds) every sacrifice shall he salted with salt. Thus we have two antitheses : (1) the condemned sinner, and the accepted sacrifice, the true-hearted disciple, whose body is a living sacrifice (Eom. xii. 1), whose prayers are spiritual sacrifices ; (2) fire and salt— the fire of Gehenna, and the purifying, preserving, saving grace of the Gospel, of which the highest manifestation is perfect charity. Such appears to me to be the true meaning of the rejected verse, but whether that, or any other exposition be adopted, we must not risk or tolerate a mutilation, unless we are constrained by irresistible evidence.* For the omission stand K, B, L, A, the recension which is specially conspicuous for omissions — proofs of purity according to some, indications of haste, or of fastidiousness, according to others — but certainly to be distrusted unless supported by other independent authorities. The clause is found in nine good uncials — note the inde- pendence and character of these — A, C, D, N, X, T, IT — and all ancient "Versions of weight. But Tischendorf suggests that some transcriber or critic took the passage from Leviticus ii. 13; a conjecture at once arbitrary and irrational, one which savours of the character- istic bad taste and defective judgment of that critic, eminent as he is for other gifts, for unparalleled industry and tact as a decipherer and registrar of MSS. It is surely one which few, if any, English critics of character will venture to defend. The reader has but to note the direct connection with our • For Dr. Horfs account of the matter, see his ' Introduction,' p. 101. It is of course ingenious and able, but equaUy remarkable for subtlety and boldness. I haye occasion again to refer to this point in the section on • Conflate Headings,' in Part IIF. p. 211. i EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. V. 79 Lord's words in the next verse: "good is the salt, i.e. with which the sacrifice is seasoned; have that salt in ymirselves, and have peace one with another." I can scarcely realize the feelings of any reader who, setting side by side the Eevised Version with our own Authorized Version, can doubt which retains the very words of the Saviour. To my mind the statement of St. Mark stands out among the most striking instances of his vivid appreciation of " the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." / 80 REVISED VERSION OP FIRST THREE GOSPELS. y SECTION VI. From the Close of our Lord's Ministry in Galilee TO Hi8 Arrival at Jerusalem. In this portion of the Gospel narrative the most serious damage has been inflicted upon St Luke, the Evangelist to whom we are indebted for the fullest and most deeply interesting record of our Lord's discourses and works during this period. St Mark, however, has received some wounds of a peculiarly offensive and painful character. Luke ix. 54, 55. — ^At the outset, immediately after the last discourse recorded by St Mark and discussed in the preceding section, we have to call special attention to a most grievous mutilation. In Luke ix. 54, 55 we note, in the first place, the omission from the Revisers' Version and their Greek text of the strikingly characteristic appeal of the two Apostles of zeal and love, St James and St John, to the example of Elias, or, as the Revisers prefer, Elijah ; • and then, secondly, we find to our utter bewilderment that the Re- visers obliterate from, their text one of the most heart- searching sajrings of our Lord, a saying which was specitdly adapted to the new position which the disciples were hence- forth to occupy, which at every critical period in the history of the Church has been most deeply impressed upon the hearts of Christians conscious of the danger of Judaistic * If the ReviserB intend to represent the Greek text they might surely retain the Greek form, with which every reader is familiar. I do not understand why they prefer the Hebrew form, which they cannot use consistently. 1 EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VI, 81 prejudice in any form, which on the other hand has been most flagrantly and disastrously neglected by leaders of hostile factions. In the margin they tell us that " some ancient authorities add, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. Some, but fewer, add also. For the Son of Man came not to destroy men's souls but to save them." Thus rejected from the text, relegated to the margin — in part with a notice indicating distrust of the authorities which, ancient as they are admitted to be, could not procure admis- sion for these words into the Revised Text ; in part with a still more distinct expression of adverse judgment— the whole of this most weighty, most precious declaration, so far as the Revisers' influence extends, is withdrawn from the sphere of Christian consciousness. Many preachers will refrain alto- gether from citing them as genuine ; no preacher addressing a congregation of. ordinary culture will henceforth be able to quote them without a previous statement, necessarily open to question, of the grounds on which he ventures to press them upon the attention of his hearers. Had they been preserved but in a small number of early and trustworthy documents, their singular depth and power, their special accordance with the whole tenour of the third Gospel, ought surely to have saved them from such treat- ment, and justified their retention in the place which for ages they have occupied in the sacred text But after all how stand the authorities ? The authorities which support them are far more ancient and, in such a matter, I venture to assert, far more trust- worthy, than any extant manuscripta. The old Italic, the Syriac Version of Cureton, and the Peshito, occupying the highest place among ancient Versions, bear witness to their acceptance in the East and in the West before the third o 82 REVISED VEBSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. century.* The Vulgate, the Coptic, iEthiopic, Gothic, and Armenian show they were received throughout all Christen- dom during and after the fourth century. These witnesses are supported by early Fathers of high authority, Ambrose, probably Clement Alex., Optatus, Didymus, Epiphanius, and Chrysostom. Again, the old reading is found in eight uncials. Among these is D, the well-known Codex Bezse, which has little weight in cases of interpolation attributable to carelessness or adoption of loose traditions, but when it is supported by the early Italic and early Fathers, unquestionably preserves important sayings of our Lord — a fact especially applicable in this case ; while the other uncials are weighty either as independent witnesses, or as generally following the recen- sion of which B is the chief representative. Also the great majority of cursives, Tischendorf saysa/n^Tenreu/^t; denoting a decided preponderance. But on the other side the Eevisers have a right to insist upon the array of MSS. of the greatest weight for antiquity, and especially important when supported by independent Witnesses ; as in this case H, B are followed by L, A, H, in conjunction with A, C, E, and five other uncials. If, therefore, the Hevisers had been commissioned or autho- rized to construct a revised Greek text, and if that text was simply to set before the student the readings of the oldest and best manuscripts, they would certainly have been justi- fied in the course which, as we must be assured in this case, they have reluctantly adopted. But if their first duty was to preserve intact all sayings of • Tischendorf, who rejects the whole clause, makes an admission of which the importance can scarcely be estimated too highly. On v. 56 he says, " Secundo vero jam sseculo qmn in codicibus omnis hoeo interpolatio circumferri consueyerit, pro testium auctoritate, Latinorum raaxime et Syriacoruro, dubitari nequit." EXAMINATION OF PABSAOEB, SECT. VI. 83 OUT Lord, attested on solid evidence to have been recorded in the Gospels ; and to reject none attributed to Him, and generally received by Christians, unless they be proved to be plain and clear error, I do not see how they can be acquitted of " exorbitancy," or of what appears to me substantial viola- tion of the conditions under which they were entrusted with the most important of all works. In such a case special weight must surely be assigned to internal evidence. We must needs inquire which of possible alternatives is the more probable. (a) Was such a saying as this at all likely to be invented ? was it one which a bold unscrupulous forger would ever have thought of inventing? which he would have persuaded Christendom to accept as a genuine utterance of our Lord ? Or, putting aside all impiitations of conscious forgery, was it a saying likely to have had its origin in the spirit of some unknown teacher of the Church, so placed and so trusted as to take the position of an exponent of his Master's mind ? Is that alternative, however stated, however modified, one which will commend itself to any well-informed and candid mind ? Such a teacher must have combined most incon- sistent qualities: he must have been at once audacious in invention, and at the same time penetrated with the very fulness of the spirit which breathes throughout the Gospel, and finds adequate expression most especially in this and similar sayings recorded by St. Luke, the Pauline Evangelist. (6) On the other side we have an alternative which com- mends itself as completely free from such difficulties, and as supplying an adequate and satisfactory answer to the ques- tion of genuineness. We ask, was there any strong reason which, after the early part of the third century, and especially in times and chief places of heated controversy, might induce persons in posi- tions of considerable influence to shrink from the statement a 2 84 BEVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. as it stands before us, and to eliminate it, so far as might be in their power, from the iield of discussion 7 Surely all can at least understand the feelings of those con- troversialists who stood out in opposition to Marcion, and to thase early writers who went farthest in maintaining that the spirit which animated Elijah and the chief representatives of what was called Judaism, was not only diverse from, but dia- metrically opposed to, that which pervaded the utterances of our' Lord, and which He inculcated as the distinctive charac- teristic of His true followers. What the maintainors of the true. Catholic, and Christian doctrine were especially anxious to uphold was the unity of the Spirit which, under all ap- parent diversities, pervaded the Prophets of old, whose zeal was specially represented by EUjah, and which ruled in all its fulness and depth the heart of St John, the great exponent of Christian love. This text must have presented peculiar facilities to the skilful opponent, peculiar difficulties to the staunch defender, of that great fundamental principle. We are thankful to observe that it did not induce the soundest teachers of the Church to countenance or adopt this mutila- tion, though at some uncertain period it was introduced by persons sufficiently influential to mutilate the text currently — not universally but generally — found in MSS. of the fourth and following centuries. We cannot, moreover, but remark that the two most ancient MSS. in which the words are obliterated are conspicuous for omissions — a point which, notwithstanding Dr. Hort's disclaimer,* appears to me capable of absolute demonstration. One thing is certain. We have "to choose one of the two alternatives — wilful interpolation, or, whether careless or * I bave to meet thia disclaimer furtlier on ; here I will simply remark that Dr. Hort considers that what other critics regard as omissions are proofs of purity, of freedom from interpolation. Accepting thera as the true reading, he cannot admit them to be omissions. EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, BBOT. VL 85 Wilful, wanton deletion of this grand saying. I should not have thought it possible that a company of wise, learned, and devout men could have hesitated in their choice, much less that they should have deUberately expunged the words from their text. To those who feel a conviction that they are the very words of Christ, carrying with them internal evidence of their authenticity, aU other considerations are as dust m the balance. Such a decision may give pain or offence to some weU entitled to deference on matters not touching tiie faith, but it will give relief and comfort to myriads ; and will at any rate go far towards Uberating our minds from what I cannot but regard as a servile acquiescence in a critical system, which attaches exclusive importance to the text represented by the Eusebian, or Alexandrian, or-by whatever name it may ultimately be caUed-the recension which determined the text of tiie Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. THE lord's prayer IN ST. LUKE. Luke xL 2-4.— Here we have to notice the alterations adopted by the Revisers in the Lord's Prayer as record^ by St Luke, on a different occasion from that on which it is recorded by St Matthew. Three considerable clauses are omitted in the Revised Version, contrary, as the margin informs us, to "many ancient authorities." . ,,n (1) The Revised Version has "Father" instead of Our Father which art in heaven." This omission follows R, B. against all other manuscripts, uncial and cursive (one MS., L, which generally agrees with B, has " Our Father ") ; also against all ancient Versions, except the Vulgate Origen refers to the clause three times in his treatise on 86 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE- GOSPELS. Prayer. In c. 18 (p. 227) he expresBly distinguishes between the reading, in Matthew and in Luke, and omits the words in question. In c. 22, he quotes " Father " only ; but earlier in the same treatise, c. 15 (p. 222 c), he has " Our Father which art in heaven," referring, as the context there shows, to St Luke's GospeL It may safely be inferred that Origen had the abbreviated form before him in some MS. or MSS., but his citation of the omitted words is best accounted for by assuming a different reading, which he recognized, though he might not prefer it. (2) The omission of the other clauses, " Thy will be done on earth as in heaven," and " Deliver us from evil," rests pre- cisely on the same authorities. In each case the preponder- ance of external authorities in favour of the clauses, so far as numbers go, is immense ; no less than seventeen uncials are cited by Dr. Scrivener, who adds, " All cursives not named above (i.e. 1, 22, 57, 130, 131, 226", 237, 242, 426), the old Latin b, c, /, ff, i, I, q, whereof/ mostly goes with the Vulgate (hiant a, e), the Memphitic, Peshito, Curetonian, Philoxenian Syriac, and the iEthiopic Versions " (' Introduction,' p. 468). Dr. Scrivener is inclined to dismiss the latter clause as an ' assimilation ; but, as he observes, the internal evidence is in favour of retention. I must here observe that one of the Revising Company accepts the omission of "deliver us from evil" mainly on the ground that it supplies a pretext for rejecting the last clause of the Prayer in St. Matthew's Gospel also as a gloss. It is a perfectly legitimate proceeding to argue as to the probability of a shorter recension of the Prayer on the occasion which leads to its record in St. Luke, but to omit such clauses, as plain and clear errors, appears to me wholly unjustifiable. The utmost that the Revisers had the right to do was to give a notice in the margin that some ancient authorities omit them. I EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VI. THE MISSION OF THE SEVENTY. 87 Luke X. 1-20.