-*:;

'I give-Heft Babkt:
¦ fur tie /minding if A Colltgt Ot i/jtgjCqloityl

10

«YALH«'¥MlI¥EI^Sflinf« ° iLniaisAisnf •

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

THE REVISED VERSION

FIEST THEEE GOSEELS

CONSIDERED IN
ITS BEARINGS UPON THE RECORD^^OE-
OUR LORD'S WORDS
AND OF INCIDENTS IN HIS LIFE

By F. C. COOK, M.A.,
CANON OP EXETER; CHAPLAIN IN ORDINARY TO THE QCEEN;
LATE PREACHER OP LINCOLN'S INN;
EDITOR OP THE ' SPEAKER'S COMMENTARY.'

LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
1882.
Tlit right of Translation is reeervea

TO THE
MASTERS OF THE BENCH AND OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE
HON. SOCIETY OF LINCOLN'S INN
'W.heez $) age© are IBeiicatib
IN GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE OF UNVARYING KINDNESS
BY
THEIR LATE PREACHER

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

FIRST PART— pp. 1-2
Conditions of Revision

2.

PAGE 1

Object of this Work
Warning of Professor Reiche

23

The Sinaitic MS 

8
Neglect of the Warning and its Results
Greek Text of the Revisers
9
11
Grounds on which, it is Commended ..
13
Extent of Resources
14
How far they are Used ..
15
Early Fathers and Versions
16
Limits of the present Inquiry ..
Authorities cited in this Work ..
18 21
SECOND PART. — Examination of Passages altered in the Revised
Version— pp. 23-127. FAQS
Section I. — Facts or Sayings preceding or connected with
the Nativity ..
23-32
Matthew i. 7, 8, 10, 11 
23
6 
24
18 
25
Holy Spirit for Holy Ghost ..
25
The Angelic Salutation, Luke i. 28
26
The Angelic Proclamation, Luke ii. 14
27
ection II. — From the Nativity to the Baptism
33-41
Luke ii. 40
33
„ « 
33
VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE

Luke ii. 49
34
Mark i. 1 
35
2 
36
Important Testimony of Irenseus
38
Mark i. 5 
41
Section III.-
—The Baptism, Temptation, and first Ministra
tions of our Lord
42-47
Mark i. 9-11 
42
Luke iv. 4-5 ..
43
Mark i. 14 
44
Mark i. 27 
45
Section IV-
—The Sermon on the Mount ..
48-67
Matthew v. 4, 5 
48
22 
49
37, 39 
50
44 
50
„ vi. 1 
51
4 
53
10,12 
54
13 
56
»> j> ¦• •• ••
58
?» „
61
18, 21, 25, 33 
62
25 
63
„ vii. 2, 4 
64
13, 14 
65
Luke vi. 20-49 
65
Seotion V.
—To the Close of our Lord's Ministrations i
n
Galilee..
68-79
Mark i. 40 
.
68
Matt. viii. 6, 8
68
Luke vi. 1
69
Mark ii. 16
, t
69
» ' 26 
.
69
Luke iv. 18-20
71
Mark vii. 19 
72
TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Vll

Matt. xiii. 35 
„ xvii. 21, and Mark ix. 29
Mark ix. 43-50
Section VI.— From Galilee to Jerusalem ..
Luke ix. 54, 55
„ xi. 2-4 
,, x. 1, 15 
„ 41, 42 
Matt. xix. 9 
Mark x. 17-22
Matthew xix. 16, 17 ..
Luke xv. 21

737477
80-93 80
8587
8889
90 9192

Section VII.— At Jerusalem  94-116
Mark xi. 3  95
8  96
26  97
The Last Supper, Matt. xxvi. 26-29 .. 98
Luke xxii. 19 .. .. .. .. .. 98
Gethsemane, Matt. xxvi. 42 .. . 100
Mark xiv. 35, 40  100
Luke xxii. 43, 44  101
The first Word on the Cross, Luke xxiii. 34 105
Darkening of the Sun, Luke xxiii. 45 .. 110
Inscription on the Cross, Luke xxiii. 38 .. 112
The Crucifixion, Matt, xxvii. 32-56 .. 113
Matthew xxvii. 49  113
Mark xv. 39  115

Section VIII. — Events connected with and following the
Resurrection ..
Matt, xxviii.
Luke xxiv. 3 ..
12 
36, 40 
Mark xvi. 9 seq.
The Ascension and Session at the Right Hand
of God, Mark xvi. 19, and Luke xxiv. 51

117-127 117
117
118
119120125

PAGE

Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS.
THIRD PART— pp. 128-250.
Section I. — On Results of Preceding Inquiry 128
Section II. — Classification of Innovations .. 136
Section III. — Result of Classification 142
Section IV.— On Value of N and B 148
Section V. — Eusebian Recension .. 159
Section VI. — The Alexandrian Codex 184
Section VII. — Theory of Syrian Recension 195
Section VIII. — Theory of Conflate Readings 205
Section IX. — Answers by Members of the Committee of
Revisers 219
Section X. — Recapitulation, and Conclusion 239

THE REVISED VERSION
OF
THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.

FIRST PART.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.
§ 1. In considering the points which are discussed in the Conditions of
following pages, I would ask the reader to keep before his
mind the conditions under which the consent of the
Southern Convocation was given to the work of Revision.
The first proposal was made by the late Bishop of Win
chester (Dr. S. Wilberforce), and seconded by the present
Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, on the 10th of February,
1870. It was accepted by the Upper House of Convocation,
and passed, the same day, in the following terms :
"That a Committee of both Houses be appointed to
report on the desirableness of a Revision of the Authorized
Version of the Old and New Testaments, whether by mar
ginal notes or otherwise, in those passages where plain and
clear errors, whether in the Hebrew or Greek text originally
adopted by the translators, or in the translations made from
the same, shall on due investigation be found to exist."
A report, in accordance with this resolution, was laid be
fore the Lower House of Convocation on the 10th of May,

2 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
1870 ; and the following resolutions were then adopted after
full discussion :
(1) That it is desirable that a Revision of the Authorized
Version of the Holy Scriptures be undertaken.
(2) That the Revision be so conducted as to comprise both
marginal renderings and such emendations as it may be
found necessary to insert in the text of the Authorized
Version. (3) That in the above resolutions, we do not contemplate
any new translation of the Bible, or any alteration of the
language, except where, in the judgment of the most com
petent scholars, such change is necessary.
(4) That in such necessary changes, the style of the lan
guage employed in the existing Version be closely followed.
(5) That it is desirable that Convocation should nominate
a body of its own members to undertake the work of Revi
sion, who shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of
any [sic] eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or
religious body they may belong.
These resolutions are called fundamental by the Bishop
of Gloucester and Bristol in the Preface to the Revised
Version, p. x.
It should be observed that great stress was laid upon
these conditions by the proposers and seconders of the reso
lutions in both Houses. I must call special attention to the
words of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol which I quoted
in my ' Second Letter to the Bishop of London,' p. 6 : " We
may be satisfied with the attempt to correct plain and clear
errors, but there it is our duty to stop." See Chronicle of
Convocation, Peb. 1870, p. 83.
The question, therefore, in reference to every alteration is,
first, whether it removes a plain and clear error and is thus
necessary ; and, secondly, whether such alteration is correct.
Object of this § 2. The principal object of this work is to examine in
work.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 3
detail certain alterations in the Revised Version, whether
adopted in the text or suggested in the margin, which affect
incidents in our Lord's life, or which are connected with
His works and teaching as recorded in the synoptical
Gospels. Alterations are peculiarly important which rest upon
changes in the Greek text, and to these I invite special
attention ; but some changes in the English Version demand,
and will receive, due consideration.
I will, however, on the present occasion, pass over alto
gether, or with slight notice, changes which affect the style
of the Revision, without introducing a new sense, or seriously
modifying the sense presented in the Authorized Version.
These changes in style have produced a strong and a
very general impression, which certainly is the reverse of
favourable; they have even found severe censors among
staunch defenders* of the Revised Version, and have been
criticized most effectively by Sir Edmund Beckett ; but they
are of secondary importance in reference to the point with
which I am exclusively concerned, that is to say, the bear
ings of certain alterations upon the veracity of the sacred
writers, or upon points connected with fundamental doctrines
of the Christian faith.
§ 3. Before I enter upon the examination of the passages Warning of
in question, I venture to invite attention to a fact which Re^e. '
appears to be little known, but which has peculiar interest
in connection with discussions which have been raised, and
appear likely to be carried on with increasing force, in

* I refer among others to Dean Perowne, quoted in an article on the
Revisers' style by Dr. Sanday in the Expositor, April 1882. Dr. Sanday
says : " Viewed with reference to its avowed object, it is nothing less than
a failure." Dr. Sanday's article is of importance both because of the
learning and great ability of the writer, and his prominent position among
the defenders of the Greek text adopted by the Revisers. B 2

4 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
reference to the new revision of the text, and to the grounds
on which it is defended in Dr. Hort's ' Introduction ' to the
recent edition of the New Testament, which agrees sub
stantially with the Greek text published by the Revisers at
Oxford, under the superintendence of Archdeacon Palmer.
The fact to which I refer is this: some twenty-eight
years ago, a German critic, remarkable for extent and
accuracy of learning, and for soundness and sobriety of
judgment, emphatically called the attention of scholars, and
specially of theologians, to the bearings of the enormous
changes introduced into the text of the New Testament by
the critical school of which at that time Lachmann was
the chief representative.
The critic was Dr. J. G. Reiche, and the remarks in
question are in his work entitled ' Commentarius Criticus in
Novum Testamentum.' The first volume contains a full dis
cussion of the most difficult and weighty passages in the
Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians ; the second volume
deals with the minor Epistles of St. Paul; the third with
the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles.
The passage which I now adduce occurs in the preface
to the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Reiche begins by observing, (1) that Lachmann adopted
without any inquiry the conjecture of Griesbach ("funda-
mentis admodum infirmis superstructam "), that two forms of
the Greek text were introduced about the middle of the
second century, one of which was generally adopted in the
East, the other in the West ; (2) that he produced a new
text founded on the three oldest manuscripts then known to
scholars, A, B, and C (the Alexandrian and Vatican Codices,
and the incomplete but valuable codex known as Ephnemi
Rescriptus), with occasional reference to others of the
same age and character, always comparing their readings
with citations in the works of Origen ; (3) when, however,

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 5
those authorities differed, he called in the well-known Codex
Bezse, D, for the Gospels; D and E for the Acts; and a
second D (the Codex Claromontanus) for the Pauline
Epistles, as the best witnesses for the Western recension,
especially when they are supported by the old Italic Ver
sions, the Vulgate, and early Latin Fathers; (4) that all
other manuscripts, all other Versions and Fathers were
utterly neglected by him, as inferior in authority, or com
pletely superfluous; (5) that according to Lachmann and
his followers, the one true object of all criticism is to as
certain the text received in the East and West in the
fourth century.
Reiche then gives expression to an opinion of extreme
gravity, which, on account of its bearing upon burning
questions of our own time, I will here quote in his own
words :
"Fato quodam sinistro accidit, ut theologi, quorum res
agi videbatur, maximam partem, Philologi celeberrimi
auctoritate capti, non tantum ea, quae ille sibi proposuit,
nempe textum quarto seculo in orienti divulgatum eruere
et restituere, reapse effecisse persuaderi passi sint, sed
etiam miro errore textum Lachmannianum omnium huc-
usque editorum optime testatum maximeque a mendis im-
munem et sincerum repreesentare, quippe a luculentissimis
testibus secundum claras et certas artis criticse regulas
efformatum, arbitrarentur. Quo sensim factum est, ut
Zachmannianus textus fere eandem, quam olim textus
receptus habuit, auctoritatem superstitiosam apud multos
nacta sit, et ut vulgo tanquam res indubia ponatur, paucos
istos libros MSS., quos Lachmannus solos adhibuit, ceteris
exclusis, non tantum antiquissimse, quas Lachmanno vide
batur, sed primarise et sincerse scripturse testes sponsores-
que esse locupletissimos et spectatissimos, prse quibus ceteri
testes nihil fere valeant, qusestionemque de externa lectionis

6 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
alicujus auctoritate, productis libris istis, prEesertim si pauci
alii cum iis concinerent, decisam et judicatam esse."
Each point noted in this paragraph demands serious con
sideration. (1) The strange oversight of theologians, whose
special interests were concerned ; (2) their persuasion that
Lachmann had succeeded in his purpose of discovering and
restoring the text generally received in the fourth century
throughout the East; (3) their far more serious error in
believing that Lachmann's text was the best attested, most
free from faults, and purest of all hitherto edited, being
derived from the most trustworthy sources, under the
guidance of clear and certain rules of the art of criticism ;
(4) the result being that the text of Lachmann was ere
long regarded by many with the superstitious reverence
which had formerly attached to the Textus Receptus ;
(5) and again that it became generally accepted as an indis
putable fact that those four manuscripts, which Lachmann
used exclusively, were not only the best authorities for the
readings which that critic held to be the most ancient, but
for the original and unadulterated text of Holy Writ;
(6) that compared with these, other witnesses are wholly
without authority, and that the question about the external
evidence for any reading, when those manuscripts are
adduced, especially should they be supported by a few
others, is to be regarded as finally and decisively settled.
I will ask the reader to compare these statements with
the views set forth, authoritatively and repeatedly, by
Dr. Hort in his ' Introduction,' especially in reference to
the supreme excellence and unrivalled authority of the
text of B — with which, indeed, the Greek text of Westcott
and Hort is, with some unimportant exceptions, substantially
identical, coinciding in more than nine tenths of the passages
which, as materially affecting the character of the synoptic
Gospels, I have to discuss.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 7
Reiche then observes that he fully admits the value of
those MSS., A, B, C, D, which often retain true readings,
either alone or in combination with a few other authorities ;
but that it is equally true that it is impossible to deny that
in very many places (permultis locis) they have false readings,
partly attributable to negligence, partly intentional; more
over, that one and all they are either later than, or contem
porary with, ancient Versions (a point to which I shall have to
refer presently). Reiche then states a fact of primary import
ance (to which some of our own best critics, e.g. Dr. Scrivener,
bear witness, but which seems to be strangely overlooked by
others), that in the earliest ages the stupidity and licence
(socordia et licentia) of copyists was far greater than at any
later period, the result being that the most ancient MSS. are
tainted with the most numerous and most serious errors
(plurimis et gravissimis mendis inquinatos). Moreover that
those MSS., to which critics in Germany attach exclu
sive importance, are of Egyptian, or rather Alexandrian
origin, so that all belong to one family, a fact evidenced by
their singular consent in peculiar readings ; and lastly that
all documents of the N. T. coming from Alexandria, at that
time the home of over-bold criticism, abound in readings
which are manifestly false, "a male sedulis grammaticis
natis." These statements Reiche confirms by a detailed examina
tion of readings in the Epistle to the Hebrews. He shows
that separately and collectively those MSS. have unques
tionably false readings, especially of omission.
I do not expect that these statements will be generally
admitted, to their full extent, by English critics ; but they
prove at least that the charges brought against the text
based upon those MSS. rest on positive scientific grounds,
and are not, as seems to be assumed, attributable to a
theological bias or mere prejudice on the part of those who

8 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
venture to distrust the authorities which have influenced the
Revisers in their numerous innovations.
The Sinaitic § 4. Since Reiche addressed this warning to his countrymen
0 ex' N' one considerable addition has been made to the evidences
on which modern critics rely. I speak of the Sinaitic
Codex — well known by the sign X. In many very impor
tant readings that MS. agrees with B, the Vatican Codex ;
differing however to a great extent from A, C, and still
more, as might be expected, from D, the most ancient
Western manuscript. To that new MS. Tischendorf, its
discoverer and editor, attached, as was natural under the
circumstances, immense importance ; unfortunately, indeed,
such exclusive importance that he went back from the
position he had taken in his seventh edition, the best and
most interesting for its text, and in his eighth edition in
troduced more than 3000 variations, of which the larger
portion have been given up as untenable by later editors.
The effect produced by the first production of this manu
script, conspicuous for its beauty and for its unquestionable
antiquity, and by the high authority of Tischendorf, was so
great in England that the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol,
in seconding the motion of Dr. S. Wilberforce, then Bishop
of Winchester, for the new Revision, on February 10, 1870,
said that "in the Alexandrian manuscript a portion, and
a very important portion, of St. Matthew's Gospel is
wanting.* We know also that in the celebrated Vatican
manuscript the Pastoral Epistles, the Apocalypse, and I
think a portion of the Epistle to the Hebrews are wanting ;
and here we have mysteriously, by the good providence of
God, the Sinaitic manuscript, which, in the judgment of the

* The Alexandrian Codex now begins with Matthew xxv. 8 ; a fact to
be borne in mind in reference to all passages taken from the preceding
chapters of that Gospel, and discussed in the following notices.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 9
illustrious editor, takes the first place among the manuscripts
of the New Testament, vouchsafed to us perfect and entire."
— Chronicle of Convocation, 1870, p. 80.
§ 5. The tendency which Reiche deplores has led in Neglect of this
Germany to results on which I need not here dwell. As a JhTconfe-1"1
general statement it may be said that the effect has been to quences-
cast discredit on the great majority of uncials, still more
upon the whole mass of cursives, and to detract from the
authority of the early Fathers and early Versions to the
extent in which they differ from what I may venture to call
the Origenistic recension.* In England Alford, with hesi
tating steps, Tregelles, with bolder strides, have adopted many
of the most serious innovations. The outcome of the whole
process is presented in the most authoritative form, with
consummate skill and in the most peremptory style, by Dr.
Hort in the ' Introduction ' to the critical edition of West
cott and Hort, published immediately after the appearance
of the Revised Version.
There is, however, one great difference between the earlier
critics of the school and its chief representatives in England.
Even Lachmann and, still more decidedly, Tischendorf
attached considerable weight to the evidence of the two
very ancient MSS. A and C, and allowed some weight to
the other uncials when they agree with each other and those
two manuscripts ; but the two eminent critics whose counsels
evidently predominated in the Committee of Revisers, assign
to the Vatican Codex B an authority so pre-eminent, that,
with one very extraordinary exception (see further on, p. 16)

* The grounds for this opinion will be considered further on. Here I
will simply say that, with some important exceptions, the nume
rous citations in the works of Origen agree with the Vatican Codex,
especially where it is supported by the Sinaitic. This indeed may be
inferred from Reiche's account of the process adopted by Griesbach and
Lachmann, and it is confirmed by Dr. Hort in his ' Introduction.'

10 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
in cases of omission, they follow it without hesitation, and
generally introduce its peculiar readings into the text, or, when
unable to carry with them the other members of the Com
mittee, place them in the margin of the Revised Version.
Here it must be observed that one of the revising body, the
only one among the Revisers who had previously published
works of sterling value on the criticism of the New Testament,
and who has hitherto been recognized both in England and
on the Continent as the leading representative of English
critical scholarship, proceeded on a totally different system
in his ' Introduction to the critical Study of the New Testa
ment.' Dr. Scrivener attaches due weight to the oldest
MSS., assigning the first place to B; but he invariably
maintains the claims of the earliest Versions and Fathers,
and allows very considerable, certainly not too great, weight
to the enormous mass of cursive MSS. when they support
a majority of uncials, especially when, as is frequently the
case, those which generally agree with B or n present a
different reading.
There is no evidence that Dr. Scrivener acquiesced in the
decisions of his colleagues ; had he done so it would be a
result in my opinion much to be deplored, if the account
given by one of them* of the mode of proceeding in so
vital a question can be relied upon ; but it is scarcely
possible that he should have surrendered his own con
victions, or have departed from the principles so clearly
stated and so admirably illustrated in his ' Introduction.' f

* I refer to the extraordinary statement of Dr. Newth, quoted in the
Quarterly Review, October 1881, p. 326. That statement has lately been
admitted to be correct by the " Two Revisers." This point will be further
discussed in the sequel.
t I am very happy to learn from Dr. Kennedy's ' Ely Lectures on the
Revised Version ' that I was right in believing that Dr. Scrivener maintains
the chief, if not all the positions which he had long and consistently
defended.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 11
Here I must be permitted to state my deliberate opinion,
held also, as I believe, by many scholars of eminence, that in
the case of doubtful or disputed readings no innovations ought
to have been adopted in the text, or even in the margin, if
they are such as seriously affect the integrity of Holy
Scripture or its doctrinal teaching, when there was an
irreconcileable difference between the representatives of
opposite principles in criticism.
Had that principle been held fast we should have been
spared nearly all the shocks caused by the innovations which
I shall bring under consideration in the following pages.
§ 6. The weight, however, of two critics, eminent for learn- The state of
, ¦-,., -, • -i , i , • t j. r • . the question as
ing, ability, and industry, and entirely tree from any suspicion to thg Revjsers'
of latitudinarian views, confirmed by the corporate authority text-
of the Revisers, had produced so strong an effect, that the
question appeared for a time to be generally regarded as at
last settled ; and that, notwithstanding the serious and most
painful innovations introduced into the sacred text. Few
persons were prepared for the tremendous onslaught* in
the Quarterly Review of October 1881, in which the exclusive
value attached to the two oldest manuscripts, N and B, was
absolutely negatived ; and in which the bold assertion was
made that the text thus formed is "demonstrably more
remote from the evangelic verity than any which has
ever yet seen the light." — Q. JR. p. 368.
Now, in my opinion, it would be at present presumptuous
to express a decided opinion as to the proportion of right or
wrong in the conflicting statements of the learned author of

* I venture to use this expression, both as indicating the power of the
arguments, and also as deprecating the vehemence of the language, in an
article which for profound learning, and especially for knowledge of all
documents on which the decision of disputed questions in the criticism
of the New Testament depends, is entitled to a foremost place in the
theological literature <>f the present age.

12 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
that article on the one hand, and of the two great critics
Westcott and Hort on the other. It must be borne in mind,
however, that in every discussion of the question, attention
should be confined to the facts advanced by the writers on
both sides. Every one will admit at once that violent
language is to be deprecated. Those who accept the prin
cipal conclusions in that article are well aware that their
own cause is damaged by the vehemence of its language.
We maintain, however, that every expression likely to give
offence can be eliminated from that article without prejudice
to the argument ; and that the only point worth considera
tion in the controversy is the singularly complete array of
authorities which all critics recognize as highly important,
especially of Fathers far more ancient than any manu
scripts, and infinitely superior to them in weight, together
with the arguments derived from the inspection of manu
scripts and from the early Versions. Nor when we read the
answers to that article which have been given, as for
instance by Dr. Sanday and Dr. Farrar in the Contemporary
Review, can we fail to observe that, far from confining them
selves to those facts and those arguments, both writers dwell,
one almost exclusively, upon exaggerations of language, and
that they advance statements or suggestions really unworthy
of scholars, such for instance as that an article, which, what
ever may be thought of its conclusions, is conspicuous for an
extent and amount of learning, patristic and critical, without
a parallel in this age and country, may have been written
by a lady ; or again, as the other critic states peremptorily,
that the author with all his learning and talent has no
" grasp on the central conditions of the problem." * I must
also observe that it is not fair in Dr. Farrar to impute to

* See the Expositor, December 1881, p. 417. Dr. Sanday has since
published a reply in the Contemporary Review, to which reference may be
made further on.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 13
the author the sin, which of all sins is regarded with special
disfavour by the general public, the odium theologicum. The
writer of that article certainly goes to the extreme in ex
pressing fiery indignation, but he expressly and repeatedly
exonerates the critics whom he opposes from any tendency
to low or unworthy views and principles in matters of faith.
He repeatedly speaks of both as working " with the purest
intentions and most laudable industry." With all his heat,
that writer abstains from offensive personalities. Nor again
can I but remark that appeals to the authority of great
names among the Revisers are out of place, especially as we
do not know which of them concurred in any particular
alteration. No one doubts, certainly the reviewer does
not deny or question, the learning or high character
of Revisers who had previously been distinguished as
theological scholars, some of whom, including the two
critics, possessed the full confidence of Churchmen. The
question is simply whether in this special department the
ancient authorities had been fairly and fully appreciated;
and to that question any advocate of the Revision should
address himself specially or exclusively.
I venture to affirm that up to this time no real effort has
been made to grapple with that question, and therefore that
no sufficient or satisfactory defence of the Revised Text has
appeared. § 7. I will now inquire with all deference what special Grounds on
grounds there may be for accepting that Revised Text ; or, on ^ed Text is e"
the other hand, for distrusting it. The grounds for accepting -commended-
it may be briefly stated. It was commended by two critical
scholars, whose authority appears to have been allowed com
pletely to outweigh that of Dr. Scrivener in the hasty and
strangely unscientific decisions of the Revisers : * and it is

* See Dr. Newth's account, noticed above.

sources.

14 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
defended specially on the ground that the critical resources at
the disposal of critics at present are not only much more con
siderable than at any former period, but that they combine all
that is really necessary for the establishment of a sound text,
Extent of re- § 8. There can indeed be no question as to the vast extent
of our available resources. Most of the uncial MSS. have
been carefully examined, and the readings are presented
in a compact and scientific form by Tischendorf in his
last (eighth) edition. The cursive MSS. however have
been but partially collated ; and though their testimony is
always noticed by Tischendorf, even his last edition does
not enable the student to judge of the relative value
of those cursives which support, and of those which
oppose, the readings adopted in his text. One point of
extreme importance is generally neglected. We learn from
examination of the notes that a certain number of cursives
generally agree, some of them all but constantly, with the
recensions represented by B or n — e.g. the cursives
marked 1, 13, 23, 33, 69, 124, 208, 209 ; but it is often im
possible to ascertain whether these are or are not included
in the al., or al. pi., or plur. (i.e. " others," " many others,"
" most in number ") cited by Tischendorf ; and in cases where
every kind of evidence is needed this may be of the utmost
consequence. Again, as to the testimony of the early Versions, it is well
known that very much remains to be done before the infor
mation which they can give is exhausted. Critical editions
are greatly needed. So, too, with the early Fathers. The
numerous citations in their works need to be critically
examined. Again, one very serious defect in editions of
most of the Fathers is the absence of complete or satisfactory
indices of scriptural quotations ; and this is especially to be
regretted in the case of the most important ante-Nicene
Fathers. For instance, the indices to Clement of Alexan-

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 15
dria, who is of the very highest importance in the present
question, are incomplete and inaccurate, not only in the
editions of Sylburgius and Potter, but, to the grievous dis
appointment of scholars, in the edition lately printed at
the Clarendon Press under the superintendence of Dindorf.
Again, as I pointed out in my ' Second Letter to the Bishop
of London,' p. 85, Oehler, in his edition of Tertullian, adopts
the indices of Rigaltus, with some seriously misleading blun
ders ; thus he gives no less than six references to Mark xvi.
9-20, not one of which is correct, nor have I been able to
ascertain whether they rest on any foundation. On the other
hand we have full, and, I believe, trustworthy indices to the
Apostolic Fathers in the editions of Jacobson and Gebhardt,
to Justin Martyr in Otto's edition, and to Origen in the
Benedictine edition. Copious and correct indices to the
Fathers would be even more valuable than a thorough
critical recension of readings, since their authority is most
needed and most important on questions independent of
minute verbal accuracy.
Still, with all allowance for these deficiencies, it must be
fairly admitted that the resources at present existing, and
available to scholars, go far to justify the contention on
this point of some of the ablest defenders of the new text,
adopted as the groundwork of their Version by the Revisers.
§ 9. But the question is not whether these resources are Have available
available, but whether the Revisers have used them fairly, used ?
and fully availed themselves of them.
I have read with much care the ' Introduction ' of Dr. Hort,
which gives an account of the process adopted by himself
and Professor Westcott, and gather from it that they use the
evidence of early Versions, early Fathers, cursive and uncial
MSS., chiefly for the purpose of establishing certain criteria
for estimating the relative value of existing MSS. I find
that the result to which they attach the highest importance

16 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
is that one MS., B, even when it stands alone, has great
authority, and that when it is supported by two or three
others, it outweighs all other evidence whatever. One singular
exception however is to be noted. In cases of omission
another MS., D, generally remarkable for interpolations, is
taken as affording trustworthy evidence (see p. 6), although
it is well known that this MS. is not only notorious for
negligence and caprice, but for the number and character of
its omissions, especially in the synoptical Gospels.
I will endeavour further on to state to what extent I
accept or distrust the MSS. here in question. I now simply
call attention to the fact that, in the determination of
disputed readings, these critics avail themselves of so small a
portion of existing materials, or allow so little weight to
others, that the student who follows them has positively less
ground for his convictions than former scholars had at any
period in the history of modern criticism.
Formerly, indeed up to last year, he would have had
before him, demanding his attention, and certainly rewarding
conscientious labour, uncials, cursives, early Versions, early
Fathers, critical discussions and editions, each and all having
just claims to consideration. At present, if he relies on the
revising critics, he has simply to ascertain whether two or
three, x and B, or B and D, not to speak of L, M, A, n, agree
in a text, and he is spared all other inquiry, evidence sup
porting those authorities being superfluous, evidence contra
dicting them being ipso facto convicted of untrustworthiness.
Authority of § 10. Here again, at the risk of repetition, I must exactly
and Versions! define my position. I would not adduce the earliest Fathers,
or even the oldest Versions, as authorities on points of minute
verbal accuracy, except in cases where they expressly notice
variations of the text, when their testimony is of the
highest possible value. The Fathers often, indeed generally,
quoted from memory ; and the early Versions, especially the

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 17
so-called Italic and Vulgate, often leave such points unde
cided — especially as regards the use of articles, the tenses,
and prepositions — though some (e.g. the Coptic) are remark
ably exact even in this respect. But this I maintain,
and hold to be an indisputable position, that when the
earliest Fathers, up to the end of the third century, cite
passages and texts which, in their judgment, and in the
estimation of their contemporaries, whether orthodox or not,
have important bearings .upon the teaching or the integrity
of Holy Scripture, their authority outweighs, in some cases
infinitely outweighs, the adverse testimony of the MSS. —
none earlier than the middle of the fourth century — on
which modern critics rely for their most serious innovations.
I will here give but one instance. It is of the utmost
importance both as regards the teaching of Scripture and the
evidence for its central fact, and also as regards the prin
ciples of biblical criticism. I refer to the close of St. Mark's
Gospel.* For its genuineness we have the express and most
decisive testimony of Irenseus (see p. 38), the highest authority
on such a question, not to speak of Justin Martyr f and
other early Fathers, the testimony, in other words, of
Christendom in its earliest representatives, supported by
every ancient Version, even those in which this Gospel is
most incompletely preserved, and, with three exceptions, by
the absolute totality of MSS., uncial and cursive. Against
it the margin tells us that the passage is omitted by the two
oldest MSS., a statement which ought to have been modified
by the fact that ONE only (n) obliterates all trace of its exist
ence, while the other, B, that which the Revisers hold to
be by far the more trustworthy, leaves a blank, contrary to

* For a fuller account of the evidence, and of Dr. Hort's defence of the
mutilation, see further on, p. 120 seq.
t Westcott and Hort put a ( '? ) before Justin Martyr, and Dr. Hort at
tempts to show that his testimony is doubtful. It could not well be clearer.
C

18 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
its invariable use — a circumstance which proves beyond
all question the existence of such a close in the original
document. Further on I will consider the general character of these
codices. Here I say at once that such an omission of itself
is sufficient to impair, if not wholly to destroy, the authority
of the MSS. in which it occurs, where they are without
other support; and that this consideration weighs heavily
against the authority of the recension which admits and
defends it.
I am happy to learn from Dr. Kennedy's ' Ely Lectures '
that on this point Dr. Scrivener retains, as indeed I felt
sure he would retain, the decision he had previously an
nounced in his 'Introduction,' resting on what in my
opinion are wholly incontrovertible grounds.
Reason for §11- In this essay, as I have already stated, I propose to
inquiry ?othiS confine my inquiry to the first three Gospels. It is in refer-
these Gospels. ence to these, especially to St. Mark and St. Luke, that
the most numerous and the most serious innovations (in
St. Mark upwards of 600, in St. Luke of 800) are introduced
into the Revised Text. There is indeed, so far as I am per
sonally concerned, a special reason why I should endeavour
to vindicate this portion of Holy Scripture from what I
cannot but regard as mutilation or depravation. When the
' Speaker's Commentary ' was first undertaken, I was not
specially responsible for any part of the Gospels ; but on
Dean Mansel's failure of health, I prepared, at his request,
the commentary on St. Mark, and, after his death — a most
serious loss to our work — I was further charged to complete
his notes on St. Matthew, being solely responsible for the
last two chapters. I had moreover, very unexpectedly, to
revise and complete the Bishop of St. Davids' commentary
on St. Luke.
It may be easily conceived with what interest I studied

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 19
the Revisers' work on that portion of the New Testament,
and how gladly I recognized their agreement on many points
of interpretation. But it was with grief and astonishment I
found, not only that an enormous quantity of minor changes,
generally without acknowledgment, were introduced into the
text, but that many passages of paramount importance, pas
sages which touch the record of our Lord's life, of His words
and His works, were either omitted altogether, or noted in
the margin as of doubtful authority, or were so far modified
in form and substance as to convey what I must regard as
grievously erroneous impressions.
I felt bound in honour to examine these passages
separately and in detail ; and I must again ask my readers
to bear in mind the conditions on which the work was en
trusted to the Committee of Revisers. I venture also to call
upon the Revisers themselves to reconsider their own posi
tion with reference to their relations with Convocation, and
more especially to the general effects or bearings of those
innovations. I trust also they will bear in mind that, although Church
men who have attacked the Revisers' work have, I believe,
invariably abstained from any imputation of doctrinal pre
possession, and though their freedom from such preposses
sion has been testified in the Guardian, the Church Quarterly,
the Churchman, and other periodicals of high character, by
writers who may be regarded as true representatives of
Anglican orthodoxy; yet that a formal allegation to the
contrary has been advanced by one of their own body.
Referring to the statement "that the doctrines of popular
theology remain unaffected, untouched by the results of the
Revision," that Reviser says formally : " To the writer any
such statement appears to be in the most substantial sense
contrary to the facts of the case." See ' Revised Texts and
Margins,' by Dr. G. Vance Smith, p. 45.

20 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
Such an assertion, if not met by an indignant repudiation,
and refuted by substantial arguments, is calculated grievously
to affect the position of the Revisers. I doubt whether the
statements of Dr. Kennedy (in the ' Ely Lectures '), a man
especially conspicuous for learning, and claiming, justly, to
be regarded as one whose " orthodoxy cannot be impugned by
authority," will altogether meet the tone or bearing of that
assertion. Dr. Vance Smith himself would scarcely claim
more than is implied by the Canon of Ely in the dedication
prefixed to those lectures, where it is said that though the
Holy Scriptures contain the materials for the doctrines of
which the " decrees of Nicasa and Constantinople," or " the
Trinitarian exegesis, which was completed after 600 years
and more," are a development, they do not explicitly state
those doctrines. Satisfactory — fully satisfactory — as that
statement may be, so far as regards the learned Professor's
own convictions, it will be regarded by most readers as
seriously affecting the sound Anglican doctrine of the
sufficiency and exclusive authority of Holy Scripture. Our
Church maintains as one of its most fundamental principles
that the decrees to which Dr. Kennedy refers are received
because they may be proved by most certain warrant of
Holy Writ, certainly not because they are a development
of materials supplied by the Scriptures. That is a principle
which assuredly none of the Revisers would call in ques
tion ; it would indeed be a grievous evil were the represen
tatives of Socinianism entitled to plead, in support of their
doctrines, the text of Scripture as it stands in the Revisers'
edition. But I proceed to my own work. In the following pages
I propose to examine in detail all passages in which serious
innovations have been introduced in the Revised Version.
For the sake of clearness and completeness I will deal with
them in order of time :

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 21
(I.) Passages which refer to facts or sayings preceding
or connected with the Nativity of our Lord.
(II.) From the Nativity to the Baptism.
(III.) The Baptism, Temptation, and first Ministrations
of our Lord.
(IV.) The Sermon on the Mount.
(V.) To the close of our Lord's Ministrations in Galilee.
(VI.) From Galilee to Jerusalem.
(VII.) The events preceding or connected with the Cruci
fixion. (VIII.) The Resurrection and Ascension.
§ 12. For the convenience of the reader I will here very Authorities
briefly give some account of the authorities referred to in ^^ ;* .
the following notes. They will be discussed more fully in iuhT-
the latter portion of this work.
(i.) Manuscripts, (a) Uncials, i.e. written, and therefore
cited, in capital letters.
K, Codex Siriaiticus, B, Codex Vaticanus ; these are the
two oldest, written about the middle of the fourth century.*
A (beginning with Matt. xxv. 8) and C ; ancient, not
much later than the two oldest MSS.
L, T, A, n ; late uncials, most frequently agreeing with k
or B.
E, F, G, generally agreeing with A.
D, the most ancient, but very corrupt, witness to early
Western readings.
(0) Cursives; these are marked by Arabic numerals, 1,
2, 3, &c.
(ii.) Early Versions, (a) Italic, marked a, b, c, d, f
(a and b the best MSS. ; /, valuable as independent,
called also Codex Brixianus).

* When Nx and B* arc cited, the asterisk implies that the reading was
subsequently corrected.

22 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
(/3) The Vulgate (Am, the best MS., Codex Amiatinus,
published by Tischendorf).
(7) Syriac Peshito, most ancient and most valuable, quoted
Syr. P.
(S) Syriac Cu., i.e. edited by Cureton; ancient, but of
doubtful authority.
(e) Coptic and Sahidic, ancient and valuable — both Alex
andrian. (iii.) Early Fathers, chiefly ante-Nicene, are quoted by
name. The reader is requested to notice the proportion in which
these several authorities are used by the Revisers in doubtful
passages. The editions in which the authorities cited in this work
are given most fully are the eighth of Tischendorf, and that
of Dr. Tregelles.

( 23 )

SECOND PART.
EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES ALTERED IN THE
REVISED VERSION.
SECTION I.
Facts or Sayings preceding or connected with the
Nativity.
(a.) the genealogy of our lord.
The Revisers leave the text generally untouched ; but in
the margin they impute two plain and clear errors to the
Evangelist. For Asa they tell us that the Greek has Asaph,
and for Amon, Amos. See Matt. i. 7, 8, 10, 11.
But by the " Greek " must of course be meant the Gospel
as it came from St. Matthew. If the Revisers intended
readers to understand either (a) that the text is not the
production of the Evangelist, or (b) that, by such an expres
sion, they simply mean the text which they have seen fit to
adopt, they were bound to state their view clearly. As this
is the first reference to the margin, I must ask attention to
the remarks in the Preface to the Revised Version, p. xix.
" These notes fall into four main groups : first, notes speci
fying such differences of reading as were judged to be of
sufficient importance to require a particular notice." It
follows that such marginal notes are held to be important ;
but the note here referred to goes much further. It tells us
positively that the Greek, i.e. the original Gospel, has Asaph
and Amos,

24 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
Now it is certain that no one familiar with the Hebrew
original or the Septuagint could have committed such
blunders. It is quite conceivable that an officious scribe
(especially in a time or region noticeable for what Reiche —
see above, p. 8 — calls socordia and licentia), who was familiar
with the name of Asaph from the inscriptions to the
Psalms, and of Amos as that of a great prophet, should
foist them into his manuscript ; but it is to me perfectly
astounding that any critic should throw the responsibility
for so positive a misstatement on St. Matthew.
The change is made on the authority of X, B, C, fol
lowed by the Egyptian, and some MSS. of early Italic,
Versions. That is, it rests on the recension which from the time of
Origen was generally accepted in Egypt. Not completely so
however in this case, for L, usually a close follower of B,
is exculpated.
Against the change we have all other uncials — Tischendorf
cites nine — including several of the Alexandrian school ; all
cursives but one ; the best MSS. of early Italic, and of the
Vulgate ; the Syriac of Cureton, the Peshito, in all editions,
and the Harcleian Version.
I do not see what excuse can be suggested for the Revisers.
They were bound either to reject the new reading as a plain
and clear error ; or if, as their marginal note implies, they
held it to be the true original reading, they were bound to
introduce it into the text.
As it stands it is one plain and clear error, whichever
alternative is taken.
I do not lay much stress on the omission of 6 paaCkev?
in v. 6. It is a repetition, and, as such, it is easily supplied.
But it is noticeable for two reasons : (1) The omission of
repetitions is characteristic of the two MSS., N, B, by which
it is supported, having with them one uncial, T, and two

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. I. 25
cursives which generally agree with B. (2) The repeti
tion appears to me emphatic, intended to call our minds
forcibly to a cardinal fact in the genealogy, and as such
it is retained by all other MSS., uncial and cursive, and by
all the best Versions, except the Egyptian.
Matthew i. 18. — We have now to consider the new
reading yeveat,<; for yevvnai<; and the marginal note. It is of
importance, since it disguises the evident reference in v. 1
to the first book in the Pentateuch, and obliterates the clear
distinction drawn by the Evangelist between the genealogy
and the nativity.
The external evidence for each of the two readings is
weighty but not conclusive. For the Revised Version stand,
as usual, x, B, supported by C, P, and Z and three other uncials
of less authority. For the old reading yevvncns eight uncials,
including L (showing a fluctuation in the Alexandrian recen
sion), and nearly all cursives. The authority of the MSS.
which favour the new reading is materially affected by their
extreme carelessness and irregularity in reference to
orthography. The old Versions, with the exception of the Italic and
Vulgate, have generally different words here and in v. 1.
Of the early Fathers Tischendorf cites Didymus of Alex
andria as reading yevvnai<;. Chrysostom discusses both
words, yevecns and yevvrjai^, fully in his 4th homily on
St. Matthew ; the former is taken by him as equivalent to
yeveaXoyia; the second he explains as referring to the
nativity of Jesus Christ. See pp. 48 B, c, ed. Ben.
The internal evidence is of course open to question ; to me
it appears decidedly in favour of the Authorized Version. See
the Quarterly Review, Jan. 1881. I agree with the writer of
that article, and deprecate the change, not merely as un
necessary, but as inadmissible.
I must now call attention to another point in the same

26 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
verse of very grave importance. The marginal note tells us
that " the Holy Spirit " may be substituted for " Holy Ghost "
throughout this book; a notice which is repeated in St. Mark.
Does this imply that the marginists object to the word
"Ghost"! If so, it must be asked, on what grounds? Certainly
not as an archaism. The word is in every Churchman's
mouth continually. For the sake of consistency ? But
Dr. Vance Smith complains bitterly of the inconsistency of
his colleagues in reference to this very question — see ' Texts
and Margins,' pp. 7, 8, 45. I would not suggest a doc
trinal bias ; but to prove that it had no influence a strong,
if not unanimous, declaration on the part of the Revisers
is called for. Dr. Vance Smith alleges this notice as one of
the clearest proofs that the Revision ought in consistency
to discard the word as " a poor and almost obsolete equivalent
for Spirit."
(B.) THE ANGELIC SALUTATION, OR THE ANNUNCIATION.
Luke i. 28.
The last clause, " Blessed art thou among women," disappears
altogether from the text of the Revised Version.
The margin vouchsafes to tell us that " many ancient
authorities " add those words.
Would it be inferred from that notice that all ancient
authorities except K, B, and L (the follower of B), and the
Egyptian Version, have the words ?
The authorities for the words are remarkable for their
independence of each other, and for their weight separately
and collectively :
A and C, Alexandrian, of the highest value ;
D as witness to Western recension ; and five which in
doubtful points generally support K and B.
The best ancient Versions and the earliest Fathers, Ter-

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. I. 27
tullian (' de Virg.' vol. 6) and Eusebius (D. E. 329 c), so far
as their testimony extends, support the old reading.
The omission in the MSS. is attributable either to haste, or
carelessness, or possibly to fastidious taste, characteristic of
the recension which alone adopts it.
One clear case of mutilation.

(C.) THE ANGELIC PROCLAMATION. — Luke ii. 14.
Few points in the discussion are of equal importance. The
angelic proclamation of the gospel of peace, in the form
adopted in the most solemn of our devotional services, in
the earliest and best known utterances of the Greek Church,
has been altered in the Greek text, and the alteration is
expressed in the Revised Version by a rendering which is
not only obscure to the last degree, but, in the opinion
of able scholars, is scarcely reconcileable with the laws
of language, and least intelligible to the most learned and
careful readers.
Here, however, I gladly admit that the adoption of the
new reading and rendering cannot be attributed to doctrinal
prepossession. Men eminent for piety and soundness in the
faith had previously received it (e.g. Keble in the ' Christian
Year'). Moreover the Revisers have manuscript authority
sufficient to prove that their reading was known and adopted
by many Churches at a very early time.
We have simply to consider in the first place the external
authorities for and against the new reading; in the next
place the internal evidence, together with the renderings
somewhat doubtfully given in the new text or suggested in
the margin.
For the new reading, evSo/clas in place of evhoKia, Tischen
dorf adduces Kx, A, Bx, D, the Italic, Vulgate, and Gothic
Versions.

28 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
The asterisks mean that the reading in the text both of N
and B was noted as incorrect by a critical scholar at the
time when the manuscript was written. See Tischendorf.*
The authority of A, however, is weighty. This is one of
the very few instances in which that MS. supports the two
somewhat older MSS. in what I cannot but regard as an
erroneous innovation.
As for D, the Codex Bezte, it is far too inaccurate, too
strangely capricious, to be entitled to serious consideration ;
were it not that here, as in many other instances, it represents
a very early Western recension.
On the other side stand all other uncials, including those
which generally support the readings of B ; sc. L, T, A, A, a,
and, as Tischendorf admits, every cursive manuscript.
So far, allowing full weight to the authorities on the other
side, we have an enormous preponderance both in number
and in variety of independent witnesses. Of course Drs.
Westcott and Hort, and, as it would seem, most of the
Revisers, reject mere numbers as a test, but in this case
numbers do undoubtedly represent the tradition and views
of the Church in various quarters.
The old Versions are divided. It has been stated above
that the early Italic and the Vulgate have bona? voluntatis,
and the Gothic godis viljins, "of good will," proving the
general adoption of the reading in the West, and its existence
in the MS. at Constantinople used by Ulfila.

* ' Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum,' p. 4, " er erasum." The duty
of the critic, or reviser, was to correct what he regarded as errors of the
calligrapher ; hence his technical designation, 6 8iop6arrjs. The diorthota of
the Sinaitic Codex is said by Tischendorf to have done his work carelessly
or hastily, but with considerable ability. In this case the erasure of <r
is important, for it invalidates the evidence of the MS. The o- must either
have been taken from a copy which the diorthota held to be incorrect, or
it may have been a blunder of the scribe : to use the words of Eusebius,
o-<pa\fia ypacpccos.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. I. 29
But the weight on the other side is far greater. In the
first place the Coptic, a certain witness as to the views of
the Egyptian Church in the third and fourth century, has
0*«'f"JUL<L''[" .^eit rtiptOJUU= eiSoicia iv rot? avOpdoirois, and
it is followed by the .ZEthiopic, which represents the Atha-
nasian tradition, as well as by the Armenian Version —
together leaving no room for doubt as to the reading adopted
by that very important branch of the Church which was most
decidedly under the influence of Origen and his followers.
Both Syriac Versions, in such a question of the highest
authority, agree with this reading.
The testimony of the best and earliest Fathers demands
careful consideration. We have the Latin translations of
passages in which Irenasus and Origen to some extent
support the new reading ; but in three passages (' c. Cel.,'
i. 60; 'In Psal.' xlv. 10; and 'In Joannem,' i. § 13) Origen
quotes evSo/cia in Greek. It is quite clear from the words
of Irenaeus, "suam benignitatem salutis de cselo misit,"
that he connected evhoicia — or eoSo/clas, if he had that
reading before him — with God. Origen, as we shall see,
whatever he may have read, differs from the Revisers totally
as to the meaning. As to the other Fathers, the Latins
agree with the Revisers, but the Greeks are nearly unani
mous against them. Gregory Thaumaturgus, the devoted fol
lower of Origen ; Eusebius, thrice, the great authority of the
ultra-liberal school in the fourth century ; Basil, Epiphanius,
Cyril Alex., and from Chrysostom onwards all Greek Fathers,
decisively support the old reading.
So far as the reading is concerned, I fully admit that, had
the Revisers been requested or authorized to notice all
variations resting on fair authority, they would have been
fully justified in stating, in the margin, that some ancient
authorities read evSo/cias ; but the introduction of the ren
dering founded upon that reading into the text, implies

30 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
that the Authorized text here contains a plain and clear
error ; and therefore that the alteration is necessary, a state
ment which few, I think, even of those who go farthest with
the Revisers, would venture to maintain.
Passing from the reading to the rendering we observe,
(1) that the versions in the text and in the margin of the
Revised Version are scarcely intelligible ; neither, so far as I
can judge, is in accordance with the laws of Greek construc
tion ; and (2) they are wholly without patristic authority.
(1) " Men in whom he is well pleased " (R. V. text) seems
to me impossible as a translation of avOpomot evSo/clas. I do
not know whether those Greek words have any meaning, but,
if they have, they must designate men of a certain quality or
character, as the Latins express it, homines bonce voluntatis ;
or as the Gothic, " men of good will," godis viljins. Westcott
and Hort, who feel the difficulty and strangeness of the
expression, refer to the Hebrew idiom, i.e. anshe ratzon
(pvn 'tws). But that is not an idiom which occurs at all in
the Old Testament.* Ratzon, indeed, is a very common
word and answers exactly to evBoicia, but it always refers to
the good will of God to man ; and as I repeat, it is never
found in combination with man. If the idiom did occur
it would be perplexing, but, if it were explicable, it would
mean men of complacency, men who acquiesce in God's will.
The objection to the doctrine, which seems to be involved
in the rendering " in whom he is well pleased," appears to
me very formidable. It implies that the peace proclaimed by

* I observe that Delitzsch, in his Hebrew translation of the New
Testament, gives, as an alternative reading, and therefore rendering,
131V1 *E>3X, anshe retzono, " men of his good pleasure," which, were it
correct, would give a very different meaning from that of the Revisers ;
but to which the twofold objection must be made, that the phrase has no
parallel in the Hebrew Scriptures, and that the suffix his has no authority
in the Greek text.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. I. 31
the angel is, not a reconciliation with humanity as completed
in the person of its Great Representative, but with those
only who are designated or predestined to salvation. I
do not think that the Revisers would accept that view.
What is meant by the marginal rendering " men of good
pleasure," I am utterly at a loss to conjecture.
(2) Patristic authority. See above. It may here be sufficient
to confine myself to Origen's interpretation. Unfortunately
we have only the Latin interpretation of his homily on
Luke ii. 13-16, but as, on the one hand, it is certain that
he read elpijvrj iv avOpmirois (or rot? avOpmirois) evSo/ci'as,
so also is it certain that he connected eoSo/clas with elpijvT) ;
and that he understood the passage to mean " and on earth
the peace of good will to men," i.e. the peace of reconciliation.
So that while Origen differs from the Authorized Version as
to the form, he agrees with it entirely as to the substance of
the announcement.
Here, however, is the passage in Origen (torn. iii. p. 946 E,
Ed. Benedict.) : " Diligens scripturse lector inquirat quomodo
Salvator loquitur : non veni pacem mittere super terram, sed
gladium : et nunc Angeli in ejus nativitate decantant : supra
terram pax. — Si scriptum esset : super terrain pax, et hucus-
que esset finita sententia, recte queestio nasceretur. Nunc
vero in eo quod additum est, hoc est quod post pacem
dicitur : in hominibus bonce voluntatis, solvet qusestionem.
Pax enim quam non dat Dominus super terram, non est pax
bonse voluntatis."
If I may here venture to put forward my own view of the
whole matter, I would suggest that in Italy, or rather in North
Africa, a Latin translator found in the manuscript before him
ev8oicta<;, probably a mere lapsus calami, and, being ill ac
quainted with Greek, rendered it bonce voluntatis. That
reading and that rendering — the latter totally differing from
the text and the marginal note in the R. V. — were generally

32 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
adopted in the Western Church, specially, however, if not
exclusively, by African Fathers. The reading was adopted
in one Alexandrian recension (doubtfully at first, and it was
afterwards rejected), but with a rendering altogether unlike
the Western or the modern in substance and bearing.
On the other hand, the Eastern Churches, and in fact all
independent Churches, kept the old reading, the only one
known to early Greek Fathers ; and when time and oppor
tunity were found for thorough investigation, even the
Alexandrians — as represented by the MSS. above cited, and
by the Coptic and iEthiopic Versions — restored it to its
proper place. So it is found in the ancient Greek Liturgies ;
so it stands in our Liturgy ; and so it will stand, if not undis
puted, yet firmly fixed in the minds of Anglican Churchmen.
This single alteration, with its impossible English and
liability to doctrinal misrepresentation, would be sufficient
seriously to affect the position of the Revisers. I do not see
how they can meet the charge of a grave departure from the
conditions on which they applied for, and on which they
accepted, their trust.
Nor can I conclude without calling serious attention to the
fact that the question had been fully discussed, and that a
diametrically opposite decision had been maintained, by a
most able critical scholar, one whose authority ought to have
balanced, if not outweighed, that of the two editors who are
specially responsible for the reading. See Scrivener's ' Intro
duction to the Criticism of the N. T.,' ed. 2, p. 513 seq.

( 33 )

SECTION II.
From the Nativity to the Baptism of our Lord.
So far as regards our Lord's personal history, the altera
tions in this section do not appear to be of serious import
ance. But,
(1) As bearing upon the relative value of MSS., I observe
that in Luke ii. 40, Trvevfiari is omitted after iKparatovTo,
certainly not from any doctrinal bias, though not without
bearings upon the doctrine of our Lord's humanity.
The change is made on the authority of s, B, D, L, the early
Italic and Vulgate, Sahidic and Coptic, the later Syriac and
Armenian Versions ; against A, an independent witness, and
five uncials which usually support- B, and the old Syriac and
ZEthiopic Versions.
The R. V. omits it without notice ; a strong, and, I think,
an unjustifiable proceeding.
(2) In the same chapter, v. 43, R. V. has " his parents "
instead of " Joseph and his mother." This change is not im
portant, since St. Luke has " parents " (yovels) in v. 41, but
it is unpleasing. It would almost seem as though St. Luke
avoids repeating an expression which might be misunderstood ;
and eight uncials, two (A and C) of first-class authority, three
(X, A, n) generally supporters of B, most cursives, b, c, f in
dependent witnesses to early Italic, the Gothic, Syriac, and
^Ethiopic have " Joseph and his mother ; " so also the Coptic *
* The edition of the Coptic Version of the New Testament published
by 'the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, under the super
intendence of Dr. Tattam, has been said to be of no value for critical
D

34 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
(ed. of S. P. C. K.). The new reading is partly Alexandrian,
N, B, L, 1, 13, Sahidic and Coptic ; supported by D, which
offers simply one instance of usual carelessness.
Surely the change to yoveis, fresh in the transcriber's
memory from v. 41, is most naturally accounted for as a case
of assimilation — to which, in most instances, Westcott and
Hort attach great weight. The old reading needs no cor
rection. (3) Luke ii. 49. — I cannot think that the Revisers were
justified in altering " about my Father's business " of the A. V.
and substituting for it " in my Father's house." This may
be the true meaning of the Greek, but it is far from certain
With their own marginal alternative, and their somewhat
awkward rendering of the Greek, before them, it seems a
bold thing to condemn the Authorized Version as being a
plain and clear error. In fact, "in the things'' is a very
awkward rendering. The Greek is ambiguous, and I believe
it is purposely chosen as a comprehensive expression. Our
Lord used words which implicitly declared the whole pur
port of His life on earth ; but that was to be " about His
Father's business," engaged in His Father's affairs, certainly
not simply to be in His Father's house, if by the house is
meant the Temple. The Hebrew Version (London, 1849)
renders the words ^N \?*jy3. Delitzsch, in his Hebrew Ver
sion of the N. T., uses the more general expression OK? i^K?,

purposes ; and this statement has the authority of an eminent scholar,
the present Bishop of Durham, to whom we are indebted for copious
notices of MSS. of this and the other Egyptian Versions ; see Scrivener's
' Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,' p. 331. I must,
however, quote against this decision the opinion of an excellent critic, of
the highest authority on all questions of Egyptian antiquity, Ludwig
Stern. In the notices of Coptic literature at the end of his Coptic
Grammar, a most important contribution to the knowledge of that
language, published 1880, that critic says of this edition, " Werthvolle
Prachtausgabe nach guten Handschriften " (page 4-12).

