Library of The Theological Seminary 
 
 PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY 
 
 WHEE 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 The Library 
 of 
 Professor J. A. Alexander 
 
 
 
 BS 2385 .G79 
 
 Green, Thomas Sheldon, 1803 
 or 4-1876. 
 
 A course of developed 
 criticism on passages of 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2009 
 
 https://archive.org/details/courseofdevelopeOOgree 
 

 

 
A COURSE OF 
 
 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ON 
 
 PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY 
 
 VARIOUS READINGS. 
 
 BY 
 
 THE REV, THOMAS SHELDON GREEN, M.A. 
 
 LATE FELLOW OF CHRIST’S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; HEAD MASTER OF THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL, 
 ASHBY-DE-LA-ZOUCH, 
 
 3 
 
 LO NRO: 
 SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS; 
 
 AT THE WAREHOUSE FOR BIBLES, NEW TESTAMENTS, CHURCH SERVICES, PRAYER BOOKS, 
 PSALTERS, AND CONCORDANCES, IN ANCIENT AND MODERN LANGUAGES ; 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 ΠΟΛΛΑῚ MEN ΘΝΗΤΟΙ͂Σ ΓΛΩΤΤΑΙ, MIA A'AGANATOIZIN, 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 oe 7 
 ᾿ ΓΔ 
 ᾿; 
 
 
 
 - | ΘΙ bre Δ ar 
 
 a) i 
 
 ; ᾿ "Ὁ ὃν {νυ Ss eo Ee a 4 
 
 ᾿ } ae ay. AS ἐὺ πὸ" Y hid d #, ‘as 5 eH: 
 
 ab vem on hia Gort Jan ae, WEA gt. mS Lim, stil 
 
 ἼΩΝ αν. μη ik as 
 
 
 
 
 . <i Ῥ 
 ἘΠ 
 
 "ie τὴ i ων, bin ΝΥ br i AY 7 ae Ga gprs τοῦς 
 
 ’ i τ) ; ᾿ 
 “aft quien): i) ἢ ey ‘ania hie ΜῸ Lat diy eas \e ἐν ΜΠ f nea: 
 es ᾿ 7 "" ᾿ γ τ᾿, ἣν ἣν Ν eu Ν 
 ere mo et! 
 nbs τὸ ee A πα δ Ens ΒΓ ὉΤῚ 
 a ΣΝ iv Por ue og ory. pale 
 ie mI 7 oa aa mina rae tt " a i 
 Hah? ili i ME Ὁ hha 
 : ἀν μιν ὅν» hi psa senroai tage 
 " ma Ἀ ical’ ' flag ἌΝ ch eRe re ἴδει ‘ioe 
 : A ‘ " qi 
 αν πον alta galialll 
 “μἷ i PRD a ty adie ὦ wi | 
 ΠῚ és ἵει ia rar Aes ie a+: v2 MTG ς 
 
 | nt Mist ides a 
 ee ae ii Cras ἮΝ τὸ er ret poi χ᾽ 
 Ἦ ine ΤΥ sil, ὙΠ) 3 ] sia i! " he hy 44 
 
 Nat ats δ - ΩΝ "ἂν pave Bu oe 4 Pent εἰ beste: 
 Eee Τὴ mal ine 6 " cad ΤΉΝ ἢ exh AQ ae ‘7 att 
 ie: sages a is Nas APS, fs ee rs SE a mes " 
 ΟΝ taste SAGE? belt cl Oe ieee ee eth ἐδ 
 ἡ δίῃ ek i ΟΝ wk ΡΝ har: ane NS ὙΠ a οἱ 
 Ὗς ᾿ Aue mean Yeqrndee δυχεηξξνωομα hicioitibi Se ib Dike 
 ἥν , ἐν 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THE books of the New Testament have been no more exempt 
 from corrupting influences on their text than other writings of 
 antiquity ; and hence has arisen the task of the critic to make, 
 by the use of all available means, as near an approach as may 
 be to purity; a task the importance of which may be best rated 
 by that of the writings themselves. 
 
 This importance, however, has been strangely disregarded : 
 in proof of which it is enough to point to laboured expositions 
 of matter undoubtedly spurious, encounters with difficulties that 
 exist only in corruptions, and controversial citations where the 
 reading is so questionable as to leave only the unhappy alter- 
 native of ignorance or disingenuousness. The same thing also 
 appears in the circumstance, that calls are being made from time 
 to time for new or revised versions of Scripture without betraying 
 any consciousness of the necessity of a certain preliminary to such 
 proceedings, namely, the determination of the text to be repre- 
 sented in such version or revision. 
 
 The purpose of these statements is not, however, to introduce 
 an expression of censure, but rather to specify a circumstance 
 which might furnish a plea in excuse for the disregard that has 
 been thus noticed. This circumstance shall now be explained. 
 
 A critical edition of the New Testament offers on its pages 
 
Ιν INTRODUCTION. 
 
 two distinct things, the text itself as determined by the judgment 
 of the critic, or, at least, furnished with indications of the form 
 which he thinks it ought to take, and a register of the authorities 
 on which, in each several case, his decision has been made to rest, 
 as well as of variations in general. The latter is presented in 
 a shape necessarily compressed, and apt to offer to an untrained 
 eye an appearance of intricacy and confusion. Of the steps of 
 reaconing connecting the resulting text with the cited authorities 
 there are no intimations, except such as may be gathered from 
 a few prefatory statements of general principles which the critic 
 has thought proper to adopt; with which, too, an occasional 
 decision may have at least the appearance of inconsistency. 
 
 The tendency of these circumstances is unfavourable to an 
 interest in the important subject, and they may often have issued 
 in an entire disregard of it. The present attempt has been made 
 in the hope of meeting m some degree this difficulty, by offering 
 complete discussions of places affected by such variations as are 
 material to the careful reader and the interpreter of the New 
 Testament. Not that any variation is in itself immaterial: to the 
 critic each has its significance, and its consideration makes its 
 contribution to the perfection of his art. 
 
 The reader is merely supposed to be acquainted with the age 
 and character of the principal MSS., and the notation by which 
 they are conventionally cited, and with the history of the ancient 
 versions.* In this place, accordingly, it will be sufficient to 
 specify the various kinds of corruption to which the text has 
 been exposed, and afterwards to notice some preliminary points 
 of importance. 
 
 * The necessary information may be found in several quarters, especially 
 in the prefatory matter of various critical editions ; among which Tischen- 
 dorf’s may be particularly named. 
 
 The MSS. of the Old Latin will be cited according to the notation used 
 by Tischendorf. This title is here employed comprehensively for the 
 Antehieronymian Latin in both its phases, the African and the Italic. Its 
 
INTRODUCTION. Vv 
 
 The work of transcription can never be altogether exempt 
 from the corruptions of mere accident, arising from the wander- 
 ings of the eye and the slips of the pen. A place affected by 
 various readings should, therefore, be carefully scanned for the 
 detection of any probable mechanical cause of- such mischief, 
 anything likely to betray a copyist into unwitting mistakes. Of 
 the endless shapes which these might take two kinds may be 
 especially mentioned, the interchange of words slightly differing 
 in form, and omissions of words and clauses by oversight. 
 
 Another process of corruption is the encroachment on the text 
 of marginal or interlineary matter, which may, for the sake of 
 convenience, be comprehended under the term glossarial. First, 
 there is the gloss properly so called, namely, a term serving to 
 furnish an explanation or attach a precise interpretation to one 
 in the text. These may either become simply intrusive and 
 produce accretion, or may be substituted for the genuine reading 
 and exhibit usurpation. Again, this class embraces supplements 
 of various extent, where the text may have been elliptical or 
 seemed defective: these are a great source of accretion. There 
 is, also, other matter coming under this head, in the way of illus- 
 tration or comment, ready materials of accretion.* It is scarcely 
 necessary to observe, that the writings of the New Testament 
 
 importance can hardly be overrated: its rival in this respect would be the 
 Peshito, if the text of this latter were settled by the aid of copies of 
 like antiquity and value with the imperfect Nitrian MS. of the Gospels. 
 Whenever the Peshito is cited from this copy, the citation will be dis- 
 tinguished by the letter N. The writer is indebted for the means of doing 
 it to the kindness of Dr. Tregelles, whose undaunted zeal and unwearied 
 labours in the cause of sacred criticism are beyond all praise. 
 
 * Of the corrupting process thus described the reader may furnish 
 himself with abundant illustration, unattended by alarm or prejudice, 
 by comparing the text of some of the more familiar orations of Demos- 
 thenes, as settled by recent criticism, with its previous form. The Third 
 Philippic may be named as affording a good specimen in this way. 
 
 Accretion is not merely a corruption of a writer’s matter, but disguises 
 the finer features of his manner, as much as smoke, dirt, and daubing, the 
 touches and colouring of an old master. 
 
v1 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ‘vould from their peculiar character especially gather around 
 them matter of this kind. Here it is the business of the critic 
 to exercise discernment and reasoning on the facts which research 
 has in each case brought forward, in order to discriminate the 
 incrustation from the original substance, and the germ amidst 
 the motley growth that overlies it. 
 
 Corruption may also be the work of wilful tamperings; and 
 what is possible must not be left out of sight by the critic. 
 Whether such a process has been perpetrated on the text of the 
 New Testament, so as to leave still existing traces, 1s a question 
 that must not be passed over without notice. Charges of falsifi- 
 cation have been boldly launched by ecclesiastical writers; but, 
 when unattended with specification of particulars in evidence, 
 they must be allowed to have no more weight than is due to 
 polemical criminations in general; and such particulars as have 
 been actually advanced, will on due examination be found to 
 leave at the most but a slender ground for the belief, that much 
 mischief was effected in that way. Besides, a disposition to 
 falsify, wherever it might exist, would hardly be able to free 
 itself from the restraining consciousness, that the attempt would 
 be a bootless one. The idea, therefore, of falsification can only 
 be admitted into the realm of criticism under check of such 
 considerations as these. Least of all should a ready recourse 
 be had to wilful suppression to account for the absence of any 
 portion of text from important documents. ‘There is reason, 
 however, to admit the existence of meddlings of a less serious 
 kind, in the way of improvements in grammar and expression : 
 but among a group of rival readings there can in general be 
 no great difficulty in distinguishing that which bears the stamp 
 of such interference. It is also a fair supposition, that copyists 
 would make mischief by arbitrary and inconsiderate corrections 
 of imaginary mistakes, and of some, too, which were real. 
 
 Lastly, there is a particular form of corruption, to which other 
 
INTRODUCTION. Vii 
 
 ‘writings might be occasionally open, but to which the volume 
 of the New Testament, and more especially the Gospels, was 
 exposed in a manner peculiar to itself, namely, the process by 
 which passages originally possessing some resemblance in matter 
 and language would be brought into a still closer agreement, 
 and which may be properly styled assimilation. By this term, 
 however, it is not intended to imply of necessity an immediate 
 interference with the text, with the direct purpose of producing 
 a closer conformity than originally existed. In undoubted cases 
 there are circumstances to be observed scarcely compatible with 
 a deliberate operation of that kind; while, on the other hand, 
 appearances in general may be accounted for on the supposition, 
 that the matter which, when introduced into the text, had an 
 assimilative effect, was, in the first instance, simply marginal 
 or interlinear. 
 
 The work to which the critic of the New Testament is called, 
 must consist to a considerable extent in disentangling the text 
 from intrusive and usurping matter, having its origin in the 
 margin ; in detaching accretions, and replacing whatever may 
 have been dislodged by a spurious rival: and with this view one 
 leading principle must be especially noticed. 
 
 Corruption of this particular kind must be the work of time, 
 because the growth of such matter itself would be gradual, and 
 its sliding into the text by the agency of reckless, ill-taught, and 
 foolish hands, and through the general propensity of copyists for 
 amplification, would be likewise gradual: the evil, too, unchecked 
 in its earlier stages by due watchfulness or control, would go on 
 spreading with the advance of time. It follows of necessity from 
 this, that the more ancient documents will in general exhibit 
 a greater approach to purity in this particular respect than those 
 of later date, and, as a practical consequence, that the adverse 
 testimony of but a few witnesses of high antiquity, in the case 
 
vill INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of matter of questioned genuineness, must receive the first and 
 foremost regard, even though it were certain that their text was 
 unsound in certain other respects, as, for instance, in the touches 
 of critical hands. Fewness must not discourage a reliance on 
 their testimony, because, if an intrusion took place at a particular 
 point at a remote date—and there is sufficient proof that such 
 mischief was very early at work—such a numerical disparity 
 is precisely the state of things to be encountered in the body 
 of surviving documents, where the really ancient must, from 
 the very nature of things, form but a small minority, and even of 
 these all cannot be expected to have escaped intrusive influence. 
 
 This canon, as it may be called, does not rest on an unreasoning 
 prepossession in favour of antiquity, but is a logical consequence 
 from unquestionable premises. 
 
 Since in citing the MSS. which exhibit a certain reading, a 
 great preponderance of mere numbers is imposing in appearance, 
 and may seem to be a circumstance that cannot lightly be set 
 aside or countervailed by other considerations, it will be well 
 to state fairly and precisely how much may be concluded from 
 the circumstance. 
 
 Out of the entire body of existing copies, as has already been 
 remarked, those of high antiquity form a very small portion; 
 and, accordingly, any great majority of the whole must be almost 
 entirely composed of those of later date. Whenever, therefore, 
 a particular reading is supported by a greatly preponderating — 
 part of the mass in contrast with a group of distinctively ancient 
 copies, all that can be at once concluded from this bare fact is, 
 that the reading in question had a settled currency in later times. 
 This narrow conclusion is all that in such a case can be taken 
 into account from MSS. alone in a discussion of the claims of 
 a reading; without any prejudice, however, to arguments for 
 antiquity and genuineness which may be derivable from other 
 quarters notwithstanding. 
 
INTRODUCTION. ΙΧ 
 
 In one particular way mere numbers would be important 
 evidence of genuineness, namely, in case there were something 
 in the character of the reading itself adverse to its acceptance 
 in the presence of rivals, and, therefore, to that currency which 
 those numbers indicate. 
 
 Mere numerical considerations do not therefore possess that 
 prime importance which they might at first sight seem to claim, 
 and which they have too frequently been allowed to exercise. 
 
 Instead of proceeding to detail in this place other guiding 
 principles, they will be severally stated as cases occur in discus- 
 sion where they will respectively require to be applied. 
 
 That the mass of MSS, appears to fall into certain divisions, 
 grouped by features of resemblance exhibited by their text, has 
 been remarked by independent observers, who at the same time 
 differed in their views of the precise number and character of 
 the groups. Such division cannot therefore be viewed as purely 
 a thing of fancy. Indeed, some such result must be regarded 
 as almost inevitable from the very nature of things. Particular 
 readings being established in the text, by whatever means, in 
 a certain quarter would there maintain a widening currency with 
 little or no interference from tendencies of the same kind else- 
 where ; and thus there would spring up distinct streams of text, 
 as they may be termed, which would not be obliterated even 
 by a partial commixture in after time. Thus much may well 
 be admitted, but not allowed: to stand as a reality so palpable 
 and well-defined as to furnish the groundwork for a formal 
 scheme of critical operation. 
 
 One circumstance, however, of this class may be ascertained 
 with tolerable distinctness. A certain portion of MSS. exhibit 
 peculiar forms of words which marked the dialect of Alexandria. 
 These forms are a suflicient indication that the text belongs 
 to that quarter. For, if the writers of the New Testament 
 
x INTRODUCTION. 
 
 themselves used them, their elimination from copies is the work 
 of transcribers, and would take place wherever the current form 
 of the language did not acknowledge them: they would there- 
 fore, be retained only in the quarter where such influence did 
 not exist. If, on the contrary, they were not originally in the 
 text, their presence is the work, in the first instance at least, 
 of an Egyptian copyist. This last must not be identified with 
 an Alexandrian critic; and it should be remembered that the 
 same document may exhibit readings derived from the improve- 
 ments of a learned man, and also the vulgarisms and peculiarities 
 of a scribe. 
 
 In a review of authorities special regard will reasonably be 
 paid to antiquity: but this must not be overstrained into a 
 summary neglect of more recent witnesses, as necessarily offering 
 nothing worthy of notice. 
 
 The critic should not suffer himself to be encumbered by 
 prepossessions or assumptions, nor bind himself to the routine 
 of a mechanical method of procedure. If he allows himself to 
 be thus warped and trammelled, instead of ever maintaining the 
 free employment of a watchful, calm, and unfettered mind, he 
 abandons his duty and mars his work. 
 
MATTHEW. 
 
 1, 
 Ἂς 
 
 lV. 
 
 25 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES. 
 
 PAGE PAGE PAGE 
 MARK. JOHN. 
 
 1 mt 10 4A, ‘Vil. & 79 
 3 26 . 44, 52 80 
 4 32 45 vii 865 81 
 6 xiii. 14, . 46 vill. 16 83 
 ΟΝ xiv, 24 47 38 89 
 8 ὉΠ ΖΝ. . 47 59 . 85 
 10 (0 48 ie 38 85 
 ΤῈ ΣΡ Zoli « . 49 v4 . 86 
 . 13 xvi, 9-20 49 ΧΙ ἢ 80 
 14 xii, 24 ἜΤΙ 
 . 1 | LUKE. xvi. 16 88 
 16 iv. ee 54, xvii, 11, 12 . 89 
 Pile Vv See ie 15 21 91 
 
 17 vi ἀν 56 
 
 . 18 207s 57 | ACTS 
 
 19 xi 2-4, 58 i. 25. 92 
 22 ΒΟ: 60 il. a0". 93 
 23 Vaio! A 61 ili. 20. 93 
 26 xview 9 62 iv. 97 94, 
 27 25 63 vi. 8. 95 
 . 28 xvi. 9 . 64 vil. By hee 96 
 28 ΘΟ θά viii. 10. 96 
 . oO xxii. 43, 44 . 65 37 97 
 31 G42 67 1K 5, 6 98 
 aR Xxili, 34 68 x; 6 . 99 
 33 χεῖν 1 69 19 100 
 12 70 “i. 12»: 101 
 51 71 20 102 
 35 ΧΗ. 18. 103 
 36 | JOHN. 19, 20 104 
 97 re ΤΟ ΤΣ Σ SB 2 SEOs 
 39 ΒΡ) 75 XV. 17:18. -- 106 
 15 28 , 74 DA τ eh Oy 
 39 ili. 25 75 33 107 
 . 40 Υ͂ 3, 4 . 76 84. 108 
 41 16 78 xvi γι 108 
 
Xil 
 PAGE 
 ACTS. 
 xvill. 17 109 
 21. 110 
 XX, 28 111 
 ΧΕΙ, see 112 
 25 113 
 XXil. 9. 114 
 ΣΧ ὃ 114 
 xxiv; 6-8 . 115 
 ye 2 116 
 xxvu. 14. 116 
 xxvii. 29 117 
 ROMANS. 
 hin εν. 5 lite) 
 ili. 28 120 
 ἵν. aL . 120 
 Vv. 1 121 
 Va." 12). . 123 
 vu. 6 124, 
 14. . 125 
 Vill. = 1 126 
 iL 3 . 127 
 xe = 6 128 
 x 11. . 129 
 xiv. 6 130 
 1 CORINTHIANS. 
 i. ἢ ἢ. 5131 
 ΠΡ 131 
 Vv. 1 ΘΕ 
 vi. 20.3 5 BY 
 vi. 3 . 132 
 5 eles 
 ix. 10 . 134 
 20 , ss 
 x, ΤΙ > 50 
 28 136 
 xi. 24 . 137 
 29 138 
 Kills 9 . 139 
 xv. 49 140 
 51 . 141 
 2 CORINTHIANS. 
 1) 20 143 
 tee ἢ 144, 
 ἘΠ 1 144. 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES. 
 
 ive a: 
 14. 
 in, wll 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 ΤΠ Oina pe ee 
 Wee 
 vis 12> 
 
 PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 ii. 16 
 
 COLOSSIANS. 
 ieee 3 : 
 14. 
 
 τ ΠΟῪΣ 
 18. 
 
 1 THESS. 
 ΠΡΟΣ 
 
 1 TIMOTHY. 
 i 4 
 
 2 TIMOTHY. 
 
 ἵν {1 
 
 PHILEMON. 
 ‘(ee 
 
 HEBREWS. 
 Tee | Fy : 
 vii. 16. 
 
 bey Ih 
 xe, Buh 
 mag 8} 
 
 GALATIANS. 
 111. Δ gore ae 
 
 PAGE 
 
 151 
 
 . 152 
 152 
 
 153 
 
 154, 
 
 . 155 
 
 165 
 
 167 
 
 PAGE 
 HEBREWS. 
 mt 18, . » ΞΡ 
 A woh. 7.) alos 
 JAMES. 
 i. 19 . 168 
 1 05 169 
 18 . 169 
 rib, 5 170 
 IDA Ἐπ νη 
 iv. 12. 171 
 1 PETER. 
 1. Hoag 2) ce 
 iz 2 ee wal 
 1 38) =) eee eli 
 bie eset ΕΠ 
 Deere elo 
 Ole - (ai ae lio 
 ἵν. ἢ ee Ln ὙΠ 
 2 PETER. 
 Ὁ, Ὁ - eeluiy 
 Ms. Dh gs ee co ee οἱ 5 
 19: eee anes 
 180 ΤΣ 
 ἜΝ Ἢ 180 
 1 JOHN. 
 11. (Sok ρῶν - ὦ. 151 
 θη. eel: 
 ive 3° 3 pe τ ΟΣ 
 ν- Smee ol Oe 
 ἸΘ care 20 eG 
 JUDE. 
 A re UST 
 19: greene mages 
 οι εν οἰ 97 
 OAT tes, 
 REVELATION. 
 Ἢ: | Vol poees LILES) 
 x: χων, 00) 
 Ryle δ a SLO 
 SK Ay τὰς oe OIE 
 
DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ON THE 
 
 TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 MATTHEW I. 25. 
 
 σ eo \ eX ; κ Ἂν / 
 ως ov ετεκε τὸν υἱὸν αὑτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον. 
 
 * Till she had brought forth [her firstborn son Υ a son]. 
 
 THE variation which will demand notice in this place, gives occa- 
 sion, at the outset, to certain general observations, preliminary 
 to the consideration not only of the present instance but of many 
 others of like complexion. 
 
 It is clear, from the nature of the case, that the intrusion of 
 glossarial matter into the text must be a gradual process, and, 
 as such, favoured by lapse of time. From this it follows, as 
 a general principle, that documents of a later age would be more 
 extensively infected with such corruption, and that the cireum- 
 stances of the more ancient are favourable to their purity in this 
 particular respect. Accordingly, a shorter reading, especially if 
 it be of a kind to call forth glosses, provided it is supported by 
 a few authorities of high antiquity, has at once a strong presump- 
 tion in its favour: though before such presumption is accepted, it 
 should be ascertained that there is no reason either in the outward 
 
 * Tn order to furnish the ordinary reader of the English Bible with some 
 information of the matters with which the criticism of the original text is 
 concerned, the Authorised Version of each passage is added, having those 
 portions, the entire omission of which is the point in question, simply 
 included in brackets; but when the discussion relates to the claims of a 
 rival reading, a rendering of that reading is inserted within the brackets, 
 preceded bythe mark X, 
 
 2 
 
2 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 shape of the passage for referring the briefer form to accidental 
 curtailment in transcription, or in its purport for suspecting wilful 
 suppression. 
 
 In the present place, instead of the common reading, a shorter 
 one, ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν, is exhibited by B, Z, and supported by the 
 Syriac (N), by the Old Latin in a, ὃ, 6, g', as well as the Coptic 
 and Sahidic versions. Another of the same class of Latin docu- 
 ments (45) adds unigenitum. The remaining mass of authorities 
 have the common form, except that D sec. man. and L omit αὐτῆς. 
 
 If the text stood originally as it is presented by the few authori- 
 ties just cited, the bare statement furnished by the words ἕως οὕ 
 ἔτεκεν υἱόν would leave a blank respecting the subsequent con- 
 dition of the mother of Jesus, which thought or fancy would not 
 fail to occupy. Another evangelist, indeed, undoubtedly supplies 
 Tov πρωτότοκον (Lu. 11. 7); but this term, though it might be 
 regarded as looking towards a certain conclusion, that Mary was 
 the mother of other children, still does not absolutely imply so 
 much and bar the exercise of opinion. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the simpler reading, if original, 
 could hardly escape the application of supplementary glosses, 
 perhaps of opposite tendencies; and, since it is supported by clear 
 testimony, the fuller form must fall under the suspicion of having 
 its origin in the accretion of such matter, especially if, as in the 
 present case, this is at once supplied by a parallel passage. 
 
 To append in the margin τὸν πρωτότοκον from the other Gospel 
 would be a simple proceeding, but having a ready issue in the 
 amplification of the text itself. The Latin addition unigenitum, 
 already noticed, is the bolder expression of an opinion, widely 
 held and stoutly maintained, as may be seen in the comment 
 of Chrysostom. 
 
 When these considerations are taken into account, it is unrea- 
 sonable to acquiesce confidently in the common reading: and, 
 notwithstanding the great preponderance in the amount of the 
 opposing documentary evidence, the few, but ancient, Greek, 
 Syriac, Latin, and other witnesses for the shorter form press 
 strongly for the conclusion, that the longer reading is the result 
 of assimilation, and that the original shape of the clause was 
 simply ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 3 
 
 MATTHEW V. 11. 
 
 , 5 “ > / eG - ’ 
 Makapioi ἐστε, ὅταν ὀνειδίσωσιν ὑμᾶς καὶ διώ- 
 J a \ en c la 
 ξωσι, Kal εἴπωσι πᾶν πονηρὸν ῥῆμα καθ᾽ ὑμῶν 
 / oa > an 
 ψευδόμενοι ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ. 
 
 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute 
 you, and shall say all manner of evil against you | falsely, | 
 for my sake. 
 
 The word ψευδόμενοι is wanting in D, and in 3, ¢, d, g', h, k 
 of the Old Latin, Origen, Tertullian, Hilary, etc. 
 
 The term is altogether a redundance as regards the sense; for 
 reproach directed against true servants of Christ in enmity to 
 their Master, which is the case supposed, cannot rest in truth, and 
 thus the declaration here made need not be guarded bya formal 
 hypothesis of falsehood in the charges alleged; which is done 
 by the introduction of the word in question. 
 
 If the combination of this consideration with the direct adverse 
 evidence, already cited, serves to indicate spuriousness, it is an 
 instance of the effects of an ill-directed officiousness, engaged in 
 stocking the margin with superfluous expressions of such ideas 
 as were left by the original text to simple implication and sugges- 
 tion, and thus furnishing the first step to an eventual encumbrance 
 of the text itself with feeble and impertinent accretions.* 
 
 A less important variation, though of a similar complexion, 
 is the omission of ῥῆμα by B, D, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Coptic, 
 ZEthiopic, etc. 
 
 * An indisposition, which is often manifested, to admit the reality of this 
 final stage, in the actual accretion of marginal matter—a disposition to 
 regard omission and curtailment as more likely than amplification—is best 
 confronted by opinions of high authorities, such as the following: ‘‘ Perhaps 
 you think it an affected and absurd idea that a marginal note can ever 
 creep into the text: yet I hope you are not so ignorant as not to know that 
 this has actually happened, not merely in hundreds or thousands, but in 
 millions of places. Natura, says Daille, ita comparatum est, ut auctorum 
 probatorum libros plerique omnes amplos quam breves malint; verentes 
 scilicet, ne quid sibi desit, quod auctoris vel sit vel esse dicatur. To the 
 
1 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 MATTHEW V. 22. 
 
 ITas ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ εἰκῇ ἔνοχος 
 ἔσται τῇ κρίσει. 
 
 Whosoever is angry with his brother [without a cause, | shall 
 be in danger of the judgment. 
 
 Doubt is thrown on the genuineness of ei«—a term which 
 might seem materially to affect the sense of the passage—by its 
 absence from B, 48, 198, and by the intimations of suspicion in 
 A and several others. Jerome describes the evidence of copies in 
 his time as strongly adverse to its genuineness, and his decision 
 is given accordingly: and hence its absence from the Vulgate, 
 as seen both in its current text and the best MSS. It is also 
 wanting in the Ethiopic. A, C, and Zare defective in this place. 
 
 The grounds for rejecting εἰκῆ as furnished by existing docu- 
 ments are numerically slight: but the testimony of Jerome, whose 
 information respecting contemporary evidence could not be other- 
 wise than correct, most materially alters the state of the case. 
 The clear statement of an ancient writer respecting the reading 
 of authorities which in his day were themselves styled ancient, 
 claims the first consideration: and it is to be regretted that there 
 are but few instances where evidence so peculiar can be cited. 
 
 The term in question certainly wears the appearance of an 
 officious stepping in, by a marginal suggestion at least, to the 
 rescue of Scripture from a seemingly harsh and startling declara- 
 tion; one, however, which will bear a different aspect, when the 
 passage is rightly interpreted without the presence of the disputed 
 word. 
 
 same purpose Bengelius, Non facile pro superfluo aliquid hodie habent 
 complures docti viri (he might have added, omnesque indocti), eademque 
 mente plerique quondam librarii fuere. From this known propensity of 
 transcribers to turn everything into text which they found written on the 
 margin of their MSS. or between the lines, so many interpolations have 
 proceeded, that at present the surest canon of criticism is, Praeferatur 
 lectio brevior.”—Porson to Travis, Letter VI. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. δ 
 
 Judicial responsibility for homicide, as to whether each par- 
 ticular act is justifiable or not, is the utmost that is signified by 
 the words, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει, in the preceding verse; this 
 being a limiting provision added to the summary command of the 
 decalogue, od φονεύσεις. The appended teaching of Jesus, as 
 expressed without the presence of εἰκῆ, is simply an extension of 
 this enactment to the act of anger, making it too a matter of 
 similar responsibility —of solemn inquisition whether, in each 
 case, it has arisen from sufficient cause and has not exceeded 
 due bounds. : 
 
 This simple view of the passage does not require the aid of 
 any saving term, like εἰκῆ. The assignment of an exaggerated 
 meaning, however, would be natural enough, and would then 
 lead to a looking for relief in this particular way. 
 
 On the other hand, if εἰκῆ be viewed as an original portion of 
 the text, no motive can be assigned for a desire to be rid of it, nor 
 any mechanical cause, specially attaching to it, for an accidental 
 omission. 
 
 These considerations, combined with the adverse external evi- 
 dence, at least forbid any reasonable confidence in the genuineness 
 of the word. If it be condemned as spurious, the case is interest- 
 ing, as being an instance of corruption having its source in a gloss 
 called forth not by ordinary causes but by misinterpretation. 
 
 It is also, as has been already observed, one of the few instances 
 where positive patristic testimony introduces the modern critic 
 to a state of documentary evidence very different from that of his 
 own day. 
 
6 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 MATTHEW V. 44. 
 
 “Ayanare τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν, εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς 
 καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοὺς μισοῦντας 
 ὑμᾶς, καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων 
 ὑμᾶς καὶ διωκόντων ὑμᾶς. 
 
 ._Love your enemies, [bless them that curse you,| [do good 
 to them that hate you,| and pray for them which | despite- 
 fully use you, and] persecute you. 
 
 The three clauses, evAoy.— tps, καλῶς ---ὑμᾶς, ἐπηρ.---καὶ, 
 are wanting in B, 1, 11, etc, in the Syriac (N), and the Coptic; 
 the first in the Vulgate and most copies of the Old Latin; the ᾿ 
 second and third in ἃ; the third in the AXthiopic ; and all appear 
 to have been unknown to various Greek and Latin Fathers. 
 
 This is one of the instances where, as regards existing Greek 
 MSS., the evidence is numerically slender on one side, while there 
 is, at the same time, sufficient indication that a form of the text 
 which is thus slenderly supported at present, was, at least, widely 
 current in remote times. Whenever there is assurance that such 
 a discovery is fairly made, reason requires that it should be 
 allowed to have all the force that is due to testimony which is 
 really ancient. 
 
 It only remains to observe, that the entire matter of these dis- 
 puted clauses is found in exact terms in the parallel place (Luke 
 vi. 27, 28); and hence arises a suspicion of assimilative influence, 
 which combines in great force with the direct adverse evidence. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 7 
 
 MATTHEW V. 46, 47. 
 
 ᾿Εὰν yap ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, 
 τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ τελῶναι τὸ αὐτὸ 
 ποιοῦσι; καὶ ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑ ὑμῶν 
 μόνον, τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ τελῶναι 
 οὕτω ποιοῦσι; 
 
 For of ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? 
 do not even the | publicans y heathen] the same? And if ye 
 salute your [brethren y friends | only, what do ye more than 
 others ? do not even the [ publicans χ heathen] so? 
 
 In either place, instead of τελῶναι different copies have ἐθνικοί. 
 This circumstance combined with the remark, that either term is 
 too simple and precise to call forth glossarial illustration, so that 
 one might be the offspring of the other, at once gives ground for 
 a presumption, that the latter word was originally found in one 
 of the two clauses, and that its place was unsettled by the careless- 
 ness of transcribers. 
 
 In the first, ἐθνικοί is very slightly supported, but in the second 
 by B, D, Z, and several others, by the Old Latin, the Vulgate, 
 the Coptic, the Athiopic, etc. It is clear also that Chrysostom 
 read thus, from a cited passage having a direct bearing on the 
 term (1 Th. iv. 5). 
 
 If it be said that ἐθνικοί is the work of some one who disliked 
 the bare repetition of the same clause, it is enough to observe 
 that, before such suggestions are allowed to have weight, more 
 evidence is needed than is at present possessed either of the exist- 
 ence of fastidious correctors of the text itself, or of a taste for 
 elegant variety of expression on the part of those who employed 
 themselves in the margin. 
 
 The reading should be ἐθνικοί in the second Mere. 
 
 These remarks upon the readings τελῶναι and ἐθνικοί apply 
 exactly to the circumstances of another pair in the passage, οὕτω 
 and τὸ αὐτό, except that the determination of their respective 
 
8 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 places is not so clear as in the other case. In the first, οὕτως is 
 given by D, Z, 33, etc., supported by h, h, etc.; in the second, τὸ 
 αὐτό by B, D, M, U, Z, and many others, besides several versions. 
 
 The variation φίλους for ἀδελφούς is well supported by E, K, 
 L, M, 5, U, 4, f, h, etc., but has strongly the appearance of an 
 interpretative comment, indicating the wide meaning rightly to 
 be attached to the literally limited term ἀδελφούς. This latter 
 too is the reading of B, D, etc., the Syriac, Coptic, AXthiopic, 
 Vulgate, and most copies of the Old Latin. 
 
 The passage then should in all probability stand thus: ’Eav 
 κ. τ. 2.3 οὐχὶ Kal οἱ τελῶναι οὕτω ποιοῦσι; Kal ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε 
 τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν μόνον, τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ 
 τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσι; 
 
 MATTHEW VI. 1. 
 
 ΄ \ > / « “ Ν vad + 
 ITpooexere τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην ὑμῶν μὴ ποιεῖν εμ- 
 a / 
 προσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 
 
 Take heed that ye do not your {alms χ righteousness | before 
 
 men. 
 
 In this place, instead of ἐλεημοσύνην, δικαιοσύνην is exhibited 
 by B, D, and a few others, and is further supported by the Old 
 Latin in most of its copies, by the Vulgate, by a special comment 
 of Jerome, and several other patristic authorities. 
 
 It may be observed, in the first place, that it can scarcely 
 be imagined that this variation has arisen from the accidents 
 of transcription, and accordingly it may be safely assumed that 
 one reading is the artificial issue of the other. 
 
 It may also be remarked, as a general principle, that if a case 
 be conceived in which each of two rival readings is equally likely 
 to be the glossarial offspring of the other, in such a case the 
 reading which might happen to be found in only a few copies 
 of the highest antiquity ought to be preferred, because the usurpa- 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 9 
 
 tion of glosses is favoured, and their occupation extended and 
 strengthened by mere lapse of time. 
 
 If, however, it shall appear in the present instance, that the 
 two readings are not thus equally matched in themselves, but that 
 one may reasonably be regarded as the germ-reading, and is at 
 the same time upheld by ancient evidence, this must receive 
 a decided preference a fortior?. 
 
 Now, on the supposition of ἐλ. being the original reading, 
 there is nothing to provoke a gloss at all; and such a gloss as 
 dix. would exhibit the preposterous process of illustrating a term 
 which would be to every reader perfectly ordinary and intelligible, 
 by means of a peculiar usage of Hebrew or Aramaean origin. 
 On the other hand, dcx. in the text would at once present a pecu- 
 liarity to a Greek reader, for which an explanatory comment 
 would be readily supplied by the succeeding context, as also by 
 the LXX. (Gen. xxi. 23; Ps. cxi. 8; Is. lxiii. 7), and the New 
 Testament itself (2 Cor. ix. 9,10). Reason accordingly requires 
 that 6c«. should be regarded as the true reading and ἐλ. the 
 usurping gloss. 
 
 The common text is here supported by the great mass of MSS., 
 but A and C are defective in this place. The evidence of the 
 Syriac is indecisive, since it would give the same rendering (lo), 
 |Ao») for either Greek word. 
 
 This instance, though altogether unimportant as regards the 
 meaning of the passage, is in another respect most instructive, 
 “because it presents a scanty amount of testimony but including 
 ancient witnesses, combining with strong internal reasons to ask 
 the judgment of an unbiassed and unfettered criticism 1 Senin 
 array of numbers. 
 
10 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 MATTHEW VI. 4, 6, 18. 
 
 Rs IS I e / > “ “ awn 
 Kai ὁ πατὴρ σου ὃ βλέπων ev τῷ κρυπτῷ αὑτὸς 
 / > o a 
 ἀποδώσει σοι ἐν τῷ φανερῷ. 
 
 And thy Father, which seeth in secret, [himself | shall 
 reward thee | openly |. 
 
 In the common text the form of this clause is the same in the 
 three places, except that the first alone has αὐτός. The question 
 which arises on them, relates to the genuineness of the words 
 ἐν τῷ φανερῷ. 
 
 In the last place they are omitted in B, D, α, K, L, M, 5, U, 
 and a considerable number of others, and in many versions; on 
 which grounds they may safely be condemned, though supported 
 by the Old Latin in a, ὦ, e, ete. 
 
 In the first place the words are wanting in B, D, Z, 1, 22, 209, 
 etc., the Vulgate, the Old Latin in ff, , the Coptic, ete. 
 
 In the second, the authorities to the same effect nearly recur, 
 with the addition of the Sahidic, ete. In all three they are 
 wanting in the Syriac (N). 
 
 These, though not imposing in number, are serious by their 
 weight, and their adverse testimony conspires with the appearance 
 which the words in question undoubtedly wear, of a marginal 
 supplement presenting to the eye what the mind would naturally 
 append in antithesis to the words ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ, as giving a 
 completeness of point to the sentence. 
 
 A similar origin may reasonably be assigned to αὐτός, which 
 is wanting in B, K, L, U, Z, οἷο, and is unsupported by the 
 majority of the versions, as well as by Chrysostom and others. 
 
 In the third place, instead of an exact verbal repetition of the 
 clause, B, D, 1, 22 have ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ, in which variation of 
 term there may be recognised a correspondence to a change of 
 circumstance. In the two preceding instances, the case described 
 is that of an act in itself palpable—almsgiving or prayer-uttering— 
 simply screened from the gaze of others, that is, τὸ κρυπτόν: 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 11 
 
 in the present, the act—fasting—being not discernible, and a 
 disguise being supposed to be thrown over appearances which 
 might betoken it, the matter is more intimately covert, and, as 
 such, may be well termed τὸ κρυφαῖον or κρύφιον. 
 
 MATTHEW VI. 13. 
 
 7 σι. 9 N e , ee € / ΝΕ )8 
 Ort σοῦ ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις Kal ἡ 
 / Ss a / 
 δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας: ἀμήν. 
 
 [For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for 
 ever. Amen]. 
 
 The question here to be considered relates to the genuineness 
 of a passage omitted by a few authorities, including some of 
 ancient date, but acknowledged by the remaining mass. 
 
 The clause is omitted in B, D, Z, 1, 17, 118, 130, 209, the 
 Vulgate, the Old Latin in most copies, the Coptic, and by various 
 Greek and Latin Fathers, especially the critics Origen and Jerome. 
 Several MSS. which contain the clause, have also a scholium 
 mentioning its absence from other copies. <A, Ὁ, F, H are here 
 defective. | 
 
 There are peculiar circumstances affecting the Lord’s prayer, 
 as given in this Gospel, which attach in an equal degree to no 
 other portion of the New Testament. By its mode of introduc- 
 tion— the injunction which ushers it in—precise attention would 
 at once be especially drawn to it, and exact recollection secured 
 for it, as a model summary of prayer. More than this, it soon 
 began not merely to be regarded as a type, but used as a form. 
 Under these circumstances, probabilities are opposed even to the 
 accidental omission of a clause in transcription; and if an instance 
 occurred, there would be immediate detection, and an instant 
 check to a multiplication of the error. And yet, if the clause be 
 genuine, such an error has from the first possessed the entire Latin 
 
 Church, which has never acknowledged the doxology. 
 
12 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 An early and widely spread use of so brief a form, especially its 
 liturgical employment, must be regarded as a safeguard against a 
 suppression, in any degree or manner, of any constituent portion. 
 
 But liturgical influence, though thus in a manner conservative, 
 might also have a mischievous tendency in a different direction. 
 If the prayer did not originally conclude with a doxological 
 clause, such an appendage would be naturally attached to it in 
 practice; not put forward as an original portion of it, but as 
 adding a feature which would place it in better keeping with the 
 formularies into which it was introduced. From the service-book 
 the clause would soon find its way into the Lectionary, and after- 
 wards into the margin and text of continually multiplying copies. 
 
 It appears then that, from the peculiar circumstances of the 
 case, there is an especial difficulty in reconciling the genuineness of 
 the clause with its omission in a few ancient documents, versions, 
 and Fathers; while the same circumstances suggest a ready mode 
 of accounting for its presence elsewhere. ‘This latter array, there- 
 fore, though imposing in appearance, ought not to be allowed 
 in this instance to countervail the former, and an acknowledge- 
 ment of genuineness cannot be reasonably demanded. 
 
 It may be further remarked that, had the simple and distinct 
 doxological clause, now found in the common text, existed from 
 the first, it would have been as secure from fluctuation of form 
 as the other clauses of the prayer: and, accordingly, the strange 
 variety which is observable on comparing the doxologies exhibited 
 in the Syriac (N), which has nothing corresponding to καὶ ἡ 
 δύναμις, in one copy (A) of the Old Latin, and in various patristic 
 passages, is an evidence that the original text of St. Matthew was 
 not their source, but that they are merely the shifting shapes 
 of an artificial appendage. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 13 
 
 -. 
 
 MATTHEW VII. 14. 
 
 "Ort στενὴ ἡ πύλη, K. τ. λ. 
 
 [| Because χ How] strait is the gate, etc. 
 
 Instead of ὅτι, τί is found in B sec. man., C, E, G, K, L, M, 5, 
 U, V, 4, and very many others, and is supported by the Syriac, 
 the Old Latin in most copies, the Vulgate, the AXthiopic, and 
 other versions, by several Greek commentators, as also by Jerome 
 and other writers. The common reading is found in B, X, with 
 many of inferior note, in f, ff of the Old Latin, and some copies 
 of the Vulgate, in the Coptic, the Armenian, etc. Thus the 
 amount of external evidence 15 in favour of τί. ᾿ 
 
 The case, however, admits of two remarks of some importance. 
 
 First, on account of the σ᾽ immediately preceding, the o in ὅτι 
 might easily be lost by oversight in the transcription of uncial, 
 and therefore earlier, MSS. An accidental origination of τί from 
 ὅτι is thus readily admissible. 
 
 Again, the whole of this discourse is pervaded by Hebraic 
 parallelism, and in some parts exhibits its strictest form ; and it 
 must be at once felt, that an abrupt interrogation, like τί, without 
 another in parallel, breaks strangely upon the flow of the strain 
 (vs. 13, 14). This, however, is a point on which copyists and 
 Greek and Latin commentators would not be sensitive, and thus 
 would accept without question the reading τί, if it came in their 
 way by accidental corruption. 
 
 The common reading ὅτι may well be retained. 
 
14 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 MATTHEW VIII. 31. 
 
 ᾿Επίτρεψον ἡμῖν ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ἀγέλην τῶν χοίρων. 
 [ Suffer us to σοὺ Send us| away into the herd of swine. 
 
 Here certain authorities have ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς instead of érri- 
 τρεψον ἡμῖν ἀπελθεῖν. 
 
 It is at once evident that this variation cannot be traced to 
 a purely accidental origin; but each reading shows a slight but 
 distinct modification of the strict meaning of the other. 
 
 In such a case as the present attention should in the first place 
 be directed to the parallel passages, which stand thus: πέμψον 
 ἡμᾶς εἰς τοὺς χοίρους, ἵνα εἰς αὐτοὺς εἰσέλθωμεν. Kal ἐπέτρεψεν 
 αὐτοῖς (Mark v. 12, 13), and, παρεκάλεσαν αὐτὸν ἵνα ἐπιτρέψῃ 
 αὐτοῖς" εἰς ἐκείνους εἰσελθεῖν. καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτοῖς (Luke viii. 32). 
 
 Now on these it may at once be remarked, that they do not 
 suggest any origination of the particular expression ἀπόστειλον 
 ἡμᾶς as an intrusive reading, because assimilation would have 
 imported from the parallel clause in St. Mark the precise term 
 which is there employed, namely, πέμψον: but, on the other 
 hand, a modifying gloss upon ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς in the shape 
 of ἐπίτ. ἡ. arr. is readily furnished from both places. — 
 
 Evidence of a disposition to interfere, at least by glossarial 
 hints, with the strict language of these passages, and in the direc- 
 tion of a less positive form of expression in the petition addressed 
 to Jesus, is found in the readings of D, which, in the former 
 place, for wéuapov ... ἀπέλθωμεν has simply ἀπέλθωμεν, and, in 
 the latter, for a... εἰσελθεῖν has the more vague expression 
 iva εἰς τοὺς χοίρους εἰσέλθωσιν. In the place under consideration 
 D is defective. 
 
 These considerations are in favour of the reading ἀπόστειλον 
 ἡμᾶς, and must be allowed to add their weight to the direct evi- 
 dence by which it is supported, namely B and some others, the Old 
 Latin, with the exception of f, h, the Vulgate, Coptic, Aithiopic, 
 ete. A and Z are defective. D would probably have supplied 
 
 a reading of the same complexion as in the parallel passages. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 15 
 
 MATTHEW IX. 13. 
 
 Ov yap ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλ᾽ ἁμαρτωλοὺς 
 εἰς μετανοιαν. 
 
 MARK II. 17. 
 
 3 A ε A 
 Οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς 
 t 
 μετανοιαν. 
 
 Tam not come to call the righteous, but sinners [to repentance]. 
 
 LUKE V. 32. 
 
 > ᾽ὔ Ν e A 
 Οὐκ ἐλήλυθα καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς 
 , 
 εἰς μετανοιαν. 
 
 Had the state of evidence been decidedly adverse to the genuine- 
 ness of the words εἰς μετάνοιαν in each of these places, they would 
 have reasonably been regarded as instances of a supplementary 
 gloss inevitably suggested by the clause to which they were 
 appended. 
 
 No suspicion, however, attaches to them in the third place. 
 In the second, they are omitted in A, B, D, K, L, and many 
 others, as well as by the principal versions. In the first, by B, D, 
 V, 4, εἴο., by both Syriac versions, the Aithiopic, Old Latin, 
 Vulgate, etc., and by Jerome and several other writers. From 
 both these places they must accordingly be discarded. 
 