— In v. 1 a change of no importance in itself is suggested in the margin, which tells us that " many an- cient authorities add two ; " i.e. seventy-two instead of seventy. Westcott and Hort in their Greek text enclose the word two in brackets. The change, small as it is, is " interesting," as Dr. Scrivener remarks (see Introd. p. 474), "being one in which B (not k) is at variance with the very express evi- dence of the earliest ecclesiastical writers." It is, therefore, of real importance in its bearing upon the value of the oldest manuscripts. In this case B is supported by D, and early Western documents, ItaUc and Vulgate, agreeing, as is frequently the case, with the Syriac of Cureton ; also by two uncials, M and R. It is opposed by the best uncials, K, A, C, independent witnesses, with seven others which generally side with B; also by the generality of cursives, and all other ancient ^ Versions, including some MSS. of eariy Italic. The early Fathers to whom Dr. Scrivener refers are Ire- nteus, Tertullian (in a passage which is remarkably explicit, c. Marc. iv. 24), Eusebius twice in the ' Demonstration,' once in the H. E., Basil, and Ambrose ; all quoted by Tischendorf, who does not adopt this change. In the marginal notices the word many is certainly too strong, if not misleading. In V. 15, at the close of our Lord's address to the seventy missionaries, a change singular for its tone and character is adopted in the Revised Text in this place, without any indi- cation of a different reading. It stands thus, "And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven ? Thou shalt be brought down unto Hades." This extraordinary reading is given in place of "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shall be brought down to Hell." Its 88 BETI8ED VBBSIOM OP FIRST THREE GOSPELS. unsuitableness to the occasion on which it is first recorded,'" Matt xi. 23, has been forcibly exposed by Sir Edmund Beckett. Here the context is at least equally opposed to the change. Capernaum had been raised to the place of the highest spiritual dignity by the presence of the Saviour, but by its coldness and impenitence it forfeited all claims to pre- eminence, and was abased to the condition of infidels. For the new reading (which in the Qreek substitutes /*i; for 17) stand K, B, D, L, H, the Syriac of Cureton, two MSS. of early Italic. Against it A, C, with seven uncials, most of them usually siding with B, nearly aU cursives, the Gothic, the Peshito and Fhilox. Syriac, and Augustine. So far as the external authorities are concerned the balance is nearly equal. The internal evidence appears to me decisive, and in favour of the old reading and rendering. Luke X. 41, 42. — ^We have now to consider the singularly important account of a great saying of our Lord as recorded by St. Luke. The whole transaction is related by the Evan- gelist in terms so graphic and affecting that Benan, who on questions of aesthetic and historic tact is a good authority, says of it, " Aucune plume n'a laiss^ tomber dix lignes plus charmantes." See 'Les Evangiles,' p. 282. But in this beautiful narrative an innovation is suggested in the margin which affects the most solemn and infinitely the most im- portant point — the great lesson which our Lord then incul- cated upon Martha, and through her upon the hearts of all His followers liable to similar temptations. After a most useless and vexatious suggestion in the margin that "a few ancient authorities" omit "anxious" (the word which the Bevised Version substitutes for the more comprehensive word "careful") and "about many things," we find in the margih a far more serious Innovation { . EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VI. 89 I commended by the words, " Many ancient authorities' read ' but few things are .needful or one.' " So that the (me thing needful, that which designates the extreme spirituality of Mary's choice, directing the minds of anxious inquirers and supporting devout spirits, cannot henceforth be undoubtedly quoted as genuine by those who defer to the authority of the Bevisers. That one thing is needful, — would that the Bevisers had borne it in mind, — could not be questioned, never has been questioned by any who live on our Saviour's words and take their place by the side of Mary. The authorities which have so far influenced the Bevisers that they give the new reading in the margin (going half- way to meet Westcott and Hort, who introduce it into their Greek text without any notice indicating distrust, or the existence of adverse evidence), are K, B, C (a late correc- tion), and L, followed by the Coptic, .^thiopic, and a late Syriac Version. Also Origen, as cited in the Catena of Cor- derius, and Basil (but see below). Against it are A, C", all other uncials, nearly all cursives, Italic (some good MSS.), Vulgate, and the best Syriac. Of the Fathers we have Macarius, an early and good authority ; Chrysostom, Augustine, and other Fathers. Basil varies — ^he quotes it as it stands in the old text once, p. 535 — in another passage he adopts the new reading, but gives an exposition, which, though forced — in fact because forced — shows how strongly he felt that " the one thing needful " was the paramount consideration : kvo<; hk tow vkovov. Matthew xix. 9. — Passing to the records of the earliest events on the way to Jerusalem, we have first to notice the extraordinary innovation in St. Matthew's account of tlie divorce questions (see Matt xix. 9). The clause which states that he who marries a divorced woman committeth adultery, 'is marked as doubtful in the margin, which 00 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE OOBPELS, tellfl us that the words "are omitted in some ancient authorities." We ask in which? The answer is, in K (which in this ease differs from B), C, i.e. a late corrector of the old MS., L, S, and D, to which may be added the Syriao of Cureton and the Sahidic. Origen does not cite the words. On the other side are B, already noticed, supported by eleven uncials, nearly all cursives, good MSS. of early Italic, the Vulgate, both the old Syriac Versions, the Coptic, in good editions, the iEthiopic, and Armenian, with Basil. Tischendorf rejects the clause as a case of assimilation, and this view doubtless had weight with the Revisers. Westcott and Hort, however, attached, as we may assume, special importance to the authority of D, who, because he is well known as an interpolator, is to be received as a witness entitled in their judgment to be heard in preference even to B, their all but infallible gtiide. So that St Matthew, the special recorder of our Lord's sayings, is to be noted as giving on this formal occasion an incomplete account of His decision, on a point of legislative importance. THE YOUNG RULER. In the account of this transaction, St Mark x. 17-22 undergoes one mutilation. The words take up thy cross (apai rbv aravpov) are omitted altogether without marginal notice. The authorities for omission are », B, C, D, A, one cursive, some MSS. of Italic, the Vulgate, two editions of the Coptic, and three Latin Fathers, Ambrose, Augustine, and Hilary. For its retention stand A with eight imcials, most cursives, the Peshito, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and iEthiopic. The testimony of Irenaius is explicit; we have both the Greek and the Latin interpretation, quoted by Tischendorf. In a case like tliis the authority of Irenteus outweighs any EXAMINATION OP PASSAGES, SECT. VI. 91 f( single witness ; nay, any combination of witnesses, unless they are sustained by strong internal evidence. In my own note on this passage I recorded the omission of the words in the two oldest MSS. I did not then feel the distrust in their authority which a closer examination of their readings in important passages has since generated and confirmed. Will any one maintain that these words are to be rejected as a plain and dear error f But we turn to the account of this transaction in St Mat- thew's Gospel, xix. 16, 17. , ' Here we encounter a most perplexing alteration, one which totally changes the import of the young ruler's ques- tion, and of our Lord's answer. First, the word good before Master is omitted ; the young ruler does not there use a word, natural on his lips, but calling for correction, as applied without adequate apprecia- tion of its force. And then the words put into our Lord's mouth are " Why dost thou ask me concerning that which is good ? " Then we read, " One there is that is good,"— omitting the words following. In the first place (1) this reading directly contradicts the record given by St Mark and St Luke. If this is a true account, those two very distinct and concurrent accounts are a grave misrepresentation. (2) Secondly the reading obliter- ates a sajring of deep and solemn import; one which was liable to be misunderstood and certain to be misused, suggest- ing therefore to some bold innovator the expediency of a change which would remove that difficulty. (3) Thirdly the new reading implies that the young ruler intended to put a question, savouring of the schools, as to the meaning of the abstract term tov ayaOov. What are the authorities preferred to some which are admitted in the margin to be ancient ? 92 REVISED VEB8I0N OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. (1) For the omission oiarfouBi, K, B, D, L, 1, 22; .^thiopic and Origen, torn. iiL 664 seq. For retaining it, all other uncials, beginning with C (A unfortunately Mat), all other cursives, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Sahidic and Coptic, and the Armenian Versions. To this must be added the express testimony of Justin Martyr, of Irenseus (i, 26. 2), of Hilary, and of Basil. (2) For the transformation of our Lord's own words, the same uncials, m, B, D, L, supported by a, I, e, e, ff, the Syriac of Cureton, the Coptic, Armenian, and iEthiopic, and Origen. Against it eleven uncials, nearly all cursives; the Peshito and Sahidic Versions, Justin and Irenseus, Chrysostom and his followers. The reading therefore is ancient, at first iSnding place in Western texts, remarkable for what Beiche calls soeordia and lieentia ; then adopted, aa it would seem, by Origen, and retained in later Alexandrian recensions. We have, as can scarcely be doubted, a reading partly indicating doctrinal bias or scrupulousness, but resting chiefly on Alexandrian subtlety. THE PARASLES RECORDED BY ST. LUKE. This veiy important and peculiarly interesting portion of Scripture appears to have been left untouched so far as regards essential points. I must however observe that in the parable of the prodigal sou one touch of exceeding tenderness and beauty is lost, not, I am happy to say, in the text, but in the marginal reading, Luke XV. 21. What St Luke makes us feel is that as the son, held in his father's loving arms, could not choose but utter the words of penitential humility, / am no more worthy to he called thy son ; so neither could he at that moment add the words which were perfectly adapted to his state of :< EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VI. 93 feelings when first awakened to a sense of unpardonable guilt, and far from his father's house, but were utterly incom- patible with his actual pdsition. To have then asked to be made as one of his father's hirelings would have been impossible, an ungracious mockery.* Yet these words are added in k, B, D, U, X, and in several MSS. of the Vulgate. Westcott and Hort retain them, but bracketed, in their text It is to be deeply regretted that they should appear in the margin of the Revised Version. Considering that they have two indications of spuriousness, first as a palpable astimi- lation to v. 19, and next as finding place in the MS. most notorious for interpolations, we might surely have expected that these two critics would have held to their own canons, and rejected the words altogether. And now, omitting to notice a considerable number of slight, and certainly very unnecessary, alterations in St Mark and St Luke, I pass on to the history of the Last Week. * See A striking exposition of this Alex. p. 1017 seq. ed. Potter. passage in the fragments of Clero. 94 BEVISED VERSION OF FIBST THREE GOSPELS. \ SECTION VII. The Words and Acts of our Lord on His Entrance into, and during his last visit to, jerusalem. Matt. xxi.-xxv. ; Mark xi. 1-10 ; Luke xix. 29-49. — In this section the first change of importance occurs at the outset — in St. Mark's account of our Lord's advance from ' Bethany. It touches an event especially interesting in its hearings upon our Lord's Personality, the fulfilment of prophecy, and the characteristics of the Messianic kingdom. Our Lord sent two of His disciples, before He left Bethany, giving them instructions concerning the ass — one which St. Mark, followed by St. Luke, is careful to record, had never borne a rider — which He was now to ride, like kings and judges in olden times, intimating at once His dignity, and His special character as Prince of Peace. What our Lord told them to say to the owner of the beast, should their right to take the ass be questioned, was simply, " The Lord hath need of it," or as St. Matthew, referring to the colt, says, " of them." What He added, as St. -Matthew and St. Mark tell us — undoubtedly for the sake of the disciples themselves, to remove any apprehension they might feel as to the result of their mission — was, " and straightway he will send it," as St. Mark adds " hither." So stands the account in our Authorized Version. It enables us to realize the feelings of the disciples, the calm I I EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. Vll. 95 exercise of unquestionable authority by our Lord, the com- bination of condescension to their weakness with His own clear determination to fulfil all that was essentitd to the manifestation of His kingdom. The one word hither, added by St. Mark, accords with the style of that Evangelist, ever careful to note minute circumstances which add to the vividness of his narrative. But in the text of the Revised Version St. Mark is made to give an account of that injunction which totally alters its character. We read there, to our bewilderment, that our Lord added words with a view of reassuring the owners of the beast. The answer stands thus : Say ye, the Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them hack hither; the word " back " in the margin being further explained to mean back a^ain. We are struck first by the absolute contradiction to St. Matthew's clear and simple account. There the Eevisers leave the words and straightway he will send them untouched. I do not suppose that any doubt was ever felt as to their meaning there. In the next place the altered reading intro- duces a point inconceivably mean and unsuitable. Our Lord is actually represented as bidding the disciples assure the owners of the beast that He would send it back again directly. The mischief is effected by the insertion of one word, iraXiv, again, interpreted as meaning " back again." This interpolation, as I do not hesitate to call it, rests on the authority of six uncials, of course N, B, followed by L, A, and supported by D and C", with variations, how- ever, noticed by Tischendorf, which materially affect their evidence. Against it are nine uncials, nearly all cursives (Tischendorf says al. pi., but he cites none on the other side), all Versions, 96 REVISED VERSION OP FIRST THREE GOSPELS. early Italic and Vulgate, Sahidic, Memphitic, Syriac, GotUc, Armenian, and .^thiopic* Such a consensus of Versions, scarcely ever found in pas- sages open to dispute, especially where the Eusebian or Origenistic recension is concerned, is absolutely conclusive, if not as to the true reading, yet as to the rejection of the inno- vation in all quarters of Christendom. Will Convocation accept the responsibility for this grave innovation 7 Mark xL 8.— On the way to Jerusalem, in St. Mark's description, we meet with an innovation, which, if not impor- tant, as regards our Lord's Personality, is of considerable importance as regards the good sense and accuracy of the Evangelist. The Eevised Version tells us that many spread on His way " branches," which they had cut from " the fields," but the margin further tells us that the Greek, rendered " branches," means layers of leaves, a statement scarcely intelli- giblcf The text of the Authorized Version has a clear and simple statement, exactly in accordance with St. Matthew in sense, but not in form, thus showing that there is no ground for assuming a process of assimilation, viz. others cut doum branches of trees, and strawed them in the way. This innovation involves the change oilfields for trees, and the omission of the last clause. The MS. authority for the change is doubtful, k, B, (C,) L, A, not without variations, have arfp&v for SivSpmv. So too Origen, iv. pp. 181, 193. The Versions which adopt that reading do not omit the last clause, viz. the Sahidic and Memphitic. The Authorized Version has for it eight uncials, all cur- • The testimony of Origen is doubtful. In torn. iv. p. 181 he omits irdXir, but inserts it twice or thrice in tom. iii. We have here one instance among many of carelessness in that great critic or in his transcribers. t The " Two Revisers," p. 51, seem to explain it as meaning " beds." EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VII. 97 sives, as Tischendorf admits {nl. am. "*), and all other ancient Versions. Ab for the internal probabilities, I would ask whether lay^s of leaves, i.e. leaves made up into matting, are ever spoken of in connection with a solemn procession ; whether, on the other hand, branches of trees, especially the palm, are not invariably accompaniments of such a triumphant march ? Mark xi. 26.