Chapter III: Theory and Praxis of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.129 (4)

(2) The text is preserved with less alteration in the versions than
in the manuscripts.[260]

(3) In the Gospels that reading is the more probable which differs
from that of the parallel passages.

(4) The influence of the ecclesiastical use of the Scriptures on the
text must be more carefully attended to than heretofore.

(5) One of the most valuable aids in estimating the importance of
the witnesses is the proper names, particularly those of less
frequent occurrence.

(6) “Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua.”

[Sidenote: Proper names.]

Of these propositions only the last two need be illustrated further, particularly the second last. For it is really remarkable to what extent this consideration has been neglected hitherto. To the best of my knowledge there is as yet no monograph in which the =proper names= are treated from a critical point of view. And yet these are for the critic frequently the only points of light in vast regions of darkness. They are to him what the lighthouse is to the mariner or the fossil to the geologist. This makes their neglect all the more strange. Had there been a systematic examination of the proper names of the New Testament, Lippelt’s important discovery with regard to the spellings Ἰωάνης and Ἰωάννης might have been made long ere now (see above, p. 162 f.). Weiss’s critical studies in Acts deserve honourable mention in this connection. But Westcott and Hort, who have paid attention to these things with their usual exactitude, were simply on the wrong tack in this case when they asked whether the various persons who bore this name might not have spelt it differently, as in the case of Smith, Smyth, Smythe, etc. Similarly the genealogies give rise to a whole host of problems of which no account has been taken hitherto. See above, p. 165, for the reading Ζαρέ exhibited by B in Matt. i. 3; and compare Sela, given by Syr^{sin} in verses 4 and 5, with Σαλά in Luke iii. 32. Tischendorf omits the testimony in Matt. i. 5, while Baljon passes over both the variants, though they are certainly of more importance than the variation in the spelling of Βοές, Βοός, Βοόζ. In Luke iii. 27 the word רֵאשָׁא is converted into a proper name Ῥησά. From this fact some very interesting conclusions might be drawn with regard to the sources of Luke’s Gospel, but this is a matter lying outside the scope of this chapter. On the other hand, the fact that in the fourth Gospel the traitor is called not Ἰσκαριώτης, or anything like it, but ἀπὸ Καρυώτου by א in ch. vi. 71, where his name first occurs, and by D in every other place in that Gospel (xii. 4; xiii. 2, 26; xiv. 22), raises a very strong presumption in favour of these two manuscripts and indeed of the fourth Gospel. On this see my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 14, and my notes, with Chase’s unconvincing replies, in the _Expository Times_ for December 1897, and January, February, and March 1898. I am very glad to see that Zahn now inclines to the same view (_Einl._, ii. 561). Considerable weight is given to it by the fact that these two manuscripts seem to be the only ones that have preserved the correct reading in the case of other names as well.

What is Apollos called in Acts? He is mentioned by D only in ch. xviii. 24, where he is called Ἀπολλώνιος. א* calls him Ἀπελλῆς in xviii. 24 and xix. 1. This reading is supported in the former passage by the minuscules 15 and 180, and in the latter by 180 alone. Wendt now agrees with Blass in thinking it probable that the original form in Acts was Ἀπελλῆς, which was altered in the main body of manuscripts in conformity with 1 Corinthians, just as ἀπὸ Καρυώτου in John was accommodated to Ἰσκαριώτης given by the Synoptics. But what about D? I must ask with Salmon. Even Weiss says in this connection (_Codex D_, p. 18): “The most that can be said for Ἀπολλώνιος is that this form, differing as it does from that prevailing in the Pauline Epistles, has the presumption of originality, seeing that there was always a temptation for the scribes to accommodate it to the latter.”[261] In his earlier work on the text (p. 9) he seems not to have considered this point.

I cannot understand how Weiss could at first explain Ἰωνάθας, which is found in D (Acts iv. 6) in place of Ἰωάν(ν)ης read by the other witnesses, as a “clerical error,” whereas now (_Cod. D_, p. 108) he deems it more natural to suppose that a corrector inserted the name of the son of Annas and the successor of Caiaphas mentioned by Josephus (_Antiq._ xviii. 4, 3) in place of that of the entirely unknown John, than that the name of Jonathan, even supposing it was unknown to the copyist, which applies equally to that of Alexander mentioned along with him, was replaced by John, which was a very common name, the name of the Apostle so frequently mentioned before. It could, therefore, be only a purely accidental clerical error. Headlam, in his article on John (Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 676) seems to know nothing of all this. But perhaps Weiss sees on the same page of the aforesaid book that the mistake of Johanan and Jonathan occurred elsewhere also, and remembering Bengel’s principle, considers that Ἰωνάθας is the _scriptio ardua_, and, therefore, the _praestantior_.[262]

In 2 Peter ii. 15 the father of Balaam is called Βοσόρ, which is quite peculiar. Westcott and Hort and Weiss, in their fondness for B, write Βεώρ. But this is most certainly a correction which is combined with the original to form βεωρσόρ in א. The only thorough discussion of the passage that I know is in Zahn’s _Einleitung_, ii. 109. The only thing that might be added to his data in the LXX. is that, according to Holmes-Parsons, the Georgian version has υἱὸν τοῦ βοσόρ in Jos. xiii. 22. Σεπφώρ, as the name of Beor, has crept into various manuscripts in several places from Jos. xxiv. 9—_e.g._ into the Armenian in Gen. xxxvi. 32, Codex 18 in Num. xxii. 5, Codex 53 in Num. xxiv. 15, where Cod. 75 has Σεβεώρ, and into Lucian in 1 Chr. i. 43. There seems to me to be a confusion between Gen. xxxvi. 32 (= 1 Chr. i. 43) and the following verse, in which Bosra occurs. In Gen. xxxvi. 33 one manuscript observes, ἡ βοσὸρ πόλις τῆς Ἀραβίας ἡ νῦν καλουμένη βόσρα. Jerome also renders “ex Bosor.”[263] Βοσόρ also occurs as the name of a place in Deut. iv. 43; 1 Sam. xxx. 9; 1 Macc. v. 26. On this last passage see _ZdPV._, 12, 51; 13, 41. For other interpretations (Hebrew pronunciation of the Aramaic פתורה)[264] see Pole’s _Synopsis_ on 2 Peter ii. 15.

It is worth observing that minuscule 81 displays a close agreement with B in other places as well as this.

On the names in the catalogue of the Apostles, see Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 263; on Ἱερουσαλήμ and Ἱεροσόλυμα, ii. 310; on Jesus Barabbas, ii. 294; on Barachias in Matt. xxiii. 35, i. 454, ii. 308. On the confusion between Isaiah and Asaph in Matt. xiii. 35, and between Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Isaiah in other passages, compare Ambrosiaster’s note on 1 Cor. ii. 9 cited above, p. 148.

“He who seeks in the wild fir wood, will still find many a cudgel
good.”

[Sidenote: Textus brevior.]

The rule that the =shorter text= is the more original is a subdivision of Bengel’s canon. It is specially the case when two longer forms are opposed to it which are mutually exclusive and whose origin can be explained from the shorter. As examples of this Zahn adduces, in addition to the double conclusion of Mark’s Gospel, the following:—

John vi. 47: πιστεύων, א B L T, + “in God,” Syr^{cu. sin}, + εἰς ἐμέ A C D Γ Δ Λ Π....

