Chapter XII: Application of the Foregoing Materials and Principles to the (2)

To those with whom the evidence of אBD and of the Latins united appears too mighty to resist, we would fain prefer one request, that in their efforts to extract some tolerable sense out of εὐδοκίας, they will not allow themselves to be driven to renderings which the Greek language will not endure. To spoil the metrical arrangement by forcing the second and third members of the stanza into one, is in itself a sore injury to the poetical symmetry of the passage, but from their point of view it cannot be helped. When they shall come to translate, it will be their endeavour to be faithful, if grammatical faithfulness be possible in a case so desperate. “Peace on earth for those that will have it,” as Dean Alford truly says, is untenable in Greek, as well as in theology: “among men of good pleasure” is unintelligible to most minds. Professor Milligan (Words of the New Testament, p. 194) praises as an interesting form “among men of his good pleasure,” which, not at all unnecessarily, he expounds to signify “among men whom He hath loved.” Again, “among men in whom He is well pleased” (compare chap. iii. 22) can be arrived at only through some process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator might like to put upon it. The construction adopted by Origen as rendered by Jerome, _pax enim quam non dat Dominus non est pax bonae voluntatis_, εὐδοκίας being joined with εἰρήνη, is regarded by Dr. Hort “to deserve serious attention, if no better interpretation were available” and for the trajection he compares ch. xix. 38; Heb. xii. 11 (Notes, p. 56). Dr. Westcott holds that since “ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας is undoubtedly a difficult phrase, and the antithesis of γῆς and ἀνθρώποις agrees with Rom. viii. 22, εὐδοκία claims a place in the margin” (_ibid._): no very great concession, when the general state of the evidence is borne in mind(371).

13. LUKE vi. 1. ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ. Here again Codd. אB coincide in a reading which cannot be approved, omitting δευτεροπρώτῳ by way of getting rid of a difficulty, as do both of them in Mark xvi. 9-20, and א in Matt. xxiii. 35. The very obscurity of the expression, which does not occur in the parallel Gospels or elsewhere, attests strongly to its genuineness, if there be any truth at all in canons of internal evidence(372): not to mention that the expression ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαββάτῳ ver. 6 favours the notion that the previous sabbath had been definitely indicated. Besides אB, δευτεροπρώτῳ is absent from L, 1, 22, 33, 69 (where it is inserted in the margin by W. Chark, and should not be noticed, _see_ above), 118, 157, 209. A few (RΓ, 13, 117, 124 _primâ manu_, 235) prefer δευτέρω πρώτω, which, as the student will perceive, differs from the common reading only by a familiar itacism. As this verse commences a Church lesson (that for the seventh day or Sabbath of the third week of the new year, _see_ Calendar), Evangelistaria _leave out_, as usual, _the notes of time_; in Evst. 150, 222, 234, 257, 259 (and no doubt in other such books, certainly in the Jerusalem Syriac), the section thus begins, Ἐπορεύετο ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς σάββασιν: this however is not, properly speaking, a various reading at all. Nor ought we to wonder if versions pass over altogether what their translators could not understand(373), so that we may easily account for the silence of the Peshitto Syriac, Bohairic, and Ethiopic, of the Old Latin _b_ _c_ _l_ _q_ _f_ (_secundâ manu_) _q_, and (if they were worth notice) of the Persic and the Polyglott Arabic, though both the Roman and Erpenius’ Arabic have δεύτερῳ, and so too the Ethiopic according to Scholz; _e_ “sabbato mane,” _f_ “sabbato a primo:” the Harkleian Syriac, which renders the word, notes in the margin its absence from some copies. Against this list of authorities, few in number, and doubtful as many of them are, we have to place the Old Latin _a_ _f_* _ff_2 _g_1.2, all copies of the Vulgate, its ally the Armenian, the Gothic and Harkleian Syriac translations, the uncial codices ACDEHKMRSUVXΓΔΛΠ, all cursives except the seven cited above, and the Fathers or scholiasts who have tried, with whatever success, to explain the term: viz. Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Isidore of Pelusium, Pseudo-Caesarius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Jerome(374), Ambrose (all very expressly, as may be seen in Tischendorf’s note, and in Dean Burgon’s “The Revision Revised,” pp. 73-4), Clement of Alexandria probably, and later writers. Lachmann and Alford place δευτεροπρώτῳ within brackets, Tregelles rejects it, as does Tischendorf in his earlier editions, but restores it in his seventh and eighth, in the latter contrary to Cod. א. Westcott and Hort banish it to the margin, intimating (if I understand their notation aright) that it seems to contain distinctive and fresh matter, without deserving a place in the text even as well as Ἰησοῦ in Matt. i. 18. On reviewing the whole mass of evidence, internal and external, we submit the present as a clear instance in which the two oldest copies conspire in a false or highly improbable reading, and of a signal exemplification of the Canon, _Proclivi orationi praestat ardua_.

14. LUKE x. 41, 42. Ἑνὸς δέ ἐστι χρεία. This solemn speech of our Divine Master has shaken many a pulpit, and sanctified many a life. We might be almost content to estimate Cod. B’s claim to paramount consideration as a primary authority by the treatment this passage receives from the hand of its scribe, at least if the judgement were to rest with those who are willing to admit that a small minority, whereof B happens to form one of the members, is not necessarily in the right. Westcott and Hort in the margin of their published edition (1881) reduce the whole sentence between Μάρθα ver. 41 and Μαρία ver. 42 to the single word θορυβάζῃ, the truer reading in the place of τυρβάζῃ: in their privately circulated issue dated ten years earlier they had gone further, placing within double brackets μεριμνᾷς καί and from περὶ πολλά downwards. They could hardly do less on the principles they have adopted, while yet they feel constrained to concede that, though not belonging to the original Gospel, the excluded words do not, on the other hand, read like the invention of a paraphrast. They do not indeed: and it is when abstract theories such as modern critics have devised are subjected to so violent a strain, that we can best discern their intrinsic weakness, of which indeed these editors have here shown their consciousness by a change of mind not at all usual with them. For the grave omission indicated above we have but one class of authorities, that of the D, _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_2 _i_ _l_, and Ambrose, the Latins omitting θορυβάζῃ too: while ἑνὸς δέ ἐστι χρεία is not found in _c_ also, and does not appear in Clement. The succeeding γάρ or δέ is of course left out by all these, and by 262, the Vulgate, Curetonian Syriac, Armenian, and Jerome. This testimony, almost purely Western, is confirmed or weakened as the case may be, by the systematic omissions of clauses towards the end of the Gospel in the same books, of which we spoke in Chap. X (_see_ p. 299, note).

