Chapter XXVII: Appendix: B. Additional Bohairic Manuscripts in Egypt (1893) (4)

296 “So extravagant a statement could scarcely be deemed worthy of the
elaborate confutation with which Dr. Scrivener has condescended to
honour it” (_Saturday Review_, Aug. 20, 1881). Yet this scheme of
“Comparative Criticism made easy” has obtained, for its childlike
simplicity, more acceptance than the reviewer could reasonably
suppose. Dr. Hort, of course, speaks very differently: “B must be
regarded as having preserved not only a very ancient text, but a
very pure line of very ancient text, and that with comparatively
small depravation either by scattered ancient corruptions otherwise
attested or by individualisms of the scribe himself. On the other
hand, to take it as the sole authority except where it contains
self-betraying errors, as some have done, is an unwarrantable
abandonment of criticism, and in our opinion inevitably leads to
erroneous results” (Introd. p. 250).

297 The textual labours of the Cambridge duumvirate have received all
the fuller consideration in the learned world by reason of their
authors having been members of the New Testament Revision Company,
in whose deliberations they had a real influence, though, as a
comparison of their text with that adopted by the Revisionists might
easily have shown, by no means a preponderating one. I have
carefully studied the chief criticisms which have been published on
the controversy, without materially adding to the acquaintance with
the subject which nearly eleven years of familiar conference with my
colleagues had necessarily brought to me. The formidable onslaught
on Dr. Hort’s and Bishop Westcott’s principles in three articles in
the _Quarterly Review_ [afterwards published together with additions
in “The Revision Revised”] especially in the number for April, 1882,
and Canon F. C. Cook’s “Revised Version of the First Three Gospels”
(1882), must be known to most scholars, and abound with materials
from which a final judgement may be formed. “The Ely Lectures on the
Revised Version of the N. T.” (1882), which my friend and benefactor
Canon Kennedy was pleased to inscribe to myself, are none the less
valuable for their attempt to hold the balance even between opposite
views of the questions at issue. The host of pamphlets and articles
in periodicals which the occasion has called forth could hardly be
enumerated in detail, but some of them have been used with due
acknowledgement in Chap. XII.

298 We are concerned not with names but with things, so that Dr. Hort
may give his _ignis fatuus_ what appellation he likes, only why he
calls it Syrian it is hard to determine. The notices connecting his
imaginary revision with Lucian of Antioch which we have given above
he feels to be insufficient, for he says no more than that “the
conjecture derives some little support from a passage of Jerome,
which is not itself discredited by the precariousness of the modern
theories which have been suggested by it” (Hort, p. 138).

_ 299 See_ Burgon’s “The Revision Revised,” pp. 271-288.

300 Other examples may be seen in our notes in Chap. XII on Luke ii. 14
for Methodius; Luke xxii. 43, 44 for Hippolytus again; Luke xxiii.
34 for Irenaeus and Origen. Add Luke x. 1 for Irenaeus (p. 546, note
1); xxiii. 45 (Hippolytus); John xiii. 24 (Clem. Alex.); 2 Cor. xii.
7 (Iren. Orig.); Mark xvi. 17, 18 (Hippol.). _See_ also Miller’s
“Textual Guide,” pp. 84, 85, where 165 passages on fifteen texts are
gathered from writers before St. Chrysostom.

301 For reasons which will be readily understood, we have quoted
sparingly from the trenchant article in the _Quarterly Review_,
April, 1882, but the following summary of the consequences of a too
exclusive devotion to Codd. אB seems no unfit comment on the facts
of the case: “Thus it would appear that the Truth of Scripture has
run a very narrow risk of being lost for ever to mankind. Dr. Hort
contends that it more than half lay _perdu_ on a forgotten shelf in
the Vatican Library;—Dr. Tischendorf that it had found its way into
a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine at the foot of
Mount Sinai—from which he rescued it on February 4, 1859:—neither,
we venture to think, a very likely supposition. We incline to
believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by any means shown
Himself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these learned
persons imagine” (p. 365). The Revision Revised, p. 343.

_ 302 See_ Appendix of passages at the end of this chapter. Yet while
refusing without hesitation the claim of the _monstra_ which follow
to be regarded as a part of the sacred text, we are by no means
insensible to the fact impressed upon us by the Dean of Llandaff,
that there are readings which conciliate favour the more we think
over them: it being the special privilege of Truth always to grow
upon candid minds. We subjoin his persuasive words: “It is deeply
interesting to take note of the process of thought and feeling which
attends in one’s own mind the presentation of some unfamiliar
reading. At first sight the suggestion is repelled as
unintelligible, startling, almost shocking. By degrees, light dawns
upon it—it finds its plea and its palliation. At last, in many
instances, it is accepted as adding force and beauty to the context,
and a conviction gradually forms itself that thus and not otherwise
was it written.” (Vaughan, Epistle to Romans, Preface to the third
edition, p. xxi.)

303 Thus far we are in agreement with the “Two Members of the N. T.
Company,” however widely we may differ from their general views:
“The great contribution of our own times to a mastery over materials
has been the clearer statement of the method of genealogy, and, by
means of it, the corrected distribution of the great mass of
documentary evidence” (p. 19). Only that arbitrary theories ought to
be kept as far as possible out of sight.

304 So that we may be sure what we should have found in Cod. D, and with
high probability in Cod. E, were they not defective, when in Acts
xxvii. 5 we observe δι᾽ ἡμερῶν δεκάπεντε inserted after
διαπλεύσαντες in 137, 184, and the Harkleian margin with an
asterisk; as also when we note in Acts xxviii. 16 ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς
before σύν in the last two and in _demid._

305 E.g. Luke xxiv. 3 τοῦ κυρίου ἰησοῦ omitted by D, _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_2
_l_; ver. 6 οὐκ ἔστιν ὦδε ἀλλὰ ἠγέρθη (comp. Mark xvi. 6), omitted
by the same; ver. 9 ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου by the same, by _c_ and the
Armenian; the whole of ver. 12, by the same (except _ff_2) with
_fuld._, but surely not by the Jerusalem Syriac, even according to
Tischendorf’s showing, or by Eusebius’ canon, for he knew the verse
well (comp. John xx. 5); ver. 36 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, εἰρήνη ὑμῖν
omitted by D, _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_2 _l_ as before (comp. John xx. 19,
26); the whole of ver. 40, omitted by the same and by Cureton’s
Syriac (comp. John xx. 20); ver. 51 καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν
and ver. 52 προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν omitted by the same and by
Augustine, the important clause in ver. 51 by א* also, and
consequently by Tischendorf. Yet, as if to show how mixed the
evidence is, D deserts _a_ _b_ _ff_2 _l_ when, in company with a
host of authorities, both manuscripts and versions (_f_ _q_,
Vulgate, Bohairic, Syriac, and others), they annex καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου
κηρίου to the end of ver. 42. _See_ also Luke x. 41, 42; xxii. 19,
20, discussed in Chap. XII.