John vii. 39: πνεῦμα, א K T Π, + ἅγιον L X Γ Δ Λ, + δεδομένον it vg^{cle}, + ἅγιον ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς, D f goth, + ἅγιον δεδομένον, B 254 Syr^{sin. hark}....

James v. 7: πρόϊμον, B 31, pr. ὑετὸν A K L P, pr. καρπὸν א 9 ff etc.

It is equally clear that a reading is incorrect which proves to be a mixture of two others (=conflate readings=). The respective claims of these others must be adjudged on other considerations. Thus we have—

Luke xxiv. 53: αἰνοῦντες, D a b e.
εὐλογοῦντες, א B C* L.
αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες, A C^2 X Γ Δ Λ Π.
εὐλογοῦντες καὶ αἰνοῦντες, Ethiop.
Acts vi. 8: πλήρης χάριτος, א A B D.
πλήρης πίστεως, H P.
πλήρης χάριτος καὶ πίστεως, E.

In general that reading will have the best claim to originality which stands first in the combination. Further illustrations are unnecessary.

In order to fulfil the promise of the title of this chapter, the foregoing exposition of the Theory of New Testament criticism should be succeeded by a further part dealing with its Praxis. Such a part would contain particular illustrations of the way in which the criticism of the text has been handled by our authorities hitherto and the way in which it must be treated in accordance with the foregoing principles. The following notes do not and cannot claim to be a complete fulfilment of this great task, more especially as in the preceding part we were unable to arrive at a finished system of textual criticism. I have therefore contented myself with bringing together a series of passages of interest from a critical point of view. In doing so I have freely drawn upon Zahn’s Introduction. For this I feel sure the reader will thank me, while at the same time I trust that the author will pardon the liberty I have taken. I have made use, as far as possible, of the additional material afforded by editions later than those of Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, particularly of the Sinai-Syriac. This collection may therefore serve in some degree to supplement our commentaries, which, though their merits in other directions are to be freely conceded, still leave much to be desired in the matter of textual criticism. A purely critical commentary on the New Testament is a great desideratum. The following notes are to be regarded not as the commencement of such a work, but simply as a stimulus thereto. I myself felt it to be a defect in the small Stuttgart edition of the New Testament that want of space obliged me to omit all references to the origin and significance of the various readings selected from manuscripts. For many of these an Annotatio Critica in an Appendix like that in the larger edition of v. Gebhardt would scarcely have been sufficient. What information, _e.g._, would it have imparted to a reader to have given the numbers of the two minuscules 346, 556 after the reading in Matt. i. 16? What he needs is an Apparatus Criticus or a Commentarius Criticus such as Bengel appended to his edition, or like that which Burk published separately in his second issue. Ed. Miller has promised to give us one for the Gospels, only it will proceed on principles which very few of us will be able to accept.

Footnote 129:

I could desire no better motto for this third section than the words
of Augustine: Codicibus emendandis primitus debet invigilare sollertia
eorum qui scripturas nosse desiderant, ut emendatis non emendati
cedant (_De Doctrina Christiana_, ii. 14, 21, where the saying about
the interpretum numerositas, cited on page 108, is also found). Or if
not these words, then those of our Lord himself, γίνεσθε δόκιμοι
τραπεζῖται, which Origen applied to the verification of the canon, but
which, taken in the sense of 1 Thess. v. 21, are equally applicable to
the work of the “lower” criticism. Apollos, the pupil of Marcion, also
vindicated the right of Biblical criticism with these same words.
Epiphanius, _Haeres._, xliv. 2 (Zahn, GK., i. 175).

Footnote 130:

The fragment was edited by Tregelles with a facsimile in 1867. It is
given in Westcott’s _Canon of the N. T._, Appendix C, where also see
the section on the Muratorian Canon, Part i. c. ii. It will be found
also in Preuschen’s _Analecta, Kürzere Texte ..._ pp. 129-137 (the
eighth number of G. Krüger’s _Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen- und
dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften_, Freib. and Leipzig, 1893).

Footnote 131:

Quoted in Westcott, _Canon_, part ii. c. ii. § 1, and in Zahn’s
_Einleitung_, ii. 179.

Footnote 132:

Given in Preuschen. In the manuscripts it is entitled “Indiculum
Veteris et Novi Testamenti et Caecili Cipriani.” It was first made
known from a MS. at Cheltenham in 1886. As it is mostly assigned to
the year 365 (see also Jülicher, _Einleitung_, p. 336) the words of
W.-W. may be repeated here: “S. Berger tamen aliter sentit, rationibus
commotus quarum una certe nobis satis vera videtur. Concordant enim
numeri in Veteri Testamento cum codicibus Hieronymianis, e.g. in
libris Regum quattuor, Esaiae, Jeremiae, et duodecim Prophetarum,
Tobiae, et Macchabeorum secundo. Indiculus tamen sine dubio antiquus
est” (p. 736).

Footnote 133:

Catalogus Claramontanus given in Westcott, _Canon_, Appendix D, p.
563.

Footnote 134:

Translated into French, _Prairies d’or_, i. 123: one volume into
English by Sprenger, 1841; Sayous, _Jésus Christ d’après Mohammed_, p.
34.

Footnote 135:

See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 176; _GK._, ii. 364-375, 1014.

Footnote 136:

See _Addenda_, p. xvi.

Footnote 137:

The numbers are as follows:—

-ν- -νν-
Matthew, 2 24
John, 7 17
Luke, 27 1
Mark, 2 24
Acts, 21 2

See Blass, _Lucae ad Theophilum liber prior_, p. vi. f., _Philology of
the Gospels_, p. 75 f., where three of Lippelt’s numbers are corrected
with the help of Harris. See also _Expository Times_, Nov. 1897, p. 92
f. I cannot understand why Wendt, in the new edition of his Commentary
on the Acts, should take not the slightest notice of this far-reaching
discovery. On the spelling in the Latin manuscripts, see W.-W.,
_Epilogus_, 776.

Footnote 138:

_Der Schluss des Markus-Evangeliums, der Vier-Evangelien-Kanon, und
die kleinasiastischen Presbyter_ (Berlin, 1894).

Footnote 139:

_Expositor_, Dec. 1894.

Footnote 140:

_Einleitung_, ii. 221.

Footnote 141:

See Coxe’s _Catalogue of Greek MSS. in the Bodleian Library_, 1854.

Footnote 142:

On _cata_ or _kata_ in the subscriptions, titles, prefaces, etc., of
Latin manuscripts, see the index in W.-W., to which add the remarkable
phrase _cata tempus_, which codex e gives in John v. 4, in place of
_secundum tempus_ in the other manuscripts.

Footnote 143:

See Field, _Hexapla_, i. p. lxxii.

Footnote 144:

The order, πραεῖς ... πτωχοί ... πενθοῦντες, in Baljon is due to a
strange oversight which is not corrected in the Addenda et Corrigenda.

Footnote 145:

To the passages which may be adduced in support of the reading, add
Clement, _Hom._ η 32 (Lagarde, 92, 35), ια 32 (118, 31).

