Chapter XXII: Appendix: Of Sacred Codices (2)

σπεκουλάτωρ, 147

Spelling of proper names, 186-7

σπλάγχνα, 153

σπυρίς, 171, 180

Stanley (Dean), 135, 507

Stillingfleet (Bp.), 500

στιβάς and στοιβάδες, 58-60

συντρίψασα, 185

συστρεφομένων, 176-7

Syndics of Cambridge Press, xxx-i

Syracuse, 494

Syriac Version, 9

“Syrian,” “Antiochian,” “Græco-Syrian,”—Dr. Hort’s designations of the
Traditional Greek Text 257-65, 269
—— its assumed origin, 272-88
—— and history, 290-1
—— characterized, 87, 288-290

τάφος, 298

Tatian (_see_ INDEX II.) 29, 336, 350

“Teaching”, 199

τέκνον, 153, 179

τέλος, 51

Tenses, 157-64, _see_ “Aorist,” “Imperfect,” “Perfect,” “Pluperfect,”
“Present.”
—— unidiomatically rendered, 402

Test-places (three), 47, 519

Text to be determined by external evidence, 19-20, 45
—— provision for its security, 10
—— (Received), _see_ “Textus Receptus” and “Syrian.”

Texts, _see_ INDEX I.

’Textus Receptus’, 12-3, 17-8, 107, 118
—— (Bp. Ellicott on), 388
—— needs correction 21, 107
—— _see_ “Syrian,” “Traditional.”

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 480, _see_ INDEX II.

Theodotus, the Gnostic, 323-4

Theophilus, Bp. of Antioch, 29

θεόπνευστος, 208-9

Θεός and ὅς in MSS., 99-105, 425-6
—— , not ὅς, to be read in 1 Tim. iii. 16, _Pref._ xxi-iv, 424-501

Thierry (M.), 493

Thirty changes in 38 words, 171

1 Timothy iii. 16. _See_ Θεός

Tischendorf (Dr.) 22-4, 45, 243-4, 246, 270-1, 370, 383, 437-8, 451, 467

Title on the Cross, 85-8

“Titus Justus”, 53-4

“Tomb”, 198

Tradition (Ecclesiastical), 495

Traditional Text departed from 6000 times, 107
—— _see_ “Syrian.”
—— meaning of S. Mark xiii. 32, 209-10

“Transcriptional probability”, 251-2

Translators of 1611, 187-91, 207
—— of 1881, mistaken principle of 138, 187-96

Transposition, 93-7

Tregelles (Dr.), 22, 45, 243, 246, 270, 370, 380, 383, 431, 451, 467, 498

Trench (Abp.), xlii, 106, 229

Trinitarian doctrine, 174-5

True Text, (only safe way of ascertaining), 339-42

Tusculum, 446

Tyndale (William), 167, 191, 192

Uncials (depravity of the old), 12-17, 30-5, 46-7, 75-6, 94-5

Uniformity of rendering, 166, 187

“Unitarian” Reviser, intolerable, 503-8

ὑπό and διά, 156

ὑποτύπωσις, 351

Uppström (Andr.), 452

Upsala, 444, _see_ “Belsheim.”

Ussher (Abp.), 432, 469, 500

Valckenaer, 228

Valentinus, 29

Various Readings, 49-50, 56, 65, 130-1

Vaticanus, codex (B), 11-17, 265, 273, 286, 289, 291, 314-5, 325, 342-5,
_see_ “B and א.”

Veludo (Sig.), 492

Vercellone (C.), 381

Verifying faculty, 95-6, 109, 253, 290-1, 307-8

Version (Authorized), 112-4
—— (old Latin), 9, 448
—— (Vulgate), 9, 419
—— (Peschito), 9, 449-50
—— (Harkleian), 450
—— (Coptic), 9, 451-2
—— (Sahidic), 9, 451-2
—— (Gothic), 9, 452-3
—— (Armenian), 9, 453
—— (Æthiopic), 9, 453
—— (Georgian), 454
—— (Arabic), 453-4
—— (Slavonian), 454

“Vials”, 200

Von Heinemann (Dr.), 493

Vulgate, _see_ “Version.”

W. (M.), _Pref._ xxviii

Walton (Bp. Brian), 432

Waterland (Dr.), 500

Way (only safe) of ascertaining the True Test, 339-42

Weber (M.), 437

Wescher (M.), 492

“Wesleyan Methodist” Revisers, 504-5

West the painter, 162

Westcott (Dr.), xlii, 124, _see_ “Hort.”

Westcott and Hort (Drs.), 24-9, 33, 49, 51, 72, 83, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97,
110, 114, 125, 134-5, 177, 239-41, 245, 247, 370, 380, 382,
499, 502, 518-9, _See reverse of Title-page, and Pref._ xi-iv,
xxvi-viii, xxxi

“Western,”, 357
—— readings, 271-2
—— and “Syrian”, 361

“Westminster Abbey scandal”, 507

Wetstein (J. J.), 246, 383, 426, 456, 467, 469, 480, 497

Wilberforce (Bp.), 229, 415, 505, 507

Woide (C. G.), 434-7

Wolfii _Anecd. Græca_, 458

Wood (C. F. B.), 183

Word, incarnate and written, 334-5, 390-1

Wordsworth (Dr. Charles), Bp. of S. Andrews, 106, 165, 229-30, 382
—— (Dr. Christopher), Bp. of Lincoln, 37, 112, 147, 184, 226, 368, 382,
400, 502, 505, 513, _Ded._ vi

Wotton (Henry), 433

Xenophon, 149

Young (Patrick), 432
—— (Dr.), of Glasgow, 477

ζώνη, 201

FOOTNOTES

1 Any one who desires to see this charge established, is invited to
read from page 399 to page 413 of what follows.

2 Dr. Newth. See pp. 37-9.

3 See pp. 24-9: 97, &c.

4 See below, pp. 1 to 110.

5 This will be found more fully explained from pp. 127 to 130: pp. 154
to 164: also pp. 400 to 403. See also the quotations on pp. 112 and
368.

6 See below, pp. 113 to 232.

7 See below, pp. 235 to 366.

_ 8 Gospel of the Resurrection_, p. viii.

9 Reference is made to a vulgar effusion in the “_Contemporary
Review_” for March 1882: from which it chiefly appears that Canon
(now Archdeacon) Farrar is unable to forgive S. Mark the Evangelist
for having written the 16th verse of his concluding chapter. The
Venerable writer is in consequence for ever denouncing those “_last
Twelve Verses_.” In March 1882, (pretending to review my Articles in
the “Quarterly,”) he says:—“In spite of Dean Burgon’s Essay on the
subject, the minds of most scholars are _quite unalterably made up_
on such questions as the authenticity of the last twelve verses of
S. Mark.” [_Contemporary Review_, vol. xli. p. 365.] And in the
ensuing October,—“If, among _positive results_, any one should set
down such facts as that ... Mark xvi. 9-20 ... _formed no part of
the original apostolic autograph_ ... He, I say, who should
enumerate these points as being _beyond the reach of serious
dispute_ ... would be expressing the views which are _regarded as
indisputable_ by the vast majority of such recent critics as have
established any claim to serious attention.” [_Expositor_, p. 173.]

It may not be without use to the Venerable writer that he should be
reminded that critical questions, instead of being disposed of by
such language as the foregoing, are not even touched thereby. One is
surprised to have to tell a “fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,”
so obvious a truth as that by such writing he does but effectually
put himself out of court. By proclaiming that his mind is “_quite
unalterably made up_” that the end of S. Mark’s Gospel is not
authentic, he admits that he is impervious to argument and therefore
incapable of understanding proof. It is a mere waste of time to
reason with an unfortunate who announces that he is beyond the reach
of conviction.

10 No. xxviii., page 436. If any one cares to know what the teaching
was which the writer in the “Church Quarterly” was intending to
reproduce, he is invited to read from p. 296 to p. 300 of the
present volume.

_ 11 Contemporary Review_, (Dec. 1881),—p. 985 seq.

12 Q. R. (No. 304,) p. 313.—The passage referred to will be found below
(at p. 14),—slightly modified, in order to protect myself against
the risk of _future_ misconception. My Reviewer refers to four other
places. He will find that my only object in them all was to prove
that codices A B א C D _yield divergent testimony_; and therefore,
so habitually _contradict_ one another, as effectually to invalidate
their own evidence throughout. This has never been _proved_ before.
It can _only_ be proved, in fact, by one who has laboriously
collated the codices in question, and submitted to the drudgery of
exactly tabulating the result.

13 “Damus tibi in manus Novum Testamentum _idem profecto_, quod ad
textum attinet, cum ed. Millianâ,”—are the well known opening words
of the “Monitum” prefixed to Lloyd’s N. T.—And Mill, according to
Scrivener, [_Introduction_, p. 399,] “only aims at reproducing
Stephens’ text of 1550, though in a few places he departs from it,
whether by accident or design.” Such places are found to amount in
all to _twenty-nine_.

14 See below, pp. 257-8: also p. 390.

_ 15 The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament_,
&c.—Macmillan, pp. 79.

16 See below, pp. 369 to 520.

17 Pages 371-2.

_ 18 Pamphlet_, pp. 77: 39, 40, 41.

19 See below, p. 425.

20 Pages 424-501.

21 From January till June 1883.

_ 22 Pamphlet_, p. 76.

_ 23 E.g._ pages 252-268: 269-277: 305-308.

_ 24 E.g._ pages 302-306.

25 Page 354.

26 On that day appeared Dr. Hort’s “_Introduction and Appendix_” to the
N. T. as edited by himself and Dr. Westcott.

27 “_Charge_,” published in the _Guardian_, Dec. 20, 1882, p. 1813.

28 Preface to _History of the English Bible_ (p. ix.),—1868.

29 Preface to _Pastoral Epistles_ (p. xiv.),—1861.

_ 30 The Authorized Version of the N. T._ (p. 3),—1858.

_ 31 The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour __JESUS CHRIST__
translated out of the Greek: being the Version set forth __A.D.__
1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Revised
__A.D.__ 1881._ Printed for the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, 1881.

_ 32 The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text
followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations
adopted in the Revised Version._ Edited for the Syndics of the
Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L.,
LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.

Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. _The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by
the Revisers of the Authorized Version._ [Edited by the Ven.
Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.

_ 33 On Revision_,—pp. 215-6.

34 Tertullian, _bis._

35 Hieron. _Opp._ ii. 177 c (see the note).

36 Apud Hieron. iii. 121.

37 iv. 617 c (ed. Pusey).

38 P. 272.

39 i. 548 c; viii. 207 a.

40 iv. 205.

41 A reference to the _Journal of Convocation_, for a twelvemonth after
the proposal for a Revision of the Authorized Version was seriously
entertained, will reveal more than it would be convenient in this
place even to allude to.

42 We derive our information from the learned Congregationalist, Dr.
Newth,—_Lectures on Bible Revision_ (1881), p. 116.

_ 43 On Revision_, pp. 26-7.

44 Dr. Scrivener’s _Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New
Testament_, 2nd edition, 1874 (pp. 607), may be confidently
recommended to any one who desires to master the outlines of Textual
Criticism under the guidance of a judicious, impartial, and
thoroughly competent guide. A new and revised edition of this
excellent treatise will appear shortly.

45 Studious readers are invited to enquire for Dr. Scrivener’s _Full
and exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy
Gospels (hitherto unexamined), deposited in the British Museum, the
Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, &c., with a Critical
Introduction_. (Pp. lxxiv. and 178.) 1853. The introductory matter
deserves very attentive perusal.—With equal confidence we beg to
recommend his _Exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, a
Græco-Latin Manuscript of S. Paul’s Epistles, deposited in the
Library of Trinity College, Cambridge; to which is added a full
Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, containing various portions of the
Greek New Testament, in the Libraries of Cambridge, Parham,
Leicester, Oxford, Lambeth, the British Museum, &c. With a Critical
Introduction_ (which must also be carefully studied). (Pp. lxxx. and
563.) 1859.—Learned readers can scarcely require to be told of the
same learned scholar’s _Novum Testamentum Textûs Stephanici,
__A.D.__ 1550. Accedunt variæ Lectiones Editionum Bezæ, Elzeviri,
Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, Tregellesii._ Curante F. H. A. Scrivener,
A.M., D.C.L., LL.D. [1860.] Editio auctior et emendatior.
1877.—Those who merely wish for a short popular Introduction to the
subject may be grateful to be told of Dr. Scrivener’s Six _Lectures
on the Text of the N. T. and the Ancient MSS. which contain it,
chiefly addressed to those who do not read Greek_. 1875.

46 Scrivener’s _Plain Introduction_,—p. 118.

_ 47 Bezæ Codex Cantabrigiensis: being an exact Copy, in ordinary Type,
of the celebrated Uncial Græco-Latin Manuscript of the Four Gospels
and Acts of the Apostles, written early in the Sixth Century, and
presented to the University of Cambridge by Theodore Beza_, A.D.
1581. Edited, with a Critical Introduction, Annotations, and
Facsimiles, by Frederick H. Scrivener, M.A., Rector of S. Gerrans,
Cornwall. (Pp. lxiv. and 453.) Cambridge, 1864. No one who aspires
to a competent acquaintance with Textual Criticism can afford to be
without this book.

48 On the subject of codex א we beg (once for all) to refer scholars to
Scrivener’s _Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the
Received Text of the New Testament. To which is prefixed a Critical
Introduction._ [1863.] 2nd Edition, revised. (Pp. lxxii. and 163.)
1867.

49 Bishop Ellicott’s _Considerations on Revision_, &c. (1870), p. 40.

50 The epithet “_cursive_,” is used to denote manuscripts written in
“running-hand,” of which the oldest known specimens belong to the
IXth century. “_Uncial_” manuscripts are those which are written in
capital letters. A “_codex_” popularly signifies a _manuscript_. A
“version” is _a translation_. A “recension” is _a revision_. (We
have been requested to explain these terms.)

_ 51 Considerations on Revision_, p. 30.

52 Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do
not, by any means, claim _perfection_ for the Received Text. We
entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we
shall have occasion to point out (_e.g._ at page 107) that the
_Textus Receptus_ needs correction. We do but insist, (1) That it is
an incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or
Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely preferable to the
“New Greek Text” of the Revisionists. And, (2) That to be improved,
the _Textus Receptus_ will have to be revised on entirely different
“principles” from those which are just now in fashion. Men must
begin by unlearning the _German prejudices_ of the last fifty years;
and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of _facts_.

53 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, pp. 342-4.

_ 54 Ut suprà_, p. 46. We prefer to quote the indictment against
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, from the pages of Revisionists.

55 “Ex scriptoribus Græcis _tantisper Origene solo_ usi
sumus.”—_Præfatio_, p. xxi.

56 Scrivener’s _Plain Introd._ p. 397.

_ 57 Ut suprà_, p. 48.

_ 58 Ut suprà_, p. 47.

59 Prebendary Scrivener, _ibid._ (ed. 1874), p. 429.

_ 60 Ibid._ p. 470.

_ 61 Ibid._

_ 62 Concilia_, i. 852.

_ 63 Ut suprà_, p. 47.

_ 64 The New Testament in the Original Greek._ The Text revised by
Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D.
Cambridge and London, 1881.

65 From the Preface prefixed to the “limited and private issue” of
1870, p. vi.

_ 66 Ut suprà_, p. xv.

_ 67 Ibid._ p. xviii.

_ 68 Ibid._ p. xvi.

_ 69 Ibid._ pp. xviii., xix.

70 [_Note,—that I have thought it best, for many reasons, to retain the
ensuing note as it originally appeared; merely restoring [within
brackets] those printed portions of it for which there really was no
room. The third Article in the present volume will be found to
supply an ample exposure of the shallowness of Drs. Westcott and
Hort’s Textual Theory._]

While these sheets are passing through the press, a copy of the
long-expected volume reaches us. The theory of the respected authors
proves to be the shallowest imaginable. It is briefly
_this_:—Fastening on the two oldest codices extant (B and א, both of
the IVth century), they invent the following hypothesis:—“That the
ancestries of those two manuscripts _diverged from a point near the
autographs, and never came into contact subsequently_.” [No reason
is produced for this opinion.]

Having thus secured two independent witnesses of what was in the
sacred autographs, the Editors claim that the _coincidence_ of א and
B must “mark those portions of text in which two primitive and
entirely separate lines of transmission had not come to differ from
each other through independent corruption:” and therefore that, “in
the absence of specially strong internal evidence to the contrary,”
“the readings of א and B combined _may safely be accepted as
genuine_.”

But what is to be done when the same two codices diverge _one from
the other_?—In all such cases (we are assured) the readings of any
“binary combination” of B are to be preferred; because “on the
closest scrutiny,” they generally “have the _ring of genuineness_;”
hardly ever “_look suspicious_ after full consideration.” “Even when
B stands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.”
[We are not told why.]

But, (rejoins the student who, after careful collation of codex B,
has arrived at a vastly different estimate of its character,)—What
is to be done when internal and external evidence alike condemn a
reading of B? How is “_mumpsimus_” for example to be
treated?—“_Mumpsimus_” (the Editors solemnly reply) as “the better
attested reading”—(by which they mean the reading attested by B,)—we
place in our margin. “_Sumpsimus_,” apparently the _right_ reading,
we place in the text within ††; in token that it is probably “_a
successful ancient conjecture_.”

We smile, and resume:—But how is the fact to be accounted for that
the text of Chrysostom and (in the main) of the rest of the
IVth-century Fathers, to whom we are so largely indebted for our
critical materials, and who must have employed codices fully as old
as B and א: how is it, we ask, that the text of all these, including
codex A, differs essentially from the text exhibited by codices B
and א?—The editors reply,—The text of Chrysostom and the rest, we
designate “Syrian,” and assume to have been the result of an
“editorial Revision,” which we conjecturally assign to the second
half of the IIIrd century. It is the “_Pre-Syrian_” text that we are
in search of; and we recognize the object of our search in codex B.

We stare, and smile again. But how then does it come to pass (we
rejoin) that the Peschito, or primitive _Syriac_, which is older by
full a century and a half than the last-named date, is practically
still the same text?—This fatal circumstance (not overlooked by the
learned Editors) they encounter with another conjectural assumption.
“_A Revision_” (say they) “of the Old Syriac version appears to have
taken place early in the IVth century, or sooner; and doubtless in
some connexion with the Syrian revision of the Greek text, the
readings being to a very great extent coincident.”

And pray, where _is_ “the _Old Syriac_ version” of which you
speak?—It is (reply the Editors) our way of designating the
fragmentary Syriac MS. commonly known as “Cureton’s.”—Your way (we
rejoin) of manipulating facts, and disposing of evidence is
certainly the most convenient, as it is the most extraordinary,
imaginable: yet is it altogether inadmissible in a grave enquiry
like the present. Syriac scholars are of a widely different opinion
from yourselves. Do you not perceive that you have been drawing upon
your imagination for every one of your facts?

We decline in short on the mere conjectural _ipse dixit_ of these
two respected scholars to admit either that the Peschito is a
Revision of Cureton’s Syriac Version;—or that it was executed about
A.D. 325;—or that the text of Chrysostom and the other principal
IVth-century Fathers is the result of an unrecorded “Antiochian
Revision” which took place about the year A.D. 275.

[But instead of troubling ourselves with removing the upper story of
the visionary structure before us,—which reminds us painfully of a
house which we once remember building with playing-cards,—we begin
by removing the basement-story, which brings the entire
superstructure in an instant to the ground.]

For we decline to admit that the texts exhibited by B א can have
“diverged from a point near the sacred autographs, and never come
into contact subsequently.” We are able to show, on the contrary,
that the readings they jointly embody afford the strongest
presumption that the MSS. which contain them are nothing else but
specimens of those “corrected,” _i.e._ _corrupted_ copies, which are
known to have abounded in the earliest ages of the Church. From the
prevalence of identical depravations in either, we infer that they
are, on the contrary, derived from the same not very remote depraved
original: and therefore, that their coincidence, when they differ
from all (or nearly all) other MSS., so far from marking “two
primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission” of the
inspired autographs, does but mark what was derived from the same
corrupt common ancestor; whereby the supposed two independent
witnesses to the Evangelic verity become resolved into _a single
witness to a fabricated text of the IIIrd century_.

It is impossible in the meantime to withhold from these learned and
excellent men (who are infinitely better than their theory) the
tribute of our sympathy and concern at the evident perplexity and
constant distress to which their own fatal major premiss has reduced
them. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same.
Doubt,—unbelief,—credulity,—general mistrust of _all_ evidence, is
the inevitable sequel and penalty. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort
solemnly assured their brother Revisionists that “the prevalent
assumption, that throughout the N. T. the true text is to be found
_somewhere_ among recorded readings, _does not stand the test of
experience_;”[P. xxi.] and they are evidently still haunted by the
same spectral suspicion. They see a ghost to be exorcised in every
dark corner. “The Art of _Conjectural Emendation_” (says Dr. Hort)
“depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility
of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of
language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections,
that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation
founded on knowledge and method.”[_Introd._ p. 71.] Specimens of the
writer’s skill in this department abound. _One_ occurs at p. 135
(_App._) where, _in defiance of every known document_, he seeks to
evacuate S. Paul’s memorable injunction to Timothy (2 Tim. i. 13) of
all its significance. [A fuller exposure of Dr. Hort’s handling of
this important text will be found later in the present volume.] May
we be allowed to assure the accomplished writer that IN BIBLICAL
TEXTUAL CRITICISM, “CONJECTURAL EMENDATION” HAS NO PLACE?

71 Scrivener, _Introduction_, p. 453.—Stunica, it will be remembered,
was the chief editor of the Complutensian, or _first printed_
edition of the New Testament, (1514).

72 προσέφορον αὐτῷ,—S. Matt. ix. 2.

73 Scrivener, _Plain Introd_. p. 472.

74 The words omitted are therefore the following 22:—ἡμῶν, ὁ ἐν τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς ... γενηθήτω τὸ θελημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς
... ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.

_ 75 Companion to the Revised Version_, p. 61.

_ 76 The last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark,
vindicated against recent critical Objectors and established_, by
the Rev. J. W. Burgon,—pp. 334, published by Parker, Oxford, 1871.

77 As Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Chr. Wordsworth,—the learned Bishops of
Chester and Lincoln. It is right to state that Bp. Ellicott
“_considers the passage doubtful_.” (_On Revision_, p. 36.) Dr.
Scrivener (it is well known) differs entirely from Bp. Ellicott on
this important point.

_ 78 Lectures on Bible Revision_, pp. 119-20.

79 τὰς ἀληθεῖς ῥήσεις Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου.—Clemens Rom., c. 45.

_ 80 Should the Revised New Testament be authorized?_—p. 42.

_ 81 Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered,_—by Canon
Cook,—pp. 221-2.

82 At p. 34 of his pamphlet in reply to the first two of the present
Articles.

_ 83 On Revision_, pp. 30 and 49.

_ 84 Words of the N. T._ p. 193.

_ 85 Companion to the Revised Version_, p. 63.

_ 86 Ibid._ p. 62.

87 Viz. Eusebius,—Macarius Magnes,—Aphraates,—Didymus,—the Syriac _Acts
of the App._,—Epiphanius,—Ambrose,—Chrysostom,—Jerome,—Augustine. It
happens that the disputation of Macarius Magnes (A.D. 300-350) with
a heathen philosopher, which has recently come to light, contains an
elaborate discussion of S. Mark xvi. 17, 18. Add the curious story
related by the author of the _Paschal Chronicle_ (A.D. 628)
concerning Leontius, Bishop of Antioch (A.D. 348),—p. 289. This has
been hitherto overlooked.

88 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 515.

89 Tisch. specifies 7 Latin copies. Origen (iii. 946 _f._), Jerome
(vii. 282), and Leo (ap. Sabatier) are the only patristic quotations
discoverable.

90 i. 459

91 i. 374; ii. 714; iv. 15.

92 vii. 47; viii. 13.

_ 93 Dem. Ev._ pp. 163, 342.

94 i. 180, 385.

95 In loc. Also _in Luc._ xix. 29 (_Cat. Ox._ 141).

_ 96 De Trin._ p. 84; Cord. _Cat. in Ps._ ii. 450, 745.

97 i. 845,—which is reproduced in the _Paschal Chronicle_, p. 374.

98 P. 180; cf. p. 162.

99 i. 154, 1047.

100 i. 355, 696, 6; 97 iii. 346.

101 Gr. iii. 434.

102 Ap. Galland. ix. 754.

103 i. 587; ii. 453, 454; vi. 393; vii. 311, 674; viii. 85; xi. 347.
Also _Cat. in Ps._ iii. 139.

104 Ap. Chrys. vi. 424; cf. p. 417.

_ 105 In Luc._ pp. 12, 16, 502 ( = Mai, ii. 128). Also Mai, ii. 343,
_Hom. de Incarn._ p. 109. _Opp._ ii. 593; v.1 681, 30, 128, 380,
402, 154; vi. 398. Maii, iii.2 286.

106 i. 290, 1298; ii. 18; iii. 480.

107 Ap. Galland. ix. 446, 476. _Concil._ iii. 1001, 1023.

_ 108 Concil._ iii. 1002.

109 Ap. Galland. ix. 629.

_ 110 Concil._ iii. 1095.

_ 111 Concil._ iii. 829 = Cyr. _Opp._ vi. 159.

_ 112 Nov. Auctar._ i. 596.

113 Montf. ii. 152, 160, 247, 269.

_ 114 Hexaem._ ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 899.

115 Ap. Galland. xii. 308.

116 Ed. Combefis, 14, 54; ap. Galland. xiii. 100, 123.

117 Ap. Galland. xiii. 235.

118 ii. 836.

119 Ap. Galland. xiii. 212.

_ 120 E.g._ Chrys. _Opp._ viii.; _Append._ 214.

121 P. 6 D.

122 Ap. Galland. iii. 809.

123 ii. 602.

124 ii. 101, 122, 407.

125 iii. 447.

126 ii. 298.

127 ii. 804; iii. 783; v. 638, 670, 788; viii. 214, 285; x. 754, 821.

128 Cord. _Cat. in Ps._ ii. 960.

129 Of the ninety-two places above quoted, Tischendorf knew of only
_eleven_, Tregelles adduces only _six_.—Neither critic seems to have
been aware that “Gregory Thaum.” is not the author of the citation
they ascribe to him. And why does Tischendorf quote as Basil’s what
_is known_ not to have been his?

130 But then, note that C is only available for comparison down to the
end of ver. 5. In the 9 verses which have been lost, who shall say
how many more eccentricities would have been discoverable?

_ 131 Companion to the Revised Version_, pp. 62, 63. _Words of the N. T._
p. 193.

_ 132 Words of the N. T._ p. 193.

133 Drs. Westcott and Hort (consistently enough) put them _on the
self-same footing_ with the evidently spurious ending found in L.

134 True, that a separate volume of Greek Text has been put forth,
showing every change which has been either actually accepted, or
else suggested for future possible acceptance. But (in the words of
the accomplished editor), “the _Revisers are not responsible for its
publication_.” Moreover, (and this is the chief point,) it is a
sealed book to all but Scholars.

It were unhandsome, however, to take leave of the learned labours of
Prebendary Scrivener and Archdeacon Palmer, without a few words of
sympathy and admiration. Their volumes (mentioned at the beginning
of the present Article) are all that was to have been expected from
the exquisite scholarship of their respective editors, and will be
of abiding interest and value. _Both_ volumes should be in the hands
of every scholar, for neither of them supersedes the other. Dr.
Scrivener has (with rare ability and immense labour) set before the
Church, _for the first time, the Greek Text which was followed by
the Revisers of 1611_, viz. Beza’s N. T. of 1598, supplemented in
above 190 places from other sources; every one of which the editor
traces out in his _Appendix_, pp. 648-56. At the foot of each page,
he shows what changes have been introduced into the Text by the
Revisers of 1881.—Dr. Palmer, taking the _Text of Stephens_ (1550)
as his basis, presents us with the Readings adopted by the Revisers
of the “Authorized Version,” and relegates the displaced Readings
(of 1611) to the foot of each page.—We cordially congratulate them
both, and thank them for the good service they have rendered.

135 The number is not excessive. There were about 600 persons aboard the
ship in which Josephus traversed the same waters. (_Life_, c. III.)

136 ii. 61 and 83.

137 Isaiah xiv. 15.

138 S. Matthew xxi. 1-3. S. Mark xi. 1-6. S. Luke xix. 29-34.

139 א D L read—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε: C*,—αὐτον ΠΑΛΙΝ ἀποστελλει
ὡδε: B,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ αὐτον ὡδε: Δ,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε:
yscr—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ.

140 iii. 722, 740.

141 iii. 737, iv. 181.

142 S. Matt. xxi. 8.

143 Exod. x. 21-23.

144 S. Matth. xxvii. 45; S. Mark xv. 33; S. Lu. xxiii. 44.

145 Ap. Epiphan. i. 317 and 347.

_ 146 Intenebricatus est sol_—a: _obscuratus est sol_—b: _tenebricavit
sol_—c.

147 Ap. Routh, _Opusc._ i. 79.

148 i. 90, 913; ap. Epiph. i. 1006.

_ 149 Syr._ ii. 48. So also _Evan. Conc._ pp. 245, 256, 257.

150 Mai, _Scriptt. Vett._ vi. 64.

151 i. 305.

152 Ap. Mai, ii. 436; iii. 395. Also _Luc._ 722.

153 i. 288, 417.

154 P. 233.

155 Ed. by Wright, p. 16.

156 “Sol mediâ die _tenebricavit_.” _Adv. Jud._ c. xiii.

157 iii. 922-4. Read the whole of cap. 134. See also ap. Galland. xiv.
82, append., which by the way deserves to be compared with Chrys.
vii. 825 a.

158 ἀλλ᾽ ἦν σκότος θεοποίητον, διότι τὸν Κύριον συνέβη παθεῖν.—Routh,
ii. 298.

159 εἶτ᾽ ἐξαίφνης κατενεχθὲν ψηλαφητὸν σκότος, ἡλίου τὴν οἰκείαν αὐγὴν
ἀποκρύψαντος, p. 29.

160 ὅτι γὰρ οὐκ ἠν ἔκλειψις [sc. τὸ σκότος ἐκεῖνο] οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον
δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ. τρεῖς γὰρ ὥρας παρέμεινιν; ἡ δὲ
ἔκλειψις ἐν μιᾷ καιροῦ γίνεται ῥοπῇ.—vii. 825 a.

161 i. 414, 415; iii. 56.

162 Ap. Mai, iv. 206. But further on he says: αὐτίκα γοῦν ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει
οὐχ ἥλιος μόνον ἐσκότασεν κ.τ.λ.—Cyril of Jerusalem (pp. 57, 146,
199, 201, 202) and Cosmas (ap. Montf. ii. 177 _bis_) were apparently
acquainted with the same reading, but neither of them actually
quotes Luke xxiii. 45.

163 “In quibusdam exemplaribus non habetur _tenebræ factæ sunt, et
obscuratus est sol_: sed ita, _tenebræ factæ sunt super omnem
terram, sole deficiente_. Et forsitan ausus est aliquis quasi
manifestius aliquid dicere volens, pro, _et obscuratus est sol_,
ponere _deficiente sole_, existimans quod non aliter potuissent
fieri tenebræ, nisi sole deficiente. Puto autem magis quod
insidiatores ecclesiæ Christi mutaverunt hoc verbum, quoniam
_tenebræ factæ sunt sole deficiente_, ut verisimiliter evangelia
argui possint secundum adinventiones volentium arguere illa.” (iii.
923 f. a.)

164 vii. 235. “_Qui scripserunt contra Evangelia_, suspicantur deliquium
solis,” &c.

165 This rests on little more than conjecture. Tisch. _Cod. Ephr. Syr._
p. 327.

166 Ἐκλείποντος is only found besides in eleven lectionaries.

167 The Thebaic represents “the sun _setting_;” which, (like the mention
of “_eclipse_,”) is only another _interpretation_ of the
darkness,—derived from Jer. xv. 9 or Amos viii. 9 (“_occidit_ sol
meridie”). Compare Irenæus iv. 33. 12, (p. 273,) who says that these
two prophecies found fulfilment in “eum _occasum_ solis qui,
crucifixo eo, fuit ab horâ sextâ.” He alludes to the same places in
iv. 34. 3 (p. 275). So does Jerome (on Matt. xxvii. 45),—“Et hoc
factum reor, ut compleatur prophetia,” and then he quotes Amos and
Jeremiah; finely adding (from some ancient source),—“Videturque mihi
clarissimum lumen mundi, hoc est luminare majus, retraxisse radios
suos, ne aut pendentem videret Dominum; aut impii blasphemantes suâ
luce fruerentur.”

168 Our old friend of Halicarnassus (vii. 37), speaking of an eclipse
which happened B.C. 481, remarks: ὁ ἥλιος ἐκλιπὼν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
ἕδρην.

169 For it will be perceived that our Revisionists have adopted the
reading vouched for _only by codex_ B. What c* once read is as
uncertain as it is unimportant.

170 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 60.

_ 171 On the Revised Version_, p. 14.

172 πολλὰ κατὰ γνώμην αὐτοῦ διεπράττετο, as (probably) Victor of Antioch
(_Cat._ p. 128), explains the place. He cites some one else (p. 129)
who exhibits ἠπόρει; and who explains it of Herod’s difficulty
_about getting rid of Herodias_.

173 καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν, will have
been the reading of that lost venerable codex of the Gospels which
is chiefly represented at this day by Evann. 13-69-124-346,—as
explained by Professor Abbott in his Introduction to Prof. Ferrar’s
_Collation of four important MSS._, etc. (Dublin 1877). The same
reading is also found in Evann. 28 : 122 : 541 : 572, and Evst. 196.

Different must have been the reading of that other venerable
exemplar which supplied the Latin Church with its earliest Text. But
of this let the reader judge:—“_Et cum audisset illum multa facere,
libenter_,” &c. (c: also “Codex Aureus” and γ, both at Stockholm):
“_et audito eo quod multa faciebat, et libenter_,” &c. (g2 q): “_et
audiens illum quia multa faciebat, et libenter_,” &c. (b). The
Anglo-Saxon, (“_and he heard that he many wonders wrought, and he
gladly heard him_”) approaches nearest to the last two.

The Peschito Syriac (which is without variety of reading here) in
strictness exhibits:—“_And many things he was hearing [from] him and
doing; and gladly he was hearing him._” But this, by competent
Syriac scholars, is considered to represent,—καὶ πολλὰ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ,
ἐποίει; καὶ ἡδέως ἤκουεν αὐτοῦ.—Cod. Δ is peculiar in exhibiting καὶ
ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλά, ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν,—omitting ἐποίει, καί.—The
Coptic also renders, “_et audiebat multa ab eo, et anxio erat
corde_.” From all this, it becomes clear that the actual _intention_
of the blundering author of the text exhibited by א B L was, to
connect πολλά, _not_ with ἠπόρει, but with ἀκούσας. So the Arabian
version: but not the Gothic, Armenian, Sclavonic, or Georgian,—as
Dr. S. C. Malan informs the Reviewer.

174 Note, that tokens abound of a determination anciently to assimilate
the Gospels hereabouts. Thus, because the first half of Luke ix. 10
(ϟα / η) and the whole of Mk. vi. 30 (ξα / η) are bracketed together
by Eusebius, the former place in codex A is found brought into
conformity with the latter by the unauthorized insertion of the
clause καὶ ὅσα ἐδίδαξαν.—The parallelism of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Lu. ix.
10 is the reason why D exhibits in the latter place ἀν- (instead of
ὑπ)εχώρησε.—In like manner, in Lu. ix. 10, codex A exhibits εἰς
ἔρημον τόπον, instead of εἰς τόπον ἔρημον; only because ἔρημον τόπον
is the order of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Mk. vi. 32.—So again, codex א, in
the same verse of S. Luke, entirely omits the final clause πόλεως
καλουμένης Βηθσαῖδά, only in order to assimilate its text to that of
the two earlier Gospels.—But there is no need to look beyond the
limits of S. Mark vi. 14-16, for proofs of Assimilation. Instead of
ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη (in ver. 14), B and א exhibit ἐγήγερται ἐκ
νεκρῶν—only because those words are found in Lu. ix. 7. A
substitutes ἀνέστη (for ἠγέρθη)—only because that word is found in
Lu. ix. 8. For ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν, C substitutes ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν
νεκρῶν—only because S. Matth. so writes in ch. xiv. 2. D inserts καὶ
ἔβαλεν εἰς φυλακήν into ver. 17—only because of Mtt. xiv. 3 and Lu.
iii. 20. In א B L Δ, βαπτίζοντος (for βαπτιστοῦ) stands in ver.
24—only by Assimilation with ver. 14. (L is for assimilating ver. 25
likewise), Κ Δ Π, the Syr., and copies of the old Latin, transpose
ἐνεργοῦσιν αἱ δυνάμεις (in ver. 14)—only because those words are
transposed in Mtt. xiv. 2.... If facts like these do not open men’s
eyes to the danger of following the fashionable guides, it is to be
feared that nothing ever will. The foulest blot of all remains to be
noticed. Will it be believed that in ver. 22, codices א B D L Δ
conspire in representing the dancer (whose name is _known_ to have
been “Salome”) as _another _“Herodias”—_Herod’s own daughter_? This
gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of history—a
reading as preposterous as it is revolting, and therefore rejected
hitherto by _all_ the editors and _all_ the critics—finds undoubting
favour with Drs. Westcott and Hort. Calamitous to relate, _it also
disfigures the margin of our Revised Version of S. Mark_ vi. 22, _in
consequence_.

_ 175 i.e._ “_And_” is omitted by B L Δ: “_immediately_” by א C: “_with
tears_” by א A B C L Δ: “_Lord_” by א A B C D L.—In S. Mark vi.
16—(viz. “But when Herod heard thereof, he said [This is] John whom
I beheaded. He is risen [from the dead],”)—the five words in
brackets are omitted by our Revisers on the authority of א B (D) L
Δ. But א D further omit Ἰωάννην: C D omit ὁ: א B D L omit ὅτι. To
enumerate and explain the effects of all the barbarous Mutilations
which the Gospels alone have sustained at the hands of א, of B, and
of D—_would fill many volumes like the present_.

176 Chrysostom, vii. 825.

_ 177 On the Creed_, Art. iv. “Dead:” about half-way through.

178 The Coptic represents ὅτι ἐξέπνευσε.

179 Namely, of ἘΝ τῇ Βας. σου, which is the reading of _every known copy
but two_; besides Origen, Eusebius, Cyril Jer., Chrysostom, &c. Only
B L read ΕἸΣ,—which Westcott and Hort adopt.

180 i. 261.

181 i. 936, 1363.

182 i. 158.

183 P. 301.

184 Ap. Galland. vi. 53.

185 P. 396.

186 vii. 431.

187 “Ut ab additamenti ratione alienum est, ita cur omiserint in promptu
est.”

188 But then, 25 (out of 320) pages of D are lost: D’s omissions in the
Gospels may therefore be estimated at 4000. Codex A does not admit
of comparison, the first 24 chapters of S. Matthew having perished;
but, from examining the way it exhibits the other three Gospels, it
is found that 650 would about represent the number of words omitted
from its text.—The discrepancy between the texts of B א D, thus _for
the first time brought distinctly into notice_, let it be distinctly
borne in mind, is a matter wholly irrespective of the merits or
demerits of the Textus Receptus,—which, for convenience only, is
adopted as a standard: not, of course, of _Excellence_ but only of
_Comparison_.

189 Viz. the 1st, the 7th to 12th inclusive, and the 15th.

190 Concerning “the _singular codex_ D,”—as Bp. Ellicott phrases it,—see
back, pages 14 and 15.

191 Bp. Ellicott _On Revision_,—p. 42. Concerning the value of the
last-named authority, it is a satisfaction to enjoy the deliberate
testimony of the Chairman of the Revisionist body. See below, p. 85.

192 i. 156.

193 ii. 254.

194 i. 344

195 iv. 220, 1218.

_ 196 In Luc._ 664 (Mai, iv. 1105).

197 ii. 653.

198 “In Lucâ legimus _duos calices_, quibus discipulis propinavit,” vii.
216.

199 Τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον; τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον,
ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον.

200 P. 1062.

201 ii. 747.

202 i. 1516. See below, p. 82.

203 Abbott’s _Collation of four important Manuscripts_, &c., 1877.

204 ii. 354.

205 Pp. 543 and 681 ( = ed. Mass. 219 and 277).

_ 206 Contra Noet._ c. 18; also ap. Theodoret iv. 132-3.

207 Ap. Galland. xix.; _Append._ 116, 117.

_ 208 Evan. Conc._ pp. 55, 235.

209 Ap. Epiph. i. 742, 785.

210 It is § 283 in his sectional system.

211 P. 1121.

212 ii. 43; v. 392; vi. 604. Also _Evan. Conc._ 235. And see below, p.
82.

213 Pp. 394, 402.

214 i. 551.

215 [i. 742, 785;] ii. 36, 42.

216 v. 263; vii. 791; viii. 377.

217 ii. 39.

218 Ap. Theod. Mops.

219 In loc. bis; ap. Galland. xii. 693; and Mai, _Scriptt. Vett._ vi.
306.

_ 220 Concilia_, iii. 327 a.

221 Ap. Mai, iii. 389.

_ 222 Concilia_, iii. 1101 d.

223 Schol. 34.

224 i. 692; iv. 271, 429; v. 23. _Conc._ iii. 907 e.

_ 225 Concilia_, iii. 740 d.

226 Ap. Galland. vi. 16, 17, 19.

227 Ap. Cosmam, ii. 331.

228 i. 544.

229 In Dionys. ii. 18, 30.

230 Ap. Galland. xii. 693.

_ 231 Ibid._ 688.

232 Pp. 108, 1028, 1048.

_ 233 Epist._ 138

234 P. 1061.

235 ii. 747.

236 iv. 901, 902, 1013, 1564.

237 P. 373.

238 Ap. Galland. ix. 40.

_ 239 Ibid._ xi. 693.

240 Let their own account of the matter be heard:—“The documentary
evidence clearly designates [these verses] as _an early Western
interpolation_, adopted in eclectic texts.”—“They can only be _a
fragment from the Traditions_, written or oral, which were for a
while at least _locally current_:”—an “evangelic Tradition,”
therefore, “_rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second
century_.”

241 Consider the places referred to in Epiphanius.

242 The Editors shall speak for themselves concerning this, the first of
the “Seven last Words:”—“We cannot doubt that _it comes from an
extraneous source_:”—“need not have belonged originally _to the book
in which it is now included_:”—is “_a Western interpolation_.”

Dr. Hort,—unconscious apparently that he is _at the bar_, not _on
the bench_,—passes sentence (in his usual imperial style)—“Text,
Western and Syrian” (p. 67).—But then, (1st) It happens that our
LORD’S intercession on behalf of His murderers is attested by
upwards of forty Patristic witnesses _from every part of ancient
Christendom_: while, (2ndly) On the contrary, the places in which it
is _not found_ are certain copies of the old Latin, and codex D,
which is supposed to be our great “Western” witness.

243 Dr. Hort’s _N. T._ vol. ii. _Note_, p. 68.

244 Ap. Eus. _Hist. Eccl._ ii. 23.

245 P. 521 and ... [Mass. 210 and 277.]

246 Ed. Lagarde, p. 65 _line_ 3.

247 ii. 188. _Hær._ iii. 18 p. 5.

248 Ap. Gall. iii. 38, 127.

_ 249 Ibid._ ii. 714. (_Hom._ xi. 20.)

_ 250 Evan. Conc._ 275.

251 Ap. Routh, v. 161.

252 He places the verses in _Can._ x.

253 i. 1120.

254 iii. 289.

_ 255 Cat. in Ps._ iii. 219.

256 i. 290.

257 15 times.

258 ii. 48, 321, 428; ii. (_syr._) 233.

_ 259 Evan. Conc._ 117, 256.

260 i. 607.

261 Pp. 232, 286.

262 P. 85.

263 Pp. 11, 16. Dr. Wright assigns them to the IVth century.

_ 264 Eph._ c. x.

265 ii. 166, 168, 226.

266 6 times.

267 Ap. Mai, ii. 197 ( = Cramer 52); iii. 392.—Dr. Hort’s strenuous
pleading for the authority of Cyril on this occasion (who however is
plainly against him) is amusing. So is his claim to have the cursive
“82” on his side. He is certainly reduced to terrible straits
throughout his ingenious volume. Yet are we scarcely prepared to
find an upright and honourable man contending so hotly, and almost
on any pretext, for the support of those very Fathers which, when
they are against him, (as, 99 times out of 100, they are,) he treats
with utter contumely. He is observed to put up with any ally,
however insignificant, who even _seems_ to be on his side.

268 Ap. Theod. v. 1152.

269 Pp. 423, 457.

_ 270 Cat. in Ps._ i. 768; ii. 663.

271 Pp. 1109, 1134.

272 i. 374.

273 P. 93.

274 ii. 67, 747.

275 i. 814; ii. 819; v. 735.

276 P. 88.

277 Ap. Chrys. vi. 191.

278 11 times.

279 P. 782 f.

280 12 times.

281 More than 60 times.

282 Ap. Cypr. (ed. Baluze), &c. &c.

_ 283 On Revision_,—p. 42 _note_. See above, p. 78 _note_.

_ 284 Eclog. Proph._ p. 89.

_ 285 In Luc._ 435 and 718.

286 See pages 93 to 97.

287 i. 1528.

288 So Sedulius Paschalis, ap. Galland. ix. 595.

289 iii. 2.

290 Euseb. _Ecl. Proph._ p. 89: Greg. Nyss. i. 570.—These last two
places have hitherto escaped observation.

291 See above, pp. 49-50, note 2.

292 Viz., thus:—ἦν δὲ καὶ ἐπιγραφὴ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων
οὗτος.

293 Dean Alford, _in loc._

294 ὁ Λουκᾶς μιᾷ λέγει τῶν σαββάτων ὄρθρου βαθέος φέρειν ἀρώματα
γυναῖκας ΔΎΟ τὰς ἀκολουθησάσας ἀυτῷ, αἵ τινες ἦσαν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας
συνακολουθήσασαι, ὅτε ἔθαπτον αὐτὸν ἐλθοῦσαι ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα; αἵτινες
ΔΎΟ, κ.τ.λ.,—_ad Marinum_, ap. Mai, iv. 266.

295 Ps. i. 79.

_ 296 Dem._ 492.

297 Ap. Mai, iv. 287, 293.

298 i. 364.

299 Ap. Mai, ii. 439.

300 Ap. Galland. xi. 224.

_ 301 Cat. in Joann._ p. 453.

302 Ps.-Chrys. viii. 161-2. Johannes Thessal. ap. Galland. xiii. 189.

303 Ap. Mai, iv. 293 _bis_; 294 _diserte_.

304 i. 506, 1541.

305 iii. 91.

306 iv. 1108, and _Luc._ 728 ( = Mai, ii. 441).

307 iii.2 142; viii. 472.

308 So Tertullian:—“_Manus et pedes suos inspiciendos offert_” (_Carn._
c. 5). “_Inspectui eorum manus et pedes suos offert_” (_Marc._ iv.
c. 43). Also Jerome i. 712.

_ 309 De Resur._ 240 (quoted by J. Damascene, ii. 762).

310 Ap. Mai, iv. 294.

311 i. 906, quoted by Epiph. i. 1003.

312 Ap. Theodoret, iv. 141.

313 i. 49.

314 i. 510; ii. 408, 418; iii. 91.

315 iv. 1108; vi. 23 (_Trin._). Ap. Mai, ii. 442 _ter._

316 iv. 272.

_ 317 Cat. in Joan._ 462, 3.

318 i. 303.

319 See above, pp. 78 and 85.

320 iii. 579.

321 ii. 114 (ed. 1698).

322 ii. 9, 362, 622.

323 ii. 309; iv. 30; v. 531; vii. 581.

324 vi. 79.

_ 325 Ep._ i. (ap. Gall. i. p. xii.)

326 ii. 464.

_ 327 Text_, pp. 565 and 571.

_ 328 Append._ p. 14.

329 We depend for our Versions on Dr. S. C. Malan: pp. 31, 44.

330 ii. 147. _Conc._ v. 675.

331 Cord. _Cat._ i. 376.

332 vii. 599, 600 _diserte_.

333 Ap. Photium, p. 644.

334 Three times.

335 i. 663, 1461, ii. 1137.

336 Pp. 367, 699.

337 vii. 139.

338 Ap. Galland. vi. 324.

339 iii. P. i. 760.

_ 340 Text_, p. 572.

_ 341 Append._ p. 14.

342 ἔτι δὲ ἀπιστούντων αὐτῷ, καὶ θαυμαζόντων ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς.

343 Viz. from ch. xix. 7 to xx. 46.

344 We take leave to point out that, however favourable the estimate
Drs. Westcott and Hort may have personally formed of the value and
importance of the Vatican Codex (B), nothing can excuse their
summary handling, not to say their contemptuous disregard, of all
evidence adverse to that of their own favourite guide. They _pass
by_ whatever makes against the reading they adopt, with the oracular
announcement that the rival reading is “_Syrian_,” “_Western_,”
“_Western and Syrian_,” as the case may be.

But we respectfully submit that “_Syrian_,” “_Western_,” “_Western
and Syrian_,” as Critical expressions, are absolutely without
meaning, as well as without use to a student in this difficult
department of sacred Science. They supply no information. They are
never supported by a particle of intelligible evidence. They are
often demonstrably wrong, and _always_ unreasonable. They are
_Dictation_, not _Criticism_. When at last it is discovered that
they do but signify that certain words _are not found in codex_
B,—they are perceived to be the veriest _foolishness_ also.

Progress is impossible while this method is permitted to prevail. If
these distinguished Professors have enjoyed a Revelation as to what
the Evangelists actually wrote, they would do well to acquaint the
world with the fact at the earliest possible moment. If, on the
contrary, they are merely relying on their own inner consciousness
for the power of divining the truth of Scripture at a glance,—they
must be prepared to find their decrees treated with the contumely
which is due to imposture, of whatever kind.

345 Marcion (Epiph. i. 317);—Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266);—Epiphanius (i.
348);—Cyril (Mai, ii. 438);—John Thessal. (Galland. xiii. 188).

346 [The discussion of this text has been left very nearly as it
originally stood,—the rather, because the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16
will be found fully discussed at the end of the present volume. See
_Index of Texts_.]

_ 347 Companion to the Revised Version_, &c., by Alex. Roberts, D.D. (2nd
edit.), pp. 66-8.

348 Of this, any one may convince himself by merely inspecting the 2
pages of codex A which are exposed to view at the British Museum.

349 For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading (17, 73,
181), the second proves (on enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an
abridgment of Œcumenius, who certainly read Θεός; and the last is
non-existent.

_ 350 Concilia_, ii. 217 c.

351 viii. 214 b.

352 A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude
of proofs that CHRIST is GOD, Gregory says:—Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαῤῥήδῃν
βοᾷ; ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι. ii. 693.

353 Τοῦτο ἡμῖν τὸ μέγα μυστήριον ... ὁ ἐνανθρωπήσας δι᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ
πτωχεύσας Θεός, ἵνα ἀναστήσῃ τὴν σάρκα. (i. 215 a.)—Τί τὸ μέγα
μυστήριον?... Θεὸς ἄνθρωπος γίνεται. (i. 685 b.)

_ 354 De Trin._ p. 83—where the testimony is express.

355 Θεὸς γὰρ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.—_Concilia_, i. 853 d.

356 Cramer’s _Cat. in Rom._ p. 124.

357 One quotation may suffice:—Τὸ δὲ Θεὸν ὄντα, ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι
γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνεσχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ... τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ
ἐκπλήξεως γέμον. ὂ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγεν; καὶ ὁμολογουμένως
μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστέριον; ποῖον μέγα; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν
σαρκί; καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ Θεός,
κ.τ.λ. i. 497. = Galland. xiv. 141.

358 The following may suffice:—μέγα γὰρ τότε τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον;
πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς ὢν καὶ ὁ Λόγος; ἐδικαιώθη δὲ καὶ ἐν
πνεύματι. v. p. ii.; p. 154 c d.—In a newly-recovered treatise of
Cyril, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is quoted at length with Θεός, followed by a
remark on the ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθεὶς Θεός. This at least is decisive.
The place has been hitherto overlooked.

359 i. 92; iii. 657; iv. 19, 23.

360 Apud Athanasium, _Opp._ ii. 33, where see Garnier’s prefatory note.

361 Καθ᾽ ὂ γὰρ ὑπῆρχε Θεὸς [sc. ὁ Χριστὸς] τοῦτον ᾔτει τὸν νομοθέτην
δοθῆναι πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι ... τοιγαροῦν καὶ δεξάμενα τὰ ἔθνη τὸν
νομοθέτην, τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα Θεόν. Cramer’s _Cat._ iii. 69.
The quotation is from the lost work of Severus against Julian of
Halicarnassus.

362 Galland. xii. 152 e, 153 e, with the notes both of Garnier and
Gallandius.

363 i. 313; ii. 263.

364 Ap. Athanas. i. 706.

365 iii. 401-2.

366 Ap. Phot. 230.

_ 367 Contra Hær. Noet._ c. 17.

368 Ap. Clem. Al. 973.

369 Cap. xii.

_ 370 Ad Eph._ c. 19, 7; _ad Magn._ c. 8.

371 See Scrivener’s _Plain Introd._ pp. 555-6, and Berriman’s
_Dissertation_, pp. 229-263. Also the end of this volume.

372 i. 887 c.

373 ii. 74 b.

374 See above, p. 98.

375 As, that stupid fabrication, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; (in S.
Matth. xix. 17):—the new incidents and sayings proposed for
adoption, as in S. Mark i. 27 (in the Synagogue of Capernaum): in S.
John xiii. 21-6 (at the last supper): in S. Luke xxiv. 17 (on the
way to Emmaus):—the many proposed omissions, as in S. Matth. vi. 13
(the Doxology): in xvi. 2, 3 (the signs of the weather): in S. Mark
ix. 44 & 46 (the words of woe): in S. John v. 3, 4 (the Angel
troubling the pool), &c. &c. &c.

376 It cannot be too plainly or too often stated that learned Prebendary
Scrivener is _wholly guiltless_ of the many spurious “Readings” with
which a majority of his co-Revisionists have corrupted the Word of
GOD. He pleaded faithfully,—but he pleaded in vain.—It is right also
to state that the scholarlike Bp. of S. Andrews (Dr. Charles
Wordsworth) has fully purged himself of the suspicion of complicity,
by his printed (not published) remonstrances with his
colleagues.—The excellent Bp. of Salisbury (Dr. Moberly) attended
only 121 of their 407 meetings; and that judicious scholar, the Abp.
of Dublin (Dr. Trench) only 63. The reader will find more on this
subject at the close of Art. II.,—pp. 228-30.

377 Eusebius,—Basil,—Chrysostom (_in loc._),—Jerome,—Juvencus,—omit the
words. P. E. Pusey found them in _no_ Syriac copy. But the
conclusive evidence is supplied by the Manuscripts; not more than 1
out of 20 of which contain this clause.

378 “Revised Text” of S. Luke vi. 48.

379 “Authorized Version,” supported by A C D and 12 other uncials, the
whole body of the cursives, the Syriac, Latin, and Gothic versions.

380 “Revised Text” of S. Luke v. 39.

381 “Authorized Version,” supported by A C and 14 other uncials, the
whole body of the cursives, and _all_ the versions except the
Peschito and the Coptic.

_ 382 Address at Lincoln Diocesan Conference_,—p. 16.

_ 383 On Revision_,—p. 99.

_ 384 Dial._ capp. 88 and 103 (pp. 306, 310, 352).

385 P. 113.

386 Ap. Galland. iii. 719, c d.

387 iv. 15 (ap. Gall. iv. 296 b).

388 42 b, 961 e, 1094 a.

389 Ap. Galland. iv. 605 (ver. 365-6).

390 Ap. Aug. viii. 423 e.

391 “Vox illa Patris, quæ super baptizatum facta est _Ego hodie genui
te_,” (_Enchirid._ c. 49 [_Opp._ vi. 215 a]):—

“Illud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa
voce sonuisse quod in Psalmo scriptum est, _Filius meus es tu: ego
hodie genui te_, quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus Græcis non
inveniri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus
confirmari possit, quid aliud quam utrumque intelligendum est
quolibet verborum ordine de cælo sonuisse?” (_De Cons. Ev._ ii. c.
14 [_Opp._ iii. P. ii. 46 d e]). Augustine seems to allude to what
is found to have existed in the _Ebionite Gospel_.

392 Epiphanius (i. 138 b) quotes the passage which contains the
statement.

393 Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως—οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς: also—ἀνθρώπων.

394 For my information on this subject, I am entirely indebted to one
who is always liberal in communicating the lore of which he is
perhaps the sole living depositary in England,—the Rev. Dr. S. C.
Malan. See his _Seven Chapters of the Revision of 1881, revised_,—p.
3. But especially should the reader be referred to Dr. Malan’s
learned dissertation on this very subject in his _Select Readings in
Westcott and Hort’s Gr. Text of S. Matth._,—pp. 1 to 22.

395 So Dr. Malan in his _Select Readings_ (see above note 1),—pp. 15,
17, 19.