306 So of certain of the chief versions we sometimes hear it said that
they are less important in the rest of the N. T. than in the
Gospels; which means that in the former they side less with אB.

307 Canon Kennedy, whose “Ely Lectures” exhibit, to say the least, no
prejudice against the principles enunciated in Dr. Hort’s
Introduction, is good enough to commend the four rules here set
forth to the attention of his readers (p. 159, note). The first
three were stated in my first edition (1861), the fourth added in
the second edition (1874), and, while they will not satisfy the
advocates of extreme views on either side, suffice to intimate the
terms on which the respective claims of the uncial and cursive
manuscripts, of the earlier and the more recent authorities, may, in
my deliberate judgement, be equitably adjusted.

308 Dean Burgon held that too much deference is here paid to the mere
antiquity of those which happen to be the oldest MSS., but are not
the oldest authorities. He would therefore enlarge the grounds of
judgement.

309 The harmony subsisting between B and the Sahidic in characteristic
readings, for which they stand almost or quite alone, is well worth
notice: e.g. Acts xxvii. 37; Rom. xiii. 13; Col. iii. 6; Heb. iii.
2; 1 John ii. 14; 20.

310 “The intrinsic evidence seems immoveable against the insertion.”
Textual Criticism of the N. T., B. B. Warfield, D.D., p. 135.

311 Yet in Penn’s “Annotations to the Vatican Manuscripts” (1837) “The
restoration of this verse to its due place” is described as “the
most important circumstance of this [sc. his own] revision.” Its
omission is imputed to “the undue influence of a criticism of Origen
[ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀποθανόντος], whom Jerome followed.”

312 “This gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of
history—a reading as preposterous as it is revolting,” is the
vigorous protest of Dean Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 68, note.

313 “Post enim duodecim apostolos septuaginta alios Dominus noster ante
se misisse invenitur; septuaginta autem nec octonario numero neque
denario” (Irenaeus, p. 146, Massuet). Tertullian, just a little
later (re-echoed by the younger Cyril), compares the Apostles with
the twelve wells at Elim (Ex. xv. 27), the seventy with the
three-score and ten palm-trees there (Adv. Marc. iv. 24). So
Eusebius thrice, Basil and Ambrose. On the other hand in the
Recognitions of Clement, usually assigned to the second or third
century, the number adopted is seventy-two, “vel hoc modo recognitâ
imagine Moysis” and of his elders, traditionally set down at that
number. Compare Num. xi. 16. Epiphanius, Hilary (Scholz), and
Augustine are also with Cod. B.

314 To enable us to translate “a son, nay even an ox,” would require ἢ
καί, which none read. The argument, moreover, is one _a minori ad
majus_. Compare Ex. xxi. 33 with Ex. xxiii. 4; ch. xiii. 15.

315 Let me add _ex meo_ Codd. 22, 219, 492, 547, 549, 558, 559, 576,
582, 584, 594, 596, 597, 598, 601, being no doubt a large majority
of cursives. So Cod. 662, apparently after correction.

316 But not in the Beirût MS. discovered in 1877 by Dr. Is. H. Hall.

317 A more ludicrous blunder of Cod. B has been pointed out to me in the
Old Testament, Ps. xvii. 14 “they have children at their desire”:
ΕΧΟΡΤΑΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΫΙΩΝ Cod. A, but ΕΧΟΡΤΑΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΫΕΙΩΝ Cod. B. The London
papyrus has ΥΩΝ for ΥΙΩΝ.

318 Codex P is of far greater value than others of its own date. It is
frequently found in the company of B, sometimes alone, sometimes
with other chief authorities, especially in the Catholic Epistles,
e.g. James iv. 15; v. 4; 14; 2 Pet. i. 17 (partly); ii. 6; 1 John
ii. 20.

319 We note many small variations between the text of these critics as
communicated to the Revisers some years before, and that finally
published in 1881. The latter, of course, we have treated as their
standard.

320 This precious cursive forms one of a small class which in the
Catholic Epistles and sometimes in the Acts conspire with the best
uncials in upholding readings of the higher type: the other members
are 69, 137, 182, to which will sometimes be added the text or
margin of the Harkleian Syriac, Codd. 27, 29, the second hands of 57
and 66, 100, 180, 185, and particularly 221, which is of special
interest in these Epistles. The following passages, examined by
means of Tischendorf’s notes, will prove what is here alleged: 1
Pet. iii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 4; 21; ii. 6; 11; 1 John i. 5; 7; 8; ii. 19;
iii. 1; 19; 22; iv. 19; v. 5.

321 Notice especially those instances in the Catholic Epistles, wherein
the primary authorities are comparatively few, in which Cod. B
accords with the later copies against Codd. אA(C), and is also
supported by internal evidence: e.g. 1 Pet. iii. 18; iv. 14; v. 2; 2
Pet. ii. 20; 1 John ii. 10; iii. 23, &c. In 1 John iii. 21, where
the first ἡμῶν is omitted by A and others, the second by C almost
alone, B seems right in rejecting the word in both places. So in
other cases internal probabilities occasionally plead strongly in
favour of B, when it has little other support: as in Rom. viii. 24,
where τίς ἐλπίζει; as against τις, τί καὶ ἐλπίζει; though B and the
margin of Cod. 47 stand alone here, best accounts for the existence
of other variations (_see_ p. 248). In Eph. v. 22, B alone, with
Clement and Jerome, the latter very expressly, omits the verb in a
manner which can hardly fail to commend itself as representing the
true form of the passage. In Col. iii. 6, B, the Sahidic, the Roman
Ethiopic, Clement (twice), Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, and auct. de
singl. cler., are alone free from the clause interpolated from Eph.
v. 6.

322 Viz. Luke i. 1-4, some portion of the Gospel and most of the Acts:
excluding such cases as St. Stephen’s speech, Acts vii, and the
parts of his Gospel which resemble in style, and were derived from
the same sources as, those of SS. Matthew and Mark.

323 Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 141) confirms the foregoing statements,
which we have repeated unchanged from our former editions. “What
spellings are sufficiently probable to deserve inclusion among
alternative readings, is often difficult to determine. Although many
deviations from classical orthography are amply attested, many
others, which appear to be equally genuine, are found in one, two,
or three MSS. only, and that often with an irregularity which
suggests that all our MSS. have to a greater or less extent suffered
from the effacement of unclassical forms of words. It is no less
true on the other hand that a tendency in the opposite direction is
discernible in Western MSS.: the orthography of common life, which
to a certain extent was used by all the writers of the New
Testament, though in unequal degrees, would naturally be introduced
more freely in texts affected by an instinct of popular adaptation.”

324 E.g. Aeschylus, Persae, 411: κόρυμβ᾽, ἐπ᾽ ἄλλην δ᾽ ἄλλος ἴθυνεν
δόρυ, or Sophocles, Antigone, 219: τὸ μὴ πιχωρεῖν τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσιν
τάδε.

325 Cod. א, for instance, does not omit it above 208 times throughout
the N. T., out of which 134 occur with verbs (three so as to cause a
hiatus), 29 with nouns, 45 with adjectives (chiefly πᾶσι) or
participles (Scrivener, Collation, &c., p. liv). Its absence
produces the hiatus in B*C in 1 Pet. ii. 18 (ἐπιεικέσι), and not
seldom in B, e.g. 1 Pet. iv. 6, where we find κριθῶσι and ζῶσι,
which latter is countenanced by A, and both by אL.

326 Wake 12 (Evan. 492), of the eleventh century, may be taken for a
fair representative of its class and date. It retains ν with εἶπεν
thirty-three times in St. Matthew, thirteen in St. Mark, as often as
130 in St. Luke. With other words it mostly reserves ν to indicate
emphasis (e.g. Luke xxii. 14; xxiv. 30), or to stand before a break
in the sense.

327 The terminations which admit this moveable ν (including -ει of the
pluperfect) are enumerated by Donaldson (Gr. Gram. p. 53).
Tischendorf, however (N. T., Proleg. p. liv), demurs to εἴκοσιν,
even before a vowel.

328 With the remarkable exception of those six leaves of Cod. א which
Tischendorf assigns to the scribe who wrote Cod. B. In these leaves
of Cod. א Ἰωάνης occurs four times: Matt. xvi. 14; xvii. 1; 13; Luke
i. 13, in which last passage, however, B has the double _nu_.

329 These last might be supposed to have originated from the omission or
insertion of the faint line for ν over the preceding letter, which
(especially at the end of a line) we stated in Vol. I. p. 50 to be
found even in the oldest manuscripts. Sometimes the anomalous form
is much supported by junior as well as by ancient codices: e.g.
θυγατέραν, Luke xiii. 16 by KXΓ*Λ, 209, also by 69, and ten others
of Scrivener’s.

330 Thus Canon Selwyn cites from Lycophron κἀπὸ γῆς ἐσχάζοσαν, and Dr.
Moulton (Winer, p. 91, note 5), after Mullach, ἔσχοσαν from Scymnus
Chius.

331 Tregelles presses yet another argument: “If Alexandrian forms had
been introduced into the N. T. by Egyptian copyists, how comes it
that the classical MSS. written in that country are free from them?”
(An Account of the Printed Text, p. 178). But what classical MSS.
does he know of, written while Egypt was yet Greek or Christian, and
now extant for our inspection? I can only think of Cureton’s Homer
and Babington’s papyri.

332 “It is hard to make St. Paul responsible for vulgarisms or
provincialisms, which certainly his pen never wrote, and which there
can be no proof that his lips ever uttered” (Epistle to the Romans,
Preface to the third edition, p. xxi) is Dean Vaughan’s comment on
this “barbarism.” He regards the Apostle’s habit of dictating his
letters as a “sufficient reason for broken constructions, for
participles without verbs, for suspended nominatives, for sudden
digressions, for fresh starts.”

333 Dr. Hort, however, accepts the form ἐφ᾽ in this place, aspirating
ἐλπίδι, and in the same way favours but does not print οὐχ ὁλίγος
eight times in the Acts, adding that although ὁλίγος “has no lost
digamma to justify it, like some others, it may nevertheless have
been in use in the apostolic age: it occurs in good MSS. of the LXX”
(Introd., Notes, p. 143).

334 “A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek regarded as the
basis of N. T. Exegesis. By Dr. G. B. Winer. Translated from the
German with large additions and full indices by Rev. W. F. Moulton,
M. A., D. D.,” third edition revised, 8vo, Edinburgh, 1882. The
forthcoming “Prolegomena” to Tischendorf’s N. T. eighth edition (pp.
71-126), to which the kindness of Dr. Caspar René Gregory has given
me access, contain a store of fresh materials on this subject; and
Dr. Hort’s “Notes on Orthography” (Introd., Notes, pp. 143-173) will
afford invaluable aid to the student who is ever so little able to
accept some of his conclusions. See also on the more general subject
Dr. Neubauer’s Article in the first issue of the Oxford “Studia
Biblica” on “The Dialects of Palestine in the Time of Christ.” He
controverts Dr. Roberts’ opinion that “Christ spoke for the most
part in Greek, and only now and then in Aramaic.” And he
distinguishes between the Babylonian Aramaic, the Galilean Aramaic,
and the dialect spoken at Jerusalem, which had more of Hebrew.

335 In Acts ix. 34 Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, the article between them being
rejected, is read by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and
Hort, on the adequate authority of אB*C, 13, 15, 18, 68, 111, 180,
and a catena (probably also Cod. 36), with one or two Fathers,
although against AEP, 31, 61, &c.

336 I know not why Tischendorf cites Cod. 71 (gscr) for the omission of
Ἰησοῦ. I have again consulted the MS. at Lambeth, and find _ἰῦ_ in
this place.

_ 337 See_ above, I. 130. The precise relation of the Latin Version of
Cod. D to the parallel Greek text is fully examined in Scrivener’s
“Codex Bezae,” Introduction, chap. iii.

338 Mr. E. B. Nicholson, Bodley’s Librarian, doubts the conclusiveness
of Irenaeus’ Latin here “because his copyist was in the habit of
altering him into accordance with the oldest Latin version; and
because his argument is just as strong if we read _Jesu Christi
autem_ as if we read _Christi_. The argument requires _Christi_, but
does not in the least require it as against _Jesu Christi_.”

339 “The clearly Western Τοῦ δὲ χριστοῦ,” as Dr. Hort admits, “is
intrinsically free from objection, ... yet it cannot be confidently
accepted. The attestation is unsatisfactory, for no other Western
omission of a solitary word in the Gospels has any high probability”
(N. T., Notes, p. 7). He retains ψευδόμενοι, Matt. v. 11.