Footnote 146:

Codex D and Syr^{sin} also agree in omitting v. 30, but this is
probably no more than a remarkable coincidence.

Footnote 147:

See _Urt._, 55 ff., where works on this subject are cited.

Footnote 148:

See also Linwood, _Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to
the New Testament_, 1873.

Footnote 149:

On the symbol m, see above, p. 114.

Footnote 150:

The converse occurs in Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, iv. 15, in the address
of Polycarp’s _Martyrium_. There the reading κατὰ Πόντον, which is
also found in the Syriac, should, according to Harnack’s _Chronologie
der altchristl. Lit._, i. 341, be replaced by κατὰ πάντα τόπον, or
rather by κατὰ τόπον which is found in 1 Macc. xii. 4; 2 Macc. xii. 2.
Compare also the variation found in the manuscripts in 2 Cor. x. 15
between κοποις, πονοις, and τοποις, and between ποτος and τοπος in
Judith vi. 21. See also Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, v. 15, 23.

Footnote 151:

The opposite view is expressed in Scrivener, ii. 244: “It is now
agreed among competent judges that Conjectural Emendation must never
be resorted to, even in passages of acknowledged difficulty”; and he
quotes from Roberts (_Words of the New Testament_): “conjectural
criticism is entirely banished from the field ... simply because there
is no need for it.” With this, however, he does not quite agree. He
admits that there are passages respecting which we cannot help framing
a shrewd suspicion that the original reading differed from any form in
which they are now presented to us. He notes as passages for which we
should be glad of more light, Acts vii. 46, xiii. 32, xix. 40, xxvi.
28; Rom. viii. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 2, where Ephes. ii. 11 might suggest ὅτι
ποτέ; 1 Tim. vi. 7; 2 Pet. iii. 10, 12; Jude 5, 22, 23. G. Krüger
expresses himself to the same effect. He would have no conjecture,
however well founded, received into the text. See his notice of
Koetschau’s Origen in the _L. Cbl._, No. 39, 1899. I find that Swete
has had no objection to adopt a conjecture of mine in his second
edition of the last volume of the Cambridge Septuagint (Enoch xiv. 3).
If such a thing is permissible in the case of Enoch, why should it not
be allowable in the New Testament? As clever suggestions maybe noted
ἐκολάφισαν for the hapax legomenon ἐκεφαλίωσαν, Mark xii. 4 (Linwood,
Van de Sande-Bakhuyzen) and λανθάνουσι for μανθάνουσι, 1 Tim. v. 13
(Hitzig). Lagrange (_Revue Biblique_, 1900, p. 206) cautions us
against “prêter de l’esprit à l’Esprit Saint.”

Footnote 152:

Compare my conjecture of מִפַתְרֹם for מִתְרַפֵם, Ps. lxviii. 31, and
see below, p. 236.

Footnote 153:

Meyer-Wendt^8, p. 51. For an example of Σ repeated by mistake, _cf._
ΕΙΣΣΤΕΛΟΣ in B, Mark xiii. 13. Its erroneous omission is quite common.

Footnote 154:

Bagster, London, 1887.

Footnote 155:

See Isaac Taylor’s _History of the Transmission of Ancient Books to
Modern Times_ (1827); and compare also the text-books on
Hermeneutics, _e.g._ in I. v. Müller’s _Handbuch der klassischen
Altertumswissenschaft_.

Footnote 156:

_Benedicti regula monachorum. Recensuit Ed. Wölfflin_, Lipsiae,
Teubner, 1895, pp. xv. 85, 8vo. See also his article on the Latinity
of Benedict in the _Arch. f. Lat. Lexikogr._ ix. 4, 1896, pp. 493-521.

Footnote 157:

_Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedicti_ (_Abh. d. 3 Cl. d. k. Ak. d.
Wiss._, vol. xxi., Munich, 1898). Compare also _The Text of St.
Benedict’s Rule_ by Dom C. Butler, O.S.B. Reprinted from the _Downside
Review_, December 1899, 12 pp.

Footnote 158:

_TU._ xiv. 1, 1896.

Footnote 159:

Krüger’s _Sammlung_, Heft xi., Freiburg and Leipzig, 1895.

Footnote 160:

_TU._, New Series, i. 1, 1897.

Footnote 161:

Compare also the differences between the editions of Josephus,
published by Niese and Naber.

Footnote 162:

See, however, the two articles by Lake and Brightman, _On the Italian
Origin of Codex Bezae_ in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. 441
ff.

Footnote 163:

See below on John viii. 57, p. 289.

Footnote 164:

An instructive discussion of the relationship between D_{2} and E_{3}
is given in Hort’s _Introduction_, §§ 335-337. It is possible that one
copyist in Rom. xv. 31-33 took ἵνα ἡ διακονία μου ἡ εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ...
διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, and the other καὶ ἡ δωροφορία μου ἡ ἐν Ἱερ ... διὰ
θελήματος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ—_i.e._ two entirely different recensions.

Footnote 165:

Zahn very properly remarks (_Th. Lbl._, 1899, 16, 179): “One must not,
at least as regards the N. T., confound Eusebius with Pamphilus, or,
if I might say so, with the firm of Pamphilus and Eusebius. If the
fifty Bibles that Eusebius provided at the bidding of the Emperor for
the use of the churches of the capital had contained a text of the N.
T. prepared on the basis of the previous works and commentaries of
Origen, the entire subsequent history of the text of the N. T. in the
region of Constantinople, revealing as it does the extensive
propagation of the Antiochean text, would be perfectly
incomprehensible. As in the matter of the canon so also of the text of
the N. T., Eusebius emancipated himself from the school of Origen, and
attached himself to that of Antioch, at least in this particular
instance fraught with such important consequences for the history of
the Bible.”

Footnote 166:

See Hort, _Introduction_, §§ 188, 189.

Footnote 167:

Athanasius, writing to Constans, says in his first Apology: τῷ ἀδελφῷ
σου οὐκ ἔγραψα ἢ μόνον ὅτε ... καὶ ὅτε πυκτία τῶν θείων γραφῶν
κελεύσαντος αὐτοῦ μοι κατασκευάσαι, ταῦτα ποιήσας ἀπέστειλα.

Footnote 168:

It is given in Syriac in Abbé Martin’s _Introduction à la critique
textuelle du N. T._, Plate XX. No. 35 (1883), from the MS. de Paris,
27, f 88 b, and also in Lagarde’s _Bibliotheca Syriaca_, 259, 22-27.
From the Greek πυργίσκος, which becomes פרדוסקא in the Semitic, the
Syriac forms another diminutive פרדסקזנא, which is still omitted in
the _Thesaurus Syriacus_, 3240; _cf._ Bar Bahlul, 1606, 9 (App. p.
64). In place of πυργίσκῳ, Oikonomos would read the genitive πυργίσκου
(περι των ὀ ερμηνευτων, iv. 500).