— In this chapter (Mark xi.) the 26th verse, " But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive you your trespasses," is omitted altogether from the Revised Text, although the margin allows that it is supported by many ancient authorities. Tlie first remark which presents itself is that here we have a conspicuous instance of the insensibility of the ancient and modem innovators to what I have more than once noted as our Lord's habit of emphatic iteration— a habit especially illustrated in St. Mark's account of His discourses. The question then comes, what are the authorities for or against the innovation ? For it we find the usual group, k, B, L, with S, A. Against it all other uncials— thirteen are cited by Tischendorf— of various and independent recensions, nearly aU cursives, the Italic, Vulgate, Gothic, ^thiopic, and Armenian Versions. Is this saying to be rejected as a plain and clear error ? I will not here dwell on points of minor importance. Changes in the accounts of our Lord's proceedings at Jeru- salem given by the Evangelist are sufficiently numerous and for the most part, as I venture to think, unnecessary. With one change, however, I agree, although the authority of ancient manuscripts and Versions is far from decisive. In Mark xiii. 14, the name of the prophet Daniel is omitted in the text of the llevised Version, and is not noticed in the margin. As 1 pointed out in my note on the passage, the omission is sanctioned by the best commentators. It is of II 98 REVISED VEBBION OF FIBST THREE OOSPELS. importance as illuatrating, in fact confinning, my statement in reference to the reading in Mark i. 2, that St. Mark does not cite the name of a prophet without absolute necessity. On that ground the Revisers, as I said, do well to omit Daniel here ; had they omitted Isaiah there, they would not have imputed an inexcusable blunder to the Evangelist. THE LAST SUPPER. We are now come to the most solemn, most vital points in the whole Gospel; and have first to inquire whether any serious innovations are suggested or adopted in the accounts of the Institution of the Holy Eucharist. In St. Matthew, xxvL 26-29, two changes are without importance ; the article is omitted before dproy in v. 26, and eSlBov Kal is changed to iovs, noticeable only as an instance of what Beiche calls errors originating "a male sedulis grammaticis." The most serious change is the omission of new (juuvfi'i) before covenant. For this omission the authori- ties are, as usual, K, 6, L, with Z ; against it nine uncials, nearly all cursives (Tischendorf says fere omnes), the Italic, Vulgate, Coptic, Armenian, and .^thiopic Versions, and thos6 Fathers whose testimony is most weighty, even in the Revisers' estimation, Irenseus, Origen, Cyprian, and Chrysostom. In St. Mark xiv. ^ar/ere is omitted in v. 22, but on good authority ; and in v. 24 irepi is changed to inrip. But when we turn to St. Luke's Gospel, c. xxii., we observe, with equal surprise and grief, that a mutilation is suggested which for extent and importance has few parallels in the history of destructive criticism. It must be borne in mind that a very special interest attaches to the account of the Last Supper which is given by St. Luke. No one doubts that the Evangelist received his information from St. Paul ; in this point, if in any, we look EXAMINATION OP PASSAGES. SECT. VU. 99 h for characteristics of the Pauline Evangelist; but St. Paul tells us expressly, in words ever present to the minds o Christians-most especially when they listen to the prayer of Consecration, in which our own Church gather up the scriptural intimation of the facts and of their ^^^^^^'^ he received his account directly from the Lord. (See note on 1 Cor xi. 23.) Here, if anywhere, we should expect to find, as we always have found, the most perfect agreement between the Evangelist and the Apostle. But on looking at the margin of the Revised Version we read "some ancient authorities omit whi^h is given for ym ... which is pwired out for you." Will Convocation dare to make itself responsible for th« note ? Can it be doubted that it utterly discredits St. Luke ''Titeott and Hort in their text enclose the words in double brackets, indicating total distrust. We turn to the ancient authorities, of course expecting to find at the head of them « and B ; but no-here those uncials and all other MSS. but one have the -ord;- ^^^ slight variations. They are supported by Eusebius and Ong^^ . For the omission, D, with some copies of ear y latin Versions, is the authority followed by the margmists. That manuscript, notorious for carelessness and caprice, giv^ a Ibled and very confused account of the mstitution of that g^ sacrament but it is scarcely conceivable that it woidd be allowed to cast a dark shade on the minds of readers trusting to the authority of the Revisers. GETIISEMANE. Throughout this last portion of the sacred narrative the deepest feelings of Christians are elicited; every deted is examined with an interest more intense than attaches to any Tt / 100 REVISED VEB8I0N OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. events in the world's history ; observations which apply with special force to what is recognized by all as the last prepara- tory act for the Cross, that which bears as its special designation the Saviour's " agony and bloody sweat." The account of St. Matthew is left without substantial alteration. Still it would seem that it could not be left untouched. In c. xxvi. 42 three words are omitted from the Revised Text without notice, sc. cup {-rronipiov) and from me {av' ifiov). So far as manuscript authority is concerned, it may be admitted that, supposing a new text were contem- plated, the innovators might claim a preponderance in favour of omitting the former word > for H, B are supported by A and C, with three later uncials, and three cursives, 1, 33, and 102. "We must, however, observe that they neglect the testimony of eleven uncials, weighty in their combination ; of all other cursives ; and no small number of ancient "Ver- sions, the best MS. of old Italic, the "Vulgate, Coptic, and one edition of the Syriac — sufficient to justify retention of all the words, certainly to demand notice. "When we add to this (1) our Saviour's habit of emphatic reiteration, to which attention has been repeatedly called, a habit specially exemplified on this solemn occasion, and (2) St. Matthew's distinct statement that He used the same word on the third occasion, there seems to me little room to doubt that the omission is another instance of unseemly haste in the action of an early transcriber, or of fastidiousness in some early critic. Surely no one will maintain that the words in the Autho- rized "Version are a plain and clear error ; surely the Eevisers must have yielded with reluctance to their own very peculiar views of necessity ! In St. Mark, ch. xiv., the few changes that are made do not materially affect the sense. In v. 35 the revised Greek text lias eirnrrev for eTrecrev ; a change unobservable in the English EXAMINATION OF I'ASSAGES, SECT. VU. 101 rendering ; and in v. 40 Pefiafynfiivoi is changed to Karafiapv- pofievoi : I should have thought that the aorist in the one case, and the perfect in the other were obviously more appropriate ; but in the former case the Revisers follow K, B, L against all other uncials, some. A, C, weighty in themselves, and still more weighty in combination, with all known cursives, as Tischendorf admits. St. Mark of all Evangelists was least Ukely to substitute the imperfect tense, of very questionable significance, for the simple, graphic, vivid aorist. For the other change good manuscript authority is adduced: but surely, not sufficient to justify an innovation. Yet, aa it would seem, the fact that St. Mark agrees with St. Matthew in stating that the disciples were already heavy with grief, as they had now been watching for some time, is to be taken as a proof that we have a case of assimilation, and as a reason that we are now to understand that at the close of the whole solemn transaction they were beginning to be borne down by sleep. It is however fortunate that this new shade of meaning does not come out in the rendering, "for their eyes were very heavy," wliich differs from the Autho- rized Version only by the proper introduction of the adverb " very." But these and other points are lost sight of when we turn to St. Luke's Gospel, c. xxii., and find that the margin teUs ,us that " many ancient authorities omit verses 43, 44," that is, the whole passage which records the appearance of the angel strengthening our Lord in His bodily weakness, and the great drops as of blood testifying to the intensity of the agony. "We turn to the Greek text of "Westcott and Hort and find that these two critics eaclose the verses in double brackets, indicating untrustworthiness. Now it is triie that manuscripts of the recension with which we have chiefly to deal do omit the words, viz. N»— i.e. as corrected by a critical reviser, the so-called diorthota,— and 102 BEVISED VEBBION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. B, supported by B and T, and I grieve to add by A, and a few cursives : and also that the omission is noticed, though not approved, by Hilary, an early and good authority. On the other side is marshalled a goodly array of uncials and cursives of different recensions, and of the greatest weight in their combination : not to speak of early Ver- sions which are nearly unanimous in supporting the old reading. We will consider the patristic evidence imme- diately ; but before we go farther I venture to assert that the omission, to whatever cause it is to be attributed, seriously affects the authority of the critics who adopt the reading. But I ask whether the omission did not originate in a doctrinal bias? We have at once the answer. Epiphanius tells us, not as a matter of probable conjecture, but distinctly and positively as a well-known undisputed fact, that " ortho- dox churchmen took away, removed from the text, the words, fearful of misapplication and not understanding their bearing." The words are singularly clear: opffoSo^oi ael'KovTo to fyT)6ev, ^o^i]6ivrfi koI ftrj vorjaavre^ avrov to t^\o? (' Anchor.' § 31). The reasons which Epiphanius assigns are striking. Fear, at once the weakest and most rash of all motives ; and a want of spiritual discernment, common as would seem in modern as well as early ages. Epiphanius moreover tells us that the passage is extent in the Oospel of St. Luke in the unrevised copies (iv tok aSiopdanoi^ avTiypd^ kBDUX Mark x. 21 (p. 90). kBCDA Jlatt. xix. 16, 17 (p. 91).» kBDL Mark xi. 8 (p. 96). kB(C)LA Mark xi. 26 (p. 97). kBLS A Matt. xxvi. 28 (p. 98). mBLZ Matt, xxvii. 49 — an interpolation (p. 113). KBCLUr Luke xxiv. 3, 6 (p. 117). D To these passages I now add the following, remarkable for omissions, or corruptions : See Scrivener, Int. p. 498 ueiiq. CLASSIFICATION OF PASSAGES. Matt. xvi. 2, 3. nBVxr Matt, xviii. 15. KB Matt, xxiii. 4. ML Matt, xxiii. 38. BL Luke xvi. 12. BL Luke xxi. 24. B 141 142 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. SECTION III. Result of Classification. The outcome of this inquiry, which is confirmed by refer- ence to other changes, some of which have been previously noticed, others being omitted as of subordinate importance, may be stated as follows. ^i.) Evidence of MSS — The two oldest MSS., k and B, either separately, or for the most part conjointly, are re- sponsible for nearly every change which modifies, and, we may say without hesitation, weakens or perverts records of sayings and incidents in our Lord's life : in fact, for every change of importance, excepting four of the very gravest character, for which D, the Codex Bezse, is the only autho- rity among uncial MSS. It will also be observed that K and B are very often sup- ported by L, a manuscript of the eighth or ninth century, which agrees with B in its general character, and in most cases of disputed readings agrees with it so closely as to justify the conclusion that, if not a direct transcript of that manuscript, which is hardly probable considering the number of variants, it was a transcript from an early copy. This general agree- ment gives special weight to its evidence on some important points where it is opposed to the innovations introduced into the text of the R. V., on the authority of the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. In addition to these we find A, T, 11, and X, 3, and the cursives 1, ■^?>, in frequent accord with those two oldest 'X RESULT OF CLAB8IFI0ATION. 143 / 1 manuscripts.* On the other hand A, the Alexandrian Codex, is almost invariably at the head of the long list of uncials which oppose the readings of K, B, and their congeners, in the passages which have been examined in these pages, and in the immense majority of disputed readings in the first three Gospels. Twice only in passages of serious importance wo find A supporting what I must call the erroneous readings adopted by the Revisers in their text, or noticed with com- mendation in their margin. OTHER ANCIENT AUTHORITIES. On further examination the reader will also find that other authorities, to which, in some cases, a higher value is to be assigned, as being more ancient and better attested than any MSS., may for the most part be classified as agreeing generally either with the uncials ranged on the side of B, or with those which follow or support A. (ii.) Evidence of ancient VERSiONS.t Thus he will find, as a general rule, that (a) the Syriac Peshito, the Version which probably comes nearest to the autographs of the Evangelists, especially of St. Matthew, supports the old Received Text in the passages which I have dwelt upon as of special import- ance : but that at the same time it agrees with B, and the recension which is represented by that MS., sufiiciently often to prove that both the translator and the transcriber had before them ancient documents of the same general character. When they differ the question must be raised which of them represents the original text more truthfully: and for my • Dr. Hort Dames «, B» C, D, L rb the " primary documents " for the Gospels. It will be observed that C very seldom supports N, B in the pftssaRes above cited. t For Itr. Hort's views on ancient Versions, see his ' Tntrmlitction,' «213-21it. 144 REVISED VERSION OP FIRST THREE GOSPELS. own part I do not doubt that the Version is the more trust- worthy, especially as evidence against omissions. In fact, in the great majority of disputed readings that which has its decided support has a prima fade claim to preference, if not to absolute acceptance. The other Syriac Versions are either much later, as the Philoxenian or Harcleian, or of doubtful authority. The Curetonian is most valuable in reference to the first GospeL Some of its readings are of considerable importance in reference to St Mark and St Luke. (6) Early Italic and Vvlgate. — As to the early Western Versions it would be incorrect to speak of the recension which they represent, for the MSS. vary to an extent incom- patible with the theory that they were derived from any common source, or were subjected to any critical authority. Jerome «nd Augustine indeed speak of the MSS. most common in their age as full of every kind of fault— of omissions, perversions, and interpolations — a statement to which the Codex Bezee, D, supplies ample corroboration. Still their acknowledged antiquity, and, notwithstanding those grave defects, the good faith and piety of their writers, secure for them a high place among recognized authorities. The Vulgate follows them closely throughout the Gospels. If the reader would learn what evidence they afford in the most important instances, he has to ascertain what side is taken by the MSS. marked a, h, the Codex Vercellensis and Codex Veronensis, the two best and oldest MSS. of the Italic Version, or again by /, the Codex Brixianus, which is to a great extent independent of both. The Vulgate is best studied in the Codex Amiatinus, lately edited by Tischen- dorf : it is cited as am. Speaking broadly these MSS. agree with B more frequently than with A ; but that agreement adds considerably to their weiglit when they differ from the former, as is the case in RESULT OF OLASSIFIOATION. 