340 Why should Gregory Nyssen (371) be classed among the opponents of
the clause, whereas Griesbach honestly states, “suam expositionem
his quidem verbis concludit: [ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ
τὴν ἰσχὺν κεκτημένου, οὗ ῥυσθείημεν] χάριτι [τοῦ] χριστοῦ, ὅτι αὐτοῦ
ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα ἅμα τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ
καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν”? Griesbach adds indeed, “sed
pro parte sacri textûs neutiquam haec habuisse videtur;” and justly:
they were rather a _loose paraphrase_ of the sentence before him.
_See_ Textual Guide, Edward Miller, App. V.

341 Canon Cook (Revised Version, p. 57) alleges as a probable cause of
the general omission of the doxology in early Latin Versions and
Fathers, that in all the Western liturgies it is separated from the
petitions preceding by an intercalated _Embolismus_. More weighty is
his observation that all the Greek Fathers, from Chrysostom onwards,
who deal with the interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer, “agree with
that great expositor in maintaining the important bearings [of the
doxology] upon the preceding petitions.”

342 “Quite a test-passage” Mr. Hammond calls it (Outlines of Text.
Crit., p. 76).

343 THIRD EDITION. I would fain side in this instance with my revered
friend and Revision colleague Dr. David Brown of Aberdeen, and all
my prepossessions are strongly in favour of the _textus receptus_
here. He is quite right in perceiving (Christian Opinion and
Revisionist, p. 435) that the key of his position lies in the
authenticity of ἀγαθέ ver. 16, which is undoubtedly found in Mark x.
17; Luke xviii. 18. If that word had abided unquestioned here, the
form of reply adopted in the other two Gospels would have inevitably
followed. As the case stands, there is not considerably less
evidence for omitting ἀγαθέ (אBDL, 1, 22, 479, Evst. 5 [_not_ “five
Evangelistaria”], _a_ _e_ _ff_1, Eth., Origen twice, Hilary) than
for Τί με ἐρωτᾷς κ.τ.λ., although Cureton’s and the Jerusalem
Syriac, the Bohairic, and the Vulgate with some other Latin copies,
change sides here. It is upon these recreant versions that Dr. Brown
must fix the charge of inconsistency. If ἀγαθέ be an interpolation,
surely τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω is pertinently answered by Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ
τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ.

344 Canon Westcott (Smith’s “Dictionary of the Bible,” Vulgate Version)
adds Bodl. 857; Brit. Mus. Reg. I B. vii, and Reg. I. A. xviii in
part, also Addit. 24,142 by the second hand. Tischendorf also cites
_theotisc_.

345 No passage more favours Bp. Middleton’s deliberate conclusion
respecting the history of the Codex Bezae: “I believe that no fraud
was intended: but only that the critical possessor of the basis
filled its margin with glosses and readings chiefly from the Latin,
being a Christian of the Western Church; and that the whole
collection of Latin passages was translated into Greek, and
substituted in the text by some one who had a high opinion of their
value, and who was, as Wetstein describes him, ‘καλλιγραφίας quàm
vel Graecae vel Latinae linguae peritior.’ ” (Doctrine of the Greek
Article, Appendix I. p. 485, 3rd edition.)

346 I see no reasonable ground for imagining with Lachmann that Origen
who, as he truly observes, “non solet difficilia praeterire,” did
not find in his copy anything between πατρός; and Ἀμήν in ver. 31.
On the supposition that he read πρῶτος there was no difficulty to
slur over. Moreover, there is not a vestige of evidence for omitting
λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ ἰησοῦς, the existence of which words Lachmann clearly
perceived to be fatal to his ingenious guess, although Dr. Hort will
only allow that it “weakens his suggestion,” adding in his quiet way
“This phrase might easily seem otiose if it followed immediately on
words of Christ, and might thus be thought to imply the intervention
of words spoken by others” (Notes, p. 17).

347 Jerome conceives that the Jews “intellegere quidem veritatem, sed
tergiversari, et nolle dicere quod sentiunt;” and so Canon G. F.
Goddard, Rector of Southfleet, believed that their wantonly false
answer brought on them the Lord’s stern rebuke. Hilary’s idea is
even more far-fetched: viz. that though the second son disobeyed, it
was because he _could_ not execute the command. “Non ait noluisse
sed non abisse. Res extra culpam infidelitatis est, quia in facti
erat difficultate ne fieret.”

348 His sole example is ὁδὸν ποιεῖν Mark ii. 23, which seems not at all
parallel. The phrase may as well signify to “clear away” as “make
their way.”

349 πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει is the reading of Abbott’s four and of Codd. 28, 122,
541, 561, 572, Evst. 196.

350 Which is certainly its meaning in Lucian, Tom. ii. p. 705 (Salmur.
1619); I know no example like that in St. Mark.

351 I have ventured but slowly to vouch for Tischendorf’s notion, that
six leaves of Cod. א, _that containing_ Mark xvi. 2-Luke i. 56
_being one of them_, were written by the scribe of Cod. B. On mere
identity of handwriting and the peculiar shape of certain letters
who shall insist? Yet there are parts of the case which I know not
how to answer, and which have persuaded even Dr. Hort. Having now
arrived at this conclusion our inference is simple and direct, that
at least in these leaves, Codd. אB make but one witness, not two.

352 The cases of Nehemiah, Tobit, and Daniel, in the Old Testament
portion of Cod. B, are obviously in no wise parallel in regard to
their blank columns.

353 Of which supplement Dr. Hort says unexpectedly enough, “In style it
is unlike the ordinary narratives of the Evangelists, but comparable
to the four introductory verses of St. Luke’s Gospel” (Introduction,
p. 298).

354 We ought to add that some Armenian codices which contain the
paragraph have the subscription “Gospel after Mark” at the end of
ver. 8 as well as of ver. 20, as though their scribes, like Cod.
L’s, knew of a double ending to the Gospel.

355 Burgon (_Guardian_, July 12, 1882) speaks of seven manuscripts
(Codd. 538, 539 being among them) wherein these last twelve verses
begin on the right hand of the page. This would be more significant
if a space were left, as is not stated, at the foot of the preceding
page. In Cod. 550 the first letter α is small, but covers an
abnormally large space.

356 Of course no notice is to be taken of τέλος after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, as
the end of the ecclesiastical lesson is all that is intimated. The
grievous misstatements of preceding critics from Wetstein and Scholz
down to Tischendorf, have been corrected throughout by means of
Burgon’s laborious researches (Burgon, pp. 114-123).

357 The minute variations between these several codices are given by
Burgon (Appendix E, pp. 288-90). Cod. 255 contains a scholion
imputed to Eusebius, from which Griesbach had drawn inferences which
Burgon (Last Twelve Verses, &c., Postscript, pp. 319-23) has shown
to be unwarranted by the circumstances of the case.

358 Dr. C. Taylor, Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge, in _The
Expositor_ for July, 1893, quotes more evidence from Justin
Martyr—hinting that some also remains behind—proving that that
Father was familiar with these verses. Also he cites several
passages from the Epistle of Barnabas in which traces of them occur,
and from the Quartodeciman controversy, and from Clement of Rome.
The value of the evidence which Dr. Taylor’s acute vision has
discovered consists chiefly in its cumulative force. From
familiarity with the passage numerous traces of it arose; or as Dr.
Taylor takes the case reversely, from the fact of the occurrence of
numerous traces evident to a close observer, it is manifest that
there pre-existed in the minds of the writers a familiarity with the
language of the verses in question.

359 It is surprising that Dr. Hort, who lays very undue stress upon the
silence of certain early Christian writers that had no occasion for
quoting the twelve verses in their extant works, should say of Cyril
of Jerusalem, who lived about A.D. 349, that his “negative evidence
is peculiarly cogent” (Notes, p. 37). To our mind it is not at all
negative. Preaching on a Sunday, he reminds his hearers of a sermon
he had delivered the day before, and which he would have them keep
in their thoughts. One of the topics he briefly recalls is the
article of the Creed τὸν καθίσαντα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρός. He must
inevitably have used Mark xvi. 19 in his Saturday’s discourse.

360 Several of these references are derived from “The Revision Revised,”
p. 423.

361 Nor were these verses used in the Greek Church only. Vers. 9-20
comprised the Gospel for Easter Monday in the old Spanish or
Mozarabic Liturgy, for Easter Tuesday among the Syrian Jacobites,
for Ascension Day among the Armenians. Vers. 12-20 was the Gospel
for Ascension Day in the Coptic Liturgy (Malan, Original Documents,
iv. p. 63): vers. 16-20 in the old Latin _Comes_.

362 To get rid of one apparent ἀντιφωνία, that arising from the
expression πρωῒ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου (_sic_), ver. 9, compared with
ὀψὲ σαββάτων Matt. xxviii. 1, Eusebius proposes the plan of setting
a stop between Ἀναστὰς δέ and πρωΐ, so little was he satisfied with
rudely expunging the whole clause. Hence Cod. E puts a red cross
after δέ: Codd. 20, 22, 34, 72, 193, 196, 199, 271, 345, 405, 411,
456, have a colon: Codd. 332, 339, 340, 439, a comma (Burgon,
_Guardian_, Aug. 20, 1873).

363 The following peculiarities have been noticed in these verses:
ἐκεῖνος used absolutely, vers. 10, 11, 13; πορεύομαι vers. 10, 12,
15; τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις ver. 10; θεάομαι vers. 11, 14;
ἀπιστέω vers. 11, 16; μετὰ ταῦτα ver. 12; ἕτερος ver. 12;
παρακολουθέω ver. 17; ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ver. 17; κύριος for the Saviour,
vers. 19, 20; πανταχοῦ, συνεργοῦντος, βεβαιόω, ἐπακολουθέω ver. 20,
all of them as not found elsewhere in St. Mark. A very able and
really conclusive plea for the genuineness of the paragraph, as
coming from that Evangelist’s pen, appeared in the _Baptist
Quarterly_, Philadelphia, July, 1869, bearing the signature of
Professor J. A. Broadus, of South Carolina. Unfortunately, from the
nature of the case, it does not admit of abridgement. Burgon’s ninth
chapter (pp. 136-190) enters into full details, and amply justifies
his conclusion that the supposed adverse argument from phraseology
“breaks down hopelessly under severe analysis.”

364 “Can any one, who knows the character of the Lord and of His
ministry, conceive for an instant that we should be left with
nothing but a message baulked through the alarm of women” (Kelly,
Lectures Introductory to the Gospels, p. 258). Even Dr. Hort can
say: “it is incredible that the Evangelist deliberately concluded
either a paragraph with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, or the Gospel with a petty
detail of a secondary event, leaving his narrative hanging in the
air” (Notes, p. 46).

365 When Burgon ventures upon a surmise, one which is probability itself
by the side of those we have been speaking of, Professor Abbot (_ubi
supra_, p. 197) remarks upon it that “With Mr. Burgon a conjecture
seems to be a demonstration.” We will not be deterred by dread of
any such reproach from mentioning his method of accounting for the
absence of these verses from some very early copies, commending it
to the reader for what it may seem worth. After a learned and
exhaustive proof that the Church lessons, as we now have them,
existed from very early times (Twelve Verses, pp. 191-211), and
noting that an important lesson ended with Mark xvi. 8 (_see_
Calendar of Lessons); he supposes that τέλος, which would stand at
the end of such a lesson, misled some scribe who had before him an
_exemplar_ of the Gospels whose last leaf (containing Mark xvi.
9-20, or according to Codd. 20, 215, 300 only vers. 16-20) was lost,
as it might easily be in those older manuscripts wherein St. Mark
stood last.

366 The Codex lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis is said to omit the
verses. But what is that against a host of other codices? And when
the other MS. of the Curetonian includes the verses? Positive
testimony is worth more than negative.

367 Dr. Hort, however, while he admits the possibility of the leaf
containing vers. 9-20 having been lost in some very early copy,
which thus would become the parent of transcripts having a mutilated
text (Notes, p. 49), rather inconsistently arrives at the conclusion
that the passage in question “manifestly cannot claim any apostolic
authority; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the
apostolic age” (_ibid._ p. 51).

368 Dr. Hort will hardly find many friends for his division (Notes, p.
56),

Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς,
Εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.

369 I am loth to sully with a semblance of unseasonable levity a page
which is devoted to the vindication of the true form of the Angelic
Hymn, and must ask the student to refer for himself to the 470th
number of the _Spectator_, where what we will venture to call a
precisely parallel case exercises the delicate humour of Addison.
“So many ancient manuscripts,” he tells us, concur in this last
reading, “that I am very much in doubt whether it ought not to take
place. There are but two reasons which incline me to the reading as
I have published it: first, because the rhyme, and secondly, because
the sense, is preserved by it.”

370 This torrent of testimony includes ninety-two places, of which
“Tischendorf knew of only eleven, Tregelles adduces only six” (R.
R., p. 45, note).