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. II. 35
i.e. " in what belongs to my Father." We want an English
expression equally comprehensive.
An unnecessary and unsatisfactory change.

EVENTS PREPARATORY TO OUR LORD S APPEARANCE AS
TEACHER AND KING.
Here we have first to notice the strange and significant
changes in the introductory matter of St. Mark's Gospel.
(1) Mark i. 1, — First I must call attention to the omission
in the first clause of " Son of God," vlov Oeov or tov 6eov,
suggested in the margin.
I notice it with surprise and sorrow. The words are
emphatic ; they denote with singular force and distinctness
the special characteristic of St. Mark's Gospel. As the
first Gospel brings before us most prominently the theocratic
King, the Son of David the king (see above, p. 24) expected by
the Hebrews; so the second Gospel dwells specially upon
all manifestations of the Son of God, in His widest sphere of
action, in His relations to Hebrews and Gentiles.
I would venture to refer to my own note on the words in
the ' Speaker's Commentary.' It states not my own view
merely, but that of some of the most thoughtful and clear
sighted interpreters of Holy Writ. To obliterate this charac
teristic trait seems to me an act of singular temerity. We
inquire on what authority the Revisers rely.
The answer will surely astonish most readers. They have
actually but one uncial MS., one which they seldom follow
in doubtful cases, the Sinaitic Codex, N, corrected, however,
by the diorthota, a contemporary hand ; and two cursives,
28, 255. Against the omission, their own highest authority
B; the authority to which they attach special importance
when it countenances omissions, D ; also L, and in a word
all other uncials, all other cursives, and without any excep-
D 2

36 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
tion all ancient Versions. See too the testimony of Irenaeus
(lib. iii. c. xvi. § 3), quoted a little further on.
As to the omission in n, corrected as it was by the first
hand, I do not attribute it to any doctrinal prepossession, but
simply to the characteristic negligence, or the haste, of the
first transcriber. The words, if inserted, as they were by the
first corrector (see Tischendorf, Cod. Sin. p. xlviii.), would
have altered the arrangement in atlypi and given the hasty
transcriber some trouble. See my remarks on the signs of
extreme haste in this Codex, Part III. Section iv.
Tischendorf, however, alleges patristic authority. To that
authority I should attach the very highest importance;
but it seems to me evident, on referring to the passages
which he quotes, that the words were omitted simply on
the ground that they had no bearing upon the points in
question. I cannot but regard this omission as a plain and clear
error, and one of serious importance in the Revised Version.
(2) Mark i. 2. — The Revisers alter the text; instead of
" the Prophets," they have " Isaiah the Prophet," informing
us in the margin that " some ancient authorities " support the
Authorized Version.* They ought surely to have said many.
Now one thing is certain. The statement which assigns
the two prophecies to Isaiah, as it stands in the R. V., is a
plain and clear error. The first prophecy belongs to Malachi.
The question is simply this. Is the error to be attributed to
St. Mark, or to a transcriber ?
The ancient critics who adopted it as a recognized reading
agreed in one point. To whomsoever it is to be attributed, it
was an error of the transcriber. So Eusebius, ypacfrem

* The Greek of Irenseus, iii. 12. 8, p. 467 seqq. ed. Stieren, is taken
from Anastasius Sinaita, see p. 39 ; the quotation in p. 470 is inaccurate.
For a positive testimony of Irenasus see the passage quoted below.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. II. 37
icnl a-<pd\fj,a, and Jerome, adopting his words, "nomen Isaia3
putamus additum scriptoris vitio."
There is no question as to its being a very ancient error,
however it may have been introduced ; and critics who rest
exclusively on the oldest extant MSS. could not but accept
it, certainly as the oldest and most general, and therefore, in
their minds, the only true reading.
They have for them N, B, D,L,A — i.e. the Eusebian recension
supported by the corrupt representative MS. of the Western
recension — twenty-five cursives, the Sahidic, and the Vulgate ;
also two, not the most important, Syriac Versions, and some
copies of the Coptic.
Against them A, E,' F, G8Upp, H, K, M, P, S, U, V, I\ n,
uncials remarkable either for general correctness, or for their
general agreement with the Eusebian recension ; the majority
of cursives ; two of the best Versions, one independent and of
the highest value, the Peshito, the other important for its
general accuracy, and in this case as belonging usually to the
opposite school, viz. the Coptic, confirmed in this instance by
the ^Etliiopic and Armenian.
As to other external authorities it is admitted that the
greater number of the Fathers in the East and West, from
the fourth century downwards, agree with the new text.
One authority however, which, in my opinion, outweighs
all those of later centuries, sc. Irenseus, ought to be admitted
as most decidedly supporting the reading " in the Prophets."
At a merely superficial glance his evidence may be regarded
as ambiguous. In one passage (see below) where the text is
quoted without special reference to its bearing we find " in the
Prophet Isaiah." But in another passage Irenaeus has occa
sion to point out distinctly and fully the whole drift and
purport of the second Gospel ; and that passage proves in-
controvertibly that he had before him, and knew that his
adversaries had before them, the reading which alone exonerates

38 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
the Evangelist from the charge of ignorance, or inconceivable
carelessness. I will quote it at length, both because of its
signal importance, and its bearings not merely upon this
question, but upon the structure of the Gospel, and espe
cially upon its integrity — see further on, p. 123 :
" Quapropter et Marcus interpres et sectator Petri initium
evangelicse conscriptionis fecit sic: 'Initium evangelii Jesu
Christi Filii Dei, quemadmodum scriptum est in prophetis :
Ecce, mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praepa-
rabit viam tuam. Vox clamantis in deserto : Parate viam
Domini, rectas facite semitas ante Deum nostrum.' Mani-
feste initium evangelii esse dicens sanctorum prophetarum
voces, et eum, quern ipsi Dominum et Deum confessi sunt,
hunc Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi prsemonstrans, qui
et promiserit ei angelum suum ante faciem ejus missurum ;
qui erat Joannes, 'in spiritu et virtute Helise' clamans in
eremo : ' Parate viam Domini, rectas facite semitas ante
Deum nostrum.' Quoniam quidem non alium et alium
prophetse annuntiabant Deum, sed unum et eundem, variis
autem significationibus et multis appellationibus : multus
enim et dives Pater quemadmodum in eo libro qui ante
hunc est, ostendimus ; et ex ipsis autem prophetis proce-
dente nobis sermone ostendemus. In fine autem evangelii
ait Marcus : ' et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus
est eis, receptus est in cselos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei ; '
confirmans quod a propheta dictum est : ' Dixit Dominus
Domino meo: Sede a dextris meis, quoadusque ponam
inimicos tuos suppedaneum pedum tuorum.' " Lib. iii. c. x.
§ 6, p. 461, ed. Stieren.
This full statement leaves no room for doubt as to the
testimony of Irenseus, and consequently to the general recep
tion of the old reading in the second century, nearly two
hundred years earlier than the oldest witness that can be
adduced for the other reading.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. II. 39
In another passage Irenaeus refers to the passage in distinct
terms, lib. iii. xvi. 3, where the context, as Massuet observes,
proves decisively that this was the true reading in the
original Greek. (See Stieren's ed. torn. ii. p. 880.) Here
is the passage : " Propter hoc et Marcus ait : ' Initium
evangelii Jesu Christi Filii Dei, quemadmodum scriptum est
in prophetis : ' unum et eundem sciens Filium Dei Jesum
Christum, quia prophetia annuntiatus est," &c. This passage
should be noted in reference to the question previously dis
cussed, p. 36.
Once however Irenfeus has the name Isaiah, both in the
Latin interpretation and in the Greek, as it stands in a very
inaccurate form in Anastasius Sinaita (see the notes in
Stieren's edition, lib. iii. c. xi. § 8, p. 467). It should be
borne in mind, not only that the citation in the ' Hodegos '
of Anastasius is loose and inexact, but that the writer, who
lived towards the end of the seventh century, was a monk
in the convent where the Codex Sinaiticus was lately
found, and was doubtless the great authority from a much
earlier time. Anastasius would naturally, as a matter of
course, in quoting the passage in Irenams, use the reading
with which he was familiar, probably the only one of which
he was cognizant. It is unlikely that Irenaeus should have
had two different texts before him, and we have no alter
native but to admit a corruption in this one, or in the two
other passages ; if so there can be no doubt that the true
reading is that which alone is supported by the context.
In questions where external authorities are divided all
critics agree as to the propriety of inquiring into internal
evidence ; and (1) in the first place as to the usage of the
writer. Now St. Mark differs from other Evangelists in
that in his own person he never quotes a prophet by name ;
once he records a name expressly cited by our Lord; in
ch. xiii. 14 where the name Daniel occurs, it is held by critics

40 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
to be an interpolation from Matt. xxiv. 15. (2) It is cer
tain that the writer of the Gospel knew that the two pro
phecies here quoted came from distinct sources, since that
of Malachi is translated from the Hebrew, that of Isaiah is
taken from the Septuagint. (3) The instances of interpo
lation of the name of Isaiah are striking, and, in every case
where the reading is at all doubtful, of great importance.
One of the most remarkable occurs in Matt. xiii. 35, where
Isaiah is interpolated in the Codex Sinaiticus, and adopted
as the true reading by Tischendorf (see further on, p. 73). In
Matt. i. 22, D and some early Italic MSS. interpolate Isaiah.
The former instance is peculiarly instructive as a gross error,
the latter as exemplifying a very mischievous habit of early
transcribers, (4) No argument is urged more frequently by
modern critics than that clear indications of assimilation are
fatal to any contested reading. But in this passage as given
in the Revised Version we have a clear case of assimi
lation to Matt. iii. 2, the passage most likely to be in the
mind of the copyist, In fact St. Luke and St. Matthew
quote also the prophecy of Malachi, but without mentioning
his name. (5) It was natural that a scribe or editor should
introduce the name of the prophet best known to himself
and to his readers ; first probably in the margin as a gloss,
which at an early period was transferred to the text. Possibly
this process may have occurred in other passages; in one
there can be no doubt that an equally gross error was im
puted without any authority to St. Matthew, who in a very
early text; of Western origin, remarkable for " socordia et
licentia," is made to assign our Lord's quotation from the
Psalms to Isaiah : an error retained by the Sinaitic Codex
and adduced triumphantly by Tischendorf as a proof of its
venerable antiquity.
I must also repeat my observation in the ' Speaker's
Commentary, New Testament/ vol. i. p. 210, that the reading

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. II. 41
ev tw '^crata, adopted by Tischendorf, and in the Greek text
of the Revised Version, is contrary to the use of the New
Testament. The name Isaiah occurs twenty-four times;
never with the article.
It is assuredly strange to impute to the Evangelist an
error natural and excusable in the first innovator and in the
transcribers ; nor can I regard the consent of modern critics,
weighty as it is so far as regards the actual reading at an
early period, as conclusive in regard to the original reading,
i.e. to the words of the Gospel as first delivered by the
Evangelist. One thing is at least certain. The statement in the text
as it stands in the Revised Version is more than incorrect ;
it is a plain and clear error.
(3) Mark i. 5. — The Revised Version tells us that all the
people of Jerusalem went out to John the Baptist.
What St. Mark, according to the Authorized Version, tells
us is that people from all Judaea, and they of Jerusalem,
went out, and that all who came to him were baptized.
For the new reading they have Nc, B, D, K, L, 28, 33, 102,
old Italic, Vulgate, and Coptic.
Against it we have (a) The facts of the case.
(b) Nine uncials, most of the cursives,
the Peshito, Gothic, and ^Ethiopian
Versions.
I.e. the Western and Alexandrian against Christendom as
represented by good MSS. and Versions.
This change has no doctrinal bearing. I look upon it as
owing originally to mere oversight, a hasty transcription;
but it is of importance, inasmuch as it imputes to the Evan
gelist an inaccurate statement.

42 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.

SECTION III.
The Baptism, Temptation, and first Ministrations of
our Lord.
(a.) the baptism.
No alterations of serious importance are made in the record
of this transaction ; but some variations are noticeable.
(1) In Mark i. 9, the margin tells us that the Greek has
into the Jordan. This statement must be perplexing to a
reader, who might naturally refer to the last words in St.
Matthew's Gospel, on the opposite page, where into is rightly
used, if taken in the full doctrinal sense* To " baptize into
a river " is not an English idiom.
(2) In v. 10, opened is altered into rent. Now it is cer
tainly not easy, perhaps in this place scarcely possible, to
give the precise force of the Greek, which has the present
passive participle, a-)(fC,op,ivov<$ ; but if a new rendering is to be
introduced it should not be one that suggests a^ia0evra<;,
or io-yiGiLevovs. The Authorized Version should be left
alone, or thoroughly corrected and the correction explained.
This is a somewhat minute point, but it refers to a minute
and somewhat pedantic innovation ; if of any importance, it is

* One of the Revisers, however, Dr. Vance Smith, welcomes the
alteration in that most important text as obliterating the evidence for
Trinitarian doctrine. Such was certainly not the intention of his col
leagues, who are surely bound to protest against his inference. I would
ask the reader to note this indication that each translation, I must add
each revision, " enthiilt die Keime einer besondern Theologie." See my
'Second Letter to the Bishop of Loudon,' p. 5, note.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. III. 43
in its bearing upon the Revisers' special claims to accuracy
in the use of tenses.
(3) Next comes a change in the text, and of course in
the rendering. In v. 11, the Authorized Version has in whom
I am well pleased, the Revised Version in thee I am well
pleased, reading crot for a>.
For the change there is the authority of N, B, Dgr, L, A,
and most of the old Versions, i.e. of the Eusebian recension.
Against it, however, stand eight uncials, A, independent
and weighty, Y and n, generally agreeing with B, most cur
sives, and some Versions.
It is regarded as a case of assimilation, cf. Matt. iv.
That of course is possible, to me it seems improbable ; but it
cannot surely be maintained that the alteration is necessary.
(b.) the temptation.
Here I have only to remark that two omissions in St.
Luke's account, ch. iv. vv. 4 and 5, are scarcely justifiable.
After bread alone, even Lachmann has dX)C iirl iravri ptffiari
Oeov, with eight uncials, all known cursives, Latin Versions,
Syriac, Gothic, Armenian, and Coptic (ed. Wilkins).
For the new reading x, B, L, the Sahidic, and one edition
of the Coptic Version.
Following the same authorities R. V. omits efc opos v-^njXov,
against the same preponderance of witnesses.
The reader of a copy of St. Luke's Gospel in which these
words were omitted must have been sorely perplexed as to
the meaning of the words and he led him up. Readers now,
of course, supply to a high mountain from memory ; but those
Gentiles or Hebrews, who had only this Gospel to lead them,
had no such help.
An unnecessary, vexatious, and probably an incorrect
alteration.

44 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
(C.) OUR lord's FIRST PREACHING.'
St. Matthew, iv. 17, tells us, in our Lord's own words,
that he preached, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is
at hand (fieravoelre, r)yytKe yap fj fiaaiXeia twv ovpav&v).
St. Mark, i. 14, as his words stand in the Authorized
Version, gives the exact purport of that preaching, but in a
narrative form : Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel
of the kingdom of God. He uses the expression which
denotes its special characteristics — to evayyeXiov— the glad
tidings, the Gospel ; and he substitutes for t5>v ovpavwv — a
term which might need explanation for Gentile readers — the
unmistakeable word God. What our Saviour proclaimed,
according to both Evangelists, was the glad tidings that the
kingdom of heaven, in other words, of God, was about to be
manifested in power.
But the Revisers reject the words the kingdom, and intro
duce an expression which is never used in the Gospels ; sc.
the Gospel of God. Now that expression is in itself quite
correct when it occurs, having a definite meaning, both in
the Pauline Epistles and what, in this case, is specially
important, in the Epistle of St. Mark's own master, St.
Peter. It must however be noted that in those Epistles the
meaning of evayyeXiov is, not the Gospel which proclaims
God, but the Gospel given by God, or by Christ, when the
expression " the Gospel of Christ " occurs. In the Gospels,
the word- means the glad tidings or announcement of the
Person or event which it concerns. In other words, in the
Epistles the following genitive is, generally speaking,
subjective ; in the Gospels it is objective.
Hence it follows that St. Mark, as he speaks in the
Authorized Version, is in perfect accordance with St.
Matthew so far as the substance of the announcement

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. III. 45
is concerned ; but in form the variation is marked ; it
suffices to obviate the usual suggestion of probable
assimilation. The statements are distinct and independent.
Now for the authority.
For the Revised Version, as might be expected, N, B, L, 1,
28, 209, Eusebian or Alexandrian, followed by the Coptic,
also the Armenian, the Syriac in common editions, and
Origen, torn. iv. pp. 161, 170.
For the Authorized Version, nine uncials, including three
independent recensions, A, D, and A, with Y and n, nearly
all cursives, the best MSS. of early Italic, the Vulgate and
the Syriac according to the best MSS., the iEthiopic, and
Gothic. That is, we have an innovation resting on a very narrow
foundation, and hardly reconcileable with the usage of Holy
Scripture. The change appears to me indefensible, especially having
regard to the conditions on which the work of revision was
entrusted to the Committee.
Mark i. 27. — We have now to consider St. Mark's record
of a very important point, viz. the effect produced upon the
hearers of our Lord's first discourse, and the witnesses of His
first miracle, in the synagogue of Capernaum.
The Authorized Version describes the effect in these terms :
" And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned
among themselves, saying, What thing is this ? What new
doctrine is this ? for with authority commandeth he even the
unclean spirits, and they do obey him."
For the last words the Revised Version substitutes, " What
is this ? a new teaching ! with authority he commandeth even
the unclean spirits, and they obey him."
Here the Revisers give no intimation in the margin
that they follow a new reading, or that there is any authority

46 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
for that which is followed in the Authorized Version. They
simply reject the old reading and rendering, as a plain and
clear error.
Now that fair authority can be adduced for their innova
tion is unquestionable ; and it is a fact that late editors and
commentators accept it generally, on the ground that it
presents a vivid picture, characteristic of the second Gospel,
and a new and striking thought.
But whether we consider the external or the internal
evidence, we meet with facts and reasons which may well
make us hesitate before we accept the innovation as the
more probable, not to say, with the Revisers, as the only
true reading and rendering.
So far as the words are concerned, the first clause, tI eari
rovro ; Si,8a%f) /caivr] /car effouaiav ical, is found in N, B, L, and
two cursives, 33, 102 ; but the punctuation rests upon
editorial authority only. Tischendorf connects a new teach
ing with the words with authority ; but Lachmann, who
accepts the reading, has a totally different punctuation, in
which he is followed by the Revisers : " What is this ? a
new teaching ! with authority he commands even the unclean
spirits," &c.
It must also be observed that there is much fluctuation in
the MSS. and Versions which support the new reading.
On the other side are arranged eight uncials — two inde
pendent and of high authority, A and C ; three others which
generally agree with N and B ; most cursives ; and with
slight variation, the Syriac, Vulgate, Gothic, Coptic, Armenian,
and iEthiopic Versions ; in fact a vast preponderance both
as regards numbers and independence.
The internal evidence will be estimated variously accord
ing to the taste, feeling, or judgment of critics. I was quite
willing, when the question came first before me, to acquiesce
in the decision of the critics to whom I have already referred,

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. III. 47
and I fully admit the force of their arguments. Yet argu
ments of no small weight may be urged on the opposite side.
It is to be observed that the impression made by our
Lord's teaching, its originality and authoritative character,
had been previously recorded by the Evangelists, see v. 22 ;
here, therefore, it was to be expected that attention would be
specially directed to the corroboration of that authority
which was supplied by the miraculous act. In my note,
p. 210, in the ' Speaker's Commentary ' I quoted some remarks
of Keim, to the effect that " it was the lot of the greatest
Personality which ever appeared in the world, of the most
sublime discourse which ever sounded in the world, to be
reckoned as less grand, noble, beautiful than the outward
result presented to the senses of the people." (See Keim,
'Leben Jesu,' ii. p. 287.) These remarks go beyond the
truth; for, as I have pointed out, the admiration of the
people had been drawn forth and forcibly expressed when
they heard our Lord speak ; but we are reminded by them
that on the second occasion a far greater variation in the
record was to be looked for than is found in the new reading.
That variation comes out naturally and forcibly in the words
as they stand in the Manuscripts and Versions which support
the Authorized Version ; and although, taking every point
into consideration, I would not maintain that they are the
ipsissima verba of St. Mark, I certainly would and must
maintain that they are entitled to recognition.
Had the Revisers given a place to their rendering in the
margin they would, in my opinion, have been justified ; had
they left the Authorized text intact they would have shown
due regard to their trust ; but, I say it with reluctance and
hesitation, they had no right to substitute their new reading
and their new rendering of that reading for the perfectly
intelligible and well-supported statement in the Authorized
Version.

48 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.

SECTION IV.
The Sermon on the Mount.
Matt, v.-vii. ; Luke vi. 20-49. — In considering the Revisers'
treatment of this discourse, which, as all critics agree, con
tains in the most complete and distinct form the very pith
and substance of our Lord's ethical and spiritual teaching,
we have to call attention not merely to the number, but to
the weight and bearing of their alterations. Compared,
indeed, with portions of equal extent in the other Evan
gelists, especially St. Mark and St. Luke, the number of
textual innovations is less than might be expected ; but
some of them are of vital importance.
(1) v. 4, 5. — We first observe in the Beatitudes that a
transposition of vv. 4 and 5 is noticed, and, as the Preface
leads us to conclude, is to some extent commended, in the
marginal note.
The transposition is somewhat startling, since it disturbs
the sequence of thoughts brought out clearly and forcibly
by Chrysostom; nor do I see any internal grounds for
presenting it as worthy of consideration.
The reader will be surprised to find on referring to critical
editions that it is supported by one -uncial only, D, — most
remarkable for recklessness and caprice — followed by one
cursive only ; against the whole body of MSS., uncial '
(including of course x, B) and cursive, and the most weighty
authorities, the best ancient Versions, and those early
Fathers who deal specially with the interpretation. The
fact that the change is supported by some MSS. of the early

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. 49
Italic, and countenanced by notices of some ancient Fathers,
e.g. Origen, might justify a notice in a new critical edition of
the New Testament, but in a work intended for general
readers, such a statement as that in the margin is unnecessary
and misleading.
(2) v. 22. — We next observe the omission of the word
el/crj, rendered without a cause, in v. 22. The omission of
a qualification of the general statement, whosoever is angry
with his brother, rests on the authority of N, B, and (according
to Tischendorf *) one other uncial, A ; but from notices
in some early Fathers it may be inferred that the Greek
text in some ancient and wide-spread recensions omitted
elicr} ; and provided that full force were allowed to the present
participle 6pyit,6fj,evo<;, that word might be dispensed with.
This, however, is not the case with the rendering in
our Authorized Version, which is retained by the Revisers.
To "be angry" does not imply, as the Greek does,
habitual or persistent anger, at once sinful, and perilous to
him who indulges it. If, therefore, the reading be admitted,
we object to the rendering as conveying, if not a false, cer
tainly an incomplete, impression as to our Lord's meaning.
And again, considering the very scanty evidence for the
omission, and the immense preponderance of authorities
against it, we maintain that it ought not to have been
adopted in the text.
Here I must remark that the words invariably used in
the margin when it refers to n and B, sc. " the two oldest
MSS.," though literally correct, are practically misleading.
The reader would scarcely infer from them that other
MSS., such as A, C, are nearly equal in antiquity and
conjointly of great authority; or again, that the evidence
* I must refer the reader to the exhaustive discussion of this reading in
the Quarterly Review, April 1882, pp. 373 seq. A ought not to have
been cited as supporting K, B. E

50 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
of n and B in many cases is opposed to that of Versions
and Fathers at once more ancient and more trustworthy.
This is especially important in cases of omission, for
which those two MSS. are notorious, and, in spite of the
assertion of Dr. Hort, demonstrably conspicuous. This point
however will be discussed in the third division of my work.
I am glad to observe that the Revisers do not notice a
very grave omission, that of the last portion of v. 32, which
Westcott and Hort enclose in double brackets. The only
uncial manuscript which omits it is D, followed by one
cursive, supported by some MSS. of early Italic, and by a
notice of Jerome that " nonnulli codices, et graeci et latini,"
have it not. Although the Revisers neither adopt it nor
notice it in their margin, it is right to call attention to it as
an instance of the singular habit of the two critics of accept
ing the testimony of D in cases of omission, a habit which in
some instances has led to very serious innovations in the
Revised Version.
(3) v. 37, 39. — I have examined these two passages, and
stated the results at considerable length in my ' Second Letter
to the Bishop of London,' pp. 14-17. Here I will simply
call attention to two points, the inconsistency of the
Revisers' rendering in v. 3.7 and v. 39 ; and the very serious
inferences necessarily drawn from the statement thus attri
buted to our Lord, that all oaths originate with Satan, and
that it is wrong to resist an evil man.
I cannot but regard the rejection of the plain, consistent,
intelligible, and thoroughly scriptural rendering of these
passages in the Authorized Version, as a breach of the
contract which bound the Revisers to confine their innovation
to cases of plain and clear error and to make no changes that
were not necessary.
(4) v. 44.— We now come to an omission which for
character and extent is perfectly astounding. In v. 44 all

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. 51
these words, bless them that curse you, do good to them that
hate you, and again, despitefully use you and, are rejected,
absolutely, without any marginal notice, of course therefore
without the shadow of apology.
Yet this enormous omission rests on the sole authority of
N and B, and one cursive which almost invariably follows
them, sc. 1. Some MSS. of early Italic and Coptic support
the omission, and the clauses are also passed over by some
early Fathers, not however in a way which justifies the
assertion that they were unknown to them.
On the other side we have (1) all other uncials, including
of course those which are independent of the Alexandrian
recension, e.g. D and E ; and those which in doubtful
passages all but invariably support n, B ; (2) the best and
earliest Versions ; and (3) a phalanx of early Fathers, Irenaeus,
Theopliilus Ant., Athenagoras, Clement Alex., Eusebius, and
even Origen, who, among them, bear witness to every word of
the omitted clause.
This is really a crucial test of the value of the two oldest
MSS. The omission is fatal to their authority. It may be
attributed to the haste of the transcribers — a point to which
I shall have occasion to refer presently — or to their extreme
carelessness. It is one of the worst cases in which they
severally or conjointly mutilate the teaching of our Lord.
I can scarcely realize the feelings of a devout reader, on
whose memory those sacred loving words are graven in
characters of light. Is he to be taught that some unknown
daring interpolator went farther than our Blessed Lord in
enjoining charity ?
This seems to me one of the most indefensible innovations
in the new Revision.
(5) vi. 1. — In this verse we meet at once with an expres
sion which must be singularly perplexing to ordinary readers.
They will scarcely be able to conjecture what the words
E 2

52 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
do not your righteousness can possibly mean. They stand
without explanation, and for my own part I must confess
that I do not know what meaning is attached to them by
the Revisers. I presume that they adopt, together with
the new word, the exposition of the Latin Fathers, who
identify justitiam with almsgiving; but if so, they were
surely bound to explain a phrase at once novel and am
biguous. It might be understood to mean, do not any good
works, works of righteousness, in an ostentatious manner —
an excellent precept, but scarcely according with the context.
But what is the authority for altering the Greek text,
from eXerj/jLoavvr] to SiKaioavvn ?
Simply three uncials, xx,b, B, and D, the latter supported by
some MSS. of the early Italic and the Vulgate, attesting the
early reception of the new reading in Western Christendom.
Against the reading there are nine uncials, including Z,
a palimpsest which generally supports B and is scarcely
inferior to it in authority ; three which in doubtful readings
seldom differ from B., sc. L, A, and n, two of high indepen
dent value, E and M, and, as Tischendorf admits, all the best
cursives, ancient Versions, and Fathers of high authority,
Chrysostom, Basil (' Moralia,' torn. ii. p. 251 E, ed. Ben.*).
The question is (1) whether the old reading was a gloss, a
true one however, and as such, if not to be retained yet to be
borne in mind and its meaning expressed in any new trans
lation ; or (2) whether the new reading is not a somewhat
pedantic innovation, suggested probably by a critic familiar
with the Hebrew, and apparently the old Italic, usage.
It must be admitted that the reading is very ancient and
perfectly defensible, on the ground that hucatoavvrj represents
npTi and its Aramaic equivalent, which are commonly used

* The ' Moralia,' in which this and two other references occur, is a
work of high authority but not written by St. Basil.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. 53
in the sense of " almsgiving." But if the reading is admitted,
the rendering, as it stands, being either unintelligible or
misleading, is indefensible. If the reading is admitted on
the ground that Bucaooo-vvn means almsgiving, it ought to be
translated " almsgiving."
It is precisely a case in which the change in language
contravenes a " fundamental " resolution of Convocation.
(6) vi. 4. — In the fourth verse of this chapter we find
omissions which must strike all readers more or less pain
fully. In the Greek text the scholar will miss avro<;, a
forcible word : in the English all readers will miss the word
openly at the end of the verse. The word presents an anti
thesis to secretly, which, if not necessary, accords with our
Lord's habit of " emphatic iteration," pressing the point on
the attention of His hearers, and for that reason it is urged
powerfully by Chrysostom.
The omission, as we should expect, rests on the authority
of x, B, supported by Z : also in the former case by L and
in the latter by D ; the Coptic and Cureton's Syriac Version,
all remarkable for omissions. It should always be borne
in mind that where D is not supported by early Italic Ver
sions, its various readings are constantly attributable to the
notorious negligence or caprice of the transcriber.
The Revised Version does not even deign to notice the
old reading : yet it is supported by seven good uncials, by
all the best MSS. of early Italic (a, b, c, f), and by good
patristic authority.
This is surely an inexcusable omission.
(7) The Lord's Prayer. — We now come to the very central
and culminating point of our Lord's doctrinal and practical
teaching. We have to consider the treatment of our Lord's
own Prayer by the Revisers.
Let me first call attention to the innovations in the text.
We shall find three.

54 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
(a) vi. 10. — The first is of little importance, save in a
critical point of view. Before 7?}? the Revisers omit the
definite article. It happens thus, somewhat oddly, that the
omission saves them from an innovation in the translation.
Our old translators, who had t% 777? before them, disregarded
the article, and were right in so doing, since the word earth
stands out distinctly in antithesis to heaven. Had the
Revisers retained it, they would probably, if consistent, have
rendered it upon the earth.
As for the innovation in the text I would simply observe
that St. Matthew invariably prefixes the definite article
where the whole earth is meant : and again that the omission
rests, as usual, wholly on the MSS. N, B, Z, A, against all
other uncials, all cursives but three, and clear testimonies of
Greek Fathers.
An unimportant, but unnecessary change.
(b) vi. 12. — The second alteration, in v. 12, is of extreme
gravity ; grave as regards the innovation in the Greek text,
graver still as regards its spiritual and practical bearings.
Instead of the present d<f>lefiev, the Revisers have intro
duced the aorist, d<$>rjicap,ev.
Now the true rendering of that new reading would be
we forgave : but the Revisers render it as though, instead
of the aorist, they had the perfect tense before them ; in their
English text they say we have forgiven*
The necessity of thus altering the tense, in direct opposi
tion to a rule to which the Revisers attach great importance,
adhering to it in many instances where it is scarcely consis
tent with English idiom, ought surely to have constrained
them to question the correctness of the reading. Had they
given a literal translation, its unsuitableness would have

* I cannot but call to mind the witty and very true observation of
Canon Evans : " One may be tempted to examine the rare curiosity of an
aorist buried alive in a perfect."- — Expositor, 1882, p. 168.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. 55
been self-evident. It makes the petitioner, at the time when
he asks for forgiveness, declare that he forgave, or had
already forgiven. The use of the aorist in such idiomatic
expressions as e-rngveaa, iSe^d/Mrjv, rjaOinv, dirkirrvcya, iyapryi),
e/j.aOov and the like, rests on a different ground — they are
used to show the previous impression of the speaker.
The present tense, on the contrary — that which the Revisers
retain in St. Luke's report of the Prayer— implies that when
ever we offer that Prayer, we plead our will, intention, or
our habit of extending to all who trespass against us such
forgiveness as we seek for ourselves. The new reading states,
as an accomplished fact, that before the petition was offered,
the petitioner had forgiven all trespasses, or remitted all debts
due to him from every erring brother.
But we have to inquire what authority is adduced for this
reading. Of course we find N, B, the former, however, corrected by
a contemporary hand. B is supported by Z and two cursives
which belong to the same recension, 1, 124.
On the other side are twelve uncials, five of them, D, E,
L, A, n, with an old Hellenistic form d<j)io/j,ev, indicating
at once the independence of their testimony, and the dissent
of MSS. which usually agree with B ; the whole body of
cursives; the old Italic; the best edition of the Vulgate
(Am.) ; the Syriac of Cure ton without any possibility of
misapprehension — it has nashbua — and so also the edition of
Schwartze. The Peshito is claimed by Tischendorf for the
past tense ; it has qClm *ne first person plural of Peal,
which however stands for the present when it denotes a habit
or condition, and Walton is right in rendering it remittimus.
(In fact, the Peshito has the same word in St. Luke, where
all MSS. read d<piep.ev.) To these must be added the iEthiopic,
the Gothic, and the Coptic, omitted by Tischendorf — it has
rtTervxoo e&oX ; so Arabic cihj6 — both distinctly present.

56 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
There can be no doubt as to the preponderance of the most
weighty authorities, unless B is accepted as infallible.
We turn to the Fathers. Cyprian and Chrysostom and the
Apostolical Constitutions are admitted by Tischendorf to be
adverse to the innovation.
Origen is quoted for both readings. The case stands thus :
In the treatise on Prayer he cites d<f>^icafiev, but, be it
observed, not only for St. Matthew but for St. Luke, where
there is no variation in the MSS., a fact which of itself
throws suspicion upon his text, a suspicion more than con
firmed, by his own exposition, in which he twice reads
d(j>le/j,ev. We cannot but infer that Origen had that reading
before him, and that the variation in the citation is attri
butable to carelessness either on the part of Origen or more
probably of his transcribers and editors.
The alleged testimony of St. Basil, ' Horn, de Jejunio,' § 4
(p. 606 a), would be very weighty, if the homily were written
by him, and if, as might be inferred from Tischendorf's
notice, he were in that passage quoting the words of the
Prayer ; but he is simply applying its general teaching to a
special case, in which the petitioner is represented as pleading
an accomplished act. But the homily itself is spurious and
ought not to have been quoted at all. Garnier, the Benedic
tine editor, says of it (Praef. § xviii.), " Nihil unquam minus
Basilianum vidi."
Gregory of Nyssa, torn. i. p. 753 b, appears to have read
d^rjKa^iev, but in the heading of the chapter, he or his editor
quotes, not djtrjKafjiev, but d(f>kfiev. I should wish to know
what is the MS. authority for either or both these distinct
and irreconcileable readings.
The general result is surely that this very considerable
innovation is disguised by a loose inaccurate rendering, and
opposed to an overwhelming preponderance of authorities.
(c) The Doxology.—The last and crowning alteration in

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. 57
the Revisers' text of the Lord's Prayer is the total omission
of the Doxology. In a marginal note we are told that some
ancient authorities support it, but with variations, a state
ment which of course implies that no dependence is to be
placed upon their testimony.
In my ' Second Letter to the Bishop of London ' I have
referred to this omission. In support of the rejected clause
I have noticed the immense preponderance of authorities,
especially the consensus of all the Greek Fathers, from
Chrysostom onwards, who deal with the interpretation of the
Prayer, all of whom agree with that great expositor in main
taining its important bearings upon the preceding petitions.
I have also observed that a probable cause may be found for
its general omission in early Latin Versions and Fathers, viz.,
its separation in all the Western liturgies from the preceding
petitions by the intercalated Embolismus ; to this I may
add that in the controversies with the Marcionites, which
occupied to so great an extent the minds of early Latin
Fathers, the form of the Prayer found in St. Luke's Gospel
would naturally be quoted, since no question was raised as to
the reception of that Gospel.
I will now briefly state the authorities on which the
Revisers rely and those which they reject.
Of course we find n, B, supported however by D and Z
(Western and Alexandrian), the early Italic, the Vulgate,
the Latin Fathers Tertullian and Cyprian, and Origen.
That is, the Eusebian recension of the third and fourth
centuries, the Western from the second to the fifth or
sixth. On the other side are all other uncials, including those
which in doubtful cases, as a rule, agree with B. Unfortu
nately two most important witnesses here fail us, A and C.
Were the missing portion of the MS. of A extant, there can
be little doubt as to its testimony ; it generally agrees with

58 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
E and G, which are here supported by K, L, M, S, U, V, A,
and n, independent witnesses ; and by nearly all cursive
MSS. ; also by one independent and important MS. of the early
Italic, / (the Codex Brixianus) ; by all the Syriac Versions,
three independent witnesses, each weighty, and collectively of
the highest importance ; the Gothic, Slavonic, and, note this,
the two Egyptian Versions, Sahidic and Coptic, followed by the
^Ethiopia The variation to which the Revisers refer suffices
to prove the absolute independence of this " cloud of wit
nesses ; " it certainly does not detract from their authority
in a passage where the general import is all in all.
The Revisers would have been justified had they given a
marginal note stating an omission from some ancient autho
rities ; it might be too much to expect that the critics by
whom they were guided would consent to add that of the
MSS. which they follow, two are conspicuous for omissions,
that one, Z, belongs to the same recension, and that the other,
D, is notorious for negligence and caprice.
I have also to add that we now learn from Dr. Kennedy's
' Ely Lectures ' that Dr. Scrivener, as might be expected
from his previous statements, holds that there are not
sufficient grounds for such omission.
To expunge the whole clause from the text was a stretch
of arbitrary power against which, in my opinion, Churchmen
are entitled to remonstrate strongly ; and for which it is
scarcely conceivable that Convocation will accept the re
sponsibility. From the alterations in the text I pass on to alterations in
the rendering.
(8) In addition to that alteration which has been already
discussed, we find (a) bring for lead, a change questionable as
to English idiom, and generally admitted to be unnecessary.
The word lead surely expresses the full meaning of elcreveyicr}<;,
whether as regards its etymology, = cause to go (see Miiller,

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. 59
' Englische Etymologie,' s.v.), or its general use. The Bishop
of Durham, a very high authority as to the sense of the
Greek, states that in his opinion the change is a necessary
one, but he does not state what precise shade of meaning he
considers sufficiently important to compel or justify the
change. In fact, so far as I can judge, most readers will find
it difficult to ascertain whether bring or lead is the stronger
term. Dr. Kennedy says that in both Gospels the Greek
means bring, and that lead is an over strong and painful
word drawn from the Vulgate; he attributes it indeed to
Jerome's characteristic violence. It is strange that so learned
a man should not have referred to the early Italic Versions
before he pronounced this sentence upon Jerome. In all the
MSS. of early Italic we have one and the same rendering, ne nos
inducas — the only one, in fact, which appears to have been
known to the Latin Fathers, see the expositions of the
Lord's Prayer by Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine. On
the other hand I should rather have understood the word
bring to denote an act independent of, or controlling, the will
of the petitioner. I believe that readers will generally agree
in preferring the English of the old translators to that of the
Revisers.* (b) Daily.— This word is retained, but with an exposition
in the margin which is scarcely consistent with its natural
and obvious meaning. The reader may, and probably will,
understand that exposition, for the coming day, to refer to a
supply of food sufficient for the day in which the petition is

* I subjoin this note as expressing the judgment of an able
scholar : — " I suppose the Revisers would defend themselves by saying that
' lead ' implies an action on the will, ' bring ' an action of external circum
stances, and the latter is what the Greek implies. But the distinction is
too subtle for ordinary readers and the change is useless and unnecessary."
This is in fact the ground taken by Mr. Humphry, an excellent authority ;
but it certainly implies that "bring" is a stronger and, I should suppose,
therefore a more painful word than " lead."

60 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
offered. Such, however, is not the meaning attached to it by
the Revisers ; if, as may be assumed, they adopt the Bishop of
Durham's learned and able exposition. He holds that the word
means " the bread of to-morrow," a meaning which could have
been clearly stated in the margin, had the Revisers accepted
his arguments as conclusive.
I will not here enter upon the very difficult contro
versy as to the exact meaning and etymology of eTriovaios, a
word absolutely unknown in classic or Hellenistic Greek.
I may observe that in the corrupt so-called Gospel of the
Hebrews, the word "to-morrow" is adopted, yet that most
of the old Versions (I believe all but one, the Memphitic,
which has p<LCT> *•«• to-morrow), and, so far as I am aware,
all early Christian Fathers, understood it to refer to the
supply of our immediate wants. Chrysostom explains it
as i(f>ijfj,epo<;, without note or comment, as a point generally
understood ; and to go much further back, Clement of
Alexandria (Strom, viii. c. xiii.) regards it as the proper
antithesis to irepiovo-io^.* When, however, the alternative
derivation from eiviwv, with reference to iiriovaa, was gene
rally adopted, it was as generally understood by the Fathers to
refer to spiritual food, the food of the eternal morrow. See
the collection of passages in Dr. McClellan's ' Gospels.'
Here we gladly welcome the retention of the old word in
the text ; but the marginal exposition of the Greek, if correct
in sense, is, to say the least, obscure and misleading in
expression. To use the words of a learned friend, " The fact
is that the bread that we pray for is ' future,' in the same
sense in which all objects of prayer are ' future.' But the
marginal explanation of the Revisers leads to a supposition

* I would specially call attention to the whole context of this passage.
Clement, like his great namesake of Rome (see my ' Second Letter to the
Bishop of London,' p. 57), gives what may be regarded as a paraphrase of
the Lord's Prayer, and, like him, discards all reference to Satan.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. 61
that in this instance we are to think of a more distant
future." The Syriac of Cureton renders the word amina, i.e. con
stant, to be relied upon. Cureton in his preface, at p. xviii.,
says truly that "we have, v. II, 'constant of the day,' amina
d'yoma, which agrees exactly with quotidianum of the old
Latin, a, b, c, and with the reading of Cyprian. The Gothic
Version also uses a term meaning continual." The Gothic
word is sinteinan, in the nominative sinteins, which probably
means continuous, nearly equivalent to daily, as indeed
Massman renders it in his vocabulary to Ulfila.
(c) Deliver us from evil. — I must refer to my very long
discussion of this passage, to which an answer by the Bishop
of Durham may be looked for. Here I will simply notice the
facts (1) that the new rendering " the evil one " is an inno
vation in language, the word wicked being invariably used by
the Authorized Version in speaking of Satan; (2) that it
narrows the broad, comprehensive sense of the Greek ; (3)
that it implies incompleteness in the deliverance already
accomplished by our Lord; (4) that it has no counterpart
or justification in the New Testament; (5) that it is opposed
to the interpretation adopted by all the Churches of Western
Christendom ; and (6) that it absolutely ignores the safe
guard supplied by the Doxology, on which special stress is
laid by all the best expositors of the Greek Church, from
Chrysostom onwards.
I must add that so far from the Revisers being all but
unanimous in their interpretation of the passage, four have
publicly declared their dissent. One other scholar,* well
known for his learning and soundness in the faith, was

* I refer to Mr. Humphry. In his pamphlet entitled ' A Word on the
Revised Version of the New Testament,' p. 25, he informs us that " he
resisted it as long as he could," and that the change was finally adopted
after the circulation of a paper in its defence by one of the members.

62 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
decidedly adverse to its adoption, and struggled against it to
the last ; and lastly, Dr. Kennedy, in the Dedication prefixed
to his ' Ely Lectures on the Revised Version,' published this
year, writes thus, p. x. : " Once I voted for placing ' evil one
in the margin ; later on, feeling the strength of the argument
for the masculine, I did not vote, and I am afraid I still
doubt on which side the scale of obligation preponderates."
In a subsequent lecture he doubts whether the protest of the
margin ought not to content " those who hold to the concrete
sense," p. 72.
The Bishop of Lincoln, who in a brief note on the Gospel
of St. Matthew had previously adopted the new rendering,
has lately written to me saying that " there can be no doubt
that the Revisers acted ultra vires in making the alteration ;
and that the general term evil is preferable to the evil one."
,1 express no further opinion upon this point. The reader
will decide whether my arguments or those which have been,
or will be, adduced by the Bishop of Durham, preponderate ;
or rather, whether his arguments amount to a proof that our
Authorized Version is a plain and clear error.

FROM THE LORD S PRAYER TO THE END OF THE SERMON ON
THE MOUNT.
Few changes are suggested by the Revisers so far as
regards the Gospel of St. Matthew.
(9) One omission, c. vi. 18, rests on good authority ; two,
of no importance theologically, are noticeable from a critical
point of view ; in v. 21, aov for v/acov is adopted from n and B
against all MSS. and Versions ; and in v.25,rj for ical follows
B alone. In v. 33 the Revisers omit tov Oeov, following a, B,
against all MSS. and Versions, and the distinct testimony of
the early Fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and
Cyprian.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. 63
(10) vi. 25. — The Revisers seem to claim and to receive
much credit for the substitution of " be not anxious" in place
of " take no thought." It is selected by my old friend Arch
deacon Allen, as one of those changes which justify a
demand for immediate adoption, and Dr. Farrar, in the Con
temporary Review, defends the use of the word " anxious "
— strange, as he admits, to the present New Testament — as
necessary, on the ground of its correcting a wrong impression,
and precluding practical misuse. This opinion is shared by
persons whose judgment is very weighty, both as scholars,
and as practically acquainted with the impression made upon
the generality of readers by the words in the Authorized
Version. To me, however, the old rendering appears prefer
able. The word fiepifivdco comprises all forms of mental
agitation, whether painful and distressing, or merely specu
lative — in short, preoccupation of the thoughts about future
contingencies. The word " anxious " is not sufficiently
comprehensive ; it narrows the sense ; it is true as far as
it extends, but it certainly does not cover the meaning and
practical bearings involved in the significant but somewhat
rare word fiepifivdco as used in classical and biblical Greek.*

* Apart from this passage and the corresponding clause in St. Luke
the word occurs but twice in the Gospels : Matthew x. 19, where it means
turning over in one's mind, casting about for topics in an apologetic speech,
a process which of course is accompanied with anxiety, but is mainly
objectionable on the ground of its involving mental distraction. The
Christian, as St. Peter writes, should be always ready to give an answer,
a condition which is the true preservative against undue excitement. In
Luke x. 41 (where the Revisers have " thou art anxious " in the text, but
suggest omission in the margin), it is connected with Tvpfialji and applies
to unnecessary worrying about small domestic matters. It occurs four
times in St. Paul's Epistles : twice in 1 Corinthians, vii. 23-24, and xii. 35.
In the latter passage it is commended, being an unselfish thoughtfulness :
so, too, in Phil. ii. 20 ; in Phil. iv. 6 Bishop Ellicott renders it be anxious,
a rendering adopted by the Revisers, and also by Dean Gwynne in the
' Speaker's Commentary ;' a shade of meaning which is appropriate to that
passage, but is far from exhausting the significance of the verb.

64 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
Our Lord would not merely save His followers from distressful
thoughts, from painful anxieties, but heal them of the disease
of worldliness, of which one of the very commonest and most
mischievous symptoms is the feeling throroughly well ex
pressed by the words " taking thought," a process sometimes
painful, but always attractive and engrossing to the specu
lator, the day-dreamer, the busy housewife, the over-careful
parent. The Revisers would scarcely venture to reject that
phrase as an archaism. It is familiar to the readers of
Shakespeare, and ought to have been impressed upon the
minds of Christians generally, with all its train of associa
tions and practical bearings. It is said, however, to be
generally misunderstood. If that be the case, a brief
marginal note might surely suffice. The removal of the
word from the text seems to me a palpable infringement of
one fundamental resolution of Convocation. I trust that
when the range of language has been fully considered, the
old, pregnant, comprehensive, and adequate rendering take
no thought will be preserved. If, indeed, it need to be
explained, great care should be taken that the exposition be
true, neither narrowing the sense, as the word " anxious "
certainly does, nor widening it so as to include due care, the
wise foresight which our Lord repeatedly enjoins, which He
condemns the careless and thoughtless for neglecting.
The other alterations in St. Matthew's account of the
Sermon on the Mount are not of importance.
(11) In c. vii. 2, fieTpTnOrjcreTai for avTO/AeTpvOtfcreTat, is a
correction supported by all uncial MSS. The old reading is
evidently a gloss, a good one, but not to be retained in the
text. (12) vii. 4. e'/c for diro. — The word itc is physically correct,
but a7ro is better as referring to the intention.
The new reading follows k, B, against all other uncials.
In v. 5, eV is generally adopted. The intention has been

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. 65
marked sufficiently by the old reading in the preceding
clause ; the act itself is now distinctly described.
(13) vii. 13. — The marginal note suggests the omission of
r) irvXr), the gate, which has all uncials but one in its favour,
and all Versions, except the early Italic.
The preference thus given to X" is hardly to be accounted
for save on the ground that omissions, in the Revisers'
judgment, have a prima facie claim to acceptance. In the
Appendix to Westcott and Hort's 'Introduction,' p. 10, Dr.
Hort has a highly ingenious, but over-subtle, discussion in
defence of the omission. It can scarcely convince any one
who has not adopted the general views of the two critics.
(14) For otl in v. 14, the marginal note suggests tL : How
narrow is the gate.
For this change there is strong support, but it is notice
able that neither N nor B, the chief authorities with the
Revisers, has that reading. The cursive MSS. are divided ;
Tischendorf says " oti al. haud dubie mu." That is, very
many certainly have the old reading.
I doubt both the new reading — which seems to me less in
accordance with our Lord's noble and simple style — and the
rendering. Can t( mean how ? It is a meaning which seems
to me wholly without support.
The rest of the discourse is left untouched in St. Matthew.
(15) But we must here call attention to the treatment of
the discourse as recorded by St. Luke, vi. 20-49.
In those twenty-nine verses twenty alterations are made,
twelve of them omissions of the usual character, resting on
the usual authorities, but of no material importance.
In v. 35, the very difficult reading firjSeva for fi^jBev is
suggested in the margin as read by some ancient authorities.
The rendering in the text, never despairing, is not satisfactory ;
that in the margin, despairing of no man, is intelligible, but
seems to me to savour of Alexandrian subtlety. F

66 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
For the old reading there is an enormous preponderance of
MSS., including B and its ordinary satellites.
The new rests on a, with 3 and n, authorities followed by
Tischendorf in his eighth edition, but comparatively seldom
by Westcott and Hort.
But the discourse, as reported by St. Luke, is disfigured
at its close, v. 48, by an innovation, unsurpassed for its
absurdity, in most absolute and direct opposition to our
Lord's own teaching as recorded by both Evangelists.
Instead of it was founded on a rock, or, as the marginal
note renders the old reading, it had been founded on the
rock, the Revised Version introduces into the text because
it had been well builded.
A reason for the fall of the house is thus given totally
different from that which is distinctly pointed out by our
Lord's words in the preceding verse, and is distinctly
recorded by St. Matthew.
The fall of the house, in fact, had absolutely nothing to do
with the superstructure ; it was simply and entirely owing
to the insecurity of the soil on which it stood. The choice
of the foundation is the distinctive characteristic of the two
classes of builders.
It may be assumed as an undoubted fact that our Lord's
own teaching is correctly reported by St. Matthew. Whether
He delivered the discourse on two several occasions or not,
has little to do with the present question. One thing is sure :
His teaching was consistent ; His meaning was not open to
ambiguity. The question is simply this. Does St. Luke himself report
incorrectly our Lord's words, does he grievously misrepresent
them ? or has some tasteless, reckless innovator, whether care
lessly or intentionally, introduced, first, probably, a senseless
gloss, then a mischievous corruption, into the Gospel ?
The special characteristics of St. Luke's Gospel, remark-

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. IV. 67
able for grace, beauty, keen and loving appreciation of our
Lord's teaching, must be borne in mind ; nor should it be
forgotten that his whole character was moulded under the
influence of St. Paul, who above all things enforced the great
principle of attending, if not exclusively, yet invariably and
primarily to the foundation.
For the new reading four uncials, Alexandrian or Eusebian,
are solely responsible, sc. a, B, L, 3, and two cursives.
The Coptic Version has it was well built, but adds the all-
important words upon a rock, not the rock (exert OTTieTp.L)
This reading seems to mark the origin of this wretched
variation. First /caXw? was inserted — useless but not affecting
the substance — then "a rock" was omitted, giving thus
exclusive weight to the interpolated icaXux;.
I venture to assert that such a reading as this, having
regard to all its bearings, is sufficient to impair, if not
altogether to overthrow, the authority of the MSS. which
support it. It seems to me very strange that Dr. Hort
does not state, in the appendix to his 'Introduction,' his
reasons for adopting a reading so extraordinary.
(16) What shall we say generally of the treatment of the
Sermon on the Mount by the Revisers ?
What points of any real importance have they amended ?
What points have they damaged % They have suggested a
transposition in the Beatitudes ; they have mutilated some of
the most characteristic injunctions of our Lord; they have
left the Lord's Prayer in an incomplete, and I cannot but
maintain, a corrupt form ; while they have utterly demolished
the principle set forth forcibly and completely in the con
cluding parable as recorded by St. Luke.
I ask again whether these changes are not wholly incon
sistent with the conditions proposed by themselves, formally
sanctioned by Convocation, and accepted as fundamental in
the Preface to the Revised Version. F 2

68 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS

SECTION V.
To the Close of our Lord's Ministry in Galilee.
(a.) from the sermon on the mount to the parables.
Matt, viii.-xiii. ; Mark i. 40-iv. ; Luke viii.
(1) I will not dwell on points which do not affect the sub
stance of our Lord's teaching or the verity of the narrative,
although in some instances the changes are vexatious, and
certainly unnecessary. Thus e.g. in St. Mark's account, i. 40,
of the healing of the first leper the words which are in sub
stantial, not verbal, accordance with St. Matthew, express
ing deep reverence, " and kneeling down to him " (yovvireToov
avTov), are noted in the margin as omitted by some ancient
authorities. In this case B and D — the two principal autho
rities, the latter specially in cases of omission, with Westcott
and Hort — are supported by two late uncials, G and Y, but
opposed by N and L, and all other MSS. and ancient Versions.
Westcott and Hort in their own edition enclose the words
in brackets ; evidently they could not persuade the Revisers
to adopt their own reading in the text ; unfortunately it is
almost equally mischievous in the margin.
(2) In the account of the healing of the centurion's
servant, Matthew viii. 6, 8, I notice with regret that in the
margin boy is suggested in place of servant. This apparently
countenances an interpretation, repudiated by most com
mentators, that the centurion was entreating on behalf of
his own child ; a point which alters the character of the
transaction, and is not without effect upon a grave question
touching the harmony of the Gospels.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. V. 69
Nor do I regard the marginal change in v. 10 as satis
factory. It is certainly obscure, if it does not alter the sense,
and the Revisers were evidently unwilling to admit it into
their text.
(3) Luke vi. 1. — I must, however, call special attention to
the extraordinary acceptance of a very indefensible omis
sion in the text of Luke vi. 1. There SevTepoirpcoTO) is
omitted altogether in the text, although it is defended in the
margin. In the first place the omission of the word affects
the narrative. The word is peculiar, it does not occur else
where, but it most probably means the first Sunday in the
second month (Iyar*), precisely the time when wheat would
be fully ripe, and it thus gives singular vividness to St. Luke's
account, impressing readers unconsciously with its exact
veracity. In the next place the omission bears upon the cha
racter of the MSS. which alone are responsible for the blunder, s,
B, L. Even Tischendorf rejects it, observing truly " ut ab addi-
tamenti ratione alienum est, ita cur omiserint in promptu est."
(4) In Mark ii. 16 K, B, and D omit the words " and
drinketh " — a point chiefly noticeable as an instance of the
singular weight attached by Westcott and Hort to D in cases
of omissions, because it is generally remarkable for interpola
tions. In the Gospels that MS. is not less conspicuous for
careless or hasty omissions. The Revisers do not accept the
omission in their English text, but they allow it a place in
the margin.
(5) In the 26th verse of this chapter we meet with a very
serious innovation, presented in the most distinct form in
the Revised Version. Instead of " in the days of Abiathar
the High Priest " we are told to read " when Abiathar was
High Priest." The importance of this change might possibly
escape the notice of general readers ; but it has been pointed

* See note in the ' Speaker's Commentary.'