 The case is of no great importance as regards the matter in 
 question, but it is in one sense worthy of note, as supplying 
 a very simple, but no less clear and instructive, instance of the 
 assimilative influence of the text of the several gospels on each 
 other. This again appears in the minor variations exhibited in 
 some copies, namely, the insertion of yap before ἦλθον in the 
 second passage, and the substitution of ἦλθον for ἐλήλυθα in the 
 third. 
 
16 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 MATTHEW IX. 36. 
 
 7 53 ᾿ 
 Ort ἦσαν ἐκλελυμένοι. 
 
 Because they { fainted χ were harassed |. 
 
 Instead of ἐκλελυμένοι, ἐσκυλμένοι is given by B, C, Ὁ, Τὸ, F, 
 G, K, S, and a multitude of others. The rendering of the Old 
 Latin and Vulgate, vexati, certainly represents it, as do probably 
 those of other versions. It is also the reading of Chrysostom and 
 other writers. This amount of evidence leaves no doubt that it 
 is the genuine reading. 
 
 The other may have arisen from accident in transcription, but 
 was more probably an interpretative gloss, conveying an approxi- 
 mate meaning of the rarer term by one more usual and elegant. 
 
 MATTHEW X. 8. 
 
 a / \ 
 ᾿Ασθενοῦντας θεραπεύετε, λεπροὺς καθαρίζετε, 
 A > / / 
 νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, δαιμόνια ἐκβάλλετε. 
 
 Heal the sich, cleanse the lepers, [ raise the dead,| cast out devils. 
 
 The important clause νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε is omitted by C der. man. 
 E, F, K, L, M, 5, U, V, and a considerable number besides, by 
 Ff of the Old Latin, the Sahidic, and other versions, Eusebius, 
 Athanasius, etc. 
 
 This array of adverse evidence is too great to be so far over- 
 borne by whatever can be cited on the opposite side, as to allow 
 of any confidence in the genuineness of the clause. It is found, 
 however, in B, C, D, P, 4, and some others, the Vulgate, the 
 Old Latin, and other versions and writers, and thus has the 
 advantage in the general antiquity of its documents. 
 
 Omission might have arisen by accidental oversight from the 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 17 
 
 similar ending of the words νεκρούς and λεπρούς. But it is more 
 important to remark, that B, C, D, and other of its authorities, 
 place it after θεραπεύετε; P, A, etc., after ἐκβάλλετε ; and the 
 Latin in the Codex Forojuliensis before ἀσθενοῦντας, and thus 
 together with the common text exhibit four different situations. 
 
 It is impossible to discard the impression, that this shifting of 
 place, wherever it occurs, betokens a marginal appendage slipped 
 into the text by different pens at different points, according to 
 chance or the fancy of the copyist. The clause in question would 
 be readily suggested by a passage presently occurring (ΧΙ. 5). 
 Instead of imagining a suppression prompted by an unwillingness 
 to regard the Apostles as depositaries of power so great, a dispo- 
 sition to invest them with it may be supposed with much more 
 reason. 
 
 MATTHEW XI. 2. 
 
 Πέμψας δύο τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ. 
 
 He sent [two of his disciples word by his αϊδοῖρ[68]. 
 
 Instead of δύο, διὰ is given by B, C, D, P, Z, 4, ete., supported 
 by either Syriac, the Armenian, and Gothic, as also in effect by 
 the Old Latin, which in a, ὦ, c, ἢ, f, k, has discipulos as a free 
 representative of dua μαθητῶν. The evidence for the common 
 reading consists of the great majority of authorities. 
 
 If the choice between the two is to be determined by the anti- 
 quity of the MSS. cited for each respectively, the preponderance 
 is as much in favour of διά, as mere number would be for δύο. 
 At the same time, the reading of the less ancient body of copies 
 is found to be itself possessed of high antiquity, as having been 
 quoted by Origen, and thus having acquired an established cur- 
 ΤΌΠΟΥ before his time. In this case, as elsewhere, the right to be’ 
 styled ancient is not solely possessed by the reading of the most 
 ancient existing copies. 
 
 3 
 
18 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 The remaining consideration, and perhaps the decisive one, is 
 this, that δύο is found in the parallel place (Luke vii. 19) without 
 any variation, and, in fact, where a variation is scarcely conceiv- 
 able; and the appending of this word, interlinear or marginal, 
 if διὰ μ. were original, would serve as a comment fixing the less 
 precise language of Matthew, and in this way would readily come 
 to be taken by copyists for a correction or a preferable various 
 reading. It is probable, therefore, that the presence of δύο in 
 this place, though of early date and wide currency, is due to 
 usurpation. 
 
 MATTHEW XVIII. 11. 
 
 3 \ eX A a Ν , 
 dev yap ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου σῶσαι TO ἀπολωλος. 
 
 [ For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. | 
 
 A question is raised respecting the genuineness of this entire 
 verse by its absence from B, L, 1, 13, 33, from e, ff, of the Old 
 Latin, the Coptic, Sahidic, Syriac Hieros., Origen, the Eusebian 
 Canons, Jerome, Juvenalis. Here A, C, Z, are defective. That 
 its place, however, in the text is of some antiquity at least, is seen 
 from its presence in the Syriac (N), and copies of the Old Latin. 
 
 Thus there is a fair conflict of evidence. It will therefore be 
 necessary to see whether other considerations claim a place in the 
 investigation. 
 
 If the disputed verse be put out of sight, there might seem an 
 abruptness in the introduction of the succeeding context, and, 
 at first, a want of connectedness between the preceding and suc- 
 ceeding matter. If the verse were originally wanting, such an 
 appearance would lead to the suggestion of a supplement, if such 
 could be found, which might furnish something towards an easier 
 transition, or at least serve as a suitable preliminary to matter 
 which wore an air of abruptness. This would certainly be the 
 effect of the clause in question ; and it might be said that it was 
 readily supplied from Luke xix. 10. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 19 
 
 But this way of accounting for its origin is at once open to the 
 objection, that, if it were so borrowed, it would have been taken 
 entire: for, though several MSS. do insert the words ζητῆσαι καὶ 
 in this place, yet the best and the greater number of those which 
 contain the verse, omit them. 
 
 The case is marked by some degree of perplexity. On the one 
 hand it is impossible to resist grave suspicion, arising from the 
 silence of a few ancient authorities; and on the other, there must 
 be a recognition of an antiquity possessed by that form of the text 
 which the great majority of existing copies present, and also 
 of the difficulty, already noticed, which attends the supposition 
 of an insertion of the clause from another Gospel. 
 
 A remark which has been before made may be repeated here, 
 that a reading may be fairly ascertained to be ancient, which is 
 not supported by MSS. which are now especially styled ancient. 
 
 MATTHEW XIX. 16, 17. 
 
 Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω iva ἔχω 
 ζωὴν αἰώνιον; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ: Τί με λέγεις ἀγα- 
 θόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ Θεός. 
 
 [ Good| Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may 
 have eternal life? And he said unto him, | Why callest thou 
 me good? χα Why askest thou me about that which ts good? | 
 [there is none good but one, that is God χ the good Being is 
 one |. 
 
 *"AyaGé is omitted by B, D, L, ete., and the omission is supported 
 by most copies of the Old Latin, by the Aithiopic, and by Origen: 
 it is thus rendered at least very suspicious. This, however, is a 
 point of little moment in itself; but it gains importance by its 
 connexion with another variation immediately following, one of 
 the most marked in the whole text of the New Testament, and, 
 in all its circumstances, one of the most perplexing. 
 
20 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 Instead of the double clause τέ με λέγεις... Θεός, there is ex- 
 hibited, τί με ἐρωτᾶς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός, by B, D 
 (om. τοῦ, 6), L, 1, 22, and supported by other authorities, the 
 principal of which are the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Coptic, 
 the ZEthiopic for the first clause, the Armenian, and Origen, 
 though some of these would add ὁ Θεός or ὁ πατήρ, which how- 
 ever are merely intrusive glosses. 
 
 The first clause, as containing the more important variation, 
 will require separate remarks. 
 
 In the first place, neither form can be regarded as derived from 
 the other, even by any accidental process. 
 
 With regard to the suggestion, that the passage originally stood 
 as in the common text, and that an accidental omission of ἀγαθέ 
 rendered the subsequent question apparently unmeaning, and thus 
 led to the arbitrary substitution of another clause; to this it may 
 be replied, that such a state of things would of itself have at once 
 pointed to the true remedy in the simple replacement of the 
 missing word, even without the ready aid of the parallel places. 
 
 It is also a ready suggestion, that the clause in question was 
 devised as an escape from a theological embarrassment arising 
 from the common reading: but this is at once open to the remark, 
 that in the two parallel places there is no evidence of a like 
 attempt, though they offer the same provocation. Besides, to 
 a calm mind such charges of deliberate tamperings, though often 
 thrown out, will perhaps appear to be made more readily than 
 considerately, and to be more easily advanced than justified. 
 
 Another case niay be imagined on the supposition that the 
 common text is here the true one. Besides the exception taken 
 to the epithet ὠγαθέ, the clause in question gives the purport 
 of another which might very naturally have been added; and 
 therefore the clause, it might be said, was merely a marginal note 
 suggesting such an additional interrogation, and giving greater 
 symmetry and completeness to the dialogue; the drift of which, 
 with this imaginary supplement, would stand thus: Why callest 
 thou me good? no one is good but God: and why askest thou 
 me respecting that which is good, with the perfect law of that 
 good Being already before thee? Such a suggestive note might 
 certainly have been made, and, being made, might easily have 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 21 
 
 crept into the text; but, in that case, it would have been found 
 side by side with the other question, there being no reason why 
 it should supplant it, since the two are quite compatible. This 
 difficulty must be removed before such an account of the origin 
 of the clause can be entertained. 
 
 With regard to the second clause, it is important to remark, 
 that even if the various reading in the first, which has just 
 been considered, could be readily imagined to be a wilful fabri- 
 cation, no reason can be assigned for altering the second at the 
 same time, especially with a mere change of form, and into a 
 form, too, less explicit in its expression than the other. The less 
 developed form, εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός, has thus an internal mark of 
 genuineness, and in that a plea for the genuineness of the whole. 
 
 The question may now revert to the claim of the entire varia- 
 tion to be accepted as genuine. The positive evidence is found 
 in the antiquity of the authorities which support it; and this, 
 again, finds indirect but strong support in the difficulties which, 
 as has been seen, attach to the several ways of spurious origination 
 which may be imagined. 
 
 On the other hand, if its genuineness be fairly admitted, there 
 would come forth a startling instance of the effect of assimilation 
 on the text of the Gospels, in the extensive elimination of a 
 characteristic passage from the current text, as evidenced by the 
 bulk of existing documents and the facts of patristic usage. 
 
 Still such a consideration ought not to be admitted as a bar to 
 the positive evidence, which tends to exhibit the true form of the 
 whole passage as follows: Ζιδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω iva ἔχω 
 ζωὴν αἰώνιον; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ Tov ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς 
 ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός. 
 
22 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 MATTHEW XX. 22, 23. 
 
 / “ Ἃς td a 9 x / / 
 Ζύνασθε πιεῖν τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ μέλλω πίνειν, 
 Ν Ν ἌΚΡΟΝ / a 
 καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι, βαπτισθῆναι ; 
 ad / > a Ν 
 λέγουσιν αὐτῷ: δυνάμεθα. καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς" TO 
 \ / / / \ / aA > \ 
 μὲν ποτὴήριὸν μου πίεσθε, καὶ TO βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ 
 7 / 
 βαπτίζομαι, βαπτισθήσεσθε: κ. τ. 2X. 
 
 Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, {and 
 to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ? | 
 They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, 
 Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the 
 baptism that I am baptized with, ete. 
 
 This passage in the common text corresponds in form, though 
 with slight verbal differences, with the parallel place (Mark 
 x. 38—40), which is affected by no variation. But here the 
 clause καὶ τὸ... βαπτισθ., both in the question and answer, is 
 wanting in B, D, L, Z, 1, 22, the Vulgate, the Old Latin in most 
 copies, the Syriac (N), the Coptic, Sahidic, Aithiopic, ete. 
 
 There can be no reasonable doubt that these ancient authorities 
 exhibit the true, in the shorter, form of the passage, and that the 
 common reading presents a clear instance of assimilative intrusion. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 23 
 
 MATTHEW XXI. 28—31. 
 
 ᾿Ανθρωπος εἶχε τέκνα δύο, καὶ προσελθὼν τῷ 
 πρώτῳ εἶπε, τέκνον, ὕπαγε: σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν 
 τῷ ἀμπελῶνί pov: ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, οὐ θέλω: 
 ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθε. καὶ προσελθὼν 
 τῷ δευτέρῳ εἶπεν ὡσαύτως" ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, 
 ἐγὼ, κύριε, καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθε. τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο 
 ἐποίησε τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός; λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, 
 0 πρῶτος. 
 
 A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, 
 and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He an- 
 swered and said, I will not ; but afterward he repented, and 
 went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And 
 he answered and said, I go, sir ; and went not. Whether of 
 them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, 
 The first. 
 
 *,* The variations on this passage are too complicated to be expressed 
 by marks. They consist mainly in the substitution for the word 
 “first,” in the reply, of terms having an opposite meaning to it, 
 accompanied in some cases by an inverted order of the answers of 
 the sons. 
 
 This passage, if the form here presented be supposed to be the 
 original one, is just of a kind to escape the growth of various 
 readings, except, it might be, of the most trifling and accidental 
 sort; because it is one of those where, in the clearness and sim- 
 plicity both of the whole and of its several terms, there is nothing 
 to provoke any gloss, emendation, or conjecture. If, therefore, 
 it is found, on the contrary, to be affected by remarkable and 
 perplexing variations, there might arise a presumption that this 
 shape is not the original one. ‘To entertain such a presumption, 
 however, would be unfavourable to the free and full investigation 
 of a question of considerable difficulty. Accordingly, it will be 
 best to dismiss it, and at once to state the variations as they are 
 exhibited by the principal authorities. 
 
24 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 The reading ἑτέρῳ for δευτέρῳ is strongly supported, and may 
 be regarded as the true one, but is immaterial to the main 
 question which arises on the passage. 
 
 The facts which principally claim attention are the following. 
 
 For πρῶτος B has ὕστερος with an inverted order of the 
 answers of the two sons. 
 
 In the same place 4 has δεύτερος, and 13, 69, have ἔσχατος, 
 all with the inverted order; while D exhibits ἔσχατος with the 
 common order. Εσχατος has also some patristic support, besides 
 that of ancient Latin copies, some still existing, others prior to 
 the time of Jerome. 
 
 Though mere numbers of authorities are overwhelmingly in 
 favour of the common form of the passage, yet variations so 
 peculiar and thus supported fairly challenge at least a careful 
 consideration. 
 
 Two causes of unsettlement are in this case conceivable: either 
 the passage might have exhibited originally some embarrassing 
 peculiarity, which would provoke to hasty tampering; or such 
 peculiarity might, on the contrary, have been produced by some 
 purely accidental disarrangement of form, which further led to 
 wilful interference. The only accidental disarrangement to which 
 it is exposed, seems to be a transposition, in transcription, of the 
 answers of the two sons. 
 
 Now, if the original form be supposed to be that which is 
 exhibited in the common text, and such displacement to have 
 accidentally arisen in transcription, and have found its way into 
 copies, a marked discrepancy would then have presented ‘itself; 
 and the remedy, whether suggested in the margin or thrust upon 
 the text, would naturally be directed to the term πρῶτος, and 
 would be at once furnished by the simple numeral δεύτερος. But, 
 with this at hand, recourse would not be had to ὕστερος, which 
 is never used to express a mere place in numerical succession, 
 is never a bare numeral; and still less, if possible, would ἔσχατος 
 be thought of, because, though a kind of numeral, it is out of 
 place when only two things are concerned. It can hardly, there- 
 fore, be conceived that either of these readings could be produced 
 by any circumstances from πρῶτος. It may be remarked, how- 
 ever, that δεύτερος is a natural gloss-upon ὕστερος or ἔσχατος. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 26 
 
 Thus far, then, there is reason for further considering the fact 
 of the existence of these latter readings. 
 
 If the passage be supposed originally to have had ὕστερος, with 
 the same order of the answers as in the common text, ὕστερος 
 would be allowed to pass as a mere equivalent of δεύτερος, because 
 no other very obvious meaning offered; and a perplexity would 
 thus present itself. From this there would be two ways of escape, 
 either by placing the answers in the order in which, as has been 
 seen, they stand in several copies, or by the arbitrary substitution 
 of πρῶτος. ; 
 
 It appears, then, from what has preceded, that there is great 
 difficulty in imagining a process by which ὕστερος or ἔσχατος 
 could be evolved from πρῶτος, while a case is quite conceivable 
 in which the latter might take the place of either of the former. 
 
 It remains to be inquired, what amount of difficulty really 
 attends that shape of the passage which has ὕστερος or ἔσχατος, 
 with the common order of the answers ; whether it admits of any 
 other construction than that which was adopted by Jerome, 
 namely, that the reply of the Jews was a wilfully perverse one. 
 The answer of the second son is liable to be hastily regarded as 
 necessarily a piece of cool hypocrisy, but it is quite as much the 
 language of a sincerity inconsiderate and transient, feeble and 
 fruitless by its levity. In that case the first son was, at the com- 
 mencement of the business, ὕστερος, in the rear, behindhand, with 
 respect to the other, for he had not advanced as far as well meant 
 profession: and the same remark applies to the stronger term 
 ἔσχατος. It may be said that neither term is so simple a mode 
 of expressing this idea as might be imagined; but either term 
 may be viewed as a near rather than a clear rendering of some 
 derivative of the root MX, which would express backwardness 
 of position, whether that position were real or only apparent.* 
 
 Such, then, are the claims for attention possessed by these two 
 kindred readings: δεύτερος being dismissed as a gloss upon one 
 or the other. If either is to be regarded as genuine, probability 
 would incline to the stronger term ἔσχατος. This latter also 
 furnishes a means of accounting for the existence of πρῶτος less 
 
 * The solution which makes ὁ ὕστερος equivalent to ὁ ὕστερον μεταμεληθείς, 
 is more ingenious in conception than admissible by the laws of language. 
 
26 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 violent than that of arbitrary substitution. It might have been 
 a marginal comment on ἔσχατος, suggested by such a passage as 
 xx. 16 of this Gospel, and implying, that he who was originally 
 ἔσχατος in one sense, was eventually πρῶτος in another. 
 
 MATTHEW XXIII. 14. 
 
 Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ φαρισαῖοι, v ὑποκριταὶ, 
 ὅτι κατεσθίετε τὰς οἰκίας τῶν χηρών, καὶ προφάσει 
 μακρὰ προσευχόμενοι" διὰ τοῦτο λήψεσθε περισ- 
 σότερον κρίμα. 
 
 | Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye 
 devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: 
 therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. | 
 
 The genuineness of this entire verse is a matter of question. 
 It is wanting in B, D, L, Z, 1, 33, 118, 203, 209, 346, in the 
 Codex Amiatinus and other important copies of the Vulgate— 
 being also omitted by Jerome himself—in a, e, ff', g', of the Old 
 Latin, and probably the Eusebian canons. 
 
 These are the main facts that impeach the genuineness of the 
 passage, together with the circumstance that its matter, though 
 not its grammatical form, is derivable from two parallel places 
 (Mark xii. 40; Luke xx. 47), and also the shifting position of 
 the portion ὅτι... κρίμα; since in the MSS. which are its best 
 support, it is found to precede the words ὅτε κλείετε.... εἰσελθεῖν, 
 a circumstance which favours the suspicion of intrusion from the 
 margin, as if one copyist had let in at one point of the text, and 
 another at another, a supplement which a glossarist had framed 
 from the parallel places. 
 
 On the other hand it may be argued, that on account of the 
 recurrence of the commencing words ovat ὑμῖν... , a clause so 
 introduced might readily be lost in transcription by oversight. 
 
 If, however, there is ground for hesitation in condemning the 
 verse as spurious, still it cannot be regarded with confidence as 
 genuine in the face of important ancient evidence. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 27 
 
 MATTHEW XXIII. 25. 
 "Eoober δὲ γέμουσιν ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς καὶ ἀκρασίας. 
 Within they are full of extortion and [excess χ injustice |. 
 
 Upon ἀκρασίας there are the variations ἀδικίας, πονηρίας, 
 πλεονεξίας, ἀκαθαρσίας. 
 
 A glance at these terms at once shews that the variation is 
 due to interpretative glosses; and the group may accordingly be 
 scanned with respect to the probability which each reading 
 presents of being the germ of the others. 
 
 With regard to the three first variations it may be observed, 
 that since they are terms of kindred meaning, each might well 
 be a gloss upon either of the others, while the fourth is quite 
 distinct from them in signification; but that all four are too clear 
 and simple in their meaning to require or tempt a gloss at all, 
 if found in the text. 
 
 On the other hand, ἀκρασία is in itself a term of various signi- 
 fication. It may either signify the condition of one who is 
 ἀκρατής in the more ordinary sense, that is, in respect of lustful 
 indulgence, in which case it would be explained by ἀκαθαρσία; 
 or that of one who is ἀκρατὴς κέρδους (Aristot. Eth. Nic. 7, 4), 
 and, in consequence, ἄδικος, πονηρός, πλεονέκτης. In this place 
 then it appears that ἀκρασίας is a term which, in the text, might 
 well be prolific of glosses and so eventually of various readings. 
 It may be remarked too, that at the other occurrence of the word 
 (1 Cor. vii. 5), where the context restricts the sense, there is no 
 variation; and, again, that there is none upon the more precise 
 term πονηρίας in the parallel place (Luke xi. 39). 
 
 Upon external evidence the issue is between ἀκρασίας and 
 ἀδικίας, the authorities for the others being slight. For the 
 former there are cited B, D, L, 4, 1, 13, 33, 69, etc.: for the 
 latter C, E, F, G, H, K, 5, and a large number of others; in fact, 
 the great majority of MSS. 
 
 Yet, notwithstanding this disparity of numbers and the weight 
 of some of the authorities for ἀδικίας, as just cited, the importance 
 of the opposing documents and internal considerations sanction the 
 
28 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 conclusion that ἀκρασίας is the original reading, and ἀδικίας its 
 interpretation: one which the parallel πτονήριας and the association 
 with ἁρπαγῆς would shew to be correct. 
 
 The evidence of versions is in this instance unimportant, because 
 a translator with ἀκρασίας before him, would give such a rendering 
 as would convey his own view of the sense in which the term was 
 used, 
 
 MATTHEW XXYV. 13. 
 ᾿Εν ἢ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται. 
 
 | Wherein the son of man cometh]. 
 
 The absence of this clause from A, B, C, D, L, X, and others, 
 as also from both Syriac versions, the Old Latin, the Coptic, 
 Sahidic, AXthiopic, etc., is a sufficient ground for condemning 
 it as undoubtedly spurious. [Ὁ is an intrusive supplement. 
 
 MATTHEW XXVI. 26. 
 
 \ > wn Ν la \ / 7 
 Δαβὼν ὁ ᾿]ησοῦς τὸν ἄρτον καὶ εὐλογήσας ExAace. 
 
 Jesus took bread, and | blessed it γ gave thanks], and brake it. 
 
 The great majority of MSS., including A, E, F, H, K, M, 8, 
 U, V, read εὐχαριστήσας for εὐλογήσας. The latter is supported 
 by B, D, L, Z, and some others. The case is evidently one where 
 versions must be cited with caution; but both the Vulgate and 
 Syriac give a different rendering in this and the following verse, 
 where εὐχαριστήσας is unquestioned, and thus are distinctly 
 evidence for εὐλογήσας. 
 
 It might be urged that edy. was the original reading, and was 
 changed into evA. by the influence of the parallel place (Mark 
 xiv. 22), where εὖλ. is undoubted. On this it may be remarked, 
 that there is another parallel (Luke xvii. 19) on which a precisely 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 29 
 
 similar argument might be grounded in favour of εὐλ.; and thus 
 all argument from assimilation is in a manner neutralised. 
 
 When the general similarity of the present passage with that 
 in Mark is considered, it is more probable that the resemblance 
 originally included the term in question, than that there was a 
 process of assimilation. An accidental change, too, of evr. into 
 evy. is readily conceivable, either from the succeeding verse 
 through the wandering eye οἵ. ἃ copyist, or rather through inad- 
 vertence of mind, favoured by the free convertibility of the two 
 familiar terms. That they were so convertible, will be evident 
 on a review of the following passages: Mat. xiv. 19; xv. 36; 
 Mark vi. 41; vu. 6, 7; xiv. 22, 23; Luke xxii. 17, 19; xxiv. 30; 
 ΟΠ νυν 11: 1 Cor. x. 163-21; 24. 
 
 Notwithstanding the preponderating amount of evidence for 
 εὐχαριστήσας, that which supports the rival reading is sufficiently 
 important to render the case open to the influence of other con- 
 siderations. These favour the probability that the common read- 
 ing is the true one, thus placing the passage in original agreement 
 with the parallel in Mark. 
 
 Tov before ἄρτον is omitted in B, C, Ὁ, G, L, Z, and others : 
 but it should be retained even in the face of this weighty forbid- 
 ding. Its accidental omission is possible enough, while a chance 
 intrusion can hardly be conceived, and there can have been no 
 motive for a wilful insertion, but rather the contrary. In fact, 
 the influence of the parallel places would favour the absence of 
 the article, and its presence might be viewed as a difficulty. Its 
 use, however, is the same as in another place (Luke xxiv. 30), 
 and is the strict expression of a simple circumstance, that of ‘the 
 loaf” singly placed before the master of the feast. Though the 
 presence of the article thus serves to a more precise and lively 
 description, yet its absence in the parallel places is in no way 
 remarkable, since the anarthrous term answers all the purposes 
 of the narrative. 
 
 The general principle on which the reading of the common 
 text should be here sustained, is this; that readings which present 
 a form of which either the significance is not obvious, as in the 
 present instance, or the usage is not ordinary, possess in that very 
 circumstance a token of genuineness. 
 
30 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 MATTHEW XXVI. 28. 
 
 a / > Ν - , Ν “ rn 7 
 Τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστι τὸ αἷμα μου τὸ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης. 
 
 For this is my blood of the [πιο] testament. 
 
 MARK XIV. 24. 
 
 awe Ss \ @ 0; Ν “ a vA 
 Tovro ἐστι TO αἷμα μου TO τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης. 
 
 This is my blood of the | new | testament. 
 
 A shorter reading, τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης, is found in both 
 these places. In the former this is the reading of B, L, Z, 33, 
 102; in the latter of B, C, D, L, etc., ἃ of the Old Latin, and 
 the Coptic. Though this evidence is slender in amount, there 
 are certain considerations which come to its aid. An accidental 
 omission of καινῆς by oversight in transcription, if the word were 
 originally in the text, is certainly possible from the triple recur- 
 rence of the two final letters; but, all circumstances considered, 
 cannot be regarded as very probable. The improbability, how- 
 ever, is very great that such accidental omission, in itself by no 
 means probable, should have befallen both places: and, had it 
 happened in one, this would not have affected the other, since 
 assimilative influence acts in the way of addition, not of abridge- 
 ment. 
 
 On the other hand, the addition of καινῆς to the shorter read- 
 ing, if that were the original form, at least under the shape of a 
 marginal suggestion in the first instance, would be a most likely 
 occurrence, because the epithet would in this place be naturally 
 and rightly associated in the mind with διαθήκης ; to say nothing 
 of positive suggestion from the parallel place (Luke xxii. 20). 
 
 Upon the whole, there is great probability that the shorter 
 reading is the true one in both places, and the true exponent 
 of the language actually employed on the occasion: while the 
 narrative of St. Luke, as well as its counterpart in the First 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, must be regarded as conveying the 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 31 
 
 purport rather than the verbal form; which is clearly the case in 
 the more simple and less figurative language of the clause, ἕως ὅτου 
 ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔλθῃ, compared with the corresponding 
 portions of the other narratives. This leads to the further remark, 
 that in the absence of καινῆς the language of Jesus appears less 
 communicative and explicit, and, as such, approaches nearer to 
 the reserved and figurative style of various communications to the 
 Apostles previous to his passion. 
 
 It will be seen that an important portion of the preceding 
 reasoning is derived entirely from a joint view of both the places 
 in question, and thus that one main step towards a conclusion 
 would have been lost by a separate consideration of each. 
 
 This circumstance furnishes a peculiar indication of the insuf- 
 ficiency of any mere routine process applied mechanically to 
 each several instance, instead of a free employment of such special 
 aids to investigation as various cases may happen to offer. 
 
 MATTHEW XXVII. 34. 
 
 "δὸ , A a δξ \ a 7 
 οκαν αὐτῷ πίειν OCOS μετὰ χο HS μεμιγμένον. 
 
 They gave him | vinegar χ wine| to drink, mingled with gall. 
 
 As a rival reading to ὄξος, οἶνον is given by B, D, K, L, and 
 a few others, supported by the Vulgate, by most copies of the 
 Old Latin, by the Coptic, Sahidic, AXthiopic, Armenian, etc. 
 On the other hand, ὄξος is found in the remaining mass of MSS., 
 except C and Z, which are defective in this place. 
 
 The antiquity of witnesses preponderates for οἶνον ; yet antiquity 
 of existence as a reading is also undoubted in the case of ὄξος. 
 
 Each might readily originate in the other. The common 
 reading might have been merely a gloss upon οἶνον, suggestive— 
 rightly or not—that the liquor might also be termed ὄξος, or 
 directly identifying it with that which was afterwards adminis- 
 tered. But still οἶνον does not seem very provocative of such 
 a comment. 
 
32 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 Again, ὄξος being supposed original, οἶνον would be at once 
 supplied, either as a gloss or emendation, from the parallel place 
 (Mark xv. 23): and, of two rival readings, suspicion cannot but 
 attach in the first instance to that which places two gospel narra- 
 tives in verbal concord; and this is done by οἶνον, for the apparent 
 discrepancy lies solely in the words ὄξος and οἶνον, ἐσμυρνισμένον 
 being at once reconcileable with the expression peta χολῆς μεμιγ- 
 μένον, since χολή may be allowed to signify any ingredient of 
 a strongly bitter or acrid flavour. 
 
 In such a conflict of evidence as the present instance presents, 
 a positive decision either way would deserve the imputation 
 of rashness. The last mentioned consideration seems rather to 
 give a preponderance in favour of the common text. 
 
 
 
 MATTHEW XXVII. 35. 
 
 Ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου" 
 διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν 
 ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον. 
 
 [ That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the pro- 
 phet, They parted my garments among them, and eee my 
 vesture did they cast lots. | 
 
 This passage is wanting jin all the uncial MSS. except 4, and 
 many others, and in the most important versions except the 
 Armenian, and is unknown to Origen, Chrysostom, and various 
 other writers. 
 
 There is no ground whatever for hesitation in condemning 
 it as spurious. It is a clear case of assimilative intrusion, the 
 matter being derived from the parallel place (John xix. 24). 
 
 Though the quarter may be thus certainly indicated from which 
 the application of the Old Testament citation was borrowed, it 
 ought to be remarked that the introductory words are changed, 
 the quotation being here fitted with St. Matthew’s formula, ἵνα 
 πληρωθῆ, κι τ... This has the appearance of direct interpolation. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 9: 
 
 MATTHEW XXVIII. 9. 
 
 ε Nn Φ / ᾽ ἴω la a ’ fal 
 Qs de ἐπορεύοντο ἀπαγγεῖλαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ. 
 
 | And as they went to tell his disciples. | 
 
 This clause is wanting in B, D, and a considerable number 
 of other MSS. (Z is defective), in the Vulgate, in all copies 
 of the Old Latin except f, im the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, 
 and others, and is omitted by Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, and 
 Augustine. 
 
 Notwithstanding the amount of testimony in its favour, includ- 
 ing A and C, this adverse evidence, containing so much that is 
 ancient, must bear strongly against the genuineness of the clause. 
 It might have been a supplement, originally in the form of a 
 scholium, to a narrative which without it appears τὸν and 
 as such would lead to its suggestion. 
 
 At the same time there must be taken into account the possi- 
 bility of the loss of the clause, if genuine, by oversight in tran- 
 scription, on account of its ending being the same with that of 
 the preceding one—a marked instance, in fact, of ὁμοιοτέλευτον. 
 
 But, again, one copy has only ὡς ἐπ. ἀπωγγεῖλαι, and two 
 others no more than ὡς ἐπορεύοντο; and these can hardly be 
 viewed as curtailments from oversight, but, since they may be 
 presumed to be transcriptions from older MSS., are rather tokens 
 of a gradual growth of supplementary matter, that is, of the 
 spuriousness of the whole. 
 
 A peculiar interest attaches to the consideration of this passage, 
 because, if the words in question are rejected, the time and 
 place of the meeting with the women are left indeterminate ; 
 and a statement is removed, namely, that they encountered 
 Jesus on their return from the sepulchre, which is a main source 
 of difficulty in reconciling the different narratives of the resur- 
 rection. 
 
 4 
 
34 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 A plea for the genuineness of the clause might be grounded 
 on this circumstance, by alleging that it points to a motive for 
 expunging it, and thus accounting for its absence from ΜΗ. and 
 versions. But before this consideration can be admitted within 
 the pale of legitimate criticism, evidence must be furnished, that 
 a practice of making summary riddance of difficult or obnoxious 
 matter is something more than a creature of imagination or an 
 allegation of party warfare. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 35 
 
 MARK I. 2. 
 
 ε / > a £ 
 Ds γέγραπται ev τοῖς mpopytas. 
 
 As it is written [in the prophets y in Isaiah the prophet). 
 
 On the common reading ἐν τοῖς προφήταις there is the marked 
 variation ἐν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ, for which there are cited 
 B, D (om. τῷ before ‘H.), L, 4, and many others, the Peshito, 
 the Old Latin, Vulgate, Coptic, etc., as well as Ireneus, and 
 various other writers. 
 
 Readings that serve to obviate difficulties and peculiarities are 
 on that very account open to strong suspicion. ‘Tamperings, if 
 their existence be admitted, and glosses would be framed to 
 relieve, not to generate, awkwardness and perplexity. This 
 general principle must be applied to the present instance. 
 
 The citation in this place prefixes to certain words of Isaiah 
 others which cannot be referred to that prophet, combining a 
 prediction expressly applied by Jesus to the Baptist (Mat. xi. 10), 
 with another which the latter adopted as belonging to himself 
 (Jno. i. 23). With this combination the introductory words 
 according to the common reading are in harmony, and would not 
 accordingly provoke such a gloss or emendation as ἐν τῷ Ἢ. τῷ 
 mp., and call up an appearance of inconsistency which did not 
 exist before. On this ground, in addition to its positive evidence 
 already stated, the latter claims decision in its favour. 
 
 One MS. has simply ἐν τῷ προφήτῃ, and the question might 
 be asked, whether this can be the original reading. ‘The question 
 is not altogether unreasonable; but, since critical decisions must 
 be supported by a certain amount of evidence, it cannot critically 
 recelve an answer in the affirmative. 
 
36 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 MARK 1.4. 
 
 » / > is / > a“ > / \ 
 Ἐγένετο ]Πωαννης βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ και 
 J > » « 
 κηρύσσων βαπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρ- 
 τιῶν. 
 
 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism 
 of repentance for the remission of sins.* 
 
 Another form of this sentence is as follows, ἐγένετο "Iwdavyns 
 ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ κηρύσσων, x.T.r The article before 
 βαπτίζων is found in B, L, A, 33 (C is defective and the absence 
 of articles is habitual with Ὁ); while B, 33, 73, 102, omit καὶ 
 before κηρύσσων, the presence of which is scarcely compatible 
 with that of the previous article. 
 
 From the very nature of the question as far as it relates to 6, 
 no aid can be obtained from the versions; nor, in fact, do the 
 Greek Fathers furnish any evidence on the point. 
 
 The preponderance, therefore, of testimony, thus confined to 
 MSS., is enormous in numerical amount in favour of the common 
 text. 
 
 It is necessary, however, to remark the correctness of language 
 exhibited by the rival reading; for with the article prefixed Baz- 
 τίζων becomes a mere distinctive appellation or title, and the pre- 
 dicate is found in the words ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ κηρύσσων, x.T.r. This 
 is just as it should be; for the words of Isaiah found a fulfilment 
 not in John’s baptising, but in the work and purport of his preach- 
 ment and its locality. According to this form of the sentence, its 
 meaning might be put in such a shape as the following: ‘There 
 came [in accordance with such prophecies] John the baptiser 
 preaching in the wilderness, etc.’ 
 
 If this reading be not the true one, it is either a purely arbitrary 
 improvement from the hand of an observant and ingenious critic, 
 
 * In this and some other places where no marks are attached to the 
 English Version, a-translation of the passage, exhibiting the variation, 
 is included in the body of the article. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ΟΠ 
 
 or it must be supposed that καί was lost in some transcript by 
 accident, and the resulting awkwardness was critically remedied 
 by prefixing ὁ to βαπτίζων. But upon this there arises the 
 question, whether there are grounds for admitting that critical 
 hands ever exercised themselves in such operations of extreme 
 nicety upon the text of the New Testament. It is far more easy 
 to take refuge in such a view than to prove its truth. 
 
 MARK I. 27. 
 Ti ἐστι τοῦτο; τίς ἡ διδαχὴ ἡ καινὴ αὕτη, ὅτι 
 κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι, κ. τ. A. 
 What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with 
 
 authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, ete. 
 
 It will be necessary to give the principal variations of this 
 passage at length, with their authorities. 
 
 Ti ἐστι τοῦτο; διδαχὴ ἡ καινὴ Kat ἐξουσίαν" Kal.... BB. 
 Τί ἐ. τ.; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν" καὶ .... L, 33, 102. 
 Τί ἐ. τ. ; διδαχὴ καινὴ αὕτη κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν" καὶ. ... 1,118, ete. 
 
 Τίς ἡ διδαχὴ ἐκείνη ἡ καινὴ αὕτη ἡ ἐξουσία, ὅτι καὶ .... OD. 
 
 The appearance thus presented is one of more than ordinary 
 perplexity ; still a clue may perhaps be found by a careful atten- 
 tion to the various points offered by the whole. 
 
 The clause, διδαχὴ ἡ καινὴ Kat’ ἐξουσίαν, given by B, is not 
 a legitimate Greek form, at least for the conveyance of the only 
 admissible meaning. But it must be remarked, that of the read- 
 ings ἡ καινὴ and ἐκείνη, which are found together in D, each 
 might readily spring by accident from the other. Again, ἐκείνη 
 is peculiarly appropriate to a comment made aside, as in the 
 present instance. And further, if ἐκείνη were original and after- 
 wards lost by accidental transformation into ἡ καινὴ or καινὴ, 
 an appearance of incompleteness without a demonstrative word 
 would lead to the intrusion of αὕτη; and an account is thus 
 
38 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 afforded for the existence of that reading, as also of its shifting 
 position in various copies. 
 
 These considerations indicate at least a probability that ἐκείνη 
 is original, and that the clause should stand διδαχὴ ἐκείνη Kat’ 
 ἐξουσίαν, or, if a hint be taken from D, διδαχὴ ἐκείνη ἐξουσία. 
 At all events, the choice appears to lie between one of these and 
 διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν, the reading of L. One thing may 
 be regarded as certain, that so remarkable an amount of variation 
 has grown from some abrupt and elliptical clause. 
 
 The clause τί ἐστι τοῦτο; is not free from suspicion on account 
 of its absence from D, and three evangelistaria, from the Old 
 Latin with the exception of two copies, from several important 
 ones of the Vulgate, the Athiopic, etc., and with this circum- 
 stance must be combined the remark, that the preceding term 
 συζητεῖν, though not absolutely requiring it, would rather lead 
 to the expectation of an interrogative form of speech, and would 
 accordingly favour the intrusion of such a form and not its disap- 
 pearance. It is, therefore, possible that the succeeding clause, 
 under one of the three forms mentioned above, is the only 
 genuine portion preceding the words καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι. 
 
 With regard to this clause itself there is still another con- 
 ceivable case, namely, that its original shape was simply διδαχὴ 
 κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν, that ἐκείνη was the first intrusion, and that the 
 accidental change of this into 7 καινή made an opening for the 
 subsequent entrance of αὕτη. ‘This is suggested by the fact that 
 καινή is wanting in 123, 235, and that the omission is supported 
 by the important Latin MSS. ὦ, ο, ff According to this view 
 the purport would be as follows: ‘Here is a teaching with 
 authority. He commands even the unclean spirits, ete.’ 
 
 It may be remarked here, that in various passages of this 
 Gospel the expression, especially in recording the language of 
 speakers, assumes a more abrupt and pointed form according to 
 the reading of certain authorities. In favour of such readings 
 a presumption at once arises from the unquestionable fact, that 
 the tendency of external influences, whether in the shape of direct 
 critical meddlings or indirect intrusions, is not to bestow pecu- 
 harities or striking points of style on an author, but rather to 
 smooth down such as may already exist. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 39 
 
 MARK II. 7. 
 
 Ti οὗτος οὕτω λαλεῖ βλασφημίας. 
 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies ? 
 
 This passage is noticed not as affected by any important varia- 
 tion, but merely as affording a plain illustration of the last remark. 
 
 Instead of the simple clause of the common text, another form, 
 more abrupt and keen in expression, is found in B, D, L, and 
 supported by the Vulgate and most copies of the Old Latin, 
 namely, τίς οὗτος οὕτω λαλεῖ; βλασφημεῖ. ‘ Who is this that 
 speaks in this manner? He blasphemes.’ 
 
 If it be said that this is the arbitrary alteration of a critic in 
 the way of improvement, the question arises in reply, what is 
 there in the common form to instigate a critic’s interference? 
 
 
 
 MARK III. 29. 
 
 35, / > > / / 
 Evoyos ἐστιν αἰωνίου κρίσεως. 
 
 Is in danger of eternal {damnation y guilt). 
 
 The common reading κρίσεως is exhibited by the mass of 
 documents. On the other hand, ἁμαρτήματος is given by B, L, 
 28, 33, while C perhaps, D, 13, 69, 346, have ἁμαρτίας : one or 
 other of which readings is represented in the copies of the Old 
 Latin except f, the Vulgate, Coptic, Armenian, etc. 
 
 The evidence is sufficient to prove on the part of κρίσεως an 
 established currency of no recent date, while antiquity of existing 
 testimonies is in favour of ἁμαρτήματος or ἁμαρτίας. It remains, 
 therefore, to see what features of the case would point to one as 
 being the glossarial offspring of the other. 
 
 The remaining variation κολάσεως, rests on very trifling 
 authority, and its birthplace was manifestly the margin. 
 
40 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 The expression αἰωνίου ἁμαρτήματος is peculiar, though possess- 
 ing some special force in its peculiarity. By the word ἁμάρτημα 
 no more is properly signified than a single faulty act; and, accord- 
 ingly, αἰώνιον could not be combined with it in this its strict 
 meaning. If, therefore, the Evangelist wrote ἁμαρτήματος, he 
 used it to signify a condition of guilt, a sense which, though in 
 the case of this term peculiar and striking, is not unfrequently 
 borne by ἁμαρτία; and, accordingly, this latter term might 
 readily occur as the simplest interpretation of ἁμαρτήματος as 
 here employed, and would thus be the readiest gloss, as exhibiting 
 the slightest deviation of form. The remaining readings, κρίσεως 
 and κολάσεως, would do the same thing more broadly and boldly. 
 
 These considerations point to ἁμαρτήματος as the true reading. 
 
 
 
 MARK IV. 24. 
 
 \ / lad lal / 
 Kat προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν τοῖς ἀκούουσι. 
 
 [And unto you that hear shall more be given. | 
 
 This entire clause is wanting in D, G (114 also omitting καὶ 
 mp. v.), and in important copies of the Old Latin and Vulgate. 
 
 The words τοῖς ax. are omitted also by B, C, L, 4, etc:, and 
 several versions. They may at once be discarded as an artificial 
 and not very judicious supplement; while the Latin variation 
 credentibus, evidently of like origin, is more appropriate. 
 
 It is not so easy to arrive at a decision on the remaining and 
 more important words καὶ mp. v.; but there are various circum- 
 stances, besides the omissions already mentioned, that require 
 notice. 
 
 The Armenian represents them as following ἀκούετε, while two 
 MSS., 13 and 69, also place them there, and then repeat them as 
 they stand in the common text. These MSS. also have καὶ 
 mp. ὗ. τοῖς ἀκ. after ἀκούετε in the parallel place (Lu. viii. 18). 
 Besides, προστεθήσεται is the reading of D for δοθήσεται, which 
 MS. also has a similar substitution, προστίθεται, in the parallel 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 4] 
 
 place (Lu. xix. 26), the glossarial nature of which reading is clear 
 enough. It may be remarked, moreover, that though προστε- 
 θήσεται would be at once furnished as a gloss on δοθήσεται by 
 the words in question, if these were originally a part of the text, 
 and its existence as such, which may be concluded by its having 
 supplanted the original word in D, might accordingly be viewed 
 as evidence of their genuineness; yet, on the other hand, προστε- 
 θήσεται is of itself too obvious an interpretation to need sugges- 
 tion from any quarter; and, if once introduced in this way, might 
 readily be the germ of the clause καὶ προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν. The 
 clause might indeed have been lost by homeoteleuton, but this 
 will hardly account for the shifting of place already noticed. 
 
 
 
 MARK IX. 23. 
 
 ε Ἀν lol 3: 3 lad Ν > / A 
 O δὲ ᾿]ησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, τὸ εἰ δύνασαι πιστεῦ- 
 Uy \ a ΄ 
 σαι; πάντα δυνατὰ τῷ πιστεύοντι. 
 
 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are 
 possible to him that believeth. 
 
 The question between δύνασαι and δύνῃ, being one of a mere 
 variety of inflexion, is in itself of littke moment. However, B, 
 D, A, have the latter, and also in the preceding verse. 
 
 D, characteristically, does not exhibit the article τό, as is the 
 case also with K, M, U, and others: but this can hardly be 
 admitted as an impeachment of its genuineness, when it is con- 
 sidered that its presence is otherwise unaccountable. Its employ- 
 ment in this place has been explained as an intimation on the 
 part of the Evangelist, that the expression to which it is prefixed, 
 εἰ δύνασαι πιστεῦσαι, Was habitual in such cases with Jesus; and 
 no doubt the writer might readily fall into such a usage, if the 
 supposed fact were present to his mind. 
 
 All this rests upon the assumption that πιστεῦσαι is genuine. 
 It is, however, wanting in B, C pr. man., L, 4, the Old Latin 
 
42 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 in k, the Coptic, Armenian, A®thiopic, ete. If on this authority 
 the word were expunged the passage would stand thus, ὁ δὲ 
 ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, τὸ εἰ δύνῃ" πάντα, K.T.r. In this case the 
 article may be regarded as prefixed simply on the principle of 
 previous mention, and as serving to indicate that the expression, 
 εἰ δύνῃ, is merely a repetition of the preceding speaker’s own 
 words (v. 22), cited to him by Jesus in reply, with a tone of 
 demur or exception. 
 
 It must be admitted that πιστεῦσαι might be lost by accident 
 from sameness of ending with δύνασαι; though two of the authori- 
 ties for its omission have δύνῃ. On the other hand, if the word 
 was not original, a notion of an ellipsis after δύνῃ would readily 
 lead to the borrowing of a supplement from πιστεύοντι. 
 
 Without the word in question, the sense of the passage may 
 be expressed thus: ‘Jesus said to him, [sayest thou to me,] If 
 
 thou art able? All things are possible for the believer.’ 
 
 MARK IX. 43, 44. 
 
 Ei ἊΝ / > SS a Ἄ χα 8, od 
 
 is τὴν γέενναν, εἰς TO πῦρ TO ἄσβεστον, ὅπου 
 
 c / > lad > “ Ἂς x a > / 
 
 ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ, Kal TO πῦρ οὐ σβέν- 
 ἐ 
 
 νυται. 
 