145 some of the most important passages which have come under our consideration. (e) The Egyptian Versions are of exceeding weight in this discussion. They rank among the most ancient, and the most carefully preserved.* The Memphitic, generally cited as the Coptic, has all the books of the N. T. ; the Sahidic or Thebaic has considerable fragments, especially of the Gospels. I have compared the readings of both in the editions of the S. P. C. K. (see above, p. 33, on its value) and of Woide, with k, B, and A. As a general rule both of them agree closely with B, an agreement conspicuous in minute points of grammar, the use of tenses and the definite article, and in readings which often strike us as singular if not startling. They agree indeed so closely as to force upon us the impression that they not only belong to the same school, but that they follow the same recension. Here again the conclusion is obvious, I venture to say, incontestable, that, in the cases where they differ substan- tially from B, where their readings are in fact irreconcileable with it, such difference proves that the one or the other follows a corrupt document, whether corrupt by omission or by interpolation; and in those cases we have to decide between the two by the testimony of other authorities at least equally ancient and equally weighty. Applying this to a few crucial instances, we see at once how it weakens — if it does not absolutely overthrow — the authority of those MSS. which omit (1) the leading point in the title of St Mark's Gospel; (2) the Doxology in the Lord's Prayer; (3) the most heart-stirring incident in our ■ * I Bay this in reference to the MSS. of the Coptic or Memphitic. A critical edition, witli a complete account and correct estimate of the variouB readings, is a desideratum which might to he supplied by one of our universities. 146 BEVISED VEBSION OF FIRST THBEE GOSPELS. Lord's agony ; (4) His first word on the cross ; and (6) the whole concluding portion of the Gospel of St. Mark. .. (iii.) Evidence op Ancient Fathers. — Here the reader may be embarrassed by the multitude, and the contradictory character of the citations in TregeUes and in Tischendorf s eighth edition. Let him first see what evidence is supplied by the earliest and best Fathers of the Greek-speaking Church; foremost among whom and by far most weighty from age, character, and position, stands Irenseus. Observe the testimony which he gives in reference to the beginning and the end of St Mark's Gospel, and to incidents omitted ' or noted as questionable by the Revisers. Then, passing on at once to another and far different school, let him observe how many and how important are the points on which Origen, of all Fathers the one who, in his numerous citations, has the text most closely corresponding to Codex B, casts in his unsuspected and momentous weight into the opposite scale. Above all, in counting and weighing the evidence of the ante-Nlcene Fathers he should be on his guard against the utterly fallacious argument from negatives. Westcott and Hort speak strongly upon that point, but do not bring it to bear upon some questions of exceeding moment The . circumstance that a Father does not quote a passage — especially if he wrote at a time or belonged to a school in which so-called " diplomatic accuracy " was scarcely heard of — proves nothing against its existence. In fact in one passage on which, in spite of that dictum, Dr. Hort lays great stress,* the omission is accounted for in the simplest and most satisfactory manner. Cjrril of Jerusalem ddes not allude to the last verses of St Mark's Gospel in his ' Four- teenth Catechetical Lecture,' in which he adduces scriptural * See ' Introduction to the Greek Text of V^eetcott and Hort,' Appendix, p. 37. RESULT OF CLASSIFICATION. 147 proofs of the Resurrection, Ascension, and Session at the Right Hand of God. Such is the negative evidence. But in the opening clatises of that portion of his argument Cyril expressly states that on the previous day he had expounded the scriptural lesson which contained a complete account of the incidents connected with the Resurrection and Ascen- sion of our Lord* Now it is proved that the most ancient lectionary-systems, which are more ancient than either B or K, contained the last verses of St Mark's Gospel, in the lesson appointed for certain days, especially for the great festival on which Cyril appears to have delivered the dis- course to which he refers in that lecture. I cannot but regard Dean Burgon's argument on the one side, and Dr. Hort's on the other, as remarkable instances of the use and the misuse of vast learning and of equally remarkable subtlety. The facts are simple, incontrovertible; and in my opinion they add force to the warning, never to be lost sight of by students, that one positive fact is of infinitely more im- portance than the most plausible arguments drawn from the silence of an early writer. In considering the references to the authority of the ante- Nicene Fathers, the reader cannot fail to be struck by the testimony, all but unanimous, which they supply in refer- ence to passages of signal importance, especially to the records of our Lord's words, and of incidents connected with the last and most solemn portion of the Gospel History. • See Burgon'8 ' Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel,' p. 195, where Cyrirs words are quoted in full. Cyril refers repeatedly to the exposition which he had previously given, an ouposition which of course made it unnecessary for him again to cite Mark xvl. 19, or Luke xxiv. 51, or Acts i. 9. h 2 148 REVISED VEBSION OF FIRST THRGB GOSPELS SECTION IV. Value o? the two oldest Manuscripts, m and B. We are now brought face to face witb one of the most difficult and important problems in the history of biblical criticism. One point comes out distinctly. The two oldest MSS. are responsible for nearly all the resuiings which we hare brought under consideration — readings which when we look at them individually, still more when we regard them col- lectively, ibflict most grievous damage upon the records of our Lord's words and works. I repeat that, with two exceptions, to which notice has been called, those innovations rest upon the authority of M and B, sometimes supported by a minority of other MSS., but in many serious instances standing absolutely alone. On the other hand, the two critics, whose views are fully stated, and supported by arguments equally remarkable for learning and ingenuity, in their 'Introduction' written by Dr. Hort, hold that the Vatican manuscript is " supreme in excellence," that it alone represents " the purest text," that it is to a singular extent " free from interpolations," that it has " no suspicious colouring," that where it is supported by the only other MS. which has claims at all resembling it for antiquity and excellence, its authority is final, " absolutely decisive," and that even when it stands quite alone it is entitled not merely to respectful consideration, but to practically unlimited deference. And this opinion they have illustrated by the most value of k and b. 149 decisive act They have produced a Greek text, in most substantial points identical with that published on the authority of the Revisers, but which goes much further, inasmuch as, alone of all published texts, with exceedingly few and unimportant exceptions, it virtually reproduces the text of the Vatican manuscript. In fact, had they given us a revised edition of the Vatican, merely correcting the itacisms, and other manifest blunders of the copyist* — ^neither small in number, nor unimportent in their bearings — ^it would have scarcely been distinguishable from that which now stands before us on their authority. Having compared chapter after chapter, book after book in their edition with Tischendorf s ' Vatican Codex of the New Testament,' I can attest that this coincidence is all but imiform. Nor indeed could it well be otherwise; since they tell us sometimes distinctly, often by implication, that in this manuscript, especially when taken in combination with K, we have the nearest approach to a faithful transcript of the very auto- graphs of the Apostles and Evangelists. The grounds on which this very decided opinion of the two critics rests, are, as I have said, fully stated in the ' Introduction ' to their text of the Greek Testament That introduction was written by Dr. Hort, but it expresses the views which they held in common, and which they certainly succeeded in impressing upon the minds, if not of all, yet of the majority of scholars, either belonging to the Committee of Revisers, or in a position which justified their coming forward in its defence. To examine these grounds with any approach to complete- ness would demand a very long, and probably inconclusive process of discussion. It must be observed that the argu- • And Tfith reference to such blunders Dr. Hort says, "the scribe reached by no means a high standard of accuracy," Introd. § 312. Then Tischendorf speaks of the vitioiitoi of B and K. See below, p. 172. 150 BEVISED VEB8ION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. ments of Dr. Hort are presented in what Dr. Sanday calls " a predominantly abstract form," — a form which he admits to be at once diiKcuIt to follow, and not likely to be generally convincing. He tells us that " the reader may rest assured that these seeming abstractions rest upon a most solid and laborious collection of facts."* This call upon the reader's faith involves a severe strain ; the facts may be solid and collected with much labour, but they are seldom put before us, and throughout the ' Intro- duction ' are assumed rather than proved. We must always bear in mind that the opinions of the two critics were formed, or developed, in a course of most earnest and thoughtful study extending over thirty years, and pursued with every advantage^ with all the resources of a great university both as regards materials and learned co-operation. But the field of inquiry which now demands our attention is limited ; we have simply to inquire what evidence, external or internal, is adduced, or adducible on principles adopted by the Revisers, that the two manuscripts are not only generally deserving of confidence, for their purity and pre-eminent excellence, but so far entitled to deference that the Revisers are justified in introducing on their authority innovations into the sacred text, which, as we have shown, are derogatory to its integrity or its veracity, and materially affect the records of great central events and sayings in the Life of our Lord. Proba- bilities, conjectures however plausible, inferences from a sys- tem which, whatever may be its fascination for acute intellects and speculative minds, is open from first to last to question, are as dust in the balance weighed against matters of such vital importance. We demand facts, facts which can be ascertained, which are not capable of being explained away ; and niost astonishing facts they must be if they are to VALUE OF K AND B. 151 i See tho Contemporary Seview, Deceralwr 1881, p. 066. compel us to surrender, or to regard as doubtful, 6uch a word as that spoken by our Saviour on the cross, and the attestation of two Evangelists to the Resurrection and the Ascension of our Lord. We look then first at the historical facts which stand out most prominently, about which there is no difference of opinion. (1) We know approximately the age of the two oldest documents. It is admitted that the Vatican, it is all but certain that both the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts, were written about the middle of the fourth century. We know also that some other manuscripts, such as A, C, Q, T, Z, were written so soon after that date as materially to affect the position claimed for those two codices, and repeatedly urged by some critics, as though they were entitled to un- qualified deference on the ground of what Dr. Hort * calls " their exceptional antiquity." This date is of great importance ; it reminds us at once of the very long interval — nearly three centuries — which had elapsed since the time when our Gospels were given to the Christian world, an interval filled with events of singular interest, with persecutions, storms within the Church, vicissi- tudes and trials of every kind. It reminds us also that the very time, at which those two manuscripts are admitted to have been written, coincided with a temporary, but complete, preponderance of the Arian heresy, and that the person who at that time was most conspicuous for learning, and especially for ability and reputation as a critical scholar, was deeply affected by that heresy — Jerome calls him "propugnator Arianse factionis." To these points I shall have to recur presently ; here I simply ask the reader to bear both facts in mind. We have two manuscripts written some three • Intr. to Westcott & Hort's New Testamout, p. 92. 