70 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
out forcibly and conclusively by the Quarterly Reviewer, and
by the learned Bishop of Lincoln. The old reading simply
states the fact that Abiathar, well known as the High Priest
appointed by David himself at a much later period, was
present when the young David with his attendants ate the
shew bread. What the Revisers make our Lord say, is that
Abiathar was High Priest at that time. A grosser ana
chronism could scarcely be committed, and here it is dis
tinctly imputed to our Lord Himself, on the authority of
St. Mark, the Petrine Evangelist.
This extraordinary falsification of well-known history is
effected by the simple omission of the definite article (tov)
before High Priest. Had evidence of very early omission been
adduced the question would still have been whether the
gross error was to be imputed to the Evangelist, or to a
scribe careless or in haste, and probably unconscious of its
bearings, and that question could surely have elicited but
one answer. In the case of a secular writer, had such an
anachronism, resting on a single word, been detected in a
MS. say of Polybius, or any historian of character, no critic
would have hesitated to have condemned it as the manifest
blunder of a transcriber. But in this instance we find it only
in the two ancient MSS. remarkable for the number of their
omissions, N and B, followed by two much later uncials, well
known as their satellites ; against them stand A and C, two
weighty and independent authorities, but little later in point of
age, and free from their characteristic defects, with A and IT,
and the cursives 1, 33, 69, all five remarkable for their
general agreement with k and B.
That this is a plain and clear error, is a fact absolutely
indisputable ; and it is attributed by the Revisers, in their
new text, to our Lord or to the Evangelist.
Can it be doubted that it is a plain and clear error of the
Revisers ?

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. V. 71
OUR LORD'S DISCOURSE AT NAZAEETH. — Luke XV. 18-20. —
In this most important discourse, in which, in His own
native place, our Lord formally claimed for Himself the
fulfilment of one of the most striking Messianic prophecies,
especially precious as describing the characteristic features of
His personality, we are startled by the omission of the
words "to heal the broken-hearted" (v. 19).
For this omission we have, as we should expect, the same
authorities X and B, supported, however, by later MSS. of
the same recension, L and 3 ; and by D with other early
Western witnesses ; also the Coptic and iEthiopic (as edited)
Versions. These suffice to prove that the omission existed
at an early period, and that it was accepted, probably because
it was not noticed, by Egyptian transcribers.
Against it are arrayed : — (1) The Hebrew original, which
our Lord had in His hands, and which He undoubtedly read
in the synagogue without omitting any words, especially
words expressive of tenderest sympathy. (2) Abundance of
competent and independent witnesses — nine uncials, five of
which generally agree with B, most cursives, some of the best
MSS. of early Italic and Vulgate, the Syriac in all its forms,
the Gothic, and MSS. of ^Ethiopic; of the Fathers, the
earliest, in such a case the most trustworthy, Irenaeus.
Is it conceivable that any one will venture to assert that
these most blessed words are a plain and clear error ? As
for the omission, I attribute it simply to carelessness on the
part of D and those early Italic transcribers who omit the
clause, and to the disgraceful habit of cutting down the
sacred text, probably attributable to haste in this instance
(see further on, p. 170), on the part of the transcribers, or
the editors, of the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts.
Then it must be borne in mind, that, while it is certain
that our Lord did read those words, St. Luke, of all writers,
inspired or uninspired, was the very last who would fail to

72 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
record them. It would be against the whole tenour of this
Gospel, of which the special characteristic is the promi
nence given to all indications of deep sympathy, of utter
tenderness and compassionateness, a characteristic which
elicited from the great representative of cultivated scepti
cism the declaration that St. Luke's Gospel is "le plus
beau livre qu'il y ait" (E. Renan, 'Les Evangiles,'
p. 283).
I note this omission as one among many indications of
untrustworthiness in the chief ancient authorities followed
by the Revisers ; the reader will judge how far it affects the
character of the Revised Version.
It is not within my general scope to deal with points not
directly connected with our Lord's personal history, but it
is scarcely possible to pass over the extraordinary historical
blunder which, in the margin of the Revised Version, is
imputed to St. Mark (vi. 22). The Evangelist is made to
say that the dancing girl, daughter of Herodias by her former
husband, as Josephus tells us, and, as all critics agree, tells
us truly, was the daughter of Herod the Tetrarch. On the
absurdities involved in this statement, see the criticism of
Dr. Scrivener in his ' Introduction.'
It affects, and that substantially, the character of X,
B, D, L, A, following some early transcriber, who, doubtless,
in ignorance or carelessness, is responsible for this plain
and clear error.
In Mark vii. 19, we find the reading KaOapL^cov, i.e. in the
rendering " this he said making all meats clean." I entirely
agree with the Revisers as to the high probability of their
reading. I had some years previously defended it in my
note on the passage in the 'Speaker's Commentary.' But
considering the number and the weight of the authorities
adverse to the change of reading and of rendering, and the
necessity, if it be adopted, of introducing a parenthesis, I

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. V. 73
should certainly not have ventured to do more than give a
marginal note.
Granted the improvement, can the change be defended as
necessary ? (B.) THE PARABLES OF OUR LORD.
I am happy to observe that no changes of any importance
are introduced by the Revisers into the reports of the
parables in either of the Evangelists. Minor points I will
not here dwell upon, but I will call attention to Matt. xiii. 35
to express my deep thankfulness — a feeling which I am
sure will be shared by the immense majority of Christian
readers — that the Revisers have rejected totally, leaving
it without mention even in the margin, the reading the
prophet Isaiah; especially because this is a corruption not
only adopted by Tischendorf, but defended at considerable
length in the Prolegomena to his edition of the 'Novum
Testamentum Sinaiticum,' p. xxxiv. He assigns to it a
foremost place among genuine readings attested by early
authorities, but now extant in extremely few MSS., this
being found only in k, the Sinaitic MS., and in D.
There is no doubt as to its existence in the third century ;
it was quoted by Porphyrius as a proof of the gross ignorance
of the Evangelist. Jerome, in the fifth century, says that it
was expunged from the manuscripts which he himself used.
Eusebius, on Ps. 78 tit., gives a very probable account of
the origin of the blunder : " Some, not understanding that
Asaph was the ' prophet ' intended by Matt., added in his
Gospel 'by Isaiah the prophet,' an addition which is not
found in the most accurate MSS."
Westcott and Hort do not adopt this blunder in their own
text, but insert it in their margin, and defend it in their
appendix, p. 12 seq. Dr. Hort, in a separate note, says, " It is
difficult not to think 'Ha-atov genuine." That is, it is diffi-

74 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
cult to believe that the Evangelist was not guilty of gross
ignorance or of unpardonable negligence. I cannot imagine
what the writer of this note thought of the veracity, the
biblical knowledge, not to speak of the inspiration, of the
Apostle and Evangelist. Whether or not he recommended
to the Revisers a similar course, as he might seem to
have been bound to do in consistency with his own
principles, it is clear that in this case the majority of the
Committee shrank from imputing to St. Matthew a state
ment which would imply that the Evangelist was so little
acquainted with the two books most frequently cited in the
New Testament, viz. the Psalms and Isaiah, that he assigned
a prediction, well known as Messianic, to the wrong author.
We gladly welcome this somewhat rare indication of
caution. Up to the close of our Lord's ministerial work in Galilee,
no points seem to call for special attention, save the two
following, which are of grave import in their bearings upon
our Lord's teaching.
The first point is the total omission from the text of
the Revised Version in St. Matthew's Gospel (xvii. 21) of
the passage in which our Lord states that " this kind goeth
not out save by prayer and fasting," and of the last words
" and fasting " from St. Mark's Gospel (ix. 29).
In both cases the old reading is noticed in the margin ; in
St. Matthew, as resting on many authorities, some ancient ;
in St. Mark, as supported by many ancient authorities.
Before we inquire into the weight of authorities favouring,
or adverse to, the innovation, we are entitled to ask whether,
in face of the amount of authorities thus admitted to be
opposed to it, the Revisers were justified in so serious a
mutilation of our Lord's teaching, especially in reference
to a question which has been long contested between Church
men of different schools, and to a point which has been

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. V. 75
defended with equal zeal and learning by some of the
chief representatives of Anglican theology. The rejection
implies that the word " fasting " is a plain and clear error, a
sentence warmly applauded by the representatives of one
school of religious thought, but inflicting a severe and power
ful blow upon others. This last consideration would of course
have no weight, supposing the evidence to be conclusive, but
it certainly imposed upon the Revisers the duty of the utmost
caution ; they are bound to prove a plain and clear error, and
that in face, as they admit, of many ancient authorities.
We now have to examine the authorities. What we find
from Tischendorf's eighth edition is, that in St. Matthew
the whole clause is omitted on the authority of «*,* B,
one cursive (33), the Sahidic Version, and the Memphitic
(according to some MS. or MSS. ?).
Now the clause is given in full by all other uncials (eighteen
are cited by Tischendorf himself), including those which, in
doubtful cases, usually agree with B ; all other cursives, all
the best Versions, sc. Italic, Vulgate, Syriac, and, according
to the best editions, the Memphitic ; a complete phalanx of
Fathers, even Origen, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Chry-
sostom, and all later Greek expositors ; so Tischendorf, to
whom the Quarterly Reviewer, p. 357, adds Athanasius, Basil,
Tertullian, and others.
Surely the Revisers must see that their marginal note,
telling us that some of the authorities which support the old
reading are ancient, is seriously misleading.
Tischendorf, whose opinion, as must be supposed, is adopted
by the Revisers, regards it as an interpolation from St. Mark.

* I observe that the omission occurs in fol. 10 of X ; now this leaf is
one of those which according to Tischendorf were written by the scribe of
B ; Dr. Hort (§ 288) accepts Tischendorf s statement We have thus the
testimony of one scribe only. See further on (p. 234).

76 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
Two Evangelists, it seems, cannot agree in their report of
our Lord's own words without exposing themselves to the
attack of captious or unwary critics. If an assimilation had
been shown on good grounds to be probable, the usual and
natural course would have been to have looked for it in the
second Gospel, certainly not in the first, which, above all
things, is conspicuous for its full and accurate records of our
Lord's words.
We turn, however, to the Gospel of St. Mark. There Ave
find that the same two uncials, nx and B, stand absolutely
alone among all manuscripts — alone, that is, with one singu
larly weak exception, k, an inferior codex of early Italic.
Without any shadow of support from Greek or Latin Fathers,
they end the sentence with Trpoo-evyfi.
Let the reader consider the varied and complete weight of
the authorities adverse to this mutilation. Not to speak of
a corrector of a, they include the three ancient and inde
pendent MSS., A, C, and D, six uncials, for the most part
satellites of B, all cursives, and all Versions.
The process by which this strange mutilation is effected
calls for notice. First, St. Matthew's account is rejected as
an interpolation from the second Gospel, so that the reader's
apprehension as to the effect of the omission is somewhat
relieved, whatever he may think of the arbitrary assumption ;
but then on turning to St. Mark he finds that the special
words about which he felt anxious, or certainly interested,
whether his prepossessions were in favour of the old or of the
new reading, are expunged from the text.
Other innovations are undoubtedly of greater moment, as
affecting vital doctrines ; but in the entire range of biblical
criticism I do not remember a more arbitrary or less defen
sible mutilation, affecting two Gospels, and an emphatic
declaration of our Lord.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. V. 77
(C.) THE CLOSE OF OUR LORD'S WORK IN GALILEE.
Mark ix. 43-50. — We now come to an address to the
disciples, of singular interest as marking, I may say as
summarizing, our Saviour's special injunctions to the Twelve ;
of singular and emphatic solemnity, impressing upon them
the highest characteristic of Christian ethics, an address
recorded with peculiar fulness and vividness by St. Mark,
doubtless in the exact form delivered to him by St. Peter, on
whose spirit every word must have been impressed in
characters of fire.*
(1) We miss the emphatic reiteration, to the importance
and awful solemnity of which St. Augustine and other
Fathers called special attention.
In this case it has peculiar importance as exemplifying a
marked characteristic of our Lord's teaching, brought out
most frequently and vividly in St. Mark's Gospel.
The margin tells us that vv. 44 and 46 are omitted by the
"best ancient authorities."
That is X, B, of course, supported, however, by C, and two
of their usual followers, L and A, and four cursives only.
But the verse stands in A, D (two perfectly independent
witnesses), N, X, Y, U, in all nine good uncials, all other
cursives, the best MSS. of early Italic, the Vulgate, Syriac,
and ^Ethiopia To these must be added the express and
pointed testimony of Augustine, " non eum piguit uno loco
eadem verba ter dicere," quoted by Tischendorf.
(2) We then miss a sentence, which, if T am not totally
mistaken as to its meaning and bearing, gives a most
practical and forcible point to the whole discourse, drawing
out most distinctly the characteristic which above all others

* I venture to call attention to my own notes on this passage, Mark ix.
43-50, in the ' Speaker's Commentary.' See also Jablonski, ed. Te Water,
torn. ii. pp. 458-485.

78 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
marks the true disciples of Christ. Our Lord has denounced
in most awful terms the destiny of the impenitent, every one
(sc. of those named in the preceding verse) shall be salted
with fire ; and (He then adds) every sacrifice shall be salted
with salt. Thus we have two antitheses : (1) the condemned
sinner, and the accepted sacrifice, the true-hearted disciple,
whose body is a living sacrifice (Rom. xii. 1), whose prayers
are spiritual sacrifices ; (2) fire and salt — the fire of Gehenna,
and the purifying, preserving, saving grace of the Gospel, of
which the highest manifestation is perfect charity.
Such appears to me to be the true meaning of the rejected
verse, but whether that, or any other exposition be adopted,
we must not risk or tolerate a mutilation, unless we are
constrained by irresistible evidence.*
For the omission stand a, B, L, A, the recension which
is specially conspicuous for omissions — proofs of purity
according to some, indications of haste, or of fastidiousness,
according to others — but certainly to be distrusted unless
supported by other independent authorities.
The clause is found in nine good uncials — note the inde
pendence and character of these — A, C, D, N, X, Y, n — and
all ancient Versions of weight.
But Tischendorf suggests that some transcriber or critic
took the passage from Leviticus ii. 13 ; a conjecture at once
arbitrary and irrational, one which savours of the character
istic bad taste and defective judgment of that critic, eminent
as he is for other gifts, for unparalleled industry and tact as
a decipherer and registrar of MSS. It is surely one which few,
if any, English critics of character will venture to defend.
The reader has but to note the direct connection with our

* For Dr. Hort's account of the matter, see his 'Introduction,' p. 101.
It is of course ingenious and able, but equally remarkable for subtlety and
boldness. I have occasion again to refer to this point in the section on
' Conflate Readings,' in Part III. p. 211.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. V. 79
Lord's words in the next verse: "good is the salt, i.e. with
which the sacrifice is seasoned; have that salt in yourselves,
and have peace one with another."
I can scarcely realize the feelings of any reader who,
setting side by side the Revised Version with our own
Authorized Version, can doubt which retains the very words
of the Saviour. To my mind the statement of St. Mark
stands out among the most striking instances of his vivid
appreciation of " the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

80 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.

SECTION VI.
From the Close of our Lord's Ministry in Galilee
to His Areival at Jerusalem.
In this portion of the Gospel narrative the most serious
damage has been inflicted upon St. Luke, the Evangelist to
whom we are indebted for the fullest and most deeply
interesting record of our Lord's discourses and works during
this period. St. Mark, however, has received some wounds
of a peculiarly offensive and painful character.
Luke ix. 54, 55. — At the outset, immediately after the
last discourse recorded by St. Mark and discussed in the
preceding section, we have to call special attention to a most
grievous mutilation. In Luke ix. 54, 55 we note, in the
first place, the omission from the Revisers' Version and their
Greek text of the strikingly characteristic appeal of the two
Apostles of zeal and love, St. James and St. John, to the
example of Elias, or, as the Revisers prefer, Elijah ; * and then,
secondly, we find to our utter bewilderment that the Re
visers obliterate from their text one of the most heart-
searching sayings of our Lord, a saying which was specially
adapted to the new position which the disciples were hence
forth to occupy, which at every critical period in the history
of the Church has been most deeply impressed upon the
hearts of Christians conscious of the danger of Judaistic

* If the Revisers intend to represent the Greek text they might surely
retain the Greek form, with which every reader is familiar. I do not
understand why they prefer the Hebrew form, which they cannot use
consistently.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VI. 81
prejudice in any form, which on the other hand has been
most flagrantly and disastrously neglected by leaders of
hostile factions.
In the margin they tell us that " some ancient authorities
add, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. Some,
but fewer, add also, For the Son of Man came not to destroy
men's souls but to save them."
Thus rejected from the text, relegated to the margin — in
part with a notice indicating distrust of the authorities which,
ancient as they are admitted to be, could not procure admis
sion for these words into the Revised Text ; in part with a
still more distinct expression of adverse judgment — the whole
of this most weighty, most precious declaration, so far as the
Revisers' influence extends, is withdrawn from the sphere of
Christian consciousness. Many preachers will refrain alto
gether from citing them as genuine ; no preacher addressing
a congregation of ordinary culture will henceforth be able to
quote them without a previous statement, necessarily open
to question, of the grounds on which he ventures to press
them upon the attention of his hearers.
Had they been preserved but in a small number of early
and trustworthy documents, their singular depth and power,
their special accordance with the whole tenour of the third
Gospel, ought surely to have saved them from such treat
ment, and justified their retention in the place which for
ages they have occupied in the sacred text. But after all
how stand the authorities ?
The authorities which support them are far more ancient
and, in such a matter, I venture to assert, far more trust
worthy, than any extant manuscripts. The old Italic, the
Syriac Version of Cureton, and the Peshito, occupying the
highest place among ancient Versions, bear witness to their
acceptance in the East and in the West before the third
G

82 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
century.* The Vulgate, the Coptic, .ZEthiopic, Gothic, and
Armenian show they were received throughout all Christen
dom during and after the fourth century. These witnesses
are supported by early Fathers of high authority, Ambrose,
probably Clement Alex., Optatus, Didymus, Epiphanius, and
Chrysostom. Again, the old reading is found in eight uncials. Among
these is D, the well-known Codex Bezae, which has little
weight in cases of interpolation attributable to carelessness
or adoption of loose traditions, but when it is supported by
the early Italic and early Fathers, unquestionably preserves
important sayings of our Lord — a fact especially applicable
in this case ; while the other uncials are weighty either as
independent witnesses, or as generally following the recen
sion of which B is the chief representative. Also the great
majority of cursives, Tischendorf say s alii permulti ; denoting
a decided preponderance.
But on the other side the Revisers have a right to insist
upon the array of MSS. of the greatest weight for antiquity,
and especially important when supported by independent
witnesses ; as in this case N, B are followed by L, A, 3, in
conjunction with A, C, E, and five other uncials.
If, therefore, the Revisers had been commissioned or autho
rized to construct a revised Greek text, and if that text was
simply to set before the student the readings of the oldest
and best manuscripts, they would certainly have been justi
fied in the course which, as we must be assured in this case,
they have reluctantly adopted.
But if their first duty was to preserve intact all sayings of

* Tischendorf, who rejects the whole clause, makes an admission of
which the importance can scarcely be estimated too highly. On v. 56 he
says, " Secundo vero jam saaculo quin in codicibus omnis hajc interpolatio
circumferri consueverit, pro testium auctoritate, Latinorum maxime et
Syriacorum, dubitari nequit."

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VI. 83
our Lord, attested on solid evidence to have been recorded
in the Gospels ; and to reject none attributed to Him, and
generally received by Christians, unless they be proved to be
plain and clear error, I do not see how they can be acquitted
of " exorbitancy," or of what appears to me substantial viola
tion of the conditions under which they were entrusted with
the most important of all works.
In such a case special weight must surely be assigned to
internal evidence. We must needs inquire which of possible
alternatives is the more probable.
(a) Was such a saying as this at all likely to be invented ?
was it one which a bold unscrupulous forger would ever have
thought of inventing ? which he would have persuaded
Christendom to accept as a genuine utterance of our Lord ?
Or, putting aside all imputations of conscious forgery, was it
a saying likely to have had its origin in the spirit of some
unknown teacher of the Church, so placed and so trusted as
to take the position of an exponent of his Master's mind ?
Is that alternative, however stated, however modified, one
which will commend itself to any well-informed and candid
mind ? Such a teacher must have combined most incon
sistent qualities : he must have been at once audacious in
invention, and at the same time penetrated with the very
fulness of the spirit which breathes throughout the Gospel,
and finds adequate expression most especially in this and
similar sayings recorded by St. Luke, the Pauline Evangelist.
(b) On the other side we have an alternative which com
mends itself as completely free from such difficulties, and as
supplying an adequate and satisfactory answer to the ques
tion of genuineness.
We ask, was there any strong reason which, after the early
part of the third century, and especially in times and chief
places of heated controversy, might induce persons in posi
tions of considerable influence to shrink from the statement
G 2

84 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
as it stands before us, and to eliminate it, so far as might
be in their power, from the field of discussion ?
Surely all can at least understand the feelings of those con
troversialists who stood out in opposition to Marcion, and to
those early writers who went farthest in maintaining that the
spirit which animated Elijah and the chief representatives of
what was called Judaism, was not only diverse from, but dia
metrically opposed to, that which pervaded the utterances of
our Lord, and which He inculcated as the distinctive charac
teristic of His true followers. What the maintainers of the
true, Catholic, and Christian doctrine were especially anxious
to uphold was the unity of the Spirit which, under all ap
parent diversities, pervaded the Prophets of old, whose zeal
was specially represented by Elijah, and which ruled in all its
fulness and depth the heart of St. John, the great exponent
of Christian love. This text must have presented peculiar
facilities to the skilful opponent, peculiar difficulties to the
staunch defender, of that great fundamental principle. We
are thankful to observe that it did not induce the soundest
teachers of the Church to countenance or adopt this mutila
tion, though at some uncertain period it was introduced by
persons sufficiently influential to mutilate the text currently —
not universally but generally— found in MSS. of the fourth
and following centuries. We cannot, moreover, but remark
that the two most ancient MSS. in which the words are
obliterated are conspicuous for omissions — a point which,
notwithstanding Dr. Hort's disclaimer,* appears to me capable
of absolute demonstration.
One thing is certain. We have 'to choose one of the two
alternatives — wilful interpolation, or, whether careless or

* I have to meet this disclaimer further on ; here I will simply remark
that Dr. Hort considers that what other critics regard as omissions are
proofs of purity, of freedom from interpolation. Accepting them as the
true reading, he cannot admit them to be omissions.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VI. 85
wilful, wanton deletion of this grand saying. I should not
have thought it possible that a company of wise, learned,
and devout men could have hesitated in their choice, much
less that they should have deliberately expunged the words
from their text.
To those who feel a conviction that they are the very
words of Christ, carrying with them internal evidence of
their authenticity, aU other considerations are as dust in
the balance.
Such a decision may give pain or offence to some well
entitled to deference on matters not touching the faith, but it
will give relief and comfort to myriads ; and will at any rate
go far towards liberating our minds from what I cannot but
regard as a servile acquiescence in a critical system, which
attaches exclusive importance to the text represented by the
Eusebian, or Alexandrian, or — by whatever name it may
ultimately be called — the recension which determined the
text of the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts.
THE LORD'S PRAYER IN ST. LUKE.
Luke xi. 2-4. — Here we have to notice the alterations
adopted by the Revisers in the Lord's Prayer as recorded
by St. Luke, on a different occasion from that on which it is
recorded by St. Matthew.
Three considerable clauses are omitted in the Revised
Version, contrary, as the margin informs us, to "many
ancient authorities."
(1) The Revised Version has "Father" instead of "Our
Father which art in heaven." This omission follows s, B,
against all other manuscripts, uncial and cursive (one MS.,
L, which generally agrees with B, has " Our Father ") ; also
against all ancient Versions, except the Vulgate.
Origen refers to the clause three times in his treatise on

86 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
Prayer. In c. 18 (p. 227) he expressly distinguishes between
the reading in Matthew and in Luke, and omits the words
in question. In c. 22, he quotes " Father " only ; but earlier
in the same treatise, c. 15 (p. 222 c), he has "Our Father
which art in heaven," referring, as the context there shows,
to St. Luke's Gospel.
It may safely be inferred that Origen had the abbreviated
form before him in some MS. or MSS., but his citation of the
omitted words is best accounted for by assuming a different
reading, which he recognized, though he might not prefer it.
(2) The omission of the other clauses, " Thy will be done
on earth as in heaven," and " Deliver us from evil," rests pre
cisely on the same authorities. In each case the preponder
ance of external authorities in favour of the clauses, so far as
numbers go, is immense ; no less than seventeen uncials are
cited by Dr. Scrivener, who adds, " All cursives not named
above (i.e. 1, 22, 57, 130, 131, 226", 237, 242, 426), the old
Latin b, c,f,ff, i, I, q, whereof/ mostly goes with the Vulgate
(hiant a, e), the Memphitic, Peshito, Curetonian, Pliiloxenian
Syriac, and the iEthiopic Versions " (' Introduction,' p. 468).
Dr. Scrivener is inclined to dismiss the latter clause as an
assimilation ; but, as he observes, the internal evidence is in
favour of retention.
I must here observe that one of the Revising Company
accepts the omission of "deliver us from evil" mainly on
the ground that it supplies a pretext for rejecting the last
clause of the Prayer in St. Matthew's Gospel also as a gloss.
It is a perfectly legitimate proceeding to argue as to the
probability of a shorter recension of the Prayer on the
occasion which leads to its record in St. Luke, but to omit
such clauses, as plain and clear errors, appears to me wholly
unjustifiable. The utmost that the Revisers had the rio-ht
to do was to give a notice in the margin that some ancient
authorities omit them.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VI. 87
THE MISSION OF THE SEVENTY.
Luke x. 1-20. — In v. 1 a change of no importance in itself
is suggested in the margin, which tells us that " many an
cient authorities add two ; " i.e. seventy-two instead of seventy.
Westcott and Hort in their Greek text enclose the word two in
brackets; The change, small as it is, is " interesting," as Dr.
Scrivener remarks (see Introd. p. 474), "being one in
which B (not a) is at variance with the very express evi
dence of the earliest ecclesiastical writers." It is, therefore,
of real importance in its bearing upon the value of the oldest
manuscripts. In this case B is supported by D, and early Western
documents, Italic and Vulgate, agreeing, as is frequently the
case, with the Syriac of Cureton ; also by two uncials, M and R.
It is opposed by the best uncials, N, A, C, independent
witnesses, with seven others which generally side with B ;
also by the generality of cursives, and all other ancient
Versions, including some MSS. of early Italic.
The early Fathers to whom Dr. Scrivener refers are Ire
naeus, Tertullian (in a passage which is remarkably explicit,
c. Marc. iv. 24), Eusebius twice in the ' Demonstration,' once
in the H. E., Basil, and Ambrose ; all quoted by Tischendorf,
who does not adopt this change.
In the marginal notices the word many is certainly too
strong, if not misleading.
In v. 15, at the close of our Lord's address to the seventy
missionaries, a change singular for its tone and character is
adopted in the Revised Text in this place, without any indi
cation of a different reading. It stands thus, "And thou,
Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven ? Thou shalt
be brought down unto Hades." This extraordinary reading
is given in place of " And thou, Capernaum, which art
exalted unto heaven, shall be brought down to Hell." Its

88 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
unsuitableness to the occasion on which it is first recorded,
Matt. xi. 23, has been forcibly exposed by Sir Edmund
Beckett. Here the context is at least equally opposed to
the change. Capernaum had been raised to the place of the
highest spiritual dignity by the presence of the Saviour, but
by its coldness and impenitence it forfeited all claims to pre
eminence, and was abased to the condition of infidels.
For the new reading (which in the Greek substitutes
(irj for rj) stand N, B, D, L, 3, the Syriac of Cureton, two
MSS. of early Italic.
Against it A, C, with seven uncials, most of them usually
siding with B, nearly all cursives, the Gothic, the Peshito
and Philox. Syriac, and Augustine.
So far as the external authorities are concerned the balance
is nearly equal.
The internal evidence appears to me decisive, and in favour
of the old reading and rendering.
Luke x. 41, 42. — We have now to consider the singularly
important account of a great saying of our Lord as recorded
by St. Luke. The whole transaction is related by the Evan
gelist in terms so graphic and affecting that Renan, who on
questions of aesthetic and historic tact is a good authority,
says of it, " Aucune plume n'a laisse tomber dix lignes plus
charmantes." See 'Les Evangiles,' p. 282. But in this
beautiful narrative an innovation is suggested in the margin
which affects the most solemn and infinitely the most im
portant point— the great lesson which our Lord then incul
cated upon Martha, and through her upon the hearts of all
His followers liable to similar temptations.
After a most useless and vexatious suggestion in the
margin that " a few ancient authorities " omit " anxious "
(the word which the Revised Version substitutes for the
more comprehensive word "careful") and "about many
things," we find in the margin a far more serious innovation

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VI. 89
commended by the words, "Many ancient authorities read
' but few things are needful or one.' " So that the one thing
needful, that which designates the extreme spirituality of
Mary's choice, directing the minds of anxious inquirers and
supporting devout spirits, cannot henceforth be undoubtedly
quoted as genuine by those who defer to the authority of
the Revisers.
That one thing is needful, — would that the Revisers had
borne it in mind, — could not be questioned, never has been
questioned by any who live on our Saviour's words and take
their place by the side of Mary.
The authorities which have so far influenced the Revisers
that they give the new reading in the margin (going half
way to meet Westcott and Hort, who introduce it into their
Greek text without any notice indicating distrust, or the
existence of adverse evidence), are K, B, C2 (a late correc
tion), and L, followed by the Coptic, iEthiopic, and a late
Syriac Version. Also Origen, as cited in the Catena of Cor-
derius, and Basil (but see below).
Against it are A, C, all other uncials, nearly all cursives,
Italic (some good MSS.), Vulgate, and the best Syriac.
Of the Fathers we have Macarius, an early and good
authority ; Chrysostom, Augustine, and other Fathers. Basil
varies — he quotes it as it stands in the old text once, p. 535 —
in another passage he adopts the new reading, but gives an
exposition, which, though forced — in fact because forced —
shows how strongly he felt that " the one thing needful "
was the paramount consideration : ew; Be tov ctkoitov.
Matthew xix. 9. — Passing to the records of the earliest
events on the way to Jerusalem, we have first to notice the
extraordinary innovation in St. Matthew's account of the
divorce questions (see Matt. xix. 9). The clause which
states that he who marries a divorced woman committeth
adultery, is marked as doubtful in the margin, which

90 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS,
tells us that the words " are omitted in some ancient
authorities." We ask in which? The answer is, in K (ivhich in this
case differs from B), C3, i.e. a late corrector of the old MS.,
L, S, and D, to which may be added the Syriac of Cureton
and the Sahidic. Origen does not cite the words.
On the other side are B, already noticed, supported by
eleven uncials, nearly all cursives, good MSS. of early Italic,
the Vulgate, both the old Syriac Versions, the Coptic, in good
editions, the iEthiopic, and Armenian, with Basil.
Tischendorf rejects the clause as a case of assimilation,
and this view doubtless had weight with the Revisers.
Westcott and Hort, however, attached, as we may assume,
special importance to the authority of D, who, because he
is well known as an interpolator, is to be received as a witness
entitled in their judgment to be heard in preference even to
B, their all but infallible guide. .
So that St. Matthew, the special recorder of our Lord's
sayings, is to be noted as giving on this formal occasion an
incomplete account of His decision, on a point of legislative
importance. THE YOUNG RULER.
In the account of this transaction, St. Mark x. 17-22
undergoes one mutilation. The words take up thy cross (apa<;
tov GTavpbv) are omitted altogether without marginal notice.
The authorities for omission are X, B, C, D, A, one cursive,
some MSS. of Italic, the Vulgate, two editions of the Coptic,
and three Latin Fathers, Ambrose, Augustine, and Hilary.
For its retention stand A with eight uncials, most cursives,
the Peshito, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and iEthiopic.
The testimony of Irenaeus is explicit; we have both the
Greek and the Latin interpretation, quoted by Tischendorf.
In a case like this the authority of Irenaeus outweighs any

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VI. 91
single witness ; nay, any combination of witnesses, unless
they are sustained by strong internal evidence.
In my own note on this passage I recorded the omission of
the words in the two oldest MSS. I did not then feel the
distrust in their authority which a closer examination of
their readings in important passages has since generated and
confirmed. Will any one maintain that these words are to be rejected
as a plain and clear error ?
But we turn to the account of this transaction in St. Mat
thew's Gospel, xix. 16, 17.
Here we encounter a most perplexing alteration, one
which totally changes the import of the young ruler's ques
tion, and of our Lord's answer.
First, the word good before Master is omitted ; the young
ruler does not there use a word, natural on his lips, but
calling for correction, as applied without adequate apprecia
tion of its force. And then the words put into our Lord's
mouth are " Why dost thou ask me concerning that which
is good ? " Then we read, " One there is that is good," —
omitting the words following.
In the first place (1) this reading directly contradicts the
record given by St. Mark and St. Luke. If this is a true
account, those two very distinct and concurrent accounts are
a grave misrepresentation. (2) Secondly the reading obliter
ates a saying of deep and solemn import; one which was
liable to be misunderstood and certain to be misused, suggest
ing therefore to some bold innovator the expediency of a
change which would remove that difficulty. (3) Thirdly the
new reading implies that the young ruler intended to put a
question, savouring of the schools, as to the meaning of the
abstract term tov dyaOov.
What are the authorities preferred to some which are
admitted in the margin to be ancient ?

92 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
(1) For the omission of dyaOe, N, B, D, L, 1, 22 ; iEthiopic
and Origen, torn. iii. 664 seq.
For retaining it, aU other uncials, beginning with C
(A unfortunately Mat), all other cursives, the Vulgate, the
Syriac, the Sahidic and Coptic, and the Armenian Versions.
To this must be added the express testimony of Justin
Martyr, of Irenaeus (i. 26. 2), of Hilary, and of Basil.
(2) For the transformation of our Lord's own words, the
same uncials, N, B, D, L, supported by a, b, c, e, ff, the Syriac
of Cureton, the Coptic, Armenian, and jEthiopic, and Origen.
Against it eleven uncials, nearly all cursives; the Peshito
and Sahidic Versions, Justin and Irenaeus, Chrysostom and
his followers.
The reading therefore is ancient, at first finding place in
Western texts, remarkable for what Reiche calls socordia
and licentia ; then adopted, as it would seem, by Origen, and
retained in later Alexandrian recensions.
We have, as can scarcely be doubted, a reading partly
indicating doctrinal bias or scrupulousness, but resting chiefly
on Alexandrian subtlety.
THE PARABLES RECORDED BY ST. LUKE.
This very important and peculiarly interesting portion of
Scripture appears to have been left untouched so far as
regards essential points.
I must however observe that in the parable of the prodigal
son one touch of exceeding tenderness and beauty is lost, not,
I am happy to say, in the text, but in the marginal reading,
Luke xv. 21. What St. Luke makes us feel is that as the
son, held in his father's loving arms, could not choose but
utter the words of penitential humility, I am no more worthy
to be called thy son ; so neither could he at that moment add
the words which were perfectly adapted to his state of

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VI. 93
feelings when first awakened to a sense of unpardonable
guilt, and far from his father's house, but were utterly incom
patible with his actual position. To have then asked to
be made as one of his father's hirelings would have been
impossible, an ungracious mockery.* Yet these words are
added in k, B, D, U, X, and in several MSS. of the Vulgate.
Westcott and Hort retain them, but bracketed, in their text.
It is to be deeply regretted that they should appear in the
margin of the Revised Version. Considering that they have
two indications of spuriousness, first as a palpable assimi
lation to v. 19, and next as finding place in the MS. most
notorious for interpolations, we might surely have expected
that these two critics would have held to their own canons,
and rejected the words altogether.
And now, omitting to notice a considerable number of
slight, and certainly very unnecessary, alterations in St. Mark
and St. Luke, I pass on to the history of the Last Week.

* See a striking exposition of this passage in the fragments of Clem.
Alex. p. 1017 seq. ed. Potter.

94 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.

SECTION VII.
The Words and Acts of our Lord on His Entrance
into, and during hls last vlsit to, jerusalem.
Matt, xxi.-xxv. ; Mark xi. 1-10 ; Luke xix. 29-49. — In
this section the first change of importance occurs at the
outset — in St. Mark's account of our Lord's advance from
Bethany. It touches an event especially interesting in its bearings
upon our Lord's Personality, the fulfilment of prophecy, and
the characteristics of the Messianic kingdom.
Our Lord sent two of His disciples, before He left Bethany,
giving them instructions concerning the ass- — one which St.
Mark, followed by St. Luke, is careful to record, had never
borne a rider — which He was now to ride, like kings and
judges in olden times, intimating at once His dignity, and
His special character as Prince of Peace.
What our Lord told them to say to the owner of the beast,
should their right to take the ass be questioned, was simply,
" The Lord hath need of it," or as St. Matthew, referring to
the colt, says, " of them."
What He added, as St. -Matthew and St. Mark tell us —
undoubtedly for the sake of the disciples themselves, to
remove any apprehension they might feel as to the result of
their mission — was, " and straightway he will send it," as St.
Mark adds " hither."
So stands the account in our Authorized Version. It
enables us to realize the feelings of the disciples, the calm

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VII. 95
exercise of unquestionable authority by our Lord, the com
bination of condescension to their weakness with His own
clear determination to fulfil all that was essential to the
manifestation of His kingdom. The one word hither, added
by St. Mark, accords with the style of that Evangelist, ever
careful to note minute circumstances which add to the
vividness of his narrative.
But in the text of the Revised Version St. Mark is made
to give an account of that injunction which totally alters its
character. We read there, to our bewilderment, that our Lord
added words with a view of reassuring the owners of the
beast. The answer stands thus : Say ye, the Lord hath need of
them; and straightway he will send them back hither ; the
word " back " in the margin being further explained to mean
back again.
We are struck first by the absolute contradiction to St.
Matthew's clear and simple account. There the Revisers
leave the words and straightway he will send them untouched.
I do not suppose that any doubt was ever felt as to their
meaning there. In the next place the altered reading intro
duces a point inconceivably mean and unsuitable. Our Lord
is actually represented as bidding the disciples assure the
owners of the beast that He would send it back again
directly. The mischief is effected by the insertion of one
word, TrdXuv, again, interpreted as meaning " back again."
This interpolation, as I do not hesitate to call it, rests
on the authority of six uncials, of course x, B, followed
by L, A, and supported by D and C, with variations, how
ever, noticed by Tischendorf, which materially affect their
evidence. Against it are nine uncials, nearly all cursives (Tischendorf
says al. pi., but he cites none on the other side), all Versions,

96 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
early Italic and Vulgate, Sahidic, Memphitic, Syriac, Gothic,
Armenian, and ^Ethiopia*
Such a consensus of Versions, scarcely ever found in pas
sages open to dispute, especially where the Eusebian or
Origenistic recension is concerned, is absolutely conclusive, if
not as to the true reading, yet as to the rejection of the inno
vation in all quarters of Christendom.
Will Convocation accept the responsibility for this grave
innovation ?
Mark xi. 8. — On the way to Jerusalem, in St. Mark's
description, we meet with an innovation, which, if not impor
tant as regards our Lord's Personality, is of considerable
importance as regards the good sense and accuracy of the
Evangelist. The Revised Version tells us that many spread
on His way " branches," which they had cut from " the fields,"
but the margin further tells us that the Greek, rendered
" branches," means layers of leaves, a statement scarcely intelli
gible.! The text of the Authorized Version has a clear and
simple statement, exactly in accordance with St. Matthew in
sense, but not in form,, thus showing that there is no ground
for assuming a process of assimilation, viz. others cut down
branches of trees, and strawed them in the way.
This innovation involves the change of fields for trees, and
the omission of the last clause.
The MS. authority for the change is doubtful, n, B, (C,)
L, A, not without variations, have dyp&v for BevBpav. So too
Origen, iv. pp. 181, 193. The Versions which adopt that
reading do not omit the last clause, viz. the Sahidic and
Memphitic. The Authorized Version has for it eight uncials, all cur-

* The testimony of Origen is doubtful. In tom. iv. p. 181 he omits
nakw, but inserts it twice or thrice in tom. iii. We have here one instance
among many of carelessness in that great critic or in his transcribers.
f The " Two Revisers," p. 51, seem to explain it as meaning " beds."

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VII. 97
sives, as Tischendorf admits (al. om. Tld), and all other ancient
Versions. As for the internal probabilities, I would ask whether
layers of leaves, i.e. leaves made up into matting, are ever
spoken of in connection with a solemn procession ; whether,
on the other hand, branches of trees, especially the palm, are
not invariably accompaniments of such a triumphant march ?
Mark xi. 26. — In this chapter (Mark xi.) the 26th verse,
" But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is
in heaven forgive you your trespasses," is omitted altogether
from the Revised Text, although the margin allows that it is
supported by many ancient authorities.
The first remark which presents itself is that here we have
a conspicuous instance of the insensibility of the ancient
and modern innovators to what I have more than once noted
as our Lord's habit of emphatic iteration— a habit especially
illustrated in St. Mark's account of His discourses.
The question then comes, what are the authorities for or
against the innovation ?
For it we find the usual group, k, B, L, with S, A. Against
it all other uncials — thirteen are cited by Tischendorf — of
various and independent recensions, nearly all cursives, the
Italic, Vulgate, Gothic, iEthiopic, and Armenian Versions.
Is this saying to be rejected as a plain and clear error ?
I will not here dwell on points of minor importance.
Changes in the accounts of our Lord's proceedings at Jeru
salem given by the Evangelist are sufficiently numerous and
for the most part, as I venture to think, unnecessary.
With one change, however, I agree, although the authority
of ancient manuscripts and Versions is far from decisive. In
Mark xiii. 14, the name of the prophet Daniel is omitted in
the text of the Revised Version, and is not noticed in the
margin. As I pointed out in my note on the passage, the
omission is sanctioned by the best commentators. It is of
H

98 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
importance as illustrating, in fact confirming, my statement
in reference to the reading in Mark i. 2, that St. Mark does
not cite the name of a prophet without absolute necessity.
On that ground the Revisers, as I said, do well to omit
Daniel here ; had they omitted Isaiah there, they would not
have imputed an inexcusable blunder to the Evangelist.

THE LAST SUPPER.
We are now come to the most solemn, most vital points in
the : whole Gospel; and have first to inquire whether any
serious innovations are suggested or adopted in the accounts
of the Institution of the Holy Eucharist.
In St. Matthew, xxvi. 26-29, two changes are without
importance ; the article is omitted before dpTov in v. 26, and
iBIBov ical is changed to Bov?, noticeable only as an instance
of what Reiche calls errors originating " a male sedulis
grammaticis." The most serious change is the omission of
new (/caivi}?) before covenant. For this omission the authori
ties are, as usual, K, B, L, with Z ; against it nine uncials,
nearly all cursives (Tischendorf says fere omnes), the Italic,
Vulgate, Coptic, Armenian, and iEthiopic Versions, and those
Fathers whose testimony is most weighty, even in the Revisers'
estimation, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, and Chrysostom.
In St. Mark xiv. (pdyeTe is omitted in v. 22, but on good
authority ; and in v. 24 irepi is changed to virep.
But when we turn to St. Luke's Gospel, c. xxii., we
observe, with equal surprise and grief, that a mutilation is
suggested which for extent and importance has few parallels
in the history of destructive criticism.
It must be borne in mind that a very special interest
attaches to the account of the Last Supper which is given by
St. Luke. No one doubts that the Evangelist received his
information from St. Paul ; in this point, if in any, we look

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VII. 99
for characteristics of the Pauline Evangelist ; but St. Paul
tells us expressly, in words ever present to the minds of
Christians — most especially when they listen to the prayer
of Consecration, in which our own Church gathers up the
scriptural intimation of the facts and of their meaning — that
he received his account directly from the Lord. (See note on
1 Cor. xi. 23.) Here, if anywhere, we should expect to find,
as we always have found, the most perfect agreement between
the Evangelist and the Apostle.
But on looking at the margin of the Revised Version we
read " some ancient authorities omit which is given for you
. . . which is powed out for you."
Will Convocation dare to make itself responsible for this
note ? Can it be doubted that it utterly discredits St. Luke's
account ?
Westcott and Hort in their text enclose the words in
double brackets, indicating total distrust.
We turn to the ancient authorities, of course expecting to
find at the head of them x and B ; but no — here those
uncials and all other MSS. but one have the words, with
slight variations. They are supported by Eusebius and Origen.
For the omission, D, with some copies of early Latin
Versions, is the authority followed by the marginists. That
manuscript, notorious for carelessness and caprice, gives a
garbled and very confused account of the institution of that
great sacrament ; but it is scarcely conceivable that it would
be allowed to cast a dark shade on the minds of readers
trusting to the authority of the Revisers.

GETHSEMANE.
Throughout this last portion of the sacred narrative the
deepest feelings of Christians are elicited ; every detail is
examined with an interest more intense than attaches to any
it 2

100 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
events in the world's history ; observations which apply with
special force to what is recognized by all as the last prepara
tory act for the Cross, that which bears as its special
designation the Saviour's " agony and bloody sweat."
The account of St. Matthew is left without substantial
alteration. Still it would seem that it could not be left
untouched. In c. xxvi. 42 three words are omitted from the
Revised Text without notice, sc. cup (iroTr/piov) and from me
(air e/j.ov). So far as manuscript authority is concerned, it
may be admitted that, supposing a new text were contem
plated, the innovators might claim a preponderance in favour
of omitting the former word ; for K, B are supported by A
and C, with three later uncials, and three cursives, 1, 33,
and 102. We must, however, observe that they neglect the
testimony of eleven uncials, weighty in their combination ;
of all other cursives ; and no small number of ancient Ver
sions, the best MS. of old Italic, the Vulgate, Coptic, and
one edition of the Syriac — sufficient to justify retention of
all the words, certainly to demand notice. When we add
to this (1) our Saviour's habit of emphatic reiteration, to
which attention has been repeatedly called, a habit specially
exemplified on this solemn occasion, and (2) St. Matthew's
distinct statement that He used the same word on the third
occasion, there seems to me little room to doubt that the
omission is another instance of unseemly haste in the action
of an early transcriber, or of fastidiousness in some early
critic. Surely no one will maintain that the words in the Autho
rized Version are a plain and clear error ; surely the Revisers
must have yielded with reluctance to their own very peculiar
views of necessity !
In St. Mark, ch. xiv., the few changes that are made do not
materially affect the sense. In v. 35 the revised Greek text
has e-TriTTTev for eireaev ; a change unobservable in the English

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VII. 101
rendering ; and in v. 40 f3e/3ap>n/J.ivoi is changed to KaTafiapv-
vopevoi : I should have thought that the aorist in the one case,
and the perfect in the other were obviously more appropriate ;
but in the former case the Revisers follow K, B, L against
all other uncials, some, A, C, weighty in themselves, and still
more weighty in combination, with all known cursives, as
• Tischendorf admits. St. Mark of all Evangelists was least
likely to substitute the imperfect tense, of very questionable
significance, for the simple, graphic, vivid aorist. For the
other change good manuscript authority is adduced: but
surely, not sufficient to justify an innovation. Yet, as it
would seem, the fact that St. Mark agrees with St. Matthew
in stating that the disciples were already heavy with grief,
as they had now been watching for some time, is to be taken
as a proof that we have a case of assimilation, and as a
reason that we are now to understand that at the close of
the whole solemn transaction they were beginning to be
borne down by sleep. It is however fortunate that this new
shade of meaning does not come out in the rendering, " for
their eyes were very heavy," which differs from the Autho
rized Version only by the proper introduction of the adverb
" very." But these and other points are lost sight of when we turn
to St. Luke's Gospel, c. xxii., and find that the margin tells
us that " many ancient authorities omit verses 43, 44," that
is, the whole passage which records the appearance of the
angel strengthening our Lord in His bodily weakness, and the
great drops as of blood testifying to the intensity of the
agony. We turn to the Greek text of Westcott and Hort
and find that these two critics enclose the verses in double
brackets, indicating untrustworthiness.
Now it is true that manuscripts of the recension with
which we have chiefly to deal do omit the words, viz. Na — i.e. as
corrected by a critical reviser, the so-called diorthota, — and

102 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
B, supported by R and T, and I grieve to add by A, and
a few cursives : and also that the omission is noticed, though
not approved, by Hilary, an early and good authority.
On the other side is marshalled a goodly array of uncials
and cursives of different recensions, and of the greatest
weight in their combination : not to speak of early Ver
sions which are nearly unanimous in supporting the old
reading. We will consider the patristic evidence imme
diately ; but before we go farther I venture to assert that the
omission, to whatever cause it is to be attributed, seriously
affects the authority of the critics who adopt the reading.
But I ask whether the omission did not originate in a
doctrinal bias ? We have at once the answer. Epiphanius
tells us, not as a matter of probable conjecture, but distinctly
and positively as a well-known undisputed fact, that " ortho
dox churchmen took away, removed from the text, the words,
¦fearful of misapplication and not understanding their bearing."
The words are singularly clear: opOoBogot, dcpeiXovTo to
prjOev, (frofiwOevTes koX /J,fj vorjcravTet; avTov to -reXo? (' Anchor.'
§ 31). The reasons which Epiphanius assigns are striking.
Fear, at once the weakest and most rash of all motives ; and
a want of spiritual discernment, common as would seem in
modern as well as early ages. Epiphanius moreover tells
us that the passage is extant in the Gospel of St. Luke
in the unrevised copies (iv toi<; dBiopOcoTOK dvTiypd<poi<;).
He also mentions the important fact that it was cited by
Irenaeus. There is not in the whole Gospel a clearer case of an
alteration invented, not, I am thankful to say, by the early
Church, but by certain critics or revisers claiming the name
of orthodox. What they feared was that this passage might
give a pretext for those who seized eagerly on every indica
tion of human infirmity in our Saviour. But as for the best
Fathers there is no reason to suppose that they made them-

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VII. 103
selves accomplices in the mutilation. Tischendorf indeed
notices the silence of St. Athanasius on two occasions ; * but
that great teacher always confines himself to the subject in
hand, and never notices collateral passages or statements
which do not bear directly upon his argument, which
throughout the Arian controversy was to prove the divinity
of our Lord. The proofs of the humanity were distinctly
recognized by him, but there was no occasion for referring to
them in the treatise in question. It is true that Cyril of
Alexandria passes over this passage in his commentary on
St. Luke; but among all theologians whose authority has
any weight in the Church, Cyril was remarkable for the
tendency which soon after his time issued in the monophysite
heresy. He would certainly sympathize with the " orthodox "
corrupters of the text ; but he is too prudent to give direct
countenance to their daring innovation.
On the other hand, supporting the whole passage we have
an array of authorities which, whether we regard their
antiquity or their character for sound judgment, veracity, and
accuracy, are scarcely paralleled on any occasion. We have
first Justin Martyr, bearing witness to the faith of the Church
in Palestine, in Asia Minor, and in Rome, the very earliest of
the Fathers subsequent to the Apostolic age. We have then
Irenaeus, a Father who comes nearest to Justin in point of
time, who in all questions of authenticity stands foremost
among the Fathers, attesting the universal faith of Christen
dom. His testimony is more especially valuable, since it is
given not in a mere passing notice, but in a careful enumera
tion of the scriptural proofs of our Lord's true and perfect

* This is a striking instance of the danger of negative assertions.
Tischendorf naturally trusted to the indices of scriptural quotations, and
evidently was not aware that on another occasion, where the passage
bore upon his argument, Athanasius cites its contents. See note, p. 43.
On neither of the two occasions to which Tischendorf alludes (pp. 456, 709)
is there any reference to St. Luke's Gospel.

104 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
humanity (in lib. iii. xxii. 92 p. 543 ed. Stieren) ; as Epi
phanius remarks " arguing against the Docetae."
We have these absolute proofs of the existence, and of the
general reception, of the passage, both by Catholics and by
heretics — against whom certainly Irenaeus would not have
cited a contested authority — some two hundred years before
the amended, i.e. mutilated, documents which reject it from
their texts.
To these oldest and highest authorities we may add a
catena of the most illustrious Fathers from the third to the fifth
centuries — of the Greeks, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Athanasius,*
Dionysius and Didymus of Alexandria, and Chrysostom ;
of the Latins, Hilary, Jerome, and Augustine.
We are thankful to add that this text, so especially dear
and precious to Christian hearts, soon recovered its position
even in those parts of Christendom where the Alexandrian
or Eusebian recension had for a season preponderating
influence. Uncials which in doubtful cases usually support
B are here against it ; even tt*, i.e. the Codex Sinaiticus, but
corrected by a contemporary reviser, with L, in most read
ings little more than a transcript of B, with D, i.e. early
Western, F, G, H, K, M, Q, U (with asterisks, which prove
that the transcriber was fully aware of the so-called correc
tion) ; and E, S, V, A, n — E ranking first among what
Scrivener calls secondary uncials, and the two last satellites
of B ; lastly the reading is supported by all the best ancient
Versions, including even the Coptic, the faithful witness to
the best Alexandrian recension.