Footnote 169:

Not only does the Old Testament promise to shed some light upon an
obscure problem in the New, but the converse may also be true—viz.
that the history of the text of the New Testament may contribute to a
better understanding of that of the Old. It was long observed that
many peculiarities of the Lucianic revision of the Septuagint occur
also in the witnesses to the Old Latin version (see especially Driver,
_Notes on Samuel_, p. li; _Urt._, 78). No proper explanation of this
phenomenon could be given so long as the Old Latin version of the Old
Testament was looked upon as homogeneous and of great antiquity. But
the New Testament, for which we have far more Old Latin manuscripts
than for the Old, shows that the Old Latin pre-Jeromic version had a
chequered history, and in particular that at a certain time a revision
was undertaken, the result of which is found especially in Codex
Brixianus (f, see p. 112), and which “non solum interpretationem
veterem stilo elegantiori emendabat, sed etiam lectiones novas
protulit. Notatu certe dignum est, in ista emendatione Itala eminere
lectiones quae in maiori parte codicum Graecorum apparent, _quas
Recensioni Syrae vel Antiochenae adiudicant Westcott et Hort_.” So say
Wordsworth and White, p. 654. If the same thing holds good of the Old
Testament, then the relationship between the Old Latin and Lucian at
once becomes evident, and the supposition is not so absurd that the
marginal glosses of Codex Legionensis (called Codex Gothicus in
Hastings’ _Bible Dictionary_, iii. p. 50_b_.) which are particularly
striking on this view of the case, may have been translated into Latin
from Lucian. These considerations, moreover, may possibly throw fresh
light on the question that I have raised elsewhere (_Urt._, p. 78),
whether Lucian may not also have used the Peshitto in his recension of
the Old Testament. I see that it has been taken up by J. Méritan, in
his little book, entitled, _La Version grecque des Livres de Samuel,
précédée d’une Introduction sur la critique textuelle_ (Paris, 1898).
On pp. 96-113 he discusses the same question—whether Lucian knew and
used the Peshitto. He answers the question in the affirmative: “It is
therefore probable that as regards certain passages of the Books of
Samuel, in his work of revision, or rather of correction, Lucian did
not follow the Hebrew text as his sole and infallible guide, but
availed himself of others also, and that one of those principal
authorities was the Syriac version.” We often enough find ὁ Σύρος
cited as an authority in the Greek Commentaries on the Old Testament.
Whether it is also mentioned for the New Testament is a point that
seems not yet to be looked into.

I may add that Bickel concludes his short article in the _Zeitschrift
für kath. Theol._, iii. 467-469, entitled, “Die Lucianische
Septuagintabearbeitung nachgewiesen,” by saying: “In establishing the
recensions of Lucian and Hesychius for the Septuagint, we may be held
as settling the question whether traces of these may not also be found
in the New Testament.”

In his _Einleitung_, ii. 240, Zahn says: “Without a doubt many
readings which had a considerable circulation in the second and third
centuries, some of them being of no small importance and extent, were
gradually ousted from their place in the text from the fourth century
onwards, and some of them dropped out of the later tradition
altogether. And it is equally true that many interpolations were
current in these later centuries which were unknown in the second. But
whatever our judgment be in doubtful cases, we are still always in a
position to support it with extant documents.”

Footnote 170:

Rahlfs cannot, of course, assent to this supposition, seeing that he
regards Codex B as depending on the Festal Letter containing the Canon
of Athanasius, which was not written till the year 367.

Footnote 171:

See especially Lagarde, _Sept.-Studien_, 1892, and Moore’s _Commentary
on Judges_, 1895, p. xlvi.

Footnote 172:

See above under Λ, p. 72.

Footnote 173:

There is no need to discuss here the other expressions used by Jerome
in his letter of the year 403 to the Gothic priests Sunnia and
Fretela, seeing that these relate only to the Old Testament. But the
words themselves may be quoted: “Breviter admoneo ut sciatis, aliam
esse editionem, quam Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque
Graeciae tractatores κοινήν, id est communem appellant, atque
vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc Λουκιανός dicitur, aliam septuaginta
interpretum quae in ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur, et a nobis in
latinum sermonem fideliter versa est, et Jerosolymae atque in orientis
ecclesiae (so Lagarde, _Librorum V. T. can. pars prior_, p. xiii. from
_Vallarsi_, i. 635?) decantatur ... κοινή autem ista, hoc est
communis, editio ipsa est quae et septuaginta, sed hoc interest inter
utramque quod κοινή pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate
scriptorum vetus corrupta editio est, ea autem quae habetur in
ἑξαπλοῖς et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris
incorrupta et immaculata septuaginta interpretum translatio
reservatur” (_ibid._, 637). For Λουκιανός Oikonomos (iv. 499) would
read Λουκιανίς.

Footnote 174:

A. D. Loman would emend this passage by reading εἴτε ἀπὸ μοχθηρίας τῆς
διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς
δοκοῦντα (_Leiden. Theol. Tijdschr._, vii., 1873, 233).

Footnote 175:

What he says is (_Viri Illust._, c. 75): Pamphilus presbyter, Eusebii
Caesariensis episcopi necessarius, tanto bibliothecae divinae amore
flagravit, ut maximam partem Origenis voluminum sua manu descripserit,
quae usque hodie in Caesariensi bibliotheca habetur. Sed et in
duodecim prophetas vigintiquinque ἐξηγήσεων Origenis volumina manu
eius (_i.e._ Pamphili) exarata repperi, quae tanto amplector et servo
gaudio, ut Croesi opes habere me credam. Si enim laetitia est unam
epistulam habere martyris, quanto magis tot milia versuum, quae mihi
videntur suis sanguinis signasse vestigiis. The above is Richardson’s
text. Bernoulli (Krüger’s _Sammlung_, Heft xi. 1895) reads _habentur_,
_Sed in_, and _videtur_, and also omits _volumina_.

Footnote 176:

Προσφώνησις· κορωνίς εἰμι δογμάτων θείων διδάσκαλος· ἄν τινί με χρήσῃς
ἀντίβιβλον λάμβανε, οἱ γὰρ ἀποδόται κακοί· Ἀντίφρασις· θησαυρὸν ἔχων
σε πνευματικῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ποθητὸν ἁρμονίαις τε καὶ
ποικίλαις γραμμαῖς κεκοσμημένον—νὴ τὴν ἀλήθειαν—οὐ δώσω σε προχείρως
τινὶ οὐδ’ αὖ φθονέσω τῆς ὠφελείας, χρήσω δὲ τοῖς φίλοις ἀντίβιβλον
λαμβάνων. The last seven words, which are erased in H, are supplied by
the minuscule 93^{paul} and the Armenian version. On ἀντίβιβλον =
“borrowing-receipt” or “voucher,” see _ThLz._, 1895, 283, 407. See
also Robinson, _Euthaliana_, _Texts and Studies_, iii. 3.

Footnote 177:

To the literature referred to on p. 79 should be added the second
section of Bousset’s _Textkritische Studien_ (_TU._ xi. 4, 1894),
entitled, _Der Codex Pamphili_, pp. 45-73. Bousset affirms the close
connection between the Corrector of Sinaiticus indicated by
Tischendorf as ^c and Codex H. I have established the connection of
this corrector in the Psalter with Eusebius by means of the latter’s
Commentary on the Psalms (see above, p. 58). As yet no one appears to
have examined the New Testament quotations in Eusebius. _Cf._ however
Bousset, _ThLz._, 1900, 22, 611 ff.