162 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. hundred years after the original text vas published; we have to admit that just at the time when they were written, the best, the only sound, part; of the Church, was in a state of depression without previous precedent or later parallel. Looking back from that time, we are surprised at the paucity and the uncertainty of facts which might enable us to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion on the state of the text at any given period. (2) The fact nearest in time, and of most importance, is that Lucian*— a presbyter of Antioch, a native of Samosata who was put to death at Nicomedia a.d. 312 — and about the same time Heaychius, an Egyptian Bishop, took special pains with the revision of the text of the Septuagint Version, and as it would seem also with that of the New Testament. We know that when Jerome was occupied with his Version lie found manuscripts written by, or under the superinten- dence of, Lucian and Hesychius, of which in his Epistle to Damasus he speaks slightingly, but which were regarded by some as presenting a carefully revised and pure text. His ' words are important: "Pnetermitto eos codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos paucorum hominum adserit perversa contentio : quibus utique nee in veteri instnimento post septuaginta interpretes emendare quid licuit nee in novo profuit emendasse, cum multarum gentium Unguis scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse quse addita sunt." f • " Lucianua vir diaertissimiu, AntiocheDn ecclesiag presbyter, tantum in Scripturarum studio laboravit, ut usque nunc quadam ezemplaria Scripturanun Lucianea nuncupantur." Hieronymus, ' Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiast' 77. t Pnet in IV. Evangelia ad Damasum, torn. x. 661. Tlie adverse judgment of Jerome, at a later period, appears to liave been generally adopted in the West. Thus in the ' Decreta Gelasii et Hormisdaj ' (quoted by Hilgenfeld, ' Einleitung,' p. 137) we read: "LIbri omnes, quos fecit Leucius, discipul'uR diaboli, spocryphi." Innocentius also reckons them trauDg apocryphal books. VALUE OP K AND B. 153 From this we have a right to infer (a) that the number of copi#s bearing the name, as issued under the authority, of one or the other, or of both those Churchmen, must have be6n considerable, and that some hundred years after the demise of Lucian they were maintained as of high authority by what Jerome, an impetuous and unfair controversialist, designates as the perverse contention of a few persons, (b) We must also infer, if we accept Jerome's statement, that the Eecen- sion, if that name is properly applied to their work, was remarkable for interpolations. But it seems probable, con- sidering the character of Jerome, that by addita mnt he may refer to innovations generally, especially to statements which affected the integrity of the books, and the veracity of the narratives, (c) Jerome lays down a principle of the highest importance, one to which in this discussion special attention is demanded, viz. that all variations and innovations of importance can be and ought to be tested by their accordance with the ancient Versions, which conveyed the truths of the Gospel to different nations. The question how far the text thus produced agreed with one or the other of the two recensions, which Dr. Hort and Dr. Westcott think fit. to call Pre-syrian and Syrian, is of course a matter of doubtful conjecture. But we have facts which lead us some way towards a probable conclusion. Lucian was beyond doubt, as a scholar and divine, moulded under the influences of a school of which Origen is the chief repre- sentative. It is also clear that, at the earlier part of his life, he had gone very far in the direction of latitudinarianism : he was accused of decidedly heretical opinions, and, though recognized by the most orthodox Churchmen as a sound- hearted and right-minded Christian man, fully entitled to the glorious designation of a faithful martyr, it is admitted that traces of old opinions and tendencies were discernible to the last. Whether those tendencies affected his recen- 154 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. sion, or, if they affected it at all, to what extent, is of course wholly uncertain; but in addition to the fact that he^ belonged to the school of Origen, we have the no less certain and equally significant fact that he found in Eusebius an enthusiastic admirer. That historian rises to real pathos and eloquence in describing his character, his scholarship, his martyrdom ; nor can it be doubted that his labours in the criticism and exegesis of the Scriptures were fully appre- ciated by Eusebius, with whom he had so many points in common, especially as regards the influences under which the religious character of both was moulded. One fact, at least, is certain. The term Syrian recension, if admissible at all, is applicable to the copies written under the superintendence of Lucian of Antioch. That is the only recension connected with Syria of which any notice occurs in ancient documents ; I must add, for which any place can be found in the history of the Church between the second and fifth centuries. Is it too much to infer that tlie work of Lucian materially affected the critical and biblical labours of Eusebius, or that, if, as I hold to be all but certain, the two oldest manuscripts were written under the superintendence of Eusebius, they retain some of the chief characteristics of that recension ? If that be the case, we must apply Jerome's remark that all innovations should be brought at once to the test, whether they are opposed to, or are supported by, the best ancient Versions. As to Hesychius, less is known, less is even probably conjectured ; but I am fully disposed to accept the views of some able critics who believe that his work is fairly repre- sented by the oldest Egyptian Version.* Whether, however, • Jerome says (c. RufiD. ii.) that Egypt followed the Hesychian recen- sion. He is R]icaking of the Septuagint, but there can be no doubt that the remark npf)Iies equally to the Now 'i'estament. VALUE OF K AND li. 155 he simply adopted that Version, as it then stood, or modified it to some extent, cannot be determined in the absence of positive evidence. That Version undoubtedly does represent the Alexandrian text as it stood eariy in the third century, or even probably as it stood in the second. Comparing it with the citations in Origen, we note on the one hand a real independence in readings of considerable importance, as may be seen by reference to the passages which we have previously examined; on the other, so much general simUarity as to confirm the opinion of critics who regard them as proceeding from the same school. Not less striking is the same com- bination of general resemblance and special independence, when we compare that Version with the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts : a point to which I shaU have to call attention presently, but notice here as bearing upon the character of what has been called, somewhat boldly, the Hesychian re- cension. (3) We go back one step further, a most critical and im- portant step, for it brings us at once into contact with the greatest name, the highest genius, the most influential person of all Christian antiquity. We come to Origen. Now it is not disputed that Origen bestowed special pains upon every department of biblical criticism and exegesis. His ' Hexapla ' is a monument of stupendous industry and keen discernment : but his labours on the Old Testament were thwarted by his very imperfect knowledge of Hebrew, and by the tendency to mystic interpretations common in his own age, but in no other writer so fully developed or pushed to the same ex- tremes. In his criticism of the New Testament Origen had greater advantages, and he used them with greater success. Every available source of information he studied carefully. Manuscripts and Versions were before him ; both Manuscripts and Versions he examined, and brought out the 156 REVISED VERSION OP FIRST THREE GOSPELS. results of his researches with unrivalled power. But no one who considers the peculiar character of his genius, his subtlety, his restless curiosity, his audacity in speculation, his love of innovation, will be disposed to deny the extreme risk of adopting any conclusion, any reading, which rests on his authority, unless it is supported by the independent testimony of earlier or contemporary Fathers and Versions, The points in which we are specially entitled to look for innovations are— (1) curious and ingenious readings, such for instance, as those which we have noticed in St. Mark and St. Luke ; (2) the removal of words, clauses, or entire sentences which a man of fastidious taste might regard as superfluities or repetitions ; (3) a fearless and highly speculative mode of dealing with portions of the New Teistament which might con- tain statements opposed to his prepossessions, or present diffi- culties which even his ingenuity might be unable to solve. In weighing the evidence of his citations for or against any doubtful reading, while we should feel assured of his perfect honesty of purpose, we ought to be extremely cautions in adopting his conclusions. A text formed more or less directly under his influence would of course command a certain amount of general adhesion; it would approve itself most especially to minds similarly gifted and similarly developed; when brought to bear upon the course of critical inquiry it would produce an enormous efiect, especially if it came with the charm and interest of novelty ; but not less certainly would it be challenged, and its verdict be refused, if it contravened principles of fundamental imr portance and affected the veracity of the sacred writers and the teaching of Holy Writ. Now when we once more apply these observations to a text, which on other grounds we maintain to be substantially or completely identical with that which was published under the influence of Eusebius, we are driven to the conclusion that VALUE OP K AND B. 157 such characteristics are to be looked for; and that, so far as they can be shown to exist, they impair, if they do not over- throw, the authority of that text in matters so weighty as those to which we have devoted attention in this discussion. That Eusebius was an enthusiastic admirer, a devoted adherent of Origen, no one need be reminded who knows aught of the history of that age, or who has read, however hastily, his history of the early Church; that in all questions he would defer absolutely to the authority of Origen, especially in ques- tions of criticism, is almost equally undeniable; nor do I hesitate to state my immoveable conviction that in that influence is to be found the true solution of the principal phenomena which perplex or distress us in considering the readings of the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. This point, however, I propose to discuss at length in a separate section. (4) But have we no earlier authorities than Origen ? I have answered this question more than once. There were once abundant materials, but unfortunately our actual knowledge of them is imperfect and fragmentary. Copies of Holy Scripture abounded in Western Christendom; the so-called early Italic Versions carry us back to the earliest post- apostolic age; but we can scarcely refuse to accept the positive statement of Jerome in his well-known Epistle to Damasus, the Bishop of Rome, under whose authority he undertook the most formidable and responsible of all works, that of producing a new or revised Version of the Scriptures. In answer to the attacks of opponents, moved by feelings common enough in the case of all new undertakings, and imputed, as a matter of course, to aU who venture to criticize a work remarkable for novelty, Jerome says: "Si latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant, quibus : tot sunt enim pene quot codices." A strong, perhaps an exaggerated statement, such as accords with the style of a controversialist at once unscrupulous and bitter, but which 158 REVISED VERSION OP FIRST THREE GOSPELS. leaves no room for doubt aa to the untrastworthiness of manuscripts which represent the early Italic recension. To state the general result shortly, we have no reason to believe that the immense number of copies of Scripture, or, to speak more correctly, of portions, especially of the Gospels, diffused through the East and "West of Christendom were at any time subjected to a general superintending authority. We may be sure that in every quarter of Christendom they were prepared and examined with the greatest care; but speculations as to their relative value and mutual inter- dependence, however ingenious and 'plausible, as to their " genealogical " and " transcriptional " peculiarities, ought not to be allowed to bias our judgment in estimating the value of documents now existing, each of which should be tested on its own merits with the most careful regard to internal and external indications of its intoissic worth. i ( 159 ) SECTION V. The Eusebian Eecension. Hitherto our inquiry has brought us into contact with theories of exceeding interest, but resting on insecure foun- dations ; the facts being few in number, and rather gathered from incidental notices thaft from direct statements by trust- worthy authorities. These facts suffice to prove that the copies of Holy Scripture, both in Eastern and Western Christendom, were numerous ; that the diversities of readings had attracted general attention, and occupied the minds of theological scholars ; but they leave us in a state of considerable em- barrassment, and quite uncertain to what extent the inge- nious and highly teclinical system, presented with singular ability in Dr. Hort's ' Introduction,' may be applicable. We feel the need of some central facts, some statements on which implicit reliance can be placed, connected with a distinct and critical period in the history of the Church, and recorded in documents now accessible and bearing the stamp of high official or ecclesiastical authority. The epoch at which such facts might be naturally looked for is assuredly that in which the Church emerged from its condition of external humiliation and desperate struggles, and in which the tendencies by which it had long been in- ternally disturbed culminated in massive proportions ; on the one hand, in a heresy which — owing in part to the ability of its chief leaders, but mainly to its subtle appeals to some of the strongest feelings of half-Christianized people, and to its combination of rhetorical and philosophical artifices with skil- 160 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. ful manipulation of scriptural texts — rapidly acquired and long retained a hold upon the minds of some of the ablest and most influential representatives of religious thought ; on the other hand, in a full development of the principles which from the beginning had been more or less distinctly re- cognized as fundamental by earnest and devout Christians, and wliich found full and adequate expression when for the first time all quarters of Christendom, by the voices of their representatives, decided the great question at issue, in the great oecumenical council of Nicsea. Very few years had elapsed, less than ten years in fact, from that central event, when the transaction occurred to which I now call attention. When we consider the condition of the Church at that time, the clear and Uncontested authority on which the all-important facts rest, and the position of th6 per- sons with whom we are concerned, we cannot hesitate to assign to this transaction not merely a high place, but the very highest place in the history of the criticism of the New Testament. The date is fixed absolutely within narrow limits. In tlie year 330 Constantine formally celebrated the completion of his great work, the foundation of Constantinople. In the year 340 at the earliest Eusebius died.* In the interval between these two certain dates — probably, as we shall see, nearer the beginning than the close of the interval — Constantine wrote a letter to Eusebius, then Bishop of Caesarea, which we have before us in the Life of Constantine by Eusebius, book iv. c. 36 ; in the following chapter, c. 37, Eusebius gives a full accoimt of the result In this letter Constantine first states a fact of exceeding importance t in the history of Christianity, showing the * See Bishop Lightfoot's article on Eusebius in the ' Dictionary of Christian Biography,' vol. ii. p. 318. t See my remarks in the 'Second Letter to the Bishop of London,' p. 79 neq., ill reference to this fact. THE EUSEBIAN RECENSION. 161 ' f i rapidity of its external progress under imperial influence.' This fact is that in the city which bore his name an im- mense number of people had already joined themselves to the Church — note the force of his expression, fteyitrrov -TrXfjOosr avOptiirtop T^ a^iwrdrri eKKKifiriq avariOeiicev eam6. He adds that inasmuch as there is a great and growing develop- ment of the city in all respects, it is evidently most desirable that many new churches should be established in it The Emperor then calls upon Eusebius to order without delay the transcription of^fty manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures on carefully prepared parchments or vellum (eV SKJfOipait iyKaraiTKevoif!), written in easily legible characters, and in a portable and convenient form ('n-po? t^i* xP^"'"' evfuraKOftiirra). The manuscripts were to be written by caUigraphers, beautiful penmen, thoroughly understanding their art ((nrb rex^tTwi' KaWtypa.a)v &v /jLoKiara rrjv t einffKein)V KoX rfjv ■xprj. He adds a few words which are important as showing both the great costliness and the peculiar form of the manuscripts. He describes them as Tpura-et, koX rerpaaa-d, i.e. according to Yalesius, Tischendorf, and Scrivener, in quires called in Latin writers "temiones" and "quatemiones," that is in triple or quadruple sheets, presenting of course twelve or sixteen pages. The words, however, as it appears to me, may refer to the arrangement, peculiar to the two oldest MSS., k and B, in which each page is written in three or four vertical columns respectively.