* Tom. iii. p. 1121, e£ olicdov rrpocrimov 6 Xpioros oiKovop.iK.a>s iicovo-'uos
irpoo-evx^rai pera Kpavyrjs, pera SaKpiav, pera ISpurav Kal dpopfiov a'tparos,
peril ayyeXov ivicr)(yovTOs Kai oiove\ napaKaXovvTOs airov, Kalwcp vlos 6eov
d\rj8S>s indpx<ov. I quote this passage, partly because it is overlooked in
the Benedictine index, and by critical editors, even by Tregelles, but
chiefly because it presents in a most striking and complete form the
doctrine of the Church touching our Lord's humanity. It occurs in the
' Exposition of the lxviiith Psalm,' v. 17.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VII. 105
Whether the omission originated with Marcion is purely
matter of conjecture. The suggestion occurs naturally, as in
accordance with his system ; but there is no sufficient reason
to impute it even to him, as Tischendorf justly observes,
" tacentibus Tertulliano et Epiphanio."
The history of the innovation is simple and perfectly intel
ligible. Up to the fourth century the text of St. Luke,
dBiop0eoTo<;, without correction, was received without question.
It was appealed to, as decisive, in controversy with Docetse
of various shades ; none of whom dared to meet it by deny
ing its authenticity. When Arius, or some of his subtle
followers, misused itj unscrupulous, over-timid, and at the
same time over-bold, controversialists dared to expunge it
from the text, at a time and place when their influence was
uncontested. But ere long the unanimous evidence of the
best and earliest Fathers, of ancient Versions, Western and
Eastern, and doubtless also of independent, uncontaminated
MSS., all in accordance with the deepest spiritual instincts of
Christians, prevailed ; the passage was restored to its true
position, never again to be questioned, or subjected to cap
tious objections, until in this nineteenth century a book
which ought to represent in great measure the deliberate judg
ment of the Church of England presents it with a comment,
which will henceforth make it impossible for theologians or
preachers who accept the Revised Version to quote it as
authority for a fundamental doctrine, or as a subject especially
fitted for devout contemplation.
I ask again, will Convocation dare to take upon itself
this responsibility ?

THE FIRST WORD ON THE CROSS.
We have not even yet reached the climax. In the pre
ceding section we had to fasten attention upon the most
touching fact recorded in St. Luke's account of our Lord's

106 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
agony in Gethsemane, but marked for omission by the
Revisers. Here we have to deal with a still more serious
omission, not of the Evangelist's narrative of events, but of
our Lord's own words, and not of ordinary words, but of the
very first spoken by Him on the Cross ; words which in all
ages, by all students of the Bible, from the most devout and
thoughtful believer to the most sceptical of rationalists, have
ever been recognized as the very highest expression of the
grace, wisdom, and love of the Saviour ; words which stand
foremost among those which have won for St. Luke the
special honour due to the recorder of the tenderest and most
loving characteristics of our Lord's Personality.
In the text of the Revised Version we still read in c. xxiii. 34,
" Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do ; "
but in the margin stand the words, warning us not to accept
them as genuine, " Some ancient authorities omit them ; "
and when we turn to the Greek text of Westcott and
Hort we find them enclosed in double brackets, implying
distrust. What is the first thought which occurs to the critical
reader ? Is it not, Here we have a crucial test by which we
may ascertain what ancient authorities are unsafe guides ?
How many are there ? To what school do they seem to
belong ? How are they supported ?
Here they are, as Tischendorf presents them in his last
edition: " Na(uncis inclusit), B,D*, 38,435, a, b, d, sah. cop.dz."
That is, one uncial only without indication of doubt; two
cursives only ; three MSS. of early Italic — sufficient however
to show at how early a date the carelessness of copyists
notorious for " socordia and licentia" committed the error —
the Sahidic, and one edition of the Coptic.
In a case where the internal evidence is absolutely con
clusive; where we can scarcely believe that the spirit of
the critics, who marked the words as doubtful, sanctioned the
conclusion to which they were driven by their system, it is

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VII. 107
scarcely necessary to dwell on external evidence, but it is
important, because it vindicates from the disgrace of coun
tenancing the mutilation authorities to which we attach
great value on other grounds. Here I give them again
from Tischendorf: Kx,c (sc. the original text and a corrector
of later date), A, C, Dgr (i.e. so in D in the more important
Greek text), L (the usual satellite of B), Q (one of the
very earliest MSS.), X, Y, A, A, n ("sed E asteriscum
praepositum habet " — a note to be regretted in the case of so
good a MS.), al. longe plur. (i.e. by far the greatest number
of cursives), c, e, f, ff (showing that the early Italic copyists
are not all guilty of the same unpardonable socordia), vg.
cop. wl al petr dz. rec. (cop. schw uncis inclusum habet), to which
I add the edition of the Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge edited by Tattam, commended by Stein as wcrth-
volle Ausgabe, syr.ou (i.e. the most important ancient Versions
in perfect unanimity), arm. aeth.
I have quoted this array for its fulness ; but that every
reader may perceive its full significance I ask him to notice
these facts. 1st. Among ancient manuscripts B, the Codex
Vaticanus, in the estimation of Westcott and Hort the
purest and infinitely the most important, stands alone, as
presenting the mutilated text without notice of omis
sion. 2nd. Taking the entire body of ancient Versions we find
only a small number of early Italic — contradicted by others,
and after due consideration rejected by Jerome — to which
must be added the Sahidic, indicating the omission in an
early Egyptian recension, supporting B.
3rd. That even the Codex Sinaiticus contained the words
in its original text, and that although they were marked as
doubtful by an early corrector, the marks of suspicion were
removed by a subsequent one.
4th. That the evidence comes from every quarter of Chris-

108 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
tendom, from the East, Palestine and Syria, and probably
Asia Minor ; from the West, represented by the Vulgate, and
the Greek text of Codex Bezae ; and from Egypt, as repre
sented by MSS. second only to B in antiquity, and some of
them by a short interval, and by the native and derived
Versions. We turn however to authorities which for certainty of
antiquity and for explicitness and value of testimony stand
in the foremost rank of trustworthy witnesses. First we
take those quoted by Tischendorf, and therefore distinctly
brought before the minds of all the Revisers. Irenaeus is
first quoted — a few words, but conclusive ; I will however
give the whole passage as peculiarly valuable in its bearings
upon the character of this first of all authorities in questions
of genuineness. It occurs in the third book, c. 18 § 5
(p. 247 ed. Grabe, p. 210 ed. Mass., p. 521 ed. Stieren) : " Ad
tantam temeritatem progressi sunt quidam, ut etiam mar-
tyres spernant et vituperent eos, qui propter Domini confes-
sionem occiduntur, et sustinent omnia a Domino praedicta,
et secundum hoe conantur vestigia passionis Domini, passi-
bilis martyres facti (i.e. witnesses of the suffering Christ) ;
quos et concedimus ipsis martyribus (see Grabe's note — whom
we hand over to the martyrs as Christ's assertors on the day
of judgment). Et ex hoc autem quod Dominus in cruce
dixerit : Pater, remitte eis, non enim sciunt quod faciunt ;
longanimitas et patientia et misericordia et bonitas Christi
ostenditur, ut et ipse pateretur, et ipse excusaret eos, qui se
male tractassent. Verbum autem Dei quod nobis dixit :
Diligite inimicos vestros et orate pro eis qui vos oderunt : Ipse
hoc fecit in cruce, in tantum diligens humanum genus, ut
etiam pro his, qui se interficerent, postularet."
It must be borne in mind that if this testimony stood
absolutely alone it would be sufficient to prove that the words
were received without question alike by heretics and Catho-

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VII. 109
lies in Asia Minor, where Irenaeus passed his youth under
the teaching of Polycarp ; in Gaul, where he lived as Presbyter
and Bishop of Lyons ; and at Rome, where he passed some
time as an honoured ambassador and upholder of the faith.
But far from standing alone, we find Irenaeus supported by
a witness, to whose evidence the Revisers, and their prede
cessors Griesbach and Lachmann, are disposed to accord
special value. Origen, in the second homily on Leviticus,
tom. ii. p. 188, speaks explicitly, and in connection with a
point to which he attaches great importance. He is speaking
of sins of ignorance, sins committed without knowledge of
their character and extent, for which Origen holds the High
Priest, himself a teacher, could not plead that excuse, but of
which he concludes from Lev. iv. 5 the whole synagogue
could be guilty, and adds emphatically, " Quod et Dominus
confirmat in Evangeliis cum dicit : Pater, remitte illis, non
enim sciunt quod faciunt."
To these Tischendorf adds the Apostolic Constitutions —
quoting first a book wdiich is admitted to be of the second or
third century, ii. 16. 8, and then lib. v. 14. 8, in both passages
o for rt — Eusebius, who places the words in Canon x. as
found in Luke only, and of course Chrysostom repeatedly,
Hilary, Theodoret, and Damascenus. Special weight is also
to be given to the passage in which Hegesippus puts the
words into the mouth of St. James, the Lord's brother, at his
martyrdom. To this long list, additions important for their number,
separate weight, and mutual independence, are given by the
Quarterly Reviewer, Oct. 1881, p. 354, including Athanasius,*

* The reference to St. Athanasius is the more important inasmuch as it
is not noticed in the Benedictine index. The passage is distinct, and
exceedingly interesting, on Ps. lxviii. 14. Athanasius says that the
Evangelist represents our Lord Ka\ napa r<» a-ravpa lirep to>v crTavpovvTiav
cixopevov. See Ed. Ben. p. 1120.

110 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and a complete catena of Greek
Fathers to the ninth century; also Ambrose, Jerome, and
Augustine more than sixty times.
I believe no modern editor had previously dared to omit
these precious words, or to mark them as doubtful. Tischen
dorf and Tregelles receive them with full acquiescence. That
it should be reserved to two learned, sound, and conscientious
English critics, slaves to their own arbitrary rules,* to affix
to such words a stigma, and that their influence should
have so far availed as to induce the Revisers to give it a
place in their book, is a fact which rouses the deepest
feelings of regret and astonishment.
Will Convocation dare to share the responsibility ?

THE DARKENING OF THE SUN.
Luke xxiii. 45.— After this it is but a minor, though in
itself a serious matter, that the Revised Version should make
St. Luke relate a physical impossibility — an eclipse of the
sun at the full moon.
This is, however, somewhat disguised in the English ren
dering, which gives us the sun's light failing, a phrase which,
perplexing as it is to the English reader, might leave him
unconscious of the meaning, even with the marginal comment,
Gr. the sun failing, but which in the Greek, which is
rendered thus oddly, is without any ambiguity, "the sun
undergoing an eclipse."
This is effected by substituting tov fjXiov iicXeiTrovTo<; for
iaicoTicrOr) 6 tfXios.
Observe also that the Revised Version goes somewhat

* The neglect of internal evidence in this and similar passages is as
characteristic of the writer of the ' Introduction to Westcott and Hort's
New Testament ' as his subservience to the external authorities which are
recognized by both critics as all-sufficient.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VII. Ill
further than Westcott and Hort. They give the other reading
in their margin. The Revised Version implies that it is the
true and only Greek reading.
For the alteration the responsibility lies with x, B, and
L (C is marked by Tischendorf as doubtful), and some few
cursives, against all other MSS., nine uncial, nearly all
cursives, the best Italic MSS., the Vulgate, the Syriac of
Cureton, and others, followed by Tregelles.
The evidence of Origen is doubtful. On the side of the
innovation we have explicit statements (tom. i. pp. 414, 415)
quoted by Tischendorf. Against it we have no less positive
and distinct repudiation ; he says (tom. iii. p. 923), " Dicemus
ergo Mt. et Mc. non dixerint defectionem solis tunc factam
fuisse: sed neque Lucas secundum pleraque exemplaria,
habentia sic — et obscuratus est sol," and he states his opinion
either that it was changed by an officious scribe or by an
enemy. For the inconsistency of these statements no better reason
can be given than the active and unsettled mind of the
greatest and most subtle, but certainly not the most judicious,
of early expositors.
For us the real question is this. Did St. Luke, as Sir
Edmund Beckett observes the most highly educated of the
Evangelists, commit a blunder so gross as to draw upon
himself and his Gospel the derision of the heathen ; or
is it to be attributed to the rashness and ignorance of
an early scribe, at once anxious and proud to give what
seemed to him a satisfactory explanation of a strange phe
nomenon ?
I should scarcely have thought it possible that Englishmen
of character should have chosen the former alternative. I
should indeed be astonished to find that Convocation accepted
the responsibility.

112 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
THE INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS.
Luke xxiii. 38. — St. Luke's account of the inscription
being written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, is omitted
altogether in the text, without any mention in the margin
of ancient authorities which support it.
It is a statement which has ever been regarded as pecu
liarly appropriate to the occasion and to the writer, a Gentile
by birth, writing for Gentiles in the first place, and careful to
notice that the three great divisions of mankind found place
in this inscription.
Why was it omitted ? Judging by other instances we might
expect to find N, B, in combination with D, and probably
against a mass of external evidences.
But no ; in this case D is not responsible. B and L (the
satellite of B) alone concur positively in the omission, ac*
and C doubtfully ; but B is followed by the Sahidic and
Coptic, and is supported by Cureton's Syriac*
The omission therefore is ancient; but to any one who
considers the general character of these authorities it is
sufficiently accounted for as originally an omission of care
lessness, and adopted by a hasty calligrapher.
I do not believe that in any secular writing critics of
sound judgment would have tolerated such an omission in
face of evidence so preponderating as that which Tischendorf
records against this. It includes eight uncials of high
character, all cursives, the Italic, Vulgate, Syriac, Armenian,
and iEthiopic Versions, and Cyril of Alexandria in his Com
mentary on St. Luke. Tischendorf further remarks the
important fact that here there is no place for the usual
charge of assimilation to Matthew or Mark. He suggests
* The " Two Revisers," p. 59, cite this as the old Syriac : but in p. 16
they say it is " assigned to the fifth century," and call it an " imperfect
copy," inadequately representing an ancient text.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VII. 113
that it may be taken from John xix. 20. Surely any rational
critic would have seen, on comparing the two accounts,
that they are at once independent of each other, occurring in
different connections, and that, as is very frequently the
case with these two Evangelists, they mutually support each
other — a fact of special interest in the question of evan
gelical correctness, and specially exemplified in this trans
action. Will Convocation sanction this omission, this total
obliteration of St. Luke's evidence ?
Matthew xxvii. 32-56. — In St. Matthew's account of the
crucifixion the changes, with one exception, do not seriously
affect the text.
In v. 34, instead of vinegar the Revisers have wine (in the
Greek text olvov). This I have defended in my own notes in
the ' Speaker's Commentary,' and have no doubt of its cor
rectness. It stands on good authority, and is defended by
Westcott and Hort (see Appendix, p. 20), on the same
grounds as those which I had alleged. It is important as
entirely removing the appearance of discrepancy between two
Evangelists. In v. 35 the English reader will be surprised to miss the
reference to the 22nd Psalm, which in the Received Text and
in the Authorized Version occupies a prominent place,
which has in its favour internal probability, being in full
accordance with St. Matthew's habit of citing prophecies,
and in the account of the crucifixion he would undoubtedly
have the words of that great Messianic Psalm before his mind.
In my own notes, however, I had pointed out the weakness
of the external evidence, and the probability that it was
taken from St. John's Gospel. It is, however, questionable
whether the Revisers were justified in omitting it altogether,
without notice in the margin, as a plain and clear error.
In v. 42 we find, to our astonishment, that the margin
V

114 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
tells us " many ancient authorities add, and another took a
spear and pierced his side, and there came out water and blood.' '
Few points have been generally regarded by critics as more
certain than that this most striking and important fact is
recorded by St. John alone ; that it was added by him, on
his personal attestation, to the accounts preserved by the
other Evangelists, not only with a view to the completeness
of proofs of our Lord's death, but to the significance of the
event. But Westcott and Hort, who print it in their text,
enclosing it in double brackets, evidently attach much weight
to the external evidence.
It is extant in six uncial MSS., N, B, C, L, U, Y, all however
belonging to one recension, the Alexandrian or Eusebian ; but
against its reception are twelve uncials, including D — which in
cases of omission is regarded as a high authority by Westcott
and Hort — A, n, of the Alexandrian group, and all inde
pendent witnesses ; also the Eusebian Canons, which assign
it exclusively to St. John. Tischendorf sums up the argu
ments against it clearly and decisively. Dean Burgon had
previously proved both the absence of proper authority for
its insertion, and the circumstances which account for its
interpolation. Theologically the notice which, by the simple fact of its
presence in the margin, implies a cautious but real com
mendation, is of real importance. It does not merely imply
that St. Matthew records a true and weighty fact, but it
misplaces the act : according to St. John the piercing took
place after our Lord's death : a point of great doctrinal
significance ; but as the Revisers suggest the insertion, it
would have occurred previously, and have been in fact
the immediate cause of death. The testimony of Origen
is decidedly adverse to the interpolation (rjBrj B'avTov diro-
OavovTov eh twv aTpaTicoTuiv k.t.X.) — see tom. i. 418 C. It
must not be overlooked that the " water and the blood "

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VII. 115
present a phenomenon which, according to high scientific
authority, could not have occurred before death. Critically
it is important, as showing that x, B, and L, generally con
spicuous, as I venture once more to repeat, for their omissions,
are capable of very serious, and exceedingly foolish inter
polations ; and also as showing that Westcott and Hort, in
a singularly weak case, give up their own canon, which here
might be applied with advantage, as to the weight of Codex
Bezae (D), when, instead of interpolating, that MS. bears
witness to the absence of a disputed text.
In St. Mark's Gospel (xv. 39) the Revised Text omits the
words that he so cried out (Gr. /epa£a?).
This is of real importance, for it gives a special reason
why the centurion was moved to his great confession. It
was the Saviour's last cry, with its full significance, with its
attestation to the inherent power of Life triumphing over
Death, to the fact that the surrender of Life was in the strict
sense of the word a voluntary act, which wrought complete
conviction — a conviction for which the way had been pre
pared by all the preceding circumstances, especially by our
Lord's demeanour and words, but which needed and received
the confirmation of His last loud heart-piercing cry.
In this case the Revisers appear to have been perplexed.
The course which they adopted seems to me, I scarcely ven
ture to say it, but say it I must, the very worst. They omit
it altogether in the text, showing that at least two thirds of
them finally agreed in rejecting it, acting, as it may be
supposed, under the influence of Westcott and Hort, who
pass it over without any note of doubt in their Greek text ;
but in the margin it is stated that " many ancient authorities
read so cried out and gave up the ghost." The statement
implies acceptance of the words, but its supporters could not
carry with them one third of the Committee in a case where
they were undoubtedly right. l 2

116 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
But what are the authorities ? For the omission x, B, L,
supported only by the Coptic, and with that exception stand
ing absolutely alone.
On the other side are arranged all other uncials, the whole
mass of cursives, all other Versions, and among the Fathers
the two who specially represent the intelligence of the East
and of the West — Origen and Augustine, names which, in
their somewhat rare concurrence on disputed points of
criticism and interpretation, have a weight which of aU men
the Revisers might have been expected to recognize.
I take this to be one of the clearest, if not strongest, cases
of unjustifiable innovation. General Result of this Section.
So stands the case of the Revised Version as regards the
evangelical accounts of the central event in the history of
Redemption. We find a mark of distrust, to say the least, affixed to
the first, the specially characteristic word of the crucified
Saviour ;
The supernatural darkness accounted for by an astronomical
impossibility ;
An interpolation in St. Matthew's Gospel, involving an
attempt at conciliation, but in reality presenting a serious
contradiction of St. John's account ;
The last solemn cry passed over in silence, just at the
point where it is specially needed by the context.
For all these, and other less important innovations, the
responsibility attaches to the authorities chiefly relied upon
by the two leaders of the Committee on critical questions.
Will Convocation dare to take upon itself the responsi
bility ?

( 117 )

SECTION VIII.
The Resurrection.
Matt. c. xxviii. — In the account which St. Matthew
gives of this event, or rather of the circumstances under
which it was first made known to the disciples, and of the
appearances of our Lord afterwards, I find no innovations
which affect the character of the transactions.
I do not notice the four omissions of words or sentences in
vv, 2, 6, 9, 16 ; and I must also record my thankfulness that
the Revisers have not adopted or noticed one innovation,
which we may suppose was brought under their consideration
by the two critics. In the 19th verse, left without mark or
comment in the Revised Version, the Greek text of Westcott
and Hort retain fiairT^ovTes, but in their margin suggest
(HaiTTLcravTes. It is a singularly unfortunate reading, since
it would imply that baptism was to precede all instruction
in the faith.
Its importance consists entirely in its bearing upon the
character of two MSS., which stand absolutely alone in
maintaining it. First B, the infallible and pure Vatican,
and D, in its Greek text, probably by oversight of a tran
scriber, since the Latin of that manuscript has baptizantes.
We turn to the account of St. Luke, c. xxiv. In it we
meet with several omissions, some of grave, one at least of
momentous importance.
In v. 3 the margin suggests the omission of "the Lord
Jesus ;" following D alone as MS. against the combination of
every kind of external evidence. In v. 6, it also suggests an

118 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
omission of the important words, He is not here, He is risen,
on the same authority and against the same consensus.
But now we come to an omission so grave, so vital in its
bearings upon evangelical evidence, that we should indeed
have been surprised had the Revisers adopted it in their
text ; we are only less surprised to find them notice it in their
margin. The whole of the 12th verse, as the margin tells
us, is omitted by some ancient authorities.
For this omission one manuscript alone, D, of all the most
capricious and negligent, is quoted by Tischendorf. The
other authorities are early Italic MSS., indicating early omis
sion in the West, and an inference from the Eusebian
Canons. It would scarcely be supposed that the old Textus Receptus
and our Authorized Version are supported by every other
ancient MS., uncial or cursive, every other ancient Version,
and among the Fathers by Eusebius himself in a passage
where he speaks distinctly (ad Mar. suppl. iv. 286, 293), not
to speak of Cyril Alex, in his commentary on St. Luke.
Tischendorf himself says, " Patet hunc versum jam saeculo
secundo a plerisque testibus lectum esse."
The notice is one of very peculiar importance. What it
gives is the personal attestation of St. Peter to his own ocular
observation of the state in which he found the empty sepul
chre. It is precisely a point which he would naturally
mention to St. Paul, when that Apostle abode with him fifteen
days at Jerusalem (Gal. c. i.) for the special purpose of
careful inquiry (la-Toprjaai). It is no less probable that St.
Paul would be careful to impress it upon the mind of St.
Luke, in order that it might stand out prominently in his
record of the circumstances attesting the Resurrection.
The coincidence of the account, so far as it extends, with
that given by St. John, agrees with numerous indications of
a close connection between the third and fourth Gospels ;

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VIII. 119
but on the other hand the omission in this passage of all
notice of St. John's own presence proves the complete inde
pendence of the narrative, and disproves the suggestion,
which, but for that circumstance, might seem plausible, that
we have a case of assimilation.
It may be hoped that in a revised edition of the Revised
Version, this and all similar notices in the margin, which
leave the number and character of adverse witnesses a
matter open to uncertain conjecture, will be explained, or
better still altogether omitted, when the word some means
an infinitesimally small minority.
One other omission in this chapter, one indeed of tran
scending importance, must be recorded. It is scarcely
credible that in v. 36 the margin should tell us some ancient
authorities omit the whole clause, one of the most beautiful
in this beautiful Gospel, and He saith unto them, Peace be
unto you.
Our astonishment increases when we look at the ancient
authorities. For the sacred words stand the two MSS.
which rank first in the revising critics' estimate, x and B,
supported by the whole body of MSS., uncial (with one ex
ception) and cursive; the Sahidic and Coptic, in short all
ancient Versions, and the Fathers who refer to this passage,
Eusebius (ad. Mar. supp. 293 bis), Chrysostom, and Cyril Alex.
Against the words D stands again absolutely alone, with
the exception of some MSS. of the old Italic Version.
It is a fearful tiling thus to deal with the most solemn
words on the most solemn occasion, on the first meeting of
the risen Lord with the disciples.
Two other omissions may be passed over with two re
marks : (1) The notice in the margin that v. 40 is omitted
by some ancient authorities is misleading. The words are
quoted as of considerable importance by Athanasius, tom.
iii. p. 906, ed. Ben., by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and other

120 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
Fathers, and are found in every manuscript except D, and
in every ancient Version except the old Italic, and Cureton's
Syriac. (2) Again the evidence for the last part of v. 42
greatly preponderates over the authorities, though not unim
portant, in deference to which it is omitted in the text of
the Revised Version. I must reserve my remarks upon the
last and crowning mutilation, that of v. 51, for the section
in which I have to consider the evangelical record of the
Ascension. I pause only to ask once more, will Convocation accept the
responsibility for the mutilated text of St. Luke ?
St. Mark, however, is the great sufferer, if we may venture
to apply such a term to the sainted Evangelist in reference
to the mutilation of his Gospel — a mutilation without
parallel in the critical history of the New Testament, so far
as that history concerns those who believe in the veracity
and inspiration of the sacred writers. The whole twelve
concluding verses of this Gospel are separated from the pre
ceding portion both in the English Revised Version, and in
the Greek text published in the name of the Revisers, at
Oxford under the superintendence of Archdeacon Palmer, at
Cambridge of Dr. Scrivener. And here I must at once call
attention to the very remarkable fact that that most cautious
and judicious critic, the very foremost among those who in
England combine reverence for God's word with the most
thorough appreciation of every point bearing upon the criti
cism of the New Testament, should have given the sanction
of his name to the form in which these verses appear in the
Cambridge edition. That edition claims to give in the first
place the Received Text, or, to speak more accurately, the
text which was accepted by the translators in 1611, without
alteration, subjoining the changes adopted by the Revising
Committee. But no edition of the Received Text was ever
issued, none could ever possibly have been issued, with these

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VIII. 121
verses of St. Mark thus separated from the rest. For this
proceeding we may expect some strong reason may be
alleged — for my part I cannot conjecture what the reason
may be, unless indeed, which seems scarcely credible, that
great critic allowed his own excellent judgment to be over
ruled by some person representing the feelings of the Revising
Committee. As for the enormous importance of the omission we have
but to refer to the public statements of members of the
Revising Committee. I have elsewhere quoted the words in
which one of the most distinguished expresses his extreme
gratification at the disappearance from what he calls St.
Mark's genuine work of one of the very strongest assertions
of the necessity of a real living faith. Far more important
is another fact, to which I also alluded in a note on the last
page of my commentary on St. Mark in the ' Speaker's Com
mentary,' viz., that the late Mr. Greg, one of the ablest and
most influential representatives of modern scepticism, held
that the omission in St. Mark's Gospel of all reference to
personal appearances of our Lord after the resurrection
obliterates the earliest and most authoritative attestation to
that cardinal event.
But of all proofs of the importance attaching to the reten
tion, or to the rejection, of the passage, none more striking
can be adduced than the course pursued by Dr. Hort in the
Appendix to the ' Introduction to Westcott and Hort's New
Testament.' He occupies some twenty-eight pages, closely printed in
double columns, with an elaborate statement of the grounds
on which he defends the mutilation. What he tells us at
the end, p. 51, is that " it manifestly cannot claim any apos
tolic authority." Previously, in p. 36, he sums up the points,
which are thus declared to be without apostolic authority,
under five heads. " They contain (1) a distinctive narrative,

122 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
one out of four, of the events after the day of the Resurrection ;
(2) one of the (at most) three narratives of the Ascension ;
(3) the only statement in the Gospels historical in form as to
the Session on the Right Hand ; (4) one of the most emphatic
statements in the New Testament as to the necessity of faith
or belief; and (5) the most emphatic statement in the New
Testament as to the importance of baptism."
So that these five points, touching cardinal doctrines, are
divested of apostolic authority.
The arguments urged, with great ability, and, I would not
use the word offensively, but I must say with remarkable
subtlety, by Dr. Hort, could not here be fully discussed
without breaking the thread of my own reasoning, in which
I deal only with positive facts and broad statements ; and
presently I shall have occasion to revert to those arguments
which appear to me to demand serious attention ; but I will
at once press upon all inquirers this general statement.
Dr. Hort does not impugn the fact, which of itself would
seem to most inquirers conclusive, that with the exception
of X, B, L, every ancient manuscript, of all recensions and of
all ages, has the contested verses ; nor again that x is the
only manuscript which omits them without any indication
of a hiatus ; nor, though he notices, does he give any satis
factory reason for the very instructive fact that B leaves
a blank space, contrary to its unvarying usage, thus proving
decisively that the transcriber had a concluding portion
before him.
Nor again does he deny that all ancient Versions, some of
them 100 or 200 years earlier than the most ancient MS.,
have the missing passage ; a very singular fact is passed over
sub silentio, that the MSS. include those which are most
commonly found on the side of B; and that whereas two
very ancient Versions, the Syriac of Cureton and the Sahidic,
are grievously mutilated, each preserves just enough of

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VIII. 123
the missing verses to prove their existence and their
reception. Nor again does he deal fully, I venture to say fairly, with
the patristic evidence. He relies chiefly on negative evi
dence, which is universally admitted to be a very insecure
foundation for unfavourable judgment in the face of clear
positive testimony; and he is far from putting before his
readers the enormous weight which attaches to the distmct
attestation of Irenaeus in the passage which I have quoted
above (see p. 38), an attestation which, whether we consider
the position, character, and age of the writer, or the peculiar
force of his statement — not an obiter dictum, but applying to
the whole structure of the second Gospel — ought to suffice to
raise the question far above the range of controversy.
Nothing indeed can be more striking than the contrast
between the hesitating, varying, uncertain words of Eusebius,
on the one hand, uttered with an avowed intention of meeting
a difficulty, and on the other the plain, strong, clear words of
the great pupil of Polycarp, speaking in the name of the
Church, and resting on the authority of what all then ad
mitted to be the Petrine Gospel.
For these and other points I would simply refer to the
unanswered and unanswerable arguments of Dean Burgon in
his palmary work, and to the decisive judgment of Dr.
Scrivener, who without any hesitation maintains the authenti
city of the whole passage.
I must, however, once more call attention to points
affected, in addition to those enumerated by Dr. Hort.
(1) The first appearance of our Lord to Mary Magdalene,
taken in connection with the very remarkable fact, on which
the Evangelist lays special stress, that her evidence was not
received by the apostolic body.
Both statements are of singular importance ; the first
because it is recorded in the Petrine Gospel, and refers to a

124 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
fact which St. Peter could specially vouch for, inasmuch as
Mary Magdalene first addressed herself to him and to
St. John, and because he knew that although her words
sufficed to move him to act with his usual promptness and
inquire for himself, they were far from carrying conviction.
The second because the incredulity of the disciples is incom
patible with the theory, skilfully maintained by the great
French sophist, that belief in the Resurrection originated
with Mary Magdalene. Here too I must remark that Celsus,
the real originator of that sophistical argument, undoubtedly
referred to this statement of St. Mark when he tells us that
the whole story centred in the testimony of a ¦n-dpoicrrpo'i
ywij. I venture to say undoubtedly ; because (a) it is evident
that no word in St. John's Gospel, as Origen is careful
to point out, suggests the view that Mary was then, or had
been previously, in the state here described by the Evangelist
and well expressed by the Greek 7rdpoio-Tpos ; and (b) because
independent, and certainly in this case unbiassed, critics
unhesitatingly refer the notice of Celsus to St. Mark, e.g.
Anger in his Synopsis, p. 254, and in the appendix, p. xxvi. ;
and E. Renan in his last published work, ' Marc Aurele,' p.
358, note.
We must also notice that the condemnation of this passage
as non-apostolic (see above) destroys the harmony between
St. Peter and St. John, very much in the same manner and
to the same extent as the mutilation of St. Luke's Gospel, to
which attention has previously been directed.
(2) We have again to notice the omission of the support
which St. Mark, under St. Peter's teaching, gives to St. Luke's
account of our Lord's appearance to the disciples — a support
the more important as being evidently given without direct
reference to that Gospel, from which this notice differs suffi
ciently to prove its independence, especially in the statement
that the testimony of the two, like that of Mary Magdalene,

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VIII. 125
was not received by the Apostles. The incredulity of the
Eleven is indeed indicated by their terror and astonishment
at our Lord's personal appearance among them, but it is not
stated directly by St. Luke ; it is stated by St. Mark, and
it has an important bearing upon a point which ought to be
recognized as specially characteristic of his record, viz., that
none of the disciples accepted any testimony to the fact of
the Resurrection until they were convinced by a personal
manifestation of their Risen Lord.
(3) If less important, yet not without significance is the
loss of the most distinct promise of supernatural aid to the
disciples which is recorded in the Gospels, fulfilled certainly
in the case of St. Paul at Melita. I cannot but think that
this promise was not only distasteful to Eusebius, as is
clearly shown by his contemptuous rejection of the testimony
of Papias,* but that it weighed with him in his hesitating
rejection of this portion of the Gospel.
But putting aside this last point as of secondary import
ance, I ask, will Convocation dare to take upon themselves
the responsibility of practically adopting Dr. Hort's statement
that the whole section has no claim to apostolic authority 1

THE ASCENSION AND THE SESSION AT GOD S RIGHT HAND.
Here the most serious attention is called to the fact that
in the evangelical narrative, so far as the Gospels are
concerned, the only record of the last crowning event in the
history of our Redemption — that event to which the Apostles
St. Peter and St. John refer with peculiar emphasis, which
St. Paul repeatedly dwells upon with reference to its spiritual
significance — is found in the last verse but one of St. Mark's
Gospel and in the 51st verse of the last chapter of St. Luke.

* See my note on Mark xvi. 17, 18, in the ' Speaker's Commentary.'

126 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
Both attestations are rejected, not indeed in the text of
the Revised Version, but in the marginal notices, which but
imperfectly express, but implicitly accept, the adverse judg
ment of the two critical guides.*
With regard to St. Mark's testimony we should observe
that it accords with the whole purport of his Gospel, as
comprehended by Irenaeus, and by the ablest modern critics.
His main object is to show the full manifestation of all
powers involved in the great and glorious title, " the Son
of God," which St. Mark prefixes to his Gospel — a title
which, to the serious detriment of Christian faith, is noted
as doubtful in the margin of the Revised Version : but of
which the complete fulfilment was unquestionably the
Ascension, that final crowning event to which St. Peter
points in the first discourse recorded in the Acts of the
Apostles, where he states fully and succinctly the special
subject-matter of evangelical teaching, using the very word
(dveX7]/M<p0r]) which we find, as might be expected, in
St. Mark.
With regard to St. Luke's testimony we must also remark
that in the very first words of his "second treatise," the
Acts of the Apostles, he gives a clear, complete account of
the purport of the Gospel, which, as he there tells us, con
cluded with the Ascension.
But on what authority is the verse, the only verse in his
Gospel in which that statement appears, so mutilated as to
obliterate the attestation altogether — mutilated, that is, so

* It must not be overlooked that these two passages are appointed
by our Church to be read, one as the second lesson, the other as the
Gospel in the Communion Service, on the Festival of the Ascension.
I must also notice the very extraordinary state of the disciples' feelings in
the account given by St. Luke, supposing that the suggestions in the
margin of the Revised Version were adopted. The account would stand
thus : he parted from them, and they returned to Jerusalem with great joy :
i.e. rejoicing, not in their Lord's Ascension, but in His departure.

EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES, SECT. VIII. 127
far as the right of using it is concerned, for those who
attach full weight to the marginal notice that " some ancient
authorities omit and was carried up into heaven " ?
The omission of the words dvecpepeTo ek tov ovpavov is
defended, the reader will scarcely believe it, on the ground
that they are omitted in x * and D, supported by some early
Latin MSS. ; whereas they are found in what Westcott and
Hort call the purest document, B, followed by L, X, A, n,
and supported by the perfectly independent testimony of
xc, A, and C : in fact by all other uncials, all known cursives,
and all ancient Versions.
So ends the long list of omissions, corruptions, and plain
clear errors in the first three Gospels chargeable to the
Revisers as a body, for which, unless a formal disclaimer is
put forth, beyond doubt the Southern Convocation will be
held responsible.

128 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.

THIRD PART.
SECTION I.
General Observations on the Results of the
Preceding Inquiry.
We have thus traversed the entire course of an inquiry,
which has brought us into contact with cardinal points of
our Lord's teaching, and with cardinal incidents in His Life
on earth, beginning with the antecedents and circumstances
of His Nativity, and concluding with that event which all
the sacred writers, none more distinctly than St. Peter and
St. Paul, set before us as the consummation, both historically
and doctrinally, of His Mission, viz., His Ascension, and
Session at the Right Hand of His Father.
We might have expected innovations in matters of
secondary importance, in reference to questions which at
different ages of the Church have been contested among
Christians ; we were prepared to meet with omissions which
would test our patience, and demand the most careful and
earnest consideration : but what we never could have antici
pated, considering the conditions under which the work of
revision was entrusted to the Revising Committee, and the
character and position of its leading members — what we
should have deemed not merely improbable, but absolutely
impossible — was assuredly that in reference to the central,
the all-important incidents of our Lord's life, changes should
have been either introduced into the text of the English

RESULTS OF EXAMINATION. 129
Version, or suggested in the margin, which would seriously
affect the character of the sacred narrative ; or that sayings
of our Lord, especially precious to Christians, should
either be rejected as spurious, or noted as doubtful, or
mutilated, or so modified as to be divested of their peculiar
significance, and thus lose their place, so far as the influ
ence of the Revisers extends, in the consciousness of
Christendom. This result, or anything approaching to it, seemed a
priori utterly incredible.* But on the first hasty perusal
of the Revised Version of the first three Gospels, in common
with the generality of readers, I was at once struck with the
fact, which indeed lay on the surface, that this utterly
unexpected result is actually realized ; and that first impres
sion was far from removed, it was confirmed and intensified,
by careful and repeated examination of the passages to which
I have called attention in the preceding pages.
Now it might perhaps have occurred to the minds of
those who had viewed with alarm the absolutely unprece
dented act of Convocation in admitting the co-operation of
scholars of any or every school of religious thought, that
such innovations must be attributable to some adverse
influence — it might be to the persistent weight of a certain
number of those scholars, chosen, it may be presumed, as
representative men. But that impression could not but be

* I must here refer to the speech of Dr. Wilberforce, Bishop of Win
chester, when he advised Convocation to authorize this Revision. " When
this great undertaking came to be carried out it would be found that
really the alterations would be so few, that the volume, though freed from
errors which might shake its general authority, would be the same volume
which we have now." I have quoted, at the beginning of this treatise,
the still more precise and emphatic words of the Bishop of Gloucester and
Bristol spoken on the same occasion. For both speeches see Chronicle of
Convocation, Feb. 10, 1870, pp. 74-82. K

130 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
dismissed as altogether unfounded, when we considered the
regulations which the Committee of Revision at once adopted
for its guidance. We are informed that no alteration was
admitted into the text of the English Version, unless it
was approved by a majority of two thirds of those present ;*
and that must have comprised in every case a majority, if
not of Anglican Churchmen, yet of men fully agreed in
fundamental principles.
When again we bear in mind that divines of the highest
eminence, possessing the entire confidence of the Church,
took part in the proceedings, we feel that a majority so con
stituted could not be open to suspicion on theological
grounds. That fact indeed has been strongly urged by
the ablest defenders of the Revised Version, such as
Dr. Sanday and Dr. Farrar ; and its importance has been
fully recognized by those assailants who have gone furthest
in expressing their dissatisfaction with the general result.
It would indeed have been more satisfactory had we been
assured that all, or nearly all, those divines had been gene
rally present at the deliberations, and had taken part in
the final decisions of the Committee; and we cannot but
express our deep regret that some of the most distinguished
for learning and for soundness in the faith were habitually
absent from the discussions, and acquiesced at the most but
passively in the verdict of their colleagues. However this
may be, w7e bear in mind that the two critics, whose authority
in critical questions is generally understood to have been
predominant, were well known as men of profound learning
and of deep religious convictions. Both of them stand fore-

* It appears therefore that the majority consisted of those members
who alone took an active part in the Revision, being either present at the
meetings of the Committee or signifying their decision by letter. Some
changes, as it seems to me, could scarcely have been sanctioned by two
thirds of the entire bodv.

RESULTS OF EXAMINATION. 131
most (together with the present Bishop of Durham, until
lately their fellow Professor) among the maintainors of sound
theology in the University of Cambridge. One of them has
special claims to my own grateful acknowledgments as author
of a noble commentary on St. John's Gospel ; nor, although
we might be somewhat alarmed by the epithet of fearless
applied to Dr. Hort by the late Dean Stanley * — an epithet of
questionable fitness in reference to dealings with the most
delicate and grave points in the sphere of spiritual life — can
we doubt that candour, truthfulness, faithfulness to the
highest principles were from first to last the animating
motives which actuated those scholars and the Revisers who
followed their guidance.
To this it must be added — it is a point indeed on which
Dean Stanley and Dr. Kennedy t lay great stress — that
Dr. Scrivener was one of the most constant and painstaking
attendants at the meetings of the Committee. And if we
had reason to believe that his opinions or his arguments
carried with them the weight to which they were especially
entitled, we should have felt there were good grounds for
confidence in the general result. That weight is indeed so
great in the estimation of independent scholars, that we
should have expected him to be consulted, not merely as
an advocate for his own reading— here I speak exclusively of
questions of textual criticism — but as occupying a position
nearly approaching that of an arbiter ; if not entitled to
claim acquiescence when maintaining his own view, yet

* In the article published in the Times, on July 20, 1881, to which I
have referred more than once in my ' Second Letter to the Bishop of
London.' f See ' Ely Lectures on the Revised Version of the New Testament,' by
B. H. Kennedy, D.D. This treatise is prefaced by a Dedication to Dr.
Scrivener.
K 2

132 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
as one whose judgment should have sufficed to bar the
adoption of decisions to which he was adverse, especially in
reference to changes which, as no one will question, cause a
serious shock to the great body of Christian readers. When
however we observe on the one hand that in nearly every
question of vital importance the adverse judgment of that
eminent scholar had been previously recorded in his ' Intro
duction to the Criticism of the New Testament ;' * and on
the other hand, that we have the testimony of Dr. Kennedy,
second to none among the Revisers in point of scholarship,
to the fact that at present Dr. Scrivener retains the main
positions which he then defended, we cannot but see that
the decision of the majority was little influenced by his
authority ; and consequently that it is divested of the weight
which his concurrence would have imparted to it.
I have felt it right, indeed necessary, to state thus at
length the general impression made upon my mind by what
had transpired, and is now positively known, about the
proceedings of the Committee of Revisers. Before I go
further I will also state briefly another point to which I
shall have occasion to recur presently. The substantial
alterations in the text of the New Testament, if not abso
lutely confined to the second and third Gospels, occur far
more frequently and to a far greater extent in them, than in
other portions which I have been able to examine with
-proper care. The changes in the text of the Acts and of the
Pauline Epistles are comparatively small in number, and,
what is of more importance, they do not affect doctrinal or
spiritual truths, to the same extent, or in the same manner,
so far as the text is concerned. Take for instance the
Epistle to the Romans. We find between 190 and 200

Strongly adverse judgments of Dr. Scrivener will be found on pp.
472, 473 ter, 474 bis, 475 bis, and in c. ix. pp. 493-524.

RESULTS OF EXAMINATION. 133
alterations in the Greek text, of which a small number only
are perceptible in the English Version, whereas in the
Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, some 1500 changes are
adopted, many of them of the highest importance. To
anticipate what I have to say presently, this is simply owing
to two facts : (a) that the Greek text of Westcott and Hort,
and of the Revisers, is founded upon, I may say, virtually
identical with, that of the Vatican MS. ; and (b) that in the
Acts and in the Pauline Epistles* that text in nine passages
out of ten is in accordance with the text of the Alexandrian
MS., which represents most completely the readings adopted
by all the great Fathers of the fourth and following centuries,
and which are generally followed in the cursive manuscripts,
especially in those which appear to have been the chief
authorities for what is called the ' Textus Receptus,' which,
as Dr. Scrivener and others have shown, is the foundation of
our Authorized Version. This is indeed a fact for which we
have reason to be exceedingly thankful. It saves the student
of the Epistles many a painful shock ; but it enhances our
regret that in the very centre and foundation of all Christian
teaching, the remarkable discordance between the recension
followed in the Greek text of the Revised Version,
and that on which our old Version is based, should have
impressed upon the former a character so strange, and so
repugnant to the feelings of English Churchmen.
Here too I may call attention to another fact, too
frequently overlooked, and certainly not occupying in
Dr. Hort's ' Introduction ' the place to which it is entitled.
Manuscripts of the whole of the New Testament were

* Dr. Hort, Int. § 262, gives X, B, C, D, L as the "primary documents "
for the Gospels, X, A, B, C, with some others, for the Acts and Epistles.
Thus A is excluded as a high authority from the Gospels only.

134 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
excessively rare in the early ages of Christendom. Separate
manuscripts of some portions were common, especially of the
Gospels ; so that when we find such manuscripts as A and B
agreeing closely in some books, and differing widely in others,
we may fairly conclude that in the one case the scribes had a
common exemplar, or a copy of one recension before them, and
that in the other they had wholly independent copies. Apply
ing this to the case under consideration we infer that the scribe
of B— the diorthota of X — had a copy of the Gospels which
differed from that followed by A, especially in readings
peculiar to the school of Origen; and consequently that in
cases of serious differences we should call for the independent
testimony of early Versions and the great Fathers of the
Church. But important as I cannot but hold these considerations
to be, they are not, in the present state of critical inquiries,
the most interesting to readers. Men's minds have been
violently shaken; they have been loosed from their old
moorings; they are compelled to inquire into the grounds
on which innovations have been adopted ; nor, although
the question cannot be dismissed or shirked as to the
relations between Convocation and the Revising Com
mittee, will that long occupy men's minds. We must ask,
we must have our answer to the question, what is the
character and substantial value of the documents on whose
authority changes are proposed and defended, which touch
the veracity or the integrity of the Holy Scriptures, and
more especially affect the teaching of our Lord.
In order to put the question fairly before the reader's
mind it will be advisable, in the first place, to classify the
innovations to which we have called attention ; in the
next place, to see how far each class of these innovations is
supported by or opposed to ancient authorities ; and thirdly,

RESULTS OF EXAMINATION. 135
to inquire into the grounds on which " paramount " * if not
exclusive authority is attached to some few documents by
the critics who are specially responsible for the most im
portant innovations.

* See Dr. Hort, Int. p. 195 : " The question is whether the documents
accepted as primary can safely be allowed an absolutely paramount
authority."

136 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.

SECTION II.
Classification of Passages in which Serious Innovations
have been introduced into the text or suggested in
the Margin of the Revised Version.
As my special object in this section is to show to what
extent the two oldest manuscripts and other documents of
the same order are severally responsible for the innovations
to which I have called special attention in the second part of
this work, I have arranged those innovations under distinct
heads, and to the references showing in what passages of
Scripture they occur I have subjoined a list of the uncials
which are alleged in their support. The reader will find full
notices of other authorities in the detailed examination
which has been previously given. It must also be kept in
mind that the uncials which are not here cited as supporting
the innovations are adverse to them.
(i.) Passages in which most important words of our Lord
have been omitted :
Injunction. Matt. v. 44 (p. 50).
xB
Two words. Matt. vi. 4 (p. 53).
xBLZandxBD Z
The Doxology. Matt. vi. 13 (p. 56).
xBDZ
The reference to fasting. Matt. xvii. 21 and
Mark ix. 29 (p. 74).
xx B

CLASSIFICATION OF PASSAGES. 137
Part of Messianic prophecy. Luke iv. 19 (p. 71).
X B D L 3
Last injunctions to the Twelve in Galilee. Mark
ix. 44, 46, and 49 (p. 77).
xBCLAandxBLA
Warning to Disciples. Luke ix. 54, 55 (p. 80).
XABCEGHLSVXA3
Lord's Prayer. Luke xi. 2, 4 (p. 85).
xB
On marrying a divorced woman. Matt. xix. 9
(p. 89). x C3 D L S
In the institution of Holy Communion. Luke
xxii. 19, 20 (p. 98).
D
The first words spoken on the Cross. Luke
xxiii. 34 (p. 105).
s'BD"
" Peace be unto you." Luke xxiv. 36 (p. 119).
D
(ii.) Incidents of supreme importance omitted :
The agony in Gethsemane. Luke xxii. 43, 44
(p. 101). xa A B R T
The inscription on the Cross as recorded by
St. Luke, xxiii. 38 (p. 112).
Xca BC"L
The last cry. Mark xv. 39 (p. 115).
xBL
St. Peter's visit to the Tomb. Luke xxiv. 12
(p. 118). D
The appearances after the Resurrection as re
corded by St. Mark, xvi. 9 seq. (p. 120).
xBL

138 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
The Ascension. Mark I. c. and Luke xxiv. 51
(p. 125).
x* D
(iii.) Passages which alter words of our Lord, substituting
common-place, incongruous, or incorrect statements for
utterances specially remarkable for depth, force, and dignity :
Close of the Sermon on the Mount. Luke vi. 48
(p. 6fr).
X BL3
Words spoken to Martha. Luke x. 42 (p. 88).
xBC2L
Words concerning the colt. Mark xi. 3 (p. 95).
sBC'DLA
(iv.) Passages which as they stand in the Revised Version
assert what is either historically incorrect, or physically
impossible : In the Genealogy wrong names. Matt. i. 7, 8,
10 (p. 23). xBC
Prophecy assigned to the wrong prophet.* Mark
i. 2 (p. 36). xBDLA
Serious historical error, touching Abiathar.
Mark ii. 26 (p. 69).
xBLT
Another historical error, in reference to the
daughter of Herodias. Mark vi. 22 (p. *72).
SBDL A
Eclipse of the sun at full moon. Luke xxiii.
45 (p. 110). xBL

* N.B. I must here ask the reader to look at the note on Matt. xiii. 35.
It does not apply to the text used by the Revisers, but to that of Westcott
and Hort's edition, where the very serious innovation is noticed in the
margin and defended in the Appendix.

CLASSIFICATION OF PASSAGES. 139
(v.) Alterations objectionable on various grounds stated
in Part II., chiefly as omissions :
Mark i. 1. vlov tov Oeov omitted (p. 35).
xx
Matt. i. 6 (p. 24). xBT
Matt. i. 18 (p. 25).
xB CPSZ A
Luke i. 28 (p. 26). xBL
Luke ii. 14 (p. 27).
xx A B* D
Luke ii. 40 (p. 33).
xBDL
Luke ii. 43 (p. 33).
xBDL
Luke iv. 4 and 5 (p. 43).
xBL
Mark i. 5 (p. 41).
x° B D K L
Mark i. 14 (p. 44).
xBL
Mark i. 27 (p. 45).
xBL
Mark i. 40 (p. 68).
BDGT
Mark ii. 16 (p. 69).
xBD
Matt. v. 4, 5, transposed (p. 48).
D
Matt. v. 22 (p. 49).
xB
Matt. vi. 1 (p. 51).
xx,b B D

140 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
Matt. vi. 10 (p. 54).
x B Z A
Matt. vi. 12 (p. 54).
x" B Z
Matt. vii. 4 (p. 64).
xB
Matt. vii. 13 (p. 65).
xx
Luke vi. 1 (p. 69).
x BL
Luke x. 1 (p. 87).
BDMR
Luke x. 15 (p. 87).
x B* D L 3
Luke xv. 21 (p. 92).
xBDUX
Mark x. 21 (p. 90).
xB CD A
Matt. xix. 16, 17 (p. 91).*
xBDL
Mark xi. 8 (p. 96).
x B (C) L A
Mark xi. 26 (p. 97).
xBLS A
Matt. xxvi. 28 (p. 98).
xBLZ
Matt, xxvii. 49 — an interpolation (p. 113).
xBCLUT
Luke xxiv. 3, 6 (p. 117).
D
To these passages I now add the following, remarkable
for omissions, or corruptions :

See Scrivener, Int. p. 498 seqq.

CLASSIFICATION OF PASSAGES. 141
Matt. xvi. 2, 3.
xB vxr
Matt, xviii. 15.
xB
Matt, xxiii. 4.
xL
Matt, xxiii. 38.
BL
Luke xvi. 12.
BL
Luke xxi. 24. B

142 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.

SECTION III.
Result of Classification.
The outcome of this inquiry, which is confirmed by refer
ence to other changes, some of which have been previously
noticed, others being omitted as of subordinate importance,
may be stated as follows.
(i.) Evidence of MSS.— The two oldest MSS., x and B,
either separately, or for the most part conjointly, are re
sponsible for nearly every change which modifies, and, we
may say without hesitation, weakens or perverts records of
sayings and incidents in our Lord's life : in fact, for every
change of importance, excepting four of the very gravest
character, for which D, the Codex Bezae, is the only autho
rity among uncial MSS.
It will also be observed that x and B are very often sup
ported by L, a manuscript of the eighth or ninth century,
which agrees with B in its general character, and in most cases
of disputed readings agrees with it so closely as to justify the
conclusion that, if not a direct transcript of that manuscript,
which is hardly probable considering the number of variants,
it was a transcript from an early copy. This general agree
ment gives special weight to its evidence on some important
points where it is opposed to the innovations introduced into
the text of the R. V., on the authority of the Vatican and
Sinaitic manuscripts.
In addition to these we find A, Y, n, and X, 3, and the
cursives 1, 33, in frequent accord with those two oldest

RESULT OF CLASSIFICATION. 143
manuscripts.* On the other hand A, the Alexandrian Codex,
is almost invariably at the head of the long list of uncials
which oppose the readings of x, B, and their congeners, in
the passages which have been examined in these pages, and
in the immense majority of disputed readings in the first
three Gospels. Twice only in passages of serious importance
we find A supporting what I must call the erroneous readings
adopted by the Revisers in their text, or noticed with com
mendation in their margin.

OTHER ANCIENT AUTHORITIES.
On further examination the reader will also find that other
authorities, to which, in some cases, a higher value is to be
assigned, as being more ancient and better attested than
any MSS., may for the most part be classified as agreeing
generally either with the uncials ranged on the side of B, or
with those which follow or support A.
(ii.) Evidence of ancient Versions.! Thus he will find,
as a general rule, that (a) the Syriac Peshito, the Version which
probably comes nearest to the autographs of the Evangelists,
especially of St. Matthew, supports the old Received Text in
the passages which I have dwelt upon as of special import
ance: but that at the same time it agrees with B, and the
recension which is represented by that MS., sufficiently often
to prove that both the translator and the transcriber had
before them ancient documents of the same general character.
When they differ the question must be raised which of them
represents the original text more truthfully: and for my

* Dr. Hort names x, B, C, D, L as the " primary documents " for the
Gospels. It will be observed that C very seldom supports X, B in the
passages above cited.
t For Dr. Hort's views on ancient Versions, see his 'Introduction,'
§213-219.