Footnote 178:

It runs: Εἰσὶν ὅσα προτεταγμένον ἔχουσι τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὧδε, ὅσα Ὠριγένην
ἐπιγεγραμμένον ἔχει τούτῳ τῷ μονοσυλλάβῳ Ρ/Ω· εἰσὶ δὲ μάλιστα ἐν τῷ
Ἰώβ· ὅσα δὲ περὶ διαφωνίας ῥητῶν τινῶν τῶν ἐν τῷ ἐδαφίῳ ἢ ἐκδόσεών
ἐστιν σχόλια, ἅπερ καὶ κάτω νενευκυῖαν περιεστιγμένην ἔχει
προτεταγμένην, τῶν ἀντιβεβληκότων τὸ βιβλίον ἐστίν· ὅσα δὲ ἀμφιβόλως
ἔξω κείμενα ῥητὰ ἔξω νενευκυῖαν περιεστιγμένην ἔχει προτεταγμένην, διὰ
τὰ σχόλια προσετέθησαν κατ’ αὐτὰ τοῦ μεγάλου εἰρηκότος διδασκάλου ἵνα
μὴ δόξῃ κατὰ κενοῦ τὸ σχόλιον φέρεσθαι, ἐν πολλοῖς μὲν τῶν ἀντιγράφων
τῶν ῥητῶν οὕτως ἐχόντων, ἐν τούτῳ δὲ μὴ οὕτως κειμένων ἢ μηδ’ ὅλως
φερομένων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο προστεθέντων.

Footnote 179:

Περι των ὀ ερμηνευτων, iv. 904. Athens, 1844-1849.

Footnote 180:

_Texte und Untersuchungen_, xvii. (N. F. ii.) 4. See above, p. 90.

Footnote 181:

_Euthaliusstudien_, pp. 111-115; 115 ff.

Footnote 182:

_Neue Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie_, ii. 3, 3 (1894), pp.
360-363. Compare also von Dobschütz, _lib. cit._, 111.

Footnote 183:

μάλιστα δὲ παρὰ τοὺς καθ’ ἡμᾶς πάντας διέπρεπε τῇ περὶ τὰ θεῖα λόγια
γνησιωτάτῃ σπουδῇ. Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, viii. 11.

Footnote 184:

See above, p. 87 ff., on Evan. 473, Act. 246, 419, Evl. 286, and
compare Zahn, _ThLbl._, 1899, 181: Would that some one with the time
and opportunity to work in the Monasteries of Mount Athos applied
himself to the Codex written in the year 800 by the unhappy Empress
Maria (Lambros 129, S. Pauli 2). Since the above was written the
manuscript has been collated by Von der Goltz.

Footnote 185:

On κόφινον κοπρίων, see Chase, _Syro-Latin Text_, p. 135 f. It may be
observed in passing how variously καταργεῖ is rendered in the
different Latin manuscripts—viz. by _evacuat_ in b ff^2 l q, by
_detinet_ in ff^{2c} i r, by _intricat_ in e, and by _occupat_ in d
and the Vulgate.

Footnote 186:

The evidence of d in this passage cannot be had, unfortunately, as
eight leaves (a quaternio) containing the Greek of Matt. vi. 20-ix. 2,
and the Latin of vi. 8-viii. 27, have gone amissing.

Footnote 187:

Unfortunately h exhibits only the text of Matthew, otherwise I might
simply have referred to the list of variants on p. 120. I am not aware
if what Wordsworth and White (vol. i. p. xxxii) say of this manuscript
is still true: Codex hodie, ut fertur, in bibliotheca Vaticana
inveniri non potest.

Footnote 188:

See Index in Wordsworth and White, p. 751.

Footnote 189:

At the same time it must be pointed out here that not only in Luke and
Acts, but in all the books of the N. T., it is wrong in principle to
present the alternative “original or later alteration” or even
forgery. The dilemma can be wrongly stated. Blass was not the first to
express the opinion, “Lucam bis edidisse Actus.” De Dieu did so before
him, and by an examination of those passages of the Gospels in which
the original text has been preserved in purely “Western” witnesses
Hort (§ 241) was led to suppose that the Western and non-Western texts
may have “started respectively from a first and a second edition of
the Gospels, both conceivably apostolic.” Similarly Wordsworth and
White are unable to explain the origin and propagation of several
readings in the manuscripts of the Vulgate otherwise than by supposing
that the primitive document itself contained certain variants
(corrections) in the passages in question.

Footnote 190:

_Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons_ (Erlangen): I. Band, _Das
N. T. vor Origenes_, 1 and 2 Hälfte, 1888-89; II. Band, _Urkunden und
Belege zum ersten und dritten Band_, 1890-92. It is to be hoped that
the third volume will not be long in making its appearance. Along with
this we must take his _Forschungen zur Geschichte des
neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur_, of which
six volumes have been published (1881-1900). Meanwhile Zahn’s
_Einleitung in das Neue Testament_ (Leipzig, I., 1898; II., 1899, 2nd
ed., 1900) cannot be too strongly recommended. It contains a great
deal of valuable material for the criticism of the text. Needless to
say, textual criticism is the basis on which all sound exegesis rests.

Footnote 191:

A small selection will be found in Preuschen, _Analecta_, pp. 152-157.

Footnote 192:

Here again, unfortunately, we have no collection of notices referring
to the history of the text as distinguished from that of the canon.

Footnote 193:

Jülicher, _loc. cit._, from Sozomen, _Hist. Eccl._, i. 11. On the
Latin form _grabattum_, see W.-W., Index, p. 756, σκίμπους occurs as
early as Clem. Al. _Paed._, 1, 2, 6. In the parallels to Mark ii. 6,
Matthew has κλίνη (ix. 6), and Luke κλινίδιον (v. 24). _Cf._ the
passage cited by Lagarde (_De Novo Test._, 20 = _Ges. Abh._, 118) from
Lucian’s _Philopseudes_, 11; ὁ Μίδας αὐτὸς ἀράμενος τὸν σκίμποδα ἐφ’
οὗ ἐκεκόμιστο ᾤχετο εἰς ἀγρὸν ἀπιών.

Footnote 194:

Τὴν σήμερον οὖν Κυριακὴν ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν, ἐν ᾗ ἀνέγνωμεν ὑμῶν τὴν
ἐπιστολήν· ἣν ἕξομεν ἀεί ποτε ἀναγινώσκοντες νουθετεῖσθαι, ὡς καὶ τὴν
προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν.

Footnote 195:

_Cf._ Matt. xiii. 27, δοῦλοι τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου, and also the
superscriptions of the N. T. Epistles, particularly those of Paul,
where δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is varied by ἀπόστολος Ἰ. Χ.

Footnote 196:

“is reserved”—Syr.

Footnote 197:

“but”—Syr.

Footnote 198:

This reading is confirmed by the Syriac as against ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ read by
Christophorson and Savil.

Footnote 199:

The passage is a conspicuous example of the importance of punctuation.
Bengel punctuates ἅγιον, κληθήσεται υἱὸς Θεοῦ, and Westcott and Hort
ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς Θεοῦ. Weiss is accordingly not quite right in
citing Bengel along with Bleek and Hoffman as supporting the view of
Tertullian (see Bengel’s _Gnomon_). It will be difficult to prove that
Tertullian’s construction is impossible “on account of the position of
κληθήσεται.” Westcott and Hort surely know Greek, and Tertullian knew
it better than any of us.