* * I advance this suggestion with some confidence, having consulted gome eminent Greek scholars, who agree with me as to its great proba- bility. I observe (1) that the two words are exceedingly rare, and are not, so far as I can ascertain, elsewhere used in connection with manu- •cripts. (2) Their literal meaning is "three by three," and "four by four," words which exactly describe the arrangement of the columns in each page of B and K. (8) No corresponding ordinal is derived from wfWr, such as would have been necessary to describe the arrangement of Codex B, to which Tischendorf applies the word " quinio," «.«. fivefold quire. (4) It is probable that Eusebius would call special attention to the triple and quadruple columns, which are supposed to have been copied from a MS. on papyrus, indicating an Egyptian recension, to which, as a follower of Origen, he would attach a high value. (6) The conjecture of Yalesius, that the two words were equivalent to the well-known Latin terms " temio " and " quatemio," was natural, in fact almost forced upon him, at a time when no example of an arrangement in three or four vertical columns was in existence. (6) Had Eusebius wished to describe the THE EUSEBIAN RECENSION. 163 Take now the facts concerning these fifty manuscripts. First the external facts. (1) They were remarkable for the excellence of the materials on which they were written. (2) They were equally remarkable for the beauty of the characters, written by the best calUgraphers who could be ' found by the Bishop of Csesarea. (3) They were to be executed— and it is recorded that they were executed — with the utmost possible speed. The combination of extreme care bestowed upon the form with extreme speed or haste in the execution is a peculiarity scarcely to be looked for under ordinary circumstances. As a general rule copies of the Scriptures were prepared in separate portions, of course with the utmost care, cer- tainly not under pressure of time, by monks carefully trained in calligraphy and in habits of exact transcription. A manu- script thus prepared would be prized rather for its exactness and the authority attached to its readings, than for the beauty of its form. * When a convent had leisure and means to pro- duce costly manuscripts, the exceUence of the writing would in every case be inseparable from extreme care in the transcription. To this it must be added that the materials had to be procured and most carefully prepared, a process which would necessarUy occupy a considerable time— as may be inferred from the singularly fine vellum on which the Sinaitic Codex is written : made of the skins of asses or of antelopes, a single animal supplying but one sheet.* The time therefore at manner of folding the sheets, he would naturally have used words com- pounded of a cardinal number and a termination implying folds, such as Tpin\6a, rrrpavUa ; such words were in common use and specially applicable to the case. • See Tischendorf, ' Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum,' ProU. p. xvil. The number of skins must have far exceeded any quantity that could have been kept in store fur ordinary purposes. One hundred and forty- M 2 164 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. the diflposal of Euflebius for the transcription would be bo far shortened as to make extreme haste in that part of the work especially urgent So far we have data, which, by reason of their rarity and unquestionable authenticity, must go far towards determining the origin fif any manuscript of that date in which the same peculiarities are admitted or can be shown to exist Before we proceed to this point we must take into careful consideration the state of the Church at the time; the rela- tions between the Church and the Empire, and the exact position of Eusebius in reference to both. We may assume that the letter to Eusebius was written soon after the dedication of Constantinople ; but some time must have elapsed before the Emperor could be satisfied that the number of converts was so great, and increasing so steadily, as to make it necessary or expedient to build a considerable number of churches. I doubt whether the letter could have been sent before the year 332, and allowing a reasonable time for the purpose of preparing materials, collecting and collating manuscripts for the use of scribes in writing fifty copies of the whole Scriptures, I should think A.D. 334 a far more probable date than 331, usually accepted for this transaction. Now in the year 330 Arius was received on terms of amity by Constantino, who addressed a courteous letter of welcome to him on the 25th of November/ In the following year EustathiuB, the orthodox Bishop of Antioch, was deposed from his see by the Arian Council of Tyre. In the same year. eight skins were required for one copy of the Sinaitic New Testament, three times as many for the Old. For fifty copies of the whole work an enormous number of skins had to be procured, and prepared with the utmost care, for the manuscripts demanded by the Emperor. * See M. de Broglie, ' Distoire de I'Eglise et de I'Empire,' torn. ii. p. 284, note. THE EU8EBIAN RECENSION. 165 t 1 A.D. 331, Eusebius of Nicomedia, the ablest and most influen- tial leader of the extreme Arian faction, wrote a letter to Atha- nasius, calling upon him to receive Arius into communion. Eusebius of Csesarea was ofifered the see of Antioch, but was wise enough to decline it* From that time his influence over Constantino was unbounded ; an influence considerably strengthened by the assiduous court which he paid to the favourite sister of the Emperor, giving her name Constantia to a city in his diocese, which he speaks of as lately converted from fanatic heathenism; a course which, he tells us, was highly approved by Constantine. Turning to Egypt, we observe that Athanasius remained at Alexandria, but under the ban of the Arian faction and the dis- favour of the Emperor, until he went into banishment, A.D. 336. We have thus a clear and full account of the position of parties in Christendom at the date when those famous fifty manuscripts were prepared and sent to Constantinople. The facts so elicited supply solid grounds for the inquiry as to what in all probability would be the internal charac- teristics of manuscripts prepared at such a time, under such circumstances. In the first place we do not hesitate to admit that they would be generally remarkable for substantial accuracy ; no interpolations are to be looked for. Eusebius was a man of honour, too prudent as well as too honest consciously to introduce corruptions of the text ; his wide learning was not more conspicuous than his conscientiousness in dealing with the facts of Holy Scripture. • Eusebius has preserved the letter which Constantine addressed to him on hearing that he had declined the see of Antioch. The Emperor espe- cially commends his wise moderation— ^ (rfi trvvea-tt, ^ ■yoCv ris t€ ivroXhe ToC flcoC nal t6v 'ATroaroXifcAx Kavova itai r^r «)tXT,Ti] «»^"' 'V* Otaptnt tx°>^<'- "al toCto tlnay, cirfJfi- {.i; nvTotr tA» x^P"^ "" ''<'*' '"''"'• ^^ Epictetum, Cor. Ep. Epistola, § 7, p. 906 D, ed. Bened. 190 REVISED VERSION OP FIRST THREE QOSPELS. readings." Without anticipating the general argument, I must here remark that even were Dr. Hort's theory accepted, it would not support the innovations to which the most serious importance must be attached. The strongest cases are cases of omission. The manuscripts which omit the most striking details in the history of our Lord's suffer- ings. His death, and, I must add. His resurrection, stand in a diametrically opposite position— I must be allowed to say a far inferior position— to those which retain those details in a form attested both by ancient Versions and by the most ancient and most trustworthy Fathers of the Church. If we compare one by one the passages in which the Alex- andrian and the two other manuscripts are at variance passages, be it noted, occurring most frequently in the second and third Gospels — with more ancient authorities, or again with the highest authorities of the same age, or of the age immediately preceding, it will be found in the great majority of instances that their evidence preponderates in favour of the former. I cite with peculiar satisfaction the statement of Dr. Hort, Introd. p. 152, that the Alexandrian Codex repre- sents most fairly the text commonly occurring in citations by the Greek Fathers of the fourth century. Now when we consider who those Fathers were, that they comprise nearly all the greatest names in primitive Christendom, the learned and acute Basil, the profound theologian Gregory of Nazi- anzus, the divines of Asia Minor, of Palestine, of Syria, of Egypt, with Athanasius at their head, I could scarcely desire a stronger proof of excellence. For my own part it would need very strong and substantial evidence to induce me to doubt the genuineness of a text so supported, or to admit the superiority of a text ignored or expressly contradicted by such authorities. But, as we have seen, the harmony between Origen and THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. 191 . the Vatican Codex is held to outweigh that consideration. To this there are two replies: first, that in some points of crucial importance Origen goes against the readings in that codex, • and that in others where all support is needed he does not supply it. It is inferred indeed t that Eusebius may have learned from Origen to distrust the evidence for the integrity of St. Mark's Gospel, but no passage is adduced from Origen's extant writings in support of that inference, which rests chiefly on the ground that Eusebius recognized in Origen his master : and to keep to my main point, I wiU ask the reader to look at the authorities which favour the old reading or the innovations respectively in the passages pre- viously examined, and see how slight a claim the Revisers have to the support of Origen. Here again I must be pardoned for repeating a statement which the reader may have noticed above. I mean that the divergences between the Alexandrian and the Vatican MSS. occur for the most part in the synoptical Gospels. In the Acts and the Epistles by far the greater number of altera- tions in the Greek text adopted by the Eevisers are sup- ported by A as well as by k and B. Westcott and Hort indeed follow B throughout in every detail, however minute, so closely that slight alterations are made, sufficiently nume- rous at first sight to indicate a difference of recension ; but the substantial identity of the two texts in that part of the New Testament is scarcely open to serious question. I do not for my part doubt that Eusebius, who superintended the one recension, and the Egyptian critic who superintended the other, had one and the same original text for the Acts and Epistles before them : a statement which I would further extend to the later recension of the Memphitic and Sahidic Versions, • See pp. 29, 96, 99, 109, 111. * t This is suggested by Dean Burgon in his work on the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel. 192 REVISED VERSION OP FIRST THREE GOSPELS. and to some of the later uncials, which agree in the main with the Vatican Codex, but maintain an independent position in cases of peculiar interest For my own part I can scarcely understand the low esti- mation in which Drs. "Westeott and Hort hold the other uncials (with the exception of C, Z, Q, and A, of which presently) and the entire mass of cursives. One point is certain : the preponderance of their testimony in all^ or in nearly all, the passages here in question, is in favour of A, and the MSS. which come nearest to it («c. E, F, G, M), and against tt, B, L, singly or in combination. Another point can scarcely be denied : those cursives, between 400 and 500 in number for the Gospels, represent the text, substantially identical, used in all quarters of Christendom from the eighth century down to the introduction of printing. I very much doubt whether a good cursive manuscript, such as that used by the compilers and revisers of the Old Textus Beceptus,* does not present a sound, fairly accurate, and trustworthy text, not inferior to that of the later uncials, equal in many respects to the Alexandrian, and far superior in aU respects to the very ancient Western Codex D. I venture further to maintain, so far as regards the mutilated and corrupted passages which I have dealt with in this essay, that such cursives, when virtually unanimous, especially when supported by good uncials, are much to be preferred to the Vatican and Sinaitic Codices. For the expression of this opinion I shall of course incur the charge of singular obstinacy, or blind prejudice. I can only say that it is an opinion gradually formed, reluctantly entertained, and in the issue forced upon me by repeated examination of the very numerous and all-important state- ments disfigured, mutilated, or obliterated, in the two oldest * See ScriTener, ' Introduction,' p. 192 seq. THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. 193 manuscripts, but retained vrith singular unanimity in the great mass of cursives. One other point I must notice in reference to the Alexan- drian Codex. It has passages which completely disprove the assumption that its scribe or editor was influenced by doctrinal prepossessions. It has some remarkable omissions, omissions which could not have been adopted by any writer who was solely bent upon maintaining the position of the party of the Church to which he belonged, or who was actuated by any other motive but that of faithfulness to his trust. We need only refer to John vii. 53-viii. 11, where A and C agree with tt, B, L, T, X, A, i.e. the uncials of the Eusebian recension and their satellites ; and again to the omission of the great trinitarian text, 1 John v. 7, 8. Their authority indeed decides the question, if not of genuineness, yet of the non-existence of that passage in the text known to the critics and writers of manuscripts in the fourth century.* The omission of this passage is the more remarkable, inas- much as the Georgian Version has clear traces of its existence in the eighth century, and therefore probably at a still earlier period. However that may be, the omission proves the point with which we are more specially concerned, the independent value of this manuscript. I do not refer to the vexata quoestio as to the reading 0e6<; or o? in 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; I agree with Dean Burgon that it is a question which cannot be settled by reference to our manuscript in its present condi- tion ; but I must observe that the earnest and ineffectual efforts of controversialists on both sides to appropriate its authority prove the high and very general, not to say universal, estimation in which it is held by critics. Not less conclusive would be the argument for more than imparti- * We must never forget that it is one thing to show that a reading was common or rare in the fourth century, another to conclude that it rests upon apostolic authority or is destitute of it. , 194 REVISED VEBSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. ality, for at least a tendency in the opposite direction, were Dr. Vance Smith's statement * borne out that the punctuation by the first hand in this manuscript justifies the very painful and offensive note on Bomans ix. 5 in the margin of the Bevised Version. That statement, I believe, is not verified or likely to be verified ; but the simple fact that it ia advanced by a controversialist in Dr. Vance Smith's position corrobo- rates my assertion as to the weight attached by all scholars to the authority of the Alexandrian Codex. * See ' ReTised Texts and Margins,' p. 34, note. n ( 1»5 ) SECTION VII. TUEOKY OF A SyUIAN RECENSION. The interval between the production of the Vatican and Sinaitic Codices on the one side, and on the other of the Alexandrian Codex, ia, as we have seen, a period of uncertain duration, and yet determinable within certain limits ; we may assume that it covers the latter half of the fourth century. It is admitted on all hands that the text presented in the two older manuscripts differs from that in the latter, each having marked and unmistakeable peculiarities ; not however so clearly marked in other portions as in the Gospels, espe- cially in the three commonly called synoptical It is further admitted that the readings in the Alexandrian manuscript are substantially identical both with the very numerous citations in Chrysostom, and with the text which, as Dr. Hort expressly states, was commonly used by the great divines of the fourth century. He further agrees with those critics — and his opinion is confirmed by the examination of disputed passages — who hold that the great majority of the later uncials, and the great mass of the cursives of all ages, present a text evidently founded on the same documents, and pre- senting the same general characteristics. On the other hand, it is not denied — great stress indeed is laid upon the fact — that many peculiar readings of the older manuscripts are found in the extant writings of Origen, and it may be fairly assumed that the text which that Father adopted was the same which formed the basis of what I have called the Eusebian recension. 