oi tl« »'"%.«, . ^»%,. PRINCETON, N. J. % 3? Divmoft4J.i^.. 1 . .0, Q.. .,XiBS. S/ie//.. Section > Ntmiber C.O jKy..l..: THE REVISION REVISED. 1-0 N DON: IMIINTKI) BY \1-1LI,IAM Cl.OWKS AND PONS, I,imitkd, STASH oitii siiti.Ki A.M> i;iiAJ:l\(i ci;o,-a. THE EEVISION REVISED. THREE ARTICLES REPRINTED FROM THE ' QUARTERLY REVIEW. I. THE NEW GREEK TEXT. II. THE NEW ENGLISH VERSION. III. WESTCOTT AND HORT'S NEW TEXTUAL THEORY. TO WHICH IS ADDED A REPLY TO BISHOP ELLICOTT'S PAMPHLET IN DEFENCE OF THE REVISERS AND THEIR GREEK TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT INCLUDING A VINDICATION OF THE TRADITIONAL READING OF 1 TIMOTHY III. 16. By JOHN WILLIAM BURGON, B.D. DEAN OF CHICHESTER. "It is happened unto them according to the true proverlj, Kuaji- en-t- a-Tpi^a.% en-l to iSioi' e^epana • and, 'Ys Kovaafkiini) eis KiiAtcTjiia ^opjSopou." — 2 Peter ii. 22. " Little children, — Keep yourselves from idols." — I John v. 21. LONDON: JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 1883. The followiiifi is Prebexdary Schivexer's recently pnUishcd estimate of the Si/stem on which Drs. Westcott axd Hort have constructed their ' Eevised Greek Text of the Xew Testament' (1881). — That System, the Chairman of the Revising Body (Bishop Ellicott) has entirely adopted {see below, ]3p. 391 to 397), and made the basis of his Defence of THE IiEViSERS and their ' New Greek Text.' (1.) "There is little hope for the stability of their imposing structure, if its foundations have been laid on the sandi/ (fvound of ingenious conjecture. And, since barely the smallest vestige of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accomplished Editors, their teaching must either be received as in- tuitively true, or dismissed from our consideration as precarious and even visionary" (2.) " 1)r. Hort's System is entirely destitute of historical foundation.'^ (3.) " We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that the Hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so many laborious years, is destitute not only of historical foundation, but of cdl probability, resulting from the internal goodness of the Text which its adoption icoidd force upon us." (4.) '"We cannot doubt' (says Dr. Hort) 'that S. Luke xxiii. 34 comes from an extraneoiis source.' [Notes, p. 68.] — Nor can we, on our part, doubt," (rejoins Dr, ScRiVKNKR,) " that the System which entails such conse- quences is hopelessly self condemned." Scrivknkr's 'Plain Introduction,' S^v. [ed. 1883]: 1»1). .'.31, .")37, 542, 004. TO THE IllGHT HON. VISCOUNT CRANBROOK, G.C.S.T., &c., &c., &c. Mr DEAR Lord Cranbrook, Allow me the gratification of dedicating the iwesent Volume to yourself ; hut for whom — {1 reserve the explanation for another day) — it woidd never have been written. TJiis is not, (as you will perceive at a glance,) the Treatise which a few years ago I told you I had in hand ; and ivhich, hut for the present hindrance, might hy this time have heen completed. It has however grown out of that other ivorh in the manner explained at the beginning of my Preface. More- over it contains not a few specimens of the argumentation of which the ivorh in question, when at last it sees the light, will he discovered to he full. My one object has been to defeat the mischievous attempt which was made in 1881 to thrust upon this Church and Realm a Revision of the Sacred Text, which — recommended though it be by eminent 7iames — I am thoroughly convinced, and am able to prove, is untrustworthy from beginning to end. VI DEDICATION. The reason is i)lain. It haa been constructed throughout on an utterly erroneous hypothesis. And I inserihe this Volume to you, my friend, as a conspicuous member of that body of faithful ami learned Laity by whose deliberate verdict, wJien the whole of the evidence has been produced and the case has been fidly argued out, I shall be quite willing that my contention may stand or fall. The English {as well as the Greek) of the newly " Revised Version " is hopelessly at faidt. It is to me simply unintel- ligible hoiv a company of Scholars can have spent ten years in elahorating such a very unsatisfactory production. Their uncouth phraseology and tlieir jerhy sentences, their pedantic obscurity and their unidiomatic English, contrast painfully with " the happy turns of expression, the music of the cadences, the felicities of the rhythrn " of our Authorized Version. The transition from one to the other, as the Bishop of Lincoln retnarks, is like exchanging a well-built carriage for a vehicle without springs, in which you get jolted to death on a neivly- mended and rarely-traversed road. But the " Bevised Ver- sion " is inaccurate as well ; exhibits defective scholarship, I mean, in countless places. It is, however, the systematic depravation of the underlying- Greek which does so grievously offend me: for this is nothing else but a poisoning of the Biver of Life at its sacred source. Our Bevisers, (witJi the best and p>urest intentions, no douht,) stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the worda of DEDICATION. Vll Inspiration in every page, mid of having substituted for them fabricated Readings ivhich the Church has long since refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence ; and ivhich only survive at this time in a little handful of documents of the most dejyraved type. As Critics they have had abundant warning. Twelve years ago (1871) a volume appeared on 'the last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark,' — of which the declared object was to vindicate those Verses against certain critical objectors, and to establish them by an exhaustive argumentative process. Up to this hour, for a very obvious reason, no answer to that volume has been attempted. And yet, at the end of ten years (1881), — not only in the Revised English but also in the volume which professes to exhibit the underlying Greeh, (which at least is indefensible,) — the Revisers are observed to separate of those Twelve precious Verses from their context, in toJceti that they are no part of the genuine Gosp)el. Such a deliberate pre- ference of ' muDipsimus ' to ' sumpsimus ' is by no means calcu- lated to conciliate favour, or even to win respect. The Revisers have in fact been the dtipes of an ingenious Theorist, concerning whose extraordinary views you, are invited to read what Dr. Scrivener lias recently put forth. The ivords of the last-named writer (who is facile princeps in Textual Criticism) ivill be found facing the beginning of the present Dedication. If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I tahe leave to point out that " to every- Vni DEDICATION. thing there is a aeason, and a time to evtnj jjurpose muler the sun " : " a time to embrace, and a time to he far from em- bracing " : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharphj. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard. In handling certain recent idterances of Bishop Ellicott, I considered throughout that it tvas the ' Textual Critic,' — not the Successor of the Apostles, — with whan I had to do. And thus I commend my Volume, the fruit of many years of incessant anxious toil, to your indulgence : requesting that you will receive it as a token of my sincere respect and ad- miration; and desiring to be remembered, my dear Lord Cranbrook, as Your gratefid and affectionate Friend and Servant, JOHN W. BURGON. DsAysnr, CnicHESTtj!, All Saixts' Dav. 1888. Ik ^ . ,, .,.,. Jill' -^ r _,^,^^^r.,^^-- PREFACE. The ensuing three Articles from the ' Quarterly Eeview,' — (wrung out of me by the publication [May 17th, 1881] of the ' Eevision ' of our ' Authorized Version of the New Testament,') — appear in their present form in compliance with an amount of continuous solicitation that they should be separately published, wliich it would have been alike un- reasonable and ungracious to disregard. I was not prepared for it. It has caused me — as letter after letter has reached my hands — mixed feelings ; has revived all my original disinclination and regret. For, gratified as I cannot but feel by the reception my labours have met with, — (and only the Author of my being knows what an amount of antecedent toil is represented by the ensuing pages,)— I yet deplore more heartily than I am able to express, the injustice done to the cause of Truth by handling the subject in this frag- mentary way, and by exhibiting the evidence for what is most certainly true, in such a very incomplete form. A systematic Treatise is the indispensable condition for securing cordial assent to the view for which I mainly contend. The cogency of the argument lies entirely in the cumulative character of the proof. It rerpiires to be demonstrated by induction from a large collection of particular instances, as well as by the complex exhibition of many converging lines of evidence, that the testimony of one small group of documents, or rather, of one particular manuscript, — (namely X PREFACE. the Vatican Codex b, wliicli, for some unexplained reason, it is just now the fashion to regard with superstitious deference,) — is the reverse of trustworthy. Nothing in fact hut a considerable Treatise will ever effectually break the yoke of that iron tyranny to wdiich the excellent Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol and his colleagues have recently bowed their necks ; and are now for imposing on all English-speaking men. In brief, if I were not, on the one hand, thoroughly convinced of the strength of my position, — (and I know it to be absolutely impregnable) ; — yet more, if on the other hand, I did not cherish entire confidence in the practical good sense and fairness of the English mind ;— I could not have brought myself to come before the public in the unsystematic way which alone is possible in tlie pages of a Eeview. I must have waited, at all hazards, till I liad finished ' my Book.' But then, delay would have been fatal. I saw plainly that unless a sharp blow was delivered immediately, the Citadel would be in the enemy's hands. I knew also that it was just possible to condense into 60 or 70 closely-printed pages what must logically prove fatal to the ' lievision.' So I set to work ; and during the long summer days of 1881 (June to September) the foremost of these three Articles was elaborated. When the October number of ' the Quarterly ' appeared, I comforted myself with the secret consciousness that enough was by this time on record, even had my life been suddenly brought to a close, to secure the ultimate re- jection of the ' Pievisi(,)n ' of 1881. I knew that the ' New Cireok Text,' (and therefore the ' New English Version '), PREFACE. xi had received its death-blow. It might for a few years drag out a maimed existence ; eagerly defended by some, — timidly pleaded for by others. But such efforts could be of no avail. Its days were already numbered. The effect of more and yet more learned investigation, — of more elaborate and more extended inquiry, — Tiiust be to convince mankind more and yet more thoroughly that the principles on which it had been constructed were radically unsound. In the end, when parti- sanship had cooled down, and passion had evaporated, and prejudice had ceased to find an auditory, the ' Eevision ' of 1881 must come to be universally regarded as — what it most certainly is, — the most astonishing, as well as the most calamitous literary hlunder of the Age. I. I pointed out that ' the New Greek Text,' — which, in defiance of their instructions,^ the Revisionists of ' the Authorized English Version ' had been so ill-advised as to spend ten years in elaborating, — was a wholly untrustworthy performance : was full of the gravest errors from beginning to end : had been constructed throughout on an entirely mistaken Theory. Availing myself of the published confes- sion of one of the Eevisionists,^ I explained the nature of the calamity which had befallen the Eevision. I traced the mischief home to its true authors, — Drs. Westcott and Hort ; a copy of whose unpublished Text of the N. T. (the most vicious in existence) had been confidentially, and under pledges of the strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of everv ^ Any one who desires to see this charge established, is invited to rend from page 399 to page 413 of what follows. ' Dr. Newth. See pp. 37-9. Xll riJEFACE. member of the revising Body.^ I called attention to the fact that, unacquainted with the difficult and delicate science of Textual Criticism, the Eevisionists had, in an evil hour, surrendered themselves to Dr. Hort's guidance : had preferred his counsels to those of Prebendary Scrivener, (an infinitely more trustworthy guide): and that the work before the public was the piteous — but inevitahle — result. All this I explained in the October number of the ' Quarterly Eeview ' for 1881.2 II. In thus demonstrating the worthlessncss of the ' New Greek Text ' of the Eevisionists, I considered that I had destroyed the key of their position. And so perforce I had : for if the underlying Greek Text be mistaken, what else but incorrect must the English Translation be ? But on examining the so-called ' Eevision of the Authorized Ver- sion,' I speedily made the further discovery that the Eevised English would have been in itself intolerable, even had the Greek been let alone. In the fii-st place, to my surprise and annoyance, it proved to be a New Translation (rather than a Eevision of the Old) which had been attempted. Painfully apparent were the tokens which met me on every side that the Eevisionists had been supremely eager not so much to correct none but " plain and clear eiTors," — as to introduce as many changes into the English of the New Testament Scriptures as tlicy conveniently could.^ A skittish impatience of the admirable work before them, and a strange inability > See pp. 24-9 : 97, &c. ' See below, i)p. I to 110. ^ This will be found more fully explained from pp. 127 to 130: ]ip. 154 to 1(54 : also pp. 400 to 403. See also the quotations on pp. 112 and 368. PREFACE. Xlll to appreciate its manifold excellences : — a singular imagina- tion on the part of the promiscuous Company which met in the Jerusalem Chamber that they were competent to improve the Authorized Version in every part, and an unaccountable forgetfulness that the fundamental condition under which the task of Eevision had been by themselves undertaken, was that they should abstain from all but ''necessary" changes : — this proved to be only part of the offence which the Eevisionists had committed. It was found that they had erred through defective Scholcirsliip to an extent, and with a frequency, which to me is simply inexplicable. I accordingly made it my business to demonstrate all this in a second Article which appeared in the next (the January) number of the ' Quarterly Review,' and was entitled ' The New English Translation.' ^ III. Thereupon, a pretence was set up in many quarters, {hut only by the Revisionists and their friends,) that all my labour hitherto had been thrown away, because I had omitted to disprove the principles on which this ' New Greek Text ' is founded. I flattered myself indeed that quite enough had been said to make it logically certain that the underlying ' Textual Theory ' must he worthless. But I was not suffered to cherish this conviction in quiet. It was again and again cast in my teeth that I had not yet grappled with Drs. West- cott and Hort's ' arguments,' " Instead of condemning their Text, why do you not disprove their Theory ?" It was taunt- ingly insinuated that I knew better than to cross swords ^ See below, pp. 113 to 232. XIV PREFACE. with the two Cambridge Professors. Tliis reduced me to the necessity of either leaving it to be inferred from my silence tliat I had found Drs. Westcott and Hort's ' arguments ' unanswerable ; or else of coming forward with tlieir book in my hand, and demonstrating that in their solemn pages an attentive reader finds himself encountered by nothing but a series of unsupported assumptions : that their (so called) ' Theory ' is in reality nothing else but a weak effort of the Imagination : that the tissue which these accomplished scholars have been thirty years in elaborating, proves on inspection to be as flimsy and as worthless as any spider's web. I made it my business in consequence to expose, some- what in detail, (in a third Article, which appeared in the ' Quarterly Review ' for April 1882), the absolute absurdity, — (I use the word advisedly) — of ' Westcott and Hort's New Textual Theory ; ' ^ and I now respectfully commend those 130 pages to the attention of candid and unprejudiced readers. It were idle to expect to convince any others. AVe have it on good authority (Dr. Westcott's) that " he who has long pondered over a train of Reasoning, becomes unaUc to detect its vjecck j^oints.'' "^ A yet stranger phenomenon is, that those who have once committed themselves to an erroneous Theory, seem to be incapable of opening their eyes to the untrustworthiness of tlie fabric they have erected, even when it comes down in their sight, like a child's house built with playing-cards, — and presents to every eye but their own the appearance of a shapeless ruin. ' Sec bcluw, pp. 235 to 36G. ^ Gospel of the Jiesurredion, p. viii. PREFACE. XV § 1. Two full years have elapsed since the first of these Essays was published ; and my Criticism — for the best of reasons — remains to this hour unanswered. The public has been assured indeed, (in the course of some hysterical remarks by Canon Farrar^), that "the 'Quarterly Ee viewer ' can be refuted as fully as he desires as soon as any scholar has the leisure to answer him." The ' Quarterly Eeviewer ' can afford to wait, — if the Eevisers can. But they are reminded that it is no answer to one who has demolished tlieir master's ' Tlieory,' for the pupils to keep on reproducing fragments of it ; and by their mistakes and exaggerations, to make both themselves and him, ridiculous. ^ Reference is made to a vulgar effu.sion in the ' Contemporary Eevicio' for March 1882 : from which it chiefly appears that Canon (now Arch- deacon) Farrar is nnable to forgive S. Mark the Evangelist for having written the 16th verse of his concluding chapter. The Venerable writer is in consequence for ever denouncing those "?as< Twelve Verses." In March 1882, (pretending to review my Articles in the * Quarterly,') he says: — "In spite of Dean Burgon's Essay on the subject, the minds of most scholars are quite unalterably made up on such questions as the authenticity of the last twelve verses of S. Mark." \_Co7itemporary Re- view, vol. xli. p, 365.] And in the ensuing October, — " If, among jyositive results, any one should set down such facts as that . . . Mark xvi. 9-20 . . . formed no part of the original apostolic autograp>h . . . He, I say, who should enumerate these points as being beyond the reach of serious dispute . . . would be expressing the views which are regarded as indisputable by the vast majority of such recent critics as have estabhshed any claim to serious attention." \_Exposifor, p. 173.] It may not be without use to the Venerable writer that he should be reminded that critical questions, instead of being disposed of by such lan- guage as the foregoing, are not even touched thereby. One is surprised to have to tell a " fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge," so obvious a truth as that by such writing he does but effectually put himself out of court. By proclaiming that his mind is " quite unalterably made up " that the end of S. Mark's Gospel is not authentic, he admits that he is impervious to argument and therefore incapable of understanding proof. It is a mere waste of time to reason with an unfortunate who announces that he is beyond the reach of conviction. xvi PREFACE, § 2. Thus, a writer in the ' Church Quarterly ' for January 1882, (wliosc knowledge of the subject is entirely derived from what Dr. Hort has taught him,) — being evidently much exercised by the first of my three Articles in the ' Quarterly Eeview,' — gravely informs the public that "it is useless to parade such an array of venerable witnesses," (meaning the enumerations of Fathers of the iiird, ivth, and Ytli centuries which are given below, at pp. 42-4: 80-1 : 84 : 133 : 212-3 :. 359-60 : 421 : 423 : 486-90 ■)—" for tluy have absolutely nothing to say vhich, deserves a moment's hcar- i7iy."^ — What a pity it is, (while lie was about it), that the learned gentleman did not go on to explain tliat the moon is made of green cheese ! § 3. Dr. Sanday,^ in a kindred spirit, delivers it as his opinion, that " the one thing " I lack " is a grasp on the central condition of the i)rob]em : " — that I do " not seem to have the faintest glimmering of the principle of 'Genealogy:'" — tliat I am " all at sea : " — that my " heaviest batteries are discharged at random : " — and a great deal more to the same effect. The learned Professor is quite welcome to tliink sucli things of me, if he pleases. Ov <^povTL])ro* dkfknd the Right !' 365 Letteu to the Right Rev. C. J. Ellicott, D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in reply to his pamphlet in Defence of the Revisers, and their new Greek Text of the New Testament. (a.) Bishop Ellicott's reply to our first two Articles.. .. .. 369 scarcely deserves serious attention ., .. ,. .. 370 and was anticipated by our own third Article .. .. 371 The unfairness of his procedure pointed out .. .. .. 372 and a question proposed to him in passing . . .. .. 374 7/e appeals to ' Modern Opinion ': ivc, to ' Ancient Authority'' .. 375 The Bishop in May 1870, and in May 1882 378 His estimate of ' the fabric of Modern Textual Criticism' .. 379 proved to be incorrect, by an ajipcal to historical facts .. 380 He confuses the standard of ComjKirison witli the standard oi Kjrccllenrc .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 383 and misrei)rescnts the Ixeviewcr in consequence .. .. 387 But why does he prejudice the question .. .. .. 388 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXXIX by pouring contempt on the ' first edition of Erasmus ?' . . since he admits that the Traditional Text (which is not the ' first edition of Erasmus ') is at least 1550 years old And since he has nothing to urge against it except Dr. Hort's fantastic hypothesis (Ik) Nothing (says the Bishop) can be more unjust on the part of the Reviewer than to suggest that the Revisers exceeded their Instructions But the Reviewer demonstrates that, both in respect of the ' New English Version ' and in respect of the * New Greek Test,' the Revisers have outrageously exceeded their Instructions not even suffering a trace to survive in their Margin of the mischief they have effected in the Text e.g. at S. John iv. 15 :— S. Mark vi. 11 :— S. Matth. v. 44 On the other hand, they encumber their Margin with the readings they deliberately reject and omit the 'Headings,' and the 'Marginal References'.. (c.) Suggested Allocution, — B]). Ellicott to Drs. Westcott and Hort (rf.) Examination of the 16 Places in which the Bishop proposes to defend his ' New Greek Text ' Viz. S. Matth. i. 25 :— xvii. 21 :— xviii. 11 :— S. Mark vi. 20 :— xi. 3 :— xi. 8 :— xvi. 9-20 :— S. Luke ix. 55, 6 :— X. 15 : — xi. 2-4 : — xxiii. 38 : — xxiii. 45 : — S. John xiv. 4 : — Acts xviii. 7 : — 1 Tim. iii. 16 (e.) Three of these Readings singled out for special laborious study, viz. (a) S. Luke ii. 14 :— O) S. Mark xvi. 9-20 .. (for it is the Reviewer, — not the Bishop,^ — who makes, and insists on making, his appeal to Catholic Antiquity) (/.) Lastly (7) 1 Timothy iii. 16.— A iSi^^crtation follows, in proof that " GOD WAS MANI- FESTED IN THE FLESH" 15 the correct Reading. Preliminary remarks in explanation .. Evidence in favour of fiva-Trjpiov ' oj, as stated by Bp. Ellicott shown to be in every respect mistaken [1] Testimony of the Copies to 1 Timothy iii. 16. Of Cod. a next, of Cod. c next, of Codd. f and g. of S. Paul .. next, of the Cursive Copies, — ' Paul 17,' * 73 ' and ' 181 ' [2] Testimony of the Versions concerning 1 Tim. iii. 16. The old Latin, — the Vulgate, — the Peschito, — the Harkleian, — the Egy2> tian, — the Gothic, — the Ethiopic, — the Armenian, — the Arabic version PAGE 389 390 391 394 399 400 403 407 407 411 412 413 415 417 420 423 424 429 430 431 437 438 443 448 449 xl TABLE OF CONTENTS, PACK 457 Up to this poiut, the sanction obtained for fxva-Tj]{>iov ■ os is wondrous slender . . , . . . . . . . . . 454 [3] Testimony of the Fathers concerning 1 Tim. iii. 16 .. 455 Gregory of Nyssa, — Didymus, — Theodoret . , . . . . 456 Chrysostom,^ — Gregory of Nazianzus, — the title " Iltpl 6(ias (rapKa>(T((i)s' .. Severus of Antioch, — Diodorus of Tarsus .. .. .. 458 (Bp. EUicott as a Controversialist.) The case of Euthalius 459 ps.-Dionysius Alexandrinus . . .. .. ., ,. 461 Ignatius, — Barnabas, — Hippolytus, — Gregory Thaumatur- gus, — the Apostolical Constitutions, — Basil . . . , 462 Cyril of Alexandria .. ,. .. .. .. .. 464 The argument e s«7en<('o considered .. .. ., ,, 469 The story about Macedonius examined, and disposed of .. 470 Anonymus, — Epiphanius (a.d. 787),— Theodoras Studita, ^Scholiasts, — (Ecumenius, — Theophylact, — Euthymius, — Ecclesiastical Tradition, — the ' Apostolus ' ., .. 475 (I.) Sum of the evidence in favour of fivarrripiov • 5 in 1 Tim. iii. 16, shown to be insufficient, — Theodore of Mopsuestia ,. 479 (II.) Sum of the evidence in favour of fivarTjpiov • os in 1 Tim, iii, 16, shown to be vastly inferior to the preceding ,. ., 482 Bp. Ellicott is reminded that not ' Modern Opinion,' but * Ancient Authority ' (i.e. Fact not Fiction) is to settle this, and every other Textual question .. ., .. 483 (III.) Sum of the evidence in favour of 9e6j effyavepoidt] in 1 Tim. iii, 16, shown to be overwhelming and decisive , . 485 Testimony of 20 Fathers, 3 Versions, 4 Uncial Codices . . 487 and 252 (out of 254) cursive Copies — [or rather, 260 out of 262, for see the Postscript at page 528] .. .. 491 also of 33 Lectionaries — [or rather, of 3'6] ., ,. .. 495 Internal evidence for reading 6eos tcfyavepwdr] in 1 Tim. iii. 16, shown to be the strongest possible .. .. .. ., 497 Close of the J9l£i^CVtati0U (which began at ]), 421) .. .. 501 (;/.) Comi)()sition of the Revising Body a breach of Churcli Order .. 501 An Unitarian lieviser intolerable .. .. .. .. 503 The ' Westminster Abbey scandal ' (22nd June 1870) .. ., 507 (//..) Forecast of the probable Future of the llevision of 1881 .. 508 which differs essentially from that of 1611 .. .. .. 509 Mutilation of S, Mark x, 21 : S, Luke ix. 54-6 : xxii. 64 : xxiii, 38: xxiv. 42 510 (?■.) Review of the entire subject, and of our respective ixjsititms .. 514 The nature of the present contention explained ,. ,. ., 516 Parting counsels. — T])rcc convenient Teat places mdknicd ,. 519 The subject dismissed .. .. .. .. .. .. 520 ARTICLE I. THE NEW GREEK TEXT. ( xlii ) "Oue question in connexion with the Authorized Version I have pui'- posely neglected. It seemed useless to discuss its Eevision. The Bevision of the orifjinal Texts mtist precede the Revision of the Translation : and tlte time for this, even in the Neiu Testament, has not yet fully come." — Dr. Westcott.^ " It is my honest conviction that for any authoritative Eevision, we are not yet mature; either in Biblical learning or nellenistic scholarship. There is good scholarship in this country, .... but it has certainly not yet heen sufficiently directed to the study of the New Testament. . . . to render any national attempt at Revision either hopeful or lastingly profit- able."— Bishop Ellicott.^ " I am persuaded that a Revision ought to come : I am convinced that it will come. Not however, I would trust, as yet ; for we are not as yet in any resj^ect prepared for it. The Greek and the English which shoukl enable us to bring this to a successful end, might, it is feared, he icanting alike." — Archbishop Trench.* > Preface to TTiMory of the EngliiA suinus.' — Prnfulio, 1). xxi. '^ ycrivi'iicr's Philii Juliod. y. .'11)7. ■' Vt t^upru, p. 4m,\).x\. ^ 7i/f/. p. xviii. ^7&u?. p. xvi. ^ //>iV?. pp. xviii., xix. 26 WESTCOTT AND HORT'S THEORY OF [Aut. the Evangelists tluui any "which has appeared since the invention of printing. When full Prolegomena have been furnished we shall know more al)0ut the matter ; ^ but to ^ \_Note, — that I have thought it best, for many reasons, to retain the ensuing note as it originally appeared ; merely restoring [_within lirachets\ those printed portions of it for which there really luas no room. The third Article in the present volume tvill he found to supply an ample exposure of the shallowness of Drs . Westcott and Horfs Textual TlieoryJ] While these sheets are passing through the press, a copy of the long- expected volume reaches us. The theory of the respected authors proves to be the shallowest imaginable. It is briefly this : — Fastening on the two oldest codices extant (b and X , both of the TVth century), they invent the following hypothesis : — ' That the ancestries of those two manuscripts diverged from a point near the autographs, and never came into contact subsequently.'' [No reason is produced for this opinion.] Having thus secured two independent witnesses of what was in the sacred autographs, the Editors claim that the coincidence of J^ and B must ' mark those portions of text in which two primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission had not come to differ from each other through independent corruption :' and therefore that, ' in the absence of specially strong internal evidence to the contrary,' ' the readings of N and b com- bined may safely he accepdcd as genuine.'' But what is to be done when the same two codices diverge one from the otjipr f — In all such cases (we are assured) the readings of any ' binary combination ' of b are to be preferred ; because ' on the closest scrutiny,' they generally ' have the ring of genuineness ;' hardly ever ' look suspi- cious after full consideration.' 'Even when b stands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.' [We are not told why. 15ut, (rejoins the student who, after careful collation of codex b, has arrived at a vastly different estimate of its character,) — What is to be done when internal and external evidence alike condemn a reading of b? How is 'mumpsimus' for example to be treated? — ^ Mumps imus' (the Editors solemnly reply) as ' the better attested reading' — (by which they mean the reading attested by B,) — we place in our margin. ' Snmpsinms,' apparently the right reading, we place in the text within ff ; in token that it is probably ' a successful ancient conjecture.' We smile, and resume : — But how is the fact to be accounted for that the text of Chrysostom and (in the main) of the rest of the IVth-century Fathers, to whom we are so largely indebted for our critical materials, and who must havo euiiiloyed codices fully as oM ;is n and N: how is il, wo I.] TEXTUAL CRITICISM BRIEFLY EXA]MINED. 27 judge from the Eemarks (in pp. 541-62) wliicli the learned Editors (Revisionists themselves) have subjoined to their elegantly-printed volume, it is to be feared that the fabric ask, tliat the text of all these, including codex a, differs essentially from the text exhibited by codices b and X ? — The editors reply, — The text of Chrysostom and the rest, we designate ' Syrian,' and assume to have been the result of an ' editorial Kevision,' which we conjecturally assign to the second half of the Ilird century. It is the ' Pre-Syrian ' text that we are in search of; and we recognize the object of our search in codex b. We stare, and smile again. But how then does it come to pass (we rejoin) that the Peschito, or primitive Syriac, which is older by full a century and a half than the last-named date, is practically still the same text ? — This fatal circumstance (not overlooked by the learned Editors) they encounter with another conjectural assumjition. ' A Revision ' (say they) ' of the Old Syriac version appears to have taken place early in the IVth century, or sooner ; and doulitless in some connexion with the Syrian revision of the Greek text, the readings being to a very great extent coincident.' And pray, where is ' the Old Syriac version ' of which you speak ? — It is (reply the Editors) our way of designating the fragmentary Syriac MS. commonly known as ' Cureton's.' — ^Your way (we rejoin) of manipulating facts, and disposing of evidence is certainly the most convenient, as it is the most extraordinary, imaginable : yet is it altogether inadmissible in a grave enquiry like the present. Syriac scholars are of a widely different opinion from yourselves. Do you not perceive that you have been draw- ing upon your imagination for every one of your facts ? We decline in short on the mere conjectural ipse dixit of these two respected scholars to admit either that the Peschito is a Revision of Cureton's Syriac Version ; — or that it was executed about a.d. 325 ; — or that the text of Chrysostom and the other principal IVth-century Fathers is the result of an unrecorded ' Antiochian Revision ' which took i)lace about the year a.d. 275. But instead of troubling ourselves with removing the upper story of the visionary structure before us,^ — which reminds us painfully of a house which we once remember building with jalaying-cards, — we begin by removing the basement-story, which brings the entire superstructure in an instant to the ground.] For we decline to admit that the texts exhibited by b S can have ' diverged from a point near the sacred autographs, and never come into contact subsc^piently.' We are able to show, on the contrary, that the 28 WESTCOTT AND HORT'S EDITION OF THE N. T. [Aut. will l)c fduud to rest too exclusively on vague assumption and unproved hypothesis. In other words, a painful appre- hension is created that their edition of ' The New Testament in the original Greek ' will be found to partake incon- readinj^s they jointly emlxxly uffonl the strongest presumption that the MSS. which contain them are nothing else but specimens of those ' cor- rected,' i.e. corrupted copies, which are known to have abounded in tlie earliest ages of the Church. From the prevalence of identical depravations in either, we infer that they are, on the contrary, derived from the same not very remote de})raved original : and therefore, that their coincidence, when they differ from all (or nearly all) other MSS., so far from marking * two primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission ' of the inspired autographs, does but mark what was derived from the same corrupt common ancestor ; whereby the supposed two independent witnesses to the Evangelic verity become resolved into a single witness to a fahricated text of the Ilird century. It is impossible in the meantime to withhold from these learned and excellent men (who are infinitely better than their theory) the tribute of our sympathy and concern at the evident perplexity and constant distress to which their own fatal major premiss has reduced them. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. Doubt, — unbelief, — credulity,— general mistrust of all evidence, is the inevitable sequel and penalty. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort solemnly assured their Ijrother Ilevisionists that ' the prevalent assumption, that throughout the N. T. the true text is to be found someivhere among recorded readings, does not stand the test of exjjerience : ' " and they are evidently still haunted by the same spectral suspicion. They see a ghost to be exorcised in every dark corner. ' The Art of Conjectural Emendation ' (says Dr. Hort) ' depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even more an ajipreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character us a critical operation founded on knowledge and method.' " Specimens of tlie writer's skill in this department abound. One occurs at p. 135 {App.) wliere, in defiance of every knoivn docmncnt, he seeks to evacuate S. Paul's memorable injunction to Timothy (2 Tim. i. 18) of all its significance. [A fuller exposure of Dr. Hort's liandling of this imjjortant text will be found later in the present volume.] May we be allowed to assure the accomplished writer that in Biblical Textual Ckiticism, ' Conjkctural Emendation ' has no place ? " r. xxi. ^ InUod. p. 71. I.] CORRUPT COPIES ANCIENTLY PREVALENT. . 29 veniently of the nature of a work of the Imagination. As codex X proved fatal to Dr. Tischendorf, so is codex b evi- dently the rock on which Drs. Westcott and Hort have split. Did it ever occur to those learned men to enquire how the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament has fared at the hands of codex B ? They are respectfully invited to address themselves to this very damaging enquiry. But surely (rejoins the intelligent Eeader, coming fresh to these studies), the oldest extant Manuscripts (b n a c d) must exhil^it the purest text ! Is it not so ? It ought to be so, no doubt (we answer) ; l;)ut it certainly need not be the case. We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Hesychius in Egypt, ' revised ' the text of the N. T. Unfor- tunately, they did their work in an age when such fatal mis- apprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in turn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment of monstra into the sacred writings. Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch, a.d. 168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of whom we know there were very many in the primitive age, — some of whose productions, we further know, were freely multiplied in every quarter of ancient Christendom : — add, the fabricated Gospels which anciently abounded; notably the Gosjycl of the Hcbreivs, about which Jerome is so communicative, and which (he says) he had translated into Greek and Latin : — lastly, freely grant that here and there, with well-meant assiduity, the orthodox themselves may have sought to prop up truths which the early heretics (Basilides, a.d. 134, Valentinus, a.d. 140, with his disciple Heracleon, Marcion, a.d. 150, and the rest,) most perseveringly assailed ; — and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not a few of the codices of primitive Christendom must have exhibited Texts which 30 CODD. S p. c n SHOWX TO BK ITOPKLESST-Y [Airr. were even scandalously corrupt. ' It is no less true to fact tlian paradoxical in sound,' \vrites tlie most learned of llic Revisionist ))ody, ' that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed : that Irenaius [a.d. 150] and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunic;i, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.'^ And what else are codices X B C d but sjjccimcns — in vastly different degrees — of the class thus characterized, by Prebendary Scrivener? Nay, wdio will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservation solely to tlie cir- cumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly un- trustworthy ? Only l)y singling out some definite portion of the Gospels, and attending closely to the handling it has experienced at the hands of a x b c D, — to the last four of which it is just now the fashion to bow down as. to an oracular voice from which there shall l)e no appeal,— can the stu(k'nt liecome aware of the hopelessness of any attempt to construct the Text of the N. T. out of the materials which those codices ex- clusively sujjply. Let us this time take S. Mark's account of the healing of ' the paralytic jxa-nc of four' (ch. ii. 1-12), — and confront their exhibition of it, with that of tlie commonly received Text. In the course of those 12 verses, (not reck- oning 4 blunders and certain peculiarities of spelling,) there will be found to be GO variations of reading, — of wliicli ' Scrivener, Introduction, p. 453. — Stunica, it will be rcnieniliored, was the chief editor of tlic Compluteiisian, or Jin^t jiriniM cditinu nf tlio New Testament, (1514). I.] AT STRIFE AMOXG TIIE]\ISELA"ES. ?.l 55 are nothing else but depravations of the text, the result of inattention or licentiousness. Westcott and Hort adopt 23 of these : — (18, in which x B conspire to vouch for a reading : 2, where s is unsupported hj B : 2, where b is unsupported by N : 1, where C D are supported by neither x nor b). Now, in the present instance, the 'five old uncials ' cannot he the depositories of a tradition, — whether Western or Eastern, — -because they render inconsis- tent testimony in every verse. It must further be admitted, (for this is really not a question of opinion, but a plain matter of fact,) that it is unreasonable to place confidence in such documents. What would be thouQ;ht in a Court of Law of five witnesses, called up 47 times for examination, who should be observed to bear contradictory testimony every time ? But the whole of the problem does not by any means lie on the surface. All that appears is that the five oldest uncials are not trustworthy witnesses ; which singly, in the course of 12 verses separate themselves from their fellows 33 times : viz. A, twice ;— S, 5 times ; — b, 6 times ; — c, thrice ; — D, 17 times: and which also enter into tlie 11 following combinations with one another in opposition to the ordinary Text : — A c, twice ; — s B, 10 times ; — s D, once ; — c D, 3 times ; •— N B c, once ; — N b d, 5 times ; — n g d, once ; — BCD, once ; • — A N c D, once ; — A B c D, once ; — A K B c D, once. (Note, that on this last occasion, which is the only time when they all 5 agree, they are ecrtainly all 5 wrong.) But this, as was observed before, lies on the surface. On closer critical inspection, it is further discovered that their testimony betrays the baseness of their origin by its intrinsic worthlessness. Thus, in Mk. ii. 1, the delicate precision of the announcement 7]KovarQr] on ei's of KO'N 'E2TI (that 'He has gone in '), disappears from n b d : — as well as (in ver. 2) the circumstance tliat it became the signal for many ' immediately ' ( N b) to assemble about the door. — In ver. 4, S. Mark explains his predecessor's concise 32 BASENESS OF THE TEXT OF S* V, D. WHICH [Art. statement that tlie paralytic was ' l)rouglit to' our Saviour,^ by remarking that the thing was ' imjwssible ' by the ordinary method of approach. Accordingly, his account of the ex- pedient resorted to by the bearers fills one entire verse (ver. 4) of his Gospel. In the mean time, N b by exhibiting (in S. Mark ii. 3,) ' bringing unto Him one sick of the palsy ' ((/jepoi/Te? 7rpo9 avrov irapaXvTtKov, — which is but a senseless transposition of irpo'i avrov, TrapaXvTiKov (^epofxe?), do their best to obliterate the exquisite significance of the second Evangelist's method. — In the next verse, the perplexity of tlie bearers, who, because they could not ' come nigh Him ' (TTpoaeyyLo-aL avrw), unroofed the house, is lost in 8< B, — whose irpoaeveyKai has been obtained either from Matt. ix. 2, or else from Luke v. 18, 19 (elaeveyKetv, elaeveyKcocnv). 'The bed WHERE WAS the paralytic ' (rov Kpd^/darov "onOT 'hn o irapa- \vti,k6<;, in imitation of ' the roof where was ' Jesus {rrjv (7Tec done, as in heaven, also on the earth ; ' M'liicli 1 1 words N retains, l)ut a^lds ' so' bel'ore ' also,' and omits the article (t>)v) ; finding for once an ally in A c i). (c) K D for BiBov write 86? (from ]\Litt.). (/) S omits the article {to) before ' day hy day.' And, (cy) ]), instead of tlie 3 last-named words, writes ' f/iis day' (from Matt.) : siil»stitutes Ulehts' {ja 6<^€iXi]ixara) for '.s///.s' (ja I.] LICENTIOUSLY EXHIBITED BY N A B C D. 35 dfjLapTTj/jbara, — also from Matt.) : and in place of 'for [wc] 02irsdvcs ' (koI yap avroi) writes ' as also wc ' (w? koI r}/ji€i<;, again from Matt.). — But, (h) a shows its sympathy with D by accepting two-thirds of this last blunder : exhibiting ' as also [we^ ourselves ' (ax? koI avTOi). (i) D consistently reads ' ourdcMors' (toU 6(f)6iXeTaL<; tj/hwv) in place of ' every one that is indebted to us ' {iravrl o^elXopTt 7][uv). — Finally, {j) B N omit the last petition, — 'hut deliver us from. cviV {uXka pvaat rjfxci'i citto tov irovripov) — unsupported by A C or D. Of lesser discrepancies we decline to take account. So then, these five ' first-class authorities ' are found to throw themselves into six different combinations in their departures from S. Luke's way of exhibiting the Lord's Prayer, — which, among them, they contrive to falsify in respect of no less than 45 words ; and yet they arc never ahlc to agree among themselves as to any single various reading : while only once are more than two of them observed to stand together, — viz. in the unauthorized omission of the article. In respect of 32 (out of the 45) words, they bear in turn soli- tary evidence. What need to declare that it is certainly false in every instance ? Such however is the infatuation of the Critics, that the vagaries of B are all taken for gospel. Besides omitting the 11 words which B omits jointly with k, Drs. West- cott and Hort erase from the Book of Life those other 11 precious words which are omitted by b only. And in this way it comes to pass that the mutilated condition to which the scalpel of Marcion the heretic reduced the Load's Prayer some 1730 years ago,^ (for the mischief can all be traced back ^ The words omitted are therefore the following 22 : — r^fiatv, 6 iv roZs ovpavois . . • yevrjBrjTO) to OeKrjfid crov, ws ev ovpai/S, koi inl Trjs -yns . . aWii pv(Tai fjixas OTTO tov novrjpov, D 2 36 THE LA8T TWELVE VERSES OF S. MAKK. [Art. to him!), is palmed olT on tlic Cliurcli of England by the llevisionists as the work of tlie Holy Ghost! (a) We may now proceed with our examination of their work, beginning — as Dr. Eoberts (one of the Eevisionists) does, wheii explaining the method and results of tlieir labours — with what we liold to be the gravest blot of all, viz. the marks of serious suspicion which we find set against the last Twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel. Well may the learned Presby- terian anticipate that — ' The reader will be struck by the appearance which this long paragraph presents in the Revised Veision. Although inserted, it is marked off by a considerable space from the rest of the Gospel. A note is also placed in the margin containing a brief explanation of this." A rcrij brief ' explanation ' certainly : for the note explains nothing. Allusion is made to the following words — ' The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other autho- rities, omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.' But now, — For the use of lohom has this piece of infor- mation l)cen volunteered ? Not for learned readers certainly: it being familiarly known to all, that codices B and s alone of manuscri2)ts (to tlieir own effectual condemnation) omit these 12 verses. But tlien scholars know something more about the matter. They also know that these 12 verses have been made the subject of a separate treatise extending to upwards of 300 pages, — whicli treatise has m)w been before the world for a full decade of years, and for the best of reasons lias never yet been answered. Its object, stated on its title-page, was to vindicate against recent critical objectors, and to ' Vompunion to the Ticvined Vn'sion, \). (U. I.] A NEW WAY OF 'SETTLING' THE TEXT. 37 establish ' the last Twelve Verses ' of S. Mark's Gospel.^ Moreover, competent judges at once admitted that the author had succeeded in doing wliat he undertook to do,^ Can it then be right (we respectfully enquire) still to insinuate into unlearned minds distrust of twelve consecutive verses of the everlasting Gospel, which yet have been demonstrated to be as trustworthy as any other verses which can be named ? The question arises, — But how did it come to pass that such evil counsels were allowed to prevail in the Jerusalem Chamber ? Light has been thrown on the subject by two of the New Test, company. And first by the learned Con- gregationalist, Dr. JSTewth, who has been at the pains to describe the method which was pursued on every occasion. The practice (he informs us) was as follows. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, as chairman, asks — ' Whether any Textual Changes are proposed ? The evidence for and against is briefly stated, and the proposal considered. The duty of stating this evidence is by tacit consent devolved upon (sic) two members of the Company, who from their pre- vious studies are specially entitled to speak with authority upon such questions, — Dr. Scrivener and Dr. Mort, — and who come prepared to enumerate particidarly the authorities on either side. Dr. Scrivener opens up the matter by stating the facts of the case, and by giving his judgment on the bearings of the evidence. Dr. Hort follows, and mentions any additional matters that may call for notice ; and, if differing from Dr. Scrivener's estimate of the weight of the evidence, gives his ^ The last Twelve Verses of the Guspel a-cording to S. Mark, vindicated against recent critical Objectors and estahl ished, by the Rev. J. W. Burgon, — pp. 334, published by Parker, Oxford, 1871. ^ As Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Chr. Wordsworth, — the learned Bishops of Chester and Lincoln. It is right to state that Bp. EUicott ' considers tlie passage dovhtfuV {On Revision, p. 36.) Dr. Scrivener (it is well known) differs entirely from Bp. EUicott on this important point. 38 A NEW WAY OF ' SETTLING ' THE TEXT. [Art. reasons and states his own view. After discnssion, the vote of the Company is taken, and the ])ro])osed Reading accepted or rejected. The Text being this settled, the Chairman asks for proposals on the Rendering." And thus, the men who were appointed to improve the English Ti^anslation are exhibited to us remodelling the original Greek. At a moment's notice, as if by intuition, — by an act which can only be described as the exercise of instinct, — these eminent Divines undertake to decide which shall 1)6 deemed the genuine utterances of the Holy Ghost,^ — which not. Each is called upon to give his vote, and he gives it. ' The Text Icing thus settled,' they proceed to do the only thing they were originally appointed to do ; viz. to try their hands at improving our Authorized Version. But we venture respectfully to suggest, that Ijy no such ' rough and ready' process is that most delicate and difficult of all critical problems — the truth of Scripture — to be ' settled.' Sir Edmund Beckett remarks that if the description alcove given " of the process by which the Revisionists ' settled ' the Greek alterations, is not a kind of joke, it is quite enough to 'settle' this Revised Greek Testament in a very different sense."^ And so, in truth, it clearly is. — " Such a |)roceeding appeared to me so strange," (writes the learned and judicious Editor of the Speakers Commentary,) " that T fully expected that the account would be corrected, or that some explanation would be given which might remove the very unpleasant impression."* We have since heard on the best autlujrity. ' Lectures on Bible Revision, pp. 119-20. 2 Til? oKriOfls pr](Tfis llvevfiaros tov 'Ayiov. — Cloiiicns Jiom., c. 45. 3 Hlivuld Uie Jieviseil New Testament be unthoiized f — p. 42. * Revised Version (if ttic first t/ine Gosixis, considered, — l)y Cauon Cook —pp. 221-2. T.] DK. ROBERTS ON S. MARK XVI. 9-20. 39 that namely of Bishop Ellicott himself/ that Dr. Newth's account of the method of ' settling ' the text of the N. T., pursued in the Jerusalem Chamber, is correct. But in fact, it proves to have been, from the very first, a definite part of the Programme. The chairman of the Eevisionist body, Bishop Ellicott, — when he had " to consider the practical question," — whether "(1), to construct a critical Text first : or (2), to use preferentially, though not exclusively, some current Text : or (3), simidy to irrocccd onward with the work of Eevision, whether of Text or Translation, making the current Textus Reccjytus the standard, and departing from it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly necessary, — in fact, solvere aonhulando;" announces, at the end of 19 pages, — "We are driven then to the third alternative."^ We naturally cast about for some evidence that the members of the New Testament company possess that mas- tery of the subject which alone could justify one of their number (Dr. Milligan) in asserting roundly that these 12 verses are ' not from the pen of S. Mark himself f^ and another (Dr. Eoberts) in maintaining that ' the passage is not the immediate production of S. Mark.'^ Dr. Eoberts assures us that — ' Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jeronie, as well as other writers, especially Greeks, testify that these verses were not written by S. Mark, or not found in the best copies.'^ Will the learned writer permit us to assure him in return that he is entirely mistaken ? He is requested to believe that Gregory of Nyssa says nothing of the sort — says ^ At p. 34 of his pamphlet in reply to the first two of the present Articles. 2 On Revision, pp. 30 and 49. ^ Words of the N. T. p. 193. * Companion to the Revised Version, p. 63. ^ Jhid. p. 62. 40 DR. IIOBEETS'S STATEMENT CORRECTED. [Art. notliing at all concerning these verses : that Victor of Antioch vouches emphatically for i\\G\v [jaiuincncss: that Severus does but copy, while Jerome does but translate, a few random expressions of Eusebiiis : and that Eusebius himself novlicre ' testifies that these verses were not written by S. Mark.' So far from it, Eusebius actually quotes the verses, quotes them as genuine. ])r. lloberts is furtlier assured that there are no ' other writers,' whether Greek or Latin, who insinuate (l()iil)t concerning these verses. On the contrary, besides both the Latin and all the Syriac — besides the Gothic and the two Egyptian versions — there exist four authorities of the Ilnd century ; — as many of the Ilird ; — five of the Vth ; — four of the YItli ; — as many of the Vllth ; — together with cd least ten of the IV th^ {eontemj)oraries therefore of coelices B and X ) ; — wliicli actually reeognizc the verses in question. Now, when to everg knoivn Manuscript hut two of bad character, l)esides every ancient Version, some one-ancl-thirty Fathers have been added, 18 of whom must have used copies at least as old as either b or N , — IJr. Iloberts is assured that an amount of external autho- rity has been accumulated which is simply oveiwhelmiiig in discussions of this nature. But the significance of a single feature of the Lectionary, of which up to this point nothing has been said, is alone sutlicieiit to determine tlie controversy. We refer to tlie fact that '/// every ^wr;! of Eastern Christcndont these same 12 verses — neither more nor less — have been from the earliest recorded ])eriod, and still are, a projier lesson both for the Easter seeison Olid for Ascension Day. ' Vi/,. Kiisebiiis, — Macarius Magnes, — A])hraiitc.s, — Didymus, — tlio Syriivc Ads of tlie App., — Epi])lianius, — Ambro.se, — Clirysostdin, — Jerome, — Augustine. It liappens that tlic dis]>u(a(i(>ii of ]\Iacarius IMagncs (a.d. 300-850) with a heathen philosoivlicr, whicli lias recently cnnn' to light, contains an elaborate discussion of S. lM;iik wi. 17, 18. Add the ciiriiius stdi-y related by the author of (he /'iinr/m/ Clironldc (a.D. (528) (■(.ncerniug Leontius, IJislm]) ..f Antioch (a.d. ;!]8), - p. '_'8!l. 'J'his luis been hitherto overlooked. I.] THE TRUE READING OF S. LUKE II. 14. 41 We pass on. (b) a more grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture is scarcely to be found than occurs in the proposed revised exhibition of S. Luke ii. 14, in the Greek and English alike ; for indeed not only is the proposed Greek text (eV av6poi7roL. IH.'I. I.] MAY NO LONGER BE MOI;ESTED. 49 is not certainly a genuine part of the Gospel ; may, after all, be nothing else but a spurious accretion to the text. And as long as such doubts are put forth by our Revisionists, they publish to the world that, in their account at all events, these verses are not ' possessed of full canonical authority.' If ' the two oldest Greek manuscripts ' justly ' omit from verse 9 to the end ' (as stated in the margin), will any one deny that our printed Text ought to omit them also ? ^ On the other hand, if the circumstance is a mere literary curiosity, will any one maintain that it is entitled to abiding record in the margin of the English Version of the everlasting page ? — affords any warrant whatever for sepa- rating ' the last Twelve Verses ' from their context ? [ (d) We can probably render ordinary readers no more effectual service, than by offering now to guide them over a few select places, concerning the true reading of M'hich the Eevisionists either entertain such serious doubts that they have recorded their uncertainty in the margin of their work ; or else, entertaining no doubts at all, liave delibe- rately thrust a new reading into the body of their text, and tltrit, without explanation, apology, or indeed record of any kind.^ One remark should l^e premised, viz. that ' various ^ Drs. Westcott and Hort (consistently enough) pvit tliem on the self- same footing with the evidently spurious ending found in L. ^ True, that a separate volume of Greek Text has been put forth, show- ing every change which has been either actually accepted, or else suggested for future possible acceptance. But (in the words of the accomplished editor), ' the lleuisers are not responsible for its iJitblication.'' Moreover, (and this is the chief point,) it is a sealed book to all but Scholars. It were unhandsome, however, to take leave of the learned labours of Prebendary Scrivener and Archdeacon Palmer, without a few words of sympathy and admiratinn. Their volumes (mentioned at the beginning of the present Article) are all that was to have been expected from the exquisite scholarship of their respective editors, and will be of abiding interest and value. Both volumes should be in the hands of every E 50 CAUSES WHICH HAVK OCCASIONED [Art. Eeadings ' as they are (often most unreasonably) called, are seldom if ever tlie result of conscious fraud. An immense number are to l)c ascribed to sheer accident. It was through erroneous judgment, we repeat, not with evil intent, that men took liberties with the deposit. They imported into their copies whatever readings they considered highly recom- mended. By some of these ancient Critics it seems to have been thouglit allowaljle to ahhreviatc, by simply leaving out whatever did not appear to tliemselves strictly necessary : by others, to transpose the words — even the members — of a sentence, almost to any extent : by others, to svJjstitutc easy expressions for difficult ones. In this way it comes to pass that we are often presented, and in the oldest documents of all, with Eeadings which stand self-condemned ; are clearly falirications. That it was held allowable to assimilate one Gospel to another, is quite certain. Add, that as early as the Ilnd century there abounded in the Church documents, — ' Diatessarons ' they were sometimes called, — of which the avowed object was to weave one continuous and connected narrative ' out of the four ; ' — and we shall find that as many lieads have been provided, as will suffice for the classification of almost every various reading which we are likely to encounter in our study of the (iospels. I. To Accidental Cacsks then we give tlie foreniost place. scholar, for neither of them supersedes the other. Dr. Scrivener has (witli rare ability and immense laliour) set before the Church, /or thejirst time, till- (i reck Text which van followed hy the lievisem of 1011, viz. Beza's >.'. '1\ of 1598, supplemented in above 190 places from otlier .sources; every one of wliich the editor traces out in his Appendix, pp. 048-5(5. At the foot of each page, he shows what clianges liave been introduced into the Text by the Revisers of 1881.— Dr. 1 'aimer, taking the Text of Stephens (1550) as his basis, presents us Avitli tlic Headings adojjted by the Revisers of the ' Authorized Version,' and relegates the displaced Headings (of 101 1) to the foot of each page.^ — We cordially congratulate them both, and thank them for the good service tliey liavc rendered. I.] VAKTOUS READINGS. — ACTS XXVII. 37. 51 and (if these we have already furnished the reader with two iiotalile and altogether dissimilar specimens. The first (viz. the omission of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 from certain ancient copies of the Grospel) seems to have originated in an unique circum- stance. According to the AYestern order of the four, S. Mark occupies the last place. From the earliest period it had been customary to write reXo? (" EXD ") after the 8th verse of his last chapter, in token that tlurc a famous ecclesiastical lection comes to a close. Let the last lcc(f of one very ancient archetypal copy have heyun at ver. 9 ; eind let that leist leaf have perished; — aiul all is plain. A faithful copyist will have ended the Gospel perforce — as B and ^5 have done — at S. Mark xvi. 8. . . . Our other example (S. Luke ii. 14) will have resulted from an accident of the most ordinary description, — as was explained at the outset. — To the fore- going, a few other specimens of erroneous readings resulting from Accident shall now be added. («) Always instructive, it is sometimes even entertaining to trace the history of a mistake wliich, dating from the Ilnd or Ilird century, has remained without a patron all down the subsequent ages, until at last it has been suddenly taken up in our own times liy an Editor of the sacred Text, and straightway palmed off upon an unlearned generation as the genuine work of the Holy CriiosT. Thus, whereas the Church has hitherto supposed that 8. Paul's company ' were in all in the ship tu'o hundred threescore and sixteen soids' (Acts xxvii. 37), Drs. Westcott and Hort (relying on the authority of b and the .Sahidic version) insist that what 8. Luke actually wrote was ' about seventy-six.' In other words, instead of BiaKoatai ejShojXTjKovTae^, we are invited hence- forth to read 'U)C i^So/xi^Kovrae^. Wliat can have given rise to so formidable a discrepancy ? Mere accident, we answer. First, whereas S. Luke certainly wrote ^jfiev Be ev tw ttAo/w E -1 52 HOW ACTS XXVII. 37 HAS BEEN [Art. al Trda-ai ■>^v)(ai, his last six words at some very early period underwent the familiar process of Transposition, and became, al iracrai -ylrv^al iv rw irXoiw ; where1)y the word ifkoiw and the numbers hiaKoauat e^oo/iijKovrai^ were brought into close proximity. (It is thus that Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, &c., wrongly exhibit the place.) But since ' 276 ' when represented in Greek numerals is co?, the inevitable consequence was that the words (written in uncials) ran thus : ii^YXAIGNTCjOnAOIUJCO?- Behold, the secret is out ! Who sees not what has happened ? There has been no intentional falsification of the text. There has been no critical disin- clination to believe that ' a corn-ship, presumably heavily laden, would contain so many souls,' — as an excellent judge supposes.^ The discrepancy has been the result of sheer accident : is the merest blunder. Some Ilnd-century copyist connected the last letter of riAOiCx) with the next ensuing numeral, which stands for 200 (viz. c) ; and made an inde- 2)cndent ivord of it, viz. w? — i.e. ' about.' But when c (i.e. 200) has been taken away from co? (i.e. 276), 76 is per- force all that remains. In other words, the result of so slight a blunder has been that instead of ' two hundred and seventy-six ' (co?), some one wrote to? 09' — i.e. ' ahont seventy-six.' His blunder would have been diverting had it been confined to the pages of a codex which is full of blunders. When however it is adopted by the latest Editors of the N. T. (Drs. Westcott and Hort), — and by their influ- ence has been foisted into the margin of our revised English Version — it becomes high time that we should reclaim against such a gratuitous depravation of Scripture. All this ought not to have retjuired exjtlaining: the blunder is so gross, — its history so patent. But surely, had ' Tho iiiiiubcr is not excessive. There were al)(iut, (iOO persdiis aljoard the slii|> in which Joseplius traversed tlie same watery. (/'//'■, c. ui.) I.] BLUNDERED BY COD. B. — ACTS XVIII. 7. 53 its origin been ever so obscure, the most elementary critical knowledge joined to a little mother-wit ought to convince a man that the reading co? e/BSofnjKovrai^ cannot be trust- worthy. A reading discoverable only in codex B and one Egyptian version (which was evidently executed from codices of the same corrupt type as codex b) mai/ always he dismissed as certainly spurious. But further, — Although a man might of course say ' about seventy ' or * about eighty I (which is how Epiphanius ^ quotes the place,) lolio sees not that ' about seventy-sio; ' is an impossible expression ? Lastly, the two false witnesses give divergent testimony even while they seem to be at one : for the Sahidic (or Thebaic) version arranges the words in an order jJcadiar to itself. (b) Another corruption of the text, with which it is proposed henceforth to disfigure our Authorized Version, (originating like the last in sheer accident,) occurs in Acts xviii. 7. It is related concerning S. Paul, at Corinth, that having forsaken the synagogue of the Jews, ' he entered into a certain man's house named Justus ' {ovofjLart 'lovarov). That this is what S. Luke wrote, is to be inferred from the fact that it is found in almost every known copy of the Acts, beginning with A D G H L p. Chrysostom — the only ancient Greek Father who quotes the place — so quotes it. This is, in consequence, the reading of Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf in his 7th edition. But then, the last syllable of ' name ' (oNOMATi) and the first three letters of ' Justus ' (ioyctoy), in an uncial copy, may easily get mistaken for an independent word. Indeed it only wants a horizontal stroke (at the summit of the second i in tiioy) to produce ' Titus ' (titoy). In the Syriac and Sahidic versions accord- ingly, ' Titus ' actually stands i7i iilace of ' Justus,' — a reading 1 ii. 61 and SS. 54 IMAGIXARY STRANGERS.— S. MATTH. XI. 23 AND [Art. no loiiuer discoverable ill any extant codex. Asa matter of fact, tlie error resulted not in t\\id substitution of 'Titus' for ' Justus,' but in the introduction of loth names where S. Luke MTote but one. N and e, the Vulgate, and the Coptic version, exhibit ' Titvs Justvs.' And that the fore- ffoinff is a true account of the birth and 7)arentaiie of ' Titus ' is proved ])y the tell-tale circumstance, that in is the letters Tl and lOY are all religiously retained, and a supernumerary letter (t) has been thrust in between, — the result of which is to give us one more imaginary gentleman, viz. ' Titius Justus ;' with whose appearance, — (and he is found noiahere l)ut in codex B,) — Tischendorf in his 8th ed., v/itli Westcott and Hort in theirs, are so captivated, that they actually give him a place in their text. It was out of compassion (we presume) for the friendless stranger ' Titus Justus ' that our Kevisionists have, in preference, promoted hivi to honour : in whicli act of humanity they stand alone. Tlieir 'new Greek Text ' is the only one in existence in which the imaginary foreigner has been advanced to citizenship, and assigned ' a local habitation and a name.' .... Those must have been Wdiididus drowsy days in the -Jerusalem Chamber when such mauijiulations of the in8]>ired text were possible ! {(■) The two foregoing de]»ravations grew out of the ancient i»ractice of writing the Scri])tures in uncial cha- racters (i.e. in capital letters), no space being inter])osed between the words. Another striking instance is snp])lied l)y S. Matthew xi. 23 and S. Luke x. L"), wliciv howcvci- (lie (■nor is so transparent that the wonder is how it can e\er have imposed u})on any one. What makes the matter seri(ms is, that it gives a turn to a certain Divine saying, of which it is incrcdiltk' that I'ither our Savioii; or Jiis Evangelists knew anything. AVe ha\c liillicito bclicNcd thai tli(! solciini words lau as follows: — 'And lliou, ( "apci iniuiii. I.] S. LUKE X. 15, HOW BLUNDERED BY S B C D L. 55 which art exalted (^ . . . vyJr(o9eicra) unto heaven, shalt be brought down (KaTa^t^aad7]o-r]) to hell.' For this, our Ee- visionists invite us to substitute, in S. Luke as well as in S. Matthew, — 'And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted (firj . . . vylrcoBijar] ;) unto liea\'en ? ' And then, in S. Mat- thew, (but not in S. Luke,) — ' Thou shalt go down {Kara^i'jcrr]) into Hades.' Now, what can have happened to occasion such a curious perversion of our Loed's true utterance, and to cause Him to ask an unmeaning question about the future, when He was clearly announcing a fact, founded on the history of the past ? A stupid blunder has been made (we answer), of which traces survive (as usual) only in the same little handful of suspicious documents. The final letter of Capernaum (m) by cleaving to the next ensuing letter (H) has made an inde- pendent word (mh) ; which new w^ord necessitates a change in the construction, and causes the sentence to become inter- rogative. And yet, fourteen of the uncial manuscripts and the whole body of the cursives know nothing of tliis : neither does the Peschito — nor the Gothic version : no,-^nor Chrysostom, — nor Cyril, — nor ps.-Ccesarius,— nor Theodoret, — the only Fathers who quote either place. The sole witnesses for firj . . . v^\r(odr]ar) in hoth Gospels are X B, copies of the old Latin, Cureton's Syriac, the Coptic, and the ^thiopic versions, — a consensus of authorities which ought to be held fatal to any reading, c joins the conspiracy in Matthew xi. 23, but not in Luke x. 15 : D L consent in Luke, but not in Matthew. The Vulgate, which sided with n b in S. Matthew, forsakes them in S. Luke. In writing hotli, times Kara^rjar) ('thou shalt go down"), codex B (forsaken this time by n) is sup- ported by a single manuscript, viz. d. But because, in Matthew xi. 23, b obtains the sanction of the Latin copies, Kara^rjarj is actually introduced into the Revised Text, and we are quietly informed in the margin that ' Many ancient 5G INTENTIONAL DEPKAVATION OF S. MARK XI. 3, [Akt. authorities read he hroiu/hf down : ' tlie truth ])eing (as tlic reader lias been made aware) that there are onli/ tiro manuscripts ill existence icliich read anything else. And (what deserves attention) those two manuscripts are convicted of havinff borrowed their quotation from the Septtiagint,^ and therefore stand self-condemned. . . . Were the occupants of the Jeru- salem Chamber all — savin"' the two who in their published edition insist on reading (with b and d) KaTa^i]arj in botli places — all fast asleep when they became consenting parties to this sad mistake ? II. It is time to exi)lain tliat, if the most serious depra- vations of Scripture are due to Accident, a vast nundjer are unmistakaldy the result of Dekkin, and are very clumsily executed too. The enumeration of a few of these may ])rove instructive : and we shall l)egin with something which is found in S. Mark xi. 3. With nothing perhaps \\'i\\ each several instance so much impress the devout studt»,nt of Scripture, as with the ex(piisite structure of a narrative in which corrupt readings stand self-revealed and self-condemned, the instant they are ordered to come to the front atid show themselves, liut the point to which we especially invite his attention is, the sufficiency of the external evidence which Divine Wisdom is observed to have invariably provided for the establishment of the truth of His written Word. (a) AVhen our LoiU) was about to enter His capital in lowly triumph. He is observed to have given to 'two of His disciples' directions well calculated to suggest tlie myste- rious nature of the incident which was to follow. They were commanded to ])roceed to Ihe entrance of a certain village, — to unloose a certain rt>\i wliich they would find ' Tsaiali xiv. 15. I.] HAS IMPOSED UPON THE KEVISIONISTS. 57 tied there, — -and to bring the creature straightway to Jesus. Any obstacle which they might encounter would at once disappear before the simple announcement that ' the Lord hath need of him.' ^ But, singular to relate, this transaction is found to have struck some third-rate Illrd-century Critic as not altogether correct. The good man was evidently of opinion that the colt, — as soon as the purpose had been accomplished for which it had been obtained, — ought in common fairness to have been returned to ' the owners thereof.' (S. Luke xix. 33.) Availing himself therefore of there being no nominative before ' will send ' (in S. Mark xi. 3), he assumed that it was of Himself that our Lord was still speaking : feigned that tlie sentence is to be explained thus : — ' say ye, " that the Lord hath need of him and will straighhvay send liim hither." ' According to this view of the case, our Saviour instructed His two Disciples to convey to the owner of the colt an undertaking from Him- self that He ivould send, the creature hack as soon as He had done with it: would treat the colt, in short, as a loan. A more stupid imagination one has seldom had to deal with. But in the meantime, l)y way of clenching the matter, the Critic proceeded on his own responsibility to thrust into the text the word ' again ' {ttuXlv). The fate of such an unau- thorized accretion might have been confidently predicted. After skipping about in quest of a fixed resting-place for a few centuries (see the note at foot ^), 'rrdXtv has shared the invariable fate of all such spurious adjuncts to the truth of Scripture, viz. : It has been effectually eliminated from tlie copies. Traces of it linger on only in tliose untrustworthy witnesses N b o d l a, and about twice as many cursive ' S. Matthew xxi. 1-3. S. Mark xi. 1-6. S. Luke xix. 29-34, ■^ N D L read — avrov cnroaTeWei IIAAIN wSt ; C*, — avrov IIAAIN dno- fTTfXXet co8( : B, — dnnaTeWei IIAAIN avrov aide ; A, — dTroareXXei IIAAIN u)8f : y*" — avTov HTrooreXAft IIAAIN, 68 S. MARK XI. 8, CORRUPTED: THE [Aut. coi)ies, also of depraved type. So transparent a fabrication ouf>lit in fact to have been long since forgotten. Yet have our Ilevisionists not been afraid to revive it. In S. Mark xi. 3, they invite us henceforth to read, ' And if any one say nnto yon, Why do ye this ? say ye, The Loud hath need of him, and straightway He (i.e. the Lokd) loill send Jdm BACK hither.' .... Of what can they have been dreaming ? They cannot pretend that they have Antiquity on their side : for, besides the whole mass of copies with A at their head, hoth the Syriac, loth the Latin, and loth the Egyptian versions, the Gothic, the Ai-menian, — all in fact except the ^thiopic, — are against them. Even Origen, wdio twice inserts ttoXlv,^ twice leaves it oiit.