We confess that we had rather see this grand passage expunged altogether from the pages of the Gospel than diluted after the wretched fashion adopted by א and B: ὀλίγων δὲ χρεία ἐστιν ἢ ἑνός; the first hand of א omitting χρεία in its usual blundering way. This travestie of a speech which seems to have shocked the timorous by its uncompromising exclusiveness, much as we saw in the case of Matt. v. 22, is further supported (with some variation in the order) by L, by the very ancient second hand of C, by 1, 33, the Bohairic, Ethiopic, the margin of the Harkleian, by Basil, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria in the Syriac translation of his commentary(375), and by Origen as cited in a catena: ὀλίγων δὲ ἐστι χρεία is found in 38, the Jerusalem Syriac, and in the Armenian (ὧδε being inserted before ἐστιν). This latter reading is less incredible than that of אBL, notwithstanding the ingenuity of Basil’s comment, ὀλίγων μὲν δηλονότι τῶν πρὸς παρασκευήν, ἑνὸς δὲ τοῦ σκοποῦ. In this instance, as in some others, the force of internal evidence suffices to convince the unprejudiced reader (it has almost convinced Drs. Westcott and Hort, who have no note on the passage), that the Received text should here remain unchanged, vouched for as it is by AC*EFGHKMPSUVΓΔΛΠ (Χ and Ξ being defective), by every cursive except three, by the Peshitto and Cureton’s Syriac (the latter so often met with in the company of D), by the Harkleian text, by _f_ _g_1 _g_2? _q_ of the Old Latin, and by the Vulgate. Chrysostom, Augustine (twice), John Damascene and one or two others complete the list: even Basil so cites the passage once, so that his comment may not be intended for anything more than a gloss. No nobler sermon was ever preached on this fertile text than that of Augustine, De verbis Domini, in Evan. Luc. xxvii. His Old Latin copies, at any rate, contained the words “Circa multa es occupata: porro unum est necessarium. Jam hoc sibi Maria legit.” “Transit labor multitudinis, et remanet caritas unitatis” is his emphatic comment.

15. LUKE xxii. 17-20. This passage has been made the subject of a most instructive discussion by Dean Blakesley(376) (d. 1885), whose notion respecting it deserves more consideration than it would seem to have received, though it must no doubt be ultimately set aside through the overpowering weight of hostile authority. He is perplexed by two difficulties lying on the surface, the fact that the Lord twice took a cup, before and after the breaking of the bread; and the close resemblance borne by vv. 19 and 20 to the parallel passage of St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. The common mode of accounting for the latter phenomenon seems very reasonable, namely, that the Evangelist, Paul’s almost constant companion in travel, copied into his Gospel the very language of the Apostle, so far as it suited his design. In speaking of the two cups St. Luke stands alone, and much trouble has been taken to illustrate the use of the Paschal cup from Maimonides [d. 1206] and other Jewish doctors, all too modern to be implicitly depended on. Dean Alford indeed (N. T. _ad loc._) hails “this most important addition to our narrative,” which “amounts, I believe, to a solemn declaration of the fulfilment of the Passover rite, in both its usual divisions—the eating of the lamb, and drinking the cup of thanksgiving.” Thus regarded, the old rite would be concluded and abrogated in vv. 17, 18; the new rite instituted in vv. 19, 20. To Dean Blakesley all this appears wholly unsatisfactory, and he resorts for help to our critical authorities. He first gets rid of the words of ver. 19 after σῶμά μου, and of all ver. 20, and so far his course is sanctioned by Westcott and Hort, who place the whole passage within their double brackets, and pronounce it a perverse interpolation from 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. This much accomplished, the cup is now mentioned but once, but with this awkward peculiarity, that it precedes the bread in the order of taking and blessing, which is a downright contradiction of St. Matthew (xxvi. 26-29) and of St. Mark (xiv. 22-25), as well as of St. Paul. Here Westcott and Hort refuse to be carried further, and thus leave the remedy worse than the disease(377), if indeed there be any disease to remedy. Dean Blakesley boldly places Luke xxii. 19 (ending at σῶμά μου) before ver. 17, and his work is done: the paragraph thus remodelled is self-consistent, but it is robbed of everything which has hitherto made it a distinctive narrative, supplementing as well as confirming those of the other two Evangelists.

Now for the last step in Dean Blakesley’s process of emendation, the transposition of ver. 19 before ver. 17, there is no other authority save _b_ _e_ of the Old Latin and Cureton’s Syriac, the last with this grave objection in his eyes, that it exhibits the whole of ver. 19, including that τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν which he would regard as specially belonging of right, and as most suitable for, St. Paul’s narrative (Praelectio, p. 16), although Justin Martyr cites the expression with the prelude οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἂ καλεῖται, εὐαγγέλια. The later portion of ver. 19 and the whole of ver. 20, as included in the double brackets of Westcott and Hort, are absent from Cod. D, and of the Latins from _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_ _i_ _l_, as is ver. 20 from the Curetonian Syriac also: authorities for the most part the same as we had to deal with in our Chap. X. p. 299, note. Another, and yet more violent remedy, to provide against the double mention of the cup, is found in the utter omission of vers. 17, 18 in Evst. 32 and the _editio princeps_ of the Peshitto Syriac, countenanced by many manuscripts of the same(378). Thus both the chief Syriac translations found a difficulty here, though they remedied it in different ways(379).

The scheme of Dean Blakesley is put forth with rare ingenuity(380), and maintained with a boldness which is best engendered and nourished by closing the eyes to the strength of the adverse case. We have carefully enumerated the authorities of every kind which make for him, a slender roll indeed. When it is stated that the Received text (with only slight and ordinary variations) is upheld by Codd. אABCEFGHKLM (_hiant_ PR) SUXVΓΔΛΠ, by all cursives and versions, except those already accounted for, it will be seen that his view of the passage can never pass beyond the region of speculation, until the whole system of Biblical Criticism is revolutionized by means of new discoveries which it seems at present vain to look for.