 Into hell, |into the fire that never shall be quenched; | 
 [where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched |. 
 
 In the common text the passage included in vs. 43-48 consists 
 of three strains or stanzas cast with so near a correspondence, that 
 had the whole originally borne this mechanically regular form, 
 it could have strongly tended to prevent the loss of a mere clause 
 by accident in transcription; though the oversight of an entire 
 portion would not be unlikely from similarity of commencement 
 in the words καὶ ἐάν, as is actually the case with the second 
 in a few unimportant copies. If, therefore, this regularity of 
 shape is not exhibited by important authorities, it may be con- 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 43 
 
 cluded that the present form of the text is due to assimilative 
 interpolation or accretion. 
 
 The clause ὅπου... . σβέννυται in the first instance is wanting 
 in B, C, L, 4, 1, 28, 118, 251, 255, the Old Latin in &, the 
 Coptic, and Armenian; and to this adverse evidence may be 
 added the remark, that had the common form of the passage been 
 original, and the eye of a transcriber wandered from the first ὅπου 
 to the second or third, still his copy would have exhibited the 
 first portion entire, with the loss of one or both of the others. 
 Doubt attaches also to the words εἰς τὸ π. TO. ado. on account of 
 their absence from L, 4, the Syriac, etc., while D, supported by 
 copies of the Old Latin, has ὅπου ἐστὶν τὸ π. τὸ ἄσ., and F reads 
 simply τοῦ πυρός. 
 
 In the second portion the same authorities for the omission 
 of the clause ὅπου .... of. are cited as before, except that 255 
 omits the whole; while the other, εἰς τὸ 7. τὸ do., is wanting 
 in B, Ὁ: L, A, 1, 28, 118, 251, Ὁ; k, the Coptic, Arnmienian, 
 Syriac, etc. The words τοῦ πυρός following γέενναν on its third 
 occurrence (v. 47) are wanting in B, D, L, 4, 1, 28, 118, 209, 
 and versions. 
 
 The clause ὅπου... . σβέννυται may be safely discarded from 
 the first and second places, and εἰς τὸ 7. τὸ do. from the second. 
 Great doubt must necessarily attach to the latter in the first place 
 also, from the amount of variation which occurs there, and its 
 glossarial appearance. 
 
44 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 MARK XI. 10. 
 
 Εὐλογημένη ἡ ἐρχομένη βασιλεία ἐν ὀνόματι 
 Κυρίου τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν 4αβίδ. ᾿ 
 Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh 
 [in the name of the Lord |: Hosanna in the highest. 
 
 The amount of evidence adverse to the words ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου 
 is sufficient to put their spuriousness beyond all doubt. They 
 have evidently been introduced from the preceding parallel clause. 
 The place is noticed because it resembles the one which has been 
 just discussed, in exhibiting, in the common text, the result 
 of a process which may be termed self-assimilation, by the intru- 
 sion of a further uniformity upon an already existing parallelism. 
 
 MARK XI. 26. 
 
 \ “ \ \ a 
 Εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἀφίετε, οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν 
 nr ἴω / \ / « an 
 τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἀφήσει τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν. 
 | But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is 
 in heaven forgive your trespasses. | 
 
 The genuineness of this entire verse is called in question on 
 account of its absence from B, L, S, 4, and a few others, from 
 g°, k, 1, of the Old Latin, the Coptic, and Armenian. 
 
 The importance of this adverse evidence, though narrow in 
 amount, cannot-be denied: still its force is weakened by the very 
 obvious possibility of an accidental loss by oversight in transcrip- 
 tion, on account of the recurring close τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν. 
 
 Again, if on the one hand, it may be said that the verse 
 is a spurious intrusion from the parallel place (Mat. vi. 15), on 
 the other, it is important to observe, that undoubted cases of 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 45 
 
 assimilation generally exhibit a simple transfer of exact words, 
 or nearly so; whereas in the present instance the form of expres- 
 sion is considerably varied. Several copies proceed to make an 
 unquestionable assimilative addition of two entire verses (Mat. vii. 
 7, 8), but they are introduced without alteration. 
 
 The clause itself is affected by some fluctuation of form; some 
 copies omitting τοῖς, and others the words ὁ ἐν 7. o., while others 
 insert ὑμῖν after ἀφήσει. 
 
 On the whole, however, there is hardly sufficient ground for 
 expunging the verse as spurious, though it cannot be viewed as 
 unaffected by reasonable suspicion. 
 
 
 
 MARK XI. 32. 
 
 > ’ A A ~ Ν 
 Αλλ᾽ ἐὰν εἴπωμεν, ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, ἐφοβοῦντο τὸν 
 / 
 Aaov. 
 
 But tf we shall say, Of men; they feared the people. 
 
 In this place, as in others already noticed in this Gospel, 
 influences have been at work on the text to smooth down what 
 would otherwise possess a lively abruptness of manner, to an 
 ordinary cast of expression. Thus, a certain number of MSS., 
 well supported by versions, exhibit this process in its full result 
 by reading φοβούμεθα, and thus giving the sentence the same 
 form as in the parallel place in Matthew (xxi. 26). The same 
 process is seen partially in the common text, if ἐάν be spurious. 
 
 On the removal of this word the form will stand thus, ἀλλὰ 
 εἴπωμεν, ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ;--- ἐφοβοῦντο τὸν λαόν, with the lively 
 deliberative expression εἴπωμεν; instead of the hypothetical ἐάν 
 εἴπωμεν. ‘But, would it be well to say, From men ?—They 
 feared the people.’ 
 
 The word in question is wanting in A, B, C, E, F, G, H, L, 5, 
 and many others. Its presence may most readily be referred 
 to the influence of the preceding clause, and is an instance of 
 
46 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 self-assimilation. To a suggestion that ἐάν was removed from 
 the text by way of critical improvement, it may be replied, that 
 though a critic might view its absence as an improvement, yet 
 there is really nothing in its presence to provoke alteration. 
 
 It may be noticed that even B and C read τὸν ὄχλον, a 
 manifest gloss, as being a more strictly correct term, and probably 
 derived from the parallel place. 
 
 MARK XIII. 14. 
 
 "Orav δὲ ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως TO 
 ρηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιήλ τοῦ προφήτου, κ. τ. λ. 
 
 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, | spoken 
 of by Daniel the prophet, | etc. 
 
 The common text here exhibits a correspondence with the 
 parallel place (Mat. xxiv. 15), except in having ὑπό instead of 
 διά; which latter however, is also read in this place in several 
 ‘ MSS. Accordingly, facts tending to raise a doubt of the genuine- 
 ness of any portion would be countenanced by the possibility 
 of assimilative influence. 
 
 The clause τὸ p. v. 4. τ. π΄. is wanting in B, D, L, the copies 
 of the Old Latin except two, the Vulgate, Coptic, etc. 
 
 If the Evangelist wrote no more than τὸ βδ. τῆς ἐ., he employed 
 an expression which might seem to many readers in after time to 
 need some additional specification; a need readily met by append- 
 ing the words supplied by the parallel place. 
 
 It is also difficult to discern any motive for suppression, or any 
 cause for accidental omission of the clause in question. 
 
 The only plea that can be urged in its favour, must rest upon 
 the fewness of the adverse authorities. Its genuineness can 
 
 hardly be defended. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 47 
 
 MARK XIV. 24. 
 
 See MATTHEW XXVI. 28. 
 
 MARK XIV. 27. 
 
 , 7ὔ > > ἐν ᾽ a Q 
 HTavres σκανδαλισθήσεσθε ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐν TH νυκτὶ 
 4 
 TQUTN. 
 
 All ye shall be offended | because of me this night}. 
 
 The words ἐν ἐ. ἐν τῇ v. τ. are wanting in B, C pr. m., 1), G, 
 H, L, 8, V, X, 4, ete., and ff of the Old Latin; while other copies 
 of this latter, with several MSS., omit the words ἐν τῇ ν. τ.» and, 
 again, other MSS., with important copies of the Vulgate, omit 
 ἐν ἐμοί. 
 
 The brief expression πάντες ox., with its abrupt pointedness, 
 is quite in accordance with the style which in so many places 
 marks the colloquial parts of this Gospel, and, as such, would not 
 fail to provoke glossarial amplification. 
 
 However, the adverse evidence alone is sufficient to mark the 
 whole of the words in question as spurious. They are an assimi- 
 lative accretion from the parallel place (Mat. xxvi. 31). 
 
48 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 MARK XIV. 70. 
 
 ᾿Αληθῶς ἐξ αὐτῶν εἶ, καὶ γὰρ Ταλιλαῖος εἶ καὶ 
 ἡ λαλιά σου ὁμοιάζει. 
 
 Surely thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilean, {and 
 thy speech agreeth thereto. | 
 
 In one of the parallel places (Mat. xxvi. 73) the reason appended 
 to the charge against Peter is, καὶ yap ἡ λαλιά σου δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ; 
 in the other (Lu. xxii. 59) it takes the form, καὶ yap Γαλιλαῖός 
 ἐστιν: and it should be remarked that they are virtually equivalent, 
 each involving the other; for an appeal to Peter’s dialect could 
 only be made by way of proof that he was a Galilean, and thus 
 there would be no need to express the implied conclusion; and, 
 again, the direct allegation of his being a Galilean could only rest 
 on his dialect, and, accordingly, there would be no need of an 
 actual statement of the ground. Still, both might be expressed ; 
 and this is actually shown in the common text in the present 
 place, but with an evident awkwardness, which is in strong con- 
 trast with the short and lively manner of recording conversations, 
 which has been already remarked as a characteristic of this 
 Evangelist. In one MS. the matter is somewhat mended by an 
 inverted order of the two members, namely, καὶ ἡ Δ. σ. ὁ Kal yap 
 I. et: but this transposition is of itself suspicious. 
 
 The words καὶ ἡ λ. o. 6. are wanting in B, C, D, L, and 
 others, and have nothing answering to them in a, ὁ, ff, g', k, of 
 the Old Latin, and the Vulgate, while the Aithiopic represents 
 δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ instead of ὁμοιάζει. 
 
 This evidence, thus giving its weighty confirmation to other 
 considerations, should leave little or no doubt that the words 
 in question are an intrusion of an officious supplement. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 49 
 
 MARK XV. 28. 
 
 Kai ἐπληρώθη 7 γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα: καὶ μετὰ 
 ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη. 
 
 [And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was 
 numbered with the transgressors. | 
 
 This entire verse is wanting in A, B, C, Ὁ, X, and a con: 
 siderable number of others, as also in & of the Old Latin, and 
 in the Sahidic. 
 
 But little weight is due to the ions argument, that it is 
 not the practice of this Evangelist, while recording circumstances, 
 to note fulfilments of prophecy; while, on the other hand, acci- 
 dental omission can only be regarded as simply possible. 
 
 The direct evidence, however, against the genuineness of the 
 passage is very weighty, and can scarcely leave any doubt that 
 it is an intrusion, though of an early date, since it is recognised 
 by Origen and the Eusebian canons. If spurious, it cannot be 
 actually termed an instance of assimilation, because, though the 
 application of the prophecy is recorded elsewhere (Lu. xxii. 37), 
 yet the occasion and manner are altogether different from the 
 present. But in that application, made prospectively by Jesus 
 himself, may be seen the cause of its intrusive appearance in 
 another place. 
 
 MARK XVI. 9-20. 
 
 The criticism of the text of the New Testament is to a con- 
 siderable extent engaged on matter of which the genuineness is 
 questioned, but which is very fragmentary in shape, ranging from 
 a single word to a single clause. In the present instance, how- 
 ever, an entire paragraph is the subject of discussion, the question 
 being, whether it forms a part of the original Gospel, or is # 
 subsequent supplement by another hand. 
 
 9 
 
50 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 It cannot be imagined that the Evangelist formally brought his 
 narrative to a close at the end of the eighth verse with the words 
 ἐφοβοῦντο yap. If, therefore, the passage in question is spurious, 
 either the Gospel was never completed, or its conclusion perished, 
 by some peculiar accident, previous to transcription. If such 
 were really the case, a supplement was furnished at an early 
 period, for the nineteenth verse is cited by Irenzeus as a portion 
 of this Gospel (Heer. ii. 11). 
 
 If the question were to be decided by a mere enumeration of 
 MSS. the evidence would be overwhelming in favour of the 
 authenticity of the passage. But this summary method would 
 ignore various points most material to a correct view of the real 
 state of the case. 
 
 B alone exhibits a bare termination at the eighth verse. L, 
 after that verse, adds the following supplement, prefacing it with 
 the words φέρεταί που καὶ ταῦτα, a form of expression sufficiently 
 intimating that the matter is not vouched for as genuine: πάντα 
 δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα τοῖς περὶ τὸν Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήγγειλαν. 
 μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι δύσεως 
 ἐξαπέστειλε δι’ αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου 
 σωτηρίας. This supplement is also found in 274, and the margin 
 of the later Syriac. L next subjoins the passage in question, with 
 a prefatory clause of the same import as the former: ἔστιν δὲ καὶ 
 ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ TO ἐφοβοῦντο yap. ‘The evidence, therefore, 
 of this MS. is in fact adverse. It may also be remarked, that the 
 author of the supplement preserved in it was either unacquainted 
 with the present termination of the Gospel, or, deeming it spurious, 
 thought himself at liberty to furnish one of his own. Certain 
 copies of the Aithiopic also give both conclusions. 
 
 In two MSS. the passage is marked with asterisks, and a con- 
 siderable number exhibit it as excluded from the Eusebian and 
 Ammonian divisions. 
 
 The present is one of the places where something can be ascer- 
 tained respecting the state of copies in remote times. This infor- 
 mation is partly supplied by the scholia in several MSS., whose 
 varying statements taken together are sufficient evidence of some 
 amount of uncertainty attaching to the passage at the date of their 
 composition. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 51 
 
 The language, however, of several ecclesiastical writers not only 
 carries the evidence higher, but is sufficiently explicit. Eusebius 
 says that the accurate copies (τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν avtvypadev) close 
 the Gospel with the words, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ ; and, again, that this 
 is the termination in nearly all the copies (σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς 
 ἀντυγράφοις) ; and one or other of these statements is also made 
 by several writers besides, but especially by the critic Jerome, 
 who affirms that the paragraph is wanting in nearly all the Greek 
 MSS. (omnibus Grecie libris pene). Now, if it were even certain 
 that these statements describe the evidence of MSS. only so far 
 as it fell under the observation of the individuals, still they show 
 a condition of that evidence very different from that which exists 
 at the present day. A circumstance has been thus ascertained 
 which materially affects the present question, if it be not rather 
 the most material of all; and not only so, but it has an important 
 bearing upon the criticism of the New Testament in general, 
 because it shows that documentary testimony as a whole has been 
 liable to fluctuation, a fact which must be taken in abatement 
 of the force of mere numerical preponderance at the present day 
 in any particular instance; a circumstance on which so much 
 stress has frequently been laid. 
 
 The passage is supported by the versions, except the Arme- 
 nian, and the Old Latin in a single copy (A), which exhibits 
 a termination of similar purport with that contained in L and 272 
 already cited. 
 
 Patristic authorities are divided, Irenzeus and Tatian being the 
 only positive witnesses before the third century. 
 
 The portion is of sufficient length to admit of being tried on 
 internal grounds, as exhibiting similarity or discrepancy of style 
 and language with the rest of the Gospel. It certainly contains a 
 considerable proportion, relatively to its limited extent, of words 
 and expressions occurring now for the first time in this Gospel ; 
 but on several of these it would be unreasonable to insist, as being 
 terms uncalled for élsewhere: others are material, as the following. 
 
 Instead of πρώτη σαββάτου, v. 9, the term for the first day of 
 the week is just before, v. 2, as also in every other place (Mat. 
 xxviii. 1; Lu. xxiv. 1; Jno. xx. 19; Ac. xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2), 
 the peculiar Hebraism μία σαββάτων. 
 
Κ 
 
 52 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 The employment of ἀπό, v. 9, is not only at variance with the 
 practice of this Evangelist, whose term is é« with reference to the 
 ejection of unclean spirits, but is especially remarkable, because 
 St. Mark himself presents a contrast on this point with St. Matthew 
 and St. Luke, who always employ the former preposition with the 
 exception of one passage (Lu. iv. 35) where both occur (Mat. 
 xil. 43; xvii. 18; Lu. vill. 2, 29, 33, 35, 38; xi. 24). Oedouas 
 is used twice (vs. 11, 14) but not elsewhere, though employed by 
 the other Evangelists. It is remarkable, that so common a term 
 as the simple verb πορεύομαι is unknown to the rest of the 
 Gospel, but occurs three times in this portion (vs. 10, 12, 15). 
 
 With respect to the matter it may be observed, that the clause 
 ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια is oddly appended for the first 
 time to the name of Mary Magdalene after a threefold mention 
 within the compass of a few verses. There appears, too, through- 
 out the passage a defect of easy coherence, the natural. result 
 of a compression of borrowed materials. 
 
 It now remains to observe, that, if some difficulty attends the 
 idea of the Gospel being left unfinished when so near its com- 
 pletion, the same is also the case with the supposition, that the 
 passage, though genuine, was designedly suppressed by some who 
 were unable to reconcile all its contents with the statements of 
 the other evangelists; because such a supposition includes the 
 highly improbable circumstance of such persons being blind to 
 the fact, that an entire suppression was impossible and a partial 
 one of no avail; and, further, because such an object would have 
 been more easily and safely pursued by means of some slight 
 alteration than by the more violent process; a process, too, to the 
 adoption of which other places offered an equal temptation but 
 show no traces of the attempt. 
 
 Whatever judgment may be formed respecting the passage, 
 the investigation is certainly important and interesting, both on 
 account of the matter in question, and the peculiar features of the 
 evidence. But even if it were necessary to réject it as spurious, 
 there would be no historical loss, because, with the exception of 
 one clause, itself of a suspicious complexion, Kay... . βλάψῃ, 
 the contents are all derivable from the New Testament. 
 
 One important remark remains to be made, That the passage 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 53 
 
 was found in copies at a very early date is clear, as has already 
 been observed. If then it were a spurious addition, the natural 
 result of early intrusion would be, that the evidence descending 
 to modern times would embrace an adverse portion sufficiently 
 distinct in significance but narrow in extent. This, as has been 
 seen, is the actual state of things; which, therefore, points unmis- 
 takably in the direction of a spurious origin. On such a suppo- 
 sition, too, the prevalence of the passage in the current text until 
 it reached the extent which is visible at the present day, must 
 have exhibited stages in advance with advancing time, and the 
 glimpse obtained through Jerome and others shows that such was 
 actually the case. 
 
 Thus does the hypothesis of very early interpolation satisfy the 
 body of facts in evidence. 
 
54. DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 LUKE IV. 5. 
 
 \ Ν / Ν 
 Kai ἀναγαγὼν αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλον, 
 ee Δ. 
 
 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, ete. 
 
 The words ὁ διάβολος are wanting in B, D, L, etc., e of the 
 Old Latin, the Coptic, Sahidic, and Armenian versions; as also 
 εἰς ὄρος ὕψηλόν in B, L, the Coptic, the Anglo-Saxon, and 
 several important MSS. both of the Old and Hieronymian Latin. 
 
 With regard to the latter words, it might be urged that their 
 removal leaves language so incomplete and unmeaning as could 
 hardly have proceeded from the Evangelist. But this peculiar 
 appearance, when rightly viewed, is really a strong evidence of 
 the genuineness of the shorter expression. 
 
 A clear and lively impression of localities and details on the 
 mind of a narrator is apt to betray him into an artless use of 
 language imperfectly adapted, on the score of particularity, to 
 persons differently circumstanced. Of this every-day life furnishes 
 constant proof, and there are several striking instances in the 
 Gospel narratives. 
 
 One is at once supplied by a term which has just preceded, 
 ἡ ἔρημος, which, as it comes from the writer, is vague enough. 
 St. Matthew’s term ἀνήχθη, and other external considerations, 
 sufficiently show that it was an upland tract. This being the 
 case, all at once becomes clear, for, in that case, the second 
 temptation requires no change of scene, but simply the con- 
 ducting of Jesus to some point overtopping the elevated district, 
 a proceeding which finds a sufficient expression in the bare term 
 ἀνωγωγών, when once the subsisting locality—the already upland 
 situation —is present to the mind; though a cautious and studied 
 writer might have been more explicit. 
 
 The effect of the words ὁ διάβολος εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλόν is to mark 
 more strongly a step in the narrative, which would correspond 
 to a broadly marked and independent stage in the entire transac- 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 55 
 
 tion. But if there was no such demarcation present to the mind 
 of the writer, he would be naturally led to express the simple and 
 ready sequence of the second stage of the temptation by language 
 such as the text exhibits when disencumbered of the words in 
 question. In St. Matthew’s account, on the contrary, such demar- 
 cation is strongly made by the insertion of the temptation which 
 is here the third in order, and hence the necessity with him of 
 corresponding language. 
 
 The ancient evidence, cited above, authorises a reduenon of 
 the text to that form which, when rightly scanned, thus bears 
 intrinsic marks of genuineness. 
 
 In this way not only is intrusive matter removed, but there 
 is restored to view a delicate indication of the true order and 
 connection of events, which was otherwise overlaid and _ lost. 
 Without this aid no decision can be made on the discrepancy 
 between the two Evangelists; but in this light St. Luke appears 
 to have given the real succession; and St. Matthew may be 
 regarded as having adopted the other arrangement for the purpose 
 of placing the most imposing temptation at the conclusion. 
 
 Other debatable matter occurs in the common text of the 
 present passage. The clause, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι Θεοῦ, is 
 wanting in B, L, and the Sahidic, while a number of copies, 
 supported by the Coptic and /thiopic, insert the words ἐκπο- 
 ρευομένῳ διὰ στόματος. The whole must be viewed as very 
 doubtful. The clause, ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου catava, is wanting in 
 B, D, L, and several others, in nearly all the versions, Origen, 
 ete. It must be discarded as an undoubted assimilation. 
 
 The passage (vs. 3—8) when reduced would stand thus: ‘ And 
 the devil said to him, etc. And Jesus answered him, It is written 
 that man shall not live on bread alone. And Cindutaas him 
 upwards he shewed him, ete. And in reply to him Jesus said, 
 It is written, Thou shalt worship, ete.’ 
 
56 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ΤΠ: 
 
 y TA A » [f , 
 “γένετο δὲ ev σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ, κ. τ. X, 
 
 And it came to pass on (the second sabbath after the first y 
 a sabbath, | ete. 
 
 The word δευτεροπρώτῳ, which has so much taxed the learning 
 and ingenuity of commentators to determine its meaning, is want- 
 ing in B, L, 1, 22, 33, 69, pr. man., 118, 157, 209, and has no 
 representative in ὦ, c, e, f sec. man., of the Old Latin, the Peshito, 
 Ethiopic, Coptic, ete. 
 
 It might be argued against this adverse evidence, that there 
 was a disposition or at least no unwillingness on the part of tran- 
 scribers and translators to make riddance of a difficult or unintelli- 
 gible term, and hence its absence from existing documents. But 
 it should be remembered, that, if the word be a reality and origi- 
 nally in the text, its meaning, since in that case it must have 
 been horrowed from something in the Jewish calendar, would 
 have been traditionally known from the first, and the presumed 
 difficulty would hardly have existed. 
 
 Still, if the spuriousness of the word is to be maintained, some 
 cause must be suggested for its introduction into the text; and 
 here it is important to observe the existence of two other readings, 
 δευτέρῳ πρώτῳ and δευτέρῳ. This would point to an origination 
 of the strange term in a fusion of two marginal words πρώτῳ 
 and δευτέρῳ, which might be at first distinct glossarial appen- 
 dages to the bare term σαββάτῳ, expressive of certain relative 
 positions in time ascribed to that particular day in the view 
 of the respective glossarists. That the narrative is such as to 
 provoke speculation and give rise to difference of view, is evident 
 from its want of precision in marks of time, and also from discre- 
 pancy, since the event which is presently described as occurring 
 on another sabbath, appears clearly in St. Matthew’s account, 
 and apparently in that of St. Mark, as taking place on the same. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 57 
 
 A difficulty presented by a particular reading affords in general 
 a presumption in favour of its genuineness; but this rule must not 
 be pressed when the difficulty rests with a word which may, as in 
 the present case, be resolved into a mere figment, the offspring 
 of accident. 
 
 LUKE VI. 26. 
 
 om e ral ao wn e na 57 4 ε 
 Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν ὅταν καλῶς ὑμᾶς εἴπωσι πάντες οἱ 
 yf 
 ἄνθρωποι. 
 
 Woe unto you when [all| men shall speak well of you! 
 
 Πάντες is wanting in D, F, L, 5, V, 4, and a considerable 
 number of others, and has nothing answering to it in the Syriac, 
 Vulgate, Ethiopic, etc. It is supported by A, B, E, K, M, P, 
 Q, U, X, etc, the Old Latin, three principal MSS. of the Hiero- 
 nymian Latin, and other versions, Irenzus, Chrysostom, etc. 
 
 The evidence is fairly conflicting, as being completely mingled, 
 for neither side can appropriate antiquity or a particular class of 
 authorities ; but the decision is practically unimportant, for the 
 expression of ἄνθρωποι signifies, in virtue of the article, people in 
 the bulk—the world—and, therefore, the addition of πάντες is 
 of little or no moment. The word may well have been originally 
 a marginal addition for the purpose of making the sense doubly 
 safe ;- but, in that case, its currency as a part of the text was of 
 early date. 
 
58 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 LUKE XI. 2-4. 
 
 / € “ Ὁ an 3 vad / Ν 
 Hlarep ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ 
 4 / > ΄ « 7 iA Ν 
 ονομα σου" ελθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου γενηθήτω τὸ 
 / / ε > » lal Kia BES lal a Ν 
 θέλημα σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τ " TOV 
 ΕΩ Lh ξ lad Ν > An i / cia ie ἐξ «ε / 
 ἄρτον ἡμῶν TOY ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν TO καθ᾽ ἡμέ- 
 \ yy crn \ 7 «ε lad Ν 
 ραν: καὶ ἀφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, καὶ yap 
 3 A ὦ / Seb / € a \ \ 
 αὐτοὶ ἀφίεμεν παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῶν" καὶ μὴ εἰσε- 
 if « an > / A a « ΄“ Ν 
 νέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμὸν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ 
 τοῦ πονηροῦ. 
 
 [ Our| Father [which art in heaven,| Hallowed be thy 
 name. Thy kingdom come. | Thy will be done, as in heaven, 
 so in earth]. Give us day by day our daily bread. And 
 forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that ts 
 indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; [but 
 deliver us from evil]. 
 
 In discussing the genuineness of the doxology, Mat. vi. 13, it 
 was shown that the Lord’s Prayer, as there recited, possessed in 
 its own peculiar circumstances an intrinsic safeguard against the 
 disappearance of a genuine portion of its text from any number 
 of current copies. And this must be also true of its record in 
 another Gospel. 
 
 Yet, if the common form of the present passage be the true 
 one, this has actually befallen it in three several places, consisting 
 each of an entire clause. The first, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, is wanting 
 in B, L, 1, 22, 33, 57, 180, 346—of which, also, L alone has 
 ἡμῶν ---ἰῃ6 Vulgate, etc., and the fact is also noticed in the 
 scholia of certain MSS.; the second, γενηθήτω... . γῆς, in B, L, 
 1, 22, 130, 346, the Syriac (N), ff of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, 
 the Armenian, etc.; the third, d\Aa . . . . πονηροῦ, in B, L, 1, 22, 
 57, 130, etc., the Vulgate, the Armenian, etc. 
 
 If the improbability of a triple omission by accident is very 
 great, neither can the absence of these clauses be assigned to wil- 
 fulness on account of awkward discrepancy from the other Evan- 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 39 
 
 gelist; for they show, on the contrary, an exact resemblance, in 
 contrast with the partial variations of the remaining part. But 
 if the form given in one Gospel was originally shorter than in - 
 another, this is, of all such parallels, the one where influence 
 in the way of assimilative accretion on the briefer recital would 
 he most certainly and powerfully exercised. 
 
 The conclusion to be drawn is, that the Lord’s Prayer as given 
 in this Gospel can only be allowed to stand in the abridged form 
 in which it was read by Origen. 
 
 Πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου" ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου" τὸν 
 ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν’ καὶ ἄφες 
 ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφίεμεν παντὶ ὀφείλοντι 
 ἡμῖν" καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν. 
 
 If it be asked, why was not the assimilation completed by the 
 addition of the doxology? it is enough to reply, that that spurious 
 clause had not obtained a fixed form or a general currency at a 
 sufficiently early period to be used in that way, together with the 
 genuine matter borrowed from the other Gospel. 
 
 Besides, it is the fuller form of that Gospel that would be 
 adopted for liturgical usage, and on it alone would liturgical 
 influence operate. The absence of such an appendage in this 
 place is rather an argument that the shorter form is here original, 
 because, being less full, it would not be preferred for private or 
 public use, and, accordingly, would not attract to itself an arti- 
 ficial complement devised for that use alone. 
 
 The clause, ἐλθέτω τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμά σου ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς Kat καθαρι- 
 σάτω ἡμᾶς, which Gregory Nyssene and Maximus say proceeded 
 from this Evangelist instead of the words ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, 
 is clearly an expository scholium on this latter. It is as old at 
 least as Tertullian, and must have met with that favour at the 
 hands of transcribers which was so liberally bestowed on amplified 
 forms. 
 
“ 
 
 60 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 LUKE XI. 48. 
 
 σ Ὁ τῆς \ see, ᾽ Ν « vad yet) 
 Ort αὐτοὶ μὲν ἀπέκτειναν αὐτους, ὑμεῖς δὲ οἰκοδο- 
 lal ΄“ Ν r 
 μεῖτε αὐτῶν τὰ μνημεῖα. 
 
 For they indeed killed them, and ye build | their sepulchres|. 
 
 
 
 The genuineness of the words αὐτῶν τὰ μνημεῖα is a matter 
 of question. 
 
 On their removal the sentence undoubtedly presents at the 
 first view an appearance of unusual abruptness. Still that abrupt- 
 ness is not of a really unusual sort, but is produced by a process 
 frequently adopted in keen or stern language, namely, a sup- 
 pression of the objects of verbs, when they have been previously 
 mentioned or may be readily understood, the effect of which is 
 a dry and cutting manner of address. Examples of this usage 
 may be seen 1 Kings xxi. 19; James iv. 2. 
 
 Besides the reading of the common text the following also are 
 found, αὐτῶν τὰ μνήματα, αὐτῶν τοὺς τάφους, and τοὺς τάφους 
 αὐτῶν, this last being also placed in some copies before οἰκοδομεῖτε. 
 This fivefold shifting of shape is alone sufficient to impair a con- 
 fidence in the genuineness of the words in question. They are 
 altogether omitted in B, 1), L, and by the Old Latin in a, ὦ, i, J, 
 while e has the words vos autem gloriamini. 
 
 It appears, then, that the shorter reading has in its abruptness 
 a significance and propriety of its own, but at the same time 
 would, if genuine, be strongly provocative of a supplementary 
 gloss; and that a glossarial origin is strongly indicated by the 
 shifting shape of the matter itself, and is further evidenced 
 directly by its absence from authorities few indeed but weighty. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 61 
 
 LUKE XIV. 5. 
 
 , a yy xX a a 
 Tivos ὑμῶν ὄνος ἢ βοῦς εἰς φρέαρ ἐμπεσεῖται, κ. τ. X. 
 
 Which of you shall have an [ass χ son] or an ox fallen into 
 a pit, ete. 
 
 The common reading ὄνος is found in K, L, X, etc, supported 
 by the Old Latin in all copies but two, the Vulgate, Coptic, 
 “Ethiopic, and Armenian. ‘The reading is therefore an ancient 
 one. 
 
 But vids is the reading of A, B, E, G, H, M, S, U, V, 4 (A 
 and U prefixing the article), and a great number besides, and 
 is represented in both Syriac versions, e and f of the Old Latin, 
 the Sahidic, etc. 
 
 The expression produced by this latter reading could hardly 
 fail to be generally viewed as strange. But this circumstance 
 would rather add force to the testimony of its wide prevalence 
 in the mass of MSS. It must, however, be further remarked 
 upon it, that it quite destroys the reasoning a fortiort from the 
 brute creation to a human subject—a mode which is prominently 
 used on other similar occasions (xiii. 15, 16; Mat. xii. 11, 12)— 
 but, more than this, it actually throws the stress of the argument 
 on the wrong side, by supposing a case where the motive for 
 a formal breach of sabbath strictness is as valid as can well be 
 conceived, namely, the overpowering law of natural affection. 
 
 These considerations are at least a bar to a summary rejection 
 of the common reading, even in the face of a preponderating mass 
 of documentary evidence. 
 
 ΤΙρόβατον is the reading of D alone. Should this be regarded 
 as the bold remedy of some one who was staggered by υἱός and 
 knew nothing of ὄνος ? 
 
 Mill conjectured dis, a word little likely to be found in such 
 a place. 
 
62 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 LUKE XVI. 9. 
 
 og 3 
 Iva, orav ἐκλίπητε, δέξωνται, KT 
 
 That, [when ye fail X when it shall fail,| they may receive 
 you, ete. 
 
 In support of the common reading ἐκλίπητε or ἐκλείπητε ----ἴὉΓ 
 the difference is practically immaterial, and the evidence of the 
 generality of MSS., on account of the habitual confusion of ὁ and 
 et, equally so—there are cited E, F, G, H, K, M, P, 5, U, V, 4, 
 and many others, the Vulgate, ete. The rival reading ἐκλίπῃ 
 or ἐκλείπῃ is supported by A, B, D, L, X, and others, the Old 
 Latin in a, 6, ἶ pr. man., the Coptic, AXthiopic, Armenian, etc. 
 
 Evidence thus strongly ranged on either side would forbid 
 a positive decision. Ifthe words, fugati fueritis, in Irenzus are 
 to be taken as testimony in favour of the common reading, its 
 antiquity is established ; though on this point the existing docu- 
 ments which oppose it have the advantage. There is nothing 
 in the nature of the variation that points to any other than a 
 purely accidental origination; and on consideration what might 
 be the effect of accident in this case, it would appear more pfro- 
 bable that the shorter form was the offspring of the longer, than 
 the contrary. On the other hand, the sense which ἐκλίπῃ would 
 bear, since μαμμωνᾶς must be its subject, agrees with the other 
 single occurrence of the word in this Gospel (xxi. 32). On the 
 whole the balance is perhaps rather in favour of the common 
 text. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 63 
 
 LUKE XVI. 25. 
 
 / id = 5 / \ Nes / 
 Texvov, μνήσθητι ore ἀπέλαβες σὺ τὰ ayaba σου 
 3 lal ω \ / od ἈΝ / 
 ἐν TH ζωῇ σου, καὶ Aalapos ὅμοιως τὰ κακά. 
 
 Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good 
 things, and likewise Lazarus evil things. 
 
 The pronoun of emphasis o is wanting in D, G, H, and many 
 others, and is not represented in the Vulgate, the Old Latin 
 except ὦ, the Peshito, Coptic, Sahidic, Aithiopic, Armenian, and 
 Slavonic. A places it after cov. It is also omitted by many > 
 Fathers. It is supported, however, by B apparently, E, F, K, M, 
 S, U, V, X, 4, ete. 
 
 Notwithstanding this conflict of evidence, ‘hee need be no 
 hesitation in regarding the word as intrusive, as a hasty and ill- 
 judged addition made for the sake of marking by words an oppo- 
 sition between the two persons, which really existed, but the 
 expression of which is out of place and mischievous, as standing 
 in the way, and thus weakening the foreé, of the emphatic point 
 of the sentence, centered in the single term ἀπέλαβες. That 
 point is the circumstance of a receipt in full (ἀπολαβεῖν) in either 
 case, of good and ill respectively. 
 
 The adoption of the lively ὧδε, instead of ὅδε, is abundantly 
 authorised by an overwhelming mass of authority. Critical hands 
 are well employed in removing corruptions, however slight, 
 which may in the least degree impair the force and beauty 
 of this wonderful parable. 
 
 ‘Son, remember that thou hast received thy good things in thy 
 lifetime, and Lazarus in like manner his ills: but now is he thus 
 comforted, while thou art tormented.’ 
 
64 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 LUKE XVII. 9. 
 
 My χάριν ἔχει τῷ δούλῳ ἐκείνῳ ὅτι ἐποίησε τὰ 
 διαταχθέντα αὐτῳ; οὐ δοκώ. 
 
 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that 
 were commanded him? 7 trow not. 
 
 The words, οὐ δοκῶ, in which Jesus here appears to reply 
 to his own question, are wanting in B, L, X, 1, 28, 118, 131, 157, 
 a, 6, of the Old Latin, the Coptic, Zthiopic, Armenian. 
 
 It may be remarked, that since the tone and drift of the 
 question are fully marked by the prefixed particle μή, these words 
 are in fact unnecessary ; that this abates the likelihood of their 
 having proceeded from the writer, but at the same time would 
 be no bar to the officiousness of glossarists, whose propensity was 
 rather to overdo and to make assurance doubly sure. 
 
 There are good grounds for expunging ἐκείνῳ and αὐτῷ ; and 
 it is probable that the Evangelist go a, μὴ χάριν ἔχει τῷ 
 δούλῳ ὅτι ἐποίησε τὰ διαταχθέντα ; οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς, κ. Tu ’ ie 
 he thankful to the servant because he performed his commands ? 
 Likewise ye too, etc. 
 
 
 
 LUKE XVII. 36. 
 
 Avo ἔσονται ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, ὁ εἷς παραληφθήσεται 
 καὶ ὃ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται. 
 | Zwo men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and 
 the other left. | 
 
 This verse is supported by D, U, and many others, by the Old 
 Latin, except that ὁ places it before v. 35, e has nothing answering 
 to the words καὶ ὁ ér. ἀφ., and g' altogether omits it, by the 
 Vulgate, Syriac, Armenian, etc. 
 
 On the other hand, it is wanting in all the uncial MSS., except 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 65 
 
 \ 
 
 the two just cited, and in a considerable number besides, as also 
 in the Coptic, Athiopic, Gothic, ete. 
 
 It is quite possible that the passage may have been lost by 
 oversight on account of the homceoteleuton; but, independently of 
 external evidence, it is far more likely, from the strong tendency 
 to assimilation everywhere manifested, that it was an artificial 
 addition, deriving its matter from the parallel place (Mat. xxiv. 
 40, 41), and conformed in its expression to the immediate con- 
 text. With this probability there combines, as has been already 
 seen, an overbearing preponderance of the most important MSS., 
 the versions being nearly balanced. With respect to its principal 
 supporter D, it should always be remembered, that its marked 
 character in the way of interpolation renders its testimony feeble 
 in a case like the present, though it gives special force to its 
 evidence whenever it is given on the negative side. 
 
 LUKE XXII. 43, 44. 
 
 One of the most curious questions with which the criticism 
 of the New Testament is concerned relates to this passage, more 
 especially because its absence from copies was long ago directly 
 ascribed to wilful tampering arising from dogmatic motives, and, 
 indeed, cannot well be assigned to any other cause if it be 
 genuine. 
 
 In the first place, it is recognised in the dialogue with Trypho, 
 by Irenzus and Hippolytus, not to mention later writers, and 
 thus the fact of its currency in the text at a remote period is at 
 once fairly established, whether it was rightfully a part of it or 
 not. 
 
 The statement of Hilary, that it was wanting et in Grecis et 
 in Latinis codicibus complurimis, is strong, and would be most 
 important, if reliance could certainly be placed on it as the 
 expression of accurate personal observation. Jerome’s authority 
 on such a point is unimpeachable, and his expression, though 
 differently cast, is equally strong to the same effect with the 
 
 6 
 
66 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 preceding, noting its occurrence in quibusdam exemplaribus tam 
 Grecis quam Latinis. The charges advanced by Photius and 
 Nicon, against the Syrians and Armenians respectively, of wilful 
 suppression, may be allowed to pass as evidence of the simple 
 circumstance of the absence of the passage from current copies 
 in those parts of Christendom: and the same may be said of other 
 similar statements. More than this cannot be granted to them, 
 when it is remembered that polemical accusations were made in 
 those times —as in others—without assurance of their truth, and, 
 it is to be feared, with little concern about it. 
 
 It will be necessary now to pass to the evidence of existing 
 documents. 
 
 The passage is altogether wanting in A, B, 124, in the Sahidic, 
 in one copy (f) of the Old Latin, and one of the Coptic. In 69 
 it finds its place after Mat. xxvi. 39; and the same is the case in 
 some Evangelistaria, with a previous insertion of John xii, 3—7 
 after v.20. In 13 the transcriber appears, for some reason or 
 other, to have checked his pen after the words ὥφθη δὲ, leaving 
 the rest to be supplied in the margin by a later hand; wishing, 
 perhaps, to intimate thereby the occurrence of such a passage at 
 that place, but, at the same time, its spuriousness or doubtful 
 character.’ It is marked with asterisks or obeli in E, ὃ, V, 4, 
 24, 36, 123, 161, 166, 274, 344. 
 
 The Ammonian and Eusebian notation is not attached to it 
 in L, but it has the latter in M, ete. 
 
 A scholium in 34 notes that some copies did not contain τὰ 
 περὶ τῶν θρόμβων. 
 
 On the other hand, the passage is found in the mass of MSS. 
 and versions. 
 
 On a review of what has preceded, it must be observed that, 
 while the passage was read in the text by very early writers, the 
 language of Jerome, to the effect that it was found only im quibus- 
 dam exemplaribus, would imply a decided preponderance in his 
 time of documentary evidence against it, a state of matters which 
 could not have been a thing of sudden growth. ‘There are, also, 
 other clear indications of an absence from current copies to some 
 extent or other. 
 
 Of existing documents a few ancient authorities are directly 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 67 
 
 adverse, and some others offer unfavourable testimony of a slighter 
 kind, but the preponderance on the other side is great. 
 
 By way of accounting for its absence thus much may be safely 
 said, that certain dogmatic notions would tend to an inclination 
 to make riddance of it. Epiphanius does not shrink from affirming 
 that such an operation had been actually performed by orthodox 
 hands. But if, in further argument for its genuineness, the ques- 
 tion be asked, from what spurious source such matter could have 
 been borrowed and intruded on the text; such a suggested diffi- 
 culty may be met by pointing to those narratives of various 
 passages in the life and actions of Jesus which soon became 
 current, and furnished materials for the memoirs alluded to by 
 this Evangelist (1, 1). 
 
 That the place had not escaped intrusive corruption, appears 
 from the words of Epiphanius, to the effect that even the term 
 ἔκλαυσε was read in unsound copies. 
 
 If it would be a bold step to pronounce the passage spurious— 
 one on which no critic appears to have ventured—still a due 
 regard to evidence will not allow it to stand clear of doubt. 
 
 
 
 LUKE XXII. 64. 
 
 \ / ay aN 57 3 pat tS U 
 Kat περικαλύψαντες αὐτὸν, ἐετυπτον αὑτοῦ TO προσ- 
 » / \ 7 
 @TOV, Kal ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν, λέγοντες, K. τ. A. 
 
 And when they had blindfolded him, they | struck him on the 
 face, and| asked him, saying, etc. 
 
 This account as it stands in the common text is complete in 
 details, in which respect it is in contrast with those of the two 
 preceding Evangelists, the former of which makes no mention 
 of the blindfolding, and the latter none of the prophetic answer 
 required. 
 
 But doubt is raised respecting the words ἔτυπτον αὐτοῦ τὸ 
 πρόσωπον καὶ, the removal of which would leave the cireum- 
 
68 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 stance expressed by them to be gathered from the question, τίς 
 ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε, unless the preceding term δέροντες be viewed 
 as conveying it. 
 
 That such a form of the text is not an unlikely one, is clear 
 from the facts already noticed in the parallel places. Besides, 
 it is not easy to detect anything that might cause accidental 
 omission; and the existence of another shape of the disputed 
 clause in D and elsewhere, namely, wepix. αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον 
 ἔτυπτον αὐτὸν Kal, 15 a Suspicious circumstance. 
 
 The words in question are wanting in B, K, L, M, and J, ο, 
 ff; ἢ, of the Old Latin. They can hardly be viewed as genuine. 
 
 LUKE XXIII. 34. 
 
 ε yD an / / a \ 
 O δὲ ᾿]ησοῦς ἔλεγε: Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς" ov yap 
 οἴδασι τί ποιοῦσι. 
 
 [ Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not 
 what they do. | 
 
 Whatever may be the unwillingness to view these memorable 
 words as open to the slightest doubt, still it is necessary to state 
 the evidence which has that tendency. 
 
 The passage is wanting in B, D pr. man., and two others, the 
 Old Latin in a, ὦ, d, a copy of the Coptic, and. the Sahidic. 
 There is also some variation in its form, Κύριος being the reading 
 of Q, εἶπέν of A, K, M, etc., and πάτερ being wanting in A. 
 
 This evidence is sufficient at once to establish the fact of its 
 absence from copies, to some extent or other, in ancient times. 
 That it was also found in the text at an early period is equally 
 clear from the circumstance, that Irenzeus in one place (iu. 18) 
 has a distinct reference to it, and in another (111. 20) cites the 
 very words of the prayer. 
 
 It must at the same time be admitted that there is nothing 
 in the outward shape to point to the probability of an accidental 
 oversight; and yet, if the passage be genuine, its absence from 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 69 
 
 copies could have arisen only from accident, for there is nothing 
 in its purport to excite a dogmatic inclination to its suppression. 
 
 It is clear that the passage cannot have grown from the context 
 nor from any parallel place; if, therefore, it were certain that it 
 is spurious, it might be reasonably viewed as having originally 
 noted a traditional, but true, circumstance, being thus well fitted 
 to obtain an early and firm footing in the text itself 
 
 LUKE XXIV. 1. 
 
 a A an rn ’ yy (A 3 
 ᾿ 1 ἢ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββατων ὄρθρου βαθέος ἦλθον 
 ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα φέρουσαι ἃ ἡτοίμασαν ἀρώματα, καὶ. 
 \ a 
 τινες σὺν αὐταῖς. 
 
 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the 
 morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices 
 which they had prepared, [and certain others with them]. 
 
 The last clause, Kal... . αὐταῖς, is wanting in B, C pr. man., 
 L, etc., the Old Latin in all copies except f, the Vulgate, Coptic, 
 ZEthiopic, Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Augustine. 
 
 The words certainly wear the appearance of an officious addition, 
 intended to help the Evangelist to exact consistency; for, if those 
 women alone brought the spices who had witnessed the burial 
 on the preceding evening, which is the strict meaning of this 
 verse when the clause is withdrawn, their number was very small 
 (Mat. xxvii. 61; Mark xv. 47), and, therefore, at variance with 
 the larger company implied in the words καὶ ai λουπαὶ σὺν αὐταῖς 
 (v. 10). The words in question come to the rescue from this 
 immaterial inconsistency, which involves nothing more than a 
 very simple looseness of language, and they thus encounter a 
 suspicion of a meddling appendage. 
 
 There need not be much scruple in rejecting the clause. 
 
 The word ἀρώματα is also wanting in D, in several copies of 
 
 the Old Latin, and the Sahidic. 
 
70 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 LUKE XXIV. 12. 
 
 Ὅ δὲ Πᾷάέ 3 Ν ZO a | 4, - 
 ε Πέτρος ἀναστὰς εδραμεν ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον, 
 Ν / / δ 9 / / Me \ 
 καὶ παρακύψας βλέπει τὰ ὀθονια κείμενα μονα: καὶ 
 > la \ Ν / Ν / 
 ἀπῆλθε πρὸς ἑαυτὸν θαυμαζων τὸ γεγονός. 
 
 [ Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre: and stoop- 
 ing down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and 
 departed, wondering in himself at that which had come to 
 pass. | 
 
 This entire verse is wanting in D, in a, ὦ, e, J of the Old Latin, 
 and is not recognised by the Eusebian canons. The Jerusalem 
 Syriac puts it in the margin. 
 