^ Quid ijlura ? (/>) No need to look elsewhere for our next instance. A novel statement arrests attention five ^•erses lower tlown : viz. that 'Many spread their garments ui)on the way' [and why not ' in the way ' ? el>; dfOTToirjTov, buWi top Kvpiou (rvi'e,3r] TvaOflv. — Iicnilh, ii. 298. '^ fir e^(ii]s Knnvixdtv '^rjXdfjjijToi' (tkutos, I'jXiov tiju niKilav iivyijv (iTroKpii'^avTos, \<. 29. ^* OTi yap ovK rjv eKXff^LS [sc. to (tkotos tKe'ifo^ ovk ipT(v6(v pn'ivov ^?]\nu rjv, aWh Kui iItto tov Kcupou. rpfls yap Copas T7ap(p.iiv(v • i) de (KXeiyj/is ev p.ia Kaipov yivfrai poTTtj. — vii. 82;j a. '"> i. 411, 115; iii. 50. '" A]). Mai, iv. 20vx rjXim pi'iviiv ((TKtWaiTfv k. t. X.-~ Cyril oi' Jerusalem (jtji. 57, 1 1(1, 11)9, 1.] 'ECLIPSED,' — AT THE CRUCIFIXION. Go employed copies which had been depraved. In some copies, writes Origen, instead of ' and the sun was darkened ' {kuI iaKOTiadr] 6 tjXlos:), is found ' the sun having become eclipsed ' (tov rjXiov iKXiiroPTo^). He points out with truth that the thing spoken of is a physical impossibility, and delivers it as his opinion that the corruption of the text was due either to some friendly hand in order to account fm^ the darkness ; or else, (which he,^ and Jerome ^ after him, thought more likely,) to the enemies of Eevelation, who sought in this way to provide themselves with a pretext for cavil. Either way, Origen and Jerome elaborately assert that iaKoriaOT] is the only true reading of 8. Luke xxiii. 45. Will it be believed that this gross fabrication — for no other reason but because it is found in n b l, and 'prohahly once existed in c ^ — has been resuscitated in 1881, and foisted into the sacred Text by our lievisionists ? It would be interesting to have this proceeding of theirs explained. Why should the truth dwell exclusively* with K B L ? It cannot be pretended that between the I Vth and A^th centuries, when the copies x b were made, and the Yth and Vlth centuries, when the copies A Q D K were executed, tliis 201, 202) and Cusmas (ap. Montf. ii. 177 Vis) were apparently acquainted with the same reatling, but neither of them actually quotes Luke xxiii. -15. ^ ' In quibusdam exemplaribus non habetur tenebrie fadx sunt, ef ob- scuratus est sol: sed ita, tenehrx factx sunt super omnem terram, sole deficiente. Et forsitan ausus est aliquis quasi manifestius aliquid dicere volens, pro, et obscurutus est sol, i)onere deficiente sole, existimans quod non aliter potuissent fieri tenebraj, nisi sole deficiente. Puto autem magis quod insidiatores ecclesiaj Christi mutaverunt hoc verbum, quoniam tenehrx fact,-e sunt sole deficiente, ut verisimiliter evangelia argui possiut secundum adin- ventiones volentium arguere ilia.' (iii. 923 f. a.) ^ vii. 235. ' QtU scrijjserunt contra Evangelia, suspicantur deliquium solis,' &c. ^ This rests on little more than conjecture. Tisch. Cod. Ephr. Syr. p. 327. ■* 'EKXeiVovToj is only found besides in eleven lectionaries. 64 DEPRAVED TEXT ADOPTED BY [Aut. corruption of the text arose : for (as was explained at the ontset) the reading in question (koI iaKOTLadr] 6 i]Xiose which happened b.o. 481, remarks : 6 rjXios eKXmcov ttjv ck tov ovpavov ebpr^v. ^ For it will be perceived that our Revisionists have adopted the reading vouched for only hy codex r. Wliat c* once read is as uncertain as it is unimportant. ^ Bp. Ellicott's pamphlet, p. 60. F ^6 DEPRAVED TEXT ADOPTED BY [Akt. prevailed anciently to an extent wliich baffles aritlimetic. We choose the most famous instance that presents itself. (a) It occurs in S. Mark vi. 20, and is more than un- suspected. The substitution (on the authority of s B l and the Coptic) of rjiropet for iirolei in that verse, (i.e. the state- ment that Herod 'was much perplexed' — instead of Herod ^ did many things,') is even vaunted by the Critics as the recovery of the true reading of the place — long obscured by the ' very singular expression ' eVo/et. To ourselves the only "very singular' thing is, how men of first-rate ability can fail to see that, on the contrary, the proposed substitute is simply fatal to the Spirit's teaching in this place. " Common sense is staggered by such a rendering," (remarks the learned Bishop of Lincoln). "People are not wont to hear gladly those by whom they are much perplexed." ^ But in fact, the sacred writer's object clearly is, to record the striking cir- cumstance that Herod was so moved by the discourses of John, (whom he used to ' listen to with pleasure,') that he even ' did many tliiwjs ' {iroXKa eiroUi) in conformity with the Baiytisfs teaching? . . . And yet, if this be so, liow (we shall be asked) has ' he was much perplexed ' {iroKka r^iropeL) contrived to effect a lodgment in so many as three copies of the second Gospel ? It has resulted from nothing else, we reply, but tlie deter- mination to assimilate a statement of S. Mark (vi. 20) con- cerning Herod and John the Baptist, with another and a dis- tinct statement of S. Luke (ix. 7), having reference to Herod ^ On the Ileciscd Version, p. 14. ^ TToXXa KiiTo. yvu)fir)v avToii 6te7rpurrfTo, as (probal)ly) Victor of Aiitioch (Cai. p. 128), exi)lains the place. He cites some oue else (]>. 129) who exhibits fjTroptt. ; aud who explaius it of Herod's diniculty about yrttiny rid of Herodias. I.] THE REVISIONISTS IN S. MARK VT. 20. 07 and our Lord. S. Luke, speaking of the fame of our Saviour's miracles at a period subsequent to the Baptist's murder, declares that when Herod ' heard all things that were done BY Him ' {ijKovae ra ycvofjieva vir avrov TrdvTo), ' he was much poylexed ' (StT/Tropet). — Statements so entirely distinct and diverse from one another as this of S. Luke, and that (given above) of S. Mark, might surely (one would think) have been let alone. On the contrary. A glance at the foot of the page will show that in the Ilnd century S. Mark's words were solicited in all sorts of ways. A persistent deter- mination existed to make him say that Herod having ' heard of mauT/ things which the Baptist did,' &c} — a strange per- version of the Evangelist's meaning, truly, and only to be accounted for in one way.^ ^ Koi aKoixras avrov noWa a eVot'ei, Koi i]8e(os avrov rJKOviv, will hare been the reading of that lost venerable codex of the Gospels which is chiefly represented at this day by Evann. 13-69-124-346, — as explained by Professor Abbott in his Introduction to Prof. Ferrar's Collation of fotir important MSS., etc. (Dublin 1877). The same reading is also found iu Evann. 28 : 122 : 541 : 572, and Evst. 196. Different must have been the reading of that other venerable exemplar which supplied the Latin Church with its earliest Text. But of this let the reader judge: — ^ Et cum, audisset ilium multa facere, lihenter,^ &c. (c: also ' Codex Aureus ' and y, both at Stockholm) : ' et audito eo quod multa faciebat, et libenter,^ &:c. (g^q): ^ et audiens ilium quia midta faciehat, et lihenter,' &c. (b). The Anglo-Saxon, (' and he heard that he many -wonders tvrought, and he gladly heard him') approaches nearest to the last two. The Peschito Syriac (which is without variety of reading here) in strict- ness exhibits : — ' And many things he ims hearing [from] him and doing; and gladly he ivas hearing him.' But this, by competent Syriac scholars, is considered to represent, — Ka\ iroWa aKovav avrov, eirolef kuI T}8f(os rJKoviv aiiTov. — Cod. A is peculiar in exhibiting K.a\ aKovcras avrov noXXa, fjBftas avTov fJKovev, — omitting inoifi, Kai. — The Coptic also renders, 'ci audiehat multa ah eo, et anxio erat corde.' From all this, it becomes clear that the actual intention of the blundering author of the text exhibited by N B L was, to connect jroXXa, not with ^jropet, but with oKovaas. So the Arabian version : but not the Gothic, Armenian, Sclavonic, or Georgian,— as Dr. S. C. Malan informs the Reviewer. ^ Note, that tokens abound of a determination anciently to assimilate F 2 68 DEPRAVED TEXT ADOPTED BY [Art. Had this been all, however, the matter would have attracted no attention. One snch fabrication more or less in the Latin version, which abounds in fabricated readings, is of little moment. But then, the Greek scribes had recourse to a more subtle device for assimilating Mark vi. 20 to Luke ix. 7. They perceived that S. Mark's eVo/et might be almost identified with S. Luke's Birjiropei, by 7ncrcly cluinging two of the letters, viz. by substituting 7} for e and p for t. From tliis, there results in S. Mk. vi. 20 : ' and having heard many things of him, he was perplexed ;' which is very nearly identical the Gospels hereabouts. Thus, because the first half of Luke ix. 10 ( ,, ) and the whole of Mk. vi. 30 Qf) are bracketed together by Eusebius, the former place in codex a is found brought into conformity with the latter by the unauthorized insertion of the clause kol oaa f8i8a^av. — The parallelism of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Lu. ix. 10 is the reason why d exhibits in the latter place dv- (instead of viT)exo3pr]ae. — In like manner, in Lu. ix. 10, codex A exhibits els eprjfiov ronov, instead of els tottop i'prifiov, only because (prjfiop tottov is the order of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Mk. vi. 32. — So again, codex K, ii> the same verse of S. Luke, entirely omits the final clause TrdXecof KaXovfif'vrjs Bijdaa'idd, only in order to assimilate its text to that of the two earlier Gospels, — But there is no need to look beyond the limits of S. Mark vi. 14-16, for proofs of Assimilation. Instead of eV veKp&v Tj-yepdrj (in ver. 14), b and X exhibit iyrj-ytprai ck vfKpiav — only because those words are found in Lu. ix. 7. A substitutes dviar-q (fur rj-yepdrj) — only because that word is found in Lu. ix. 8. For rjyfpQrj ck v(Kpo>v, c substitutes r^yipOr) Cnrb rS)v v(Kp(ov—on\y because S. Matth. so writes in ch. xiv. 2. i) inserts Kai f^aXev fls (/)iiXa(C77i/ into ver. 17 — only because of Mtt. xiv. 3 and Lu. iii. 20. In X 1! h A, liaTTTiCovTos (for (^airTia-Tov) stands in ver. 24 — only by Assimilation with ver. 14. (l is for assimilating ver. 25 likewise). K A 11, tiie Syr., and copies of the old Latin, transpose (vepyoixriv ai bwdpeis (in ver. 14) — only because those words arc transposed in Mtt. xiv. 2. . . . If facts like these do not open men's eyes to the danger of following the fashionable guides, it is to be feared that nothing ever will. The foulest blot of all remains to be noticed. Will it be believed that in ver. 22, codices s b d l A conspire in representing the dancer (whose name is kncnrn to have been 'Balome') as another ' Ilcrodiits' — TkroiVs oivn (laaffhkrf Tliis gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scrij)ture and of histury — a reading as preposterous as it is revolting, and therefore rejected hitherto by all the editors and all the critics — finds undoubting favour with Drs. Westcott and Hort. Calanutous to relate, it also disfigures the margin of our Revised Version of S. Mark vi. 22, in consci/nence. I.] THE REVISIONISTS IN S. MARK VI. 20. 69 with what is found in S. Lii. ix. 7. This fatal substitution (of rJTTopei for iiroiei,) survives happily only in codices K b L and the Coptic version — all of bad character. But (calamitous to relate) the Critics, having disinterred this long-since-forgotten fabrication, are making vigorous efforts to galvanize it, at the end of fifteen centuries, into ghastly life and activity. We venture to assure them that they will not succeed. Herod's ' perplexity ' did not begin until John had been beheaded, and the fame reached Herod of the miracles wdiich our Saviour wrought. The apocryphal statement, now for the first time thrust into an English copy of the New Testament, may be summarily dismissed. But the marvel will for ever remain that a company of distinguished Scholars (a.d. 1881) could so effectually persuade themselves that eVo/et (in S. Mark vi. 20) is a "plain, and clear error," and that there is " decidedly preponderating evidence " in favour of rjiropei,, — as to venture to substitute the latter ivord for the former. This will for ever remain a marvel, we say; seeing that all the uncials except three of bad character, together with every hnoivn cursive ivithout exception ; — the old Latin and the Vulgate, the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac, the Arme- nian, ^thiopic, Slavonian and Georgian versions, — are with the traditional Text. (The Thebaic, the Gothic, and Cureton's Syriac are defective here. The ancient Fathers are silent.) IV. More serious in its consequences, however, than any other source of mischief which can be named, is the process of Mutilation, to which, from the beginning, the Text of Scripture has been subjected. By the ' Mutilation ' of Scrip- ture we do but mean the intentional Omission — -/rom whatever cause proceeding — of genuine portions. And the causes of it have been numerous as well as diverse. Often, indeed, there seems to have been at work nothing else but a strange passion for getting rid of whatever portions of the 70 THE SACRED TEXT MUTILATED IN [Art. inspired Text liave seemed to ;iny1)ody supei'iluous,-— or at all events have ajjpeared capable of being removed without manifest injury to the sense. But the estimate of the tasteless Ilnd-century Critic will never be that of the well- informed Header, furnished with the ordinary instincts of piety and reverence. This barbarous mutilation of the Gospel, by the unceremonious excision of a multitude of little words, is often attended by no worse consequence than that thereby an extraordinary baldness is imparted to the Evangelical narrative. The removal of so many of the coupling-hooks is apt to cause the curtains of the Tabernacle to hang wondrous ungracefully ; but often that is all. Some- times, however, (as might have been confidently anticipated,) the result is calamitous in a high degree. Not only is the beauty of the narrative effectually marred, (as e.g. by the barbarous excision of Kai — ev6iQ)/ hut two ; besides Origen, Euscbius, Cyril Jcr., Chrysostom, &c. Ouly d i. read El's, — which Westcott and Hort adt)i>t. I.] S. LUKE XXIII. 42 : S. JOHN XIV. 4 : S. LUKE VI. 1. 73 not " whither " Thou goest, and how can we know " the way "?'... Let these four samples suffice of a style of depra- vation with which, at the end of 1800 years, it is deliberately proposed to disfigure every page of the everlasting Gospel ; and for which, were it tolerated, the Church would have to thank no one so much as Drs. Westcott and Hort. We cannot afford, however, so to dismiss the phenomena already opened up to the Reader's notice. For indeed, this astonishing taste for mutilating and maiming the Sacred Deposit, is perhaps the strangest phenomenon in the history of Textual Criticism. It is in this way that a famous expression in S. Luke vi. 1 has disappeared from codices X b l. The reader may not be displeased to listen to an anecdote wliich has hitherto escaped the vigilance of the Critics : — 'I once asked my teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus,' — (the words are Jerome's in a letter to ISTepotianus), — ' to explain to me the meaning of S. Luke's expression ad/B^arov Sevrepo- irpoiTov, literally the " second-first sabbath." " I will tell you all about it in church," he replied. " The congregation shall shout applause, and you shall have your choice, — either to stand silent and look like a fool, or else to pretend you understand what you do not." ' But ' dcganter lusit,' says Jerome.^ The point of the joke was this : Gregory, being a great rhetorician and orator, would have descanted so elegantly on the signification of the word Sevrepoirpcorov that the congregation would have been borne away by his melli- fluous periods, quite regardless of the sense. In other words, Gregory of Nazianzus [a.d. 360] is found to have no more understood the word than Jerome did [370]. Anibrose^ of Milan [370] attempts to explain the diffi- ' i. 261. 2 i. 03(j, 1363. 74 S. LUKE VI. 1, MUTILATED. [Art. cult expression, but with indifferent success. Epiphanius^ of Cyprus [370] does the same ; — and so, Isidorus^ [400] called ' Pelusiota ' after the place of his residence in Lower Egypt. — Ps.-Cffisarius^ also volunteers remarks on the word [a.d. 400 ?]. — It is further explained in the Paschal Chronicle,^ — and by Chrysostom^ [370] at Antioch. — ' Sahhaticm secundo-jjrimwn' is found in the old Latin, and is retained by the Vulgate. Earlier evidence on the subject does not exist. We venture to assume that a word so attested must at least be entitled to its |^?ace in the Gospel. Such a body of first-rate positive IVth-century testimony, coming from every part of ancient Christendom, added to the significant fact that BevrepoTrpcoTov is found in every codex extant except N B L, and half a dozen cursives of suspicious character, ought surely to be regarded as decisive. That an unintelligible word should have got omitted from a few copies, requires no explanation. Every one who has attended to the matter is aware that the negative evidence of certain of the Versions also is of little weight on such occa- sions as the present. They are observed constantly to leave out what they either failed quite to understand, or else found untranslateable. On the other hand, it would be inex- plicable indeed, that an unique expression like the present should have established itself univei^salli/, if it were actually spurious. This is precisely an occasion for calling to mind the precept joroclivi scriptioni prsestat ardiia. Apart from external evidence, it is a thousand times more likely that such a peculiar word as this should l)e genuine, than the re- verse. Tischendorf accordingly retains it, moved by this very consideration.^ It got excised, how^ever, here and there from manuscripts at a very early date. And, incredible as it may appear, it is a fact, that in consequence of its absence from 1 i. 158. 2 P. 301. 8 Ap. Galland. vi. 53. 4 P. 396. ' vii. 431. " ' Ut ab udditaiiicnti ratione alienum est, ita cur uiiiiscriiit iu proni])tu est.' I.] OMISSIONS IN S. LUKE XXII., XXIII., XXIV. 75 the mutilated codices above referred to, S. Luke's famous ' second-first Sabbath ' has been thrust out of his Gospel hy our Revisionists. But indeed, Mutilation has been practised throughout. By codex b (collated with the traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone : by codex N, — 3455 words : by codex d, — 3704 words.^ As interesting a set of instances of this, as are to be anywhere met with, occurs within the compass of the last three chapters of S. Luke's Gospel, from which about 200 words have been either forcibly ejected by our Eevisionists, or else served with ' notice to quit,' "We proceed to specify the chief of these : — (1) S. Luke xxii. 19, 20. (Account of the Institution of the Sacrament of the Lokd's Supper, — from " which is given for you " to the end, — 32 words.) (2) ibid. 43, 44. (Our Saviour's Agony in the garden, — 26 words.) (3) xxiii. 17. (The custom of releasing one at the Passover, — 8 words.) (4) ibid. 34. (Our Lord's prayer on behalf of His murderers, — 12 words.) (5) ibid. 38. (The record that the title on the Cross was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, — 7 words.) ' But then, 25 (out of 320) pages of d are lost : d's omissions in the Gospels may therefore be estimated at 4000. Codex a does not admit of comparison, the first 2t chapters of S. Matthew having perished ; but, from examining the way it exhibits the other three Gospels, it is found that 650 would about represent the number of words omitted from its text. — The discrepancy between the texts of b N i>> thus /or the first time brought dis- tinctly into notice, let it be distinctly borne in mind, is a matter wholly irrespective of the merits or demerits of the Textus Eeceptus, — which, for convenience only, is adopted as a standard : not, of course, of Excellence but only of Comparison. 7G OMISSIONS IN S. LUKE'S GOSPEL. —FATAL [Art. ((')) xxiv. 1, (" and certain with them," — 4 words.) (7) ibid. 3. (" of the Lord Jesus," — 3 words.) (8) ibid. 6. (" He is not here, but He is risen," — 5 words.) (9) ibid. 9. (" from the sepulchre," — 3 words.) (10) ibid. 12. (The mention of S. Peter's visit to the sepulchre, — 22 words.) (11) ihid. 36. (" and saith unto them. Peace be unto you !" — 5 words.) (12) ibid. 40. (" and when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet," — 10 words.) (13) ibid. 42. (" and of an honeycomb," — 4 words.) (14) ibid. 51. (" and was carried up into Heaven," — 5.) (15) ibid. 52, (" worshipped Him," — 2 words.) (IC) ibid. 53. ("j)raising and," — 2 words.) On an attentive survey of the foregoing sixteen instances of unauthorized Omission, it will be perceived that the 1st passage (S. Luke xxii. 19, 20) must have been eliminated from the Text because the mention of two Cups seemed to create a difficulty. — The 2ud has been suppressed because (see p. 82) the incident was deemed derogatory to the majesty of God Incarnate. — The 3rd and 5th were held to be super- fluous, because the information which they contain has been already conveyed by the parallel passages. — The 10th will have been omitted as apparently inconsistent with the strict letter of S. John xx. 1-10. — The Otli and 13th are certainly instances of enforced Harmony. — Most of the others (the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th) seem to have been excised through mere wantonness, — the veriest licentiousness. — In the meantime, so far are Drs. Westeott and Hort from accepting the foregoing account of the matter, that they even style the 1st ' a j^crvcrse interpoJation :' in which view of the subject, however, they enjoy the distinc- tion of standing entirely alone. Willi the same 'luoral cer- tainly,' tbcy I'urtlicr ]»r« Concilia, iii. 327 a. '* Ap. Mai, iii. 389. 20 Concilia, iii. 1101 d. ^i gchol. 34. 22 i. 692 ; iv. 271, 429 ; v. 23. Cove. iii. 907 c. 23 Concilia, iii. 740 d. I.] BY WESTCOTT AND HORT, AND THE REVISERS. 81 Ps.-Csesarius/ — Theodosius Alex.,^ — John Damascene,^ — Maximus,* — Theodorus hseret.,^ — Leontius Byz.,^ — Anasta- siiis Sin.,' — Photius :^ and of the Latins, Hilary,^ — Jerome,^" — Augiistine,^^ — Cassian,^^ — Paulinus,^^ — Facundus.^* It will be seen that we have been enumerating upwards of forty famous personages from every part of ancient Christen- dom, who recognize these verses as genuine ; fourteen of them being as old, — some of them, a great deal older, — than our oldest MSS. — JVliy therefore Drs. Westcott and Hort should insist on shutting up these 26 precious words — this article of the Faith — in double brackets, in token that it is ' morally certain ' that verses 43 and 44 are of spurious origin, we are at a loss to divine.^^ We can but ejaculate (in the very . words they proceed to disallow), — ' Fathek, forgive them ; for they know not what they do.' But our especial concern is with our Revisionists; and we do not exceed our province when we come forward to reproach them sternly for having succumbed to such evil counsels, and deliberately branded these Verses with their own corporate expression of doubt. For unless that be the purpose of the marginal Note which they have set against these verses, we fail to understand the Revisers' language and are wholly at a loss to divine what purpose that note of theirs can be meant to serve. It is pre- ' Ap. Galland. vi. 16, 17, 19. ^ ^p_ Cosmam, ii. 331. 3 i. 544. * In Dionys. ii. 18, 30. " Ap. Galland. xii. 693. « Ihid. 688. ^ Pp. 108, 1028, 1048. « Epist. 138. « P. 1061. 1" ii. 747. " iv. 901, 902, 1013, 1564. >2 p. 373. 13 _^p_ Galland. ix. 40. " Ihid. xi. 693. '^ Let their own account of the matter be heard : — ' The documentary evidence clearly designates [these verses] as an earhj Western interpolation, adopted in eclectic texts.' — ' They can only be a fragment from the Traditions, written or oral, which were for a while at least locally current ;' — an ' evangelic Tradition,' therefore, ' rescued from oblivion hy the Scribes of the second century.'' G 82 OUR LORD'S PRAYER FOR HIS MURDERERS, [Art. faced by a formula which, (as we learn from their own Preface,) offers to the reader the " alternative " of omitting the Verses in question : implies that " it would not he safe " any longer to accept them,— as the Churcli has hitherto done, — with undoubting confidence. In a word, — it brands them with snsjncion We have been so full on this subject, — (not half of our references were known to Tischendorf,) — because of the unspeakable preciousness of the record; and because we desire to see an end at last to expressions of doubt and uncertainty on points which really afford not a shadow of pretence for either. These two Verses were excised through mistaken piety by certain of the orthodox, — ^jealous for the honour of their Lord, and alarmed by the use which the impugners of His GoDhead freely made of them.^ Hence Ephraem [Carmina Nisihcna, p. 145] puts the following words into the mouth of Satan, addressing the host of Hell : — " One thing I witnessed in Him which especially comforts me. I saw Him praying ; and I rejoiced, for His countenance changed and He was afraid. His sivcat was drops of blood, for He had a presentiment that His day had come. This was the fairest sight of all, — unless, to be sure, He was practising deception on me. For verily if He hath deceived me, tlien it is all over, — both with me, and with you, my servants ! " (4) Next in importance after the preceding, comes the I'rayer which the Saviour of the World breathed from the Cross on behalf of His murderers (S. Luke xxiii. 34). These twelve precious words, — (' Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them ; for they know not what they do,') — like those twenty-six words in S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 which we have been considering already, Drs. Westcott and Hort enclose within double brackets in token of llic ' moral certainty ' tliey enter- ^ CoBsider the places referred to in Epiphuuius. I.] DISALLOWED BY WESTCOTT AND HORT. 83 tain that the words are spurious.^ And yet these words are found in every hnoivn uncial and in every known cursive Copy, except four; besides being found in every ancient Version. And what, — (we ask the question with sincere simplicity,) — what amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubting confidence in any existing Eeading, if not such a concurrence of Authorities as this ? . . . We forbear to insist upon the pro- babilities of the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from Internal Evidence. True, that " few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the Truth of what they record, than this." (It is the admission of the very man ^ wlio has nevertheless dared to brand it with suspicion.) But we reject his loathsome patron- age with indignation. "Internal Evidence," — " Transcriptional Probability," — and all such '' chaff and draff,' with which he fills his pages ad naitseam, and mystifies nobody but himself, — shall be allowed no place in the present discussion. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external testimony, or is forsaken therel)y. How then about the Patristic evidence, — for this is all that remains unex- plored ? Only a fraction of it was known to Tischendorf We find our Saviour's Prayer attested, — ' The Editors shall speak for themselves concerning this, the first of the ' Seven last Words :' — 'We cannot doubt that it comes from an extraneous source ;' — ' need not have belonged originally to the hook in tohich it ^ now included:''- — is 'a Western interpolation.^ Dr. Hort, — unconscious apparently that he is at the bar, not on the bench, — passes sentence (in his usual imperial style) — "Text, Western and Syrian" (p. 67). — But then, (1st) It hap^x^ns that our Lord's intercession on behalf of His murderers is attested bj^ upwards of forty Patristic witnesses /row every part of ancient Christendom : while, (2ndly) On the contrary, the places in which it is not found are certain copies of the old Latin, and codex d, which is supposed to be our great ' Western ' witness. 2 Dr. Hrirt's N. T. vol. ii. Note, p. 68. a '2 84 ANCIENT WITNESSES TO S. LUKE XXIII. 34. [Art. In the Ilnd century by Hegesippus/ — and by Irenseiis : '^ — In the Ilird, by Hippolytus,^ — by Origen,* — by the Apostolic Constitutions,^ — by the Clementine Homilies,^ — by ps.-Tatian/ — and by the disputation of Archelaus with Manes :^ — In the IVth, by Eusebius,^ — by Athanasius/" — by Gregory Nyss.," — by Theodoras Herac./^ — by Basil/^ — by Chryso- stom/* — by Ephraem Syr.,^^ — by ps.-Ephraim/^ — by ps.- Dionysius Areop./^ — by the Apocryphal Acta Tilati}'^ — by the Acta Pldlippi,^^ — and by the Syriac Acts of the Ap)p.,'^^ — by ps.-Ignatius,^^ — and ps. -Justin -P — In the Vth, by Theodoret,^^— l^y Cyril,^*— by Eutherius P In the Vlth, by Anastasius Sin.,^^ — by Hesychius P — In the Vllth, by Antiochus mon.,^^ — by Maximus,^^ — by Andreas Cret. : ^" — 1 Ap. Eus. Hist. Ecd. ii. 23. » V. 521 and . . . [Mass. 210 and 277.] ' Ed. Lagarde, p. G5 line 3. * ii. 188. User. iii. 18 p. 5. « Ap. Gall. iii. 38, 127. « lUd. ii. 714. {Horn. si. 20.) ' Evan. Cone. 275. ^ Ap. Ilouth, v. IGl. 9 He places the verses in Can. x. ^" i. 1120. " iii. 289. " Cat. in Ps. iii. 219. " i. 290. " 15 times. 1° ii. 48, 321, 428 ; ii. {sijr.) 233. i» Evan. Cone. 117, 256. " i. 607. '^ Tp. 232, 286. ^^ V. 85. *" Pp. 11, 16. Dr. AVright assigns them to the IVth century. 21 Eph. c. X. 22 ii_ 1(3(3^ 1(38^ 226. ^ 6 times. "^^ Ap. Mill, ii. 197 ( = Cramer 52); iii. 392. — Dr. Hort's strenuous pleading for the authority of Cyril on this occasion (who however is plainly against him) is amusing. So is his claim to have the cursive " 82 " on his side. He is certainly reduced to terrible straits tliroughout his ingenious volume. Yet are we scarcely prepared to find an upright and honourable man contending so hotly, and almost on any pretext, for the support of those very Fathers which, when they are against him, (as, 99 times out of 100, they are,) he treats with utter contumely. lie is observed to ]mt up xnt\\ any ally, however insignificant, who even seems to be on his side. 25 Ap. Theod. v. 1152. ^.i Pp. 423, 457. ^ Cat. in Ps. i. 768; ii. 603. ^8 i>p_ 1109^ n^^^ 29 i. 374. ^° P. 93. I.] THE INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS. 85 In the Vlllth, by John Damascene/ — besides ps.-Chry- sostom,^ — ps. Amphilochius,^— and the 02nis wiijcrf} Add to this, (since Latin authorities have been brought to the front), — Ambrose,^ — Hilary,® — Jerome,^ — Augustine,^ — and other earher writers.^ We have thus again enumerated upivards of forty ancient Fathers. And again we ask. With what show of reason is the Ijrand set upon these 12 words ? Gravely to cite, as if there were anything in it, such counter-evidence as the following, to the foregoing torrent of Testunony from every part of ancient Christendom : — viz : ' B d, 38, 435, a b d and one Egyptian version ' — might really have been mistaken for a mauvaise plaisantcric, were it not that the gravity of the occasion effectually precludes the supposition. How could our Eevisionists dare to insinuate doubts into waverins CD hearts and unlearned heads, where (as here) they were hound to know, there exists no manner of doubt at all ? (5) The record of the same Evangelist (S. Luke xxiii. 38) that the Inscription over our Saviour's Cross was ' written ... in letters of Greek, and Latm, and Hebrew,' disappears entirely from our ' Kevised ' version ; and this, for no other reason, but because the incident is omitted by B c L, the corrupt Egyptian versions, and Cureton's depraved Syriac : the text of which (according to Bp. Ellicott^^) "is of a very composite nature, — sometimes inclining to the sliortness and simplicity of the Vatican inanuscript " (b) : e.g. on the present occasion. But surely the negative testimony of this little band of disreputable witnesses is entirely outweighed by the positive evidence of N a d Q R with 13 other uncials, — 1 ii. 67, 747. 2 i, 814- ji. 819; v. 735. ^ P. 88. * Ap. Chrys. vi. 191. ^ 11 times. « P. 782 f. ^ ^2 times. * More than 60 times. ^ Ap. Cypr. (ed. Baluze), &c. &c. ^^ On Revision, — p. 42 note. See above, p. 78 note. 86 S. LUKE'S INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, [AuT. the evidence of the entire hochj of the cursives, — the sanction of the Latin, — the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac, — the Armenian, — ^thiopic, — and Georgian versions ; besides Euse- \y\x\9> — whose testimony (which is express) has been hitherto strangely overlooked,^ — and Cyril.^ Against the threefold plea of Antiquity, Eespectability of witnesses. Universality of testimony, — what have our Eevisionists to show ? («) They cannot pretend that there has been Assimilation here ; for the type of S. John xix. 20 is essentially different, and has retained its distinctive character all down the ages, {h) Nor can they pretend that the condition of the Text hereabouts bears traces of having been jealously guarded. We ask the Eeader's attention to this matter just for a moment. There may be some of the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber even, to whom what we are aljout to offer may not be altogether without the grace of novelty : — That the Title on the Cross is diversely set down by each of the four Evangelists, — all men are aware. But perhaps all are not aware that S. Lukes record of the Title (in ch. xxiii. 38) is exhibited in four differejit ways by codices A B c D : — A exhibits— OYTOC GCTIN O BACIA6YC TCjJN IOYAAIOJN B (with S i> and a) exhibits-— O BACIA€YC TCjJN 10YAAICx)N OYTOC C exhibits— O BACIAeYC TWN IOYAAICjJN (which is Mk. XV. 26). D (with e and ff'') exhibits— O BACIA6YC TOON lOYAAIGJN OYTOC eCTIN (which is the words of the Evangelist transposed). We propose to recur to the foregoing specimens of licen- tiousness 1jy-and-by.^ For the moment, let it be added that J Edou. Proph. p. 80. ' ^" -/-"t'- ^-'^ and 718. ' See pages 03 to 07. I.] DIVERSELY REPRESENTED BY N* B C D. 87 codex X and the Sahidic version conspire in a fifth variety, viz., OYTOC €CTIN IHCOYC O BACIA€YC TCjON IOYAAIWN (which is S. Matt, xxvii. 37) ; while Ambrose ^ is found to have used a Latin copy which represented IHCOYC O NAZW- PAIOC O BACIAGYC TWN lOYAAlCON (which is S. John xix. 18). We spare the reader any remarks of our own on all tliis. He is competent to draw his own painful inferences, and will not fail to make his own damaging reflections. He shall only be further informed that 14 uncials and the whole body of the cursive copies side with codex a in upholding the Traditional Text ; that the Vulgate,^ — the Peschito, — Cureton's Syriac, — the Philoxenian; — besides the Coptic, — Armenian, — and -^thiopic versions — are all on the same side : lastly, that Origen,^ — Eusebius, — and Gregory of Nyssa * are in addition consentient witnesses ; — and we can hardly be mistaken if we venture to anticipate (1st),— That the Eeader will agree with us that the Text with which we are best acquainted (as usual) is here deserving of all confidence ; and (2ndly), — That the Eevisionists who assure us ' that they did not esteem it within their province to construct a continuous and complete Greek Text;' (and who were never authorized to construct a new Greek Text at all ;) were not justified in the course they have pursued with regard to S. Luke xxiii. 38. ' This is the King of the Jews ' is the only idiomatic way of rendering into English the title according to S. Luke, whether the reading of A or of B be adopted ; but, in order to make it plain that they reject the Greek of A in favour of B, the Eevisionists have gone out of their way. They have instructed the two Editors of ' TJie Greek Testament with the 1 i. 1528. ' So Sedulius Paschalis, ap. Galland. ix. 595. ^ iii. 2. * Euseb. Ed. Proph. p. 89 : Greg. Nyss. i. 570. — These last two places have hitherto escaped observation. 88 TEXT OF S. LUKE XXIV. 1, FALSIFIED [Art. Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version ' ^ to exhibit S. Luke xxiii. 38 as it stands in the mutilated recension of Drs. Westcott and Hort? And if this procedure, repeated many hundreds of times, be not constructing a ' new Greek Text ' of the N. T., we have yet to learn what is. (6) From the first verse of the concluding chapter of S. Luke's Gospel, is excluded the familiar clause — ' and certain others with them' (kul rive^ avv avralv lovfiaiwj/ ovros. ^ Y>fdn Alfurd, nt /oc. ' 6 AovKcis nia Xe'yet Ta>v craj^j^uTav opdpov fiaBios (jiepeiv dpo)fMTa yvvalKus AY'O Tay dKo\ov6r](ra.(Tas avra, at Tives tjaav dno t^s FaXiXatas avvaKoiXov- 6r)(Taaai, ore edanrov avrov eXdovaai en't to fivrifxa- uiriufs AY'O, k.t.X., — ad Marinum, ap. Mai, iv. 2GG. I.] BY THE REVISIONISTS. — S. LUKE XXIV. 12. 89 the sole surviving Witnesses. Of his second achievement, S B c L, 33, 124, have preserved a record ; besides seven copies of the old Latin (a b c e ff^ g'^ 1), together with the Vulgate, the Coptic, and Eusebius in one place^ though not in another.^ The Header is therefore invited to notice that the tables have been unexpectedly turned upon our opponents. S. Luke introduced the words ' and certain with them,' in order to prepare us for what he will have to say in xxiv. 10, — viz. ' It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women with them, which told these things unto the Apostles.' Some stupid harmonizer in the Ilnd century omitted the words, because they were in his way. Calamitous however it is that a clause which the Church has long since deliberately reinstated should, in the year 1881, be as deliberately banished for the second time from the sacred page by our Revisionists ; who under the plea of amending our English Authorized Version have (with the best inten- tions) falsified the Greek Text of the Gospels in countless places, — often, as here, without notice and without apology. (10) We find it impossible to pass by in silence the treat- ment which S. Luke xxiv. 12 has experienced at their hands. They have branded with doubt S. Luke's memorable account of S. Peter's visit to the sepulchre. And why ? Let the evidence for this precious portion of the narrative be first rehearsed. Nineteen uncials then, with N a B at their head, supported by every known cursive copy, — all these vouch for the genuineness of the verse in question. The Latin, — the Syriac, — and the Egyptian versions also contain it. Euse- bius,^— Gregory of Nyssa,* — Cyril,^ — Severus,^ — Ammonius,^ Ps. i. 79. 2 2)em. 492. Ap. Mai, iv. 287, 293. ^ i. 364. ^ Aj^. Mai, ii. 439. Ap. Galland. xi. 224, '^ Gat. m Joaun, p. 453. 90 S. LUKE XXIV. 36 AND 40; S. MATTH. XVII. 21, [Art. and others ^ refer to it : while no aiicient tvriter is found to impugn it. Then, whi/ the double brackets of Drs. Westcott and Hort ? and ivhi/ the correlative marginal note of our Revi- sionists ? — Simply because d and 5 copies of the old Latin (a b e 1 fu) leave these 22 words out. (11) On the same sorry evidence — (viz. D and 5 copies of the old Latin) — it is proposed henceforth to omit our Saviouk's greeting to His disciples when He appeared among them in the upper chamber on the evening of the first Easter Day. And yet the precious words ('and saith u7ito them, Peace he unto you^ [Lu. xxiv. 36],) are vouched for by 18 uncials (with j< A B at their head), and every known cursive copy of the Gospels : by all the Versions : and (as before) by Eusebius,^ — and Ambrose,^ — by Chrysostom,* — and Cyril,^ — and Augustine.^ (12) The same remarks suggest themselves on a survey of the evidence for S. Luke xxiv. 40: — 'And ivhen He had thus spohen, He shoived them His hands and His feet.' The words are found in 18 uncials (beginning with N a b), and in every known cursive : in the Latin,' — the Syiiac, — the Egyptian, — in short, in all the aricient Versions. Besides these, ps.- Justin,^ — Eusebius,^ — Athanasius,^" — Ambrose (in Greek)," — Epiphanius,^^ — Chrysostom,^^ — Cyril,"— Theo- ' Ps.-Chrys. viii. 161-2. Johannes Thesial. ap. Galland. xiii. 189. » Ap. Mai, iv. 293 his ; 29-i diserte. ^ i. 506, 1541. ■♦ jii. 91. ^ iv. 1108, and Luc. 728 (= Mai, ii. 441). " iii.^ 142 ; viii. 472. ' So Tertullian: — ' Manuset pales suos inspicievdos off erf {Cam. c. 5). ' Inspectui eorum manus ct pedes stios offert ' {Marc. iv. c. 43). Also Jerome i. 712. * Dc Rcsiir. 240 ((quoted by J. Damascene, ii. 762). » Ap. Mai, iv. 294. ''> i. 906, quoted by Epiph. i. 1003. " Ap. Theodoret, iv. 141. '^ i. 49. '^ j_ 510 . jj^ 40^^ .jjg . jjj .j^^ " iv. 1108 ; vi. 23 {Trin.). Ap. Mai, ii. 442 icr. I.] FALSIFIED BY THE REVISIONISTS. 91 doret/ — Ammonius,^ — and John Damascene ^ — quote them. What but the veriest trifling is it, in the face of such a body of evidence, to bring forward the fact that D and 5 copies of the ohl Latin, with Cureton's Syriac (of which we have had the character already *), omit the words in question ? The foregoing enumeration of instances of Mutilation might be enlarged to almost any extent. Take only three more short but striking specimens, before we pass on : — (a) Thus, the precious verse (S. Matthew xvii. 21) which declares that ' this kind [of evil spirit] goeth not out hut hy prayer and fasting,' is expunged by our Eevisionists ; although it is vouched for by every known uncial hut two (b n), every known cursive hut one (Evan. 33) ; is witnessed to by the Old Latin and the Vulgate, — the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, ^thiopic, and Slavonic versions ; by Origen,® — Athanasius,^ — Basil,'' — Chrysostom,^ — the Opus imperf.,^ — the Syriac Clement,^'' — and John Damascene ; ^^ — by TertuUian, — Ambrose, — Hilary, — Juvencus, — Augustine, — Maximus Taur., — and by the Syriac version of the Canons of EiLsehius : above all by the Universal East, — having been read in all the churches of Oriental Christendom on the 10th Sunday after Pentecost, from the earliest period. Wliy, in the world, then (our readers will ask) have the Eevisionists left those words out ? . . . For no other reason, we answer, but because Drs. Westcott and Hort place them among the interpolations which they consider unworthy of being even 1 iv. 272. 2 Q^f^ in Joan. 462, 3. ' i. 303. * See above, pp. 78 and 85. s iii. 579. « ii. 114 (ed. 1698). ^ ii. 9, 362, 622. » ii. 309 ; iv. 30 ; v. 531 ; vii. 581. « vi. 79. 1" Ep. i. (ap. Gall. i. p. xii.) " ii. 464. 92 S. MATTH. XVIII, 11 AND S. LUKE IX. 55, 5G, [Art. ' exceptionally retained in association witli the true Text.' ^ ' Western and Syrian ' is their oracular sentence.^ (b) The blessed declaration, ' The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost,' — has in like manner been expunged by our Eevisionists from S. Matth. xviii. 11 ; although it is attested by every known uncial except b N L, and every known cursive except three : by the old Latin and the Vul- gate : by the Peschito, Cureton's and the Philoxenian Syriac : by the Coptic, Armenian, /Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions : ^ — by Origen,* — Theodorus Heracl.,^ — Chryso- stom*^ — and Jovius'' the monk ; — by TertuUian,^ — Ambrose,^ — Hilary,^" — Jerome/^ — pope Damasus ^^ — and Augustine :^^ — above all, by the Universal Eastern Church, — for it has been read in all assemblies of the faithful on the morrow of Pente- cost, from the beginning. Why tlien (the reader will again ask) have the Eevisionists expunged this verse ? We can only answer as before, — because Drs. Westcott and Hort consign it to the linibus of their Appendix; class it among their 'Eejected Eeadings' of the most hopeless type.^* As before, all their sentence is '.Western and Syrian.' They add, ' Interpolated either from Lu. xix. 10, or from an in- dependent source, written or oral.'^^ . . . Will the English Church suffer herself to be in this way defrauded of lier priceless inlieritance, — through tlic irreverent bungling of well-intentioned, but utterly misguided men ? ' Text, pp. 505 and 571. * Append, p. 14. ' We depend for our Versions on Dr. S. C. Malan : pp. 31, 14. ^ ii. 147. Com. v. G75. ^ Cord. Cat. i. 37G. « vii. 599, 600 diserte. ' Ap. Photium, p. G44. 8 Three times. » i. GG3, 1 IGl, ii. 1137. 10 Pp. 367, 699. " vii. 139. 12 Ap. Galland. vi. 324. " iii. P. i. 760. " Text,\\bn. "> Append, p. 1!. I.] FALSIFIED. — ABSURD TRANSPOSITIONS. 93 (c) In the same way, our Lord's important saying, — ' Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of : for the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, hut to save them ' (S. Lnke ix. 55, 56), has. disappeared from our ' Ee vised ' Version ; although Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers from the secorid century downwards, (as Tischendorf admits,) witness elo- quently in its favour. V. In conclusion, we propose to advert, just for a moment, to those five several mis-representations of S. Luke's ' Title on the Cross,' which were rehearsed above, viz. in page 86. At so gross an exhibition of licentiousness, it is the mere instinct of Natural Piety to exclaim, — But then, could not those men even set down so sacred a record as that, correctly ? They could, had they been so minded, no doubt, (we answer) : but, marvellous to relate, the Transposition of words, — no matter how signific^ant, sacred, solemn ; — of short clauses, — even of whole sentences of Scripture ; — was anciently accounted an allowable, even a graceful exercise of the critical faculty. The thing alluded to is incredible at first sight ; being so often done, apparently, without any reason whatever, — or rather in defiance of all reason. Let candidus lector be the judge whether we speak truly or not. Whereas S. Luke (xxiv. 41) says, ' And while they yet believed Twt for joy, and wondered,' the scribe of codex A (by way of improving upon the Evangelist) transposes his sentence- into this, ' And while they yet disbelieved Him, and wondered for joy : ' ^ which is almost nonsense, or quite. But take a less solemn example. Instead of, — ' And His ^ ert Se (iTncTTovvTmv avT^, KOi davfia^uvTcov dno Trjg vapas. 94 TRANSPOSITIONS IN S. T.UKE XIX. AND XX. [Art. disciples plucked the ears of corn, and ate them, {rovC NOT OC THE EEADING OF 1 TIM. III. 16. [Art. a fabricated reading, viz. sooner or later inevitably to become the parent of a second. Happily, to this second mistake the sole surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus, of the Vlth century (d) : the only Patristic evidence in its favour being Gelasius of Cyzicus,^ (whose date is a.d. 476) : and the unknown author of a homily in the appendix to Chrysostom.^ The Versions — all but the Georgian and the Slavonic, which agree with the Received Text — favour it unquestionably ; for they are observed invariably to make the relative pronoun agree in gender with the word which represents fivarrjpiov ('mystery') which immediately pre- cedes it. Thus, in the Syriac Versions, o? (' ivho ') is found, — but only because the Syriac equivalent for /j,vaT7]piov is of the masculine gender : in the Latin, quod (' wh ich ') — but only because mystermm in Latin (like fjbvarijpcov in Greek) is neuter. Over this latter reading, however, we need not linger; seeing that o does not find a single patron at the present day. And yet, this was the reading which was eagerly upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac Newton being its most strenuous advocates. It is time to pass under hasty review the direct evi- dence for the true reading. a and c exhibited ec until ink, thumbing, and the injurious use of chemicals, obliterated what once was patent. It is too late, by full 150 years, to contend on the negative side of this question. — F and G, which exhibit 6c ^^^'^ Oc respectively, \vere confessedly derived from a common archetype : in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal stroke which distinguishes e from o must have been so fiiintly traced as to be scarcely discernible. The supposition that, in tliis place, the stroke in question represents the aspirate, is scarcely admissible. There is no single example of oeen absurdly related that he invented the reading, is a witness for ©eo? perftu'ce ; so is — (12) Euthalius, and — (13) John Damascene on two occasions.*^— (14) An unknown writer who has been mistaken for Athanasius/ — (15) besides not a few ancient scholiasts, close the list: for we pass by the testimony of — (16) Epiphanius at the 7th jSTicene Council (A.D. 787),— of (17) a:cumenius,— of (18) Theophylact. It w^ill be observed that neither has anything b^en said about the many indirect allusions of earlier Fathers to this place of Scripture ; and yet some of these are too striking to be overlooked : as when — (19) Basil, writing of our Saviour, says avToi TrpoeXdoav et? Kocrfxov, ©eo? iv ao)fiaTi icpavepoodr) ■.^'^ — and (22) Theodotus the Gnostic, 6 ^.coryp co(f)6r] Kartoov roL NEW liEADIXGS 'JT) BE DISCUSSED [Akt. Miiicli S. Peter openly said of llie false teachers of his day who fell back into the very errors \vhich they had already abjured. The place will be found in 2 S. Peter ii. 22. So singu- larly applicable is it to the matter in hand, that sve can but invite attention to the quotation on our title-page and p. 1. And here we make an end. 1, Those who may have taken up the present Article in expectation of being entertained with another of those dis- cussions (of which we suspect the public must be already getting somewhat weary), concerning the degree of ability which the New Testament Ptevisionists have displayed in their rendering into English of the Greek, will at first experi- ence disappointment. Eeaders of intelligence, however, who have been at the pains to follow us through the foregoing pages, will be constrained to admit that we have done more faithful service to the cause of Sacred Truth by the course we have been pursuing, than if we had merely multiplied instances of incorrect and unsatisfactory Translation. There is (and this we endeavoured to explain at the outset) a ques- tion of prior interest and far graver importance which has to be settled ^7'.S'^, viz. the degree of confidence which is due to the underlying new Greek text which our Povisionists have constructed. In other words, before discussing their 7iew licnderings, we have to examine their ncv) Bcadi/if/x} The silence which Scholars have hitherto maintained on this part ^ It cannot be too plainly or too often stated that learned rrebendary Scrivener is luhoUy ffuiltless of the many spurious 'Kcadin<4s' with wliiili a majority of his co-Kevisionists have corrupted the Word of God. He pleaded faithfully,— but he pleailed in vain.— It is right also to state that the scholarlike Bp. of S. Andrews (Dr. Charles Wordsworth) has fully purged himself of the suspicion of complicity, by his printed (not ])ub]is]icd) remonstrances with his colleagues. — The excellent Bp. of Salisbury (Dr. Moberly) attended only 121 of their 407 meetings; and that judicious scholar, the Abp. of Dublin (Dr. Trench) only G3. Tlic reader will find more on this sul)icct at the close of Art. II.,— pp. 228-150. I.] BEFORE NEW RENDERINGS. 107 of the subject is to ourselves scarcely intelligible. But it makes us the more anxious to invite attention to this neglected aspect of the problem ; the rather, because we have thoroughly con- vinced ourselves that the ' new Greek Text ' put forth by the Eevisionists of our Authorized Version is uttcrhj inadmis- sible. The traditional Text has been departed from by them nearly 6000 times, — almost invariably /or the ivorsc. 2. Fully to dispose of all these multitudinous corruptions would require a bulky Treatise. But the reader is requested to observe that, if we are right in the few instances we have culled out from the mass, — then ive are right in all. If we have succeeded in proving that the little handful of authorities on which the ' new Greek Text ' depends, are the reverse of trustworthy, — are absolutely misleading, — then, we have cut away from under the Eevisionists the very ground on which they have hitherto been standing. And in that case, the structure which they have built up throughout a decade of years, with such evident self-complacency, col- lapses ' like the baseless fabric of a vision.' 3. For no one may flatter himself that, by undergoing a further process of ' Kevision,' the ' Revised Version ' may after all be rendered trustworthy. The eloquent and excel- lent Bishop of Deny is ' convinced that, with all its undeni- able merits, it will have to be somewhat extensively revised.' And so perhaps are we. But (what is a far more important circumstance) we are further convinced that a prior act of penance to be sul)mitted to by the Eevisers would be the restoration of the underlying Greek Text to very nearly — not quite — the state in which they found it when they entered upon their ill-advised undertaking. ' Very nearly — not quite : ' for, in not a few particulars, the ' Textus receptus ' does call for Eevision, certainly ; although Eevision on entirely different principles from those which arc found to have prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamljer. To mention a 108 INDISPENSABLE CONDITION OF A [Art. single instance : — When our Lord first sent forth His Twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial com- mission to them to ' raise the dead ' (veKpov^ iyeipere, S. Matthew x. 8). This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by our Eevisionists ; because it is found in those corrupt witnesses — n b c d, and the Latin copies.^ When will men learn unconditionally to put away from themselves the weak superstition which is fur investing with oracular authority the foregoing quaternion of demon- strably depraved Codices ? 4. ' It may be said ' — (to quote again from Bp. Alexander's recent Charge), — ' that there is a want of modesty in dissent- ing from the conclusions of a two-thirds majority of a body so learned. But the rough process of counting heads imposes unduly on the imagination. One could easily name ei(/ht in that assembly, whose unanimity would be practically almost decisive ; but we have no means of knowing that these did not form the minority in resisting the changes which we most regret.' The Bishop is speaking of the English llevision. Having regard to the Greek Text exclu- sively, loe also (strange to relate) had singled out exactly eight from the members of the New Testament company — Divines of undoubted orthodoxy, who for their splendid scholarship and proficiency in the best learning, or else for their refined taste and admirable judgment, might (as we humbly think), under certain safeguards, have been safely entrusted even with the responsibility of revising the Sacred Text. Under the guidance of Prebendary Scrivener (who among living English- men is facile princcps in these pvirsuits) it is scarcely to be anticipated that, when unanimous, such Divines would ever * Euscbiu.s, — Basil, — Chrysostom (in loc), — Jerome, — Juvcucus, — omit the words. P. E. Pusey found tliem in no Syriac copy. But the conclusive evidence is supplied by the Manuscripts; not more than 1 out of 20 of which contain this clause. I:] TEUSTWOKTHY EECENSION OF THE TEXT. 109 have materially erred. But then, of course, a previous life- long familiarity with the Science of Textual Criticism, or at least leisure for prosecuting it now, for ten or twenty years, with absolutely undivided attention, — would be the indispen- sable requisite for the success of such an undertaking ; and this, undeniably, is a qualification rather to be desiderated than looked for at the hands of English Divines of note at the present day. On the other hand, (loyalty to our Master constrains us to make the avowal,) the motley assortment of names, twenty-eight in all, specified by Dr. Newth, at p. 125 of his interesting little volume, joined to the fact that the average attendance ivas not so many as sixteen, — concerning whom, moreover, the fact has transpired that some of the most judicious of their number often declined to give amj vote at all, — is by no means calculated to inspire any sort of confidence. But, in truth, considerable familiarity with these pursuits may easily co-exist with a natural inaptitude for their successful cultivation, which shall prove simply fatal. In support of this remark, one has but to refer to the instance supplied by Dr. Hort. The Sacred Text has none to fear so much as those who feel rather than think : who imagine rather than reason : who rely on a supposed verify- ing faculty of their own, of which they are able to render no intelligible account; and who, (to use Bishop Ellicott's phrase,) have the misfortune to conceive themselves possessed of a "■ ipowcr of divining the Original Text," — which would be even diverting, if the practical result of their self-decep- tion were not so exceedingly serious. 5. In a future number, we may perhaps enquire into the measure of success which has attended the Eevisers' Revision of the English of our Authorized Version of 1611. We have occupied ourselves at this time exclusively with a survey of the seriously mutilated and otherwise grossly depraved NEW Gkeek Text, on which their edifice has been reared. 110 A LIGHTHOUSE ON THE GOODWIN SANDS. [Akt. I. And the circumstance which, in conclusion, we desire to impress upon our Readers, is this, — that the insecurity of that foundation is so alarming, that, except as a con- cession due to the solemnity of the undertakinn; just now under review, further Criticism might very well be dis- pensed with, as a thing superfluous. Even could it be proved concerning the superstructure, that ' it had been \ever s6\ vjell huildcd,' ^ (to adopt another of our Eevisionists' unhappy per- versions of Scripture,) the fatal objection would remain, viz. that it is not 'founded ujwn the rock.' ^ It has been the ruin of the present undertaking — as far as the Sacred Text is con- cerned— that the majority of the Eevisionist body have been misled throughout by the oracular decrees and impetuous advocacy of Drs. Westcott and Hort ; wlio, with the purest intentions and most laudable industry, have constructed a Text demonstrably more remote from the Evangelic verity, than any which has ever yet seen the light. ' The old is good,'^ say the Revisionists : but we venture solemnly to assure them that ' the old is letter ;'* and that this remark holds every Ijit as true of their Revision of the Greek throughout, as of their infelicitous exhiljition of S. Luke v. 39. To attempt, as they have done, to build the Text of the New Testament on a tissue of unproved assertions and the eccen- tricities of a single codex of bud character, is about as hopeful a proceeding as would be the attempt to erect an Eddystone li'dithouse on the Goodwin Sands. ^ ' Revised Text ' of S. Luke vi. 48. 2 'Authorized Version,' supported by a c d and 12 other uncials, the whole body of the cursives, the Syriac, Latin, and Gotliic versions. 3 ' Revised Text ' of S. Luke v. 39. * 'Authorized Version,' supported liy a cand 1 ! otlicr uncials, thewlitile body of the cursives, and idl the versions except the Teschito and the Coptic. ARTICLE II. THE NEW ENGLISH VERSION. " Such is the time-honoured Version which we have heen called upon to revise ! We have had to study this great Version carefully and minutely, line by line ; and the longer we have been engaged upon it the more we have learned to admire its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its Itappy turns of expression, its general accuracy, and we must not fail to aild, the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm. To render a work that had reached this high standard of excellence, still more excellent ; to increase its fidelity, without destroying its charm ; was the task committed to us." — Preface to the Kevised Version. " To pass from the one to the other, is, as it were, to alight from a well-built and well-hung carriage which elides easily over a macadamized road, — and to get into one ivhich has bad springs or none at all, and in which you are jolted in ruts with aching bones over the stones of a newly- mended and rarely traversed road, like some of the roads in our North Lincolnshire villages." — Bishop Wordsworth.' " No Revision at the present day could hope to meet with an hour's acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction of the present Authorized Version." — Bishop Ellicott.^ ' Address at Lincoln Diocesan Conference, — p. 1(5. - On Revision, — p. 99. THE EEVISION REVISED. Article II.— THE NEW ENGLISH VERSION. " I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book, — If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book. " And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in this Book." — Eevelation xxii. 18, 19. Whatever may be urged in favour of Biblical Eevision, it is at least undeniable that the undertaking involves a tre- mendous risk. Our Authorized Version is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety millions of English-speaking men scattered over the earth's surface. Is it reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms ? It may be confidently assumed that no ' Eevision ' of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611, — the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have another ' Authorized Version.' And this single con- sideration may be thought absolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form. To be brief, — As a companion in the study and for private edification : as a book of reference for critical purposes, especially in respect I 114 DISASTROUS RESULTS OF REVISION. [Art. of difficult and controverted passages : — we hold tliat a revised edition of tlie Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The method of such a performance, whether by marginal Notes or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But certainly only as a handmaid is it to be desired. As some- thing intended to sujjerscde our present English Bible, we are thoroughly convinced that the j)roject of a rival Translation is not to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely. On the other hand, ivJw could have possibly foreseen what has actually come to pass since the Convocation of the Southern Province (in Feb. 1870) declared itself favourable to ' a Eevision of the Authorized Version,' and appointed a Committee of Divines to undertake the work ? Who was to suppose that the Instructions given to the Eevisionists would be by them systematically disregarded ? Who was to imagine that an utterly untrustworthy ' new Greek Text,' constructed on mistaken principles, — (say rather, on no jirinciplcs at all,) — would be the fatal result ? To speak more truly, — Who could liave anticipated that the o])por- tunity would have been adroitly seized to inflict upon the Church the text of Drs. Wcstcott and Hort, in all its essential features, — a text whicli, as will be found elsewhere largely explained, we hold to l)e the most virious Ecccnsion of the original Greek in existence ? Above all, — Who was to foresee that instead of removing 'plain and clear errors' from our Version, the Itevisionists, — (besides systematically removing out of sight so many of the genuine utterances of the Spirit,) — would themselves introduce a countless number of blemishes, unknown to it before ? Lastly, how was it to have been believed that the Ifevisionists wouhl show them- II.] BLUNDEES RECORDED IN THE MARGIN. 115 selves industrious in sowing broadcast over four continents doubts as to the Truth of Scripture, which it will never be in their power either to remove or to recal ? Ncscit vox missa rcccrti. For, tlie ill-advised practice of recording, in the margin of an English Bible, certain of the blunders — (such things cannot by any stretch of courtesy be styled ' Various Eead- ings ') — which disfigure ' some ' or ' many ' ' ancient authori- ties,' can only result in hopelessly unsettling the faith of millions. It cannot be defended on the plea of candour, — the candour wliich is determined that men shall ' know the worst.' ' The tvorst ' has NOT been told : and it were dishonesty to insinuate that it has. If all the cases were faitlifully exhibited where ' a few,' ' some,' or ' many ancient authori- ties ' read differently from what is exhibited in the actual Text, not only would tlie margin prove insufficient to contain the record, but the very page itself would not nearly suffice. Take a single instance (the first which comes to mind), of the thing referred to. Such illustrations might be multiplied to any extent : — In S. Luke iii. 22, (in place of ' Thou art my beloved Son ; in Thcc I am well pleased,') tlie following authorities of the Ilnd, Ilird and IVth centuries, read, — ' this day have I hcgotten Thee ;' viz. — codex D and the most ancient copies of the old Latin (a, b, c, ff-^, 1),— Justin Martyr in three places ^ (a.d. 140),— Clemens Alex.^ (a.d. 190),— and Methodius^ (a.d. 290) among the Greeks. Lactantius^ (a.d. 300), — Hilary^ (a.d. 350),— Juvencus « (a.d. 330),— Faustus ' (a.d.400), and— ' Dial. capp. 88 and 103 (pp. 306, 310, 352). 2 P. 113. ^ Ap. Galland. iii. 719, c d. * iv. 1.5 (ap. Gall. iv. 296 b). = 42 b, 961 e, 1094 a. '' Ap. GaJlaiul. iv. 60.5 (ver. 365-6). '' Ap. Aug. viii. 423 e. I 2 UG UNFAIRNESS OF rilF, TEXTUAL [Art. Augustine ' amongst the Latins. Tlie reading in question was doubtless derived from the Ehionitc Gospel ^ (Ilnd cent.). Now, we desire to have it explained to us u-hy an exhibition of t]i6 Text suj^ported by such an amount of first-rate primitive testimony as the preceding, obtains no notice what- ever in our Eevisionists' margin, — if indeed it was the object of their perpetually recurring marginal annotations, to put the unlearned reader on a level with the critical Scholar; to keep nothing back from liim ; and so forth? ... It is the gross one-sidedness, the patent uvfalriicss, in a critical point of view, of this work, (which professes to be nothing else but a Revision of the English Version of 1611,) — which chiefly shocks and offends us. For, on the (jtlier hand, of what possible use can it be to encumber the margin of S. Luke x. 41, 42 (for example), M'ith tlie announcement that ' A few ancient authorities read Martha, Martha, thou art tronbled : Mary hath ehosen &c.' (the fact being, that D alone of MSS. omits ' careful and ' . . . ' about niayiy things. But one thing is needful, and '...)? With the record of this circumstance, is it reasonable (we ask) to choke up our English margin, — to create perplexity and to insinuate doubt? The author of the foresoini; ' "Vox ilia Patris, qua' siqicr baptizatum facta est E(jo hodie gcnui tc," (Knchind. c. 49 [Ojip. vi. 215 a]):— " lUud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucani, hoc ilia voce sonuisse quod ia Psalmo scriptum est, Films mens es tu : ego hodie genui te, quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus Grjccis non inveniri j^erhi- beatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis cxemplaribus confinuari possit, quid aliud quani utrumque intelligendum est quolibct verborum ordine dc cajlo sonuisse ?"' (De Cons. Ev. ii. c. 11 [OpjK iii. P. ii. K! d e]). Augus- tine seems to allude to what is found to have existed in the Ehionite Gospel. ^ Fipiphnnius (i. 138 b) quotes the pas.sagc whicli contains tlie state- ment. II.] ANNOTATIONS IN THE MARGIN. 117 marginal Annotation was of course aware that the same ' singular codex ' (as Bp. EUicott styles cod. d) omits, in S. Luke's Gospel alone, no less than 1552 words : and he will of coui>se have ascertained (by counting) that the words in S. Luke's Gospel amount to 19,941. Wliy then did he not tell the whole truth ; and instead of ' &c.' proceed as follows ? — ' But inasmuch as cod. D is so scandalously corrupt that about one word in thirteen is missing throughout, the absence of nine words in this place is of no manner of importance or significancy. The precious saying omitted is above suspi- cion, and the first half of the present Annotation might have been sj)ared.' . . . We submit that a Note like that, although rather 'singular' in style, really would have been to some extent helpful, — if not to the learned, at least to the un- learned reader. In the meantime, unlearned and learned readers alike are competent to see that the foregoing perturbation of S. Luke X. 41, 42 rests on the same manuscript authority as the perturbation of cli. iii. 22, which immediately preceded it. The Patristic attestation, on the other hand, of the reading which has been promoted to the margin, is almost nil: whereas that of the neglected place has been shown to be considerable, very ancient, and of high respectability. But in fact, — (let the Truth be plainly stated; for, when God's Word is at stake, circumlocution is contemptiljle, while concealment would be a crime ;) — ' Faithfulness ' towards the public, a stern resolve that the English reader 'shall know the worst,' and all that kind of thing, — such considerations have had nothing whatever to do with the matter. A vastly different principle has prevailed witii the Revisionists. Themselves the dupes of an utterly mistaken Theory of Textual Criticism, their supreme solicitude has 118 UNFAIR SUPPRESSION OF SCRIPTURE. [Art. been to im^fose thai same Tlicory, — {which is Wcstcott and Hart's,) — witli all its Litter consequences, on the unlearned and nnsuspicioiis public. We shall of course be indignantly called upon to explain •what we mean by so injurious — so damning — an imputation ? For all reply, we are content to refer to the sample of our meaning which will be found below, in pp. 137-8. The expo- sure of what has there been shown to be the method of the Eevisionists in respect of S. Mark vi. 11, might be repeated hundreds of times. It would in fact Jill a volume. We shall therefore pass on, when we have asked the Eevisionists in turn — How then have deircd so effectually to blot out those many precious words from the Book of Life, that no mere English reader, depending on the llevised Version for his knowledge of the Gospels, can by possibility suspect their existence ? . . . Supposing even that it luas the calamitous result of their mistaken principles that they found them- selves constrained on countless occasions, to omit from their Text precious sayings of our Lord and His Apostles, — what possible excuse will they offer for not having preserved a record of words so amply attested, ett least in their margin ? Even so, however, the whole amount of the mischief which has been effected by our Pievisionists has not been stated. Eor the Greek Text which they have invented proves to be so hoj)elessly depraved throughout, that if it Avere to be tlirust upon the Church's acceptance, we should be a tliou- sand times worse off than we were with the Text which Erasnnis and the Complutensian, — Stephens, and Beza, and the Elzevirs, — bequeathed to us upwards of three centuries ago. On this part of the subject "we have remarked at length already []ip. 1-1 U>] : yet shall we be constrained to recur once and again to the underlying Greek Text of the IJevisionists, II.] TEXT OF S. IMATTII. I. 18, DEPRAVED. 119 inasmuch as it is impossible to stir in any direction with the task before us, without being painfully reminded of its exist- ence. Not only do the familiar Parables, Miracles, Discourses of our Lord, trip us up at every step, but we cannot open the first page of the Gospel — no, nor indeed read the first line — without being brought to a standstill. Thus, 1. S. Matthew begins, — ' The book of the generation of Jesus Christ ' (ver. 1). — Good. But here the margin volun- teers two pieces of information : first, — ' Or, hirth : as in ver. 18.' We refer to ver. 18, and read — ' Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.' Good again ; but the margin says, — ' Ov, generation: as in ver. 1.' Are we then to understand tliat the same Greek word, diversely rendered in English, occurs in both places ? We refer to the ' new Greek Text : ' and there it stands, — 7](TL. 1 to 22. 2 So Dr. Malan in his Select licadiuys (soc above note '), — ))]>. 15, 17, l;i. ^ "Liber gtniturx Jesu Christ! filii I 'avid, lilii Abraham" . . . "Gra- datim ordo dodu(.'ifiu' ad Cliristi nafivita/cm.'" — J)t Canit Christi, c. '11. II.] TRUE READING OF S. MATTH. I. 18. 121 Avrote in Greek,) is known to have been conversant with the Greek copies of his day; and 'his day,' be it remem- bered, is A.D. 190. He evidently recognized the parallelism between S. Matt. i. 1 and Gen. ii. 4, — where the old Latin exhibits 'liber crcaturie' or ' facturse,' as the rendering of ^i^Xo94. ' P. 470. •• Gall. ix. 215. 5 Trin. 188. « i. 250 b. ^ i. 42G a {yivr^a-ii). * Aiacf)(i)fi, yev€(ns Koi ytwrjais • yeveais fiev yup (an Trapa 6)foC TVputTJ] irKatTi^, ytwrjais 8i 17 eV Karle to tell ' Preface to Pastoral Epistles, — more fully quoted facinu ]>. 1. ^ The Preface ((luotcil above facing p. 1,) is dated urd Nov. 1808. II.] REVISION TO BE PREMATURE. 