16. LUKE xxii. 43, 44. ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ ἐνισχύων αὐτόν. καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ, ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο; ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπι τὴν γῆν. It is a positive relief to know that any lingering doubt which may have hung over the authenticity of these verses, whose sacred words the devout reader of Scripture could so ill spare, is completely dissipated by their being contained in Cod. א(381). The two verses are omitted in ABRT, 124, 561 (in 13 only ὤφθη δὲ is _primâ manu_), in _f_ of the Old Latin, in at least ten manuscripts of the Bohairic(382), with some Sahidic and Armenian codices. A, however, whose inconsistency we had to note when considering ch. ii. 14, affixes to the latter part of ver. 42 (πλήν), “to which they cannot belong” (Tregelles), the proper Ammonian and Eusebian numerals for vv. 43-4 (ι)σπγ, and thus shows that its scribe was acquainted with the passage(383): some Armenian codices leave out only ver. 44, as apparently does Evan. 559. In Codd. Γ, 123, 344, 512, 569, (440 _secundâ manu_ in ver. 43) the verses are obelized, and are marked by asterisks in ESVΔΠ, 24, 36, 161, 166, 274, 408: these, however, may very well be, and in some copies doubtless are, lesson-marks for the guidance of such as read the divine service (_cf. sequent._). A scholion in Cod. 34 [xi] speaks of its absence from some copies(384). In all known Evangelistaria and in their cognate Cod. 69* and its three fellows, the two verses, omitted in this place, follow Matt. xxvi. 39, as a regular part of the lesson for the Thursday in Holy Week: in the same place the margin of C (_tertiâ manu_) contains the passage, C being defective in Luke xxii from ver. 19. In Cod. 547 the two verses stand (in redder ink, with a scholion) not only after Matt. xxvi. 39, but also in their proper place in St. Luke(385). Thus too Cod. 346, and the margin of Cod. 13. Codd. LQ place the Ammonian sections and the number of the Eusebian canons differently from the rest (but this kind of irregularity very often occurs in manuscripts), and the Philoxenian margin in one of Adler’s manuscripts (Assem. 2) states that it is not found “_in Evangeliis apud Alexandrinos_, proptereaque [non?] posuit eam S. Cyrillus in homilia ...:” the fact being that the verses are not found in Cyril’s “Homilies on Luke,” published in Syriac at Oxford by Dean Payne Smith, nor does Athanasius ever allude to them. They are read, however, in Codd. אDFGHKLMQUXΛ, 1, and all other known cursives, without any marks of suspicion, in the Peshitto, Curetonian (omitting ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ), Harkleian and Jerusalem Syriac (this last obelized in the margin), the Ethiopic, in some Sahidic, Bohairic, and Armenian manuscripts and editions, in the Old Latin _a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_2 _g_1.2 _i_ _l_ _q_, and the Vulgate. The effect of this great preponderance is enhanced by the early and express testimony of Fathers. Justin Martyr (Trypho, 103) cites ἱδρὼς ὡσεὶ θόμβοι as contained ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν ἅ φημι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων (_see_ Luke i. 3, Alford) συντετάχθαι. Irenaeus (iii. 222) declares that the Lord ἵδρωσε θρόμβους αἵματος in the second century. In the third, Hippolytus twice, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Pseudo-Tatian; in the fourth, Arius, Eusebius, Athanasius, Ephraem Syrus, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita; in the fifth, Julian the heretic, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Paulus of Emesa, Gennadius, Theodoret, Bishops at Ephesus in 431; and later writers such as Pseudo-Caesarius, Theodosius of Alexandria, John Damascene, Maximus, Theodore the heretic, Leontius of Byzantium, Anastasius Sinaita, Photius, as well as Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, Cassian, Paulinus, Facundus(386). Hilary, on the other hand, declares that the passage is not found “in Graecis et in Latinis codicibus compluribus” (p. 1062 a, Benedictine edition, 1693), a statement which Jerome, who leans much on others in such matters, repeats to the echo. Epiphanius, however, in a passage we have before alluded to (p. 270, note), charges “the orthodox” with removing ἔκλαυσε in ch. xix. 41, though Irenaeus had used it against the Docetae, φοβήθέντες καὶ μὴ νοήσαντες αὐτοῦ τὸ τέλος καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρότατον, καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἵδρωσε, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡς θρόμβοι αἵματος, καὶ ὤφθη ἄγγελος ἐνισχύων αὐτόν: Epiphan. Ancor. xxxi(387). Davidson states that “the Syrians are censured by Photius, the Armenians by Nicon [x], Isaac the Catholic, and others, for expunging the passage” (Bibl. Critic. ii. p. 438).

Of all recent editors, before Westcott and Hort set them within their double brackets, Lachmann alone had doubted the authenticity of the verses, and enclosed them within brackets: but for the accidental presence of the fragment Cod. Q his hard rule—“_mathematica recensendi ratio_” as Tischendorf terms it—would have forced him to expunge them, unless indeed he judged (which is probably true) that Cod. A makes as much in their favour as against them. So far as the language of Epiphanius is concerned, it does not appear that this passage was rejected by the orthodox as repugnant to their notions of the Lord’s Divine character, and such may not have been at all the origin of the variation. We have far more just cause for tracing the removal of the paragraph from its proper place in St. Luke to the practice of the Lectionaries, whose principal lessons (such as those of the Holy Week would be) were certainly settled in the Greek Church as early as the fourth century (_see_ above, Vol. I. pp. 74-7, and notes). I remark with lively thankfulness that my friend Professor Milligan does not disturb these precious verses in his “Words of the New Testament:” and Mr. Hammond concludes that “on the whole there is no reasonable doubt upon the passage.” Thus Canon Cook is surely justified in his strong asseveration that “supporting the whole passage we have an array of authorities which, whether we regard their antiquity or their character for sound judgement, veracity, and accuracy, are scarcely paralleled on any occasion” (Revised Version, p. 103).