Footnote 200:

It seems worth while to quote here Harnack’s words on these notices of
the earliest attempts at textual criticism. He says (_ibid._, p. 189):
“The charge preferred against the disciples of that erudite Tanner
(Theodotus) by the author of the Little Labyrinth is threefold. He
complains of their formal and grammatical exegesis of Scripture, of
their arbitrary system of textual criticism, and of the extent to
which they were engrossed in Logic, Mathematics, and empirical
Science. At the first glance, therefore, it would appear that these
people had no interest to spare for Theology. But the very opposite is
the case. The complainant himself has to confess that they employed
the method of grammatical exegesis ‘with the object of establishing
their godless conclusions,’ and textual criticism in order to correct
the manuscripts of the holy Scriptures. In place of the allegorical
method of exposition, the grammatical is the only right one, and we
have here an attempt to discover a text more nearly resembling the
original instead of simply accepting the traditional form. How
inimitable and charming really are these notices!... These scholars
had to be generals without an army, because their grammar and textual
criticism and logic might only discredit in the eyes of the churches
that christological method which long tradition had invested with
admiration and respect.... As ‘genuine’ scholars—this is an
exceedingly characteristic description that is given of them—they also
took a jealous care that none of them lost the credit of his
conjectures and emendations. No remnants have been preserved of the
works of these the first scholarly exegetes of the Christian Church
(the Syntagma knows of the existence of such; _cf._ Epiph. lv. c. 1).”
So writes Harnack. Nothing, however, is said in the text of Eusebius
of a jealous watch over the priority of the conjectures. In the
sentence which Harnack renders “for their disciples have with an
ambitious zeal recorded what each one has corrected as they call it,
that is corrupted (deleted?),” φιλοτίμως ἐγγεγράφθαι is to be
understood simply of a diligent record of “corrections” undertaken
solely out of an interest in their contents. According to the Syriac
ἠφανισμένα is not to be rendered by “deleted,” but as Harnack
translates it: _cf._ the various Syriac versions in Matthew vi. verse
16 (Syr^p), verses 19 and 20 (Syr^{pc}). On the validity of the charge
of inventing false Scriptures, see Zahn, _GK._ 1, 296 f.

Footnote 201:

Westcott, _Canon_, Pt. I. c. iv. § 8, p. 308 ff.

Footnote 202:

Westcott, _Canon_, Pt. I. c. iv. p. 310.

Footnote 203:

_Ibid._, p. 291.

Footnote 204:

_Ibid._, p. 303 ff. Cf. _Texts and Studies_, vol. i. 4: _The Fragments
of Heracleon_, by A. E. Brooke, M.A.

Footnote 205:

On the literature of the subject, _cf._ Zahn, _GK._ i. 585-718, _Das
N. T. Marcions_; ii. 409-529, _Marcions N. T._ All other works are
superseded by this, but mention may still be made of A. Hahn, _Das
Evangelium Marcions in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt_ (1823); Thilo,
_Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti_ (1832: for this work Hahn attempted
to restore the text of Marcion, pp. 401-486); A. Ritschl, _Das
Evangelium Marcions und das kanonische Evangelium des Lucas_ (1846);
Hilgenfeld, in the _Z. f. hist. Theol._, 1855, pp. 426-484; Sanday,
_The Gospels in the Second Century_, c. viii.

Footnote 206:

The proof passages will be found in Zahn, _GK._ i. 620, 626, 663:
machaera non stilo: erubescat spongia Marcionis (Tert., v. 4, p. 282.
Is it permissible to infer from this that minium was already used in
manuscripts of the Bible at that time?—_cf._ Augustine, _Con. Jul._,
iii. 13: ipsum libri tui argumentum erubescendo convertatur in
minium): non miror si syllabas subtrahit, quum paginas totas plerumque
subducet. Quis tam comesor mus Ponticus quam qui evangelia corrosit
(_con. Marc._, i. 1): tuum apostoli codicem licet sit undique
circumrosus (Adamantius).

Footnote 207:

See the passage from Tertullian (cotidie reformant illud (_sc._
evangelium), prout a nobis cotidie revincuntur), and from Adamantius
(_Pseudo-Origenes_, de la Rue, i. 887 = Lat. in _Caspari Anecdota_, i.
57) in Zahn, _GK._ i. 613.

Footnote 208:

_Cf._ also _GK._ p. 681.

Footnote 209:

_Cf._ Westcott, _Canon_, Pt. I. c. iv. § 9, Marcion: “Some of the
omissions can be explained at once by his peculiar doctrines, but
others are unlike arbitrary corrections, and must be considered as
various readings of the greatest interest, dating as they do to a time
anterior to all other authorities in our possession” (p. 315). See
also note at the end of the paragraph, where certain readings peculiar
to Marcion are cited.

Footnote 210:

_Cf._ also _ibid._, p. 684, and see below, p. 313.

Footnote 211:

_Cf._ also _ibid._, p. 682: “I repeat that readings which are proved
to be earlier than Marcion by their simultaneous occurrence in his
text and that of the several Catholic witnesses deserve greater
consideration both in the Gospels and Epistles than has generally been
accorded them. It is much more important to ascertain whether a
certain reading has the support of Marcion than to observe that it
occurs in this or that uncial manuscript. In spite of this, however,
the critical notes in our commentaries hardly ever refer to Marcion,
not to speak of their doing so systematically.”

Footnote 212:

Pp. 409-449, on the criticism of the sources; pp. 449-529, the
restoration of the text. On p. 449 f. he gives his verdict on the
earlier works of Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and van Manen in this direction.

Footnote 213:

Zahn interjects “as yet.”

Footnote 214:

We have not yet discovered a manuscript containing exactly Marcion’s
text. The chances of our still doing so are very small in view of the
hatred with which Marcion was pursued. But when the libelli of certain
libellatici have been found, and also a great part of the Gospel of
Peter, we need not despair of finding other lost works as well. Codex
604 is interesting as exhibiting the Marcionite reading, ἐλθέτω τὸ
πνεῦμά σου ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς καὶ καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς, in the Lord’s Prayer, Luke
xi. 2. The same manuscript omits με λέγετε εἶναι in Luke ix. 20, and
λέγουσα in verse 35. Compare also Jülicher, _Gleichnisreden Jesu_, ii.
5: “Marcion, who perhaps created the Roman text of Luke xxi. 30.”

Footnote 215:

On this passage W.-W. observe: “D ex Latinis forsan correctus.”

Footnote 216:

“Licet _suos_ adiectio sit haeretici.” Tertullian.

Footnote 217:

In the critical notes at the end of this chapter I have cited a number
of Marcion’s readings from Zahn’s work, with the hope that these will
now earn a fuller recognition in our theological commentaries. See
_e.g._ on Luke xviii. 20; xxiii. 2; xxiv. 37; 1 Cor. vi. 20; xiv. 19.

Footnote 218:

See Literature on p. 105 f., to which add Westcott, _Canon_, Part I.
c. iv. § 10.