125 US what they all contain ? A smattering acquaintance with the languages of ancient Egypt, — the Gothic, ^thiopic, Ar- menian, Georgian and Slavonian Versions, — is of no manner of avail. In no department, probably, is ' a little learning ' more sure to prove ' a dangerous thing.' — True, lastly, that the Fathers have been better edited within the last 250 years : during which period some fresh Patristic writings have also come to light. But, with the exception of Theo- doret among the Greeks and Tertullian among the Latins, which of the Fathers has hcen satisfactorily indexed ? Even what precedes is not nearly all. The fundayncntal Principles of the Science of Textual Criticism are not yet apprehended. In proof of this assertion, we appeal to the new Greek Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort,- — which, beyond all controversy, is more hopelessly remote from the inspired Original than any which has yet appeared. Let a generation of Students give themselves entirely up to this neglected branch of sacred Science. Let 500 more Copies of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, be diligently collated. Let at least 100 of the ancient Lcctionaries be very exactly collated also. Let the most important of the ancient Versions be edited afresh, and let the languages in which these are written be for the first time really mastered by Englishmen. Above all, let the Fathers he called upon to give up their precious secrets. Let their writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS. of their works be dili- gently inspected, in order that we may know what actually is the evidence which they afford. Only so will it ever l)e possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed, and which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version. Nay, let whatever unpublished works of the ancient Greek Fathers are anywhere known to exist, — (and not a few precious remains 12C> TEXTUAL CRITICISM NOT YET UNDERSTOOD. [Aut. of theirs are lying hid in great national Ii])rarie,s, both at lionie and abroad,) — let these be printed. The men conld easily be found : the money, far more easily. — When all this has been done, — not Icforc — then in God's Xame, let tJie Church address herself to the gi-eat undertaking. Do but revive the arrangements which were adopted in King James's days : and we venture to predict that less than a third part of ten years will be found abundantly to suffice for tlie Mork, How the coming men will smile at the picture Dr. Newth ^ lias drawn of what was the method of procedure in the reign of Queen Victoria! Will they not peruse with downright merriment Bp. Ellicott's jaunty proposal " simphj to iiroceed onward vjith the woi'k," — [to wit, of constructing a new Greek Text,] — "in fact, solvere amliidando" [iiccnon, in laquemii cadendo] ? ^ I. We cannot, it is presumed, act more fairly by the Eevisers' work,^ than by folloM'ing them over some of the ground wliich they claim to liave made their own, and which, at the conclusion of their labours, their Eight ' Lectures on Biblical Bevision, (1881) p}>. 110 seqq. See above, pp. 37-0. * On Bevision, pp. 30 and 49. ^ The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Cuuist, translated out of the Greek: being the Version set forth a.d. 1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Bevised a.d. 1881. Priote!.! for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881. Tlie Nero Testament in the Oriffinal Oreek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together ivith the Variations adopted in the Bevised Version. Edited for tlie Syndics of tlie Cambridge University Press, ])y F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Ilendon. Cajiibridge, 1881. 'H KAINH AIA0HKH. The Greek Testament, with the Beadings adopted by the Bevisers of the Authorized Version. [Editetl by the Ven. Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1H81. The Neil! Testament in the Original Greek. 'I'lic '\\'\t revised l)y P.rooke Foss Wcstcott, D.D., and Fciifon .Inhu Aiitliniiy Hurt, D.D. CamVjridge and London, 1881. II.] LICENTIOUSNESS OF THE REVISIONISTS. 127 Reverend Chairman evidently surveys with self-complacency. First, he invites attention to the Principle and Eule for their guidance agreed to by the Committee of Convocation (25th May, 1870), viz. ' To introduce as few alterations AS POSSIBLE INTO THE TeXT OF THE AUTHOEIZED VERSION, CONSISTENTLY WITH FAITHFULNESS.' Words could not be more empliatic. ' Plain and clear errors ' were to be corrected. 'Necessary emendations' were to be made. But (in the words of the Southern Convocation) ' We do not contemplate any new Translation, or any alteration of the language, EXCEPT WHERE, in the judgment of the most competent Scholars, such change is necessary.' The watchword, therefore, given to the company of Ptevisionists was, — ' Necessity.' Neccssitij M'as to determine whether tliey were to depart from the language of the Authorized Version, or not ; for the alterations were to be as few as possible. (a) Now it is idle to deny that this fundamental Principle has been utterly set at defiance. To such an extent is this the case, that even an unlettered Eeader is competent to judge them. When we find ' to ' substituted for * unto ' {passim) : — ' hcrchy ' for ' by this ' (1 Jo.'v. 2) : — ' all that are' for ' all that be ' (Rom. i. 7) : — ' alway ' for ' always ' (2 Tliess. i. 3) : — ' we that,' ' them that' for ' we which,' ' them which ' (1 Thess. iv. 15); and yet 'every spirit v)hich,' for 'every spirit that' (1 Jo. iv. 3), and ' he who is not of God,' for 'he that is not of God ' (ver. 6, — although ' he that knoweth God ' had preceded, in the same verse) : — ' my host ' for ' mine host * (Rom. xvi. 23); and 'underneath' for 'under' (Rev. vi. 9): — it becomes clear that the Revisers' notion of necessity is not that of the rest of mankind. But let the plain Truth be stated. Certain of them, when remonstrated with by their fellows for the manifest disregard they were showing to the Instructions subject to which they had undertaken the work 128 CHANGES WANTONLY INTRODUCED. [Aut. of Revision, are reported to have even gloried in their shame. The majority, it is clear, have even ostentatiously set those Instructions at defiance. Was tlie course they pursued, — (we ask the question respectfully,) — strictly honest ? To decline the work entirely .under the prescribed Conditions, was always in their power. But, first to accept the Conditions, and straightway to act in defiance of them, — tJiis strikes us as a method of proceeding which it is difficult to reconcile with the high character of the occupants of the Jel'usalem Cliamber. To proceed however. ' Nevertheless ' and ' notwithstanding ' have had a sad time of it. One or other of tliem has been turned out in favour, of ' Jwivheit ' (S. Lu. x. 11, 20),— of ' onli/' (Phil. iii. IG), —of ' onlij that ' (i. 18),— of ' yet ' (S. Matth. xi. 11),— of ' ltd ' (xvii. 27), — of ' mul yet ' (James ii. 16). . . . We find ' take heed ' substituted for ' beware ' (Col. ii. 8) : — ' custom ' for ' manner ' (S. Jo. xix. 40) : — ' he was a'laazcd,' for ' he was astonished : ' (S. Lu. V. 9) :— ' Is it I, Lord ? ' for ' Lord, is it I ? ' (S. Matth. xxvi. 22) : — ' straightway the cock crew,' for ' immediately tlie cock crew' (S. Jo. xviii. 27) : — ' Then therefore he delivered Him,' for 'Then delivered he Him therefore' (xix. IG) : — * hroufjht it to His mouth,' for ' put it to His mouth ' (ver. 29) : 'He manifested Himself on this ivise' for ' on this wise shewed He Himself (xxi. 1) : — ' So when they yot oiii U2ion the land,' for ' As soon then as they were come to land ' (ver. 9) : . ' the things concerninrj,' for ' the things pertaining to the kingdom of (5oD ' (Acts i. 3) : — ' as Goirs stcvmrd,' for ' as the steward of Goit ' (Tit. i. 7) : but ' tlie hclly of the uihnle' lor ' tbii whale's belly ' (S. Matth. xii. 40), and ' device of man ' for 'man's device' in Acts xvii. 29. — These, and JiiiiKlrcds of similai' alterations have been evidently made oui of (In- ir.] SENSELESS ALTERATIONS. 129 merest wantonness. After substituting ' tlierefore ' for ' then ' (as the rendering of ovv) a score of times, — the Eevisionists quite needlessly substitute ' then' for 'therefore' in S. Jo. xix. 42. — And why has the singularly beautiful greeting of ' the elder unto the well-beloved Gains,' been exchanged for ' unto Gaius the beloved ' ? (3 John, ver. 1). (b) We turn a few pages, and find ' he that doeth sin,' substituted for ' he that committeth sin ; ' and ' To this end ' put in the place of ' For this purpose ' (1 Jo. iii. 8) : — ' have beheld and bear luitness,' for ' have seen and do testify ' (iv. 14) : — ' hereby ' for ' by this ' (v. 2) : — ' Judas ' for ' Jude ' (Jude ver. 1), although 'Mark' was substituted for 'Marcus' (in 1 Pet. V. 13), and ' Timothy' iov ' Timotheus' (in Phil. i. 1) : — ' how that they said to you,' for ' how that they told you ' (Jude ver. 18). — But why go on ? The substitution of ' exceed- ingly ' for ' greatly ' in Acts vi. 7 : — ' the birds ' for ' the fowls,' in Eev. xix. 21: — 'Almighty' for 'Omnipotent' in ver. 6 : — 'throw down' for 'cast down,' in S. Luke iv. 29: — 'inner chamber ' for ' closet,' in vi. 6 : — these are not ' necessary ' changes We will give but three instances more : — In 1 S. Pet. V. 9, ' whom resist, stedfast in the faith,' has been altered into ' whom withstand.' But how is ' withstand ' a better rendering for avricrrrire, than ' resist ' ? ' Eesist,' at all events, was the Revisionists' word in S. Matth. v. 39 and S. James iv. 7. — Why also substitute ' the race ' (for ' the kindred ') 'of Joseph ' in Acts vii. 13, although 7erov was rendered ' kindred ' in iv. 6 ? — Do the Eevisionists think that 'fastening their eyes on him ' is a better rendering of arevlaavre^ ek avrov (Acts vi. 15) than ' looking stedfastly on him ' ? They certainly did not think so when they got to xxiii. 1. There, because they found ' cxtrncstly beholding the council,' they must needs alter the phrase into 'looking stedfastly.' It is clear therefore that Caprice, not Necessity, — • K 130 UNFAIRNESS OF THE REVISIONISTS IN [Akt. an itcliing imiMtience to introduce changes into the A.V., not the discovery of ' jjlctin and clear errors' — has determined the great bulk of the alterations which molest us in every part of tlie present unlearned and tasteless performance. II. The next point to which the Eevisionists direct our attention is their new Greek text, — ' the necessary foundation of their work. And here we must renew our protest against the wrong which has been done to English readers by the Eevisionists' disregard of the IVth Ptule laid down for their guidance, viz. that, whenever they adopted a new Textual reading, such alteration was to be ' indicated in the margin! This 'proved inconvenient,' say the Eevisionists. Yes, we reply : but only because you saw fit, in preference, to choke up your margin with a record of the preposterous readings you did not admit. Even so, however, the thing might to some extent have been done, if only by a system of signs in the margin wherever a change in the Text had been by yourselves effected. And, at Avhatever ' inconvenience,' you were bound to do this, — partly because the Eule before you was express : but chiefly in fairness to the English Eeader. How comes it to pass that you have never furnished him with the information you stood pledged to furnish ; but have instead, volunteered in every page information, worthless in itself, Avhich can only serve to unsettle the faith of un- lettered millions, and to suggest unreasonable as well as miserable douljts to tlie minds of all ? For no one may for an instant iuiiigiiic tliat the marginal statements of which we speak an' a kind of equivalent for the Apj)aratus Criticus which is found in e\i'ry i)rincipal edition of the Greek Testament — excepting always that of I)rs. Westcott and Hort. So far are we from deprecating (with Daniel Whitby) the multii)licati(»n of ' Various Eead- II.] RESPECT OF THEIR MARGINAL READINGS. 131 ings,' that we rejoice in them exceedingly; knowing that they are the very foundation of our confidence and the secret of our strength. For this reason we consider Dr. Tischen- dorf's last (8th) edition to be furnished with not nearly enough of them, though he left all his predecessors (and himself in his 7th edition) far behind. Our quarrel with the Revisionists is not by any means that they have commemo- rated a.ctual ' alternative Headings ' in their margin : but tliat, while they have given prominence throughout to patent Errors, they have unfairly excluded all mention of, — have not made the slightest allusion to, — hundreds of Readings which ought in fact ratJier to liave stood, in tlie Text. The marginal readings, which our Revisers have been so ill-advised as to put prominently forward, and to introduce to the Reader's notice with the vague statement that they are sanctioned by ' Some ' (or by ' Many ') ' ancient authorities,' — are specimens arhitrarily selected out of an immense mass ; are magisterially recommended to public attention and favour ; seem to be invested with the sanction and authority of Convocation itself. And this becomes a very serious matter indeed. No hint is given tvhich be the ' ancient Authorities ' so referred to : — nor what proportion they bear to the ' ancient Authorities ' producible on the opposite side : — nor whether they are the most ' ancient Authorities ' obtain- able : — nor what amount of attention their testimony may reasonably claim. But in the meantime a fatal assertion is hazarded in the Preface (iii. 1.), to the effect that in cases where ' it ivould, not he safe to accept one Reading to the absolute exclusion of others,' ' alternative Readings ' ha^e been given ' in the margin.' So that the ' Agony and bloody sweat ' of the World's Redeemer (Lu. xxii. 43, 44), — and His Prayer for His murderers (xxiii. 34), — and much beside of transcendent importance and inestimable value, may, aecordi7ig to our Revisionists, prove to rest upon Jio foundation whatever. K 2 132 S. MARK I. 1 : S. JOHN I. 3, AND III. 13. [Aut. At all events, ' it v:oulcl not he safe' (i.e. it is not safe) to place absolute reliance on them. Alas, how many a deadly blow at Eevealed Trutli hath been in this way aimed with fatal adroitness, which no amount of orthodox learnino; -will ever be iilAe hereafter to heal, much less to undo ! Thus, — (a) From the first verse of S. Mark's Gospel we are informed that ' Some ancient authorities omit the Son of God! Why are we not informed that every known uncial Copy cxcei^t one of had eharaeter, — every cursive hut two, — ei'^erij Version, — and the following Fathers, — all contain the precious clause: viz. Irenieus, — Porphyry, — Severianus of Gabala, — Cyril Alex., — Victor Ant., — and others, — besides Ambrose and Augustine among the Latins : — while the sup- posed adverse testimony of Serapion and Titus, Basil and Victorinus, Cyril of Jer. and Epiphanius, proves to be all a mistake ? To speak plainly, since the clause is above suspicion, Why are we not rather told so ? (h) In the 3rd verse of the first chapter of S. John's Gospel, we are left to take our choice between,—' without Him was not anything made that hath been made. In him was life; and the life,' &c., — and the following absurd alter- native,—' Witli out him was not anything made. That which hath heen made was life in him ; and the life,' &c. But we are not informed that this latter monstrous figment is known to have been the importation of the Gnostic heretics in tlie Ilnd century, and to be as destitute of authority as it is of sense. Why is i^romincnce given only to tlie lie ? (c) At S. John iii. 1;>, we arc informed tliat the last clause of that famous verse (' No man hath ascended u]i (o licaven, but He that came down IVoiii hca\cii, e\cii the Son of Man — which is in heaven'), is not I'oiuid in 'many ancient autho- II.] THE TEXT OF S. JOHN III. 13 ESTABLISHED. 133 rities.' But why, in the name of common fairness, are we not also reminded that this, (as will be found more fully explained in the note overleaf,) is a circumsfMnce of no Textual signi- ficanc.y 'whatever ? Why, above all, are we not assured that the precious clause in question (o mv iv tm ovpavw) is found in every MS. in the world, except five of bad character ? — is recognized by all the Latin and all the Syriac versions ; as well as l)y the Coptic, — .iEthiopic, — Georgian, — and Armenian ? ^ — is either quoted or insisted upon by Origen,^ — Hippolytus,^ — Athana- sius,* — Didymus,^ — Aphraates the Persian,^ — ■ Basil the Great,^ — Epiphanius,^ — JSTonnus, — ps.-Dionysius Alex.,^ — Eustathius ; ^^ — by Chrysostom," — Theodoret,^^ — and Cyril,^^ each 4 times ; — by Paulus, Bishop of Emesa ^* (in a sermon on Christmas Day, a.d. 431) ; — by Theodorus Mops.,^^ — Amphilochius,^'' — Severus,^'^ — -Theodorus Heracl.,^^ — Basilius Cil.,^^ — Cosmas,^" — John Damascene, in 3 places,^^ — and 4 other ancient Greek writers ; ^^ — besides Ambrose,^^ — Novatian,^* — Hilary,^^ — Lucifer,"*^ — ^ Victorinus, — Jerome,^^ — Cassian, ■ — • Vigilius,^^ — ■ Zeno,^* — Marius,^" — Maximus Taur.,^^ — Capreolus,^'^ — Augustine, &c. : — is acknowledged by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf: in short, is quite above suspieion : why are we not told that ? Those 10 Versions, ^ Malan's Oospel of S. John translated from the Eleven oldest Versions. 2 Int. ii. 72 ; iv. 622 dis. ^ q^ ^^et. § 4. M. 1275. ^ Trin. 363. « Ap. Gall. V. 67. ^ i. 282. » i. 486. 3 Ep. ad Paul. ^am. Condi, i. 872 e ; 889 e. ^^ Ap. Galland. iv. 583. " vii. 546; viii. 153, 154, 277. '^ iii. 570; iv. 226, 1049, 1153. ^» iv. 150 (text) ; vi. 30, 169. Mai, ii. 69. " Concilia, iii. 1102 d. ^5 Quoted by Leontius (Gall. xii. 693). ^^ In Cat. Cord. 96. " Ibid. p. 94. '« Cat. in Ps. ii. 323 aud 343. '» ^p^ Photium, p. 281. 20 Montf. ii. 286. '^ i. 288, 559, 507. 22 Ps.-Athan. ii. 464. Another, 625. Another, 630. Ps.-Epiphan. ii, 287. 23 i. 863, 903, 1428. ^ Gall. iii. 296. 25 32 dis. ; 514; 1045 dis. 26 Gall. vi. 192. 27 j^. G79. 28 ^p. Athan. ii. 646. ^ Gall. v. 124. 3" Ihid. iii. 628, 675. =" Ibid. ix. 367. ^2 yj^-^^^ j^., 493, 134 A PRECIOUS CLAUSE IN S. JOHN III. 13, TO [Art. those 38 Fathers, that host of Copies in the proportion of 995 to 5, — 'iohy, concerning all these is there not so much as a hint let fall that such a mass of counter-evidence exists ? ^ . . . Shame, — yes, shame on the learning M'hicli comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the * Let the Reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts of the several Versions above enumerated, and mentally assign each Father to his own approximate locality : then let him bear in mind that 995 out of 1000 of the extant Manuscripts agree with those Fathers and Versions; and let him further recognize that those MSS. (executed at difl'erent dates in different countries) must severally represent independent remote originals, inasmuch as no tiuo of them are found to he quite alike. — Next, let him consider that, in all the Churches of the East, these words from the earliest period were read &^furt of the Gospel for the llmrsday in Easter week. — This done, let him decide whether it is reasonable that two worshippers of codex B — a.d. 1881 — should attempt to thrust all this mass of ancient evidence clean out of sight by their peremptory sentence of exclusion, — ' Western and Syrian.' Drs. Westcott and Hort inform us that ' the character of the attestation marks ' the clause (6 tov (v tw ovpava), ' as a Western gloss.' But the ' attestation ' for retaining that clause — («) Comes demonstrably from every quarter of ancient Christendom : — (b) Is more ancient (by 200 years) than the evidence for omitting it : — (c) Is more numerous, in the propor- tion of 99 to 1 : — ('/) In point of respectability, stands absolutely alone. For since we have j^rovecZ that Origen and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, Ambrose and Jerome, recognize the words in dispute, of what possible Textual significancy can it be if presently (because it is sufficient for their purpose) the same Fathers are observed to quote S. John iii. 13 no further than doivn to the words ' Son of Man "i No person, (least of all a \)\\\- fessed Critic,) who adds to his learning a few grains of common sense and a little candour, can be misled by such a circumstance. Origen, Eusebius, Proclus, Ephraim Syrus, Jerome, Marius, when they are only insisting on the doctrinal significancy of the earlier words, naturally end their quotation at this place. The two Gregories (Naz. [ii. 87, 168] : Nyss. [Galland. vi. 522]), writing against the Apolinarian heresy, of course quoted the verse no further than Apolinaris himself was accustomed (for his heresy) to adduce it. . . . About the internal evidence for the clause, nothing has been said ; but this is simply overwhelming. We make our appeal to Catholic Antiquity ; and are content to rest our cause on E'ternal Evideme ; — on Copies, on Versions, on Fathers. II.] BE KE-INSTATED. — 'NUMBER OF THE BEAST.' 135 doubting, and to mislead the blind ! Shame, — yes, sharne on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most incompetent men, who, — finding themselves (in an evil hour) appointed to correct "plain and clear errors" in the English ' Authorized Version,' — occupied themselves instead with falsifning the inspired Gi^eek Text in countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of the Spirit ! Shame, — yes, shame upon them ! Why then, (it will of course be asked,) is the margin — («) of S. Mark i. 1 and— (&) of S. John i. 3, and— (c) of S. John iii. 13, encumbered after this discreditable fashion ? It is (we answer) only because the Text of Drs. Wcstcott and Hart is thus depraved in all three places. Those Scholars enjoy the unenviable distinction of having dared to expel from S. John iii. 13 the words o wv iv rm ovpavw, wdiich Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf were afraid to touch. Well may Dean Stanley have bestowed upon Dr. Hort the epithet of "fearless" ! ... If report speaks truly, it is by the merest accident that the clause in question still retains its place in the Revised Text. (d) Only once more. And this time we will turn to the very end of the blessed volume. Against Eev. xiii. 18 — " Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him " count the number of the Beast ; for it is the number of a " Man : and his number is six hundred and sixty and six." Against this, we find noted, — ' Some ancient authorities read six hundred and sixteen.' But why is not the tvhole Truth told ? viz. why are we not informed that onlg one corrupt uncial (c) : — o?ily one cursive copy (11) : — only one Father (Tichonius) : and not one ancient Version — advocates this reading ? — which, on the contrary. 136 'NUMBER OF THE BEAST.' [Aur. Irenaeus (a.d. 170) knew, but rejected; remarking that GC6, which is ' found in all the best and oldest copies and is attested Ijy men who saw John face to face,' is unquestion- ably the true reading.^ Why is not the ordinary Eeader 1'urther informed that the same number (GOG) is expressly vouched for by Origen,^ — by Hippolytus,^ — by Eusebius:* — as well as by Victorinus — and I'rimasius, — not to mention Andreas and Arethas ? To come to the moderns, as a matter of fact the established reading is accepted by Lachmann, Tiscliendorf, Tregelles, — even by Westcott and Hort. Why therefore — for what possible reason — at the end of 1700 years and upwards, is this, which is so clearly nothing else l)Ut an ancient slip of the pen, to be forced upon the attention of 90 millions of English-speaking people ? Will Bishop Ellicott and his friends venture to tell us tliat it has been done because " it would not be safe to accept " 666, "to the absolute exclusion of " 616? . . . "We have given alternative Readings in the margin," (say they,) " wherever tliey seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice." Will they venture to claim either ' interest ' or ' importance ' for this ? or pretend that it is an 'alternative Eeading' at all? Has it been rescued from oblivion and ]iaraded l)ef(n'e universal Christendom in oi'der to perplex, mystify, and discourage ' those that have under- standing,' and would fain ' count the number of the Beast,' il" they were able ? Or was the intention only to insinuate one more wretched doubt — one more miserable suspicion — into minds which have been taught {and rightly) to place absolute reliance in the textual accuracy of all the gravest utterances of the Sfikit : minds which are utterly incapable ' Pp. 79H, 799. iii. III. ^ Ant. c. 50; Conmm. c, 28. ■" Hid. Ecd. v. 8. II.] UNFAIR SUPPRESSION OF SCRIPTURE. 137 of dealing with the subtleties of Textual Criticism ; and, from a one-sided statement like the present, will carry away none but entirely mistaken inferences, and the most un- reasonable distrust ? . . . Or, lastly, was it only because, in their opinion, the margin of every Englishman's N. T. is the fittest place for reviving the memory of obsolete blunders, and ventilating forgotten perversions of tlie Truth ? . . . We really pause for an answer. {e) But serious as this is, more serious (if possible) is the unfair Suppression systematically practised throughout the work before us. " We have given alternative Readings in the margin," — (says Bishop Ellicott on behalf of his brother- Eevisionists,) — " wherever they seem to he of sufficient impiort- anee or interest to deserve notice." [iii. 1.] From which state- ment, readers have a right to infer that whenever " alterna- tive Readings " are not " given in the margin," it is because such Readings do not " seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice." Will the Revisionists venture to tell us that, — (to take the first instance of unfair Suppression which presents itself,) — our Lokd's saying in S. Mark vi. 11 is not " of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice " ? We allude to the famous words, — " Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city : " — words which are not only omitted from the '' ISTew English Version," but are not suffered to leave so much as a trace of themselves in the margin. And yet, the saying in question is attested by the Pescliito and the Philoxenian Syriac Versions : by the Old Latin : by the Coptic, ^thiopic and Gothic Versions : — by 11 uncials and by the whole bulk of the cursives: — by Irenteus and by Victor of Antioch. So that whether Antiquity, or A^ariety of Attestation is considered, — whether we look for Xuml^ers or for Respectability, — the genuineness 138 REVISIONISTS' NOTION OF MAKING [Art. of the passage may be regarded as certain. Our coinj^laint however is not that the Eevisionists entertain a different opinion on this head from ourselves : hut that they give the reader to understand that tlie state of the Evidence is such, that it is quite "safe to accept" the shorter reading, — " to the absolute exclusion of the other." — So vast is the field before us, that this single specimen of what we venture to call ' unfair Suppression,' must suffice. (Some will not hesitate to bestow upon it a harsher epithet.) It is in truth by far the most damaging feature of the work before us, that its Authors should have so largely and so seriowslj falsijied the Deposit; and yet, (in clear viohilion of the IVth Principle or Eule laid down for their guidance at the outset,) have suffered no trace to survive in the margin of the deadly mischief which they have effected. III. From the Text, the Revisionists pass on to the Translation ; and surprise us by the avowal, that ' the character of the Revision was determined for us from the outset by the first Rule, — "to introduce as few alterations as possible, consistently with faithfulness." Our task was Revision, not Re translation.' (This is 7iaive certainly.) They proceed, — ' If the meaning was fairly expressed by the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorized Version, wc made no change, even where rigid adherence to the rule of Translating, as far as jiossihle, the same Greek word hy the same Emjlish word might have prescribed some modification.' — [iii. 2 init.'] (The italics are our own.) To the 'rule' thus introduced to our notice, we shall recur by and by [pp. 152-4: also pp. 187-2U2]. We proceed to remark on each of the live princi[)al Classes of altera- tions indicated by the Revisionists : and iirst, — ' Alterations II.] 'AS FEW ALTEKATIONS AS POSSIBLE.' 139 positively required by change of reading in the Greek Text ' {lUd.). (1) Thus, in S. John xii. 7, we find ' Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying ; ' and in the margin (as an alternative), ' Let her alone : it urns that she might heeji it.' — Instead of ' as soon as Jesus heard the word,' — ^we are invited to choose between ' not heeding,' and ' overhearing the word ' (S. Mk. V. 36) : these being intended for renderings of irap- aKov(7ayed) clcavl}' nieaiis ucillicr the one nor the dtlier. S. Paul is delivering a warning against unduly ' 2)rying into the tilings not seen.' ^ A few MSS. of bad character omit the ' not.' That is all ! . . . These then are a handful of the less II.] REMEDYING 'INCORRECTNESS' AND 'OBSCURITY.' 141 conspicuous instances of a change in the English ' positively required by a change of reading in the Greek Text : ' every one of them being either a pitiful blunder or else a gross fabrication. — Take only two more : ' I neither know, nor understand : thou, what say est thou ? ' (Mk. xiv. 68 margin) : — ' And whither I go, ye know the way ' (Jo. xiv. 4). . . . The A. V. is better in every instance. (2) and (3) Next, alterations made because the A. V. ' appeared to be incorrect ' or else ' obscure.' They must needs be such as the following : — ' He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet' (S. John xiii. 10).—' Lord, if he is fallen asleep he will recover' (acoOtjaerai, xi. 12). — 'Go ye therefore into the partings of the higMoays ' (Matth. xxii. 9). — ' Being grieved at the hardening of their heart ' (Mk. iii. 5). — ' Light a lamp and put it on the stand ' (Matt. v. 15). — ' Sitting at the place of toll' (ix. 9). — 'The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working' (James v. 16). — 'Awake up righteously ' (1 Cor. xv. 34). — ' Guarded through faith unto a salvation ' (1 Pet. i. 5). — ' Wandering in . . . the holes of the earth' (Heb. xi. 38 — very queer places certainly to be ' wandering ' in). — ■' She that is in Bahylon, elect together with you, saluteth you' (1 Pet. v. 13).- -'Therefore do these foivers work in Him ' (Matth. xiv. 2). — ' In danger of the hell of fire ' (v. 22).- — ' Put out into the deep ' (Luke v. 4). — ' The tomb that Aljraham bought for a price in silver ' (Acts vii. 16). With reference to every one of these places, (and they are but samples of what is to be met with in every page,) we ven- ture to assert that they are either less intelligible, or else more inaccurate, than the expressions which they are severally in- tended to supersede ; while, in some instances, they are loth. Will any one seriously contend that ' the hire of wrong-doing ' 142 CASES OF ' INCORRECTNESS ' AND ' OBSCURITY,' [Aut. is bettor than 'the ukkjcs of unriglitcousncss' (2 Pet. ii. 15)? or, will he venture to deny that, ' Come and dine,' — ' so when they had dined,' — is a hundred times better than ' Come and hreak your fast,' — ' so when they had broken their fast ' (Jo. xxi. 12, 15) ? — expressions which are only introduced because the Revisionists were ashamed (as well they miglit be) to write ' breakfast ' and ' breakfasted.' The seven had not been 'fasting.' Then, wliy introduce so incongruous a notion here, — any more than into S. Luke xi. 37, 38, and xiv. 12 ? Has the reader any appetite for more specimens of ' in- correctness ' remedied and ' obscurity ' removed ? Rather, as it seems, have hath been largely imported into a Translation which was singularly intelligible before. Why darken Rom. vii. 1 and xi. 2 by introducing the interrogative particle, and then, by mistranslating it ' Or ' ? — Also, why translate 76^09 ' r((ce ' ? (' a man of Cyprus hi/ race,' ' a man of Pontus h]/ race,' ' an Alexandrian hi/ race,' Acts iv. 36 : xviii. 2, 24). — ' If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body,' say the Revisionists : ' 0 death, where is thy victory ? 0 death wliere is thy sting ? ' (Could they not let even 1 Cor. xv. 44 and 55 alone ?) — Why alter ' For the Ijread of God is He,' into ' For the bread of God is that which cometh down from Heaven ' ? (Jo. vi. 33). — ' As long as I am in the world,' was surely better than ' When I am in the world, I am the light of the world ' (ix. 5). — Is ' He icent forth out of their hand ' supposed to be an improvement upon ' He escaped out of tlieir hand' ? (x. 39) : and is ' Tliey loved the glorg of men more than iJic (jlory oi God' an improvement upon ' the praise' "i (xii. 43). — 'Judas saith unto Him, Lord, what is come to pass that Thou wilt manifest Tliyself to us ' ? Is that su])posed to ))e an iini)n»venient" upon xiv. 22? — How is ' Jf then' an improvement on ' Forasmuch then ' in Acts xi. 17 I — or how is lliis eiiduialdc in Rom. vii. 15,— 'For tlint wliicli I do, I II.] HOW REMEDIED BY THE REVISIONISTS. 143 hiow not : for not what I would, tliat do I fvactuc: ' — or this, in xvi. 25, ' The mystery which hath been hcjit in silence through times eteinial, but now is manifested,' &c.^ — 'Thou therefore, my child,' — addressing the Bishop of Ephesus (2 Tim. ii. 1): and 'Titus, my true child,' — addressing the Bishop of Crete (Tit. i. 4). Are the following deemed improvements ? ' Every one tliat docth sin doeth also lawlessness : and sin is laiolessness ' (1 Jo. iii. 4) : ' I will move thy candlestick out of its place ' (Rev. ii. 5) : — ' a glassy sea ' (iv. 6) : — ' a great voice ' (v. 12) : — ' Verily, not of Angels doth He take hold, but He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham : ' — ' He took hold o/the blind man by the hand : ' — ' They took hold of him and brought hmi unto the Areopagus' (Heb. ii. 16 : S. Mk. viii. 23 : Acts xvii. 19) : — ' wherefore GoD is not ashamed of them, to be called their God' (Acts xi. 16): — 'Counted it not a jn^ize to be on an equality with God ' (Phil. ii. 6). — Why are we to substitute ' court' for 'palace ' in Matth. xxvi. 3 and Lu. xi. 21 ? (Con- sider Matth. xii. 29 and Mk. iii. 27). — ' Women received their dead hy a resurrection ' (Heb. xi. 35) : — ' If ye forgive not every one his brother from their hearts '"(Matth. xviii. 35) : — ' If hecaiise of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love' (Rom. xiv. 15): — 'which God, who cannot lie, promised hefore times eteimal ; but in his oivn seasoiis manifested his word in the message ' (Tit. i. 2, 3) :• — ' Your •pleasures [and why not ' lusts ' ?] that war in your members ' (James iv. 1) : — ' Behold how much wood is kindled by how small a fire!' (iii. 5).— Are these really supposed to be less ' obscure ' than the passages they are intended to supersede ? (a) Not a few of the mistaken renderings of the Revision- ists can only be established by an amount of illustration which is at once inconvenient to the Reviewer and unwelcome pro- 144 S. TJ^vE TT. 38 AXD X. 40 : AT.SO [Aut. l)ablyt() tlie n'ciieral Iveader. Thus, we take leave to point out that, — ' And coming up at tliat very hour ' (in Lu. ii. 38), — as well as ' she came up to Him ' (in Ln. x. 40), are inexact renderings of the original. The verl) i(f)iardvai, whicli etymologically signifies " to stand upon," or " over," or " by," — (but which retains its literal signification on only four out of the eighteen occasions ^ when the word occurs in the Gospels and Acts,) — is found almost invariably to denote the " coming suddenly upon " a person. Hence, it is observed to l)e used five times to denote the sudden appearance of friendly visitants from the unseen world :^ and seven times, the sudden hostile approach of ^\•hat is formidable.^ On the two remaining occasions, which are those before us, — (namely, the sudden coming of Anna into the Temple * and of Martha into the presence of our Lord,^) — " coming sud- dcnly in " would probably represent S. Luke's eTricrraaa exactly. And yet, one would hesitate to import the word " suddenly " into the narrative. So that " coming in " would after all have to stand in the text, although the attentive student of Scripture would enjoy the knowledge that some- thing more is implied. In other words, — the Eevisionists would have done better if they had left both places alone. . . These are many words ; yet is it impossible to explain such matters at once satisfactorily and l)riefly. (h) But more painful by far it is to discover that a morbid striving after etymological accuracy, — added to a ' Vi/.. S. I.uke iv. 39: Acts x. 17: xi. 11 : xxii. 20. - S. lAike ii. 9 (where ''came upon'' is bettor thuu ' atuod by tliem,' and sliduld liave been left): xxiv. 4: Acts xii. 7: xxii. i;5: xxiii. 11. « «, Luke XX. 1: xxi. 34 (last Day): Acts iv. 1: vi. 12: xvii. 5 ("assault"): xxiii. 27: xxviii. 2 (a rain-storm, — which, liy tiic wny, suggests for rbv ((^(aTtbra a ililTercnt rendering from * the j^i'a^ent '). ^ S. T.id9 iratSa^i (in Matth. ii. 16) is an unauthorized statement. There is no reason for supposing that the female infants of Bethlehem were spared in the general massacre : and the Greek certainly conveys no such information. — 'When he came into the house, Jesus spake first to him ' — is really an incorrect rendering of Matth. xvii. 25 : at least, it imports into the narrative a notion which is not found in the Greek, and does not exhibit faithfully what the Evangelist actually says. ' Anticipated' in modern English, — 'prevented,' in ancient phraseology, — ' vms hcforchand with him ' in language neither new nor old, — conveys the sense of the original exactly. — In S. Lu. vi. 35, ' Love your enemies, . . . and lend, never despairing' is simply a mistaken translation of aireXiri- ^ovT€<;, as the context sufficiently proves. The old rendering is the true one.^ And so, learnedly, the Vulgate, — nihil inde sj)erantcs. (Consider the use of airo^Xeireiv [Heb. xi. 26] : a^o/3ay'[Phil. ii. 23 : Heb. xii. 2] : ahutor, as used by Jerome for utor, &c.) — ' Go with them making no distinction' is not the meaning of Acts xi. 12 : which, however, was correctly trans- lated before, viz. ' nothing doubting.' — The mischievous change ('save' in place of 'hut') in Gal. ii. 16 has been ably and faithfully exposed by Bp. Ollivant. In the words of the ' "Tlic context" (says learned Dr. Field) "is luo strong f(ir i>liilulogical (|uil)l)le.s." The words "run hy no poasihUity hcdr any other maining" — Utiiim Norviccnae, p. 40. n.] INJUDICIOUS OR EKRONEOUS CHANGES. 147 learned and pious Bp. of Lincoln, ' it is illogical and erroneous, and contradicts the whole drift of S. Paul's Argument in that Epistle, and in the Epistle to the Romans.' [d) We should be dealing insincerely with our Readers were we to conceal our grave dissatisfaction at not a few of the novel expressions which the Revisionists have sought to introduce into the English New Testament. That the malefactors between whom ' the Lord of glory ' was crucified were not ordinary ' thieves,' is obvious ; yet would it have been wiser, we think, to leave the old designation undis- turbed. We shall never learn to call them ' rohhers.'—' The king sent forth a soldier of his guard ' is a gloss — not a translation of S. Mark vi. 27. ' An executioner' surely is far preferable as the equivalent for cnreKovXaroip ! ^ — ' Assassins ' (as the rendering of atKapioi) is an objectionable substitute for ' murderers.' A word which " belongs probably to a romantic chapter in the history of the Crusades " ^ has no business in the N. T. — And what did tliese learned men suppose they should gain by suljstituting ' the ttuin brothers ' for 'Castor and Pollux' in Acts xxviii. 11? The Greek (AioaKovpoi) is neither the one nor the other. — In the same spirit, instead of, ' they that received trihute-money ' (in S. Matth. xvii. 24), we are now presented with 'they that received the half -shekel : ' and in verse 27, — instead of ' when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money' we are favoured with ' thou shalt find a shekel.' But why the change has been made, we fail to see. The margin is still obliged to explain that not one of these four words is found in the original : the Greek in the former place being ra SlSpwy^jna, — in the latter, ararrip. — ' Flute- ^ ^TparicjTrjs os npoi to cjiovtvfiu reraKTai, — Theophylact, i. 201 e. Boys quotes Seneca De Tree: — Tunc centurio sujypUcio propositus con- dere gladium speculatoremyf tssiY. ^ Trench, Study of Words, p. 106. L 2 148 CHANGES FOE THE WORSE. [Art. flayers ' (f(n" ' minstrels ') in S, Matthew ix. 23, is a mis- take. An avK7)Tripovei viktjv avTos 6 xeipa)6e\s o/xoXoyet Xa/XTrpa tj] (pair'jj TvapovTuiv imdvTOiv kiyuiv, ev oXi'yo) K. T. X. X. 307 b. ( = xii. 433 a). ^ iv oXiycp • Tovreari napii piKpuv. ix. 391 a, 152 MEANING OF ACTS XXVI. 28, 29. [Art. persuaded his judge.^ He even puts Trap okvyov into Agrippa's moutli.^ So also, in effect, Theodoret.^ From all which it is reasonable, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to infer that our A. V. reflects faithfully what was the Church's traditionary interpretation of Acts xxvi. 28 in the first half of the fourth century. Let it only be added that a better judge of such matters than any who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber — the late President of Magdalen, Dr. Routh, — writes : ' Vcrtendum esse sequentia suadent, Me fere Christi- anuni fieri suades. Interp. Vtdgata hahet, In modico suades me Christianum fieri' ^ Yes, the Apostle's rejoinder fixes the meaning of what Agrippa had said l)efore. — And this shall sufl&ce. We pass on, only repeating our devout wish that what the Revisionists failed to understand, or were unable materially and ecrtainly to improve, they would have been so obliging as to let alone. In the present instance the A. V. is probably right ; the R. V., probably wrong. No one, at all events, can pretend that the rendering with which we are all familiar is " a plain and clear error." And confessedly, unless it was, it should have been left unmolested. But to proceed. (4) and (5) There can be no question as to the absolute duty of rendering identical expressions in strictly imrallel places of the Gospels by strictly identical language. So far we are wholly at one with tlie Revisionists. But 'alterations [supposed to be] rendered necessary hy conseqiience ' (Preface, iii. 2.), are quite a different matter : and we venture to think that it is precisely in their pursuit of a mechanical uniformity of rendering, that our Revisionists have most often as well as most grievously lost their way. We differ from them in fact in limine. ' When a particular word ' (say they) ' is found to ' Ka\ Tov 8iK(i^ovTU jXiKfjov fifTaTTflirai, o)j Koi avrov eKelvov Xe-yeiJ', fv ,)\[yu, K. T. X. ii. nif; a. 2 iii_ 399 (j_ ^ V. '.i.".0 (mij)' uK'iyov). * MS, Note in his copy of the N. T. II.] TE'KNON:— SnAA'rXNA :— ET'QE'nS. 153 recur with characteristic frequency in any one of the Sacred Writers, it is obviously desirable to adopt for it some uniform rendering ' (iii. 2). ' Desirable ' ! Yes, but in what sense ? It is much to be desired, no doubt, that the English language always contained the exact counterparts of Greek words : and of course, if it did, it would be in the highest degree ' desirable ' that a Translator should always employ those words and no other. But then it happens unfortunately that precisely equivalent v.-ords do not exist. TeKvov, nine times out of ten signifies nothing else but 'child.' On the tenth occasion, however, (e.g. where Abraham is addressing the rich man in Hades,) it would be absurd so to render it. We translate * Son.' We are in fact without choice. — Take another ordinary Greek term, cnT\d'y)(ya, which occurs 11 times in the N. T., and which the A. V. uniformly renders ' bowels.' Well, and ' bowels ' confessedly crirKar^yya are. Yet have our Eevision- ists felt themselves under the 'necessity' of rendering the word 'heart' in Col. iii. 12, — 'very hearty in Philemon, ver. 12, — 'affections' in 2 Cor. vi. 12, — ■' inioard affection' in vii. 15, — 'tender 7nercies' in Phil. i. 8, — ' compassion' in 1 Jo. iii. 17, — -'bowels' only in Acts i. 18. — These learned men, however, put forward in illustration of their own jDrinciple of translation, the word ey^eeo?,— which occurs about 80 times in the N. T. : nearly half the instances being found in S. Mark's Gospel. We accept their challenge; and assert that it is tasteless barljarism to seek to imj^ose upon evdico^;, — no matter what the context in which it stands, — the sense of 'straightway,' — only because ev6u) our debtors."^ — On the other hand, there are Greek presents (whatever the Eevi- sionists may think) which are just as peremptory in requiring the sign of the future, at the hands of the idiomatic trans- lator into English. Three such cases are found in S. Jo. xvi. 16, 17, 19. Surely, the future is inherent in the present €pxo/J.ai ! In Jo. xiv. 18 (and many similar places), ivho can endure, ' I will not leave you desolate : / coine unto you ' ? 1 ii. 155. 2 Routh, BeJl iii. 226 ad culc. ^ Ap. Mai, iv. 2GG. * ii. 1324. ^ ii. 380. * Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 403. ■^ So also Heb. xi. 17, 28. And see the Revision of S. James i. 11. ^ Comp. d(f)Ufi€v in S. Lu. xi. 4. In the case of certaiu Greek verl is, the preterite in form is invariably present in signification. See Dr. Field's delightful Otmm Norvic.ense, p. 65. M 2 164 THE GREEK ARTICLE, MISUNDERSTOOD [Art. (/) But instances abound. How does it happen that the inaccurate rendering of eKKOTrreraL — iK/3d\X€Tat — has been retained in S. Matth. iii. 10, S. Lu. iii. 9 ? Y. Next, concerning the definite Akticle ; in the case of which, (say the Ecvisionists,) ' many changes have been made.' ' We have been careful to observe the use of the Article wherever it seemed to be idiomatically possible: where it did not seem to be possible, we have yielded to necessity.' — (^Preface, iii. 2, — ad Jin.) In reply, instead of offering counter-statements of our own we content ourselves with submitting a few specimens to tlie Header's judgment ; and invite him to decide between the Reviewer and tlie Reviewed . . . ' The sower went fortli to sow ' (Matth. xiii. 3). — ' It is greater than the herbs ' (ver. 32). — ' Let him be to thee as the Gentile and the publican ' (xviii. 17). — 'The unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man' (xii. 43).—' Did I not choose you the twelve ? ' (Jo. vi. 70). — ' If I then, the Lord and the master ' (xiii. 14). — ' For the joy that a man is born into the world' (xvi. 21). — ' But as touching Apollos the brother' (1 Cor. xvi. 12). — ' The Bishop must be blameless . . . able to exhort in the sound doctrine ' (Titus i. 7, 9). — ' The lust when it hath conceived, beareth sin : and the sin, when it is full grown ' &c. (James i. 15). — ' Doth the fountain send forth from tlie same opening sweet water and bitter?' (iii. 11). — 'Speak thou the things which beht the sound doctrine' (Titus ii. 1). — 'The time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine' (2 Tim. iv. 3). — 'We had tJu- fathers of our flesh to chasten us' (Ileb. xii. 9). — ' Follow after peace with all men, and the sanctihcation' (ver. 14). — 'Who is the liar but he that dciiicth that Jksus is the CliKlsT ?' (1 do. ii. 22). — 'Not with the wiiter only, but with the water and with i/ic blood' (v. (')). — ' He that hath the Son, hath the life : he tliat hath not the SoN of GoD hath not the hfe' (ver. 12). II.] BY THE REVISIONISTS.— THE PRONOUNS. 165 To rejoin, as if it were a sufficient answer, that the detinitt; Article is found in all these places in the original Greek, — is preposterous. In French also we say ' Telle est la vie : ' but, in translating from the French, we do not therefore say ' Such is the life.' May we, without offence, suggest the study of Middleton On the Doctrine of the Greek Article to those members of the Kevisionists' body who have favoured us with the foregoing crop of mistaken renderings I vSo, in respect of the indefinite article, we are presented with, — ' J^?i eternal' (for 'the everlasting') 'gospel to pro- claim ' (Rev. xiv. 6) : — and ' one like unto a son of man,' for ' one like unto the Son of Man ' in ver. .14. — Why ' a Saviour ' in Phil. iii. 20? There is but one! (Acts iv. 12).— On the other hand, Kpavlov is rendered ' The skull ' in S. Lu. xxiii. 33. It is hard to see why. — These instances taken at random must suffice. They might be multiplied to any extent. If the Header considers that the idiomatic use of the Englisli Article is understood by the authors of these specimen cases, we shall be surprised, and sorry— /or hi7n, VI. The Revisionists announce that they ' have been parti- cularly careful ' as to THE Pkonouns [iii. 2 ad fin. \ We recal with regret that this is also a particular wherein we have been specially annoyed and offended. Annoyed — at their practice of repeating the nominative (e.g. in Mk. i. 13 : Jo. xx. 12) to an extent unknown, abhorrent even, to our language, except indeed when a fresh substantive statement is made : offended — at their license of translation, vjhcn it suits them to be licen- tious.— Thus, (as the Bp. of S. Andrews has well pointed out,) ' it is He that ' is an incorrect translation of avTO'i in S. Matth. i. 21, — a famous passage. Even worse, because it is unfair, is * He who ' as the rendering of o? in 1 Tim. iii. 16, — another famous passage, which we have discussed elsewhere.^ ^ See above, pp. 08-106. Also iii/ra, towards the end. 166 THE PARTICLES, TASTELESSLY [Art. VII. ' In the case of the I'auticles ' (say the Revisionists), ' wc have been able to maintain a reasonable amount of con- sistency. The Particles in the Greek Testament are, as is well knowD, comparatively few, and the.y are commonly used with precision. It has therefore been the more necessary here to preserve a general uniformity of rendering.' — (iii. 2 ad fin.) Such an announcement, we suljmit, is calculated to occasion nothing so much as uneasiness and astonishment. Of all the parts of speech, the Greek Particles, — (especially throughout the period when the Language w^as in its deca- dence,)— are the least capable of being drilled into ' a general uniformity of rendering ; ' and he who tries the experiment ought to be the first to be aware of the fact. The refinement and delicacy which they impart to a narrative or a senti- ment, are not to be told. But then, from the very nature of the case, 'uniformity of rcndcrhuj' is precisely the thing they will not submit to. They take their colour from their context : often mean two cpiite different things in the course of two successive verses : sometimes are best rendered by a long and formidable word ; ^ sometimes cannot (without a certain amount of impropriety or inconvenience) be rendered at all.'^ Let us illustrate what we have been saying by actual a])peals to Scripture. (I) And iirst, we will derive ouv in'ddl's iVom the use which the sacred Writers make of the ])article of most ' As ill S. Matth. xi. 11 and 2 Tim. iv. 17, where be is rendered " not- withstanding: " — Phil. i. 24 and Heb. xii. 11, where it is "nevertheless." 2 Eiyht times in succession in 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, 6e is not represented in the A. V. Tlie ancicuts/e?i so keenly what Tyndale, Cranmer, tlie Geneva, the Plieims, and the A. V. ventured to exhibit, tliat as often as not they leave out the be, — in which our Revisit)nists twice follow thcni. The reader of taste is invited to note the precious result of insert ini:^; 'iind,' as the Revisionists have done six times, where according to the genius nf tin! lOnglish language it is not wanted at all. II.] OR INACCURATELY RENDERED. 107 frequent recurrence — Se. It is said to be empLjyed in the N. T, 3115 times. As for its meaning, we have the unim- peachable authority of the Eevisionists themselves for saying that it may be represented by any of the following words : — ' but/ — ' and,' ^ — ' yea,' ^ — ' what,' ^ — ' now,' * — ' and that,' ^ — ' howbeit,' ^ — ' even,' "^ — ' therefore,' ^ — ' I say,' ^ — ' also,' ^'' — 'yet,'^^ — ' for.' ^^ To which 12 renderings. King James's translators (mostly following Tyndale) are observed to add at least these other 12 : — ' wherefore,' ^^ — ' so,' ^* — ' moreover,' ^^ — ' yea and,' ^^ — ' furthermore,' ^'' — ' nevertheless,' ^^ — ' not- withstanding,' i»— ' yet but,' 2*'—' truly,' ^^—' or,' ^^—' as for,' ^^ — ' then,' ^* — ' and yet.' ^^ It shall suffice to add that, by the pitiful substitution of ' but ' or ' and ' on most of the fore- going occasions, the freshness and freedom of almost every passage has been made to disappear : the plain fact being that the men of 1611 — above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them — produced a work of real genius ; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English : whereas the men of 1881 have fulfilled their task in what can only be described as a siyirit of servile -pedantry. The Grammarian (pure and simple) crops up everywhere. We seem never to rise above the atmosphere of the lecture-room, — the startling fact that fxiv means ' indeed,' and Se ' Init.' ^ 38 times in the Genealogy, S. Matth. i. ^ Roj^_ xiv. 4 : xv. 20. 3 Rom. ix. 22. * 1 Cor. xii. 27. ^ Gal. ii. 4. « Acts xxvii. 26. "^ Rom. iii. 22. ^ Ephes. iv. 1. » 2 Cor. V. 8. ^"^ S. Mark xv. 31. " S. Mark vi. 29. 12 1 Cor. X. 1. " S. Matth. vi. 30. " S. John xx. 4. IS 2 Cor. i. 23. ^^ 2 Cor. vii. 13. " 2 Cor. ii. 12. '8 2 Pet. iii. 13. ^^ S. Matth. ii. 22. 20 ^ ^or. xii. 20. 21 1 S. John i. 3. ^2 §_ Matth. xxv. 39. 23 ^^ts viii. 3. 2^ Rom. xii. 6. ^5 g_ Matth. vi. 29. 168 TASTELESS OR INACCURATE [Akt. We subjoin a single specimen of the countless changes introduced in the rendering of Particles, and then hasten on. In 1 Cor, xii. 20, for three centuries and a half, Englishmen have been contented to read (with William Tyndale), ' But now are they many members, yet but one body.' Our Revisionists, (overcome by the knowledge that Si means ' but,' and yielding to the supposed ' necessity for preserving a general uniformity of rendering,') sulistitute, — 'But now they are many members, hut one body.' Comment ought to be superfluous. We neither overlook the fact that Si occurs here twice, nor deny that it is fairly represented by ' but ' in the first instance. We assert nevertheless that, on the second occasion, 'yet but' ought to have been let alone. And this is a fair sample of the changes which have been effected mawj times in every page. To proceed however. (2) The interrogative particle y occurs at tlie beginning of a sentence at least 8 or 10 times in the N. T. ; first, in S. Matth. vii. 9. It is often scarcely translateable, — being apparently invested with no more emphasis than belongs to our colloquial interrogative ' Wi ? ' But sometimes it would evidently bear to be represented by ' Pray,' ^ — being at least equivalent to ^epe in Greek or age in Latin. Once only (viz. in 1 Cor. xiv. 30) does this interrogative particle so eloquently plead for recognition in the text, that both our A. V. and the L'. V. have rendered it 'What?' — by wliich word, l)y the way, it might very fairly ha\e l)cen representetl in S. Matth. xxvi. 53 and Rom. vi. 3 : vii. 1. In five of the places where the particle occurs. King James's Translators are observed to liave given it up in despair." r)Ut wliat is to be thought of the adventurous dulness wliich (with the single exception already indicated) has invariahltj rendered -i] by 1 As ill H. Matth. vii. 9 : xii. 29: xx. 15. 1\om. iii. !.'!». 2 S. Matth. XX. 15: xxvi. 53. Horn. iii. 29: vi. 3: vii. 1. II.] EENDERING OF PARTICLES. 169 the conjunction ' or ' ? The bhmder is the more inexcusable, because the intrusion of such an irrelevant conjunction into places where it is without either use or meaning cannot have failed to attract the notice of every member of the Ilevising body. (3) At the risk of being wearisome, we must add a few words. — Kat, though no particle but a conjunction, may for our present purpose be reasonably spoken of under the same head ; being diversely rendered ' and,' — ' and yet,' ^ — ' then,' ^ — ' or/ 3—' neither,' *— ' though,' ^—' so,' ^— ' but,' ^—' for,' «— ' that,' ^ — in conformity with what may be called the genius of the Eno'lish language. The last six of these renderinf;js, however, our Eevisionists disallow ; everywhere thrusting out the word which the argument seems rather to require, and with mechanical precision thrusting into its place every time the (perfectly safe, but often palpably inappropriate) word, ' and.' With what amount of benefit this has been effected, one or two samples will sufficiently illustrate : — {a) The Revisionists inform us that when " the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth," — S. Paul exclaimed, " God shall smite thee, thou whited wall : and sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law ? " ^" . . . Do these learned men really imagine that they have improved upon the A. V. by their officiousness in altering ' for ' into ' axd ' ? ih) The same Apostle, having ended his argument to the Hebrews, remarks, — ' So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief (Heb. iii. 19) : for which, our Eevisionists ' S. John xvi. 32. - S. Luke xix. 23. ^ 2 Cor. xiii. 1. ^ S. Luke xii. 2. ^ S. Luke xviii. 7. « S. Luke xiv. 21. '' 1 S. John ii. 27. ^ 1 S. Jolm i. 2. » S. Mark ix. 89. "^ Acts xxiii, 3. 17U UNIDIOMATIC RENDERING OF [Art. again substitute ' And.' Begin the sentence with ' And,' (instead of ' So,') and, in compensation for what you have clearly lod, wliat have you gained ? . . . Once more : — (c) Consider what S. Paul writes concerning Apollos (in 1 Cor. xvi. 12), and then say what possible advantage is obtained l)y writing ' AND ' (instead of ' but) his will was not at all to come at this time '. . . . Yet once more ; and on this occasion, scholarship is to some extent involved :— (d) When S. James (i. 11) says avereiXe jap 6 i]Xioarent to a Bcadcr of ordinary intelligence' It II.] THE PREPOSITIONS. — 2 PETER I. 5-7. 171 would of course ill become such an one as the present Reviewer to lay claim to the foregoing flattering designation : but really, when he now for the first time reads (in Acts ix. 25) tliat the disciples of Damascus let S. Paul down ' through the wall' he must be pardoned for regretting the absence of a marginal reference to the history of Pyramus and Thisbe in order to suggest how the operation was effected : for, as it stands, the R. V. is to him simply unintelligible. Inasmuch as the basket {a-irvpis:) in which the Apostle effected his escape was of considerable size, do but think what an extravagantly large hole it must have been to enable them both to get through ! . . . But let us look further. Was it then in order to bring Scripture within the captus of ' a Reader of ordinary intelligence ' that the Revisers have introduced no less than thirty changes into c/ight-and-thirty ivords of S. Peter's 2nd Epistle ? Particular attention is invited to the following interesting specimen of 'Revision.'' It is the only one we shall offer of the many contrasts we had marked for insertion. We venture also to enquire, whether the Revisers will consent to al)ide by it as a specimen of their skill in dealing with the Preposition iv ? A.V. R.V. 1 2 3 4 ' And beside all this, giving ' Yea, and for this very cause all diligence, add to your faith ^^^^^^g J^ y^^^. ^J^^ ^jj ^^jj-, virtue ; and to virtue know- .» '•» , , 1.1 1 1 J. gence, in your taitn supplv ledge ; and to knowledge tern- ° '' lo n perance ; and to temperance virtue ; and in ^ yoiir virtue patience ; and to patience god- knowledge; and in your know- liness; and to godliness bro- ledge temperance ; and in yoSir therly kindness; and to bro- , ,. , .is ,,/,., 1 -., J ro temperance patience ; and m therly kindness chanty. — [2 n Pet i 5-7 1 yoyxY patience godliness ; and "J 18 I'J 20 21 22 in your godliness love of the 23 24 2S 26 27 brethren ; and in your love of 28 29 30 the brethren love.' 172 no CHANGES IN 38 WORDS. — VIOLATED [Art. The foregoing strikes us as a singular illustration of the lievisionists' statement {Preface, iii. 2), — ' We made 7io change if the meaning was fairly cxfrcsscd by the word or phrase that was l)efore us in the Autliorized Version.' To ourselves it appears that every one of those 30 changes is a change for the coarse ; and that one of the most exquisite passages in the N. T. has been hopelessly spoiled, — rendered in fact well-nigh unintelligil)le, — by the pedantic officious- ness of the Kevisers. Were they — (if the question be allow- able)— bent on removing none but 'plain and clear errors,' when they substituted those 30 words ? Was it in token of their stern resolve ' to introduce into the Text as few altera- tions as ]i(^ssihle' that they spared the eight words which remain out of the eight-and-thirty ? As for their ivoodcn rendering of eV, it ought to suffice to refer them to S. ]\Ik. i. 23, S. Lu. xiv. 31, to prove that some- times iv can only be rendered ' with : ' — and to S. Luke vii. 17, to show them that iv sometimes means ' thronghout : ' — and to Col. i. 16, and Heb. i. 1, 2, in proof that sometimes it means ' hy.' — On the other hand, their suggestion that iv may be rendered 'hy' in S. Luke i. 51, convicts them of not being aware that 'the proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts' is a 'phrase — in which perforce * &y ' has no business whatever. One is surprised to have to teach professed Critics and Scliolars an elementary fact like this. In brief, these learned men are respectfully assured tliat there is not one of tlie ' Parts of Speech' which will consent to be handled after the inhumane fashion which seems to be to themselves congenial. Whatever they may think of the matter, it is nolliing else 1>ut absurd to speak of an Angel ' casting his sickle into the earth ' (Eev. xiv. 19). — As for his ' ]K)uring out his ])owl ttpon the air' (xvi. 17), — we really lail to understand the nature of the operation. — And pray. II.] PROPRIETIES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 173 What is supposed to be the meaning of ' the things uijon the heavens '—in Ephesians i. 10 ? Returning to the preposition Zid followed by the genitive, — (in respect of which the Revisionists challenge Criticism by complaining in their Preface [iii. 3 ad jin.'\ that in the A. V. ' ideas of instrumentality or of mediate agency, distinctly marked in the original, have been confused or obscured in the Translation,') — we have to point out : — (1st) That these distinguished individuals seem not to be aware that the proprieties of English speech forbid the use of ' through ' (as a substitute for ' hy ') in certain expressions where instrumentality is concerned. Thus, ' the Son of man ' was not betrayed 'through' Judas, but 'hy' him (Matt. xxvi. 24 : Luke xxii. 22). — Still less is it allowable to say that a prophecy was * spoken,' nay ' ivritten,' ' through the Prophet ' (Matth. i. 22 and margin of ii. 5). ' Who spake by the Pro- 2)hcts,' is even an article of the Faith. And (2ndly), — That these scholars have in consequence adopted a see-saw method of rendering hid, — sometimes in one way, sometimes in the other. First, they give us ' wonders and signs done hy the Apostles ' (Acts ii. 43 ; but in the margin, ' Or, through ') : presently, ' a notable miracle hath been wrought through them ' (iv. 16 : and this time, the margin withholds the alternative, ' Or, hy '). Is then ' the true meaning ' of ' hy,' in the former place, ' apparent to a Reader of ordinary intelligence ' ? but so obscure in the latter as to render necessary the alteration to ' through ' ? Or {sit venia verho), — Was it a mere ' toss-up ' with the Revisionists tohat is the proper rendering of Bid ? (3rdly), In an earlier place (ii. 22), we read of ' miracles, wonders, and signs ' which ' God did hy ' Jesus of Nazareth. Was it reverence, which, on that occasion, forbad the use of 174 VIOLATED PR0PRIP:TIES of the [Art. ' through' — even in the margin ? We hope so : hut the pre- position is still the same — hLa not viro. Lastly (4thly), — The doctrine that Creation is tlie work of the Divine WoiiD, all Scripture attests. 'All tilings were made hy Him ' (S. Jo. i. 3) : — ' the world was made hy Him ' (ver. 10). — Why then, in Col. i. 16, where the same state- ment is repeated, — (' all things were created hy Him and for Him,') — do we find ' throuyh, ' suhstituted for ' % ' ? And Nvhy is the same offence repeated in 1 Cor. vifl. 6, — (where we ought to read, — ' one God, the Father, of whom are all things . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ, hy whom are all things')? — Why, especially, in Heb. i. 2, in place of 'hy whom also [viz. by the Son] He made the worlds,' do we find substituted ' through whom '?.... And why add to this glaring inconsistency the wretched vacillation of giving us the choice of ' through' (in place of ' hy ') in the margin of S. John i. 3 and 10, and not even offering us the alternatixe of 'hy' (in place of ' tJi rough') in any of the other places, — although the preposition is Sid on every occasion ? Ami thus much for the Eevisers' handling of the Preposi- tions. We shall have said all that we can find room for, wlien we have further directed attention to the uncritical and unscholarlike Note wnth wdiich they have disfigured the margin of S. Mark i. 9. AVe are there informed that, according to the Greek, our Saviour ' was baj)tized into the Jordan,' — an unintelligible statement to Englisli readers, as well as a misleading one. Especially on their guard should the Revisers have been hereabouts, — seeing that, in a place of vital importance on the opposite side of the open page (viz. in S. Matth. xxviii. 19), tliey liad already substituted ' into ' for ' in.' This latter alteration, one of the Revisers (Dr. Yancc Smith) rejoices over, liecause it obliterates (in his account) tlie evidence for Trinitaiian doctrine. That tlie Tl.] ENGLISH LANGUAGPl — MARGINAL NOTES. 175 Revisionists, as a body, intended nothing less, — ^vlio can donbt ? But then, if they really deemed it necessary to append a note to S. Mark i. 9 in order to explain to the public that the preposition eh signifies ' into ' rather than ' in' — why did they not at least go on to record the elementary fact that eU has here (what grammarians call) a ' pregnant signification ' ? that it implies — (every schoolboy knows it !) — and that it is used in order to inijjlt/ — that the Holy One ' toent douni INTO,' and so, ' was baptized m the Jordan ' ? ^ . . . But tvhy, in the name of common sense, did not the Revisionists let the Preposition cdone ? IX. The Margin of the Revision is the last point to which our attention is invited, and in the following terms : — ' The subject of the Marginal Notes deserves special attention. They represent the results of a large amount of careful and elaborate discussion, and will, perhaps, by their very presence, indicate to some extent the intricacy of many of the questions that have almost daily come before us for decision. Theise Notes fall into four main groups: — First, Notes specifying such differences of reading as were judged to be of sufficient import- ance to require a particular notice; — Secondly, Notes indicating the exact rendering of words to which, for the sake of Eisgliish idiom, we were obliged to give a less exact rendering in the text; — Thirdly, Notes, very few in number, affording some ex- planation which the original appeared to requiie ; — Fourthly, Alternative Eenderings in difficult or debateable passages. The Notes of this last group are niimerous, and largely in excess of those which were admitted by our predecessors. In the 270 years that have passed away since their labours were concluded, the Sacred Text has been minutely examined, discussed in every detail, and analysed with a grammatical precision unknown in the days of the last Eevision. There has thus been accumu- ^ Consider S. Matth. iii. W,—civ€(ir] (ino tov v8aTonc, — Concili'i, iii. 1111. II.] USELESS MARGINAL GLOSSES. 179 Lii. i. 78, — ' Because of the heart of mercy of our God.' Con- cerning all such renderings we will but say, that although they are unquestionably better in tlie Margin than in the Text; it also admits no manner of doul)t that they would have been best of all in neither. Were the Revisionists serious when they suggested as the more ' exact ' rendering of 2 Pet. i. 20, — ' No prophecy of Scripture is of special inter- pretation ' ? And what did they mean (1 Pet. ii. 2) by ' the spiritual milk vjhich is vnthout guile ' ? Not a few marginal glosses might have been dispensed with. Thus, against ScSdaKoXo^, upwards of 50 times stands the Annotation, ' Or, teacher.' — "ApTo<;, (another word of per- petual recurrence,) is every time explained to mean ' a loaf.' But is this reasonaljle ? seeing that <^a ';/ ///'' cgi'^' '. Siiiclv (as in I's. \1\. istic nard, pistic being pcrliaps a local name. Others take it to mean genuine; others liquid.' Can Scholars require to be told that ' liquid ' is an impossible ' [Pointed out to me by Professor Gandcll, — whose exquisite familiarity witli Scripture is only etjualled by his readiness to communicate his kno\vled,t,'e to others.] II.] ABSUKD NOTE ON S. MARK XIV. 3. 185 sense of irtaTLKr] in this place ? The epithet so interpreted must be derived (like inaTo^i [Pro7n. V. v. 489]) from ttIvw, and would mean ch-inkaUe : but since ointment cannot be drunk, it is certain that we must seek the etymology of the word elsewhere. And why should the weak ancient conjecture be retained that it is ' perhaps a local name ' ? Do Divines require to have it explained to them that the one ' locality ' which effectually fixes the word's meaning, is its ^jlace in the cveidasting Gospel .? . . . Be silent on such lofty matters if you will, by all means ; ])ut ' who are these that darken counsel by words without knowledge ? ' S. Mark and S. John (whose narratives by the way never touch exclusively except in this place ^) are observed here to employ an ordinary word with lofty spiritual purpose. The pure faith (7rL(TTL, miiy loi' tlic sake takcalily iHoflainiiiiLi, (wlial yet niii>l needs be I'crl'cclly manire.'-t. viz.) thai, ''7w/(!'(t' is the )>crMiiia:ic >|"'kcu ol y II.] MISTAKEN PRINCIPLE OF TRANSLATION. 187 ' Mary is in " Gr. Mariam " ' ? and why is not Zacharias written ' Zachariali ' ? . . . But (to conclude), — What is the object of all this officiousness ? and (its unavoidable adjunct) all this inconsistency ? Has the spelling of the 42 names been revolutionized, in order to sever with the Past and to make ' a fresh departure ' ? Or were the four marginal notes added only for the sake of obtaining, hi/ a side-wind, the (apparent) sanction of the Chureh to the preposterous notion that ' Asa ' was written / Asajjh ' by the Evangelist — in con- formity with six MSS. of bad character, but in defiance of History, documentary Evidence, and internal Probability ? Canon Cook [pp. 23-2-4] has some important remarks on this. X. We must needs advert again to the ominous admission made in the Eevisionists' Preface (iii. 2 iiiit.), that to some extent they recognized tlie duty of a ' rigid adherence to the rule of translating, as far as possible, the same Greek word hg the same English word' Tliis mistaken principle of theirs lies at the root of so much of the mischief which has befallen the Authorized Version, that it calls for fuller consideration at our hands than it has hitherto (viz. at pp. 138 and 152) received. The ' Translators ' of 1611, towards the close of their long and quaint Address ' to the Reader,' offer tlie following statement concerning what had been their own practice : — ' We have not tied ourselves ' (say they) ' to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wisli that we had done.' On this, they presently enlarge. We have been 'especially careful,' have even ' made a conscience,' ' not to vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in lioth ]ila<'cs.' r.iit then, (as they shrewdly point out in passing,) ' (hxrc be aomc icords iltal be not vj Uuj 188 THE TRANSLATORS OF 1611: — [Art. same sense emrywlurc! And had this been the sum of their avowal, no one with a spark of Taste, or with the least appreciation of what constitutes real Scholarship, would have been found to differ from them. Nay, even when they go on to explain that they have not thought it desirable to insist on invariably expressing ' the same notion ' by em- ploying ' the same particular word ; ' — (which they illustrate by instancing terms which, in their account, may with advantage be diversely rendered in different places ;) — we are still disposed to avow ourselves of their mind. ' If ' (say they,) ' we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once ijurpose, never to call it intent ; if one where journeying, never travel- ling ; if one where tliinh, never suppose ; if one where ^wm, never ache ; if one where joy, never gladness ; — thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than of wisdom.' And yet it is plain that a different principle is here indicated from that wliicli went before. The remark ' that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling,' suggests that, in the Translators' opinion, it matters little ivldclh word, in the several pairs of words they instance, is employed ; and that, for their own parts, they rather rejoice in the ease and freedom which an ample vocabulary supplies to a Translator of Holy Scripture. Here also how- ever, as already hinted, we are disposed to go along witli tliem. Illiythm, sulitle associations of thought, proprieties of diction which are rather to be felt than analysed, — any of such causes may reasonably determine a Translator to reject 'purpose,' 'journey,' 'think,' 'pain,' 'joy,' — in favour of ' intent,' ' travel,' ' suppose,' ' ache,' ' gladness.' But then it speedily Ijecomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there e.xisted in the minds of the Revisionists of lt)ll a jn-ofound (shall we not rather say a prophetic ?) consciousness, that the fate of the English II.] THEIR THEORY OF TRANSLATION. 