17. LUKE xxiii. 34. We soon light upon another passage wherein the Procrustean laws of certain eminent editors are irreconcileably at variance with their own Christian feeling and critical instinct. No holy passage has been brought into disrepute on much slighter grounds than this speech of the Lord upon the cross: the words from Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς down to ποιοῦσιν are set within brackets by Lachmann, within double brackets by Westcott and Hort. They are omitted by only BD*, 38, 435, among the manuscripts: by E they are marked with an asterisk (comp. Matt. xvi. 2, 3; ch. xxii. 43,44); of א Tischendorf speaks more cautiously than in the case of ch. xxii. 43, 44, “A [a reviser] (ut videtur) uncos apposuit, sed rursus deleti sunt,” and we saw there how little cause there was for assigning the previous omission to אa. In D the clause is inserted, with the proper (Ammonian) section (τκ or 320), in a hand which cannot be earlier than the ninth century (_see_ Scrivener’s Codex Bezae, facsimile 11, and Introd. p. xxvii). To this scanty list of authorities for the omission we can only add _a_ _b_ of the Old Latin, the Latin of Cod. D, the Sahidic version, two copies of the Bohairic(388), and a passage in Arethas of the sixth century. Eusebius assigned the section to his tenth table or canon, as it has no parallel in the other three Gospels. The passage is contained without a vestige of suspicion in אACFGHK (even L) M (_hiat_ P) QSUVΓΔΛΠ, all other cursives (including 1, 33, 69), _c_ _e_ _f_ _ff_2 _l_, the Vulgate, all four Syriac versions, all Bohairic codices except the aforenamed two, the Armenian and Ethiopic. The Patristic authorities for it are (as might be anticipated) express, varied, and numerous:—such as Irenaeus and Origen in their Latin versions, the dying words of St. James the Just as cited in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., lib. ii. cap. 23, after Hegesippus, ἐπὶ τῆς πρώτης τῶν ἀποστόλων γενόμενος διαδοχῆς (Eus.), Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitutions twice, the Clementine Homilies, Ps.-Tatian, Archelaus with Manes, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodorus of Heraclea, Basil, Ephraem Syrus, Ps.-Ephraem, Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita, Acta Pilati, Syriac Acts of the Apostles, Ps.-Ignatius, Ps.-Justin, Cyril of Alexandria, Eutherius, Anastasius Sinaita, Hesychius, Antiochus Monachus, Andreas of Crete, Ps.-Chrysostom, Ps.-Amphilochius, Opus Imperfectum, Chrysostom often (sometimes loosely enough _more suo_), Hilary, Ambrose eleven times, Jerome twelve times, Augustine more than sixty times, Theodoret, and John Damascene. Tischendorf adds—_valeant quantum_—(but only a fraction of this evidence was known to Tischendorf), the apocryphal Acta Pilati(389). It is almost incredible that acute and learned men should be able to set aside such a _silva_ of witness of every kind, chiefly because D is considered especially weighty in its omissions, and B has to be held up, in practice if not in profession, as virtually almost impeccable. Vain indeed is the apology, “Few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this first of the Words from the Cross; but it need not therefore have belonged originally to the book in which it is now included. We cannot doubt that it comes from an extraneous source” (Hort, Notes, p. 68). Nor can we on our part doubt that the system which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned.

18. JOHN i. 18. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός... This passage exhibits in a few ancient documents of high consideration the remarkable variation θεός for υἱός, which however, according to the form of writing universal in the oldest codices (_see_ Vol. I. pp. 15, 50), would require but the change of a single letter, _ΥΣ_ or _ΘΣ_. In behalf of _ΘΣ_ stand Codd. אBC _primâ manu_, and L (all wanting the article before μονογενής, and א omitting the ὁ ὤν that follows), 33 alone among cursive manuscripts (but prefixing ὁ to μονογενής, as does a later hand of א), of the versions the Peshitto (not often found in such company), and the margin of the Harkleian (whose affinity with Cod. L is very decided), the Ethiopic, and a host of Fathers, some expressly (e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Didymus “de Trinitate,” Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, &c.), others by apparent reference (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa). The Egyptian versions may have read either θεός or θεοῦ, more probably the latter, as Prebendary Malan translates for the Bohairic(390), the Sahidic being here lost. Their testimonies are elaborately set forth by Tregelles, who strenuously maintains θεός as the true reading, and thinks it much that Arius, though “opposed to the dogma taught,” upholds μονογενὴς θεός. It may be that the term suits that heretic’s system better than it does the Catholic doctrine: it certainly does not confute it. For the received reading υἱός we can allege AC (_tertiâ manu_) EFGHKMSUVXΔΛΠ (D and the other uncials being defective), every cursive manuscript except 33 (including Tregelles’ allies 1, 69), all the Latin versions, the Curetonian, Harkleian, and Jerusalem Syriac, the Georgian and Slavonic, the Armenian and Platt’s Ethiopic, the Anglo-Saxon and Arabic. The array of Fathers is less imposing, but includes Athanasius (often), Chrysostom, and the Latin writers down from Tertullian. Origen, Eusebius, and some others have both readings. Cyril of Jerusalem quotes without υἱός or θεός,—ὃν ἀνθρώπων μὲν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν; ὁ μονογενὴς δὲ μόνος ἐξηγήσατο. C. 7, l. 27, p. 107, ed. Oxon., Pereira.

Tregelles, who seldom notices internal probabilities in his critical notes, here pleads that an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον like μονογενὴς θεός(391) might easily be changed by copyists into the more familiar ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός from John iii. 16; 18; i John iv. 9, and he would therefore apply Bengel’s Canon (I. _see_ p. 247). Alford’s remark, however, is very sound: “We should be introducing great harshness into the sentence, and a new and [to us moderns] strange term into Scripture, by adopting θεός: a consequence which ought to have no weight whatever where authority is overpowering, but may fairly be weighed where this is not so. The ‘praestat procliviori ardua’ finds in this case a legitimate limit” (N. T., note on John i. 18). Every one indeed must feel θεός to be untrue, even though for the sake of consistency he may be forced to uphold it. Westcott and Hort set μονογενὴς θεός in the text, but concede to ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός a place in their margin.