 This range of adverse evidence is certainly narrow; but it 
 should be added, that in the ancient copies which contain the 
 passage, A, B, and others, there are several variations of form, 
 which are often the shiftings of a spurious growth. 
 
 The passage rather interrupts the thread of the narrative. The 
 transaction is the same as that described John xx. 3—10, but 
 dissimilarity and discrepancy exclude the idea of the passage 
 having been directly borrowed from thence. This independence 
 of matter and words might be urged as an argument for its 
 genuineness; but the force of such argument could only be 
 derived from the assumption, that mutual influence of the Gospels 
 is the sole source of intrusion. On the contrary, it is quite possi- 
 ble that the passage might be a marginal addition, made by hands 
 which the fourth Gospel had never reached, and noting a piece 
 of tradition. 
 
 In this instance there is occasion to recur to the remark, that 
 in a case of very early intrusion the natural issue of things would 
 be, that among the more ancient of surviving documents there 
 would occur adverse testimony distinct in expression but narrow 
 im compass. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 71 
 
 LUKE XXIV. 51. 
 
 \ Ἅ τ 7 
 Kat ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. 
 
 [ And carried up into heaven. | 
 
 This clause is omitted by D only, but the omission is supported 
 by the Old Latin in a, J, e, ff, 1. 
 
 The clause too is one which might well have been wanting in 
 the original narrative, but, in that case, could hardly fail to be 
 supplemented in the margin. Hence it cannot be free from 
 suspicion. 
 
 There are other similar instances where D thus stands alone, 
 especially Acts xvii. 18; xviii. 3. 
 
72 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 JOHN I. 16. 
 
 Kat ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες €da- 
 βομεν. 
 [And y For] of his fulness have all we received. 
 
 The connexion of this verse is with the clause πλήρης χάριτος 
 καὶ ἀληθείας (v. 14), to which it is plainly linked by the expres- 
 sion τοῦ πληρώματος; and, whether καί or the various reading 
 ὅτι be taken as its opening particle, it contains the argument in 
 proof of the proposition involved in those preceding words, drawn 
 from the experience of the persons emphatically signified by the 
 term ἡμεῖς, in the circumstance of their own derived endowments. 
 This connection is locally severed by interposing the statement of 
 the Baptist’s testimony to the surpassing dignity of his successor. 
 A passage of a similar structure proceeding from this writer occurs 
 in his First Epistle, v. 1—4, where the fourth verse contains the 
 logical proof of the proposition laid down in the first clause of the 
 first verse, and is introduced by ὅτι, after a digression made in 
 the two intervening verses. In this there must be recognised 
 an argument in favour of the variation ὅτι in the present place, 
 drawn from the author’s practice elsewhere. 
 
 The various reading is found in B, C pr. man., D, L, X, 33, 
 supported by a, ὦ, e, ff, of the Old Latin, the Coptic, A®thiopic, 
 Armenian, and several Fathers. 
 
 Without a careful noting of the true structure of the present 
 passage, ὅτι, 1f in the text, would wear a somewhat strange 
 appearance, so that καί might be carelessly suggested and adopted. 
 It does not, indeed, destroy the real connexion of the passage, 
 and, as such, would not provoke any interpretation or substitution, 
 such for instance as ὅτε; but at the same time it fails to bring that 
 connexion fairly into view, and in all probability did not proceed 
 from the Evangelist. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 73 
 
 JOHN I. 18. 
 
 ε \ εΝ ec oN 
 O μονογενὴς υἱὸς, ὁ ὧν, K. τ. λ. 
 
 The only begotten { Son χ God, which is, ete. 
 
 Here instead of vids there is encountered the remarkable varia- 
 tion θεός, supported by B, C pr. man., L, 33, the Syriac, Coptic, 
 Ethiopic, and various Fathers. These last, however, would 
 probably be more disposed to give currency to so marked an 
 expression, if it came in their way, than to scrutinise its claims to 
 reception. What was the reading followed by Irenzus, Clement, 
 and Origen, must be left an open question. 
 
 The testimony of Theodotus and Arius in favour of θεός might 
 appear peculiarly strong on account of their respective dogmatic 
 views. But it must be remembered with respect to the former, 
 that, though his scheme was simply humanitarian in one aspect, 
 this term was in perfect harmony with its Gnostic conceptions 
 and subtleties (Clem. Alex. Op. p. 968). With respect to the 
 latter it may be remarked, that, if he found no bar to his creed in 
 the term μονογενής, neither would θεός stand in his way. The 
 evidence, however, of Theodotus at once shows that this reading 
 was current at an early period. 
 
 The common text, besides the mass of MSS., has the weighty 
 support of the Nitrian Syriac Text, the Old Latin, and Vulgate. 
 
 The variation vids τοῦ θεοῦ clearly exhibits an accretion upon 
 υἱός, and is thus an evidence in favour of it. The other, vids 
 θεός, is important as serving to point to an origination of θεός as 
 a deductive gloss upon the expression 6 μονογενὴς υἱός, becoming 
 afterwards an accretion. 
 
 It is possible that the Evangelist wrote no more than ὁ povo- 
 yevns, of which form there are some traces. The preponderance, 
 however, of evidence, supported by the preceding considerations, 
 requires that the common reading should be retained, without 
 impeachment of the antiquity of its rival, and the weight of the - 
 few authorities which support it. 
 
74 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 JOHN I. 28. 
 
 ral ’ ~ > / / n> ’ 
 Tatra ἐν βηθαβαρᾷ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ 7ορδανου. 
 
 These things were done in | Bethabara γ Bethany| beyond 
 Jordan. 
 
 The reading Βηθαβαρᾷ is given by C sec. man., K, U, 22, 33, 
 69, and many others, while Βηθανίᾳ is found in all the other 
 uncial MSS. that contain the passage, and the great majority 
 of the rest, as well as in nearly all the versions, and is the reading 
 of Heracleon, Chrysostom, and other writers. 
 
 Origen confesses that this latter was the reading of nearly all 
 the copies; from which it appears that the aspect of the evidence 
 has not been changed materially down to the present time. Not- 
 withstanding, he expresses his conviction in favour of the other 
 reading, denying with the authority of a local investigator the 
 existence of a Bethany on the Jordan. -This argument cannot 
 but carry weight, whatever may be thought of others which are 
 appended to it (Comm. in Johan. p. 130, ed. Huet.). Jerome is 
 on the same side, and possesses a like authority as being per- 
 sonally acquainted with the country. 
 
 These considerations forbid an utter discarding of the common 
 reading, notwithstanding the preponderance of the opposing 
 evidence. It may also be remarked, that Βηθαβαρᾷ cannot have 
 been an arbitrary alteration derived from the Septuagint, which 
 represents 772 M2 by BaOnpa or Βαιθβηρά. The question, 
 however, is rather curious than important. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 75 
 
 JOHN III. 25. 
 
 > / > / “ lal > t 
 γένετο οὖν ζήτησις ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν ᾿ΪΙωάννου 
 ᾿ τ 5 ͵ an 
 μετὰ ᾿Ϊ]ουδαίων περὶ καθαρισμοῦ. 
 
 Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples 
 and | the Jews y a Jew| about purifying. 
 
 Instead of ᾿Ιουδαίων, ᾿Ιουδαίου is given by A, B, E, F, K, L, 
 M, 8, U, V, 4, and a large body of others, supported by both 
 Syriac versions, and various Fathers. 
 
 Tn support of the common reading there are cited G, H, 1, 13, 
 69, etc., the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Coptic, AZthiopic, etc., and 
 Origen. 
 
 No other origin can well be conceived for this variation 
 than accident in transcription; and preference must, therefore, 
 be simply given to that reading in favour of which the evidence 
 preponderates, namely, "Iovdaiov; though the weight of the 
 versions lies on the other side. 
 
 In this place Bentley and Markland were each independently 
 led by the succeeding context to conjecture ᾿Ιησοῦ, taking, how- 
 ever, μετὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ to stand for μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ, an 
 ellipsis requiring for its justification instances more closely perti- 
 nent than those which were actually cited for that purpose (Mat. 
 xxiv. 51; John v. 36; 2 Cor. vi. 16). Conjectural ingenuity, 
 however happy its feats have occasionally been in other quarters, 
 has made but a sorry adventure on the New Testament; and to 
 this the present instance is no exception. 
 
 The appeal of John’s disciples to their master was probably 
 caused by their having learnt incidentally, through the Jewish 
 disputant, some particulars of the doings and success of Jesus. 
 
76 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 JOHN V. 3, 4. 
 
 Ey ταύταις κατέκειτο πλῆθος πολὺ τῶν ἀσθε- 
 νούντων, τυφλῶν, χωλῶν, ξηρῶν, ἐκδεχομένων τὴν 
 τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν. ἄγγελος γὰρ κατὰ καιρὸν 
 κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ “κολυμβήθρᾳ, καὶ ἐτάρασσε τὸ 
 ὕδωρ. ὁ οὖν πρῶτος ἐμβὰς μετὰ τὴν ταραχὴν 
 τοῦ ὕδατος, ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατείχετο 
 νοσήματι. 
 
 In these ἰαψ a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, 
 halt, withered, {waiting for the moving of the water. For 
 an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and 
 troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling 
 of the water stepped in, was made whole of whatsoever 
 disease he had. | 
 
 The question which arises on this passage, relates to the genu- 
 ineness of the portion ἐκδεχομένων .. . . νοσήματι. 
 
 If an entire passage or clause is exhibited by different authorities 
 with considerable variations of form, and presents, as a whole, a 
 changeable and unsettled appearance, such a circumstance can be 
 reasonably referred to only one cause, and lead to only one 
 conclusion, namely, that the portion of text in question, even if 
 not one existing copy entirely wants it, is a mere concretion of 
 spurious matter. 
 
 In the present instance, the clause éxdey... . κίνησιν, is wanting 
 in A pr. man., L, 18; and the succeeding portion, ἄγγελος .... 
 νοσήματι, in 1), 33, f, 1, being also marked with an asterisk in 8, 
 and many others. The clause ὁ οὖν... . νοσήματι is obelised in 
 the later Syriac; and the three, κατὰ καιρόν, ἐν TH κολυμβήθρᾳ, 
 @.... νοσήματι, have nothing answering to them in a, ὦ, ff, of 
 the Old Latin, ete. 
 
 Thus far alone the appearances are such as to realise the case 
 which has been just supposed, and are, therefore open to the con- 
 clusion attached to it, without the aid of further reasons. That 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 77 
 
 conclusion is, however, especially strengthened by the fact, that the 
 entire passage in question is wanting in B, C pr. man., 157, 314, 
 the Sahidic, and copies of the Coptic, and has nothing cor- 
 responding to it in the metrical paraphrase of Nonnus. 
 
 It will now be proper to look at the aspect which the narrative 
 wears, when the disputed portion is omitted. The first thing 
 that must strike a reader, is the absence of any assigned reason 
 for the gathering of the sick folk around the pool, until, subse- 
 quently, implication supplies some information on the point, in 
 the answer of the impotent man (v. 7); whose words intimate 
 thus much,—that the presence of himself, and, therefore, of the 
 others, arose from a belief in a healing virtue immediately 
 following upon a certain occasional stirring of the water. Now 
 this is certainly not the form which the narrative would take at 
 the hands of a careful and practised historian; but it is natural 
 enough in an inartificial account, and would be one of several 
 instances occurring in the Gospels, where the language is uncon- 
 sciously made to reflect the writer’s familiarity with localities and 
 scenes, rather than framed to meet the absence of that condition 
 on the part of the general reader,—a circumstance, however, 
 which is a vivid evidence of the ariless truthfulness of an eye- 
 witness. 
 
 If such were the original form of the text, there was a more 
 than ordinary opening for marginal supplements. The clause, 
 CO 2 κίνησιν, is the simplest form that such a supplement 
 could well take, since it expresses no more than what is barely 
 suggested by the succeeding context (v. 7). On this becoming, 
 by intrusion, part of the text, the entire passage would take the 
 shape in which it is seen in D. The clause, dyyedos . . . . νοσή- 
 ματι, supplies something more circumstantial. Its separate ad- 
 rence to the text would give it the form under which it appears 
 in A, L. The eventual addition of both together would produce 
 the common reading of the passage. 
 
 That such has been the actual process, there are strong reasons 
 for concluding from the documentary evidence, even without 
 regard to these internal considerations, which so curiously tally 
 with the facts of the MSS. It may be remarked, too, that the 
 supposition that the two clauses are independent glossarial supple- 
 
78 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ments, is supported by the circumstance, that, while one has 
 ταραχήν, κίνησιν in the other betrays a different hand. [Ὁ should 
 also be observed, that no mechanical causes can be discerned, 
 which would lead to the accidental omission of the whole or part 
 of the disputed portion. 
 
 The entire portion, ἐκδεχομένων .... νοσήματι, may then 
 safely be removed from the text: and if the resulting shape of 
 the narrative be somewhat peculiar, this peculiarity, when rightly 
 viewed, is an evidence of the genuineness of the form. A clear 
 impression of scenes and circumstances, tends, if a narrator is 
 artless, to an unwitting scantiness of descriptive and explanatory 
 detail for those who require it. Perhaps an instance of this is 
 supplied by the very probable reading ἡ ἑορτή (v. 1); ‘ the 
 feast” being that which was particularly present to the mind of 
 the writer, as the one to which the preceding account of well 
 remembered events had just brought him. In that case, ἡ ἑορτή 
 is probably Pentecost. 
 
 
 
 JOHN Υ. 16. 
 
 Q Ἁ an > j Py S. an ἈΝ > A 
 Kai διὰ τοῦτο ἐδίωκον ot ᾿ΪΠουδαῖοι. τὸν ᾿]ησοῦν 
 ν ω x A ᾽ = Ψ 
 καὶ ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι, ὅτι, K. τ. A. 
 
 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, [and sought to 
 
 slay him,]| because, ete. 
 
 It may be remarked of narrative writers, especially if their 
 method be an unstudied one, that they frequently do not express, 
 in their proper place, with full particularity, circumstances which 
 presently clearly appear from the succeeding context. Here 
 officiousness would readily step in with a supplement for such 
 oversight or defect. 
 
 An illustration of this would be furnished by the present 
 passage, if the clause cai... . ἀποκτεῖναι were removed; for the 
 following words, διὰ τοῦτο οὖν μᾶλλον ἐζ. a. of I. ἀπ. imply a 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 79 
 
 previous circumstance, which may be involved in the general 
 - term ἐδίωκον, but is not precisely expressed. | 
 
 The clause in question is wanting in B, C, D, L, 33, 69, ete.; 
 the Old Latin in all copies except f, the Vulgate, Coptic, Arme- 
 nian, the paraphrase of Nonnus, etc. 
 
 It may fairly be regarded as a supplement, originating in the 
 way which has been just described. 
 
 JOHN VI. 22. 
 
 > Ν Φ ῳ 27 > 53 3 lat 3 Vie δ > 
 7δὼν ὅτι πλοιάριον ἄλλο οὐκ HY ἐκεῖ εἰ μὴ EV εἰς 
 ee ee C Ν 3 a 
 ὃ ἐνέβησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, κ. τ. X. 
 The people saw that there was none other boat there, save 
 [that one wherein his disciples were entered one], ete. 
 
 This case is precisely of the same kind as the last, as respects 
 the clause εἰς 6.... αὐτοῦ, and admits of the same conclusion, 
 the clause being wanting in A, B, L, etc., and a considerable 
 number of versions. 
 
 
 
 JOHN VII. 8. 
 
 > Ν 5, > ,ὔ > ἣν ς \ , 
 Eyw οὔπω ἀναβαίνω εἰς THY ἑορτὴν ταυτήν. 
 
 I go not | yet| unto this feast. 
 
 The simple negative οὐκ, instead of οὔπω, is given by D, K, M, 
 and three others. This slender amount of MS. evidence is, 
 however, strongly supported by the Old Latin in nearly all the 
 copies, the Vulgate, Coptic, Athiopic, ete., and by various 
 ecclesiastical writers. 
 
 The present is an instance calling for the exercise of that 
 simple and important rule in criticism, that, in a conflict of 
 
80 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 evidence, a reading which makes all clear, and smooth, and 
 consistent, which does not challenge attention by difficulty or 
 peculiarity, has less claim for acceptance than one of the opposite 
 character. Now the intention expressed in the present passage, 
 as it stands in the common text, is in complete accordance with 
 the subsequent proceeding (vs. 10, 14): on the contrary, with the 
 absolute negative, it has an appearance, at least, of inconsistency; 
 so much so, that Porphyry, according to Jerome, drew from it an 
 attack upon the character of Jesus. 
 
 The incongruity, however, disappears when it is considered, 
 that attendance at a festival was made with form and publicity, in 
 associated companies, and often by anticipation of the exact time 
 (xi. 55); and accordingly, one who made the journey ὡς ἐν 
 κρυπτῷ, and appeared τῆς ἑορτῆς μεσούσης, did not go up to the 
 feast according to the established acceptance of the term. 
 
 There is no need to regard οὔπω as a wilful alteration: it is 
 more likely to have been originally a marginal suggestion, just as 
 Chrysostom interprets by the modifying additions, ἄρτι, μεθ᾽ 
 ὑμῶν. 
 
 JOHN VII. 52. 
 
 "Epevynoov καὶ ἴδε, ore προφήτης ἐκ τῆς Tare 
 λαίας οὐκ ἐγήγερται. 
 Search and look: for out of Galilee [.ariseth y there has 
 arisen | no prophet. 
 
 On the word ἐγήγερται, there is the variation ἐγείρεται. Both 
 readings are strongly supported; ἐγήγερται by E, G, L, M, S, X, 
 1, and many others, as well as the margin of the later Syriac; 
 ἐγείρεται by B, D, Κα, the margin of 5, T, 4, and some others, 
 as also by the principal versions, including those which express a 
 future. Origen also appears to have read the same. ‘The pre- 
 ponderance on the score of the antiquity of the testimonies is in 
 favour of the latter. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 8] 
 
 τ ΠΕ attention be directed to the readings themselves, it must be 
 
 observed, that ἐγήγερται has this peculiarity,—that it involves a 
 statement of at least doubtful truth, though,not the less likely, on 
 that account, to be put forward controversially. The reasoning 
 intended to be associated with the statement would be, that, as 
 Galilee had been no cradle of prophets, it was least of all likely to 
 send forth the Messiah. 
 
 This peculiarity attending the reading ἐγήγερται, would not 
 tend to procure it a preference in case of a free choice between 
 the two, nor would it be a comment of improvement or inter- 
 pretation on ἐγείρεται. Such considerations should at least 
 produce hesitation in discarding the common text. 
 
 JOHN VII. 53.—VIII. 11. 
 
 The question which arises respecting the spuriousness of this 
 entire passage, is one of special interest, not only from its import- 
 ance, but on account of singular points involved in the evidence. 
 
 In the first place, there must be noted the circumstance of its 
 shifting position. It is placed by one MS. after vii. 36 of this 
 Gospel, at the end of it by at least ten, and at the end of 
 Luke xxi. by four. Though none of these MSS. are of high 
 antiquity, yet on this particular point their evidence is not 
 impaired on.that account. Now the several copyists that respec- 
 tively first gave to the passage these various positions, must have 
 encountered it in some detached state, which left them free to 
 give it a location according to the judgment or fancy of each. 
 But it is not easy to conceive a genuine portion of the Gospel 
 narrative thus set adrift, to find a fresh lodgment as it may. 
 
 Next, there is a remarkable variation of shape. One distinct 
 phase or cast of the passage is exhibited by D alone; and in the 
 other copies that contain it, the text fluctuates more broadly than 
 to the extent of various readings, ordinarily so called, and seems 
 to indicate the existence of two other shapes. 
 
 The passage is visibly wanting in B, L, T, X, 4, and more 
 
 7 
 
82 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 than fifty others, besides lectionaries; and though A and C are 
 here defective, its absence from them in their complete state is 
 ascertainable by strict calculation, based on the uniform amount 
 of matter in their pages. Of the mass of MSS. which contain the 
 passage more than sixty stigmatise it with marks of suspicion. 
 
 It is wanting in a, f, etc., of the Old Latin, in the Sahidic, the 
 Gothic, and the best authorities of the Coptic, Armenian, and 
 both Syriac versions. 
 
 The commentaries of Origen and Chrysostom evince no know- 
 ledge, or, at least, no recognition of this section: and the same 
 may be said of Tertullian, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyril, Basil, 
 and others. The paraphrase of Nonnus has nothing answering 
 to it. Though the judgment of Jerome is in favour of it, and 
 hence its place in the Vulgate, yet this is accompanied with an 
 admission of its absence from many copies: and to the same 
 purport are the scholia in various MSS. 
 
 In the face of evidence thus varied and significant, the genu- 
 ineness of the passage cannot be maintained. It may be regarded 
 as having been originally a detached narrative, founded on a real 
 transaction, and one of a probably numerous class that obtained 
 more or less currency. Such a view agrees well with an air of 
 strangeness, that, apart from the miraculous, is not observable in 
 the other Gospel narratives. The cast of the story has an artificial 
 look, as designed for effect. 
 
 In this case, as elsewhere, recourse has been freely had, both in 
 ancient and modern times, to the suggestion of wilful suppression. 
 With respect to the likelihood of such a proceeding, opinions may 
 vary; but one thing at least is certain,—that such a supposition 
 will not serve, in the case of the present passage, to account for 
 two principal facts of adverse evidence, namely, its shiftings of 
 place and shape. 
 
 It may be well to note the entire coherence of the narrative on 
 the removal of this section. The scene has been transferred, and 
 with it also the dispute about Galilee, from the populace to the 
 conclave (vs. 45—52). This, however, implies no suspension of 
 the discourse of Jesus with those about him; and the broken 
 report of the really unbroken discourse is at once resumed after 
 the digression by the words πάλιν οὖν, κ. τ. Δ. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 83 
 
 JOHN VIII. 16. 
 
 Kat ἐὰν κρίνω δὲ ἐγὼ, ἢ κρίσις ἡ ἐμὴ ἀληθής 
 ἐστιν, ὅτι, K. τ. A. 
 
 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for, ete. 
 
 Here, instead of ἀληθής, ἀληθινή is given by B, D, L, T, X, 
 33, and Origen in one place. 
 
 The reading supported by these important authorities gives a 
 sense better suited to the context, which may be thus expressed: 
 61 judge no one. Yes (kal... . δέ), and if I were to exercise 
 judgment, the judgment that I exercise, is a genuine one’ 
 (ἀληθινή) --τιοῦ an idle, ineffective process, unworthy of the name 
 —‘ because, etc.’ "ἀληθής, which would convey the idea of 
 truthfulness and uprightness, is an epithet far less to the purpose 
 in the present place, as involving a less direct and forcible anti- 
 thesis to the statement, ἐγὼ οὐ κρίνω οὐδένα. It probably crept 
 in under the influence of the context (vs. 13, 14, 17). ᾿Αληθινή 
 is the reading of D in v. 14, and may be regarded as having 
 sprung in the same way from the word in the present passage. 
 
 
 
 JOHN VIII. 38. 
 
 ~ \ 
 ᾿Εγὼ ὃ ἑ ἑώρακα παρὰ τῷ πατρί μου, λαλώ. καὶ 
 Lal 3 e “ 
 ὑμεῖς οὖν ὃ ἑωράκατε παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν, 
 σοιεῖτε. 
 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye 
 
 do that which ye have seen with your father. 
 
 The ποτ is the form in which this passage was read by 
 Origen: ἐγὼ ἃ ἑώρακα παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ, λαλῶ. καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν ἃ 
 ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς, ποιεῖτε. A comparison of these two 
 
84 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 forms at once leads to the remark, that, in the latter, the same 
 person is necessarily signified by the terms τῷ πατρί, and τοῦ 
 πατρός, while, in the former, by the addition of the pronouns, * 
 two are presented, not only distinct but directly contrasted. By 
 the term ὑμεῖς, Origen understands the believing Jews (v. 31): 
 and from the expression οἱ ἐξεταζόμενοι, which he applies to them, 
 it would seem that he put an interrogative construction on the 
 last clause, so that the sense would be, ‘ Are you too then per- 
 forming what things you have heard from the Father?’ The 
 other construction which the words will bear, is an imperative 
 one, and the meaning of the passage may be given thus: ‘ I for 
 my part am speaking things which I have seen with the Father. 
 Do you too then perform what things you have heard from the 
 Father,’ whether by my mouth or otherwise. The address need 
 not be restricted, as is done by Origen. 
 
 The pronoun μου, is omitted by B, C, L, X, various versions, 
 and Cyril: ὑμῶν, by B, L, ete.: the Ethiopic, Sahidic, and 
 Cyril. The reading ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς, is supported by 
 B, C, K, L, X, 1, 13, 33, 69, etc., the Coptic, Sahidic, Aithiopic, 
 Armenian, Gothic, and the margin of the later Syriac, by Cyril 
 and Chrysostom. The immaterial variation, ἅ, in both places, 
 rests upon similar authority. 
 
 If, on these grounds, this latter form be regarded as genuine, it 
 may be considered that the first step in the way of deviation 
 would be an appending of ὑμῶν in the margin, under the influ- 
 ence of the succeeding context (vs. 41, 44), and thus producing a 
 discrimination of πατρὸς from πατρί. The other principal varia- 
 tion is the effect of self-assimilation. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 85 
 
 JOHN VIII. 59. 
 
 ᾿]ησοῦς δὲ ἐκρύβη καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐ ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, διελ- 
 θὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν, καὶ παρῆγεν οὕτως. 
 
 But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, | going 
 through the midst of them, and so passed by |. 
 
 The entire clause, διελθὼν... . . οὕτως, is wanting in B, D, the 
 Old Latin except f, the Vulgate, Sahidic, etc. Variations of 
 form are also exhibited both by MSS. and Versions. 
 
 It is an incongruous appendage, derived from Luke iv. 30. 
 
 JOHN X. 38. 
 
 σ “ ν / 7 ᾽ \ A 
 Iva γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε OTL ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ πατὴρ; 
 ΚΕ ΤᾺΣ 
 
 That ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, ete. 
 
 Instead of πιστεύσητε, γινώσκητε is the reading of B, L, X, 
 and four others, supported by the Coptic, pelndioy and Armenian, 
 Athanasius, Theodoret, and Hilary. 
 
 On the adoption of the latter reading the sense of the passage 
 might be given thus: ‘ Even if ye believe not me, believe the 
 works, that ye may mark’ their nature and significance, ‘ and 
 gather that the Father is in me and I in the Father.’ 
 
 It is clear that πιστεύσητε would be a ready gloss on γινώσκητε ; 
 but an opposite origination is not conceivable. ‘The second verb 
 is wanting in D, and a, ὃ, c, e, ff, 1 of the Old Latin. This 
 absence, however, may have been caused by the similarity of its 
 near neighbour γνῶτε : otherwise it must have been viewed as 
 
 doubtful. 
 
86 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 JOHN XI. 41. 
 ραν οὖν τὸν λίθον οὗ ἦν ὁ τεθνηκὼς κείμενος. 
 
 Then they took away the stone [from the place where the 
 dead was laid]. 
 
 The clause οὗ... κείμενος is wanting in B, C pr. man., D, L, X, 
 and three others, as also in the principal versions, and it seems to 
 have been unknown to Origen and Chrysostom. In the authorities, 
 also, which contain it, it appears with some variations of shape. 
 
 It may at once be regarded as spurious, and as an instructive 
 imstance of the propensity to append supplementary matter, wher- 
 ever the text left even the slightest opening. 
 
 JOHN ΧΗ. 7. 
 
 a} 3 7 \ ε tA a n 
 Ages αὐτὴν: εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ ἐνταφιασμοῦ 
 / > / 
 μου τετήρηκεν AUTO. 
 
 Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she hept 
 this. 
 
 Another form of this passage is, ἄφες αὐτὴν ἵνα εἰς τὴν 1). τ. ἐν. 
 μου τηρήσῃ αὐτό; which, in the strict sense of the words, offers 
 this incongruity, that it forbids interference with the execution 
 of a design which had already been visibly executed. To this 
 it would be sufficient to reply, that it is nothing more than 
 a laxity of colloquial language, of which every-day speech would 
 readily furnish examples. But it is rather an instance of a usage 
 common with this writer, the employment of a clause of this 
 grammatical form without any reference to its proper meaning 
 of design, but simply to express a circumstance in the abstract 
 (iv. 34; vi. 29). Accordingly, the sense of the passage under 
 this form might be thus freely given: ‘ Let alone—do not censure 
 —her reservation of the unguent against my burial rites.’ 
 
 With the common reading all is smooth, and its purport cor- 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 87 
 
 responds with the parallel places. On this ground it must yield 
 to the claims of its rival, the features of which are peculiar, if only 
 this latter rests on good authorities. These are B, D, K, L, Q, X, 
 etc., the Old Latin except f, the Vulgate, Coptic, Ethiopic, 
 Armenian, ete. 
 
 The common form of the passage may therefore be rejected 
 without hesitation ; it betrays a hand busied in removing slight 
 deviations from correctness and consistency, and belongs to a class 
 which may be distinctively termed readings of rectification. 
 
 JOHN XIII. 24. 
 
 / 3 / / / Ἃ 
 Neve. οὖν τούτῳ Σίμων Πέτρος πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν 
 3, \ Ὁ / 
 εἴη περὶ ov λέγει. 
 
 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask 
 who it should be of whom he spake. 
 
 Another form of this passage, which cannot have arisen by 
 accident, is the following: ν. ο. τ. Σ΄. Π. καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Εἰπὲ τίς 
 ἐστιν π. ο. %. “Τὸ him then Simon Peter beckons and says to 
 him, Tell us who it is about whom he is speaking.’ 
 
 The language here put into the mouth of Peter assumes that the 
 person addressed is already in possession of the required informa- 
 tion, an assumption which the previous circumstances, so far as 
 they are detailed, do not justify, and which the sequel shows to 
 have been wrong. Still it might have rested on some slight cir- 
 cumstance which is not recorded; and, in any case, its hastiness is 
 only in keeping with lively and eager conversation, and especially 
 with the character of the speaker. The formal incongruity, how- 
 ever, thus appearing on the face of the narrative would be quite 
 enough to catch the observation and excite the interference of 
 those whose solicitude it was, at least in the margin, to rectify 
 every the most slightly incongruous feature of the original text, 
 and to append a supplement to every the slightest opening for 
 such an operation. 
 
88 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 In contrast with the appearance presented by the various read- 
 ing is the considerate congruity of the common text, πυθέσθαι τίς 
 ἂν εἴῃ περὶ οὗ λέγει. 
 
 The case is of the same complexion as the last ; and, as in that 
 instance, in order to a decision in favour of the various reading, 
 it is only necessary to cite weighty authorities: they are B, C, L, 
 X, 33, several copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Ethiopic, 
 and several citations by Origen. The rendering interroga, found in 
 some copies of the Old Latin, betrays a feeling of the peculiarity 
 which marks the various reading, and is thus an indirect evidence 
 in favour of that reading, and also of the origin of the common 
 text. 
 
 In the next verse a slight but lively feature of the narrative is 
 lost by the absence of οὕτως ; which must be restored on the 
 authority of B, C, E, F, G, H, L, M, X, 4, etc., so that the 
 clause will stand, ἀναπεσὼν ἐκεῖνος οὕτως ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ 
 ᾿Ιησοῦ, x. τ. λ. The usage is the same as in another place of this 
 Gospel (iv. 6), and is best explained by a reference to Demosth. 
 Mid. p. 553, 3 Phil. p. 122. 
 
 JOHN XVI. 16. 
 
 Ν Ν » ee, \ ΄ Ν % 
 Μικρὸν καὶ ov θεωρεῖτέ με: καὶ παλιν μικρὸν Kat 
 oY / “ \ ΄ Ν Ν bald 
 ὀψεσθέ pe, OTL ἐγὼ ὑπαγω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. 
 
 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little 
 while, and ye shall see me, [because I go to the Father |. 
 
 The clause ὅτι... .. πατέρα is wanting in B, D, L, the Old 
 Latin in a, ὦ, e, ff, the Coptic, and Sahidic. 
 
 The succeeding context (v. 17) shows that such a clause ought 
 to be looked for: but since two of that kind have already pre- 
 ceded (vs. 5, 10), its absence in this place from a few ancient 
 authorities would seem to indicate an instance of that readiness in 
 the furnishing of supplements and producing uniformities, of 
 which the traces are so numerous. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 89 
 
 JOHN XVII. 11, 12. 
 
 , ¢ , > ‘ > ἂν ce , 
 ITarep ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς EV τῷ ὀνόματί σου 
 a / o 3 ε a 
 
 ovis δέδωκας μοι, iva ὦσιν ἕν καθὼς ἡμεῖς. OTE 
 5» > lad > a / + ae > ΜΌΝ » \ 
 UNV MET αὐτῶν EV τῷ KOT UO, ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὑτοὺς 
 > Cm a heal / A δέδ “ > ox ἕξ 
 ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου" οὺς δέδωκας μοι, εφύυλαξα. 
 
 Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom 
 thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While 
 I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: 
 those that thou gavest me I have kept. 
 
 The clause τήρησον... .. μοι presents a form, as respects the 
 presence of αὐτούς, at variance not only with pure Greek usage 
 but also with that of the writers of the New Testament, notwith- 
 standing certain peculiarities in their use of αὐτός; and if there 
 were no positive grounds for questioning the reading of any part 
 of the clause, it would be necessary at least to recognise a per- 
 plexing peculiarity. This necessity, however, is at once removed, 
 not by any variation affecting αὐτούς, but by the simple restora- 
 tion of the clause to a correct form in the substitution of ᾧ for οὕς, 
 a reading supported by an overbearing confluence of authorities. 
 In behalf of it there are cited A, B, C, E, G, H, K, L, M, 5, Y, 4, 
 and a considerable number besides, while D, U, X, and others 
 exhibit 6, which is merely an instance of the interchange of 
 o and ὦ so prevalent among MSS. The amount of direct 
 evidence is such as to put the reading ᾧ beyond all reasonable 
 doubt, and on this point nothing more need be said : still it may 
 be remarked, that it cannot well be urged that ᾧ is only an arbi- 
 trary riddance of an anomalous usage, since an intention of that 
 kind would have found a readier remedy by expunging αὐτούς. 
 The support for οὕς is mainly found in D, sec. man., the Latin, as 
 exhibited in the Vulgate text and several of its ancient docu- 
 ments, and, among the Fathers, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Augus- 
 tine, and Leo. 
 
 The same variation is again exhibited, at the next occurrence 
 
90 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 of the expression ods dédwxas (v. 12), by B, C, L, and a few 
 others of less importance. But not only is even this evidence 
 feeble compared with the body previously cited—an unlikely 
 circumstance if both readings were genuine—but this is evidently 
 a case to invite a venture on arbitrary assimilation. Such a step 
 would further require the insertion of καί before ἐφύλαξα ; and 
 this companion reading is actually presented by the same group 
 of documents—a close companionship which seems to betray 
 kindred. 
 
 The insertion of καί before ἡμεῖς is well supported by B, M, S, 
 U, Y, and several others, as well as Latin authorities; though 
 it may possibly be an artificial addition of a scarcely necessary 
 emphasis. On the other hand, the words ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ are omitted 
 by B, C, D, L, and several versions and Fathers, and have also all 
 the appearance of a gloss. 
 
 The preceding considerations would lead to the following read- 
 ing of the passage. 
 
 Πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς uot, 
 ἵνα ὦσιν ἕν καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς. ὅτε ἤμην μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν 
 αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ods δέδωκάς μοι, ἐφύλαξα, κ. τ. δ. 
 
 ‘Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast bestowed 
 
 on me, that they may be one just as we too are. When 1 was 
 with them, I was keeping them in thy name. Those whom thou 
 hast given me, I have guarded, ete.’ 
 ΓΑ similar question to the preceding arises at v. 24, where the 
 variation 6 for οὕς is found, resting mainly on the authority of 
 B, D; a reading which adds force and spirit to the passage, but 
 does not accord with the style of the Evangelist. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 91 
 
 JOHN XVII. 21. 
 
 Ἵνα πάντες ἕν ὦσι, καθὼς σὺ, πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ 
 κἀγὼ ἐν σοὶ, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ἕν ὦσιν. 
 
 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and [ἢ 
 in thee, that they may also be |one| in us. 
 
 The repeated word ἕν is wanting in B, C pr. man., D, and has 
 nothing answering to it in a, ὦ, c, 6 of the Old Latin, in the 
 Sahidic, and Armenian. 
 
 On the one side it may be truly said, that the word might 
 have been readily overlooked in transcription, especially as fol- 
 lowing ἡμῖν. 
 
 On the other, the effect of its removal should be noted. This 
 effect is to set in clear distinctness two things; one, a state barely 
 expressed by a simple term (ἕν); the other, a representation of 
 that state under a different aspect, in its internal and essential 
 condition. ‘I pray—that all may be one; that, just as thou, 
 Father, art in me and I in thee, even they too may be in us.’ 
 
 The word in question interferes with the distinct arrangement 
 which has been just noted, and is probably an oflicious intrusion. 
 
92 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ACTS I. 25. 
 
 “ lod a / 
 Δαβεῖν τὸν κλῆρον τῆς διακονίας ταύτης καὶ 
 ἀποστολῆς. 
 
 That he may take | ραγέχ the post| of this ministry and 
 apostleship. 
 
 Instead of κλῆρον, τόπον is the reading of A, B, C pr. man., Ὁ 
 (τόπον τὸν), the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, ete. 
 
 The common reading has certainly the appearance of a gloss, 
 borrowed from the expression, Tov κλῆρον τῆς διακονίας ταύτης, 
 immediately preceding (v. 17), and resulting in a reading of 
 assimilation, as well as producing a resemblance to other expres- 
 sions (vill. 21; xxvi. 18). On the other hand, with regard to 
 the common text, there is nothing in the reading itself, nor is 
 there any external influence, to lead to so much as a gloss upon it. 
 
 The question is not without its importance, because, if the 
 various reading is adopted, it furnishes at once an interpretation 
 of the language applied to Judas, ἀφ᾽ ἧς παρέβη πορευθῆναι εἰς 
 Tov τόπον Tov ἴδιον; for, as the term τόπον is here used, in the 
 first instance, to signify position of personal condition, it must be 
 taken in the same sense in the second; and.thus the resulting 
 meaning will be, that the traitor’s forfeiture had made him pass 
 (πορευθῆναι) to that which, in respect of his true character, had 
 been all along his rightful and appropriate place (τὸν τόπον τὸν 
 ἴδιον), namely, without the apostolic pale. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 93 ° 
 
 ACTS I]. 30. 
 
 xaAN a? σ 9 SOT κα Ν > an 
 Εἰδὼς ort opk@ ὦμοσεν αὐτῷ ὃ Θεὸς εκ καρποῦ 
 a > / > a Ν ἈΝ / 7 Ν 
 τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν 
 NS / tA a / > a 
 «Χριστὸν καθίσαι ἐπὶ TOU θρόνου αὑτοῦ. 
 Knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that 
 
 of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would 
 raise up Christ to sit on his throne. 
 
 The words τὸ x. o. a. τ. Χριστόν are wanting in A, B, Cer 
 sec. man., the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, Syriac, Aithiopic, Arme- 
 nian, and various ecclesiastical writers. 
 
 They have strongly the appearance of a gloss, giving a precise 
 interpretation of the general terms under which the promise was 
 originally conveyed, simply cited in that shape by the Apostle 
 (2 Sam. vii. 11, 12; 1 Chron. xvii. 10O—12; Ps. Ixxxix. 4). Some 
 copies, too, exhibit only the words ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστόν. 
 
 The shorter reading, thus supported, may be taken as the true 
 one; so that the sense of the passage would be as follows: ‘ Being 
 then a prophet, and knowing that God had solemnly sworn that 
 he would seat his offspring on his throne, he spoke in foresight 
 concerning the resurrection of Christ, that he was not left, ete.’ 
 
 ACTS II. 20. 
 
 Kai ἀποστείλῃ τὸν προκεκηρυγμένον ὑμῖν ᾿]ησοῦν 
 «Χριστόν. 
 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was | preached 
 X appointed | unto you. 
 
 Instead of προκεκηρυγμένον, προκεχειρισμένον is the reading 
 of A, B, C, D, E, and a considerable number of others, supported 
 by various versions and writers. 
 
94 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 The common reading may be regarded as a gloss upon mpoxe- 
 χειρισμένον, suggested by the following context, Μωσῆς μὲν yap, 
 κ. T..—a mistaken view of connexion which also led to the 
 intrusion of the undoubtedly spurious particle γάρ, at a point 
 where a new ground of argument and appeal commences (v. 22). 
 
 The reading which is so strongly supported by external evi- 
 dence, conveys the more forcible and complete idea of a person 
 both before appointed for an advent of visitation, and also ever 
 ready to execute that function, whenever the time should be ripe 
 for the event. 
 
 ACTS IV. 27. 
 
 7 A A / a , 
 Συνήχθησαν yap ἐπ᾿ ἀληθείας ἐπὶ Tov ἅγιον παῖδα 
 > an 
 σου Inaovy, k. τ. X. 
 
 For of a truth, against thy holy child Jesus, ete. 
 
 After ἀληθείας, the addition ἐν τῇ πόλει TavTy is found in A 
 (πόλει cov), B, D, E, and more than twenty others, supported by 
 the unanimous voice of versions, and a considerable number of 
 ecclesiastical writers. ‘ For truly there were gathered in this 
 city, etc.’ 
 
 It might seem a piece of inconsistency, or an instance of pre- 
 judice in favour of mere antiquity, to call for the admission of 
 matter into the text on the evidence of those very authorities 
 which are continually invoked for the contrary purpose. A con- 
 sideration, however, is at hand to show that here too the ancient 
 authorities must prevail. The practice of stichometry* was 
 attended by this evil, that entire στίχοι, such as ἐν τῇ πόλει 
 ταύτῃ, would be liable to be overlooked in transcription, especially 
 when, as in the present case, one was not material to the sense, 
 and several successive ones began with the same letter. The 
 
 * Some account of this method may be seen in Davidson’s Biblical 
 Criticism, Vol. II, chap. 1. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 95 
 
 custom of recording the number of the στέχοι at the end of 
 a book would no doubt act as a safeguard, if only that machinery 
 were constantly and accurately employed by copyists: but omis- 
 sions arising from this particular cause would be transferred with- 
 out chance of detection into transcripts where the stichometrical 
 arrangement was not retained. 
 
 When, therefore, a group of words which would be thrown 
 into a στίχος, is wanting in later copies, its absence must be 
 assigned to this particular cause, and it must be replaced in the 
 text on evidence which ascends higher than the date of sticho- 
 metrical influence; and thus a peculiar exception will be admitted 
 to that general principle of criticism, according to which the 
 shorter reading claims a preference. 
 
 ACTS, VE-8: 
 
 Lrehavos de πλήρης πίστεως καὶ δυνάμεως, K.T. λ. 
 
 And Stephen, full of | faith χ grace| and power, ete. 
 
 On πίστεως the variation χάριτος is the reading of A, B, D, 
 and more than twenty others, supported by the Vulgate, Coptic, 
 Sahidic, Armenian, etc., and various writers; while E has yap. 
 καὶ π. 
 
 On this evidence the variation claims the preference, the com- 
 mon reading having probably been at first an interpretation of it, 
 purporting that the grace by which the miracles were wrought 
 was that of vigorous faith. 
 
96 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ACTS VIL 37. 
 
 Προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῶν ἐκ 
 τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμέ: αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε. 
 A prophet shall {the Lord your| God raise up unto you of 
 your brethren, like unto me; [him shall ye hear}. 
 
 The last clause is wanting in A, B, H, and more than thirty 
 others, the Sahidic, etc. It is thus rendered at least doubtful, 
 especially when assimilative influence is taken into account; from 
 which also must have arisen K. ὁ. 0. ὑ. for the simple form ὁ θεός. 
 
 ACTS, ὙΠ]. 10. 
 
 e , e qn nae ᾿ς 
 Οὗτος ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ μεγαλη. 
 
 This man is the great power of God. 
 
 A fuller expression, ἡ καλουμένη μεγάλη, is found in A, B, C, 
 D, Τὸ, and nine others, the Vulgate, Coptic, Aithiopic, Armenian, 
 etc., and especially Irenzeus, so far at least as the Latin translation 
 may be accepted as evidence. 
 
 The variation is not immaterial; for the words, as they stand 
 in the common text, might be no more than an exclamation of 
 excessive wonder, but, by the insertion of the word in question, 
 they express an identification of Simon with an individual energy 
 of which the idea was previously present to the minds of the 
 speakers, and its designation was specifically ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 ἡ μεγάλη ---- The (so styled) great power of God.’ 
 
 This identity was also formally assumed by Simon according 
 to the statement of Origen, ἔφασκεν αὑτὸν εἶναι δύναμιν Θεοῦ τὴν 
 καλουμένην μεγάλην (c. Cels. vi. p. 282); while the term itself 
 appears to have been a primary one of his scheme of philosophy. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 97 
 
 It might be fairly suggested that καλουμένη was originally 
 a gloss, explaining in this way the definiteness of the expression 
 ἡ δύναμις ἡ μεγάλη; but the general character of marginal matter, 
 as far as it is brought into view, is of a far less refined and 
 artificial character than this. The word, too, might easily have 
 been lost by ὁμοιοτέλευτον. 
 
 ACTS VIII. 37. 
 
 5 A ae , 3 , 3 “ a 
 Hime δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος: εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς 
 ,ὕ yo > Ν rns / ΝΣ 
 καρδίας, ἔξεστιν. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε: πιστεύω τὸν 
 eX a a 53 XA > lal / 
 υἱὸν Tov Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν ]ησοὺν Χριστον. 
 
 [And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, 
 theu mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that 
 Jesus Christ is the Son of God. | 
 
 This entire verse is wanting in A, B, C, G, H, and more than 
 sixty others, the Codex Amiatinus of the Hieronymian Latin 
 pr. man., the Peshito, Coptic, Sahidic, Aithiopic, ete. 
 
 The passage also exhibits that mark of spuriousness, shiftings 
 of shape. Thus, for instance, its best authority E, instead of 
 ἔξεστιν has σωθήσῃ, and for πιστεύω... Χριστόν, reads πιστεύω 
 εἰς τὸν Χ. τὸν vi. τοῦ O. 
 
 The whole is undoubtedly an artificial supplement, where the 
 unstudied brevity of the narrative had left the appearance of an 
 unconditional administration of the rite. 
 
98 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ACTS AK? 3506 
 
 ‘O δὲ Κύριος εἶπεν" ἐγώ εἰμι ᾿Ιησοῦς ὃν σὺ 
 διώκεις" σκληρόν σοι ι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν. 7 ρέ- 
 μων τε καὶ θαμβῶν εἶπε' Κύριε, τί με θέλεις ποιῆ- 
 σαι; καὶ ὃ κύριος πρὸς αὐτόν: ἀνάστηθι, κ. τ. λ. 
 
 And the Lord said, Iam Jesus, whom thou persecutest : 
 [it is hard for thee to hick against the pricks. And he 
 trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou have 
 me todo? And the Lord said unto him, | ete. 
 
 When it is considered that this transaction is thrice narrated 
 in this book, it would have been strange, unless the three narra- 
 tives had originally been cast in close verbal agreement, had there 
 been no traces of mutual influence. 
 
 For the entire portion σκληρόν. . . πρὸς αὐτόν not one existing 
 Greek MS. can be cited; though E, 180, and the Peshito, add 
 the clause σκληρόν .... λακτίζειν at the end of the preceding 
 verse, being evidently an assimilative accretion from the parallel 
 place (xxvi. 14). The authorities for the common text are little 
 more than the ordinary Vulgate and the A&thiopic. 
 