189 Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Trans- lation. Hence their reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves ' to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.' We should be liable to censure (such is their plain avowal), ' if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higlier, have a place in the Bible always ; and to others of like quality. Get you hence, be banished for ever.' But this, to say the least, is to introduce a distinct and a somewhat novel consideration. We would not be thought to deny that there is some — perhaps a great deal— of trutli in it : but by this time we seem to have entirely shifted our ground. And we more than suspect that, if a jury of English scholars of the highest mark could be impanelled to declare their mind on the subject thus submitted to their judgment, there would be practical unanimity among them in declaring, that these learned men, — with whom all would avow hearty sympathy, and whose taste and skill all would eagerly acknowledge, — -have occasionally pushed the license they enunciate so vigorously, a little — perhaps a great deal — too far. For ourselves, we are glad to be able to subscribe cordially to the sentiment on this head expressed l:)y the author of the Preface of 1881 : ' They seem ' — (he says, speaking of the Eevisioiiists of 1611) — ' to have been guided by the feeling that their Version would secure for the words they used a lasting place in the language ; and they express a fear lest they should " be charged (by scoffers) with some xmequal dealing towards a great number of good English words," which, without this liberty on their part, would not have a place in the pages of the English Bible. Still it can- not be doubted that their studied avoidance of uniformity in the rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same context, is one of the blemishes in their work.' — Preface, (i. 2). Yes, it cannot be doubted. When S. Paul, in a long and familiar passage (2 Cor. i. 3-7), is observed studiously to 190 THE WORK OF 1881, INFERIOR TO THE [Aut. linger over the same word {irapdKK'qo-iq namely, which is generally rendered ' comfort ') ; — to harp upon it ; — to repro- duce it ten times in the course of those five verses ; — it seems unreasonable that a Translator, as if in defiance of the Apostle, should on four occasions (viz. when the word comes back for the Gth, 7th, 9th, and 10th times), for ' comfort ' substitute ' consolation.' And this one example may serve as well as a hundred. It would really seem as if the Revisionists of 1611 had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the English phrase even on occasions where a marked identity of expression characterizes the original Greek. When we find them turning ' goodly apparel,' (in S. James ii. 2,) into ' gay clothing,' (in ver. 3,) — we can but conjecture that they con- ceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English. But if the learned men who gave us our A. V. may be thought to have erred on the side of excess, there can be no doubt whatever, (at least among competent judges,) that our Revisionists have sinned far more grievously and with greater injury to the Deposit, by their slavish proclivity to the opposite form of error. We must needs speak out })lainly : for the question before us is not, What defects are discoverable in our Authorized Version ? — but, What amount of gain would Ije likely to accrue to the Church if the present Revision were accepted as a substitute ? And we assert without hesitation, that the amount of certain loss would so largely outweigh the amount of possil)lc gain, that the proposal may not be seriously entertained for a moment. As well on grounds of Scholarsliij) and 'I'aste, as of Textual Criticism (as explained at large in our former Article), the work before us is inmicnsely inferior. To speak plainly, it is an utter failuie. II.] WORK OF 1611.— THE VERB AI'TErN. 191 XI. For the respected Authors of it practically deny the truth of the principle enunciated by their predecessors of 1611, viz. that ' there he some vjords that he not of the same sense everywhere.' On such a fundamental truism we are ashamed to enlarge : but it becomes necessary that we should do so. We proceed to illustrate, by two familiar instances, — the first which come to hand, — the mischievous result which is inevitable to an enforced uniformity of rendering. (a) The verb aheiv confessedly means 'to ask.' And perhaps no better general English equivalent could be suggested for it. But then, in a certain cotitext, ' ask ' would be an inadequate rendering: in another, it would be im- proper : in a third, it would be simply intolerable. Of all this, the great Scholars of 1611 showed themselves profoundly conscious. Accordingly, when this same verb (in the middle voice) is employed to descrilje how the clamorous rabble, besieging Pilate, claimed their accustomed privilege, (viz. to have the prisoner of their choice released unto them,) those ancient men, with a fine instinct, retain Tyndale's rendering ' desired ' Mn S. Mark (xv. 8), — and his ' required ' in S. Luke (xxiii. 23). — When, however, the humble entreaty, which Joseph of Arimathea addressed to the same Pilate (viz. that he might be allowed to take away the Body of Jesus), is in question, then the same Scholars (following Tyndale and Cranmer), with the same propriety exhibit ' hccjged! — King David, inasmuch as he only ' desired to find a habitation for the God of Jacob,' of course may not be said to have ' asked ' to do so ; and yet S. Stephen (Acts vii. 46) does not hesitate to employ the verb rirrja-aro. — So again, when they of Tyre and Sidon approached Herod whom they had offended : they ^ So, in S. Luke xxiii. 25, and Acts iii. 14; xiii. 28, — still following Tyndale. 192 THE SAME WORD MUST BE DIVERSELY [Art. did but ' desire ' peace. ^ — S. Paul, in like manner, addressing the Ephesians : ' I desi7'c that ye faint not at my tribulations for you.' 2 But our Revisionists, — possessed with the single idea that alreiv means ' to ask ' and aiTeia-dat ' to ash for,' — have proceeded mechanically to inflict that rendering on every one of tlie foregoing passages. In defiance of propriety, — of reason, — even (in David's case) of historical truth,^ — they have thrust in ' asked ' everywhere. At last, however, they are encountered by two places wliich absolutely refuse to submit to such iron bondage. The terror-stricken jailer of Philippi, when he ' asked ' for lights, must needs have done so after a truly imperious fashion. Accordingly, the ' called for ' * of Tyndale and all subsequent translators, is pro hdc vice allowed by our Revisionists to stand. And to conclude, — When S. Paul, speaking of his supplications on lielialf of the Christians at Colosse, uses this same verb (alTov/xevoL) in a context where ' to ask ' would be intolerable, our Revisionists render the word ' to make request ; ' ^ — though they might just as well have let alone the rendering of all their prede- cessors,— viz. ' to dcsirej' These are many words, Init wo know not how to make them few^er. Let this one example, (only because it is the first which presented itself,) stand for a thousand others. Apart from the grievous lack of Taste (not to say of Scholar- sliijt) which such a method betrays, — ivho sees not that the only excuse which could have been invented for it has ' Acts xii. 20. 2 Eph. iii. 13. ^ For, as the story plainly shows (2 Sam. vii. 2, 3 ; 1 Chron. xvii. 1, 2), it was only ' m A/s Amrr to build God an house (1 Kings viii. 17, 18). Hence Cranmer's ^he vmnhl fain ' have done .so. * Acts xvi. 29. * Col. i. 9. II.] EENDERED IN DIFFERENT PLACES. 193 disappeared by the time we reach the end of our investiga- tion ? If ahio), alrovfiai had been invariahhj translated ' ask,' ' ask for,' it might at least have been pretended that ' the English Eeader is in this way put entirely on a level with the Greek Scholar ; ' — though it would have been a vain pretence, as all must admit who understand the power of language. Once make it apparent that just in a single place, perhaps in two, the Translator found himself forced to break through his rigid uniformity of rendering, — and v-liat remains but an uneasy suspicion that then there must have been a strain put on the Evangelists' meaning in a vast proportion of the other seventy places where alrecv occurs ? An unlearned reader's confidence in his guide vanishes ; and he finds that he has had not a few deflections from the Authorized Version thrust upon him, of which he reasonably questions alike the taste and the necessity, — e.g. at S. Matth. xx. 20. (b) But take a more interesting example. In S. Mark i. 18, the A. V. has, 'and straightway they for sool ' (which the Revisionists alter into ' left ') ' their nets.' Why ? Because in verse 20, the same word aievac is one of a large family of verbs which, — always retaining their own essential signification, — yet depend for their English rendering entirely on the context in which they occur. Thus, cK^cevat is rightly rendered ' to suffer' in S. Matth. iii. 15 ; — ' to leave' in iv. 11 ; — ' to let have' in v. 40 ; — ' to forgive' in vi. 12, 14, 15 ; — ' to let' in vii. 4 ; — '' to yield vp' in xxvii. 50 ; — * to let go^ in S. Mark xi. 6 ; — ' to let aloyie,' in xiv. 6. Here then, by the admission of the Eevisionists, u 194 THE SAINIK WOIII) I\IUST BE DIVERSEEY [Art. are eight diversities of meaning in the same word. But they make the admission grudgingly; and, in order to render u(f)L€uai as often as possible ' leave,'' they do violence to many a place of Scripture where some other word would have been more appropriate. Thus ' laying aside ' might have stood in S. Mark vii. 8. ' Suffered ' (or ' let ') was preferable in S. Luke xii. 39. And, (to return to the place from which we started,) in S. Mark i. 18, 'forsook' was better than 'left.' And why ? Because men ' leave their father,' (as the Collect for S. James's Day bears witness) ; but 'forsake all covetous desires ' (as the Collect for S. Matthew's Day aptly attests). For which reason, — ' And they all forsook Him ' was infinitely preferable to ' and they all left Him, and fled,' in S. Mark xiv. 50. We insist that a vast deal more is lost by this perpetual disregard of the idiomatic proprieties of the English language, than is gained by a pedantic striving after unifor- mity of rendering, only because the Greek word happens to be the same. For it is sure sometimes to happen tliat what seems mere licentiousness proves on closer inspection to be unob- trusive Scholarship of the best kind. An illustration presents itself in connection with the word just now before us. It is found to have been our Saviour's practice to ' send au-ay ' the multitude whom He had been feeding or teaching, in some formal manner, — whether with an act of solemn bene- diction, or words of commendatory prayer, or both. Accord- inf'ly, on the memoraljle occasion when, at the close of a long day of superhuman exertion, His bo(Hly jiowers suc- cumbed, and the Disciples were lain to take Him 'as He was ' in the sliip, and at once He ' fell asleep ; ' — on that solitary occasion, the Disciples are related to have ' sent away the multitudes,' — i.e. to have formally dismissed them on His lifliidr, as they had often seen their Master do. The II.] IlENDERED IN DIFFERENT PLACES. 195 word employed to designate this practice on two memorable occasions is aTroXveiv : ^ on tlie other two, acfuevat,." This proves to have been perfectly well understood as well by the learned authors of the Latin Version of the N". T., as l^y the scholars who translated the Gospels into the vernacular of Palestine. It has l:)een reserved for the boasted learning of the XlXtli century to misunderstand this little circumstance entirely. TheJi V. renders S. Matth. xiii. 36, — not 'Then Jesus sent the multitude mvay,' (' climissis turhis ' in every Latin copy,) but — ' Then He left the multitudes.' Also S. Mark iv. 36, — not ' And when they had sent away the 7nultit'ude,' (which the Latin always renders ' et elimittentes turham,') but — 'And leaving the multitude.' Would it be altogether creditable, we respectfully ask, if at the end of 1800 years the Church of England were to put forth with authority such specimens of ' Eevision ' as these ? (c) We will trouble our Readers with yet another illus- tration of the principle for wliich we are contending.— We are soon made conscious that tliere has been a fidgetty anxiety on the part of the Revisionists, everywhere to sub- stitute ' maiel ' for ' damsel ' as the rendering of iraihiaKT). It offends us. ' A damsel named Rhoda,' ^ — and the ' damsel possessed w^ith a spirit of divination,' * — might (we think) have been let alone. But out of curiosity we look further, to see what these gentlemen will do when they come to S. Luke xii. 45. Here, because 7rai8a]fin. '^ Cli. .\xvii. (il, (11, (id ; x.wiii. 1. II.] ' DOCTRINE.'— ' VIALS' NOT 'BOWLS.' 199 if we may be free ? ' . . . As for considerations of etymo- logical propriety, the nearest English equivalent for /juvq/xeiov (be it remembered) is not ' tomb,' but ' niomwient.' (e) Our Eevisionists seem not to be aware that 270 years of undisturbed possession have given to certain words rights to which they could not else have pretended, but of which it is impossible any more to dispossess them. It savours of folly as well as of pedantry even to make the attempt. AiBaxv occurs 30, — hihaaKaXta 21 times, — in the N. T. Etymologically, both words alike mean " tcacliing ; " and are therefore indifferently rendered ' dodrina ' in the Vulgate,^ — for which reason, ' doctrine ' represents both words indifferently in our A. V.^ But the Eevisers have well-nigh extirpated 'DOCTRINE' from the N. T. : (1st), By making ' tcachiwj,' the rendering of 8tSa;\;>7,^ — (reserving ' doctrine ' for hihaaKoXla^) : and (2ndly), By 6 times substituting ' teaching ' (once, ' learn- ing ') for ' doctrine,' in places where BiSaaKoXla occurs.^ This is to be lamented every way. The word cannot be spared so often. The ' teachings ' of our Lord and of His Apostles were the ' doctrines ' of Christianity. When S. Paul speaks of ' the doctrine of baptisms ' (Heb. vi. 2), it is simply incomprehen- sible to us why ' the teaching of Ijaptisms ' should be deemed a preferable expression. And if the warning against being ' carried about with every wind of doctrine,' may stand in Ephes. iv. 14, why may it not Ije left standing in Heb. xiii. 9 ? ^ Except in 2 Tim. iii. 16, — where ivpos SiSaaKa^iau is rendered ad docendum. ^ Except in Eom. xii. 7, — where iv ttj hihaa-naXia is rendered 'on teaching.'' ^ Except in Rom. xvi. 17, where they render it ' doctrine.' * And yet, since upwards of 50 times we are molested with a marginal note to inform us that 8L8daKa\os means ' TeacJier,' — 8i8aa-Ka\ia (rather than bibaxTj) might have claimed to be rendered ' teaching.'' 5 Viz. Eom. xii. 7 : 1 Tim. iv. 13, 16 : v. 17 : 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16.— Rom. XV. 4. 200 'Vial.'—'Box.—'CUUSe: [akt. (/) In the same spirit, we can but wonder at the extravao-ant bad taste which, at the end of 500 years, has ventured to substitute ' boivls ' for ' vials ' in the Book t)f Revehition.^ As a matter of fact, we venture to point out that cfjuiXij no more means ' a howl ' than ' saucer ' means ' a cup.' But, waiving tliis, we are confident that our lievisers would have shown more wisdom if they had Id alone a \yu\d wliich, having no English equivalent, has passed into the sacred vocabulary of the language, and has acquired a conventional signification which will cleave to it for ever. ' Vials of ivrath ' are under- stood to signify the outpouring of God's wrathful visitations on mankind : whereas ' bowls ' really conveys no meaning at all, excej)t a mean and unworthy, not to say an inconve- niently ambiguous one. What must be the impression made on persons of very humljle station, — labouring-men,^ — when they hear of ' tlie seven Angels that had the seven hoivls ' ? (Jiev. xvii. 1.) The cfyiakr], — if we must needs talk like Anti(|uaries — is a circular, almost flat and very shallow vessel, — of wliich the contents can be discharged in an instant. It was used in pouring out libations. There is, at the back of it, in tlie centre, a hollow for the first joint of the forefinger to rest in. Fatcra the Latins called it. Specimens are to be seen in abundance. The same Revisionists have also fallen foul of the ' alabaster 6rw; of ointment,' — for which they have substituteil 'an alabaster cruse of ointment.'^ But what 16- a 'cruse'? Tlieir marginal note says, 'Or, 'a Jlask:' but once more, what is ' ;i tlask ' ? Certainly, the receptacles to wliich tliat name is now commonly applied, (e.g. a powder-flask, a Florence ilask, a flask of wine, &c.) bear no resemblance whatever to the vase called dXd/SaaTpov. The [)robability is ' FA'^ht times in Rev. xvi. ' S. IMiittii. xxvi. 7. B. Mark xiv. o. S. Luke \ii. .57. II.] 'CHARITY' EXPELLED FROM THE N. T. 201 that the receptacle for the precious ointment with which the sister of Lazarus provided herself, was likest of all to a small medicine-bottle {lecythus the ancients called it), made how- ever of alabaster. Specimens of it abound. But why not let such words alone ? The same Critics have had the good sense to leave standing ' the bag,' for what was confessedly a hox^ (S. John xii. 6 : xiii. 29) ; and 'your purses' for what in the Greek is unmistakably ' your girdles ' ^ (S. Matth. x. 9). AVe can but repeat that possession for five centuries conveys rights which it is always useless, and sometimes dangerous, to dispute. ' Vials ' will certainly have to be put back into the Apocalypse. {(/) Having said so much about the proposed rendering of such unpromising vocables as /jbvrjfxelov — BiSaxv — (j)idXr), it is time to invite the Reader's attention to the calamitous fate which has befallen certain other words of infinitely greater importance. And first for 'Aydirr) — a substantive noun unknown to the heathen, even as the sentiment which the word expresses proves to be a grace of purely Christian growth. What else . but a real calamity would be the sentence of perpetual banishment passed by our Revisionists on ' that most excel- lent gift, the gift of Charity,' and the general substitution of ' Love ' in its place ? Do not these learned men perceive that ' Love ' is not an equivalent term ? Can they require to be told that, because of S. Paul's exquisite and life-like portrait of ' Chakity,' and the use which has been made of the word in sacred literature in consequence, it has come to pass that the word ' Charity ' connotes many ideas to whicli the word ' Love ' is an entire stranger ? that ' Love,' on the contrary, has come to connote many unworthy notions which in ' Charity ' find no place at all ? And if tliis lie ' yXwo-croKo/^oi/, Consider the Lxx. nt L' Chiun. xxiv. H, 10, IL 202 'MIRACLES' RESOLUTELY EJECTED [Aut. SO, liow can our lievisionists expect that we shall endure the loss of the name of the very choicest of the Christian graces, — and which, if it is nowhere to be found in Scripture, will presently come to he only traditionally known among mankind, and will in the end cease to be a term clearly understood ? Have the Eevisionists of 1881 considered how firmly this word ' Charitij ' has established itself in the phraseology of the Church, — ancient, mediaival, modern, — as well as in our Book of Common Prayer ? how thoroughly it has vindicated for itself the right of citizenship in the English language ? how it has entered into our common vocabulary, and become one of the best understood of ' household words ' ? Of what can they have been thinking when they deliberately obliterated from the thirteenth chapter of S. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians the nine- fold recurrence of the name of ' that most excellent gift, the gift of Chauity ' ? (It) With equal displeasure, but witli even sadder feel- ings, we recognize in the present Ivevision a resolute elimination of ' Miracles ' from the N. T. — Not so, (we shall be eagerly reminded,) but only of their Name. True, but the two perforce go together, as every thoughtful man knows. At all events, the getting rid of the Name, — (except in the few instances which are enumerated below,) — will in the account of millions be regarded as the getting rid of the tJiiiKj. And in the esteem of all, learned and unlearned alike, the systematic obliteration of the signifying word from the j)ages of that Book to whicli we refer exclusively for our knowledge of the remarkable thing signified, — cannot but be looked upon as a memorable and momentous circum- stance. Some, it may be, will be chiefly struck by the foolishness of the proceeding: for at the end of centuries of familiarity with such a word, we are no longer able to ])art com[>any with it, even if A\e were inclined. The term II.] FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 203 has struck root (irmly in our Literature : has established itself in the terminology of Divines: has groM'n into our common speech. But further, even were it possible to get rid of tlie words ' Miracle ' and ' Miraculous,' what else but abiding inconvenience would be the result? for we must still desire to speak about tlue tJtrn/js ; and it is a truism to remark that there are no other words in the language which connote the same ideas. What therefore has been gained by substituting ' si'jn' for ' niirade' on some 19 or 20 occa- sions— (' this beginning of his signs did Jesus,' — ' this is again the smmd sifjn tliat Jesus did ') — we really fail to see. That the word in the original is crrjfieiov, and that cnjfielop means ' a sign,' we are aware, liut what then ? Because ciyyeXo^;, in strictness, means ' a messenger,' — ypa remark, that the Ecclesiastical Historian of future years will }.niiit witli concern ' Consider our Lord's solemn words in Mtt. xvii. 21,—' P>ut fhis l-lud f/of'th iiot out save by prayer and fasting,'' — 12 words left out l)y the IL V., though witnessed to by all the Copies but 3 : by the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian Versions: and by the following Fathers :— (1) Origen, (2) Tertullian, (:■() the Syriac Clement, (4) the Syriac Canoi^s of Eusebius, (5) Atlianasius, («]) 15asil, (7) Ambrose, (8) Juvencus, (9) Chrysostom, (10) Opus imp., (11) Hilary, (12) Augustine, (13) J. Damascene, and others. Then (it will be asked), why have the Revisionists left them out ? Because (we answer) they have been misled by » and X, Cureton's Syiiac; and the Sahidic,— as untrustworthy a quatcrnimi of witnesses to the text <.l Scripture as could be named. II.] 'EVERLASTING' EXPELLED FROM THE N. T. 207 to the sad evidences that the Church had fallen on evil days when the present Eevision was undertaken. Witli fatal fidelity does it, every here and there, reflect the sickly hues of ' modern Thought,' which is too often but another name for the latest phase of Unfaithfulness. Thus, in view of the present controversy about the Eternity of Future Punish- ment, which has brought into prominence a supposed dis- tinction between the import of the epithets ' eteenal ' and ' EVERLASTING,' — liow painful is it to discover that the latter epithet, (wliich is the one objected to by the unbelieving school,) has been by our Eevisionists diligently excluded^ cvcrj/ time it occurs as the translation of alcovco'?, in favour of the more palatable epithet ' eternal ' ! King James's Trans- lators showed themselves impartial to a fault. As if to mark that, in their account, the words are of identical import, they even introduced hofh words into the same versc^ of Scripture. Is it fair that such a body of men as the Eevisionists of 1881, claiming the sanction of the Convocation of the Southern Province, should, in a matter like the present, throw all their weight into the scale of Misbelief ? They were authorized only to remove ' plain and clear errors' They were instructed to introduce ' as few changes as pos- sible.' Why have they needlessly gone out of their way, on the contrary, indirectly to show their sympathy with those who deny what has been the Church's teaching for 1800 years ? Our Creeds, Te Deum, Litany, Offices, Articles, — our whole Prayer Book, breathes a different spirit and speaks a different language. . . . Have our Eevisionists per- suaded the Old Testament company to follow their example ? It will be calamitous if they have. There will be serious ^ The word is only not banished entirely from the N. T. It occurs twice (viz. in Rom. i. 20, and Jude ver. 6), but only as tlie rendering of aibioi. 2 g Matth. xxv. 46. 208 ETERNITY.— INSriRATION. [Art. discrepancy of teaching between the Ohl and tlie New Testament if they have not. (/) Wliat means also the fidgetty anxiety manifested throughout these pages to explain away, or at least to evacuate, expressions which have to do with Eternity ? JVhy, for example, is ' the world (alcov) to come,' invariably glossed ' the ar/e to come ' ? and ek rov:? alo)va<; so persistently explained in the margin to mean, ' unio the ages ' ? (See the margin of IJom. ix. 5. Are we to read ' God blessed unto tlic ages ' ?) Also et? rot/? aloiva^ rdv aldivwv, ' unto the ages of the ages ' ? Surely we, whose language furnishes expressions of precisely similar character (viz. ' for ever,' and ' for ever and ever'), might dispense with information hazy and un- profitable as this ! {m) Again. At a period of prevailing unbelief in the Inspiration of Scripture, nothing l)ut real necessity could warrant any meddling with such a testimony on the sul)ject as is found in 2 Tim. iii. 16. We have hitherto l)oen taught to believe that 'All Serijdurc is given hy insjnnUioji of GOD, and is profitable,' &c. The ancients^ clearly so understood S. Paul's words : and so do the most learned and thouglitful of the moderns. Ildaa ypa(f)i], even if it be interju'eted 'every Scripture,' can only mean every portion of those lepa •ypdfifjiaTa oi which the Apostle had been speaking in the previous verse ; and therefore must needs signify the tvhole of Scrqiture."^ So that the expression ' all Scripture ' ^ Clemens Al. (p. 71) says : — ros ypa^hs 6 'ATrooroXof dfoirvtvarovi KoKel, o)c})(\ifxovs ovcrav. Tertallian, — Lcrjimiis omnein Script unim nvlifindionl ha.hilcm, divlnitus inspirari. Origen (ii. 443), — nacra ypaTri>(V(TTos niiaa wcfifXifjios icrri. Gregory Nyss. (ii. 605), — ttuctu ypac^ij 6fi')Tvvev(TTns Xe-yfrnt. Dial. (ap. Orig. i. 808), — naaa ypa<{)f) 6(6nv(V(TTOS XfytTui irapa rnv 'AttootoXoi;. So Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, &c. ^ See Arclideacoii Lee o« Inai^iration, pp. 2G1-3, reading his notes. II.] Br. MIDDLETON versus BP. ELLICOTT. 209 expresses S. Paul's meaiiinrv exactly, and should not liave been disturbed. But — ' It is very difficult ' (so at least thinks tlie Ivijjjht Eev, Chairman of the Revisers) ' to decide whether 6e67rveu(TTo<; is a part of the predicate, kui being the simple copula ; or whether it is a part of the subject. Lexicography and grammar contribute but little towards a decision.' Not so thought Bishop Middleton. ' I do not recollect ' (he says) * any passage in the N. T. in which two Adjectives, apparently connected by the copulative, were intended by the writer to be so unnaturally disjoined. He who can produce such an instance, will do much towards establishing the plausibility of a translation, which otherwise must appear, to say the least of it, to be forced and improbable.' — And yet it is proposed to thrust this ' forced and improbable ' translation on the acceptance of all English-speaking people, wherever found, on the plea of necessity ! Our Revisionists translate, * Every Scripture inspired of God is also 'profitable' &c., — which of course may be plausibly declared to imply that a distinction is drawn by the Apostle himself between in- spired and uninspired Scripture. And pray, (we should be presently asked,) is not many a Scripture (or writing) ' pro- fitable for teaching,' &c. which is not commonly held to be ' in- spired of God ' ? . . . But in fact the proposed rendering is inadmissible, being without logical coherence and consistency. The utmost that could be pretended would be that S. Paul's assertion is that ' every portion of Scripture hcincj ins^nrcd ' (i.e. inasmuch as it is — because it is — inspired) ; ' is also profitable,' &c. Else there would be no meaning in the kuL But, in the name of common sense, if this be so, ivhi/ have the blessed words been meddled with ? (n) All are unhappily familiar with the avidity with wdiicli the disciples of a certain School fasten upon a myste- p 210 THE ETERNAL SON'S KNOWLEDGE. [Art. rious expression in S. Mark's Gospel (xiii. 32), wliich seems to predicate concerning the Eternal Son, limitation in respect of Ivnowledge. This is not the place for vindicating the Catholic Doctrine of the Son's ' equality with the Father as touching His GoDhead ; ' or for explaining that, in conse- quence, all things that the Father hath, {the knmclcdf/e of ' that Day and Hour ' included,) the Son hath likewise.^ But this is the place for calling attention to the deplorable circumstance that the clause ' neither the Son/ wliich has an indisputable right to its place in S. Mark's Gospel, has on insufficient authority by our Eevisionists been thrust into S. Matth. xxvi. 36, where it has no business whatever, and from which the word 'only' effectually excludes it.^ We call attention to this circumstance with sincere sorrow : but it is sorrow largely mixed with indignation. What else but the betrayal of a sacred trust is it when Divines appointed to correct manifest errors in the English of the N. T. go out of their way to introduce an error like this into the Greek Text which Catholic Antiquity would have reimdiated with indignation, and for which certainly the jtlca of ' necessity ' cannot l)e pretended ? {o) A MARGINAL ANNOTATION Set over against Romans ix. 5 is the last thing of tliis kind to which we shall invite atten- tion. S. I*aul declares it to be Israel's highest boast and glory that of them, ' as concerning the flesh [came] Christ, ' S. John xvi. 15. ^ Study by all means lia.sil's k'ttor td Ainiiliiluchiiis, (vol. iii. p. 360 to 362.)^ — E.(TTLv oiiv (t vovs o niipu T;p • (k yap tov TlaTpos avTM vnijpxf 8f8ofifvT] t) yucocris . • • T0VTi(TTiv, T] alrui Toii ettevai rov Y'lov mtpu roii Ilurpos ' Kui djStdirrdy eVri Tta fvyvcofifivas (ikovovti rj e^i]yf)(ris avrr). enfidrj ov TrpucrKfiTui tu pdvos ■ o)S Ka\ napu rw MrtrAu'w. — (p. 302 c.) Baisil says of lliis iiilcriHctalion — a Toivvv (K TTHtSor napu rutv narepwu rjKovaafjLfv. II.] SOCINIAN GLOSS ON ROMANS IX. 5. 211 vjIio is over all [things], Gud blessed for ever ! Amen.' A grander or more unequivocal testimony to our Lord's eternal GoDliead is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Accordingly, these words have been as confidently appealed to by faithful Doctors of the Church in every age, as they have been un- sparingly assailed by unbelievers. The dishonest shifts by which the latter seek to evacuate the record which they are powerless to refute or deny, are paraded by our ill-starred Revisionists in the following terms : — ' Some modern Interpreters place a full stop after jicsli, and translate, He who is God over all be (jis) blessed for ever : or, He ivho is over all is God, blessed for ever. Others punctuate, flesli, wJio is over all. God be (is) blessed for ever.'' Now this is a matter, — let it be clearly observed, — whicli, (as Dr. Hort is aware,) " belongs to Inter iw elation, — and not to TexMial Criticism!' ^ What business then has it in these pages at all ? Is it then the function of Divines appointed to revise the AutJiorizcd Version, to give information to the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians scattered through- out the world as to the unfaithfulness of 'some modern Interpreters ' ? ^ We have hitherto supposed that it was ' Aneient authorities ' exclusively, — (whether ' a few,' or ' some,' or ' many,') — to which we are invited to submit our judgment. How does it come to pass that the Sociniem gloss on this grand text (Rom. ix. 5) has been brought into such extraordinary prominence ? Did our Revisionists consider that their marginal note would travel to earth's remotest verge, — give universal currency to the view of ' some modern Interpreters,' — and in the end ' tell it out among the heathen ' also ? We refer to Manuscripts, — Versions, — Fathers : and what do we find ? (1) It is demonstrable that the oldest 1 Notes, p. 109. 2 Cclebre ejfugium, (as Dr. Routli calls it,) quod ex falsa verho)"nm cnn- strucJione Critici qnidam lnvreticl?, imniymit. Iic/iqq. iii. 322-3. p 2 212 ROMANS IX. 5, HOW UNDERSTOOD [Art. Codicca, hcsiJcH tlw irlwlc Inxhi of (lie curaivcs, kiidw iiotliing about the method of ' some modern Interpreters.' '■ — (2) ' There is absolutely not a shadow, oiut a tittle of evidence, in any of the ancient Versions, to warrant what they do,' ^ — (3) How then, about the old Fatliers ? for tlie sentiments of our best modern Divines, as I'earson and Bull, we know by heart. We find that the expression ' icho is over all [things], God blessed for ever ' is expressly acknowledged to refer to our Saviouk by the following GO illustrious names : — IrensBUS,^ — Hippolytus in 3 places,* — Origen,^ — Malchion, in the name of six of the Bishops at the Council of Antioch, A.D. 2G9,^ — ps.-Dionysius Alex., twice,^ — the Constt. Apj).,^ — Athanasius in G places,^ — Basil in 2 places,^" — Didymus in 5 places,^^ — Greg. Nyssen. in 5 places,^^ — Epiphanius in 5 places,^^ — Theodorus Mops.,^* — Methodius,^^ — Eustathius,^® — Eulogius, twice," — Ctesarius, 3 times,^^ — Thcophilus Alex., twice,^^ — Nestorius, ^° — Theodotus of Ancyra,-^ — Troclus, twice,^^ — Severianus Bp. of Gabala,^^— Chrysostom, 8 times,^* ' c; .alone lias a point between o wv eVt ■navrmv and Oeos fvXnyrjrui *if Tovy atwj'as. But this is an entirely different thing from what is noted in the margin. '' MS. connnunieation from the Rev. S. C. Malan. » i. 506. * Opusc. i. 52, 5S ; rhil 3;!!). « iv. 612. « Routh, IieU<](j. Sue. iii. 292, and 287. (Concil. i. 845 b. c.) '' Concilia, i. 873 d : 876 a. ** vi. c. 26. » i. 414, 415, 429, 617, 684, 908. '" i. 282. And in Cat. 317. " Trin. 21, 29, 327, 392. Mai, vii. 30;{. '^ ii. 596 a, (quoted by the Emp. Justinian [_ConciL v. 697] and the Chronicon Paschah, 355), 693, 697 ; iii. 287. Galland. vi. 575. '3 i. 481, 487, 894, 978 ; ii. 74. i' Ap. Cyril (ed, Pusey), v. 534. ^» A p. Gall. iii. 805. "= A p. Gall. iv. 576. " Ap. rhot. col. 761, 853. '" Ap. Gall. vi. 8, 9, 80. 1" Ap. Gall. vii. 618, and ap. Ilicron. i. 560. 20 Concilia, iii. 522 e (= iv. 297 d = aj). (iall. vili. (;67). Also, Co7i- cilia (Ilarduin), i. 1413 a. -' Ap. Gall. ix. 47 1. 2* Ap. Gall. ix. 690, 691 (= Condi iii. 1230, 1231). ''^ Ilomilla (Arm.), p. 165 and 249. 2' i. 461, 483 ; vi. 534; vii. 51 ; viii. 191 ; ix. 601, 653 ; x. 172. II.] BY THE ANCIENT FATHERS. 213 — Cyril Alex., 15 times,^ — Paiilus Bp. of Emesa,^ — Theodoret, 12 times,^ — Gennadins, Abp. of C. P.,* — Severus, Abp. of Antioch,^ — Ampliilochius,^ — Gelasius Cyz./ — Anastasius Ant.,^ — Leontius Byz., 3 times,^ — Maximus/" — J. Damas- cene, 3 times." Besides of the Latins, TertuUian, twice,^^ — Cyprian,^^ — Novatian, twice,^* — Ambrose, 5 times/^ — Palla- diiis the Arian at the Council of Aquileia,^® — Hilary, 7 times," — Jerome, twice,^^ — Augustine, about 30 times, — Victorinus,^" — the Brcviarimn, twice,^" — Marius Mercator,^* — Cassian, twice,^^ — Alcimus Avit.,^^ — Fulgentius, twice,^* — Leo, Bp. of Rome, twice,^^ — Ferrandus, twice,^^ — Facundus : -^ — to whom must be added 6 ancient writers, of whom 3 ^^ have been mistaken for Athanasius, — and 3 -^ for Chrysostom. All these see in Ptom. ix. 5, a glorious assertion of the eternal GoDhead of Christ. Against such an overwhelming torrent of Patristic testi- mony,— for we have enumerated ujnoards of sixty ancient Fathers — it will not surely be pretended that the Sociniau interpretation, to which our Eevisionists give such promi- 1 w} 20, 503, 765, 792 ; v.^ 58, 105, 118, 148; vi. 328. Ap. Mai, ii. 70, 86, 96, 101 ; iii. 81 in Luc. 26. 2 Concilia, iii. 1099 b. 3 i. 103 ; ii. 1355 ; iii. 215, 470 ; iv. 17, 433, 1148, 1264, 1295, 1309 ; v. G7, 1093. * Cramer's Cat. 160. ^ Tbid. in Act. 40. « P. 166. T Concilia, ii. 195. « Ap. Gall. xii. 251. 3 Ap. Gall. xii. 682. i« ii. 64. " i. 557 ; ii. 35, 88. '^ Prax. 13, 15 — ' Christum autem et ipse Deum cognominavit. Quorum l)atres, et ex quihus Christies secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus hencdictus in mvum: ^^ P. 287. " Ap. Gall. iii. 296, 313. '* i. 1470 ; ii. 457, 546, 609, 790. ^^ Concilia, ii, 982 c. " 78, 155, 393, 850, 970, 1125, 1232. ^^ i. 870, 872. '" Ap. Gall. viii. 157. ^ Ap. Gall. vii. 589, 590. 21 Ap. Gall. viii. 627. 22 799, 711. 23 ^p_ q,^^ ^^ 792. 2' Ap. Gall. xi. 233, 237. ^s Concilia, iii. 1364, 1382. '^ Ap. Gall. 352, 357. 27 j^^i^ (374^^ ^ ii. 16, 215, 413. 29 ^ ^39 . v. 769 ; xii. 421. 214 THE DEVIL HAS BEEN IMPEOPERLY [Art. nence, can stand. V>\\t wliy lias it been introduced at all ? We shall have every Christian reader with us in our contention, that such perverse imaginations of ' modern Interpreters ' are not entitled to a place in the margin of the N. T. For our Revisionists to have even given them currency, and thereby a species of sanction, constitutes in our view a very grave offence.^ A public retractation and a very humble Apology we claim at their hands. Indifferent Scholarship, and mistaken views of Textual Criticism, are at least venial matters. But a Socinian gloss gratuitously thrust into the margin of cvcrg English- mans N. T. admits of no excuse — is not to be tolerated on any terms. It would by itself, in our account, have been sufficient to determine the fate of the present Eevision. XII. Are we to regard it as a kind of set-off against all that goes before, that in an age when the personality of Satan is freely called in question, * the evil one ' has been actually thrust into the Lm\Vs Prayer .^ A more injudicious and unwarrantaljle innovation it would be impossible to indicate in any part of the present unhappy volume. The case has been argued out with nuich learning and ability by two eminent Divines, Bp. Lightfoot and Canon Cook. The Canon remains master of the field. That tlic change ought never to have hcen made is demonstrahle. The grounds of this assertion are soon stated. To begin, (1) It is admitted on all hands that it must for ever remain a matter of opinion only whether in the expression airo tov Trovrjpov, the nomina- tive case is to irovrjpov (as in S. Mattli. v. 37, o'J : liom. xii. D), or 6 Tropijpu^ (as in S. Matth. xiii. 19, 38: Eph. vi. ' Tlidso of our readers who wish to pursue this subject riirllicr may eonsult with advantage Dr. Giflbrd's learned note on the passage in tlic Spcuhcr's Commentary. Dr. Giilbrd justly remarks that ' it is llie natural and simple construction, which every Greek scholar would adopt without hcsitatitm, if no question of doctrine wore involvoy all means let the verses be merely noted in the margin : but, for more than one weighty reason, in the English Bible let the esta])lished and peculiar method of printing the Word of God, tide what tide, be scrupulously retained. (g) But incomparably the gravest offence is behind. By far the most serious of all is that Error to the considera- tion of which we devoted our former Article. The New Geeek Text which, in defiance of their Instructions,^ our Revisionists have constructed, has been proved to be utterly undeserving of confidence. Built up on a fallacy which since ' It has been objected by certain of the Revisionists that it is not fair to say that 'they were appointed to do one thing, and have done another.' We are glad of this opportunity to explain. That some corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware : and had those necessary changes been made, we should only have had words of commendation and thanks to offer. But it is found that by Dr. Hort's ea-^er advocacy two-thirds of the Revisionists have made a vast number of perfectly needless changes : — (1) Changes whicli are incapahle of being represented in a Translation : as ffiov for ^ou, — nnvres for iinavrfs, — ore for oTTOT-f. Again, since yevirqais, at least as much as jivems, means ' hirth,'' why yeveais in S. Matth. i. 18 ? Why, also, inform us that instead of fv T<5 d/iTrfXwi/t avTov TrfcPvTtvfieprjv, they prefer necfivTfvufvtjv iv tw i\inTi\(>ivL avTov7 and instead of KUfmov C^jrioif, — (tjtwv Kapnov'i Now this they have done throughout, — at least 3-11 times in S. Luke alone. But (what is far worse), (2) They suggest in the margin changes which yet they do not adopt. These numerous changes are, by their otvn confession, not ' necessary :' and yet they are of a most serious character. In fact, it is of these we chiefly complain. — But, indeed (;!), How many of their other alterations of the Text will the Revisinnists undertake U< defend publicly on the plea of ' Necessity ' '.-' [A vast deal more will be found on this subject towards the close of the present volume. In the meantime, sec above, pages b7-b8.] n.] 'THE NEW ENGLTSn VEnSTON' BEiiCRIBED. 22r> 1831 lias been dominant in Germany, and which has lately found but too much favour among ourselves, it is in the main a reproduction of the recent labours of Doctors West- cott and Hort. But we have already recorded our conviction, that the results at wdiich those eminent Scholars have arrived are wholly inadmissible. It follow^s that, in our account, the ' New English Version,' has been all along a foredoomed thing. If the 'New Greek Text' be indeed a tissue of fabricated Eeadinsrs, the translation of these into English must needs prove lost labour. It is superfluous to enquire into the merits of the English rendering of words which Evangelists and Apostles demonstrably never wrote. (h) Even this, however, is not nearly all. As Translators, full two-thirds of the Revisionists have shown themselves singularly deficient, — alike in their critical acquaintance with the language out of which they had to translate, and in their familiarity with the idiomatic requirements of their own tongue. They had a noble Version before them, which they have contrived to spoil in every part. Its dignified simplicity and essential faithfulness, its manly grace and its delightful rhythm, they have shown themselves alike unable to imitate and unwilling to retain. Their queer uncouth phraseology and their jerky sentences : — their pedantic obscurity and their stiff, constrained manner : — their fidgetty affectation of accuracy, — and their habitual achievement of English which fails to exhibit the spirit of the original Greek ; — are sorry substitutes for the living freshness, and elastic freedom, and habitual fidelity of the srand old Version which we inherited from our Fathers, and which has sustained the spiritual life of the Church of England, and of all English-speaking Christians, for 350 years. Linked with all our holiest, happiest memories, and bound up with all our purest aspirations: part and parcel of 226 THE BOOK HAS BEEN MADE UNREADABLE. [Art. whatever there is of good about us : fraught with men's hopes of a blessed Eternity and many a bright vision of the never- ending Life ; — the Authorized Version, wherever it was pos- sible, should have hccn jealously retained. But on the contrary. Every familiar cadence has been dislocated : the congenial flow of almost every verse of Scripture has been hopelessly marred : so many of those little connecting words, which give life and continuity to a narrative, have been vexatiously displaced, that a perpetual sense of annoyance is created. The countless minute alterations which have been needlessly introduced into every familiar page prove at last as tor- menting as a swarm of flies to the weary traveller on a summer's day.^ To speak plainly, the book has been made unrcadahle. But in fact the distinguished Chairman of the New Testa- ment Company (Bishop Ellicott,) has delivered himself on this subject in language which leaves nothing to be desired, and which we willingly make our own. " No Eevision " (he says) '' in the present day couUl hope to meet with an hour's acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction of the present Authorizcid Version." ^— "What else is this but a vaticination, — of which the uninspired Author, by his own act and deed, has ensured the punctual fulfilment ? We lay the Eevisers' volume down convinced that the case of their work is simply hopeless. Non ego paucis offendar maculis. Had the blemishes been capable of being reckoned up, it might have been worth Avhile to try to remedy some of them. But when, instead of l)eing disfigured ' " We meet in every page " (says Dr. Wordsworth, the learned Bisliop of Lincoln,) " with small changes which are vexatious, teasing, and irritating; even the more so because they are small (as small insects sting most sharply), vjJuch seem almost to be made mertly for the sake of change." — p. 25. ' On the Revision of the EiKjiish IVrs/oH, &c. (1870), p. 'JO. II.] THE CASE OF THE REVISION, HOPELESS. 227 by a few weeds scattered here and there, the whole fiehl proves to be sown over in every direction with thorns and briars ; above all when, deep beneath the surface, roots of bitterness to be counted by thousands, are found to have been silently planted in, which are sure to produce poisonous fruit after many days : — under such circumstances only one course can be prescribed. Let the entire area be ploughed up, — ploughed deep ; and let the ground be left for a decent space of time without cultivation. It is idle — worse than idle — to dream of revising, vjith a view to retaining, this Eevision. Another generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be given for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down. Partizanship, (which at present prevails to an extraordinary extent, but which is wondrously out of place in this department of Sacred Learning,) — Fartizanship must be completely outlived, — before the Church can venture, with the remotest prospect of a success- ful issue, to organize another attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures. Yes, and in the meantime — (let it in all faithfulness be added) — the Science of Textual Criticism will have to be prosecuted, /or the first time, in a scholarlike manner. Fun- damental Pkinciples, — sufficiently axiomatic to ensure general acceptance, — will have to be laid down for men's guidance. The time has quite gone by for vaunting ' the now established Principles of Textual Criticism,'^ — as if they had an actual existence. Let us be shown, instead, which those Principles he. As for the weak superstition of these last days, which — withoiU proof of any hind — would erect two IVth-century Copies of the New Testament, (demonstrably derived from one and the same utterly depraved archetype,) 1 P.p. Ellicott, Diocesav Progress, Jan. 1882,— p. 19. 0 2 228 CONDITiaNS OF FUTURE SUCCESS. [Art. into an autliority from whicli thoro shall he no appeal, — it cannot be too soon or too unconditionally abandoned. And, perhaps beyond all things, men must be invited to disabuse their minds of the singular imagination that it is in their power, when addressing themselves to that most difficult and delicate of problems, — the imin'ovcmcnt of the Traditional Text, — ' solvere ambulando.' ^ They are assured that they may not take to Textual Criticism as ducks take to the water. They will 1)0 drowned inevitably if they are so ill- advised as to make tlie attempt. Then further, those who would interpret the New Testa- ment Scriptures, are reminded that a thorough ac(|uaintance with the Septuagiutal Version of the Old Testament is one indispensable condition of success.^ And finally, the Eevi- sionists of the future (if they desire that their labours should be crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe self-denial ; to confine themselves to the correction of " 2^lain and clear errors;" and in fact to " introduce into the Text as few alterations as 2^ossible." (3n a review of all that has ha])pencd, from first to last, we can but feel greatly concerned : greatly surprised : most of all, disappointed. We had expected a vastly different result. It is partly (not quite) accounted for, by the rare attendance in the Jerusalem Chamber of some of the names on wliich we had chiefly relied. ]jishop Moberly (of 8ulisl)ury) was ^ B]). Ellicott, On Bevision, — p. 49. '■^ ' Qui LXX interpretes non legit, aut nu'nna legit accurate, is sciat $e own adeo idoneiim, qui Scripta Evavgelica Apostolica de Grxco in Latinum, aut alium aliquem sermonem tranrfcrat, ut ut in aliis Orxcis scriptorihus multum diuquefuerit versatus.'' (John Boi.s, 1 619.) — ' Grsecum N. T. context um rite intellecturo nihil est utilius quam diligentcr versasse Alexandrinam a^itiqui Fcederis interprttationem, E qua una plus peti POTERIT AUXnjI, QUAM EX VETERIBUS ScRIl'TOIUBUS Gu.ECIS SIMUL suMTis. Centena reperientur in N. T. nnsquam dbvia in scrijitis Gnccorum veternin, sed/'reqncntata in Alexandrind vcrsione.'' (Yalcknaer, 1715-85.) IIJ CERTAIN OF THE REVISERS, BLAMELESS. 229 present on only 121 occasions : Bishop Wordsworth (of S. Andrews) on only 109 : Archbishop Trench (of Dublin) on only 63 : Bishop Wilberforce on only one. The Archbishop, in his Charge, adverts to ' the not unfrequent sacrifice of grace and ease to the rigorous requirements of a literal accuracy ; ' and regards them ' as pushed to a faulty excess ' (p. 22). Eleven years before the scheme for the present ' Eevision ' had been matured, the same distinguished and judicious Prelate, (then Dean of Westminster,) persuaded as he was that a Eevision ought to come, and convinced that in time it would come, deprecated its being attempted yd. His words were, — " JSTot however, I would trust, as yet : for we are not as yet in any respect prepared for it. The Chrek, and the English which should enable us to bring this to a successful end might, it is to be feared, be wanting alike." ^ Archbishop Trench, with wise after-thought, in a second edition, explained himself to mean " that special Hellenistic Greek, here required." The Bp. of S. Andrews has long since, in the fullest manner, cleared himself from the suspicion of complicity in the errors of the work before us, — as well in respect of the ' New Greek Text ' as of the ' New English Version.' In the Charge which he delivered at his Diocesan Synod, (22nd Sept. 1880,) he openly stated that two years before the work was finally completed, he had felt obliged to address a printed circular to each member of the Company, in which he strongly remonstrated against the excess to which changes had been carried ; and that the remonstrance had been, for the most part, unheeded. Had this been otherwise, there is good reason to believe that the reception wliich the Eevision has met with would have been far less unfavour- able, and that many a controversy which it has stirred up, would have been avoided. We have been assured that the ' On the Authorized Version, — p. 3. 230 CERTAIN OF THE REVISERS, BLAMELESS. [Akt. Bp. of S. Andrews would have actually resigned his place in the Company at that time, if he had not been led to expect that some opportunity would have been taken by the Minority, when the work was finished, to express their formal dissent from tlie course wliich liad Ijeen followed, and many of the conclusions which had been adopted. Were certain other excellent personages, (Scholars and Divines of the best type) who were often present, disposed at this late hour to come forward, they too w^ould doubtless tell us that they heartily regretted what was done, but were powerless to prevent it. It is no secret that Dr. Lee, — the learned Archdeacon of Dublin, — (one of the few really competent members of the Eevising body,) — found himself perpetually in the minority. The same is to be recorded concerning Dr. Roberts, whose work on the Gospels (published in 1864) shows that he is not by any means so entirely a novice in the mysteries of Textual Criticism as certain of his colleagues. — One famous Scholar and excellent Divine, — a Dean whom we forbear to name, — with the modesty of real learning, often withheld what (had he given it) would have been an adverse vote. — Another learned jind accomplished Dean (Dr. Merivale), after attending 19 meetings of the Revising body, withdrew in disgust from them entirely. He disapproved the metJwd of his colleagues, and was determined to incur no share of re- sponsibility for the probable result of their deliberations. — By the w\ay, — What about a certain solemn Protest, by means of which the Minority had resolved liherare animas suas concerning the open disregard slujwn l)y the Majority for the conditions under which they had l)een entrusted with the work of Revision, but which was withheld at the last moment ? Inasmuch as their reasons I'or the course they eventually adopted seemed sufficient In iliose hi-h-niinded and II.J PREBENDARY SCRIVENER. 231 honourable men, we forbear to challenge it. Nothing however shall deter us from plainly avowing our own opinion that human regards scarcely deserve a hearing when God's Truth is imperilled. And that the Truth of God's Word in countless instances has been ignorantly sacrificed by a majo- rity of the Eevisionists — (out of deference to a worthless Theory, newly invented and passionately advocated by two of their body), — has been already demonstrated ; as far, that is, as demonstration is possible in this subject matter. As for Prebendary Scrivener, — the only really competent Textual Critic of the whole party, — it is well known that he found himself perpetually outvoted by two-thirds of those present. We look forward to the forthcoming new edition of his Plain Introduction, in the confident belief that he will there make it abundantly plain that he is in no degree responsible for the monstrous Text which it became his painful duty to conduct through the Press on behalf of the entire body, of which he continued to the last to be a member. It is no secret that, throughout, Dr. Scrivener pleaded in vain for the general view we have ourselves advocated in this and the preceding Article. All alike may at least enjoy the real satisfaction of knowing that, besides having stimulated, to an extraordi- nary extent, public attention to the contents of the Book of Life, they have been instrumental in awakening a living interest in one important but neglected department of Sacred Science, which will not easily be again put to sleep. It may reasonably prove a solace to them to reflect that they have besides, although perhaps in ways they did not anticipate, rendered excellent service to mankind. A monu- ment they have certainly erected to themselves, — though neither of their Taste nor yet of their Learning. Their well- meant endeavours have provided an admirable text-book for 232 CONSOLATION. [Am: II. Tciichers of Divinity, — who will henceforth instruct their pu])il.s to beware of the Textual errors of the Revisionists of 1881, as well as of their tasteless, injudicious, and unsatis- factory essays in Translation. This work of theirs will dis- charge the office of a warning beacon to as many as shall hereafter embark on the same perilous enterprise with them- selves. It will convince men of the danger of pursuing the same ill-omened course : trusting to the same unskilful guidance : venturing too near the same wreck-strew^n shore. Its effect will be to open men's eyes, as nothing else could possibly have done, to the dangers wliich beset the Revision of Scripture. It will teach faithful hearts to cling the closer to the priceless treasure whicli was be(|ueathed to them by the piety and wisdom of their fathers. It will dispel for ever the drenni of those who have secretly ima- gined that a more exact Version, undertaken with the boasted hel})S of this nineteentli century of ours, would bring to light something which has been hitlierto unfairly kept concealed or else misrepresented. Not the least service which the Revisionists have rendered has been the proof their work affords, how very seldom our Authorized Version is materially wrong : how faithful and trustworthy, on the contrary, it is throughout. Let it be also candidly admitted that, even where (in our judgment) tlie Revisionists have erred, they have never had the mis- fortune scrioudjj to obscure a single feature of I)i\ine Truth ; nor have they in any (quarter (as we hope) inllictcd wounds which will be attended with worse results than to leave a hideous scar behind them. It is but fair to add that their work bears marks of an amount of conscientious (though misn tlie attonlidn whifh such works as those enumerated in p. 238 III.] COLLECTED BY THEIR PREDECESSORS. 247 Now, we trust we shall be forgiven if, at the close of the preceding enumeration, we confess to something like dis- pleasure at the oracular tone assumed by Drs. Westcott and Hort in dealing with the Text of Scripture, though they admit (page 90) that they ' rely for documentary evidence on the stores accumulated by their predecessors.' Confident as those distinguished Professors may reasonably feel of their ability to dispense with the ordinary appliances of Textual Criticism ; and proud (as they must naturally be) of a verify- ing faculty which (although they are able to give no account of it) yet enables them infallibly to discriminate between the false and the true, as well as to assign ' a local habitation and a name' to every word, — inspired or uninspired, — which purports to belong to the N. T. : — they must not be offended with us if we freely assure them at the outset that we shall decline to accept a single argumentative assertion of theirs for which they fail to offer sufficient proof. Their wholly unsupported decrees, at the risk of being thought uncivil, we shall unceremoniously reject, as soon as we have allowed them a hearing. This resolve bodes ill, we freely admit, to harmonious progress. But it is inevitable. For, to speak plainly, we never before met with such a singular tissue of magisterial statements, unsupported by a particle of rational evidence, as we meet with here. The abstruse gravity, the long-winded earnestness of the writer's manner, contrast whimsically with the utterly inconsequential character of his antecedents {note) occasion. At the same time, it cannot be too clearly understood that it is chiefly by the multiplication of exact collations of MSS. that an abiding foundation will some day be laid on which to build up the Science of Textual Criticism. We may safely keep our * Theories ' back till we have collated our MSS., — re-edited our Versions, — indexed our Fathers. They will be abundantly in time then. 248 DR. HOKT's strange method. [Akt. jind liis consequents thronghout. Professor Hort — (for ' the writing of the volume and the other accompaniments of the Text devolved' on him,^) — Dr. Hort seems to mistake his Opinions for facts, — his Assertions for arguments, — and a Reiteration of either for an accession of evidence. There is throughout the volume, apparently, a dread of Facts which is even extraordinary. An actual illustration of the learned Author's meaning, — a concrete case, — seems as if it were never forthcoming. At last it comes : but the phenomenon is straightway discovered to admit of at least two interpre- tations, and therefore never to prove the thing intended. In a person of high education, — in one accustomed to exact reasoning, — we should have supposed all this impossible But it is high time to unfold the Introduction at the first page, and to begin to read. II. It opens (p. 1-11) with some unsatisfactory Remarks on ' Transmission by Writing ; ' vague and inaccurate, — ^unsup- ported by one single Textual reference, — and labouring imder the grave defect of leaving the most instructive phenomena of the problem wholly untouched. For, inasmuch as ' Trans- mission by writing ' involves two distinct classes of errors, (1st) Those which are the result of Accident, — and (2ndly) Those which are the result of Design, — it is to use a Reader l)adly not to take the earliest opportunity of explaining to him that what makes codd. B x D such utterly untrustworthy guides, (except when supported by a large amount of ex- traneous evidence,) is the circumstance that Dcmjn had evidently so nnich to do with a vast proportion of the peculiar errors in which they severally abound. In other words, each of those codices clearly exhibits a fabricated Text, — is the result of arbitrary and reckless Recension. ^ Jntrodudivtt, p. 18. III.] SOMETHING ABOUT CODICES B, D,— A, C. 249 Now, this is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. In S. Lnke's Gospel alone (collated with the traditional Text) the transpositions in codex b amount to 228, — affecting 654 words : in codex D, to 464, — affecting 1401 words. Proceed- ing with our examination of the same Gospel according to S. Luke, we find that the words omitted in B are 757,^ — in D, 1552. The words substituted in B amount to 309, — in D, to 1006. The readings i^'^^^'^'^^'^'^^" to B are 138, and affect 215 words; — those peculiar to d, are 1731, and affect 4090 words. Wondrous few of these can have been due to acci- dental causes. The Text of one or of both codices must needs be depraved. (As for n, it is so frequently found in accord with B, that out of consideration for our Eeaders, we omit the corresponding figures.) . We turn to codd. a and c — (executed, suppose, a hundred years after b, and a hundred years hefore d) — and the figures are found to be as follows : — The transpositions are affecting The words omitted are The words substituted The peculiar readings affecting Now, (as we had occasion to explain in a previous page,^) it is entirely to misunderstand the question, to object that the preceding Collation has been made with the Text of Stephanus open before us. Robert Etienne in the XVIth century was not the cause why cod. B in the IVth, and cod. D in the Vlth, are so widely discordant from one another ; A and c, so utterly at variance with both. The simplest In A. In c. 75 67 199 words .. 197 208 175 Ill 115 90 87 131 words .. 127 in in a previou s page See lower part of page 17. Also note at p. 75 and middle of p. 262, 250 WESTCOTT AND HORT'S BOOK [Art. explanation of the plienonieua is the truest ; namely, that B and D exhibit grossly depraved Texts; — a circumstance of which it is impossible that the ordinary Keader should be too soon or too often reminded. But to proceed. III. Some remarks follow, on what is strangely styled ' Transmission by printed Editions : ' in the course of which Dr. Hort informs us that Lachmann's Text of 1831 was ' the first founded on documentary authority.' ^ .... On what then, pray, does the learned Professor imagine that the Texts of Erasmus (1516) and of Stunica (1522) were founded ? His statement is incorrect. The actual difference lietween Lachmann's Text and those of tlie earlier Editors is, that Ids ' documentary authority ' is partial, narrow, self- contradictory ; and is proved to be untrustworthy by a free appeal to Antiquity. Their documentary authority, derived from independent sources, — though partial and narrow as that on which Lachmann relied, — exhibits {under the good Providence of God,) a Traditional Text, the general purity of which is demonstrated by all the evidence which 350 years of subsequent research have succeeded in accumu- lating ; and which is confessedly the Text of a.d. 375. IV. We are favoured, in the third place, witli tlie 'History of this Edition : ' in wliich tlie point that chiefly arrests attention is the explanation afforded of the many and serious occasions on which Dr. Westcott (' W.') and Dr. Hort (' H.'), finding it impossible to agree, have set down their respective notions separately and subscribed them with their respective initial. We are reminded of Avhat was wittily said con- cerning llichard Baxter : viz. that even if no one but himself existed in the Church, ' Richard ' would still be found to 1 r. 13, cf. i>. viii. 111.] EXAMINED WITH DISMAY. 251 disagree with ' Baxter,' — and ' Baxter ' with ' Richard ' . . . . We read with uneasiness that ' no individual mind can ever act with perfect uniformity, or free itself completely from its own Idiosyncrasies ;' and that ' the danger of unconscious Caprice is inseparable from personal judgment.' — (p. 17.) All tliis reminds us painfully of certain statements made by the same Editors in 1870 : — ' We are obliged to come to the individual mind at last ; and Canons of Criticism are useful only as warnings against natural illusions, and aids to circumspect consideration, not as absolute rules to prescribe the final decision.' — (pp. xviii., xix.) May we be permitted without offence to point out (not for the first time) that ' idiosyncrasies ' and ' unconscious caprice,' and the fancies of the ' individual mind,' can be allowed no place vjJiateve?' in a problem of such gravity and importance as the present ? Once admit such elements, and we are safe to find ourselves in cloud-land to-morrow. A weaker foundation on which to build, is not to be named. And when we find that the learned Professors ' venture to hope that the present Text has escaped some risks of this kind by being the production of two Editors of different habits of mind, working independently and to a great extent on different plans,' — we can but avow our conviction that the safeguard is altogether inadequate. When two men, devoted to the same pursuit, are in daily confidential intercourse on such a subject, the ' natu7'al illusions ' of either have a marvellous tendency to communicate themselves. Their Reader's only protection is rigidly to insist on the production of Proof for everything which these authors say. V. The dissertation on ' Intrinsic ' and ' Transcriptional Probability ' which follows (pp. 20-30), — being unsuj^ported hy 07ie single instance or' illustration, — we pass by. It ignores 252 DR. HORT'S PREPOSTEROUS METHOD [Art. throughout tlie fact, that the most serious corruptions of MSS. are due, not to ' Scribes ' or ' Copyists,' (of whom, by the way, we find perpetual mention every time we open the page ;) but to the persons who employed them. So far from thinking with Dr. Hort that ' the value of the evidence obtained from Transcriptional Probability is incontestable,' — for that, 'without its aid, Textual Criticism could rarely obtain a high degree of security,' (p. 24,) — we venture to declare that inasmuch as one expert's notions of what is ' transcriptionally probable ' prove to be the diametrical reverse of another expert's notions, the supposed evidence to be derived from this source may, with advantage, be neglected altogether. Let the study of Documentary Evidence be allowed to take its place. Notions of ' Probability ' are the very pest of those departments of Science which admit of an appeal to Fact. VI. A signal proof of the justice of our last remark is furnished by the plea which is straightway put in (pp. 30-1) for the superior necessity of attending to ' the relative ante- cedent credibility of Witnesses.' In other words, ' The com- parative trustworthiness of documentary Authorities ' is proposed as a far weightier consideration than 'Intrinsic' and ' Transcriptional Probability.' Accordingly we are assured (in capital letters) that ' Knowledge of Documents should precede final judgment upon readings ' (p. 31). 'Knowledge'! Yes, but hcnv acquired? Suppose two rival documents, — cod. A and cod. B. May we be informed how you would proceed witli respect to them ? ' Where one of tlio documents is found habitually to contain morally certain, or at least strongly 'preferred, Headings, — and the other habitually to contain their rejected rivals,— we [i.e. Dr. Hort] can have no doubt that tlie Text of tlie first has been III.] OF CONDUCTING THE PRESENT ENQUIRY. 253 transmitted in comparative purity ; and that the Text of the second has suffered comparatively large corruption.' — (p. 32.) But can such words have been written seriously ? Is it gravely pretended that Headings become ' morally certain,' because they are ' strongl// prcferrccVl Are we (in other words) seriously invited to admit that the 'strong peefe- EENCE ' of ' the individual mind ' is to be° the ultimate standard of appeal ? If so, tliough you (Dr. Hort) may ' have no douht ' as to which is the purer manuscript, — see you not plainly that a man of different ' idiosyncrasy ' from yourself, may just as reasonably claim to 'have no doubt' — that you arc mistaken ? . . . One is reminded of a passage in p. 61 : viz. — ' If we find in any group of documents a succession of Headings exhibiting an exceptional purity of text, tliat i^, — Headings which the fullest consideration of Internal Evidence pronounces to he right, in opposition to formidable arrays of Documentary Evidence; the cause must be that, as far at least as these Keadings aie concerned, some one exceptionally pure MS. was the common ancestor of all the members of the grouji.' But how does that appear ? ' The cause ' 7nay be the erro- neous judgment of the Critic, — may it not ? . . . Dr. Hort is for setting up what his own inner consciousness ' pronounces to be right,' against ' Documentary Evidence,' however mul- titudinous. He claims that his own verifying faculty sliall be supreme, — shall settle every question. Can he be in earnest ? YII. We are next introduced to the subject of ' Genea- logical Evidence ' (p. 39) ; and are made attentive : for we speedily find ourselves challenged to admit that a 'total change in the bearing of the evidence ' is ' made by tlie intro- duction of the factor of Genealogy' (p. 43). Presuming that the meaning of the learned Writer must rather be that if we did hut know the genealogy of MSS., we should be in a position to reason more confidently concerning their Texts, — 254 DR. IIORT AND TIIK 'METHOD [Art. we read on : and speedily come to a second axiom (which is again printed in capital letters), viz. that ' All trustworthy restoration of corrupted Texts is founded on the study of their History ' (p. 40). We really read and wonder. Are we then engaged in the ' restoration of corrupted Texts ' ? If so, — which be they? We require — (1) To be shown the ' corrupted Texts' referred to : and then — (2) To be con\inced that 'the study of their Historij' — (as distinguished from an examination of the evidence for or against tluur Bcadings) — is a thing feasible. ' A simple instance ' (says Dr. Hort) ' will show at once the practical bearing ' of ' the principle here laid down.'— (p. 40.) But (as usual) Dr. Hort produces no instance. He merely proceeds to 'supi)ose' a case (§ 50), which he confesses (§ 53) does not exist. So that we are moving in a land of shadows. And this, he straightway follows up by the assertion that ' it would be difficult to insist too strongly on the transforma- tion of the superficial aspects of numerical authority efiected by recognition of Genealogy.' — (p. 4:3.) Presently, he assures us that ' a few documents are not, by reason of their mere paucity, appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to them.' (p. 45.) On this liead, we take leave to entertain a somewhat different opinion. Apart from the character of the Witnesses, when 5 men say one thing, and 995 say the exact contra- dictory, we are apt to regard it even as axiomatic that, ' by reason of their mere paucity,' the few 'are appreciably far less likely to be right than the multitude opposed to them.' Dr. Hort seems to share our opinion ; for he renuirks, — ' A presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral (lucunienls, than vice verm.'' III.] OF GENEALOGY:— GOmGlE.S B AND N. 255 Exactly so ! We meant, and we mean that, and no other tiling. But then, we venture to point out, that the learned Professor considerably understates the case : seeing that the ' vice versa presumption ' is absolutely non-existent. On the other hand, apart from Proof to the contrary, we are disposed to maintain that ' a majority of extant documents ' in the proportion of 995 to 5, — and sometimes of 1999 to 1, — creates more than ' a presumption.' It amounts to Proof of ' a majority of ancestral documents' Not so thinks Dr. Hort. ' This presumption,' (he seems to have persuaded himself,) may be disposed of by his mere assertion that it ' is too minute to weigh against the smallest tangible evidence of other kinds ' (Ibid.). As usual, how- ever, he furnishes us with no evidence at all, — ' tangil)le ' or ' intangible.' Can he w^onder if we smile at his unsupported dictum, and pass on ? . . . The argumentative import of his twenty weary pages on 'Genealogical Evidence' (pp. 39-59), appears to be resolvable into the following barren truism : viz. That if, out of 10 copies of Scripture, 9 could he proved to have been executed from one and the same common original (p. 41), those 9 would cease to be regarded as 9 independent witnesses. But does the learned Critic really require to be told that we want no diagram of an imaginary case (p. 54) to convince us of that ? The one thing here which moves our astonishment, is, that Dr. Hort does not seem to reflect that therefore (indeed hy his own shoiving) codices b and N, having been demonstrably " executed from one and the same common original," are not to be reckoned as two independent witnesses to the Text of the New Testament, but as little more than one. (See p. 257.) High time however is it to declare that, in strictness, all this talk about ' Genealogical evidence,' when applied to 256 ' THE FACTOR OF GENEALO(iY.' [Art. Manuscripts, is — 'moonshine. The expression is metaphorical, and assumes that it has fared with MSS. as it fares with the successive generations of a family ; and so, to a remarkable extent, no doubt, it has. But then, it happens, unfortunately, that we are unacquainted with one simjle instance of a known MS. copied from another known MS. And perforce all talk about ' Genealogical evidence,' where no single step in the descent can be produced, — in other words, where no Gencalo- fjical evidence exists,— is absurd. The living inhabitants of a village, congregated in the churchyard where the bodies of their forgotten progenitors for 1000 years repose without memorials of any kind, — is a faint image of the relation which subsists between extant copies of the Gospels and the sources from which they were derived. That, in either case, there has been repeated mixture, is undeniable ; l)ut since the Parish-register is lost, and not a vestige of Tradition survives, it is idle to pretend to argue on that part of the subject. It may be reasonably assumed however that those 50 yeomen, bearing as many Saxon surnames, indicate as many remote ancestors of some sort. That they re})resent as many families, is at least a fact. Further we cannot go. But the illustration is misleading, because inadequate. Assemble rather an Englishman, an Irishman, a Scot; a Frenchman, a German, a Spaniard ; a liussian, a Pole, an Hungarian ; an Italian, a Greek, a Turk. From Noah these 12 are all confessedly descended; lait if tlnji are silent, and you know nothing whatever about their antecedents, — your remarks about their respective ' genealogies ' must needs prove as barren — as Dr. Hort's about the ' genealogies ' of copies of Scripture. ' The factor of Gcncalotpj' in .short, in this discussion, represents a mere phantom of the brain : is the name of an imaoination — not of a fact. III.] RESULTS OF 'GENEALOGY: 257 The nearest approximation to the phenomenon about which Dr. Hort writes so glibly, is supplied — (1) by Codd. F and G of S. Paul, which are found to be independent transcripts of the same venerable lost original : — (2) by Codd. 13, 69, 124 and 346, which were confessedly derived from one and the same queer archetype : and especially — (3) by Codd. B and n. These two famous manuscripts, because they are disfigured exclusively by the self-same mistakes, are convicted of being descended (and not very remotely) from the self-same very corrupt original. By consequence, the combined evidence of F and G is but that of a single codex. Evan. 13, 69, 124, 346, when they agree, would be conveniently designated by a symbol, or a single capital letter. Codd. B and N, as already hinted (p. 255), are not to be reckoned as two witnesses. Certainly, they have not nearly the Textual significancy and importance of B in conjunction with A, or of A in conjunction with c. At best, they do but equal 1^ copies. Nothing of this kind however is what Drs. Westcott and Hort intend to convey, — or indeed seem to understand. VIII. It is not until we reach p. 94, that these learned men favour us with a single actual appeal to Scripture. At p. 90, Dr. Hort, — who has hitherto been skirmishing over the ground, and leaving us to wonder what in the world it can be that he is driving at, — announces a chapter on the ' Eesults of Genealogical evidence proper ; ' and proposes to ' determine the Genealogical relations of the chief ancient Texts.' Impatient for argument, (at page 92,) we read as follow^s : — ' The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS. generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Gr^eco-Syrian Text of the second half of the fourth century.'' We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New s 258 DATE OF THE ' TEXTUS BECEPTUS: [Art. Testament, — the Textus Receptus, in short, — is, according to Dr. Hort, ' beyond all question ' the ' Text of the second HALF OF the FOURTH CENTURY.' We shall gratefully avail ourselves of his candid admission, by and by. Having thus assumed a ' dominant Antiochian or Grteco- Syrian text of the second half of the IVtli century,' Dr. H. attempts, by an analysis of what he is pleased to call ' co7i- flate Readings,' to prove the ' posteriority of " Syrian " to " Western " and other " Neutral " readings.' . . . Strange method of procedure ! seeing that, of those second and third classes of readings, we have not as yet so much as heard the names. Let us however without more delay be shown those specimens of ' Conflation ' which, in Dr. Hort's judg- ment, supply ' the clearest evidence ' (p. 94) that ' Syrian ' are posterior alike to ' Western ' and to ' Neutral readings.' Of these, after 30 years of laborious research. Dr. Westcott and he flatter themselves that they have succeeded in de- tecting eight. IX. Now because, on the one hand, it would be unreason- able to fill up the space at our disposal with details which none but professed students will care to read ; — and because, on the other, we cannot afford to pass by anything in these pages which pretends to be of the nature of proof ; — we have consigned our account of Dr. Hort's 8 instances of Confla- tion (which prove to be less than 7) to the foot of the page.^ ' They are as follows : — [1st] S. Mark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion the multitude, when they beheld our Saviour and His Disciples departing in order to cross over unto the other side of the lake, ran on foot thither, — (a) ' and outwent them — (/3) and came together unto Ilim ' (i.e. on His stepping out of the boat : not, as Dr. Hort strangely imagines [p. 99], on His emerging from the scene of His ' retirement ' in ' some sequestered nook '). Now here, a substitutes a-webpayiov [sic] for (rvvi)\6ov. — ^^ B with the Coptic and the Vujg. omit clause (/3). — d omits clause (a), but substitutes ' there ' {avrov) for ' unto Him ' in clause (3),— exhibits therefore a III.] EIGHT SPECIMENS OF 'CONFLATION: 259 And, after an attentive survey of the Textual phenomena connected with these 7 specimens, we are constrained to fabricated text. — The Syriac condenses tlie two clauses thus : — ' got there hefore Him: — l. A, 69, and 4 or 5 of the old Latin copies, read diversely from all the rest and from one another. The preseat is, in fact, one of those many places in S. Mark's Gospel where all is contradiction in those depraved witnesses which Lachmann made it his business to bring into fashion. Of Confusiun there is plenty. 'Conflation' — as the Reader sees — there is none. [2nd] In S. Mark viii. 26, our Saviour (after restoring sight to the blind man of Bethsaida) is related to have said,— (u) ' Neither enter into the village ' — (/3) ' nor tell it to any one — (y) in the village.' (And let it be noted that the trustworthiness of this way of exhibiting the text is vouched for by A c n A and 12 other uncials : by the whole body of the cursives : by the Peschito and Harklensian, the Gothic, Armenian, and .iEthiopic Versions : and by the only Father who quotes the place — Victor of Antioch.*) But it is found that the ' two Mse witnesses ' (x b) omit clauses (i3) and (y), retaining only clause (a). One of these two however (n), aware that under such circumstances fir}bi is intolerable,! substitutes /aij. As for d and the Vulg., they substitute and parajjhrase, importing from Matt. ix. 6 (or Mk. ii. 11), ' Dejxirt unto thine house: D proceeds,— ' a?ic? tell it to no one [/xT/Sei/t eiVj/s, from Matth. viii. 4,] in the village: Six copies of the old Latin (b f ff"^ g'^"^ 1), with the Vulgate, exhibit the following paraphrase of the entire place: — '■Depart unto thine house, and if thou enterest into the village, tell it to no one: The same reading exactly is found in Evan. 13-69-346 : 28, 61, 473, and i, (except that 28, 61, 346 exhibit ' say nothing [from Mk. i. 44] to no one:) All six however add at the end, — ' not even in the village: Evan. 124 and a stand alone in exhibiting, — -' Depart unto thine house ; and enter not into the village ; neither tell it to any one,'' — to which 124 [not a] adds, — ' in the village: . . . Why all this contradiction and confusion is now to be called ' Conflation,' — and what ' clear evidence ' is to be elicited therefrom that ' Syrian ' are posterior alike to ' Western ' and to ' neutral ' readings, — passes our powers of comprehension. We shall be content to hasten forward when we have further informed our Readers that while Lachmann and Tregelles abide by the Received Text in this place ; Tischendorf, alone of Editors, adopts the reading of K (fiT] «ts Trjv Kcofirjv ei(T€X6r]s) : while Westcott and Hort, alone of Editors, * Cramer's Cat. p. 345, lines 3 and 8. f Dr. Hort, on the contrary, (only because he finds it in b,) considers larjSe 'simple and vigorous ' as well as ' unique * and ' peculiar ' (p. 100). s 2 260 WESTCOTT AND HOET'S EIGHT [Aut. assert that the interpretation put upon them by Drs. West- cott and Hort, is purely arbitrary : a baseless imagination, — adopt the reading of b (/x»;8e fis rqv KcofiTjv (laeXdrjs), — so ending the sentence. What else however hut calamitous is it to find that Westcott and Hort have persuaded their fellow Eevisers to adopt the same mutilated exhibition of the Sacred Text? The consequence is, that henceforth, — instead of ' Neither go into the toiun, nor tell it to any in the toivn^ — we are invited to read, ' Do not even enter into the village.^ [.'?rd] In S. Mk. ix. 38, — S. John, speaking of one who cast out devils in C'ikist's Name, says — (a) *■ luho followeth not us, and we forbad him — O) because he followeth not ? Authors of the iiiia'aiuavy Syrini; Ilevisiou. \ihi(l.\ lip. EUicotl, by III.] FABULOUS NARRATIVE. 279 the way (an unexceptionable witness), characterizes Cureton's Syriac as ' singular and sometimes rather zvild.' ' The text, of a venj comjwsite nature ; sometimes inclining to the shoi^tness and sim])lieitg of the Vatican manuscj^ijJt, hit more commonly presenting the same paraphrastic character of text as the Codex Bezse.' [p. 42.] (It is, in fact, an utterly depraved and fabri- cated document.) We venture to remark in passing that Textual matters must have everywhere reached a very alarming pass indeed to render intelligible the resort to so extraordinary a step as a representative Conference of the ' leading Personages or Sees ' (p. 134) of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at least inevitable, that men in high place at that time deemed themselves competent to grapple with the problem. Enough was familiarly known about the character and the sources of these corrupt Texts to make it certain that they would be recognizable when produced ; and that, when condemned by authority, they would no longer be propagated, and in tlie end would cease to molest the Church. Thus much, at all events, is legitimately to l)e inferred from the hypothesis. XXI. Behold then from every principal Diocese of ancient Christendom, and in the Church's palmiest days, the most famous of the ante-Xicene Fathers repair to Antioch. They go up by authority, and are attended l;)y skilled Ecclesiastics of the highest theological attainment. Bearers are they perforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures : and (by the hypothesis) the latest iJOSsiUc dates of any of these Copies must range between a.d. 250 and 350. But the Delegates of so many ancient Sees will have been supremely careful, before starting on so important and solenni an errand, to make diligent search for the oldest Copies any- wliere discoverable : and when they reach the scene of their deliberations, we may be certain that they are able to appeal 280 DRS. WESTCOTT AND HORT'S FABULOUS [Art. to not a few codices u-ritten within a hundred years of the date of the insjnrcd Autographs themselves. Copies of the Scriptures authenticated as havinjr belonged to the most famous of their predecessors, — and held by them in high repute for the presumed purity of their Texts — will have been freely produced : while, in select receptacles, will have been stowed away — for purposes of comparison and avoidance — specimens of those dreaded Texts wliose existence has been the sole cause why (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary concourse of learned Ecclesiastics has taken place. After solenmly invoking the Divine blessing, tliese men address themselves assiduously to their task ; and (by the hypothesis) they proceed to condemn every codex which exhiljits a ' strictly Western/ or a ' strictly Alexandrian,' or a ' strictly Neutral ' type. In plain English, if codices b, n, and D had been before them, they would have uncere- moniously rejected all three ; but then, (by the hypothesis) neither of the two first-named had yet come into being: while 200 years at least must roll out ])efore Cod. d would see the light. In the meantime, the immediate ancestor's of I? X and 1) will perforce have come under judicial scrutiny; and, (by the hypothesis,) they will have been scornfully rejected by the general consent of the Judges. XXII. Pass an interval — (are we to suppose of fifty years ?) — and the work referred to is ' svhjected to a second authoritative Eevision.' Af/aiii, tlicrclbrc, lichold llu; piety and learning of the four great I'atriarcliates of tlie East, formally represented at Antioch ! The Church is now in her palmiest days. Some of her greatest men l)elong to the period (if wliicli we are sjjeaking. Eiiseliius (a.d. 308- 340) is in his glory. One whole generation has come and gone since the last Textual Coiderence was held, at Antioch. III.] HISTOEY OF THE RECEIVED TEXT. 281 Yet is no inclination manifested to reverse the decrees of the earlier Conference. This second Kecension of the Text of Scripture does but ' carry out more completely the purposes of the first ; ' and ' the final process was apparently com- pleted by A.D, 350 ' (p. 137). — So far the Cambridge Professor. XXIII. But the one important fact implied by this august deliberation concerning the Text of Scripture has 1)een conveniently passed over by Dr. Hort in profound silence. We take leave to repair his omission by inviting the Reader's particular attention to it. We request him to note that, hy the hypothesis, there will have been submitted to the scrutiny of these many ancient Ecclesiastics not a feiu codices of exactly the same type as codices B and X : especially as codex B. We are able even to specify with precision certain "features which the codices in question will have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus, — (1) From S. Mark's Gospel, those depraved copies will have omitted the last Twelve Verses (xvi. 9-20). (2) From S. Luke's Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted our Saviour's Agony in the Garden (xxii. 43, 44). (3) His Prayer on behalf of His murderers (xxiii. 34), will have also been away. (4) The Inscription on the Cross, in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew (xxiii. 38), will have been partly, misrepresented, — partly, away. (5) And there will have been no account discoverable of S. Peter's visit to the Sepulchre (xxiv. 12). (6) Absent will have been also the record of our Lord's Ascension into Heaven {ibid. 51). (7) Also, from S. John's Gospel, the codices in question 282 DR. HOIIT BEFORE THE FATHERS [Art. will have omitted the incident of the troubling of the TOOL or Betiiesda (v. 3, 4). Now, we request tliat it may be clearly noted that, according to Dr. Hurt, against every copy of the Gospels so maimed and mutilated, (i.e. against every copy of the Gosjjcls of the same type as codices B and N,) — the many illustrious Bishops who, (still according to Dr. Hort,) assembled at Antioch, first in A.D. 250 and tlien in a.d. 350, — by common consent set a mark of condemnation. We are assured that those famous men, — those Fathers of the Church, — were emphatic in their sanction, instead, of codices of the type of Cod. A, — in which all these seven omitted passages (and many hundreds Ijesides) are duly found in their proper places. When, therefore, at the end of a thousand and lialf a thousand years, Dr. Hort (guided by his inner consciousness, and depending on an intellectual illumination of which he is able to give no intelligible account) proposes to reverse the delil)erate sentence of Antiquity, — his position strikes us as bordering on the ludicrous. Concerning the seven places abo\'e referred to, which the assembled Fathers pronounce to be genuine Scripture, and declare to be worthy of all accepta- tion,— ^I)r. Hort expresses himself in terms wiiicli — could they have l)ecn heard at Antioch — must, it is thought, have brought down upon his head tokens of displeasure which might have even proved inconvenient. But let the respected gentlciiiaii by all means be allowed to speak for himself: — (1) The last Twelve Vehses of S. .Mark (he would have been heard to say) are a 'very (iarly iiil('ri)olation.' 'Its authorship and jivccise date must rt'iiiaiii iude it so. It follows that the Text exhibited by such codices as p. and x ivas deliher eddy condemned by the assembled piety, learning, and judgment of the four great I'atriarcliates of Eastern Christendom. At a period wjien tliere existed nothiw) more modern than Codices h and x, — nothing so modern as A and c, — all specimens of the rnnncr chiss were in.] THE ASSEMBLED FATHEES, A.D. 250-A.D. 350. 287 rejected : while such codices as bore a general resemblance to A were by common consent pointed out as deserving of confidence and recommended for repeated Transeription. XXVI. Pass fifteen hundred years, and the Eeader is invited to note attentively what has come to pass. Time has made a clean sweep, it may be, of every Greek codex belonging to either of the two dates above indicated. Every tradition belonging to the period has also long since utterly perished. When lo, in a.d. 1831, under the auspices of Dr. Lachmann, ' a new departure ' is made. Up springs what may be called the new German school of Textual Criticism, — of which the fundamental principle is a superstitious deference to the decrees of cod. B. The heresy prevails for fifty years (1831- 81) and obtains many adherents. The practical result is, tliat its chief promoters make it their business to throw dis- credit on the result of the two great Antiochian Eevisions already spoken of ! The (so-called) ' Syrian Text ' — although assumed by Drs. Westcott and Hort to be the product of the combined wisdom, piety, and learning of the great Patriar- chates of the East from a.d. 250 to a.d. 350; 'a "Eecension" in the proper sense of the word ; a work of attempted Criti- cism, performed deliberately by Editors and not merely by Scril:)es ' (p. 133) : — this ' Syrian Text,' Doctors Westcott and Hort denounce as ' shoiuing no marl's of either critical or sjn- ritucd insight : ' — It ' presents ' (say they) ' the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but appreciahly impoverislied in sense and force ; more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than fur repeated and diligent study.' — (p. 135.) XXVII. We are content to leave this matter to the Eeader's judgment. For ourselves, we make no secret of the grotesqueness of the contrast thus, for the second time, presented to the imagination. On that side, by the hypo- 288 DR. HORT'S ESTIMATE OF THE CHURCH'S [Art. thesis, sit the greatest Doctors of primitive Christendom, assembled in solemn conclave. Every most illustrious name is there. By ingeniously drawing a purely arl)itrary liard- and-fast line at the year a.d. 350, and so anticipating many a ' Jiorait'' by something between five and five-and-twenty years. Dr. Hort's intention is plain : l)ut the expedient will not serve his turn. Quite content are we with the names secured to us within the proposed limits of time. On that side then, we behold congregated choice representatives of the wisdom, the piety, the learning of the Eastern Church, from a.d. 250 to a.d. 350.— On this side sits — Dr. Hort! . . . An interval of 1532 years separates these two parties. XXVIII. And first, — How may the former assemblage be supposed to have been occupying themselves ? The object with which those distinguislied personages came together was the loftiest, the purest, the holiest imaginable : viz. to purge out from the sacred Text the many corruptions Ijy wliich, in their judgments, it had become depraved (hiring the 250 (or at the utmost 300) years which have elapsed since it first came into existence ; to detect the counterfeit and to eliminate the spurious. Not unaware by any means are they of the carelessness of Scribes, nor yet of the corruptions which have been brought in through the officiousness of critical 'Correc- tors ' of the Text. To what has resulted from the misdirected piety of the Orthodox, they are every bit as fully alive as to what has crept in through the malignity of Heretical Teachers. Moreover, while the memory survives in all its freshness of the depravations which the ins])ired Text has experienced from these and other similar corrupting influences, the iiicans iibound and arc at hand of tcstinr/ every suspected place of Scrijjture. Well, and next, — How ]ia\c tliese holy men prospered in their holy ejiterprise ? IIL] CORPORATE WORK,— A.D. 250 TO A.D. 350. 289 XXIX. According to Dr. Hort, by a strange fatality, — a most unaccountable and truly disastrous proclivity to error, — -these illustrious Fathers of the Church have been at every instant substituting the spurious for the genuine, — -a fabri- cated Text in place of the Evangelical Verity. Miserable men ! In the Gospels alone they have interpolated about 3100 words : have omitted about 700 : have substituted about 1000 ; have transposed about 2200 : have altered (in respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c.) about 1200.^ This done, they have amused themselves with the give-and-take process of mutual accommodation which we are taught to call ' Conflation : ' in plain terms, thei/ have been 'inanvfacturing Scripture. The Text, as it comes forth from their hands, — (rt) " Slicv.is no marks of cither critical or sjnritval insif/ht :" — (b) " Presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but appreciahly impoverished in sense and force :" — (c) " Is more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation, than for repeated and diligent study." Moreover, the mischief has proved infectious, — has spread. In Syria also, at Edessa or Nisibis, — (for it is as well to be circumstantial in such matters,) — the self-same iniquity is about to be perpetrated ; of which the Peschito will be the abiding monument : one solitary witness only to the pure Text being suffered to escape. Cureton's fragmentary Syriac will ^ To speak with entire accuracy, Drs. Westcott and Hort require us to believe that the Authors of the [imaginary] Syrian Revisions of a.d, 250 and A.D. 350, interpolated the genuine Text of the Gospels, with between 2877 (b) and 3455 (s) spurious words; mutilated the genuine Text in respect of between 536 (b) and 839 (X ) words : — substituted for as many genuine words, between 935 (b) and 1114 (x) uninspired words: — licen- tiously transposed between 2098 (b) and 2299 (x): — and in respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c., altered without authority between 1132 (b) and 1265 (k) words. U 290 DK. HORT'S FANTASTIC THEORY. [Art. alone remain to exhibit to mankind the outlines of primitive Truth. (The reader is reminded of the character already given of the document in question at the summit of page 279. Its extravagance can only be fully appreciated by one wlu) will be at the pains to read it steadily through.) XXX. And pray, (we ask,) — Who says all this ? WJio is it who gravely puts forth all this egregious nonsense ? ... It is Dr. Hort, (we answer,) at pp. 134-5 of the volume now under review. In fact, according to hivi, those primitive Tathers have been the great falsifiers of Scripture ; have proved the worst enemies of the pure "Word of God ; have shamefully betrayed their sacred trust ; have done the diametrical reverse of what (by the hypothesis) they came together for the sole purpose of doing. They have depraved and corrupted that sacred Text which it was their aim, their duty, and their pro- fessed object to purge from its errors. And (by the hypo- thesis) Dr. Hort, at the end of 1532 years, — aided by codex B and his own self-evolved powers of divination, — has found them out, and now holds them up to the contempt and scorn of the British public. XXXI. In the meantime the illustrious Professor in\dtes us to believe that the mistaken textual judgment pronounced at Antioch in a.d. 350 had an innnediate effect on the Text of Scripture throughout the world. "VVe are requested to sup- pose that it resulted in the instantaneous extinction of codices the like of B n, wherever found ; and caused codices of the A type to spring up like mushrooms in their })lace, and that, in every lilmiry of ancient Christciidoin. We are further required to assume that this extraordinary sulistitution of new evidence for old — the false for th.e true — fidly explains why Iren;eus and Hippolytus, Athanasius and Didymus, Gregory of III.] ITS INCONVENIENT CONSEQUENCES. 291 N"azianziis and Gregory of Nyssa, Basil and Ephraem, Epipha- nius and Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Isidore of Pelusium, Nilus and Nonnus, Proclus and Severianus, the two Cyrils and Theodoret — 07ic mid all — show them- selves strangers to the text of b and N. . . . We read and marvel. XXXII. For, (it is time to enquire,) — Does not the learned Professor see that, by thus getting rid of the testimony of the whole body of the Fathers, he leaves the Science which he is so good as to patronize in a most destitute condition, — besides placing himself in a most inconvenient state of isolation ? If clear and consentient Patristic testimony to the Text of Scrip- ture is not to be deemed forcible witness to its Truth, — whither shall a man betake himself for constraining Evidence ? Dr. Hort has already set aside the Traditional Text as a thin" of no manner of importance. The venerable Syriac Version he has also insisted on reducing very nearly to the level of the despised cursives. As for the copies of the old Latin, they had confessedly become so untrustworthy, at the time of which he speaks, that a modest Eevision of the Text they embody, (the ' Vulgate ' namely,) became at last a measure of necessity. What remains to him therefore ? Can he seriously suppose that the world will put up with the •' idio- syncrasy' of a living Doctor — his 'personal instincts' (p. xi.) — his ' personal discernment ' (p. 65), — his ' instinctive processes of Criticism ' (p. 66), — his ' individual mind,' — in preference to articulate voices coming to us across the gulf of Time from every part of ancient Christendom ? How — with the faintest chance of success — does Dr. Hort propose to remedy the absence of External Testimony ? If mankind can afford to do without either consent of Copies or of Fathers, why does mankind any longer adhere to the ancient methods of proof? Why do Critics of every school still accumulate references to u 2 292 WE DEVOUTLY WISH THAT THE [Anr. MSS., explore the ancient Versions, and ransack tlie Patristic WTitings in search of neglected citations of Scripture ? That the ancients were indifferent Textual Critics, is true enough. The mischief done by Origen in this department, — through his fondness for a branch of Learning in which his remarks show that he was all unskilled, — is not to be told. But then, these men lived within a very few hundred years of the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ : and when they witness to the reading of their own copies, their testimony on the point, to say the least, is worthy of our most respectful attention. Dated codices, in fact are they, to all intents and purposes, as often as they bear clear witness to the Text of Scripture : — a fact, (we take leave to throw out the remark in passing,) which has not yet nearly attracted the degree of attention which it deserves. XXXIII. For ourselves, having said so much on this sub- ject, it is fair that we should add, — We devoutly wish that Dr. Hort's hypothesis of an authoritative and deliberate Eecen- sion of the Text of the New Testament achieved at Antioch first, about a.d. 250, and next, about a.d. 350, were indeed an historical fact. We desire no firmer basis on which to rest our confidence in the Traditional Text of Scripture than the deliberate verdict of Antiquity, — the ascertained sanction of the collective Church, in the Nicene age. The Latin ' Vulgate ' [a.d. 385] is the work of a single man — Jerome. The Si/riac 'Vulgate' [a.d. 616] was also the work of a single man — Thomas of Harkel. But this Gj'ceic ' Vulgate ' was (by the hypothesis) the product of the Church Catholic, [a.d. 250- A.D. 350,] in her corporate capacity. Not only should we hail such a monument of the collective piety and learning of the Church in her best days with unmingled reverence and joy, were it introduced to our notice; liut we should insist that no important deviation from such a ' Tcxtus Eccc2)tv.s ' as that III.] ' TEXTUS BECEPTU8' HAD ANY SUCH HISTORY. 293 would deserve to be listened to. In other words, if Dr. Hort's theory about the origin of the Tcxtus Bcceptus have any foundation at all in fact, it is ' all up ' with Dr. Hort. He is absolutely nowhere. He has most ingeniously placed himself on the horns of a fatal dilemma. For, — (let it be carefully noted,) — the entire discussion becomes, in this way, brought (so to speak) within the com- pass of a nutshell. To state the case briefly, — We are invited to make our election between the Fathers of the Church, A.D. 250 and .\.d. 350, — and Dr. Hort, a.d. 1881. The issue is really reduced to that. The general question of the Text of Scripture being the matter at stake ; (not any particular passage, remember, but the Text of Scripture as a lohole ;) — and the conjiicting ^mrties being but two; — Which are we to believe ? the consentient Voice of Antiquity, — or the solitary modern Professor ? Shall we accept the august Testimony of the whole body of the Fathers ? or shall we prefer to be guided by the self-evolved imaginations of one who con- fessedly has nothing to offer but conjecture ? The question before us is reduced to that single issue. But in fact the alternative admits of being yet more concisely stated. We are invited to make our election between fact and — fiction . . . All this, of course, on the supposition tliat there is any truth at all in Dr. Hort's ' New Textual Theory.' XXXIV. Apart however from the gross intrinsic impro- bability of the supposed Recension, — the utter absence of one particle of evidence, traditional or otherwise, that it ever did take place, must be held to be fatal to the hypothesis that it did. It is simply incredible that an incident of such magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself in his- tory. As a conjecture — (and it only professes to be a conjec- ture)— Dr. Hort's notion of how the Text of the Fathers of 294 DR. IIORT'S TEXT COLLAPSES [Akt. the Ilird, lYth, and Vtli centuries, — which, as he truly remarks, is in the main identical with our own Received Text, — came into being, must be unconditionally abandoned. In the words of a learned living Prelate, — " the snjyjjositmi " on which Drs. Westcott and Hort have staked their critical reputation, "is a manifest absurditi/."^ XXXV. We have been so full on the subject of this ima- ginary ' Antiochian ' or ' Syrian text,' not (the reader may be sure) without sufficient reason. Scant satisfaction truly is there in scattering to the winds an airy tissue which its ingenious authors have been industriously weaving for 30 years. But it is clear that with this hypothesis of a ' Syrian ' text, — the immediate source and actual prototype of the commonly received Text of the N. T., — stands or falls their entire Textual theory. Eeject it, and the entire fabric is observed to collapse, and subside into a shapeless ruin. And with it, of necessity, goes the ' New Greek Text,' — and there- fore the ' New Miglish Version ' of our Eevisionists, which in the main has been founded on it. XXXVI. In the meantime the phenomena upon which this phantom has been based, remain unchanged ; and fairly in- terpreted, will be found to conduct us to the diametrically opposite result to that which has been arrived at by Drs. Westcott and Hort. With perfect truth has the latter remarked on the practical ' identity of tlie Text, more espe- cially in the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, in all the known cursive MSS., except a few' (p. 143). Wa fully admit the truth of his statement tliat — ' Before the dose of the IVfh century, a Greek Text not inaterially dififering from the almost universal Text of the IXtli,' — [and ' (^nnfc(l 1)y Canon Cook, llcviscd Version Considered, — p. 202. III.] WITH HIS FANTASTIC THEORY. 295 why not of the Vlth ? of the Vllth ? of the Vlllth ? or again of the Xth? of the Xlth? of the Xllth?]—' century, was dominant at Antioch.' — (p. 142.) And why not throughout the whole of Eastern Christendom ? Why this continual mention of 'Antioch,' — this perpetual introduction of the epithet ' Syrian ' ? Neither designation applies to Irenseus or to Hippolytus, — to Athanasius or to Didymus, — to Gregory of Nazianzus or to his namesake of Nyssa, — to Basil or to Epiphanius, — to ISTonnus or to Maca- rius, — to Proclus or to Theodorus Mops., — to the earlier or to the later Cyril. — In brief, ' The fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS. gene- rally is, beyond all question, identical with [what Dr. Hort chooses to call] the dominant Antiochian or Grseco-Syrian text of the secondhalfof the IVthcentur3% . . . The Antiochian [and other] Fathers, and the bulk of extant MSS. written from about three or four, to ten or eleven centuries later, must have had, in the greater number of extant variations, a common original either contemporary loith, or older than, our oldest extant MSS:—i^. 92.) XXXVII. So far then, happily, we are entirely agreed. The only question is, — How is this resemblance to be accounted for ? Not, we answer, — not, certainly, by putting forward so violent and improbable — so irrational a conjecture as that, first, abovit a.d. 250,— and then again about a.d. 350, — an authoritative standard Text was fabricated at Antioch ; of which all other known MSS. (except a very little handful) are nothing else but transcripts : — but rather, by loyally recognizing, in the practical identity of the Text exhibited by 99 out of 100 of our extant MSS., the probable general fidelity of those many transcripts to the inspired exemplars themselves from lohich remotely they are confessedly descended. And surely, if it be allowable to assume (with Dr. Hort) that for 1532 years, (viz. from a.d. 350 to a.d. 1882) the 296 THE TRADITIONAL TEXT, A TROUBLE [Art. Antiochian standard has been faithfully retained and trans- mitted,— it will be impossible to assign any valid reason why the inspirt^d Original itself, the Apostolic standard, should not have been as faithfully transmitted and retained from the Apostolic age to the Antiochian,^ — i.e. throughout an interval of less than 250 years, or one-sixth of the period. XXXVIII. Here, it will obviously occur to enquire, — But what has been l)rs. Westcott and Hort's motive for inventing such an improbable hypothesis ? and why is Dr. Hort so strenuous in maintaining it ? We reply by remind- inf the Reader of certain remarks which we made at the outset.^ The Traditional Text of the N. T. is a phenomenon which sorely exercises Critics of the new school. To depre- ciate it, is easy : to deny its critical authority, is easier still : to cast ridicule on the circumstances under which Erasmus produced his first (very faulty) edition of it (1516), is easiest of all. But to ignore the 'Traditional Text,' is impossible. Equally impossible is it to overlook its practical identity with the Text of Chrysostom, who lived and taught at An- tioch till A.D. 398, when he became Abp. of Constantinople. Now this is a very awkward circumstance, and must in some way be got over ; for it transports us, at a bound, from the stifling atmosphere of Basle and Alcala, — from Erasmus and Stunica, Stephens and Beza and the Elzevirs, — to Antioch and Constantinople in the latter part of the IVtli century. What is to be done ? XXXIX. Drs. Westcott and Hort assume that this 'Anti- ochian text ' — found in the later cursives and tlie Fathers of the latter half of the IVtli century— must be an arflfieial, an arbitrarily invented standard ; a text fabricated between ' i.e. say fmrn a.d. 90 to a.d. 250-350. "^ Sec above, p. 269. III.] TC DES. WESTCOTT AND HORT. 297 A.D. 250 and a.d. 350. And if they may but be so fortunate as to persuade the world to adopt their hypothesis, then all will be easy ; for they will have reduced the supposed ' con- sent of Fathers ' to the reproduction of one and the same single ' primary documentary witness : ' ^ — and ' it is hardly necessary to point out the total change in the bearing of the evidence by the introduction of the factor of Gene- alogy ' (p. 43) at this particular juncture. Upset the hypothesis on the other hand, and all is reversed in a moment. Every attesting Father is perceived to be a dated MS. and an independent authority ; and the combined evi- dence of several of these becomes simply unmanageable. In like manner, " the approximate consent of the cursives " (see the foot-note), is perceived to be equivalent not to " A PEIMARY DOCUMENTARY WITNESS," — not to " ONE AnTIOCHIAN ORIGINAL," — but to be tantamount to the articulate speech of many witnesses of high character, coming to us froin every quarter of primitive Christendom. XL. But — (the further enquiry is sure to be made) — In favour of which document, or set of documents, have all these fantastic efforts been made to disparage the commonly received standards of excellence ? The ordinary English Eeader may require to be reminded that, prior to the IVth century, our Textual helps are few, fragmentary, and — to speak plainly — insufficient. As for sacred Codices of that date, we possess not one. Of our two primitive Versions, ' * If,' says Dr. Hort, ' an editor were for any purpose to make it his aim to restore as completely as possible the New Testament of Antioch in a.d. 350, he could not help taking the approximate consent of the cursives as equivalent to a primary documentary ivitiiess. And he would not be the less justified in so doing for being unable to say precisely by what historical agencies the one Antiochian original '■ — [note the fallacy !] — ' was mul- tiplied into the cursive hosts of the later ages." — Pp. 143-4, 298 DR. IIORT REJECTS THE TEXT OF [Art. ' the Syriac and the old Latin/ the second is grossly corrupt ; owing (says Dr. Hort) ' to a perilous confusion between transcription and reproduction ; ' ' the preservation of a record and its supposed improvement' (p. 121). 'Further acquaintance with it only increases our distrust' {ibid.). In plainer English, ' the earliest readings which can be fixed chronologically ' (p. 120) belong to a Aversion which is licen- tious and corrupt to an incredible extent. And though ' there is no reason to doubt that the Peschito [or ancient Syriac] is at least as old as the Latin Version ' (p. 84), yet (according to Dr. Hort) it is ' impossible ' — (he is nowhere so good as to explain to us wherein this supposed ' impossi- bility ' consists), — to regard ' the present form of the Version as a true representation of the original Syriac text.' The date of it (according to him) may be as late as a.d. 350. Anyhow, we are assured (but only by Dr. Hort) that impor- tant ' evidence for the Greek text is hardly to l)e luuked fur from this source ' (p. 85). — The Fathers of the Ilird century wdio have left behind them considerable remains in Greek are but two, — Clemens Alex, and Origen : and there are considerations attending the citations of either, which greatly detract from their value. XLI. Tlie question therefore recurs with redoubled em- phasis,— Li favour of irJiich document, or set of documents, does Dr. Hort disparage the more considerable portion of that early evidence, — so much of it, namely, as belongs to the IVth century, — on which the Church has been hitherto accustomed conlidcntly to rely? He asserts that, — ' Almost all Greek Fathers after Eusebius have texts so deeply affected by mixture that ' they ' cannot at most count for more than so many secondary Greek uncial MSS., inferior in most cases to the better sort of secondary uncial MSS. now cx- istinij:—{\\. 202.) III.] THE GREEK FATHEES AFTER EUSEBIUS. 299 And thus, at a stroke, behold, ' almost all Greek Fathers after Uuschius' — (who died a.d. 340) — are disposed of! washed overboard ! put clean out of sight ! Athanasius and Didymus — the 2 Basils and the 2 Gregories — the 2 Cyrils and the 2 Theodores — Epiphanius and Macarius and Ephraem — Chrysostom and Severianus and Proclus — Nilus and Nonnus — Isidore of Pelusium and Theodoret : not to mention at least as many more who have left scanty, yet most precious, remains behind them : — all these are pronounced inferior in authority to as many IXth- or Xth- century copies ! . . . We commend, in passing, the fore- going dictum of these accomplished Editors to the critical judgment of all candid and intelligent Eeaders. Not as dated manuscripts, therefore, at least equal in Antiquity to the oldest which we now possess : — not as the authentic utterances of famous Doctors and Fathers of the Church, (instead of being the work of unknown and irresj)onsible Scribes): — not as sure witnesses of what was accounted Scripture in a known region, by a famous personage, at a well-ascertained period, (instead of coming to us, as our codices universally do, without a history and without a character) : — in no such light are we henceforth to regard Patristic citations of Scripture : — but only ' as so many secondary MSS., inferior to the hcttcr sort of secondary uncials 7101V existing^ XLII. That the Testimony of the Fathers, in the lump, must perforce in some such way either be ignored or else flouted, if the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is to stand, — we were perfectly well aware. It is simply fatal to them : and they knoio it. But we were hardly prepared for such a demonstration as this. Let it all pass however. The ques- tion we propose is only the following, — If the Text ' used by great Antiochian theologians not long after the middle of the 300 THE SECEET OUT AT LAST. [Art. IVtli century ' (p. 146) is undeserving of our confidence : — if we are to believe that a systematic depravation of Scrip- ture was universally going on till about the end of the Ilird century; and if at that time, an authoritative and deliberate recension of it — conducted on utterly erroneous principles — took place at Antioch, and resulted in the vicious 'tradi- tional Constantinopolitan ' (p. 143), or (as Dr. Hort prefers to call it) the ' eclectic Syrian Text : ' — What remains to us ? Are we henceforth to rely on our own ' inner consciousness ' for illumination ? Or is it seriously expected that for the restoration of the inspired Verity we shall be content to surrender ourselves blindfold to the ipse dixit of an unknown and irresponsible nineteenth-century guide ? If neither of these courses is expected of us, will these Editors be so good as to give us the names of the documents on which, in their judgment, we may rely ? XLIII. We are not suffered to remain long in a state of suspense. The assurance awaits us (at p. 150), that the Vatican codex, 'b — is found to hold a unique position. Its text is through- out Pre-Syrian, perhaps purely P}-c-Syrian. . . . From distinc- tively Western readings it seems to be all but entirely free. . . . We have not been able to recognize as Alexandrian any readings of b in any book of the New Testament So that . . . neither of the early streams of innovation has touched it to any appreciable extent.' — (p. 150.) ' The text of the Sinaitic codex (x) ' also ' seems to be entirely, or all but entirely, Pre-Syrian. A very large part of the text is in like manner free from Western or Alexandrian ele- ments.'— (p. 151.) ' Every other known Greek maunscript has either a mixed or a Syrian text.' — (p. 151.) Thus then, at last, at the end of exactly 150 weary pages, tlie secret comes out! The one ])oint which the respected III.] CODEX B AND CODEX NV 301 Editors are found to have been all along driving at : — the one aim of those many hazy disquisitions of theirs about * Intrinsic and Transcriptional Probability,' — ' Genealogical evidence, simple and divergent,' — and ' the study of Groups : ' — the one reason of all their vague terminology, — and of their baseless theory of ' Conflation,' — and of their disparage- ment of the Fathers : — the one liaison d'etre of their fiction of a ' Syrian ' and a ' Pre-Syrian ' and a ' Neutral ' text : — the secret of it all comes out at last ! A delightful, a truly Newtonian simplicity characterizes the final announcement. All is summed up in the curt formula — Codex b ! Behold then the altar at which Copies, Fathers, Versions, are all to be ruthlessly sacrificed : — the tribunal from which there shall be absolutely no appeal : — the Oracle which is to silence every doubt, resolve every riddle, smooth away every difficulty. All has been stated, where the name has been pronounced of — codex B. One is reminded of an enigmatical epitaph on the floor of the Chapel of S. John's College, ' Vcrhum non amplius — Fisher ' ! To codex B all the Greek Fathers after Eusebius must give way. Even Patristic evidence of the ante-Nicene period ' requires critical sifting ' (p. 202), — must be distrusted, may be denied (pp. 202-5), — if it shall be found to contradict Cod. B ! ' b very far exceeds all other documents in neutrality of Text.' — (p. 171.) XLIV. ' At a long interval after B, but hardly a less interval before all other MSS., stands n' (p. 171). — Such is the sum of the matter ! .... A coarser, — a clumsier, — a more unscientific, — a more stiqml expedient for settling the true Text of Scripture was surely never invented ! BtU for the many foggy, or rather unreadable disquisitions with which the Introduction is encumbered, " Textual Criticism made easy," might very well have been the title of the little 302 DRS. WESTOOTT AND HORT'S [Art. volume now under Eeview ; of which at last it is discovered that tlic general Infallibility of Codex B is the fundamental principle. Let us however hear these learned men out. XLV. They begin by offering us a chapter on the ' General relations of b and n to other documents : ' wherein we are assured that, — ' Two striking fads successively come out with especial clear- ness. Every group containing both n and B, is found ... to have an apparently more original Text than every opposed group containing neither ; and every group containing b . . . is found in a large preponderance of cases ... to have an aj^parently more original Text than every opposed group containing k-' — (p. 210.) ' Is found ' ! but pray, — By whom 1- And ' aiiparcnily ' ! but pray, — To wliom ? and On what grounds of Evidence ? For unless it be on certain grounds of Evidence, how can it be pretended that we have before us ' two striking/ac^s' ? Again, with what show of reason can it possibly be asserted that these " two striking facts " " come out with especial clear- ness " ? so long as their very existence remains in nuhihus, — has never been established, and is in fact emphatically denied ? Expressions like the foregoing then only begin to be tolerable when it has been made plain that the Teacher has some solid foundation on which to build. Else, he occasions nothing but impatience and displeasure. Eeaders at first are simply annoyed at being trifled with : presently they grow restive: at last they become clamorous for demonstration, and will accept of nothing less. Let us go on however. We are still at ]\ 210 : — ' We found N and b to stand alone in their almosst complete immunity from distinctive Syriac readings .... and n to stand far above fc< in its apparent freedom from either Western or Alexandrian readings.' — (p. 210.) III.] EXTRAORDINARY METHOD OF REASONING. 303 But pray, gentlemen, — Where and token did ' we find ' either of tliese two tilings ? We liave ' found ' nothing of the sort hitherto. The Keviewer is disposed to reproduce the Duke of "Wellington's courteous reply to the Prince Eegent, when the latter claimed the arrangements which resulted in the victory of Waterloo : — ' / Jiave heard your Royal Highness say so.' .... At the end of a few pages, ' Having found n b the constant element in groups of every size, distinguished by internal excellence of readings, we found no less excellence in the readings in which they concur with- out other attestations of Greek MSS., or even of Versions or Fathers.'— (p. 219.) What ! again ? Why, we ' have found ' nothing as yet l")ut Eeiteration. Up to this point we have not been favoured with one particle of Evidence ! ... In the meantime, the convictions of these accomplished Critics, — (but not, unfortu- nately, those of their Eeaders,) — are observed to strengthen as they proceed. On reaching p. 224, w^e are assured that, ' The independence [of b and n] can be carried back so far,' — (not a hint is given liow,) — ' that their concordant testimony may be treated as equivalent to that of a MS. older than n and b themselves by at least two centuries, — prohahly by a generation or two more.' How that ' independence ' was established, and how this ' probability ' has been arrived at, we cannot even imagine. The point to be attended to however, is, that by the process indicated, some such early epoch as a.d. 100 has been reached. So that now we are not surprised to hear that, ' The respective ancestries of x and b must have diverged from a common parent extremely near the Apostolic autographs.^ — (p. 220. See top of p. 221.) Or that, — ' The close approach to the time of the autographs raises the presumption of purity to an unusual strength.' — (p. 224.) 304 EFFORTS OF THE IMAGINATION. [Akt. And lo, before we turn the leaf, this ' presumption ' is found to have ripened into certainty : — * This general immunity from substantive error .... in the common original of N b, in conjunction with its very high antiquity, provides in a multitude of cases a safe criterion of genuineness, not to be distrusted except on very clear internal evidence. Accordingly ... it is our belief, (1) That Headings of K B should he accepted as the true Headings until strong internal evidence is found to the contrary ; and (2), That no Readings of a B can he safely rejected absolutely.'' — (p. 225.) XLVI. And thus, by an unscrupulous use of the process of Eeiteration, accompanied by a boundless exercise of the Imaginative faculty, we have reached the goal to which all that went before has been steadily tending : viz. the absolute supremacy of codices b and n above all other codices, — and, when they differ, then of codex b. And yet, the ' immunity from substantive error ' of a lost Codex of imayinary date and unknown history, cannot but be a pure imagination, — (a mistaken one, as we shall presently show,) — of these respected Critics : while their proposed practical inference from it, — (viz. to regard two remote and confessedly depraved Copies of that original, as ' a safe criterion of genuineness,') — this, at all events, is the reverse of logical. In the meantime, the presumed proximity of the Text of n and b to the Apostolic age is henceforth dis- coursed of as if it were no longer matter of conjecture : — ' The ancestries (if both MSS. having started from a common source not much later than the Autographs,' &c.~ (p. 2-i7.) And again : — ' Near as the divergence of the respective ancestries of v. and x must have been to the Autoijraphs,^ &c. — (p. 273.) III.] A BEMONSTKANCE. 305 Until at last, we find it announced as a ' moral certainty : ' — ' It is morally certain that the ancestries of b and n diverged, from a point near the Autographs, and never came into contact subsequently.' — {Text, p. 556.) After which, of course, we have no right to complain if we are assured that : — ' The fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that their pre-eminent relative purity is approximately absolute, — a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs.'' — (p, 296.) XLVII. But how does it happen — (we must needs repeat the enquiry, which however we make with unfeigned astonishment,) — How does it come to pass that a man of practised intellect, addressing persons as cultivated and per- haps as acute as himself, can handle a confessedly obscure problem like the present after this strangely incoherent, this foolish and wholly inconclusive fashion ? One would have supposed that Dr. Hort's mathematical training would have made him an exact reasoner. But he writes as if he had no idea at all of the nature of demonstration, and of the process necessary in order to carry conviction home to a Eeader's mind. Surely, (one tells oneself,) a minimum of ' pass ' Logic would have effectually protected so accomplished a gentle- man from making such a damaging exhibition of himself! For surely he must be aware that, as yet, he has produced not one ^particle of evidence that his opinion concerning B and i< is well founded. And yet, how can he possibly overlook the circumstance that, unless he is able to demonstrate that those two codices, and especially the former of them, has ' preserved not only a very ancient Text, but a very pure line of ancient Text ' also (p. 251), his entire work, (inasmuch as it reposes on that one assumption,) on being critically handled, crumbles to its base ; or rather melts into thin air before the X 306 THE METHOD OF REITERATION. [Akt. first puff of >\iiul ? He cannot, surely, require telling that those who look for Demonstration will refuse to put up with Ehetoric : — that, with no thouglitful person will Assertion pass for Argument : — nor mere Reiteration, however long persevered in, ever be mistaken for accumulated Proof. "When I am taking a ride with Eouser," — (quietly re- marked Professor Saville to Bodley Coxe,) — " I ol)serve that, if I ever demur to any of his views, Eouser's practice always is, to repeat the same thing over again in the same words, — only in a louder tone of voice "... The delicate rhetorical device thus indicated proves to be not peculiar to Professors of the University of Oxford ; but to be familiarly recognized as an instrument of conviction by the learned men who dwell on the banks of the Cam. To be serious however. — Dr. Hort has evidently failed to see that nothing short of a careful induction of particular instances, — a system of laborious footnotes, or an ' Appendix ' bristling with impregnable facts, — could sustain the portentous weight of his fundamental position, viz. that Codex b is so exceptionally pure a docu- ment as to deserve to be taken as a chief guide in deter- mining the Truth of Scripture. It is related of the illustrious architect, Sir Gilbert Scott, — when he had to rebuild tlie massive central tower of a southern Cathedral, and to rear up thereon a lofty spire of stone, — that he made preparations for the work which astonished the Dean and Chapter of tlie day. He caused the entire area to be excavated to what seemed a most unnecessary depth, and proceeded to lay a bed of concrete of fabulous solidity. The ' wise master-builder ' was determined that his work should last for ever. Not so Drs. Westcott and Hort. They are either InniMt'd willi no similar anxieties, or else too clear-sighted to cherish any similar hope. They are evidently of opinion that a cloud or a quagmire will serve III.] 'RING OF genuineness: 307 their turn every bit as well as granite or Portland-stone. Dr. H(jrt (as we have seen already, namely in p. 252,) considers that his individual ' steong prefeeence' of one set of Eeadings above another, is sufficient to determine whether the Manuscript which contains those Eeadings is pure or the contrary. ' FormidaUe arrays of [hostile] Docu- mcntary evidence', he disregards and sets at defiance, when once his own 'fullest consideration of Internal Evidence ' has 'pronounced certain Eeadings to be right' [p. 61]. The only indication we anywhere meet with of the actual ground of Dr. Hort's certainty, and reason of his preference, is contained in his claim that, — ' Every binary group [of MSS.] containing b is found to offer a large proportion of Readings, which, on the closest scrutiny, have THE RING OF GENUINENESS : whllc it is difficult to find any Eeadings so attested which look suspicious after full considera- tion.'— (p. 227. Also vol. i. 557 — where the dictum is repeated.) XL VIII. And thus we have, at last, an honest confession of the ultimate principle which has determined the Text of the present edition of the N. T. ' The ring of genuineness ' ! This it must be which was referred to when 'instinctive processes of Criticism ' were vaunted ; and the candid avowal made that ' the experience which is their foundation needs perpetual correction and recorrection.'^ ' We are obliged ' (say these accomplished writers) ' to come to the individual mind at lastP And thus, behold, ' at last ' we have reached the goal ! . . . Individual idiosyncrasy, — not external Evidence : — Eeadings ' strongly preferred,' — not Eeadings strongly attested : — ' per- sonal discernment ' (self ! still self!) conscientiously exercising ^ Preface to the ' limited ciud private issue ' of 1870, p. xviii. : reprinted ill the Introduction (1881), p. 60. ^ Ihid. X 2 308 DR. HORT'S INNER CONSCIOUSNESS, [Art. itself vjjon Codex B ; — this is a true account of the Critical method pursued Ly these accomplished Scholars. They deliberately claim ' personal discernment ' as ' the surest ground for confidence.'^ Accordingly, they judge of Headings by their looks and by their sound. When, in tluir opinion, words 'look suspicious/ words are to be rejected. If a word has ' the ring of genuineness/ — (i.e. if it seems to them to have it,) — they claim that the word shall pass unchallenged. XLIX. But it must be obvious that such a method is wholly inadmissible. It practically dispenses with Critical aids altogether ; substituting individual caprice for external guidance. It can lead to no tangible result: for Eeadings which ' look suspicious ' to one expert, may easily not ' look ' so to another. A man's ' inner consciousness ' cannot possibly furnish trustworthy guidance in this subject matter. Justly does Bp. Ellicott ridicule ' the easy method of ... , using a favourite Manuscript,' combined with ' some supposed pourr of divining the Original Text ; '^ — unconscious apparently that he is thereby aiming a cruel blow at certain of his friends. As for the proposed test of Truth, — (the enquiry, namely, whether or no a reading has ' the ring of genuineness ') — it is founded on a transparent mistake. The coarse operation albuled to may be described as a 'rougli uiid ready' expedient practised by receivers of money in the way of self- defence, and only for their own protection, lest base metal should be palmed off upon them unawares. But Dr. Hort is proposing an analogous test for the exclusive satisfaction of him who litters the suspected article. IWe therefore dis- allow the proposal entirely: not, of course, because we suppose that so excellent and honourable a man as Dr. Hort 1 P. G5 (§ 84). In the Table of Contents (ji. xi.), ' Personal instincts' are substituted for ' Personal discernment.'' ^ The Pevisers and the Oreek Text, — p. 11). III.] AN UNSAFE TEXTUAL GUIDE. 309 would attempt to pass off as genuine what he suspects to be fabricated; but because we are fully convinced — (for reasons ' plenty as blackberries ') — that through some natural defect, or constitutional inaptitude, he is not a competent judge._ The man who finds ' 7io marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight ' (p. 135) in the only Greek Text which was known to scholars till a.d. 1831, — (although he confesses that ' the text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of the IVth century is substantially identical with it ' ^) ; and vaunts in preference ' the hold vigour ' and ' refined scholar- ship ' wdiich is exclusively met with in certain depraved uncials of the same or later date : — the man who thinks it not unlikely that the incident of the piercing of our Saviour's side (aA,Xo9 he XajSoov X6y)(7]v k. t. X.) was actually found in the genuine Text of S. Matt, xxvii. 49, as well as in S. John xix. 34 : 2 — the man who is of opinion that the incident of the Woman taken in Adultery (filling 12 verses), ' presents serious differences from the diction of S. John's Gospel,' — treats it as 'an insertion in a comparatively late Western text ' ^ and declines to retain it even w^ithin brackets, on the ground that it ' would fatally interrupt ' the course of the narrative if suffered to stand : — the man who can deliberately separate off from the end of S. Mark's Gospel, and print separately, S. Mark's last 12 verses, (on the plea that they 'manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but are doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age ;' *) — • yet who straightway proceeds to annex, as an alternative Conclusion (dWa^), ' the wretched supplement derived from codex L : ' ^ — the man (lastly) who, in defiance of ' solid reason and pure taste,' finds music in the ' utterly marred ' ' rhyth- mical arrangement ' of the Angels' Hymn on the night of the ^ Introduction, — p. xiii. ^ Notes, p. 22. ^ Notes, p. 88. ■* Notes, — p. 51. ^ Scrivener's Plain Introduction, — pp. 507-8. 310 ' THE RING OF GENUINENESS,' NOT [Art Nativity •} — such an one is not entitled to a hearing when he talks about ' the ring of gcnuineMcss.' He has already effectually put himself out of Court. He has convicted himself of a natural infirmity of judgment, — has given proof tliat lie labours under a peculiar Critical inaptitude for tliis department of enquiry,— which renders his decrees nugatory, and his opinions worthless. L. But apart from all this, the Reader's attention is invited to a little circumstance which Dr. Hort has unaccountably overlooked : but which, the instant it has been stated, is observed to cause his picturesque theory to melt away — like a snow-wreath in tlie sunshine. On reflexion, it will be perceived that the most signal deformities of codices B n d l are instances of Omission. In the Gospels alone, B omits 2877 words. How, — (we beg to enquire,) — How will you apply your proposed test to a Non-entity ? How will you ascertain whether something which docs not exist in the Text has ' the ring of genuineness ' or not ? There can be no ' ring of genunieness,' clearly, where there is nothing to ring with ! Will any one pretend that the omission of the incident of the troubling of the pool has in it any ' ring of genuineness ' ? — or dare to assert that ' the ring of genuineness ' is imparted to the liistory of our Saviouu'r l?assion, by the omission of His Agony in the Garden ? — or that the narrative of His Crucifixion becomes more musical, when our Lord's Prayer for His murderers has been omitted ? — or that e^o^ovvro yap {' for they were alVaid '), has 'the ring of griiuiueness ' as tlie conclusion of tbi' hist cbiii-jtcr (if the Gospel according to S. Mark ? But the stranuest circumstance is bcbiiid. IL is uoloridus ^ Scrivener's ' Introdudivii,'' pp. 513-1. III.] APPLICABLE AS A TEST. 311 that, on the contrary, Dr. Hort is frequently constrained to admit that the omitted words actually have 'the ring of genuineness.' The words which he insists on thrusting out of the Text are often conspicuous for the very quality which (by the hypothesis) was the warrant for their exclusion. Of this, the Reader may convince himself by referring to the note at foot of the present page.^ In the meantime, the ^ In S. Matth. i. 25, — the omission of ' her Jirst-horn : ' — in vi. 13, the omission of the Doxology : — in xii. 47, the omission of tlie whole verse : — in xvi. 2, 3, the omission of our Lord's memorable words concerning tlie signs of the iveather : — in xvii. 21, the omission of the mysterious state- ment, ' But this kind goeth not out save hy prayer and fasting : ' — in xviii. 11, the omission of the precious words ' For the Son of 7nan came to save that ivhich was lost.'' In S. Mark xvi. 9-20, the omission of the ' last Tiuelve Verses,^ — (' tlie C(jnteuts of which are not such as could have been -invented by any scribe or editor of the Gospel,' — W. and H. p. 57), All admit that ecf)oj3ovvTo yap is an impossible ending. In S. Luke vi. 1, the suppression of the unique SeurepoTrpcorw ; (' the very obscin-ity of the expression attesting strongly to its genuineness,' — Scrivener, p. 516, and so W. and H. p. 58) : — ix. 54-56, the omitted rebuke to the ' disciples James and John : ' — in x. 41, 42, the omitted tvords concerning Martha and Mary : — in xxii. 43, 44, the omission of the Agony in the Garden, — (which nevertheless, ' it would be impossible to regard as a product of the inventiveness of scribes,' — W. and H. p. 67) : — in xxiii. 17, a memorable clause omitted : — in xxiii. 34, the omission of our Lord's prayer for His murderers, — (concerning which Westcott and Hort remark that 'few verses of the Oospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of luhat they record than this'' — p. 68) : — in xxiii, 38, the statement that the Inscription on the Cross was ' in letters of Oreek, and Latin, and Hebrew:'' — in xxiv. 12, the visit of S. Feter to the Sepulchre. Bishop Lightfoot remarks concerning S, Luke ix, 56 : xxii. 43, 44 : and xxiii. 34, — ' It seems impossible to believe that these incidents are other than authentic,^ — (p. 28.) In S. John iii. 13, the solemn clause ' ivhich is in heaven : ' — in v. 3, 4, the omitted incident of the troubling of the pool : — in vii. 53 to viii. 11, the narrative concerning the woman taken in adultery omitted, — concern- ing which Drs, W. and H, remark that 'the argument which has always told riost in its favour in modern times is its oiun internal character. The story itself has justly seemed to vouch for its own substantial trnt/i, mh\ 312 DR. HOIIT'S TROPOSAL TO SHUT US UP [Akt. matter discoursed of may be conveniently illustrated by a short apologue : — Somewhere in the fens of Ely diocese, stood a crazy old church (dedicated to S. Bee, of course,) the bells of which — according to a learned Cambridge Doctor — were the most musical in the world. " I have listened to those bells," (he was accustomed to say,) " for 30 years. All other bells are cracked, harsh, out of tune. Commend me, for music, to the bells of S. Bee's ! They alone have the ring of genuineness." .... Accordingly, he published a treatise on Campanology, founding his theory on the musical properties of the bells of S. Bee's. — At this juncture, provokingly enough, some one directed attention to the singular fact that S. Bee's is one of the few churches in that district ivWiout bells : a discovery which, it is needless to add, pressed inconveniently on the learned Doctor's theory. LI. But enough of this. We really have at last, (be it observed,) reached the end of our enquiry. Nothing comes after Dr. Hort's extravagant and unsupported estimate of Codices B and j^. On the contrary. Those two documents are caused to cast their sombre shadows a long way ahead, and to darken all our future. Dr. llort takes leave of the sul)ject with the announcement that, whatever uncertainty may attach to the evidence for particular readings, ' The ijeneral course of future Criticism viust he sliaped ht/ the happy circumstance that the fourth ccnturij has bequeathed to ns two MSS. [b and n], of which oven the less ineornipt [n] uiust have been of exceptional purity among its contemporaries: and which rise into greater pre-eminence of character the better the early history of the Text becon^es known.'— (p. 287.) the words in wliich it is clothed to hannouize with those of dtiier (ihsjh'I narratives' — (j). 87). Bishop Liglitfoot remarks that ' the varrutivc hears on its face the highest crtdeiiliuls vf uutlieniic hislvry ' — (p. 28). III.] WITHIN CODICES B AND N. 313 In other words, our guide assures us that in a dutiful sub- mission to codices B and «, — (which, he naively remarks, ' hcip])cn likeivise to he the oldest extant Greek MSS. of the New Testament' [p. 212],) — lies all our hope of future progress. (Just as if we should ever have heard of these two codices, had their contents come down to us written in the ordinary cursive character, — in a dated MS. (suppose) of the XVth century !) . . . Moreover, Dr. Hort ' must not hesitate to express ' his own robust conviction, ' That no trustworthy improvement can be efifected, except in accordance loith the leading Principles of method which we have endeavoured to explain.' — (p. 285.) LII. And this is the end of the matter. Behold our fate therefore : — (1) Codices b and a, with — (2) Drs. Westcott and Hort's Introduction and Notes on Select Headings in vindication of their contents ! It is proposed to shut us up within those limits ! , , . An uneasy suspicion however secretly suggests itself that perhaps, as the years roll out, something may come to light which w^ill effectually dispel every dream of the new School, and reduce even prejudice itself to silence. So Dr. Hort liastens to frown it down : — * It would be an illusion to anticiiTate important changes of Text [i.e. of the Text advocated by Drs. Westcott and Ilort] from any acquisition of new Evidence.' — (p. 285.) And yet, ivhy the anticipation of important help from the acquisition of fresh documentary Evidence 'would be an illusion,' — does not appear. That the recovery of certain of the exegetical w^orks of Origen, — better still, of Tatian's Diatessaron, — best of all, of a couple of MSS. of the date of Codices b and ^< ; but not, (like those two corrupt docu- ments) derived from one and the same depraved archetype ; — That any such windfall, (and it will come, some of these days,) would infalhbly disturb Drs. Westcott and Hort's 314 WESTCOTT AND nORT'S THEORY [Art. equanimity, as well as scatter to the winds not a few of their most confident conclusions, — we are well aware. So imlced are they. Hence, what those Critics earnestly deprecate, ive as earnestly desire. We are therefore by no means inclined to admit, that ' Greater possibilities of improvement lie in a more exact study of the relations between the documents that we alieady possess ; ' — (^Ihid.) knowing well that ' the documents ' referred to are chiefly, (if not solely,) Codices B and n : knowing also, that it is further meant, that in estimating other evidence, of whatever kind, the only thing to be enquired after is whether or no the attesting document is generally in agreement icith codex B. For, according to these writers, — tide what tide, — codex is is to be the standard: itself not al)Solutely recjuiring confir- mation from aiiy extraneous quarter. Dr. Hort asserts, (l)ut it is, as usual, mere assertion,) that, ' Even when b stands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.' — (p. 557.) And yet, — Why a reading found only in eodex B should experience greater indulgence than another reading found only in codex A, we entirely fail to see. On the other hand, ' an unique criterion is sup[)lied by the concord of the independent attestation of li and N.' — (^Notes, p. 46.) But pray, liow does that appear? Since i! and n arc de- ri\('d from one and tlic same original— Why slioidd not 'the concord ' spoken of be rather ' an unique criterion ' of the utter depravity of the archetyjye ? LIII. To conclude. We have already listened to Dr. Hort long enougli. And now, since confessedly, a chain is no III.] REJECTED, AS WORTHLESS. 315 stronger than it is at its weakest link ; nor an edifice more secure than the basis whereon it stands ; — we must be allowed to point out that we have been dealing throughout with a dream, pure and simple ; from which it is high time that we should wake up, now that we have been plainly shown on what an unsubstantial foundation these Editors have been all along building. A child's house, several stories high, con- structed out of playing-cards, — is no unapt image of the frail erection before us. We began by carefully lifting off the topmost story ; and then, the next : but we might as well have saved ourselves the trouble. The basement-story has to be removed bodily, which must bring the whole edifice down with a rush. In reply to the fantastic tissue of un- proved assertions which go before, we assert as follows : — (1) The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices b and N is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.^ These are ^ To some extent, even tlie unlearned Eeader may easily convince him- self of this, by examining the rejected ' alternative ' Eeadings in the margin of the ' Revised Version.' The ' Many ' and the ' Some ancient authorities,' there spoken of, almost invar iahly include — sometimes denote — codd. B N, one or both of them. These constitute the merest fraction of the entire amount of corrupt readings exhibited by b n; but they will give English readers some notion of the problem just now under consideration. Besides the details already supplied [see above, pages 16 and 17 : — 30 and 31 :— 46 and 47 :— 75 :— 249 :— 262 :— 289 :— 316 to 319] concerning b and N , — (the result of laborious collation,) — some particulars shall now be added. The piercing of our Saviour's side, thrust in after Matt, xxvii. 49 : — the eclipse of the sun when the moon was full, in Lu. xxiii. 45 : — the monstrous figment concerning Herod's daughter, thrust into Mk. vi. 22 : — the precious clauses omitted in Matt. i. 25 and xviii. 11 : — in Lu. ix. 54-6, and in Jo. iii. 13 : — the wretched glosses in Lu. vi. 48 : X, 42 : XV. 21 : Jo. x. 14 and Mk. vi. 20 : — the substitution of oivov (for o^os) in Matt, xxvii. 34, — of 6eos (for ujo?) in Jo. i. 18, — of avBpconov (for Qeov) in ix. 35,- — of ov (for w) in Eom. iv. 8 ; — the geographical blunder in Mk. vii. 31 : in Lu. iv. 44 : — the omission in Matt. xii. 47, — and of two 316 CODICES B AND X, — TWO OF THE MOST [Aim two of the least trustworthy documents in existence. So fur from allowing Dr. Hort's position that — * A Text formed ' by ' taking Codex B as the sole authority,' ' would be incom- parably nearer the Truth than a Text similarly taken from any other Greek or other single ducuiuent' (p. 251), — we venture to assert that it would be, on the contrary, ly far the foulest Text that had ever seen the light : worse, that is to say, even than the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort. And that is saying a great deal. In the brave and faithful wortls important verses in Matt. xvi. 2, 3 :■ — of t6ta in Acts i. 19 : — of eyetpat km in iii. 6 ;■ — and of bevTtponpuiTw in Lu. vi. 1 : — the two spurious clauses in Mk. iii. 14, 16 : — the obvious blunders in Jo. ix. 4 and 11 : — in Acts xii. 25 — besides the impossible reading in 1 Cor. xiii. 3, — make up a heavy indictment against b and N jointly — -which are here found in company with just a very few disreputable allies. Add, the plain error at Lu. ii. 14 : — the gloss at Mk. v. 36 : — the mere fabrication at Matt. xix. 17 : — the omissions at Matt. vi. 13 : Jo. v. 3, 4. B (in company with others, but apart from N ) by exhibiting fianTia-av- res in Matt, xxviii. 19 : — wSe tmv in Mk. ix. 1 : — ' seventy-two,^ in Lu. x. 1 : — the blunder in Lu. xvi. 12 : — and the grievous omissions in Lu. xxii. 43, 44 (Chkist's Agony in the Garden), — and xxiii. 34 (His prayer for His murderers), — -enjoys unenviable distinction. — B, singly, is remarkable for an obvious blunder in Matt. xxi. 31 : — Lu. xxi. 24 : — Jo. xviii. 5 : — Acts X. 19 — and xvii. 28 : — xxvii. 37 : — not to mention the insertioia of Sfdofjifvov in Jo. vii. 39. N (in company with others, but apart from b) is conspicuous for its .sorry interpolation of Matt. viii. 13: — its substitution of eixTiv (for rjv) in tS. John i. 4: — its geographical blunder in S. Luke xxiv. 13: — its tex- tual blunder at 1 Fet. i. 23. — 1{, singly, is remarkable for its sorry para- phrase in Ji». ii. 3: — its addition to i. 34: — its omissions in Matt, xxiii. 35 : — Mk. i. 1 : — ^Jo. ix. 38 : — its insertion of Ha-aiov in Matt. xiii. 35 : — its geographical blunders in Mk. i. 28 : — Lu. i. 26 : — Acts viii. 5 : — besides the lilunders in Jo. vi. 51 — and xiii. 10 : — 1 Tim. iii. 16 : — Acts xxv. 13 : — and the clearly fabricated narrative of Jo. xiii. 24. Add the fabricated text at Mk. xiv. 30, 68, 72 ; of which the object was ' so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter's denials with those of tlie otlier Evangelists, as to supiiress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, tliat the cock crowed twice.' III.] UNTRUSTWOKTHY COriES IN EXISTENCE. 317 of Prebendary Scrivener (Introdtiction, p. 453), — words which deserve to become famous, — ' It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was com- posed : that Irena3us [a.d. 150], and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.' And Codices B and N are, demonstrably, nothing else but specimens of the depraved class thus characterized. Next — (2), We assert that, so manifest are the disfigure- ments jointly and exclusivchj exhibited by codices B and n,^ ^ Characteristic, and fatal beyond anything that can be named are, (1) The exclusive omission by B and N of Mark xvi. 9-20 : — (2) The omission of ev Ecfyeacp, from Ephes. i. 1 : — (3) The blunder, airoarKiaa-iiaTo^, in James i. 17 : — (4) The nonsensical crvaTpecpofxeviDv in Matt. xvii. 22 : — (5) That ' vile error,' (as Scrivener calls it,) nepieXovres, in Acts xxviii. 13 : — (6) The impossible order of words in Lu. xxiii. 32 ; and (7) The extra- ordinary order in Acts i. 5 : — (8) The omission of the last clause of the Lord's prayer, in Lu. xi. 4 ; and (9) Of that solemn verse, Matt. xvii. 21 ; and (10) Of laxvpov in Matt. xiv. 30 : — (11) The substitution of epycov (for TeKvcov) in Matt. xi. 29 : — (12) Of eXty/xa (for piypa) in Jo. xix. 39, — and (13) of r]v redfipevos (for eredrj) in John xix. 41. Then, (14) The thrusting of XpiS'. 0.\ in briefest outline, as follows : — Q. B. " You are perfectly right. The oldest Manuscript must exhibit the purest text : must be the most trustworthy. But then, unfortunately, it happens that ive do not possess it. ' The oldest Manuscript ' is lost. You speak, of course, of the inspired Autographs. These, I say, have long since disappeared." (2) S. 0. " No, I meant to say that the oldest Manuscri])t we possess, if it be but a very ancient one, must needs be the purest." Q. R. " 0, but that is an entirely different proposition. Well, apart from experience, the probability that the oldest copy extant will prove the purest is, if you please, considerable. Reflection will convince you however that it is hut a pro- bability, at the utmost : a probability based upon more than one false assumption, — with which nevertheless you shall not be troubled. But in fact it clearly does not by any means follow that, hecause a MS. is very ancient, therefore the Text, which it exhibits will be very pure. That you may be thoroughly convinced of this, — (and it is really impossible for your mind to be too effectually disabused of a preposses- sion which has fatally misled so many,) — you are invited to enquire for a recent contribution to the learned French publication indicated at the foot of this page,^ in which is ^ ' Papyrus Inedit de la Bibliotheque de M. Ambroise Firmin-Didot. Nouveaux fragments d'Euripide et d'autres Poetes Grecs, publics par M. Henri Weil. (Extrait des Monumens Grecs publies par V Association pour r encouragement des Etudes Grecques en France. Annee 1879.) ' Pp. 36. Y 322 FRAfiMENT OK THK • MEDEA,'— B.C. 200. [Art. exhibited a fac-siniile of 8 lines of the Medea of Euripides (ver. 5-12), written about B.C. 200 in small uncials (at Alexandria probably,) on papyrus. Collated with any printed copy, the verses, you will find, have been penned with scandalous, with incredible inaccuracy. But on this head let the learned Editor of the document in question be listened to, rather than the present Eeviewer : — ' On voit que le texts du papyrus est herisse des fautes les plus graves. Le plus recent et le plus mauvais de nos mamiscrits d'Euripide vaut infiniment mieux que cette copie, — faite, il y a deux mille ans, dans le pays ou florissaient Verudition hellenique et la Critique des textes.^^ — (p. 17.) ^ The rest of the passage may not be without interest to classical readers : — ' Ce n'est pas a dire qu'elle soit tout d fait sans interet, sans im- portance pour la constitution du texte. Elle nous apprend que, au vers 5, dfyiaTwv, pour apiartatv (correction de Wakefield) etait d^ji I'ancienne vulgate ; et que les vers 11 et 12, s'ils sont alterds, comme I'assurent quelques dditeurs d'Euripide, I'e'taient deja dans I'antiquite. ' L'homme . . . etait aussi ignorant que negligent. Je le prends pour im Egyptien n'ayant qu'une connoissance tres imparfaite de la langue grecque, et ne possedant aucune notion ni sur I'orthographe, ni sur les regies les plus elementaires du trimetre iambique. Le plus singulier est qu'il commence sa copie au milieu d'un vers et qu'il la finisse de raeme. II oublie des lettres necessaires, il en ajoute de parasites, il les met les unes pour les autres, il tronque les mots ou il les altere, au point de detruire (juelquefois la suite de la construction et le sens du passage.' A faithful copy of the verses in minuscule characters is subjoined for the gratifica- tion of Scholars. We have but divided the words and inserted capital letters : — ' avhfXidv af)i(TT(ov ot 8f irapxpvaov Sepns 5 IlfXeta y.(Trik6ov nv ycif) tov dtanova ffiTjv Mr}8ui TTii/jyovs yrji (nXevat EioXKias ff)Q)Ti dvficod fynXayis loi/ocroi/of or av KTuvd TTtaas HfXeiaSas Kovpcn miT([)a KciTOiKT) Trjvdf yqv KnpLvdinv 10 (Tvv aj/Spi Kcu T€Kv(n(jiv apbavouTa ^(u cj)vyr] TToiXiTCOv (ov a(])T)KeTO xdovos.' An excellent scholar (R. C. P.) remarks, — ' The fragment must have been written from dictation (of small parts, as it seems to me) ; and by an illiterate scribe. It is just such a result as one might expect from a half- educated reader enunciating Milton for a half-educated writer.' III.] CAIUS (A.I). 175) ON TEXTUAL DEPRAVATION. 323 "Why, the author of the foregoing remarks might have been writing concerning Codex b !" (3) S. 0. " Yes : but I want Christidn evidence. The author of that scrap of papyrus may have been an illiterate slave. Wliat if it should be a school-hoy's exercise which has come down to us ? The thing is not impossible." Q. B. " Not ' impossible ' certainly : but surely highly im- probable. However, let it drop. You insist on Christian evidence. You shall have it. What think you then of the following statement of a very ancient Father (Caius^) writing against the heresy of Theodotus and others who denied the Divinity of Cheist ? He is bearing his testimony to the liberties which had been freely taken with the Text of the New Testament in his own time, viz. about a.d. 175-200 : — ' The Divine Scriptures,' he says, ' these heretics have auda- ciously corrupted ; . . . laying violent hands upon them under pretence of correcting them. That I bring no false accusation, any one who is disposed may easily convince himself. He has but to collect the copies belonging to these persons severally ; then, to compare one with another ; and he will discover that their discrepancy is extraordinary. Those of Asclepiades, at all events, will be found discordant from those of Theodotus. Now, plenty of specimens of either sort are obtainable, inasmuch as these men's disciples have industriously multiplied the (so- called) " corrected " copies of their resj)ective teachers, which are in reality nothing else but " corrupted " copies. With the foregoing copies again, those of Hermophilus will be found entirely at variance. As for the copies of Apollonides, they even contradict one another. Nay, let any one compare the fabricated text which these persons put forth in the first instance, with that which exhibits their latest perversions of the Truth, and he will discover that the disagreement between them is even excessive. ^ See p. 324 note Q). — Photius [cod. 48] says that ' Gaius ' was a presbyter of Kome, and e6va>v fTria-KOTros. See Routh's Reliqq. ii. 125. Y 2 324 THE TEXT DEl'ltAVED BY HEEETICR. [Akt. 'Of the enormity of the offence of wliich these men have heen guilty, they must needs themselves he fully aware. Either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures are the utterance of the Holy Ghost, — in which case they are to be regarded as unbelievers : or else, they account themselves wiser than the Holy Ghost, — and what is that, but to have the faith of devils ? As for their denjdng their guilt, the thing is impossible, seeing that the copies under discussion are their own actual handy work ; and they know full well that not such as these are the Scriptures which they received at the hands of their catechetical teachers. Else, let them produce the originals from which they made their transcripts. Certain of them indeed have not even condescended to falsify Scripture, but entirely reject Law and Prophets alike.'^ " Now, the foregoing statement is in a high decree sugges- tive. For here is an orthodox Father of the Unci century invitins attention to four well-known families of falsified manuscripts of the Sacred Writings ; — complaining of the hopeless divergences which they exhibit (being not only inconsistent with one another, but with tliemselves) ; — and insisting that such coi^rectccl, are nothing else but shamefully corru]}ted copies. He speaks of the phenomenon as being in his day notorious : and appeals to Eecensions, the very names of whose authors — Theodotus, Asclepiades, Hermophilus, Apollonides — have (all but the first) long since died out of the Church's memory. You will allow therefore, (will you not ?), that by this time the claim of tlie oldest existing copies of Scripture to be the purest, has been effectually disposed of. For since there once prevailed such a multitude of corrujjted copies, we have no security whatever that the oldest of our extant MSS. are not derived — remotely if not directly — from some of tlicm." (4) *S'. 0. " But at all events the chances are even. Are they not ?" 1 EuscV)ius, Ilist. Eccl. v. 28 (ap. Tiouth's Bpliqq. ii. i;52-4). III.] CASE OF THE CODICES B N C. 325 Q. JR. " By no means. A copy like codex b, once recognized as belonging to a corrupt family, — once knovm to contain a depraved exhibition of the Sacred Text, — was more likely by far to remain unused, and so to escape destruction, than a copy highly prized and in daily use. — As for Codex n, it carries on its face its own effectual condemnation ; aptly illustrating the precept fiat cxjjerimentum in corporc vili. It exhibits the efforts of many generations of men to restore its Text, — (which, ' as proceeding from the first scribe/ is admitted by one of its chief admirers to be ' ve?'i/ rough,^ ') — to something like purity. 'At least ten different Revisers,' from the IVth to the Xllth century, are found to have tried their hands upon it.^ — Codex c, after having had ' at least three correctors very busily at work upon it ' ^ (in the Vltli and IXth centuries), finally (in the Xllth) was fairly ohliteratcd, — literally scrajjcd out, — to make room for the writings of a Syrian Father. — I am therefore led by a priori considerations to augur ill of the contents of b n c. But when I find them hopelessly at variance among themselves: above all, when I find (1) all other Mann scripts of whatever date, — (2) the most ancient Versions, — and (3), the whole body of the jyrimitive Fathers, decidedly opposed to them, — I am (to speak plainly) at a loss to understand how any man of sound understanding, acquainted with all the facts of the case and accustomed to exact reasoning, can hesitate to regard the unsupported (or the slenderly supported) testi- mony of one or other of them as simply worthless. The craven homage which the foremost of the three habitually receives at the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort, I can only describe as a weak superstition. It is something more than un- reasonable. It becomes even ridiculous. — Tischendorf s pre- ference (in his last edition) for the Mtises of his own codex x, ^ TregcUes, Part ii. p. 2. ^ Scrivcucr's prefatory lulrudactiun, — p. xix. ^ IhUl. p. iii. 326 IMAGINARY VISIT TO CLKIVIKNS, [Art. can only be defended on the plea of parental partiality. But it is not on that account the less foolish. His ' ex- aggerated preference for the single manuscript which he had the good fortune to discover, has betrayed him' — (in the opinion of Bishop Ellicott) — ' ijito an almost child-like infirmity of critical judgment.' " ^ (5) 0. S. " Well but, — be all that as it may, — Caius, re- member, is speaking of heretical writers. When I said ' I want Christian evidence,' I meant orthodox evidence, of course. You would not assert (would you ?) that b and n exhibit traces of heretical depravation ?" Q. R. " Keserving my opinion on that last head, good Sir, and determined to enjoy the pleasure of your company on any reasonable terms, — (for convince you, I both can and will, though you prolong the present discussion till to- morrow morning,) — I have to ask a little favour of you : viz. that you will bear me company in an imaginary ex- pedition. " I request that the clock of history may be put back seven- teen hundred years. This is a.d. 183, if you please : and — (indulge me in the supposition !) — you and I are walking in Alexandria. We have reached the house of one Clemens, — a learned Athenian, who has long been a resident here. Let us step into his library, — he is from home. What a queer place ! See, he has been reading his Bible, which is open at S. Mark x. Is it not a well-used copy ? It must be at least 50 or 60 years old. Well, but suppose only 30 or 40. It was executed therefore ivithin fifty years of the death of S. John the Evangelist. Come, let us transcribe two of the ^ On Jievisioii,—i\ 47. Ill] AT ALEXANDKIA, A.D. 183. 327 columns ^ (creXt'Se?) as faithfully as we possibly can, and be off. . . . We are back in England again, and the clock has been put right. Now let us sit down and examine our curiosity at leisure.^ ... It proves on inspection to be a transcript of the 15 verses (ver. 17 to ver. 31 ^) which relate to the coming of the rich young Ruler to our Lord. " We make a surprising discovery. There are but 297 words in those 15 verses, — according to the traditional Text : of which, in the copy which belonged to Clemens Alexan- drinus, 39 prove to have been left out : 11 words are added : 22, substituted: 27, transposed: 13, varied; and the phrase has been altered at least 8 times. Now, 112 words out of a total of 297, is 38 per cent. What do you think of that .?" (6) *S'. 0. " Think ? 0 but, I disallow your entire proceed- ing ! You have no business to collate with ' a text of late and degenerate type, such as is the Received Text of the New Testament.' When this 'is taken as a standard, any document belonging to a purer stage of the Text must by the nature of the case have the appearance of being guilty of omissions : and the nearer the document stands to the auto- graph, the more numerous must be the omissions laid to its charge.' I learnt that from Westcott and Hort. See page 235 of their luminous Introduction." Q. R. " Be it so ! Collate the passage then for yourself with the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort : which, (re- member !) aspires to reproduce ' the autographs themselves ' * with the utmost exactness which the evidence permits ' ^ Singular to relate, S. Mark x. 17 to 31 exactly fills two columns of cod. N . (See Tischendorf s reprint, 4to, p. 24*.) 2 Clemens Al. (ed. Potter), — pp. 937-8. . . . Note, how Clemens begins § V. (p. 938, line 30). This will be found noticed below, viz. at p. 336, note '. 328 CLEMENS' COPY OF S. MARK X. 17-31. [Art. (pp. 288 and 289). ^ You will find that tliis time the words omitted amount to 44. The words added are 13 : the words substituted, 23 : the words transposed, 34 : the words varied 16. And the phrase has been altered 9 times at least. But, 130 on a total of 297, is 44 per cent. You will also bear in mind that Clement of Alexandria is one of our principal authorities for the Text of the Ante-Nicene period.^ " And thus, I venture to presume, the imagination has been at last effectually disposed of, that hecausc Codices b and x are the two oldest Greek copies in existence, the Text exhibited l)y either must therefore be the purest Text which is anywhere to be met with. It is impossible to produce a fouler exhibition of S. Mark x. 17-31 than is contained in a document full two centuries older than either B or a, — itself the iJToperty of one of the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers." LVI. — (7) At this stage of the argument, the Keviewer finds himself taken aside by a friendly Critic [F. C], and privately remonstrated with somewhat as follows : — F. C. " Do you consider. Sir, what it is you are about ? Surely, you have been proving a vast deal too much ! If the foregoing be a fair sample of the Text of the N. T. with which Clemens Alex, was best acquainted, it is plain that the testimony to the Truth of Scripture borne by one of tlie most ancient and most famous of the Fathers, is absolutely worthless. Is that your own deliberate conviction or not ? " Q. B. " Finish what you have to say. Sir. After that, you shall liave a full reply." ^ ' This Text' (say tho Editors) 'is an attempt to reproduce at once the autograph Text.'' — Introduction, p. xxviii. - AVcstcutt and Ilort's Introduction, ]i]i. 112-u. III.] A SUPPOSED REMONSTEANOE. 329 (8) F. C. " Well then. Pray understand, I nothing doubt that in your main contention you are right ; but I yet cannot help thinking that this bringing in of a famous ancient Father — ohitcr — is a very damaging proceeding. What else is such an elaborate exposure of tlie badness of the Text which Clemens (a.d. 150) employed, but the hope- less perplexing of a question which was already sufficiently thorny and difficult ? You have, as it seems to me, imported into these 15 verses an entirely fresh crop of 'Various Eead- ings.' Do you seriously propose them as a contribution towards ascertaining the ipsissima verba of the Evangelist, — the true text of S. Mark x. 17-31 ? " Q. B. " Come back, if you please, Sir, to the company. Fully appreciating the friendly spirit in which you just now drew me aside, I yet insist on so making my reply that all the world shall hear it. Forgive my plainness : but you are evidently profoundly unacquainted with the problem before you, — in which however you do not by any means enjoy the distinction of standing alone. " The foulness of a Text which must have been penned within 70 or 80 years of the death of the last of the Evan- gelists, is a matter of fact — which must be loyally accepted, and made the best of. The phenomenon is surprising cer- tainly; and may well be a warning to all who (like Dr. Tregelles) regard as oracular the solitary unsupported dicta of a Writer,— provided only he can claim to have lived in the Ilnd or Ilird century. To myself it occasions no sort of inconvenience. You are to be told that the exorbi- tances of a single Father, — as Clemens : a single Version, — as the Egyptian : a single Copy, — as cod. B, are of no manner of significancy or use, except as warnings : are of no manner of interest, except as illustrating the depravation which systematically assailed the written Word in the age which immediately succeeded the Apostolic : arc, in fact, of no 330 TESTIMONY OF CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS [Art. importance whatever. To make them the basis of an induction is preposterous. It is not allowable to infer the universal from the particular. If the bones of Goliath were to be discovered to-morrow, would you propose as an induction therefrom that it was the fashion to wear four-and-twenty fingers and toes on one's hands and feet in the days of the giant of Gath ? All the wild readings of the lost Codex before us may be unceremoniously dismissed. The critical importance and value of this stray leaf from a long-since- vanished Copy is entirely different, and remains to be explained. "You are to remember then, — perhaps you have yet to learn, — that there are but 25 occasions in the course of these 15 verses, on which either Lachmann (L.), or Tischendorf (T.), or TregeUes (Tr.), or Westcott and Hort (W. H.), or our Eevisionists (E. T.), advocate a departure from the Tradi- tional Text. To those 25 places therefore our attention is now to be directed, — on them, our eyes are to be riveted, — exclusively. And the first thing which strikes us as worthy of notice is, that the 5 authorities above specified fall into no fewer than twelve distinct combinations in their advocacy of certain of those 25 readings : holding all 5 together onhj 4 times} The one question of interest therefore which arises, ' Besides, — All but L. conspire 5 times. All but T. „ ;5 „ All but Tr. „ 1 „ Then,— T. Tr. WII. combine 2 „ T. WH. RT. „ 1 „ Tr. WH. KT. „ 1 „ L. Tr. WII. „ I „ Then, — L. T. stand Ity themselves 1 „ L. Tr. „ 1 „ T. WH. „ „ 1 „ Lastly, — L. stands alone . . . 4 „ III.] TO THE TEXT OF S. MARK X. 17-31. 331 is this, — What amount of sanction do any of them expe- rience at the hands of Clemens Alexandrinus ? " I answer, — Only on 3 occasions docs he agree with any of them} The result of a careful analysis shows further that he sides with the Traditional Text 17 times: — witnessing against Lachmann, 9 times : against Tischendorf, 10 times : against Tregelles, 11 times : against Westcott and Hort, 12 times. '^ " So far therefore from admitting that ' the Testimony of Clemens Al. — one of the most ancient and most famous of the Fathers — is absolutely worthless/ — I have proved it to be of very great value. Instead of ' hopelessly perplexing the question,' his Evidence is found to have simplified matters considerably. So far from ' importing into these 15 verses a fresh crop of Various Headings,' he has helped us to get rid of no less than 17 of the existing ones. . . . ' Damaging ' his evidence has certainly proved : but only to Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort and onr ill-starred Revisionists. And yet it remains undeniably true, that ' it is impossible to produce a fouler exhibition of S. Mark x. 17-31 than is met with in a document full two centuries older than either b or n, — the property of one of the most famous of the Fathers.' ^ . . . . Have you anything further to ask ? " (9) F. G. " I should certainly like, in conclusion, to be in- formed whether we are to infer that the nearer we approach to the date of the sacred Autographs, the more corrupt we ^ Twice he agrees with all 5 : viz. omitting npas tov a-ravpov in ver. 21 ; and in omitting ^ yvvaiKa (in ver. 29): — Once he agrees with only Lachmann : viz. in transposing ravra travja (in ver. 20). 2 On the remaining 5 occasions (17 + 3 + 5 = 25), Clemens exhibits peculiar readings of his own, — sides with no one. 3 Q. R. p. 360. 332 'ANTIQUITY' MUST 15E OUR GUIDE,— [Akt. sliall liud tlie copies. For, if so, pray — Where uiul when did purity of Text begin ? " Q. B. " You are not at liberty, logically, to draw any such inference from the premisses. The purest documents of all existed perforce in the first century : must have then existed. The spring is perforce purest at its source. My whole con- tention has been, and is, — That there is nothing at all unreasonable in the supposition that two stray copies of the IVth century, — coming down to our own times without a history and without a character, — maij exhibit a thoroughly depraved text. Moix than this does not follow lawfully from the premisses. At the outset, remember, you delivered it as your opinion that ' the oldest Manuscript we p)Osscss, if it he hut a very ancient one, must needs he the purest.' I asserted, in reply, that ' it does not by any means follow, hccausc a manuscript is very ancient, that therefore its text will be very pure ' (p. 321) ; and all that I have been since saying, has but had for its object to prove the truth of my assertion. Facts have been incidentally elicited, I admit, calculated to inspire distrust, rather than confidence, in very ancient docu- ments generally. But I am neither responsible for these facts ; nor for the inferences suggested by them. " At all events, I have to request that you will not carry away so entirely erroneous a notion as that I am the advocate for Recent, in preference to Ancient, Evidence con- cerning the Text of Scripture. Be so obliging as not to say concerning me that I ' count ' instead of ' iveighing ' my witnes.ses. If you have attended to the foregoing pages, and have understood them, you must by tliis time be aware that in every instance it is to ANTi(»rrrv that 1 persisU'iitly make my a])])i.'al. I abide liy its scnteiict', ami 1 rnpiire that you shall do the same. Ill] NOT CODICES B N D L, 1, 33, 69. 333 " You and your friends, on the contrary, reject the Testi- mony of Antiquity. You set up, instead, some idol of your own. Thus, Tregelles worshipped ' codex B.' But ' codex B ' is not ' Antiquity ' ! — Tischendorf assigned the place of lionour to ' codex N.' But once more, ' codex K ' is not ' Antiquity ' ! — You rejoice in the decrees of the Vlth-century- codex D, — and of the Vlllth-century-codex L, — and of the Xth, Xlth, and XlVth century codices, 1, 33, 69. But will you venture to tell me that any of these are ' Antiquity ' ? Samples of Antiquity, at best, are any of these. No more ! But then, it is demonstrable that they are unfair samples. Why are you regardless of all other Copies ? — So, with respect to Veksions, and Fathers. You single out one or two, — the one or two which suit your purpose ; and you are for rejecting all the rest. But, once more, — The Coptic version is not ' Antiquity,' — neither is Origen ' Antiquity.' The Syriac Version is a full set-off against the former, — Irenseus more than counterbalances the latter. Whatever is found in one of these ancient authorities must confessedly be an * ancient Readino; : ' but it does not therefore follow that it is THE ancient Beading of the place. Now, it is the ancient Reading, of which we are always in search. And he who sincerely desires to ascertain what actually is the Witness of Antiquity, — {i.e., what is the prevailing testimony of all the oldest documents,) — will begin by casting his prejudices and his predilections to the winds, and will devote himself conscientiously to an impartial survey of the whole field of Evidence." F. C. " Well but, — you have once and again admitted that the phenomena before us are extraordinary. Are you able to explain how it comes to pass that such an one as Clemens Alexandrinus employed such a scandalously corrupt copy of the Gospels as we have been considering ? " 334 EARLIEST CORRUPTIONS OF THE N. T., [Akt. Q. li. " You are quite at liberty to ask me any question you choose. And I, for my own part, am willing to return you the best answer I am able. You will please to remember however, that the phenomena will remain, — however infeli- citous my attempts to explain them may seem to yourself. My view of the matter then — (think what you will about it !) — is as follows : — LVII. " Vanquished by THE WORD Incarnate, Satan next directed his subtle malice against the Word written. Hence, as I think, — hence the extraordinary fate which befel certain early transcripts of the Gospel. First, heretical assailants of Christianity, — then, orthodox defenders of the Truth, — lastly and above all, self-constituted Critics, who (like Dr. Hort) imagined themselves at liberty to resort to ' instinctive processes ' of Criticism ; and who, at first as well as 'at last,' freely made their appeal 'to the indi- vidual mind :' — such were the corrupting influences which were actively at work throughout the first hundred and fifty years after the death of S. John the Divine. Profane litera- ture has never known anything approaching to it, — can show nothing at all like it. Satan's arts were defeated indeed through the Church's faithfulness, because, — (the good Providence of God had so willed it,) — the perpetual multiplication, in every quarter, of copies required for Ecclesiastical use, — not to say the solicitude of faithful men in diverse regions of ancient Christendom to retain for themselves unadulterated specimens of the inspired Text, — proved a sufficient safeguard against the grosser forms of corruption. Ihit this was not all. " The Church, remember, hath been from the beginning the ' Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ.' ^ Did not her Divine Author pour out upon her, in largest measure, ' the ' Artirlc XX. § 1. III.] CONJECTURAI>LY ACCOUNTED FOR. 335 Spirit of Truth ; ' and pledge Himself that it should be that Spirit's special function to ' guide ' her cJiildren ' into all the Truth ' M . . . That by a perpetual miracle, Sacred Manuscripts would be protected all down the ages against depraving influences of whatever sort, — was not to have been expected ; certainly, was never promised. But the Church, in her collective capacity, hath nevertheless — as a matter of fact — been perpetually purging herself of those shamefully de- praved copies which once everywhere abounded within her pale : retaining only such an amount of discrepancy in her Text as might serve to remind her children that they carry their ' treasure in earthen vessels,' — as well as to stimulate them to perpetual watchfulness and solicitude for the purity and integrity of the Deposit. Never, however, up to the present hour, hath there been any complete eradication of all traces of the attempted mischief, — any absolute getting rid of every depraved copy extant. These are found to have lingered on anciently in many quarters. A feio such copies linger on to the present day. The wounds were healed, but the scars remained, — nay, the scars are discernible still. " What, in the meantime, is to be thought of those blind guides— those deluded ones — who would now, if they could, persuade us to go back to those same codices of which the Church hath already purged herself ? to go back in quest of those very Headings which, 15 or 1600 years ago, the Church in all lands is found to have rejected with loathing ? Verily, it is ' happening unto them according to the true proverb ' — which S. Peter sets down in his 2nd Epistle, — chapter ii. verse 22. To proceed however. "As for Clemens, — he lived at the very time and in the very country where the mischief referred to was most rife. For full two centuries after his era, heretical works were so ^ E(S nacrav ttjv dXrjdeiav. — S. John xvi. 13. 336 SCRIPTURE DEI'RAVED BY HERETICS. [Akt. industriously multiplied, that in a diocese consisting of 800 parishes (viz. Cyrus in Syria), the Bishop (viz. Theodorct, who was appointed in a.d. 423,) complains that he found no less than 200 copies of the Diatcssaron of Tatian the heretic, — (Tatian's date being a.d. 173,) — honourably pre- served in the Churches of his (Theodoret's) diocese, and mistaken by the orthodox for an authentic performance.^ Clemens moreover would seem to have been a trifle too familiar with the works of Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus, Heracleon, and the rest of the Gnostic crew. He habitually mistakes apocryphal writings for inspired Scripture : ^ and — with corrupted copies always at hand and before him — he is just the man to present us with a quotation like the present, and straightway to volunteer the assurance that he found it ' so written in the Gospel according to S. Mark.'^ The archetype of Codices b and n, — especially the archetype from which Cod. D was copied, — is discovered to have ex- perienced adulteration largely from the same pestilential source which must have corrupted the copies with which Clement (and his pupil Origen after him) were most familiar. — And thus you have explained to you the reason of the disgust and indignation with which I behold in these last days a resolute attempt made to revive and to palm off upon an unlearned veneration the old exploded errors, under the pretence that they are the inspired Verity itself, — providentially recovered from a neglected shelf in the Vatican, — rescued from destruc- tion 1 )y a chance visitor to Mount Sinai." F. C. "Will you then, in conclusion, tell us how you would have us proceed in order to ascertain the Truth of Scripture ? " ' Theodoret, O/jp. iv. 208. — Comp. Clinton, F. li. ii. A^ypendlx, p. 473. "^ The reader is invited to enquire for Bp. Kaj^e (of Lincoln)'s Arcnvid of the writings of Chinent of Alexandria, — and to read thcvith and viiitli chapters. ^ 'Wivrn \i.iv iv rw kutu ^\aj)K to which Taste, Scholarship, and Sacred Learning have sunk among us ? LXVII. Worse yet. We are so distressed, because the true sufferers after all by this ill-advised proceeding, are the 90 millions of English-speaking Christian folk scattered over ' rlji/ naixiKUTdOr'jKr^v. — 1 Tim. vi. 20. III.] SHOULD BE DEAGGED THROUGH THE MIEE. 345 the surface of the globe. These have had the title-deeds by which they hold their priceless birthright, shamefully tam- pered with. WJio will venture to predict the amount of mischief which must follow, if the ' New Greek Text ' wliich has been put forth by the men who were appointed to revise the English Authorized Version, should become used in our Schools and in our Colleges,- — ^should impose largely on the Clergy of the Church of England ? , . . But to return from this, which however will scarcely be called a digression. A pyramid poised on its apex then, we hold to be a fair emblem of the Theory just now under review. Only, unfor- tunately, its apex is found to be constructed of brick without straw : say rather of strata — tvithout trick. LXVIII. Why such partiality has been evinced latterly for Cod. B-, none of the Critics have yet been so good as to explain ; nor is it to be expected that, satisfactorily, any of them ever will. Why again Tischendorf should have sud- denly transferred his allegiance from Cod. B to Cod. k, — unless, to be sure, he was the sport of parental partiality, — must also remain a riddle. If one of the ' old uncials ' must needs be taken as a guide, — (though we see no sufficient reason why one should be appointed to lord it over the rest,) — we should rather have expected that Cod. A would have been selected,^ — the text of which * Stands in broad contrast to those of either b or K, though the interval of years [between it and them] is probably small.' ' [While this sheet is passing through the press, I find among my papers a note (written in 1876) by the learned, loved, and lamented Editor of Cyril, — Philip E. Pusey, — with whom I used to be in constant communication : — " It is not obvious to me, looking at the subject from outside, why b c l, constituting a class of MSS. allied to each other, and therefore nearly = IJ MSS., are to be held to be superior to a. It is still less obvious to me why ***, showing up (as he does) very many grave faults of B, should yet consider u superior in character to A."] 346 COD. A MOKE TRUSTWORTHY THAN COD. B :— BUT [Art. (p. 152.) ' By a curious and apparently unnoticed coincidence,' (proceeds Dr, Ilort,) ' its Text in several books agrees with the Latin Vulgate in so many peculiar readings devoid of old Latin attestation, as to leave little doubt that a Greek MS. largely employed by Jerome ' — [and -why not ' thj; Greek copies employed by Jerome'?] — ' in his Kevision of the Latin version must have had to a great extent a common original with a.' (^Ibid.) Behold a further claim of this copy on the respectful con- sideration of the Critics ! What would be thought of the Alexandrian Codex, if some attestation were discoveraljle in its pages tliat it actually had hdongcd to the learned Palesti- nian father ? According to Dr. Hort, ' Apart from this individual affinity, a — both in the Gospels and elsewhere — may serve as a fair example of the Mayimcripts that, to judge by Patristic quotations, loere commonest in the IVth century.' — (p. 152.) 0 but, the evidence in favour of Codex a thickens apace ! Suppose then, — (for, after this admission, the supposition is at least allowable,) — suppose the discovery were made to- morrow of half-a-score of codices of the same date as Cod. B, but exhibiting the same Text as Cod. A. What a complete revolution would be thereby effected in men's minds on Textual matters ! How impossible would it bu, henceforth, for B and its henchman n, to obtain so much as a hearing ! Such ' an eleven ' would safely defy the world ! And yet, according to Dr. Hort, the supposition may any day become a fact ; for he informs us, — (and we are glad to Ijc able for once to declare that what he says is perfectly correct,)— that such manuscripts once abounded or rather prevailed; — ' locrc commonest in the IVth century,' when codices B and « w^ere written. We presume that then, as now, sucli codices prevailed universally, in the proportion of 99 to 1. LXIX. P>ut — what need to say it ?— we entirely disallow any such narrowing of the ]ilallnrm Avhicli Divine Wisdom III.] BOTH CONSPIRE IN ERROR AT 1 S. JOHN V. 18. 347 hath willed sliould be at once very varied and very ample. Cod. A is sometimes in error: sometimes even conspires in error exclusively vjith Cod. b. An instance occurs in 1 S. John v. 18, — a difficult passage, which we the more willingly pro- ceed to remark upon, because the fact has transpired that it is one of the few places in which entire unanim,ity prevailed among the Revisionists, — who yet (as we shall show) have been, one and all, mistaken in substituting ' him ' (avrov) for 'himself (eavTov) . . . We venture to bespeak the Header's attention while we produce the passage in question, and briefly examine it. He is assured that it exhibits a fair average specimen of what has been the Revisionists' fatal method in every page : — LXX. S. John in his first Epistle (v. 18) is distinguishing between the mere recipient of the new birth (6 rENNHOErs e/c Tov OeoO), — and the man who retains the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit which he received when he became regenerate (6 rErENNHME'Nos eV tov ©eoO). The latter (he says) ' sirmeth not : ' the former, (he says,) ' kcepeth himself, and the Evil One toucheth him not.' So far, all is intelligible. The nominative is the same in both cases. Substitute however ' keepeth hiin {avrov)' for ' keepeth him- self (iavTov),' and (as Dr. Scrivener admits ^), 6 yevvrjOeU i/c TOV @€ov can be none other than the Only Begotten Son of God. And yet our Lord is noivhere in the New Testament designated as 6 'yevvrjdeU e'/c tov Seov."^ Alford accordingly prefers to make nonsense of the place ; which he translates, — ' he that hath been begotten of God, it keepeth him.' ' Introduction, p. 567. ^ Let the following places be considered : S. Jo. i. 13 ; iii. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 ; 1 Jo. ii. 29 ; iii. 9 his, iv. 7 ; v. 1 his, 4, 18 his. Why is it to be supposed that on this last occasion the Eternal Son should be intended ? 348 THE TRUE READING OF 1 S. JOHN V. 18. [Akt. LXXI. Now, on every occasion like the present, — (instead of tampering with the text, as Dr. Hort and our Revisionists have done vjitJiout explanation or apologij,) — our safety will be found to consist in enquiring, — But (1) What have the Copies to say to tliis ? (2) "What liave the Versions ? and (3) "Wliat, the Fatliers ? . . . The answer proves to be — (1) All the copies except three} read ' himself.' — (2) So do the Syriac and the Latin ; ^ — so do the Coptic, Sahidic, Georgian, Armenian, and ^thiopic versions.^ — (3) So, Origen clearly thrice,* — Didymus clearly 4 times,^ — Ephraem Syrus clearly twice,® — Severus also twice,'' — Theophylact expressly,^ — and (Ecumenius.^ — So, indeed, Cod. a ; for the original Scribe is found to have corrected himself}^ The sum of the adverse attestation therefore which prevailed with the Revisionists, is found to have been — Codex B and a single cursive copy at Moscow. This does not certainly seem to tlie Reviewer, (as it seemed to the Revisionists,) 'decidedly preponderating evidence.' In his account, ' plain and clear error ' dwells with their Bevision. But this may be because, — (to quote words recently addressed by the President of the Revising body to the Clergy ' A», B, 105. ^ The paraphrase is interestinf;;. Tlie Viil^ato, Jerome [ii. 321, 691], Cassian [p. 409], — ' ISed gcntratio Dei conservat eum : ' Chromatins [Gall, viii. 347], and Vigilius Taps. [aj). Atlianas. ii. 64G], — ' Q^t,ia ((jiioniaiu) nativitds Dei custodit (^strvat) ilium.'' In a letter of 5 Bishops to Inno- centius I. (a.d. 410) [Gallaud. viii. 598 b], it is, — ' Nativitas qux ex Deo es<.' Such a rendering (viz. ' his having bee7i born of God ') amounts to an iiiterprdation of the })lace. 3 From the Ilev. S. C. Malan, D.U. ■• iv. 32f; 1) c. •* Gall. viii. 347, — of whii-h the Greek is to be seen in Cramer's Cat. pp. 143-4. Many portions of the lost Text of this Father, (the present passage included [p. 231]) are to be found in the Scholia published by C. F. Mattha;i [N. T. xi. 181 to 245-7]. « i. 94, 97. ■' In Cat. y. 124, rc]icatcd p. 11-1. « iii. 433 c. * ii. GOl d. '" r>y jiutting a small uncial 6 above the A. HI.] ' INNOCENT IGNORANCE' OF THE KEVIEWEE. 349 and Laity of the Diocese of Crloucester and Bristol,) — the ' Quarterly Eeviewer ' is ' innocently/ ignorant of the now established p^^iriciples of Textual Criticism.' ^ LXXII. ' It is easy/ — (says the learned Prelate, speaking on his own behalf and that of his co-Eevisionists,) — ' to put forth to the world a sweeping condemnation of many of our changes of reading ; and yet all the while to be innocently ignorant of the now established principles of Textual Criticism.' May we venture to point out, that it is easier still to denounce adverse Criticism in the lump, instead of trying to refute it in any one particular : — to refer vaguely to ' esta- blished principles of Textual Criticism,' instead of stating which they be : — to sneer contemptuously at endeavours, (which, even if unsuccessful, one is apt to suppose are entitled to sympathy at the hands of a successor of the Apostles,) instead of showing wherein such efforts are repre- hensible ? We are content to put the following question to any fair-minded man : — Whether of these two is the more facile and culpable proceeding ; — (1) Lightly to blot out an inspired word from the Book of Life, and to ionpose a wron^ sense on Scripture, as in this place the Bishop and his col- leagues are found to have done : — or, (2) To fetch the same word industriously back : to establish its meaning by diligent and laborious enquiry : to restore both to their rightful honours : and to set them on a basis of {hitherto unobserved) evidence, from which (faxit DEUS !) it will be found impossible henceforth to dislodge them ? This only will the Eeviewer add, — That if it be indeed one of the ' now established principles of Textual Criticism,' Diocesan Progress, Jan. 1882. — [pp. 20] p. 19, 350 NEMESIS OF SUPERSTITION AND IDOLATRY. [Art. that the evidence of hvo manuscnpts and-a-half outweighs the evidence of (1) All the remaining 997^, — (2) The whole body of the Versions, — (3) Every Father who quotes the place, from A.D. 210 to a.u. 1070, — and (4) The strongest iJOssiUc internal Evidence : — if all this indeed be so, — he devoutly trusts that he may be permitted to retain his ' Innocence ' to the last ; and in his ' Ignorance,' when the days of his warfare are ended, to close his eyes in death. — And now to proceed. LXXIII. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. Phantoms of the imagination henceforth usurp the place of substantial forms. Interminable doubt, — wretched misbelief, — childish credulity, — judicial blindness, — are the inevitable sequel and penalty. The mind that has long allowed itself in a systematic trifling with Evidence, is observed to fall the easiest prey to Imposture. It has doubted what is demonstraUy true : has rejected what is induhitablg Divine. Henceforth, it is observed to mistake its own fantastic creations for historical facts : to believe things which rest on insufficient evidence, or on no evidence at all. Thus, these learned Professors, — who condemn the ' last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark ; ' which have been accounted veritable Scripture by the Church Uni- versal for more tlian 1800 years ; — nevertheless accept as the genuine ' Diatessaron of Tatian' [a.d. 170], a production which was discovered yesterday, and which does not even clai^n to he the work of that primitive writer.^ Yes, the Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. General mistrust of all evidence is the sure result. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort solemnly assured their ' Jnlroduction, p. 283. Notes, pp. 3, 22, aud iiaasim. \ I III.] DR. HORT ON ' CONJECTURAL EMENDATION: 351 brother-Revisionists thcat ' the prevalent assumption that throiisrhont the N. T. the true Text is to be found somewhere among recorded Readings, does not stand the test of experience.' They are evidently still haunted by the same spectral sus- picion. They invent a ghost to be exorcised in every dark corner. Accordingly, Dr. Hort favours us with a chapter on the Art of ' removing Corruptions of the sacred Text ante- cedent to extant documents ' (p. 71). We are not surprised (thougli we are a little amused) to hear that, — ' The Art of Conjectural Emendation depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation founded on knowledge and method.' — (p. 71.) LXXIV. Very ' easy,' certainly. One sample of Dr. Hort's skill in this department, (it occurs at page 135 of his Notes on Select Readings,) shall be cited in illustration. We venture to commend it to the attention of our Readers : — {a) S. Paul [2 Tim. i. 13] exhorts Timothy, (whom he had set as Bp. over the Church of Ephesus,) to ' hold fast ' a certain 'form ' or ' pattern ' (vTrorvTrcoaiv) ' of sound words, which ' (said he) ' thou hast heard of me! The flexibility and delicate precision of the Greek language enables the Apostle to indicate exactly what was the prime object of his solicitude. It proves to have been the safety of the very words which he had syllabled, (v/rian.' — Aware that etV?"} is recognized l)y ' Iron, lat"^ ; Eus. JJ. E. Gyp.,' they yet claim for (.miitting it the authority of in.] ErKH", IN S. MATT. V. 22, VINDICATED. 359 ' Just. Ptolem. ( ? Iren. 242 fin.), Tert. ; and certainly ' (they proceed) ' Orig. on Eph. iv. 31, noticing both readings, and similarly Hier. loc, who probably follows Origen : also Ath. Pasch. Syr. 11 : Ps.-Ath. Cast. ii. 4; and others' .... Such is their ' Note ' on S. Matthew v. 22. It is found at p. 8 of their volume. In consequence, eiKrj (' ivithout a cause ') dis- appears from their Text entirely. {h) But these learned men are respectfully imformed that neither Justin Martyr, nor Ptolemteus the Gnostic, nor Irenseus, no, nor TertuUian either, — that not one of these four writers, — supplies the wished-for evidence. As for Origen, — they are assured that/tc — not 'probably' but certainly — is the cause of all the trouble. They are reminded that Athanasius ^ quotes {not S. Matt. v. 22, but) 1 Jo. iii. 15. They are shown that what they call 'ps.-Ath. Cast.' is nothing else but a paraphrastic translation (by Grseculus quidam) of John Cas- sian's Institutes, — ' ii. 4 ' in the Greek representing viii. 20 in the Latin. . , . And now, how much of the adverse Evidence remains ? (c) Only this : — Jerome's three books of Commentary on the Ephesians, are, in the main, a translation of Origen's lost 3 books on the same Epistle.^ Commenting on iv. 31, Origen says that ecKrj has been improperly added to the Text,^ — ivhicJi shoivs that in Origens copy eiKrj ivas found there. A few ancient writers in consequence (but only in consequence) of what Jerome (or rather Origen) thus delivers, are observed to omit ei/cj}.* That is all ! (d) May we however respectfully ask these learned Editors why, besides Irenaeus,^ — Eusebius,'' — and Cyprian,^ — ^ Apud Mai, vi. 105. ^ Qi^i^. vii. 543. Comp. 369. 3 Ap. Cramer, Cat. vi. 187. * So, Nilus, i. 270. ^ Interp. 595 : 607. « Dem. Evan. p. 444. ^ P. 306. 360 THE TEXT OF S. MATTHEW V. 22, [Aut. they do not mention that eUij is also the reading of Justin Martyr,^ — of Origen himself,^ — of the Constitutioncs Airp.,^ — of Basil three times/ — of Gregory of Nyssa,^ — of Epi- plianius,^ — of Ephraem Syrus twice/ — of Isidorus twice/ — of Theodore of Mops., — of Chrysostom 18 times, — of the Opus imp. twice,^ — of CyriP" — and of Theodoret^^ — (each in 3 places). It was also the reading of Severus, Abp. of Antioch : ^^ — as well as of Hilary,^^ — Lucifer,^* — Salvian,^^ — Philastrius,^^ — Augustine, and — Jerome," — (although, when translating from Origen, he j)ronounces against elKrf ^**) : — not to mention Antiochus mon.,^^ — J. Damascene,^" — Maximus,^^ — Photius,^^ — Euthymius, — Theophylact, — and others ? ^^ We have adduced no less than thirty ancient witnesses. (c) Our present contention however is but this, — that a Eeading which is attested by every uncial Copy of the Gospels except B and n ; by a whole torrent of Fathers ; by every known copy of the old Latin, — by all the Syriac, (for the Peschito inserts [not translates] the word et/c?),) — by the ^ Epist. ml Zen. iii. 1. 78. Note, that our learued Cave consiilerctl tliis to be a genuine work of Justin M. (a.d. 150). ^ Cantic. (an early work) interp. iii. 39, — thougli elsewhere (i. 112, 181 [y] : ii. 305 int. [but not ii. 419]) he is for leaving out {Iktj. ^ Gall. iii. 72 and 161. * ii. 89 b and e (partly quoted in the Cat. of Nicetas) expressly : 205. ^ i. 818 expressly. •^ ii. 312 (preserved in Jerome's Latin translation, i. 2 10). ' i. 132 ; iii. 442. » 472, 634. » Ap. Chrys. '» iii. 768 : apud Mai, ii. 6 and iii. 268. " i. 48, 664 ; iv. 940. " Cramer's Cat. viii. 12, line 14. ''' 128, 625. " Gall. vi. 181. »' Gall. x. 14. i« Gall. vii. 509. " i. 27, written when he was 42 ; and ii. 733, 739, written when he was 84. '^ vii. 26, — ' Jiadendum est ergo sine causa.' And so, at p. 030. '» 1064. 20 ii^ 261. ''' ii. 592. '^ Amphilochia, (Athens, 1858,) — p. 317. Also in Cat. ^ Apophthegm. PP. [ap. Cotel. Ecd. (Jr. Mon. i. 622]. III.] VINDICATED AGAINST DR. HORT. 361 Coptic, — as well as by the Gothic — and Armenian versions ; — that such a reading is not to be set aside by the stupid dictum, ' Western and Syrian.' By no such methods will the study of Textual Criticism be promoted, or any progress ever be made in determining the Truth of Scripture. There really can be no doubt whatever, — (that is to say, if we are to be guided by ancient Evidence,) — that elKrj (' without a cause ') was our Saviour's actual word ; and that our Eevisers have been here, as in so many hundred other places, led astray by Dr. Hort. So true is that saying of the ancient poet, — ' Evil company doth corrupt good manners.' 'And if the blind lead the blind,' — (a greater than Menander hath said it,) — * hoth shall fall into the ditch.' ^ (/) In the meantime, we have exhibited somewhat in de- tail, Drs. Westcott and Hort's Annotation on et/c^, [S. Matth. V. 22,] in order to furnish our Eeaders with at least one defi- nite specimen of the Editorial skill and Critical ability of these two accomplished Professors. Their general practice, as exhibited in the case of 1 Jo. v. 18, [see above, pp. 347-9,] is to tamper with the sacred Text, without assigning their authority, — indeed, without offering apology of any kind. {g) The sww of the matter proves to be as follows : Codd. B and N (the ' two false Witnesses '), — B and x, alone of MSS. — omit €lKrf. On the strength of this. Dr. Hort persuaded his fellow Eevisers to omit ' without a cause ' from their Eevised Version: and it is proposed, in consequence, that every Englishman's copy of S. Matthew v. 22 shall be muti- lated in the same way for ever, , . , Delirant reges, plec- tuntur Achivi. (h) But the question arises — Will the Church of England submit to have her immemorial heritage thus filched from 1 S. Matth. XV. 14. 3G2 WESTCOTT AND HORT'S METHOD OF DEALING [Art. her ? "We shall be astonished indeed if she proves so regard- less of her birthright. LXXX. Lastly, the intellectual habits of these Editors have led them so to handle evidence, that the sense of pro- portion seems to have forsaken them. " He who has long pondered over a train of Reasoning," — (remarks the elder Critic,) — "becomes unable to detect its iveak points."^ Yes, the ' idols of the den ' exercise at last a terrible ascendency- over the Critical judgment. It argues an utter want of mental perspective, when we find ' the Man working on the Sabbath,' put on the same footing with ' the Woman taken in Adultery,' and conjectured to have ' come from the same source : ' — the incident of ' the Angel troubling the pool of Bethesda' dismissed, as having ' tw claim to any kind of association with the true Text : ' ^ — and ' the two Supplements ' to S. Mark's Gospel declared to 'stand on equal terms as independent attempts to fill up a gap;' and allowed to be possibly ' of equal antiquity! ^ How can we wonder, after this, to find anything omitted, — anything inserted, — anything branded with suspicion ? And the brand is very freely ap- plied by Drs. Westcott and Hort. Their notion of the Text of the New Testament, is certainly the most extraordinary ever ventilated. It has at least the merit of entire originality. Wliile they eagerly insist that many a passage is but ' a Western interpolation ' after all ; is but an ' Evangelic Tradi- tion/ 'rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second century ; ' — they yet incorporate those passages with the Gospel. Careful enough to clap them into fetters first, they then, (to use their own queer phrase,) — 'provisionally associate them with the Text! * Gospel of the Resurrection, — p. vii. ^ Introduction, pp. 300-2. » Ihid. p. 2')y. III.] WITH THE INSPIRED TEXT, INDEFENSIBLE. 363 LXXXI, We submit, on the contrary, that Editors who ' cannot douht ' that a certain verse ' comes from an extraneous source,' — 'do not believe that it belonged originally to the Book in which it is now included,' — are unreasonable if they proceed to assign to it any actual place there at all. AVlien men have once thoroughly convinced themselves that two Verses of S. Luke's Gospel are not Scripture, but ' only a fragment from the Traditions, written or oral, which were for a while locally current ; ' ^ — what else is it but the merest trifling with sacred Truth, to promote those two verses to a place in the inspired context ? Is it not to be feared, that the conscious introduction of human Tradition into God's written Word will in the end destroy the soul's confidence in Scripture itself? opening the door for per- plexity, and doubt, and presently for Unbelief itself to enter. LXXXII. And let us not be told that the Verses stand there ' provisionally ' only ; and for that reason are ' enclosed within double brackets.' Suspected felons are ' provisionally ' locked up, it is true : but after trial, they are either con- victed and removed out of sight ; or else they are acquitted and suffered to come abroad like other men. Drs. Westcott and Hort have no right at the end of thirty years of investi- gation, still to encumber the Evangelists with ' provisional ' fetters. Those fetters either signify that the Judge is afraid to carry out his own righteous sentence : or else, that he enter- tains a secret suspicion that he has made a teiTihle mistake after all, — has condemned the innocent. Let these esteemed Scholars at least have ' the courage of their own convictions,' and be throughout as consistent as, in two famous instances (viz. at pages 113 and 241), they have been. Else, in God's Name, let them have the manliness to avow themselves in * Appendix, p. C6. 364 THE SCIENCE OF ' TEXTUAL CRITICISM ' [Art. error : abjure their Trpdrov i|re{)8o9 ; and cast the fantastic Theory, which they have so industriously reared upon it, unreservedly, to the winds ! LXXXIII. To conclude. — It will be the abiding distinction of the Eevised Version {thanks to Dr. Hort,) that it brought to the front a question which has slept for about 100 years ; but which may not be suffered now to rest undisturbed any longer. It might have slumbered on for another half- century, — a subject of deep interest to a very little band of Divines and Scholars ; of perplexity and distrust to all the World besides ; — hut for the incident which will make the 17th of May, 1881, for ever memorable in the Annals of the Church of England. LXXXIV. The Publication on that day of the ' Eevised English Version of the New Testament' instantly concen- trated public attention on the neglected problem ; for men saw at a glance that the Traditional Text of 1530 years' standing, — (the exact number is Dr. Hort's, not ours,) — had been unceremoniously set aside in favour of an entirely different Recension. The true Authors of the mischief were not far to seek. Just five days before, — under the editorship of Drs. Westcott and Hort, (Eevisionists themselves,) — had appeared the most extravagant Text which has seen the light since the invention of Printing. No secret was made of the fact that, under pledges of strictest secrecy,^ a copy of this wild per- formance (marked ' Confidential ') had been entrusted to every member of the Ee vising body : and it has since trans- pired that Dr. Hort advocated his own peculiar views in the Jerusalem Chamber with so much volubility, eagerness, per- tinacity, and plausibility, that in the end — notwithstanding ' Sec Scrivener's Inlroduction, p. 432. III.] MAY NO MORE BE SUFFERED TO SLEEP. 365 the warnings, remonstrances, entreaties of Dr. Scrivener, — his counsels prevailed ; and — the utter shipwreck of the ' Revised Version ' has been, (as might have been confidently predicted,) the disastrous consequence. Dr. Hort is calcu- lated to have talked for three years out of the ten. But in the meantime there has arisen tJiis good out of the calamity, — namely, that men will at last require that the Textual problem shall be fairly threshed out. They will insist on having it proved to their satisfaction, — (1) That Codices b and n are indeed the oracular documents which their admirers pretend ; and — (2) That a narrow selection of ancient documents is a secure foundation on which to build the Text of Scripture. Failing this, — (and the onus pi'ohandi rests wholly with those who are for setting aside the Traditional Text in favour of another, entirely dissimilar in character,) — failing this, we say, it is reasonable to hope that the counsels of the ' Quarterly Bcvieiv ' will be suffered to prevail. In the meantime, we repeat that this question has now to be fought out : for to ignore it any longer is impossible. Compromise of any sort between the two con- flicting parties, is impossible also ; for they simply contra- dict one another. Codd. b and n are either among the purest of manuscripts, — or else they are among the very foulest. The Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared, — or else it is the very worst ; the nearest to the sacred Autographs, — or the furthest from them. There is no room for hoth opinions ; and there cannot exist any middle view. The question will have to be fought out ; and it must be fought out fairly. It may not be magisterially settled ; but must be advocated, on either side, by the old logical method. If Continental Scholars join in tlie fray, England, — which 3GG ' GOD DEFEND THE RIGHT.' [Aut. III. in the last century took the lead in these studies, — will, it is to be hoped, maintain her ancient reputation and again occupy the front rank. The combatants may be sure that, in consequence of all that has happened, the public will be no longer indifferent spectators of the fray; for the issue concerns the inner life of the whole community, — touches men's very lieart of hearts. Certain it is that — ' God defend tlic Bight ! ' will be the one aspiration of every faithful spirit among us. The Truth, — (we avow it on behalf of Drs. Westcott and Hort as eagerly as on our own behalf,) — God's Tkuth will be, as it has been throughout, the one object of all our striving. AcXivov atXivov elite, to B' ev vckutw. 1 HAVE BEEN VEKY JEALOUS FOR THE LORD GOD OF HOSTS. LETTER TO BISHOP ELLICOTT, IN REPLY TO HIS PAMPHLET. " Nothing is more satisfactory at the present time than the evident feelings of veneration for our Authorized Version, and the very generally- felt desire for as Utile change as possible^ — Bishop Elijcott.^ " We may be satisfied with the attempt to correct ^5?am and clear errors, but there it is our duty to stop." — Bishop Ellicott.'^ " We have now, at all events, no fear of an over-corrected Version." — Bishop Ellicott.^ " I fear we must say in candour that in the Revised Version we meet in every page with small changes, ivhich are vexatious, teasing, and irri- tating, even the more so becaiise they are smaU ; which seem almost to be made for the sake of change." — Bishop Wordsworth.* [The question arises,] — " Whether the Church of England, — which in her Synod, so far as this Province is concerned, sanctioned a Revision of her Authorized Version under the express condition, which she most wisely imposed, that no Changes should be made in it except ivhat laere absolutely necessary, — could consistently accept a Version in which 3G,000 changes have been made ; not a fiftieth of which can be shown to be needed, or even desirable." — Bishop Wordsworth.'^ On Revision, — p. 99. Speech in Convocation, Feb. 1870, (p. 83.) On llevinon, — p. 205. Addrei^s to Lincoln Dioceean Conference, — p. 25. Ihid.—Y,. 27. LETTER TO THE RIGHT REV. CHARLES JOHN ELLIGOTT, D.D„ BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL, IN REPLY TO HIS PAMPHLET IN DEFENCE OF THE REVISERS AND THEIR GREEK TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. " What course would Revisers have us to follow ? . . . Would IT BE well for them TO AGREE ON A CRITICAL GrEEK TeXT ? TO this question we venture to answer very unhesitatingly in the negative. " Though we have much critical material, and a very fair amount of critical knowledge, we have CERTAINLY NOT YET AC- QUIRED SUFFICIENT CRITICAL JUDGMENT FOR ANY BODY OF EeVISERS hopefully to undertake such a work as this." Bishop Ellicott.* My Lord Bishop, Last May, you published a pamphlet of seventy-nine pages ^ in vindication of the Greek Text recently put forth by ^ Considerations on Bevision, — p. 44. The Preface is dated 23rd May, 1870. The Revisers met on the 22nd of June. We learn from Dr. Newtli's Lectures on BihJe Bevision (1881), that, — •" As the general Rules under which the Revision was to be carried out had been carefully prepared, no need existed for any lengthened discussion of preliminary arrangements, and the Company upon its first meeting was able to enter at once upon its work " (p. 118) ... " The portion prescribed for the first session was Matt. i. to iv." (p. 119). " The question of the spelling of proper names . . . being settled, the Company proceeded to the actual details of the Revision, and in a surprisingly short time settled down to an established method of pro- cedure."— " All proposals made at the first Revision were decided by simple majorities " (p. 122) ..." The questions ivhich co7icerned the Greek Text tnere decided for the most part at the First Bevision." (Bp. Ellicott's Bamphlet, p. 34.) ^ The Bevisers and the Uretk Text of the New Testament, ly tivo 2 B 370 PKELIMINARY. — BISHOP ELLICOTT'S [Reply to the New Testament Company of Eevisers. It was (yon said) your Answer to the first and second of my Articles in the Quarterly Bevieio:^ — all three of which, corrected and enlarged, are now submitted to the ])uljlic for the second time. See above, from page 1 to page 307. [1] Prdvminai'y Statement. You may l)e quite sure tliat I examined your pamphlet as soon as it appeared, with attention. I have since read it through several times : and — I must add — with ever-increasing astonishment. First, because it is so evidently the production of one who has never made Textual Criticism seriously his study. Next, because your pamphlet is no refutation whatever of my two Articles. You flout me : you scold me : you lecture me. But I do not find that you ever a7is^ver me. You re- produce the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort, — which I claim to have demolished.^ You seek to put me down by flourishing in my face the decrees of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles, — which, as you are well aware, I entirely dis- allow. Denunciation, my lord Bishop, is not Argument ; neither is Eeiteration, Proof. And then, — Wliy do you impute to me opinions which I do not hold ? and charge me with a method of procedure of which I have never been guilty ? Above all, why do you seek to jircjudice the (jucstiini at issue between us by importing irrelevant matter which can only impose upon the ignorant and mislead the unwary ? Forgive my plainness, but really you are so conspicuously unfair, — and at the same time so manifestly unac(|uainted. MewhevB of the New Testament Comfciny, — 1882. Macniilkn, ]ip. 70, j)rice two sliillings and sixpence. * "To these two articles — so far, at least, as they are concerned with the Greek Text adopted l)y the Revisers — our Essay is intended for an answer." — p. 79. " Sec alxjvc, j«ges 235 to 3CG. Bi'. Elligott.] pamphlet WAS ANTICIPATED. 371 (except at second-hand and only in an elementary way,) with the points actually under discussion, — that, were it not for the adventitious importance attaching to any utterance of yours, deliberately put forth at this time as Chairman of the New Testament body of Eevisers, I should have taken no notice of your pamphlet. [2] The Bishops immphlct vms anticiimtcd and effectually dis- posed of, three weeks before it appeared, hy the Reviewer's Third Article. I am bound, at the same time, to acknowledge that you have been singularly unlucky. While you were penning your Defence, (namely, throughout the first four months of 1882,) /was making a fatal inroad into your position, by showing how utterly without foundation is the ''Textual Theory " to which you and your co-Kevisers have been so rash as to commit yourselves.^ This fact I find duly recog- nized in your ' Postscript.' " Since the foregoing pages were in print " (you say,) " a third article has appeared in the Quarterly Review, entitled 'Westcott and Hort's Textual Theory.'"^ Yes. / came before the public on the 16th of April ; yoii on the 4th of May, 1882. In this way, your pam- phlet was anticipated, — had in fact been fully disposed of, three weeks before it appeared. " The Ee viewer," (you com- plain at page 4,) " censures their [Westcott and Hort's] Text : ill neither Article has he attemp)ted a serious examination of the arguments vjhich they allege in its support." But, (as explained,) the "serious examination" which you reproach me with having hitherto failed to produce,— had l)een already three weeks in the hands of readers of the Quarterly before your pamphlet saw the light. You would, in conse({uence, 1 Article III., — see last note. ^ Pamphlet, p. 79. 2 B 2 372 BISHOP ELLICOTT'S UNFAIR [Reply to have best corstiIUhI your own reiiutation, I am persuaded, had you instantly recalled and suppressed your printed sheets. What, at all events, you can have possibly meant, while pu])lisliing them, by adding (in your 'Postscript' at page 79,) — " I71 this controversy it is not for us to interpose : " and again, — " We find nothing in the Rcvietvers third article to require further ansiccr from us ;" — passes my comprehension ; seeing that your pamphlet (page 11 to page 29) is an elaborate avowal that you have made Westcott and Hort's theory entirely your own. The Editor of the Speaker s Commentary, I observe, takes precisely the same view of your position. " The two Eevisers " (says Canon Cook) " actually add a Postscript to their pamphlet of a single sliort j'lage noticing their unexpected anticipation l)y the third Quarterly Rcvicv) article; with the remark that 'in this controversy (between Westcott and Hort and the Eeviewer) it is not for us to interfere : ' — as if Westcott and Hort's theory of Greek Revision could Ije refuted, or seriously damaged, without cutting the yround from under the Committee, of Revisers on tlie whole of this suhject^ ^ [3] Bp. Ellieott remonstrated unth for his unfair method of procedure. I should enter at once on an examination of your Pe])ly, but that 1 am constrained at the outset to remonstrate with you on the exceeding unfairness of your entire method of procedure. Your business was to make it plain to tlie public that you have dealt faithfully with the Deposit: have strictly fulfdled the covenant into wdiich you entered twelve years ago with ^ The Revised Vemion of the fird three Goapels, considered in Us hcar- iiif/s uj)on the record of our Lord's Words and of incidents in His Life, — (18S2. pp. 250. Murray,) — p. 232. Caium Cook's temperate and very interesting volume will be found simjily unanswcnilile. Br. Ellicott.] METHOD OF PROCEDURE. 373 the Convocation of the Southern Province : liave corrected only " plain and clear errors." Instead of tliis, you labour to enlist vulgar prejudice against me : — partly, by insisting that I am for determining disputed Eeadings hj an ajDpeal to the ' Textus Eeceptus,' — which (according to you) I look upon as faultless : — partly, by exhibiting me in disagreement with Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles. The irrelevancy of this latter contention, — the groundlessness of the former, — may not be passed over without a few words of serious remon- strance. For I claim that, in discussing the Greek Text, I have invariably filled my pages as full of Authorities for the opinions I advocate, as the limits of the page would allow. I may have been tediously demonstrative sometimes : but no one can fairly tax me with having shrunk from the severest method of evidential proof. To find myself there- fore charged with "mere denunciation,"^ — with substituting "strong expressions of individual opinion" for "arguments,"^ — and with " attempting to cut the cord by reckless and un- verified assertions," (p. 25,) — astonishes me. Such language is in fact even ridiculously unfair. The misrepresentation of which I complain is not only conspicuous, but systematic. It runs through your whole pamphlet : is admitted l)y yourself at the close, — (viz. at p. 77,) — to be half the sum of your entire contention. Besides cropping up repeatedly,^ it finds deliberate and detailed expression when you reach the middle of your essay, — viz. at p. 41 : where, with reference to certain charges which I not only bring against codices x b c L, but laboriously substantiate by a free appeal to the contemporary evidence of Copies, Versions, and Fathers, — you venture to express yourself con- cerninfjj me as follows : — ^ P. 40. 2 21^1^^ ^ As at p. 4, and p. 12, and p. 13, and p. 19, and p. 40. 374 AVIIICH 7?7; "THE RECOGNIZED [Ri-rLY to "To attempt to sustain such charges by a rough comparison of these ancient authorities with the Textus Eeceptus, and to meiRtire the degree of their depravation l^y the amount of their divergence from such a text as toe have shown this Received Text rraUii to he, is to trifle with the subject of sacred Ciiticism." — p. 41. You add : — " Until the depravation of these ancient Manuscripts has been demonstrated in a manner more consistent with tlic recognized principles of Criticism, such charges as those to which we allude must be regarded as expressions of passion, or prejudice, and set aside by every impartial reader as assertions for which no adequate evidence has yet been produced." — pp. 41-2. [4] ( Uldch he ' the recognized ^rinciijlcs of Textual Criticism ' ? — a question asked in passing.) But give me leave to ask in passing, — IF// /r/^, pray, are " tlie recognized principles of Criticism " to which you refer ? I profess I have never met with tliem yet ; and I am sure it lias not been for want of diligent enquiry. You have publicly charged me before your Diocese with Ijeing " innocently igno- rant of the noio cstahlished princiijles of Textual Criticism."^ But why do you not state which those principles arc ? I am surprised. You are for ever vaunting " priiieijjles mIucIi have been established by the investigations and reasonings" of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles :^ — " the princi2}lcs of Textual Criticism which are accepted and recognized by the great majority of modern Textual Critics : "^ — " the 2T}'incipIes on wliich the Textual Criticism oftlie last hftyyearshas l)een based : "* — but you never condescend to ex])lain vldcli he the ' ])rinciples ' you refer to. For the last time, — Who estab- lished those " Principles " ? and, Where are they to be seen " established " ? 1 Sfcaliovc, 11).. ;!lH-350. ' 1'. 10. '' P. 10. ' I'. 77. Bp. Ellicott.] PKINCIPLES of textual CRITICISM"? 375 I will be so candid with you as frankly to avow that the only two " principles " with which I am acquainted as held, with anything like consent, by " the modern Textual Critics " to whom you have surrendered your judgment, are — (1st) A rol)ust confidence in the revelations of their own inner consciousness : and (2ndly) A superstitious partiality for two codices written in the uncial character, — for which par- tiality they are able to assign no intelligible reason. You put the matter as neatly as I could desire at page 19 of your Essay, — where you condemn, with excusable warmth, " those who adopt the easy method of using some favourite Manu- script,"— or of exercising " some supposed poiver of divining the original Text ; " — • as if those were " the only necessary agents for correcting the Eeceived Text." Wliy the evidence of codices b and N, — and perhaps the evidence of the Vlth-century codex d, — (' the singular codex ' as you call it ; and it is certainly a very singular codex indeed :) — why, I say, the evidence of these two or three codices should be thought to outweigh the evidence of all other documents in existence, — whether Copies, Versions, or Fathers, — I have never been able to discover, nor have their admirers ever been able to tell me. [5] Bp. Ellicott's and the Eevietocr's respective methods, con- trasted. Waiving this however, (for it is beside the point,) I ven- ture to ask, — With what show of reason can you pretend that I " sustain my charges " against codices N B c L, " &?/ a rough comparison of these ancient authorities with the Textus Eeceptus " ? ^ . . . Will you deny that it is a mere misrepre- sentation of the plain facts of the case, to say so ? Have I not, on the contrary, on every occasion referred Eeadino-s in ^ P. 41, and so at p. 77. 376 ANCIENT AUTUOBITY [Rkply to dispute, — the reading of x b c L on tlie one hand, tlie reading of the Textus Receptus on the other, — simultaneously to one and the same external standard ? Have I not persistently enquired for the verdict — so far as it has been obtainable — of CONSENTIENT ANTIQUITY ? If I have Sometimes spoken of certain famous manuscripts (x B c d namely,) as exhibiting fabricated Texts, have I not been at the pains to establish the reasonableness of my assertion by showing that they yield divergent, — that is contradictor i/, testimony ? The task of laboriously collating the five ' old uncials ' throughout the Gospels, occupied me for five-and-a-half years, and taxed me severely. But I was rewarded. I rose from the investigation profoundly convinced that, liowever important they may be as instruments of Criticism, codices N B c D are among the most corrupt documents extant. It was a con- viction derived from exact Kiiowledgc and based on solid grounds of Bcason. You, my lord Bishop, who have never gone deeply into the subject, repose simply on Prejudice. Never having at any time collated codices N a b c D for your- self, you are unable to gainsay a single statement of mine by a counter-appeal to facts. Your textual learning proves to have been all obtained at second-hand, — taken on trust. And so, instead of marshalling against me a corresponding array of Ancient Authorities, — you invariably attempt to put me down by an appeal to Modern Opinion. "Tlie majority of modern Critics " (you say) liavc declared the manuscripts in question "not only to lie wholly undeserving (if sucli charges, but, on tlie contrary, to exhibit a text of comparative })urity." ^ The sum of the difference therefore between our respec- ti\(! iiu'.tliod.s, my lord Bishop, proves to be this: — that ' I'. II. Bp. Elltcott.] versus MODERN OPINION. 377 whereas I endeavour by a laborious accumulation of ancient Evidence to demonstrate tliat the decrees of Lach- mann, of Tischendorf and of Tregelles, arc imtrustwarthy ; your way of reducing me to silence, is to cast Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf at every instant in my teeth. Yon make your appeal exclusively to them. " It would be diffi- cult " (you say) " to find a recent English Commentator of any considerable reputation who has not been influenced, more or less consistently, by one or the other of these thrc^ Editors : " * (as if that were any reason why I should do the same I) BecaUvSe I pronounce the Eevised reading of S. Luke ii. 14, " a grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture," you bid me consider " that in so speaking I am censuring Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tor (/ell es." You seem in fact to have utterly missed the point of my contention : which is, that the ancient Fathers collectively (a.d. 150 to a.d. 450), — inasmuch as they must needs have known far better than Lachmann, Tregelles, or Tischendorf, (a.d. 1830 to a.d. 1880,) what was the Text of the New Testament in the earliest ages, — are perforce far more trustworthy guides than they. And further, that whenever it can be clearly shown that the Ancients as a body say one thing, and the Moderns another, the opinion of the Moderns may be safely disregarded. When therefore I open your pamphlet at the first page, and read as follows : — " A bold assault has been made in recent numbers of the Qiuirferlf/ lievicw upon the whole fabric of Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years by the patient labour of successive editors of the New Testament," ^ — I fail to discover that any practical inconvenience results to myself from your announcement. The same plaintive strain reappears at p. 39 ; where, having ^ P. 5. 2 p^ 3^ 378 THE FABRIC OF EECENT [Reply to pointed out " that the text of the Eevisers is, in all essential features, the same as that text in which the best critical editors, during the past fifty years, are generally agreed," — you insist " that tlius, any attack made on the text of the Eevisers is really an attack on the critical princi])les that have heen carefully and laboriously established duriny the last half -century." With the self-same pathetic remonstrance you conclude your labours. " If," (you say) " the Eevisers are wrong in the principles which they have applied to the determination of the Text, the princi2)les on which the Textual Criticism of the last fifty years has lieen based, are wrong also."^. . .Are you then not yet aware that the alterna- tive which seems to you so alarming is in fact my wliole con- tention ? Wliat else do you imagine it is that I am pro- posing to myself throughout, Ijut etfectually to dispel tlie vulgar prejudice, — say rather, to plant my heel upon the weak superstition, — which "for the last fifty years " has proved fatal to progress in this department of learning; and wluch, if it 1)6 suffered to prevail, will make a science of Textual Criticism impossible ? A shallow empiricism has been the prevailing result, up to this hour, of the teaching of Lachmann, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles. [(•)] J}p. EUlcott in May 1870, and in May 1882. A word in your juivato car, (by your leave) in passing. You seem to have forgotten that, at the time when you entered on the work of Eevision, your own estimate of the Texts put ftirth by these Editors was the reverse of favour- able; i.e. was scarcely distinguislialde from that of your present correspondent. Laclimann's you described as " a text composed on the narrowest and most exclusive ]iriii- ciples," — "really based on little more than four 7nanuscripts." ' P. 77. Bp. Elucott.] textual CRITICISM, INSECURE. 379 — "The case of Tischendorf " (you said) "is still more easily disposed of. Wliicli of this most inconstant Critic's texts are we to select ? Surely not the last, in which an exaggerated preference for a single manuscript has betrayed him into an almost cMldlike infii^tnity of jud{jment. Surely also not the seventh edition, which exhibits all the instability which a comparatively recent recognition of the authority of cursive manuscripts might be supposed likely to introduce." — As for poor Tregelles, you said : — " His critical principles .... are now, perhaps justly, called in question." His text " is rigid and mechanical, and sometimes fails to disclose that critical instinct and peculiar scliolarly sagacity which "^ have since evidently disclosed themselves in perfection in those Members of the Revising body who, with Bp. Ellicott at their head, syste- matically outvoted Preljendary Scrivener in the Jerusalem Chamber. But with what consistency, my lord Bishop, do you to-day vaunt " the principles " of the very men whom yesterday you vilipended precisely because their " piinciijlcs " then seemed to yourself so utterly unsatisfactory ? [7] " The fahric of modern Tcxtucd Criticism" (1831-81) oxsts on an insecure basis. I have been guilty of little else than sacrilege, it seems, because I have ventured to send a shower of shot and shell into the flimsy decrees of these three Critics which now you are pleased grandiloquently to designate and describe as " the whole fabric of Criticisin which has been built np within the last fifty years." Permit me to remind you that the " fabric " you speak of, — (confessedly a creation of yesterday,) — rests upon a foundation of sand ; and has been already so formidably assailed, or else so gravely condemned by a suc- cession of famous Critics, that as " a fabric," its very ^ On Iicvlsion, pp. 47-8. 380 CONTRADICTORY ESTIMATES OF [Rkply to existence may be reasonably called in question. Tiscliendorf insists on the general depravity (" universa vitiositas ") of codex B ; on which codex nevertheless Drs. Westcott and Hort chiefly rely, — regarding it as unique in its pre-eminent purity. The same pair of Critics depreciate the Traditional Text as " beyond all question identical with the dominant [Greek] Text of the second ludf of the fourth century : " — whereas, " to bring the sacred text hack to the condition in which it existed during the fourth century," ^ was Lachmann's one object ; the sum and substance of his striving. " The fancy of a Constantinopolitan text, and every inference that has been grounded on its presumed existence," ^ Tregelles declares to have been " swept away at once and for ever," by Scrivener's published Collations. And yet, what else but this is " the fancy," (as already exphdned,) on which Drs. Westcott and Hort have been for thirty years building up their visionary Theory of Textual Criticism ?- — What Griesbach attempted [1774-1805], was denounced [1782- 1805] by C. F. Mattha^i ; — disapproved Ijy Scholz ; — demonstrated to be untenable by Abp. Laurence. Finally, in 1847, the learned J. G. Eeiche, in some Observations prefixed to liis Collations of MSS. in the Paris Library, eloquently and ably exposed the unreasonableness of any theory of ' Recension,' — properly so called f thereby effectu- ^ Scrivener's Introduction,- — p. 423. ^ Ibid. \\ 421. ^ " Non tantum totius Antiquitatis altiim de tali opere siiscepto si- lentium,— sed etiam frequentes Patrum, usque ad quartum seculum viventium, de textu N. T. liberius tractato, impuneque corrupto, deque summa Codicum dissonantia querela), nee non ipsa) corruptiones inde a primis temporibus contiuuo propagata;, — satis sunt documento, neminem opus tarn arduum, scrupulorum plenum, atque invidia; et calumniis obuoxitim, aggressum fuisse ; etiamsi doctiorum Patrum de singulis loois dis])utati(ines ostendant, eos non prorsus rudes in rebus criticis fuisse." — Coda. MSS. N. T. GnEc.ornm &c. nova dcucriptio, et cum tcxlu vuhjo rcceplo Colluiio, S:c. 4to. Guttinga', IS 17. (p. 1.) Br. Ellicott.] RECENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 881 ally anticipating Westcott and Hort's weak imagination of a ' Syrian Text,' while he was demolishing the airy speculations of Griesl)ach and Hug. 'There is no royal road ' (he said) ' to the Criticism of the N. T. : no plain and easy method, at once reposing on a firm foundation, and conducting securely to the wished for goal.''^ .... Scarcely therefore in Germany had the basement-story been laid of that ' fabric of Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years,' and which you superstitiously admire, — when a famous German scholar was heard denouncing the fabric as insecure. He foretold that the ' rcgia via ' of codices B and x would prove a deceit and a snare : which thing, at the end of four-and-thirty years, has punctually come to pass. Seven years after, Lachmann's method was solemnly appealed from by the same J. G. Eeiche : ^ whose words of warning to his countrymen deserve the attention of every thoughtful scholar among ourselves at this day. Of the same general tenor and purport as Eeiche's, are the utter- ances of those giants in Textual Criticism, Vercellone of Eome and Ceriani of Milan. Quite unmistakable is the verdict of our own Scrivener concerning the views of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles, and the results to which their system has severally conducted them. — If Alford adopted the prejudices of his three immediate predecessors, ^ He proceeds : — " Hucusque nemini contigit, nee in. postenim, puto, continget, moniunentorum nostrorum, tanquam totidem testium singu- lorum, ingens agmen ad tres quatuorve, e quibus omnium testimonium pendeat, testes referre ; aut e testium grege inuumero aliquot duces auctoresque secernere, quorum testimonium tam plenum, certum firmum- que sit, ut sine damno ceterorum testimonio careamus." — Ibid. (p. 19.) 2 Commentarius Criticus^ in N. T. (in his Preface to the Ep. to the Hebrews). We are indebted to Canon Cook for calling attention to this. See by all means his L'evisd Text of thr first three Gospels, — pp. 4-8. :)S2 RECENT CRITICISM.— BISHOP [Reply to his authority lias been neutralized l)y the far different teach- ing of one infinitely his superior in judgment and learning, — the present illustrious Bishop of Lincoln. — On the same side with the last named are found the late Philip E. Pusey and Archd. Lee, — Canon Cook and Dr. Field, — the Bishop of S. Andrews and Dr. S. C. Malan. Lastly, at the end of fifty-one years, (viz. in 1881,) Drs. Westcott and Hort have revived Lachmann's unsatisfactory method, — superadding thereto not a few extravagances of their' own. That their views have been received with expressions of the gravest disapprobation, no one will deny. Indispensable to their contention is the grossly improbable hypothesis that the Peschito is to be regarded as the ' Vulgate ' (i.e. the Hevised) Syriac ; Cureton's, as the ' A^etus ' or original Syriac version. And yet, while I write, the Abbe Martin at Paris is giving it as the result of his labours on this su])ject, that Cureton's Version cannot be anything of the sort.^ "Whether Westcott and Hort's theory of a ' Si/rian ' Text has not received an effectual c|uietus, let posterity decide, '\fxepai S' eTrlXocTroi [jidpTvpe. 300, is good enougli for the pur})ose of Collation ! (5) At last you say, — "If theic were reason to suppose tliat tlio Ixcccivcil Text jeprc.s(,'nted verhatim et literatim the text wliich was cnrreut at Antioch in tlic days (»f (Jhrysostoiiij it would t-till bo inipossiblo to regard it as a standard from wliich there was no appeal." ^ ' P. 13. Bp. Ellicott.] concerning THE RECEIVED TEXT. 385 Eeally, my lord Bishop, you must excuse mo if I declare plainly that the more I attend to your critical utterances, the more I am astonished. From the confident style in which you deliver yourself upon such matters, and' especially from your having undertaken to preside over a Eevision of tlie Sacred Text, one would suppose that at some period of your life you must have given the subject a considerable amount" of time and attention. But indeed the foregoing sentence virtually contains two propositions neither of which could possibly have been penned by one even moderately acquainted with the facts of Textual Criticism. For first, (a) You speak of "representing verbatim ct literatim the Text which was current at Antioch in the days of Chryso- stom." Do you then really suppose that there existed at Antioch, at any period between a.d. 354 and a.d. 407, some one definite Text of the N. T. capable of being so represented ? — If you do, pray will you indulge us with the grounds for such an extraordinary supposition ? Your " acquaintance " (Dr. Tregelles) will tell you that such a fancy has long since been swept away " at once and for ever." And secondly, (b) You say that, even if there were reason to suppose that the " Eeceived Text " were such-and-such a thing, — " it would still be impossil)le to regard it as a standard from lohich there was no appeal." But pray, who in his senses,— what sane man in Great Britain, — ever dreamed of regarding the " Eeceived," — aye, or any other known " Tex,t" — as " a standard/rowi which there shall be no appeal " ? Have / ever done so ? Have I ever implied as much ? If I have, show me where. You refer your readers to the following passage in my first Article : — " What precedes admits to some extent of further numerical illustration. It is discovered that, in 111 pages, . . . the serious 2 c 386 THE STANDARD OF COMPARISON IS NOT [Reply to deflections of a from the Textus Ilecejytm aiuoniit in all to only 842 : whereas in c they amount to 1708 : in b, to 2370 ; in n, to 3392 : in D, to 4697. The readings peculiar to A within the same limits are 133: those peculiar to c are 170. But those of b amount to 197 : while n exhibits 443 : and the readings peculiar to D (within the same limits), are no fewer than 1829 .... We submit that these facts are not altogether calculated to inspire confidence in codices b n c d." — p. 14. But, do you really require to have it explained to you that it is entirely to misunderstand the question to object to such a comparison of codices as is found above, (viz. in pages 14 and 17,) on the ground that it was made with the text of Stephanus lying open before me ? Would not the self -same phenomenon have been evolved by collation with anij other text ? If you doubt it, sit down and try the experiment for yourself. Believe me, Eobert Etienne in the XVItli century was not the cause why cod. B in the IVth and cod. D in the Vlth are so widely discordant and divergent from one another : A and c so utterly at variance with both.^ We must have some standard whereby to test, — wherewith to compare, — Manu- scripts. What is more, (give me leave to assure you,) to the end of time it will probably be the practice of scholars to com- pare MSS. of the N. T. with the ' Keceived Text.' The liopeless discrepancies between our five "old uncials," can in no more convenient way be exhibited, than by referring each of them in turn to one and the same common standard. And, — What standard more reasonable and more convenient than the Text which, by the good Providence of God, was universally em])loy(Ml througliout Euroj^e for tlie first 300 years after the invention of printing ? being practically identical with tlie Text which (as you yourself admit) was in popular use at tlie end of three centuries from the date of tlie sacred autographs themselves : in other words, being more tlnin ir>00 years old. 1 Sec above, pp. 12 : 30-3 : 31-5 : 46-7 : 7r. : !i l-(! : 219 : 262 : 289 : 319. Bp. Ellicott.] TIIEllEFORE THAT OP EXCELLENCE. 387 [9] The Rcvicioer vindicates himself against B]). Ellicott' s mis- conceptions. But you are quite determined that I shall mean something essentially different. The Quarterly Reviewer, (you say,) is one who " contends that the Eeceived Text needs but little emendation ; and may he used witJwut emendation as a stayiidard."^ I am, (you say,) one of " those who adopt tlie easy method of making the Eeceived Text a standard."^ My " Criticism," (it seems,) " often rests ultimately upon the notion that it is little else but sacrilege to impugn the tradition of the last three hundred years." ^ (" The last three hundred years :" as if the Traditional Text of the IST. Testament dated from the 25th of Queen Elizabeth !) — I regard the ' Textus Eeceptus ' therefore, according to you, as the Ephe- sians regarded the image of the great goddess Diana ; namely, as a thing which, one fine morning, " fell down from Jupiter." * I mistake the Eeceived Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs, — and erect it into "a standard from which there shall be no appeal," — " a tradition which it is little else Ijut sacrilege to impugn." That is how you state my case and condition : hopelessly confusing the standard of ComjKirison with the standard of Excellence. By this time, however, enough has been said to convince any fair person that you are without warrant in your present contention. Let any candid scholar cast an impartial eye over the preceding three hundred and fifty pages, — open the volume where he will, and read steadily on to the end of any textual discussion, — and then say whether, on the contrary, my criticism does not invariably rest on the principle that the Truth of Scripture is to be sought in that form of the Sacred Text which has the fullest, the loidest, and the most varied attestation.^ Do I not invariably make the consentient 1 P. 40. ^ P. 19. =* P. 4. * Acts xix. 35. '' Supra, pp. 339-41. 2 G 2 388 ANALYSIS OF THE PAMPHLET. [Rkply to voim of Antiquity my standard ? If I do iwt, — if, on the con- trary, I have ever once appealed to the ' Eeceivcd Text,' and made it my standard, — wliy do yon not prove the trntli of yonr allegation by adducing in evidence that one particnhir instance ? instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation, and which can have no other effect but to impose upon tlie ignorant; to mish'ad the unwary; and to prejudice the great Textual question which hopelessly divides you and me ? . . . I trust that at least you will not again confound the standard of Comparison with the standard of Truth. [10] Analysis of contents of B'p. UUicott's pamphlet. You state at page 6, that what you propose to yourself by your pamphlet, is, — " First, to supply accurate information, in a popular foriii, concerning the Greek text of the New Tesf anient : " Secondly, to establish, by means of the information so sup- plied, the soimdness of the principles on which the Eovisers have a(!ted in their choice of readings ; and by consequence, the im- portance of the ' New Greek Text : ' " — [or, as you phrase it atp, 29,] — " to enable the reader to form a fair judgment on the ques- tion of the trustworthiness of the readings adopted l>y the Bevisers." To the former of these endeavours you devote twenty- three pages : (viz. p. 7 to p. 29) : — to the latter, you devote forty-two ; (viz. p. 37 to p. 78). The intervening eight pages are dedicated, — (a) To the coustitutidu of the Revisionist body: and next, (h) To the amount of good faith with which you and your colleagues observed the conditions imposed upon you by the Southern Houses of Convocation. 1 propose to follow you over the gj-onnd in mIu'cIi you li;i\'c thus entrenched yourself, and to drive you out of e\'eiy position in turn. [11] Jlp. Ullicott's account of the ' Textus Receptus.' First then, for your strenuous envlea^■our (i>p. 7-10) to I3r. Ellicott.] THE BISHOP ON THE ' TEXTUS KECEPTUS.' 389 prejudice the question by pouring contempt on the humblest ancestor of tlie Textus Rcccptus — namely, the first edition of Erasmus. You know very well that the ' Textus Receptus ' is not the first edition of Erasmus. Why then do you so describe its origin as to imply that it is ? You ridicule the circumstances under which a certain ancestor of the family first saw the light. You reproduce with e^ident satisfaction a silly witticism of Micliaelis, \az. that, in his judgment, the Evangelium on which Erasmus chiefly relied was not worth tlie two florins which the monks of Basle gave for it. Equally contemptible (according to you) were the copies of the Acts, the Epistles, and tlie Apocalypse which the same scholar employed for the rest of his first edition. Having in this way done your best to blacken a noble house by dilating on the low ebb to which its fortunes were reduced at a critical period of its history, some three centuries and a half ago, — you pause to make your own comment on the spectacle thus exhibited to the eyes of unlearned readers, lest any should fail to draw therefrom the injurious inference which is indispensable for your argmuent : — " We have entered into these details, because wo desire that the general reader should know fully the true pedigree of that printed text of the Greek Testament which has been in common use lor the last three centuries. It will be observed that its documentary origin is not calculated to inspire any great confi- dence. Its parents, as we have seen, wore two or three late manuscripts of little critical value, which accident seems to have brought into the hands of their first editor." — p. 10. Now, your account of the origin of the ' Textus Receptus ' shall be suffered to stand uncontradicted. But the important inference which you intend that inattentive or incompetent readers should draw therefrom, shall be scattered to the winds by the unequivocal testimony of no less distinguished a witness than vourself. Notwithstanding all that has uune 390 THE BISHOFS BORROWED NOTIONS [Ricily to before, you are constrained to confess in the very next ipaije that : — " The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the hulk of the cursive manuscripts. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Eeceived Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus .... That pedigree stretches back to a remote an- tiquity. The first ancestor of the lieceived Text was at least contemporary ivith the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if nut older than any one of them." — pp. 11, 12. By your own showing therefore, tlie Textus Eeceptus is, ' at least,' 1550 years old. Nay, we will have the fact over again, in words which you adopt from p. 92 of Westcott and Hort's Intruduction [see above, p. 257], and clearly make your own : — "The fundamental text of hxte extant Greek MSS. generally is heyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Gra3C0-Syrian Text of the second half of the fourth century." —p. 12. But, if this be so, — (and I am not concerned to dispute your statement in a single particular,) — of what ])o.s,sible significancy can it be to your present contention, tli;it the ancestry of the written Word (like the ancestors ol' the Word incarnate) had at one time declined to the womhous low estate on which you enlarged at first with such evident satisfaction ^ Tliongli the fact be admitted that J()sei)h " the carpenter" was "the husband of Mary, of whom was l)orn Jesus, who is called Christ," — what ])ossiljle inconvenience residts from that circumstance so long as the oidy thing con- tended for lie loyally conceded, — nanioly, dial tlu! descent of Messiah is lineally traceable back to the jiatrianh Aluahain, through I)avid the King? And llie genealogy , — which is " stated in Dr. Horfs oion words :" ^ — viz. " b very far exceeds all other documents in neutrality of text, being in fact always, or nearly always, neutral." (The fact being tliat codex b is demonstrably one of the most corrupt docu- ments in existence.) The posteriority of the (imaginary) " Syrian," to the (imaginary) " Neutral," is insisted upon next in order, as a matter of course : and declared to rest upon three other considerations,— each one of wliicli is found to be pure fable : \dz. (1) On the fable of ' Conflation,' wliich " seems to supply a proof " that Syrian readings are posterior both to Western and to Neutral readings — but, (as I liave elsewhere ^ shown, at considerable length,) most certainly o xiil. 212 e f. Bp. Ellicott.] the revised GREEK. 403 which our language will bear. — Lastly, 'press' and 'crush,' as renderings of avvexovat and airoBXi^ova-L, are inexact and unscholarlike. Xwi'^eLV, (literally ' to encompass ' or ' hem in/) is here to ' throng ' or ' crowd :' a-irodXl^eLv, (literally ' to squeeze,') is here to ' press.' But in fact the words were perfectly well rendered by our Translators of 1611, and ought to have been let alone. — This specimen may suffice, (and it is a very fair specimen,) of what has been your calamitous method of revising the A. V. throughout. So much then for the Eevised English. The fate of the Eevised Greek is even more extraordinary. I proceed to explain myself by instancing what has happened in respect of the Gospel according to S. Luke. {h) Next, — In respect of the Neio Chxck Text. On examining the 836^ Greek Textual corrections which you have introduced into those 1151 verses, I find that at least 356 of them do not affect the English rendering at all. I mean to say that those 356 (supposed) emendations are either incapable of being represented in a Translation, or at least are not represented. Thus, in S. Luke iv. 3, whether etTre he or Ka\ elirev is read : — in ver. 7, whether ifjuov or fxov : — in ver. 8, whether K.vpLov tov %e6v aov TrpoaKWijaeLf;, or Upoa- Kvvi](r€c<; K. rov S. crov ; whether 'l^yaye Se or Kal ijyayev ; whether vl6<; or 6 vl6<; : — in ver. 17, whether tov irpo^j^rov 'Hcraiovor 'H. rov 7rpo(f)/]TOv ; whether ayoi^alo to convey even this short message correctly. In rejwrting the two wcnils epxcofiai (vOdBe, they contrive to make two blunders, b suli.stitutos 8tf/J;^o/L^at for dUpxtof-iai : N, S)8f for (vdiidf, — wliicli latter eccentricity Tischendorf (characteristically) (Iocs not allude to in his note . : . " 1'hese he thy gods, 0 Israel! " Br. Ellicott.] MISTAKEN OFFICIOUSNESS. — S. MARK VI. 11. 409 New Testament, — expressly provided that, whenever the underlying Greek Text was altered, such alteration sJioidd he indicated in the margin. This provision you entirely set at defiance from the very first. You have never indicated in the margin the alterations you introduced into the Greek Text. In fact, you made so many changes, — in other words, you seem to have so entirely lost sight of your pledge and your compact, — that compliance with this condition would have been simply impossible. I see not how your body is to be acquitted of a deliberate breach of faith. (c) Fatal consequences of this mistaken ojiciousness. How serious, in the meantime, the coiiscqucnces have been, they only know wdio have been at the pains to examine your work with close attention. Not only have you, on countless occasions, thrust out words, clauses, entire sentences of genuine Scripture, — but you have been careful that no trace shall survive of the fatal injury whicli you have inflicted. I wonder you were not afraid. Can I be wrong in deeming such a proceeding in a high degree sinful 1 Has not the Spirit pronounced a tremendous doom^ against those who do such things ? Were you not afraid, for instance, to leave out (from S. Mark vi. 11) those solemn words of our Saviour, — • " Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city " ? Surely you will not pretend to tell me that those fifteen precious words, witnessed to as they are by all the knoivn copies hut nine, — by the Old Latin, the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac, the Coptic, the Gothic and the ^Ethiopic Versions, — besides IrenaBus^ and Victor^ of Antioch: — you will not venture to say (will you ?) that words so attested are 1 Eev. xxii. 19. 2 iv. 28, c. 1 (p. 655 = Mass. 265). Note that the reference is not to S. Matt. X. 15. 3 p_ ]_23. 410 MUTILxVTION OF S. MATTHEW V. 44. [Reply to SO evidently a " plain and clear error," as not to deserve even a marginal note to attest to posterity ' that such things were ' ! I say nothing of the witness of the Liturgical usage of the Eastern Church, — which appointed these verses to be read on S. Mark's Day : ^ nor of Theophylact,^ nor of Euthyniius.^ I appeal to the consentient tcdiinony of Catholic antiquity. Find me older witnesses, if you can, tlian the ' Elders ' with whom Irenseus held converse, — men who must have been contemporaries of S. John the Divine : or again, than the old Latin, the Peschito, and the Coptic Versions. Then, for the MSS.,— Have you studied S. Mark's Text to so little purpose as not to have discovered that the six uncials on which you rely are the depositories of an abominably corrupt Recension of the second Gospel ? But you committed a yet more deplorable error when, — without leaving behind ^ther note or comment of any sort, — you obliterated from S. Matth. v. 44, the solemn words which I proceed to underline : — " Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which dcspite- fully use you and persecute you." You relied almost exclu- sively on those two false witnesses, of which you are so superstitiou,sly fond, b and n* : regardless of the testimony of almost all the other Copies besides: — of almost all the Versions : — and of a host of primitive Fathers : for the missing clauses are more or less recognized by Justin Mart. (a.d. 140), — by Theophilus Ant. (a.d. 168), — by Athenagoras (a.u. 177), — by Clemens Alexan. (a.d. 192), — by Origen (a.d. 210),— by the Apostolic Constt. (Ilird cent.), — l)y Eusebius, — by Gregory Nyss., — by Chrysostom, — by Isidorus, ■ — by Nilus, — by Cyril, — by Theodoret, and certain others. Besides, of the Latins, by Tertullian, — by Lucifer, — by » Viz. vi. 7-13. - i. 100 aud 200. ^ In he. Bp. Ellicott.] REVISERS' TREATMENT OF SCRIPTURE. 411 Ambrose, — by Hilary, — by Pacian, — by Augustine, — by Cassian, and many more .... Verily, my lord Bishop, your notion of what constitutes " dearly jjrc/pondcrating Evidence " must be freely admitted to be at once original and peculiar. I will but respectfully declare that if it be indeed one of " the now established Princiijles of Textual Critieism " that a bishop is at liberty to blot out from the Gospel such precepts of the Incarnate Wokd, as these : to reject, on the plea that they are ' plain and clear errors,' sayings attested by twelve primi- tive Fathers, — half of whom lived and died before our two oldest manuscripts (b and n) came into being : — If all this be so indeed, permit me to declare that I would not exchange MY " innocent ignorance " ^ of those ' Principles ' for Yovn guilty knowledge of them, — no, not for anything in the wide world which yonder sun shines down upon. As if what goes before had not Ijeen injury enough, you are found to have adopted the extraordinary practice of en- cumbering your margin with doubts as to the Eeadings which after due deliberation you had, as a body, retahied. Strange perversity! You could not find room to retain a record in your margin of the many genuine words of our Divine Lord, — His Evangelists and Apostles, — to which Copies, Versions, Fathers lend the fullest attestation; but you coidd find room for an insinuation that His 'Agony and bloody sweat,' — together with His ' Prayer on behalf of His murderers,' — may after all prove to be nothing else but spurious accretions to the Text. And yet, the pretence for so regarding either S. Luke xxii. 43, 44, or xxiii. 34, is con- fessedly founded on a minimum of documentary evidence : while, as has been already shown elsewhere,^ an overwhelm- ing amount of ancient testimony renders it certain that not a ' Sec above, pp. 347-9. ^ See above, pp. 79-85. 412 HEADINGS AND MARGINAL REFERENCES. [Reply to particle of doubt attaches to tlie Divine record of either of those stupendous incidents .... Eoom couhl not be found, it seems, for a liint in the margin that such gliastly wounds as those above specified had been inflicted on S. Mark vi. 11 and S. Matth. v. 44 ; ^ but hventy-Uvo lines could be spared against Eom. ix. 5 for the free ventilation of the vile Socinian gloss with which unbelievers in every age have sought to evacuate one of the grandest assertions of our Saviour's Godhead. May I be permitted, without offence, to avow myself utterly astonished ? Even this however is not all. The 7th of the Ivules under which you undertook the work of Eevision, was, that ' the Headings of Chcqjters should he revised.' This Rule you have not only failed to comply with ; but you have actually deprived us of those headings entirely. You have thereby done us a grievous wrong. We demand to have the headings of our chapters back. You have further, without warrant of any sort, deprived us of our Marginal Ecferenccs. These we cannot afford to be without. We claim that they also may be restored. The very best Commentary on Holy Scripture are they, Mitli which I am acquainted. They call for learned and judicious Eevision, certainly ; and they might be profitably enlarged. But they may never be taken away. And now, my lord Bishoj), if I have not succeeded in convincing you that the Eevisers not only " exceeded their In- structions in the course which they adopted with regard to the Greek Text," but even acted in open defiance of their Instructions; did both a vast deal more than they were authorized to do, and also a vast deal less ; — it has certainly been no fault of mine. As for your original contention^ that 1 Sec above, \>\\ -109-411. '^ See above, p. \Wd. Bp. Ellicott.] a SUGGJESTED ALLOCUTION. 413 "nothing can he more unjust" than the charge brought against the Eevisers of having exceeded their Instructions, — I venture to ask, on the contrary, whether anything can be more unreasonable (to give it no harsher name) than the DENIAL ? [16] The calamity of the 'New Chxek Text' traced to its source. There is no difficulty in accounting for the most serious of the foregoing phenomena. They are the inevital)le con- sequence of your having so far succumbed at the outset to Drs. Westcott and Hort as to permit them to communicate bit by bit, under promise of secrecy, their own outrageous Eevised Text of the N. T. to their colleagues, accompanied by a printed disquisition in advocacy of their own peculiar critical views. One would have expected in the Chairman of the Eevising body, that the instant he became aware of any such manceuvre on the part of two of the society, lie would have remonstrated with them somewhat as follows, or at least to this effect : — " This cannot be permitted, Gentlemen, on any terms. We have not been appointed to revise the G^reek Text of the N. T. Our one business is to revise the Autlwrized English Version, — introducing such changes only as are absolutely necessary. The Eesolutions of Convocation are express on this head : and it is my duty to see that they are faithfully carried out. True, that we shall be obliged to avail ourselves of our skill in Textual Criticism — (such as it is) — to correct ' 'plai7i and clear errors ' in the Greek : but there we shall be obliged to stop. I stand pledged to Convocation on this point by my own recent utterances. That two of our members should be solicitous (by a side-wind) to obtain for their own singular Eevision of the Greek Text the sanction of our united body, 414 A SUGGESTED ALLOCUTION. [Reply to — is intelligible enough : but I should consider myself guilty of a breach of Trust were I to lend myself to the promotion of their object. Let me hope tliat I have you all with me when I point out that on every occasion when Dr. Scrivener, on the one hand, (who in matters of Textual Criticism is facile princejjs among us,) and Drs. Westcott and Hort on the other, prove to be irreconcileal)ly opposed in their views, — there the Received Greek Text must by all means be let alone. We have agreed, you will remember, to ' make the current Textus Piec&ptus the standard ; departing from it only when critical or grammatical considerations shotv that it is clearly necessary.' ^ It would be unreasonable, in my judg- ment, that anything in the Eeceived Text should be claimed to be ' a clear and plain error,' on wliich those who represent the two antagonistic schools of Criticism find themselves utterly unable to come to any accord. In the meantime, Drs. West- cott and Hort are earnestly recommended to submit to public inspection that Text which they have been for twenty years elaborating, and which for some time past has been in print. Their labours cannot be too freely ventilated, too searchingly examined, too generally known : but I strongly deprecate their furtive production heo^e. All too eager advocacy of the novel Theory of the two accomplished Professors, I shall think it my duty to discourage, and if need be to repress. A printed volume, enforced by the suasive rhetoric of its two producers, gives to one side an unfair advantage. But indeed I must end as I began, by respectfully inviting Drs. Westcott and Hort to remember that we meet here, oiot in order to fabricate a new Greek Text, but in order to revise our ' Author- ized English Version.' " . . . . Such, in substance, is tlio kind of Allocution which it was to have been expected that the Episcopal Chairman of a Kevising body would address to ' Bp. Ellicott on Jicvision, i\ 30. Bp. Ellicott.] bishop ELLICOTT A PARTIZAN. 415 his fellow-labourers the first time he saw them enter the Jerusalem chamber furnished with the sheets of Westcott and Hort's N. T. ; especially if he was aware that those Eevisers had been individually talked over by the Editors of the work in question, (themselves Eevisionists) ; and per- ceived that the result of the deliberations of the entire body was in consequence, in a fair way of becoming a foregone conclusion, — unless indeed, by earnest remonstrance, he might be yet in time to stave off the threatened danger. But instead of saying anything of this kind, my lord Bishop, it is clear from your pamphlet that you made the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort ijour own Theory ; and their Text, by necessary consequence, in the main your own Text. You lost sight of all the pledges you had given in Convoca- tion. You suddenly became a partizan. Having secured the precious advocacy of Bp. Wilberforce, — whose sentiments on the subject you had before adopted, — you at once threw him and them overboard.'^ .... I can scarcely imagine, in a good man like yourself, conduct more reckless, — more disappoint- ing,— more unintelligible. But I must hasten on. [17] Bp. Ellicott' s defence of the 'New Greek Text,' in sixteen loarticulars, examined. It follows to consider the strangest feature of your pamphlet : viz. those two-and-thirty pages (p. 43 to p. 75) in which, descending from generals, you venture to dispute in sixteen particulars the sentence passed upon your new Greek Text by the Quarterly Bcview. I call this part of your pamphlet " strange," because it displays such singular in- aptitude to appreciate the force of Evidence. But in fact, (sit venia verho) your entire method is quite unworthy of you. Whereas / appeal throughout to Ancient Testimony, you seek ^ The Bp. attended only one meeting of the Revisers. (Newth, p. 125.) 41 G PROrOSED METHOD OF DEALING WITH THE [Reply to to put me down by flauuting in my face Modern Opinion. This, with a great deal of Eeiteration, proves to be literally the sum of your contention. Thus, concerning S. Matth. i. 25, the Quarterly Eeviewer pointed (jut {supra pp. 123-4) that the testimony of b n, together with that of the Vlth-century fragment z, and two cursive copies of bad character, — cannot possibly stand against the testimony of all other copies. You plead in reply that on " those two oldest manuscripts the vast majority of Critics set a high value." Very likely : but for all that, you are I suppose aware that B and N are two of the most corrupt documents in existence ? And, inasmucli as they are confessedly derived from one and the same depraved original, you will I presume allow that they may not be adduced as two independent authorities ? At all events, when I further show you that almost all the Versions, and literally every one of the Fathers who quote the place, (they are eighteen in number,) are against you, — how can you pos- sibly think there is any force or relevancy whatever in your seK-complacent announcement, — "We cannot hesitate to express oiir agreement with Tischendorf and Tregclles who see in these words an interpolation derived from S. Luke. The same appears to have been the judgment of Laehviann." Do you desire that that should pass for argument ? To prolong a discussion of this nature with you, were plainly futile. Instead of repeating what I have already delivered — briefly indeed, yet sufficiently in detail, — I will content myself with humbly imitating what, if I remember rightly, was Nelson's plan when he fought the battle of the Nile. He brought his frigates, one by one, alongside those of the enemy ; — lashed himself to the foe ; — and poured in his broadsides. We remember with what result. The six- teen instances which you have yourself selected, shall now be indicated. First, on every occasion, reference shall be Bp. Elltcott.] 16 PJ.ACIIS DEFENDED IN THE PAMPHLET. 417 made to the place in tlie present volume where my own Cri- ticism on your Greek Text is to be found in detail. Eeaders of your pamphlet are invited next to refer to your own seve- ral attempts at refutation, which shall also be indicated by a reference to your pages. I am quite contented to abide by the verdict of any unprejudiced person of average under- standing and fair education : — (1) Four words omitted in S. Matth. i. 25, — complained of, above, pp. 122-4. — You defend the omission in your pam- phlet at pages 43-4, — falling back on Tiscliendorf, Tregelles and Lachmann, as explained on the opposite page. (p. 416.) (2) The omission of S. Matth. xvii. 21, — proved to be in- defensible, above, pp. 91-2.— The omission is defended by you at pp. 44-5, — on the ground, that although Lachmann retains the verse, and Tregelles only places it in brackets, (Tiscliendorf alone of the three omitting it entirely,) — " it must be remembered that here Lachmann and Tregelles were not acquainted with n*." (3) Tlw omission of S. Matth. xviii. 11, — shown to be unreasonable, above, p. 92. — You defend the omission in your pp. 45-7, — remarking that " here there is even less room for doubt than in the preceding cases. The three critical editors are all agreed in rejecting this verse." (4) Tlie substitution of rjiropet for eTroiei, in S. Mark vi. 20, — strongly complained of, above, pp. 66-9. — Your defence is at pp. 47-8. You urge that " in this case again the Revisers have Tiscliendorf only on their side, and not Lachmann nor Tregelles : but it must be remembered that these critics had not the reading of N* before them," (5) The ihrustinej of irc'ikiv (after diroareXel) into S. Mark xi. 3, — objected against, above, pp. 56-8. — You defend your- 2 E 4XS THE SIXTEEX riiAOES DEFENDED [Uevly to self at pp. 48-9, — and "cannot doubt tliat tlie licvisers were perfectly justified " in doing " as Tischcndorf and Tregelles had done before them," — \\z. invcntinf/ a new Gospel incident. (n) 2'hc mess you lucvc made of S. ]\Iark xi. TCOTT'8 FAMPTILET. 419 (13) The gross fnhrication in S. Luke xxiii, 45, I have exposed, above, at pp. Gl-5. — You defend it, at pp. 59-61. (14) A jilnin omission in S. John xiv. 4, I have pointed out, above, at pp. 72-3. — You defend it, at pp. 61-2 of your pamphlet. (15) ' Titus Justus,' thrust by the Revisers into Acts xviii. 7, I have shown to be an imaginary personage, above, at pp. 53-4. — You stand up for tlie interesting stranger at pp. 62-4 of your pamphlet. Lastly, (16) My discussion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (.wp-rt pp. 98-106), — you contend against from p. 64 to p. 76. — The true reading of this important place, (which is not your reading,) you will find fully discussed from p. 424 to p. 501. I have already stated why I dismiss thirteen out of your sixteen instances in this summary manner. The remaining three I have reserved for further discussion for a reason I proceed to explain. [18] BiJ. Ellieott's claim that the Revisers were guided hg ' the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities' — dis- proved hy an a^jpcal to their handling of S. Luke ii. 14 and of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The selfsame claim, — {namely, of abiding hy the verdict of Catholic Antiquity,) — imulicated, on the contrary, for the ' Quarterly Reviewer.' You labour hard throughout your pamphlet to make it appear that the point at which our methods, (yours and mine,) respectively diverge, — is, that / insist on making my appeal to the ' Textiis Rceeptus ; ' you, to Ancient Authority. But happily, my lord Bishop, this is a point which admits of being brought to issue by an appeal to fact. You shall first 2 E 2 420 THE TEST OF CATHOLIC ANTIQUITY [Reply to be heard : and you are observed to express yourself on behalf of the Eevising l)ody, as follows : "It was impossible to mistake the conviction npon which its Textual decisions were b ised. " It was a conviction tliat (1) The tuue Text was not to be SOUGHT IN THE Textus KECErTus : Or (2) In tlio bulk of the Cursive Manuscripts; or (3) In the Uncials (Aviih or M-ilhont the suppf)rt of the Codex Alexandrinns ;) or (4) In the Fathers who lived after Chrysustom ; or (5) In Chr^sostom himself and his con temporal ies ; but (G) In the consentient testimony of THE MOSr ANCIENT AUTHORITIES." (p. 28.) In such terms you venture to contrast our respective methods. You want the public to believe that / make the * Textus Eeceptus ' " a standard from which there shall he no cqipcal" — entertain " the notion that it is little else than sacri- lege to imjmgn the traditimi of the last 300 years" ^ — and so forth ; — while you and your colleagues act upon the convic- tion that the Truth is rather to be sought " in the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities." I proceed to show you, by appealing to an actnal instance, that neither of these statements is correct. {a) And first, permit me to spenk for myself. Finding that you challenge the Eeceived reading of S. Luke ii. 14, (' good will towards men ') ; — and that, (on the authority of 4 Greek Codices [x A B d], all Latin documents, nnd the Gothic Version,) you contend that ' i^eaee among men in whom he is well jileased ' ought to be read, instead ; — I make my appeal unreservedly to Antiquity.'^ I request the Ancients to adju- dicate between you and me by favouring us with their verdict. Accordingly, I itnd as follows : That, in the Ilnd century, — the Syriac Versions and Irenaius support tlic Bcccired Text : ^ Page 4. ^ See above, pp. 41 to 47. Bi'. Ellicott.] applied TO S. LUKl<] 11. 14. 421 That, ill the Ilird cotitury,— the Coptic Version, —Origcu ill 3 places, and — the Apostolical Constitutions in 2, do the same : That, in the IVth century, {to ivhich centuri/, you are invited to remember, codices b and x belong,) — Eusebius, — Aphraates the Persian, — Titus of Bostra, — each in 2 places : — Didymus in 3 : — Gregory of Nazianzus, — Cyril of Jer., — Epiphanius 2 — and Gregory of Nyssa — 4 times : Ephraem Syr., — Philo bp. of Carpasus, — Chrysostom 9 times,— and an unknown Antiochian contemporary of his : — these eleven, I once more find, are ever// one aijainst you : That, in the Vth century, — besides the Armenian Version, Cyril of Alex, in 14 places : — Theodoret in 4 : — Theodotus of Ancyra in 5 : — Proclus : — Paulus of Emesa : — the Eastern bishops of Ephesus collectively, a.d. 431 ; — and Basil of Seleucia : — these contemporaries of cod. A I find are all c'ujht against you : That, in the Vlth century, — besides the Georgian — and zEtliiopic Versions, — Cosmas, 5 times :— Anastasius Sinait. and Eulogius, {contemijorarics of cod. d,) are all three with tlic Traditional Text : That, in the Vllth and Vlllth centuries, — Andreas of Crete, 2 : — pope Martinus at the Lat. Council :— Cosmas, bp. of Maiume near Gaza,— and his pupil John Damascene; — together with Germanus, abp. of Constantinople : — are again all five 'With tlie Traditional Text. To these 35, must be added 18 other ancient authorities with which the reader has been already made acquainted (viz. at })p. 44-5) : all of which bear the self-same evidence. Thus I have enumerated fifty-three ancient Greek authori- ties,— of which sixteen belong to tlie Ilnd, Ilird, and IVth centuries : and thirty-seven to the Vth, Vlth, Vllth, and Vlllth. 422 'I'JIE TE8T OF (JATIIOLIO ANTIQUnV [Ueily to And nuvN., wliich of us two is found to have made the fairer and the fuller appeal to ' the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities : ' you ov I ? . . . This first. And next, since the foregoing 53 names belong to some of the most famous personages in Ecclesiastical antiquity : are dotted over every region of ancient Christendom : in many instances are far more ancient than codices b and N : — with what show of reason will you pretend that the evidence concerning S. Luke ii. 14 " clearhj i^rcponder cites " in favour of the reading which you and your friends prefer ? I claim at all events to have demonstrated that hotlo your statements are unfounded : viz. (1) That / seek for the truth of Scripture in the ' Textus Eeceptus : ' and (2) That you seek it in ' the consentient testimony of the 'most ancient authorities.' — (Why not frankly avow that you believe the Tiutli of Scripture is to be sought for, and found, in " the consentient testhiiony of ceuliecs x a-nd b " ?) {h) Similarly, concerning the last 12 Verses of S. Mark, which you brand with suspicion and separate off from the rest of the Gospel, in token that, in your opinion, there is " a breach of continuity " (p. 53), (whatever tJutt may mean,) between verses 8 and 9. Your ground for thus disallowing the last 12 Verses of the second Gospel, is, that B andN omit them: — that a few late MSS. exhibit a wretched alternative for them: — and that Eusebius says they were ol'ten away. Now, my methotl on the contrary is to refer all sucii questions to " the con-seuticnt tcMluwiiy of the must ancient authorUies." And I invite you to note the result of such an appeal in the present instance. The Verses in (juestioJi 1 find are recognized, Bi>. Ellicott.] applied TO S. MARK XVI. 0-20. 423 In the Ilnd century, — By the Old Latin — and Syriac Verss. : — by Papias ; — Justin M. ; — Irenreus ; — Tertullian. In the Ilird century, — By the Coptic — and the Sahidic Versions : — by Hippolytus ; — by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage ; — by the ' Acta Pilati ;' — and by the ' Apostolical Constitutions ' in two places. In the IVth century, — By Cureton's Syr. and the Gothic Verss. : — besides the Syriac Table of Canons ; — Eusebius ; — Macarius Magnes ; — Aphraates ; — Didymus ; — the Syriac ' Acts of the Ap. ;' — Epiphanius ;— Leontius ; — ps.-Ephraeni ; — Ambrose ; — Chrysostom ; — Jerome ; — Augustine. In the Vtli century, — Besides the Armenian Vers., — by codices A and c ; — by Leo ; — Nestorius ; — Cyril of Alex- andria ; — Victor of Antioch ; — Patricius ; — Marius Mercator. In the Vlth and Vllth centuries, — Besides cod. d, — the Georgian and ^Ethiopic Verss. :- — by Hesychius ; — Gregentius ; — Prosper ; — Jolm, abp. of Thessalonica ; — and Modestus, bishop of Jerusalem. . . . (See above, pages 3(3-40.) And now, once more, my lord Bishop, — Pray which of us is it, — yoii or /, — who seeks for the truth of Scripture " in the consentient testimony of tlw most ancient authorities " ? On my side there have been adduced in evidence six witnesses of the Ilnd century : — six of the Ilird : — fifteen of the IVth : —nine of the Vth :— eight of the Vlth and Vllth,— (44 in all) : while you are found to rely on codices B and s* (as before), supported by a single ohiter dictum of Eusebius. I have said nothing as yet about tlu wlwlc hody of tlie Co2)ies : nothing about univcrscd, inmiemoricd, Liturgical itse. Do you seriously imagine that the testimony on your side is 'de- cidedly preponderating ' i Above all, will you venture again to exhibit our respective methods as in your pamphlet you have done ? I protest solemnly that, in your pages, 1 recognize neither myself nor you. 424 TREATMENT OF S. MXUK XVI, 9-20. [Reply to Permit me to declare that I hold your disallowance of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 to be the gravest and most damaging of all the many mistakes which you and your friends have committed. " The textual facts," (say you, speaking of the last 12 Verses,) — " have been placed before the reader, because Truth itself demanded it." This (with Canon Cook^) I entirely deny. It is because " the textual facts have " not " been placed before the reader," that I am offended. As usual, you present your readers with a one-sided statement, — a partial, and therefore inadmissible, exhibition of the facts, — facts which, fully stated and fairly explained, would, (as you cannot fail to be aware,) be fatal to your contention. But, I forbear to state so mucli as ojie of them. The evidence has already filled a volume.^ Even if I were to allow that in your marginal note, " the textual facts have been [fully and fairly] placed before the reader," — what possible pretence do you suppose they afford for severing the last 12 A^erses from the rest of S. Mark, in token that they form no part of the genuine Gospel ? . . . This, however, is only by the way. I have proved to you that it is I — not yon — who rest my case on an appeal to Catholic Antiquity : and this is the only thing I am concerned just now to establish. I proceed to contribute something to the Textual Criticism of a famous place in S. Paul's first E]_)istle to Timothy,— on which you have challenged me to a trial of strength. [19] ^^aDD loas manifcstcD in tf)c flcsb*' SlKnVN TO liK THE TKUE KKADING OF 1 TLMOTIIY III. 10. A DISSERTATION. In conclusion, you insist on ripping uj) the discussion concerning 1 Tim. iii. 10. I had already devoted eight pages ' I'ligcs 17, 18. ^ See above, p. 37, note ('). Bp. Ellicott.] dissertation ON 1 TIMOTHY III IG- 425 to this subject.^ You reply in twelve.^ That I may not be thought wanting in courtesy, the present rejoinder shall extend to seventy-six. I propose, without repeating myself, to follow you over the ground you have re-opened. But it will be convenient that I should define at the outset what is precisely the point in dispute between you and me. I presume it to be undeniably this: — That whereas the Easterns from time immemorial, (and we with them, since Tyndale in 1534 gave us our English Version of the IST. T.,) have read the place thus : — (I set the words down in plain English, because the issue admits of being every bit as clearly exhibited in the vernacular, as in Greek : and because I am determined that all who are at the pains to read the present Dissertation shall understand it also :) — Whereas, I say, we have hitherto read the place thus, " Great is the mystery of godliness : — God was mani- fest IN the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, PRExVCHED UNTO THE GeNTILES, BELIEVED ON IN THE WORLD, RECEIVED UP INTO GLORY :" You insist that this is a '' idain and clear error." You contend that there is " dcckledlij prepoiuleratiiuj evidence " for reading instead, " Great is the mystery of godliness, who was mani- fested IN THE FLESH, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT," &C. : WMch contention of yours I hold to be demonstrably incor- rect, and proceed to prove is a complete misconception. {A) Preliminary explanations aiul cautions. But English readers will require to have it explained to them at the outset, that inasmuch as GGOC (God) is invariably ^ ?u-es 98-106. ^ Pages 04-76. 426 DISSERTATION OX THE TRUE [Reply to written ^C in manuscripts, the only difference between the word ' God ' and the word ' wJio ' (oc) consists of two hori- zontal strokes, — one, which distinguishes e from o ; and another similar stroke (above the letters ec) which indicates that a word has been contracted. And further, that it Mas the custom to trace these two horizontal lines so wondrous faintly tliat they sometimes actually elude observation. Throughout cod. A, in fact, the letter e is often scarcely distinguishable from the letter o. It requires also to be explained for the benefit of the same English reader, — (and it will do learned readers no harm to be reminded,) — that " mystcnj " (fivar/jptov) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (09), — " wlio." Such an expression is abhorrent alike to Grammar and to Logic, — is intolerable, in Greek as in English. By consequence, 09 (" v)]io ") is found to have been early ex- changed for 0 (" ivhwh"). From a copy so depraved, the Latin Version was executed in the second century. Accord- ingly, every known copy or quotation ^ of the Latin exhibits " quod." Greek authorities for this reading (0) are few enough. They have been specified already, viz. at page 100. And with this brief statement, the reading in question might have been dismissed, seeing that it has found no patron since Griesbach declared against it. It was however very hotly contended for during the last century, — Sir Isaac Newton and Wetstein Ijeing its most strenuous advocates ; and it would be unfair entirely to lose sight of it now. The two rival readings, however, in 1 Tim. iii, 16, are, — Weoavep(od7) (' GoD 7cas manifested '), on the one hand ; and TO r7]<; euae/Sela^ fj^var/jpiov, 09 (" tJic mystcrij of (jodlincss, v/io"), (111 llie (ilher. These are the two readings, I say, ' The cxccpliuns arc uot wurlli imliviiii; /arc. Bp. Ellicott.] reading OF 1 TIMOTHY III. IG. 427 between whose conflicting claims we are to adjudicate. For I request that it may be loyally admitted at the outset, — • (though it has been conveniently overlooked by the Critics whom you follow,) — that the expression 09 i') Bp. Ellieott invited to state the evidence for reading 6<; in 1 Tim. iii. 16. [a] ' 7'he state of t/ie evidence,' as declared hy Bjh Ellieott. Wlicn last the evidence for this question came before us, I iutnjduced it by inviting a member of the Bevisiug body (Dr. Roberts) to l)e spokesman on behalf of his l)retliren.'* This time, I sliall call upon a more distinguislied, a wliolly unexcej)tional)le witness, viz. yourself, — who are, of course, * iv. G2^ a, — (jiti uppai'uit in carne, j'usti/icatus est in spirUu. ^ Da incarn. Uniij. v. part i. G80de = 7>e recta fide, v. [uirt ii. be, '^ Ibid. (JHl u = ibid. G d e. * I'a^c 'J8. Bp. Ellic!Ott.] evidence CONCERNING 1 TIM. III. 10. 429 greatly in advance of your fellow-Kevisers in respect of critical attainments. The extent of your individual fami- liarity with the subject when (in 1870 namely) you proposed to revise the Greek Text of the N. T. for the Church of England on the solvere- ambulando principle, — may I presume be lawfully inferred from tlie following annotation in your " Critical and Ghrirnmatical Gommciitary on the Pastoral Epistles." I quote from the last Edition of 1869 ; only taking the liberty — (1) To break it up into short paragraphs : and — (2) To give in cxtcnso the proper names which you abbreviate. Thus, instead of " Theod." (which I take leave to point out to you might mean either Theodore of Heraclea or his namesake of Mopsuestia, — either Theodotus the Gnostic or his namesake of Ancyra,) " Euthal.," I write " Theodoret, Euthalius." And now for the external testimony, as you give it, concerning 1 Timothy iii. 16. You inform your readers that,— " The state of the evidence is briefly as follows : — (1) "Os is read with A^ [indisputably ; after minute personal inspection; see note, p. lOi.] c^ [Tischendorf Prol. Cod. Ephraemi, § 7, p. 39.] F Cx N (see below); 17, 73, 181 ; Syr.- riiiloxenian, Coptic, Sahidic, Gothic ; also (os or o) Syriac, Arabic (Erpenius), iEthiopic, Armenian ; C3'ril, Theodorus Mopsuest., Epiphanius, Gelasius, Hieronymus in Esaiam liii. 11. (2) o, with D^ (Claromontanus), Vulgate ; nearly all Latin Fathers. (3) 0eos, with D^ K L ; nearly all MSS. ; Arabic (Polyglott), Slavonic ; Didymus, Chr3'sostom (? see Tregelles, p. 227 note), Theodoret, Euthalius, Damascene, Theophylact, fficumenius, — Ignatius Epkcs. 29, (but very doubtful). A hand of the 12th century has prefixed Be to os, the reading of n ; see Tischendorf edit, major, Plate xvii. of Scrivener's Collation of n, fac- simile (13). On reviewing this evidence, as not only the most important uncial MSS., but all the Versions older than the 7th century are distinctly in favour of a relative, — as 6' seems only a Latin- A'AO THE BISIIOr's STATEMENT OF THE EVIDENCE. [Reply to izing variufion of «?, — and lastly, as os ib the more difficult, tliongh really the more intelligible, reading (llofmann, Schrifth. Vol. I. p. 143), and on every reason more likely to have been changed into 0€os (Macedonins is actually ^aid to have been expelled for making the change, Libcrati Diaconi Breviarium cap. 19) than vice versa, we unhesitatingly decide in favour of os." —{Pastoral Epistles, ed. 1869, pp. 51-2.) Such then is your own statement of tlic evidence on this subject. I proceed to demonstrate to you that you are completely mistaken : — mistaken as to what you say about 09, — mistaken as to 6, — mistaken as to Geo? : — mistaken in respect of Codices, — mistaken in respect of Versions, — mistaken in respect of Fathers. Your slipshod, inaccurate statements, (all obtained at second-hand,) will occasion me, I foresee, a vast deal of trouble ; but I am determined, now^ at last, if the thing be possible, to set this (juestion at rest. And that I may not be misunderstood, I beg to repeat tliat all I propose to myself is to 2^'>^ove — beyond the possil)ility of denial — that the evidence for Beo? (in 1 Timothy iii. IG) vastly iwciKindcratcs over the evidence for either 09 or 6. It will be for you, afterwardf, to come forward and prove that, on the contrary, Be69 is a ' 2^1 a in and elear error : ' so plain and so clear that you and your fellow- Eevisers felt yourselves constrained to thrust it out from the place it has confessedly occupied in the New Testament for at least 1530 years. You are further reminded, my lord Bishop, that unless you do this, you will be considered by the whole Church to have dealt unfaithfully with the Word of God. For, (as I shall remind you in the sequel,) it is yourself who have invited and provoked this enquiry. You devote twelve pages to it (pp. G4 to 76), — " compelled to do so by the Eeviewer." " Moreover " (you announce) " this case is of great impor- tance as an example. It illustrates in a striking manner tlie Bp. Eltjoott] testimony OF CiODEX A. 431 complete isolation of tlio Eeviewcr's position. If he is right all other Critics arc wrong," &c., &c., &c. — Permit me to remind you of the warning — " Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off." [ b ] Testimony of the Manuscripts concerning 1 Tim. iii. 16 : and first as to the testimony of Codex a. You begin then with the Manuscript evidence ; and you venture to assert that OC is " indisputably " the reading of Codex A. I am at a loss to understand how a " professed Critic," — (who must be presumed to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and who is a lover of Truth,) — can permit himself to make such an assertion. Your certainty is based, you say, on " minute personal inspection." In other words, you are so good as to explain that you once tried a coarse experiment,^ by which you succeeded in convincing yourself that the suspected diameter of the o is exactly coincident with the sagitta of an cpsilon (e) which happens to stand on the hack of the page. But do you not see that unless you start with this for your major premiss, — ' Thcta cannot exist on one side of a page if cpsilon stands immediately behind it on the other side,' — your experiment is nihil ad rem, and proves absolutely nothing ? Your " inspection " happens however to be inaccurate be- sides. You performed your experiment unskilfully. A man need only hold up the leaf to the light on a very brilliant day, — as Tregelles, Scrivener, and many besides (including your present correspondent) have done, — to be aware that the sagitta of the cpsilon on fol. 145& does not cover much more than a third of the area of the theta on fol. 145«. Dr. Scrivener further points out that it cuts the circle too ^ Note a,t the end of Bishop Ellicott's Commentary on 1 Timothy. 432 TROOF THAT GGOC IS THE READING [Reply to high to liavG been reasoiialjly mistaken by a careful o])server for the diameter of the thda (e). The experiment wliich you describe with such circumstantial gravity was simply nugatory therefore. How is it, my lord Bishop, that you do not perceive that the way to ascertain the reading of Codex A at 1 Tim. iii. If), is, — (1) To investigate not what is found at the hack of the leaf, but what is written on the front of it ? and (2), Not so much to enquire what can be deciphered of the original writing by the aid of a powerful lens now, as to ascertain what was apparent to the eye of competent observers when the Codex was first brought into this country, viz. 250 years ago ? That Patrick Young, the first custodian and collator of the Codex [1628-1652], read ©C, is certain. — Young communicated the ' various Headings ' of a to Abp. Ussher : — and the latter, prior to 1653, communicated them to Hammond, who clearly knew nothing of OC. — It is plain that ec was the reading seen by Huish — when he sent his collation of the Codex (made, according to Bentley, with great exactness,^) to Brian Walton, wdio published the fifth volume of his Polyglott in 1657. — Bp. Pearson, who was very curious in such matters, says " we find not 09 in any copj" — a sufficient proof how he read the place in 1659. — Bp. Fell, who publislied an edition of the N. T. in 1675, certainly considered Ge the reading of Cod. a. — Mill, who was at work on the Text of the IST. T. from 1677 to 1707, expressly declares that ho saw the remains of 0C in this place.'^ Bentley, who had himself ' Berrinian's MS. Note in the British Museum cojiy of his Disftrrfaiion, — p. 154. Another annotated copy is in the Bodleian. ^ "Certe quidem in cxcmplari Alexandrine nostro, linca ilia transversa quam loquor, adeo exilis ac plane evanida est, ut primo intuitu hand dubitarim ipse scrijitum oC> quod proinde in variantes lectioncs con- jeceram .... Verum posleapcM-lustrato attentius loco, liucohv, qua> priniam acicni fugcrat, ductus qucrsdani ac vestigia satis certa dcprehondi, pra^scrtiin ad partem siuistram, qua^ periphcriam litera^ pertingit," &c. — In loco. Br. Ellicott.] OF TPIE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS, A. 433 (171G) collated the MS. with tlie utmost accuracy (" accura- tissime ipse contuli "), knew nothing of any other reading. — Emphatic testimony on the subject is borne by Wotton in 1718 :— " There can be no doubt " (he says) "that this MS. always exhibited ©C. Of this, ant/ one may easily convince himself inJio vjill be at the pains to examine the place ivith atten- tion."'^— Two years earlier,— (we have it on the testimony of Mr. John Creyk, of S. John's Coll., Cambridge,) — " the old line in the letter e was plainly to be seen."^ — It was " much about the same time," also, (viz. about 1716) that Wetstein acknowledged to the Eev. John Kippax, — " who took it down in writing from his own mouth, — that though the middle stroke of tlic e has been evidently retouched, yet the fine stroke which was originally in the body of tlie e is discover- able at each end of the fuller stroke of the corrector."^ — -And Berriman himself, (who delivered a course of Lectures on the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, in 1737-8,) attests emphatically that he had seen it also. " If therefore " (he adds) " at any time hereafter the old line should become altogether imdiseover- able, tliere will never be just caitse to doubt but that the yenuine, andj original reading of the MS. was ©C : and that the new strokes, added at the top and in the middle liy the corrector were not designed to corrupt and falsify, but to preserve and perpetuate the true reading, which was in danger of being lost by the decay of Time." * — Those memorable words (which I respectfully commend to your notice) were written in A.D. 1741. How you (a.d. 1882), after surveying all this ^ Clem. Rom. ed. Wotton, p. 27. ^ Berriman, pp. l.'>4-5. ^ Ihid. (MS. Note.) Berriman adds other important testimony, p. 156. * Dissertation, p. 156. Berriman refers to the fact that some one in recent times, with a view apparently to establish the actual reading of the place, has clumsily thickened the superior stroke with common black ink, and introduced a rude dot into the uuddle of the 0. There has been no attempt at fraud. Such a line and such a dot could deceive no one. 2 F 434 IT 18 'J'OO LATE, BY 150 YEARS, TO [Reply to accumulated and consistent testimony (borne A.D. 1G28 to a.d. 1741) by eye-witnesses as competent to observe a fact of this kind as yourself ; and fully as deserving of credit, when they solemnly declare what they have seen : — how you, I say, after a survey of this evidence, can gravely sit down and inform the world that " there is no siifflcient evidence that there ivas ever a tiine ivhcn this reading was patent as the reading ivhieh came from the original seribe " (p. 72) : — this passes my com- prehension.— It shall only be added that Bengel, who was a very careful enquirer, had already cited the Codex Alex- andrinus as a witness for ©eo? in 1734 ■} — and that Woide, the learned and conscientious editor of the Codex, declares that so late as 1765 he had seen traces of the Q which twenty years later (viz. in 1785) were visible to him no longer.^ That Wetstein subsequently changed his mind, I am not unaware. He w^as one of those miserable men whose visual organs return a false report to their possessor whenever they are shown a text which witnesses inconveniently to the God- head of Jesus Cueist.^ I know too that Griesbach in 1785 announced himself of Wetstein's opinion. It is suggestive 1 "Quanquam lineola, quze Geo? compendiose scriptuiii ab vs ilis- tiiisuitur, sublesta videtur nonnuUis." — N. T. p. 710. 2 Griesbach in 1785 makes the same report: — "Manibus bominuni iueiite curiosorum ea folii pars qua3 dictum controvcrsvmi continct, adco detrita est, ut nemo mortalium liodie ccrti quidcpiam disccrncre jxissit . . . Non oculos tantum sed digitos etiam adhibuissc videntur, ut primitivam illius loci lectionem eruerent et velut exsculperent." {Syrnb. Crit. i. p. x.) 'I'lic MS. was evidently in precisely the same state when the llcv. J. C. Velthusen (Observations on Various Subjects, pp. 74-87) inspected it in 1773. 3 As C. F. Mattlu-ei [N. T. m. xi. I'rxfat. pp. lii.-iii.] remarks: — "cum de Divinitate Ciiristi agitur, ibi frofecto sui dissimiUor dcprehenditur" Woide instances it as an example of the force of prejudice, that Wetstein "aiiparitionem lineola.1 alii caus;w adscripsisse, quia earn abcsse vulcbat." \_l'rxfat. p. xxxi.] Bp. Ellicott.] dispute THE TESTIMONY OF COD. A. 435 however that ten years before, (N.T. ed. 1775,) he had rested the fact not on the testimony borne by the MS. itself, but on ' the consent of Versions, Copies, and Fathers which exhibit the Alexandrian Eecension.' ^ — Since Griesbach's time, Davidson, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Ellicott have announced their opinion that ©C was never written at 1 Tim. iii. 16 : confessedly only because ec is to them invisible one hundred years after GC has disappeared from sight. The fact remains for all that, that the original reading of a is attested so amply, that no sincere lover of Tiuth can ever hereafter pretend to doubt it. " Omnia testimonia," (my lord Bishop,) " omnemque historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere non licet ; nee mirum est nos ea nunc non discernere, qute, antequam nos Codicem vidissemus, evanuerant."^ The sum of the matter, (as I pointed out to you on a former occasion,^) is this,— That it is too late by 150 years to contend on the negative side of this question. Nay, a famous living Critic (long may he live !) assures us that when his eyes were 20 years younger (Feb. 7, 1861) he actually dis- cerned, still lingering, a faint trace of the diameter of the e which Berriman in 1741 had seen so plainly. " I have examined Codex a at least twenty times within as many years" (wrote Prebendary Scrivener in 1874*), "and .... seeing (as every one must) witli my own eyes, I have always felt convinced that it reads ©c " . . . . For you to assert, in reply to all this mass of positive evidence, that the reading is " indisputably " OC, — and to contend that what makes this indisputable, is the fact that behind part of the thcta (e), [but too high to mislead a skilful oliserver,] an epsilon stands on the reverse side of the page ; — strikes me as bordering inconveniently on the ridiculous. If this be your notion of 1 ' Patet, ut alia raittamus, e consensu Versionum,' &c. — ii. 149. ^ Woide, ihid. ^ Sujn'a, p. 100. ^ Introduction, p. 553. 2 F 2 4:30 COD. A HEADS (00. i,.) GGOC. [Reply to what Joes constitute " sufficient evidence," well may the testimony of so many testes oculati seem to you to lack suffi- ciency. Your notions on these subjects are, I should think, peculiar to yourself. You even fail to see that your state- ment (in Scrivener's words) is " not relevant to the i^int at issuer ^ The plain fact concerning cod. A is this : — That at 1 Tim. iii. 16, two delicate horizontal strokes in GC which were thoroughly patent in 1028, — whicli could be seen plainly down to 1737, — and which were discernible by an expert (Dr. Woide) so late as a.d. 1705,^ — have for the last hundred years entirely disappeared ; which is precisely what Berriman (in 1741) predicted would be the case. More- over, he solemnly warned men against drawing from this circumstance the mistaken inference which yo^i, my lord Bishop, nevertheless insist on drawing, and representing as an " indisputal)le " fact. I have treated so largely of the reading of the Codex Alexandrinus, not because I consider the testimony of a solitary copy, whether uncial or cursive, a matter of much importance, — certainly not the testimony of Codex A, wliich (in defiance of every otlier authority extant) exldbits " the hod// of God " in S. John xix. 40 : — but because yow insist that A is a witness on your side : whereas it is demonstrable. ' Itdrod. 1). 553. * Any one desirous of uudcrstandiuf^ this ([ucstiuii fully, should (besides Berrimau's admirable Dissertation) read Woide's Pnvfatio to his edition of Codex A, pp. xxx. to xxxii. (§ 87).—" Eruut fortasse (luiilani" (he writes in conclusion) "([ui susjiicabuntur, iioiinuHos lianc liueolam (.Uauietraleni in medio 0 vidisse, (^uoniam earn viilcre volebant. Nee negari potest praisuniptarum opinioimm esse vim permagnam. Sed idem etiam Wetstenio, nee imraerito, objici ix)test, cam apparitionem lineolai alii causa) adscripsisse, quia earn abesse volebat. Et eruditissinns placere aliquando, quas vitiosa sunt, scio : sed omnia te.stimonia, om- nenique historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere non licet: nee mirum est nos ea nunc non di.scernero, qua', antociuam nos Codicem vidissemus, evanuerant." Bp. Ellicott.] the case OF CODEX C. 437 (and I claim to have demonstrated,) tliat you cannot honestly do so ; and (I trust) you will never do so any more. [c] Testimony of Codices x and c concerning 1 Tim. iii. 16, That X reads OC is admitted.— Not so Codex c, which the excessive application of chemicals has rendered no longer decipherable in this place. Tischendorf (of course) insists, that the original reading was oc.^ Wetstein and Griesbach (just as we should expect,) avow the same opinion, — Woide, Mill, Weber and Parquoi being just as confident that the original reading was GC. As in the case of cod. A, it is too late by full 100 years to re-open this question. Observable it is that the witnesses yield contradictory evidence. Wet- stein, writing 150 years ago, before the original writing had become so greatly defaced, — (and Wetstein, inasmuch as he collated the MS. for Bentley [1716], must have been thoroughly familiar with its contents,) — only ' thought ' that he read oc ; ' because the delicate horizontal stroke which makes e out of O,' was to him ' not apparent.''^ Woide on the contrary was convinced that GC had been written by the first hand : ' for ' (said he) ' though there exists no vestige of the delicate stroke which out of o makes e, the stroke written above the letters is by the first hand.' What however to Wetstein and to Woide was not apparent, was visible enough to Weber, Wetstein's contemporary. And Tischendorf, so late as 1843, expressed his astonishment that the stroke in question had hitherto escaped the eyes of every one ; having been repeatedly seen by himself.^ He attributes it, (just as we ^ Prolegomena to his ed. of Cod. c, — pp. 39-42. ^ " Os habet codex c, ut puto ; nam lineola ilia tenuis, qua3 ex O facit 0, non apparet." {In loc.) And so Griesbach, Symb. Grit. i. p. viii. (1785). ^ " Quotiescunque locum inspiciebam (inspexi autem per hoc bienuium sajpissime) mihi prorsus apparebat." " Quam [lineolam] miror hucusquo omnium oculos fugisse." \_Prolid)j. God appeared in the Jlcsh^ " &c. Bp. Ellicott.] EEVIEW OF PROGRESS, SO FAR. 455 p. 30 of your pamphlet, you announce it as a " lesson of primary importance, often reiterated but often forgotten, ponder ari dcbcrc testes, 'iuni numerari." You might have added with advantage, — " and oftcncst of all, misunderstood." For are you not aware that, generally speaking, * Number ' constitutes ' Weight ' ? If you have discovered some ' regia via' which renders the general consent of Copies,— the general consent of Versions, — the general consent of Fathers, a consideration of secondary importance, why do you not at once communicate the precious secret to man- kind, and thereby save us all a world of trouble ? You will perhaps propose to fall back on Hort's wild theory of a ' SyrioM Text,' — executed by authority at Antioch somewhere between a.d. 250 and a.d. 350.^ Be it so. Let tliat fable be argued upon as if it were a fact. And what follows ? That at a period antecedent to the date of any exist- ing copy of the Epistle l^efore us, the Church in her corporate capacity declared ©eo? (not 09) to be the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Only one other head of Evidence (the Patristic) remains to be explored ; after which, we shall be able to sum up, and to conclude the present Dissertation. [h] Testimony of tlie Fathers concerning tlie true, reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16 : — Gregory of Nyssa, — Didymus, — Theo- DORET, — John Damascene, — Chrysostom, — Gregory Naz., — Severus of Antioch, — Diodorus of Tarsus. It only remains to ascertain what the Fathers have to say on this subject. And when we turn our eyes in this direc- tion, we are encountered by a mass of evidence which effec- Sec above, pp. 271 to 294. 456 GREf40RY NYSS., DIDYMUS, THEODORET. [Reply to tually closes this discussion. You contended just now as eagerly for the Vth-century Codex a, as if its witness were a point of vital importance to you. But I am prc'])ared to show that Gregory of Nyssa (a full century bef(jre Codex a was produced), in at least 22 places, knew of no other read- ing but 0609.^ Of his weighty testimony you appear to have l)een wholly unaware in 1809, for you did not even mention Gregory l)y name (see p. 429). Since however you now admit that his evidence is unequivocally against you, I am willing to hasten forward, — only supplying you (at foot) with the means of verifying what I have stated above concerning the testimony of this illustrious Father. You are besides aware that Didymus,^ another illustrious witness, is against you ; and that he delivers unquestionable testimony. You are also aware that Tiieodoret,^ in four places, is certainly to be reckoned on the same side : 1 i. 387 a : 551 a : 663 a his.—n. 430 a : 536 c : 581 c : 594 a, 595 b (these two, of the 2nd pagination): 693d [= ii. 265, ed. 1615, from which Tisch. quotes it. The place may be seen in full, supra, p. 101.] — iii. 39 b Us: 67 a b.—^^). (?aZZa?ic?. vi. 518 c : 519 d: 520 b: 526 d : 532 a: 562 b: 566 d : 571a, All but five of these places, I believe, exhibit 6 Getir, — which seenia to have been the reading of this Father. The article is seldom seen in MSS. Ouly four instances of it, — (they will be found distinctly specified below, page 493, note P]),— are known to exist. More places must have been overlooked. Note, that Griesbach only mentions Gregory of Nyssa (whose name Tre<'-elles omits entirely) to remark that he is not to be cited for Geo? ; seeing that, according to him, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is to be read thus : — to ^va-Tijpiov fv (TupKi ecfinvfpadr]. Griesbach borrowed that quotation and tliat blunder from Wetsteiu ; to be blindly followed iu turn by Scholz and Alford. And yet, the words in question are vot the words of Qregory Nyss. at all; but of Apolinaris, against whom Gregory is writing, — as Gregory himself explains. [Antirrh. adv. Apol. apud Galland. vi. 522 d.] '•^ De Trin. p. 83. The testimony is express. ^ i, 92 : iii. 657.— iv. 19, 2'.',. Bp. Ellicott.] CHRYSOSTOM AND GEEOOKY NAZIANZ. 457 And further, that John Damascene^ twice adds his famous evidence to the rest, — and is also against you. Chrysostom^ again, whose testimony you called in ques- tion in 1869, you now admit is another of your opponents. I will not linger over his name therefore, — except to remark, that how you can witness a gathering host of ancient Fathers illustrious as these, without misgiving, passes my compre- hension. Chrysostom is three times a witness. Next come two quotations from Gregory of Nazianzus, — which I observe you treat as "inconclusive." I retain them all the same.^ You are reminded that this most rhetorical of Fathers is seldom more precise in quoting Scripture. And to the same century which Gregory of Nazianzus adorned, is probably to he, referred, — (it cannot possibly lie later than a.d. 350, though it may be a vast deal more ancient,) — the title bestowed, in the way of summary, on that portion of S. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy which is contained between chap. iii. 16 and chap. iv. 7, — viz., Xlepl ^ i. 313 :— ii. 263. * i. 497cde.— viii. 85 e: 86 a.— xi. 605 f: 606 a b d e.— (The first of these places occurs in the Homily de Beato Fhilogonio, which Matthaji in the main [viz. from p. 497, line 20, to the end] edited from an independent source {_Lectt. Mosqq. 1779]. Gallandius [xiv. Append. 141-4] reprints Matthaei's labours). — Concerning this place of Chrysostom (vide supra, jj. 101), Bp. Ellicott says (p. 66), — " The passage which he [the Quarterly Reviewer] does allege, deserves to be placed before our readers in full, as an illustration of the precarious character of patristic evidence. If this passage attests the reading deos in 1 Tim. iii. 16, does it not also attest the reading 6 6e6s in Heb. ii. 16, where no copyist or translator has introduced it ?" ... I can but say, in reply, — •' No, certainly not.' May I be per- mitted to add, that it is to me simply unintelligible how Bp, Ellicott can show himself so plane hospes in this department of sacred Science as to be capable of gravely asking such a very foolish question ? ^ i. 215 a : 685 b. The places may be seen quoted supra, p. 101. 458 THE ' TITT.E.' — SEVERUS, DTODORUS TAES. [Reply to 0Ei'A2 SAPKcoo-eco?. We commonly speak of this as the seventh of the 'Euthcdian ' KecpaXata or chapters : but Euthalius himself declares that those 18 titles were " devised by a certain very wise and pious Father ;" ^ and this particular title (Ylepl 0€iaTTov. Ibid. 5l8h, a: 519 a. ' Apolinaris did not deny that Christ was very God. Ills heresy (like that of Arius) turned upon the nature of the conjunction of the Godhead with the Manhood. Hear Theodoret : — A. 0eof A(iyos o-np/cl tviodfh (ivOpwnov untTiXea-ep Ofov. O. ToiiTo ovv Xt'yeis Otiav e'/x^^X'"" '* ■'^• Kill 7!-«i/u. O, 'Ai/rl "^vx^s ovv 6 Aoyoy ; A. N(u'. Dial. vi. adv. Apol. {02>2>. V. 1080 = Athanas. ii. 525 d.) * Cramer's Cat. in Actus, iii. (>\K It is also met with in tlie Catena on the Acts which J. C. Wolf pubHslied in his Anccdola Urxca, iii. 137-8. The place is quoted above, p. 101'. Br. Ellicott.] Br. ELLICOTT AS A CONTROVERSIALIST. 459 actual words (0eo9 ecj^avepcoOr] iv aapKi), and expressly says .that lie finds them in >S'. Paul's Ujnstlc to Timothy ? ^ How — may I be permitted to ask — would you have a quotation made plainer ? [i] Bp. Ellicott as a controversialist. The case of Euthalius. Forgive me, my lord Bishop, if I declare that the animus you display in conducting the present critical disquisition not only astonishes, but even shocks me. You seem to say, — Non ijcrsuadchis, ctiamsi ])crsuascris. The plainest testimony you reckon doubtful, if it goes against you : an unsatisfactory quotation, if it makes for your side, you roundly declare to be " evidence " which " stands the test of examination." ^ . . . " We have examined his references carefully " (you say). " Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus of Alexandria, Theodoret and John Damascene {who died severally about 394, 396, 457 and 756 A.D.) seem unquestionably to have read ©eo?."^ Excuse me for telling you that this is not the language of a candid enquirer after Truth. Your grudging admission of the un- equivocal evidence borne by these four illustrious Fathers : — your attempt to detract from the importance of their testi- mony by screwing down their date ' to the sticking place : ' — your assertion that the testimony of a fifth Father " is not nnamhiguous : " — your insinuation that the emphatic witness of a sixth may "jJcrhajJS " be inadmissible : — all this kind of thing is not only quite unworthy of a Bishop when he turns disputant, but eftectually indisposes his opponent to receive his argumentation with that respectful deference which else would have been undoubtedly its due. Need I remind you that men do not write their books when they are in artieulo mortis ? Didymus died in A.D. 394, to be ^ Cramer's Cat. in Rom. p. 124. ^ P. G7. ^ p. 65. 460 THE CASE OF EUTHALIUS. [Reply to sure: Imt lie was then 85 years of age. He was therefore born in A.D, 309, and is said to have flourished in 347. How old do you suppose were the sacred codices he had employed till then 1 See you not that sucli testimony as his to the Text of Scrij)ture must in fairness be held to belong to the first quarter of the YVtli century / — is more ancient in short (and infinitely more important) than that of any written codex with which we are acquainted ? Pressed by my " cloud of witnesses," you seek to get rid of tliemi by insulting me. "We pass over" (you say)"'/;rtmcs hroiujht in to sivell the numher, such as Euthalius, — for ivho/n no reference is given."^ Do you then suspect me of the base- ness,— nay, do you mean seriously to impute it to me, — of introducing ' names ' ' to swell the number ' of witnesses on my side ? Do you mean further to insinuate that I i)rudently gave no reference in the case of ' Euthalius,' because I was unable to specify any place wliere his testimony is found ? . . . I should really pause for an answer, but that a trifling cir- cumstance solicits me, which, if it does not entertain the Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol, will certainly entertain every one else who takes the trouble to read these pages. ' Such as Eutludius ' ! You had evidently forgotten wlien you penned that offensive sentence, that Euthalius is one of tlie few Fathers acldueed by yourself^ (but for wliom you 'gave no reference,') in 1869, — when you were setting d(jwn the Patristic evidence in favour of Beo P 'lip(jv. — Concilia, i. 853 a. * Cap. xi. Bp. ellicott.] six other trimitive witnesses. 463 though not in a way to be helpful to us in our present enquiry. I cannot feel surprised at the circumstance. The yet earlier references in the epistles of (1) Igxatius (three in number) are helpful, and may not be overlooked. They are as follows : — 0eoi) avdpcdTrivw^ cjiavepovfjuevov : — iv aapKt prjTos, o aTTepiypaiTTOS, 6 avaWoicoTOs, rj Trrjyr] ttJs C^rjs, to €k tov (pcoTos (pas, 1) ^oicra tov UuTpos elKotv, to aTravyaafiu Tijs do^rjs, 6 vapaK- TTjp TTjs vnotTTacTfas, tvjv avdpaneluv (pvaiv dvaXafxlSdvei. — Ibid. p. 37. ^ P. 153 d. (= Concilia, iii. 264 c d.) 2 H 4lanatio xii. capitwn, as Tischen- dorf supposes. * See how P. E, Puscy characterizes the ' Scholia,' in his rnfuce to voh vi. of his edition, — pp. xii. xiii. '^ Cyril's Greek, (to judge from Mercator's Latin,) must have run some- what as follows: — 'O dfa-nta-ios IlaOXos ofxo'Koyovnevojs /nf'yn cjnjalv etVai to T^s fv Proleg. in N:T.—% 1013. ^ 0pp. (ed. 1645) ii. 447. ^ Concilia, v. 772 a. I quote from Uaniicr's ed. of the Brcviuriam, reprinted Tiy Clallaiidiu!^, xii. 1532. Bp. Ellicott.] MISUNDEKSTOOD BY BISHOP ELLICOTT. 473 ' Quia apparuit in came, justificatus est in spiritu.' He was charged with having turned the Greek monosyllable OC (i.e. 'qui'), by the change of a single letter (Cji) for o) into OJC : i.e. ' ut esset Deus apparuit per carnem.' " Now, that this is a very lame story, all must see. In reciting the passage in Latin, Liberatus himself exhibits neither ' qui,' nor ' quod,' nor ' Deus,' — but ' QUIA apparuit in came.' (The translator of Origen, by the way, does the same thing.^) And yet, Liberatus straightway adds (as the effect of the change) ' ut esset Deus ap2Jaruit per carnem : ' as if that were possible, unless ' Deus ' stood in the text already ! Quite plain in the meantime is it, that, according to Liberatus, ft)9 was the word which Macedonius introduced into 1 Tim. iii. 16. And it is worth observing that the scribe who rendered into Greek Pope Martin I.'s fifth Letter (written on the occasion of the Lateran Council a.d. 649), — having to translate the Pope's quotation from the Vulgate (' quod manifestatus est,') — exhibits &)9 icJiavepcodT] in this place.^ High time it becomes that I should offer it as my opinion that those Critics are right (Cornelius a Lapide [1614] and Cotelerius [1681]) who, reasoning from what Liberatus actually says, shrewdly infer that there must have existed codices in the time of Macedonius which exhibited OC e€OC in this place ; and that tJiis must be the reading to which Liberatus refers.^ Such codices exist still. One, is preserved in the library of the Basilian monks at Crypta Ferrata, ^ iv. 465 c. * Concilia, vi. 28 e [ = iii. 645 c (ed. Harduin) ]. ^ " Ex seqnentibus coUigo quasdam exemplaria tempore Auastasii et Macedonii habuisse 6s Geo? ; ut, mutatione facta os in as, intelli2:eretur ut esset Deus" (Cotelerii, Ucd. Gr. Mon. iii. 663) — " Q. d. Ut hie homo, qui dicitur Jesus, esset et dici posset Deus," &c. (Cornelius, in loc. He declares absolutely " olim legerunt . . . . 6y eeoy.") — All this was noticed long since by Berriman, pp. 243-4. 474 THE LIBRARY AT CRYPTA FERRATA. [Reply to already spoken of at pp. 44G-8 : another, is at Paris. I call them respectively ' Apost. 83 ' and ' Panl 282.' ^ This is new. Enouoh of all this however. Too much in fact. I must hasten on. The entire fable, by whomsoever fabricated, has been treated with well-merited contempt by a succession of learned men ever since the days of Bp. Pearson.^ And altliough during the last century several writers of the unbelieving school (chiefly Socinians^) revived and embellished the silly story, in order if possible to get rid of a text which witnesses inconveniently to the Godhead of Christ, one would have hoped that, in these enlightened days, a Christian Bishop of the same Church which the learned, pious, and judicious <3 ohn Berriman adorned a century and a-half ago, would have been ashamed to rekindle the ancient strife and to swell the Soci- ' 'Apost. 83,' is ^Crypta-Vcrrat. A. /3. iv.' described in tlie Appendix. I owe the information to the learned librarian of Crypta Ferrata, the Hieromonachns A. Rocchi. It is a pleasure to transcribe tlie letter which conveyed information which the writer knew would be acceptable to me : — " Cline Rine Domine. Quod erat in votis, plures loci illius Paulini non modo in nostris codd. lectiones, sed et in his ipsis variationes, adsequutus es. Modo ego operi meo finem imponam, descri])tis prope sexcentis et quinquaginta quinque vel codicibus vel ]\ISS. Tres autem, quos prinium nunc notatos tibi exhibeo, pertinent ad Liturgicorum ordineni. Jam fulici omine tuas prosequere elucubrationes, cautus tantum ne studio et ]al)()rc nimio valetudinem tuam defatiges. Vale. De Tusculano, xi. kal. Maias, an. R. S. mdccclxxxih. Antonius Rocciti, Hieronidnachus liasilianus." For 'Paul 282,' (a bilingual MS. at Paris, known as ' Armenien 9,') I urn indebted to the Abbe Martin, who describes it in his Jntrodndion a la Critique Textuelle du N. T., 1883,— pp. G60-1. See Appendix. ^ Prebendary Scrivener (p. 555) ably closes the list. Any one desirous • of mastering the entire literature of the subject should study the Rev. John Jierriman's interesting and exhaustive Dissertation , — pp. 229-263. ' The nader is invited to read wliat Berriman, (who was engaged on his ' Dissertation ' while Bp. Butler was writing the * Advertisement ' prefixed to \\K^ An'thxpi'' [1736],) has written on this part of the subject, — pp. 120-9, l7;;-]ii8, 231-240, 259-60, 262, ly to for 0e6} ev aapKi, iSoKaidoOr] iu TTvevfiaTt^ — divested of all ' viii. 2141). * Cited at the Council of CP. (a.d. 553). \_Co7icilia, ed. L.ibbe et Cosyart, v. 447 b c=ed. Harduin, iii. 29 c and 82 e.] ^ Concilia, Labbe, v. 449 a, and Harduin, iii. 84 d. ^ Harduin, iii. 32 d. " A Latin translation of the work of Leontius {Contra Nestor, et Lutych.), wherein it is stated that the present place was found in Uh. xiii., may be seen in Gallandius [xii. 6C0-99 : the passage under consideration being given at p. G94 c d] : but Mai \_Script. Vett. vi. 290-312], having discovered iu the Vatican the original text of the excerpts from Theod. Mops., published (from the xiith book of Tlieod. de Jncarnatione) the Greek of the passage [vi. 308]. From this source, Migne \_l'atr. Gr. vol. 66, col. 988] seems to have obtained his quotation. Bp. Em,ioott.] THEODORE OP MOPSUESTIA. 481 preface.^ Those seven words, thus isolated from their con- text, are accordingly printed by Migne as a heading only : — (c) The Syriac translation unmistakably reads, ' Et Apo- stolus ^^.xit,Vere suUiine est hoc mysterium, QUOD,' — omitting r;"}? evcre^€LaANEPn'0H. 483 light. Two of the codices in question are of Calabriau origin.^ A few words more on this sul)ject will he found above, at pages 477 and 478. (^) The only Version which certainly witnesses in favour of 09, is the Gothic : which, (as explained at pp. 452-3) ex- hibits a hopelessly obscure construction, and rests on the evidence of a single copy in the Ambrosian library. (7) Of Patristic testimonies (to fiva-r^piov ' o? e^avepdiOr]) there exists not one. That EriPHANius [a.d. 360] professiny to transcribe from an early treatise of his own, in which i^avepoidr] stands without a nominative, should prefix oav€p(o6'r] in 1 Tim. iii. 1 6. Entirely different, — in respect of variety, of quantity and 486 EVIDENCE OF THE ANCIENTS [Rei'ly to of quality, — from wliat has gone before, is the witness of Antiquity to the Eeceived Text of 1 Timothy iii. 16 : viz. koI OfioXoyovfievoj'i fjueya earl to Tr]<; evae^eia'i fJLvcnrjpLOv' 0eo'5 h^avepciidrj ev aapKL, k.t.X I proceed to rehearse it in outline, having already dwelt in detail upon so much of it as has been made the subject of controversy.-* The reader is fully aware^ that I do not propose to make argumentative use of the first six names in the ensuing enumeration. To those names, [enclosed within square brackets,] I forbear even to assign numbers ; not as entertaining doubt concern- ing the testimony they furnish, but as resolved to build exclusively on facts which are incontrovertible. Yet is it but reasonable that the whole of the Evidence for 0eo? i(f)av€p(od7] should be placed before the reader : and he is in my judgment a wondrous unfair disputant who can atten- tively survey the evidence which I thus forego, without secretly acknowledging that its combined Weight is consi- derable ; while its Antiquity makes it a serious question whether it is not simply contrary to reason that it should be dispensed with in an enquiry like the present. [(a) In the 1st century then, — it has been already shown (at page 463) that Ignatius (a.d. DO) probably recognized the reading before us in three places.] [{h) The brief but significant testiniuny of Baknauas will be found in the same page.] [(c) In the llnd century,— lIirroLYTUS [a.d. 190] (as was explained at page 463,) twice comes forward as a witness on the same side.] [(d) In the Ilird century, — Gregory Tiiaumaturgus, (if * Viz. from \\ iol to p. 178. * Sec abovi', ]'[\ KiL!-] Bp. Ellicott.] for 0EO'2 in 1 TIM. III. 16. 487 it be indeed he) has been already shown (at page 4G3) pro- bably to testify to the reading @eo9 iipavepcoOrj.'l 1(e) To the same century is referred the work entitled CoNSTiTUTiONES Apostolic^ : which seems also to witness to the same reading. See above, p. 463.] [(/) Basil the Gkeat also [a.d. 355], as will be found explained at page 464, must be held to witness to ©eo? €(f)avepco6r] in 1 Tim. iii. 16 : though his testimony, like that of the five names which go before, being open to cavil, is not here insisted on.] — And now to get upon teira firma. (1) To the Ilird century then [a.d. 264 ?], belongs the Epistle ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandkia, (spoken of above, at pages 461-2,) in which 1 Tim. iii. 16 is distinctly quoted in the same way. (2) In the next, (the IVth) century, unequivocal Patristic witnesses to 0eod\aiov, or chapter, of St. Paul's First Epistle to Timothy which con- tains chap. iii. 16, — (indeed, which heghis with it,) viz. Uepl Oeui^ aapK'ji(Teai Zo;**^* (' heauty-of-fear ') are found without the addition of 1oi_^ (' God'). It is noteworthy, that on the thirteenth occasion (1 Tim. ii. 2), where the Pescliito reads 'fear of God,' the Harkleian reads 'fear' only. On the other hand, the Harkleian margin of Acts iii, 12 expressly states that evae^eta is the Greek equivalent of 1A1l»jw> Zo'pfcSa* (' Icauty-of-fcar '). This effectually esta- blishes the fact that the author of the Harkleian recension found ©eo9 in his Greek manuscript of 1 Tim. iii. 16." ^ 1 Viz. Acts iii. 12 ; 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8 ; vi. 3, 5, 6 ; 2 Tim. iii. 5 ; Tit. i. 1 ; 2 Pet. i. 3, 6, 7 ; iii. 11. * From the friend whose help is ackuovvledged at foot of pp. 450, 481. 400 EVIDENCE OF THE ANCIENTS. [Reply to (17) In the Vlllth century, John Damascene [a.d. 730] pre-eminently claims attention. He is twice a witness for Beo? i(f)av€pco6r], as was explained at page 457. (18) Next to be mentioned is Epiphanius, deacon of Catana ; whose memorable testimony at the 2nd Nicene Council [a.d. 787] has been set down above, at page 475. And then, (10) Theodorus Studita of CP. [a.d. 700], — concerning whom, see above, at pages 475-6. (20), (21) a7id (22). To the IXth century belong the three remaining uncial codices, which alike witness to ©eo? i(f)av€p(o6r] iv aapKi : — viz. the ' CoD. MOSQUENSIS ' (k) ; the ' Cod. Angelicus ' (l) ; and the ' Cod. roRPiiYiiiANUS ' (p). (23) The Slavonic Version belongs to the same century, and exhibits the same reading. (24) Hither also may be referred several ancient Scholia which all witness to 0eo9 €erlin. It must suffice, for the rest, to refer to the Notes at fo(^t of lip. 401-2 and 477-8. APPENDIX OF SACRED CODICES. 523 Additional Codices of S. Paul's Epistles. 282. (=Act. 240. Apoc. 109). Paris, 'Arme'nien 9' (olim Reg. 2247). memhr. foil. 323. This bilingual codex (Greek and Armenian) is described by the Abbe' Martin in his Introduction a la Critique Textiwlle du N. T. (isSS), p. 6G0-1. See above, p. 474, note (1). An Italian version is added from the Cath. Epp. onwards. Mut. at beginning (Acts iv. 14) and end. (For its extraordinary reading at 1 Tim. iii. IG, see above, p. 473-4.) 283. (= Act. 241). Messina P K Z (i.e. 127) [xii.], cliart. foil. 224. Mnt. begins at Acts viii. 2, — ends at Hebr. viii. 2 ; also a leaf is lost between foil. 90 and 91. Has virodd. and Commentary of an unknown author. 284. (= Act. 195). Modena, ii. a. 13 [xiii. ?], Mid. at the end. 285. (= Act. 196), Modena, ii. c. 4 [xi. or xii.]. Sig. Ant. Cappelli (sub- librarian) sends me a tracing of 1 Tim. iii. 16. 28(3. Ambrosian library, e. 2, inf. the Catena of Nicetas. 'Textus particu- latim pr£emittit Commentariis.' 287. Ambrosian a. 241, inf., ' est Catena ejusdem auctoris ex initio, sed noa complectitur totum opiis.' 288. Ambrosian d. 541 inf. [x. or xi.] memhr. Text and Catena on all S. Paul's Epp. ' Textus continuatus. Catena in marginibus.' It was brought from Thessaly. 289. Milan c. 295 inf. [x. or xi.] memhr. with a Catena. ' Textus continu- atus. Catena in marginibus.' 290. (= Evan. 622. Act. 242. Apoc. 110). Crypta Ferrata, A. a. i. [xiii. or xiv.] foil. 386 : cliart. a beautiful codex of the entire N. T. described by Rocchi, p. 1-2. Menolog. 3Iut. 1 Nov. to 16 Dec. 291. (= Act. 243). Ciypta Ferrata, A. 0. i. [x.] foil. 139 : in two columns, — letters almost uncial. Particularly described l>y Rocchi, pp. 15, 16. Zacagni used this codex when writing about Euthalius. 3Iut., beginning with the argument for 1 S. John and ending with 2 Tim. t292. (= Act. 244). Crypta Ferrata, A. 0. iii. [xi. or xii.]. Memhr., foil. 172. in 2 columns beautifully illuminated : described by Rocchi, p. 18-9. Zacagni employed this codex while treating of Euthalius. Menolog. 293. (= Act. 245). Crypta Ferrata, A. )3. vi. [xi.], foil. 193. 3Iut. at the end, Described by Rocchi, p. 22-3. 294. (= Act. 246). Vat. 1208. Abbate Cozzi-Luzi confirms Berriman's account [p. 98-9] of the splendour of this codex. It is written in gold letters, and is said to have belonged lo Carlotta, Queen of Jerusalem, Cyprus, and Armenia, who died at Rome a.d. 1487, and probably gave the book to Pope Innocent VIII., whose arms are printed at the beginning. It contains etfigies of S. Luke, S. James, S. Peter, S. John, S. Jude, S. Paul. 295. (= Act 247). Palatino-Vat. 38 [xi.] memhr. foil. 35. Berriman (p. 100) says it is of quarto size, and refers it to the ixth cent. 296. Barberini iv. 85 (olim 19), dated a.d. 1324. For my knowledge of this codex I am entirely indebted to Berriman, who says that it contains ' the arguments and marginal scholia written ' (p. 102). 524 AITENDIX (^F SACKED CODICES. 297. Barberini, vi. 1'3 (olim 229), membr. [xi.] foil. 195: contains S. Paul's 14 Ei)p. This codex also was known to Berrinian, who relates (p. 102), that it is furnished ' witli the old mar<;inal scholia.' 298. (= Act. 248), Berlin (Hamilton: N" C25 in the English printed catalogue, where it is erroneously described as a ' Lectionarium.') It contains Acts, Cath. Epp. and S. Paul, — as Dr. C. de Boor informs me. 299. (= Act. 249), Berlin, 4to. 40 [xiii.] : same contents as the preceding. 300. (= Act. 250), Berlin, 4to. 43 [xi.], same contents as the preceding, but commences with the Psalms. 301. (= Act. 251), Berlin, 4to. 57 [xiv.], chart. Same contents as Paul 298. 302. (= Evan. 642. Act. 252.) Berlin, Svo. 9 [xi.], probably once contained all the N. T. It now begins witli S. Luke xxiv. 53, and is riiut. after 1 Tliess. 303. Milan, n. 272 mf. " Excerpti loci." 304. (= Act. 253) Vat. 3G9 [xiv.] foil. 226, chart. 305. Vat. 549, mcmhr. [xii.] foil. 380. S. Paul's Epistles, \\itli Thcophylact's Commentary. 306. Vat. 550, menihr. [xii.] foil. 290 ; contains Romans with Comm. of Chrysostom. 307. Vat. 551, memhr. [x.] foil. 283. A large codex, containing some of S. Paul's Epp. with Comm. of Chrysostom. 308. Vat. 552, memhr. [xi.] foil. 155. Contains Hebrews with Comm. of Chrysostom. 309. Vat. 582, memhr. [xiv.] foil. 146. S. Paul's Epistles with Comm. of Chrysostom. 310. Vat. 646 [xiv.], foil. 250 : 'cum supplcmenlis.' Chart. S. Paul's Epp. with Comm. of Theophylact and Euthymius. Pars i. et n. 311. (= Evan. 671). Vat. 647. C/mr<. foil. 338 [xv.]. S. Paul's Epistles and the Gospels, with Theophylact's Commentary. 312. Vat. 648, written a.d. 1232, at Jerusalem, by Simeon, ' qui et Saba dicitur :' foil. 338, chart. S. Paul's Epistles, with Comm. of Theo- phylact. 313. (= Act. 239). Vat. 652, chart, [xv.] foil. 105. The Acts and Epistles with Commentary. See the Preface to Tiieophylact, ed. 1758, vol. iii. p. v.-viii., also 'Acts 289' in Scrivener's 3rd. edit. (p. 263). 314. Vat. 692, memln: [xii.] foil. 93, mut. Corinthians, Oalatians, Epiiesians, with Commentary. 315. Vat. 1222, chart, [xvi.] foil. 437. S. Paul's Epp. with Theophylact's Comm. 316. (= Act. 255). Vat. 1654, memhr. [x. or xi.], foil. 211. Arts and Epistles of S. Paul with Chrysostom's Comm. 317. Vat. 1656, m^mbr. [xii.], foil. 182. Hebrews with Conim. of Chryso- stom, folio. 318. Vat. 1659, memhr. [xi.] foil. 414. S. Paul's Epp. wilh Comm. of Chrysostom. 319. Vat. 1971 (Basil 10) memhr. [x.] foil. 247. 'EwiaTuKal twv a.TTurrrSXwi' avy Tols Tov EvOaKiov. 320. Vat. 2055 (Basil 91), mcmhr. [x.] foil. 292. S. Paul's Epp. wilh Comm. of Chrysoston]. APPENDIX OF SACKED CODICES. 525 321. Vat. 20G5 (Basil 101), [x.] memhr. foil. 358. Romans witli Conitn. of Chrysostom. 322. (=Act. 256) Vat. 2099 (Basil 138) memhr. foil. 120 [x.]. Note that though numbered for the Acts, this code only contains eVio-ToAat i5' Kal KadoAiKoi, avv tols a-rnxniicreai XeLTovpyiKaTs wepl tSjv Tjiu.epwi' eV als A€KTe'oi. 323. Vat. 2180 [xv.] foil. 294, chart. With Comm. of Theophylact. 324. Alexand. Vat. 4 [x.] foil. 256, memhr. ' Optimaj notae.' Eonians witli Comm. of Chrysostom, Xoy . k^'. ' Fuit monasterii dicti rod UepifiAewTov.' 325. (=Evan. 698. Apoc. 117). Alexand. Vat. 6. c/iar^. foil. 33G [xvi.], a large codex. The Gospels with Comm. of Nicetas : S. Paul's Epp. with Comm. of Tlieophylact : Apocalypse witli an anonymous Comm. 326. Vat. Ottob. 74 [xv.] foil. 291, chart. Romans with Thexloret's Comm. 327. Palatino-Vat. 10 [x.] memhr. foil. 268. S. Paul's Epp. witli a Patristic Commentary. ' Felkman aduotat.' 328. Palatino-Vat. 204 [x.] foil. 181, cum additamentis. With the interpre- tation of CEcumenius. 329. Palatino-Vat. 325 [x.] memhr. foil. 163, mut. Inter alia adest eU iirim. irphs TiiJ.66eov o/LiLAuat Tiufs XpvffoffTSixov. 330. Palatino-Vat. 423 [xii.], partly chart. Codex miscell. habet eiricrroAwv irphs KoAaaaaus koI @ecraa\oviK£7s TreptKOiras ffvv rfj kpfx-qviia. 331. Angelic, t. 8, 6 [xii.] foil. 326. S. Paul's Epp. with Comm. of Chrysostom. 332. (= Act. 259). Barberini iii. 36 {ollm 22): memhr. foil. 328 [«(]• I"ter alia i-Knofji.ou Ke(pa\. rSiv Xlpd^eoov koI iwL(TTo\u>v tSjv ay. airoffTdXwv. 333. (= Act. 260). Barberini iii. 10 (olim 259) chart, foil. 296 [xiv.]. Excerpta eV Upd^. (f. 1.^)2): 'laKci^ov (f. 159): nerpou (f. 162): 'lo>dvv. (f. 165): 'Iov5. (f. 166): irphs Pce/j.. (f. 167): irphs Kop. (f. 179): irphs KoA. (fol. 189) : irphs Qtffff. (f. 193) : irphs Tifx. a (def. inliu.). 334. Barb. v. 38 (^olim 30) [xi.] foil. 219, mut. Hebrews with Comm. of Chrysostom. 335. Vallicell. f. [xv.], chart, miscell. Inter alia, us ras iiriaroAas ruiv 'AiroffToXwi' i^Tiyriffiis rives. 336. (= Act. 261), Casanatensis, G. 11, 6. — Note, that though numbered for ' Acts,' it contains only the Catholic Epp. and those of S. Paul with a Catena. 337. Ottob. 328. [All I know as yet of this and of the next codex is that 6e6s is read in both at 1 Tim. iii. 16]. 338. Borg. f. vi. 16. [See note on the preceding.] Additional copies of the ' Apostolus.' 82. Messina nr (i.e. 83) foil. 331, 8vo. Perfect. 83. Crypta Ferrata, A. /3. iv. [x.] memhr. foil. 139, Praxapostolus. Rocchi gives an interesting account of this codex, pp. 19-20. It seems to be an adaptation of the liturgical use of C P. to the requirements of the Basilian monks in the Calabrian Churcli. This particular codex is mut. in the beginning and at the end. (For its extraordinary reading at 1 Tim. iii. 16, see above, p. 473-4). 520 APPENDIX OF SACRED CODICES. 84. Crypta Ferrata, A. $. v. [xi.], memhr. foil. 245, a most beautiful codex. Rocchi describes it carefully, pp. 20-2. At the end of the Mennlngy is some liturgical matter. 'Patet Menologium esse merum a.Tr6ypacpov alicujus Menologii CPtani, in usum. si velis, forte redact! Ecclcsiao Eossauensis in Calabria.' A suggestive remark follows that from this source ' rituum rubricaruraque magnum scgetcm colligi posse, nee non Commemorationem Sanctorum mirum sane numerum, quas in aliis Menologiis vix invenies.' 85. Crypta Ferrata A. j3. vii. [xi.] memhr. foil. C4, Praxapostolns. This codex and the next exhibit hs ((pavepiidrj in 1 Tim. iii. Ifi. Tiie Menology is r.iut. after 17 Dec. 8G Crypta Ferrata A. fi. viii. [xii. or xiii.") fragments of foil. 127. mrmhr. Praxapostolns. (See the pieceding.) Interestingly described by Rocchi, p. 23-4. 87. Crypta Ferrata A. /3. ix. [xii ], foil. 104, memhr. Praxapostolns. Interestingly described by Rocchi, p. 24-5. The Menology is unfortu- nately defective after 9tli November. 88. Crypta Ferrata, A. )3. x. [xiii.?) memhr. 16 fragmentary leaves. 'Vcre lamentanda est qun3 Iniic Eclogadio calamitas evenit' (says the learned Rocchi, p. 25), ' quoniam ex ejus residuis, multa Sanctorum nomina reperics qure alibi frustra quresieris.' 80. Crypta Ferrata A. /3. xi. [xi.] memhr. foil. 291, mid., written in two columns. The Menology is defective after 12 June, and elsewhere. Described by Rocchi, p. 26. 90. (= Evst. 322) Crypta Ferrata, A. jS. ii. [xi.] memhr. foil. 259, wMth many excerpts from the Fathers, fully described by Rocchi, p. 17-8, frag- mentary and imperfect. 91. (= Evst. 823) Crypta Ferrata, A. 5. ii. [x.] memhr. foil. 155, a singularly full lectionary. Described by Rocchi, p. 38-40. 92. (= Evst. 325) Crypta Ferrata, A. 5. iv. [xiii.] memhr. foil. 257, a beautiful and interesting codex, ' Calligrapho Joanne Rossanensi Hiero- monaclio Crypta^ferratfe' : fully described by Rocchi, p. 40-3. Like many other in the same collection, it is a palimpsest. 93. (= Evst. 327) Crypta Ferrata, A. 5. vi. [xiii.] memhr. foil. 37, mnf. at beginning and end, and otherwise much injured : described by Rocchi, p. 45-6. 04. (= Evst. 328) Crypta Ferratu, A. 5. ix. [xii.'], mrmhr. foil. 117, m%if. at beginning and end. 95. (= Evst. 331) Crypta Ferrata, A. 5. xx. [xii.] memhr. foil. 21, a mere fragment. (Rocchi, p. 51.) 96. (=Evst. 337) Crypta Ferrata, A. S. xxiv. A collection of fragments. (Rocchi, p. 53.) 97. (= Evst. 339) Crypta Ferrata, r. /3. ii. [xi.] memhr. foil. 151, elaborately described by Rocchi, p. 244-9. This codex once belonged tii Thoniasius. 98. (= Evst. 340) Crypta Ferrata, r. 0 iii. [xiv.]. memhr. foil. 201. Goar used this codex: described by Rocchi, p. 240-51. 99. (= lOvst. 341) Crypta Ferrata, r. /8. vi. [xiii. or xiv.J, memhr. foil. 101 : described by Rocchi, p. 255-7. APPENDIX OF SACRED CODICES. 527 100. (= Evst. 344) CryptiX Ferratn, r. 0. ix. [xvi.], memhr. fcill. 95, mut. at liegiiming and end, and much injured. 101. (= Evst. B40) Crypta Ferrata, r. j3. xii. [xiv.], memhr. foil. 98. mut. at beginninp; and end. 102. (= Evst. 347) Crypta Ferrata, r. 0. xiii. [xiii.] memhr. foil. 188: written by John of Eossano, Hieromonachus of Cryptaferrata, described by Rocchi, p. 265-7. 103. C~ Evst. 349) Crypta Ferrata, r. /8. xv. [xi. to xiv.] memhr. foil. 41. — Described p. 268-9. 101. (=Evst. 350) Crypta Ferrata, r. 0. xvii. [xvi.]. Chart, foil. 269. Described, p. 269-70. 105. (- Evst. 351), Crypta Ferrata, r. 0. xviii. [xiv.] chart, foil. 54. 106. (= Evst. 352) Crypta Ferrata, r. 0. xix. [xvi.] chart, foil. 195, described p. 271. 107. (- Evst. 353) Crypta Ferrata, r. 0. xxiii. [xvii.], memhr. foil. 75,— the work of Basilius Falasca, Hieromonachus, and head of the monastery, A.D. 1641,— described p. 273-4. 108. (= Evst. 354) Crypta Ferrata, r. 0. xxiv. [xvi.] chart, foil. 302,— the work of Lucas Felix, head of the monastery ; described, p. 274-5. 109. (= Evst. 356) Crypta Ferrata, r. 0. xxxviii. [xvii.]. chart, foil. 91, the work of ' Romaniis Vasselli ' and 'Michael Lodolinus.' 110. (= Evst. 357) Crypta Ferrata, r. 0. xiii. [xvi.] chart, foil. 344. 111. (= Evst. 35S) Crypta Ferrata, A. /3. xxii. [xviii.] chart, foil. 77,— described foil. 365-6. 112. (—Evst. 312) Messina, memhr. in 8vo. foil. 60 [xiii.], — 'fragmcntum parvi momenti.' 113. Syracuse ('Semiuario') chart, foil. 219, mut. given by the Cav. Lan- dolina. 114. (= Evan. 155) Alex. Vat. 115. [I have led Scrivener into error by assigning this number (A post. 115) to 'Vat. 2068 (Basil 107).' See above, p. 495, note (1). I did not advert to the fact that ' Basil 107 ' had already been numbered ' Apost. 49.'] 116. Vat. 368 (Praxapostolus) [xiii.] foil. 136, memhr. 117. (= Evst. 381) Vat. 774 [xiii.], foil. 160, memhr. 118. (= Evst. 387) Vat. 2012 (Basil 51), foil. 211 [xv.] chart. 119. Vat. 2116 (Basil 155) [xiii.] foil. 111. 120. Alexand. Vat. 11 (Praxapostolus), [xiv.] memhr. foil. 169. 121. (= Evst. 395) Alexand. Vat. 59 [xii.] foil. 137. 122. Alexand. Vat. 70, a.d. 1544, foil. IS: "in fronte pronunciatio Grsaca Latinis Uteris descripta." 123. (= Evst. 400) Palatino-Vat. 241 [xv.] chart, foil. 149. 124. (= Evst. 410) Barb. iii. 129 {oUm 234) chart, [xiv.] foil. 189. 125. Barb. iv. 11 (oUm 193), a.d. 1566, chart, foil. 158, Praxapostolus. 126. Barb. iv. 60 {olim 116) [xi] foil. 322, a fine codex with menologium, Praxapostolus. 127. Barb. iv. 84 (oZm 117) [xiii.] foil. 185, with menologium. Mut, 528 APPENDIX OF SACRED CODICES. 128. Varis, lira . Grcrlc, I'ii, memhi: [xiii. or xiv.], a huge folio of Liturgical Miscellanies, consisting of hetween G and 900 unnumbered leaves. (At the (ra/3^. wpb twv (pwTccv, line 11, 0t (cpa.) Communicated by the Abbe' Martin. Postscript (Nov. 1883.) It will be found stated at p. 495 (line 10 from the bottom) that the Codices (of ' Paul ' and ' Apost.') which exhibit ©eos ecf)avepw97] amount in all to 289. From this sum (for the reason already assigned above), one must be deducted, viz., 'Apost. 115.' On the other hand, 8 copies of ' Paul ' (communicated by the Abbate Cozza-Luzi) are to be added : viz. Vat. 64G (Paul 310): 647 (Paul 311): 1971 (Paul 319). Palat. Vat. 10 (Paul 327): 204 (Paul 328). Casanat. G. 11, 16 (Paul 336). Ottoh. 328 (Paul 337). Borg. r. vi. 16 (Paul 338). So that no less than 260 out of 262 cursive copies of St. Paul's Epistle, — [not 252 out of 254, as stated in p. 495 (line 21 from the bottom)], — arc found to witness to the Eeading here contended for. The enumera- tion of Codices at page 494 is therefore to be continued as follows :— 310, 311, 319, 327, 328, 336, 337, 338. To the foregoing are also to be added 4 copies of the 'Apostolus,' viz. Vat. 2116 (Apost. 119). Palat. Vat. 241 (Apost. 123). Barb. iv. 11 [olim 193] (Apost. 125). Paris, Beg. Gr. 13 (Apost. 128). From all which, it appears that, (including copies of tlio 'Apostolus,') tub codices which are known to witness to eebc 'ect)ANErU)eH in l Tim. iii. 16, amount [289 — 14-8-f4) TO exactly three hundred. 529 INDEX I. of Texts of Scripture, — quoted, discussed, or only referred to in this volume. — Note, that an asterisk (*) distinguishes references to the Greek Text from references to the English Translation (f). — Where either the Beading of the Original, or the English Translation is largely discussed, the sign is doubled (** or ff)- PAGE Genesis ii. 4 . . 119 10 . . . . 180 „ iii. 7 . . . . 180 „ V. 1 . . . . 119 „ xviii. 14 . . . 183 Exodus X. 21-23 . . 61 Leviticus iv. 3 . 183 Deut. xxxiv. 1-12 . . 48 Judges iv. 13 . . . 2 Sam. vii. 2, 3 . . . 181 192 1 Kings viii. 17, 18 192 1 Chron. xvii. 1, 2 . 192 2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11 201 Job xxxviii. 2 . . . 235 Psalms xxxiii. 18 . 185 xlv. 6 . . 182 „ Ixxxiii. 9 181 Isaiah xiv. 15 . . . 56 „ Ivii. 15 . . . 185 „ liii. 9 . . . 467 Jeremiah xv. 9 . 64 Amos viii, 9 ... 64 Zechariah xi. 12 150 Apocrypha — Baruch iii. 38 37] S. Matt. i. (genealogy) . 1 . . . 3, 7, 10, 12 . 18 119-22t**, i „ 21 ... ] 22 ... . „ 23 . . . [01 11 !04- L65- 177* 167t L9-21t 186t , 224t , 184t 173t 186 „ 25 123-4**t, 3 11*, 416 315*, *, 417 PAGE S. Matt. ii. 1 156t „ 2 155t 4 156t 5 173t 6, 7 156t 9 155t 11, 12, 13 ... 15Dt „ 15 155t „ 16 I46t 17 156t „ 22 167t 23 . 156t, 157t, 184t „ iii. 5 184t 6 175t „ 10 164t „ 15 193t 16 175t „ iv. 3 511t „ 11 193t „ 13, 15 .... 186 „ 18 184t 18, 20, 21 . . . 180t „ V. 15 141t „ 22 . 141 1, 180t, 317*, 358-61** „ 23 161t 37 214t 39 ... 129t, 214t „ 40 193t „ 44 . , 410-1**, 412 ,, vi. 8 317* 12 163t 12, 14, 15 . . . 193t ,, 13 . . 105, 311*, 316* 2 M 530 INDEX I. S.Matt.vi.29 „ 30 „ vii. 4 9 „ 28 „ viii. 3 4 13 19 2 3 5 6 9 17 X.18 23 33 IX 9 21 35 „ xi. 11 23 29 „ xii. 24, 27 29 „ 38 „ 40 43 V 47 „ xiii. 3 „ 19, 38 32 „ 35 36 „ xiv. 2 2, 3, 13 15, 22, 23 „ 22 „ 30 , „ 31 „ XV. 14 „ 32, 39 „ xvi. 2, 3 7 12 PAGE . 167t . 167t . 193t . 168t . 199t . 153t . 259 . Silt . 316* . 183t . 32 . 33 . 32 . 259 . 141t . 148t . 183t . 148t 33 . 108* . 201t . 511t . 317* 128t, 166t 54-50**, 217* . 317* . 317* 143t, 168t . 204t . 128t . 164t 311*, 315* . 164t . I5'4t . 214t . 164t . 316* .195tt . 141t 68 . 195t . 154t 71*, 317* , 153t . 361 . 195t 105, 311*, 316* . 159t . 199t S. Matt. xvi. 17 21 xvii. 15 20 21 24 25 27 xviii. 6 11 17 xix. 17 XX. 15 20 21 34 xxi. 1- 2 8 28 31 xxii. 9 33 xxiii. 35 xxiv. 3 XXV. 18, 39 46 xxvi. 3 7 15 22 24 36 48 53 69 74 xxvii. 34 37 45 46 49 50 60 61 181 317* 205tt . . . 130*t, 317* 91-2**, 206**, 217t, 311*, 317*, 417 . . . 176*t, 317* . . . 147t, 150 146t . . . 128t, 147t ISlt 92**, 311*, 315*, 417 164t 143t 105, 139*t.217, 316* 168t . . . 193t, 512t 512t 153t 3 . . . . 57 154t . . . 59, 61, 145t 178t 316* 141t 199t 316* 178t 27 . . . . 148t 167t 207t 143t 200tt . . . 149-150tt 128t 173t . . . 182t, 210* 203t 168t 183t 154 315* 87 . . . . 61, 64 159t . 33-4*, 309*. 315* 193t . . . 162t, 198tt 88 INDEX I. 531 S. Matt, xxvii. 61, 64, GQ „ sxviii. 1 2 19 20 S. Mark i. 1 9 . 13 , 16 . 16, 18, 18 . 22 . 23 . 27 . 28 . 44 . . 1- 11 21 22 19 12 14, 16 27 . 29 W. 13 29 36 V. 31 36 43 vi. 11 14, 16 16 . 17 . 20 . 66 22 . 24, 25 27 . 29 . 30, 32 33 . 36, 45 27 . 31 . 33, 35, &c. 132 PAGE . . 198t . . 198t . . 162t 174t, 316* . . 182t **, 135, 316* . . 204t 174t, 175t . . 165t . . 184t . . 180t 193t, 194t . . 199t . , 172t 105, 139t . . 316* . . 259 . 30-33** . . 259 139*t, 148t . . 148t . . 141t . . 316* . . 143t . .139*t . . 170t . . 178t 145t, 195t . . 402* 139*t, 316* . . 511* 118, 137-8**, 409-10**, 412* 68 . 70 68 315*, 417 68, 315* -69 147t 167t 68 258* 195t 194t 179t 315* 180t 511t S. Mark viii. 9 195t 23 143t „ 26 259* ix. 1 316* „ 18, 20, 22, 26 . . 205t „ 23 . . . 139*t, 217* „ 23, 24, 29 . . 69-71* 38 260* „ 39 169t „ 42 181 44, 46 . . . . 510 49 260* „ X. 17-31 . . 326-31** 21 . . . 217*, 510* „ 35, 37 . . . . 512* „ 44, 46 . . . . 105 „ xi. 1-6 .... 57 „ 3 . 56-58**, 217*, 417 4 182t „ 6 193t „ 8 . 58-61**, 418, 439* „ 26 217* „ xii. 37 146t „ 42 183t „ xiii. 19 160t „ 32 210** „ xiv. 3 . .200tt, 184-5tt* „ 6 193t „ 8 185 „ 11 150 „ 30 71** „ 30, 68, 72 . . . 316* „ 32 182t „ 50 194t „ 65 139* „ 68 . . . 141t, 316* „ 72 316* „ XV. 8 . . . 139*, 191t „ 31 167t „ 33 61 „ 39 ... . 71-2** „ 47 89 „ xvi. 9-20 33, 36-40**, 47-9**, 51*, 281-4*, 311*, 317*, 418,419,422-4**, 519* „ 17, 20 . . . . 204t „ 19 470 S. Luke i. 15 . . . ISOf, 204t 2 M 2 532 INDEX I. S. Luke i. 2G 37 42 51 78 ii. 9 12 PAGE . 316* , 183t .139*t . 172t . 179t . 144t . 203t 14 41-7**,51, 139t,316*, 340-1**, 418, 419, 420-2**, 519* 29 . . 178t 33 . . 161t 38 . 144t , iii. 3 . 184t 9 . 164t 20 . 68 22 .115** , iv. 1 . . 218-219*t 3 . . 403*t, 51 It 7, 8, 17 , 18, 21, 23, 27,3 5 . . .403*t 29 . , . 129t, 403t* 32 . . . . 199t 38, 4r 5 . . . .404*t 39 . . . . . 144 44 . . . 315*, 404*t V. 2 . . . . . ISOf 4 . . . 141t, 162t 5 . . . . . 159t 9 . . . 128t, 352 13 . . . . . 153t 18, 19 ... 32 20 . ... 32 21 . . . . 33 36 . . . . 139t 37 . . . . 148t 39 . ... 110 vi. 1 (SevT.) 73-5**, 311*, 316* 1 (^oSou 182 ava$ds l'^" av air ecr CO f 1*5 Anastasius (Imp.) . . • .472-3 Ancient Authority, sec ' Ellicott.' PAGT? ' Ancoratus ' 427 Andrewes, Bp 500 Antioch 385, 391 ' Antiochian,' see ' Syrian.' 'Antiquity'. 333 dj'TlO'TTJTe 129 Anziani (Dr.) .... 445, 492 Aorist 158-60, 162 aneXirl^ovres 146 acpLfvai 193-5 Apolinaris 456, 458 Apollonides 323-4 OiTTOKvilV 195 a,iro(TTo\oiva'yyiKia. . . . 448 'Apostolus' 446-8, 476-8,482,491. See the Appendix. Aram (in S. Matt, i.) . . . 186 Argument e silentio . . . 469 Armenian, see Version. Article, the 164-5 Articles (Three) in the ' Quarterly Review,' their history pref. ix-xiv &pTos 179 apxoii 180 Asaph (in S. Matt, i.) . . .186-7 Asclepiades 323-4 'Ask' (alreTf) 171-3 ' Assassins ' 147 Assimilation. . . .32,65-69 , proofs of . . . 66 arevlffavTe^ 129 'Attraction' 351-2 av\r]Tai 148 Authority, (ancient) see 'Ellicott.' avros 165 542 INDEX III. ' B,' see ' Vaticanus.' B and N (codd.), sinister resem- blance 12 B and X 12, 255-7, 315-20, 333, 357, 361, 365, 408, 410 Bandinel (Dr.) 445 ' Baptist ' Revisers .... 504-5 Baptismal Renunciation , . 215 Basil to Amphilochius . , . 210 Basilides 29 Beckett, Sir Edmund . . 38, 222 Belsheim, Dr. J. , 444, 453, 493 Bengel (J. A.) . . . . 246, 500 Bentley, Dr. R. . . 432, 467, 499 Berlin (see ' De Boor ') . . 492, 493 Berriman, Dr. J. 432 433, 446, 468, 474, 480, 500 Bethesda 5 Beveridge (Bp.) , . . 351, 500 Beyer (Dr.) 477 Bezaj, cod. (D) 11-7,77-9, 117, 264-5 Birch (Andreas) . 246, 383, 467 Blunders 149, 150, 180, 181 ;— 172, 176, 177, &c. Bois (John) 228 'Bondmaid' 196 'Boon' 217 'Bowls' 200 'Branch' 184 Broughton (Hugh) .... 513 Bull (Bp.) 212, 500 •C,' see 'Ephraemi.' Caius (A.D. 175) on the Text .323-4 Cambridge, Codex (D), see Bez£e. * Greek Text ' Fref. xxviii Capper (S. Herbert), Esq. . . 492 Cappilli (Sig.) 491-2 Carob tree 181 Castan (M.) 477 Castiglione 452 Catalogue of Crypta Ferrata . 447 Cedron 181 Ceriani (Dr.) 381, 452, 477, 491-2-3. See the Appendix. Changes (licentious) . 127, 403-7 'Charity' 201-2 Xttipioi/ 182 Chronicle of Convocation . . 507 'Church Quarterli/ ' {IS82) I'rcf. xvi ' Church Quart crhj: (1883) Pref. xvi- XX., sxiv-vii. Citations, see ' Fathers.' Clemens, Alex. . . 326-7, 327-31 Codd. B— K— A— C — D 11-17, .30, 108, 249, 262, 269-71 F and G . . . . 438^3 Paul 73 444 181 444-5 new, see the Appendix. Collation of MSS. . .125, 246-7 ; with the Received Text 249-50,262 Complutensian .... 391 'Conflate readings'. . . 258-65 ' Conflation ' examined . 258-65, 285 ' Congregationalist ' Revisers .504-5 Conjectural emendation . .351-7 Consent of copies (see ' Fathers') 454—5 ' Conversnntllms' . . . , 176 Cook, (Canon) 204-5, 214, 234, 372, 381, 470, 502 Cornelius a Lapide .... 473 Corruptions in the N. T. . .334—5 Cotelerius 473 Coxe (Rev. H. 0.) . 306, 445, 491 Cozza-Luzi (A bbate) 447,477,491-2-3 see the Appendix. Cranbrook, Viscount. . page v-viii Creyk (John) 433 'Crib' 238 Cross, title on 85-8 C7'ux criticonim, the ... 98 Crypta Ferrata . , 447, 473-4, 478, 521 ' D,' see ' Bezre.' SaifiSviov 179 Darkness 62-4 Dartige (M.) 493 Dated codices 292 56 167-8 Deane (Rev. H.) . 450, 481, 489 De Boor (Dr. C.) . . . .492-3 Definite, see Article. Delicate distinction. . . . 402 Demoniacal possession . . . 20(5 Denis (M.) 493 Derry (Bp. of), see Alexander. Design 56-65 5iVT€p6Trf>OOTOy 73 INDEX III. 543 'Devil' 214-6 Sid ... . 170, 173-4, see vw6 Dialogue (supposed) 320-8, 328-42 Diatessaron, see ' Tatian.' StSaaKaAla 199 SiSdcTKaAos 179 SiSaxv 199 Sifpx<')fJ^ai ...... 407 Dionysius Alex 461-2 AtdffKovpoi 147 Dissertation on 1 Tim. ill. 16 Pref. xxi-iv, 424-501 Divination. See ' Verifying faculty.' ' Doctrine ' extirpated . . . 199 Suv\os 179 Svva/xis 204 Dublin (Abp. of), see Trench. ^interrogative 168-9 Ebionite Gospel 116 Ecclesiastical Tradition . . . 495 Eclipse 63-5 Editions of Fathers. . . . 121 (tyvwv 159 Egyptian, see Version. eiSe for jSe 140 ejKfj 359-61 fl-Kftv 511-2 efs 183 iKKiiTTOVTOS 63-5 iKafiov 139 kXKr)vi(ni 149 Ellicott (Bp. of Gloucester), on the ' old uncials ' . 14-i5 on the A. V. . . 112, 368 on ' Revision' xlii, 112, 124, 126, 226-8, 368 on ' Marginal Readings ' 136-7 on ' Textus Receptus ' 383-8, 389-91 • on 1 Tim. iii. 16 . 428-31 on 2 Tim. iii. 16 . . 209 on Textual Criticism • 234 on ' innocent Ignorance ' 349-50 on the Greek Text . 369, 509 on ' Euthalius ' . .460-1 his jaunty proposal . 216 his Pamphlet Fref. xx-xxii, 369 seq. Ellicott, his critical knowledge 370, 376,385,430,457,459-61, 471-2, Dedication p. viii his requirement antici- pated .... 371,397 his method of procedure 372-4, 419-24, 459-61 method of his Reviewer 375- 383, 496-7, 517, Pref. xxiv-vii appeals to Modern Opi- nion, instead of to An- cient Authority 376-8,415-6, 438-9, 483-5, 514-5 follows Dr. Hort 391-8, 455, 517-8 complains of Injustice 399, 400-13 suggested Allocution 413-5 his defence of the ' New Greek Text,' examined 415- 9, 419-24 i/xfiar €11(1)1/ 140 fv, its different renderings . .171-2 iv dAiy(f> 151-2 English idiom . . 154-5, 158-75 icpai/epiie-n 427, 468 itpiardvai 144 Ephraemi cod. (C) . . 11-17, 325 'Epileptic ' 205-6 iiriirecruiv ...... 145 Epiphanius 427 iiriCTTacra 144 rjiropei [see Scrivener, ed. 3, pp. 581-2] 66-9 Errors (plain and clear) 3, 4, 105, 148, 172, 216, 222-3, 228, 348, 400-1, 430, 496, 512 Escher (Dr.) 493 iffKOTiffdy] 61 ((TTriaav 150 ' Eternal ' 207 Eternity 208 Ethiopic, see ' Version.' Eudocia 465 ' Euraquilo ' 176 evpediicreTat 356 Euripides (papyrus of) . . .321-2 ' Euroclydon ' 176 Euthalius .... 429,460-1 544 INDEX in. Eutherins 427 eitdews 153-4 Euthymius Zigabenus. SrclNDKX II. ' Everlasting ' 207 'Evil One' 214-6 i^eAdovaaf 402 l|o5os 184 Exodus 184 E.xternal evidence .... 19-20 ' F ' and ' G ' (codd.) ... 257 ' Factor of Genealogy ' . . . 256 Farrar, Canon (now Archd.) Pref. xv Fathers . 121, 125-6, sec Index II. Fell (Bp.) 432 Field (Dr.) 146, 148, 163, 177, 180, 382 Florence, ace ' Anziani.' Flute-players Forstemann (Dr.) . Future sense • Gabelentz and Loebe Gandell (Professor) Gardiani (Sig.) . yeyevvvfj.fvoi Gelasius of Cyzicus 479, see 'Genealogical Evidence' yiveais and yivvi)(Tis . yfvvrjOeis .... ytvos Geographical distribution tristic Testimony Gifford (Dr.) . . . yivdlCTKilS . 148 441, 493 163-4 452 184 492 347 Index II. . 253 119-22 . 347 . 142 of Pa- 45, 1.34 . 214 . 149 Gloucester (Bp. of), sec ' EUicott.' yXwffcrSKOfxov 201 ' (tOD blessed for ever ' ! . . 211 Gorresio (Sig.) 492 Gospel incident 194-5 (the Ebionite) . . . 116 of the Hebrews ... 29 Gothic, sec Version. ' Graeco-Syrian, see ' Syrian.' ' Great priest ' 1 82 Green, Rev. T. S 499 Gregory (Dr. C. R.) . . . 477 Gregory Naz. Griosbach (J. J.) 380, 456, 482, 483 Hall, lip 500 Hammond (Dr.) . . . 432, .500 Headings of the Chapters . 223. 412 PACK Hellenistic Greek . . . .182-4 See ' Septuagint.' Henderson (Dr.) .... 500 Heracleon 29 Hermophilus 323—4 Herodotus 65 Hesychius 29,163 llila.Ty on fxvKos ovikSs. . . 281 Hincmar, Abp. of Rheims . . 472 Hoerning (Dr.) 453 ' Holy Ghost ' 204 Hort, Dr. 37, 135, 182, 211, 248, 394, (sec Westcott and Hort). hypothesis and system, see reverse of Title-page. — his ' Introduction ' analyzed . . 246-69 'strong preference 'for codd. B and N 252, 269- 271, 298-305, 307-8, 312-14 • • mistaken estimate of B and X . . 315-20 divining and verify- ing faculty 253,290,291, 307-8 — imaginary history of the Traditional Greek Te.xt 27 1-88, 296-8 antagonism with Pa- tristic Antiquity 283-5, 298-300 fatal dilemma . . 292-3 Reiteration . . . 306 — ultimate appeal to his own individual mind . . . .307-8 ' Art of Conjectural Emendation' . .351-7 absurd Textual hypo- thesis . . . .293-4 intellectual peculiar- ity 362 — method of editing the Greek Text . . 363 Text of the N. T. . 364-5 often forsaken by Dr. Westcott . . . 352 Hug (J, L.) 381 INDEX III. 545 Huish (Ales.) 432 Idiom, see ' English.' lepehs (o fiiyas) 182 Imperfect tense . . . .161 Incident (unsuspected) . . .194-5 ' Independent ' Reviewers . .504-5 ' Innocent ignorance ' of the Keviewer. . . . 347-9,411 Inspiration 208 ' Instructions,' see ' Revisers.' Instrumentality (ideas of) . . 173 Internal Evidence .... 253 Interpreters, (modern) . . . 211 ' Intrinsic probability '. . .251-2 Jacobson (Dr. W.) Bp. of Chester 37 Jechouias (in Matt, i.) . . . 186 Jerome 73, 427, 449 'Jesus' 184 'Joanes' 181 John (S.) and S. Mark . . 185 Jona(sonof) 181-2 Josephus 52 Kai ...... . 169-70 — its force 209 Kal TTcDs 170 Kaye (Bp.) on Clemens Al. . 336 KeSpoDV 181 KevefiPaTevccv 356 . . 181 . . 181 . . 433 Keparia .... Kidron .... Kippax (Rev. John) Kishon 181 KKTffWV 181 Knowledge of Christ not limited 210 Kpd^as 71-2 Lachmaun's Text 21, 242-3, 246, 270, 380-1 Lagarde (P. A. de) .... 493 Analccta Syr. 481 9 493 380 58-61 201 Latin Version . Laubmaun (Dr.) Lawrence (Abp.) ' Layers of leaves ' , * Lecythus ' . Lee (Archd.) on Inspiration 208, 230, 382 Leontins Byzantinus 480, see Index II. Liberatus of Carthage . . .471-3 Licentious, see ' Changes.' Lightfoot (Dr.) Bp. of Durham 145, 498, Pref. xsxi. Limitation of our Saviour's knowledge 210 Lincoln (Bp. of), sec Wordsworth. \idos /j.v\ik6s 181 Lloyd (Bp.) ed. of N. T. . . . Prcf. xvii-ix, 16 Lord's Prayer . . . 34-6, 214-6 'Love' 201-2 Lucian 29 Luke (Gospel according to S.) 16, 34-5, 75-91, 249, 403-7 ' Lunaticus ' 205-6 Macedonius . . . 103, 470-5, 489 Mai (Card.) 121 Malan (Dr. S. C.) 67, 120, 123, 124, 348, 356, 382, 451, 453-4 ManichoBan depravation. . . 220 'Maranatha' 180 Marcion 29, 34-5, 61 Margin 3-6, 33, 115, 130, 131, 137, 175, 236-7 Marginal References . . 223, 412 Marius Mercator . . . 468, Mark (Gospel according to S.) 30, 262 collation of 15 verses 327-31 last Twelve Verses 36-7, 39-10, 48, 49, 51, Ded. vii, Pref. xxiii and S. John .... 185 Martin (Abbe) . 382, 446, 474, 477, 478, 492, 528 Martin I. (Pope) . . . 421, 473 Massmann (H. F.) . . . . 453 Matrauga (Papas Filippo) . 477,492, see the Appendix, p. 522-3 Matthffii (C. F.) 246 Scholia 348, 380, 427, 434, 465, 468 Matthew (S.) chap. i. (Greek) 119-24, 186 (English) 156- 7, 186 Medial agency 173 Melita and Melitene . . .177-8 Menander 361 Merivale (Dean) .... 230 Messina, see ' Matranga ' : and p. 523 jxla 183 2 N 54(j IXDKX HI. Middletou (Bj).). . . Jliluii (siv ' Cei-iani ') . VAOK 1(55,209 452, 477, 491-2-3 Mill (Dr. John) . 245, 383, 432, 437, 472, 500 on co(.i. D 13 (Dr. W. H.) .... 354 Milligun (Dr.) 39,48 'Jliraole' 202-4 lxvT]y.e7ov 197-9 Moberly (Dr.) Bp. of S;ilisbury lOG, 228-9 ^Icideiia, sec 'Caiipilli "; and ji. 52.i Modern Interpreters Ojiiuion, sec ' 411 licott. IXOVO-yiVQS @ius 18-: Wdiitfaucon 121 ' Moreh ' ISO Moiier (Sir Robert) . . . 492 ixuipi 180 jj-vKos 6vik6s 181 Mutilation G9-93 Mystical interjtretation . . 185 vdpSov ntcTTiKTis . . . .184-5 Nazareth 184 ' Necessity ' of Itevision 127, 160, 223, 228 Needless eiianges 87-8, 224-5 ; 97, 224-5, 399, 40.3-7 viKpoiis iyeipfTf . . . . 108 Nemesis of superstition . . 350 ♦Netser' 184 ' Neutral ' readings . . 271-2,357 ' .^Jew Knglish Version ' . .225-6 ' New Greek Text ■ . . 130,224-5 Newth (Dr.) 37-9, 109, 126, 369, 502 Newton (Sir Isaac) . 420, 480, 500 Nilus Kossanensis .... 447 Nineteen changes in 34 words . 401 Nominative rejjeated . . . 165 ' Non-Alexandrian ' readings . 357 * Non-Alexandrian I're-Syrian * 357 Nonsensical rendering . . . 218 * Non-Western ' 357-8 Notes in the margin . . . 175 Numerals in MSS 52-3 ' Number of the Beast ' . . 135 <5 iiv 4v rij} ovpavif .... 1 3.'! Occupation (Kight of) .] 199-206 TAGK woe 139 'Olivet' 184 Ollivant (Bp.) 146 Omission, intentional . . .69-93 vvos 181 ' Or ' not meant by ^ . . .168-9 0])inion, (modern) sec ' Ellicott.' Origen, as a textual critic . . 292 '6s 165 OS and fleo'j, in MSS. . . 99-105 OTi for on 14f» ' Otiuin Norviccnsc,' sec 'Field.' ovTuis 145 iratSiaKT] 195-6 TraAii' 57 I'ahner (Archd.) ... 49, 126 Papyrus 321-2 Trapa^w 178 irapaKkricts 190 Paralytic borne of four . . 30-3 Paris cod., sec ' Ephraemi.' • , see * Wescher,' ' Martin.' Parquoi (M) 437 Particles (Greek) .... 166 ndca ypa(f>'/i 208-9 trdaas Tas iififpas . . . .152 Trdcrxa, t^ 353 Paul '17,' '73,' '181' . . .443-8 (S.), Codd 493-4 New Codd., see the Appendix. Pearson (Bp.) .212, 432, 471, 500 I'eckover (Alex.), Esq. . . . 493 Penerino (Sig.) 492 Perfect (English) . . . 158-60 (Greek) .... 163 TTtpix^pos 184 Perowne, (Dean) . . Frcf. xxx Perverted sense 218-9 ' Phaseolus vulgaris' . . . 181 Phavoi'inus 140 Pliotius 467 (pidA-n 200 'I'istic nard ' 184 'Plain and clear,' sec 'Errors.' TrAeTcTTos ox^os 145 ]Miii)erfect sense of Aorist . . 162 ]\mdcr(iri dchent testes . . . 455 TTovripov, {cLTrh rod) . . . .214-6 Possession (Demoniacal) . . 2li6 INDEX m. 547 I'AGK Possession (right of) . . 199-2()(j Powles (Rev. R. Cowley) I'ref. xxviii, ' Praxapostolus,' sec 'Apostolus.' ' Pre-Syrian ' 357-8 ' Pre-Syrian Non- Western ' . 3.57 Preface of 1611. . 187-91,198-9 1881 189 Preponderating evidence . 411,496 Prepositions 170-5 ' Present ' (Greek), sometimes a Future .... 163-4 sense of ' perfect ' . 163 Principle of translation, mis- taken 187-96 ' Principles of Textual Criti- cism' 1 25-6, 227, 349-50, 374-5,41 1 Probability 497 Proper names in S. Matt. i. . 186 ' Proud-in-the-imagination-of- their-hearts ' 172 Provision (God's) for the safety of His Word . . 8, 9, 338, 494 Trpo€(pda(Tfi' 146 Pronouns 165 TrpCOTT) 180 Pulcheria 465 Pusey (P. E.) . 345, 382, 449, 468 Pyramus and Thisbe . . . 171 Pyramid poised on its apex .342-5 ' Quarterly Review ' . Pref. ix-xiv Quia 448, 473 Quod (in 1 Tim. iii. 16) . . 448 Quotations, see ' Fathers.' RanJell (Rev. T.) . . . 481, 493 'Ravine' 181 ' Readings,' see ' Various.' before ' Renderings ' 106, 225 Received Text, see ' Textus.' Recension (imaginary) . . 271-88 Reiche (J. G.) 380-1 Reiteration not Proof . . .306-7 Rendering of the same word 138, 152-4, 187-202 Result of acquaintance with documents 337 Rettig (H. C. M.) .... 442 ' Revised Version,' see ' Revision.' Revisers exceeded their Instruc- tions : — (1) lu respect of the English 112, 127-30, 155-7, 225-6, 368, 400-3 (2) In respect of the Greek 57-8, 97, 118-26, 224, 399, 403-6 Revising body (composition of) 504-5 Revision, original Resolution and Rules concerning 3, 97, 114, 127, 130 of 1611. . .167,508-14 of 1881, how it was conducted. 37, 117-8, 369 unfair in its method 116, 131-8 essentially different from that of 1611 . . 508-14 rests on a foundation of sand .... 110,516 incapable of being fur- ther revised . r . 107 its case hopeless . .226-7 characterized . . . 238 its probable fate . 508-14 unfavourable to Ortho- doxy .... interesting specimens 513 171, 401 . . 188 . . 453 . . 199 307, 309-12 Rhythm in translation Rieu (Dr ) . . . Right of possession . ' Ring of genuineness' Roberts (Dr.) 36, 39-40, 48, 98, 230 Rocchi (Hieromonachus) 447-8, 474, 492, see the Appendix. Rogers, the poet .... 162 Romans ix. 5 210-4 Rome, {See ' Cozza Luzi,' 'Escher') 521 Rose, (Rev. W. F.), of Worle, Somersetshire. Pref. xxviii Rouser (Professor) .... 306 Routh (President) 152, 211,444,452, 501 Sachau 481 S. Andrews (Bp. of), see ' Words- worth.' Salisbury (Bp. of), see ' Moberly.' 548 INDEX IIT. I'AG E Samarin, (woman (if) . . 407-8 Sanday, (Dr.) .... Pref. xvi Saville 'Prof.) 30(3 Scholium misunderstood . 4C7, 468 Scholz (Dr.) . . 246, 380, 445, 456 Scott (Sir Gilbert) .... 306 Scripture, God's provision for its safety . 8, 9, 338, 494 depraved by heretics 336 Scrivener (Prebendary) 13, 30, 37, 49, 106, 108, 126, 231, 237-8, 243, 246, 317, 381, 405, 431, 474, 477, 493, 502-3, see hack of Title. Septuagint . . 182, 183, 184, 228 ' Sepulchre,' the Holy ... 198 (TTiixilov 203-4 aiKapioi 147 Sieber (M.) 493 aiKepa 180 Sinaiticus, cod. (sS) 11-17, 265, 286, 289, 291, 314-5, 325-6, 343-5 Sixteen places .... 415-9 Smith (Dr. Vance) 174, 204-5, 503-8, 513, 515 Sociniau gloss 210-4 ' Solvere ainhulando ' 126, 228, xxxi aireKov\dTcop 147 Spelling of proper names . .186-7 (TirXdyxva 153 crirvpis 171, 180 Stanley (Dean) .... 135, 507 Stillingfleet (Bp.) .... 500 a-Ti^ds and irroifidSes . . .58-60 (TvpTpi\pa(ra 185 (rv(rTpi(j>oiJi.fvoov 176-7 Syndics of Cambridge Press . xxx-i Syracuse 494 Syriac Version 9 ' Syrian,' ' Antiochian,' ' Cracco- Syrian,' — Dr. Ilort's designations of the Traditional Greek Text 257- 65, 269 its assumed origin 272-88 and history. . . 290-1 characterized 290 87, 288- rdcpos 298 Tatian (^scc Index II.) . 29, 336, 350 TAGE 'Teaching' 199 TiKvov 153, 179 TfXoS 51 Teu-^es . 157-64,506 'Aorist,' 'Im- perfect,' ' Perfect.' ' Pluper- fect,' ' Present.' • unidiomatically rendered 402 Test-places (three) ... 47, 519 Text to be determined by exter- nal evidence . . .19-20,45 jjrovision for its security 10 (Received), see ' Textus Recep- tus ' and ' Syrian.' Texts, see Index I. 'Textus Receptus' 12-3, 17-8, 107, 118 (Bj). Ellicott on) 388 needs correction 21, 107 see ' Syrian,' ' Tra- ditional.' Theodore of Mopsuestia 480, see Index II. Theodotus, the Gnostic. . .323-4 Theophilus, Bp. of Antioch . 29 ee6iTvevffTos 208-9 Beds and os in MSS. 99-105, 425-6 , not (is, 10 be read in 1 Tim. iii. 16. . Pref. xxi-iv, 424-501 Thierry (M) 493 Thirty changes in 38 words . 171 1 Timothy iii. 16. See @e6s Tischeudorf (Dr.) 22-4, 45, 243-4, 246, 270-1, 370, 383, 437-8, 451, 467 Title on the Cross .... 85-8 ' Titus Justus' 53-4 'Tomb' 198 Tradition (Ecclesiastical) . . 495 Traditional Text departed from 6000 times . 107 sec ' Syrian.' meaning of S. Mark xiii. 32, 209-10 'Transcriptional probability' .251-2 Translators of 1611 . 187-91,207 of 1881, mistaken principle of 138, 187-96 Transposition 93-7 INDEX III. 549 Tregelles (Dr.) 22, 45, 243, 246, 270, 370, 380, 383, 431, 451, 467, 498 Trench (Abp.) . . .xlii, 106, 229 Trinitarian doctrine . . .174-5 True Text, (only safe way of ascertaining) .... 339-42 Tusculum 446 Tyndale (William) . 167, 191, 192 Uncials (depravity of the old) 12-17, 30-5, 46-7, 75-6, 94-5 Uniformity of rendering . 166, 187 ' Unitarian' Reviser, intolerable 503-8 vir6 and Sid 156 inrorvncocris 351 Uppstrom (Andr.) .... 452 Upsala . . . 444, see ' Belsheim.' Ussher (Abp.) . . 432, 469, 500 Valckenaer 228 Valentinus 29 Various Readings 49-50, 56, 65, 130-1 Vaticanus, codex (B) 11-17, 265, 273, 286, 289, 291, 314-5, 325, 342-5, see ' B and N.' Veludo (Sig.) 492 Vercellone (C.) 381 Verifying faculty . 95-6, 109, 253, 290-1, 307-8 Version (Authorized) . . .112-4 (old Latin). . . .9,448 (Vulgate) . . . .9,419 (Peschito) . . .9,449-50 (Harkleian) ... 450 (Coptic) . . . 9,451-2 ■ (Sahidic) . . . 9,451-2 (Gothic) ... 9, 452-3 (Armenian) . . .9,453 (yEthiopic). . . .9,453 (Georgian) .... 454 ■ (Arabic) . . . .453^ • (Slavonian) . . . 454 'Vials' 200 TAG E Von Heinemaun (Dr.) . . . 493 Vulgate, see ' Version.' W. (M.) Fref. xxviii Walton (Bp. Brian) ... 432 Waterland (Dr.) .... 500 Way (only safe) of ascertaining the True Test . . . 339-42 Weber (M.) 437 Wescher (M.) 492 ' Wesleyan Methodist ' Revisers 504-5 West the painter .... 162 Westcott (Dr.) xlii, 124, see ' Hort.' Westcott and Hort (Drs.) 24-9, 33, 49, 51, 72, 83, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 110, 114, 125, 134-5, 177, 239-41, 245, 247, 370, 380, 382, 499, 502, 518-9, See reverse of Title-page, and I'ref. i, xxxi 357 271-2 361 507 Xl-lV, XXVl-Vll ' Western,' readings . and ' Syrian ' ' Westminster Abbey scandal ' Wetstein (J. J.) 246, 383, 426, 456, 467, 469, 480, 497 Wilberforce (Bp.) 229, 415, 505, 507 Woide (C. G.) 434-7 Woltii Anecd. Grmca. . . . 458 Wood (C. F. B.) .... 183 Word, incarnate and written 334-5, 390-1 Wordsworth (Dr. Charles) Bp. of S. Andrews 106, 165, 229-30, 382 (Dr. Christopher), Bp. of Lincoln 37, 112, 147, 184, 226, 368, 382, 400,502,505,513,OeJ.vi Wotton (Henry) .... 433 Xenophon 149 Young (Patrick) .... 432 (Di'O, of Glasgow . , 477 ^(ivT] 201 LOKUON: I'KlXTliD BY WILLIAM CI.OWKS AND SONS, LIMITICD, STAMFORD STUEET AND CJIAKING CllUSS. 2 o BY THE SAME AUTHOR. A Plain Covivicntary on the Foiw Holy Gospels, intended chiefly for Devotional Reading, 1855. 5 vols., fcap. 8vo., cloth, ^^i \s. Ninety Short Sermons for Family Reading r followinp^ the Course of the Christian Seasons. First Series. 1855. 2 vols., fcap. 8vo., cloth, 8.f. Inspiration and Interpretation. Seven Sermons preached before the University of Oxford ; with an Introduction, being an Answer to a volume entitled ' Essays and Reviews.' 1861. 8vo., cloth, 14?. A Treatise on the Pastoral Office, addressed chiefly to Candidates for Holy Orders, or to those who have recently undertaken the Cure of Souls. 1864. Svo., 12^-. Ninety-one Short Sermons for Fatnily Readijig : following the Course of the Christian Seasons. Second Series. 1867. 2 vols., fcap. 8vo., cloth, 8j-. The last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark, Vindicated againsi Recent Critical Objectors, and Established. 1871. 8vo,, cloth. Plea for the Study of Divinity in the University of Oxford. 1875. The New Lectionary examined, zvith Reasons for its Aniend- vient at the present time,' — ^jointly with the Bishop of Lincoln and Dean Goulburn, 1877. Nehemiah, a Pattern to Bnilders : — Counsels on the recommencement of the Academical year. A Sermon preached at S. Mary- thc- Virgin's, 1878. The Servants of Scripture .• published by the S.P.C.K., 1878. Prophecy — not ''Forecast',' but {in the ivords of Bishop Btitler,) " the history of ezients before they come to pass "." — A Sermon preached at S. Mary-the- Virgin's, 1880 : being a reply to Rev. Brownlow Maitland's " Argument from Prophecy," — pp. 47. The Disestablishment of Religion in Oxford, the Betrayal of a Sacred Trust.' — Words of IVarni/iQ to the University. A Sermon preached at S. Mary-the- Virgin's, 1880 ; 2nd edition, pp. 56. BS188.B95 ^^--,s,onrewsed: three an,c,es L^^^2 00059 7304