Those who will resort to “ancient evidence exclusively” for the recension of the text may well be perplexed in dealing with this passage. The oldest manuscripts, versions, and writers are hopelessly divided, so that we can well understand how some critics (not very unreasonably, perhaps, yet without a shadow of authority worth notice) have come to suspect both θεός and υἱός to be _accretions_ or spurious additions to μονογενής. If the principles advocated in Vol. II. Ch. X be true, the present is just such a case as calls for the interposition of the more recent uncial and cursive codices; and when we find that they all, with the single exception of Cod. 33, defend the reading ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, we feel safe in concluding that for once Codd. אBC and the Peshitto do not approach the autograph of St. John so nearly as Cod. A, the Harkleian Syriac, and Old Latin versions(392).

19. JOHN iii. 13. Westcott and Hort remove from the text to the margin the weighty and doubtless difficult, but on that account only the more certainly genuine, words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. Tischendorf rejected them (as indeed does Professor Milligan) in his “Synopsis Evangelica,” 1864, but afterwards repented of his decision. The authorities for omission are אBL (which read μονογενὴς θεός in ch. i. 18) Tb [vi], 33 alone among manuscripts. CDF are defective here: but the clause is contained in AEGHKMSUVΓΔΛΠ, and in all cursives save one, A* and one Evangelistarium (44) omitting ὤν. No versions can be cited against the clause except one manuscript of the Bohairic: it appears in every one else, including the Latin, the four Syriac, the Ethiopic, the Georgian, and the Armenian. There is really no Patristic evidence to set up against it, for it amounts to nothing that the words are not found in the Armenian versions of Ephraem’s Exposition of Tatian’s Harmony (_see_ Vol. I. p. 59, note 2); that Eusebius might have cited them twice and did not; that Cyril of Alexandria, who alleges them once, passed over them once; that Origen also (in the Latin translation) neglected them once, inasmuch as he quotes them twice, once very expressly. Hippolytus [220] is the prime witness in their behalf, for he draws the theological inference from the passage (ἀποσταλεὶς ἵνα δείξῃ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ γῆς ὄντα εἶναι καὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ), wherein he is followed in two places by Hilary and by Epiphanius. To these add Dionysius of Alexandria [iii], Novatian [iii], Aphraates the Persian, Didymus, Lucifer, Athanasius, Basil, besides Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and by John Damascene (thrice), by Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, and Theodoret each four times,—indeed, as Dean Burgon has shown(393), more than fifty passages from thirty-eight ecclesiastical writers; and we then have a _consensus_ of versions and ecclesiastical writers from every part of the Christian world, joining Cod. A and the later manuscripts in convicting אBL, &c., or the common sources from which they were derived, of the deliberate suppression of one of the most mysterious, yet one of the most glorious, glimpses afforded to us in Scripture of the nature of the Saviour, on the side of His Proper Divinity.

20. JOHN V. 3, 4. ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν. ἄγγελος γὰρ κατὰ καιρὸν κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ, καὶ ἐτάρασσε τὸ ὕδωρ; ὁ οὖν πρῶτος ἐμβὰς μετὰ τὴν ταραχὴν τοῦ ὕδατος, ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατείχετο νοσήματι. This passage is expunged by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, obelized (=) by Griesbach, but retained by Scholz and Lachmann. The evidence against it is certainly very considerable: Codd. אBC*D, 33, 157, 314, but D, 33 contain ἐκδεχομένων ... κίνησιν, which _alone_ A*L, 18 omit. It may be observed that in this part of St. John A and L are much together against N, and against B yet more. The words from ἄγγελος γάρ to νοσήματι are noted with asterisks or obeli (employed without much discrimination) in SΛ, 8, 11?, 14 (ἄγγελος ... ὕδωρ being left out), 21, 24, 32, 36, 145, 161, 166, 230, 262, 269, 299, 348, 408, 507, 512, 575, 606, and Armenian manuscripts. The Harkleian margin marks from ἄγγελος to ὕδωρ with an asterisk, the remainder of the verse with obeli. The whole passage is given, although with that extreme variation in the reading which so often indicates grounds for suspicion(394), in EFGHIKMUVΓΔΠ (with an asterisk throughout), and all known cursives not enumerated above(395): of these Cod. I [vi] is of the greatest weight. Cod. A contains the whole passage, but down to κίνησιν _secundâ manu_; Cod. C also the whole, _tertiâ manu_. Of the versions, Cureton’s Syriac, the Sahidic, Schwartze’s Bohairic(396), some Armenian manuscripts, _f_ _l_ _q_ of the Old Latin, _san. harl._* and two others of the Vulgate (_vid._ Griesbach) are for omission; the Roman edition of the Ethiopic leaves out what the Harkleian margin obelizes, but the Peshitto and Jerusalem Syriac, all Latin copies not aforenamed, Wilkins’ Bohairic, and Armenian editions are for retaining the disputed words. Tertullian clearly recognizes them (“piscinam Bethsaidam angelus interveniens commovebat,” _de Baptismo_, 5), as do Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Ambrose (twice), Theophylact, and Euthymius. Nonnus [v] does not touch it in his metrical paraphrase.

The first clause (ἐκδεχ ... κίνησιν) can hardly stand in Dr. Scrivener’s opinion, in spite of the versions which support it, as DI are the oldest manuscript witnesses in its favour, and it bears much of the appearance of a gloss brought in from the margin. The succeeding verse is harder to deal with(397); but for the countenance of the versions and the testimony of Tertullian, Cod. A could never resist the joint authority of אBCD, illustrated as they are by the marks of suspicion set in so many later copies. Yet if ver. 4 be indeed but an “_insertion to complete that implied in the narrative with reference to the popular belief_” (Alford, _ad loc._), it is much more in the manner of Cod. D and the Curetonian Syriac, than of Cod. A and the Latin versions; and since these last two are not very often found in unison, and together with the Peshitto, opposed to the other primary documents, it is not very rash to say that when such a conjunction does occur, it proves that the reading was early, widely diffused, and extensively received. Yet, after all, if the passage as it stands in our common text can be maintained as genuine at all, it must be, we apprehend, on the principle suggested above, Vol. I. Chap. I. § 11, p. 18. The chief difficulty, of course, consists in the fact that so many copies are still without the addition, if assumed to be made by the Evangelist himself: nor will this supposition very well account for the wide variations subsisting between the manuscripts which do contain the supplement, both here and in chh. vii. 53-viii. 11(398).

21. JOHN vii. 8. This passage has provoked the “bark” of Porphyry the philosopher, by common consent the most acute and formidable adversary our faith encountered in ancient times [d. 304]. “Iturum se negavit,” as Jerome represents Porphyry’s objection, “et fecit quod prius negaverat: latrat Porphyrius, inconstantiae et mutationis accusat.” Yet in the common text, which Lachmann, Westcott and Hort, apparently with Professor Milligan, join in approving, ἐγὼ οὔπω ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην, there is no vestige of levity of purpose on the Lord’s part, but rather a gentle intimation that what He would not do then, He would do hereafter. It is plain therefore that Porphyry the foe, and Jerome the defender of the faith, both found in their copies οὐκ, not οὔπω, and this is the reading of Tischendorf and Tregelles: Hort and Westcott set it in their margin. Thus too Epiphanius and Chrysostom in the fourth century, Cyril in the fifth, each of them feeling the difficulty of the passage, and meeting it in his own way. For οὐκ we have the support of א (AC _hiant_) DKMΠ, 17 _secundâ manu_, 389: add 507, 570, being Scrivener’s pw (two excellent cursives, often found together in vouching for good readings), 558, Evst. 234, the Latin _a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_2 _l_ _secundâ manu_, Cureton’s Syriac, the Bohairic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions(399), a minority of the whole doubtless, yet a goodly band, gathered from east and west alike. In this case no hesitation would have been felt in adopting a reading, not only the harder in itself, but the only one that will explain the history of the passage, had not the palpable and wilful emendation οὔπω been upheld by B: _ignoscitur isti_, even when it resorts to a subterfuge which in any other manuscript would be put aside with scorn. The change, however, from the end of the third century downwards, was very generally and widely diffused. Besides B and its faithful allies LT, οὔπω is read in EFGHSUVXΓΔΛ, in all cursives not cited above, in _f_ _g_ _q_, in some Vulgate codices (but in none of the best), the Sahidic, Gothic, and three other Syriac versions, the Harkleian also in its Greek margin. Basil is alleged for the same reading, doubtless not expressly, like the Fathers named above. It is seldom that we can trace so clearly the date and origin of an important corruption which could not be accidental, and it is well to know that no extant authorities, however venerable, are quite exempt from the influence of dishonest zeal.

22. JOHN vii. 53-viii. 11. On no other grounds than those just intimated when discussing ch. v. 3, 4 can this celebrated and important paragraph, the _pericope adulterae_ as it is called, be regarded as a portion of St. John’s Gospel. It is absent from too many excellent copies not to have been wanting in some of the very earliest; while the arguments in its favour, internal even more than external, are so powerful, that we can scarcely be brought to think it an unauthorized appendage to the writings of one, who in another of his inspired books deprecated so solemnly the adding to or taking away from the blessed testimony he was commissioned to bear (Apoc. xxii. 18, 19). If ch. xx. 30, 31 show signs of having been the original end of this Gospel, and ch. xxi be a later supplement by the Apostle’s own hand, which I think with Dean Alford is evidently the case, why should not St. John have inserted in this second edition both the amplification in ch. v. 3, 4, and this most edifying and eminently Christian narrative? The appended chapter (xxi) would thus be added at once to all copies of the Gospels then in circulation, though a portion of them might well overlook the minuter change in ch. v. 3, 4, or, from obvious though mistaken motives, might hesitate to receive for general use or public reading the history of the woman taken in adultery.

It must be in this way, if at all, that we can assign to the Evangelist chh. vii. 53-viii. 11; on all intelligent principles of mere criticism the passage must needs be abandoned: and such is the conclusion arrived at by all the critical editors. It is entirely omitted (ch. viii. 12 following continuously to ch. vii. 52) in the uncial Codd. אA(400)BCT (all very old authorities) LX(401)Δ, but LΔ leave a void space (like B’s in Mark xvi. 9-20) too small to contain the verses (though any space would suffice to intimate the consciousness of some omission), before which Δ* began to write ch. viii. 12 after ch. vii. 52.

Add to these, as omitting the paragraph, the cursives 3, 12, 21, 22, 33, 36, 44, 49, 63 (_teste_ Abbott), 72, 87, 95, 96, 97, 106, 108, 123, 131, 134, 139, 143, 149, 157, 168, 169, 181, 186, 194, 195, 210, 213, 228, 249, 250, 253, 255, 261, 269, 314, 331, 388, 392, 401, 416, 453, 473 (with an explanatory note), 486, 510, 550, 559, 561, 582 (in ver. 12 πάλαι for πάλιν): it is absent in the first, added by a second hand in 9, 15, 105, 179, 232, 284, 353, 509, 625: while ch. viii. 3-11 is wanting in 77, 242, 324 (sixty-two cursive copies). The passage is noted by an asterisk or obelus or other mark in Codd. MS, 4, 8, 14, 18, 24, 34 (with an explanatory note), 35, 83, 109, 125, 141, 148 (_secundâ manu_), 156, 161, 166, 167, 178, 179, 189, 196, 198, 201, 202, 219, 226, 230, 231 (_secundâ manu_), 241, 246, 271, 274, 277, 284?, 285, 338, 348, 360, 361, 363, 376, 391 (_secundâ manu_), 394, 407, 408, 413 (a row of commas), 422, 436, 518 (_secundâ manu_), 534, 542, 549, 568, 575, 600. There are thus noted vers. 2-11 in E, 606: vers. 3-11 in Π (_hiat_ ver. 6), 128, 137, 147: vers. 4-11 in 212 (with unique rubrical directions) and 355: with explanatory scholia appended in 164, 215, 262(402) (sixty-one cursives). Speaking generally, copies which contain a commentary omit the paragraph, but Codd. 59-66, 503, 526, 536 are exceptions to this practice. Scholz, who has taken unusual pains in the examination of this question, enumerates 290 cursives, others since his time forty-one more, which contain the paragraph with no trace of suspicion, as do the uncials DF (_partly defective_) GHKUΓ (with a hiatus after στήσαντες αὐτήν ver. 3): to which add Cod. 736 (_see addenda_) and the recovered Cod. 64, for which Mill on ver. 2 cited Cod. 63 in error. Cod. 145 has it only _secundâ manu_, with a note that from ch. viii. 3 τοῦτο τὸ κεφάλαιον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται. The obelized Cod. 422 at the same place has in the margin by a more recent hand ἐν τήσιν ἀντιγράφης οὕτως. Codd. 1, 19, 20, 129, 135, 207(403), 215, 301, 347, 478, 604, 629, Evst. 86 contain the whole _pericope_ at the end of the Gospel. Of these, Cod. 1 in a scholium pleads its absence ὡς ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν ἀντιγράφοις, and from the commentaries of Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodore of Mopsuestia; while 135, 301 confess they found it ἐν ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις: Codd. 20, 215, 559 are obelized at the end of the section, and have a scholium which runs in the text τὰ ὠβελισμένα, κείμενα δὲ εἰς τὸ τέλος, ἐκ τῶνδε ὧδε τὴν ἀκολουθίαν ἔχει, and on the back of the last leaf of both copies τὸ ὑπέρβατον τὸ ὄπισθεν ζητούμενον. In Codd. 37, 102, 105, ch. viii. 3-11 alone is put at the end of the Gospel, which is all that 259 supplies, though its omission in the text begins at ch. vii. 53. Cod. 237, on the contrary, omits only from ch. viii. 3, but at the end inserts the whole passage from ch. vii. 53: in Cod. 478, ch. vii. 53-viii. 2 stands _primâ manu_ with an asterisk, the rest later. Cod. 225 sets chh. vii. 53-viii. 11 after ch. vii. 36; in Cod. 115, ch. viii. 12 is inserted between ch. vii. 52 and 53, and repeated again in its proper place. Finally, Codd. 13, 69, 124, 346 (being Abbott’s group), and 556 give the whole passage at the end of Luke xxi, the order being apparently suggested from comparing Luke xxi. 37 with John viii. 1; and ὤρθριζε Luke xxi. 38 with ὄρθρου John viii. 2(404). In the Lectionaries, as we have had occasion to state before (Vol. I. p. 81, note), this section was never read as a part of the lesson for Pentecost (John vii. 37-viii. 12), but was reserved for the festivals of such saints as Theodora Sept. 18, or Pelagia Oct. 8 (_see_ Vol. I. p. 87, notes 2 and 3), as also in Codd. 547, 604, and in many Service-books, whose Menology was not very full (e.g. 150, 189, 257, 259), it would thus be omitted altogether. Accordingly, in that remarkable Lectionary, the Jerusalem Syriac, the lesson for Pentecost ends at ch. viii. 2, the other verses (3-11) being assigned to St. Euphemia’s day (Sept. 16).