2 196 REVISED VEBBION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. So far we have positive data, facts patent on the face of existing documents, and confirmed by historical records. I must however be permitted here to observe that the agreement, which Dr. Hort recognizes, between the text of the Alexandrian Codex and all other authorities from the early part of the fourth century downwards, can be proved also to exist between that text and the majority of the earliest and best Fathers of the Greek-speaking Church, if not in all points, certainly so far as regards the points specially dealt with in the preceding inquiry. The reader has but to cast his eye over the iong list of omissions and innovations in the three Gospels, or the classification in pp. 136-141, to come to the conclusion that, if the authorities are correctly stated — they are given by Tischendorf — they cast their weight into the opposite balance. It is not too much to say that in nine passages out of ten — nay, to go further, in every passage of vital importance as regards the integrity of Holy Scripture, the veracity of the sacred writers, and the records of our Lord's sayings — nearly all ancient Versions, and with very few exceptions all ancient Fathers, support the readings rejected by the Revisers. I have no hesitation in maintaining that if we take the text, nearly a continuous one, which is presented in the voluminous writings of Chrysostom — among the Fathers by far the soundest, most accurate, and judicious expositor of the New Testament — we shall have an entirely trustworthy witness to the mind of Christendom, so far as regards all crucial points, not merely in his own time, but in all pre- ceding times. The differences between that text and the singularly divergent readings in the early Latin Versions and Fathers, which are classified by Dr. Hort as Western, and those which, independently of Codex B, are found in writers and documents which may be termed Origenistic, or Alexandrian, are, with few exceptions, of very subordinate THEORY OF A SYRUN RECENSION. 197 importance: they affect the style, the tone, the manner of the various writers, but seldom if ever touch central facts or central doctrines in the New Testament So far as those facts and doctrines are concerned, I claim for our Eeceived Text, in contradistinction from that presented by the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts — substantially identical with that of the Revisers — the general consensus not only of the later authorities, as conceded by Dr. Hort, but of those to which the greatest weight is attached by all critics, in all quarters of primitive Christianity. But we have now to consider the most characteristic point in Dr. Hort's ' Introduction.' At a time which must certainly be within the interval between the two classes of MSS., and in a quarter of Christendom distinctly marked by the presence and influence of certain great teachers of the Church, it is assumed, aa a fact proved by internal evi- dence, by an exhaustive examination of all existing docu- ments, that a new recension of the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament, was produced, and Dr. Hort assumes that the recension was completed by 350 or thereabouts (p. 137) ; and, as it would seem, that new recension is held to have been at once accepted by all the Churches of the East, at leaat by all the great representatives of those Churches, in the same century, apparently at the same part of the same century, which witnessed its completion. I will however quote Dr. Hort's own words (see his ' Intro- duction,' § 185, p. 132 seq.) : " The Syrian text, to which the order of time now brings us back, is the chief monument of a new period of textual history. Whatever petty and local mixture may have pre- viously taken place within limited areas, the great lines of transmission had been to all appearance exclusively diver- gent. Now however the three great lines were brought together, and made to contribute to the formation of a new 198 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. text different from all. The Syrian text must in fact be the result of a ' recension ' in the proper sense of the word, a work of attempted criticism, performed deliberately by editors and not merely by scribes." The internal " evidences " by which Dr. Hort supports this theory are stated fully in that 'Introduction.' They have evidently convinced or silenced the members of the Revising Company whose combined influence might have been relied upon as sufficient to counteract tendencies to innovation, if not in minor matters, such, for instance, as Dr. Hort describes as "verbal transposition of adopted readings," yet in all passages which affect the substantial integrity of Holy Writ, and specially our Lord's own utterances. To deal with these alleged evidences as minutely as Dr. Hort, would require years of study, and very special qualifi- cations, to which I make no pretension ; * but so far as regards the only points with which I am now concerned, I feel con- fident that the internal as well as external evidence tells in the opposite direction. I do not fear tha); the readings in which A is supported by old Versions, early Fathers, and a great majority of independent manuscripts, will come under Dr. Hort's highly technical description of his " Syrian text,", either as " interfusion of adjustments of existing materials with a distinctly innovative process," or as " assimilative or other interpolations of fresh matter." Neither these, nor any other statements occurring frequently throughout his ' Intro- duction,' apply to those passages which occupy the foremost place in this inquiry. But I must ask serious attention to the following con- siderations. The " recension " of which Dr. Hort speaks, had it been * Since these words were written an exhaustive and singularly able article has been published in the Qmrtfrhj Rtview, April 1882. THEORY OP A SYRIAN RECENSION. 199 1 executed at all in the manner which he intimates, would be a historical fact of signal, I may say unparalleled, importance in the development of textual criticism. Editors of known character, eminent for learning, ability, and soundness in the faith, holding positions which secured to them commanding influence, must have combined to produce what Dr. Hort designates as "a new text different from all" which had previously been received in any quarter of Christendom. Those editors must not only have produced such a text, but procured its transcription in numbers of manuscripts, sufficient to take possession of the minds of Churchmen not only in Syria and Palestine — Antioch being assumed to be the head-quarters of the new recension — but in the Churches of Asia Minor on the one side, presided over by the greatest divines of the early Church, such as Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus ; and on the other side, of Alexandria, where the Church, after the death of Athanasius, was under the influ- ence of prelates more or less antagonistic to the schools of thought represented by those great names, and still more so to that which, under the guidance of Chrysostom, within a few years became the most permanently influential in Eastern Christendom. At what place, at what time, can it be probably conjectured that such a recension could have been undertaken? Who were the persons, which were the Churches, that could claim and actually vindicate for their work such authority ? This we must remember. A transaction of such transcen- dent importance must have left some traces, some record, more or less distinct, of its proceedings ; some great manu- scripts, or body of manuscripts, must have been recognized in all controversies as representing the results of that authorita- tive " Recension." Were we indeed dealing with some very early period it might have been plausibly assumed that such a transaction might have escaped notice, or have been passed 200 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. THEORY OF A SYRIAN RECENSION. 201 over as of slight historical importance, not bearing upon the external organization of the Church, or upon controversies which occupied almost exclusively the minds of its chief re- presentatives. But the age and portion of Christendom in question is especially remarkable for the fulness and minute- ness of information supplied in voluminous writings touching every point which could interest the minds of churchmen. " In fact, it may be safely affirmed that until we come to the period of modem historical literature, there is no period at which all movements of the Christian world are presented to our minds with equal vividness and completeness. For the first time in the history of Christendom, an unbroken series of letters between BasU and all his great contemporaries, sup- plemented by ^vritings of every description, especially by controversial writings in which the exact bearing and accepted authenticity of every scriptural text involving points of doctrine or ecclesiastical order underwent the most searching investigation, give us a complete survey of the inner life and outward proceedings of the Church ; a flood of light especially is thrown upon those quarters and that age at which Dr. Hort holds that this recension was completed. Is any trace, any minute trace, of such a recension to be found? Had it existed, it would not have escaped the notice of men so learned, so keen-sighted, and so deeply interested in the maintenance of their hypothesis. I venture to affirm that no indication, however slight, is adducible from the writings of contemporary divines, or, to speak broadly, of any ancient author. On the contrary, I will venture to affirm, and I will ask the learned reader to inquire whether the affirmation can be refuted, tliat we have abundant indications, not to say proofs, that no such recension could have been contemplated, much less executed, at that period. J I I We have before us every kind of writing by which we can ascertain the feelings of the Fathers of that century touching the text of the New Testament. Now I say deliber- ately, with a full sense of the hazardous character of a sweeping negative assertion, that neither the great Cappa- docian, nor the Alexandrian, nor the Syrian, nor the Pales- tinian divines evince any consciousness that a change had passed over the great documents to which they appealed incessantly, either within their own times, or indeed at any time with which they were specially concerned and about which they had ample opportunity of forming a judgment. They quote passages occasionally in which the true reading was matter of discussion ; they deal freely with arguments for or against the genuineness of whole books or portions of books ; biblical criticism occupied their minds pretty nearly to the same extent as scriptural exegesis. It is evident that each of the lines of transmission to which Dr. Hort frequently refers, under the designation of Western and Alexandrian, was familiar to the divines of that age, the one to the masters of the East, the other to such men as Hilary and Ambrose. But one thing is certain. None of them appealed to any late authoritative judgment of the Church, of any special Church, to any recension of editors recognized as competent, and as witnesses of that judgment. Had it been favourable or un- favourable to their own cause, it is impossible that it should not have been alleged as an authority, or controverted as insufficient I cannot but conclude that so far from its existence being shown to be probable, its non-existence is proved by the total absolute silence of all the writers from whom alone we can draw trustworthy information touching the proceedings of the Church at that period.* • Dr. Hort, § 190, assumes that the final recension was completed about the year 350 : his arguments throughout apply to the complete recension ; but he further holds that there was an earlier stage, about the close of the 202 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. I \70uld further remark, that although the divinea in question evince th6 utmost earnestness in inquiries touching the statements and bearings of Holy Scripture, they do not appear to have felt that between what Dr. Hort calls the divergent lines of transmission any such antagonism existed THEORY OF A SYRIAN RECENSION. 203 third century, and also that " of known names none has a better claim to be associated with the early Syrian revision than Lucianus." This claim he looks upon as finding some litth support in the statement of Jerome, in his preface to the Gospels, which I have quoted in a preceding section (see page 152). From the facts which I have there alleged it is clear that a re- cension conducted or influenced by Lucian would have presented charac- teristics the very reverse of those which Dr. Hort attributes to what he designates as the Syrian recension. It would have agreed substantially with that text which is represented by citations in Origen, and, as Dr. Hort and other critics hold, by the Vatican manuscript. I may here observe that it is not easy to reconcile the difl'erent statements of Jerome, who speaks of Lucian at one time as a man of remarkable learning, and tells us that his copies of Scripture were commonly received at Clonstantinople ; whereas in the Epistle to Damasus he speaks of his revision as maintained only by the perverse contention of a few. But whatever explanation may bo given of the statements of a Father, conspicuous for instability and perversity, one thing is sure : Lucian could not possibly have inaugurated, or impressed his own character upon, such a recension as that which Dr. Hort describes. I may add that if, as Jerome asserts, the recension of Lucian was used at Constantinople, the fact can only be accounted for by the reception of the Eusebian manuscripts, which, as I have shown above (Section iv.), undoubtedly followed the text adopted by Lucian, as a follower of Origen. I have to thank a learned Prelate for the following siiggestion. " We cannot but contrast the absolute silence with which the Church must have received this hypothetical recension qf the Greek text, with the clamour raised for and against the recension of the Latin Version by St. Jerome. This recension, of infinitely less importance, made an enormous sensation, was praised, blamed, talked of, written of, attacked, defended, throughout all Christendom. We are to believe that in the preceding century, at a period of intense excitement, when earnest attention was given to questions touching the faith of Christians, especially a question which touched the very foundations on which all faith rests, a work to which Jerome's was as nothing in fundamental moment was undertaken and accomplished without a syllable heing said. The supposition is a manifest absurdity." as would make an authoritative recension necessary or de* sirable. They were quite content to quote Origen and his followers on the one hand and his opponents on the other, without impugning their good faith when they differed, without giving up their own independent judgment when these and other authorities were in accord with each other. A recension of the character and influence described by Dr. Hort would have appeared to them, if I am not mistaken, an encroachment upon the liberty of the Church. They would certainly not admit that any editors or any body of editors had the power or the right to impose their own judgment upon their fellow Christians, who had the same materials