144 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
own part I do not doubt that the Version is the more trust
worthy, especially as evidence against omissions. In fact,
in the great majority of disputed readings that which has its
decided support has a prima facie claim to preference, if
not to absolute acceptance. The other Syriac Versions are
either much later, as the Philoxenian or Harcleian, or of
doubtful authority. The Curetonian is most valuable in
reference to the first Gospel. Some of its readings are
of considerable importance in reference to St. Mark and
St. Luke.
(b) Early Italic and Vulgate. — As to the early Western
Versions it would be incorrect to speak of the recension
which they represent, for the MSS. vary to an extent incom
patible with the theory that they were derived from any
common source, or were subjected to any critical authority.
Jerome and Augustine indeed speak of the MSS. most
common in their age as full of every kind of fault — of
omissions, perversions, and interpolations — a statement to
which the Codex Bezae, D, supplies ample corroboration.
Still their acknowledged antiquity, and, notwithstanding
those grave defects, the good faith and piety of their writers,
secure for them a high place among recognized authorities.
The Vulgate follows them closely throughout the Gospels.
If the reader would learn what evidence they afford in the
most important instances, he has to ascertain what side is
taken by the MSS. marked a, b, the Codex Vercellensis and
Codex Veronensis, the two best and oldest MSS. of the Italic
Version, or again by /, the Codex Brixianus, which is to a
great extent independent of both. The Vulgate is best
studied in the Codex Amiatinus, lately edited by Tischen
dorf : it is cited as am.
Speaking broadly these MSS. agree with Bmore frequently
than with A ; but that agreement adds considerably to their
weight when they differ from the former, as is the case in

RESULT OF CLASSIFICATION. 145
some of the most important passages which have come under
our consideration.
(c) The Egyptian Versions are of exceeding weight in
this discussion. They rank among the most ancient, and
the most carefully preserved.* The Memphitic, generaUy
cited as the Coptic, has all the books of the N. T. ; the
Sahidic or Thebaic has considerable fragments, especially of
the Gospels. I have compared the readings of both in the
editions of the S. P. C. K. (see above, p. 33, on its value)
and of Woide, with x, B, and A. As a general rule both of
them agree closely with B, an agreement conspicuous in
minute points of grammar, the use of tenses and the definite
article, and in readings which often strike us as singular if not
startling. They agree indeed so closely as to force upon us
the impression that they not only belong to the same school,
but that they follow the same recension.
Here again the conclusion is obvious, I venture to say,
incontestable, that, in the cases where they differ substan
tially from B, where their readings are in fact irreconcileable
with it, such difference proves that the one or the other
follows a corrupt document, whether corrupt by omission or
by interpolation; and in those cases we have to decide
between the two by the testimony of other authorities at
least equaUy ancient and equally weighty.
Applying this to a few crucial instances, we see at once
how it weakens — if it does not absolutely overthrow — the
authority of those MSS. which omit (1) the leading point in
the title of St. Mark's Gospel; (2) the Doxology in the
Lord's Prayer ; (3) the most heart-stirring incident in our

* I say this in reference to the MSS. of the Coptic or Memphitic.
A critical edition, with a complete account and correct estimate of the
various readings, is a desideratum which ought to be supplied by one of
our universities.

146 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
Lord's agony ; (4)' His first word on the cross ; and (5) the
whole concluding portion of the Gospel of St. Mark.
(iii.) Evidence of Ancient Fathers. — Here the reader
may be embarrassed by the multitude, and the contradictory
character of the citations in Tregelles and in Tischendorf's
eighth edition. Let him first see what evidence is supplied
by the earliest and best Fathers of the Greek-speaking
Church; foremost among whom and by far most weighty
from age, character, and position, stands Irenaeus. Observe
the testimony which he gives in reference to the beginning
and the end of St. Mark's Gospel, and to incidents omitted
or noted as questionable by the Revisers. Then, passing on
at once to another and far different school, let him observe
how many and how important are the points on which
Origen, of all Fathers the one who, in his numerous citations,
has the text most closely corresponding to Codex B, casts
in his unsuspected and momentous weight into the opposite
scale. Above all, in counting and weighing the evidence of
the ante-Nicene Fathers he should be on his guard against
the utterly fallacious argument from negatives. Westcott
and Hort speak strongly upon that point, but do not bring it
to bear upon some questions of exceeding moment. The
circumstance that a Father does not quote a passage —
especially if he wrote at a time or belonged to a school
in which so-called " diplomatic accuracy " was scarcely heard
of — proves nothing against its existence. In fact in one
passage on which, in spite of that dictum, Dr. Hort lays
great stress,* the omission is accounted for in the simplest
and most satisfactory manner. Cyril of Jerusalem does not
allude to the last verses of St. Mark's Gospel in his ' Four
teenth Catechetical Lecture,' in which he adduces scriptural

* See ' Introduction to the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort,' Appendix
p. 37.

RESULT OF CLASSIFICATION. 147
proofs of the Resurrection, Ascension, and Session at the
Right Hand of God. Such is the negative evidence. But
in the opening clauses of that portion of his argument Cyril
expressly states that on the previous day he had expounded
the scriptural lesson which contained a complete account of
the incidents connected with the Resurrection and Ascen
sion of our Lord.* Now it is proved that the most ancient
lectionary-systems, which are more ancient than either B
or x, contained the last verses of 'St. Mark's Gospel, in the
lesson appointed for "certain days, especially for the great
festival on which Cyril appears to have delivered the dis
course to which he refers in that lecture. I cannot but
regard Dean Burgon's argument on the one side, and Dr.
Hort's on the other, as remarkable instances of the use and
the misuse of vast learning and of equally remarkable subtlety.
The facts are simple, incontrovertible; and in my opinion
they add force to the warning, never to be lost sight of
by students, that one positive fact is of infinitely more im
portance than the most plausible arguments drawn from the
silence of an early writer.
In considering the references to the authority of the ante-
Nicene Fathers, the reader cannot fail to be struck by the
testimony, all but unanimous, which they supply in refer
ence to passages of signal importance, especially to the
records of our Lord's words, and of incidents connected
with the last and most solemn portion of the Gospel History.

* See Burgon's ' Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel,' p. 195, where
Cyril's words are quoted in full. Cyril refers repeatedly to the exposition
which he had previously given, an exposition which of course made it
unnecessary for him again to cite Mark xvi. 19, or Luke xxiv. 51, or
Acts i. 9.

L 2

148 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.

SECTION IV.
Value of the two oldest Manuscripts, x and B.
We are now brought face to face with one of the most
difficult and important problems in the history of biblical
criticism. One point comes out distinctly. The two oldest MSS.
are responsible for nearly all the readings which we have
brought under consideration — readings which when we look
at them individually, still more when we regard them col
lectively, inflict most grievous damage upon the records of
our Lord's words and works.
I repeat that, with two exceptions, to which notice has
been called, those mnovations rest upon the authority of
x and B, sometimes supported by a minority of other MSS.,
but in many serious instances standing absolutely alone.
On the other hand, the two critics, whose views are fully
stated, and supported by arguments equally remarkable for
learning and ingenuity, in their ' Introduction ' written by
Dr. Hort, hold that the Vatican manuscript is " supreme in
excellence," that it alone represents " the purest text," that it
is to a singular extent " free from interpolations," that it has
" no suspicious colouring," that where it is supported by the
only other MS. which has claims at all resembling it
for antiquity and excellence, its authority is final, " absolutely
decisive," and that even when it stands quite alone it is
entitled not merely to respectful consideratiqn, but to
practically unlimited deference.
And this opinion they have illustrated by the most

VALUE OF X AND 13. 149
decisive act. They have produced a Greek text, in most
substantial points identical with that published on the
authority of the Revisers, but which goes much further,
inasmuch as, alone of all published texts, with exceedingly
few and unimportant exceptions, it virtually reproduces the
text of the Vatican manuscript. In fact, had they given us
a revised edition of the Vatican, merely correcting the
itacisms, and other manifest blunders of the copyist* — neither
small in number, nor unimportant in their bearings — it
would have scarcely been distinguishable from that which
now stands before us on their authority. Having compared
Chapter after chapter, book after book in their edition with
Tischendorf's ' Vatican Codex of the New Testament,' I can
attest that this coincidence is all but uniform. Nor indeed
could it well be otherwise; since they tell us sometimes
distinctly, often by implication, that in this manuscript,
especially when taken in combination with x, we have the
nearest approach to a faithful transcript of the very auto
graphs of the Apostles and Evangelists.
The grounds on which this very decided opinion of the
two critics rests, are, as I have said, fully stated in the
' Introduction ' to their text of the Greek Testament. That
introduction was written by Dr. Hort, but it expresses the
views which they held in common, and which they certainly
succeeded in impressing upon the minds, if not of all, yet
of the majority of scholars, either belonging to the Committee
of Revisers, or in a position which justified their coming
forward in its defence.
To examine these grounds with any approach to complete
ness would demand a very long, and probably inconclusive
process of discussion. It must be observed that the argu-
* And with reference to such blunders Dr. Hort says, " the scribe
reached by no means a high standard of accuracy," Introd. § 312. Then
Tischendorf speaks of the vitiositas of B and X. See below, p. 172.

150 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
ments of Dr. Hort are presented in what Dr. Sanday calls " a
predominantly abstract form," — a form which he admits to
be at once difficult to follow, and not likely to be generally
convincing. He tells us that " the reader may rest assured
that these seeming abstractions rest upon a most solid and
laborious collection of facts."*
This caU upon the reader's faith involves a severe strain ;
the facts may be solid and collected with much labour, but
they are seldom put before us, and throughout the ' Intro
duction ' are assumed rather than proved. We must always
bear in mind that the opinions of the two critics were formed,
or developed, in a course of most earnest and thoughtful
study extending over thirty years, and pursued with every
advantage, with all the resources of a great university both
as regards, materials and learned co-operation. But the field
of inquiry which now demands our attention is limited ; we
have simply to inquire what evidence, external or internal, is
adduced, or adducible on principles adopted by the Revisers,
that the two manuscripts are not only generally deserving
of confidence, for their purity and pre-eminent excellence,
but so far entitled to deference that the Revisers are justified
in introducing on their authority innovations into the sacred
text, which, as we have shown, are derogatory to its integrity
or its veracity, and materially affect the records of great
central events and sayings in the Life of our Lord. Proba
bilities, conjectures however plausible, inferences from a sys
tem which, whatever may be its fascination for acute intellects
and speculative minds, is open from first to last to question,
are as dust in the balance weighed against matters of such
vital importance. We demand facts, facts which can be
ascertained, which are not capable of being explained away ;
and most astonishing facts they must be if they are to

See the Contemporary Review, December 1881, p. 986.

VALUE OF X AND B. 151
compel us to surrender, or to regard as doubtful, such a
word as that spoken by our Saviour on the cross, and the
attestation of two Evangelists to the Resurrection and the
Ascension of our Lord.
We look then first at the historical facts which stand out
most prominently, about which there is no difference of
opinion. (1) We know approximately the age of the two oldest
documents. It is admitted that the Vatican, it is all but
certain that both the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts, were
written about the middle of the fourth century. We know
also that some other manuscripts, such as A, C, Q, T, Z,
were written so soon after that date as materially to affect
the position claimed for those two codices, and repeatedly
urged by some critics, as though they were entitled to un
qualified deference on the ground of what Dr. Hort * calls
" their exceptional antiquity."
This date is of great importance ; it reminds us at once of
the very long interval — nearly three centuries — which had
elapsed since the time when our Gospels were given to the
Christian world, an interval filled with events of singular
interest, with persecutions, storms within the Church, vicissi
tudes and trials of every kind. It reminds us also that the
very time, at which those two manuscripts are admitted to
have been written, coincided with a temporary, but complete,
preponderance of the Arian heresy, and that the person who
at that time was most conspicuous for learning, and especially
for ability and reputation as a critical scholar, was deeply
affected by that heresy — Jerome calls him "propugnator
Arianae factionis." To these points I shall have to recur
presently ; here I simply ask the reader to bear both facts
in mind. We have two manuscripts written some three

Intr. to Westcott & Hort's New Testament, p. 92.

152 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
hundred years after the original text was published ; we
have to admit that just at the time when they were written,
the best, the only sound, part of the Church, was in a state of
depression without previous precedent or later parallel.
Looking back from that time, we are surprised at the
paucity and the uncertainty of facts which might enable us
to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion on the state of the
text at any given period.
(2) The fact nearest in time, and of most importance, is
that Lucian* — a presbyter of Antioch, a native of Samosata
who was put to death at Nicomedia a.d. 312 — and about
the same time Hesychius, an Egyptian Bishop, took special
pains with the revision of the text of the Septuagint Version,
and as it would seem also with that of the New Testament.
We know that when Jerome was occupied with his Version
he found manuscripts written by, or under the superinten
dence of, Lucian and Hesychius, of which in his Epistle to
Damasus he speaks slightingly, but which were regarded by
some as presenting a carefully revised and pure text. His
words are important: " Praetermitto eos codices quos a
Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos paucorum hominum adserit
perversa contentio : quibus utique nee in veteri instrumento
post septuaginta interpretes emendare quid licuit nee in novo
profuit emendasse, cum multarum gentium Unguis scriptura
ante translata doceat falsa esse quae addita sunt." f

* " Lucianus vir disertissimus, Antiochenas ecclesias presbyter, tantum
in Scripturarum studio laboravit, ut usque nunc 'qusedam exemplaria
Scripturarum Lucianea nuncupantur." Hieronymus, ' Catalogus Scriptorum
Ecclesiast.' 77.
t Preef. in IV. Evangelia ad Damasum, tom. x. 661. The adverse
judgment of Jerome, at a later period, appears to have been generally
adopted in the West. Thus in the ' Decreta Gelasii et Hormisda? ' (quoted
by Hilgenfeld, ' Einleitung,' p. 137) we read : " Libri omnes, quos fecit
Leucius, discipulus diaboli, apocryphi." Innocentius also reckons them
among apocryphal books.

VALUE OF X AND B. 153
From this we have a right to infer (a) that the number
of copies bearing the name, as issued under the authority, of
one or the other, or of both those Churchmen, must have been
considerable, and that some hundred years after the demise
of Lucian they were maintained as of high authority by what
Jerome, an impetuous and unfair controversialist, designates
as the perverse contention of a few persons, (b) We must
also infer, if we accept Jerome's statement, that the Recen
sion, if that name is properly applied to their work, was
remarkable for interpolations. But it seems probable, con
sidering the character of Jerome, that by addita sunt he may
refer to innovations generally, especially to statements which
affected the integrity of the books, and the veracity of the
narratives, (c) Jerome lays down a principle of the highest
importance, one to which in this discussion special attention
is demanded, viz. that all variations and innovations of
importance can be and ought to be tested by their accordance
with the ancient Versions, which conveyed the truths of the
Gospel to different nations.
The question how far the text thus produced agreed with
one or the other of the two recensions, which Dr. Hort and Dr.
Westcott think fit to call Pre-syrian and Syrian, is of course a
matter of doubtful conjecture. But we have facts which lead
us some way towards a probable conclusion. Lucian was
beyond doubt, as a scholar and divine, moulded under the
influences of a school of which Origen is the chief repre
sentative. It is also clear that, at the earlier part of his life,
he had gone very far in the direction of latitudinarianism :
he was accused of decidedly heretical opinions, and, though
recognized by the most orthodox Churchmen as a sound-
hearted and right-minded Christian man, fuUy entitled to
the glorious designation of a faithful martyr, it is admitted
that traces of old opinions and tendencies were discernible
to the last. Whether those tendencies affected his recen-

154 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
sion, or, if they affected it at all, to what extent, is of course
wholly uncertain; but in addition to the fact that he
belonged to the school of Origen, we have the no less certain
and equally significant fact that he found in Eusebius an
enthusiastic admirer. That historian rises to real pathos
and eloquence in describing his character, his scholarship,
his martyrdom ; nor can it be doubted that his labours in
the criticism and exegesis of the Scriptures were fully appre
ciated by Eusebius, with whom he had so many points in
common, especially as regards the influences under which
the religious character of both was moulded.
One fact, at least, is certain. The term Syrian recension,
if admissible at all, is applicable to the copies written under
the superintendence of Lucian of Antioch. That is the only
recension connected with Syria of which any notice occurs in
ancient documents ; I must add, for which any place can be
found in the history of the Church between the second and
fifth centuries.
Is it too much to infer that the work of Lucian materially
affected the critical and biblical labours of Eusebius, or
that, if, as I hold to be all but certain, the two oldest
manuscripts were written under the superintendence of
Eusebius, they retain some of the chief characteristics of
that recension ? If that be the case, we must apply Jerome's
remark that all innovations should be brought at once to
the test, whether they are opposed to, or are supported by,
the best ancient Versions.
As to Hesychius, less is known, less is even probably
conjectured ; but I am fully disposed to accept the views of
some able critics who believe that his work is fairly repre
sented by the oldest Egyptian Version* Whether, however,

* Jerome says (c. Rutin, ii.) that Egypt followed the Hesychian recen
sion. He is speaking of the Septuagint, but there can be no doubt that
the remark applies equally to the New Testament.

VALUE OF X AND B. 155
he simply adopted that Version, as it then stood, or modified
it to some extent, cannot be determined in the absence of
positive evidence.
That Version undoubtedly does represent the Alexandrian
text as it stood early in the third century, or even probably as
it stood in the second. Comparing it with the citations in
Origen, we note on the one hand a real independence in
readings of considerable importance, as may be seen
by reference to the passages which we have previously
examined; on the other, so much general similarity as to
confirm the opinion of critics who regard them as proceeding
from the same school. Not less striking is the same com
bination of general resemblance and special independence,
when we compare that Version with the Vatican and Sinaitic
manuscripts : a point to which I shall have to call attention
presently, but notice here as bearing upon the character of
what has been called, somewhat boldly, the Hesychian re
cension. (3) We go back one step further, a most critical and im
portant step, for it brings us at once into contact with the
greatest name, the highest genius, the most influential person
of all Christian antiquity. We come to Origen. Now it is
not disputed that Origen bestowed special pains upon every
department of biblical criticism and exegesis. His ' Hexapla '
is a monument of stupendous industry and keen discernment :
but his labours on the Old Testament were thwarted by his
very imperfect knowledge of Hebrew, and by the tendency
to mystic interpretations common in his own age, but in no
other writer so fully developed or pushed to the same ex
tremes. In his criticism of the New Testament Origen
had greater advantages, and he used them with greater
success. Every available source of information he studied
carefully. Manuscripts and Versions were before him ; both
Manuscripts and Versions he examined, and brought out the

156 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
results of his researches with unrivalled power. But no
one who considers the peculiar character of his genius, his
subtlety, his restless curiosity, his audacity in speculation,
his love of innovation, will be disposed to deny the extreme
risk of adopting any conclusion, any reading, which rests
on his authority, unless it is supported by the independent
testimony of earlier or contemporary Fathers and Versions.
The points in which we are specially entitled to look for
innovations are — (1) curious and ingenious readings, such for
instance, as those which we have noticed in St. Mark and St.
Luke ; (2) the removal of words, clauses, or entire sentences
which a man of fastidious taste might regard as superfluities
or repetitions ; (3) a fearless and highly speculative mode of
dealing with portions of the New Testament which might con
tain statements opposed to his prepossessions, or present diffi
culties which even his ingenuity might be unable to solve.
In weighing the evidence of his citations for or against any
doubtful reading, while we should feel assured of his
perfect honesty of purpose, we ought to be extremely
cautious in adopting his conclusions. A text formed
more or less directly under his influence would of course
command a certain amount of general adhesion; it would
approve itself most especially to minds similarly gifted
and similarly developed ; when brought to bear upon the
course of critical inquiry it would produce an enormous effect,
especially if it came with the charm and interest of novelty ;
but not less certainly would it be challenged, and its verdict
be refused, if it contravened principles of fundamental im
portance and affected the veracity of the sacred writers and
the teaching of Holy Writ.
Now when we once more apply these observations to a
text, which on other grounds we maintain to be substantially
or completely identical with that which was published under
the influence of Eusebius, we are driven to the conclusion that

VALUE OF X AND B. 157
such characteristics are to be looked for ; and that, so far as
they can be shown to exist, they impair, if they do not over
throw, the authority of that text in matters so weighty as those
to which we have devoted attention in this discussion. That
Eusebius was an enthusiastic admirer, a devoted adherent of
Origen, no one need be reminded who knows aught of the
history of that age, or who has read, however hastily, his
history of the early Church ; that in all questions he would
defer absolutely to the authority of Origen, especially in ques
tions of criticism, is almost equaUy undeniable; nor do I
hesitate to state my immoveable conviction that in that
influence is to be found the true solution of the principal
phenomena which perplex or distress us in considering the
readings of the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. This point,
however, I propose to discuss at length in a separate section.
(4) But have we no earlier authorities than Origen ? I
have answered this question more than once. There were once
abundant materials, but unfortunately our actual knowledge
of them is imperfect and fragmentary. Copies of Holy
Scripture abounded in Western Christendom; the so-called
early Italic Versions carry us back to the earliest post-
apostolic age ; but we can scarcely refuse to accept the
positive statement of Jerome in his well-known Epistle to
Damasus, the Bishop of Rome, under whose authority he
undertook the most formidable and responsible of all works,
that of producing a new or revised Version of the Scriptures.
In answer to the attacks of opponents, moved by feelings
common enough in the case of all new undertakings, and
imputed, as a matter of course, to all who venture to criticize
a work remarkable for novelty, Jerome says : " Si latinis
exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant, quibus :
tot sunt enim pene quot codices." A strong, perhaps an
exaggerated statement, such as accords with the style of a
controversialist at once unscrupulous and bitter, but which

158 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
leaves no room for doubt as to the untrustworthiness of
manuscripts which represent the early Italic recension.
To state the general result shortly, we have no reason to
believe that the immense number of copies of Scripture, or, to
speak more correctly, of portions, especially of the Gospels,
diffused through the East and West of Christendom were
at any time subjected to a general superintending authority.
We may be sure that in every quarter of Christendom they
were prepared and examined with the greatest care; but
speculations as to their relative value and mutual inter
dependence, however ingenious and plausible, as to their
" genealogical " and " transcriptional " peculiarities, ought not
to be allowed to bias our judgment in estimating the value
of documents now existing, each of which should be tested
on its own merits with the most careful regard to internal
and external indications of its intrinsic worth.

( 159 )

SECTION V.
The Eusebian Recension.
Hitherto our inquiry has brought us into contact with
theories of exceeding interest, but resting on insecure foun
dations ; the facts being few in number, and rather gathered
from incidental notices than from direct statements by trust
worthy authorities. These facts suffice to prove that the copies
of Holy Scripture, both in Eastern and Western Christendom,
were numerous ; that the diversities of readings had attracted
general attention, and occupied the minds of theological
scholars ; but they leave us in a state of considerable em
barrassment, and quite uncertain to what extent the inge
nious and highly technical system, presented with singular
ability in Dr. Hort's ' Introduction,' may be applicable. We
feel the need of some central facts, some statements on
which implicit reliance can be placed, connected with a
distinct and critical period in the history of the Church, and
recorded in documents now accessible and bearing the stamp
of high official or ecclesiastical authority.
The epoch at which such facts might be naturally looked
for is assuredly that in which the Church emerged from its
condition of external humiliation and desperate struggles,
and in which the tendencies by which it had long been in
ternally disturbed culminated in massive proportions ; on the
one hand, in a heresy which — owing in part to the ability of
its chief leaders, but mainly to its subtle appeals to some of
the strongest feelings of half-Christianized people, and to its
combination of rhetorical and philosophical artifices with skil-

160 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
ful manipulation of scriptural texts — rapidly acquired and long
retained a hold upon the minds of some of the ablest and
most influential representatives of religious thought ; on the
other hand, in a full development of the principles which
from the beginning had been more or less distinctly re
cognized as fundamental by earnest and devout Christians,
and which found full and adequate expression when for the
first time all quarters of Christendom, by the voices of their
representatives, decided the great question at issue, in the
great oecumenical council of Nicaea.
Very few years had elapsed, less than ten years in fact, from
that central event, when the transaction occurred to which I
now call attention. When we consider the condition of the
Church at that time, the clear and uncontested authority on
which the all-important facts rest, and the position of the per
sons with whom we are concerned, we cannot hesitate to assign
to this transaction not merely a high place, but the very highest
place in the history of the criticism of the New Testament.
The date is fixed absolutely within narrow limits. In the
year 330 Constantine formally celebrated the completion of
his great work, the foundation of Constantinople. In the
year 340 at the earliest Eusebius died.*
In the interval between these two certain dates — probably,
as we shall see, nearer the beginning than the close of the
interval — Constantine wrote a letter to Eusebius, then Bishop
of Caesarea, which we have before us in the Life of Constantine
by Eusebius, book iv. c. 36 ; in the following chapter, c. 37,
Eusebius gives a full account of the result.
In this letter Constantine first states a fact of exceeding
importance f in the history of Christianity, showing the

* See Bishop Lightfoot's article on Eusebius in the ' Dictionary of
Christian Biography,' vol. ii. p. 318.
t See my remarks in the ' Second Letter to the Bishop of London,'
p. 79 seq., in reference to this fact.

THE EUSEBIAN RECENSION. 161
rapidity of its external progress under imperial influence.
This fact is that in the city which bore his name an im
mense number of people had already joined themselves to
the Church — note the force of his expression, peyiaTov ttXTiOos
dvOpcoTrcov rfi dfiayraTr) itcKX-naia dvaTeOeacev eavro. He
adds that inasmuch as there is a great and growing develop
ment of the city in all respects, it is evidently most
desirable that many new churches should be established
in it.
The Emperor then calls upon Eusebius to order without
delay the transcription of fifty manuscripts of the Holy
Scriptures on carefully prepared parchments or vellum (ev
8/,<p0epai<; iyjcaTao-xevois;), written in easily legible characters,
and in a portable and convenient form (-n-po? ttjv xprjo-iv
ev/jieTaic6fucrTa). The manuscripts were to be written by
calligraphers, beautiful penmen, thoroughly understanding
their art (virb Te-yyiTwv KaXXiypdcfxov koX a/cpt/Sw? Trp Teyyrjv
iTTtaTa/Aevmv). . Constantine dwells upon the immense importance to the
Church of having the Scriptures thus carefully written and
adapted for common use ; his words are often cited, as show
ing the paramount weight attached to the study of the Word
of God at that critical period in the history of the Church—
t5>v Oeimv BvXaBrj ypa<p<av wv p,dXiaTa Tnv t iTner/cevvv
teal ttjv xprja-iv ra rr)? iic/cXwcrla<; Xoyq) dvayicaiav elvai
yivdaricets. The Emperor then tells Eusebius that he has sent instruc
tions to the Treasurer of the province, the highest civil
functionary, to supply all things required for the prepara
tion of the parchments, and impresses upon Eusebius the
duty of getting the manuscripts completed with all possible
expedition. That no time may be lost in transmitting them
from Caesarea to Constantinople, Eusebius is formally autho
rized to employ two public vehicles, so that the "beauti-
M

162 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
fully written manuscripts " — a point to which he thus again
speciaUy refers— may be brought before the Emperor's eyes in
the most convenient manner. He bids Eusebius entrust one
of his deacons with the duty of conveying the precious docu
ments safely and speedily, and promises to reward that envoy
in a manner befitting his liberality. The letter closes with
the affectionate salutation, " May God preserve thee, beloved
brother." In the following chapter Eusebius records briefly and
distinctly the speedy accomplishment of the work, ai/Tlica 8'
epyov eirvKoXovOei, tw Xoyoj. He adds a few words which
are important as showing both the great costliness and the
peculiar form of the manuscripts. He describes them as
Tpiaa-d Kal TeTpaaad, i.e. according to Valesius, Tischendorf,
and Scrivener, in quires called in Latin writers "terniones " and
"quaterniones," that is in triple or quadruple sheets, presenting
of course twelve or sixteen pages. The words, however,
as it appears to me, may refer to the arrangement, peculiar
to the two oldest MSS., x and B, in which each page is
written in three or four vertical columns respectively.*

* I advance this suggestion with some confidence, having consulted
some eminent Greek scholars, who agree with me as to its great proba
bility. I observe (1) that the two words are exceedingly rare, and are
not, so far as I can ascertain, elsewhere used in connection with manu
scripts. (2) Their literal meaning is " three by three," and " four by
four," words which exactly describe the arrangement of the columns
in each page of B and X. (3) No corresponding ordinal is derived from
7reVr<r, such as would have been necessary to describe the arrangement
of Codex B, to which Tischendorf applies the word " quinio," i.e. fivefold
quire. (4) It is probable that Eusebius would call special attention
to the triple and quadruple columns, which are supposed to have been copied
from a MS. on papyrus, indicating an Egyptian recension, to which, as
a follower of Origen, he would attach a high value. (5) The conjecture
of Valesius, that the two words were equivalent to the well-known Latin
terms " ternio " and " quaternio," was natural, in fact almost forced upon
him, at a time when no example of an arrangement in three or four vertical
columns was in existence. (6) Had Eusebius wished to describe the

THE EUSEBIAN RECENSION. 163
Take now the facts concerning these fifty manuscripts.
First the external facts.
(1) They were remarkable for the excellence of the materials
on which they were written.
(2) They were equally remarkable for the beauty of the
characters, written by the best calligraphers who could be
found by the Bishop of Caesarea.
(3) They were to be executed — and it is recorded that they
were executed — with the utmost possible speed.
The combination of extreme care bestowed upon the form
with extreme speed or haste in the execution is a peculiarity
scarcely to be looked for under ordinary circumstances.
As a general rule copies of the Scriptures were prepared
in separate portions, of course with the utmost care, cer
tainly not under pressure of time, by monks carefully trained
in calligraphy and in habits of exact transcription. A manu
script thus prepared would be prized rather for its exactness
and the authority attached to its readings, than for the beauty
of its form. When a convent had leisure and means to pro
duce costly manuscripts, the excellence of the writing would
in every case be inseparable from extreme care in the
transcription. To this it must be added that the materials had to be
procured and most carefully prepared, a process which would
necessarily occupy a considerable time — as may be inferred
from the singularly fine vellum on which the Sinaitic Codex
is written : made of the skins of asses or of antelopes, a single
animal supplying but one sheet.* The time therefore at

manner of folding the sheets, he would naturally have used words com
pounded of a cardinal number and a termination implying folds, such
as rpurXoa, TerpairXoa. ; such words were in common use and specially
applicable to the case.
* See Tischendorf, ' Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum,' Proll. p. xvii.
The number of skins must have far exceeded any quantity that could
have been kept in store for ordinary purposes. One hundred and forty-
M 2

164 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
the disposal of Eusebius for the transcription would be so far
shortened as to make extreme haste in that part of the work
especially urgent.
So far we have data, which, by reason of their rarity and
unquestionable authenticity, must go far towards determining
the origin of any manuscript of that date in which the same
peculiarities are admitted or can be shown to exist.
Before we proceed to this point we must take into careful
consideration the state of the Church at the time ; the rela
tions between the Church and the Empire, and the exact
position of Eusebius in reference to both.
We may assume that the letter to Eusebius was written
soon after the dedication of Constantinople ; but some time
must have elapsed before the Emperor could be satisfied that
the number of converts was so great, and increasing so steadily,
as to make it necessary or expedient to build a considerable
number of churches. I doubt whether the letter could have
been sent before the year 332, and allowing a reasonable
time for the purpose of preparing materials, collecting and
collating manuscripts for the use of scribes in writing fifty
copies of the whole Scriptures, I should think a.d. 334 a far
more probable date than 331, usually accepted for this
transaction. Now in the year 330 Alius was received on terms of amity
by Constantine, who addressed a courteous letter of welcome
to him on the 25th of November.* In the following year
Eustathius, the orthodox Bishop of Antioch, was deposed from
his see by the Arian Council of Tyre. In the same year,

eight skins were required for one copy of the Sinaitic New Testament,
three times as many for the Old. For fifty copies of the whole work
an enormous number of skins had to be procured, and prepared with the
utmost care, for the manuscripts demanded by the Emperor.
* See M. de Broglie, ' Histoire de l'Eglise et de 1'Empire,' tom. ii. p.
284, note.

THE EUSEBIAN RECENSION. 165
A.D. 331, Eusebius of Nicomedia, the ablest and most influen
tial leader of the extreme Arian faction, wrote a letter to Atha
nasius, calling upon him to receive Arius into communion.
Eusebius of Caesarea was offered the see of Antioch, but
was wise enough to decline it.* From that time his influence
over Constantine was unbounded ; an influence considerably
strengthened by the assiduous court which he paid to the
favourite sister of the Emperor, giving her name Constantia to
a city in his diocese, which he speaks of as lately converted
from fanatic heathenism; a course which, he tells us, was
highly approved by Constantine.
Turning to Egypt, we observe that Athanasius remained at
Alexandria, but under the ban of the Arian faction and the dis
favour of the Emperor, until he went into banishment, A.D. 336.
We have thus a clear and full account of the position of
parties in Christendom at the date when those famous fifty
manuscripts were prepared and sent to Constantinople.
The facts so elicited supply solid grounds for the inquiry
as to what in all probability would be the internal charac
teristics of manuscripts prepared at such a time, under such
circumstances. In the first place we do not hesitate to admit that they
would be generally remarkable for substantial accuracy.; no
interpolations are to be looked for. Eusebius was a man of
honour, too prudent as well as too honest consciously to
introduce corruptions of the text ; his wide learning was not
more conspicuous than his conscientiousness in dealing with
the facts of Holy Scripture.

* Eusebius has preserved the letter which Constantine addressed to him
on hearing that he had declined the see of Antioch. The Emperor espe
cially commends his wise moderation — 77 en; crvveo-is, fj -yoOv rds re evroXas
Tov 8eov kcu tov 'AttocttoXikov Kavova kcu rrjs EKKXTjo-ias tpyXdrreiv eyvaiKev
VTrepevye nenoinKc, Trapanovpivn. rr\v EwicKoirtav rijs Kara rrjv 'Avrioxetav
eKKXrjo-ias. Vita Const, lib. iii. c. 61, p. 518, ed. Vales.

166 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
If in any work he would be careful to maintain his well-
earned character for diligence and sound judgment, it would
be in a work destined, under the imperial influence, to remain
as a guide and chief authority in the great city of Constan
tinople. It may be added that afterwards when Chrysostom, the
ablest and soundest teacher of the Church, occupied the epis
copal throne in that city, no imputation of corruption or un
fairness is alleged in the homilies in which that great man
expounded large portions of the Scripture. And I may here
remark, en passant, that in none of his earlier homilies, those
for instance which were delivered at Antioch, and are justly
counted as the most thoroughly sound and complete exposi
tions of two Gospels and Epistles, is there any indication that
Chrysostom was aware of a substantial difference between the
text which he himself used and that of Eusebius, which must
have been familiar to all students — such difference as is as
sumed by Dr. Hort and intimated in his classification of
Syrian and Pre-syrian readings.
Still, on the other hand, there are many passages in which,
without conscious dishonesty or unfairness, traces of theo
logical opinions, strongly and consistently maintained by a
reviser of the text, might be looked for. In cases of disputed
or doubtful readings, which could not but occur frequently in
the actual state of recensions or written authorities at that
time, it would be too great a strain upon our candour or cre
dulity to assume that a preference would not be shown for
that reading which favoured the views of the party of which
Eusebius was an avowed partizan, and, with all his discretion,
an earnest defender.* Consciously, or unconsciously, as is
unquestionably the case with translators,! critics and even

* Jerome, who follows Eusebius in critical questions closely, not to say
slavishly, speaks of him as "signifer Arian* factionis." Cont.Rufinum lib.ii.
t Sec Dr. Ranke's words, quoted above, p. 42.

THE EUSEBIAN RECENSION. 167
transcribers are influenced by their dominant tendencies and
prepossessions. For instance, in the most important text, Romans ix. 5, the
mere insertion of a stop would go far to eliminate a decisive
proof of our Lord's true and proper divinity, the very central
point in the Arian controversy. According to some authori
ties, the stop is so inserted in some MSS. — of which we have
presently to speak — and Dr. Vance Smith points triumphantly
to the countenance given to that punctuation in the Greek
text of Westcott and Hort, and in the marginal note of the
Revised Version.*
Again in passages where the choice lay between 0eo<; and
words which lower or obliterate the meaning, we might expect
that the latter would be adopted. Of course all doubtful
texts, not supported, or weakly supported, by documents pre
viously accepted as authorities, would disappear.
But if there were any one distinct instance, any one crucial
passage, in which the whole weight of Eusebius, as a biblical
critic, was thrown into one scale — in which on exegetical and
harmonistic grounds he would be anxious to rid himself
and his fellow Christians of any considerable passage which
countenanced what he believed to be erroneous statements, and
which he had rejected in other writings as a spurious addition
to a Gospel — we might calculate to a certainty that the effect
would be seen in the rejection or total obliteration of such a
passage in manuscripts written under his absolute control.

* The discussion of this passage does not properly belong to this
essay; but I must press upon every reader the duty — I use the word
" duty " emphatically — of reading the admirable note of Dr. Gifford in
the ' Speaker's Commentary.' I should scarcely have thought it credible,
in face of the unanswered and unanswerable arguments there urged,
that English divines would venture to have given their sanction to one
of the most pernicious and indefensible innovations of rationalistic
criticism. For Dr. Vance Smith's statement see ' Revised Texts and
Margins,' p. 32 scq.

168 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
One other characteristic, and it is of the last importance
in the inquiry, must be looked for in a recension conducted
by Eusebius. It would bear evident marks of the influence
of Origen : not merely because Origen, as we have seen, had a
well-earned reputation for learning, keen insight, literary
tact, and spiritual discernment, but because of all authorities
in such matters Origen stood highest in the estimation of
Eusebius. To this reference has already been made. I am
bound to call attention to it here. The position of Eusebius
is stated completely and forcibly by Jerome, ' Contra Rufi-
num,' i. § 8 : " Sex libros Eusebius Caesariensis Episcopus,
Arianae quondam signifer factionis, pro Origene scripsit
latissimum et elaboratum opus, et multis testimoniis appro-
bavit, Origenem juxta se catholicum, id est, juxta nos Arianum
esse." *
We have now to see whether any manuscripts now extant
meet all the conditions which are implied in the preceding
description of the Eusebian recension.
The first indispensable condition is that of time. The re
cension, as we have seen, was made between a.d. 330 and 340 :
probably some five or six years before the latter date.
Two manuscripts, and two only, are assigned to the earlier
half of the fourth century. One, the Vatican Codex, B, is
admitted by all critics to have been written in or about the
decennium before the middle of that century. The other, the
Sinaitic Codex, x, has not commanded the same unanimity of
critical consensus. Some critics of eminence have disputed
its antiquity ; still the opinion of Tischendorf, so far as regards
the proximate age of the manuscript, has been borne out so
far by close and dispassionate inquiry, that little if any real

* I do not accept this statement of Jerome so far as regards the impu
tation of Arianism to Origen, whose substantial orthodoxy has been fully
vindicated by Bishop Bull, ' Defensio Fidei Nicasn*,' 2 c. ix. ; but it is con
clusive as to the close connection between Eusebius and Origen.

THE EUSEBIAN RECENSION. 169
doubt can reasonably be entertained on that point. The
further question, whether that critic was right in maintaining
its priority to the Vatican Codex, stands on different grounds.
I hold, as a fact which has been demonstrated, that both
manuscripts were written about the same time and in the
same country ; but if either was in part copied from the other,
or written later under the same influences, the Vatican
was in all probability the older, the Sinaitic the younger.
This I have to consider further on; here I venture to
assume as a recognized fact that these two manuscripts,
alone among extant documents, do satisfy, and fully
satisfy, the condition of time. They are certainly con
temporary with the Eusebian recension, and if so, there is a
strong prima facie probability that they were written at the
same place and under the same superintendence.
Two other conditions are equally indispensable. The first
is extreme care in external form — beauty and excellence of
materials, beauty and excellence of writing.
Now in these respects the two manuscripts are admitted
to hold a foremost, indeed an exceptional position.
The Vatican Codex is described by all critics who have had
the opportunity of examining it, as remarkable for the fine
ness and beauty of the vellum ; until the Sinaitic Codex
was discovered, it was wholly without a rival for the
grace, nobleness, distinctness, and beauty of its calligraphy.*
In both respects the Sinaitic Codex equals, if it does not sur
pass it. It has been stated above that one antelope supplied
materials for one sheet only of this manuscript, and Tischen-
dorf's account of its remarkable beauty is admitted to be
without exaggeration. As for the beauty of the writing,
readers have full opportunity of forming a judgment. They

* " Species libri pro typorum pulchritudine, et chartas prastantia satis
elegans est." Tischendorf, ' Nov. Test. Vaticanum,' Appendix, p. ix.

170 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
need but compare the facsimiles in Scrivener's ' Introduction,'
the photographs in Dean Burgon's work on the last verses of
St. Mark, or the specimens in Tischendorf s edition of the
two manuscripts, to be fully satisfied that though ap
proached in some respects by a few other uncials, yet on
the whole these two MSS. are by far the best extant speci
mens of early calligraphy.
This first condition must therefore be regarded as absolutely
satisfied. But secondly, we have to take into consideration another
characteristic. As we have seen, the Emperor impressed upon
Eusebius the duty of getting the work done with all possible
expedition. He urges him repeatedly to speed, to extreme
haste. A command so notified, urged by a prince of imperious
and impatient character, could not fail to override all other
considerations ; provided that good copies were supplied to the
writers, that the best and most thoroughly trained calligraphers
were employed, Eusebius would not be disposed to look with
much severity upon defects inseparable from rapidity of
execution. Omissions of words, clauses, and sentences not
absolutely indispensable for a right understanding of the
purport of any given passage might escape attention, or if
noticed might be excused; a sheet faulty in points which
the critic might regard as of secondary importance would
scarcely be cast aside, considering the loss of time, not to
speak of the cost, which would be incurred by an attempt to
replace it. I hold it to be certain that traces of extreme
haste would be found in such manuscripts.
Are such traces found in either or in both the manuscripts
with which we are specially concerned ?
The answer is scarcely open to doubt. The omissions in
the synoptical Gospels, which I deal with exclusively in this
essay, are perfectly amazing for number and extent. It is
calculated by a very able and careful critic (quoted by Dr.

THE EUSEBIAN RECENSION. 171
Scrivener, 'Introduction,' p. 108) that Codex B leaves out
words, or whole clauses, no less than 330 times in St.
Matthew, 365 times in St. Mark, 439 times in St. Luke.
This computation does not exceed the result to which my
own independent examination of the new readings in the
Greek texts of the Revisers and of Westcott and Hort had
led me. In fifteen chapters of St. Mark I found 653
changes, in St. Luke 837. A very large proportion, more
than one half, roughly speaking, are omissions ; and for nine
tenths of these omissions one or both the manuscripts under
consideration are the principal, in fact all but invariably the
only, authorities.
But here I am met by the very weighty and very authori
tative statement of the two critics, repeated more than once,
and in very peremptory terms, that it is illusive to describe
these variations as omissions ; that so far as they affect pas
sages of any importance they are but indications of the singular
purity, the freedom from interpolations, from " conflate read
ings," useless repetitions, which they take to be the charac
teristic excellence of both, and of the Vatican MS. more
especially. Such a dictum it is somewhat hard to deal with ;
but with the utmost deference to the judgment of those
critics I cannot but maintain that if the majority of those read
ings, which we call omissions, are subjected to any external test,
if tried by any other measure than that of the manuscripts
themselves, they will be convicted as defects, or blunders, or
innovations more or less erroneous, to whatever cause the
mischief be attributable.- The tests to which I would refer
are, first, the more ancient and trustworthy Versions ; secondly,
citations in ante-Nicene Fathers ; and thirdly, the consensus
of manuscripts, including those which in doubtful cases so
generally coincide with x and B as to leave little room for
doubt that their text was founded on the same original autho
rities. To this I must add the very important statement

172 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
of Dr. Scrivener, ' Introduction,' p. 108 : " That no small pro
portion of them — sc. the omissions noticed above — are mere
oversights of the scribe, seems evident from a circumstance
that has only come to light of late years, namely, that this
same scribe has repeatedly written words and clauses twice
over, a class of mistakes which Mai and the collators have
seldom thought fit to notice, inasmuch as the false addition has
not been retraced by the second hand, but which by no
means enhances our estimate of the care employed in copying
this venerable record of primitive Christianity." In a note
upon this passage Dr. Scrivener quotes words of Tischendorf,
which are conclusive as to that critic's opinion of the careless
ness — which I attribute to excessive haste — of the copyist
of the manuscript. Speaking of gross blunders in the
recent Roman edition of the Vatican Codex, Tischendorf says,
" Tamen haec quoque satis cum universa scripturae Vaticanae
vitiositate conveniunt." Appendix to N. T. Vatic, p. xvii.
These remarks apply with at least equal force to the
Sinaitic Codex, of which Tischendorf uses the same expres
sion, "magna scripturae vitiositas." See N T. Sinaitic.
Introd. p. xxxv. § v. One instance of extreme negligence
occurs towards the end of St. Mark's Gospel, in which that
manuscript omits v. 47 in c. xv., and the first clause in c. xvi.
¦ — an omission noticed and supplemented by an early corrector.
I refer also to the weighty testimony of Dr. Scrivener in
his Introduction (p. xv.) to the ' Collation of the Sinaitic MS.'
" This manuscript must have been derived from one more
ancient, in which the lines were similarly divided, since the
writer occasionally omits just the number of letters which
would suffice to fill a line, and that to the utter rum of the
sense; as if his eye had heedlessly wandered to the line
immediately below. Instances of this want of care will be
found, Luke xxi. 8 ; xxii. 25, perhaps John iv. 45 ; xii. 25 ;
where complete lines are omitted. It must be confessed,

THE EUSEBIAN RECENSION. 173
indeed, that the Codex Sinaiticus abounds with similar errors
of the eye and pen, to an extent not unparalleled, but
happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate import
ance ; so that Tregelles has freely pronounced that " the state
of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be re
garded as very rough."
Two points must here be borne in mind. The Sinaitic
MS. was written by at least four copyists ; a considerable
portion was at once recognized by Tischendorf as written by
the calligrapher who appears to have been employed
throughout the Vatican manuscript. The point is im
portant for various reasons : first, if it be accepted as
a fact, it leaves no doubt, that the two manuscripts
were written at the same time, the same place, and under
the same general superintendence. Secondly, it bears very
forcibly upon a point of even greater importance to be
noticed in the sequel (pp: 232-5), the mutilation of St. Mark's
Gospel ; that portion of the work being among the passages
which Tischendorf fixes upon as certainly written by the
Vatican calligrapher.* It also shows a singular and very un
expected carelessness in the choice or use of documents
which the calligraphers had to copy, inasmuch as the readings
vary to an extent which, though it does not affect the substance
of the text, proves that the same writer actually had before
him different manuscripts when he wrote the two portions
now before us. Tischendorf infers from this that they bear
independent and therefore valuable testimony to the readings
which he adopts in both; and in this view he is supported
by Dr. Hort, who regards it as an evidence of their common
origin from some far more ancient text. I venture" to main
tain that we have, together with the proof of singular and

* See Tischendorf's ' Nov. Test. Vaticanum,' p. xxii., and Dr. Hort's
1 Introduction,' § 288.

174 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
inexcusable negligence, a clear indication that the copyist,
under the direction of Eusebius or the " corrector," followed
two recensions, and most probably gave the preference to
that which kept the text as received or amended by Origen,
or by Lucian, of whose labours and influence we have spoken
above. But I must further call attention to another fact, which
surprised me exceedingly, which I could scarcely have ac
cepted as probable or possible, but for the decisive testimony
of Tischendorf, a scholar certainly not biassed by any pre
judices against this manuscript. I have noticed above that
it was usual, in cases of such importance, to employ a
corrector of the manuscript, generally a professional scribe,
called in Greek BiopOmTr/s, Latinized by Tischendorf as
diorthota. His duties are thus described : he had to correct
faults in the copy, and to supply any omissions of negligence.
But I will quote his own words : " Et hoc et iilud in librum
Vaticanum quadrat, cujus primum correctorem sive diortho-
tam maxime hoc egisse adparet ut omissa suppleret, et vitiosa
emendaret; nee vero prorsus ab inferendis lectionibus absti-
nuit, quas aliunde quam a textu libri descripti sumere
deberet."* Of both courses Tischendorf gives instances ; and
so far we certainly might seem to have a security against
numerous or serious blunders, especially in a document of
transcendent importance, intended, whether at Constantinople
or in any other city, to remain as a KT-ij/xa e's dei, an official
witness to the true text.
But, as I intimated, a great surprise awaits us. In the
following page (xxv.) Tischendorf writes thus : " If however
any one should believe that that corrector did his work dili
gently, he would be grievously mistaken. For it appears to
have been generally the custom of those correctors, as mere

* See ' Novum Testamentum Vaticanum,' ed. Tischendorf, Proll. p. xxiv.

THE EUSEBIAN RECENSION. 175
hirelings, in order to get through their work rapidly, to be
satisfied with such corrections and remarks as might be made
with ease in a hasty perusal and collation of the manuscript.
They did just as much as attested the fact that they had
corrected the manuscript, and did not scruple to leave many
points untouched which had the greatest possible need of
correction." Here however we might pause, and look for an exception
in the case of a manuscript, which Drs. Westcott and Hort
regard as one of " supreme excellence," beyond all comparison
" the purest and most free from errors of all now in exist
ence : " but Tischendorf expressly adds, " Quod quantopere
in diorthotam codicis Vaticani quadret, qucevis inquirentem
pagina docet ; " that is to say, every page of this manuscript
bears the plainest evidence of the carelessness and haste of
the corrector, and of course of the copyist, whose negligence
caUed for the most careful and diligent supervision.
Taking the calculations of the critic quoted by Scrivener
as granted — and they certainly are borne out fully by my own
inquiry so far as it has extended — we must admit that the
omission of not less than 2556 words or clauses in the
Vatican Codex, which does not go beyond Hebrews ix. 14,
must have fallen in with the inclinations of a scribe, and
have been lightly admitted by a superintendent, who were
acting under imperative directions to produce the work with
all possible speed.
For my part, I can scarcely conceive any combination of
circumstances which could have produced results apparently
so incompatible as the highest finish in external form, and
the utmost haste with its concomitant negligence, save that
for which we have the most positive evidence in the letter
of Constantine and in the account of the execution of the
work given by Eusebius.
In monasteries the transcriptions were always made by

176 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
members of the conventual body; haste, and carelessness
were of all faults least to be looked for in the leisure of the
convent, in the work of men who, whatever may be thought
of their discretion, were beyond all doubt heartily devoted
to the Master whose word was thus entrusted to their dili
gence; but in the busy city of Caesarea, in the midst of
harassing controversies and engrossing avocations literary
and ecclesiastical, Eusebius, himself not improbably acting
as diorthota, could scarcely have risen above the temptation,
not to idleness — that was not his temptation — but to hasty
discharge of an onerous duty under the pressure of imperial
urgency. We have now to ask the reader to consider the very
peculiar force of arguments which lead to the conclusion that
the two manuscripts were written under the superintendence
of Eusebius, which in fact taken together leave scarcely any
room for doubt that they were written at a time when the
influence of the school which he represented was completely
in the ascendant.
I will not dwell upon indications of Arian tendencies.
They are not such as we should be entitled to rely upon.
As I before said, Eusebius was certainly above the suspicion
of consciously introducing false statements or of obliterating
true statements. As was the case with many supporters of
the high Arian party, which came nearest to the sound
orthodox faith, Eusebius was familiar with all scriptural
texts which distinctly ascribe to our Lord the divine attri
butes and the divine name, and was far more likely to adopt
an explanation which coincided with his own system, than
to incur the risk of exposure and disgrace by obliterating or
modifying them in manuscripts which would be always open
to public inspection. The student has but to read his
treatises against Marcellus to be convinced of the fairness
and truth of this statement.

THE EUSEBIAN RECENSION. 177
Still there are passages in which the choice between two
readings, each having the support of early recensions, either
Western, conspicuous for what Reiche calls "socordia et
licentia," or Alexandrian, bearing traces of the distinctive
tendencies of the Origenistic school, would be influenced by
the avowed preference of Eusebius ; and when we consider the
very serious list of omissions and corruptions imputing incor
rect (not to use a stronger and more offensive word) statements
to the Evangelists, many of them especially derogatory to the
character of the Saviour and logically incompatible with
an entire faith in His proper and true Divinity, we can
scarcely admit that either of the two manuscripts can be
exonerated from the imputation, if not of heretical pravity,
yet of a leaning towards semi- Arian tenets.
But I speak more decidedly upon two points. Whatever
may be said of the arguments alleged for or against the
authenticity of the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel,
one thing is certain. Eusebius is the earliest writer- — I may
safely assert the only writer up to the end of the fourth
century — who ventured to impugn them : in this singular
course he was unquestionably biassed by a desire to rid his
own mind, and that of Marinus, who had consulted him on the
subject, of the perplexity, caused by what might seem to him,
and has been represented by others, and seems to be admitted
by Dr. Hort,* to be the impossibility of harmonizing the first
part of that portion with the other Evangelists, especially St.
Matthew. For my own part, I think it very probable that
other points in those verses would be exceedingly distasteful
to him. In my note on v. 18 in the ' Speaker's Commentary,'
I have noticed the contempt Eusebius expresses for Papias,
who gave credence to a transaction which literally exempli
fied the fulfilment of our Lord's promise. I do not think

See ' Introduction,' Notes on Select Readings, p. 51. N

178 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
that he would feel less repugnance than that expressed by the
late Dean Stanley* to the doctrines stated with uncom
promising force in the 16th verse; nor can we but remember
that the removal of those verses, combined with an equally
bold dismissal of St. Luke's statement, c. xxiv. 51 (see above,
p. 125), obliterates the testimony of the Gospels to the Ascen
sion of the Lord and His Session at the Right Hand of God.
However this may be, we have here a positive unquestion
able case in which Eusebius, standing out against all ancient
Versions, all the earliest and best Fathers of the Greek-
speaking Church, takes the position which is supported by
these two manuscripts, and by these alone, up to the eighth
or ninth century, when they were followed by a single autho
rity, the Codex L, which is little more than a transcript of
the Vatican manuscript.
But in connection with this point there is a most singular
and startling peculiarity, for which I can conceive no pro
bable or rational explanation save that supplied by the
hypothesis of Eusebian superintendence. One of the manu
scripts, B, omits the verses, but leaves a blank column after
that which contains the last verse of the mutilated Gospel —
a proof, as I have elsewhere noted, that in the copy before
the writer a closing portion was given.t In the other MS., X,

* I cannot but allude to some remarkable points of resemblance between
that great and good and genial divine in our own age and Eusebius, both
courtiers conspicuous for an influence in the palace well earned by noble
and attractive qualities, both historians remarkable for skilful use of
materials collected with unusual care and employed with equal dis
crimination and skill, and both, it must be added, so remarkable for noble
qualities as to retain a place of high estimation in the judgment not only
of those who sympathized with them in latitudinarian tendencies, but
with the firmest and most consistent maintainers of the old unvarying
doctrines of the Catholic Church.
t Dr. Scrivener speaks very decidedly on this point. " By leaving a
space the scribe has intimated that he was fully aware of the existence
of the missing verses, or even found them in the copy from which he
wrote." ' Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,' p. 98.