Of the other versions, the paragraph is entirely omitted in the true Peshitto (being however inserted in printed books with the circumstances before stated under that version), in Cureton’s Syriac, and in the Harkleian; though it appears in the Codex Barsalibaei, from which White appended it to the end of St. John: a Syriac note in this copy states that it does not belong to the Philoxenian, but was translated in A.D. 622 by Maras, Bishop of Amida. Maras, however, lived about A.D. 520, and a fragment of a very different version of the section, bearing his name, is cited by Assemani (Biblioth. Orient, ii. 53) from the _writings_ of Barsalibi himself (Cod. Clem.-Vat. Syr. 16). Ridley’s text bears much resemblance to that of de Dieu, as does a fourth version of ch. vii. 53-viii. 11 found by Adler (N. T. Version. Syr., p. 57) in a Paris codex, with the marginal annotation that this “σύνταξις” is not in all the copies, but was interpreted into Syriac by the Abbot Mar Paulus. Of the other versions it is not found in the Sahidic, or in some of Wilkins’ and all Schwartze’s Bohairic copies(405), in the Gothic, Zohrab’s Armenian from six ancient codices (but five very recent ones and Uscan’s edition contain it), or in _a_ _f_ _l_ (text) _q_ of the Old Latin. In _b_ the whole text from ch. vii. 44 to viii. 12 has been wilfully erased, but the passage is found in _c_ _e_ (we have given them at large, pp. 362-3), _ff_2 _g_ _j_ _l_ (margin), the Vulgate (even _am. fuld. for. san._), Ethiopic, Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Persic (but in a Vatican codex placed in ch. x), and Arabic.

Of the Fathers, Euthymius [xii], the first among the Greeks to mention the paragraph in its proper place, declares that παρὰ τοῖς ἀκριβέσιν ἀντιγράφοις ἢ οὐχ εὕρηται ἢ ὠβέλισται; διὸ φαίνονται παρέγγραπτα καὶ προσθήκη. The Apostolic Constitutions [iii or iv] had plainly alluded to it, and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. _fin._) had described from Papias, and as contained in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the story of a woman ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις διαβληθείσης ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου, but did not at all regard it as Scripture. Codd. KM too are the earliest which raise the number of τίτλοι or larger κεφάλαια in St. John from 18 to 19, by interpolating κεφ. ι´ περὶ τῆς μοιχαλίδος, which soon found admittance into the mass of copies: e.g. Evan. 482.

Among the Latins, as being in their old version, the narrative was more generally received for St. John’s. Jerome testifies that it was found in his time “in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus;” Ambrose cites it, and Augustine (de adult. conjugiis, lib. ii. c. 7) complains that “nonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius inimici verae fidei,” removed it from their codices, “_credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis_(406).”

When to all these sources of doubt, and to so many hostile authorities, is added the fact that in no portion of the N. T. do the variations of manuscripts (of D beyond all the rest) and of other documents bear any sort of proportion, whether in number or extent, to those in these twelve verses (of which statement full evidence may be seen in any collection of various readings)(407), we cannot help admitting that if this section be indeed the composition of St. John, it has been transmitted to us under circumstances widely different from those connected with any other genuine passage of Scripture whatever(408).

Second Series. Acts.

23. Acts viii. 37. Εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος, Εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας, ἔξεστιν. Ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε, Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν(409). We cannot safely question the spuriousness of this verse, which all the critical editors condemn, and which seems to have been received from the margin, where the formula Πιστεύω κ.τ.λ. had been placed, extracted from some Church Ordinal: yet this is just the portion cited by Irenaeus, both in Greek(410) and Latin; so early had the words found a place in the sacred text. It is contained in no manuscripts except E (D, which might perhaps be expected to favour it, being here defective), 4 (_secundâ manu_), 13, 15, 18?, 27, 29, 36, 60, 69, 97, 100, 105, 106, 107, 163, 227, Apost. 5, 13 once; and in the margin, 14, 25 &c., in Cod. 186 alone out of Scrivener’s thirteen: manuscripts of good character, but quite inadequate to prove the authenticity of the verse, even though they did not differ considerably in the actual readings they exhibit, which is always in itself a ground of reasonable suspicion (_see_ pp. 361, 368, 374)(411). Here again, as in Matt. xxvii. 35, Gutbier and Schaaf interpolated in their Peshitto texts the passage as translated into Syriac and placed within brackets by Elias Hutter: the Harkleian also exhibits it, but marked with an asterisk. It is found in the Old Latin _g_ and _m_ although in an abridged form, in the Vulgate (both printed and _demid. tol._, but not in _am._ _primâ manu_, _fuld._ &c.), and in the satellites of the Vulgate, the Armenian, Polyglott Arabic, and Slavonic. Bede, however, who used Cod. E, knew _Latin_ copies in which the verse was wanting: yet it was known to Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Pacian, &c. among the Latins, to Œcumenius and Theophylact (twice quoted) among the Greeks. Erasmus seems to have inserted the verse by a comparison of the later hand of Cod. 4 with the Vulgate(412); it is not in the Complutensian edition. This passage affords us a curious instance of an _addition_ well received in the Western Church from the second century downwards (_see_ p. 164), and afterwards making some way among the later Greek codices and writers.

24. ACTS xi. 20. We are here in a manner forced by the sense to adopt, with Griesbach, Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, the reading Ἕλληνας in the room of Ἑλληνιστάς of the Received text, retained by Westcott and Hort(413). Immediately after the call of the Gentiles to the privileges of the Gospel was acknowledged and acquiesced in at Jerusalem (ver. 18), we read that some of those who had been scattered abroad years ago went about preaching the word to Jews only (ver. 19). In this there was nothing new: there had been Ἑλληνισταί “Greek-speaking Jews” among the brethren long since (ch. vi. 1), and to say that they were again preached to was not at all strange: the marvel is contained in ver. 20. “But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they came to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also” (καὶ πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας: καί intimating the additional information), and that with such success in converting these heathen Greeks, that Gentile Christians first obtained at Antioch the name, no longer of Nazarenes (ch. xxiv. 5), but of Christians (ver. 26). The meaning being thus evident, we look to the authorities which uphold it, and these are few, confessedly insufficient if the sense left us any choice, but recommended to us, as the matter stands, by their intrinsic excellence: they are AD* (the latter without καί, which is, however, otherwise abundantly attested to) Cod. 184, one of the best of the cursives, but not its kindred 221, the Peshitto Syriac, the Armenian, perhaps the Ethiopic. The Vulgate, Bohairic, Sahidic, and Harkleian Syriac draw no distinction between Ἕλληνες and Ἑλληνισταί: the Peshitto unquestionably does, since it renders “Greek disciples” in ch. vi. 1, “those Jews who knew Greek” (an excellent definition) in ch. ix. 29, but “Greeks” here. Eusebius clearly reads Ἕλληνας, as does Chrysostom in his exposition (not in his text), all the more surely because he is perplexed how to expound it: his words are echoed by Œcumenius and in both commentaries of Theophylact, only that they substitute Ἑλληνιστάς for Ἕλληνας in repeating his words διὰ τὸ μὴ εἰδέναι ἑβραïστί, Ἕλληνας ἐκάλουν: they both have Ἑλληνιστάς in the text. Thus for once B is associated with E, with a later hand of D (of the seventh or eighth century), with the later uncials HLP and all cursives except one, in maintaining a variation demonstrably false. C is defective here, and the first hand of א, which presents us with the wonderful εὐαγγελιστάς, makes so far in favour of B; but אc corrects that error into Ἕλληνας.

25. ACTS xiii. 18. We have here as nice a balance between conflicting readings (differing only by a single letter) as we find anywhere in the N. T. The case is stated in the margin to our Authorized version of the Bible, more minutely than is its wont, though modern printers have unwarrantably left out the reference to 2 Macc. vii. 27 in copies not containing the Apocrypha(414). For ἐτροποφόρησεν “suffered he their manners” of Tregelles, of Westcott and Hort, are cited אB, the very ancient second hand of C, D (in the Greek), HLP, 61 with almost all other cursives and the catenas: for the alternative ἐτροφοφόρησεν “fed them like a nurse” of Lachmann and Tischendorf (Tregelles placing it in his margin) we find ACE, 13, 24* (not 24** with Tischendorf), 68, 78* (margin), 93, 100, 105, 142, _d_ against its own Greek and the Vulgate jointly. Versions are in such a case of special weight, but unfortunately they too are somewhat divided. For π we find the Vulgate and a Greek note set in the Harkleian margin, for φ the Peshitto and Harkleian Syriac, both Egyptian, the Armenian, and both Ethiopic, with Erpenius’ Arabic: the Arabic of the Polyglott gives both renderings. Thus the majority of the versions incline one way, the oldest and most numerous manuscripts the other. It is useless to cite Greek writers, except they show from the context which word they favour. The form with φ was doubtless read in the Apostolic Constitutions, and twice in Cyril of Alexandria, and that word is supported as well by 2 Macc. vii. 27, as by the other text cited in the margin of the Authorized English Bible, Deut. i. 31, to which the Apostle’s reference is so manifest, that we cannot but regard it as nearly decisive which expression he used. Although in Deuteronomy also Greek copies vary a little between π and φ, yet both A and B(415) read the latter, indeed the Hebrew נשא, _pace Hortii_, would admit of nothing else. For π Origen is express, both in his Greek commentary (not his text) and Latin version, but then he seems to employ it even in Deut. i. 31, where it cannot be correct. Chrysostom and Theophylact give no certain sound. Wetstein seasonably illustrates ἐτροπ. from Rom. ix. 22. Internal evidence certainly points to ἐτροφοφόρησεν, which on the whole may be deemed preferable. The Apostle is anxious to please his Jewish hearers by enumerating the mercies their nation had received from the Divine favour. God had chosen them, exalted them in Egypt, brought them out with a high hand, fed them in the wilderness, and given them the land of Promise. It would hardly have suited his purpose to have interposed, by way of parenthesis, in the midst of his detail of benefits received, the unwelcome suggestion of their obstinate ingratitude and of God’s long forbearance.