 In place of the portion in question must be substituted, in 
 accordance with the mass of authorities, simply the connecting 
 particle ἀλλά. 
 
 A, B, C, and five others, with the Vulgate, omit the words 
 Κύριος εἶπεν. A, C, E, and three others, with the Peshito, 
 Coptic, Aithiopic, etc., append after “Incods the assimilation 
 ὁ vafwpatos (xxii. 8). 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 99 
 
 ACTS X..6. 
 
 Οὗτος EeviCerar παρὰ τινι Σίμωνι βυρσεῖ o 
 » ay, ξ ce , i @ is B p a 
 ἐστιν οἰκία παρὰ θάλασσαν: οὗτος λαλήσει σοι τί 
 σε δεῖ ποιεῖν. 
 
 Fe lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by 
 the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do. 
 
 Vas 
 
 Ἔ / > 5 ἢ / ᾽ὔ Ν 
 ΐ Οὗτος ξενίζεται εν οἰκίᾳ Σίμωνος βυρσέως παρὰ 
 θάλασσαν: ὃς παραγενόμενος λαλήσει σοι. 
 
 Fle is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner, by the 
 sea side; who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee. 
 
 In the former of these parallel places the entire clause οὗτος... 
 ποιεῖν is wanting in A, B, C, E, G, and many others, and the 
 versions in general. ‘The strongest support is found in the 
 Ethiopic and the common text of the Vulgate, though it is 
 wanting in the Codex Amiatinus and other important copies of 
 the latter. It is clearly spurious. 
 
 In the latter, the clause ds... σοῦ is wanting in A, B, and 
 seven others, the Vulgate, Coptic, and ASthiopic; but it has the 
 support of C, D, E, G, H, and the remaining majority of MSS. 
 and versions, as also Chrysostom and Theophylact. In this con- 
 flict it must be attended with doubt. 
 
 In the third parallel place (x1. 13, 14), the corresponding clause 
 is not affected by any variation. 
 
100 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ACTS «=X. 19. 
 
 "Avopes τρεῖς ζητοῦσί σε. 
 [1796] men 866] thee. 
 
 There are some peculiar circumstances relating to the reading 
 τρεῖς. Its authorities are A, C, E, etc., the Vulgate, Peshito, the 
 margin of the later Syriac. 
 
 The word is altogether wanting in D, G, H, and more than 
 fifty others, the Armenian, the later Syriac, etc., as well as in 
 several writers, including Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem, and 
 in the Apostolical Constitutions. This is sufficient to raise grave 
 doubts at least of the genuineness of the word, especially since 
 it would be so obvious a supplement from the preceding context, 
 as also from the subsequent statement of the number (xi. 11). 
 
 Thus far the case is only one of a very numerous class; but 
 there exists besides a circumstance which must enter ito the 
 discussion. “Ido ἄνδρες δύο ἕητοῦντές ce, is the reading of B 
 alone. The term δύο at once challenges remark, and calls up 
 several observations. 
 
 In the first place, δύο is not really incompatible with the pre- 
 ceding context; for, though Cornelius despatched three persons, 
 yet the two domestics alone may be viewed as the bearers of the 
 communication, the trusty soldier being merely a protective escort. 
 
 All this, however, by no means helps forward an attempt to 
 account for the existence of the word; for it must be at once 
 seen, that in case of the bare reading ἄνδρες being found in the 
 text, the ready supplement would not be δύο, but τρεῖς supplied 
 from two places; and still less likely is the suggestion of δύο 
 upon τρεῖς, which latter would call for neither explanation nor 
 improvement on account of any real or seeming inconsistency. 
 
 Under these circumstances a question at least will steal in, 
 whether the solitary but high authority B may have preserved 
 the true reading. At all events there is much to favour the idea, 
 that τρεῖς is either an arbitrary supplement, or a corrective gloss 
 upon δύο. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 10] 
 
 ACTS XI. 12. 
 
 5 , Q “a a “-“ 
 Εἶπεν δέ μοι τὸ πνευμα συνελθεῖν αὐτοῖς μηδὲν 
 , 
 διακρινόμενον. 
 
 And the Spirit bade me go with them [ nothing doubting. 
 
 The words μηδὲν διακρινόμενον are wanting in D, and have 
 nothing answering to them in the later Syriac; while μηδὲν 
 διακρίναντα or μηδὲν διακρίνοντα, the difference being immaterial, 
 is the reading of A, B, and some others. 
 
 The slender amount of evidence for the simple spuriousness 
 of the words in question is enforced by the appearance, which 
 they present, of an assimilative accretion from the parallel place 
 (x. 30). 
 
 On the other hand, it may be urged in support of the genuine- 
 ness of the rival reading above mentioned, that it cannot be 
 resolved into a supplement borrowed from that place, since it 
 bears a different meaning, namely, ‘making no difference’ 
 between Jew and Gentile. 
 
 Besides, διακρινόμενον might have been a borrowed, though 
 erroneous, gloss on διακρίνοντα; but the converse process is hardly 
 conceivable. 
 
 The case is a perplexing one, but its bearing seems on the 
 whole adverse to the common text. 
 
102 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ACTS XI. 20. 
 
 5 ad 3, 7 
 “Hoay δέ τινες ἐξ αὐτῶν ἄνδρες Κύπριοι καὶ 
 “ ο / / / 
 “Κυρηναῖοι, οἵτινες ἐλθόντες εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν ἐλά- 
 \ \ ε U 
 Aovy πρὸς τοὺς λληνιστας. 
 
 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, 
 which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the 
 
 | Grecians X Greeks |. 
 
 The common reading “E)AnviaTas is supported by B apparently, 
 D sec. man., E, G, H, and the mass of MSS., A and D pr. man. 
 alone exhibiting “EXAnvas, which appears, too, to have been read 
 by Eusebius, Cassiodorus, and others. 
 
 This overwhelming numerical preponderance of external evi- 
 dence is fairly overbalanced by an internal consideration of sin- 
 gular force, namely, the positive absurdity of the common reading ; 
 for the distinctive term from ᾿ Ελληνισταί is ᾿Εβραῖοι (vi. 1), not 
 ᾿Ιουδαῖοι (v. 19); and the persons who are here represented as 
 taking a marked step by addressing the Gospel message in a new 
 quarter, were themselves ᾿Ελληνισταί. 
 
 Thus the variation “EXXnvas, with its narrow amount of exter- 
 nal support, must be at once adopted. Cypriot and Cyrenean 
 Jews were qualified, as being “Εἰλληνισταί, to address themselves 
 to those who were strictly “Εἴλληνες. 
 
 A, B, and a few others, supported by the Vulgate, prefix an 
 emphatic καί, so that the reading would be ἐλάλουν καὶ πρὸς τοὺς 
 “Ἑλληνας. 
 
 The restored reading is most important, as bringing into view 
 the first decisive effort towards raising the Gentile church, of 
 which little more than the foundation stone had been laid in 
 Cornelius. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 103 
 
 ACTS XIII. 18. 
 
 Kai os τεσσαρακονταετῆ χρόνον ἐτροποφόρησεν 
 αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. 
 
 And about the time of forty years (suffered he their man- 
 ners x nourished them] in the wilderness. 
 
 The striking variation as regards meaning, though shght in 
 form, ἐτροφοφόρησεν, is given by A, Οὐ pr. man., E, and seven 
 others, and is represented by most of the versions; while the 
 common reading is that of B apparently, C sec. man., D, G, H, 
 and the remaining mass, being represented also in the Vulgate, 
 and written in the margin of the later Syriac; it is also found in 
 Origen, Chrysostom, and other writers. 
 
 The evidence is thus fairly conflicting, though that of the 
 versions alone is strongly in favour of the variation. 
 
 It is most probable that a variation so slight in form had its 
 rise in mere accident, and therefore decisive aid is not to be 
 expected from internal considerations. It may, however, be 
 remarked that τροποφορεῖν, being found in one of the Greek 
 scraps of Cicero’s epistles (Att. xiii. 29), may be regarded as 
 a term of familiar currency, while τροφοφορεῖν is certainly rare, 
 and may even be a coinage of Jewish Greek: a copyist would 
 therefore readily slip from the latter into the former. The 
 peculiar meaning too of τροποφορεῖν does not harmonise with 
 the tone of the narrative, in which there is nothing objurgatory, 
 and which sets forth the positive favours of divine interposition. 
 
104 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ACTS XIII. 19, 20. 
 
 Kat καθελὼν ἔθνη ἑπτὰ ev yn Χαναὰν κατε- 
 κληροδότησεν αὐτοῖς τὴν γῆν αὐτῶν. καὶ μετὰ 
 ταῦτα WS ἔτεσι τετρακοσίοις καὶ πεντήκοντα ἔδω- 
 κεν κριτὰς, K. τ. A. 
 
 And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of 
 Chanaan, he divided their land to them by lot. And after 
 that, he gave unto them judges, about the space of four 
 hundred and fifty years. 
 
 This passage has been remarkable for its contribution to the 
 chronological difficulties that beset the present text of Scripture. 
 The view that would naturally be taken of the clause ὡς ἔτ. τ. 
 καὶ 7., 15 that it expresses the period included between the settle- 
 ment of the tribes and the administration of Samuel; a reckoning 
 exhibiting a certain accordance with an incidental mention of 
 time in the Book of Judges (xi. 26), but quite irreconcilable with 
 one positive date given in the First Book of Kings (vi. 1), and 
 still more so with conclusions involved in. genealogical and other 
 recorded facts. It might, however, be viewed as parenthetically 
 intimating the time embraced by the events previously mentioned 
 (ταῦτα), from the settlement of the tribes up to the period signi- 
 fied in the words ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν. The difficulty 
 would in this view be lessened on account of the vagueness of the 
 epoch implied in those words, but the construction is awkward. 
 This awkwardness, however, would be removed, and this meaning 
 necessarily borne by the clause, if it stood at the end of the pre- 
 ceding verse; a position in which it actually appears in A, B, C, 
 and six others, the Coptic, and Armenian. 
 
 It might be objected to this evidence, that there has been 
 a wilful shifting of the clause; but a concern about the matter, 
 if such there were, would rather have led to a remedy more 
 marked and complete. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 105 
 
 ACTS XIII. 33. 
 
 ε δι ὦ a“ fed “ , / 
 Ὥς καὶ ἐν τῷ ψαλμῷ τῷ δευτέρῳ γέγραπται. 
 
 As it also is written in the [second χ first] psalm. 
 
 In this place the reading of the common text is found in E, G, 
 etc., Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Ambrose; while A, B, Ὁ, 
 and some others, have ἐν τ. ψ. yéy. τῷ 6., and another arrange- 
 ment, ἐν τ. δ. y., is given in H and others. These shiftings are 
 of themselves suspicious. "Ev τῷ πρώτῳ Warps is the reading 
 of D alone, but supported by the testimony of Origen, Tertullian, 
 Hilary, Jerome, and other writers. 
 
 This is a case where internal considerations abundantly com- 
 pensate for scantiness of external evidence; since accidental origi- 
 nation of the various reading is not conceivable, and its peculiarity 
 is such as to exclude the idea of an artificial one, even in the 
 margin. ‘The variation may be adopted without hesitation. 
 
 Τὸ would follow then that an arrangement or numbering of the 
 Psalms once had currency, according to which the citation here 
 made would be from the first Psalm; but whether by a fusion 
 of those which ordinarily appear as the first and second, or by 
 reckoning that which is now numbered first, as a detached preface 
 to the book, or in any other way, this is not the place to inquire. 
 
 There are traces of the simple reading ἐν τῷ ψαλμῷ; which 
 
 may exhibit a summary avoidance of the difficulty attending the 
 term πρώτῳ. 
 
106 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ACTS XV. 17, 18. 
 
 / / « a ΄“ / A 
 Δέγει Κύριος ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα πάντα. ἤνωστα 
 3 lal / > eo “ , A. > al 
 amr αἰῶνος ἐστι τῷ Θεῷ TavTa τὰ Epya αὐτοῦ. 
 Saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto 
 God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 
 
 The common text is here supported by E, G, H, etc., the later 
 Syriac, the Apostolical Constitutions, Chrysostom, and others ; 
 while A reads γνωστὸν ἀπ᾽ ai. τῷ κυρίῳ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ, as does 
 D with the addition of ἐστιν after ai., and with this agree the 
 Vulgate, the margin of the later Syriac with the omission of 
 τῷ κι, and Irenzus according to the Latin translation. A shorter 
 form, λέγ. K. ὁ π. ταῦτα γνωστὰ am αἰῶνος, is given by B, C, 
 and more than ten others, the Sahidic, and Coptic. This is again 
 varied in a few copies as follows, λέγ. K. 6 π. τ. ἅ ἐστιν γν. αὐτῷ 
 ἀπ᾽ at., with which the Aithiopic agrees. 
 
 The appearance of these and other variations is of a kind to 
 throw a suspicion on all that is found after ταῦτα; and there 
 is no difficulty in assigning an origin for additional matter. In 
 the original prophecy the reference of ταῦτα is clear enough, 
 namely, to those impending visitations of divine wrath which 
 were the immediate subject of the prophet’s communication ; but, 
 looking at the citation as it here stands detached from its context, 
 a reader would be led to refer the term to the events described 
 in the passage itself; and, as it might seem necessary to explain 
 in what way God might speak of himself as actually doing 
 (ποιῶν) things which belonged to a distant futurity, comments 
 in the way of explanation would readily arise, of forms at present 
 embodied in the text of various copies, namely, φανερὰ yap ἀπ᾽ 
 ἀρχῆς ἐστι, K. τ. N—G ἐστι γνωστὰ, κ. τ. λ.----γνωστόν ἐστι, 
 K.T.X., and so forth. 
 
 The choice lies between two forms, namely, Δ. K. ὁ π. τ. yv. 
 am at., ‘Saith the Lord who makes these things known from all 
 time;’ and X. K. 6 π. 7., ‘Saith the Lord who is doing these 
 things.’ 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 107 
 
 ACTS XV. 24 
 
 ᾿Ανασκευάζοντες τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν, λέγοντες 
 περιτέμνεσθαι καὶ τηρεῖν τὸν νόμον, οἷς οὐ διεστει- 
 λάμεθα. 
 
 Subverting your souls, | saying, Ye must be circumcised, 
 and keep the law: | to whom we gave no such commandment. 
 
 The clause λέγοντες . . . νόμον is wanting in A, B, D, 13, etc., 
 the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, and Aithiopic versions, the Aposto- 
 lical Constitutions, Athanasius, Epiphanius, and others.. 
 
 With this direct evidence of spuriousness there combines the 
 appearance, which the clause undoubtedly wears, of an explana- 
 tory comment on the preceding words. 
 
 ACTS XV. 33. 
 
 3 9 ΠῚ XA lal “ Ν 
 ArervOnoay per εἰρήνης ἀπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν πρὸς 
 Ν » / 
 TOUS ἀποστολους. 
 
 They were let go in peace from the brethren |unto the 
 apostles y those that sent them]. 
 
 Instead of τοὺς ἀποστόλους, which has the support of E, G, H, 
 both Syriac versions, etc., τοὺς ἀποστείλαντας αὐτούς is the reading 
 of A, B, C, D, and many others, the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, and 
 Ethiopic versions, ete. 
 
 It is possible that these latter words were a marginal appendage 
 to the common reading, and afterwards supplanted it; but a far 
 more likely process is that of writing τοὺς ἀποστόλους as a gloss; 
 and since the amount of external evidence is on the whole also 
 in favour of the various reading, it should therefore be preferred. 
 
108 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ACTS XV. 34. 
 
 "Εδοξε δὲ τῷ Sida ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτοῦ. 
 [ Notwithstanding, it pleased Silas to abide there still. | 
 
 This verse exhibits a considerable amount of variation, D 
 having pr. man. αὐτούς, sec. man. πρὸς αὐτούς, besides which 
 αὐτοῖς and αὐτόθι are found; while D, as also the common text 
 of the Vulgate, has the additional clause μόνος δὲ ᾿Ιούδας ἐπο- 
 ρεύθη, which is also found elsewhere. 
 
 This might seem somewhat suspicious: but the entire verse, 
 though found in C, the common Vulgate, and the Sahidic, is 
 wanting in A, B, E, G, H, and about fifty others, the Latin 
 in the Codices Amiatinus and Demidovianus, the Coptic, the 
 LEthiopic, etc. 
 
 The passage is undoubtedly spurious, being an officious appen- 
 dage directly expressing what is at once concluded from the 
 succeeding context, namely, that Silas, though with his colleague 
 Judas he had received his formal leave of the Antiochene church 
 in his official capacity, still continued on the spot, till the separa- 
 tion took place between Paul and Barnabas. 
 
 ACTS XVI. 7. 
 
 Καὶ οὐκ εἴασεν αὐτοὺς τὸ πνεῦμα. 
 But the Spirit + of Jesus + suffered them not.* 
 
 To this clause there is the addition "Incod in A, B, C sec. man., 
 D, E, and seven others, the Vulgate, Coptic, ithiopic, Armenian, 
 and both Syriac versions, Cyril, Jerome, and others. The omis- 
 sion is supported by G, H, the Sahidic, etc., Chrysostom, Theo- 
 phylact, and Gicumenius. 
 
 * The marks + + include an addition to the common text. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 109 
 
 The evidence for the addition is strong; still the bare term 
 τὸ πνεῦμα would be of a kind to provoke an appendage; and 
 C, with the Codex Demidovianus, reads κυρίου. 
 
 
 
 ACTS: XVIE 5: 
 
 “ , an 
 Συνείχετο τῷ πνεύματι ὃ Παῦλος. 
 
 Paul was pressed in the spirit. 
 
 A marked variation, λόγῳ for πνεύματι, is given by A, B, D, 
 E, G, etc., the versions in general, Basil, Theodoret, and others. 
 The common reading is found in H, etc., the Armenian, the 
 margin of the later Syriac, Theophylact, and Gicumenius. 
 
 The weight of external evidence is clearly in favour of the 
 variation. The words τῷ πνεύματι may have been originally 
 a comment, attached to συνείχετο for the purpose of intimating 
 that the term was to be taken in a mental sense. 
 
 ‘But on the arrival from Macedonia of both Silas and Timo- 
 theus, Paul was closely engaged with the word, while testifying, 
 ete.’; that is, by the time of their arrival the Apostle was in full 
 effort. 
 
 ACTS XVILI.. 17: 
 
 ᾿Επιλαβόμενοι δὲ mavtes ot “EdAnves Σωσθενην 
 TOV ἀρχισυνάγαγον, K. τ. λ. 
 
 Then [αἷΐ the Greeks χ they all] took Sosthenes, the chief 
 ruler of the synagoque. 
 
 The words οἱ “Ελληνες are wanting in A, B, the Vulgate, 
 Coptic, ete. 
 The adverse evidence is thus narrow in amount but significant, 
 
110 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 and is indirectly supported by the fact that several copies have 
 ᾿Ιουδαῖοι or οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, a reading which could only have arisen 
 as an explanatory appendage to the bare term πάντες. 
 
 It is not easy to see what motive the Greeks could have had 
 for maltreatment of the Jews on this occasion, however much 
 they might have been disposed to indulge a scornful merriment 
 at their expense; but by the absence of the words in question the 
 transaction is at once cleared up. In this way it would appear 
 that the body of the Jews, mortified at the rebuff they had 
 received, but at the same time interpreting the proconsul’s words 
 (ὄψεσθε αὐτοί) as giving them a certain licence, proceeded to 
 beat a principal apostate to the new doctrine; a measure viewed 
 by Gallio with the same unconcern as the previous appeal to his 
 magisterial authority. Thus Sosthenes appears as a Christian 
 convert, to be readily identified with the associate and companion 
 of the Apostle when he wrote his first epistle to the Corinthian 
 church. 
 
 ACTS AVI 2K. 
 
 "AN ἀπετάξατο αὐτοῖς εἰπών": δεῖ με πάντως τὴν 
 ἑορτὴν τὴν ἐρχομένην ποιῆσαι εἰς “]Ζεροσόλυμα. 
 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means heep 
 this feast that cometh in Jerusalem. 
 
 The entire clause δεῖ... ‘Iepooddupa is wanting in A, B, E, 
 and nine others, the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, Aithiopic, and 
 Armenian versions; its main authorities being D, G, H, and both 
 Syriac versions. 
 
 Besides the omission, other variations, similarly supported, 
 would give to the entire passage the following form: ἀλλὰ 
 ἀποταξάμενος Kal εἰπών, πάλιν ἀνακάμψω πρὸς ὑμᾶς τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 θέλοντος, ἀνήχθη ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Εφέσου. “ But after taking leave, and 
 saying, I will return to you again if God will, he set sail from 
 Ephesus.’ 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 111 
 
 The reader of the Acts must often have noticed the incon- 
 sistency between the importance which the Apostle’s language, 
 according to the common text, here attaches to his intended visit 
 to Jerusalem, and its insignificance in the subsequent narrative, 
 where the entire transaction is left to be gathered by implication 
 from the necessary meaning of the word ἀναβάς (v. 22). 
 
 ACTS XX. 28. 
 
 / \ > / a “ 
 Π]οιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, κ. τ. X. 
 
 To feed the church | of God X of the 1,ογά.] 
 
 The variations upon τοῦ Θεοῦ are the following, τοῦ Κυρίου, 
 τοῦ K. καὶ ©., τοῦ ©. καὶ K., τοῦ K. ©., and τοῦ Χριστοῦ. A 
 glance at this group at once shows that it has grown from the 
 margin, whatever may have been the original germ. 
 
 The last mentioned variation rests almost solely on the Peshito, 
 being also found once in Origen, twice in Theodoret, and in three 
 copies of Athanasius. It may thus be disposed of at once, and 
 may be regarded as a gloss which might have been appended 
 either to Θεοῦ or Κυρίου; but, when once interlinear or marginal, 
 it could hardly have been substituted by a transcriber for the 
 former, though it might have been readily for the latter. 
 
 The three which precede it, may be classed together, as only 
 different shapes of a concretion of the text and the margin; 
 though the first of them, τοῦ K. καὶ @., has really the greatest 
 numerical amount of external evidence in its favour of all the 
 readings, namely, C ter. man., G, H, and more than a hundred 
 others, etc., while the evidence for the remaining two of the 
 three is quite immaterial. Thus the discussion finally lies between 
 Θεοῦ and Κυρίου. 
 
 In support of the former there are cited B, and about twenty 
 others, the Vulgate undoubtedly, and the later Syriac, Epipha- 
 nius, Ambrose, Cicumenius, and other writers. 
 
 The latter is the reading of A, C pr. man., D, E, (the two 
 
112 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 latter also in their Old Latin), and fourteen others, the Coptic, 
 Sahidic, Armenian, and the margin of the later Syriac, Irenzus 
 as represented in the Latin translation, Eusebius, the Apostolical 
 Constitutions, Lucifer, Augustine, and others. 
 
 Chrysostom cannot be decisively cited, though in one place 
 (Eph. iv. 12) the text is quoted with Kupiov, but without reference 
 to the word in the comment; and the matter must also be left in 
 uncertainty with respect to Athanasius and Theophylact. 
 
 It will be at once seen that the common text, though possessed 
 of very considerable support, is met by a preponderance of evi- 
 dence on the side of the rival reading, on the several grounds of 
 MSS., versions, and writers. 
 
 It remains to make one important remark; that, according to 
 the common reading, the passage bears strongly upon more than 
 one great dogmatic controversy, and, accordingly, had this form 
 possessed established currency in the age of those disputes, its 
 employment as a dogmatic weapon ought to be of no unfrequent 
 occurrence in the writings of that age; whereas the contrary 
 is evidently the case. 
 
 Indeed, in the present instance, no fact in evidence more 
 strongly challenges attention, than that a reading of so marked 
 a polemical significance does not emerge clearly into view on 
 the page of ecclesiastical literature before the age of Epiphanius, 
 Cyril of Alexandria, and Ambrose. 
 
 
 
 ACTS XX, 22. 
 
 , ΄σ “ lad > by, 
 Havrws δεῖ πλῆθος συνελθεῖν, ἀκούσονται yap ὅτι 
 ἐλήλυθας. 
 
 Lhe multitude must needs come together: for they will hear 
 that thou art come. 
 
 In the place of this passage a shorter form, πάντως ἀκούσονται 
 ὅτι ἐλήλυθας, is found in B, C pr. man., and five others, in the 
 Coptic, Sahidic, the later Syriac, and substantially in the Peshito, 
 4Ethiopic, and Armenian. The common text is given by A, C 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 113 
 
 sec. man., 1), E, G, H, the Vulgate, ete., but with some variations. 
 It has, however, been in all probability amplified by the intrusion 
 of a marginal clause, δεῖ πλῆθος συνελθεῖν, so many of which 
 were framed to make expression of ideas which would necessarily 
 or readily rise to the mind from the bare text, unfurnished with 
 such gloss or augmentation. Clear instances of this process are 
 also supplied by the variations occurring xxii. 20; xxiv. 23, 26; 
 xxve. LO: 
 
 According then to the variation, the passage is thus reduced: 
 ‘They will certainly hear that thou art come.’ 
 
 ACTS XXI. 25. 
 
 \ an a » ᾽ A 
 Kpivavres μηδὲν τοιοῦτον τηρεῖν αὐτοὺς εἰ μὴ 
 ’ ἣν , 5 / 
 φυλασσεσθαι αὐτοὺς To τε εἰδωλοθυτον, κ. τ. A. 
 
 Concluded [that they observe no such thing, save only| that 
 they keep themselves from things offered to idols, etc. 
 
 This case, respecting the genuineness of the words μηδὲν... 
 εἰ μὴ, resembles the last, and is open to a similar conclusion. 
 
 The words in question are wanting in A, B, and three others, 
 the Vulgate, Peshito, Coptic, Sahidic, and Ethiopic versions. 
 They are found, however, in C, 1), E, G, H, the later Syriac, etc., 
 but with some variations, which are themselves tokens of spu- 
 
 -riousness. 
 
114 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ACTS XXII. 9. 
 
 e A \ 3 ὡ 5, Ν Α a 9 / A 
 Οἱ de σὺν ἐμοὶ ὄντες TO μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο καὶ 
 3, ἀν eld \ \ \ 
 εμφοβοι ἐγένοντο, τὴν δὲ φωνὴν, κ. τ. λ. 
 
 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, (and were 
 afraid ;| but they heard not the voice, ete. 
 
 This case, again, is of a precisely similar complexion. The 
 words καὶ ἔμφοβοι ἐγένοντο are wanting in A, B, H, and seven 
 others, the Vulgate, Peshito, Coptic, Armenian, etc. They are 
 found in D, E,-G, the Sahidic, the later Syriac, etc.; but the 
 weight of evidence is against them. 
 
 ACTS XXII 9. 
 
 Hi δὲ πνεῦμα ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ ἢ ἄγγελος, μὴ θεο- 
 μαχώμεν. 
 Tf a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, (let us not fight 
 against God |. 
 
 The concluding clause, μὴ θεομαχῶμεν, is wanting in A, B, C 
 pr. man., K, and three others, the Vulgate, Coptic, Aithiopic, 
 Armenian, and later Syriac. 
 
 The clause is clearly a supplement; and the scholiast who. 
 framed it has not shown a nice judgment, for the speakers, 
 having no partizanship for the prisoner, would not be likely 
 to commit themselves to language so marked as μὴ θεομαχῶμεν: 
 while the aposiopesis of the writer gives a representation as true 
 as it is lively. The supplement exhibited by the Peshito, [1So 
 boo σι Aa}, ‘ What [harm ] is there in that?’ is more cautious 
 and consistent. Its existence, too, supplies indirect evidence, if 
 such were required, of the spuriousness of the clause in question. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 115 
 
 ACTS XXIV. 6, 7, 8. 
 
 A > / \ A \ Si 
 Ov καὶ ἐκρατήσαμεν καὶ κατὰ τὸν ἡμέτερον 
 / 3 ’ὔ / \ Ὗ / 
 νῦμον ἠθελήσαμεν κρίνειν. παρελθὼν δὲ Λυσίας 
 c Ν “ n Lal « Lal 
 ὁ χιλίαρχος μετὰ πολλῆς Bias ἐκ TOV χειρῶν ἡμῶν 
 Ψ / Ν / ΄“ wt 
 ἀπήγαγε, κελεύσας TOUS κατηγόρους αὐτοῦ ἐρχεσ- 
 » / Ὁ ’ 
 θαι ἐπὶ σέ: παρ᾽ οὗ δυνήσῃ; kK. τ. λ. 
 
 Whom we took, |and would have judged according to our 
 law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with 
 great violence took him away out of our hands. Command- 
 ing hes accusers to come unto thee: | by examining of whom, 
 ete. 
 
 The question which arises here, concerns the genuineness of 
 the entire portion καὶ cata... . ἐπὶ σέ. 
 
 In the first place, the whole is found under a distinct phase 
 of expression in some copies, and with considerable variations 
 in others—circumstances in themselves indicative of spurious 
 growth. 
 
 The matter in question, however, is entirely wanting in A, B, 
 G, H, and about forty others, the Codices Amiatinus and Tole- 
 tanus of the Hieronymian Latin, the Coptic, Sahidic, etc., its 
 main support being E, and both Syriac versions. On these 
 grounds it may be discarded without hesitation. 
 
116 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ACTS. XXIV. 18. 
 
 3 a Ὁ / € / Ε > “ e “ ΕῚ 
 Ev οἷς εὗρον με ἡγνισμένον ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, οὐ 
 Ν " >a\ \ / \ 5. ὧδ, “- 
 μετὰ ὄχλου οὐδὲ μετὰ θορύβου, τινὲς ἀπὸ τῆς 
 ᾽ / 9 lal ἃ 3 898. ἢ n - 
 «σίας ᾿]ουδαῖοι: οὗς ἐδει ἐπὶ σοῦ παρεῖναι, κ. τ. λ. 
 
 Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in 
 the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult: who 
 ought to have been here before thee, etc. 
 
 The particle δέ must be inserted after τινὲς on the authority 
 of A, C, E, and a considerable number besides, the Vulgate, 
 Coptic, Sahidic, the later Syriac, etc. 
 
 This slight addition materially alters the form of the passage, 
 and brings out an abrupt and disjointed shape which bears the 
 impress of reality. It will stand thus: ἐν ois... . θορύβου, τινὲς 
 8 ἀπὸ ᾿Ασίας Iovdaioc— ods eer... . πρὸς ἐμέ---ἢ αὐτοὶ, κ. τ. Δ. 
 ‘On which occasion they found me purified in the temple: but 
 certain Asiatic Jews—persons that ought to have been here, etc., 
 —or let these here themselves say, etc.’ The statement com- 
 menced with the words τινὲς δέ is at once broken off and never 
 resumed, the speaker following the train of his sudden digression. 
 
 
 
 ACTS XXVII. 14. 
 
 5) Ἂς ε 
 Ἄνεμος τυφωνικὸς ὃ καλούμενος ἰὐροκλύδων. 
 
 A tempestuous wind called | Euroclydon ¥ Euroaquilo}. 
 
 The common reading, Εὐροκλύδων or Εὑροκλύδων, is that of 
 the great majority of copies, including G and H. It is, however, 
 internally suspicious, because the formation and meaning of the 
 word are not very intelligible. Εὐρακύλων, the reading of A 
 and B pr. man., though in itself still more unaccountable, has its 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 117 
 
 form at once cleared up, and its claim for adoption established, 
 by means of its representative in the Vulgate, Huroaquilo. 
 
 The strange shapes, εὐρακήλων, εὐτρακήλων, εὐράκλυδον, a 
 knowledge of which is acquired through the Sahidic, Coptic, and 
 later Syriac respectively, may be regarded as perversions of this 
 latter, readily arising with those who, unlike the Latin translator, 
 had no means of unriddling the true form. 
 
 Εὐρυκλύδων, found in B sec. man. and two others, though 
 unobjectionable in form, rests upon too slight authority to acquire 
 a particular claim to consideration. 
 
 Εὐρακύλων, which simply Grecises Euroaquilo, demands the 
 preference among the various shapes of the name. 
 
 ACTS XXVIII. 29. 
 
 an » ΄ ᾽ὔ “ ens an 
 Kai ταῦτα αὐτοῦ εἰπόντος. ἀπῆλθον ot Tovdaior 
 τ ; 2 ν᾿ 
 3) » ς “ / 
 πολλὴν ἔχοντες ἐν ἑαυτοῖς συζήτησιν. 
 
 [And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and 
 had great reasoning among themselves. | 
 
 This entire verse is wanting in A, B, E, 13, 40, 68, the Codices 
 Amiatinus and Demidovianus, ἃ, and other Latin authorities, the 
 Peshito, Coptic, etc.; its principal witnesses being G, H, and the 
 LEthiopic. 
 
 There can hardly be a doubt that it is a spurious incumbrance, 
 
 idly repeating what has been distinctly told already (v. 25). 
 
118 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ROMANS II. 13. 
 
 A fal / ͵ \ nr 
 Ov yap οἱ ἀκροαταὶ Tov νόμου δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ 
 ΄-“ Ε a / / 
 Θεῷ, GAN οἱ ποιηταὶ τοῦ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται. 
 
 For not the hearers of [ the| law are just before God, but the 
 doers of | the] law shall be justified. 
 
 x 
 
 In the writings of St. Paul the term ὁ νόμος can signify only 
 the Mosaic law, except there be cases where the article has been 
 prefixed purely on account of previous mention or implication. 
 
 On the other hand, there are places where, though the Mosaic 
 law in particular must have been present to the mind of the 
 Apostle, yet the word νόμος is anarthrous; and it might be 
 thence concluded, that the converse of the rule just given is not 
 true, but that the article has been occasionally omitted by a very 
 natural license. 
 
 This is indeed possible: but it would be an unworthy treat- 
 ment of the writer to dismiss the matter in a way so summary 
 and incurious, and to consign at once to license what may be 
 designed and significant. 
 
 It is more reasonable to recognise in these places an instance 
 of a practice not uncommon, especially in pointed and antithetical 
 language, a practice of giving a more general, and by that means 
 more striking, turn of expression to a limited proposition by the 
 substitution of anarthrous terms for the definite. Such a process 
 can hardly fail to be recognised in the words, ἐγὼ yap διὰ νόμου 
 νόμῳ ἀπέθανον (Gal. 11. 19), ‘ Through law died to law,’ that is, 
 the condemnatory operation of law, experienced in the case of the 
 Law, cut me off from any reliance on law for justification. Equally 
 clear is the antithetical effect produced by the absence of the 
 article in another place, εἰ yap ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία, οὐκέτι ἐξ 
 ἐπωγγελίας (Gal. ii. 18); and there is a peculiar forcibleness in 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 119 
 
 the general range given by the same means to the proposition, 
 ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ (ii. 16). 
 
 The passage in question is reduced to such a form according 
 to certain authorities which omit the article before νόμον im both 
 clauses, namely, A, B, D pr. man., G, etc.: and their reading 
 must be at once accepted, when it is considered that there would 
 be a strong disposition to supplement a seeming omission. The 
 same conclusion must also be adopted with regard to the omission 
 of τῷ before νόμῳ, ver. 17. 
 
 These passages, and others to which the preceding observations 
 apply, may be thus exhibited: ‘ For it is not the hearers of law 
 that are just in the estimation of God, but the doers of law shall 
 
 be justified..... But if thou art styled a Jew and art resting on 
 Jaw....thou then that makest a boast in law, through breach 
 of the Law dishonourest thou God?.... For circumcision is an 
 
 advantage, if thou performest law, but if thou art a transgressor 
 of law, thy circumcision has become uncircumcision..... The 
 natural uncircumcision, in case of its discharging the Law, shall 
 bring a sentence on thee who, though in possession of a written 
 form [of enactment] and bearing the badge of circumcision, art 
 a transgressor of law.’ 
 
 In these and other passages there is sufficient illustration of an 
 intensity of expression, acquired by discarding the article, far 
 more in character with the writer than a license of usage which, 
 if recourse be had to it, must be allowed to have been used in a 
 way altogether capricious. 
 
120 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ROMANS III. 28. 
 
 Δογιζόμεθα οὖν δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον 
 χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου. 
 | Therefore Χ For] we conclude that a man is justified by 
 faith without the deeds of the law. 
 
 Instead of the particle οὖν, which is supported by B apparently, 
 C, D ter. man., E perhaps, J, K, and a great number besides, 
 by both Syriac versions, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 Cicumenius, etc., the variation yap is given by A, D pr. man., F, 
 G, and nine others, the Coptic, the Latin versions, and Fathers. 
 
 The resulting difference of meaning is, that, with the former 
 reading, the statement appears as a logical deduction from the 
 
 preceding matter, while, with the latter, there is an appeal to it 
 as a point already established or admitted. 
 
 This latter is quite in accordance with the context; for, that 
 justification is χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου, has been just before formally 
 concluded (vs. 20, 21), as also the actual means of its attainment 
 (vs. 21, 22). 
 
 Thus, in the conflict of evidence, the probability is on the side 
 of the various reading γάρ. 
 
 ROMANS IV. 1. 
 
 γχγτ' 3 5 a > QM Ἂς , ε a ε 
 Tt οὖν ἐροῦμεν Αβρααμ τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν εὑρη- 
 , 
 κέναι KaTa σάρκα. 
 
 What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as per- 
 taining to the flesh, hath found ? 
 
 A considerable portion of the body of various readings exhibits 
 no more than a difference of order in the words, and of these 
 some are altogether immaterial, and others simply offer some 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 121 
 
 slight variety of poimt or emphasis. The present one, however, 
 concerns the construction and meaning of the sentence. 
 
 As it stands in the common text, the immediate connexion of 
 the words cata σάρκα is with εὑρηκέναι, according to the laws of 
 collocation. But if this latter be placed before "ASpadu, the 
 former most readily link with πατέρα. 
 
 This arrangement is exhibited by A, C, D, F, G, and a few 
 others, several versions, Eusebius, Cyril, etc.; the common one 
 by B (for aught that has been noted to the contrary), J, K, and 
 the remaining mass of MSS., both Syriac versions, and several 
 commentators. Chrysostom, in his comment, connects the words 
 κατὰ σάρκα with πατέρα, which shews that either, while reading 
 as in the common text, he took the liberty of interpreting as if 
 it had been τὸν π. 7). ev. τὸν Kk. o., or that he had before him a 
 different collocation. 
 
 There would be a ready, though mistaken, tendency to fall 
 into this connexion of the words, and hence would also arise 
 a disposition to arrange the sentence so as to exhibit such con- 
 nexion directly. This consideration serves to abate the force of 
 the evidence against the order of the common text. It may well 
 be retained: and the interpretation of the passage should be 
 strictly conformed to it. 
 
 ROMANS V. I. 
 
 Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς 
 τὸν Θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿]ησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God 
 through our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 The question which arises on this passage, respects the claims 
 of the variation ἔχωμεν. It is supported by A, B, C, Ὁ, J, K, 
 and several others; while ἔχομεν rests upon E, F, G, and a large 
 number besides. Thus far the evidence for ἔχωμεν is considerable. 
 But this is a case where the testimony of MSS. must be received 
 
122 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 with caution, if not with abatement, on account of that inter- 
 change of o and ὦ which, with others of like kind, affects in 
 different degrees many existing copies: still, no exception can 
 be taken on this ground to the evidence of B, on account of its 
 general orthographical correctness, a character which may also 
 be claimed, in the main, for the entire group. It is in such an 
 instance that patristic testimony and that of versions acquire a 
 special importance. 
 
 The Old Latin and the Vulgate support ἔχωμεν, and many 
 Latin writers, as might be expected, range on the same side. 
 This is also the reading of the Greek commentators. The 
 evidence of Chrysostom is important, because, while he deals 
 with rival interpretations of the place, a proceeding which the 
 adoption of ἔχομεν would render unnecessary, he betrays no con- 
 sciousness of conflicting readings. It is, therefore, not unreason- 
 able to conclude, that ἔχωμεν stood in the text of the passage as 
 it was current in the ecclesiastical region with which the great 
 commentator was connected. 
 
 It must be admitted, then, that this reading has strong claims 
 for, at least, a favourable attention. 
 
 It is by no means unlikely that it has encountered tacit dis- 
 favour in more recent times, because its adoption would produce 
 a singular, if not a difficult, expression ; a circumstance which 
 cannot be denied, but which, according to critical rules, ought 
 not to be an adverse one. 
 
 Chrysostom discusses the passage at length, but the main points 
 of his observations are the following. Ti ἐστιν, εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν ; 
 τινὲς μέν φασιν ὅτι μὴ διαστασιάσωμεν φιλονεικοῦντες TOV νόμον 
 εἰσαγαγεῖν" ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκεῖ περὶ πολιτείας ἡμῖν λουπὸν διαλέγεσθαι. 
 .... εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν" τουτέστι, μηκέτι ἁμαρτάνωμεν, μηδὲ πρὸς 
 τὰ πρότερα ἐπανερχώμεθα" τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι πόλεμον ἔχειν πρὸς 
 τὸν Θεόν. Το the same effect Theodoret: προσήκει δὲ ὑμᾶς τὴν 
 πρὸν τὸν Θεὸν γεγενημένην φυλάττειν εἰρήνην. According to 
 these commentators the words in question contain an exhortation 
 to the maintenance, by practical holiness, of peace with God, 
 already founded in justification through faith; an interpretation 
 which the words may fairly bear. It may, however, be observed 
 that they seem to find their best illustration, as regards their 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 195 
 
 precise meaning, in the passage, ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν ἵνα ἐν ἐμοὶ 
 εἰρήνην ἔχητε (John xvi. 33); and that, in general, the expression 
 ἔχειν εἰρ., strictly represents the object as a matter of positive 
 enjoyment and possession, as distinguished from the ordinary 
 ἄγειν eip., which expresses a bare condition. Hence the words 
 may be rendered: ‘Having, then, obtained justification from 
 faith, let us have [conscious] peace towards God through our 
 
 Lord Jesus Christ.’ 
 
 ROMANS VI. 12. 
 
 My οὖν βασιλευέτω ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ Ov τῷ 
 e o Ἵ ‘A > Ν « 1 es ie 53, = 3 ἕ a 4“ ἕ 
 ὑμῶν σώματι εἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν αὐτῇ ἐν ταῖς ἐπι- 
 / 5 ΄-“ 
 θυμίαις αὐτοῦ. 
 
 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, [that ye 
 should obey it in the lusts thereof |. 
 
 On the clause εἰς To. . . . αὐτοῦ there are two variations; εἰς τὸ 
 ὑπ. ταῖς ἐπ. αὐτοῦ, which is the reading of A, B, C pr. man., and 
 six others, supported by the Vulgate, the Latin sec. man. of D, 
 the Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, Authiopic, Armenian, Origen, many 
 Latin writers, etc., and εἰς τὸ ὑπ΄. αὐτῇ, found in D with its Latin 
 version pr. man., E, F, G with its Latin, Irenzus, Tertullian, 
 and Victor Tununensis. 
 
 These facts suggest at least the question, whether the Apostle 
 wrote no more than εἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν, so that the variations 
 would exhibit two independent accretions, both of early origina- 
 tion, by the fusion of which the common text has been produced. 
 
 Such a form is actually exhibited by 178, the Latin of E, 
 Ambrose, and Faustinus. This slender amount of evidence, how- 
 ever, acquires considerable accession of force from the peculiar 
 complexion of the facts previously noted, and, so supported, 
 leaves, at least, serious doubt attaching to the whole, notwith- 
 standing the evidence in favour of the portion ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις 
 αὐτοῦ. 
 
124 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ROMANS VII. 6. 
 
 ἈΝ Ν / pas a / 3 7 
 “Νυνὶ δὲ κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, ἀποθανόν- 
 5 @Q, / 
 τος EV @ κατειχομεθα. 
 
 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead 
 wherein we were held, 
 
 In behalf of the reading ἀποθανόντος it might be pleaded, that 
 the sense produced by it exhibits an exact correspondence with 
 the case just cited in illustration, namely, that believers have been 
 set free from the hold of the Law by the death of the same, just 
 as a wife is freed from the conjugal tie by the demise of her 
 husband. But this circumstance ought rather to bring the read- 
 ing under the suspicion of artificial rectification. Besides, the 
 Law is nowhere described by the Apostle as dead; and, accord- 
 ingly, he has already been obliged to deal rather loosely with his 
 own illustration in the words, ὑμεῖς ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ (v. 4). 
 
 Recourse must therefore be had to the variation ἀποθανόντες, 
 supported by A, C, J, K (the reading of B must be regarded as 
 unknown), and more than sixty others, the Latin of the Codex 
 Amiatinus, both Syriac versions, the Coptic, Aithiopic, Arme- 
 nian, etc., and many Greek and Latin Fathers. 
 
 The sense would then be, ‘ But now we have been rid, by a 
 death-parting, from the Law, in whose grasp we once were.’ 
 
 The reading tod θανάτου, though it has the considerable sup- 
 port of D, E, F, G, the Vulgate, etc., must be regarded as a case 
 of usurpation; having been originally a gloss appended to τοῦ 
 νόμου, which dislodged the word ἀποθανόντες. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 125 
 
 ROMANS VII. 14. 
 ᾿Εγὼ δὲ σαρκικός εἰμι. 
 
 But Iam carnal. 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS III. 1. 
 
 , lal a a 
 Οὐκ ἠδυνήθην λαλῆσαι ὑμῖν ὡς πνευματικοῖς GAN 
 ὡς σαρκικοῖς. 
 
 1 could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto 
 carnal. ᾿ 
 
 These passages are considered together, because the same 
 question arises τὸ both in the existence of the same variation. 
 
 In the former, σάρκινος is the reading of A, B, C, Ὁ, E, F, G, 
 and many others; J, K, being the principal authorities for the 
 common text. In the latter, capxivors is found in A, B, C pr. 
 man., D pr. man., etc.; the common reading in D ter. man., E, 
 F, G, J, etc, In this particular case the evidence of versions is 
 nothing, and that of writers mainly uncertain. 
 
 Though the difference of form is only in the termination, the 
 resulting difference of meaning is not unimportant, being prima- 
 rily that between constituent matter and subject matter. Thus 
 σάρκινος is a word of deeper signification, and, in its secondary 
 use, must indicate some inner and deep seated quality, as con- 
 trasted with active principle and occupation, signified by words 
 of the same form as σαρκικός. 
 
 Thus the Apostle terms the Corinthians σαρκικοί (v. 3), in 
 reference to their low and narrow rivalries and cliques. [Ὁ is true 
 that here too σάρκινου is the reading of 1), F, G; but it may be 
 at once rejected as the offspring of assimilation. In the next 
 instance (v. 4), ἄνθρωποι should be read on the authority of A, 
 B, C, Ὁ, E, F, 6, the Vulgate, Coptic, A®thiopie, etc. 
 
 On the other hand, when speaking of himself as a sample of 
 humanity in contrast with the abstract model of morality pro- 
 
126 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 pounded in the Law, the Apostle might well term himself σάρ- 
 KWOS, πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ‘a thing of flesh, sold under 
 sin;’ and the Corinthians as σάρκινοι, ‘creatures of flesh,’ with 
 reference to the state in which the Gospel found them. 
 
 ROMANS VIII. 1. 
 
 > Q\ y+ a , “- > - 
 
 Οὐδὲν apa νῦν κατακριμα τοῖς εν Χριστῷ 
 
 > an Ν A / “- > \ \ 
 
 ]ησοῦ μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ κατα 
 πνεῦμα. 
 
 There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them which 
 are in Christ Jesus, |who walk not after the flesh, but after 
 the Spirit]. 
 
 The entire clause ju)... . πνεῦμα is wanting in B, C, D pr. 
 man., F, G, and a few others, the Coptic, Sahidic, and AXthiopic 
 versions, and several Fathers. The first member alone is found 
 in A, D sec. man., the Vulgate, Syriac, etc., Chrysostom, Basil, 
 and various Latin writers. ‘The whole appears in D ¢er. man., E, 
 J, K, ete., Theodoret, Theophylact, and Gécumenius. 
 