THE EUSEBIAN RECENSION. 179
no such space is allowed. The Gospel of St. Mark ends, as
does every other book of the New Testament, in a column of
which the remaining portion, and that portion alone, is left
blank — the following column beginning with St. Luke.
Now we have seen evidence, as Tischendorf proves, and as
Dr. Hort admits (§ 288), that a portion of the Sinaitic Codex
was written by the scribe of the Vatican, and the portion
containing the end of St. Mark's Gospel from c. xv. 2, and
the first part of St. Luke's Gospel, is the principal example
of that very remarkable proceeding.
What more natural, what more probable, than the con
jecture — nay, I venture to ask what more cogent than the
evidence thus supplied — that Eusebius, superintending the
scribe of the Vatican when he was copying a part of Scripture
in which Eusebius felt a very special interest, should interfere
and order the omission of the verses to which he has recorded
his antagonism ; or again that the scribe, when he was called
upon to transcribe the same portion in the Sinaitic manu
script, written, as we know, on even more costly and rare
materials, in much larger characters — both points of import
ance taken in connection with the demand for extreme
haste — should save the extra column, and thus, whether
consciously or unconsciously, obliterate, so far as the authority
of that manuscript extends, all indications of the change.
Of course, all such inferences are open to objection, but let
not the two facts be ignored : the fact that Eusebius alone in
that age is known to have impugned the authenticity of the
verses, and again, that those two manuscripts alone in that
age, and with one solitary exception (L), alone in all ages
of Christendom, expunge them from their text.
One other point need not detain us long. It is, however, of
crucial importance. I have spoken before of the close con
nection between Origen and the school of which Eusebius
was the head, and of his own personal feelings towards that
N 2

180 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
greatest and most influential expositor and critic, undoubtedly
the chief guide of critics until his influence was at once
confirmed and overshadowed by that of Chrysostom. As
Eusebius is substantially one with Origen in his views
touching the criticism of the N. T., so are the readings in the
two codices for the most part identical with those in citations
in Origen. The reader will find abundant instances in the
passages examined in this book — e.g. take the decisive instance
of the Lord's Prayer in St. Luke's Gospel. Origen alone
among early Fathers vouches for the omission of nearly one
half the clauses which we have examined above, p. 85 seq.
—important clauses in every respect : X and B, followed by
their constant satellite, alone among ancient MSS. obliterate
all traces of their existence from their text. It is, however,
as I said, needless to dwell upon this. The fact of the close
accordance of the text of the Vatican Codex with that pre
sented by Origen, was recognized long since. Griesbach in his
valuable work, the ' Symboke Criticae,' established this fact
and illustrated it by a copious series of quotations. That
work formed, indeed, the basis of the system, afterwards elabo
rated by Lachmann, which was adopted by the generality of
German critics, notwithstanding the strong warning of Reiche
quoted in the first pages of this essay, and which is now pre
sented to the English reader in a complete, able, and highly
technical form in the ' Introduction ' of Westcott and Hort.
Take the fact simply as a fact. It proves an entire
identity of critical position in Eusebius and in the Vatican
manuscript, which in this respect coincides with the Sinaitic ;
and it completes the series of strong and certainly in
dependent arguments, by which I have attempted to show
that both manuscripts were written at Caesarea, in compliance
with an imperial mandate, and under the vigilant superinten
dence of the Bishop.
To this identification of both manuscripts with those sent

THE EUSEBIAN RECENSION. 181
by Eusebius to the Emperor, two objections, the only ones
of any importance, as it seems to me, have to be considered.
The first refers to the form of the manuscripts ; but it
applies to one only, B. Eusebius states that those which he
forwarded were Tpio-crd and TeTpaaad; and Tischendorf, foUow-
ing Valesius, explains these terms to be equivalent to the
Latin " terniones " and " quaterniones," i.e. in sheets folded
three or four times, whereas Codex B consists of sheets fivefold,
which in Latin he calls " quiniones." I must observe that in
that case no ordinal corresponding to Tpoacrd and TeTpaaad is
found in Greek, derived from the cardinal -rrevTe. This
objection is met by the explanation suggested in my note on
page 162 : namely, that Eusebius referred to the most promi
nent characteristic of these manuscripts, one in fact which is
peculiar to them. They are written in triple and quadruple
columns, three on each page of B, four on each page of x.
If, however, this explanation were rejected, I should still
argue that the Sinaitic Codex, which agrees in every respect
with the description of Eusebius, which is larger in size,
nobler in its character, and more costly in materials, was
sent to Constantinople ; and that B, which, as we have seen,
was written before the other, may have been kept back by
Eusebius, who of course needed a complete copy for the use
of his own metropolitan Church. Under what circumstances
that codex found its way to Rome,* is of course wholly un
certain; probably at an early period and at a time when
communications between the Churches of Eastern and Western
Christendom were frequent, in fact uninterrupted. In any
case we may maintain the conclusion to which we have been
driven, that the two manuscripts are but variants of one re-

* Dr. Hort indeed surmises that B and probably X also were written at
Rome : see his ' Introduction,' pp. 266-7. I fail to see the force of his
arguments ; to me the indications or evidences of Eastern origin appear
conclusive.

182 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
cension, absolutely contemporaneous, with the same pervading
characteristics of defect or excellence.
The other objection is of a more serious character. Dr.
Hort, a high authority especially on such a point, holds that
the readings, and especially the classification of the several
books of the New Testament, differ substantially from those
maintained by Eusebius .* As for the readings, I should be
disposed to question the fact, or the significance of the fact, so
far as it can be established. The variations in the two manu
scripts, which, it must be remembered, Dr. Hort admits to
have been in part written by the same scribe, prove how
little importance the writer or editor attached to readings
which do not materiaUy modify the sense of statements
touching on central doctrines ; certainly they show how
little care was bestowed upon that part of the work. So
far as I have examined the citations of Eusebius, and
compared them with the manuscripts, they fall under this
category, and if this be generally the case, that objection
is disposed of. As to the other point, the classification
of the books of the New Testament into authentic and
universally received, and dvTiXeyo/j,eva or even voOa, Tischen
dorf had already met it by anticipation, and in a way
which seems to me entirely satisfactory. He observes
that Eusebius had a choice between two alternatives : he
might either admit into his revised text those books only
which were universally received, and which he held to be un
doubtedly authentic ; or, on the other hand, he might take all
those which were received as genuine by the principal Churches
of Christendom. The first course would, as Tischendorf ob
serves, imply great arrogance in the critic, and give great
offence. I may add that it would have argued a want of dis
cretion, utterly alien to the courtier's habit of mind, to cast

See his ' Introduction,' p. 74.

THE EUSEBIAN RECENSION. 183
such an opprobrium upon portions of Scripture with which
Constantine and the ecclesiastics by whom he was surrounded
had been long familiar ; it would have boded ill for the success
of the Eusebian recension, had the Emperor received from
him copies of the Scriptures from which those books were
altogether absent, or were marked as of questionable or
more than questionable authenticity. It is also observed,
truly and forcibly, by Tischendorf, that Eusebius does not
hesitate to quote and to speak in terms of great reverence of
books which in the passage here alluded to he classes as
antilegomena* I venture, then, to assume as absolutely proved the follow
ing propositions :
(a) The two manuscripts were written at the same time
and under the same general superintendence.
(b) That time coincided with the period at which Eusebius
executed the commission of Constantine.
(c) The costliness and beauty of the materials used in
both manuscripts, more especially in the Sinaitic MS.,
taken into combination with the care and grace of the hand
writing, can scarcely be accounted for under any ordinary
circumstances, while the unquestionable indications of haste
and even carelessness in readings of secondary, nay some
of primary importance, are without paraUel in manuscripts
at aU rivalling these in the estimation of critics.
And if not absolutely proved, I hold it to be established
as in the highest degree probable, that Eusebius was the
superintendent ; and that we have in these two manuscripts
the only extant memorials of his recension.

* See Tischendorfs ' Nov. Test. Sinaiticum,' Proll. p. xxxii. seq. He
winds up with a remark which completely disposes of Dr. Hort's objection :
" Quae si recte disputata sunt, exemplar Sinaiticum ad normam Eusebii
egregie conformatum videtur."

184 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.

SECTION VI.
The Codex Alexandrinus.
We pass from the consideration of the two manuscripts x,
B, to that of the Alexandrian Codex, which unquestionably
comes nearest to them in antiquity ; we have to examine the
probable date of its production, and the relations in which
it stands to those manuscripts, and to other documents
which give us any real insight into the condition of the text
of the New Testament in different quarters of primitive
Christendom. The date may be fixed with some degree of certainty
between two limits. (1) It must have been written some
years after the Vatican Codex. (2) It could scarcely have
been written for public use in the Church — a use to which it
was undoubtedly destined — long after the promulgation or
general reception of the 59th Canon of the Laodicean Council,
about a.d. 367.
(1) The first point need not be discussed at length. All
critics accustomed to note and qualified to estimate external
indications of the date of manuscripts, agree that the style
of calligraphy and other sure criteria mark a time not far
distant from, but certainly some years later than, that assigned
to the Vatican and Sinaitic Codices. But the length of the
interval is not so easily decided. It must be remembered
that contemporary or nearly contemporary scribes in different
countries, writing under different circumstances and under
different superintendence, adopted peculiarities in the form
of some letters and in their general style which might easily

THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. 185
mislead even a practised inquirer and induce him to assign
their writings to a much later age than that to1 which they
really belonged. I may be allowed to notice a very curious
exemplification of this peculiarity. The charter of Edward
the Confessor which endows the Cathedral of Exeter with
the principal part of its landed property, is still retained
as one of the most precious documents belonging to the
cathedral body. It was inspected by Henry III., and its
authenticity was unquestioned until some fifty years ago,
when Dr. Hickes, an antiquarian of high authority, pointed
out that the style of writing, especially the forms of some
letters, could not be reconciled with so early a date, having
been introduced by Norman penmen after the Conquest.
This grave objection was for a time regarded as all
but conclusive, until a keen-eyed critic pointed out, and
showed the bearings of, the remarkable fact that Edward, who
had long before showed his predilection for the Normans,
employed Norman writers in preference to Saxon. Thus an
argument which at first told heavily against the document
became a peculiarly strong evidence of its genuineness.
Applying this argument to the question now before us I
infer that while full dependence may be placed upon the
sound judgment and careful observation of the critics, it does
not follow that an interval of many years, or of even the
greater part of a century, elapsed between the production
of the two oldest manuscripts and of this, which for years was
our most ancient and trustworthy authority for the text of
the New Testament.
I venture to maintain that the limits on both sides may be
a.d. 380 and A.D. 410, and that the earlier date is more nearly
exact. I observe, to my great satisfaction, that Dr. Hort, to whose
keen judgment especial weight must be assigned, and who

186 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
certainly in this case was not biassed by any undue estimate
of the authority of this manuscript, holds that a few years
may suffice to account for internal or external indications.
This however I regard as certain. Whatever may have
been the interval, it could not have been less than the
time which intervened between the predominance of
Arianism, say A.D. 330, and the restoration of Athanasius to
his see, some years before the death of Constantine. Until
indeed the permanent restoration of the old Catholic faith
and ecclesiastical system was completed, no such manuscript
was likely to be produced at Alexandria, or in any part of
Egypt. The manuscript is not such a one as a monastery
would cause to be written for its own use. Manuscripts
carefully written are not uncommon, but they are limited,
invariably as I believe, to some portions of Scripture. The
production of a complete manuscript of the whole Bible,
written in large uncials, on parchment or vellum of the finest
and most costly kind, can only be accounted for by its being
needed for a metropolitan Church, and at a time when the
Archbishop of Alexandria had leisure and means and full
opportunity for getting such a work executed. The latter
years of Athanasius himself were too much disturbed by the
violence and craft of his opponents, and his own mind too
much occupied by incessant controversies, to permit the
otherwise probable conjecture that he was the editor or the
superintendent of these manuscripts. I should rather say
that the earliest date at which such manuscripts were likely
to be prepared in Egypt was A.D. 380. Valens died a.d. 378 ;
then the extreme pressure of Arianism ceased, but the Arian
Lucius, who was obtruded upon the see of Alexandria after
the death of St. Athanasius, was finally expelled after the
accession of Theodosius in 379. The decree in which that
emperor formally recognized Peter as the successor of Athana-

THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. 187
sius was issued in February 380.* That the MS. was written
at or about that time, at the very latest before the end of the
first decennium of the fifth century, appears to me by far
the most probable inference to be drawn from admitted facts.
(2) With regard to the argument drawn from the decree
of the Council of Laodicea I have to call attention to these
facts. In that council, for the- first time, the distinction,
which had hitherto been but partially observed, between
canonical books received as of apostolic authority by
Christendom, and edifying works produced by writers fully
entitled to the reverence of the Church, was strictly defined
and authoritatively declared. Before the promulgation of
-that decree the Epistle of St. Clement and other works, such
as the spurious Epistle of Barnabas and the ' Shepherd of
Hermas,' were read in the. public services of many churches.
Hence in the Sinaitic Codex the only extant Greek text of
part of the 'Shepherd of Hermas,' and the epistle so called
of Barnabas, are subjoined to the canonical books, a fact
which is justly regarded as decisive proof of its antiquity.
But by the 59th Canon of Laodicea the public reading of all
such writings was formally and absolutely prohibited, t
Now the Alexandrian manuscript, as is well known, sub
joins the first Epistle o"f St. Clement of Rome to the canonical
books, and places it in the index without any mark of
distinction. It may be assumed therefore that at the time
when, and at the place where, that manuscript was written
the old custom had not been interrupted. It is possible,
indeed probable, that in some Churches, especiaUy in the

* I take this opportunity of correcting a serious blunder in my ' Second
Letter to the Bishop of London,' p. 69, where I stated that Peter was
the immediate predecessor of Athanasius. I should have said immediate
successor. t The 60th canon gives a complete list of canonical books, in exact
accordance with the Alexandrian Codex both as regards number and order.

188 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
Church of Corinth, the venerable and universally accepted
work of the apostolic Clement continued to be read for
ages ; and had the manuscript been written in Achaia, no
argument could have been fairly drawn from its retention,
although even in that case a mark of distinction between it
and other canonical books was not likely at a late date to
have been absent. But that in Alexandria, at a time of
vehement controversy, under bishops who were con
spicuous for fiery zeal, not to say bitter intolerance, such
a system should have been continued, in face of a formal
decree of the Church, appears to me incredible. I have
therefore no hesitation in assigning the date, as approxi
mately certain, to the latter part of the fourth, at the latest to
the first decennium of the fifth century.
But of this too we may feel tolerably certain. The text of
a manuscript produced at that age and under these circum
stances would present unmistakeable characteristics. In the
first place it would in all probability differ from the Euse
bian recension in one respect. It would bear no trace of
extreme haste and consequent carelessness. Omissions
would therefore disappear, except to the extent in which
they were borne out by the authority of ancient and gene
rally received documents.
This characteristic stands out prominently in the Alex
andrian manuscript. Look through the long list of omissions
on the preceding pages, or, if any doubt remains, compare the
authorities in Tischendorf s eighth edition, for the omission
on the one side, for the retention on the other, of the enor
mous number of passages marked as doubtful, or rejected
as innovations in the Greek text of the Revised Version and
still more so in that of Westcott and Hort, and you will
find, with very rare exceptions, so far as the Gospels of
St. Mark and St. Luke are concerned, that x and B are for
omission, A for retention.

THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. 189
Now this is of the highest importance. It constitutes, as
we have seen, one main argument on which the revising
critics rely : on the other side it supplies an argument, in
my opinion of far greater force, in favour of the recension
which preserves the integrity of Holy Scripture in passages
of transcendent interest. This is the more striking, inas
much as in some of the very gravest cases the testimony of
this manuscript is supported by the citations of Fathers of
the highest authority. Thus St. Athanasius cites, among
others, the following passages : the first great word on the
cross ; and the statement in Luke xxiv. 40 — marked as doubtful
in the Revised Version — that our Saviour showed His hands
and His feet to the disciples, a citation the more valuable
inasmuch as St. Athanasius adduces it as a formal and
decisive proof of the reality of our Lord's bodily existence
and as subversive of the Manichaean heterodoxy. He would
certainly not have ventured to adduce that text had he
entertained any doubt as to its genuineness, or had he known
that his opponents could reject it on tenable grounds.*
There is perhaps no point upon which Dr. Hort has
bestowed more pains than the question as to the character
and bearings of this feature in Western manuscripts. I shall
have occasion presently to consider his ingenious argument
founded on the assumption that what I caU restorations,
what he calls interpolations, are simply instances of " conflate

* I quote the passage as one of great interest. Kai tovto (the humanity
derived from Mary) ovk av tis dp<f>iftdXoi pvrjo-Bels &>v cypa-tyev 6 Aov-
Kas' pzTa yap to dvao-rr\vai Ik vtKpav, Sokovvtwv tivSiv prj iv Ta «
Mapias aitpaTi (HXfTTeiv tov Kvpiov, dXXd dvri tovtov nvevpa 6ewp(iv,
eXeyev "ificre ray \clpds pov, Kai rolls jrdSas pov, Kai tovs rinrovs tS>v
rjXu>v, otl eyo) elpi avTos. tyjjXacprjaaTe pe, Ka\ tSere, ort nvcvpa o~dpKct
Ka\ 6o~Tea ovk exet? Ka8a>s ipe de<opsiT€ ej(0VTa. Kai tovto elnatv, e7Tf8et-
i-ev avTols Tas ^eipar Ka\ roiis jroSns. Ad Epictetum, Cor. Ep. Epistola,
§ 7, p. 906 d, ed. Bened.

190 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
readings." Without anticipating the general argument, I
must here remark that even were Dr. Hort's theory
accepted, it would not support the innovations to which the
most serious importance must be attached. The strongest
cases are cases of omission. The manuscripts which omit
the most striking details in the history of our Lord's suffer
ings, His death, and, I must add, His resurrection, stand
in a diametrically opposite position — I must be allowed
to say a far inferior position — to those which retain those
details in a form attested both by ancient Versions and
by the most ancient and most trustworthy Fathers of the
Church. If we compare one by one the passages in which the Alex
andrian and the two other manuscripts are at variance —
passages, be it noted, occurring most frequently in the second
and third Gospels — with more ancient authorities, or again
with the highest authorities of the same age, or of the age
immediately preceding, it will be found in the great majority
of instances that their evidence preponderates in favour of the
former. I cite with peculiar satisfaction the statement of
Dr. Hort, Introd. p. 152, that the Alexandrian Codex repre
sents most fairly the text commonly occurring in citations
by the Greek Fathers of the fourth century. Now when we
consider who those Fathers were, that they comprise nearly
aU the greatest names in primitive Christendom, the learned
and acute Basil, the profound theologian Gregory of Nazi-
anzus, the divines of Asia Minor, of Palestine, of Syria, of
Egypt, with Athanasius at their head, I could scarcely desire
a stronger proof of excellence. For my own part it would
need very strong and substantial evidence to induce me to
doubt the genuineness of a text so supported, or to admit the
superiority of a text ignored or expressly contradicted by
such authorities.
But, as we have seen, the harmony between Origen and

THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. 191
the Vatican Codex is held to outweigh that consideration.
To this there are two replies : first, that in some points of
crucial importance Origen goes against the readings in that
codex, * and that in others where all support is needed he
does not supply it. It is inferred indeed f that Eusebius may
have learned from Origen to distrust the evidence for the
integrity of St. Mark's Gospel, but no passage is adduced
from Origen's extant writings in support of that inference,
which rests chiefly on the ground that Eusebius recognized in
Origen his master : and to keep to my main point, I will ask
the reader to look at the authorities which favour the old
reading or the innovations respectively in the passages pre
viously examined, and see how slight a claim the Revisers
have to the support of Origen.
Here again I must be pardoned for repeating a statement
which the reader may have noticed above. I mean that the
divergences between the Alexandrian and the Vatican MSS.
occur for the most part in the synoptical Gospels. In the
Acts and the Epistles by far the greater number of altera
tions in the Greek text adopted by the Revisers are sup
ported by A as well as by X and B. Westcott and Hort
indeed foUow B throughout in every detail, however minute,
so closely that slight alterations are made, sufficiently nume
rous at first sight to indicate a difference of recension ; but the
substantial identity of the two texts in that part of the
New Testament is scarcely open to serious question. I do not
for my part doubt that Eusebius, who superintended the one
recension, and the Egyptian critic who superintended the other,
had one and the same original text for the Acts and Epistles
before them : a statement which I would further extend to
the later recension of the Memphitic and Sahidic Versions,

* See pp. 29, 96, 99, 109, 111.
f This is suggested by Dean Burgon in his work on the last twelve
verses of St. Mark's Gospel.

192 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
and to some of the later uncials, which agree in the main
with the Vatican Codex, but maintain an independent position
in cases of peculiar interest.
For my own part I can scarcely understand the low esti
mation in which Drs. Westcott and Hort hold the other
uncials (with the exception of C, Z, Q, and A, of which
presently) and the entire mass of cursives. One point is
certain: the preponderance of their testimony in all, or in
nearly aU, the passages here in question, is in favour of A,
and the MSS. which come nearest to it (sc. E, F, G, M), and
against x, B, L, singly or in combination. Another point can
scarcely be denied : those cursives, between 400 and 500 in
number for the Gospels, represent the text, substantially
identical, used in all quarters of Christendom from the eighth
century down to the introduction of printing.
I very much doubt whether a good cursive manuscript,
such as that used by the compilers and revisers of the Old
Textus Receptus,* does not present a sound, fairly accurate,
and trustworthy text, not inferior to that of the later uncials,
equal in many respects to the Alexandrian, and far superior
in all respects to the very ancient Western Codex D. I
venture further to mamtain, so far as regards the mutilated
and corrupted passages which I have dealt with in this essay,
that such cursives, when virtually unanimous, especially when
supported by good uncials, are much to be preferred to the
Vatican and Sinaitic Codices.
For the expression of this opinion I shaU of course incur
the charge of singular obstinacy, or blind prejudice. I can
only say that it is an opinion gradually formed, reluctantly
entertained, and in the issue forced upon me by repeated
examination of the very numerous and aU-important state
ments disfigured, mutilated, or obliterated, in the two oldest

* See Scrivener, ' Introduction,' p. 192 seq.

THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. 193
manuscripts, but retained with singular unanimity in the great
mass of cursives.
One other point I must notice in reference to the Alexan
drian Codex. It has passages which completely disprove
the assumption that its scribe or editor was influenced by
doctrinal prepossessions. It has some remarkable omissions,
omissions which could not have been adopted by any writer
who was solely bent upon maintaining the position of the
party of the Church to which he belonged, or who was
actuated by any other motive but that of faithfulness to his
trust. We need only refer to John vii. 53-viii. 11, where A
and C agree with X, B, L, T, X, A, i.e. the uncials of the
Eusebian recension and their satellites ; and again to the
omission of the great trinitarian text, 1 John v. 7, 8. Their
authority indeed decides the question, if not of genuineness,
yet of the non-existence of that passage in the text known to
the critics and writers of manuscripts in the fourth century*
The omission of this passage is the more remarkable, inas
much as the Georgian Version has clear traces of its existence
in the eighth century, and therefore probably at a still earlier
period. However that may be, the omission proves the point
with which we are more specially concerned, the independent
value of this manuscript. I do not refer to the vexata
qumstio as to the reading 0eo<; or o? in 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; I agree
with Dean Burgon that it is a question which cannot be
settled by reference to our manuscript in its present condi
tion; but I must observe that the earnest and ineffectual
efforts of controversialists on both sides to appropriate its
authority prove the high and very general, not to say
universal, estimation in which it is held by critics. Not less
conclusive would be the argument for more than imparti-
* We must never forget that it is one thing to show that a reading was
common or rare in the fourth century, another to conclude that it rests
upon apostolic authority or is destitute of it. O

194 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
ality, for at least a tendency in the opposite direction, were
Dr. Vance Smith's statement * borne out that the punctuation
by the first hand in this manuscript justifies the very painful
and offensive note on Romans ix. 5 in the margin of the
Revised Version. That statement, I believe, is not verified or
likely to be verified ; but the simple fact that it is advanced
by a controversialist in Dr. Vance Smith's position corrobo
rates my assertion as to the weight attached by all scholars
to the authority of the Alexandrian Codex.

See ' Revised Texts and Margins,' p. 34, note.

(. 195 )

SECTION VII.
Theory of a Syrian Recension.
The interval between the production of the Vatican and
Sinaitic Codices on the one side, and on the other of the
Alexandrian Codex, is, as we have seen, a period of uncertain
duration, and yet determinable within certain limits ; we may
assume that it covers the latter half of the fourth century.
It is admitted on all hands that the text presented in the
two older manuscripts differs from that in the latter, each
having marked and unmistakeable peculiarities ; not however
so clearly marked in other portions as in the Gospels, espe
cially in the three commonly called synoptical. It is further
admitted that the readings in the Alexandrian manuscript
are substantially identical both with the very numerous
citations in Chrysostom, and with the text which, as Dr. Hort
expressly states, was commonly used by the great divines of
the fourth century. He further agrees with those critics —
and his opinion is confirmed by the examination of disputed
passages — who hold that the great majority of the later
uncials, and the great mass of the cursives of all ages, present
a text evidently founded on the same documents, and pre
senting the same general characteristics. On the other hand,
it is not denied— great stress indeed is laid upon the fact —
that many peculiar readings of the older manuscripts are
found in the extant writings of Origen, and it may be
fairly assumed that the text which that Father adopted
was the same which formed the basis of what I have
called the Eusebian recension, o 2

196 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
So far we have positive data, facts patent on the face of
existing documents, and confirmed by historical records.
I must however be permitted here to observe that the
agreement, which Dr. Hort recognizes, between the text of
the Alexandrian Codex and all other authorities from the
early part of the fourth century downwards, can be proved
also to exist between that text and the majority of the
earliest and best Fathers of the Greek-speaking Church, if
not in all points, certainly so far as regards the points
specially dealt with in the preceding inquiry. The reader
has but to cast his eye over the long list of omissions and
innovations in the three Gospels, or the classification in
pp. 136-141, to come to the conclusion that, if the authorities
are correctly stated — they are given by Tischendorf — they cast
their weight into the opposite balance. It is not too much to
say that in nine passages out of ten — nay, to go further, in every
passage of vital importance as regards the integrity of Holy
Scripture, the veracity of the sacred writers, and the records
of our Lord's sayings — nearly aU ancient Versions, and with
very few exceptions all ancient Fathers, support the readings
rejected by the Revisers.
I have no hesitation in maintaining that if we take the
text, nearly a continuous one, which is presented in the
voluminous writings of Chrysostom — among the Fathers by
far the soundest, most accurate, and judicious expositor of
the New Testament — we shall have an entirely trustworthy
witness to the mind of Christendom, so far as regards all
crucial points, not merely in his own time, but in all pre
ceding times. The differences between that text and the
singularly divergent readings in the early Latin Versions
and Fathers, which are classified by Dr. Hort as Western,
and those which, independently of Codex B, are found in
writers and documents which may be termed Origenistic, or
Alexandrian, are, with few exceptions, of very subordinate

THEORY OF A SYRIAN RECENSION. 197
importance : they affect the style, the tone, the manner of
the various writers, but seldom if ever touch central facts or
central doctrines in the New Testament. So far as those
facts and doctrines are concerned, I claim for our Received
Text, in contradistinction from that presented by the Sinaitic
and Vatican manuscripts — substantially identical with that
of the Revisers — the general consensus not only of the later
authorities, as conceded by Dr. Hort, but of those to which
the greatest weight is attached by all critics, in all quarters
of primitive Christianity.
But we have now to consider the most characteristic point
in Dr. Hort's ' Introduction.' At a time which must certainly
be within the interval between the two classes of MSS.,
and in a quarter of Christendom distinctly marked by
the presence and influence of certain great teachers of the
Church, it is assumed, as a fact proved by internal evi
dence, by an exhaustive examination of all existing docu
ments, that a new recension of the Scriptures, especially of
the New Testament, was produced, and Dr. Hort assumes
that the recension was completed by 350 or thereabouts (p.
137) ; and, as it would seem, that new recension is held to have
been at once accepted by all the Churches of the East, at least
by all the great representatives of those Churches, in the same
century, apparently at the same part of the same century,
which witnessed its completion.
I will however quote Dr. Hort's own words (see his ' Intro
duction,' § 185, p. 132 seq.) :
" The Syrian text, to which the order of time now brings
us back, is the chief monument of a new period of textual
history. Whatever petty and local mixture may have pre
viously taken place within limited areas, the great lines of
transmission had been to all appearance exclusively diver-
.gent. Now however the three great lines were brought
together, and made to contribute to the formation of a new

198 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
text different from all. The Syrian text must in fact be the
result of a 'recension' in the proper sense of the word, a
work of attempted criticism, performed deliberately by editors
and not merely by scribes."
The internal " evidences " by which Dr. Hort supports this
theory are stated fully in that 'Introduction.' They have
evidently convinced or silenced the members of the Revising
Company whose combined influence might have been relied
upon as sufficient to counteract tendencies to innovation, if
not in minor matters, such, for instance, as Dr. Hort describes
as " verbal transposition of adopted readings," yet in all
passages which affect the substantial integrity of Holy Writ,
and specially our Lord's own utterances.
To deal with these alleged evidences as minutely as Dr.
Hort, would require years of study, and very special qualifi
cations, to which I make no pretension ; * but so far as regards
the only points with which I am now concerned, I feel con
fident that the internal as well_ as external evidence tells in
the opposite direction. I do not fear that the readings in
which A is supported by old Versions, early Fathers, and a
great majority of independent manuscripts, will come under
Dr. Hort's highly technical description of his " Syrian text,"
either as " interfusion of adjustments of existing materials
with a distinctly innovative process," or as " assimilative or
other interpolations of fresh matter." Neither these, nor any
other statements occurring frequently throughout his ' Intro^-
duction,' apply to those passages which occupy the foremost
place in this inquiry.
But I must ask serious attention to the following con
siderations. The " recension " of which Dr. Hort speaks, had it been

* Since these words were written an exhaustive and singularly able
article has been published in the Quarterly Review, April 1882.

THEORY OF A SYRIAN RECENSION. 199
executed at all in the manner which he intimates, would be
a historical fact of signal, I may say unparalleled, importance
in the development of textual criticism. Editors of known
character, eminent for learning, ability, and soundness in the
faith, holding positions which secured to them commanding
influence, must have combined to produce what Dr. Hort
designates as " a new text different from all " which had
previously been received in any quarter of Christendom.
Those editors must not only have produced such a text,
but procured its transcription in numbers of manuscripts,
sufficient to take possession of the minds of Churchmen not
only in Syria and Palestine — Antioch being assumed to be
the head-quarters of the new recension — but in the Churches
of Asia Minor on the one side, presided over by the greatest
divines of the early Church, such as Basil and Gregory of
Nazianzus ; and on the other side, of Alexandria, where the
Church, after the death of Athanasius, was under the influ
ence of prelates more or less antagonistic to the schools of
thought represented by those great names, and still more so to
that which, under the guidance of Chrysostom, within a few
years became the most permanently influential in Eastern
Christendom. At what place, at what time, can it be probably conjectured
that such a recension could have been undertaken? Who
were the persons, which were the Churches, that could claim
and actually vindicate for their work such authority ?
This we must remember. A transaction of such transcen
dent importance must have left some traces, some record,
more or less distinct, of its proceedings ; some great manu
scripts, or body of manuscripts, must have been recognized in
all controversies as representing the results of that authorita
tive " Recension." Were we indeed dealing with some very
early period it might have been plausibly assumed that such
a transaction might have escaped notice, or have been passed

200 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
over as of slight historical importance, not bearing upon the
external organization of the Church, or upon controversies
which occupied almost exclusively the minds of its chief re
presentatives. But the age and portion of Christendom in
question is especially remarkable for the fulness and minute
ness of information supplied in voluminous writings touching
every point which could interest the minds of churchmen. In
fact, it may be safely affirmed that until we come to the period
of modern historical literature, there is no period at which all
movements of the Christian world are presented to our
minds with equal vividness and completeness. For the first
time in the history of Christendom, an unbroken series of
letters between Basil and all his great contemporaries, sup
plemented by writings of every description, especially by
controversial writings in which the exact bearing and
accepted authenticity of every scriptural text involving
points of doctrine or ecclesiastical order underwent the most
searching investigation, give us a complete survey of the
inner life and outward proceedings of the Church ; a flood
of light especially is thrown upon those quarters and that
age at which Dr. Hort holds that this recension was
completed. Is any trace, any minute trace, of such a recension to be
found ? Had it existed, it would not have escaped the
notice of men so learned, so keen-sighted, and so deeply
interested in the maintenance of their hypothesis. I venture
to affirm that no indication, however slight, is adducible from
the writings of contemporary divines, or, to speak broadly, of
any ancient author.
On the contrary, I will venture to affirm, and I will ask
the learned reader to inquire whether the affirmation can be
refuted, that we have abundant indications, not to say proofs,
that no such recension could have been contemplated, much
less executed, at that period.

THEORY OF A SYRIAN RECENSION. 201
We have before us every kind of writing by which we
can ascertain the feelings of the Fathers of that century
touching the text of the New Testament. Now I say deliber
ately, with a fuH sense of the hazardous character of a
sweeping negative assertion, that neither the great Cappa-
docian, nor the Alexandrian, nor the Syrian, nor the Pales
tinian divines evince any consciousness that a change had
passed over the great documents to which they appealed
incessantly, either within their own times, or indeed at any
time with which they were specially concerned and about
which they had ample opportunity of forming a judgment.
They quote passages occasionally in which the true reading
was matter of discussion ; they deal freely with arguments
for or against the genuineness of whole books or portions of
books ; biblical criticism occupied their minds pretty nearly
to the same extent as scriptural exegesis. It is evident that
each of the lines of transmission to which Dr. Hort frequently
refers, under the designation of Western and Alexandrian,
was familiar to the divines of that age, the one to the masters
of the East, the other to such men as Hilary and Ambrose.
But One thing is certain. None of them appealed to any late
authoritative judgment of the Church, of any special Church,
to any recension of editors recognized as competent, and as
witnesses of that judgment. Had it been favourable or un
favourable to their own cause, it is impossible that it should
not have been alleged as an authority, or controverted as
insufficient. I cannot but conclude that so far from its
existence being shown to be probable, its non-existence is
proved by the total absolute silence of all the writers
from whom alone we can draw trustworthy information
touching the proceedings of the Church at that period*

* Dr. Hort, § 190, assumes that the final recension was completed about
the year 350 : his arguments throughout apply to the complete recension ;
but he further holds that there was an earlier stage, about the close of the

202 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
I would further remark, that although the divines in
question evince the utmost earnestness in inquiries touching
the statements and bearings of Holy Scripture, they do not
appear to have felt that between what Dr. Hort calls the
divergent lines of transmission any such antagonism existed

third century, and also that " of known names none has a better claim to
be associated with the early Syrian revision than Lucianus." This claim
he looks upon as finding some little support in the statement of Jerome, in
his preface to the Gospels, which I have quoted in a preceding section (see
page 152). From the facts which I have there alleged it is clear that a re
cension conducted or influenced by Lucian would have presented charac
teristics the very reverse of those which Dr. Hort attributes to what he
designates as the Syrian recension. It would have agreed substantially
with that text which is represented by citations in Origen, and, as Dr. Hort
and other critics hold, by the Vatican manuscript. I may here observe
that it is not easy to reconcile the different statements of Jerome, who
speaks of Lucian at one time as a man of remarkable learning, and tells us
that his copies of Scripture were commonly received at Constantinople ;
whereas in the Epistle to Damasus he speaks of his revision as maintained
only by the perverse contention of a few. But whatever explanation may
be given of the statements of a Father, conspicuous for instability and
perversity, one thing is sure : Lucian could not possibly have inaugurated,
or impressed his own character upon, such a recension as that which Dr.
Hort describes. I may add that if, as Jerome asserts, the recension of
Lucian was used at Constantinople, the fact can only be accounted for by
the reception of the Eusebian manuscripts, which, as I have shown above
(Section iv.), undoubtedly followed the text adopted by Lucian, as a
follower of Origen.
I have to thank a learned Prelate for the following suggestion. " We
cannot but contrast the absolute silence with which the Church must
have received this hypothetical recension of the Greek text, with the
clamour raised for and against the recension of the Latin Version by
St. Jerome. This recension, of infinitely less importance, made an enormous
sensation, was praised, blamed, talked of, written of, attacked, defended,
throughout all Christendom. We are to believe that in the preceding
century, at a period of intense excitement, when earnest attention was
given to questions touching the faith of Christians, especially a question
which touched the very foundations on which all faith rests, a work to
which Jerome's was as nothing in fundamental moment was undertaken
and accomplished without a syllable being said. The supposition is a
manifest absurdity."

THEORY OF A SYRIAN RECENSION. 2 03
as would make an authoritative recension necessary or de
sirable. They were quite content to quote Origen and his
followers on the one hand and his opponents on the other)
without impugning their good faith when they differed,
without giving up their own independent judgment when
these and other authorities were in accord with each other.
A recension of the character and influence described by Dr.
Hort would have appeared to them, if I am not mistaken,
an encroachment upon the liberty of the Church. They
would certainly not admit that any editors or any body
of editors had the power or the right to impose their own
judgment upon their fellow Christians, who had the same
materials before them, and many of whom were equally
entitled to form and maintain an independent judgment.
The schools represented by Basil, by Chrysostom, by Epi
phanius, by Cyril of Jerusalem, by Hilary and Ambrose, were
neither likely to surrender, nor would they have been justi
fied in surrendering, their convictions to the dictum of a
central authority. If, as Dr. Hort admits, upon the whole,
the inference drawn from their citations is that those Fathers
coincided in the main with the readings of the Alexandrian MS.,
and of the great majority of later documents, that coincidence,
if not conclusive as to the supreme excellence of the codex,
is certainly incompatible with the supposition that such a
text as that presented by the two older manuscripts had been
previously recognized by the highest authorities in the Eastern
Church. For my own part, I am contented with the conviction that
the Alexandrian Codex owes its special value and importance
to the fact that it does represent far more fully and fairly
than x or B, or both conjointly, the text of the New Testa
ment in all those passages which in the East and in the West,
in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Africa, and Italy,
were held to be of vital importance ; and I reject without

204 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
hesitation the notion that it was the outcome of any new
recension, such recension being assumed to have been exe
cuted in a district which at the time in question was far
from being in harmonious union with the Alexandrian
Church, to which this manuscript is now generally admitted
to have belonged.

( ^05 )

SECTION VIII.
The Question of so-called Conflate Readings.
I have said that it was not my intention, in entering upon
a subject which involves a great variety of difficult and
complex questions, to discuss the highly ingenious theories
presented to us in the ' Introduction to Westcott and Hort's
Greek Text.' It sufficed for my purpose to bring out some
chief results of their system, to show its bearings upon
central and fundamental points, and in each particular
instance to adduce the attestation of ancient and trustworthy
authorities to words, clauses, and statements which were
materially affected by the text of the Revised Version, or
by the marginal notes — notes which carry with them the
weight of a critical judgment, if not adopted by the Revisers,
yet deemed by them worthy of special notice.
The question of conflate readings however seems to demand
consideration. It may be dealt with separately ; its results
can be examined on their own merits ; and it stands foremost
among the grounds on which the two critics mamtain the
superior purity and exceUence of the text presented in the
Vatican and Sinaitic Codices, and the interpolated character
of the so-called Syrian text — that text which has hitherto been
received, and which is now admitted to be supported by the
authority of the majority of uncial, and the mass of cursive
manuscripts. It is a great advantage in this part of the discussion that
the passages which we have to consider, with one exception,
do not affect great doctrines or contested points of historical

206 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
significance. Questions as to bias in any direction are not
likely to disturb our judgment; and we have before us a
careful and elaborate discussion by Dr. Hort, thus feeling-
assured that no consideration of any importance will be
overlooked. I must first quote Dr. Hort's own account of the matter.
After a very ingenious and highly speculative discussion of
what he calls " complications of genealogy by mixture " —
that is to say, the difficulty of tracing the relations between
texts presented in different manuscripts owing to the con
scious or unconscious tendency of scribes and editors to
adopt readings derived from different sources — Dr. Hort
proceeds thus (p. 49) : " We have next to inquire what
expedient can be employed when mixture has been ascer
tained * to exist. Evidently no resource can be so helpful,
where it can be attained, as the extrication of earlier unmixed
texts or portions of texts from the general mass of texts now
extant. The clearest evidence for tracing the antecedent
factors of mixture in texts is afforded by readings which are
themselves mixed, or, as they are sometimes called, ' con
flate,' that is, not simple substitutions of the readings of
one document for that of another, but combinations of the
readings of both documents into a composite whole."
Practically the application of this process of " extrication "
issues in the following results.
We have before us one or more manuscripts, or classes of
manuscripts, presenting divergent texts, and evidently pro
ceeding from different recensions. In the one case we find
comparatively short sentences ; words or clauses to which
our ear has been accustomed disappear ; the question is,
whether in this case we have before us an incomplete or

* The word " ascertained " is characteristic ; it means that the writer
feels certain of it, or has proved it to his own satisfaction.

ALLEGED CONFLATE READINGS. 207
mutilated text, or one free from interpolations, coming nearest
" to the pure unadulterated text as it stood in the autographs
of the sacred writers." In the other we have a fuller, appa
rently more complete, and, to the general reader, a more
satisfactory text, but one which, to the critical eye under the
influence of the system which Dr. Hort commends to our
adoption, bears evident marks of interpolation.
One thing is clear. The decision will not be doubtful in
any case, if it depends upon the prepossessions of the in
quirer. The course invariably pursued by Dr. Hort is to reject
the readings in the latter alternative, as " conflate." He
applies fearlessly a method of so-called extrication to each
special case ; and infers the comparative lateness, and there
fore the untrustworthiness, of the text which presents the
double or multiple reading.
This I venture to call a technical and highly hazardous
proceeding ; but it cannot or ought not to be met by a mere
reference to external authorities. On both sides the inquirer
must be on his guard against his own tendencies, habits of
thought, and previous bias.
It appears to me a truth, so obvious as to be a truism,
that each particular case should be examined on its own
merits ; and further that the following points especially
should be taken into consideration.
(1) It is of course possible — I hold it to be more than
possible, in some cases certain — that the omission of words
or clauses is attributable, not to the purity, but to the
characteristic brevity of the document in which it occurs ;
in some cases it may be, and probably is, owing simply to
the negligence or recklessness of a hasty transcriber.
Dr. Hort, so far as I am aware, stands alone in denying
that the Vatican Codex, in this respect on the same footing
as the Sinaitic, is conspicuous for omissions, so much so that

208 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
the critic quoted by Dr. Scrivener (' Introduction,' p. 108) calls
that text an " abbreviated Gospel." Such omissions, however
they may be accounted for, occur most frequently in the
Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, from which the instances
here to be examined are taken.
(2) The internal evidence in every case demands most
careful and impartial investigation. Among such evidences,
the very foremost is that which is derived from a study
of the general style of the writer — his usus scribendi
both as regards form and matter. We have to inquire
whether it is probable or not, judging from other pas
sages, that he would supply a detail, which might be
passed over as superfluous or indifferent by a careless tran
scriber or a fastidious critic, but which adds vividness to
the narrative, or, what is far more important, impresses more
forcibly the spiritual significance of the words or transactions
in question. Again, it may be ascertained whether, in passages
which suggest association with old religious forms, the writer
is in the habit of employing Hebraisms, especially the most
characteristic feature of Hebrew composition, namely, paral
lelisms, or repetitions of a leading thought, varying slightly
in form but identical in substance, intended and calculated
to give full and adequate expression to religious feelings.
Other kinds of evidence, external and internal, will be
recognized as necessary or useful ; but these will suffice for
my immediate purpose.
The first passage is discussed with great care and at con
siderable length, by Dr. Hort, pp. 95-99.
(a) Mark vi. 33. — We read in the Authorized Version, " And
[the people] outwent them, and came together unto him."
For the reading which underlies this statement we have
the authority (1) of all uncials, except X, B, D, L, A ; (2) of the
great mass of cursives ; (3) of the Syriac Peshito and
iEthiopic Versions.

THEORY OF CONFLATE READINGS. 209
The account is clear and graphic. St. Mark, with his
usual attention to details, with what Dr. Hort calls his
" characteristic abundance of detail," has before his own
mind and sets vividly before our minds two facts : (1) that
the multitude ran on rapidly in advance of the boat which
bore our Lord and His disciples away from the place where
they had met ; and (2) that on arriving at the opposite
shore, where the disembarkation would take place, they came
together to meet Him. In the next verse, St. Mark, as usual,
calls our attention to this act — " He came out," or came forth
from the ship, and found the multitudes there awaiting Him.*
We have thus a complete series of acts — the rapid pursuit of
the people, the attainment of their object, and the effect of
their zealous search ; the people were rewarded by His com
passion, He " taught them many things," and afterwards
wrought a miracle of transcendent significance and im
portance. But on looking at the ancient texts we find that manu
scripts representing the Western recension, D, 28, b, omit
the first clause, and in the second have a variant, avTov for
7rpo? avTov, preserving the leading word avvrfxOov, but entirely
perverting the sense : the one is a point of importance as an
attestation to the true reading, the other as an instance of
the carelessness and want of perception which characterize
the Codex Bezae.
On the other hand B, with x, followed as usual by L and
A, omit the second clause. If the editor or copyist had
avTov before him, he must of course have been struck by its

* Dr. Hort introduces an utterly alien point ; assuming that " He
' came out ' of His retirement in some sequestered nook to meet them,"
p. 99. This interpolation seriously affects the narrative. Of course the
multitude could not have come together to Him had He been in such
retirement ; on the other hand, they would naturally come together at the
place where the boat, which they doubtless kept in sight, reached the shore.
P

210 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
unsuitableness and therefore might think fit to omit the
clause altogether. In fact whichever reading he found,
whether avTov or 77730? avTov, it is just such a clause as we
might expect to miss in a recension which abounds in abbre
viated statements. In such a case as this a clear-headed
editor might of course agree with our modern critic that
the people would needs do what they proposed, and that a
statement to that effect was superfluous.
The arguments adduced by Dr. Hort in his elaborate exa
mination of this passage leave us in this position : we
have to choose between two alternatives, careless or fas
tidious omission on the one side, or characteristic fulness
of detail on the other. That I hold the latter to be far
more probable and satisfactory will of course lay me open to
a charge that I too, in common with the great majority of
ancient editors, " am under the influence of an impulse to
omit no recorded matter." See ' Introduction,' p. 97. I can
only say that I accept that imputation in every case where
the " recorded matter " is supported by good authority ; where
it harmonizes with the general style of the recorder ; espe
cially where, as in this instance, it gives a more complete
and graphic picture of proceedings connected with a memor
able incident in our Lord's life.
May I be pardoned for expressing my deep regret that the
Revising Committee in this and in all similar instances were
not under the influence of that impulse ?
(b) Mark viii. 26. — The old Received Text has /j,7)8e ek ttjv
Kwjxriv elaeXOrj? p.r]Be emr/i tiv\ iv ttj Ktofirj. This rests on
the authority of sixteen uncials, of all cursives except eight,
the Syriac, the Vulgate, ^Ethiopic, and Gothic Versions.
The construction is explained clearly and authoritatively by
Winer, " Mr. 8. 26 — kann nicht heissen neque — neque, son-
dern das erste p.v8e ist ne-quidem, das zweite auch nicht;"
i.e. the first p,vBi is " not even," the second " neither also."
' Grammatik,' § 55, p. 456, 8th edition.

THEORY OF CONFLATE READINGS. 211
It is difficult to see why this should cause any objection.
The reiteration of the injunction, or rather the addition of a
secondary injunction, is quite in accordance with St. Mark's
style, but was surely most unlikely to be introduced into the
passage by an interpolator. The second clause was evidently
struck out by some scribe, or corrector, who argued, like our
modern critic, that it was superfluous. That it stood in its
present form before the time assumed by Dr. Hort to have
been that of a Syrian recension, is proved by the admitted
fact that it is supported by the Peshito.
But x, B, L, two cursives, and the Coptic Version omit the
last clause altogether.
Therefore it must be discarded, notwithstanding the strange
harshness of the construction with what Dr. Hort rightly
calls " the peculiar initial p,v8e." It is so " peculiar " that if
another instance was adducible it ought to have been ad
duced. I remember no similar instance.
I feel no hesitation in imputing the omission to the
ordinary negligence, or specially to the habit of abbreviation,
conspicuous in the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts.
(c) Mark ix. 38. — With reference to another case, Mark
ix. 38, 1 will only say that the words omitted by Dr. Hort,
but retained even in the Revised Version, are supported by
ample authority — by all uncials except x, B, C, L, A, by all
cursives except twenty ; by the best ancient Versions, and in
the 'Moralia' ap. Basil, tom. ii. p. 252 A, ed. Ben. The
clause ought to be retained as one among many clear
instances of St. Mark's characteristic habit of emphatic
reiteration. The Apostles dwell upon the fact that the
miracle-worker did not belong to their company. St. Mark
is careful to bring out that point fully and distinctly, as
casting a strong light upon their feelings and upon the direc
tions given to their thoughts by our Lord.
(d) Mark ix. 49. — This is followed by a still more serious
p 2

212 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
omission, for which the Revised Version makes itself respon
sible. In v. 49 the entire clause, " and every sacrifice shall be
salted with salt," is rejected; of course in deference to X,
B, L, with A, and a few cursives of the same recension ; of
course also against all other MSS., uncial or cursive, and the
best ancient Versions. To this point I have already called
attention, but I may here be permitted to repeat my state
ment that, if I am not wholly mistaken as to the significance
of the clause, it expressed our Lord's mind on a question of
paramount importance, and at a most critical point in His
ministry. Whereas the evildoer is doomed to be salted with
penal fire, every true and acceptable worshipper, as a living
sacrifice, will be salted with the salt — the preserving, sancti
fying salt — of the New Covenant ; in other words, with the
charity which is its essential principle, with which all
spiritual life is inseparably bound up. I must express my
regret that Dr. Hort and the Revisers should have lent their
countenance to the conjecture that this deeply spiritual
utterance is a mere interpolation, suggested by a reminiscence
of Lev. vii. 13. See above, p. 77 seq.
I must notice very briefly the two passages which follow,
taken from St. Luke.
(e) Luke ix. 10. — The A. V. has, " And he took them and
went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city
called Bethsaida."
This follows the reading of fourteen uncials, all cursives
but three, the Peshito Syriac, ^thiopic, Armenian, and Gothic
Versions. Each point appears indispensable to the right understand
ing of the statement : the desert place was needed for the pur
pose of rest and retirement, the name of Bethsaida to mark
the district, with the distinction between the city or town
and the place to which our Lord retired.
Yet this is a " conflate reading," according to Dr. Hort,

THEORY OF CONFLATE READINGS. 213
because one ancient MS., B, followed by its late satellites L,
X, 3, and one cursive, 33, with the Coptic and Sahidic, has
only " to a city called Bethsaida :" and other MSS. and
Versions have either " a desert place " alone or combined
with Bethsaida.
That it is a complete and accurate statement is unquestion
able. The only question is whether the varying and incom
plete and more or less inaccurate statements in MSS. notice
able for omissions or for negligence, or the great mass of
manuscripts, are most likely to have represented St. Luke's
account correctly.
(/) Luke xi. 54. — The same remarks will apply generally to
this passage. The same uncials, fourteen in number, and all
cursives but five, with the Vulgate and Syriac, support the
Authorized Version, " laying wait for him, and seeking to catch
something out of his mouth that they might accuse him."
The Revised Version follows three manuscripts found all
but invariably on the side of abbreviation, x, B, L, with the
Coptic Version ; and condemns the statement of the A. V.
in which every word has a distinct and emphatic sense, by
the omission of the clauses " and seeking " and " that they
might accuse him."
Whether omission or interpolation is the more probable,
having regard to St. Luke's style, and the force of the state
ment as it stands in the A. V., may be left to the reader's
judgment. Admitting the ingenuity of Dr. Hort's combina
tions, I fail to see the cogency of his argument, and cannot
but deprecate the course adopted by the Revisers.
(g) Luke xii. 18. — The old Textus Receptus has to, yevr)-
fMaTa fiov Kai to, dyaOd fiov. So sixteen uncials, all cursives
but twelve, and the majority of ancient Versions.
But for yevr)p,aTa fiov Dr. Hort has persuaded the Revisers
to adopt the reading tov o-Itov : following *a, B, L, T, X,
and a few cursives.

214 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
But surely the first and most natural conclusion is
that ahov, an exceedingly common word, was not unlikely
to be substituted by a calligrapher, especially when writing
hastily, for yevrgjuaTa, a word which does not occur elsewhere
in the New Testament in the sense of " fruits of the earth."
That yevvrffiaTa (not yevrj/iaTa) is used frequently in the
Septuagint is a fact which sufficiently accounts for its
adoption by the Evangelist, and therefore should be regarded
as corroborating the evidence for the Received Text ; but to
scribes and to readers in the fourth century the word o-Itov
would be far better known, and might probably be adopted
by the scribe or editor in the first place as a useful gloss,
and afterwards introduced into the text.
For my part I feel no doubt as to the origin of the change,
viz. the carelessness or the officiousness of the transcriber of
Codex B.
(h) Luke xxiv. 53. — I would now call special attention to the
last instance in Dr. Hort's discussion. St. Luke, c. xxiv. 53,
after telling us that our Lord ascended into heaven and received
the worship of His disciples, who were witnesses of that event,*
adds that they were then continually in the temple " praising
and blessing God." The word " praising " is rejected without
notice from the text of the Revised Version, on grounds to
which Dr. Hort refers, but which he deems it unnecessary
to discuss.
The authorities for omission are x, B, C, L. The word is
found in all other uncials, in all cursives, and is well attested
by ancient Versions.
On the other hand, D, of all MSS. the least trustworthy,
keeps alvovvTe<; and omits evXoyovvTes.
The question is a very simple one. Which is the more

* I must refer Jo p. 125 for a discussion of the omission of the state
ment that " our Lord was carried up into heaven," as suggested in the
margin of the R. V.