Footnote 219:

Defending the plurality of the canonical Gospels against the
Marcionites, he says: τὸ ἀληθῶς διὰ τεσσάρων ἕν ἐστιν εὐαγγέλιον
(_Philocalia_, ed. Robinson, 47; Zahn, _GK._ i. 412; PRE^3, v. 654).
From what Origen says, _Contra Celsum_, vi. 51, it would seem that he
himself heard Tatian.

Footnote 220:

Euseb., _Hist. Eccl._, iv. 29, with reference to the Encratites:
Χρῶνται μὲν οὖν οὗτοι Νόμῳ καὶ Προφήταις καὶ Εὐαγγελίοις (Syriac has
אונגליון), ἰδίως ἑρμηνεύοντες τῶν ἱερῶν τὰ νοήματα γραφῶν ...
βλασφημοῦντες δὲ Παῦλον τὸν ἀπόστολον ἀθετοῦσιν αὐτοῦ τὰς Ἐπιστολὰς,
μηδὲ τὰς Πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων καταδεχόμενοι. ὁ μέντοι γε πρότερος
αὐτῶν ἀρχηγὸς ὁ Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως
τῶν Εὐαγγελίων συνθεὶς Τὸ Διὰ Τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν· ὃ καὶ παρά
τισιν εἰσέτι φέρεται. Τοῦ δὲ Ἀποστόλου φασὶ τολμῆσαί τινας αὐτὸν
μεταφράσαι φωνὰς ὡς ἐπιδιορθούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως σύνταξιν.
Καταλέλοιπε δὲ οὗτος πολύ τι πλῆθος γραμμάτων κ.τ.λ. In the Syriac
version it runs: But this Tatian, their first head, collected and
combined and framed a (_or_, the) אונגליון and called it דיטסרון, that
is “the combined,” which is in the possession of many till this day.
And it is said of him that he ventured to alter certain phrases of the
Apostle (the plural points in the Syriac are to be omitted) as with
the object of amending the composition of the phrases. And he has left
many writings, etc.

Footnote 221:

Epiphan., _Haeret._, 46, 1 (Pet. 391): λέγουσι δὲ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων
Εὐαγγέλιον ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, ὅπερ κατὰ Ἑβραίους τινὲς καλοῦσι.

Footnote 222:

Minuscule Evan. 72 (Harleianus 5647 of the eleventh century) on Matt.
xxvii. 48: ση[μείωσαι] ὅτι εἰς τὸ καθ’ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον Διοδώρου
καὶ Τατιανοῦ καὶ ἄλλων διαφόρων ἁγίων πατέρων τοῦτο προσκεῖται.
Instead of Διοδώρου, Harnack-Preuschen (i. 493), read Διαδώρου,
whether rightly or not I do not know. Nothing being known of the
historical Gospel of one Diodorus, it is natural enough to conjecture
(Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 28) that the reading should be διὰ δ’, but what
becomes then of ωρου καὶ? Harnack suggests διὰ δ’ Σύρου Τατιανοῦ, but
see Zahn, _Forsch._, ii. 298. The omission of the article before διὰ
δ’ is a difficulty.

Footnote 223:

In his Ἐπιτομὴ αἱρετικῆς κακομυθίας (i. 20; vol. iv. 312), written in
the year 453, he says at the end of the chapter on Tatian:—οὗτος καὶ
τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων καλούμενον συντέθεικεν εὐαγγέλιον, τάς τε γενεαλογίας
περικόψας καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα γεγεννημένον
τὸν κύριον δείκνυσιν, ἐχρήσαντο δὲ τούτῳ οὐ μόνοι οἱ τῆς ἐκείνου
συμμορίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ τοῖς ἀποστολικοῖς ἑπόμενοι δόγμασι, τὴν τῆς
συνθήκης κακουργίαν οὐκ ἐγνωκότες, ἀλλ’ ἁπλούστερον ὡς συντόμῳ τῷ
βιβλίῳ χρησάμενοι. Εὗρον δὲ κἀγὼ πλείους ἢ διακοσίας βίβλους τοιαύτας
ἐν ταῖς παρ’ ἡμῖν ἐκκλησίαις τετιμημένας, καὶ πάσας συναγαγὼν ἀπεθέμην
καὶ τὰ τῶν τεττάρων εὐαγγελιστῶν ἀντεισήγαγον.

Footnote 224:

See Hamlyn Hill, _Earliest Life of Christ_, etc., p. 324; Hope W.
Hogg, Ante-Nicene Library, Additional Volume.

Footnote 225:

See _Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten_, 1882, pp.
196-218, and, on the other side, Zahn, _Forschungen_, ii. 292 ff.

Footnote 226:

_The Diatessaron of Tatian: a Preliminary Study_, 1890.

Footnote 227:

See _ThLz._, 1891, col. 356.

Footnote 228:

It is not clear whether Harnack gives this as his own opinion or not.
For a reading of cod. W^d, akin to that of Tatian, see below on Mark
vii. 33, p. 264.

Footnote 229:

Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Additional Volume, p. 38.

Footnote 230:

See _Forschungen_, i. 130, 140, 216, 228 f., 237, 248, 263.

Footnote 231:

London, Macmillan, 1895.

Footnote 232:

_Forschungen_, i. 179.

Footnote 233:

This will be found most conveniently in Hogg’s translation—Ante-Nicene
Library, Additional Volume.

Footnote 234:

_Cf._ p. 393: “To judge from Ephraem’s Commentary, the Diatessaron
contains scarcely as much apocryphal matter as Codex Cantabrigiensis
of the Gospels and Acts.”

Footnote 235:

In his _N. T. um 200_, p. 108, Harnack treats Zahn’s interpretation of
the words of Eusebius as a bad blunder. The latter defends himself by
saying among other things that it is not quite clear whether Eusebius
himself was aware of the double meaning of the word _μεταφράσαι_ which
was employed in the tradition (he says _φασι_) reported to him. He
thinks that Rufinus might be said to have “paraphrased” certain
commentaries of Origen, correcting his thought and phraseology in many
places. True, but in Eusebius it is _φωνάς τινας τοῦ ἀποστόλου_, not
whole epistles, that Tatian is said to have “metaphrased.”

Footnote 236:

On the words of Jerome (_ad Tit. praef._, vii. 686), “Sed Tatianus
Encratitarum patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas
repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc est ad Titum, apostoli pronuntiandam
credidit, parvipendens Marcionis et aliorum qui cum eo in hac parte
consentiunt assertionem,” compare Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 6, _GK._ i. 426.