371 Every word uttered by such a scholar as Dr. Field (d. 1885) is so
valuable that no apology can be needed for citing the following
critique from his charming “Otium Norvicense,” Part iii. p. 36, on
the reading εὐδοκίας and the rendering “among men in whom he is well
pleased.” “To which it may be briefly objected (1) _that it ruins
the stichometry_; (2) that it separates ἐν from εὐδοκία, the word
with which it is normally construed; (3) that ‘men of good pleasure’
(אנשי רצון) would be, according to Graeco-biblical usage, not
ἄνθρωποι εὐδοκίας, but ἄνδρες εὐδοκίας; (4) that the turn of the
sentence, ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, very much resembles the second
clause of Prov. xiv. 9: ובין ישרים רצון rendered by Symmachus καὶ
ἀναμέσον εὐθέων εὐδοκία.” But this is almost slaying the slain.

372 Κυριακὴ δευτεροπρώτη is cited by Sophocles in his Lexicon from
“Eustr. 2381 B” in the sense of _low Sunday_ (McClellan, N. T., p.
690). Canon Cook conjectures that it may mean the first sabbath in
the second month (_Iyar_), precisely the time when wheat would be
fully ripe (Revised Version, p. 69). [More probably it is “the first
sabbath after the second day of the Passover.”] On the other hand,
“If the word be a reality and originally in the text, its meaning,
since in that case it must have been borrowed from something in the
Jewish calendar, would have been traditionally known from the
first.” (Green, Course of Developed Criticism, p. 56.) But why would
it? The fancy that δευτεροπρώτῳ had its origin in numerals of
reference (B A) set in the margin will most commend itself to such
scholars as are under the self-imposed necessity of upholding Codd.
אB united against all other evidence, of whatever kind.

373 Just as Jerome, speaking of the latter part of 1 Cor. vii. 35, says,
“In Lat. Codd. OB TRANSLATIONIS DIFFICULTATEM hoc penitus non
invenitur.” (Vallars. ii. 261, as Burgon points out.)

374 Dr. Hort and the _Quarterly Reviewer_ (October, 1881, p. 348) almost
simultaneously called attention to the question put by Jerome to his
teacher Gregory of Nazianzus as to the meaning of this word. “Docebo
te super hac re in ecclesia” was the only reply he obtained; on
which Jerome’s comment is, _Eleganter lusit_ (Hier. _ad Nepotianum_,
Ep. 52). Neither of these great Fathers could explain a term which
neither doubted to be written by the Evangelist.

375 Cyril applies the whole passage to enforce the duty of exercising
with frugality the Christian duty of entertaining strangers: “And
this He did for our benefit, that He might fix a limit to
hospitality” (Dean Payne Smith’s Translation, pp. 317-20).

376 Praelectio in Scholis Cantabrigiensibus habita Februarii die decimo
quarto, MDCCCL, quâ ... Lucae pericopam (xxii. 17-20) multis ante
saeculis conturbatam vetustissimorum ope codicum in pristinam formam
restituebat, Cathedram Theologicam ambiens, J. W. Blakesley, S. T.
B., Coll. SS. Trinitatis nuper Socius (Cambridge, 1850).

377 “Intrinsically both readings are difficult, but in unequal degrees.
The difficulty of the shorter reading [that of pure omission in
vers. 19, 20] consists exclusively in the change of order, as to the
Bread and the Cup, which is illustrated by many phenomena of the
relation between the narratives of the third and of the first two
Gospels, and which finds an exact parallel in the change of order in
St. Luke’s account of the Temptation” (iv. 5-8; 9-12). Hort, Notes,
p. 64.

378 Adler says “in omnibus codicibus,” and _guelph. heidelb._ Dawkins
iii and xvii in Jones, and cod. Rich are specified. Lee sets the
verses in a parenthesis. But the Curetonian has them after ver. 19
in words but little differing from his or Schaaf’s.

379 “Si fides habenda A. F. Gorio ‘in Conspectu Quattuor Codicum
Evangeliorum Syriacorum mirae aetatis’ apud Blanchini Evangelium
Quadruplex p. DXL, et hi quattuor Codices cum Veronensi [_b_]
faciunt.” Blakesley, _Schema_ facing _Praelectio_, p. 20.

380 Especially mark his mode of dealing with ἐκχυννόμενον ver. 20, which
by a little violence (not quite unprecedented) is made to refer to
ποτήριον instead of to αἵματι: “Ex Matthaeo vel Marco accessit
clausula ista τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον, fraude tamen ita piâ
accessit, ut potius grammaticis legibus vim facere, quam vel
literulam demutare maluerit interpolator. Ita fit ut vel hodie male
assutus pannus centonem prodat. Postulat enim sermonis ratio, ut
cuivis patet, τῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνομένω, non τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον,
quod tamen in Matthaeo Marcoque optime Graece dicebatur, cum
subjectum de quo praedicabatur non ἡ διαθήκη verum τὸ αἷμα esset”
(_Praelectio_, p. 22).

381 Very undue stress has been laid on Tischendorf’s statement, “Hos
versus A corrector uncis inclusit, partim etiam punctis notavit; C
vero puncta et uncos delevit,” and אa has sometimes been spoken of
as only a little less weighty than א itself. I had the satisfaction,
through Dean Burgon’s kindness, of showing some of our critics, Dr.
Hort included, a fine photograph of the whole page. The points are
nearly, if not quite, invisible, the unci are rude slight curves at
the beginning and end of the passage only, looking as likely to have
been scrawled fifty years since as fourteen hundred. Yet even now
Dr. Hort maintains that Tischendorf’s decision is probably right,
strangely adding, “but the point is of little consequence” (Notes,
p. 65).

382 Bp. Lightfoot’s Codd. 2, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 22, 26 omit them
altogether: they are in the margin of 1, 20. They stand in the text
of 3, 14, 21, and so in 18 _primâ manu_, but in smaller characters.

383 Yet Dr. Hort contends that “The testimony of A is not affected by
the presence of Eusebian numerals, of necessity misplaced, which
manifestly presuppose the inclusion of vv. 43, 44: the discrepance
merely shows that the Biblical text and the Eusebian notation were
taken by the scribe from different sources, as they doubtless were
throughout” (Notes, p. 65). It is just this readiness to devise
expedients to meet emergencies as they arise which is at once the
strength and the weakness of Dr. Hort’s position as a textual
critic. These sections and canons illustrate the criticism of the
text in some other places: e.g. Matt. xvi. 2, 3; xvii. 21; ch.
xxiii. 34; hardly in Luke xxiv. 12.

384 Ἰστέον ὅτι τὰ περὶ τῶν θρόμβων τινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐκ ἔχουσιν:
adding that the clause is cited by Dionysius the Areopagite,
Gennadius, Epiphanius, and other holy Fathers.

385 Thus in Evst. 253 we find John xiii. 3-17 inserted _uno tenore_
between Matt. xxvi. 20 and 21, as also Luke xxii. 43, 44 between
vers. 39 and 40, with no break whatever. So again in the same
manuscript with the mixed lessons for Good Friday.

386 “Upwards of forty famous personages from every part of ancient
Christendom recognize these verses as part of the Gospel; fourteen
of them being as old, some of them being a great deal older, than
our oldest manuscripts” (The Revision Revised, p. 81).

387 The reader will see that I have understood this passage, with
Grotius, as applying to an orthodox tampering with Luke xix. 41, not
with xxii. 43, 44. As the text of Epiphanius stands I cannot well do
otherwise, since Mill’s mode of punctuation (N. T., Proleg. § 797),
which wholly separates καὶ γενόμενος from the words immediately
preceding, cannot be endured, and leaves καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρότατον
unaccounted for. Yet I confess that there is no trace of any
meddling with ἔκλαυσε by any one, and I know not where Irenaeus
cites it.

388 Lightfoot’s Codd. 22, 26. The clause stands in the margin of 1, 20,
in the text of 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23.

389 Dean Burgon (Revision Revised, p. 83), who refers to upwards of
forty Fathers and more than 150 passages (_see_ also Miller’s
Textual Guide, App. II), burns with indignation as he sums up his
results: “And _what_ (we ask the question with sincere simplicity),
_what_ amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubted
confidence in any given reading, if not such a concurrence of
authorities as this? We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of
the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not
be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from
internal evidence. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it
meets with sufficient external testimony, or is clearly forsaken
thereby.”

390 “Gospel according to St. John from eleven versions,” 1872, p. 8. Dr.
Malan also translates in the same way the Peshitto “the only Son of
God” and its satellite the Persic of the Polyglott as “the only one
of God.” With much deference to a profound scholar, I do not see how
such a rendering is possible in the Peshitto: it is precisely that
which he gives in ch. iii. 18, where the Syriac inserts ܒܪܚ ܕ (or ܕ
ܚܪܒ). Bp. Lightfoot judges θεός the more likely rendering of the
Bohairic, though θεοῦ is possible.

391 We are not likely to adopt Tischendorf’s latest reading and
punctuation in Col. ii. 2, τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ.

392 Hence we cannot think with Prebendary Sadler (Lost Gospel, p. 48)
that μονογενὴς θεός is very probably the original reading, and must
even take leave to doubt its orthodoxy. The received reading ὁ
μονογενὴς υἱός is upheld by Dr. Ezra Abbot in papers contributed to
the American _Bibliotheca Sacra_, Oct. 1861, and to the _Unitarian
Review_, June, 1875; it is attacked with characteristic vigour and
fullness of research by Dr. Hort in the first of his “Two
Dissertations” (pp. 1-72) written in 1876 as exercises for
Theological degrees at Cambridge.

393 The Revision Revised, p. 133. Also Miller’s “Textual Guide,” App.
VI.

394 To give but a very small part of the variations in ver. 4: δέ (_pro_
γάρ) L, _a_ _b_ _c_ _ff_, Vulg. -γάρ Evst. 51, Boh. + κυρίου (_post_
γὰρ) AKLΔ, 12, 13, 69, 507, 509, 511, 512, 570 and fifteen others:
at τοῦ θεοῦ 152, Evst. 53, 54.—κατὰ καιρὸν _a b ff_ ἐλούετο (_pro_
κατέβαινεν) A (K), 42, 507. Ethiop.—ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ a b ff.
ἐταράσσετο τὸ ὕδωρ C3GHIMUVΛ*, 440, 509, 510, 512, 513, 515, 543,
570, 575, Evst. 150, 257, many others. + in piscinam (_post_ ἐμβάς)
_c_, Clementine Vulg. ἐγένετο FL, 69, at least fifteen others.

395 Either Dean Burgon or I have recently found the passage in Codd.
518, 524, 541, 560, 561, 573, 582, 594, 598, 599, 600, 602, 604,
622.

396 Of Lightfoot’s list of manuscripts, the passage is omitted in Codd.
2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26. It stands in the text
of 3, 9, 14, in the margin only of 1, 20.

397 “Both elements, the clause ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τῶν ὑδάτων (sic) κίνησιν,
and the scholium or explanatory note respecting the angel, are
unquestionably very ancient: but no good Greek document contains
both, while each of them separately is condemned by decisive
evidence” (Hort, Introd., p. 301).

398 Dean Burgon has left a long vindication of the whole passage amongst
his papers not yet published.

399 Add from Dr. Malan (_ubi supra_, p. 97), the Georgian, Slavonic
(text, not margin), Anglo-Saxon, and Persic. His Arabic (that of
Erpenius) agrees with the Peshitto Syriac. The Armenian version of
Ephraem’s Tatian also reads _non_.

400 Codd. AC are defective in this place, but by measuring the space we
have shown (p. 99, note 2) that A does not contain the twelve
verses, and the same method applies to C. The reckoning, as
McClellan remarks (N. T., p. 723), “does not preclude the
possibility of small gaps having existed in A and C to mark the
_place_ of the Section, as in L and Δ.”

401 Yet Burgon’s caution should be attended to. “It is to mislead—rather
it is to misrepresent the facts of the case—to say (with the
critics) that Codex X leaves out the ‘pericope de adulterâ.’ This
Codex is nothing else but a _commentary on the Gospel, as the Gospel
used to be read in public_. Of necessity, therefore, it leaves out
those parts of the Gospel which are observed _not_ to have been
publicly read” (_Guardian_, Sept. 10, 1873).

402 The kindred copies Codd. Λ, 215 (20 has an asterisk only against the
place), 262, &c., have the following scholium at ch. vii. 53: τὰ
ὠβελισμένα ἔν τισιν ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται, οὐδὲ Ἀπολ[λ]ιναρίῳ; ἐν δὲ
τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ὅλα κεῖ[ν]ται; μνημονεύουσιν τῆς περικοπῆς ταύτης καὶ
οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἐν αἷς ἐξέθεντο διατάξεσιν εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς
ἐκκλησίας. The reference is to the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24.
4), as Tischendorf perceives.

403 Yet so that the first hand of Cod. 207 recognizes it in the text,
setting in the margin τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ζήτει εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ βιβλίου
(Burgon, _Guardian_, Oct. 1, 1873).

404 A learned friend suggests that, supposing the true place for this
supplemental history to be yet in doubt, there would be this reason
for the narrative to be set after Luke xxi, that a reader of the
Synoptic Gospels would be aware of no other occasion when the Lord
had to lodge outside the city: whereas with St. John’s narrative
before him, he would see that this was probably the usual lot of a
_late_ comer at the Feast of Tabernacles (ch. vii. 14). Mr. J.
Rendel Harris thinks that the true place for the _pericope_ is
between ch. v and ch. vi, as for other reasons which we cannot
depend upon, so from our illustrating the mention of the Mosaic Law
in ch. viii. 5 by ch. v. 45, 46.

405 Yet on the whole this paragraph is found in more of Bp. Lightfoot’s
copies than would have been anticipated: viz. in the text of 3, 8,
14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, in the margin of 1, and on a later leaf of
20. It is wanting in 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 19, 21, 25, 26.

406 “Similiter Nicon ejectam esse vult narrationem ab Armenis, βλαβερὰν
εἶναι τοῖς πολλοῖς τὴν τοιαύτην ἀκρόασιν dicentibus.” Tischendorf
_ad loc._ Nicon lived in or about the tenth century, but Theophylact
in the eleventh does not use the paragraph.

407 Notice especially the reading of 48, 64, 604, 736 (_primâ manu_) in
ver. 8 ἔγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἑνὸς ἑκάστου αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας.

408 We are not surprised in this instance at Dr. Hort’s verdict (Introd.
p. 299): “No interpolation is more clearly Western, though it is not
Western of the earliest type.” Dean Burgon has left amongst his
papers an elaborate vindication of this passage, from which however
the Editor cannot quote.

409 The form τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, objected to by Michaelis, is vindicated
by Matt. i. 18, the reading of which cannot rightly be impugned.
_See_ above. Compare also ver. 12.

410 ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ εὐνοῦχος πεισθεὶς καὶ παραυτίκα ἀξιῶν βαπτισθῆναι, ἔλεγε,
Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. Harvey, vol. ii. p.
62.

411 Such are αὐτῷ with or without ὁ Φίλιππος in E, 100, 105, 163, 186,
221, the Harkleian with an asterisk: σου added after καρδίας in E,
100, 105, 163, 186, _tol._, the Harkleian with an asterisk, the
Armenian, Cyprian; but _ex toto corde_ the margin of _am._ and the
Clementine Vulgate: τόν omitted before Ἰησοῦν in 186, 221 and
others.

412 “Non reperi in graeco codice, quanquam arbitror omissum librariorum
incuria. Nam et haec in quodam codice graeco asscripta reperi, sed
in margine.” Erasmus, N. T., 1516.

413 They plead, besides the confessed preponderance of manuscript
evidence for Ἑλληνιστάς, that “A familiar word standing in an
obvious antithesis was not likely to be exchanged for a word so rare
that it is no longer extant, except in a totally different sense,
anywhere but in the Acts and two or three late Greek interpretations
of the Acts; more especially when the change introduced an apparent
difficulty” (Hort, Notes, p. 93). _Judicet lector._

414 Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. lvi and lxxxii.

415 But with the same lack of accuracy which so often deforms this great
copy: ως ετροφοφορησεν σε _κς_ ο _θς_ σου ως ει τις τροποφορησει
_primâ manu_ (Vercellone).

416 Witness too Lucian’s ὑπερμεγέθη ναῦν καὶ πέρα τοῦ μέτρου, μίαν τῶν
ἀπ᾽ Αἰγύπτου εἰς Ἰταλίαν σιταγωγῶν (Navig. seu Vota, c. 1) which was
driven out of its course to the Piraeus. Mr. Smith, of Jordan Hill,
cannot bring its dimensions under 1,300 tons.

417 Dr. Field, however, says that “this is a mistake.” The Syriac is
ἔχωμεν and nothing else. For ἔχομεν this version (and all others)
would put ܐܬ ܥܢ (or ܢܥ ܬܐ): but “when the word is in the subjunctive
mood, since ܐܬ (or ܬܐ) is indeclinable, it is a peculiarity of the
Harkleian to prefix the corresponding mood of ܗܘܐ (or ܐܘܗ), here
ܢܗܘܐ (or ܐܘܗܢ)” (Otium Norvicense, iii. p. 93). For this strange
phrase he cites Rom. i. 13; 2 Cor. v. 12, and to such an authority I
have but _dare manus_.

418 It is simply impossible to translate with Jos. Agar Beet, in the
[Wesleyan] _London Quarterly_, April, 1878, either “Let us then,
justified by faith, have peace with God,” or “Let us then be
justified by faith and have peace with God.” Acts xv. 36 will help
him little: the other places he cites (Matt. ii. 13, &c.) not at
all.

419 Dr. Vaughan (Epistle to the Romans) has ἔχωμεν in his text, and
compares Heb. xii. 28, ἔχωμεν χάριν, “where there is the same
variety of reading.” B is lost in this last place, but ἔχομεν, which
is quite inadmissible, is found in Codd. אKP, the Latin of D, 31 and
many other cursives, the printed Vulgate, and its best manuscripts.
In Rom. xiv. 19 even Dr. Hort is driven by the versions and the
sense to adopt in his text διώκωμεν of CD and the mass of cursives,
rather than διώκομεν with אABFGLP, &c. The like confusion between ο
and ω appears in the text we shall examine next but one (1 Cor.
xiii. 3) and in the subjoined note (p. 384). See also φορέσομεν and
φορέσωμεν, 1 Cor. xv. 49. We must confess, however, that in some of
our oldest extant MSS. the interchange of ο and ω is but rare. In
Cod. Sarravianus it is found in but twenty-three places out of 1224
in which itacisms occur, 830 of them being the mutation of ει and ι.
On the other hand, ο stands for ω and _vice versâ_ very frequently
in that papyrus fragment of the Psalms in the British Museum which
Tischendorf, perhaps a little hastily, judged to be older than any
existing writing on vellum.

420 Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 116) observes that διαθρύπτω is specially used
in the Septuagint (Lev. ii. 6; Isa. lviii. 7) for the breaking of
bread.

421 Few things are too hard for Dr. Hort, yet one is almost surprised to
be told that “The text gives an excellent sense, for, as ver. 2
refers to a faith towards God which is unaccompanied by love, so
ver. 3 refers to acts which seem by their very nature to be acts of
love to men, but are really done in ostentation. First the
dissolving of the goods in almsgiving is mentioned, then, as a
climax, the yielding up of the very body; both alike being done for
the sake of glorying, and unaccompanied by love” (Notes, p. 117).

422 Tyler compares _shoushou_ also in 2 Cor. vii. 5, 9; Ps. v. 11 (12).