THEORY OF CONFLATE READINGS. 215
probable of the two alternatives, (a) that the word was in
serted by injudicious scribes, or formed a conflate reading
under editorial recension at a time and place for which Dr.
Hort must be consulted ; or (b) that it was actually written
by St. Luke ? Of course the omission does not materially
affect the statement. To modern ears generally, and probably
to the ears of a calligrapher, especially to one writing under
pressure for time, the statement might seem complete with
one word only : an argument, however, which, so far as it
goes, is unfavourable to the theory of a conflate reading,
omission being far more probable than interpolation.
We have recourse therefore to internal evidence. - Here we
observe that in details connected with religious observances
customary among the Hebrews, St. Luke, whose general style
is more classical than that of any other writer in the New Tes
tament, indulges in Hebraisms to a most remarkable extent.
Both in the early part of this Gospel, and in the earlier parti
culars recorded in the Acts, the Hebraistic tone, with its special
characteristics of parallelism and repetition, is recognized by
all critics as a striking peculiarity. In a passage, therefore,
which refers specially to attendance and acts of worship in
the Temple — at that time the head-quarters, so to speak, of
devotional observances for Hebrew Christians — we might
expect such a modification of style as is presented by the
old familiar form in -this passage.
To this I must add the fact, surely of importance though
unnoticed by Dr. Hort, that the combination of the two verbs
alvelv and evKoyelv, is in strict conformity with Hebrew usage,
especially in reference to public devotions and on occasions
of special solemnity. Thus in Ps. xxxiii, we read in the
LXX. Version, used by St. Luke, eCiXoygam tov tcvpiov iv
•navTi Kaopoo, BiaTravTos r) alveais avTov ev tg> crTo/iaTi fiov.
Here the reader will observe the word BtaTravTos, common
to the Psalmist and the Evangelist. Other instances will be

216 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
supplied by Tromm's Concordance, e.g. Ps. lxii. 5, 6, and
lxv. 8.
The double expression is in fact emphatic. To praise God
and to bless God present two distinct acts or aspects of wor
ship. The former recognizes His goodness shown in special
acts of favour. The second declares His glory and inherent
majesty. The two aspects would present themselves with
peculiar force to the minds of the disciples after the
stupendous manifestation of that goodness and that majesty
in the Ascension of the risen Saviour.
The summary statements of Dr. Hort in reference to
" conflate readings " give these results.
(1) For the abbreviated form we have " a small handful of
uncials, including the two oldest, and a few varying cursives,
sometimes wanting."
That is, one recension, which is thus marked as con
spicuous for unsupported abbreviations, to whatever cause
the fact is to be referred.
(2) For loose inaccurate readings, whatever may be the
direction to which they point, we have D (the notorious
Codex Bezae), " and sometimes a few varying cursives, with
the rare accession of x or another uncial."
(3) For the third class, or so-called " conflate readings,"
Dr. Hort ranges " nearly all the later uncials, with two or
three of the older, especially A, and nearly all the cursives."
I may adopt this classification in its broad rough outlines :
nor should I feel much doubt as to the choice between
the first and the third set of authorities which would ap
prove itself generally to impartial students within our own
Church. The choice of scholars under the influence of other
systems of criticism or religious thought may fall upon
the first.
I must however press upon all inquirers the following points.

THEORY OF CONFLATE READINGS. 217
(1) Dr. Hort agrees, I will not say admits, but is satisfied
that the interval between the date of the two older manu
scripts x and B, and that of the Alexandrian Codex A,
was by no means a long one. I have shown above that it
probably coincided with the interval between the predomi
nance of Arianism in the Empire and the restoration of
Catholicity, extending from the decennium before the middle
to the close of the fourth century.
(2) Still more important is the statement of the same critic,
i.e. that " A, both in the Gospels and elsewhere, may serve as
a fair example of the MSS. that, to judge by patristic quota
tions, were commonest in the fourth century."
At the risk of repetition I must call special attention to
the significance of this statement in its bearings upon the
present argument. The fourth century, or, to speak still
more exactly, the middle of that century within some very
few years, is the time when, according to Westcott and Hort,
Tischendorf, and other critics of high authority, the two manu
scripts x and B, and when B according to all critics, were
written, a point, be it noted, wholly independent of the ques
tion at what place or under what recension. So that A, the
Alexandrian Codex, the representative, according to Westcott
and Hort, of the Syrian recension, actually represents the
text which was adopted, and used without the slightest
indication of doubt, by the great divines, the masters of early
Christian thought in that very century.
I do not think that I can be mistaken in the assumption
that with such data, which are not contested, nay which are
supported by those two eminent critics, few English Church
men will hesitate in their choice between the two recensions,
or, to speak more accurately, the two sets of authorities. On
the one side we find Eusebius, and the two manuscripts which
ignore or reject some of the most striking incidents in the life
of our Lord, some of the words most specially dear to the

218 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
hearts of Christians ; on the other side we have the enormous
preponderance of MSS. uncial and cursive, the best ancient
Versions, and the very greatest names in ancient Christendom,
from Irenaeus onwards, and, with the solitary exception of
Origen,* the long list of glorious Fathers, Athanasius, Basil,
the Gregories, including Chrysostom, in whom the critical and
exegetical teaching of the Church found its ablest and com-
pletest representative.

* In some most important passages even Origen is in accordance with
these Fathers, e. g., see above, p. 109, and note, p. 191.

( 219 )

SECTION IX.
Answers lately given by Members of the Revising
Committee to Charges of unjustifiable Innovations.
The most important publications by Revisers in defence of
their proceedings in reference both to the text and the version
have been the three letters of the Bishop of Durham published
in the Guardian ; a short pamphlet by the Rev. W. G.
Humphry, B.D., published under the direction of the Tract
Committee of S.P.C.K., and entitled ' A Word on the Revised
Version ; ' and lastly, a tract published by Macmillan, with
this title, ' The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New
Testament, by two members of the New Testament Company.'
My reply to the Bishop of Durham's letters, which referred
exclusively to the innovation in the last clause of the Lord's
Prayer, was published some months ago in the form of a
second letter to the Bishop of London, with the heading
" Deliver us from evil." An answer to that reply is to be
looked for, having been in fact promised by the Bishop of
Durham last autumn in a letter to the Guardian. Some
additional points bearing upon that question will be found in
pp. 61, 62 of this treatise. The tract by Mr. Humphry has
been referred to in some notes added while these pages were
passing through the press.
But the last publication reached me too late to be used in
the preceding sections. The points with which it deals
demand separate and careful consideration ; they are weighty
both as regards their subject-matter and as regards the posi
tion of the writers, if the statement in the Times is correct,

220 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
informing us that the " two members " are the Bishop of
Gloucester and Bristol, the Chairman of the Revising Com
mittee, and Archdeacon Palmer. To the former special
responsibility for the whole work must needs attach, as the
seconder of the original application to Convocation, and as
having presided at every meeting from the commencement
of the work. Archdeacon Palmer, who joined the Committee
long afterwards, is undoubtedly a fitting representative of
the scholarship of his own university.
I must first call attention to a fact of very considerable im
portance which seems to be commonly overlooked. It refers
to the distinction between the conditions under which the
work was entrusted to the Committee, and the instructions
which the original members of the Committee drew up for
their own guidance.
Now these are two entirely distinct points.
The conditions rest upon the authority of Convocation ;
I have cited them verbatim in the first pages of this treatise.
They are precise and distinct ; they mark the exact limits
within which the members of the Committee were bound to
confine their critical and revisional work. The Bishop of
Gloucester and Bristol, as I there pointed out, calls them
" fundamental resolutions." They directed the Committee to
correct plain and clear errors, to make no changes that were
not neccessary.
But " the instructions " to which the Two Revisers refer did
not come from Convocation, and were never submitted to that
body. They rest wholly upon the authority of the Committee
of Revisers appointed by Convocation. They were doubtless
intended to bring the " fundamental" resolutions into a prac
tical form ; but they cannot be pleaded in defence of any charge
brought against the Committee as having exceeded " their
instructions," or, as the Two Revisers ought to have stated
the charge (p. 32), exceeded the limits fixed by Convocation.

ANSWERS BY REVISERS. 221
Now it may fairly be alleged on the part of those mem
bers of the Revising Company who joined it after the work
was commenced, that those instructions were naturally
regarded by them as authoritative. It would of course be
assumed that they were not intended to contravene or to
modify the " fundamental resolutions ; " nor should we be
surprised if special stress were laid upon the rules cited
p. 33, that the Revisers are " to introduce into the text of the
Authorized Version as few alterations as possible consistently
with faithfulness ; " and in respect of the Greek text " to
adopt that text for which the evidence is decidedly pre
ponderating." But those rules are very different things from
the resolutions which they purport to carry out : a fact
which would scarcely be inferred from the statements in the
Two Revisers' treatise, and of which one of the Revisers
might not be fully cognizant, but which, with all deference
be it said, the Chairman ought to have kept constantly before
his own mind and the minds of his Committee.
I can only apologize for what may appear a somewhat
unnecessary repetition on the ground that the confusion
between the resolutions of Convocation and the rules and
instructions drawn up by the Revisers themselves is common,
and likely to be perpetuated by such statements as those
which we find confidently advanced in their treatise.*
The next point which calls for attention is the admission
that the mode of procedure at the meetings of the Company
has been correctly described by Principal Newth in his
' Lectures on Bible Revision,' which were quoted in the
Quarterly Review of October 1881.
Such a proceeding appeared to me so strange, so certain
to result in unsatisfactory decisions, that I fully expected

* Convocation never holds itself responsible for the proceedings of its
committees, but only for its own formal resolutions. Great importance is
attached to this principle.

222 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
the account would be corrected, or that some explanation
would be given which might remove the very unpleasant
impression. As it now stands, we learn on the highest
authority that at each meeting the Chairman called upon the
two representatives of schools of textual criticism to allege
reasons for the retention of the old text or for the substitu
tion of a new text. Dr. Scrivener ^ and Dr. Hort were
unanimously accepted as the best authorities on the two
sides. When they had stated their reasons, the question was
put to the vote, and the decision of the majority was given,
as the Two Revisers state (p. 34), " in most cases at the First
Revision ; " but when such questions were " reopened at the
Second Revision," a majority of two thirds was required " to
sustain decisions which at the First Revision had been
carried by a simple majority."
Now when we bear in mind the facts — that Dr. Scrivener
was the only member of the Company who had previously
produced any considerable works in textual criticism ; that
nearly six thousand changes in the Greek text* were
adopted finally by the Revisers ; that in nearly every weighty
text which has been examined as affecting the records of our
Lord's words and acts, we have certain proofs of that critic's
judgment being adverse to the final decision ; and that a very
long discussion would be required to state and to examine
the authorities on either side, especially since the scholars on
the Committee, eminent as they might be for other depart
ments of theological literature, were confessedly inexperi
enced in this most technical and embarrassing of all depart
ments; we cannot but reaffirm our conclusion that a less
scientific, less satisfactory process could not easily be devised.
We ask, how can the results which stand before us in the
new Greek text be accounted for ? How did it come to pass

* 5788 according to Dr. Scrivener's notes.

ANSWERS BY REVISERS. 223
that Dr. Scrivener, the solitary representative of conservative
criticism, was systematically outvoted ; outvoted at least to
the extent indicated in our detailed examination of the most
important texts ?
The answer to this question involves several points to be
considered presently. Here I may at once say that there
appear to be good grounds for the very general impression
that Dr. Hort was supported in most cases by members
of the Committee who were strongly prepossessed in favour
of his system, and who constituted a very large proportion
of the average attendants ; and that the decision arrived at
was generally a logical conclusion from the adoption of the
general principles advocated in his ' Introduction.' *
For my own part, I venture to repeat my own words, that
in every case where Dr. Scrivener and Dr. Hort arrived at
diametrically opposite conclusions, those members of the
Committee who had not previously made a special study
of textual criticism would have done well to abstain from
voting at all. " The critical experience that had been slowly
and surely won," to use the Two Revisers' words, was of
course inapplicable to the great mass of questions which
were settled, as we are told, finally at the earlier meetings ;
when acquired, such experience could scarcely be accepted
as so sure as to justify a final vote on some of the most
difficult and intricate questions which have been decided by
the Committee.
Surely the very fact of an irreconcileable difference between
those representatives of two schools of criticism should have
been held as conclusive against the rejection of readings
maintained by the most experienced and best known scholar
in the whole Company, a rejection which implied that they
involved plain and clear errors.

See the statements of the ' Two Revisers,' p. 34.

224 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
This brings us into contact with another point. It was
assumed by the Quarterly Reviewer, and on grounds wholly
independent of that authority it has been assumed through
out the preceding inquiry, that the influence of Drs. Westcott
and Hort was all-powerful with the Revisers, so far as regards
the Greek text. The Two Revisers say, p. 31, "The reviewer
often speaks as if Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort were respon-
. sible for all the results at which the Revisers arrived." I
believe that the reviewer, and I know that I, in common with
the generality of outsiders, are far from asserting that of all
the results. For the greater number of results, I must further
say, for the most serious results, those two eminent critics
are so far responsible that they had adopted them in their own
Greek text and defend them strenuously in their 'Introduction.'
Whether they are responsible for the decisions of the Com
mittee is another question ; that depends of course upon the
extent of their personal influence. That influence was great,
and deservedly so, considering that they had devoted more
than thirty years of close study to this special subject. We
do not of course question the assertion of the Two Revisers,
who claim (on p. 31) for the whole body, " complete inde
pendence in the final determination of the Greek text :" but
we scarcely feel that such shifting of responsibility, from
persons so well known and so fully competent, to a general
committee, is calculated to give us greater confidence in
the result.
We cannot, however, but remark that their " complete inde
pendence " does not exclude an amount and kind of help
which, as stated by the Revisers, amounted to something
nearly approaching superintendence or direction. We are
told that " these eminent critics did indeed place instalments
of their Greek text in the hands of each member of the
Company in the manner indicated by Dr. Hort," and on
referring to that scholar's own account of the matter we

ANSWERS BY REVISERS. 225
read, " The Gospels, with a temporary preface of twenty-eight
pages, were thus issued in July 1871, the Acts in February
1873, the Catholic Epistles in December 1873, the Pauline
Epistles in February 1875, and the Apocalypse in December
1876." It is indeed true, and it has been noticed more than
once in this essay, that the " passages " in which the Greek
text of the Revisers differs from the results that are to be
found in the edition of Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort, " are by
no means few " (p. 31) ; but it is equally true that in nearly
all the passages which have been here selected as instances
of serious innovation, there is a general and substantial
accord. Passing, however, from this general statement, we have
before us the grounds on which the Revisers based all such
determinations as we have called in question.
Those grounds may be briefly stated.
The Revisers were convinced, as a body, or as the majority
of a body, that the purest, the only thoroughly trustworthy
authority for the Greek text, speaking generally, is that
supplied by the two oldest manuscripts, the Vatican and the
Sinaitic. Upon this part of the question I have already
dwelt at great length. I do not find any new grounds for
this exclusive preference in the Two Revisers' treatise, apart
from their acceptance of the theory of a Pre-syrian text and
an authoritative Syrian recension.
But I must protest against their statement that scholars
who object to their innovations are biassed by a superstitious
reverence for the old Textus Receptus. The Quarterly
Reviewer needs no defender. He has fully vindicated his
own position in an unanswerable article published in the
April number, 1882. But speaking on my own behalf, and
on behalf of others who hold the same views, I say this :
the Textus Receptus is entitled to such preference as is claimed
for it, not so much on the ground that it has been generally Q

226 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
accepted by scholars and others for more than three centuries,
but because those of its readings which are of supreme im
portance, so far certainly as the first three Gospels are con
cerned, have in their favour a decided preponderance of
ancient authorities, as compared with the readings of the
Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. That Textus Receptus
was taken in the first instance from late cursive manu
scripts : but its readings are maintained only so far as they
agree with the best ancient Versions, with the earliest and
best Greek and Latin Fathers, and with the vast majority of
uncial and cursive manuscripts.
We have in fact the formal admission that the old Received
Text agrees in the main with that used by the Fathers of the
fourth and following centuries in the Eastern Churches :
especiaUy with the text used by Chrysostom throughout his
homilies. This has been previously noticed as a fact re
cognized by Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort; it is satisfactory
to find that it is formaUy recognized by the two representa
tives of the Committee of Revision.
The Two Revisers, in p. 28, state the grounds on which the
" textual decisions " of the Committee were based. " It was
a conviction that the true text was not to be sought in the
Textus Receptus, or in the bulk of the cursive manuscripts,
or in the late uncials (with or without the support of the
Codex Alexandrinus), or in the Fathers who lived after
Chrysostom, or in Chrysostom himself and his contem
poraries, but in the consentient testimony of the most
ancient authorities. That this was the conviction of Lach
mann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, is plain from the character
of the texts which they gave to the world. These texts
show, beyond controversy, how far they were from regard
ing the Received Text as a standard, and how high a
value they ascribed to the oldest manuscripts, Versions, and
Fathers."

ANSWERS BY REVISERS. 227
I might refer to the preceding sections in this treatise for
an answer to this series of statements ; but it will be more
satisfactory to say a few words upon each point.
The main point is the statement, that the true text was
sought by the Revisers in the consentient testimony of the
most ancient authorities. But it is precisely on this ground
that I have throughout maintained the wrongfulness of the
innovations introduced into the Revised Version, so far
as they affect leading facts and great words recorded in
the first three Gospels. The reader need but look at the
passages enumerated in the classification given above,
p. 136 seq, to be convinced that so far from resting upon
the consentient testimony of ancient manuscripts, Versions,
and Fathers, by far the greater number of innovations,
including those which give the severest shocks to our minds,
are adopted on the authority of two manuscripts, or even of
one manuscript, against the distinct testimony of all other
manuscripts, uncial and cursive. Those two manuscripts are
supported in some instances — in about one third of the
passages now in question — by a very small number of uncials
and cursives all but invariably belonging to the same school,
in other words, to the Eusebian recension.
In some instances they are supported by early Italic, the
Vulgate, and the Egyptian Versions ; but in the most
important of all passages the reading adopted by the
Revisers is disproved even by those witnesses, as for instance,
in St. Luke's records touching the last scenes of our Lord's
Passion, and the whole concluding portion of St. Mark's
Gospel, in respect to which, I must be excused for once
more stating, that every ancient Version, even those which
are seriously mutilated, the Gothic, the Syriac of Cureton,
and the Sahidic, give an absolutely unanimous attestation
to its existence, and general reception by the Churches of
Eastern and Western Christendom. Q 2

228 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
Nor must I here omit to notice the fact that the term
late uncials does not apply either to the Alexandrian Codex
or to C, D, and other manuscripts which belong either to
the latter part of the fourth, or to the fifth and sixth
centuries. As I have more than once noticed, Dr. Hort
admits that the two oldest manuscripts are separated from A
by a very short interval of time, and I have assigned reasons
for my belief that they were written under circumstances
which seriously affect their testimony, especially in cases of
omission. The attestation of the general mass of uncials and
of cursives ought not to be disregarded on the mere score of
inferior antiquity. They record the tradition of the Churches
in every quarter of Christendom for some ten or twelve
centuries, and, as Dr. Hort admits, they represent the text
used not only by " the Fathers who lived after Chrysostom,"
but by the Fathers of the fourth century. For my own part
the reception of that text by Chrysostom, unless it be deci
sively rejected by a consensus of earlier Fathers, appears all
but conclusive. But so far from being opposed to such a con
sensus, in every passage which has come under consideration
in this treatise, it is in accordance with clear, distinct,
unmistakeable quotations of the best ante-Nicene Fathers,
especially with the earliest and most important witness to
the views and principles of the Churches of Asia Minor,
Gaul, and Italy, in the second century, viz. Irenaeus, the
pupil of Polycarp, who was himself the pupil of St. John.
It is also a fact which ought specially to have weighed with
critics who profess to follow Griesbach and Lachmann, that
in some passages of the highest importance the old reading is
found even in Origen and Eusebius.
It would be wrong to jeopardize the text of Holy Writ
by an appeal to any single authority or set of authorities ;
but were we dealing with ordinary writings, were we consider
ing disputed passages in secular or ecclesiastical writers, I

ANSWEBS BY REVISERS. 229
should scarcely hesitate to accept or to propose this
challenge :
Prove that any such passage is rejected by the ancient
Versions, by distinct quotations of ante-Nicene Fathers, in
substantial accordance with the two oldest manuscripts, and
I will at once surrender it, if not as spurious, yet as open to
serious doubt. On the other hand, if the bulk of uncials,
including those nearest in age to x, B, and of cursives, pre
sent the reading in the form attested by one or more ante-
Nicene Fathers of recognized authority, and by the most
ancient and trustworthy Versions, let that reading be
regarded as authoritative.
I do not see how such a challenge could be refused, or how
it could be met, save by disproof of the citations alleged in
support of the old readings.
The Two Revisers, as might be expected, protest against
the " charges of textual corruption and depravation made
against certain MSS. e. g. x, B, C, L." These charges, so
far as they have been advanced in this essay, apply, with
few exceptions, to omissions, attributed to haste and negli
gence on the part of the transcriber and editor, and they are
supported by most distinct and positive statements of critics
to whose authority the Two Revisers assign the very highest
importance, such as Scrivener and Tischendorf: see pp. 171—
175. Those few exceptions, however, touch questions of signal
importance, and in each case present readings repudiated by
the highest authorities, ancient and modern. As for the
general character of three of those codices — I do not think
that C should come under the same category — it is not
necessary, nor would it be becoming in me, to express a
decided opinion. It is a question which will probably, which
certainly ought to, occupy the minds of scholars skilled in
textual criticism, but which I venture to assert cannot be
settled until that department of theological literature has

230 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
made far greater advances. Up to the present I am not
aware that in England any scholars except Tregelles, Dr.
Scrivener, and Dean Burgon, have produced works which
prove or indicate extensive acquaintance with original MSS.,
with the great mass of uncials and still less of cursives *
In Germany, so far as I am aware, Tischendorf stands
alone in that special department. We owe to him the best
and most complete account of variants ; but years of patient
labour, careful examination of all existing documents, and
an impartial comparison of their testimony with the cita
tions in ante-Nicene and other Fathers, will be needed
to supply materials for a final judgment, which after all
may be seriously affected by doctrinal or antidogmatic pre
possessions. I acknowledge that the statement that a company of
Revisers, who are described by members of their own body
as inexperienced in textual criticism, should have given their
votes after a discussion which must in most cases have
occupied but little time, considering the total number of
hours employed on the 6000 Greek and the 36,000 English
alterations, appears to me to savour of temerity : nor can I
attach much weight to the statement (p. 30) that " the results
at which the Company arrived were communicated in due
course to the American Committee, on which there were
some textual critics of known eminence." I may be very
ignorant, but I confess that I was not at all aware that any
American critic had attained to eminence in this special
department. Men of learning, great ability, keen and vigo
rous intellect, America certainly produces, but unless they
have enjoyed and used opportunities of long and earnest

* The Two Revisers say, " The number of living scholars in England
who have connected their names with the study of the textual criticism of
the New Testament is exceedingly small."

ANSWERS BY REVISERS. 231
study of manuscripts in various countries of Europe, they
could scarcely claim to be regarded as competent authorities
in regard of the Greek text.
The Two Revisers dwell upon the " constitution " of the
Company as a guarantee of impartiality. But the question
really is, were the members severally or collectively com
petent to form a correct judgment ? We may admit that
" the fancies and predilections of individuals were not able to
usurp the place of evidence :" but we may fairly ask whether
one or the other of the schools represented severally by
Dr. Hort and Dr. Scrivener had not a preponderating in
fluence. Judging by the results, by the excision of texts
attested by ancient Versions, ante-Nicene Fathers, and an
immense majority of manuscripts, which are retained and
admirably defended by Dr. Scrivener, but rejected, or enclosed
in brackets, in the edition of Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort,
it is hard to resist the impression that the general body of
Revisers, at least those who happened to be present when
each point was decided, moved altogether in one direction.
The Two Revisers point out that the bias in favour of one
particular manuscript (x ) " is to be traced with unmistake-
able clearness " in the last edition of Tischendorf. A bias
certainly not less distinct is avowed by Dr. Westcott and Dr.
Hort in favour of the Vatican Codex. That MS., sometimes
alone, generally in accord with the Sinaitic, is responsible for
nine tenths of the most striking innovations in the Revised
Version. Can it be supposed that the decisions of the general
Company, or two thirds of the general Company, were free
from that bias ? The Two Revisers do not, and cannot, deny
the important statement of the Quarterly Reviewer's first
article (vol. 152, p. 350), that "so intimate proves to be the
sympathy between the labours of Drs. Westcott and Hort and
those of our Revisionists, that whatever the former have shut
up within double brackets the latter are found to have-branded.

232 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
with a note of suspicion, conceived invariably in the same
terms, viz. : ' some ancient authorities omit.' And further,
whatever those editors have rejected from the text these
Revisionists have rejected also." Yet, though not a word of
this conclusive proof of identity is denied, the Two Revisers
actually add a postscript to their pamphlet of a single short
page noticing their unexpected anticipation by the third
Quarterly Review article, with the remark that " in this
controversy [between Westcott and Hort and the Reviewer]
it is not for us to interfere" — as if Westcott and Hort's
theory of Greek revision could be refuted or seriously
damaged without cutting the ground from under the Com
mittee of Revisers on the whole of this subject.
The question as to the so-called " Syrian Recension " has
been fully considered in a preceding section. Here I will
simply call attention to the fact that so far as historical
notices extend, the only recension, if recension it may be
called, which is in any way connected with Antioch, is that
which is associated with Lucian (312 a.d.) ; but, so far
from being in the direction indicated by Dr. Hort, that
recension unquestionably belonged to the school of Origen.
This is a circumstance of exceeding importance inasmuch as
it shows that some of the chief inferences drawn by Dr.
Hort, from a long study of texts, are diametrically opposed
to the facts most certainly known and most credibly attested
in ancient and all but contemporary documents.
The Two Revisers deal in a very summary manner with one
of the most important questions in the whole subject. In
reference to their treatment of the last twelve verses of St.
Mark's Gospel they say (p. 52) first, " The textual facts, as
in countless other passages, have been placed before the
reader, because truth itself demanded it." And again
(p. 53), after referring to their habit of noticing " in the
margin facts of textual importance," they say, " We totally

ANSWERS BY REVISERS. 233
decline to enter with the Reviewer into topics and arguments
irrelevant to the course adopted by the Revisers."
The topics and arguments to which they allude appear to
me the very reverse of " irrelevant." They rest upon external
evidences of the highest authority and unquestioned anti
quity: but as I have noticed some of the most important
previously, I will here confine myself to the statement that
" the textual facts " have been placed before the readers.
This is precisely the point upon which I should fix as open
to the gravest objection. The textual fact on which the
Revisers mainly rely is stated thus : " The two oldest Greek
manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9
to the end." Thus also Dr. Hort puts at the head of his
authorities x, B. (' Introduction,' Appendix, p. 45.)
But have we the testimony of those two manuscripts,
which are thus cited as independent witnesses, and without
any indication of doubt attaching to the evidence supplied by
one or the other ?
With regard to B, the fact that it presents a blank space
entirely peculiar to this passage, indicating, indeed proving,
the existence of a close omitted by the scribe, ought to have
been noticed. As it seems to me " truth itself demanded "
reference to a circumstance which so materially affects the
evidence of that manuscript.
But there is a still more important fact, most important in
itself, and peculiarly important in reference to the course
adopted by the Revisers.
Tischendorf in his Prolegomena to the 'Novum Testa-
mentum Vaticanum,' p. xxii., records a discovery, to which he
refers repeatedly both in that work and in his edition of the
Sinaitic Codex, that certain portions of the Sinaitic manu
script were written by the scribe of the entire Vatican ; who,
according to Tischendorf, acted as " corrector " (BiopOooTrf?) of
the former.

234 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
This discovery might of course be questioned. It rests
upon facts of which experienced textual critics alone can
appreciate the full significance ; but for our present purpose it
suffices to state that it is accepted unreservedly by Dr. Hort.
(See his ' Introduction,' § 288.) I quote his own words :
" The two manuscripts are really brought together as to their
transcription in a singular manner by the fact observed by
Tischendorf, that six leaves of the New Testament in X
are from the hand of the same scribe that wrote the New
Testament in B. The fact appears to be sufficiently established
by concurrent peculiarities in the form of one letter, punc
tuation, avoidance of contractions, and some points of ortho
graphy. As the six leaves are found on computation to form
three pairs of conjugate leaves, holding different places in three
distant quires, it seems probable that they are new or clean
copies of corresponding leaves executed by the scribe who
wrote the rest of the New Testament, but so disfigured either
by an unusual number of corrections of clerical errors, or
from some unknown cause, that they appeared unworthy to be
retained, and were therefore cancelled and transcribed by
the ' corrector.' "
The words thus printed in italics are of considerable
importance. Considering the extreme haste with which the
scribes and the " corrector " of the Sinaitic Codex worked, the
costliness of the materials, the fact that an entire sheet in
each case, i.e. the skin of an antelope, was to be sacrificed, and
that this sheet was to be replaced without delay by the
transcriber, whose time was especially precious, we may
feel assured that a very strong cause indeed must have
acted to bring about such a result. In this special case the
most obvious cause, one certainly sufficient to account for
the admitted fact, was the determination to obliterate from
the later and apparently the more valuable manuscript all
traces of the last portion of St. Mark's Gospel.

ANSWERS BY REVISERS. 235
The first point which I would here press is, that in each
instance of such transcription we have the witness of one
person only, the scribe of B, so that to allege the authority
of two manuscripts without noticing the identity of the
transcriber is seriously misleading.
But Dr. Hort in that section of his ' Introduction ' does not
notice the fact, to which special importance must be attached,
that a most conspicuous instance of a pair of leaves written
by the scribe of B, and substituted for those written by the
scribe of X, occurs at the close of St. Mark's Gospel, extend
ing from the latter part of the fifteenth chapter to a portion
of St. Luke*
Surely had Dr. Hort borne that fact in mind, had he not
overlooked it when he enumerated evidences for the spuri-
ousness of the passage in question, he could scarcely have
cited X and B as two " independent witnesses " (see App. p. 46).
I cannot conceive how the Revisers, had they been cognizant
of the fact, could have claimed the authority of the two
oldest manuscripts as justifying their proceeding.
As it seems to me, " truth itself demanded " notice of both
facts — (1) that B supplies evidence against its own hiatus,
and (2) that from " some unknown cause " the testimony of
x is absolutely obliterated.
This proceeding is a strong example of a course adopted,
as the Revisers say truly, " in countless other passages," to
which there is serious objection.
The notices in the margin, sometimes that many, some
times that some, ancient authorities, or that the two oldest

* Tischendorf, I.e. enumerates the places thus : " Matthasi fol. 10 et 15 ;
Marci ultimum et primum Lucas, prioris ad Thess. epistula? alterum et
epistula? ad Hebraos tertium cum initio Apocalypsis." The first of these
places, fol. 10, is of considerable importanco, see above note on p. 75. The
second sheet, 15, authorizes a reading in Matt. xxiv. 36, adopted by the
Revisers, but suspicious as probably a case of assimilation.

236 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSFELS.
manuscripts, favour a reading adopted or commended by the
Revisers, ought surely to be accompanied by some explana
tion. As they stand they leave the reader without any means
of ascertaining the value of the documents thus noticed, or
the strength of the authorities to which they are opposed.
They produce a general impression unfavourable to the
authenticity of passages, some of which are of vital impor
tance, and thus cast a deep shadow upon the reader's mind.
The only excuse alleged for such a course appears to me singu
larly weak. It is simply that any attempts at explanation
would have encumbered the margin. That excuse was cer
tainly not contemplated when the Revisers drew up their
own instructions.
If the Revisers find it necessary at any future time to
publish a revision of their own work, I trust they will
give full and satisfactory explanation in the notes which they
retain, unless indeed they follow the safer, and, in my humble
opinion, the only right course, and omit such notices alto
gether in reference to passages of gravest import, which are
amply supported by ancient and trustworthy witnesses.
Some other statements in the treatise of the Two Revisers
call for a notice. With reference to the defence of the reading
evBoicLas, Luke ii. 14, the Quarterly Reviewer is said to be
" ignoring Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles." I should be
content to answer that the only appeal admissible in such
cases is to ancient authorities, which the reader will find fully
stated in the second part of this treatise, pp. 27, 28. I
might also notice the fact that the authority of each of these
critics is often ignored both by Westcott and Hort and by the
Revisers, who discard or mark as doubtful some most im
portant texts which are retained without hesitation by
those critics; but as a rule I have abstained in this essay
from quoting modern authorities. The other changes in
St. Luke's Gospel defended by the Two Revisers, pp. 53-61,

ANSWERS BY REVISERS. 237
have been similarly discussed, with the ancient authorities
on both sides. But I must observe that the most important
changes of all adopted in the text, or commended in the
marginal notes, are passed over altogether by the Two Re
visers. No defence is offered, no defence is suggested, for the
grievous mutilation in St. Luke's account of the Institution
of the Holy Communion, of the incidents in Gethsemane,
of the first great word on the cross, of St. Peter's visit to the
tomb, and of the Ascension.
Was it that the long array of evidences on which the
Reviewer laid special stress, and to which I have referred in
these pages, was too overwhelming to admit of a satisfactory
or plausible answer? However this may be, I am quite
content to leave it to the judgment of every impartial reader,
whether those changes, apart from all other considerations,
are not sufficient to justify the charges which I have most
reluctantly, but with entire conviction, felt myself constrained
to bring against the Revising Company.
One other point I must notice before I conclude this part
of my subject. In pp. 17, 18, the importance of the testimony
of the ante-Nicene Fathers, especially the Greek Fathers,
Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement, and Origen, is formally recog
nized ; on p. 26, we are told that the " second reason [sc. the
reason for adopting innovations] is based upon a close obser
vation and a careful analysis of ante-Nicene patristic evi
dence," and in the note reference is made to " Westcott and
Hort's 'Greek Testament, Introduction,' § 152-162, pp. 107
seqq." Such an analysis is indeed a desideratum. Considering the
learning and ability of the two editors, and the length of
time which they had devoted to the subject, we might have
reasonably expected that it would be supplied in an introduc
tion so elaborate as that of Dr. Hort. But in sections 158
-162, which deal specially with this subject, we find no

238 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
details, no attempt at a real analysis. Dr. Hort speaks, as
might be expected, of the " strong light cast by the four emi
nent Fathers on textual history backward and forward ; " but
he leaves to the reader the work of examining their testimony.
Now, I do not profess to have accomplished, or to have
attempted to accomplish, that work, so far as the general
criticism of the Greek text is concerned ; but this I have
done, I have compared the readings in all the passages which
have come under consideration in this work with citations in
the ante-Nicene Fathers, so far as I could avail myself of the
indices in the best editions, and notices in critical editions of
the New Testament ; and I have found in the great majority
of instances, I may say in every instance of primary impor
tance, that these Fathers do not favour the innovations.
Irenaeus is the chief voucher for the genuineness of the most
signal of all passages mutilated or marked as suspicious by
the Revisers. Clement of Alexandria does not appear to have
cited the passages with which I am specially concerned;
Origen, whose authority is adverse on several points, not,
however, very serious ones, supports some readings to which
I attach exceeding importance ;* and as a general conclusion
I must affirm that whatever may be the result as to the
relative value of the two oldest manuscripts on the one side,
or, on the other, of those which come nearest to them in age,
and are supported by the vast majority of uncials and cur
sives, no evidence is adduced, in my belief no evidence is
adducible, that those manuscripts which omit, modify, or
mutilate the statements attributed to the Evangelists in the
Received Text of the first three Gospels represent the text
generally received in the second or third centuries and pre
sumably identical with that delivered to the Church by St.-
Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke.

* See above, p. 191, note.

( 239 )

SECTION X.
Summary Statement — Recapitulation of Facts and
Arguments.
The number and exceeding intricacy of the questions which
have been discussed in this treatise may be fairly pleaded
in extenuation of its very serious defects and shortcomings.
Had it been possible for the writer to amend and complete
his work, it would have been advisable to postpone its publi
cation, whatever time might have been required. But, on
the one hand, it is obvious that every one who has made up
his mind on the plain broad facts, and the necessary infer
ences from those facts, is bound to declare his convictions,
and, so far as may be in his power, to bring them to bear
upon the minds of others who are specially interested in the
discussion. On the other hand, the writer is conscious at
once of Iris inability under any circumstances to deal ex
haustively with the whole subject, and of the hopelessness
at his advanced age of doing what he might otherwise
attempt. What is to be done must be done quickly or be
relinquished altogether ; and I am confident that whatever
may be thought of the cogency of the arguments which are
based upon the facts here presented to the reader, the facts
are in themselves of vital importance, and amply sufficient
to guide every careful and unbiassed inquirer to a right
conclusion. The reader may, however, reasonably expect that these
facts should be brought together, extricated from the mass of

240 revised version of first three gospels.
statements more or less questionable, and presented in a
clear, compact, and so far as may be practicable, in a tolerably
complete form.
I will therefore now, in conclusion, ask him to consider
well the bearings (a) of the facts admitted by all critics, or
capable of exact determination and proof; (b) of inferences
which may be logically deduced from these facts ; and (c) the
alternatives between which it is absolutely necessary that he
must take a choice, under pain of remaining in a condition of
hopeless embarrassment, in doubt as to the true solution of
problems which now occupy the minds of earnest searchers
after truth. (a.) recapitulation of facts.
1. The two oldest manuscripts, referred to as such through
out the marginal notes of the Revised Version, date at the
earliest from about the middle of the fourth century.
2. The manuscripts nearest to them in point of antiquity
belong either to the latter part of the fourth, or at the latest,
to the first part of the fifth century.
3. The oldest Versions are far more ancient than the oldest
manuscripts. Some of them date from the beginning of the
second century ; others, which have been quoted as primary
authorities in the preceding discussion, belong either to the
third century, or at the latest are contemporary with the
oldest extant manuscripts.
4. The testimony of the earliest Greek Fathers begins with
the latter part of the first century, and from the second
century continues without interruption down to the latest
period which has been taken into consideration. The Latin
Fathers begin somewhat later, but give a clear and con
secutive view of the state of Christian thought in the West
from the beginning of the third century.
5. The authority of those Fathers, as adduced in reference

RECAPITULATION — FACTS. 241
to the passages discussed in the second part of this work,
preponderates in favour of the text on which the Authorized
Version is based, and preponderates to this extent, that the
oldest Fathers on the one side, and the most weighty Fathers
of the fourth century on the other, decidedly, and all but
unanimously, support the passages which are here maintained,
and are adverse to the most serious innovations.
6. About the middle of the third century attention was
strongly drawn to the state of the Greek text, especially to
the divergences in different classes or recensions, and the
question was discussed with especial interest in the school
of which Origen was the ablest and most influential leader.
7. In the same century, or in the beginning of the follow
ing century, numerous copies of the New Testament were
made by Pamphilus in Palestine, by Lucian, Presbyter of
Antioch, in Syria, and by Hesychius in Egypt. The copies
made by Lucian were commonly used in Constantinople
in the time of Jerome.* Those prepared by Pamphilus, or
under his superintendence, were current in Asia Minor and
Palestine ; those by Hesychius, in Egypt. In short, through
out the East pupils or followers of Origen took the lead in
what may not improperly be called a recension of the Greek
text. 8. So far as historical notices extend, no indications can be
found at that period that any other recension was under
taken in Syria, Palestine, or in any quarter of Christendom ;
in fact the well-known history of that time negatives the
assumption that a critical revision of the text was executed
under the authority of persons qualified and authorized to
act as representatives of the Church.
9. In the middle of the fourth century, between a.d. 330
and a.d. 340, a period when Arianism was in the ascendency,

See however on this point the note on pp. 201, 2. R

242 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
fifty copies of the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament
and of the Greek text of the New Testament were written at
Caesarea, under the superintendence of Eusebius. This was
done in obedience to an imperial mandate from Constantine,
with the special view of supplying the churches then about
to be erected in Constantinople with good, legible, and
thoroughly well-executed copies of Holy Scripture.
10. Those copies were remarkable for the costliness of the
materials, and for the beauty of the writing ; the expenses
were defrayed by the Emperor, and the best calligraphers were
employed in obedience to bis instructions.
11. The utmost haste in the execution was expressly and
repeatedly enjoined by the Emperor, an injunction which, as
Eusebius informs us, was strictly obeyed.
12. Two manuscripts, and two alone, of those now extant
were written at that period — the Vatican, as all agree, and
the Sinaitic, as is generally agreed.
13. These two manuscripts rank highest among those now
extant for the excellence of the materials, and for the beauty
of the writing.
14. Both of them are equally conspicuous for the number
and character of their omissions, repetitions, and other
blunders, attributable for the most part, in the judgment
of able critics, to extreme haste on the part of the tran
scribers, and of their employers or superintendents.
15. The text of these two manuscripts, especially of the
Vatican, corresponds, more closely than any other, to that
which numerous citations in the works of Origen prove that
he used habitually. Both manuscripts must have been pre
pared under the superintendence of a scholar closely con
nected with the school of which Origen was the head.
16. The text, thus identified with that adopted or moulded
by Origen, differs in many points of more or less importance
from that which was commonly used by Greek Fathers of

RECAPITULATION — INFERENCES. 243
the fourth century. The difference is conspicuous in reference
to the omissions and innovations to which special attention
has been directed in this essay.
17. The Alexandrian Codex, A, comes nearest to the two
oldest manuscripts in point of antiquity. It is admitted by
critics to be the best representative of the text used during
and after the fourth century by the Greek Fathers. In the
Epistles it agrees generally with the Vatican Codex, but in
the Gospels it differs from it widely, retaining with exceed
ingly few exceptions the passages obliterated, mutilated, or
materiaUy altered in the text which is founded mainly upon
the authority of that manuscript.
The facts thus stated appear to me indisputable ; I do
not believe that they will be questioned by readers con
versant with early ecclesiastical history. From these and
from other well-supported statements which have been con
sidered in connection with them, the following inferences
may, in my opinion, be safely drawn ; but as they are in
ferences only I present them here separately.
(B.) INFERENCES FROM CERTAIN FACTS.
1. I have for some time been strongly impressed with the
conviction that the two manuscripts, which have furnished
the Revisers with their new Greek text, were among those
which Eusebius prepared by the order of Constantine. The
combination of facts, external and internal — costliness of
materials, beauty of writing, extreme haste accounting for a
general habit of abbreviation, the character of the readings
so closely connected with the citations in Origen, and other
points previously discussed — appears to me incompatible with
any other hypothesis. This view I now present as a fair, if
not an inevitable, inference from the facts stated in the 9 th
to the 15th paragraphs of the preceding list.

244 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
2. But even if the reader should be so far moved by the
authority of Drs. Westcott and Hort, and by the objections
which have been urged by other critics, as to doubt whether
either of those manuscripts, or both, were written at that
time and place under the superintendence of Eusebius, the
other facts stand fast, and the necessary inferences from them
suffice for my main contention. .Both manuscripts were
certainly written under the same state of religious movements,
at a time when Arianism was in fuU ascendency, when Euse
bius of Caesarea was the most prominent and the most in
fluential leader of that party, when the transcriptions revised
by Pamphilus, Lucian of Antioch, and Hesychius, aU three
representing the school of Origen, were received throughout
the East from Constantinople to Egypt. At that time there
was no indication of similar movements in other parts
of Christendom ; no notices or references to recensions or
carefully revised transcriptions of the Greek text are
found in connection with Italy, wdiere Dr. Hort holds
that the Vatican MS. may have been written : on the con
trary, some fifty years or more after that time, Damasus,
Bishop of Rome, found the text in a state of hopeless
confusion, proving the absence of any recognized autho
rity, such as Codex B would have supplied, had it then
been produced under episcopal sanction. This was the
special motive which induced him to call upon Jerome at
once to supply a new Version, and to rectify erroneous
readings prevalent throughout the West ; readings most
common in Codex D, which is supposed to represent the
state of the Greek text in Western Christendom up to the
fifth or sixth century.
Taking these facts into account I cannot but maintain
that the only alternatives fairly open to our choice, with
reference to the origin of those two MSS., are either that
which I hold myself as all but certain, viz. that they were

RECAPITULATION — INFERENCES. 245
written at Caesarea, between 330 and 340 a.d. under the
direction of Eusebius ; or that they were written at Alex
andria, during one of the long intervals when Athanasius
was in banishment, and the see occupied by Arian intruders.
This latter alternative, however, is open to objections which
seem to me insurmountable.
3. But what after all is the real authority of manuscripts
produced at that time under such circumstances ? Are they
entitled to outweigh the testimony of the numerous manu
scripts which, as Dr. Hort repeatedly admits, represent the
text commonly used by the great divines of the fourth cen
tury ? Are they entitled to a hearing when they are opposed
to ancient patristic citations — not mere obiter dicta, but
adduced as decisive in gravest matters of controversy, such
as we have alleged from Irenaeus, Athanasius, and even from
Origen ? When the old Peshito, the Syriac Version, which
must surely be regarded as the most trustworthy witness to
the state of the text as received from the beginning in Pales
tine and all the adjoining districts, gives us distinct intima
tions of the existence of words, clauses, entire sentences
which are obliterated or mutilated in those two manuscripts,
can we hesitate as to which testimony has the best, the only
rightful claim to acceptance ? Whatever may be the result
of an inquiry in reference to other portions of Scripture, I
cannot doubt of the result in reference to the most important
points, those which concern our Lord's" own words, and
incidents which are connected with the culminating period
of His life.
4. I have above stated that my own inquiries have been here
limited to these points, and I have also stated that, so far as
I have observed, the same discrepancy between the evidence
of those manuscripts and all other ancient authorities does
not exist, certainly not to the same extent, in the case of
the Pauline Epistles. The results of my own inquiry into

246 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
one portion of the New Testament are however so grave
that I should look with apprehension to the results of close
and careful investigations carried on by unbiassed and com
petent scholars in any other part of the New Testament ; but
upon that point I am not entitled to express — indeed I have
not formed — a decided opinion. I have previously observed
that in that portion of the New Testament, the Alexandrian
Codex, and other uncials as well as cursives of the same
school or recension, generally support the Vatican and
Sinaitic Codices. But this would simply prove, or lead us to
suppose, that in . the case of the Epistles, especiaUy the
Pauline Epistles, there was at an early period a general
agreement in manuscripts ; owing, it may be, to some
extent to their comparative paucity, or to the preser
vation of the Apostles' autographs in Churches to which
these Epistles were severally addressed; or to the fact
that they presented special difficulty to the student, and
awakened special interest in reference to controversies
which agitated the mind of Christendom. In each respect
the evangelical records stood altogether on a different
footing. The manuscripts both of the Greek text and of the
early Versions of the Gospels were, so to speak, innumerable.
No Christian of any means or position could dispense with a
copy of some, if not all, the Gospels : whereas even in the
time of Chrysostom other portions of the New Testament
appear to have been little known. That great preacher tells his
hearers that few of them knew even the Acts of the Apostles,
many of them did not even know of the existence of that
book. The Pauline Epistles were doubtless far better known,
but in comparison with the four Gospels — needed by every
Christian, and having a paramount right to his attention —
the copies must have been small in number.
5. In fact, the immense number of manuscripts of the
Gospels, once current but no longer extant, constitutes the

RECAPITULATION— INFERENCES. 247
principal argument, the one most frequently urged by the
counsellors of the Revisers. The three hundred years which
elapsed before any manuscript now extant was written allow
abundant space and opportunity for systematic constructions
of conjectural history. Highly probable accounts of the
distribution and classification of MSS., of so-called " genea
logies," of modifications, corrections, innovations, and omis
sions, owing to " transcriptional errors," suggest themselves
naturally to thoughtful students ; and when they are
patiently elaborated, skilfully put together, having occupied
a powerful and singularly ingenious mind for many years,
they present an appearance of reality which fascinates con
genial spirits and may command the acquiescence of general
inquirers ; more especially when they are satisfied as to
the perfect good faith of the critic, and are assured by com
petent judges that his theories rest upon a solid foundation
of ascertained facts.
But when we put together all that has been urged in
defence of that position, and see what wrould be the result if
all that could be fairly demanded of us were conceded ; we
shall still have to pause, we should still have to answer
such questions as the following :
6. When existing texts underwent critical recension, say
by Origen or one of his school, have we reason to believe
that the revisers were infallible ? Were they guided by a
spiritual instinct so sure that they could not be tempted, or,
if tempted, could not give way to the temptation, to choose
those readings which harmonized with their peculiar views, or
satisfied their peculiar tastes ? Given two readings, the one
somewhat diffuse — as they might think — involving some
repetition, presenting details which might seem to them
superfluous, bearing in short the features which are recognized
as characteristic of the second and third Gospels ; and the
other brief, somewhat obscure at first sight, containing some

248 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
detail or suggesting some notion from which commonplace
readers might recoil, but which a subtle critic would be dis
posed to recognize as a mark of genuineness, can we doubt
which would be preferred by a mind of the stamp of Origen ?
Would not the same motives bias his mind which have so
powerfully influenced our modern critics ?
7. But would the decision be always, would it be generally
right ? One thing is sure, it would be on the side of abbre
viation or of concision (/caTaTOfig) : it would welcome inno
vations, even startling innovations, commended by the
appearance of unconsciousness — in short it would issue in a
text approaching to that which we have before us in the
Vatican Codex.
I say approaching to it ; but magno intervallo. I do not
believe that the numberless omissions in that manuscript can
be accounted for save by the extreme haste and consequent
recklessness of the transcriber. Several omissions, as we have
seen, are not countenanced by Origen. The Vatican manu
script may, it certainly does, bear close and unmistakeable
indications of being revised under Origenistic influences, but
in those respects it goes far beyond the utmost bounds
reached or contemplated by the great master of speculative
spirits in the early Church.
8. For my own part I am quite content to bear the impu
tation of adherence to old convictions slowly formed and re
peatedly examined. I confess that even if there were a
preponderance of manuscripts in favour of some of those
innovations I should have felt that their evidence, standing
alone, must be open to grave suspicion. Most thankful
am I to know that in every passage but one the prepon
derance is on the other side : that the two manuscripts,
to use the words of their advocates, in many instances stand
alone, that in the great majority of instances they have but
few supporters. But considering the infinite preciousness

CONCLUSION— ALTERNATIVES. 249
of some incidents and words, either omitted in the Revised
Version, or marked as doubtful in the margin, and the abso
lutely overpowering internal evidence by which they are
supported, I should regard external evidence opposed to them
as comparatively worthless, except in cases where there
might be a practical consensus of the most ancient and trust
worthy authorities.
The reader may of course feel that the impression made
upon myself is a matter of indifference. Be it so. Let him
look at the facts themselves, setting aside aU prepossessions.
These are the alternatives between which he must choose : —

(C.) THE ALTERNATIVES.
On the one side he has a long series of words and actions
attested by ancient Fathers, by ancient Versions, by some
three fourths of the older manuscripts, and by nine tenths
of so-called cursive manuscripts, written under different
circumstances, in different quarters of Christendom, and pre
senting independent testimony as to the mind of the Church :
and those words and actions, be it ever remembered, are
associated with the deepest and holiest thoughts, the most
heart-stirring incidents in the Life of our Saviour.
On the other side, he has two manuscripts, with rare
and doubtful supporters in antiquity ; manuscripts which,
were the very highest claims of their upholders ad
mitted, give us a text marked by peculiarities which
specially account for the great majority of the innovations
— a text which cannot be proved, or shown on probable
grounds, to be an exact reproduction of primitive documents.
Will he hesitate as to his choice ?
This he may well do ; he may withhold acquiescence in
any judgment which attaches a lower value to the two manu
scripts in question than that which is assigned to them by

250 REVISED VERSION OF FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
able critics. He may be disposed to accept their evi
dence in cases where other external or even internal proofs are
not adducible ; or, more wisely still, he may wait the issue of
the controversy now fairly raised as to the real value of one
or both ; whether they are to count among the best or the
least trustworthy of all existing documents. But one thing J.
do not fear that he will do. He will not accept or tolerate
the assumption that they are virtually infallible ; and nothing
short of infallibility could justify acceptance of their evi
dence, where it impeaches the veracity of the sacred writers
and the integrity, of Holy Scripture, obliterates most precious
words that fell from the lips of the dying Saviour, and
expunges the records of crowning events of His Life.

THE END.

LONDON : PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, STAMFORD STREET AND
CHARING CROSS.

MR. MURRAY'S LIST
OF
THE BIBLE AND PRAYER-BOOK.

THE SPEAKER'S COMMENTARY.
THE HOLY BIBLE, according to the Authorised
Version, a.d. 1611, with an Explanatory and Critical Com
mentary, and a Revision of the Translation. By BISHOPS
and CLERGY of the ANGLICAN CHURCH. Edited by
F. C. COOK, M. A., Canon of Exeter, and Chaplain in Ordinary
to the Queen.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. Medium 8vo. £6 ijj.
Vol. I. 30s. Pentateuch:—
GENESIS  Edward Harold Browne, D.D., Bishop of Winchester.
EXODUS  / The EDITOR.
LEVITICUS  (SAMUEL Clark. M.A., Inte Rector of Eaton Bishop.
winvrRFPQ /T. E. ESPIN, B.D., Chancellor and Canon of Chester.
"°  t J. F. Thrupp, M. A., late Vicar of Harrington.
DEUTEEON0MT  Canon ESPIN, B. D.
Vols. II. & III. 36s. Historical Books :—
JOSHUA  Canon ESPIN. B.D.
J,MUEL' EUTH- SA"} Lord Arthur HERVEY, D.D., Bishop of Bath and Wells.
KINGS, CHRONICLES, 1
EZRA, NEHEMIAH, } GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A.. Canon of Canterbury.
ESTHER  ) Vol. IV. 24s. Poetical Books t—
JOB  The editor.
I G. H. S. JOHNSON, M. A., late Dean of Wells.
PSALMS  { The Edit or.
tC J. Elliott, M.A.. Canon of Christ Church.
PROVERBS  E. H. PLU.MPTRE, M.A., Dean of Wells.
ECCLESIASTES  W. T. BULLOCK. M.A.. Prebendary of St. Paul's.
SONG OF SOLOMON  T. Kingsbury, M. A., Prebendary of Salisbury.and Vicaiof Burbaffe.
Vol. V. 20s, Isaiah and Jeremiah.
ISAIAH  W. Kay, D.D., Hon. Canon of St. Albans, Rector of Great Leighs.
J TAlwf *.I^^N:} R- PAYNE Sl,ITH- DD- Dem of Canterbury.
Vol. VI. 25s. Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets.
EZEKIEL  G. CURREY, D.D., Master of the Charter House.
„.„_r ("H. J. ROSE. B.D.. late Archdeacon of Bedford.
danlll  Ij M FULLEKi M A Vicar of Betley.
HOSEA and JONAH.... E. Huxtaule, M.A., Prebendary of Wells.
ApHANliHUM'and.ZE"}R- CANDELL, M.A., Professor of Arabic, Oxford.
JOEL and OBADIAH .. F. MEYRICK, M.A., Rector of BUckling.
MICAH & HABAEKUK Sam. CLARK, M. A., and EDITOR.
^ff^AT^gr^^lw. DRAKE, M.A , Canon of Worcester.
*3_* Any volume may be had separately. \Contimied.
January, 1882.

MR. MURRAY'S LIST OF

THE SPEAKER'S COMMENTARY. {Continued.)

THE NEW TESTAMENT, 4 vols. Medium 8vo. £4 14s.
Vol I.— The Synoptic Gospels. 18s.
INTRODUCTION  Wll. Thomson, D.D., Archbishop of York.
ST. MATTHEW  H. L. Mansel, D.D., late Dean of St. Paul's, and EDITOR.
ST. MARK  TheEDlTOR.
ST. LUKE  W. BASIL JONES, D.D., Bishop of St. David's, and EDITOR.
Vol. IX— St. John and the Acts. 20s.
ST. JOHN ¦[ B- F- "WESTCOTT, D.D., Canon of Peterborough, and Regius Prof, of
 I Divinity at Cambridge.
ACTS  W.JACOBSON, D.D., Bishop of Chester.
Vol III. Eomans— Philemon. 28s.
ROMANS  E. H.GlFFORD,D.D.,Hon.Canonof Worcester.Rectorof Much Hadham.
fTvPTTMTTTTAwa / T. S. EVANS Canon of Durham.
CORINTHIANS  j J. WA1TE, M.A., Vicar of Norham.
GALATIANS  J. S. HOWSON, D.D., Dean of Chester.
PHTLIPPIANS, EPHE-iCnnonWESTCOTT DD
THE^iA10WIAN^1'& WM- Alexander'. D.d'., Bishop of Derry.
PHttEMON^. ....'. ! J°HN GWYNN, E.D., Dean of Raphoe.
PASTORAL EPISTLES., t JOHN Jackson, D.D., Bishop of London.
J H. WACE, Preacher of Lincoln s Inn.
Vol. IV. Hebrews— Revelation. 28s.
HEBREWS  W. KAY, LVD., Rector of Great Leifchs.
EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES ROBERT SCOTT. D.D.. Dean of Rochester.
EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN WM. ALEXANDER, D.D , Bishop of Derry.
ST. PETER & ST. JUDE J. R. LUMBY, B. D., iN'orrisian Professor at Cambridge.
F"jOmL™f ..°F...^.'}WM- Lee- D-D- Archdeacon of Dublin.

THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THE C0RIN-
THIANS. The Greek Text, with Critical Notes and Disserta
tions. By A. P. STANLEY, D.D., late Dean of Westminster.
Fifth Edition. 8vo. iSs.

THE PSALMS OF DAVID. With Notes Explanatory
and Critical. By the late Dean Johnson, Canon ELLIOTT,
and CANON COOK. Medium Svo. ioj-. 6d. (Reprinted
from the Speaker's Commentary.)
THE APOCRYPHA. With a Commentary, Explanatory
and Critical, by Various Writers. Edited by HENRY WACE,
M.A., Preacher of Lincoln's Inn, Professor of Ecclesias
tical History, King's College, London. 2 vols. Medium 8vo.
(Uniform with the Speaker's Commentary.) \In preparation.

THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS. 3
THE STUDENT'S COMMENTARY ON THE OLD
TESTAMENT. Abridged from the Speaker's Commentary.
Edited by JOHN M. FULLER, M.A., Vicar of Bexley, and
formerly Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. Crown Svo.
Js. 6d. each.
VOL. I.— GENESIS TO DEUTERONOMY.
VOL. II.— JOSHUA TO ESTHER.
VOL. III.— JOB TO SONG OF SOLOMON.
VOL. IV— ISAIAH TO MALACHI.
The object of the present abridgment of the Speaker's Commentary
is to give information sufficient to enable any reader to understand the
Holy Scriptures, to acquaint him with the conclusions of learned in
vestigations, and supply him with satisfactory answers to current mis
interpretations. "The work, when complete, will form a Commentary unsurpassed by any current
publication in comprehensiveness." — Literary Chitrctimati.
A DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE : comprising its
Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural His
tory. By Various Writers. Edited by WILLIAM SMITH,
D.C.L., and LL.D., Editor of the "Classical and Latin Dic
tionaries." With Illustrations. 3 vols. Medium 8vo. 5/. $s.
(tDr. Smith's 'Bible Dictionary' could not fail to take a very high place in English
literature ; for no similar work in our own or in any other language is for a moment
to be compared with it." — Quarterly Review.
" By such a work as Dr. Smith's 'Bible Dictionary,' every man of intelligence may
become his own commentator." — Times.
" Our Churches could scarcely make a better investment than by adding this work
of unsurpassed excellence to their pastor's library." — Baptist Magazine.
"A book of reference alike for scholar and student. The most complete, learned,
and trustworthy work of the kind hitherto produced." — Atketueum.
FOR FAMILIES AND STUDENTS.
A CONCISE DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE. Con-
densed from the larger Dictionary. Edited by WM. SMITH,
D. C.L. With Maps and 300 Illustrations. Medium 8vo. 2is.
FOR SCHOOLS AND YOUNG PERSONS.
A SMALLER BIBLE DICTIONARY. Abridged from
the larger Work. By WM. SMITH, D.C.L. With Maps,
Illustrations, and Woodcuts. Crown Svo. Js. 6d.
" An invaluable service has been rendered to students in the condensation of Dr.
Win. Smith's ' Bible Dictionary.' The work has been done as only a careful and intelli
gent scholar could do it, which preserves to us the essential scholarship and value of
each article." — British Qitarteriy Review.

MR. MURRAY'S LIST OF

THE NEW TESTAMENT. Edited with a plain
PRACTICAL COMMENTARY for FAMILIES and GENE
RAL READERS. Third Edition. With ioo Illustrations.
2 vols. 8vo. 2 1 s.
VOL. I.—THE GOSPELS. By EDWARD CHURTON, M.A., late
Archdeacon of Cleveland and Rector of Crayke.
VOL. II.— THE ACTS AND EPISTLES. By W. BASIL JONES,
D.D., Lord Bishop of St. David's.
The Illustrations in this work consist of Panoramic and other Views
of Places mentioned in the Sacred Text, from Sketches and Photographs
made on the spot by Rev. S. C. Malan, M.A., and the late James
Graham. " This ' Commentary ' is not less marked by accuracy and sound learning, than by
judgment, candour, and piety." — Guardian.
" In this edition of the New Testament, the results of modern travel, of modem
discovery, of modern criticism, are brought together and made available for instruc
tion.' ' — A tlietiteitm.
THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, illustrated
with Borders, Initial Letters, Woodcuts, and Notes explaining
the Order and History of the Offices. By Rev.
THOMAS JAMES, M.A., late Honoraiy Canon of Peterborough.
8vo. i8j. cloth.
The Embellishments of the present edition consist of Ornamental
Scrolls, Foliage, Head-pieces, Vignettes, together with Borders, and Initial
Letters printed in redand black, and Engravings, to illustrate the Gospels
from the works of the early Masters.
"The number, variety, and beauty of the devices that enrich the pages, far surpass
anything that has been done in decorative printing." — Tlie Spectator.
THE GOSPEL AND ITS WITNESSES. The
Principal Facts in the Life of Our Lord, and the
Authority of the Evangelical Narratives. By HENRY
WACE, M.A., Preacher of Lincoln's Inn, &c. Crown 8vo.
A BOOK OF FAMILY PRAYERS: Selected
from the Liturgy of the English Church. With Preface.
By CHARLES E. POLLOCK. i6mo. 3*. 6d.
SHOULD THE REVISED NEW TESTAMENT
BE AUTHORIZED ? By Sir EDMUND BECKETT, Bart.,
Q. C. , Chancellor and Vicar-General of York. Post 8vo.
A SHORT PRACTICAL HEBREW GRAMMAR.
With an Appendix, containing the Hebrew text of Genesis i.-vi.,
and Psalms i.-vi. Grammatical Analysis and Vocabulary. By
Rev. STANLEY LEATHES, M.A., Professor of Hebrew, King's
College, London. Post 8vo. Js. 6d.
" Besides its conciseness, this grammar possesses an unique characteristic, namely,
in its method of expressing Hebrew words in English letters. Though other works
of a similar class may fairly boast of more amplified detail, yet we think this grammar
¦will supersede most by its admirable adaptation to the end it has in view, to enable
the student to read the Old Testament in the original language with facility and
precision." — John Bull.

THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS.

CHURCH HISTORY.

A DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITIES.
Comprising the History, Institutions, and Antiquities
of the Christian Church. By VARIOUS WRITERS.
Edited by- WM. SMITH, D.C.L., and ARCHDEACON
CHEETHAM, D.D. With Illustrations. 2 Vols. Medium 8vo.
£3 13s. 6d. (also issued in 14 parts, 55-. each).
This Work commences at the point at which the " Dictionary of the
Bible " leaves off, and gives an account of the Institutions of the Chris
tian Church from the time of the Apostles to the age of Charlemagne.
" This valuable dictionary brings within easy reach a vast mass of information,
access to which has hitherto been restricted to a few, and it deserves to occupy a place
in the libraries, not only of the clergy and of ministers of the various denominations,
but of all educated laymen." — Standard.
" We welcome with genuine pleasure the initiatory volume of this long-expected
and long-desired work. Our first few glances at the articles surprised us into the
confession that the thoroughness and completeness of its execution have exceeded our
highest expectations. It distances all its compeers in its own line, whether German,
French, or English." — Etigiisk Chitrchman.
A DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY,
LITERATURE, SECTS, and DOCTRINES. By VARIOUS
WRITERS. Edited by WM. SMITH, D.C.L., and Rev.
PROFESSOR WACE, M.A. Vols. I., II., & III. (To be
completed in 4 vols. ) Medium 8vo. 3U. 6d. each.
This Work is designed to give a comprehensive account of the Per
sonal, the literary, the Dogmatic, and the Ecclesiastical Life of the
Church during the first eight centuries of Christianity, and, in com
bination with the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, it will afford, it
is believed, the most complete collection of materials for the Church
History of that period which has yet been published, either in England
or abroad.
" It is a great credit to English scholarship and English theology to have produced
a work like this, full of the resulls of original and laborious study, which people on
different sides of disputed questions, and differing in view possibly from the writers
of the articles, may consult with so much confidence, that they will find sound and
valuable information. The editors may with justice put forward the claim that they
have made accessible to all educated persons a great mass of information hitherto
only the privilege of students with the command of a large library." — Times.
" We not only admit the opportuneness of this enterprise, of which the first volume
is before us, but we welcome it with acclamation. The conductors will confer a great
benefit upon the English Church and clergy indeed, but specifically upon students
whose knowledge is confined to their mother tongue, by projecting and carrying
through a Dictionary of Christian Biography in which the same patient industry, the
same scrupulous fairness, the same paramount regard for the interests of historical
truth is maintained, as in previous numbers of this important series. For * practical
purposes,' as they say, the editors have produced one of the most useful works of
this generation." — Church Quarterly Review.

MR. MURRAY'S LIST OF

THE STUDENT'S MANUAL OF OLD TESTA-
MENT HISTORY. From the Creation of the World to the
Return of the Jews from Captivity. With an Introduction to the
books of the Old Testament. By PHILIP SMITH, B. A. With
Maps and numerous Woodcuts. Post 8vo. fs. 6d.
" Of our own land, as well as of Greece and Rome, we have histories of a scholar
like character ; but Scripture history has not been so carefully or so fully treated
before. It is not a little surprising that a subject of such universal importance and
interest should have so long been disregarded. This work is very able and scholarly."
— Wesley an Tivies.

THE STUDENT'S MANUAL OF NEW TESTA-
MENT HISTORY. With an Introduction, containing the con
nection of the Old and New Testaments. By PHILIP SMITH,
B.A. With Maps and Woodcuts. Post 8vo. fs. 6d.
"These Manuals will no doubt obtain a wider circulation than the similar volumes
on Greece or Rome, as the subject matter is of wider interest. We are glad to say
that the tone of them is eminently reverential."— Churchman.

A SMALLER SCRIPTURE HISTORY OF THE
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, in Three Parts. I.— Old
Testament History. II. — Connection of Old and New Testa
ments. III. — New Testament History to a.d. 70. Edited by
WILLIAM SMITH, D.CL. With 40 Illustrations. i6mo.
y. 6d.
" This work is intended for younger children, and contains a good summary of the
histories of the Old and New Testaments, with a brief summary of the connecting
period. There are a few notes, intended chiefly for the teacher. It is a perfectly
marvellous work of condensation, containing as it does, in so small a space, such an
immense amount of accurate information as to Scripture facts." — John Bull.

A HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT WORLD, from
the EARLIEST RECORDS to the FALL of the WESTERN
EMPIRE, A.D. 476. By PHILIP SMITH, B.A., Author of
"The Student's Old and New Testament History," &c. Fourth
Edition, with Maps and Plans. 3 Vols. 8vo. 3U. 6d.
" The style of the volumes is sustained with the equal tone of a single, able, un-
impassioned, and dignified historian throughout." — Athentzum.

THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS.

THE STUDENT'S ANCIENT HISTORY OF THE
EAST. From the Earliest Times to the Conquest of Alexander
the Great ; including Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Media, Persia,
Asia Minor, and Phoenicia. By PHILIP SMITH, B.A. Wood
cuts. Post 8vo. Js. 6d.
" Our admiration of the mode in which a difficult task has been performed is cordial,
and we are surprised that a history of this nature, abounding in names rather than in
facts, can prove such attractive reading." — Saturday Review.

A SMALLER ANCIENT HISTORY OF THE
EAST ; from the Earliest Times to the Conquest of Alexander
the Great. By PHILIP SMITH, B.A. With 70 Woodcuts.
l6mo. 3-r. 6d.
" This book is intended to supply the learner with some information respecting the
Eastern nations, with which he comes in contact while reading the histories of Greece
and Rome ; and to set before the general reader a brief account of the course of
ancient civilisation in its earliest seats. Besides this general purpose, the book is
specially designed to aid the study of the Scriptures, by placing in their true historical
relations those allusions to Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Phoenicia, and the Medo-
Persian Empire, which form the back-ground of the history of Israel from Abraham
to Nehemiah. The present work is an indispensable adjunct of the * Smaller
Scripture History '; and the two have been written expressly to be used together."
— Preface.

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH DURING THE FIRST
THREE CENTURIES. By the Rev. J. J. BLUNT, B.D.,
late Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. 5th Edition, 6s.
*' The warmth with which he insists on the early and rapid spread of Christianity
as a proof of its divine origin, the minute and ingenious learning with which he main
tains it, the deep importance he attaches to it, recall forcibly to our minds a phase of
discussion which had almost passed away in the ever shifting polemics of religion and
infidelity." — Quarterly Revieiu.

HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
By the late DEAN STANLEY. Second Edition. 8vo.
Js. 6d.

MR. MURRAY'S LIST OF

HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. From
the Apostolic Times to the Reformation, 15 17. By
J. CRAIGIE ROBERTSON, ALA., Canon of Canterbury.
8 Vols. Post 8vo. 6s. each.
" I cannot conceive, on a smaller scale, any work which would more guide students
into a calm, impartial, candid view of the course of disturbed history and ecclesiastical
politics, in former or in present times, than Canon Robertson's." — Dean of West
minster. "Canon Robertson's work will always be esteemed as a text-book for the student,
while the host of references with which he has studded his pages will be invaluable as
a guide to the more advanced inquirer." — Saturday Review.
HISTORY OF THE JEWS, from the Earliest Period
to Modern Times. By H. H. MILMAN, D.D., late Dean of
St. Paul's. 3 Vols. Post 8vo. I&\r.
CONTENTS.
The Patriarchal Age— Israel in Egypt— The Desert— The Invasion— The Conquest —
The Judges— The Monarchy— Judah aad Israel— The High Priests.
The Asmonseans — Herod — The Herodian Family — The Koman Governors — Prepara
tions for the War — The War — Siege of Jerusalem — Termination of the War —
Barochab— The Patriarch of the West, and the Prince of the Captivity.
Judaism and_ Christianity — Judaism and Mahommedanism — Golden Age and Iron Age
of Judaism — Jews in England — Jews expelled from Spain — Jews of Italy ~
Modern Judaism.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, from the Birth of
Christ to the Extinction of Paganism in the Roman Empire. By
DEAN MILMAN. 3 Vols. Post 8vo. i8j.
CONTENTS.
The Life of Christ— Christianity and Judaism— Christianity and Paganism— Consti
tution of Christian Churches— Marcus Aurelius the Philosopher— Persecution
under Diocletian— Constantine and his Sons— Trinitarian Controversy— Julian-
Abolition of Paganism— The Great Prelates of the East and West— Jerome and
the Monastic System— Public Spectacles— Christian Literature— Christianity and
the Fine Arts.
HISTORY OF LATIN CHRISTIANITY, including that
of the Popes to the Pontificate of Nicholas V. By DEAN MIL-
MAN. 9 Vols. Post 8vo. S4j.
" This y°r!f ,in fact- from beginning to end, will be co-extensive with the Great
History of Gibbon. It was natural that a Christian and a clergyman should wish to
accompany that wonderful performance through its whole course, and place the
religion, which it so constantly misconceives, in a more favourable light • and it is
creditable to the author that, with the sincerest attachment to Christianity,' he should
have accomplished his purpose in so fair and candid a spirit, and with such an exemp
tion from professional bias. " — Westminster Review.

THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS. 9
LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE JEWISH
CHURCH. By the late A. P. STANLEY, D.D., Dean of
Westminster. First and Second Series, Abraham to the Captivity. With
Maps. 2 Vols. 8vo. 24^.
Third Series, from the Captivity to the Christian Era. With
Maps. 8vo. 14J.
LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE EASTERN
CHURCH, with an Introduction on the Study of Ecclesiastical
History. By the late A. P. STANLEY, D.D., Dean of West
minster. Fifth Edition. With Maps. 8vo. 12s.
CONTENTS.
The Province, Study, and Advautages of Ecclesiastical History — The Eastern
Church— Council of Nicaea, a.d. 325 — The Emperor Constantine — Athanasius —
Mahometanism and the Eastern Church — The Russian Church — The Patriarch
Nicon — Peter the Great and the Modern Church of Russia.
THE STUDENT'S MANUAL OF ECCLESIASTICAL
HISTORY. A History of the Christian Church from
the Earliest Times to the Reformation. By PHILIP
SMITH, B.A. With Woodcuts. 2 vols. Post 8vo. js. 6d. each.
Book I. — From the Times of the Apostles to the full
Establishment of the Holy Roman Empire and the
Papal Power a.d. 30—1380.
Book II. — The Middle Ages and the Reformation.
a.d. 1381 — 1598.
THE STUDENT'S MANUAL OF THE ENGLISH
CHURCH. From the Planting of the Church in Britain,
to the Silencing of Convocation in the Eighteenth Cen
tury. By G. G. PERRY, M.A., Canon of Lincoln. 2 vols.
Post 8vo. fs. 6d. each.
First Period.— From the Planting of the Church in
Britain to the Accession of Henry VIII.
Seoond Period. — From the Accession of Henry VIII. to
the Silencing of Convocation in the Eighteenth
Century.

10

MR. MURRAY'S LIST OF

A CHURCH DICTIONARY: a Manual of Reference
for CLERGYMEN and STUDENTS. By W. F. HOOK, D.D.,
late Dean of Chichester. Tenth Edition. 8vo. 16s.
"A book which ought to be found on the shelves of every clergyman, being an
invaluable manual of information on every subject pertaining to Ecclesiology, whether
in its histotical, theological, or practical and legal departments." — Morning Chronicle.
THE TALMUD AND OTHER LITERARY Re
mains OF THE LATE EMANUEL DEUTSCH. With *
Brief Memoir. Second Edition.

The Talmud.
Islam.Egypt, Ancient and Modern.
Hermes Trismegistus.
Judeo-Arabic Metaphysics.
Kenan's "Les Apotres."
The (Ecumenical Council.
ApOSTOLICfE SEDIS.

Hvo. I2J.
Contents :
Roman Passion Drama.
Semitic Pal-cography.Cultuke, and
Languages.
Samaritan Pentateuch.
The Targums.
Book of Jasher.
Arabic Poetry.

THE TALMUD : selected Extracts, chiefly illustrative
of the Teaching of the Bible. With an Introduction. By the late
JOSEPH BARCLAY, D.D., Bishop of Jerusalem. Illustrations.
8vo. 14J.
THE NICENE AND APOSTLES' CREEDS. Their
Literary History, together with some Account of the Growth and
Reception of the Sermon on the Faith, commonly called "The
Creed of St. Athanasius." By C. A. SWAINSON, D.D., Canon
of Chichester. With Facsimile. 8vo. 16s.
" The work of Canon Swainson must take a high place in the department of litera
ture to which it belongs. Indeed, its value can scarcely be overrated. Hence
forward it will be considered the book on the Athanasian Creed, — a standard treatise
of permanent worth. Full of learning, breathing a fair and Catholic spirit, evidencing
patient and long continued study, as well as a mastery of all details, it commends
itself to the churchman and the dissenter, to the ecclesiastical historian and theologian,
as a compendium of facts and documents, a well-written text-book with which they
cannot dispense." — Atkeiueum.
CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS; Essays on Eccle
siastical Subjects. By the late A. P. STANLEY, D.D.,
Dean of Westminster. 3rd Edition. 8vo. 12s.
Contents :

Baptism.
The Eucharist.
Eucharist in the Early Church.
Eucharistic Sacrifice.
Real Presence.
Body and Blood of Christ.
Absolution.Ecclesiastical Vestments.
The Basilica.

The Clergy.
The Pope.
The Litany.
Creed of the Early Christians.
Roman Catacomes.
Lord's Prayer.
Council and Creed of Constanti
nople.
Tex Commandments.

THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS, n
HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF FRANCE,
from the Concordat of Bologna, 15 16, to the Revolu
tion. With an Introduction. By W. HENLEY JERVIS,
M.A., Prebendary of Heytesbury, and Author of the "Student's
History of France. " With Portraits. 2 vols. Svo. 2&s.
" We do not say that Mr. Jervis is another Grote, but we do say that he has for the
first time presented the history of the later French Church as a connected whole in an
English dress, and with a mastery of detail and power of grouping and of graphic
narration which completely carry the reader along with him throughout, and cannot
fail to be most serviceable to the student. Mr. Jervis has supplied a real and im
portant desideratum in English literature, and supplied it in a way which deserves
grateful acknowledgment." — Saturday Review.
THE JESUITS : Their CONSTITUTION and TEACH
ING: an Historical Sketch. By W. C. CARTWRIGHT, M.P.
8vo. gs.
" A more remarkable book than this on the subject of the Jesuits has never hitherto
appeared. It is written with unimpassioned impartiality, and may be confidently
submitted to the study of every sincere member of the Church of Rome, who at least
does not approve of seeing their venerable pontiff the mere tool of a body of men who
seek ends, here described, by means which Mr. Cartwright renders clear and in
telligible." — Notes and Queries,
GLEANINGS OF PAST YEARS, 1843-78. By the
Right Hon. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P. 7 Vols. Small 8vo.
2s. 6d. each.
THE THRONE AND THE PRINCE CONSORT, THE CABINET
AND CONSTITUTION.
PERSONAL AND LITERARY.
HISTORICAL AND SPECULATIVE.
FOREIGN.
ECCLESIASTICAL. MISCELLANEOUS.
ROME AND THE NEWEST FASHIONS IN
RELIGION. Three Tracts. By the Right Hon. W. E.
GLADSTONE, M.P. Containing The Vatican Decrees-
Vaticanism— The Pope's Speeches. With Preface. 8vo.
Is. 6d.
EIGHT MONTHS AT ROME, DURING THE
VATICAN COUNCIL. By POMPONIO LETO. Translated
from the Italian. With Appendix containing Original Documents.
8vo. 12s.
" It is well known that the author is Marchese Francesco Nobili- Vitelleschi, brother
to the late Cardinal Vitelleschi. The position of the writer accounted, in part, both
for his accuracy and his moderation. The latter feature of his work strongly contrasts
with the prevalent tone of the Italian press at the time of the Vatican Council. _ Vitel
leschi is free both from indifference to all religion, and from hostility to Christianity."
— Record.

MR. MURRAY'S LIST OF

BIOGRAPHY.

A DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY,
Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. From the Time of
the Apostles, to the Age of Charlemagne. By Various
Writers. Edited by WM. SMITH, D.C.L., and Rev.
PROFESSOR WACE, M.A. To be completed in 4 vols. Vols.
I., II., and III. Medium 8vo. 3U. 6d. each.
*„* This work will be issued in monthly parts, ^s. each.
LIFE & WRITINGS OF ST. JOHN THE
DIVINE. By the LORD BISHOP OF DERRY AND
RAPHOE. 2 vols. 8vo. \In preparation.
LIFE & TIMES OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM.
A Sketch of the Church and the Empire in the IVth
Century. By W. R. W. STEPHENS, M. A., Prebendary of
Chichester and Rector of Woolbeding, Author of the "Life of
Dean Hook." Second and Revised Edition, with portrait, 8vo.
1 2 j.
" Good books on the Christian Fathers are rare in English theology. With sur
prise therefore, as well as with pleasure, we have read this learned and able work on
St. Chrysostom by an English scholar. ^ Mr. Stephens writes clearly as well as
learnedly, and his candour and good sense in the treatment of historical, no less than
of theological, questions cannot be too highly praised. A far better idea of Chrysos
tom and his times may be gathered from his pages than from the more philosophical
work of Neander.'' — Examiner.
LIFE OF SAMUEL WILBERFORCE, D.D., late
LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD and afterwards of WIN
CHESTER, with Extracts from his Diaries and Corre
spondence. With Portraits, &c. 3 vols. 8vo. 15.J. each.
Vol. I., 1805—1848, Edited by the late CANON ASHWELL.
Vol. II., 1848— 1860, Edited by his son, R. G. WILBER.
FORCE.
Vol. III., i860— 1873 (completing the work), Edited bv R. G.
WILBERFORCE. [/„ the Press.
" It has become a commonplace to speak of the wonderful versatility of the late
Bishop of Winchester, to count up the movements in which he shared, the causes he
had advocated, the varied scenes and societies hi which he had been the most striking
and familiar figure. An unrivalled diocesan administrator, a prominent Parliamen
tary debater, the life of Convocation, the adviser on all Church questions whether
home or colonial, a preacher ever listened to with pleasure, a consummate platform
speaker, an active member of all sorts of associations, scientific, literary, or merely
social." — Quarterly Review, April, 1874.

THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS. 13

LIFE OF ST. HUGH OF AVALON, BISHOP OF
LINCOLN : with some account of his Predecessors in
the See of Lincoln. By Rev. G. G. PERRY, Canon of Lin
coln, and author of the "History of the English Church." With
Portrait, Crown 8vo, iar. 6d.
" In writing this life of St. Hugh of Avalon he has contributed an interesting
chapter to the history of the English Church during fhis period, and has done his
best, and he has done it well, to preserve the memory of a worthy whom we would
not willingly have forgotten. It is a volume which has greatly interested us, and
which we are sure will interest all readers who delight in Ecclesiastical story." — John
Bull.
LIFE OF JOHN WILSON, D.D., F.R.S., OF BOM-
BAY. Fifty years Philanthropist and Scholar in the East. By
GEORGE SMITH, LL.D. New Edition, with Portrait and
Illustrations. Crown 8vo. gs.
"Dr. Smith's life of the late Dr. John Wilson, of Bombay, is, without exception,
one of the most valuable records of missionary work in India ever submitted to the
English public, and equally worthy of its subject and its author. Dr. Smith has
given us not simply a biography of Dr. Wilson, but a complete history of missionary,
philanthropic, and educational enterprise in Western India, from the Governorship of
Mountstewart Elphinstone, 1819-27, to that of Sir Bartle Frere, 1862-67." — '^ne
Times,
MEMOIR OF ROBERT MILMAN, D.D. BISHOP
of CALCUTTA, and METROPOLITAN of INDIA. With
a Selection from his Correspondence and Journals.
By his Sister, FRANCES MARIA MILMAN. With Map, 8vo,
\2S.
" Tf Miss Milman's very modest and interesting memoir do not produce the im
pression of a man with a note of grandeur in him, it can only be that the History of
British India has caused great men to be taken for granted." — Times.
LIFE OF CHARLES RICHARD SUMNER, D.D.,
BISHOP of WINCHESTER and PRELATE of the MOST
NOBLE ORDER of the GARTER, during an EPISCOPATE
of Forty Years. By GEORGE HENRY SUMNER, M.A.,
Honorary Canon of Winchester, and Rector of Old Alresford.
With Portrait, 8vo. 14J.
LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF DR. ARNOLD.
By the late DEAN STANLEY. 12th Edition. Containing the
Author's latest Corrections, and an Unpublished Poem by Rev.
JOHN KEBLE. Portrait. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. I2j.
MEMOIR OF EDWARD, CATHERINE, AND MARY
STANLEY. By the late DEAN OF WESTMINSTER.
Third Edition. Crown 8vo. gs.
" Not only has it all the charm of style for which the Dean of Westminster is so
conspicuous, and this, moreover, glorified by filial respect and affection, but it pre
sents to us a specimen of a school — the school of Copleston, Whately, and in some
sense Arnold, which is but little remembered now, and which yet deserves memory/'
" It is a graceful tribute of filial piety to private friends; full of delight to the
general reader." — Guardian.

H

MR. MURRAY'S LIST OF

SERMONS AND
DEVOTIONAL WORKS.

COMPANIONS FOR THE DEVOUT LIFE; A
Series of Lectures on well-known Devotional Works
DELIVERED IN St. JAMES'S CHURCH, PICCADILLY, IN 1 875-6.
With a Preface by J. E. KEMPE, M. A., Rector. Post 8vo. 6s,

CONTENTS.

De Imitations Christi. Canon Farrar.
Pensees of Pascal. Dean of St. Paul's.
St. Francis of Sales' Devout Life,
Dean of Norwich.
Baxter's Saints' Rest. Archbishop
of Dublin.
St. Augustine's Confessions. Bishop
of Derry.
Taylor's Holy Living and Dying.
Rev. W. G. Humphry.

Theologia Germanica. Canon Ash-
well.
Fenelon's CEuvres Spirituelles. Rev.
T. T. Carter.
Andrewes' Devotions. Bishop of Ely,
Christian Year. Canon Barry.
Paradise Lost. Rev. E. H. Bicker-
steth.
Pilgrim's Progress. Dean of Chester.
i The Prayer Book. Dean of Chichester.

"This is a volume of more than ordinary interest. The books selected are well
known, and favourites with large numbers of readers. The lecturers have all treated
their respective subjects simply and practically, their aim having been to make these
* Companions for the Devout Life ' more companionable and useful than they have
hitherto been." — Church Review.

THE CLASSIC PREACHERS OF THE ENGLISH
CHURCH. Lectures delivered in St. James's Church, Piccadilly,
in 1877-78. With an Introduction, by Rev. J. E. KEMPE,
M.A., Rector. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. Js. 6d. each.
CONTENTS.
1st Series. — Donne (the Poet Preacher). Bishop Lightfoot.
Barrow (the Exhaustive Preacher). Professor H. Wace.
South (the Rhetorician). Dean of Durham.
Beveridge (the Scriptural Preacher). Rev. W. R. Clark.
Wilson (the Saintly Preacher). Canon Farrar.
Butler (the Ethical Preacher). Dean of Norwich.
2nd Series. — Bull (the Primitive Preacher). Rev. W. Warburton, MA.
Horsley {the Scholarly Preacher). Bishop of Ely.
Taylor (the English Chrysostom). Canon Barry.
Sanderson (the Judicious Preacher). Bishop of Derry.
Tillotson (the Practical Preacher). Rev. W. G. Humphry, B.D.
Andrewes (the Catholic Preacher). Rev. H. J. North, M.A.
UNDESIGNED SCRIPTURAL COINCIDENCES IN
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. An Argument fur
their Veracity. With an Appendix containing Undesigned Coin
cidences between the Gospels and Acts, and Josephus. By the
Rev. J. J. BLUNT, B.D. Eleventh Edition. Post 8vo. 6s.

THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS. 15

THE OUTLOOK: A Charge Delivered at his
Primary Visitation in November, 1881. By A. W.
TH0R0LD, Lord Bishop of Rochester. With a Map. 8vo. 2s.
AN ARGUMENT FOR THE DIVINITY OF JESUS
CHRIST. Translated from " Le Christianisme et les
Temps Presents " of the ABBE EM. BOUGAUD. By C. L.
CURRIE. Post 8vo.
THE PARISH PRIEST: His Acquirements, Prin-
cipal Obligations, and Duties. By Rev. J. J. BLUNT,
B.D., late Margaret Professor of Divinity of Cambridge. Sixth

Edition. Post 8vo. 6s.

CONTENTS.

Ministerial Character of St. Paul.
Reading of the Parish Priest.
Composition of Sermons.
Schools. Parochial Ministrations.

Pastoral Conversations.
Scriptural Argument for a Ritual.
Rubrics and Canons.
True position of the Parish Priest as a
Churchman.
" A valuable handbook for the young clergymen, and indeed for all * parish priests'
who do not consider themselves masters ot their duty. The lectures exhibit the
results of experience and much thought, those on the course of reading, or more
properly of study, adapted to the clergymen display solid learning critically digested.
The style is close and weighty." — Spectator.
NOTES ON SOME PASSAGES IN THE LITUR-
GICAL HISTORY OF THE REFORMED ENGLISH
CHURCH. By LORD SELBORNE. 8vo. 6s.
THE WITNESS OF THE PSALMS TO CHRIST
AND CHRISTIANITY. The Bampton Lectures for 1876.
By W. ALEXANDER, D.D., Lord Bishop of Derry and Raphoe.
Second Edition revised and enlarged. 8vo. 14?.
"The Bishop of Derry's long-expected Bampton Lectures have been published at
last ; and no worthier contribution to theological literature has been made of recent
years. The fine appreciation of the poet, the research of the scholar, and the fervour
of the Christian theologian are conspicuous in its glowing pages. Bishop Alexander
knows how to charm and delight while he instructs. His style is rich, and yet not
overloaded ; it is eloquence, not rhetoric. The subtle sense of a poet's imagination
pervades every page." — Scottish Guardian.
SERMONS PREACHED IN WESTMINSTER
ABBEY ON PUBLIC OCCASIONS. By A. P. STANLEY,
D.D., late Dean of Westminister. 8vo.

16 MR. MURRAY'S LIST OF

THE BEATITUDES: AND SERMONS ADDRESSED
TO CHILDREN IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY. By A. P.
STANLEY, D.D., late Dean of Westminster. Fcap. 8vo.
MASTERS IN ENGLISH THEOLOGY. A Series
of Lectures on Leading Divines of the Church of
England. Delivered at King's College, London, 1877. With
a Historical Introduction by Canon Barry, D.D. 8vo.
fs. 6d.
HOOKER  Canon Barry, D.D.
ANDREWS  Dean of St. Paul's.
CHILLINGWOR TH  Dean Plumptre, D. D.
WHJCHCOTE and SMITH .... Profeesor Westcott, D.D.
JEREMY TAYLOR  Canon Farrar, D.D.
PEARSON  Archdeacon Cheetham.

BENEDICITE; OR THE SONG OF THE THREE
CHILDREN. Being Illustrations of the Power, Bene
ficence, and Design manifested by the Creator in His
Works. By G. CHAPLIN CHILD, M.D. Post 8vo. 6s.
''Taking the hymn, ' O all ye works of the Lord ' as the motive cf his book, the
author has culled from the whole range of Science and natural history such facts as
illustrate the power and wisdom and goodness of the Creator. It is a happy idea}
very well carried out."— Church Builder.
"A book marked by great beauty and simplicity of style, as well as scientific
accuracy. Such books raise and ennoble the mind of the reader by familiarising it
with the wonders of the earth and heavens, and imbuing his whole spirit with the
glory of the Architect, by whose Almighty word they were called into existence." —
Quarterly Review.

THE CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTURE, as declared by
the Testimony of our Lord and of the Evangelists and
Apostles. By LORD HATHERLEY. New Edition. Crown
Svo. 6s. Or i6mo. is. 6d.
"Under a very moderate guise, this volume contains a condensed and forcible
argument in support of the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures and of the truth
of the Christian interpretation of them. Such a work deserves, for several reasons, an
especial welcome. Lord Hatherley, at an anxious conjuncture in religious thought,
has thrown his whole intellectual and moral authority on the side of the received
faith. He has thus rendered the Church an immense service, and has earned from
her a debt of deep gratitude." — Times.
"We welcome this simple but most forcible testimony to the inspiration and
authority of the Bible. We trust it may be widely circulated."' — Record.

THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS. 17
UNIVERSITY SERMONS PREACHED AT Cam
bridge, 1845-1851. By Rev. J. J. BLUNT. Post 8vo. 6s.
"These sermons are emphatically good sermons ; full of sustained strength and
quiet power, of a moderation which is evidently the offspring of a mature judgment,
and of a scholarship which is invariably profound, yet never obseure."— Scottish
Guaj-dian.
THE MANIFOLD WITNESS FOR CHRIST. Being
an attempt to Exhibit the Combined Force of Various
Evidences of Christianity, Direct and Indirect. The
Boyle Lectures for 1877-78. By ALFRED BARRY, D.D.,
Canon of Westminster and Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen.
Svo. \2S.
Part I. — Christianity and Natural Theology.
Part II. — The Positive Evidence of Christianity.
FOUNDATIONS OF RELIGION IN THE MIND
AND HEART OF MAN. By Sir JOHN BYLES, late one
of the Judges of H.M. Court of Common Pleas at Westminster.
Post 8vo. 6s.
" Sir John Byles enables the reader to judge of the facts and arguments that have
satisfied the author's mind as to the fundamental truths of the Christian religion ; he
has added nothing to what has been said before, but he has produced a trustworthy
epitome of facts and reasoning that must be useful to others, and in a ripe and
vigorous old age recorded his testimony for the fundamental truths of Christianity." —
English Churchman,

WORSHIP IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
By A. J. B. BERESFORD-HOPE, M.P. 8vo. gs. Or, Popular
Selections from. Svo. 2s. 6d.
"Mr. Hope has rightly judged that a layman's view of the present ritual difficulties
might be useful, and we hasten to say that his book is as valuable as it is opportune."
¦ — Church Reviezu.

THE SHADOWS OF A SICK ROOM, with a
Preface by CANON LIDDON. i6mo. 2s. 6d.
" A little book, evidently the production of a man of deep and thorough piety, yet
so cultivated that his thoughts when lying sick unto death have thrown themselves
into definite form, and shaped themselves into that older kind of statelier, or as some
now-a-days say, of stiffer eloquence, to which we are accustomed in South, and in a
few of those half- forgotten master-pieces of the English Church. The eloquence,
however, is not artificial, but pours itself out, as it were, like poetry to a poet, the
rational mode of expression of the mind when heated with a sense of the nearness of
the Divine. There is in this volume much of the chaim derived by so many minds
from ' II Penseroso.' "—Spectator.

MR. MURRAY'S LIST OF

A DICTIONARY OF HYMNOLOGY. Intended as a
Companion to Existing Hymn Books. Setting forth the
Origin and History of the Hymns in Common Use, a
Description of the most Popular Hymnals, and Bio
graphical Notices of their Authors and Translators.
By Rev. JOHN JULIAN, F.R.S.L., Vicar of Wincobank,
Sheffield. 8vo. [In preparation.
N.B. — This Work is designed to embrace the following subjects : —
The History of every Hymn in general use in England, Ireland, and
Scotland, embracing Originals and Translations.
£. Biographical Notices of Authors, Translators, and Compilers of
Hymns.
3. An investigation into Anonymous Authors of Hymns.
4. Historical Articles on Greek, Latin, and German Hymnody — on Service
Books, Missals, Breviaries, Early Hymn Books, &c. ; and Notes on
French, Danish, and other Hymns, from which Translations have
been made into English.
5. Details of the sources of English Hymnological information.
As the field of research is exceedingly wide, the assistance of
eminent hymnologists has been secured to ensure the fullest and most
accurate information possible.

WORD, WORK AND WILL. Collected Papers. By
WILLIAM THOMSON, D.D., Lord Archbishop of York.
Crown 8vo. 9.?. Contents :

Synoptic Gospels.
Death of Christ.
God Exists.
Worth of Life.
Design in Nature.

1
Sports and Pastimes. '
Emotions in Preaching.
Defects in Missionary Work.
Limits of Philosophical Enquiry.

" They are full of wise advice and sober caution, but that which will specially
recommend this volume to many is the republication in a more accessible form of the
Archbishop's remarkable Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels, which appeared
originally in the 'Speaker's Commentary.' .... this most attractive work."— The
National Church.

CHURCH AND THE AGE : a Series of Essays on the
Principles and Present Position of the Anglican Church. By
Various Writers. Edited by W. D. MACLAGAN, D.D.
(Bishop of Lichfield) and the late Rev. Dr. WEIR. 2 vols.
8vo. 26s.
TREATISE ON THE AUGUSTINIAN DOCTRINE
OF PREDESTINATION. By CANON MOZLEY. A New
and Revised Edition. Post 8vo. gs.

THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS. 19
SERMONS PREACHED DURING THE TOUR OF
THE PRINCE OF WALES IN THE EAST. By the late
DEAN STANLEY. With Notices of some of the Localities
visited. 8vo. gs.

SERMONS PREACHED AT LINCOLN'S INN. By
ARCHBISHOP THOMSON. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

LIFE IN THE LIGHT OF GOD'S WORD. By
ARCHBISHOP THOMSON. Post Svo. 5s.

THE LIMITS OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT Exa
mined. By the late H. L. MANSEL, D.D., Dean of St.
Paul's. Fifth Edition. Post 8vo. 8s. 6d.

POETICAL WORKS OF BISHOP HEBER. Por-
trait. Fcap. 8vo. 3^. 6d.
HYMNS ADAPTED TO THE CHURCH SERVICE.
By BISHOP HEBER. i6mo. is. 6d.
MOTTOES FOR MONUMENTS ; or, Epitaphs selected
for General Study and Application. By MRS. PALLISER.
Illustrations. Crown 8vo. Js. 6d.
" With such a help as this, judiciously circulated in a country parish, much that so
often shocks by its incongruity in ' God's Acre/ might be gently got rid of. Over
and above, however, its more immediate object, the book has a value of its own. It
is a choice collection of holy thoughts which the living may lay to heart with profit in
anticipation of the grave." — Christian Observer.

PROVERBS ; or, words of human wisdom.
Collected and Arranged. "With Preface by CANON LIDDON.
i6mo. 3-r. 6d.
" The collection shows great judgment and wide reading. The book will take its
stand among the most attractive of the season. It is a book for both the grave and
the gay."—C/iurc/t Herald.

MR. MURRAY'S LIST OF

THE ENGLISH CATHEDRALS.

HANDBOOKS TO THE CATHEDRALS OF ENG
LAND AND WALES ; giving a History of each See,
with Biographical Notices of the Bishops.
Vols. I. and II.— SOUTHERN DIVISION.— Winchester,
Salisbury, Exeter, Wells, Rochester, Canter
bury, Chichester, and St. Albans. With 160 Illus
trations. 2 vols. Post 8vo. 36^.
Vol. III. — EASTERN DIVISION. — Oxford, Peter
borough, Lincoln, Norwich, and Ely. With go
Illustrations. 21s.
Vol. IV.— WESTERN DIVISION.— Bristol, Gloucester,
Worcester, Hereford, and Lichfield. With 50
Illustrations. Post 8vo. 16s.
Vols. V. and VI.— NORTHERN CATHEDRALS.— York,
Ripon, Durham, Carlisle, Chester, and Manches
ter. With 60 Illustrations. 2 vols. Post Svo. 21s.
Vol. VII.— WELSH CATHEDRALS. — Llandaff, St.
David's, St. Asaph's, and Bangor. With 40 Illustra
tions. Post 8vo. 15^.
Vol. VIII. — ST. PAULS CATHEDRAL. With 20
Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
" This very attractive and valuable work may, indeed, be said to be by far the best
guide-book to our Cathedrals. It is, in fact, a national work, as well as a Church
work, and it is worthy of our Church and nation." — English Churchman.
" Handbooks that should provide a concise but correct history of the several Cathe
drals in this country have long been looked for, not only by antiquaries and archi
tects, but by all men of art or of letters. The illustrations are the best of their kind."
— Literary Churchman.
" These volumes will prove a great boon to the architectural student ; but they are
so free from mere technical phraseology, and are so pleasantly written, that the general
reader will be tempted to increase his knowledge of both the history and architecture
of our great cathedrals." — John Butt.

THE CATHEDRAL ; Its necessary Place in the
Life and Work of the Church. By EDWARD WHITE
BENSON, D.D. , Lord Bishop of Truro. Second Edition. Crown
Svo. 6s.
" Many a reader, clergyman and layman, will learn from this book a more definite
conception of the meaning and use of Cathedrals than can be obtained elsewhere, and
we believe this is due to the close knitting of theory with practice which underlies all
Dr. Benson's work." — Engiish Churchman.

THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS. 21
WORKS ON THE HOLY LAND
AND
SURROUNDING COUNTRIES.

THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS: Their Manners,
Customs, Private Life, Government, Laws, Arts, Manu
factures, Religion, Agriculture, Early History, etc.,
Derived from a Comparison of the Paintings, Sculptures,
and Monuments still existing, with the Accounts of
Ancient authors. By Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, F.R.S.
A New Edition revised by SAMUEL BIRCH, LL.D. With 500
Illustrations, Coloured Plates, &c. 3 vols. Medium 8vo. 84J.
HISTORY OF EGYPT UNDER THE PHARAOHS.
Derived Entirely from the Monuments. With a Memoir
on the Exodus of the Israelites and the Egyptian
Monuments. By DR. HENRY BRUGSCH. Second Edition
revised. With New Preface and Notes by the Author. Maps.
2 vols. 8vo. 32^.
NILE GLEANINGS : Concerning the Ethnology,
History, and Art of Ancient Egypt, as Revealed by
Egyptian Paintings and Bas-Reliefs. With Descriptions of
Nubia and its great Rock Temples to the Second Cataract. By
VILLIERS STUART, of Dromana, M.P. With 58 Coloured
Outline Plates, from Sketches and Impressions taken from the
Monuments. Royal 8vo. 3U. 6d.
THE FIVE GREAT MONARCHIES OF THE
ANCIENT WORLD ; or, the History, Geography, and
Antiquities of Assyria, Babylonia, Chald^ea, Medta, and
Persia. By GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A., Canon of
Canterbury, and Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford.
Third Edition, with Maps and 600 illustrations. 3 vols. 8vo 42s..
NINEVEH AND ITS REMAINS; a Popular Account
of Researches and Discoveries at Nineveh, during an
Expedition to Assyria in 1845-7. By Sir A. H. LAYARD.
With numerous Illustrations. Post 8vo. Js. &£
"The various attempts that have been made to give popular descriptions of Mr.
Layard's discoveries, have taught him the necessity of placing them in a $oj>ular
form before the public." — Economist.

MURRAY'S LIST OF

NINEVEH AND BABYLON: a Popular Narrative
of a Second Expedition to Assyria, 1849-51. By Sir
A. H. LAYARD. With numerous Illustrations. Post 8vo. Js. 6d.
11 It is with much pleasure that we introduce to our readers the most interesting
contributions of the modern press. Such men as Mr. Layard deserve the gratitude
of posterity."—- Evangciical Magazine.
THE LAND OF MOAB. Travels and Discoveries
on the East Side of the Dead Sea and the Jordan.
By the Rev. H. B. TRISTRAM, LL.D., F.R.S., Canon of
Durham, Author of "The Land of Israel," "Natural History of
the Bible," &c. With Map and Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 15^.
" Canon Tristram's party was ready for every emergency : however wild are the
savages he meets, he has a missionary to spring on them who is familiar with their
tongue and manners ; he has a botanist for every shrub ; and a photographer for
every ruin. And besides all this, he is a host in himself— naturalist, philologer, anti
quary, geologist, Nimrod ; he is equally ready with his gun and his fossil-hammer,
his Bible or his Arabic ; equally adept in solving the difficulties of Bedouin etiquette
or stuffing a vulture, or determining a site. And besides all this, he carries a pen, and
a very deft and ready pen, and when there is anything to tell he knows how to tell it ;
and so Moab has been reft from the domain of the unknown and unknowable, and lies
all mapped out and photographed and described. Altogether the book is a very inte
resting one, and we can only hope future explorers will imitate Mr. Tristram's part in
the zeal and. thoroughness of its research." — Saturday Review.
JOURNAL OF RESEARCHES IN THE HOLY
LAND IN 1838 AND 1852. With Historical Illustrations.
By EDWARD ROBINSON, D.D. Maps. 3 vols. Svo. 42s.
" Robinson's 'Biblical Researches,' has been our leading text-book on the geography
of Palestine for twenty years. Until Eli Smith and Edward Robinson began their
travels in 1838, little had been clone towards a survey of the Holy Land which could
pretend to be at once scientific and historical. Together they rode through the
country, noting its aspects, fixing its sites, laying down its wadies and watercourses,
its deserts and mountains." — Athenceum.

THE BIBLE IN THE HOLY LAND. Extracts from
the above Work for Village Schools. By a Lady. Woodcuts.
Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
SINAI AND PALESTINE; IN CONNECTION
WITH THEIR HISTORY. By the late DEAN STANLEY.
14th Edition. Plans. 8vo. 14J.
CONTENTS.
Connection of Sacred History and Sacred Geography — Egypt in relation to Israel
— Peninsula of Sinai — Palestine— The heights and passes of Benjamin —
Ephraim — The Maritime Plain — Jordan and the Dead Sea — Perzea — Plain of
Esdraelon — Galilee — Sources of Jordan — Lebanon and Anti- Lebanon —The
Gospel History — The Holy Places.

THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS. 23

TRAVELS AMONG THE BEDOUIN TRIBES OF
THE EUPHRATES. With some Account of the Arabs and
their Horses. By LADY ANNE BLUNT. With Map and
Illustrations. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 24?.
_" Lady Anne Blunt fitly completes a triad of desert travellers of the gentler sex,
with Lady Hester Stanhope and Lady Duff Gordon, uniting the vigour of the one
with the femininity of the other. Lady Anne's work is quite sui generis, no faint
praise in these days of many books." — Field.
A PILGRIMAGE TO NEJD, the Cradle of the
Arab Race, and a Visit to the Court of the Arab Emir,
and our Persian Campaign. By LADY ANNE BLUNT.
Second Edition, with Map and Illustrations. 2 vols. Post 8vo. 24s.
" This work adds very considerably to our knowledge of a strange and little-known
region, and consists in graphic pictures of life among the interesting primitive people
among whom the author sojourned and received the greatest hospitality. The story
reads like a tale from the ' Arabian Nights.' " — Times.
DAMASCUS, PALMYRA, LEBANON; WITH
TRAVELS AMONG THE GIANT CITIES OF BASHAN
AND THE HAURAN. By Rev. J. L. PORTER, D.D.
Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 7^. 6d.
THE CRUISE OF THE "ROB ROY" ON THE
JORDAN, _ NILE, RED SEA, GENNESARETH, &c. A
Canoe Cruise in Palestine and Egypt and the Waters of
Damascus. By JOHN MACGREGOR, M.A. New Edition.
Witli Maps and Illustrations. Post Svo. fs. 6d.
THE MODERN CUSTOMS AND MANNERS OF
BIBLE LANDS, ILLUSTRATIVE OF SCRIPTURE. By
HENRY VAN-LENNEP, D.D. With Coloured Maps and
300 Illustrations. 2 vols. 8vo. 21s.
"Dr. Van-Lennep's work contains a mass of information on the manners and
customs of Bible lands not readily accessible elsewhere." — Atltentsum.
TRAVELS IN ASIA MINOR. With Observations on
the State of Society, and a Description of Antiquarian Researches
and Discoveries, together with an Account of Missionary Labours,
Illustrations of Biblical Literature and Archceology. By HENRY
VAN-LENNEP, D.D., Thirty Years Resident in Turkey. With
Map and Illustrations. 2 vols. Post Svo. 24.S.
"Dr. Van-Lennep has written an interesting book respecting regions which, in the
present day of geographical inquiry, do not receive the attention they deserve at the
hands of either travellers or antiquaries. He confines his descriptions of scenery and
remarks upon the people entirely to what he himself saw , and having a great deal of
matter to narrate, he has not been under the necessity, like several modern travellers,
of eking out the substance of his information by referring to observations of other
explorers, or by manufactured digressions of a scientific character." — Record.
THE TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. And the other
Buildings in the Haram Area, at Jerusalem. By
JAMES FERGUSSON, D.C.L., F.R.S. With Plates and
Woodcuts. 4to. 42s.

24

MR. MURRAY'S LIST.

AN ATLAS OF ANCIENT GEOGRAPHY.
BtMical antt Clascal,
Intended to Illustrate the "Dictionary of the Bible," and the
"Dictionaries of Classical Antiquity."
COMPILED UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF
WM. SMITH, D.C.L., and GEORGE GROVE, LL.D.
Folio. Half-bound. £6 6s.

the Babylonians,
Medes. and Per-

Alexander the

22. Greece during the Peloponne-
sian War.
23. Greece during the Ach.ean
League.
24. Northern Greece.
25. Central Greece — Athens.
26. PELOPONNESUS. — WlTH PlaN OF
Sparta.
27. Shores and Islands of the
vEgean Sea.
28. Historical Maps of Asia Minor.
29. Asia Minor.
30. Arabia.
31. India.
32. Northern Part of Africa.
33. ^Egypt and .(Ethiopia.
34. Historical Maps of the Holy
Land.
42, 43. Plans of Babylon, Nineveh,
Troy, Alexandria, and Byzan
tium.
"The students of Dr. Smith's admirable Dictionaries must have felt themselves in
want of an Atlas constructed on the same scale of precise and minute information
with the article they were reading. This want has at length been supplied by the
superb work before us. The indices are full, the engraving is exquisite, and the
delineation of the natural features very minute and beautiful. It may safely be pro
nounced — and higher praise can scarcely be bestowed — to be a worthy companion to
the volumes which it is intended to illustrate." — Guardian.
" This Atlas is intended to be a companion to the Dictionary of the Bible and the
Classical Dictionaries- The maps are all new ; they have been constructed according
to the highest and most recent authorities, and executed by the most eminent
engravers. The artistic execution of this important and superb work is peerless. Each
map is a picture. Their accuracy is of course beyond suspicion, although only
continuous use can really test it." — British Quarterly Review.
Whether large or small, we have certainly no such a thoroughly
satisfactory set of Maps elsewhere : and this Atlas may almost claim an
international value, for it has profited by both English and foreign
help, and the Maps have been executed by the most eminent engravers
both in London and Paris.

Geographical Systems of the
Ancients.
The World as known to the
Ancients.
Empires (
Lydians,
sians.
Empire t
Great.
6. Kingdoms of the Successors
of Alexander the Great.
The Roman Empire in its great
est Extent.
The Roman Empire after its
Division into the Eastern and
Western Empires.
Greek and Phoenician Colonies.
Environs of Rome.
Greece after the Doric Migra
tion.
Greece during the Persian
Wars.

JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.

6473