before them, and many of whom were equaUy entitled to form and maintain an independent judgment The schools represented by Basil, by Chrysostom, by Epi- phanius, by Cyril of Jerusalem, by Hilary and Ambrose, were neither likely to surrender, nor would they have been justi- fied in surrendering, their convictions to the dictum of a central authority. If, as Dr. Hort admits, upon the whole, the inference drawn from their citations is that those Fathers coincided in the main with the readings of the Alexandrian MS., and of the great majority of later documents, that coincidence, if not conclusive as to the supreme excellence of the codex, is certainly incompatible with the supposition that such a text as that presented by the two older manuscripts had been previously recognized by the highest authorities in the Eastern Church. For my own part, I am contented with the conviction that the Alexandrian Codex owes its special value and importance to the fact that it does represent far more fully and fairly than K or B, or both conjointly, the text of the New Testa- ment in all those passages which in the East and in the West, in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Africa, and Italy, were held to he of vital importance; and I reject without 204 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. hesitation the notion that it was the outcome of any new recension, such recension being assumed to have been exe- cuted in a district which at the time in question was far from being in harmonious union with the Alexandrian Church, to which this manuscript is now generally admitted to have belonged. ( 205 ) t SECTION VIII. The Question of so-called Conflate Readings. I have said that it was not my intention, in entering upon a subject which involves a great variety of difficult and complex questions, to discuss the highly ingenious theories presented to us in the ' Introduction to Westcott and Hort's Greek Text.' It sufficed for my purpose to bring out some chief results of their system, to show its bearings upon central and fundamental points, and in each particular instance to adduce the attestation of ancient and trustworthy authorities to words, clauses, and statements which were materially affected by the text of the Revised Version, or by the marginal notes — notes which carry with them the weight of a critical judgment, if not adopted by the Revisers, yet deemed by them worthy of special notice. The question of conflate readings however seems to demand consideration. It may be dealt with separately ; its results can be examined on their own merits ; and it stands foremost among the groimds on which the two critics maintain the superior purity and excellence of the text presented in the Vatican and Sinaitic Codices, and the interpolated character of the so-called Syrian text — that text which has hitherto been received, and which is now admitted to be supported by the authority of the majority of uncial, and the mass of cursive manuscripts. It is a great advantage in this part of the discussion that the passages which we have to consider, with one exception, do not affect great doctrines or contested points of historical 20C REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS. significance. Questions as to bias in any direction are not likely to disturb our judgment; and we have before us a careful and elaborate discussion by Dr. Hort, thus feeling assured that no consideration of any importance will be overlooked. I must first quote Dr. Hort's own account of the matter. After a very ingenious and highly speculative discussion of what he calls " complications of genealogy by mixture "— that is to say, the difficulty of tracing the relations between texts presented in different manuscripts owing to the con- scious or unconscious tendency of scribes and editors to adopt readings derived from different sources— Dr. Hort proceeds thus (p. 49): "We have next to inquire what expedient can be employed when mixture has been ascer- tained • to exist Evidently no resource can be so helpful, where it can be attained, as the extrication of earlier unmixed texts or portions of texts from the general mass of texts now extant The clearest evidence for tracing the antecedent factors of mixture in texts is afforded by readings which are themselves mixed, or, as they are sometimes called, 'con- flate,' that is, not simple substitutions of the readings of one document for that of another, but combinations of the readings of both documents into a composite whole." Practically the application of this process of " extrication " issues in the following results. We have before us one or more manuscripts, or classes of manuscripts, presenting divergent texts, and evidently pro- ceeding from different recensions.' In the one case we find comparatively short sentences; words or clauses to which our ear has been accustomed disappear; the question is, whether in this case we have before us an incomplete" or • The word "ascertained" is characteristic; it means that the miter feels certain of it, or has proved it to his own satisfaction. ALLEGED CONFLATE READINGS. 207 mutilated text, or one free from interpolations, coming nearest " to the pure unadulterated text as it stood in the autographs of the sacred writers." In the other we have a fuller, appa- rently more complete, and, to the general reader, a more satisfactory text, but one which, to the critical eye under the influence of the system which Dr. Hort commends to our adoption, bears evident marks of interpolation. One thing is clear. The decision will not be doubtful in any case, if it depends upon the prepossessions of the in- quirer. The course invariably pursued by Dr. Hort is to reject the readings in the latter alternative, as "conflate." He applies fearlessly a method of so-called extrication to each special case ; and infers the comparative lateness, and there- fore the untnistworthiness, of the text which presents the double or multiple reading. This I venture to call a technical and highly hazardous proceeding ; but it cannot or ought not to be met by a mere reference to external authorities. On both sides the inquirer must be on his guard against his own tendencies, habits of thought, and previous bias. It appears to me a truth, so obvious as to be a truism, that each particular case should be examined on its own merits ; and further that the following points especially should be taken into consideration. (1) It is of course possible — I hold it to be more than possible, in some cases certain — that the omission of words or clauses is attributable, not to the purity, but to the characteristic brevity of the document in which it occurs; in some cases it may be, and probably is, owing simply to the negligence or recklessness of a hasty transcriber. Dr. Hort, so far as I am aware, stands alone in denying that the Vatican Codex, in this respect on the same footing as the Sinaitic, is conspicuous for omissions, so much so that 208 nEVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE QOSPEM. the critic quoted by Dr. Scrivener (' Introduction,' p. 108) calls that text an " abbreviated Gospel." Such omissions, however they may be accounted for, occur most frequently in the Gospels of St Mark and St. Luke, from which the instances here to be examined are taken. (2) The internal evidence in every case demands most careful and impartial investigation. Among such evidences, the very foremost is that which is derived from a study of the general style of the writer— his usits scHbendi both as regards form and matter. We have to inquire whether it is probable or not, judging from other pas- sages, that he would supply a detail, which might be passed over as superfluous or indifferent by a careless tran- scriber or a fastidious critic, but which adds vividness to the narrative, or, what is far more important, impresses more forcibly the spiritual significance of the words or transactions in question. Again, it may be ascertained whether, in passages which suggest association with old religious forms, the writer is in the habit of employing Hebraisms, especially the most characteristic feature of Hebrew composition, namely, paral- lelisms, or repetitions of a leading thought, varying slightly in form but identical in substance, intended and calculated to give full and adequate expression to religious feelings. Other kinds of evidence, external and internal, will be recognized as necessary or useful ; but these will suffice for my immediate purpose The first passage is discussed with great care and at con- siderable length, by Dr. Hort, pp. 95-99. (a) Mark vi. 33.— We read in the Authorized Version, " And [the people] outwent them, and came together unto him." For the reading which underlies this statement we have the authority (1) of all uncials, except «, B, D, L, A ; (2) of the great mass of cursives; (3) of the Syriac Peshito and yEthiopic Versions. THEORY OF COXFL.iTE READIVGS. 209 The account is clear and graphic. St. Mark, with liis usual attention to details, witli what Dr. Hort calls his " characteristic abundance of detail," has before his own mind and sets vividly before our minds two facts : (1) that the multitude ran on rapidly in advance of the boat which bore our Lord and His disciples away from the place where they had met ; and (2) that on arriving at the opposite shore, where the disembarkation would take place, they came together to meet Him. In the next verse, St. Mark, as usual, calls our attention to this act — " He came out," or came forth ■ from the ship, and found the multitudes there awaiting Him.* We have thus a complete series of acts — the rapid pursuit of the people, the attainment of their object, and the effect of their zealous search ; the people were rewarded by His com- passion. He " taught them many things," and afterwards wrought a miracle of transcendent significance and im- portance. But on looking at the ancient texts we find that manu- scripts representing tlic Western recension, D, 28, b, omit the first clause, and in the second have a variant, avrov for "TTphi avTov, preserving the leading word /ir)v elaiKdj}^ fiTjSe etTrp? rivl ev rrj Kcofiij. This rests on the authority of sixteen uncials, of all cursives except eight, the Syriac, the Vulgate, iEthiopic, and Gothic Versions. The construction is explained clearly and authoritatively by Winer, " Mr. 8. 26 — kann nicht heissen neqm — neque, son- dem das erste firjSi ist ne-quidem, das zweite audi nicht;" i.<^ the first /njSe is "not even," the second "neither also." ' Orammatik,' § 55, p. 456, 8th edition. i THEORY OP CONFLATE HEADINGS. 211 It is difficult to see why this should cause any objection. The reiteration of the injunction, or rather the addition of a secondary injunction, is quite in accordance with St Mark's style, but was surely most unlikely to be introduced into the passage by an interpolator. The second clause was evidently struck out by some scribe, or corrector, who argued, like our modern critic, that it was superfluous. That it stood in its present form before the time assumed by Dr. Hort to have been that of a Syrian recension, is proved by the admitted fact that it is supported by the Peshito. But K, B, L, two cursives, and the Coptic Version omit the last clause altogether. Therefore it must be discarded, notwithstanding the strange harshness of the construction with what Dr. Hort rightly calls " the peculiar initial fitjhk." It is so " peculiar " that if another instance was adducible it ought to have been ad- duced. I remember no similar instance. I feel no hesitation in imputing the omission to the ordinary negligence, or specially to the habit of abbreviation, conspicuous in the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. (c) Mark ix. 38. — With reference to another case, Mark ix. 38, 1 will only say tliat the words omitted by Dr. Hort, but retained even in the Revised Version, are supported by ample authority — by all uncials except n, B, C, L, A, by all cursives except twenty ; by the best ancient Versions, and in the ' Moralia ' ap. Basil, torn. ii. p. 252 A, ed. Ben. The clause ought to be retained as one among many clear instances of St. Mark's characteristic habit of emphatic reiteration. The Apostles dwell upon the fact that the miracle-worker did not belong to their company. St Mark is careful to bring out that point fully and distinctly, as casting a strong light upon their feelings and upon the direc- tions given to their thoughts by our Lord. {d) Mark ix. 49. — This is followed by a still more serious r 2 212 REVISED VERSION OP FIRST THREE GOSPELS. omission, for which the Eevised Version makes itself respon- sible. In V. 49 the entire clause, " and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt," is rejected; of course in deference to K, B, L, with A, and a few cursives of the same recension ; of course also against all other MSS., uncial or cursive, and the best ancient Versions. To this point I have already called attention, but I may here be permitted to repeat my state- ment that, if I am not wholly mistaken as to the significance of the clause, it expressed our Lord's mind on a question of paramount importance, and at a most critical point in His ministry. Whereas the evildoer is doomed to be salted with penal fire, every true and acceptable worshipper, as a living s'acrifice, will be salted with the salt — the preserving, sancti- fying salt — of the New Covenant ; in other words, with the charity which is its essential principle, with which all spiritual life is inseparably bound up. I must express my regret that Dr. Hort and the Revisers should have lent their countenance to the conjecture that this deeply spiritual utterance is a mere interpolation, suggested by a reminiscence of Lev. vii. 13. See above, p. 77 seq. I must notice very briefly the two passages which follow, taken from St. Luke. (e) Luke ix. 10. — The A. V. has, " And he took them and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida." This follows the reading of fourteen uncials, all cursives but three, the Peshito Syriac, ^Etliiopic, Armenian, and Gothic Versions. Each point appears indispensable to the right understand- ing of the statement : the desert place was needed for the pur- pose of rest and retirement, the name of Bethsaida to mark the district, with the distinction between the city or town and the place to which our Lord retired. Yet this is a "conflate reading," according to Dr. Hort, THEORY OF CONFLATE READINGS. 213 because one ancient MS., B, followed by its late satellites L, X, S, and one cursive, 33, with the Coptic and Sahidic, has only "to a city called Bethsaida:" and other MSS. and Versions have either " a desert place " alone or combined with Bethsaida. That it is a complete and accurate statement is unquestion- able. The only question is whether the varying and incom- plete and more or less inaccurate statements in MSS. notice- able for omissions or for negligence, or the great mass of manuscripts, are most likely to have represented St. Luke's account correctly. (/) Luke xi. 54— The same remarks wiU apply generally to this passaga The same uncials, fourteen in number, and all cursives but five, with the Vulgate and Syriac, support the Authorized Version, " laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth that they might accuse him." The Revised Version follows three manuscripts found all but invariably on the side of abbreviation, K, B, L, with the Coptic Version ; and condemns the statement of the A. V. in which every word has a distinct and emphatic sense, by the omission of the clauses " and seeking " and " that they might accuse him." Whether omission or interpolation is the more probable, having regard to St Luke's style, and the force of the state- ment as it stands in the A. V., may be left to the reader's judgment Admitting the ingenuity of Dr. Hort's combina- tions, I fail to see the cogency of his argument, and cannot but deprecate the course adopted by the Revisers. (g) Luke xii. 18.— The old Textus Receptus has rh yetn^- fiard fiov xal ret. aya0d fiov. So sixteen uncials, all cursives but twelve, and the majority of ancient Versions. But for r^ev^nard fwv Dr. Hort has persuaded the Revisers to adopt the reading tov