Footnote 237:

_Introd._, ii. § 170, p. 120. On all accounts the Western text claims
our attention first. The earliest readings which can be fixed
chronologically belong to it. As far as we can judge from extant
evidence, it was the most widely-spread text of Ante-Nicene times; and
sooner or later every version directly or indirectly felt its
influence. But any prepossessions in its favour that might be created
by this imposing early ascendancy are for the most part soon
dissipated by continuous study of its internal character. The
eccentric Whiston’s translation of the Gospels and Acts from the Codex
Bezae, and of the Pauline Epistles from the Codex Claromontanus, and
Bornemann’s edition of the Acts, in which the Codex Bezae was taken as
the standard authority, are probably the only attempts which have ever
been made in modern times to set up an exclusively, or even
predominantly, Western Greek text as the purest reproduction of what
the Apostles wrote. This all but universal rejection is doubtless
partly owing to the persistent influence of a whimsical theory of the
last century, which, ignoring all non-Latin Western documentary
evidence except the handful of extant bilingual uncials, maintained
that the Western Greek text owed its peculiarities to translation from
the Latin; partly to an imperfect apprehension of the antiquity and
extension of the Western text as revealed by Patristic quotations and
by versions. Yet even with the aid of a true perception of the facts
of Ante-Nicene textual history, it would have been strange if this
text, as a whole, had found much favour. A few scattered Western
readings have long been approved by good textual critics on
transcriptional and to a great extent insufficient grounds; and in
Tischendorf’s last edition their number has been augmented, owing to
the misinterpreted accession of the Sinai MS. to the attesting
documents. To one small and peculiar class of Western readings,
exclusively omissions, we shall ourselves have to call attention as
having exceptional claims to adoption.

§ 202 (p. 149). In spite of the prodigious amount of error which D
contains, these readings, in which it sustains and is sustained by
other documents derived from very ancient texts of other types, render
it often invaluable for the secure recovery of the true text; and,
apart from this direct applicability, no other single source of
evidence, except the quotations of Origen, surpasses it in value on
the equally important ground of historical or indirect
instructiveness. To what extent its unique readings are due to licence
on the part of the scribe rather than to faithful reproduction of an
antecedent text now otherwise lost, it is impossible to say; but it is
remarkable how frequently the discovery of fresh evidence, especially
Old-Latin evidence, supplies a second authority for readings in which
D had hitherto stood alone.

§ 240 (p. 175). On the other hand there remain, as has been before
intimated (§ 170), a few other Western readings of similar form, which
we cannot doubt to be genuine in spite of the exclusively Western
character of their attestation. They are all omissions, or, to speak
more correctly, non-interpolations of various length, that is to say,
the original record has here, to the best of our belief, suffered
interpolation in all the extant non-Western texts.... With a single
peculiar exception (Matt. xxvii. 49), in which the extraneous words
are omitted by the Syrian as well as by the Western text, the Western
non-interpolations are confined to the last three chapters of St.
Luke.

§ 241. These exceptional instances of the preservation of the original
text in exclusively Western readings are likely to have had an
exceptional origin.

In the edition of 1896, the surviving editor (Westcott) appends an
Additional Note which contains a further exceedingly valuable
admission in the same direction. It is as follows:—

Note to p. 121, § 170 (p. 328): “The Essays of Dr. Chase on _The
Syriac Element in Codex Bezae_, Cambridge, 1893, and _The Syro-Latin
Text of the Gospels_, Cambridge, 1895, are a most important
contribution to the solution of a fundamental problem in the history
of the text of the N.T. The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. of the Old
Syriac raises the question whether the combination of the oldest types
of the Syriac and Latin texts can outweigh the combination of the
primary Greek texts. A careful examination of the passages in which
Syr^{sin} and k are arrayed against א B, would point to the
conclusion.” [The proper title of Chase’s Essays is The Old Syriac,
under which shorter (outside) title Zahn also quotes them (_Einl._,
ii. 348).] This statement by Westcott sounds strange after the remark
made in the Preface. “For the rest,” he says there, “I may perhaps be
allowed to say that no arguments have been advanced against the
general principles maintained in the Introduction and illustrated in
the Notes since the publication of the First Edition, which were not
fully considered by Dr. Hort and myself in the long course of our
work, and in our judgment dealt with accurately.—Auckland Castle,
March 27, 1896. B. F. D.”

Footnote 238:

See my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 3, where I have cited this passage of
Lagarde. His book may not be very accessible to textual critics.

Footnote 239:

“Thou shalt worship no manuscripts” was one of the ten commandments
that Lehrs gave philologists.

Footnote 240:

This passage was the subject of a heated discussion between Severus
and Macedonius at Constantinople in the year 510. On this occasion the
superb copy of Matthew’s Gospel, which had been discovered in the
grave of Barnabas in the reign of the Emperor Zeno, was brought upon
the scene.

Footnote 241:

Compare what Westcott and Hort say of Whiston and Bornemann, cited
above, p. 222, and particularly the section on the twofold recension
of the Acts in Zahn’s _Einleitung_, ii. § 59, pp. 338-359. See also
Burkitt’s Introduction to Barnard’s _Biblical Text of Clement of
Alexandria_ (_Texts and Studies_, v. 5), especially p. xviii: “Let us
come out of the land of Egypt, which speaks, as Clement’s quotations
show, with such doubtful authority, and let us see whether the
agreement of East and West, of Edessa and Carthage, will not give us a
surer basis upon which to establish our text of the Gospels.”

Footnote 242:

Attention may be directed in passing to the interesting way in which
the witnesses are distributed. Thus we have in verse 51, for the
omission of καὶ ἀνεφερ. εἰς τ. οὐρ. א* D Syr^{sin} a b d e ff l*, Aug.
½; verse 52, omit προσκυν· αὐτόν, D Syr^{sin} a b d e ff l, Aug. 1/1;
verse 53, αἰνοῦντες for εὐλογοῦντες D a b d e ff l r (Aug.);
(Syr^{sin} here has מברכין, not משבחין which represents αἰνοῦντες in
Luke ii. 13, 20, xix. 37, and, therefore, must have read εὐλογοῦντες
in this passage). Now I ask, is it right to accept the testimony of D
and its associates in verse 52, only to reject it in verse 53? And
what amount of weight is added to the testimony of D by the addition
of that of א*? Schiller says in _Tell_: “The strong is mightiest
alone: united e’en the weak are strong”—how far are both these notions
true in textual criticism?

Footnote 243:

So Graefe, but it is not apparent whether the καὶ that belongs to this
reading is to be supplied before it or after. Evidently he intends to
read αἰν. καὶ εὐλογ. with the great majority of witnesses, and not
εὐλογ. καὶ αἰν. with the Ethiopic version. See _Th. St. Kr._, 1898, i.
136 f. The passage is regarded by Westcott and Hort as a good example
of “conflation,” § 146.

Footnote 244:

See now _Textkritik der vier Evangelien_, pp. 48, 181.

Footnote 245:

Αἰνεῖν is not given in Cremer’s _Dictionary_ among the synonyms of
εὐλογεῖν, and is only cited on p. 610 with the reading αἰνοῦντες καὶ
εὐλογοῦντες from this passage.

Footnote 246:

See Hilgenfeld, _Das Apostel-Concil nach seinem ursprünglichen
Wortlaute_ in the _ZfwTh._, 42 (1899), 1, 138-149.

Footnote 247:

Harnack, _Das Aposteldecret_ (Acta xv. 29) _und die Blass’sche
Hypothese_, Berlin, 1899. From the _Sitzungsberichte der preuss. Akad.
der Wiss._ Noticed in the _Expository Times_ for June 1899, p. 395 f.
See also the _Berliner philologische Wochenschrift_ of the 13th May
1899.

Footnote 248:

See critical note in the _Expositor’s Greek Testament_ (Knowling), _in
loco_.

Footnote 249:

_Cf._ the passage of Hermas cited above, p. 47.

Footnote 250: