Chapter XXIII: Appendix: Of Sacred Codices (3)

396 “Liber _genituræ_ Jesu Christi filii David, filii Abraham” ...
“Gradatim ordo deducitur ad Christi _nativitatem_.”—_De Carne
Christi_, c. 22.

397 A friendly critic complains that we do not specify which editions of
the Fathers we quote. Our reply is—This [was] a Review, not a
Treatise. We are _constrained_ to omit such details. Briefly, we
always quote _the best Edition_. Critical readers can experience
_no_ difficulty in verifying our references. A few details shall
however be added: Justin (_Otto_): Irenæus (_Stieren_): Clemens Al.
(_Potter_): Tertullian (_Oehler_): Cyprian (_Baluze_): Eusebius
(_Gaisford_): Athanas. (1698): Greg. Nyss. (1638): Epiphan. (1622):
Didymus (1769): Ephraem Syr. (1732): Jerome (_Vallarsi_): Nilus
(1668-73): Chrysostom (_Montfaucon_): Cyril (_Aubert_): Isidorus
(1638): Theodoret (_Schulze_): Maximus (1675): John Damascene
(_Lequien_): Photius (1653). Most of the others (as Origen, Greg.
Nazianz., Basil, Cyril of Jer., Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine), are
quoted from the Benedictine editions. When we say “Mai,” we always
mean his _Nova Biblioth. PP._ 1852-71. By “Montfaucon,” we mean the
_Nov. Coll. PP._ 1707. It is necessity that makes us so brief.

_ 398 Concilia_, iii. 521 a to d.

399 i.2 340.

400 P. 889 line 37 (γένησιν).

401 i. 943 c.

402 i. 735.

403 v.1 363, 676.

_ 404 Concil._ iii. 325 ( = Cyril v.2 28 a).

405 vii. 48; viii. 314.

406 In Matth. ii. 16.

407 Ps.-Athanas. ii. 306 and 700: ps.-Chrysost. xii. 694.

408 P. 470.

409 Gall. ix. 215.

_ 410 Trin._ 188.

411 i. 250 b.

412 i. 426 a (γένησις).

413 Διαφέρει γένεσις καὶ γέννησις; γένεσις μὲν γάρ ἐστι παρὰ Θεοῦ πρώτη
πλάσις, γέννησις δὲ ἡ ἐκ καταδίκης τοῦ θανάτου διὰ τὴν παράβασιν ἐξ
ἀλλήλων διαδοχή.—Galland. xiv. _Append._ pp. 73, 74.

414 [dated 22 May A.D. 359] ap. Athan. i. 721 d.

415 i. 722 c.

416 P. 20 of the newly-recovered _Diatessaron_, translated from the
Armenian. The Exposition is claimed for Ephraem Syrus.

417 Dr. Malan, _Seven Chapters of the Revision, revised_, p. 7.

418 See below, note 13.

419 See p. 122, note 11.

420 i. 938, 952. Also ps.-Athan. ii. 409, excellently.

_ 421 Trin._ 349.

422 P. 116.

423 i. 392; ii. 599, 600.

424 ii. 229.

425 See p. 122, note 11.

426 i. 426, 1049 (5 times), 1052-3.

427 vii. 76.

428 Galland. ix. 636.

429 P. 6 (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς: which is also the reading of Syrev and of the
Sahidic. The Memphitic version represents τὸν υἱόν.)

430 i. 276.

431 Gal. xiii. 662.

_ 432 In Cat._

433 ii. 462.

434 “_Ex hoc loco quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios filios
habuisse Mariam, dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi qui habeat et
fratres_” (vii. 14). He refers to his treatise against Helvidius,
ii. 210.

_ 435 Preface to Pastoral Epistles_,—more fully quoted facing p. 1.

436 The Preface (quoted above facing p. 1,) is dated 3rd Nov. 1868.

_ 437 Lectures on Biblical Revision_, (1881) pp. 116 seqq. See above, pp.
37-9.

_ 438 On Revision_, pp. 30 and 49.

_ 439 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.

_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.

_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.

440 Malan’s _Gospel of S. John translated from the Eleven oldest
Versions_.

441 Int. ii. 72; iv. 622 dis.

_ 442 C. Noet._ § 4.

443 i. 1275.

_ 444 Trin._ 363.

445 Ap. Gall. v. 67.

446 i. 282.

447 i. 486.

_ 448 Ep. ad Paul. Sam. Concil._ i. 872 e; 889 e.

449 Ap. Galland. iv. 563.

450 vii. 546; viii. 153, 154, 277.

451 iii. 570; iv. 226, 1049, 1153.

452 iv. 150 (text); vi. 30, 169. Mai, ii. 69.

_ 453 Concilia_, iii. 1102 d.

454 Quoted by Leontius (Gall. xii. 693).

_ 455 In Cat._ Cord. 96.

_ 456 Ibid._ p. 94.

_ 457 Cat. in Ps._ ii. 323 and 343.

458 Ap. Photium, p. 281.

459 Montf. ii. 286.

460 i. 288, 559, 567.

461 Ps.-Athan. ii. 464. Another, 625. Another, 630. Ps.-Epiphan. ii.
287.

462 i. 863, 903, 1428.

463 Gall. iii. 296.

464 32 dis.; 514; 1045 dis.

465 Gall. vi. 192.

466 iv. 679.

467 Ap. Athan. ii. 646.

468 Gall. v. 124.

_ 469 Ibid._ iii. 628, 675.

_ 470 Ibid._ ix. 367.

_ 471 Ibid._ ix. 493.

472 Let the Reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts
of the several VERSIONS above enumerated, and mentally assign each
FATHER to his own approximate locality: then let him bear in mind
that 995 out of 1000 of the extant MANUSCRIPTS agree with those
Fathers and Versions; and let him further recognize that those MSS.
(executed at different dates in different countries) must severally
represent independent remote originals, inasmuch as _no two of them
are found to be quite alike_.—Next, let him consider that, _in all
the Churches of the East_, these words from the earliest period were
read as _part of the Gospel for the Thursday in Easter week_.—This
done, let him decide whether it is reasonable that two worshippers
of codex B—A.D. 1881—should attempt to thrust all this mass of
ancient evidence clean out of sight by their peremptory sentence of
exclusion,—“WESTERN AND SYRIAN.”

Drs. Westcott and Hort inform us that “_the character of the
attestation_ marks” the clause (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ), “as a WESTERN
GLOSS.” But the “attestation” for retaining that clause—(_a_) Comes
demonstrably from every quarter of ancient Christendom:—(_b_) Is
more ancient (by 200 years) than the evidence for omitting it:—(_c_)
Is more numerous, in the proportion of 99 to 1:—(_d_) In point of
respectability, stands absolutely alone. For since we have _proved_
that Origen and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, Ambrose and Jerome,
_recognize_ the words in dispute, of what possible Textual
significancy can it be if presently (_because it is sufficient for
their purpose_) the same Fathers are observed to quote S. John iii.
13 _no further than down to the words _“Son of Man”? No person,
(least of all a professed Critic,) who adds to his learning a few
grains of common sense and a little candour, can be misled by such a
circumstance. Origen, Eusebius, Proclus, Ephraim Syrus, Jerome,
Marius, when they are only insisting on the doctrinal significancy
of the earlier words, naturally end their quotation at this place.
The two Gregories (Naz. [ii. 87, 168]: Nyss. [Galland. vi. 522]),
writing against the Apolinarian heresy, of course quoted the verse
no further than Apolinaris himself was accustomed (for his heresy)
to adduce it.... About the _internal_ evidence for the clause,
nothing has been said; but _this_ is simply overwhelming. We make
our appeal to _Catholic Antiquity_; and are content to rest our
cause on _External Evidence_;—on COPIES, on VERSIONS, on FATHERS.

473 Pp. 798, 799.

474 iii. 414.

_ 475 Ant._ c. 50; _Consum._ c. 28.

_ 476 Hist. Eccl._ v. 8.

477 Ἐμβατεῦσαι;—Ἐπιβῆναι τὰ ἔνδον ἐξερευνῆσαι ἣ σκοπῆσαι. Phavorinus,
quoted by Brüder.

478 Viz. S. Luke iv. 39: Acts x. 17: xi. 11: xxii. 20.

479 S. Luke ii. 9 (where “_came upon_” is better than “_stood by_ them,”
and should have been left): xxiv. 4: Acts xii. 7: xxii. 13: xxiii.
11.

480 S. Luke xx. 1: xxi. 34 (last Day): Acts iv. 1: vi. 12: xvii. 5
(“assault”): xxiii. 27: xxviii. 2 (a rain-storm,—which, by the way,
suggests for τὸν ἐφεστῶτα a different rendering from “_the
present_”).

481 S. Luke ii. 38.

482 S. Luke x. 40.

483 Cf. ch. xi. 20. So in Latin, _Illa plurima sacrificia_. (Cic. _De
Fin._ 2. 20. 63.)

484 “The context” (says learned Dr. Field) “is too strong for
philological quibbles.” The words “_can by no possibility bear any
other meaning_.”—_Otium Norvicense_, p. 40.

485 Στρατιώτης ὂς πρὸς τὸ φονεύειν τέτακται,—Theophylact, i. 201 e. Boys
quotes Seneca _De Irá_:—_Tunc centurio supplicio præpositus condere
gladium_ speculatorem _jussit_.

486 Trench, _Study of Words_, p. 106.

_ 487 Otium Norvicense_, pars tertia, 1881, pp. 155.

488 Compare Xenophon (_Cyrop._ vii. 6. 8), τοὺς Συριστὶ ἐπισταμένους.
The _plena locutio_ is found in Nehem. xiii. 24,—οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτῶν ἥμισυ
λαλοῦντες Ἁζωτιστί, καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐπιγινώσκοντες λαλεῖν Ἰουδαιστί
(quoted by Wetstein).

489 Cf. Acts i. 23; xvii. 31. The Latin is “_statuerunt_” or
“_constituerunt_.” The Revisionists give “appointed” in the second
of these places, and “put forward” in the first. In both,—What
becomes of their uniformity?

490 P. 279.

491 καὶ τὸν δικαστὴν εἷλεν ὁ τέως κατάδικος εἶναι νομιζόμενος καὶ τὴν
νίκην αὐτὸς ὁ χειρωθεὶς ὁμολογεῖ λαμπρᾷ τῇ φωνῇ παρόντων ἁπάντων
λέγων, ἐν ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. x. 307 b. (= xii. 433 a).

492 ἐν ὀλίγῳ; τουτέστι παρὰ μικρόν. ix. 391 a.

493 καὶ τὸν δικάζοντα μικροῦ μεταπεῖσαι, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον λέγειν, ἐν
ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. ii. 516 d.

494 iii. 399 d.

495 v. 930 (παρ᾽ ὀλίγον).

496 MS. Note in his copy of the N. T.

497 And the Revisionists: for see Rom. xi. 4.

498 Yet even here they cannot abstain from putting in the margin the
peculiarly infelicitous alternative,—“_Why didst thou forsake Me?_”

499 As in Rom. vi. 2: ix. 13. 1 Cor. i. 27: vi. 20: ix. 11. Ephes. iv.
20, &c. &c.

500 Comp. S. Matth. viii. 1, 5, 23, 28; ix. 27, 28; xxi. 23.

501 Ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς.

502 ii. 155.

503 Routh, _Rell_. iii. 226 _ad calc._

504 Ap. Mai, iv. 266.

505 ii. 1324.

506 ii. 380.

507 Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 403.

508 So also Heb. xi. 17, 28. And see the Revision of S. James i. 11.

509 Comp. ἀφίεμεν in S. Lu. xi. 4. In the case of certain Greek verbs,
the _preterite_ in form is invariably _present_ in signification.
See Dr. Field’s delightful _Otium Norvicense_, p. 65.

510 See above, pp. 98-106. Also _infra_, towards the end.

511 As in S. Matth. xi. 11 and 2 Tim. iv. 17, where δέ is rendered
“notwithstanding:”—Phil. i. 24 and Heb. xii. 11, where it is
“nevertheless.”

_ 512 Eight_ times in succession in 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, δέ is not
represented in the A. V. The ancients _felt_ so keenly what Tyndale,
Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the A. V. ventured to exhibit,
that as often as not they leave out the δέ,—in which our
Revisionists twice follow them. The reader of taste is invited to
note the precious result of inserting “and,” as the Revisionists
have done six times, where according to the genius of the English
language it is not wanted at all.

513 38 times in the Genealogy, S. Matth. i.

514 Rom. xiv. 4: xv. 20.

515 Rom. ix. 22.

516 1 Cor. xii. 27.

517 Gal. ii. 4.

518 Act xxvii. 26.

519 Rom. iii. 22.

520 Ephes. iv. 1.

521 2 Cor. v. 8.

522 S. Mark xv. 31.

523 S. Mark vi. 29.

524 1 Cor. x. 1.

525 S. Matth. vi. 30.

526 S. John xx. 4.

527 2 Cor. i. 23.

528 2 Cor. vii. 13.

529 2 Cor. ii. 12.

530 2 Pet. iii. 13.

531 S. Matth. ii. 22.

532 1 Cor. xii. 20.

533 1 S. John i. 3.

534 S. Matth. xxv. 39.

535 Acts viii. 3.

536 Rom. xii. 6.

537 S. Matth. vi. 29.

538 As in S. Matth. vii. 9: xii. 29: xx. 15. Rom. iii. 29.

539 S. Matth. xx. 15: xxvi. 53. Rom. iii. 29: vi. 3: vii. 1.

540 S. John xvi. 32.

541 S. Luke xix. 23.

542 2 Cor. xiii. 1.

543 S. Luke xii. 2.

544 S. Luke xviii. 7.

545 S Luke xiv. 21.

546 1 S. John ii. 27.

547 1 S. John i. 2.

548 S. Mark ix. 39.

549 Acts xxiii. 3.

550 Consider S. Matth. iii. 16,—ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος: and ver.
6,—ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ.

551 ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συνανεστράφη.

552 Galland. iv. 6 b _bis_.

553 P. 279.

554 ix. 400.

555 ii. 707.

556 The circumstance is noticed and explained in the same way by Dr.
Field in his delightful _Otium Norvicense_.

_ 557 Concilia_, iv. 79 e.

558 Thus Cyril addresses one of his Epistles to Acacius Bp. of
Melitene,—_Concilia_, iii. 1111.

559 See Dr. Field’s delightful _Otium Norvicense_ (Pars tertia), 1881,
pp. 1-4 and 110, 111. This masterly contribution to Sacred Criticism
ought to be in the hands of every student of Scripture.

560 See Hesychius, and the notes on the place.

_ 561 Notes designed to illustrate some expressions in the Gk. Test. by a
reference to the_ LXX., &c. By C. F. B. Wood, Præcentor of
Llandaff,—Rivingtons, 1882, (pp. 21,)—p. 17:—an admirable
performance, only far too brief.

562 Μὴ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ῥῆμα?

563 Οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ πᾶν ῥῆμα.

564 [Pointed out to me by Professor Gandell,—whose exquisite familiarity
with Scripture is only equalled by his readiness to communicate his
knowledge to others.]

565 μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς and ἐνταφιασμός,—S. Mark xiv. 3 and 8: S. John
xii. 3 and 7. Hear Origen (apud Hieron. iii. 517):—“Non de nardo
propositum est nunc Spiritui Sancto dicere, neque de hoc quod oculis
intuemur, Evangelista scribit, unguento; sed _de nardo spirituali_.”
And so Jerome himself, vii. 212.

566 Ps. xxxiii. 18 (ἐγγὺς Κύριος τοῖς συντετριμμένοις τὴν καρδίαν): Is.
lvii. 15.

567 Consider Ignatius, _ad Ephes._ c. xvii. Also, the exquisite remark
of Theod. Heracl. in Cramer’s _Cat._

568 We prefer that readers should be reminded, by the varied form, of
the _Greek_ original. In the extreme case (Acts vii. 45: Hebr. iv.
8), is it not far more edifying that attention should be in this way
directed to the identity of the names “_Joshua_” and “_Jesus_,” than
that the latter word should be entirely obliterated by the
former;—and this, only for the sake of unmistakeably proclaiming,
(what yet must needs be perfectly manifest, viz.) that “_Joshua_” is
the personage spoken of?

569 So, in S. Luke xxiii. 25, and Acts iii. 14: xiii. 28,—still
following Tyndale.

570 Acts xii. 20.

571 Eph. iii. 13.

572 For, as the story plainly shows (2 Sam. vii. 2, 3; 1 Chron. xvii. 1,
2), it was only “_in his heart_” to build GOD an house (1 Kings
viii. 17, 18). Hence Cranmer’s “_he would fain_” have done so.

573 Acts xvi. 29.

574 Col. i. 9.

575 S. Matth. xiv. 15, 22, 23 (= S. Mark vi. 36, 45, [and note the
substitution of ἀποταξάμενος in ver. 46]: S. Luke ix. 12): and xv.
32, 39 (= S. Mark viii. 9).

576 S. Matt. xiii. 36: and S. Mark iv. 36.

577 Acts xii. 13.

578 Acts xvi. 16.

579 Verses 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31.

580 Twice he calls it μνῆμα.

581 Ch. xxvii. 61, 64, 66; xxviii. 1.

582 Except in 2 Tim. iii. 16,—where πρὸς διδασκαλίαν is rendered _ad
docendum_.

583 Except in Rom. xii. 7,—where ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ is rendered “_on
teaching_.”

584 Except in Rom. xvi. 17, where they render it “_doctrine_.”

585 And yet, since upwards of 50 times we are molested with a marginal
note to inform us that διδάσκαλος means “_Teacher_”—διδασκαλία
(rather than διδαχή) might have claimed to be rendered “_teaching_.”

586 Viz. Rom. xii. 7: 1 Tim. iv. 13, 16: v. 17: 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16.—Rom.
xv. 4.

587 Eight times in Rev. xvi.

588 S. Matth. xxvi. 7. S. Mark xiv. 3. S. Luke vii. 37.

589 γλωσσόκομον. Consider the LXX. of 2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11.

590 ζώνας.

_ 591 E.g._ S. Matth. xxvi. 48. S. Luke ii. 12.

592 Δύναμις is rendered “miracle” in the R. V. about half-a-dozen times.

593 Acts iv. 16, 22.—On the other hand, “sign” was allowed to represent
σημεῖον repeatedly in the A. V., as in S. Matth. xii. 38, &c., and
the parallel places: S. Mark xvi. 17, 20: S. John xx. 30.

594 Canon Cook’s _Revised Version of the first three Gospels
considered_, &c.—p. 26: an admirable performance,—unanswered,
because _unanswerable_.

595 Dr. Vance Smith’s _Revised Texts and Margins_,—p. 45.

596 S. Matth. xvii. 15: S. Mk. ix. 18, 20, 22, 26: S. Lu. ix. 39, 42.

597 Consider our LORD’S solemn words in Mtt. xvii. 21,—“_But this kind
goeth not out save by prayer and fasting_,”—12 words left out by the
R. V., though witnessed to by _all the Copies but_ 3: by the Latin,
Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian Versions: and by the following
Fathers:—(1) Origen, (2) Tertullian, (3) the Syriac Clement, (4) the
Syriac _Canons of Eusebius_, (5) Athanasius, (6) Basil, (7) Ambrose,
(8) Juvencus, (9) Chrysostom, (10) _Opus imp._, (11) Hilary, (12)
Augustine, (13) J. Damascene, and others. Then (it will be asked),
why have the Revisionists left them out? Because (we answer) they
have been misled by B and א, Cureton’s Syriac and the Sahidic,—as
untrustworthy a quaternion of witnesses to the text of Scripture as
could be named.

598 The word is only not banished entirely from the N. T. It occurs
twice (viz. in Rom. i. 20, and Jude ver. 6), but only as the
rendering of ἀῖδιος.

599 S. Matth. xxv. 46.

600 Clemens Al. (p. 71) says:—τὰσ γραφὰς ὁ Ἀπόστολος Θεοπνεύστους καλεῖ,
ὠφελίμους οὔσας. Tertullian,—_Legimus omnem Scripturam ædificationi
habilem, divinitus inspirari._ Origen (ii. 443),—πᾶσα γραφὴ
θεόπνευστος οὖσα ὠφελιμός ἐστι. Gregory Nyss. (ii. 605),—πᾶσα γραφὴ
θεόπνευστος λέγεται. Dial. (ap. Orig. i. 808),—πᾶσα γραφὴ
θεόπνευστος λέγεται παρὰ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου. So Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril,
Theodoret, &c.

601 See Archdeacon Lee _on Inspiration_, pp. 261-3, reading his notes.

602 S. John xvi. 15.

603 Study by all means Basil’s letter to Amphilochius, (vol. iii. p. 360
to 362.)—Ἔστιν οὖν ὁ νοῦς ὁ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ τοιοῦτος; Περὶ δὲ τῆς
ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ ὥρας, οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὔτε οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽
οὐδ᾽ ἄν ὁ Υἱὸς ἔγνω, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατέρ; ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτῷ ὑπῆρχε
δεδομένη ἡ γνῶσις ... τουτέστιν, ἡ αἰτία τοῦ εἰδέναι τὸν Υἱὸν παρὰ
τοῦ Πατρός; καὶ ἀβίαστός ἐστι τῷ εὐγνωμόνως ἀκούοντι ἡ ἐξήγησις
αὕτη. ἐπειδὴ οὐ πρόσκειται τὸ μόνος; ὡς καὶ παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ.—(p. 362
c.) Basil says of this interpretation—ἂ τοίνυν ἐκ παιδὸς παρὰ τῶν
πατέρων ἠκούσαμεν.

_ 604 Notes_, p. 109.

_ 605 Celebre effugium_, (as Dr. Routh calls it,) _quod ex falsâ verborum
constructione Critici quidam hæreticis pararunt._ _Reliqq._ iii.
322-3.

606 C alone has a point between ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων and Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς
τους αἰῶνας. But this is an entirely different thing from what is
noted in the margin.

607 MS. communication from the Rev. S. C. Malan.

608 i. 506.

_ 609 Opusc._ i. 52, 58; _Phil._ 339.

610 iv. 612.

611 Routh, _Reliqq. Sac._ iii. 292, and 287. (_Concil._ i. 845 b. c.)

_ 612 Concilia_, i. 873 d: 876 a.

613 vi. c. 26.

614 i. 414, 415, 429, 617, 684, 908.

615 i. 282. And in _Cat._ 317.

_ 616 Trin._ 21, 29, 327, 392. Mai, vii. 303.

617 ii. 596 a, (quoted by the Emp. Justinian [_Concil._ v. 697] and the
_Chronicon Paschale_, 355), 693, 697; iii. 287. Galland. vi. 575.

618 i. 481, 487, 894, 978; ii. 74.

619 Ap. Cyril (ed. Pusey), v. 534.

620 Ap. Gall. iii. 805.

621 Ap. Gall. iv. 576.

622 Ap. Phot. col. 761, 853.

623 Ap. Gall. vi. 8, 9, 80.

624 Ap. Gall. vii. 618, and ap. Hieron. i. 560.

_ 625 Concilia_, iii. 522 e ( = iv. 297 d = ap. Gall. viii. 667). Also,
_Concilia_ (Harduin), i. 1413 a.

626 Ap. Gall. ix. 474.

627 Ap. Gall. ix. 690, 691 ( = _Concil._ iii. 1230, 1231).

_ 628 Homilia_ (Arm.), p. 165 and 249.

629 i. 464, 483; vi. 534; vii. 51; viii. 191; ix. 604, 653; x. 172.

630 v.1 20, 503, 765, 792; v.2 58, 105, 118, 148; vi. 328. Ap. Mai, ii.
70, 86, 96, 104; iii. 84 _in Luc._ 26.

_ 631 Concilia_, iii. 1099 b.

632 i. 103; ii. 1355; iii. 215, 470; iv. 17, 433, 1148, 1264, 1295,
1309; v. 67, 1093.

633 Cramer’s _Cat._ 160.

_ 634 Ibid. in Act._ 40.

635 P. 166.

_ 636 Concilia_, ii. 195.

637 Ap. Gall. xii. 251.

638 Ap. Gall. xii. 682.

639 ii. 64.

640 i. 557; ii. 35, 88.

641 Prax. 13, 15—“Christum autem et ipse Deum cognominavit, _Quorum
patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia
Deus benedictus in ævum_.”

642 P. 287.

643 Ap. Gall. iii. 296, 313.

644 i. 1470; ii. 457, 546, 609, 790.

_ 645 Concilia_, ii. 982 c.

646 78, 155, 393, 850, 970, 1125, 1232.

647 i. 870, 872.

648 Ap. Gall. viii. 157.

649 Ap. Gall. vii. 589, 590.

650 Ap. Gall. viii. 627.

651 709, 711.

652 Ap. Gall. x. 722.

653 Ap. Gall. xi. 233, 237.

_ 654 Concilia_, iii. 1364, 1382.

655 Ap. Gall. 352, 357.

_ 656 Ibid._ 674.

657 ii. 16, 215, 413.

658 i. 839; v. 769; xii. 421.

659 Those of our readers who wish to pursue this subject further may
consult with advantage Dr. Gifford’s learned note on the passage in
the _Speaker’s Commentary_. Dr. Gifford justly remarks that “it is
the natural and simple construction, which every Greek scholar would
adopt without hesitation, if no question of doctrine were involved.”

660 Note, that this has been the language of the Church from the
beginning. Thus Tertullian,—“Aquam adituri ... contestamur nos
renuntiare diabolo, _et pompæ et angelis ejus_” (i. 421): and
Ambrose,—“Quando te interrogavit, Abrenuntias diabolo _et operibus
ejus_, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio. Abrenuntias _sæculo et
voluptatibus ejus_, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio” (ii. 350 c): and
Ephraem Syrus,—Ἀποτάσσομαι τῷ Σατανᾷ καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ
(ii. 195 and iii. 399). And Cæsarius of Arles,—“Abrenuntias diabolo,
_pompis et operibus ejus_ ... Abrenuntio” (Galland. xi. 18 e).

661 2 Tim. iv. 18.

662 S. John xvii. 24.

663 P. 140.

664 Marcell. p. 192.

_ 665 In loc. diserte._

_ 666 Eth._ ii. 297.

667 viii. 485.

_ 668 Text_, iv. 1003; _Comm._ 1007, which are _two distinct
authorities_, as learned readers of Cyril are aware.

_ 669 Concilia_, iii. 356 d.

670 iv. 450.

671 Pp. 235, 321.

672 i. 412; ii. 566, 649.

673 Pp. 1017, 1033.

674 Victricius ap. Gall. viii. 230. Also ps.-Chrys. v. 680.

675 iii. 966 _dis._

_ 676 Dem._ 92.

677 i. 319.

_ 678 Trin._ 190.

679 v. 1039, 1069.

680 ii. 460.

681 v. 615.

682 ii. 584. Cyril read the place both ways:—v.2 156, and _in Luc._ p.
52.

683 i. 720.

684 ii. 381; iii. 962; iv. 601.

685 Ap. Galland. vii. 183.

686 Ap. Montf. ii. 67.

687 iii. 333; v. 444; x. 498, 620; xii. 329.

688 ii. 77; iii. 349.

689 ii. 252.

690 “Deseruimus fere quos sequi solemus codices.”

691 P. 38 ( = Gall. vii. 26).

692 i. 298, 613.

693 viii. 351, 352.

694 iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.

695 i. 748; iv. 274, 550.

_ 696 In Dionys. Ar._ ii. 192.

697 As these sheets are passing through the press, we have received a
book by Sir Edmund Beckett, entitled, _Should the Revised New
Testament be Authorized?_ In four Chapters, the author discusses
with characteristic vigour, first, the principles and method of the
Revisers, and then the Gospel of S. Matthew, the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, as fair samples of their work, with a
union of sound sense, forensic skill, and scholarship more skilful
than to deserve his cautious disclaimer. Amidst details open, of
course, to discussion, abundant proofs are set forth, in a most
telling style, that the plea of “necessity” and “faithfulness”
utterly fails, in justification of a mass of alterations, which, in
point of English composition, carry their condemnation on their
face, and, to sum up the great distinction between the two Versions,
illustrate “the difference between working by _discretion_ and by
_rules_—by which no great thing was ever done or ever will be.” Sir
Edmund Beckett is very happy in his exposure of the abuse of the
famous canon of preferring the stranger reading to the more obvious,
as if copyists never made stupid blunders or perpetrated wilful
absurdities. The work deserves the notice of all English readers.

698 It has been objected by certain of the Revisionists that it is not
fair to say that “they were appointed to do one thing, and have done
another.” We are glad of this opportunity to explain.

That _some_ corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well
aware: and had those _necessary_ changes been made, we should only
have had words of commendation and thanks to offer. But it is found
that by Dr. Hort’s eager advocacy two-thirds of the Revisionists
have made a vast number of _perfectly needless changes_:—(1) Changes
which _are incapable of being represented in a Translation_: as ἐμοῦ
for μου,—πάντες for ἅπαντες,—ὅτε for ὁπότε. Again, since γέννησις,
at least as much as γένεσις, means “_birth_,” _why_ γένεσις in S.
Matth. i. 18? Why, also, inform us that instead of ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι
αὐτοῦ πεφυτευμένην, they prefer πεφυτευμένην ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ?
and instead of καρπὸν ζητῶν,—ζητῶν καρπόν? Now this they have done
_throughout_,—at least 341 times in S. Luke alone. But (what is far
worse), (2) They suggest in the margin changes which yet they _do
not adopt_. These numerous changes are, _by their own confession_,
not “necessary:” and yet they are of a most serious character. In
fact, it is of these we chiefly complain.—But, indeed (3), _How
many_ of their _other_ alterations of the Text will the Revisionists
undertake to defend publicly on the plea of “_Necessity_”?

[A vast deal more will be found on this subject towards the close of
the present volume. In the meantime, see above, pages 87-88.]

699 “We meet in every page” (says Dr. Wordsworth, the learned Bishop of
Lincoln,) “with small changes which are vexatious, teasing, and
irritating; even the more so because they are small (as small
insects sting most sharply), _which seem almost to be made merely
for the sake of change_.”—p. 25.

_ 700 On the Revision of the English Version_, &c. (1870), p. 99.

701 Bp. Ellicott, _Diocesan Progress_, Jan. 1882,—p. 19.

702 Bp. Ellicott, _On Revision_,—p. 49.

703 “_Qui_ LXX _interpretes non legit, aut minus legit accurate, is
sciat se non adeo idoneum, qui Scripta Evangelica Apostolica de
Græco in Latinum, aut alium aliquem sermonem transferat, ut ut in
aliis Græcis scriptoribus multum diuque fuerit versatus_.” (John
Bois, 1619.)—“_Græcum N. T. contextum rite intellecturo nihil est
utilius quam diligenter versasse Alexandrinam antiqui Fœderis
interpretationem_, E QUÂ UNÂ PLUS PETI POTERIT AUXILII, QUAM EX
VETERIBUS SCRIPTORIBUS GRÆCIS SIMUL SUMTIS. _Centena reperientur in
N. T. nusquam obvia in scriptis Græcorum veterum, sed frequentata in
Alexandrinâ versione._” (Valcknaer, 1715-85.)

_ 704 On the Authorized Version_,—p. 3.

_ 705 Preface_, p. xiv.

_ 706 Quarterly Review_, No. 304.

_ 707 Quarterly Review_, No. 305.

708 At the head of the present Article, as it originally appeared, will
be found enumerated Dr. Scrivener’s principal works. It shall but be
said of them, that they are wholly unrivalled, or rather
unapproached, in their particular department. Himself an exact and
elegant Scholar,—a most patient and accurate observer of Textual
phenomena, as well as an interesting and judicious expositor of
their significance and value;—guarded in his statements, temperate
in his language, fair and impartial (even kind) to all who come in
his way:—Dr. Scrivener is the very best teacher and guide to whom a
beginner can resort, who desires to be led by the hand, as it were,
through the intricate mazes of Textual Criticism. His _Plain
Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the use of
Biblical Students_, (of which a third edition is now in the press,)
is perforce the most generally useful, because the most
comprehensive, of his works; but we strenuously recommend the three
prefatory chapters of his _Full and Exact Collation of about twenty
Greek Manuscripts of the Gospels_ [pp. lxxiv. and 178,—1853], and
the two prefatory chapters of his _Exact Transcript of the Codex
Augiensis_, &c., to which is added a full Collation of Fifty
Manuscripts, [pp. lxxx. and 563,—1859,] to the attention of
students. His Collation of _Codex Bezæ_ (D) is perhaps the greatest
of his works: but whatever he has done, he has done best. It is
instructive to compare his collation of Cod. א with Tischendorf’s.
No reader of the Greek Testament can afford to be without his
reprint of Stephens’ ed. of 1550: and English readers are reminded
that Dr. Scrivener’s is the only _classical_ edition of the English
Bible,—_The Cambridge Paragraph Bible_, &c., 1870-3. His Preface or
“Introduction” (pp. ix.-cxx.) passes praise. Ordinary English
readers should enquire for his _Six Lectures on the Text of the N.
T._, &c., 1875,—which is in fact an attempt to popularize the _Plain
Introduction_. The reader is referred to note 1 at the foot of page
243.

709 “Agmen ducit Carolus Lachmannus (_N. T. Berolini_ 1842-50), ingenii
viribus et elegantiâ doctrinæ haud pluribus impar; editor N. T.
audacior quam limatior: cujus textum, a recepto longè decedentem,
tantopere judicibus quibusdam subtilioribus placuisse jamdudum
miramur: quippe qui, abjectâ tot cæterorum codicum Græcorum ope,
perpaucis antiquissimis (nec iis integris, nec per eum satis
accuratè collatis) innixus, libros sacros ad sæculi post Christum
quarti normam restituisse sibi videatur; versionum porrò (cujuslibet
codicis ætatem facilè superantium) Syriacæ atque Ægyptiacarum
contemptor, neutrius linguæ peritus; Latinarum contrà nimius fautor,
præ Bentleio ipso Bentleianus.”—Scrivener’s Preface to _Nov. Test,
textûs Stephanici_, &c. See above, p. 238, _note_.

710 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 429.

711 N. T. Part II. p. 2.

712 No one who attends ever so little to the subject can require to be
assured that “_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 by Dr. Scrivener
for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1881, does not by
any means represent his own views. The learned Prebendary merely
edited the decisions of the two-thirds majority of the
Revisionists,—_which were not his own_.

713 Those who have never tried the experiment, can have no idea of the
strain on the attention which such works as those enumerated in p.
238 (_note_) occasion. At the same time, it cannot be too clearly
understood that it is chiefly by the multiplication of _exact_
collations of MSS. that an abiding foundation will some day be laid
on which to build up the _Science_ of Textual Criticism. We may
safely keep our “_Theories_” back till we have collated our
MSS.,—re-edited our Versions,—indexed our Fathers. They will be
abundantly in time _then_.

_ 714 Introduction_, p. 18.

715 See lower part of page 17. Also note at p. 75 and middle of p. 262.

716 P. 13, cf. p. viii.

717 They are as follows:—

[1st] S. Mark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion the
multitude, when they beheld our SAVIOUR and His Disciples departing
in order to cross over unto the other side of the lake, ran on foot
thither,—(α) “_and outwent them_—(β) _and came together unto Him_”
(_i.e._ on His stepping out of the boat: not, as Dr. Hort strangely
imagines [p. 99], on His emerging from the scene of His “retirement”
in “some sequestered nook”).

Now here, A substitutes συνέδραμον [_sic_] for συνῆλθον.—א B with
the Coptic and the Vulg. omit clause (β).—D omits clause (α), but
substitutes “_there_” (αὐτοῦ) for “_unto Him_” in clause
(β),—exhibits therefore a fabricated text.—The Syriac condenses the
two clauses thus:—“_got there before Him_.”—L, Δ, 69, and 4 or 5 of
the old Latin copies, read diversely from all the rest and from one
another. The present is, in fact, one of those many places in S.
Mark’s Gospel where all is contradiction in those depraved witnesses
which Lachmann made it his business to bring into fashion. Of
_Confusion_ there is plenty. “Conflation”—as the Reader sees—there
is none.

[2nd] In S. Mark viii. 26, our SAVIOUR (after restoring sight to the
blind man of Bethsaida) is related to have said,—(α) “_Neither enter
into the village_”—(β) “_nor tell it to any one_—(γ) _in the
village_.” (And let it be noted that the trustworthiness of this way
of exhibiting the text is vouched for by A C N Δ and 12 other
uncials: by the whole body of the cursives: by the Peschito and
Harklensian, the Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions: and by the
only Father who quotes the place—Victor of Antioch. [Cramer’s _Cat._
p. 345, lines 3 and 8.])

But it is found that the “two false witnesses” (א B) omit clauses
(β) and (γ), retaining only clause (α). One of these two however
(א), aware that under such circumstances μηδέ is intolerable, [Dr.
Hort, on the contrary, (only because he finds it in B,) considers
μηδέ “_simple and vigorous_” as well as “unique” and “peculiar” (p.
100).] substitutes μή. As for D and the Vulg., they substitute and
paraphrase, importing from Matt. ix. 6 (or Mk. ii. 11), “_Depart
unto thine house_.” D proceeds,—“_and tell it to no one_ [μηδενὶ
εἴπῃς, from Matth. viii. 4,] _in the village_.” Six copies of the
old Latin (b f ff-2 g-1-2 l), with the Vulgate, exhibit the
following paraphrase of the entire place:—“_Depart unto thine house,
and if thou enterest into the village, tell it to no one._” The same
reading exactly is found in Evan. 13-69-346: 28, 61, 473, and i,
(except that 28, 61, 346 exhibit “_say nothing_ [from Mk. i. 44] _to
no one_.”) All six however add at the end,—“_not even in the
village_.” Evan. 124 and a stand alone in exhibiting,—“_Depart unto
thine house; and enter not into the village; neither tell it to any
one_,”—to which 124 [not a] adds,—“_in the village_.”... _Why_ all
this contradiction and confusion is now to be called
“Conflation,”—and what “clear evidence” is to be elicited therefrom
that “Syrian” are posterior alike to “Western” and to “neutral”
readings,—passes our powers of comprehension.

We shall be content to hasten forward when we have further informed
our Readers that while Lachmann and Tregelles abide by the Received
Text in this place; Tischendorf, _alone of Editors_, adopts the
reading of א (μη εις την κωμην εισελθης): while Westcott and Hort,
_alone of Editors_, adopt the reading of B (μηδε εις την κωμην
εισελθης),—so ending the sentence. What else however but calamitous
is it to find that Westcott and Hort have persuaded their fellow
Revisers to adopt the same mutilated exhibition of the Sacred Text?
The consequence is, that henceforth,—instead of “_Neither go into
the town, nor tell it to any in the town_,”—we are invited to read,
“_Do not even enter into the village_.”

[3rd] In S. Mk. ix. 38,—S. John, speaking of one who cast out devils
in CHRIST’S Name, says—(α) “_who followeth not us, and we forbad
him_—(β) _because he followeth not us_.”

Here, א B C L Δ the Syriac, Coptic, and Æthiopic, omit clause (α),
retaining (β). D with the old Latin and the Vulg. omit clause (β),
but retain (α).—Both clauses are found in A N with 11 other uncials
and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Gothic, and the only
Father who quotes the place,—Basil [ii. 252].—Why should the
pretence be set up that there has been “Conflation” here? Two
Omissions do not make one Conflation.

[4th] In Mk. ix. 49,—our SAVIOUR says,—“_For_ (α) _every one shall
be salted with fire_—_and_ (β) _every sacrifice shall be salted with
salt_.”

Here, clause (α) is omitted by D and a few copies of the old Latin;
clause (β) by א B L Δ.

But such an ordinary circumstance as the omission of half-a-dozen
words by Cod. D is so nearly without textual significancy, as
scarcely to merit commemoration. And do Drs. Westcott and Hort
really propose to build their huge and unwieldy hypothesis on so
flimsy a circumstance as the concurrence in error of א B L
Δ,—especially in S. Mark’s Gospel, which those codices exhibit more
unfaithfully than any other codices that can be named? Against them,
are to be set on the present occasion A C D N with 12 other uncials
and the whole body of the cursives: the Ital. and Vulgate; both
Syriac; the Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions; besides
the only Father who quotes the place,—Victor of Antioch. [Also
“Anon.” p. 206: and see Cramer’s _Cat._ p. 368.]

[5th] S. Luke (ix. 10) relates how, on a certain occasion, our
SAVIOUR “_withdrew to a desert place belonging to the city called
Bethsaida_:” which S. Luke expresses in six words: viz. [1] εἰς [2]
τόπον [3] ἔρημον [4] πόλεως [5] καλουμένης [6] Βηθσαϊδά: of which
six words,—

(_a_)—א and Syrcu retain but three,—1, 2, 3.

(_b_)—The Peschito retains but four,—1, 2, 3, 6.

(_c_)—B L X Ξ D and the 2 Egyptian versions retain other four,—1, 4,
5, 6: but for πόλεως καλουμένης D exhibits κώμην λεγομένην.

(_d_)—The old Latin and Vulg. retain five,—1, 2, 3, 5, 6: but for
“_qui_ (or _quod_) _vocabatur_,” the Vulg. _b_ and _c_ exhibit
“_qui_ (or _quod_) est.”

(_e_)—3 cursives retain other five, viz. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6: while,

(_f_)—A C Δ E, with 9 more uncials and the great bulk of the
cursives,—the Harklensian, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic
Versions,—retain _all the six words_.

In view of which facts, it probably never occurred to any one before
to suggest that the best attested reading of all is the result of
“conflation,” _i.e._ of _spurious mixture_. Note, that א and D have,
this time, changed sides.

[6th] S. Luke (xi. 54) speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees as (α)
“_lying in wait for Him_,” (β) _seeking_ (γ) _to catch something out
of His mouth_ (δ) “_that they might accuse Him_.” This is the
reading of 14 uncials headed by A C, and of the whole body of the
cursives: the reading of the Vulgate also and of the Syriac. What is
to be said against it?

It is found that א B L with the Coptic and Æthiopic Versions omit
clauses (β) and (δ), but retain clauses (α) and (γ).—Cod. D, in
conjunction with Cureton’s Syriac and the old Latin, retains clause
(β), and _paraphrases all the rest of the sentence_. How then can it
be pretended that there has been any “Conflation” here?

In the meantime, how unreasonable is the excision from the Revised
Text of clauses (β) and (δ)—(ζητοῦντες ... ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν
αὐτόν)—which are attested by A C D and 12 other uncials, together
with the whole body of the cursives; by all the Syriac and by all
the Latin copies!... Are we then to understand that א B, and the
Coptic Version, outweigh every other authority which can be named?

[7th] The “rich fool” in the parable (S. Lu. xii. 18), speaks of (α)
πάντα τὰ γενήματά μου, καὶ (β) τὰ ἀγαθά μου. (So A Q and 13 other
uncials, besides the whole body of the cursives; the Vulgate, Basil,
and Cyril.)

But א D (with the old Latin and Cureton’s Syriac [which however
drops the πάντα]), retaining clause (α), omit clause (β).—On the
other hand, B T, (with the Egyptian Versions, the Syriac, the
Armenian, and Æthiopic,) retaining clause (β), substitute τὸν σῖτον
(a gloss) for τὰ γενήματα in clause (α). Lachmann, Tisch., and
Alford, accordingly retain the traditional text in this place. So
does Tregelles, and so do Westcott and Hort,—only substituting τὸν
σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα. Confessedly therefore there has been no
“Syrian conflation” _here_: for all that has happened has been _the
substitution_ by B of τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα; and the omission of
4 words by א D. This instance must therefore have been an
oversight.—Only once more.

[8th] S. Luke’s Gospel ends (xxiv. 53) with the record that the
Apostles were continually in the Temple, “(α) _praising and_ (β)
_blessing _GOD.” Such is the reading of 13 uncials headed by A and
every known cursive: a few copies of the old Lat., the Vulg.,
Syraic, Philox., Æthiopic, and Armenian Versions. But it is found
that א B C omit clause (α): while D and seven copies of the old
Latin omit clause (β).

And this completes the evidence for “Conflation.” We have displayed
it thus minutely, lest we should be suspected of unfairness towards
the esteemed writers on _the only occasion_ which they have
attempted argumentative proof. Their theory has at last _forced
them_ to make an appeal to Scripture, and to produce some actual
specimens of their meaning. After ransacking the Gospels for 30
years, they have at last fastened upon _eight_: of which (as we have
seen), several have really no business to be cited,—as not
fulfilling the necessary conditions of the problem. To prevent cavil
however, let _all but one_, the [7th], pass unchallenged.

718 The Reader is referred to pp. 17, 75, 249.

_ 719 E.g._ pp. 115, 116, 117, 118, &c.

720 Referred to below, p. 296.

721 See above, pages 257 (bottom) and 258 (top).

722 See above, pp. 37 to 38.

_ 723 Ibid._ p. 39.

724 To speak with entire accuracy, Drs. Westcott and Hort require us to
believe that the Authors of the [imaginary] Syrian Revisions of A.D.
250 and A.D. 350, interpolated the genuine Text of the Gospels, with
between 2877 (B) and 3455 (א) spurious words; mutilated the genuine
Text in respect of between 536 (B) and 839 (א) words:—substituted
for as many genuine words, between 935 (B) and 1114 (א) uninspired
words:—licentiously transposed between 2098 (B) and 2299 (א):—and in
respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c., altered without
authority between 1132 (*B*) and 1265 (א) words.

725 Quoted by Canon Cook, _Revised Version Considered_,—p. 202.

_ 726 i.e._ say from A.D. 90 to A.D. 250-350.

727 See above, p. 269.

728 “If,” says Dr. Hort, “an editor were for any purpose to make it his
aim to restore as completely as possible the New Testament of
Antioch in A.D. 350, he could not help taking the approximate
consent of the cursives as equivalent to _a primary documentary
witness_. And he would not be the less justified in so doing for
being unable to say precisely by what historical agencies THE ONE
ANTIOCHIAN ORIGINAL”—[note the fallacy!]—“_was multiplied into the
cursive hosts of the later ages_.”—Pp. 143-4.

729 Preface to the “limited and private issue” of 1870, p. xviii.:
reprinted in the _Introduction_ (1881), p. 66.

_ 730 Ibid._

731 P. 65 (§ 84). In the Table of Contents (p. xi.), “_Personal
instincts_” are substituted for “_Personal discernment_.”

_ 732 The Revisers and the Greek Text_,—p. 19.

_ 733 Introduction_,—p. xiii.

_ 734 Notes_, p. 22.

_ 735 Notes_, p. 88.

_ 736 Notes_,—p. 51.

737 Scrivener’s _Plain Introduction_,—pp. 507-8.

738 Scrivener’s “_Introduction_,” pp. 513-4.

739 In S. MATTH. i. 25,—the omission of “_her first-born_:”—in vi. 13,
the omission of the _Doxology_:—in xii. 47, the omission of _the
whole verse_:—in xvi. 2, 3, the omission of our LORD’S memorable
words concerning the _signs of the weather_:—in xvii. 21, the
omission of the mysterious statement, “_But this kind goeth not out
save by prayer and fasting_:”—in xviii. 11, the omission of the
precious words “_For the Son of man came to save that which was
lost_.”

In S. MARK xvi. 9-20, the omission of the “_last Twelve
Verses_,”—(“the contents of which are _not such as could have been
invented_ by any scribe or editor of the Gospel,”—W. and H. p. 57).
All admit that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is an impossible ending.

In S. LUKE vi. 1, the suppression of the unique δευτεροπρώτῳ; (“the
very obscurity of the expression attesting strongly to its
genuineness,”—Scrivener, p. 516, and so W. and H. p. 58):—ix. 54-56,
the omitted _rebuke to the_ “_disciples James and John_:”—in x. 41,
42, the omitted _words concerning Martha and Mary_:—in xxii. 43, 44,
the omission of the _Agony in the Garden_,—(which nevertheless, “_it
would be impossible to regard_ as a product of the inventiveness of
scribes,”—W. and H. p. 67):—in xxiii. 17, a memorable clause
omitted:—in xxiii. 34, the omission of our Lord’s _prayer for His
murderers_,—(concerning which Westcott and Hort remark that “_few
verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the
truth of what they record than this_”—p. 68):—in xxiii. 38, the
statement that the Inscription on the Cross was “_in letters of
Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew_:”—in xxiv. 12, _the visit of S. Peter
to the Sepulchre_. Bishop Lightfoot remarks concerning S. Luke ix.
56: xxii. 43, 44: and xxiii. 34,—“_It seems impossible to believe
that these incidents are other than authentic_,”—(p. 28.)

In S. JOHN iii. 13, the solemn clause “_which is in heaven_:”—in v.
3, 4, the omitted incident of _the troubling of the pool_:—in vii.
53 to viii. 11, _the narrative concerning the woman taken in
adultery_ omitted,—concerning which Drs. W. and H. remark that “_the
argument which has always told most in its favour in modern times is
its own internal character_. The story itself has justly seemed _to
vouch for its own substantial truth_, and the words in which it is
clothed to harmonize with those of other Gospel narratives”—(p. 87).
Bishop Lightfoot remarks that “_the narrative bears on its face the
highest credentials of authentic history_”—(p. 28).

740 To some extent, even the unlearned Reader may easily convince
himself of this, by examining the rejected “alternative” Readings in
the margin of the “Revised Version.” The “Many” and the “Some
ancient authorities,” there spoken of, _almost invariably
include_—sometimes _denote_—codd. B א, one or both of them. These
constitute the merest fraction of the entire amount of corrupt
readings exhibited by B א; but they will give English readers some
notion of the problem just now under consideration.

Besides the details already supplied [see above, pages 16 and 17:—30
and 31:—46 and 47:—75:—249:—262:—289:—316 to 319] concerning B and
א,—(the result of laborious collation,)—some particulars shall now
be added. The piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side, thrust in after Matt.
xxvii. 49:—the eclipse of the sun when the moon was full, in Lu.
xxiii. 45:—the monstrous figment concerning Herod’s daughter, thrust
into Mk. vi. 22:—the precious clauses omitted in Matt. i. 25 and
xviii. 11:—in Lu. ix. 54-6, and in Jo. iii. 13:—the wretched glosses
in Lu. vi. 48: x. 42: xv. 21: Jo. x. 14 and Mk. vi. 20:—the
substitution of οινον (for οξος) in Matt. xxvii. 34,—of Θεος (for
υιος) in Jo. i. 18,—of ανθρωπου (for Θεου) in ix. 35,—of οὑ (for ῷ)
in Rom. iv. 8:—the geographical blunder in Mk. vii. 31: in Lu. iv.
44:—the omission in Matt. xii. 47,—and of two important verses in
Matt. xvi. 2, 3:—of ιδια in Acts i. 19:—of εγειραι και in iii.
6;—and of δευτεροπρωτω in Lu. vi. 1:—the two spurious clauses in Mk.
iii. 14, 16:—the obvious blunders in Jo. ix. 4 and 11:—in Acts xii.
25—besides the impossible reading in 1 Cor. xiii. 3,—make up a heavy
indictment against B and א jointly—which are here found in company
with just a very few disreputable allies. Add, the plain error at
Lu. ii. 14:—the gloss at Mk. v. 36:—the mere fabrication at Matt.
xix. 17:—the omissions at Matt. vi. 13: Jo. v. 3, 4.

B (in company with others, but apart from א) by exhibiting
βαπτισαντες in Matt. xxviii. 19:—ὡδε των in Mk. ix.
1:—“seventy-_two_,” in Lu. x. 1:—the blunder in Lu. xvi. 12:—and the
grievous omissions in Lu. xxii. 43, 44 (CHRIST’S Agony in the
Garden),—and xxiii. 34 (His prayer for His murderers),—enjoys
unenviable distinction.—B, singly, is remarkable for an obvious
blunder in Matt. xxi. 31:—Lu. xxi. 24:—Jo. xviii. 5:—Acts x. 19—and
xvii. 28:—xxvii. 37:—not to mention the insertion of δεδομενον in
Jo. vii. 39.

א (in company with others, but apart from B) is conspicuous for its
sorry interpolation of Matt. viii. 13:—its substitution of εστιν
(for ην) in S. John i. 4:—its geographical blunder in S. Luke xxiv.
13:—its textual blunder at 1 Pet. i. 23.—א, singly, is remarkable
for its sorry paraphrase in Jo. ii. 3:—its addition to i. 34:—its
omissions in Matt. xxiii. 35:—Mk. i. 1:—Jo. ix. 38:—its insertion of
Ησαιου in Matt. xiii. 35:—its geographical blunders in Mk. i.
28:—Lu. i. 26:—Acts viii. 5:—besides the blunders in Jo. vi. 51—and
xiii. 10:—1 Tim. iii. 16:—Acts xxv. 13:—and the clearly fabricated
narrative of Jo. xiii. 24. Add the fabricated text at Mk. xiv. 30,
68, 72; of which the object was “so far to assimilate the narrative
of Peter’s denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to
suppress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed
twice.”

741 Characteristic, and fatal beyond anything that can be named are, (1)
The _exclusive_ omission by B and א of Mark xvi. 9-20:—(2) The
omission of εν Εφεσῳ, from Ephes. i. 1:—(3) The blunder,
αποσκιασματος, in James i. 17:—(4) The nonsensical συστρεφομενων in
Matt. xvii. 22:—(5) That “vile error,” (as Scrivener calls it,)
περιελοντες, in Acts xxviii. 13:—(6) The impossible order of words
in Lu. xxiii. 32; and (7) The extraordinary order in Acts i. 5:—(8)
The omission of the last clause of the LORD’S prayer, in Lu. xi. 4;
and (9) Of that solemn verse, Matt. xvii. 21; and (10) Of ισχυρον in
Matt. xiv. 30:—(11) The substitution of εργων (for τεκνων) in Matt.
xi. 29:—(12) Of ελιγμα (for μιγμα) in Jo. xix. 39,—and (13) of ην
τεθειμενος (for ετεθη) in John xix. 41. Then, (14) The thrusting of
Χριστος into Matt. xvi. 21,—and (15) Of ὁ Θεος into vi. 8:—besides
(16) So minute a peculiarity as Βεεζεβουλ in Matt. x. 35: xii. 24,
27: Lu. xi. 15, 18, 19. (17) Add, the gloss at Matt. xvii. 20, and
(18) The omissions at Matt. v. 22: xvii. 21.—It must be admitted
that such peculiar blemishes, taken collectively, constitute a proof
of affinity of origin,—community of descent from one and the same
disreputable ancestor. But space fails us.

The Reader will be interested to learn that although, in the
Gospels, B combines exclusively with A, but 11 times; and with C,
but 38 times: with D, it combines exclusively 141 times, and with א,
239 times: (viz. in Matt. 121,—in Mk. 26,—in Lu. 51,—in Jo. 41
times).

Contrast it with A:—which combines exclusively with D, 21 times:
with א 13 times: with B, 11 times: with C, 4 times.

742 The Reviewer speaks from actual inspection of both documents. They
are essentially dissimilar. The learned Ceriani assured the Reviewer
(in 1872) that whereas the Vatican Codex must certainly have been
written _in Italy_,—the birthplace of the Sinaitic was [_not_ Egypt,
but] _either Palestine or Syria_. Thus, considerations of time and
place effectually dispose of Tischendorf’s preposterous notion that
the Scribe of Codex B wrote _six leaves_ of א: an imagination which
solely resulted from the anxiety of the Critic to secure for his own
cod. א the same antiquity which is claimed for the vaunted cod. B.

This opinion of Dr. Tischendorf’s rests on the same fanciful basis
as his notion that _the last verse_ of S. John’s Gospel in א was not
written by the same hand which wrote the rest of the Gospel. There
is _no manner of difference_: though of course it is possible that
the scribe took a new pen, preliminary to writing that last verse,
and executing the curious and delicate ornament which follows.
Concerning S. Jo. xxi. 25, see above, pp. 23-4.

743 Tischendorf’s narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript
(“_When were our Gospels written?_”), [1866,] p. 23.

744 “Papyrus Inédit de la Bibliothèque de M. Ambroise Firmin-Didot.
Nouveaux fragments d’Euripide et d’autres Poètes Grecs, publiés par
M. Henri Weil. (Extrait des _Monumens Grecs publiés par
l’Association pour l’encouragement des Etudes Grecques en France_.
Année 1879.)” Pp. 36.

745 The rest of the passage may not be without interest to classical
readers:—“Ce n’est pas à dire qu’elle soit tout à fait sans intérêt,
sans importance: pour la constitution du texte. Elle nous apprend
que, au vers 5, ἀρίστων, pour ἀριστέων (correction de Wakefield)
était déjà l’ancienne vulgate; et que les vers 11 et 12, s’ils sont
altérés, comme l’assurent quelques éditeurs d’Euripide, l’étaient
déjà dans l’antiquité.

“L’homme ... était aussi ignorant que négligent. Je le prends pour
un Egyptien n’ayant qu’une connoissance très imparfaite de la langue
grecque, et ne possédant aucune notion ni sur l’orthographe, ni sur
les règles les plus élémentaires du trimètre iambique. Le plus
singulier est qu’il commence sa copie au milieu d’un vers et qu’il
la finisse de même. Il oublie des lettres nécessaires, il en ajoute
de parasites, il les met les unes pour les autres, il tronque les
mots ou il les altère, au point de détruire quelquefois la suite de
la construction et le sens du passage.” A faithful copy of the
verses in minuscule characters is subjoined for the gratification of
Scholars. We have but divided the words and inserted capital
letters:—

“ανδρων αριστων οι δε πανχρυσον δερος
Πελεια μετηλθον ου γαρ τον δεσπονα εμην
Μηδια πυργους γης επλευσε Ειολκιας
ερωτι θυμωδ εγπλαγις Ιανοσονος
οτ αν κτανει πισας Πελειαδας κουρας
πατερα κατοικη τηνδε γην Κορινθιαν
συν ανδρι και τεκνοισιν ανδανοισα μεν
φυγη πολιτων ων αφηκετο χθονος.”