 These facts clearly point to the whole as an expository com- 
 ment on the words τοῖς ἐν X. I., consisting in the first instance 
 of the first member alone, and receiving in course of time the 
 addition of the second. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 127 
 
 ROMANS VIII. 11. 
 
 Ὃ ἐγείρας τὸν Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ζωοποιήσει 
 καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος 
 αὐτοῦ πνεύματος ἐν ὑμῖν. 
 
 He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken 
 
 your mortal bodies [by Χ for the sake of | his Spirit that 
 dwelleth in you. 
 
 A variation, merely grammatical in form but not unimportant 
 in effect, here claims attention, namely, dua τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ 
 πνεῦμα. 
 
 The variation is the reading of B, D, E, F, G, J, K, and the 
 great majority of copies, and is represented in the Vulgate, Syriac, 
 and Sahidic. Of Fathers there are cited in support of it, Irenzeus, 
 Origen, Tertullian, Theodoret, Theophylact, Cicumenius, etc. 
 The comment of Chrysostom is based upon it, though he is also 
 cited twice for the other reading. 
 
 The common text rests upon A, C, and thirteen others, the 
 Coptic, Aithiopic, later Syriac, and Sclavonic; the cited Fathers 
 being Clement, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Basil, Epiphanius, Didy- 
 mus, and Augustine . 7 
 
 It is at once seen that ancient evidence is found on both sides; 
 and thus, whatever was the period at which the place was first 
 affected by variation, it was at no recent date. The prepon- 
 derance, however, of existing testimony is in favour of the various 
 reading, 
 
 The question has a dogmatic complexion, and, as such, is 
 especially noted in the Dialogue between a Macedonian and an 
 Orthodox Disputant; according to the latter of whom the reading 
 which now appears in the common text, was at that time found 
 in all the ancient copies; a statement which, being polemical, 
 must be taken with the caution and abatement requisite in such 
 cases, 
 
 The rise of variation on this place is clearly of early date, and, 
 as such, ascends beyond the time of actual dogmatic conflict on 
 
128 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 the point on which it bears: so that, though it can hardly have 
 sprung from accidental causes, it would be unreasonable to refer 
 it to positive dogmatic origination. Still a feeling, not absolutely 
 controversial, may be readily imagined which would favour 
 and foster the reading of the present common text, because it 
 represents the subject of the expression in the more elevated and 
 prominent position of direct agency and operation, instead of one 
 of indirect causation. The same disposition would be called forth 
 on another passage (v. 37) affected by a variation of the same 
 form, namely, in the rival readings διὰ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντος and διὰ 
 Tov ἀγαπήσαντα; the latter of which is supported by D, E, F, G, 
 the Vulgate, Sclavonic, and many Latin Fathers. 
 
 Whatever be the decision on this parallel instance, in the place 
 under discussion the preference is claimed for the variation dua τὸ 
 ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα. 
 
 ROMANS XI. 6. 
 
 Εἰ δὲ χάριτι, οὐκέτι ἐξ € ἐργῶν, ἐπεὶ y χάρις 
 οὐκέτι γίνεται χάρις" εἰ δὲ e€ € ἔργων, οὐκέτι ἐστὶ 
 χάρις, ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶν ἔργον. 
 
 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise 
 grace is no more grace. {| But if it be of works, then is it 
 no more grace: otherwise work ts no more work]. 
 
 The genuineness of the entire portion εἰ δὲ... ἔργον is a 
 matter of question. 
 
 It is found in B, J, and the general mass of copies, in both 
 Syriac versions, etc. It appears, too, in the present text of 
 Chrysostom and Theodoret, but without any notice in the com- 
 mentary, in Theophylact, and Gicumenius. 
 
 On the other hand, besides that B has χάρις instead of the 
 final ἔργον, the first member εἰ δὲ... . χάρις is wanting in three 
 MSS., and the latter, ἐπεὶ... . ἔργον, in one; circumstances not 
 unattended by suspicion. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 129 
 
 The whole is omitted by A, C, D, E, F, G, 47, the Vulgate, 
 Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, and Ethiopic, by Johannes Damas- 
 cenus, and the bulk of the Latins. 
 
 The clause itself has an officious appearance, presenting merely 
 the converse of the preceding proposition, without any bearing 
 upon the context or addition to the force of the passage. Its 
 genuineness cannot be maintained. 
 
 ROMANS XII. 11. 
 
 To Κυρίῳ δουλεύοντες. 
 Serving | the Lord χ the opportunity]. 
 
 The common text is here supported by A, B, D ἔθ». man., E, 
 J, and the remaining mass of MSS., by the versions in general, 
 and a great number of Greek and Latin writers. But καιρῷ 
 is the reading of D pr. man., F, G, 5, and appears to have been 
 represented in various Latin copies. 
 
 The variation of reading has all the appearance of having 
 originated in accident. The great excess, however, of evidence 
 in favour of the common text must. suffer abatement from the 
 consideration, that the various reading may itself be viewed as 
 ancient; that it gives a sense less simple and obvious than its 
 rival, but one at least as well suited to the context; and that 
 it might easily have been changed by a slip in transcription into 
 an abbreviated form of Κυρίῳ. 
 
 10 
 
130 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ROMANS XIV. 6. 
 
 Ὃ φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν Κυρίῳ φρονεῖ, καὶ ὁ μὴ 
 φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν Κυρίῳ οὐ φρονεῖ: ὁ ἐσθίων 
 Κυρίῳ ἐσθίει, κ. τ. X. 
 
 He that regardeth the day, regardeth τὸ unto the Lord ; 
 and {he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not 
 regard it|. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, ete. 
 
 The entire clause ὁ uw... . φρονεῖ is wanting in A, B, C pr. 
 man., D, E, F, G, 23, 57, 67 sec. man., the Vulgate, Coptic, 
 fEthiopic, as also Jerome, and other Latin writers. It is found, 
 however, in C ter. man., J, and the mass of MSS., in both Syriac 
 versions, and various Greek writers. 
 
 Here is a conflict mainly between antiquity and numbers. In 
 aid of the latter there comes in the consideration, that oversight 
 in transcription would here be favoured by similarity of ending 
 in two consecutive clauses. 
 
 But, on the other hand, it is important to observe that, had 
 such omission taken place, it would have included the introduc- 
 tory particle xai: whereas, while the authorities for the omission 
 read καὶ ὁ ἐσθίων, in many of those which contain it, the next 
 clause commences without the conjunction, as in the common 
 text. This appearance would result from the slipping in of an 
 interlinear supplement between xai and ὁ ἐσθίων, and thus con- 
 spires with the ancient evidence against the genuineness of the 
 clause. 
 
 The supplementing of such a member would be readily sug- 
 gested by the shape of the succeeding context, to give a symme- 
 trical completeness to the entire passage, a symmetry of which the 
 Apostle was not studious. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 131 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS III. I, 4. 
 
 See ROMANS VII. 14. 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS III. 13. 
 
 e U \ »# ε af > Ν a / 
 Exaorov τὸ €pyov ὁποῖον ἐστιν τὸ πῦρ δοκιμάσει. 
 
 The fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. 
 
 
 
 The fuller reading, τὸ πῦρ αὐτὸ, is found in A, B, C, and 
 seven others, the Sahidic, Origen in one place, and other writers. 
 
 The addition, thus supported by ancient authority, is not im- 
 material. It implies that the agent, described as πῦρ, will not 
 discharge a merely preliminary process waiting completion by 
 another hand, but will do its work of proof thoroughly. ‘ Every 
 one’s several work shall the fire of itself put to proof, of what 
 sort it is.’ 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS V. 1. 
 
 Ni 3 “ 327) » , 
 Τοιαύτη πορνεία ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὀνομάζεται. 
 
 Such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles. 
 
 
 
 The verb ὀνομάζεται is wanting in A, B, C, Ὁ, E, F, G, and 
 six others, the Vulgate, Coptic, Athiopic, Armenian, Origen, 
 Tertullian, Lucifer, ete. 
 
 It is an officious appendage, apparently suggested by the pre- 
 ceding ἀκούεται; so that the sense is simply: ‘Such fornication 
 as occurs not even among the Gentiles.’ 
 
132 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS VI. 20. 
 
 / \ XN Ν 3 fa / «ε al Δ" 
 ΖΦοξάζετε δὴ τὸν Θεὸν ἐν τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν καὶ ἐν 
 fa / ε lal a ‘> “ lal 
 τῷ πνεύματι ὑμῶν, ἁτινὰ ἐστι τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 
 Therefore glorify God in your body, [and in your spirit, 
 which are God’s |. 
 
 The words καὶ ἐν τῷ mv. ὑ. a. ἐ. τ. O. are wanting in A, B, C 
 pr. man., D pr. man., E, F, G, and five others, the Vulgate, 
 Coptic, Basmuric, /Mthiopic, and a large number of writers. 
 They are found in C ¢er. man., J, K, both Syriac versions, etc., 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and G&cumenius, but must, 
 notwithstanding, be discarded without hesitation. They are a 
 feeble appendage to the nervous language to which they have 
 become adherent. 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS VII. 3. 
 
 a Q ε 95S \ > / RA 2 
 Tn γυναικὶ ὃ ἀνὴρ τὴν ὀφειλομένην εὐνοιαν amro- 
 i 
 διδότω. 
 
 Let the husband render unto the wife [due benevolence χ her due}. - 
 
 Instead of τὴν ὀφ. εὔ., τὴν OevAny is the simpler reading of A, 
 B, C, D, E, F, G, and six others, and is represented in the 
 Vulgate, Coptic, Basmuric, AZthiopic, and Armenian, and read 
 by Clement, Origen, etc., and the Latin Fathers. 
 
 The reading of the common text which is found in J, both 
 Syriac versions, etc., Theodoret, Theophylact, and CGicumenius, 
 is too palpably a gloss to stand for a moment against the weight 
 of opposing evidence. 
 
 Another similar reading was, τὴν ὀφειλομένην τιμήν; for not 
 only does Chrysostom quote this form in the seventh Homily on 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 138 
 
 Matthew (p. 117), but the succeeding exposition rests unmis- 
 takably on the term τιμήν. At the place under consideration, 
 too, the present text exhibits the same citation, followed by the 
 words τί δέ ἐστιν ἡ dhethouévn τιμή: but the comment not only 
 exhibits the true reading ὀφειλήν, but is explanatory of that 
 precise term and no other. There can be no doubt, then, respect- 
 ing the form under which the text was really cited by the com- 
 mentator in this instance; and it seems as if assimilative corruption 
 had emanated from the other homily. This is instructive, as 
 shewing that there can be no absolute reliance, for critical pur- 
 poses, upon bare citations of passages as they stand in the present 
 text of ecclesiastical writers. 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS VII. 5. 
 
 "Ti λ £07 a ’ \ “ a 
 Va σχο AQHTE ΤΊ νηστειᾳ Και ΤΉ προσευχῇ- 
 
 That ye may give yourselves to | fasting and] prayer. 
 
 The words τῇ νηστείᾳ καὶ are wanting in A, B, C, Ὁ), E, F, G, 
 etc., the Vulgate, and other versions, Clement, Origen, etc., and 
 the Latins in general. They are found in J, both Syriac versions, 
 ‘etc., the comment of Theodoret, the present text of Chrysostom, 
 and Theophylact, but without notice in the commentary. 
 
 They are undoubtedly a spurious accretion, the suggestion of 
 an ascetic spirit. 
 
134 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS IX. 10. 
 
 ’ 5 , rs rs , e¢ 
 
 Er ἐλπίδι ὀφείλει ὁ ἀροτριῶν ἀροτριᾶν, καὶ ὃ 
 > lad a > 7] 3 a ’ὔ Sa Wap / 
 ἀλοῶν τῆς ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ μετέχειν ET ελπίδι. 
 
 He that ploweth should plow in hope; and he that thresheth 
 [tn hope| should be partaker of his hope. 
 
 In the latter clause the words ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι are wanting in Ὁ 
 pr. man., F, G; so that, according to this form, the sense of the 
 passage would be: ‘ For our sake no doubt was it written, to the 
 purport that the plower ought to plow in hope, and the thresher 
 to partake in [the matter of] his hope.’ By this means the two 
 parties are represented respectively in their true positions, the one 
 expectant, the other passed from expectation into possession. 
 
 But there is another distinct form of the clause, namely, καὶ ὁ 
 ἀλοῶν ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετέχειν. This is given by A, B, C, and 
 three others, by both Syriac versions, the Sahidic, Basmuric, 
 Armenian, etc., Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, and Augustine: the 
 Vulgate, too, seems to represent it. 
 
 On the score of authorities this has the stronger claim: but the 
 resulting meaning cannot be reconciled with the observation just 
 made without assigning to the term ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι in the second place 
 a stronger signification—that of assurance—than it has in the 
 first. The enactment of the law secured for the treading ox, 
 not bare hope, but freedom of participation. 
 
 The amount of variation on both clauses is so considerable, that 
 it cannot be viewed without perplexity and misgiving with regard 
 to the real form and purport of the sentence. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 135 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS IX. 20. 
 
 Tots ὑπὸ νόμον ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον, ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον 
 κερδήσω. 
 To them that are under the law, as under the law, that I 
 might gain them that are under the law. 
 
 An entire clause, μὴ ὧν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον, is inserted before ἵνα 
 by certain authorities. These are A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and many 
 others, the Vulgate, Sahidic, the later Syriac, Armenian, and 
 Gothic, Cyril, Chrysostom, and others. The omission occurs in 
 K, etc., the Peshito Syriac, the Coptic, Origen, Theodoret, etc. 
 
 On account of the recurring termination ὑπὸ νόμον, an acci- 
 dental omission would be a likely occurrence, especially in sticho- 
 metrical practice. It is from the same cause that J exhibits a loss 
 of the entire portion τοῖς ὑπὸ νόμον ... . κερδήσω. 
 
 This consideration places the ancient authorities, in the present 
 and some other instances, in a position the opposite of that which 
 they so frequently occupy, rendering them trusty witnesses to the 
 genuineness of the longer reading. 
 
 On the restoration of the clause, the sense of the entire passage 
 would stand thus: ‘And I made myself to the Jews as a Jew, 
 that I might win Jews: to those under law as one under law— . 
 not being actually under law—that I might win those under 
 law.’ 
 
136 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS X. 1. 
 
 Od θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, k. τ. λ. 
 
 [ Moreover, y For] brethren, I would not that ye should be 
 ignorant, ete. 
 
 
 
 Instead of the particle δέ, γάρ is the reading of A, B, C, D, E, 
 F, 6, etc., and a great number of versions and Fathers: δέ being 
 found in J, K, both Syriac versions, etc., Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 and others. 
 
 The restoration of γάρ, thus abundantly authorised, is not 
 unimportant; because it places the succeeding context in the 
 proper position of matter of logical enforcement, drawn from past 
 events, to the solemn lesson just before laid down (ix. 24—27). 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS X. 28. 
 
 Tov yap Κυρίου ἡ γῆ καὶ τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῆς. 
 |For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof. | 
 
 The repetition of this clause does not occur in A, B, C, D, E, 
 F, 6, H pr. man., and twelve others, the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, 
 Sahidic, ete. 
 
 In addition to this decisive evidence, it may be remarked, that 
 its presence in this place, though it receives the comments of 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, CEcumenius, and Theophylact, is alto- 
 gether idle and irrelevant to the immediate context. 
 
 It is found in H sec. man., J, K, the later Syriac, the Gothic, 
 etc. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 137 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS XI. 24. 
 
 “Ekrace καὶ εἶπε, Λάβετε, φάγετε: τοῦτό pov 
 ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὕπερ ὑμῶν κλώμενον. 
 He brake it, and said, | Take, eat :| this is my body, which 
 ts [broken] for you. 
 
 The first question on this passage relates to the words, λάβετε, 
 φάγετε, which are wanting in A, B, C pr. man., D, E, F, G, and 
 many others, the Latin of the Codex Amiatinus, and others, the 
 Coptic, Sahidic, etc. They are found in C ¢er. man., J, K, both 
 Syriac versions, the common text of the Vulgate, Cyril of Jeru- 
 salem, Chrysostom, and others. There need not be any hesitation 
 in discarding them as an assimilative accretion from the parallel 
 place (Mat. xxvi. 26). 
 
 A similar question affects the word cdépevov, which is wanting 
 in A, B, C pr. man., 17, 67 sec. man., Cyril of Alexandria, Atha- 
 nasius, and Fulgentius. It is read, however, in C ter. man., D 
 ter. man., KE, F, G, J, K, both Syriac versions, the Gothic, οἷο. 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Johannes Damascenus, Gicumenius, and 
 Theophylact. 
 
 Thus far there is ground for considerable doubt; though not 
 enforced by an appearance of assimilation. But it must be further 
 remarked, that D pr. man. has θρυπτόμενον; and that the Coptic, 
 Sahidic, and Armenian, either represent διδόμενον, or so supply 
 an ellipsis in the original ; as is also the appearance presented by 
 the Vulgate. These facts serve further to point to the bare read- 
 ing τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν as genuine; the abrupt appearance of which 
 supplies, besides, an internal argument in its favour, because it 
 would be provocative of supplements, such as κλώμενον and 
 θρυπτόμενον, which, though not borrowed from a parallel place, 
 are sufficiently suggested by the preceding term ἔκλασε. 
 
138 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS XI. 29. 
 
 e Ν > / Ν / > / / ε ΄“ 
 
 O γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων ἀναξίως κρίμα ἑαυτῷ 
 > / \ Ν x “ a 
 ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει, μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα τοῦ 
 Κυρίου. 
 
 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth 
 
 and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s 
 body. 
 
 Here the genuineness of the word ἀναξίως is questioned. The 
 word itself, which might seem at first sight so material to the 
 sense of the passage, is in fact altogether needless; for without it 
 the meaning would stand thus, the participial clause being hypo- 
 thetical: ‘ For he that eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment 
 to himself, if he makes no distinction of the Lord’s body.’ 
 
 In this way the proposition is the same with that which has 
 just preceded (ver. 27), the clause μὴ .. . . Κυρίου in this place 
 being identical in purport with the single term ἀναξίως in the 
 former, and, in fact, serving to fix the meaning of that term. 
 This identity might have been pointed out by appending ἀναξίως 
 as a marginal note to the clause, as is seen more clearly in the 
 fuller form which Chrysostom read, ἀναξίως tod Κυρίου Or 
 ἀναξίως may have been an officious marginal supplement of an 
 ellipsis purely imaginary, as has been already shewn; or it may 
 be no more than an instance of assimilative influence. 
 
 The evidence for the word in question is considerable, con- 
 sisting of C ter. man., D, E, F, G, J, K, and a large number 
 besides, with many versions and writers. It is wanting in A, B, 
 C pr. man., 17, the Sahidic, and Aithiopic. 
 
 It appears, then, that the word is not necessary to the sense ; 
 that an intrusion into the text may be readily accounted for; that 
 there is no evident cause tending to an accidental or designed 
 omission ; and that the adverse evidence, though scanty, proceeds 
 from witnesses of the highest antiquity. 
 
 The testimony of these must be at once accepted, as pure from 
 an early and widely prevalent accretion. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 139 
 
 The words tod Κυρίου are also questioned, the evidence on 
 either side being nearly the same as in the case of ἀναξίως ; and, 
 though the point is less material, it must be left to the same 
 decision. 
 
 Thus the original words may be concluded to be: ὁ γὰρ ἐσθίων 
 καὶ πίνων κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει, μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα. 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS XIII. 8. 
 
 > Ν a Ν ra LNG Ψ , 
 “αν παραδῶ τὸ σῶμα pov, iva καυθησωμαι" 
 
 Though I give my body [ἐο be burned y that I might vaunt|. 
 
 The reading of the common text, καυθήσωμαι, is that of C, 
 K, etc., while καυθήσομαι is found in D, E, F, G, J, and many 
 others. But these two, the difference between which is a point 
 of mere grammar and in other respects quite immaterial, may be 
 viewed as combining in common rivalry against another, καυχή- 
 cwpat, the reading of A, B, 17, and the Athiopic, and favoured 
 by Jerome, who, however, admits a conflict of evidence. 
 
 The variation has at once the appearance of accidental origin ; 
 and, when it is considered that, in the presence of a rival, καυθή- 
 cwpat would be viewed with disfavour on account of its anoma- 
 lous grammatical form, even the undoubted antiquity of that 
 rival, and the importance of the few existing witnesses in its 
 favour, must not be allowed to procure for it a place in the text. 
 
140 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS XV. 49. 
 
 \ a / \ 3 ἃ lal “ ad / 
 Καθὼς εἐφορέσαμεν τὴν εἰκόνα Tov χοϊκοῦ, φορέ- 
 \ \ / oy τ. , 
 σομεν καὶ THY εἰκόνα TOU ἐπουρανίου. 
 
 As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also 
 bear the image of the heavenly. 
 
 The common reading φορέσομεν has for its authorities B, if the 
 collations rightly omit to notice any variation, 17, and a number 
 of others, both Syriac versions, the /Ethiopic, and Armenian: 
 but φορέσωμεν is the reading of A, C, Ὁ, E, F, G, J, K, and 
 a great majority besides, and represented in the Vulgate, Coptic, 
 Gothic, and Slavonic. 
 
 The array of MSS. is thus decidedly on the side of the varia- 
 tion: but there must be taken into account the circumstance, 
 that in some documents the confusion between the two vowels 
 in question is so extensive as to nullify, and in others sufficient 
 to impair, their testimony on such a point as the present. Still 
 the most important are free from this impeachment, and are only 
 open to the possibility of a too faithful transmission of errors 
 already arisen from that particular cause. The evidence of ver- 
 sions appears fairly balanced. 
 
 Patristic testimony will here be important, wherever it can 
 be clearly ascertained. The Latin Fathers, especially Tertullian, 
 range with the Vulgate in favour of the variation. Theodotus, 
 according to the present text, has dopécwuev; but there is no 
 decisive indication of his actual reading supplied by his application 
 of the passage; nor can Origen be cited either way, because the 
 current text varies. The evidence of Chrysostom, however, is 
 unmistakable, as shewn by the interpretation, ἄριστα πράξωμεν, 
 which he puts upon the clause, and by the subsequent observation, 
 εἰ δὲ περὶ φύσεως ἣν ὁ λόγος, οὐ παρακλήσεως ἐδεῖτο TO πρᾶγμα. 
 
 Theodoret ranges as distinctly on the other side; but his 
 pointed words, προρρητικῶς οὐ παραινετικῶς, imply the existence 
 of a rival view. ‘Theophylact and Gicumenius would interpret 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 141 
 
 φορέσωμεν to the same effect as Chrysostom, but condemn the 
 reading and the interpretation with it. 
 
 With regard to the interpretation itself, it may be remarked 
 that it is hardly a ready and simple one, and certainly ill assorts 
 with the drift of the writer, who is here occupied not with moral 
 inculcation, but high teachings of the future destinies of man. 
 Chrysostom, however, is so far consistent that he puts a moral 
 meaning upon the entire context. 
 
 If then, on the grounds already specified, φορέσωμεν were 
 recognised as having proceeded from the Apostle, there must be 
 an accompanying recognition of a marked peculiarity of language, 
 though not confined to this place, but one which has already 
 challenged attention (Rom. v. 1). On this principle the sense 
 of the passage might be given thus: ‘ The first man is from earth 
 earthy, the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, such 
 too are the earthy ones, and as is the heavenly, such too are the 
 heavenly. And as we have worn the likeness of the earthy one, 
 let us wear too’—let us count ourselves as destined wearers of — 
 ‘the likeness of the heavenly one. And this is what I aver, 
 brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, ete.’ 
 The words ὁ κύριος (ver. 47) have here been passed over as a 
 glossarial accretion, on the authority of B, C, D pr. man., E, F, 
 G, 17, 67 sec. man., the Vulgate, Coptic, ete. 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS XV. 6]. 
 
 Πάντες μὲν οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πᾶντες δὲ ἀλλαγη- 
 σόμεθα ἐν ἀτόμῳ, κ. τ. A. 
 
 We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a 
 moment. 
 
 There are two variations on this place calling for remark, not 
 merely by their form and purport, but from the circumstance that 
 they possessed currency in early times before the age of Jerome. 
 The first is πάντες μὲν κοιμηθησόμεθα, ov πάντες δὲ ἀλλ., the 
 
142 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 reading of C and of F, G, with the insertion of οὖν after μέν, 
 as also of 17, with the further variation ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πάντες. The 
 reading of A is confused, but may be allowed to range with these. 
 It is also supported by the AEthiopic and Armenian, Jerome, etc. 
 The second is πάντες ἀναστησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ ἀλλ., found 
 in D pr. man., the Vulgate, and many Latin writers. 
 
 On these it is most important to remark, that though their 
 verbal form in the first clause is so different, yet their entire drift 
 is the same; a sure mark of artificial origination. Both are 
 framed to square with the presumption, that the only change 
 occurring among the risen dead would be into a state of glorifi- 
 cation. - - 
 
 The reading of the common text, with the omission of μέν 
 in some copies, is that of B, D ter. man., E, J, K, and the great 
 mass besides, of both Syriac versions, the Coptic and Gothic, with 
 many writers. It may be retained without any hesitation. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 143 
 
 2 CORINTHIANS I. 20. 
 
 Ὅσαι γὰρ ἐπαγγελίαι Θεοῦ, ἐ εν αὐτῷ τὸ ναὶ, καὶ 
 ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ἀμήν. 
 
 For all the promises of God in him are yea, [and in him 
 χ wherefore through him too is| Amen. 
 
 Instead of the words καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ, διὸ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ is the reading 
 of A, B, C, F, G, and seven others, supported by various versions 
 and Fathers. 
 
 These authorities would at once claim especial regard, and 
 perhaps something more, but for the appearance which the 
 reading too plainly wears—a mark, as it were, of its birth— 
 the appearance of being no more than an inferential scholium, 
 usurping the place of the words to which it was appended, to the 
 effect that, because τὸ ἀμήν is found in Christ, therefore (διό) 
 it is that through him (δι᾽ αὐτοῦ) the solemn Amen is given 
 in response to offered prayer or praise. 
 
 That such an appendage is no coinage of fancy but a real 
 process, is seen from the comment of Theodoret; who, after 
 rightly explaining the Apostle’s language, as signifying a realisa- 
 tion of promises to man on the part of God by means of his Son, 
 adds inferentially, οὗ δὴ χάριν καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ τὸν τῆς εὐχαριστίας 
 αὐτῷ προσφέρομεν ὕμνον, and more to the same effect. 
 
 The other reading, καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ, found in D pr. man., has 
 evidently the same purport and origin. 
 
144 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 2 CORINTHIANS III. 1. 
 
 > / / ε A / 93 \ 
 Αρχόομεθα πάλιν ἑαυτοὺς συνιστάνειν ; εἰ μὴ 
 / “ 
 χρῃζομεν, ὡς τίνες, K. τ. A. 
 
 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as 
 some, etc. 
 
 Instead of the common reading εὐ μὴ, found in A, B apparently, 
 J, K, etc., the variation ἢ μὴ is given by C, D, E, F, G, and 
 many others, and is generally represented in the versions. 
 
 A variation, however slight in form, like the present, is not 
 immaterial if it bestows life and freshness on a passage, especially 
 an epistolary one. In its new combination, the particle μή marks 
 an interrogation made in a tone of ironical insinuation. ‘The 
 passage may therefore stand thus: apy. π. ἑ. συνιστάνειν. ἢ μὴ 
 χρήζομεν, κ- τι X. ‘We are beginning again to recommend 
 ourselves. Or is it that we stand in need of recommendatory 
 letters to you or from you?’ The interrogation should by all 
 means be withdrawn from the first clause, there being in it an 
 allusion to the language just preceding. 
 
 2 CORINTHIANS XII. 1. 
 
 Καυχᾶσθαι δὴ ov συμφέρει por, ἐλεύσομαι yap, 
 ΚΙ Tepe 
 
 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will 
 come, etc. 
 
 Instead of the particle δή, δεῖ is the reading of B, D ter. man., 
 E, F, G, J, and about twenty others, both Syriac versions, the 
 Gothic, etc., while the Vulgate and Latin writers represent εἰ x. 
 δεῖ. The authorities for the common reading are K, and a con- 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 145 
 
 siderable number besides, the Coptic, Aithiopic, Chrysostom, 
 Athanasius, Theodoret, Gicumenius, etc., while δέ is given by 
 D pr. man., 114, the Sclavonic version, and Theophylact. 
 
 Besides this, the most material point, on the particle γάρ 
 there are the variations δέ, found in F, G, and three others, and 
 expressed in the Vulgate and Coptic; and δὲ καί, in B, 213; 
 while B, Εἰ, G. 17, 67 sec. man., also read συμφέρον μέν, thus 
 producing a nice symmetry, especially with respect to the par- 
 ticles, which cannot escape a suspicion of artificial origin. . 
 
 The preceding facts and considerations, with the addition that 
 D pr. man., with the Syriac, and Gothic, omits wot, would favour 
 the following form of the passage: καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ: οὐ συμφέρει: 
 ἐλεύσομαι yap, K. Tr. ‘ Boast I must—it is no advantage—[I 
 say this] for I shall proceed to visions and revelations of the 
 
 Lord.’ 
 
 1 
 
146 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 GALATIANS III. 1. 
 
 ἾΩ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανεν τῇ 
 ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι ; οἷς κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμοὺς ᾿7η- 
 σοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐν ὑμῖν ἐσταυρωμένος. 
 
 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, [that ye 
 
 should not obey the truth,| before whose eyes Jesus Christ 
 hath been evidently set forth, crucified | among you | ? 
 
 The clause τῇ ad. μὴ. π. is wanting in A, B, D pr. man., E 
 pr. man., I’, G, etc., various versions, Jerome, Cyril, and many 
 other Fathers. The authorities which support it are C, D ¢er. 
 man., ki sec. man., J, K,-etc., the common text of the Vulgate, 
 the Aithiopic, ete. 
 
 There need not be any hesitation in rejecting it as an assimi- 
 lative supplement derived from a similar passage (v. 7). 
 
 Great doubt, also, is thrown upon the words ἐν ὑμῖν, by their 
 absence from A, B, C, and ten others, the Latin of the Codices 
 Amiatinus and Toletanus, the Syriac, etc. They are supported, 
 however, by D, E, F, G, J, K, and many others, the common 
 text and some copies of the Vulgate, the later Syriac, the Gothic, 
 etc. It is at once seen that antiquity of evidence is against 
 them. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 147 
 
 GALATIANS IV. 7. 
 
 Εἰ δὲ υἱὸς, καὶ κληρονόμος Θεοῦ διὰ Χριστοῦ. 
 And tf a son, then an heir [of God through Christ]. 
 
 Instead of the words Θ. ὃ. X., διὰ Θεοῦ is the reading of A, 
 B, C pr. man., 17, of the Vulgate, Coptic, Clement, Athanasius, 
 Basil, Cyril, and other Fathers: διὰ Θεόν of F, G: while from 
 versions and other sources evidence is derived of the existence 
 of other forms, as διὰ Χριστοῦ, Θεοῦ, Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ, Θεοῦ διὰ 
 πνεύματος. This fluctuation of shape throws doubt on the 
 genuineness of the whole. It is quite possible that the Apostle 
 
 wrote no more than καὶ κληρονόμος, a form which has been noted 
 in one MS., 178. 
 
 GALATIANS IV. 14. 
 
 \ \ / \ 39 “ / 
 Kat τὸν πειρασμὸν μου τὸν ἐν TH σαρκί μου οὐκ 
 > / 
 ἐζουθενήσατε. 
 
 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not. 
 
 The common reading, τὸν 7. μου τὸν, is that of D ter. man., 
 E, J, K, and a great majority besides, the later Syriac, ete., 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Damascenus, and Cicumenius. But a 
 marked variation, τὸν π. ὑμῶν ἐν τ. σ. μου, is found in A, B, 
 C sec. man. (ὑμῶν τὸν), D pr. man., F, G, 17, 39, 67 sec. man., 
 the Vulgate, Coptic, Cyril, and the Latin Fathers. 
 
 If the question lay entirely between these two readings, the 
 preference would be claimed by the latter, both on account of the 
 greater antiquity of its authorities, and because its meaning is less 
 simple and obvious. The meaning would be: ‘ The trial that you 
 had in my flesh,’ that is, those personal circumstances of mine 
 
148 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 which were a source of trial and difficulty in the way of your 
 reception of my mission. 
 
 But it must also be noted that another form, τὸν πειρασμὸν τὸν 
 ἐν τ. o. μου, appears in Οὐ pr. man., seemingly, and nine others, 
 the Syriac, Armenian, Gothic, ete. From this it is possible that 
 both the others sprung, by simply appending a pronoun indicating 
 the subject of the condition expressed by the term πειρασμόν. 
 
 
 
 GALATIANS V. 1. 
 
 Tn ἐλευθερίᾳ οὖν ἡ Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἠλευθέρωσε, 
 στήκετε. 
 
 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath 
 made us free. 
 
 A material effect would be produced upon this passage by the 
 absence of the relative 7, since the clause would then become 
 an independent sentence, and one which could only be understood 
 by recognising in it the representation of a particular intensive 
 Hebraism by means of a Dative. But it is important to observe, 
 that in other instances of this peculiar usage the Dative is anar- 
 throus. 
 
 The word in question is wanting in A, B, C, D pr. man., and 
 eight others, the Coptic, οἷοι; but it should be remarked that, 
 of these, A, B, D, together with E, F, G, and others, place ἡμᾶς 
 before Χριστός, which may accordingly be taken as its true 
 position. But that position would favour an accidental oversight 
 of 7 on account of the recurrence of the same letter; and this 
 consideration weakens the force of the evidence for the omission 
 of that word. There are, therefore, good grounds for retaining it. 
 
 The position of the particle οὖν in the common text, which it 
 has also in C ter. man., J, K, etc., sufficiently indicates a specific 
 arrangement of the passage, by which a period commences with 
 the words τῇ ἐλ. But the particle is placed after στήκετε in A, 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 149 
 
 B, C pr. man., F, G, and some others, in some copies of the 
 Vulgate, the Coptic, Gothic, ete.; according to which arrange- 
 ment the sense would stand thus: ‘ Wherefore, brethren, we are 
 not children of a bondmaid but of the free woman, by the freedom 
 with which Christ has freed us. Stand firm then,’ etc. 
 
 In spite, however, of the strong testimony for this position 
 of the particle, the question will suggest itself, whether in either 
 case its presence is not artificial, noting respectively two different 
 opinions about the order of the sentence: and its entire absence 
 from D and Εἰ, from the Vulgate, the later Syriac, Jerome, etc., 
 would favour an answer in the affirmative. The effect of this 
 would be to revive uncertainty respecting the arrangement of 
 the passage. 
 
 The reading of F and G, # éX., represented also in the Vulgate 
 and Gothic, presents a form not likely to have proceeded from 
 the writer. It may have been an attempt to remedy the absence 
 of the following relative, already noticed. 
 
 EPHESIANS III. 9. 
 
 “a / lal 
 Tis ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμ- 
 / 
 pevov, K. τ΄ A. 
 
 What is the fellowship of the mystery, which, ete. 
 
 Instead of κοινωνία, οἰκονομία is the reading of the mass of 
 authorities, the common text being found only in a very few 
 unimportant MSS8.; having arisen probably from a mere error 
 in transcription, since its meaning is less simple and easy than 
 that afforded by the other: ‘ What is the stewardship [specially 
 vested in me] of the secret which has been from all time hidden 
 in God, who created all things.’ The words διὰ ᾿[ησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 must be discarded, as being wanting in A, B, C, D pr. man., G, 
 etc., and a considerable number of versions and Fathers. 
 
150 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 EPHESIANS V. 5. 
 
 a / > / 
 Tovro yap ἐστε γινώσκοντες. 
 
 For this ye know. 
 
 Τοῦτο yap ἴστε γινώσκοντες is the reading of A, B, D pr. man., 
 F, G, and about thirty others, the principal versions, Clement, 
 Cyprian, and many other Greek and Latin Fathers: the chief 
 authorities for the common text being D ter. man., Εἰ, J, K, the 
 later Syriac, Theodoret, Johannes Damascenus, and Theophylact. 
 
 The evidence is thus clear in favour of the variation; and the 
 expression must be viewed as the representative of a common 
 intensive Hebraism: ‘ For this you know assuredly.’ 
 
 EPHESIANS VI. 12. 
 
 Πρὸς ras “ἀρχὰς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς 
 κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου. 
 
 Against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of 
 the darkness of this world. 
 
 The words τοῦ αἰῶνος are wanting in A, B, D pr. man., F, G, 
 17, 67 sec. man., 80, the principal versions, Clement, Origen, 
 Tertullian, Cyprian, and many other Greek and Latin Fathers. 
 
 They are a mere gloss, of no higher stamp than the generality 
 of such intrusive matter. ‘Our struggle is against the prince- 
 doms, the powers, the world-sovereigns of this [realm of] dark- 
 ness. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 15) 
 
 PHILIPPIANS III. 16. 
 
 a > ΄ a / \ 3. 'N ~ 
 To αὐτῷ στοίχειν KQVOVL* TO AUTO φρονεῖν. 
 
 Let us walk [ὃν the same rule, let us mind the same thing y 
 uniformly |. 
 
 The latter clause, τὸ αὖ. φρ.; is placed first by D, E, F, G, the 
 Vulgate, the Gothic, ete. The word xavovs is also found in 
 various positions. ‘This is sufficient, especially since means of 
 assimilative supplements were at hand (Gal. vi. 16; Phi. u. 2; 
 iv. 2; Ro. xu. 16; 2 Cor. xii. 11), to throw suspicion on the 
 common form of the passage; the principal authorities for which 
 are J, K, the later Syriac, Chrysostom, and Theodoret. 
 
 The existence of a shorter form, simply τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν, 
 accords with this suspicion; a form exhibited by A, B, 17, 67 
 sec. man., the Coptic, Sahidic, Aithiopic, Augustine, Hilary, ete. 
 This abrupt form may reasonably be regarded as the nucleus 
 around which, as is usual in such cases, accretion has gathered. 
 
12 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 COLOSSIANS I. 6. 
 
 ἢ 5) , Ν ΔΙ 9 ea 
 Kat ἐστι καρποφορούμενον καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν. 
 
 And bringeth forth fruit + and receives increase, + as it 
 doth also in you. 
 
 The additional words καὶ αὐξανόμενον are found in A, B, Ὁ, 
 D pr. man., E pr. man., F, G, J, and about thirty others, the 
 bulk of the versions, and many Fathers. The principal authority 
 for their omission is K. 
 
 They must be added without hesitation to the text, and their 
 absence from copies referred to oversight caused by similarity 
 of termination in the two participles, aided perhaps by stiche- 
 metrical arrangement. (See on Acts iv. 27.) 
 
 COLOSSIANS I. 14. 
 
 "Ee ees), ἈΝ > r / } Ν a “ 
 V @ EK OMEV THY tbe UTPWOLV ta TOV QLAATOS 
 QUTOU. 
 
 In whom we have redemption [through his blood. 
 
 The words διὰ τ. at. αὐτοῦ are wanting in all the uncial MSS., 
 and the great majority of the rest, are not represented in the 
 Latin of the Codex Amiatinus, the Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, 
 etc., and appear to have been unknown to the generality of the 
 Fathers. ‘Their character is at once evident. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 165 
 
 COLOSSIANS II. 2. 
 
 > > / a“ / n “ \ s 
 Kis ἐπίγνωσιν Tov μυστηρίου Tov Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς 
 καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
 
 To the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, [and of the 
 Father, and of Christ]. 
 
 The question on this place respects the genuineness of the 
 words καὶ π. καὶ τ. X. 
 
 The bare amount of variation affecting the matter that is found 
 following Θεοῦ, is such as to press strongly for the spuriousness 
 of every particle, previous to any particular inspection of its 
 internal character. 
 
 On the word πατρός it is enough simply to observe, that it 
 would be a ready appendage to Θεοῦ. The reading 6 ἐστι 
 Χριστός, given by D pr. man., followed by Augustine and 
 Vigilius, and nearly represented in the Ethiopic, is. from its 
 very form an unmistakable gloss on μυστηρίου, derived probably 
 from 1 Ti. 11. 17, while tod ἐν Χριστῷ, found in 17, is another 
 of precisely the same purport. These could not have been 
 appended to the text in its present form; and thus their very 
 existence is an evidence against it. Such a gloss might further 
 have taken the simpler form Χριστοῦ; but this would rather 
 spring from Θεοῦ, as is seen in the frequent rivalry of these two 
 terms occurring in the body of various readings. Here, then, are 
 materials from the accretion and concretion of which an origin 
 is furnished for the other various shapes of the disputed portion, 
 namely, simply Χριστοῦ, the reading of B and Hilary; πατρὸς 
 τοῦ Χριστοῦ, of A, C, etc., and some versions; πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ 
 “Χριστοῦ, of other MSS. and versions; and the common text, 
 which is found in D ¢er. man., Εἰ, J, Καὶ, etc. 
 
 There is thus far sufficient ground for discarding the whole, 
 and reducing the text to the form in which it actually appears 
 in 37, 67 sec. man., 71, 81 pr. man., 116. 
 
154 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 COLOSSIANS II. 18. 
 
 ἃ ἈΠΕ » / 
 A μὴ εὡρακεν euParevor. 
 
 Intruding into those things which he hath not seen. 
 
 A remarkable circumstance, affecting the form and meaning of 
 this clause, is the omission of the negative μή by no less authorities 
 than A, B, D pr. man., as well as three others, Tertullian, and 
 the Coptic version. Its occasional absence from copies was also 
 known to Augustine. 
 
 The resulting meaning of the clause would be: ‘ Plodding the 
 ground of things which he has seen,’ that is, busied upon the 
 lower sphere of things visible and material: ἐμβατεύων thus 
 receiving a signification an instance of which occurs 2 Mace. ii. 30. 
 
 The common reading is that of C, D ter. man., E, J, K, and 
 the MSS. in general, both Syriac versions, the Vulgate, Gothic, 
 ete., Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others. 
 
 The question resolves itself into this, whether the reading, 
 thus exhibited by a few ancient authorities, is the result of the 
 accidental omission of a small particle—a case far from impos- 
 sible; or whether, on the other hand, the negative is an artificial 
 remedy for a seeming inconsistency with the preceding words 
 τῇ θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων. ‘The latter view may seem to be 
 favoured by the fact that F and G read οὐκ, which might be 
 another form of the same interference; but it may also be 
 regarded as a ready variation on the other negative. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 155, 
 
 1 THESSALONIANS IL. 7. 
 
 ‘AN ἐγενήθημεν ἥπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν. 
 But we were | gentle χὶ child-like| among you. 
 
 Instead of ἤπιοι, νήπιοι is given by B, C pr. man., D pr. man., 
 F, G, and many others, and is supported by the Old Latin, 
 Vulgate, and Coptic, Clement, Origen, Cyril, ete. 
 
 It is at once clear that either reading might have had an 
 accidental origin from the other, and both with nearly equal 
 likelihood. 
 
 In favour of the common text there are cited A, C sec. man., 
 D ter. man., E, J, K, with a great majority besides, both Syriac 
 versions, the Sahidic, Chrysostom, Theodoret, ete. 
 
 The term νήπιος may seem to wear a strange appearance in 
 this place; perhaps to be hardly intelligible. But it will bear 
 examination; and if the Apostle says, ‘ We made ourselves νήπιοι 
 among you,’ his language may be taken to mean, that, notwith- 
 standing their divine illumination and high commission, they had 
 adopted a demeanour among their converts as unassuming and 
 simple as mere children. 
 
 If the various reading be adopted, as being the more difficult 
 and figurative term, and possessed of a preponderance of ancient 
 testimony, a period must be put at the end of the clause to detach 
 it from the succeeding context, which introduces a change of 
 metaphor. 
 
156 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 Ll IMO TEY, i: 
 
 ων , ΄, ca) x 
 Airwes ζητήσεις παρέχουσι μᾶλλον ἢ οἰκοδομίαν 
 a Ν > 
 Θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει. 
 
 Which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which 
 is in faith. 
 
 The term οἰκοδομίαν appears to rest solely on D ter. man., but 
 its equivalent οἰκοδομήν is the original reading of that MS., and 
 is expressed in the Vulgate, Gothic, Peshito, and the margin 
 of the later Syriac, and it appears also to have been read by 
 Trenzeus, as it is by various Latin Fathers: it is therefore ancient. 
 
 But when placed by the side of its rival οἰκονομίαν, it has 
 at once the appearance of affording a readier signification, and 
 so far has its claim weakened. The latter, too, is the unvarying 
 reading of the bulk of the MSS., and must accordingly be 
 adopted; so that the sense would be: ‘ Inasmuch as they give 
 rise to debatings rather than steward-service of God done in 
 faith.’ 
 
 
 
 1,TIMOTHY Ibu 
 
 My πάροινον, μὴ TANKTHY, μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ. 
 Not given to wine, no striker, | not greedy of filthy lucre]. 
 
 The presence of the .words μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ in the common 
 text of this passage, the authority for which is quite insignificant, 
 must be noted as an instance of assimilative influence, operating 
 wherever there is an opening. The words in question might 
 be readily suggested by the succeeding context (ver. 8), but they 
 are directly supplied from the parallel place (Tit. 1. 7). 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 157 
 
 PY TIMOTHY HE*ré: 
 
 \ / a 
 Kai ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας 
 ν ὦ ιν 
 μυστήριον: Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκὶ, κ. τ. λ. 
 
 And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: 
 [ God y who y which] was manifest in the flesh, ete. 
 
 On the common reading Θεός there are the two variations 
 ὅς and 6; but these, since they differ only by a grammatical 
 shade, range together in a joint rivalry of the other reading. 
 The mechanical connection, however, is between ὅς and Θεός, 
 and that, too, of close approximation, under their respective 
 forms OC and ΘΟ; so that each might be readily evolved from 
 the other, whether by accident or design. 
 
 The common reading is that of the great bulk of MSS., the 
 most important, however, being D ter. man., J, K. Of versions, 
 it is represented only in the Arabic of the Polyglot and the 
 Sclavonic, neither of which is of any weight in the criticism 
 of the text; so that it may be regarded as finding no support 
 in this department of evidence. 
 
 The severe mechanical scrutiny to which the older MSS. which 
 contain the passage have been subjected—B, E, H, being defec- 
 tive—leaves, at length, no doubt as to their real reading; so that 
 it may be safely stated, that A pr. man., C pr. man., F, G, 17, 
 73, 181, have és, and D pr. man. 6. 
 
 A pronominal rendering is also found in every version except 
 the two already named, that is, in the Latin of the Greek-Latin 
 MSS., the Vulgate, both Syriac versions, the Coptic, Sahidic, 
 ZEthiopic, Armenian, and Gothic; in all, in fact, whose evidence 
 is of any account. 
 
 The testimony of MSS. is thus in respect of antiquity decidedly 
 adverse to the common text; while that of versions is, to all 
 intents and purposes, entirely one sided. In these two depart- 
 ments, then, there is no direct evidence still extant, of an early 
 currency of that form of the passage. 
 
 In places like the present, having a marked dogmatic signifi- 
 
158 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 cance, the enquiry is especially drawn to patristic testimony ; but 
 on account of that significance it must be cited warily, because 
 the propensity of copyists to conform the citations made by their 
 authors from the New Testament to the current text with which 
 they were themselves familiar, would, in such cases, come par- 
 ticularly into play. 
 
 The following Greek writers have distinct references to the 
 passage, but couched in such terms as are incompatible with the 
 reading of the common text, namely, Clement of Alexandria as 
 cited by CEcumenius, Origen, Theodotus, Epiphanius, Gregory 
 Nyssene, Basil, Nestorius, and Cyril of Alexandria. From the 
 last mentioned writer it may be well to give one quotation, since 
 Θεός has crept into the current text of his works: μὴ εἰδότες ..... 
 TO μέγα τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, τουτέστι Χριστὸν, os ἐφα- 
 νερώθη, κ. Tr. ‘Not knowing the great mystery of godliness, 
 that is Christ, who was manifested, etc.’ 
 
 Those passages must, in the next place, be put altogether aside, 
 the only connection of which with the present place is, that they 
 are expressions of the same dogmatic sentiment as is conveyed 
 by the common form of the text, namely, Godhead manifested 
 in flesh. Such have been cited from Ignatius, Hippolytus, and 
 the Apostolical Constitutions. 
 
 But there are others which undoubtedly deal with the present 
 passage, but on which the question arises, whether they were 
 written with the reading Θεός actually before the authors, or 
 merely under the influence of the dogmatic view just mentioned, 
 assumed as an established truth and vividly impressed upon their 
 minds. Of this kind is Theodoret’s explanation of the term 
 μυστήριον, namely, Θεὸς yap ὧν καὶ Θεοῦ υἱὸς, καὶ ἀόρατον ἔχων 
 τὴν φύσιν, δῆλος ἅπασιν ἐνανθρωπήσας ἐγένετο. σαφῶς δὲ ἡμᾶς 
 τὰς δύο φύσεις ἐδίδαξεν, ἐν σαρκὶ γὰρ τὴν θείαν ἔφη φανερωθῆναι 
 φύσιν. ‘For being God and Son of God, and having his nature 
 an invisible one, he became clearly visible by putting on man- 
 hood. And distinctly has he taught us the two natures, for he 
 said that the divine nature was manifested in flesh.’ Of the 
 same kind, also, is the statement of Christ’s unity of person made 
 by Dionysius of Alexandria: ὃν αὐτοῦ πρόσωπον, ἀόρατος Θεὸς 
 καὶ ὁρατὸς γενόμενος, Θεὸς γὰρ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. “ His person 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 159 
 
 is one, invisible God become also visible, for God was manifested 
 in flesh.’ Certain expressions of Gregory Nyssene must necessarily 
 be referred to the latter case, unless, as is by no means unlikely, 
 his text has been corrupted. 
 
 With regard to the comment of Chrysostom on this place, the 
 present text of his works certainly exhibits Θεός ; but a want 
 of clearness and coherence might well countenance a suspicion 
 that here, too, there had been tampering. This suspicion is 
 reduced to a certainty, by the good service which a Catena has 
 rendered in embalming the comment in its pure form, a form 
 incompatible with a knowledge or adoption of the reading Θεός 
 on the part of the great commentator. > 
 
 The later writers Johannes Damascenus, (Ecumenius, and 
 Theophylact, undoubtedly agree with the common text. 
 
 With the exception of a preference for ὅς on the part of 
 Jerome, the reading of the entire Latin Church is guod. 
 
 On the field, then, of patristic testimony, the evidence, in 
 respect both of numbers and antiquity, strongly preponderates 
 against the common text, even if Dionysius and Theodoret 
 should be counted among its supporters. 
 
 The main question may now be considered as settled on the 
 score of positive evidence; but if this were not decisive, there 
 would be an important enquiry still to be met, namely, how 
 it is that a passage, so pointedly dogmatic as the common reading 
 would make it, is not constantly employed in those writings 
 where its service would be so signal. For instance, no such 
 appearance is presented by the genuine text of Athanasius. To 
 this only one answer can be given, especially when it is con- 
 sidered, that controversialists were not wont to leave any matter 
 which could be pressed into their service, inclusum in tabulis, 
 tanquam gladium in vagina reconditum. 
 
 With regard to the remaining question between ὅς and 6, it 
 may be stated that they are respectively supported by the Gothic 
 and Latin versions, the others affording no certain evidence of 
 a more precise kind than their representation of a pronominal 
 term. It may also be remarked, that grammatical formality 
 would tend to evolve 6 from és, while the assignment of a per- 
 sonal signification to the term μυστήριον, which was the prevail- 
 
160 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ing view, would favour the opposite effect. The evidence of 
 MSS., as has been seen, is on the side of ὅς. 
 
 According to that ancient view the sense would be: ‘ And 
 confessedly great is the mystery of godliness [in the person of 
 him], who [mystery, notwithstanding] was manifested in flesh, 
 ete.’ 
 
 If the rejection of the common reading of this passage robs 
 it of a ready dogmatic handle, it at the same time leaves unim- 
 paired its deep dogmatic significance. 
 
 Left IMOTEY TV. 22. 
 
 > Ἁ 7 4 an a 3 / > ΤΊ 
 AXAG τύπος γίνου τῶν πιστῶν, EV OY, εν ἀνα- 
 las 3 id 5 / 
 στροφῇ; εν ἀγαπῃ; εν πνευματι; K. τ. λ. 
 But be thou an example of the believers, in word, in con- 
 versation, in charity, [in spirit], ete. 
 
 The words ἐν πνεύματι are wanting in A, C, D, F, G, and 
 about ten others, as well as many versions and Fathers, their 
 principal authorities being J, K, and some late commentators. 
 They are certainly spurious. 
 
 
 
 PIM OTY VALS: 
 
 3 Ν an tf 
 Αφίστασο ἀπὸ τῶν τοιούτων. 
 
 From such withdraw thyself. 
 
 This clause, though found in J, K, both Syriac versions, many 
 Greek writers, etc., is wanting in A, D pr. man., F, G, 17, 67 
 sec. man., 93, the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, AZthiopic, Gothic, 
 ete.; and thus the force of evidence preponderates against its 
 genuineness. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 161 
 
 1 TIMOTHY VI. 19. 
 
 a > ’ a a 
 Iva ἐπιλαβωνται τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς. 
 
 That they may lay hold on [eternal life χ that which is 
 really life]. 
 
 Instead of αἰωνίου, ὄντως is the reading of A, D pr. man., 
 E pr. man., F, G, and many others, the versions in general, and 
 many Greek and Latin Fathers. 
 
 The common reading, which is found in D ἔθ). man., E sec. 
 man., J, K, etc., is evidently a usurping gloss, which weakens 
 the antithetic point of the sentence. One copy, by reading 
 αἰωνίου ὄντως, exhibits it as simply intrusive. 
 
 2 TIMOTHY ΤΥ. 1. 
 
 : , 53 i AN τ. 7 a a 
 
 Ζιαμαρτύρομαι οὖν ἐγὼ ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ 
 
 a 7] > a A a ᾽ὔ / 
 
 τοῦ Κυρίου ]ησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μέλλοντος κρί- 
 
 ἐπ \ \ \ \ > / lal 
 
 νειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς κατὰ THY ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ 
 Ν \ 7 > ΄“- 
 καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν αὑτοῦ. 
 
 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus 
 
 Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his 
 appearing and his kingdom. 
 
 The words ody éyé may at once be expunged as being absent 
 from A, Ὁ, D pr. man., F, G, J, etc., and many versions and 
 Fathers, as may also τοῦ Κυρίου on similar grounds. 
 
 The important question arises on the reading καί for κατά, 
 which is found in A, C, D pr. man., F, G, 17, 67 sec. man., the 
 Latin of the Codex Amiatinus and others, the Coptic, Cyril, ete. 
 
 12 
 
162 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 A reading so supported at once challenges special attention, 
 and this is further enforced if it presents difficulty or peculiarity. 
 A form which had obtained a currency such as is here indicated, 
 must have been at least intelligible; and the question at once 
 arises, what is the sense to be assigned to it? The passage in this 
 shape might be rendered: ‘I solemnly avouch, before God and 
 Christ Jesus who is to be judge of quick and dead, both his 
 appearing and his kingdom;’ an interpretation which is recognised 
 as admissible by Chrysostom. But this meaning deprives the 
 passage of all apparent connexion with the entire context, which 
 is occupied with very different matters, and it further involves 
 an inconsistency, because the Apostle is made to end with pro- 
 testing the truth of a doctrine which he had just assumed by 
 implication in the words τοῦ p. K. ζ. K. v. 
 
 The words ἐπιφάνειαν and βασιλείαν, however, may still be 
 in direct government by διαμαρτύρομαι, though in a different 
 sense, namely, as objects of adjuration, but such as would not 
 admit of a continuation of the construction with ἐνώπιον. The 
 whole would thus be an adjuration prefatory to a practical injunc- 
 tion; of which an instance has already occurred in the former 
 Epistle (v. 21). ‘I make earnest adjuration, before God and 
 Christ Jesus who is to be judge of quick and dead, both by his 
 appearing and his kingdom: publish the word, ete.’ 
 
 2 TIMOTHY IV. 14. 
 ᾿Αποδῴη αὐτῷ ὁ Κύριος κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. 
 The Lord {reward γι will reward| him according to his works. 
 An apparently significant variation, ἀποδώσει, is given by A, 
 
 C, D pr. man., E pr. man., F, G, and about fifteen others, the 
 Vulgate in its current text, etc.; the common reading being 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 163 
 
 that of D ter. man., E sec. man., J, K, and many others, the 
 Latin of the Codices Amiatinus and Toletanus, Jerome, etc. 
 
 The force of the evidence in favour of the variation suffers 
 abatement from the consideration, that it at once clears the 
 Apostle from all appearance of revengeful imprecation, a circum- 
 stance which might suggest or foster it. Those commentators, 
 therefore, as Theodoret and Theophylact, who abide by the 
 common reading but do not view it as absolutely imprecatory, 
 were probably right. 
 
 TRESS iE oe 
 
 ᾿Εν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀδιαφθορίαν. 
 
 In doctrine shewing uncorruptness. 
 
 A slightly varied form, ἀφθορίαν, is given by A, C, D pr. man., 
 E pr. man., K, 17, and about forty others. From this ἀφθονίαν, 
 which is found in F and G, has to all appearance sprung by 
 accident, and, in this view, is indirectly an evidence for it. 
 
 The common reading, which is supported by D ¢er. man., E 
 sec. man., J, etc., may be regarded as originally a gloss, marking 
 the signification of ἀφθορίαν more pointedly ; and to the same 
 source may be referred ἁγνείαν, added by C and others, and 
 ἀφθαρσίαν after σεμνότητα, by D ter. man., J, K, ete. 
 
164 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 PHILEMON 7. 
 Χάριν yap ἔχομεν πολλὴν, kK. τ. A. 
 
 For we have great joy and consolation, ete. 
 
 The common reading in this place is that of J, K, and a very 
 great majority of MSS., while A, C, D, E, F, G, and some 
 others, have χαράν. 
 
 The variation, being thus slight in form, might at first sight 
 be taken to be the issue of mere accident, attended, as is usual 
 in such cases, with some difficulty of decision. 
 
 It is important, however, to observe that Theophylact and 
 other Greek commentators read yapiv, giving at the same time 
 χαράν as the exponent of its use in this place: of which use there 
 is another instance (2 Cor. 1. 15); where also Chrysostom writes, 
 χάριν δὲ ἐνταῦθα χαρὰν λέγει. 
 
 This use οἵ χάριν, which might be expressed by the terms 
 ‘ ratification,’ ‘ satisfaction,’ is unusual, not being absolutely the 
 same with its occasional employment to convey the idea of grati- 
 fication of physical origin (Plato Gorg. p. 462); but, as being 
 such, it imparts to the reading a mark of genuineness, and also 
 suggests a ready origin for the variation in the way of an inter- 
 pretative gloss. 
 
 The fact of the currency of the above mentioned explanation 
 of χάριν neutralises the evidence of versions, which would other- 
 wise favour χαράν; because gaudium of the Latin, for instance, 
 may as well have represented χάριν so interpreted, as χαράν. 
 
 In the conflict of external evidence χάριν has thus a distinct 
 claim on the ground, that it exhibits a peculiarity of usage 
 in contrast with so ordinary a term as χαράν: and, though it 
 might have sprung from this latter by accident, it would hardly, 
 even in that case, have maintained its ground, and obtained that 
 wide currency which appears from existing documents. In this 
 case mere numerical amount of MSS. is important, because it 
 prevails, in spite of an internal peculiarity of usage, and the con- 
 temporaneous existence of another reading of ordinary complexion. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 165 
 
 HEBREWS II. 7. 
 
 Κ΄. \ / SPN ee | \ a a 
 αι KATEOTHOAS AUTOV ETL TAHA εργὰ τῶν χείρων 
 σου. 
 
 [ And didst set him over the works of thy hands. | 
 
 This entire clause, though retained in A, C, D pr. man., E, 
 etc., and various versions, is wanting in B, D ¢er. man., J, K, 
 and a great majority besides, probably also in the Peshito, and 
 marked with suspicion in the later Syriac. 
 
 In this conflict of weighty authorities it is important to remark, 
 that its presence completes the citation, but is not required for 
 the application here made of the passage from the Psalm. Accor- 
 dingly, it becomes at once suspected of artificial introduction, 
 probably as a marginal appendage in the first instance, and can 
 hardly be viewed as a genuine part of the Epistle. 
 
 A similar process may be recognised in the clause ἢ βολίδι 
 κατατοξευθήσεται (xii. 20), which is certainly an interpolation. 
 
 HEBREWS VII. 16. 
 
 ἃ > A / > “- a 7 
 Os οὐ κατὰ νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρκικῆς γέγονεν. 
 
 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment. 
 
 Here capxivns is the reading of A, B, C pr. man., D pr. man., 
 J, and a considerable number besides, as well as of various 
 Fathers: and on this authority it may be at once placed in the 
 text. 
 
 The case is precisely similar to one which has been already 
 
166 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 discussed (Rom. vii. 14; 1 Cor. ili. 1), and reference may there- 
 fore be made to that place, with the additional remark applicable 
 to the present instance in particular, that the variation expresses 
 more directly and strongly mortality and transitoriness, in oppo- 
 sition to the antithetical clause, κατὰ δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου. 
 
 HEBREWS IX. 1. 
 
 5 Ν 3 / \ Ψ, 
 Εἶχε μὲν οὖν καὶ ἡ πρώτη σκηνὴ δικαιώματα 
 λατρείας. 
 
 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of 
 divine service. 
 
 The authority for the word σκηνή is so trifling in amount and 
 character as to be of no real account whatever: but the case 
 is worthy of notice, as showing that incongruity with the context 
 and consequent absurdity were no bar to a place in the margin 
 and subsequent intrusion into the text itself. 
 
 HEBREWS X. 34. 
 
 Kat yap τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου συνεπαθήσατε 
 αἱ γὰρ τοῖς μοῖς μ ἡ 
 
 For ye had compassion of [πιὸ in my bonds y the prisoners |. 
 
 On the expression τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου there is the marked varia- 
 tion τοῖς δεσμίοις, exhibited by A, D pr. man., 67 sec. man., 73, 
 etc., the Vulgate, Coptic, both Syriac versions, and a considerable 
 number of Greek and Latin Fathers. The principal authorities 
 for the common text are D ter. man., E, J, K. Origen has 
 simply τοῖς Seopois; and the old Latin rendering vinculis eorum 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 167 
 
 ΠΟ seems to have sprung from the same bare reading by an arbitrary 
 supplement of the pronoun, a reading which may be regarded as 
 having itself sprung from τοῖς δεσμίοις by error in transcription. 
 The same reading, too, would readily receive wou as an appen- 
 
 dage, under an impression of the Pauline authorship of the 
 Epistle. 
 
 HEBREWS XI. 13. 
 
 / \ / \ / 
 Πόρρωθεν αὐτὰς ἰδόντες καὶ ἀσπασάμενοι καὶ 
 πεισθέντες. 
 
 Having seen them afar off, [and were persuaded of them, | 
 and embraced them, 
 
 The words καὶ πεισθέντες rest upon the slightest possible 
 ground, and have evidently sprung as a gloss from ἀσπασάμενοι. 
 
 HEBREWS XII. 18. 
 
 Od yap προσεληλύθατε ψηλαφωμένῳ ὄρει καὶ 
 κεκαυμένῳ πυρὶ, K. τ. A. 
 
 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, 
 and that burned with fire, etc. 
 
 A remarkable omission in this place, namely, of the term ὄρει; 
 is seen in A, ©, 17, 47, and represented in the important Latin 
 authorities, the Codices Amiatinus, Demidovianus, Harleianus, 
 and Toletanus, the Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, AXthiopic, etc. 
 
 According to this omission the sense would be: ‘ For ye have 
 not approached to a fire pelipable and blazing, and to gloom, and 
 darkness, and storm, ete.’ 
 
168 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 HEBREWS XIII. 9. 
 
 Ζιδαχαῖς ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις μὴ περιφέρεσθε. 
 
 Be not carried {about y aside| with divers and strange doctrines. 
 
 The common text is here mainly supported by J, K, etc.; but 
 παραφέρεσθε is the reading of A, C, D, and a great number 
 besides, the Vulgate, Coptic, etc., and many Fathers, and must 
 be accepted without hesitation. 
 
 In the common reading may be traced the influence of another 
 place of like import (Eph. iv. 14). 
 
 A precisely similar case occurs Jude 12. 
 
 JAMES I. 19. 
 
 7 7 “ 
 Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί, ἔστω πᾶς ἄνθρω- 
 TOS, Keir Ἃ. 
 
 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be, ete. 
 
 The form and meaning of this sentence are considerably affected. 
 by two variations; tore, the reading of A with the addition of δέ, 
 B, C, 73, 83, represenied also by the Old Latin in ff, the Vulgate, 
 Coptic, Armenian, the margin of the later Syriac, ete., while 
 B, C, 81, at the same time have ἔστω δέ, supported by ff, the 
 Vulgate, Coptic, etc., and A, 13, καὶ ἔστω. The common text 
 rests mainly on G, J, and a number of others. 
 
 In accordance with the above mentioned ancient authorities 
 the passage would stand thus: ἔστε, ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί. ἔστω 
 δὲ x. τ. Δ. ‘Ye know it, beloved brethren: but let every man 
 be quick for hearing, etc.’ And.so the Vulgate. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 169 
 
 JAMES II. 5. 
 
 > ε Ν / Ν Ν ΄ / 
 Οὐχ ὁ Θεὸς ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πτωχοὺς τοῦ κόσμου 
 3 
 τούτου, K. τ. A. 
 
 Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, ete. 
 
 In the first place, τούτου is omitted by A sec. man., G, J, 
 and a considerable number besides, and has nothing answering 
 to it in various versions; while the later Syriac expresses ἐν τῷ 
 κόσμῳ, Which is also found in some copies, and the Vulgate ἐν 
 τούτῳ TO κόσμῳ. 
 
 All this is cleared up by the entrance of the simple reading 
 τῷ κόσμῳ, furnished by A pr. man., B, C; according to which 
 the sense of the passage is: ‘Did not God choose out those that 
 are poor by worldly condition, rich ones in faith, ete.’ 
 
 JAMES II. 18. 
 
 “ / \ Ya 3 lal + 
 Aeciéov μοι τὴν πιστιν DOV EK Τῶν Epyov gov, 
 x Ἢ > “ 3, \ 
 κἀγὼ δείξω σοι ἐκ τῶν ἐργων μου τὴν πίστιν μου. 
 
 Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee 
 my faith by my works. 
 
 On the authority of A, B, C, and many others, as well as the 
 versions in general, χωρίς should be substituted in the former 
 clause for ἐκ, which is the reading of G, and a few others; and, 
 at the same time, the latter cov, though found in Οὐ, G, etc., 
 should be omitted, as being wanting in A, B, and four others, 
 the Old Latin in ff, the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, and both 
 Syriac versions; as also the corresponding μου, with B, C, ff, 
 etc. ‘But some one will say, Thou hast faith and I have works. 
 —Shew me [if thou canst] thy faith apart from its works, and 
 I will shew thee from my works the faith’ that actuates them. 
 
170 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 JAMES III. 3. 
 
 > ’ὔ ἴω Ὁ. \ \ 3 \ / 
 Idov, τῶν ἵππων τοὺς χαλινοὺς εἰς Ta στόματα 
 / 
 BadAopev. 
 
 Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths. 
 
 The authority for the particle ἰδού is quite insignificant ; but 
 ἴδε, which may be taken as an equivalent to it, is the reading 
 of C and about forty others. It is unlikely, however, that the 
 writer would have immediately varied his form to i600—about 
 which in the following place there is no doubt—without any 
 motive or resulting effect ; and with this observation there con- 
 spires the fact, that εἰ δέ is the reading of A, B, G, J, and about 
 twenty others, and is represented in the Old Latin in ff, the 
 Vulgate, Coptic, etc. This must accordingly be adopted. 
 
 The connexion of the sentence, as expressed by this form, 
 is simple and easy, leaving ἰδού to be introductory to a more 
 imposing similitude in illustration, in the next verse. ‘If any 
 one does not trip in word, here is a perfect man, able to bridle 
 also the entire body. And if we put the horses’ bits into their 
 mouths, that they may be obedient to us, we sway also their 
 entire body. Lo, the ships too, ete.’ 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 171 
 
 JAMES III. 12. 
 
 Οὕτως οὐδεμία πηγὴ ἁλυκὸν καὶ γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι 
 ὕδωρ. 
 
 So can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh. 
 
 This clause takes the shorter form, οὔτε ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ T. ὗ.; 
 in A, B, C, 83, etc., the Old Latin in ff, the Vulgate, ete. 
 
 The common text which is given by G, J, the later Syriac, 
 etc., has the appearance of having sprung from a desire to round 
 off the sentence in precise correspondence with its commencement 
 in the preceding verse; or it may have been an artificial remedy 
 for the embarrassment arising from an accidental substitution in 
 transcription of οὕτως for οὔτε. 
 
 ‘Does the spring vent from the same opening the sweet and 
 the bitter? Can, my brethren, a fig tree produce olives, or 
 a vine figs? [No] nor yet can brackish water produce sweet.’ 
 
 JAMES IV. 12. 
 
 - / 
 Εἷς ἐστιν ὁ νομοθέτης. 
 
 There is one lawgiver 4+ and judge. 
 
 The words καὶ κριτής are found added in A, B, and about 
 forty others, as well as in the versions in general, and various 
 writers. Their omission was probably accidental, caused by a 
 recurring termination, aided perhaps by stichometry. (See on 
 Acts iv. 27). 
 
Te DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 1 PETER I. 22, 23. 
 
 Tas ψυχὰς ὑμῶν ἡγνικότες ἐν TH ὑπακοῇ τῆς 
 ἀληθείας διὰ πνεύματος εἰς φιλαδελφίαν ἀνυπόκρι- 
 τον, ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας ἀλλήλους ἀγαπήσατε 
 "KTEVOS, ἀναγεγεννημένοι οὐκ ἐκ σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἀφθάρτου, διὰ λόγου ζῶντος Θεοῦ καὶ μένον- 
 τος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. ᾽ 
 
 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth 
 [through the Spirit] unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see 
 that ye love one another with [a pure] heart fervently: being 
 born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by 
 the word of God, which liveth and abideth | for ever]. 
 
 The compass of this passage includes three instances of ques- 
 tioned matter. First, the words διὰ πνεύματος are wanting in 
 A, B, C, 13, 27, 73, and are not represented in the Vulgate, 
 Coptic, Aithiopic, Armenian, and both Syriac versions: in the 
 face of which ancient evidence their genuineness cannot be main- 
 tained. Again, καθαρᾶς is also wanting in A, B, and is thus 
 rendered doubtful: but an omission might have arisen from the 
 consecutive similar endings. 
 
 The final words εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, though supported by ἃ, J, etc., 
 several versions, Theophylact, and Gicumenius, are wanting in 
 A, Β, C, etc., the Codex Demidovianus, and other Latin copies, 
 the Coptic, Armenian, and later Syriac, Cyril, and Jerome. 
 This strong evidence, combined with the appearance which the 
 words wear, of an assimilative supplement from the succeeding 
 context (ver. 25), hardly leaves a doubt that they are spurious. 
 
 It may be also noticed that the common reading ἀνθρώπου, 
 in the next verse, affords an instructive instance of a process 
 to be traced in many places, by which the citations have been 
 brought into agreement with the text of the Septuagint. In this 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 173 
 
 case the variation αὐτῆς is placed beyond all doubt, as being the 
 
 reading of A, B, C, G, J, etc., the Vulgate, Coptic, oes 
 both Syriac versions, etc. 
 
 1 PETER II. 2 
 
 σ > Ses > a 
 Iva ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηθῆτε. 
 
 That ye may grow thereby + to salvation. 
 
 After αὐξηθῆτε the words eis σωτηρίαν are added in A, B, C 
 J, and more than fifty others, besides the versions in general, 
 Clement, Cyril, ete. 
 
 The words by themselves might be viewed as possibly a glos- 
 sarial appendage, and this possibility would have some weight 
 if the evidence were conflicting ; but the confluence of authorities 
 demands for them an unhesitating admission into the text not- 
 withstanding ; leaving their absence from G and others to be 
 
 referred to accidental oversight, probably in transcription from 
 a stichometrical copy. 
 
 1 PETER III. 8 
 
 Πάντες ὁμόφρονες, συμπαθεῖς, φιλάδελφοι, εὖ- 
 σπλαγχοι, φιλόφρονες. 
 
 Be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another ; 
 as brethren, be pitiful, [be courteous \ lowly-minded]. 
 
 
 
 In the place of the term φιλόφρονες, A, B, C, and many others, 
 give ταπεινόφρονες, which is also represented in the Latin of the 
 Codices Amiatinus and Demidovianus, both Syriac versions, the 
 Coptic, Armenian, etc. 
 
174 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 A combination of the two readings is exhibited by G and 
 others, and by the common text of the Vulgate; and it might 
 be suggested, that this fuller form, being original, had given rise 
 to the other two by an oversight of either term in transcription, 
 caused by the similar endings. 
 
 This is certainly possible; but there can be little doubt that 
 φιλόφρονες was originally an interlinear gloss on εὔσπλαγχνοι, 
 becoming in some copies usurping, in others simply intrusive. 
 
 1 PETER III. 15. 
 
 Κύριον δὲ τὸν Θεὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις 
 ὑμῶν. 
 But sanctify the Lord | God χ Christ| in your hearts. 
 
 The common text here rests upon G, J, and later authorities ; 
 while Χριστόν is given instead of Θεόν by A, B, C, 7, 13, etc., 
 expressed also in the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, both 
 Syriac versions, etc. 
 
 If this evidence needed any further support, it would be fur-— 
 nished by the circumstance, that the variation gives a striking 
 instance of that tacit adaptation of the language of the Old Testa- 
 ment to present spiritualities, which is a strong characteristic 
 
 of this Epistle. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 175 
 
 1 PETER III. 20. 
 
 "Ore ἅπαξ ἐξεδέχετο ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ μακροθυμία. 
 
 When [once the longsuffering of God waited χ the longsuffer- 
 ing of God was waiting out |. 
 
 In place of the not very intelligible reading ἅπαξ ἐξεδέχετο, 
 and another still less so, ἅπαξ ἐδέχετο, the former resting on no 
 authority, the latter on a trifling amount; a mass of evidence 
 of every kind at once establishes the clear and appropriate term 
 ἀπεξεδέχετο. 
 
 1 PETER IH, 21: 
 
 ἵΩι καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σώζει βάπτισμα. 
 
 The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us. 
 
 Instead of #, which is very slightly supported, 6 is given by 
 the great mass of authorities of every kind. Such a corruption 
 would be likely to arise, both on account of the composition 
 of the word ἀντίτυπον, and the readier grammatical construction 
 of the entire clause that results from it. 
 
 The effect produced on the sense by the restoration of the true 
 reading is not very material. ‘ Which [element], in answering 
 fashion, now saves us too, namely, baptism.’ 
 
176 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 1 PETER IV. 14. 
 
 > / A , 
 
 Εἰ ὀνείδεσθε ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ, pakaptot, 
 
 [τὰ Ν “ / \ \ a lo an > 9 2 lal 
 
 ort τὸ τῆς δόξης καὶ TO τοῦ Θεοῦ πνεῦμα ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς 
 
 i? \ \ \ rt \ 
 
 ἀναπαύεται: κατὰ μὲν αὐτοὺς βλασφημεῖται, κατὰ 
 
 \ na / 
 
 δὲ ὑμᾶς δοξάζεται. 
 
 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are 
 ye; for the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: 
 [on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is 
 
 glorified |. 
 
 In the first place, the words καὶ δυνάμεως are added after δόξης 
 in A, and more than twenty-five others; but they are omitted 
 in B apparently, G, J, and many others, and are not acknow- 
 ledged by the Latin in the Codices Amiatinus and Luxoviensis, 
 the Syriac, Clement, Tertullian, Cyril, etc. 
 
 The word δυνάμεως has certainly the appearance of a gloss, 
 indicating the sense to be attached in this place to the expression 
 τὸ τ. Θ. πν.; and with this agrees the circumstance, that several 
 versions which represent the word, as the Sahidic, Ethiopic, 
 and later Syriac, put it in connexion with Θεοῦ. 
 
 Under all these circumstances, the claim of the words in 
 question to a place in the text cannot be regarded as established. 
 
 The more important question affects the genuineness of the 
 latter portion of the passage, namely, κατὰ péev... . δοξάζεται. 
 
 It is omitted in A, B, and about twenty others, the Vulgate, 
 Coptic, AXthiopic, Armenian, and also by Tertullian and others; 
 its principal supporters beng G, J, the Latin in the Codices 
 Harleianus and Toletanus, the Sahidic, and later Syriac, the last, 
 however, marking it with an asterisk. 
 
 The evidence is thus decidedly adverse. Its appearance, too, 
 is that of a mere comment, feebly repeating the circumstances 
 implied in the words immediately preceding; and, as such, ill 
 according with the vigorous strain of the context and of the 
 entire Epistle. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ] 
 
 ~I 
 
 wl 
 
 # PETER, ΤΟ 8: 
 
 Tov καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς διὰ δόξης Kat ἀρετῆς. 
 
 Of him that hath called us [to glory and virtue χ by his own 
 glory and excellence}. 
 
 Here, ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ is the reading of A, C, and a con- 
 siderable number besides, supported by the alge, the evidence 
 of other versions being somewhat indistinct ; while on the other 
 side are B apparently, G, J, etc. 
 
 Variation in this place has probably arisen from mere accident. 
 Tn fact, the common reading might have had its origin in an 
 omission of the first letter in the word ié/a, leaving an unintelli- 
 gible result to which the next copyist might apply a mistaken 
 remedy. Erroneous attempts on the part of transcribers to rectify 
 something palpably wrong are a possible source of various read- 
 ings, which has not been sufficiently noticed. 
 
 But still the cause may have been from the first artificial, 
 for the purport of the two readings is substantially the same; 
 in which view the preference would be claimed by the common 
 text, because its expression is the less simple and explicit of the 
 two. 
 
 A case admitting of similar observations is furnished by another 
 variation presently occurring, namely, μελλήσω (ver. 12), found 
 in A, B, C, etc., and supported by the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, 
 Armenian, etc.; evidence with which internal considerations 
 combine to claim a decision in its favour. 
 
178 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 2 PETER AL 2. 
 
 \ / an nr 
 Καὶ πολλοὶ ἐξακολουθήσουσιν αὐτῶν ταῖς ἀπω- 
 λείαις. 
 
 And many shall follow [their pernicious ways χ their wan- | 
 tonnesses |. 
 
 The common reading ἀπωλείαις appears to rest solely on an 
 insignificant amount of MS. authority; but the variation ἀσελ- 
 γείαις has the general support of MSS. both m weight and 
 number, as well as that of all the versions. 
 
 Thus far there is presented the remarkable and in itself per- 
 plexing circumstance, that, while the various reading has an 
 overwhelming weight of testimony, the other seems to bear a 
 mark of genuineness in the very strangeness of the term. All, 
 however, is cleared up by the context, from which the word 
 has obviously sprung, whether by simple accident or assimilation. 
 
 
 
 2 PETER II. 13. 
 
 Σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι, ἐντρυφῶντες ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις 
 αὐτῶν, συνευωχούμενοι ὑμῶν. 
 Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves [with 
 their own decewings χ in their love-feasts|, while they feast 
 with you. 
 
 JUDE 12. 
 Οὗτοί εἰσιν ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες, συν- 
 ευωχούμενοι ἀφόβως. 
 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast 
 with you, feeding themselves without fear. 
 
 The similarity of language in the entire contexts to which 
 these passages belong is remarkable; and if they at the same time 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 179 
 
 originally differed in some particular expression, a mutually 
 assimilative influence on this point would be reasonably looked 
 for, on account of their general approximation. Such a point 
 is afforded in the respective terms ἀπάταις and ἀγάπαις, with 
 the additional circumstance of an approach between the words 
 in their outward shape. 
 
 In accordance with such expectation, ἀγάώπαις is the reading, 
 in the first passage, of A sec. man., but apparently proceeding 
 from the copyist himself, B, the Vulgate, the Peshito, the margin 
 of the later Syriac, the Sahidic, οἷοι; while the common reading 
 is that of the MSS. in general, the Coptic, the later Syriac, ete. 
 
 Again, in the other place, ἀπάταις is found in A, C, and three 
 others. It is, however, unintelligible; and, if it be not the result 
 of pure accident, can be due only to the influence of the parallel 
 place. There, indeed, the various reading has considerable sup- 
 port; but, since the existence of variation may be best referred 
 to an original difference at this point, the common reading should 
 be retained, since in the latter passage ἀγάπαις is unquestionable. 
 
 The facts of the case are, however, curious and instructive 
 in a critical light. . 
 
 2 PETER II. 18. 
 
 “ > > , Ν > » 7 
 Ζελεάζουσιν ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις σαρκὸς, ἐν ἀσελγείαις 
 Ν 7 ,ὔ 
 τοὺς ὄντως ἀποφυγόντας, κ. τ. A. 
 
 They allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much 
 
 wantonness, those that were clean escaped. 
 
 In the first place, the authority for the preposition before ἀσεὰ- 
 γείαις is so insignificant that it may be at once discarded; the 
 resulting expression being that of A, B, C, G, J, and many 
 others, the Sahidic, ete. 
 
 There is, however, a variation, ἀσελγείας ; and though no 
 uncial MS. is cited for it, it is given by about twenty others, 
 including several of the most important of the class. The result- 
 
180 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 ing form would be a Hebraism, ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις σαρκὸς ἀσελγείας, 
 signifying, ‘By lusts of wanton flesh.’ (Compare Rom. viii. 3 
 for a similar grammatical form.) Marked Hebraisms have a 
 strong internal claim, because there could be no tendency on 
 the part of copyists to generate or spread them. 
 
 More important, however, is a variation affecting the word 
 ὄντως, namely, ὀλέγως. The two words are so widely remote in 
 meaning —unless the rare term oA/yws were taken as equivalent 
 to ὀλίγου, ‘almost’—that the variation must be referred to pure 
 accident, and the decision must be simply by documentary 
 evidence. For the variation there are cited A, B, and seven 
 others, most of the versions, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, 
 οἷο: on the other side, C, G, J, and others, the Armenian, 
 Theophylact, Gicumenius, ete. A few copies read ὀλίγον, which, 
 being merely an improvement in the way of purer usage, is thus 
 an indirect evidence for odtyws. This reading must be adopted, 
 and also ἀποφεύγοντας, on similar grounds: so that the expression 
 would be, τοὺς ὀλίγως ἀποφεύγοντας, ‘'Those that are gone a 
 little way in escaping.’ 
 
 
 
 2 PETER III. 3. 
 
 9 7 Ce eee / a e a 9 ΄“ 
 “λευσονται ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν εμπαίῖκται. 
 
 There shall come in the last days + bitter + scoffers. 
 
 Before ἐμπαῖκται the words ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ are inserted in A, 
 B, C, and many others, the versions in general, Chrysostom, 
 Cyril, and the Latin writers, thus producing a Hebraic form 
 of intensiveness. 
 
 This evidence would require their admission, even without 
 the further consideration, that copyists, as has been already 
 remarked, were not given to Hebraising, and there is no parallel 
 place to exert an assimilative influence in this instance. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 181 
 
 1 JOHN. If). 18. 
 
 \ > , av gl 7 5 
 Καθὼς ἠκούσατε ort ὃ ἀντίχριστος ερχεται. 
 
 As ye have heard that + an + antichrist shall come. 
 
 The expression ὁ ἀντίχριστος must here signify, in virtue of 
 the prefixed article, only an individual, or, at least, a personified 
 power, to whom the term ἀντίχριστος would be applicable in 
 a special way, in distinction from the many that might also in 
 a manner be so termed. But this usage must not be confounded 
 with another which occurs presently (ver. 22), where the expres- 
 sions ὁ ψεύστης and ὁ ἀντίχριστος, as is seen from the appended 
 definitions, dre generic terms significative of classes. 
 
 But in this place the article, though found in A, G, J, ete., 
 and read by Theophylact and Cicumenius, is wanting in B, OC, 
 and three others, and is twice omitted by Origen. 
 
 Even if the adverse evidence were less weighty, its presence 
 would be attended with suspicion, because its introduction into 
 the text would be favoured both by the influence ‘of other 
 passages of the Epistle, and by prevailing opinions respecting 
 an individual antichrist. 
 
 
 
 1 JOHN II. 23. 
 Πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱὸν οὐδὲ Tov πατέρα ἔχει. 
 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father + 
 he that confesses the Son has the Father also. 
 
 The question here relates to an additional clause, ὁ ὁμολογῶν 
 τὸν υἱὸν Kal τὸν πτατέρα ἔχει. 
 . It might be remarked upon it, that it might well have been 
 
182 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 a marginal complementary appendage to the preceding one; and 
 this consideration would not be without weight, if there were 
 also weighty external evidence against it. 
 
 But there is another internal consideration of a contrary ten- 
 dency, namely, that the clause, if genuine, would have been 
 exposed in no ordinary degree to oversight in transcription, on 
 account of the recurrence of the same ending to the extent 
 of three words. 
 
 The direct evidence in its favour consists of A, B, C, and more 
 than thirty others, the versions in general, Clement, Origen, 
 Athanasius, the Cyrils, Vigilius, Pelagius, etc. 
 
 On these grounds the clause may be admitted into the text 
 without hesitation. 
 
 
 
 1 JOHN IV. 3. 
 
 Ν a a ἃ \ ε lal ἣν 3 a 3 
 Kai πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν ᾿Ϊησοῦν ev 
 σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, κ. τ. A. 
 
 And every spirit that confesseth not [that Jesus Christ is 
 come in the flesh χ Jesus|, ete. 
 
 The final words ἐν o. ἔλ. are omitted by A, B, 27, 29, the 
 Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, Irenzus, Cyril, Lucifer, ete. 
 
 It might be said that they were accidentally overlooked from 
 similarity to a preceding clause; but their proximity is not suf- 
 ficient for that effect. On the contrary, they would be an appen- 
 dage readily furnished for an expression wearing an appearance 
 of incompleteness. 
 
 Indirect adverse evidence, if such were needed, is furnished 
 by the existence in ancient copies, mentioned by Socrates, of 
 the reading ὃ λύει in the place of ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ, which is also 
 represented in the Vulgate, and the Latin translation of Irenzeus, 
 and traceable in other quarters. It furnishes this evidence, 
 because it is clearly an interpretative gloss, and one which could 
 not have been called forth by the fulness and explicitness of the 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 183 
 
 common text, but must have been put upon the bare reading 
 ὃ μὴ 6. τὸν “I. Viewing, in accordance with the context, the 
 non-confession of Jesus as signifying a non-acknowledgement of 
 his proper manhood, the glossarist represents it by the term λύει, 
 as virtually doing away with the individual, since nothing is then 
 left but a Docetic εἴδωλον. Lucifer seems to have regarded this 
 as its purport, from his rendering qui destrutt. 
 
 1 ΘΗΝ WA} 8: 
 
 Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, 
 ὃ πατὴρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι 
 οἱ τρεῖς ἐν εἰσι. καὶ τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες 
 ἐν τῇ γῇ: τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ 
 οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. 
 
 For there are three that bear record |in heaven, the 
 Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three 
 are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth|, the 
 
 Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree 
 im one. 
 
 To write the history of the controversy respecting the Heavenly 
 Witnesses, as the question is termed, would of itself require a 
 volume. It might be thence inferred, that the conflicting evi- 
 dence was so nearly balanced that, in order to a decision, it 
 required the nicest adjustment and the utmost delicacy of critical 
 skill. How far such an inference would be from the actual truth, 
 may be best seen from the following citation. 
 
 “Τὴ short, if this verse be really genuine, notwithstanding its 
 absence from all the visible Greek MSS. except two; one of 
 which awkwardly translates the verse from the Latin, and the 
 other transcribes it from a printed book; notwithstanding its 
 absence from all the versions except the Vulgate, and even from 
 many of the best and oldest MSS. of the Vulgate; notwith- 
 
184 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 standing the deep and dead silence of all the Greek writers down 
 to the thirteenth, and most of the Latins down to the middle 
 of the eighth century; if, in spite of all these objections, it be 
 still genuine, no part of Scripture whatsoever can be proved 
 either spurious or genuine.”—Porson to Travis, Letter XII. 
 
 The state of the case is but slightly altered since this statement 
 was made. The two MSS. mentioned may now be regarded as 
 increased to five, containing the passage under some guise or 
 other, by an accession of like stamp with themselves, that is 
 deriving their matter in this place, whether in the text or margin, 
 either from the Vulgate or a printed copy. 
 
 It is not too much to say that, if a critic could be supposed 
 to be debarred from all documentary evidence on either side in 
 the present case, except those few MSS. which exhibit the verse, 
 and the only version that has it, namely, the common text 
 of the Vulgate, the circumstances which even thus would come 
 under his notice, would form a sufficient ground for its condem- 
 nation as a spurious accretion. 
 
 It was no doubt the dogmatic aspect of the passage that 
 rendered the strife keen and lasting, and thus served in the end 
 to give advancement to sound criticism. But if it sharpened the 
 eagerness of its defenders, it appears to have had a contrary effect 
 on their sensibility to certain points of material consideration. 
 Of these, two may be mentioned in particular. First, the fact 
 that the very applicability of the words in question to dogmatic 
 purposes gives overwhelming force to the argument derived from 
 the silence of a host of ecclesiastical writers. Secondly, the 
 strange appearance presented by the passage, of a testification 
 the most solemn made in a quarter where it must be altogether 
 needless. This was remarked by Newton; though sagacity like 
 his was not needed to make the discovery. Something of 
 the same kind must have been felt also by the contriver of the 
 reading ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, found in one copy. In fact, the 
 spurious matter introduces something far less in accordance with 
 the spirit of Scripture than with the epic machinery of Paradise 
 Lost. 
 
 The advocates of genuineness relied also on the plea of an 
 intimate connexion and consequent adhesion of the questioned 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 185 
 
 portion to the context ; and the assumed difficulty of detachment 
 might seem to have been viewed as an oracular intimation, that 
 the attempt was being made by presumptuous hands. 
 
 Their opponents, however, were equally at liberty to plead on 
 their side the close and smooth coherence which is the real con- 
 sequence of its removal; and this it may not be uninstructive 
 to notice. 
 
 After a pointed mention of the Water and the Blood, as 
 serving for material tokens touching the true personal nature of 
 the Saviour, the function of giving forth direct actual testimony 
 is then assigned by the Apostle to the Spirit. The three are 
 next personified into witnesses giving testimony (οἱ μαρτυροῦντες), 
 and this numerical discrepancy with the preceding statement of 
 the existence of a single witness, is again rectified by the affirma- 
 tion, that the three merge in a virtual identity with the single 
 one previously mentioned. ‘And the Spirit is that which testi- 
 fies, because the Spirit is the truth. For the testifiers are three, 
 the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and the three amount 
 to the one.’ 
 
 There are other circumstances, besides the amount of con- 
 troversy, which render the present question remarkable. 
 
 The critic from time to time discards matter from the current 
 text without hesitation, as having undoubtedly crept in from the 
 margin; but the process of transit, though undoubted, is not 
 traceable in its steps: but in the present instance the whole is 
 patent, from the first germ in an early prescriptive interpretation 
 of the witnesses really mentioned as mystically signifying three 
 divine persons, down to a final lodgement in the written text near 
 the close of the age of MSS. 
 
 Another important feature of the question is, that extending 
 beyond its immediate subject, it most seriously affected the more 
 general one of the evidence on which any matter is to be accepted 
 as Scripture: and those who, with more honesty than skill, pro- 
 fessed to come to the rescue of a genuine portion of it, were in 
 reality the unwitting foes of the integrity of Holy Writ. 
 
186 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 lL JOBN W- 13, 
 
 Tavra ἔγραψα ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ 
 ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν 
 ἔχετε αἰώνιον, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύητε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ 
 υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 
 These things have I written unto you | that believe on the 
 name of the Son of God;| that ye may know that ye have 
 eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son 
 of God. 
 
 According to this form of the passage, the Apostle declares his 
 object to be the production of belief in those whom he at the 
 same time addresses as believers: this is not artlessness but absur- 
 dity. 
 
 The entire clause, however, Trois... . Θεοῦ is wanting in A, 
 B, and eight others, as well as all the principal versions; and 
 the same authorities, with the exception of B, which has τοῖς 
 πιστεύουσιν, read οἱ πιστεύοντες in the place of the words καὶ 
 iva πιστεύητε; so that the resulting meaning is: ‘ These things 
 have I written to you, that you may know that you have eternal 
 life, who believe on the name of the Son of God.’ 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 187 
 
 JUDE 4. 
 
 Kai τὸν μόνον δεσπότην Occ L KU ἡμῶ 
 μ Ὶ mv Θεὸν καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν 
 ]ησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι. 
 
 And denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 The word Θεόν is wanting in A, B, C, and more than twenty 
 others, the majority of the versions, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, 
 Cyril, Lucifer, etc.; its main supporters being G, J, and both 
 Syriac versions. The sense resulting from the omission is: 
 
 ‘ Denying our only master and lord, Jesus Christ.” 
 
 JUDE 22. 
 
 \ 3 a / a \ / 
 Kat ods μὲν ἐλεεῖτε διακρινόμενοι, ods δὲ ev φόβῳ 
 3 a Ν ε / 
 σώζετε, ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς ἁρπαζοντες. 
 
 And of some have compassion, making a difference: and 
 others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire. 
 
 A very important variation, affecting this entire passage, is 
 given by A, B, and a number of others, various versions, etc., 
 namely, καὶ ods μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους, ods δὲ σώζετε ἐκ 
 πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες, ods δὲ ἐλεεῖτε ἐν φόβῳ. ‘And some refute 
 when they are disputing, but others save, snatching them out 
 of fire, and others compassionate in fear.’ 
 
 An abbreviated form of the latter portion of the passage is 
 given by C, and represented in both Syriac versions, namely, ods 
 
188 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 δὲ o. ἐκ π. ap. ἐν φόβῳ: and it is by no means unlikely that this 
 is its original shape. The word ἐλεεῖτε might have either sprung 
 by accident from ἐλέγχετε in the first clause, or have been origi- 
 nally a note expressing the spirit of the second, becoming itself 
 eventually the foundation of a third. 
 
 Other shiftings of shape add to the uncertainty and perplexity 
 of the entire question. 
 
 JUDE 24. 
 
 To δὲ δυναμένῳ φυλάξαι ἡμᾶς ἀπταίστους. 
 
 Now unto him that is able to heep Lyou χ them| from falling. 
 
 Instead of ὑμᾶς, αὐτούς is the reading of B, J, and about 
 thirty others, Cyril, Gicumenius, etc.; while the common text 
 is supported by Ὁ, G, etc., the versions in general, and the Latin 
 Fathers; and A and another have ἡμᾶς. 
 
 In favour of the variation it may be said, that it is not what 
 would be looked for: but, on the other hand, it might have been 
 a marginal addition to ὑμᾶς, intimating by emphasis a contrast 
 on the part of the persons signified by that word with others 
 previously described. The versions, too, throw the balance of 
 evidence on the side of the common reading. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 189 
 
 REVELATION II. 20. 
 
 "Ort ἐᾶς τὴν γυναῖκα ᾿ΪΤεζαβὴλ, x. τ. X. 
 Because thou sufferest {that woman χ thy wife| Jezebel, ete. 
 
 
 
 It is well known that for the first published edition of the New 
 Testament only one MS. of the Apocalypse was used, and that 
 an imperfect one, its chasms being supplied by translation into 
 Greek from the Vulgate. The common text exhibits these 
 portions in only a partially amended form, and the whole is 
 signally unhappy in respect of the purity of its source. It was 
 accordingly beyond the compass and design of this work to 
 discuss it at length, though every kind of corruption and disguise 
 that infects the common text of the New Testament in general 
 might be amply illustrated from this book alone. Thus only 
 a few passages are noticed, where the effect of the various reading 
 upon their meaning is important. 
 
 This effect is produced in the present instance by the addition 
 of σου to γυναῖκα, by which means the female here styled Jezebel 
 is represented as the wife of the Angel of the Church of Thyatira. 
 
 The addition is sanctioned by A, B of the Apocalypse, and 
 more than thirty others, the Syriac version, Cyprian, and the 
 commentators Andreas, Arethas, and Primasius, though not by 
 the Vulgate, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Victor Tununensis, etc. 
 
190 DEVELOPED CRITICISM 
 
 REVELATION X. 7. 
 
 ᾿Αλλὰ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ ἑβδόμου 
 ἀγγέλου, ὅταν μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν καὶ τελεσθῇ τὸ 
 μυστήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 
 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he 
 shall begin to sound, the mystery of God [should be χ was | 
 finished. 
 
 Instead of τελεσθῇ, a reading which is intrinsically unattended 
 with difficulty, ἐτελέσθη is given by A, C, and about thirty 
 more, with the Coptic; while the common reading is that of 
 B, etc., and Andreas; and the Vulgate, Aithiopic, Armenian, 
 etc., supported by Arethas and Primasius, represent τελεσθήσεται. 
 
 The weight of evidence is thus in favour of the variation, 
 whatever questions of grammar or interpretation may be raised 
 upon it. 
 
 
 
 REVELATION XVII. 8. 
 
 Kai θαυμάσονται ot κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 
 ...« βλέποντες τὸ θηρίον ὅτι ἦν, καὶ οὐκ ἔστι, 
 καΐπερ ἐστίν. 
 
 And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, ... . when 
 they behold the beast that was, and is not, and [yet ts χ shall 
 be present]. 
 
 A glance at the strange and enigmatical appearance of this 
 passage would readily provoke a conjecture, καὶ παρέστιν, the 
 actual reading of some copies, which would give good Greek and 
 good sense, if the clause ὅτι, x. τ. Δ. be connected with βλέποντες : 
 but there is another according to which the marks of time in the 
 clause are made with relation to the speaker, namely, πάρεσται, 
 found in A, B, and many others, Hippolytus, Andreas, Arethas, 
 
 Primasius, etc.; evidence which requires its adoption. 
 
ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 191 
 
 REVELATION XXII. 14. 
 
 / a δ > \ a 
 Makaprot ot ποιοῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ. 
 
 Blessed axe they that |do his commandments Υ wash their 
 garments clean]. 
 
 The common reading in this place is that of B, and the gene- 
 rality of copies, the Coptic, Syriac, etc., Tertullian, Cyprian, 
 Tichonius, Andreas, and Arethas: but A, 7, 38, have the remark- 
 able variation οἱ πλύνοντες Tas στολὰς αὐτῶν, supported by the 
 Vulgate and Aithiopic, Primasius and Fulgentius. This latter 
 evidence, though less in amount than the preceding, is important; 
 but is, at the same time, open to one consideration in abatement, 
 namely, that the various reading might have been derived from 
 another place (vu. 14), while it is not easy to imagine an origi- 
 nation of the common text. 
 
 These discussions on the text of the New Testament are 
 not put forward as affording an entire treatment of the subject. 
 Enough, however, will have been done, by a selection of such 
 instances as are either material in themselves or instructive in 
 respect of their facts and processes, both to shew the importance 
 of the work of criticism, and to evince the soundness of its opera- 
 tions, and, notwithstanding occasional perplexity, the general 
 certainty of its results. 
 
 Especially should it be noted, that ancient copies, ancient 
 versions, and the citations by ancient writers, when these are 
 clearly ascertainable, continually range together in mutual 
 support; and, more than this, such conspiring testimony is ever 
 finding a confirmatory response from the readings themselves, the 
 
192 DEVELOPED CRITICISM, ETC. 
 
 inner voice, so to say, of the forms of text which they exhibit. 
 On the other hand, it is no less important to observe, that 
 masses of recent MSS., versions whose date cannot be termed 
 ancient, as the Arabic and Sclavonic, and the latest of Greek 
 commentators, as Gicumenius and Theophylact, are continually 
 found in company. 
 
 The materials of criticism are at present ample, though two 
 requirements are still unsatisfied. These are a thorough and 
 trustworthy collation of the Codex Vaticanus (B), the prime 
 importance of which document cannot be disguised, in spite of 
 all the watching and jealousy that environ it; and, secondly, 
 means, if ever they can be found, for restoring to its ancient 
 form the entire text of the Syriac version. These means may 
 be in reality unattainable: the former task, in the course of 
 events, must sooner or later be accomplished. 
 
 Lastly, with regard to the common text it may be remarked, 
 that at the time when it was declared to be in possession of 
 universal currency and acceptance, there existed as yet no pub- 
 lished form materially different from it, and thus its position was 
 not an exclusive prevalence won from opposing claimants, but 
 merely a freedom from rivalry. The vantage ground, thus 
 gained by accident, would be further strengthened by advance 
 of time, and fenced by jealousy, listlessness, and the fear of unset- 
 tlement and change. Such is the real amount of prerogative 
 possessed by the common text, one altogether unworthy to bar 
 the advance of sound and enlightened criticism. 
 
THE 
 
 ANALYTICAL GREEK LEXICON 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Jtew Cestament : 
 
 AN 
 
 ALPHABETICAL ARRANGEMENT 
 
 OF 
 
 EVERY WORD FOUND IN THE GREEK TEXT, 
 
 IN 
 
 EVERY FORM IN WHICH EACH APPEARS; 
 
 THAT IS TO SAY, 
 
 EVERY OCCURRENT PERSON, NUMBER, TENSE, 
 OR MOOD OF VERBS, 
 
 EVERY CASE AND NUMBER OF NOUNS, PRONOUNS, Ero. 
 IS PLACED IN ITS ALPHABETICAL ORDER, 
 FULLY EXPLAINED 
 BY A CAREFUL GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS, 
 AND REFERRED TO ITS ROOT; 
 
 So that no uncertainty as to the Grammatical Structure of anv 
 Word can perpler the beginner ; 
 
 But, assured of the precise grammatical force of any word he may 
 desire to interpret, he is able immediately to apply his 
 knowledge of the English meaning of the root 
 with accuracy and satisfaction. 
 
 One Volume, 4to., Price 25s. 
 
 
 
 LONDON: 
 SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS; 
 
 AT THE WAREHOUSE FOR BIBLES, NEW TESTAMENTS, CHURCH SERVICES, 
 PRAYER BOOKS, PSALTERS, AND CONCORDANCES, 
 IN ANCIENT AND MODERN LANGUAGES; 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 
 
THE 
 
 Aroper sames of the Ol Cestament 
 Scriptures, 
 Gxpounded and llustrated. 
 
 BY THE REV. ALFRED JONES, 
 
 THEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATE, KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON}; CHAPLAIN OF ASKE’S HOSPITAL, 
 HOXTON; AND LATE CURATE OF ST. MATTHEW’S, WESTMINSTER. 
 
 Tu1s Work is a Dictionary of the names occurring in the 
 Old Testament, arranged in the English Alphabetical order. 
 
 The Three Thousand Five Hundred Names of which this 
 Onomasticon consists, represent, through the same name 
 being borne by various persons or places, upwards of Seven- 
 teen Thousand Five Hundred Individuals; the whole of 
 these have been carefully discriminated (it is believed for the 
 first time so completely), and an identification of each is 
 given, together with all the passages in which each occurs. 
 
 The mode of treatment in the elucidation of these Names 
 is as follows :—after the English name, the Hebrew name is 
 given, with its pronunciation. The Septuagint rendering, 
 and that of the Vulgate Latin, follow. The Hebrew name is 
 then etymologically discussed, and its relations and derivation 
 shown. 
 
 The remarks upon the names embrace the Genealogy, 
 Mythology, History, Geography, and Chronology, according 
 to the best and latest authorities. 
 
 ONE ELEGANT VOLUME, QUARTO, 25s. 
 
 S. BAGSTER & SONS, 15, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 Catalogues, gratis, of Polyglot Bibles, Church Services, Books of Common 
 Prayer, in Ancient and Modern Languages, Aids to the Study of the Old 
 and New Testaments, Concordances, Grammars, Lexicons, etc. 
 
 By post free. 
 
 
 
 
 
BAGSTER’S 
 COMPREHENSIVE BIBLE, 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 FAMILY, PULPIT, AND STUDY, 
 
 Complete in one volume, with coloured maps, etc, 
 
 Containing the Old and New Testaments, according to the Authorised 
 Version. A General Introduction, containing Disquisitions on the 
 Genuineness, Authenticity, and Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,— 
 the various Divisions and Marks of Distinction in the Sacred Writings,— 
 Ancient Versions,—Coins, Weights and Measures,—the various Sects 
 among the Jews: Introductory and Concluding Remarks to each Book: 
 ’ the Parallel Passages systematically arranged: with numerous Philologi- 
 cal and Explanatory Notes: a Table of Contents, arranged in Historical 
 Order :—an Analysis of the Holy Scriptures :—an Index of Subjects :— 
 a Chronological Index :—and an Index to the Notes, Introductions, and 
 Concluding Remarks. 
 
 The smallest, or Crown 4to. edition is a handy portable volume. Price 
 24s. in cloth. 
 . _The medium, or Demy 4to. edition is printed with Pica type of remark- 
 
 able clearness. Price 32s. in cloth. 
 
 The largest, or Royal 4to. edition is printed upon extra stout paper with 
 handsome margins. Price 46s. in cloth. 
 
 ΠΡ Bg tan Paraphrases of the Church are printed to bind up 
 den’s Concordance, με a Comprehen- 
 
 The Apocrypha, SLE OU 
 
 Bryprves.—The Comprehensive Bible, in all its editions, is kept bound 
 in various styles of best flexible CALF, with and without gilt leaves; 
 PLAIN MOROCCO; and in ‘BAGSTER’S FLEXIBLE’ TURKEY MOROCCO, an 
 Russra. Also in sumptuous antique and fancy bindings, with bevelled 
 boards, curiously ornamented covers, tooled leaves, and illuminated 
 motto edges. 
 
 *,* Pattern drawings and estimates, with every information about 
 prices, may be obtained at Paternoster Row, or by letter. 
 
 S. BAGSTER & SONS, 15, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 Catalogues, gratis, of Polyglot Bibles, Church Services, Books of Common 
 Prayer, in Ancient and Modern Languages, Aids to the Study of the Old 
 and New Testaments, Concordances, Grammars, Lexicons, etc. 
 
 By post free. 
 
 
 

 
 
 THE ENGLISH HEXAPLA: 
 The Greek Original of the ἀγάυ Testament Scriptures, 
 
 With the Six principal English Translations, arranged in 
 columns beneath it. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EnisTOAH 
 x eer 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The Greek text is printed in the boldest type, and accompanied with 
 various readings and collations of different recensions. 
 
 The six Translations and the original Greek are presented to the eye at 
 one view; and the whole is preceded by an Introduction full of interesting 
 memorials of the translations and the translators. 
 
 “Sure I am, that there commeth more knowlege and ynder- 
 stondinge of the Scripture by theyr sondrie translacyons, then 
 by all the gloses of oure sophisticall doctours. For that 
 one interpreteth somthynge obscurely in one place, the same 
 translateth another (or els he him selfe) more manifestly by a 
 more playne vocable of the same meanyng in another place.”’— 
 BisHop CoVERDALE. 
 
 THE SEVERAL VERSIONS OF THE ENGLISH HEXAPLA ARE— 
 
 A.D. 1880. Wucxir’s Version—the harbinger of the Reformation. 
 A.D. 1534. T'YNDALE’S own revised edition, printed at Antwerp. 
 A.D. 1539. The Version printed under the care of Archbishop CRANMER. 
 A.D. 1557. The Translation made and printed by the EXILES aT GENEVA, 
 during Queen Mary’s reign. 
 A.D. 1582. The Version prepared by the PopisH CoLLEGE OF RHEIMS. 
 A.D. 1611. ee present Translation, as authorised by King Jamzs the 
 TRST. 
 EXTRA DEMY QUARTO, PRICE TWO GUINEAS. 
 
 Kept bound in calf, and Turkey morocco, and russia, flexible styles. 
 
 S. BAGSTER & SONS, 15, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 Catalogues, gratis, of Polyglot Bibles, Church Services, Books of Common 
 Prayer, in Ancient and Modern Languages, Aids to the Study of the Old 
 and New Testaments, Concordances, Grammars, Lexicons, ete. 
 
 By post free. 
 
 
 
‘SUOTLUISAIG 10} “iaded ΙΒΛοα 
 uo saidoy “ϑιπιορτιοι JO ssounjyyrey Aq pue “Aqtorpdunrs Ajawoy Ὁ Aq poysmsuy 
 “SIP “UOISI9A SUTsos9yUI ysour Ὁ St AjLoyNe Το οι Aq ponssr UA Ysysugq yay SILT, 
 508. sod “πο Πρ} Puodseg ‘oyrenb Πθιῳ. -oya ‘yreaytod yr ay ‘AQovxa poyuridos 
 
 - CEGT url 9{{164 911 70 UOresuBLy 8S 9[Bplavog doystq 
 
 PO “STZ Woy 
 eM “SUIpUIq 7596 70 944s Λολο ur ydoy st 47 ‘onbrumn 51 TG styy ‘oourSaza 
 pue ‘ssousqoidutog ‘AUTIGUylog toy ‘O[QIg OV.TeN() GL] VLUTAAT OUT, 
 ‘PG Woy soog -Surpurq GIXOR Stoysceg , 70 sapAjs 
 Pu pue ured ur punog ydoy 918 ofqig ST} JO 59215 snorea oxy, ‘ounyoA 90 τῇ 
 
 9j9[du109 ἐ 951 Apmyg pur gding “<qrureg 10} ὍΠΟΤΩ eATSUoyordutoy ou 
 
 
 
 ‘NOGNOT ‘MOY UALSONUALV ‘1 
 ὌΝΟΣ (ΙΝΥ ΦΠΠΘΌΥΩ THOWVS 
 
 A@ αΞΗΞΙἼΒηςε 
 
 ‘SMUOM IVOITGId€ ANV Sa Tag 
 
AND SONS, 
 
 SAMUEL BAGSTER 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. 
 
 ‘oa sod 
 
 ‘uornrvordde uodn yues oq qa ‘soord pue ‘suoryeurquios ‘sozts 10 5118100 Surureyuoo 
 
 ‘sa]qIg 9591 JO 5251 “JUOUILASAT, Yoory oy} pu “oouvp1ooU0D suapniy ‘syoolqng 
 
 Jo χορ] ue ‘purpyoog jo yoy oy} 10 sosvaydereg pue suyesg 91} ‘eyddsoody 
 
 901 ‘sWI[VSg 91 JO UOISIOA MON 91} ‘IOXVIG ULOWWUOD 10 Yoog oy} YIM ATUETUDA 
 -uoo dn spurq ‘sozis 521 Π8 {1 “(0761641 JoPOATOg OY} JO UWOISIOA Π5ΠΟΊ 911) opqry sm, 
 
 "PQ 551 Woy sooug ‘Apror skvaje uorydtiosep 
 
 AIDAO JO YOM [eJUOWLUIO 0020 pur ‘sum ‘sdsefQ *ATUO AyITeNd 596. 911 Jo Surpurq 
 
 giqrxop jo Ayatawa ATOAO τι “(oTTtUTSoRZ γππ14 9918} 917} pu ‘aIMyzVIUTUT 9111 “OZIS OALOO 
 
 devospooy oY}) SoZIs 9911} 521 [[@ ur “0785 uo ydoy 512] ‘Soovsseg [o[[ereg ΘΛΙΊΟΙΠΊΒΤΡ 
 
 ἄλλο sy suUOD OTT JOLOATO OY} JO WOISIO A YSILouy 91 
 
 501 sotud Soumnjoa 
 yoyoog ‘soanydizog 911} 10 wormpa hun yzim asn 10} Yo 5111 ydepe 02 sv posuvasre 
 OS 918 soSvsseg [ol[eieg IJ, ‘SOON YAM : soouddejoy puesnoyy, pospunfy ὉΔῚ] 
 
 anon 10 tore es 440d Ve sol [bled ammngd Log 19 AINSVOLT, OUT, 
 
 09 WlOAJ—OZIS 911 0} ΘΙΠΡΙΟΟΟΌ 
 Area sooud 911, ‘suiSaepy opr yim “todeg Sunt, uodn poyutad ‘sopqrg 10430 
 
 pue oatsuoyoidutoy oY} 10 SUOTJIPS o1v 9591], ‘SOTqIg 030 \'-Jd LIosnUv AL 
 
? 
 
 SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. 
 
 501 oot ‘ojrenb yeurg —*poyoaar09 Aypnyo.eo pue 
 ‘eddy 9518} Ur poyutIg "ΠΟΠΠΡ9 2507} TEUUIBIY) MOIQOY 8 Sntudse 
 6 . 
 
 ‘SPIOM ΑΘ 69} 911} JO 5σιπιτθοῖα oyvurpaoqns pure Areunad 
 91 191}8 Youvas SM] Ul ἀθρθθα oy} 4sisse 01 ATWwoIs punoz oq [IM syuoWOSueIe 
 Jeorydessodéy 911, “x0yyNe oY} Jo 5}01|91015 [ROLsofoou 971 ozI[VAynoU 01 1970} 
 Used SBY 9180 “ἸΙΟΟΤΧΟΙ 5,5. ΠΙΘΒΌΧ) Jo ΤΙΟΙ]ΠΡῸ sit} uy ‘PQ δ8ς sold “)αθη Π8815 
 
 ¢ : 9901T “Tea: Ἶ 6 
 Bore? Pei Sot20eh lL, “ἃ 5 “π᾿ Δα UO0IXO'T MOL OFT 8 SHTUOSOK) 
 δος sod “Ο)ΧΌΠ yes “oumjoA og “poure,dxo pue posied {{π} 
 ‘UOUIRISAT, MON 39K) OY} JO SpLOM oY} 118 Jo yUoWOSUBATY [ΒΟ ΘΑ] ΘΠ αν ue Suteq 
 fsomydriog quoweysay, AMON 98} 04 UOOIXO'T YI) [eorpAeuy Ὁ{Π|; 
 55. GF oud “oyrenh ΠΌΠΙ5 ‘oumyoa sug ‘uontpa puossg ‘piom ἄχολο Jo Sutsred 
 Θγ9 1100 Ὁ YIM GuoUIESaT, PIO MoLQoF] OY} JO spzom oy} Π8 Jo JuoWoSuRILy TeoOq 
 “Πα uy: UOVIXO'T dope) pue MOL OFT jeoATeuy OU, 
 "OUMNOA JUITUIAMOD OLSUIS Ὁ STIOJ 
 
 FG sip} “suorssi94 ysturdg 10 “ueteyy] τὸ ‘YOUIA] IO “UBULIOX) 10 “UIQeTT 10 “γθ9 11) 10 
 ‘YSILOU OY} YIM poavopioyuy “4x0 1, Wepluevuteg oy} JO SuOTJVIIVA oY} SuTUTe}UOD 
 
 ‘uoupa joyood p “syuog 901 YA ρογαμά Somjdtiog ΔΘ] 917 oud, 
 
SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS, 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. 
 
 ᾽Β01Λ15 O[QIXOF 1596. ot} UL punog 
 ydoy 918 Aoyy, ‘saumpoa yoxood γ|070 τπ10} “Β))Ο] 16] ojur snyy poutquios voy 
 pue fuoyeUIquIoD Jo AJoMIVA ATOAD UL JOY}090} oAvoj1oyU 0} pazdepe ore ‘sorqrg 
 
 osononyiog pue ‘ystuedg 8782] ‘touer [ ‘UvULIes) OTT, 
 “UNVT τ IokvIg UOMWUOD Jo Yoo oy} YIM 0518 dn punog = -morqazy 
 OY} TPA IO “SUOISIOA JOJO ΒΠΟΙΔΌΛ 91 TIM poavolsozUt poureyqo oq Avut uoNtpe sty, 
 50 ord 
 ‘OUNJOA 0,001 ὍΛΟΙ! ΟἸΡ ‘eUpa onbye vyzusooer nssnl ἽΠΛ syuWe[D 29 
 
 ἐλ’ ΠΣ WOLD een A IONS, ENTE AITO \) Une] Θ7801 A 91Π, 
 δ GF goud 
 
 ‘oAvy00 [eAOL “θυπη]ολ 900 ‘QIU PLOOMO’) Σ 9910) 5 UBULYSIL.oUny ὉΠ], 
 80 EF ord ὍΔΒ70Ο 
 
 [efor soumoa ΟΔ ‘OVUBPLOOUOL) MOIQO FL 5 UBULYST.ouy OUT, 
 "SG GF god 
 
 “ΠΟΤ 109 puoos7g ‘oytenb ‘oooo10ur {007 ‘aumMjoA oug 0190 ‘soxopuy ‘syoqeydry 
 ‘sdeyy orydersouyyy poanojoo ‘suowdedg yA “ppoA, 911 10 59 θη στη] oy 118 ut 
 
 saimjdiiog oy} 10 suonyjsuety, jo θη W ‘pur'y AIQ AY 10 9764 ou, 
 
512 ald ‘oA }D0 
 
 qefsou *‘soUIN[OA OM], ‘“SOJON [BOYD {711 NM ‘YSTpPouny ur yutovenidag 91); 
 
 561 oud ‘siopiog pot yt pozurid ‘oyIENG) ᾿Βιππη]οο ΤΟ 8104 
 UI “ΔΘ ΠῸ150, MONT 94} JO 5ΟΙΒΙΌΛ, SPPYYeAA pure “postsopyny oy} “ueaouory 
 
 OT} “PSIMOYY 911. SStooy ‘SJITA, Jo uonepoy wy 
 
 8.2. sord “61(1 9918} “ὉΔΈ200Ο 
 “ΘΙΠΉ]ΟΔ 910 ᾿ΘΡΌΆΒΙ],Ρ 29 d119}9,5UY,p orun ΘΒΠΟ 1 Ip 9.9¥SN | UOTIS ‘OLOIN GUT eT 
 
 51 oud ‘oyreny ᾿Βπογοογχάτποο ‘svydasea vIsafoo"y qe sendisawid onbsou 
 
 TERED ΠΟΤ ὙΠΠΠ ΟΠ UFOS {ΠῚ ΤΙΘΙΠΊ59, ΤΠΠΔΟΝ 
 
 89." 180¢q hq suaunaady 
 ‘PQ ‘sz sola ‘syieg ATYUOP UT 079 
 ‘saxopuy ‘sdeyy pasmojoo yyt Δ ‘eanydr1og 10 spro A, AtdA 91} Ut *S}UIUIBISAT, AVON 
 
 pum PIO om Jo womsodxa we: Teorqry Ayjoym Areyueurut0y oy], 
 
SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS, 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. 
 
 "Yous “pg ‘sg vord ‘soumyoa oyeredos 
 ul ose 561 sotd “Suruodo yove uo poyurd ore oPOYM 911 YOM ur ‘oumnpoa yoyood 
 
 δια θαι “taAVIg WOUTUO) JO YOO OY} 10 SUOISIOA 201} 
 $8 aoytd “oumnoa JOH = "MOOTXO'T ITA. ‘OOURPLOOUOZ 8 4pTUITS 
 
 ‘sg 9014 ‘ouzg “ὙΠ9ΠΒΊ507, MON 91} 0} dIUBP.LODUO/) IIL) SJ pmuryos 
 ‘sg ood ‘ouze *s}o01y Jo uorjeurdxy 91} pure ‘sdeyy ‘sooUaLoJoY oTTeaeg 
 
 ‘SOUIPVOY SNOLIVA YRTAL ‘JUOUIVISO 7, Σ 9910 19.904 [[ewus OUT 
 ‘PO “SOT ϑοιχα ‘ox1enb TTeug 
 
 ‘WUOUIVISeT, Yooryy ULomeyY opty, aodeg-Suytt ay V 
 ‘ATO ssurpurq ysoq A19A 0} UT ydoy 918 sorqig 2013 ΛΟ. 
 
 9501, θυ 10} 9.584 ‘suonvyisueary, ΒΠΟΙΔΌΛ YM poavopsoyur ‘oumjoa yoyood Ὁ sv 
 ‘pourezqo oq sny} Avut soanqdtiog yeurSt10 yuaweysa L oN pur plo 911, “suots.0 4. 
 
 S 
 oulvs 91} JO TOYO YIM SUIAVO[IO}UT 10} JUOUILSO T, MO N yoo [9 oy lh 
 ‘SSUIPUI O[qIXoF 1596. 971 UT punog ‘oyes uo skvmye 918 “ojo Π7ΌΠ7 τὸ 
 “YSISuq YIM 10 ‘morqgozy YA Yo) JO SUOTVUIGMIOD 9591) ‘Solas yoSATog 91} 
 
 jO sasensury 1910 91} YIIAd OAveTIOJUI 0} poydepe : qutsenydag 19390 4 V 
 
SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. 
 
 ‘PEPVUIMLLOSTp O10] IIB ΒΟΟΌ PUL s[eNPIAIpUy puvsnory, W99}XIG JnoqYy 
 ‘scg sor 2100) ‘sour poly ‘ANY 91) AG = ‘pozeysn] pure popunodxy 
 
 ‘samnjdiiog jUSUIeISey, P[Q 91} jo soure N wodorg ony, 
 
 ‘soxopuy pur ‘suoronp 
 το} ‘sSuIproy yeursiepy ‘sdey yA, ‘SOUNJOA OALIDO T[RUIS MOT τὰ poyotd 
 
 cle eee creas Ὁ ΠῚ CRB re, 7, yuLid-a61ey oy, 
 
 "PQ “8501 dorad 
 ὍΔΒΏΟ ἼΧΘΙ, J9II00 o10M pue szdind Ὁ quosoid 01 4dw10372 UY : Soo.mos 
 
 [POO Wor YuoUtEsey, PIO 91} Jo 1X9 T, MOLQ OFT 911 10 UOISTAOY V 
 50 oolig “Apnyg 10} [enuepY W Ῥοϑυάιογαι ‘Ysipougy pur 
 6 6 6 ° 
 ey uw ‘osddqeoody oy} pue ‘sopstdry ‘jodsox Suyor 4¢ 
 ῬΟ 80 eorrd ΛΒ] “τογλΌ, uyor Aq -asn ut quosoad qv IOABIG 
 MOUTTUO,) JO YOO OY} YPM pPoavoytozur ‘6891 1 ADIDYVT PesTAdy ΩΝ} 
 ‘WY ‘weary 
 ‘SL ‘Ay 91} Aq = ‘sSurproy snowe, <q popoye AT[eroywur ore Yyoupa yuoue}say, 
 MON 90} JO ΒΊΧΘῚ, 9500} uo UISTOTILE) podopoaog, 29 OSLO’) VW 
 
BAGSTER AND SONS, 
 
 SAMUEL 
 
 7 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. 
 
 -“ 
 
 “D9 ‘SOL gorid “ΟΛΘΊΟΟ 
 WH ‘URW Ὃ “AOY, 91} Ag ‘asouryg oy podopuied sv ‘*<ON@ pur NOU 
 uo syivuloy YUM. ὁ Of -SUrYS LO US “BUI ul pot) ST oy NA 
 
 ‘see sod fozrenb owmnyjoa 
 aug ‘suumMyoo jorered ut 5] ΘῈ pue “uryey “yoo.y) ‘moIqoyy ul “yuowreysoy, PIO 
 
 ay} Wor suossorT Jodorg oy} Sued : SUOSSO'T] Aepung yopoAjog 91), 
 
 501 solid )1ΌΠ Ὁ) 
 Θσπη]οῦ 1910 1 XIG UT “WOISIOA yoog-rokerg Ysipsuy pue “posoywy {519 07 
 
 ἐπ πθιαικποο!  -ογ αν “oyesA “Boor “MoH + 101] 564] rjdexoy{, oy, 
 
 “pg ‘sf ϑομά 
 ‘oVIUNG 997 IpnUlvg o10JoNe : 8110] Ajo ad eq ul VUSULOHoO1L 
 
 99 coud “poyjsuexy pur paskeue ΘΠΙΟΒΒΟΓΓ .OUTPeOy] OLQVIV 
 τς aug “porjsuesy pur poskpur ‘gTOSse] SUTIPBOY OBLLAG 
 
 sg coud ‘carn ‘goeany ‘TydAroody YuoUIeSe], SEO}o A MGT] 
 
᾽ 
 
 SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. 
 
 9 “SE OMG Ferypg dymg “aq Mg ‘STOGVT pue 917 5, ΘΙΠΊΒΠ ΟΠ 
 
 P9 “STE 
 eond ‘soumpoa xg “SOT IOULT BIMgdioe uo Ὁ LOVST BSIOATU 
 [CULT [BM yaL1o¢ tH : 
 
 ‘OLF 901d “eissna Jpey ‘oroy ‘soumyjoa WS] “10yvpuomo 79 JotNONe 
 
 AOU OMIA “sujonaysuos ouvydang Ἢ qu ‘ensury BOB SHAMS], 
 
 "SG ood 
 “oAg ‘uorrpe PAIS *S0WV[q pomojoy pure SSUIARISUTT POOAA SnoroWMU AI0A 
 
 TM pareysu § Sunure UB’ ‘OUIMVICT “OAT seds107 grote 
 ΘΠ Ρ Ι ([ ὍΔΙ ᾿ Η 
 
 “Ὃ0 “SG 90g ‘SUOTIVAISNTTT pur S}TRIYIOT 
 TEM “SPSL “ἃ “aq Aq “ΙΗ yornyy mode 8 ‘SagTuOStR f "Ul, 
 
 SG aot “oooor0un Jey τ punog ‘oyrenb suopqgQ — ‘stezour 9501|1 UI poqyuosoadar 
 Ajoyeamoov sutaq “10 ‘ssviq “9A TS ‘plo ur suoraz0d SHOMBA 907 f4IQnd ὃ 0} YOut ue jo 
 e[POS WOfIUN Ὁ UO ‘soqLIg Poyeurunyyy AT[nJyWeeq Jo SoMos YW ‘pourejdxo Aye} 
 
 “HOS {JoRasy Jo apoeusoquy, οιῃ 70 ANU, PUB sposse A ATOF OWL, 
 
SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS, 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. 
 
 ‘Pg ‘Sz so1id “OARIQ ᾿ππυοχοχάποά 10}90qj OATS “TULYOO AO N oLOT 
 
 Ὁ OM “CTT Sopa, “a's (Ὲ ἸΘΙΠΈ( 10 suotst A oyoydorg oxy, 
 
 ‘yorydureg 
 Ὁ YM “801 ΘΟ ‘soyour τς Aq OZ 9Ζῖῳ 1801 [eUIvO 901 Jo Sutmouos 911 10 
 
 sjoqmas Tuo THMBEGOSMOSY Tey ΠΒΠ πᾶς pue [emMIVN 9171) 
 
 - 
 
 “UOTNGIYSIP AIVUOISSITE 10} <MOIQOTT τῇ ‘SMOIGOTT pur “ΒΟ 
 
 ὍΣΟΙ ΟΕ ὍΟΙ tod “506. ‘moaqayy ὉΠ SMOLQOFT of} 01 ΘΙ ΒΟ ou, 
 
 “OUINJOA JOYOOT ᾿ἸΟΌΤΧΟΙ Ὁ pur ‘supesg Arvourp1oyuy oy] 
 
 ‘Oog-uossayT MoAqoyy Ὁ Surutezu0D ; [enue yA, SUIpnyS MOQ OFT OUT, 
 
 ‘sg ood “oumnjoa yoxpog ‘oSenSurry 
 
 91 JO ΘΟ OY} 10} wos opea YW “AT[LoLmout poyurad ‘MOLG9 FL UI [OOF 
 
 ‘spy cord “surpurq onbynue ‘oarypQ 4Ὸ , “UIqqog 1, Ὁ ‘iq Ag 
 ROL $.UTOISIOM YA “SI Sty} 10 uonLypop V - STLUBT.LOFFUO FAL XIPOr) 
 
SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS, 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. 
 
 Pg “Sg ϑομα “ΟΛΌ]00 ysog ὙῚ Sprayayty M Ἢ θῇ 
 Se A nga Jo UUM Ε  ΥΡ TATE y JO JUBIIV AA OUT, 
 
 ‘SGT 90g = “suoy 
 -dirosoq] snordoo }1λλ “940 “ssvagq “HoATIg ‘pjoy yA pozeulUNy] ‘saye[g paeanojog 
 ‘souryy, ΔΙΙΘΛΌΘΗ JO aopryg VW : SsoULLo pT NM oy} ul O[VVULLIG”’ TF ou, 
 ‘SQ QF ood ‘orosz10d Ὁ 
 Q 
 . > τ ( 
 Ul ᾿ΒΘΟΌΠΟΙΙΌΙ yUoroyIp ut m TOACL 8 PpLlory ὉΠῚ 9 potpun yy Uo 
 ‘sg ood ‘orenbg = ‘skep oatyoodsor oy} Jo syonporg pure S[VULIUY 91} Jo suoy 
 
 -euvydxa snotdoo pue ‘soqvld UJIM poyerysnyyt ΙΟΤ]ΈΘΙΩ jo sAvcy XTC ὉΠ, 
 
 ‘Pr “τ3ο]0 UL punog 1ὸ § "py θ01 1 50] 167 yoyoog 
 ya dn purq 0} payug Ῥογθιοσιπτο Aqeorneutoysfs ‘sommjdr1og oY} Ul po[voAor sv 
 
 pox 10 ποῷ oy} 10 SLopOVIvyy pure ΒΘ], ‘Soule N 917, 
 
 "PQ “561 sola “oaryog “το 40 uyor Ag ‘JUOTUVISOT, ALON ΟἹ] Πα] 91η, 
 01 ord ‘OARIQ: “WV U9dIH *G ἽΠ, ‘ANY 91} Ag 
 
 ‘Oo[RI(T JUOUIBISOT, Avo N Yyooty oy} 10 τοι  -W 
 
SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS, 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. 
 
 "pg ad ‘CoudmeyO Ν Ἢ Aq = “stoprey amnyditog pu SIOJISTA 2011516 JO 950 
 ayy x07 “posuere Aqeonoqeyde ‘sSurpvoy ornjdiiwog 0} Xopuy TY 
 
 ‘pg so1ad “ποιηηρο PU0dsEg ‘Koudmey) 'Ν Ἢ (8 
 “ΠΟΙ. ΒΏΡΟΤΑ OPVATIG 10} puv «ἄπχθαο λα Aptuey 10} posure (9 «πηαάτπαρῷ jo S}XO], 
 5001} JO 521 ὉΠ 10 ]17891| 20 γαπάιτ pue ATjoF 981 Prloae 
 0} YSTA OYA 9501} JO 95}. 91 10} popuozut “(ἍΤ 181 [Borssejo Jo Apnys oy} 10} ΤΌΠΟ Ὑ 
 
 ‘pg 51 sod “OWS 
 -MyeAYsN[E sTUYLT 5110} Unsord uMsN UT ππ0 00} wef yo “amyvordxo snisnj onet 
 
 xeuviyslyg eA snqmb ut ‘sorormvunty umpanh afoystdy ἜΙΠΊΒΠ vruoydrparey) 
 ‘pg ‘sz so1ad “σιπρατα {010 4πΌ 3919 ‘oyrenb ΠΡΌ. ᾿591014 
 
 pony IM ἊΝ Ἢ Ad ‘syoalqng ΒΠΟΙΧῸΛ uo 5190 1 ὋὉ7Π| [πο.} SOABOT 
 ‘se oLIg “Ystuvog 
 
 Ἢ Ἢ Au 5. 4. 5 BIEN pue ‘oroy AA “OTLAA ΒΤΠΠΟΤΊΤΓΥ͂ 
 ‘sc θ011α “ΛΌ200 “TLS 
 
 Ἢ ᾿ΑΘῊ 91} Aq ‘uonsony yeusndeg oy pue “TLOTJBULSOPIl perdi 
 
SONS, 
 
 SAMUEL BAGSTER AND 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. 
 
 ‘Sg 904 ᾿5192201 MOT[OY Jo SULT Aq ‘posdyTeue 
 piom A19A9 YL ‘TOURS dq YSTOUHL-MO1qo FT ALVOUTLLOVUT UV 
 
 ᾿ 55 ZF ουμα ‘oyreng 
 “1OJSOYOUTAA JO WOMB “UOSTIAA “AC Aq ᾿γιθαιθ2591, plo 911 Jo τοι] ]5 0}, {519 7 
 ay} Jo Surpuvysiopun yoo109 o1ow 8. OF OPIN K) SyUSpN4S Θ]6 16 ou, 
 
 “pg ‘sp sotad “ΠΟΛ yyoog *SoT[OSOL], 
 
 “a ‘gq Aq ‘suossoT 1610. JO SMES V δες 11.859] MOLQO FL 29 ΞΡΌΘΗ 
 
 ‘8 oon “payesueay pure paskpeue ΘΠΙΟΒΒΟΓ .OUIPveT ΟΘΡΙΘΠΩ 
 
 ‘pg ‘se cog “poyysuey pue pesteue “STOSSOTT SUTPBeY MOTGOH 
 
 "SQ 901g 
 sarqi, MOAQIET WA. du purq oy pordepe : WOOTXOTT MOIQOF{ JOO V 
 
 ‘pg ‘sg soud ‘oarpQ ἋΑὉ ‘Kassopy Ὑ sow ‘Aoyy 91} 
 kq poppe “uonrpe poyoottos puw mou Wo “TBULUTB.LC) MOTO HL 5 ouTyAg 
 
SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS, 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON 
 
 pg spaoug ᾿8οῃθβοαι, “ἃ 5. sds “APOTUOTINV 511 oruvd 
 
 ‘pg volig = “TINquany, *f “AVY Aq “ποι ] Βα 1, MoU Wf SUBULOY ὉΠῚ;, 
 “δ SOU 
 
 Β0Π9 39, “ἃ ὦ “A Ag ΧΟ, popuomle πὸ wo pozjsurqy ; woTyeyo AOY ay L 
 ‘uorRytoseid 10} poydepe [Jad 51 580 [[VUIS Ὁ UL pooryd pur “Πογθαι 0} punog ‘soLtos 
 911,  “punoq ATuAof1uN poute}qo 96 Avut youpar ¢soumpoa yoxood ][eus ut ‘soouLp.s09 
 
 -U0) SAPS pue swopnig YA ‘sesensury 5991.) wropout pue “Π81{8}1 “URULIOX) 
 yousty “YsIsu ‘Morqoy] “UNeT “Yoorg oy} Sopnfout ‘ssourpsoouo) pur ‘soxopuy 
 ‘sroyesg “tokeig UOWUMOD 91} “Β}90Π0159 1, MON] JO SOLIOG UVLIOTUL Ajo d ΘΠ, 
 .591115 Ὁ]ΤΟΤΧΘῈ 
 ysoq oy} τ punog ydoy ore “Βοαπηάπαος [eUSUG 910} YM pues ‘suoIs19A 1010 
 
 YIM UvITVI]T JO SUOTPVUTGIUOD SNO.EUN NY ‘SOSUNSUL] JOJO pu TOUITY YIM ΘΛΌΟΙ] 
 -Jo}UI 0} poydepy “66 so11d ‘ouNpoa yoxIog ᾿ΠΌΡΟΙΩ Tauevaor) ep euelyeyy NOU] UL 
 
 vyJOpely Ἐ ΟἸαΘ ΙΒ759, OAONNY [I 9 OTYOOA TI Θαθηπιο0 90 | vBIqqr BIOVG eT 
 
 “56 ood Soumpoa yoxog ᾿ΒἋὍ7. puv soouotojoy 
 
 TIM JURA yso[eUS oy ‘UoNpe LY ‘aTqTIG Youoty otNperuryy 91 
 
SAMUEL 
 
 BAGSTER AND SONS, 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. 
 
 ‘spz ood ‘oyeng, “C'W “Ῥποαγῷ “MA Ag “ΒΟ 707 9551 snotdoo AoA TAA 
 -uyd duns pue wou 8 vo ‘g7odsoK) otf} 10 ΑπουπαθῊ Yooly VW 
 
 551 oolad “ΟΛΌ]0Ο “OUINJOA γ{|8.5079 9660 ἼΧΘΙ, 91} 
 o ΑΙΟΊΘΙΤΙ AroyONpoAjyUT uv pue ‘suOoULD ULIqasny 912 ‘soSvessvq joeied ‘sourpro 
 191 εν 
 
 snouea poops WIM ἽΠΟΙΠΒ5ΟΠ, MON WoL) quitd-o.01e'] 96) 
 PQ ‘Sp VU “WV “wy 
 
 Ὁ Ἢ, ‘acy om AG ὍΔΟΘΒ 971 YA dn purq 01 ‘yuoureysay, MON 91 OF ΠΟΟΙ͂ΧΟῚ VW 
 ‘SQ 9011 ‘oUIN[OA snorpoututoo pur queSoja AraA Ὁ ‘sumo 10 8184 ut 
 
 ‘JUOTABIS9 T, YSTLOUny pue 5799.) ΤΌ9 10) JOYVIO 91, 
 ‘SZ ZF ϑομά “ΟγθΠ) ᾿βαθππηοῦ [Ὀ0χϑα ur “ΘποΙ)Ὀ]5πθα 7, Π5Π] ΟΠ ὙΠΟ} 10 ΧΙΘ 
 
 {γ1λ ‘odd, 1590} ot} Ul “γιθτθ150, Yok) V ‘el dexoT] ΒΓ ΘΠ), 
 581 θοταα τπχα poos “ΟΛΈ70Ο 
 ‘QUINJOA ΘΌΙΟΒΡΌΒΙ W ‘seoqvoovyT JO Yoo PHMoy oy} WT puv ΠΟΙΩ͂ JO UOIs.1o 
 
 ὙΧΧΊ [891 95} WIM 9 4x0} URoNBA OY} WO ‘TLOIS.LO A qurovnjdog OU L 
 "sg ootad “ΟΛΌ200 T[RUg 
 
 ‘soStOIOXG oANONSHON THM “BUUUBL MOIQOFT [BOTPOVIG SJ[OM 
 
9 
 
 SAMUEL BAGSTER AND. SONS 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. . 
 
 ‘2a 
 
 . 51 901. ‘Q'q ὅσο Ἢ 
 weysory, “Aoy ayy Ag 19 Δ MoCo Ty ou} fo UOTLVSTpOUye Ay V 
 ‘Sp dg ‘puesnoyy, Π71π|0}- Δ. 0} ᾿ἜΠΟΙΙΡ9 
 THUIN 9184 PAIgG Pur ‘syo-poomy HA | Δχογῷ 51} pue OO ou, 
 "sz ood “punog Π} ἢ “ey 
 jeo1Sojouoryy 8 pure ‘sdeyp_ pomopog τιθογπη, Sururezuoo ‘sey ϑαπγάμπος, yoxpog 91} 
 ‘Dg “501 sotad “punog Jey 7805 9318} Ὁ uo sdeypy 90} TIA ‘seppy omnjd1og spi 
 
 ‘PQ 501 do1ad 
 ‘Oo0010W ΠΒῊ ΧΟΡῸ] snoidoo 8 pure “089 10 uondiosop [Nj 8 UIA “spoltog 
 
 queseider sdeyy 9811 You ul ‘sepW [eorLsojouoiyg ou], ‘SOSYITV 9 σάπια 
 ‘sz, solid ὍΛΩ dvosjooy {sg θοταα “ΟΛΌ200 
 
 ‘sp ood ‘oytenb : ystouq uy 56 vouid ‘oavzoo : yoory uy ‘eydArody oul 
 501 ooud ‘socvd 0Ρ}9 
 
 ΛΈ] “WSUy Ἢ Aoy 910} AQ ᾿Διθγαοιασιορ TwOUID Ὁ YW § suvuLOYy OUT, 
 ‘sy οοταα SOALIOO 
 
 ‘Nquiny, ἢ ‘Ady Aq ‘SoJON, YI ‘UOT}VISUBL, TNS U CS Ἄς ΒΟΤΊΒΤΟ 8 [ed VS 
 

 
DATE DUE 
 
 < 
 ΠῚ 
 2 
 Ξ 
 a 
 ω 
 - 
 Ζ 
 x 
 α 
 ᾿ 
 - S| ™ 
 } 3 
 ts ν᾽ Ss 
 ae 3 a. 
 \ j : , 
 ἐνῇ g = 
 ὴ ο 
 3 - 
 - > 
 . < 
 az oO 
 
 
 
 
 
 ar 
 —> 
 =| 
 
 ι- 
 
ot 
 
 
 
 ΄ 
 > 
 
course of developed criticism : on 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Libra 
 
ΠΝ ᾿ 7 ᾿ 
 "ἢ Hage D 
 
 
 
 
 
' 
 u) 
 
 ᾿ 
 i 
 ᾿ 
 ᾿ 
 
 Sai E τε: 
 
 StS 
 
 vi 
 Hf 
 
 (i 
 ai 
 
 RT St 
 GH 
 
 see raters : τῷ 
 5 eee 
 
 eit 
 | 
 
 Sete 
 Sear. 
 
 = 
 
 SSE = 
 See Se 
 
 Sy 
 
 2 $i. a 
 - SSS τ 
 
 ee 
 
 ὭΣ 
 
 i 
 
 SSS 
 ets 
 
 cas ποτα οτος τυροῦ =a 
 Se ee ee 
 ees SS 
 stage ees Ses οτος ᾿ 
 
 <= = = asa = 
 Baer rates τσε τς τ πττς SS 
 
 i} 
 
 { ἢ 
 ᾿ 
 
 ii 
 
 ae 
 
 SSS 
 
 ie 
 
 et a 
 
 bat 
 
 — 
 = SS 
 
 Ἧ 
 
 a 
 
 Me 
 }} 
 
 SEK 
 
 ὃ 
 Ἦ 
 ΜΝ 
 
 i 
 { 
 
 ᾿ ἵ 
 ta 
 
 th 
 if 
 . 
 
 ΜΝ 
 ἢ 
 ἢ 
 
 Hii 
 mia 
 
 HH 
 
 eau 
 
 1. 
 " 
 
 Hi 
 
 —— 
 
 : 
 
 ἢ Ht 
 HH ΠῚ 
 Hi Hh 
 
 fits 
 HH} 
 
 (ἢ 
 
 τς 
 ΞΞΞς 
 
 ΜΡ ΤΡ 
 TR See 
 Aa 
 
 Hi 
 Wale 
 
 | 
 HAH 1H 
 ἢ ᾿ 
 
 ΠῚ Ndi 
 i ua 
 Hitt I HU 
 ἘΠ ΦΉΜΗΝ 
 
 Mi ni it 
 Ha ἡ} itt 
 
 ἢ 
 i} 
 it 
 iki Ἷ 
 
 vi 
 ἢ i 
 Bib 
 Hit 
 
 H 
 ‘fy 
 
 { 
 
 i 
 ai 
 
 ἥ 
 
 SS 
 
 Se τς ΤΣ" 
 SS Ξ ΞΕ ΞΈΣΣΞΞΞΕΣΣΣ