Chapter III: Preface (2)

But here an important consideration claims special attention. We allude to the result of increased acquaintance with certain of the oldest extant codices of the N. T. Two of these,—viz. a copy in the Vatican technically indicated by the letter B, and the recently-discovered Sinaitic codex, styled after the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet א,—are thought to belong to the IVth century. Two are assigned to the Vth, viz. the Alexandrian (A) in the British Museum, and the rescript codex preserved at Paris, designated C. One is probably of the VIth, viz. the codex Bezæ (D) preserved at Cambridge. Singular to relate, the first, second, fourth, and fifth of these codices (B א C D), but especially B and א, have within the last twenty years established a tyrannical ascendency over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even _from one another_. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. that _in different degrees_ they all five exhibit a fabricated text. Between the first two (B and א) there subsists an amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original. Tischendorf insists that they were partly written by the same scribe. Yet do they stand asunder in every page; as well as differ widely from the commonly received Text, with which they have been carefully collated. On being referred to this standard, in the Gospels alone, B is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add, 536: to substitute, 935: to transpose, 2098: to modify, 1132 (in all 7578):—the corresponding figures for א being severally 3455, 839, 1114, 2299, 1265 (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, _are by no means the same_ in both. It is in fact _easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree_.

But by far the most depraved text is that exhibited by codex D. “No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations. Its variations from the sacred Text are beyond all other example.”(46) This, however, is not the result of its being the most recent of the five, but (singular to relate) is due to quite an opposite cause. It is thought (not without reason) to exhibit a IInd-century text. “When we turn to the Acts of the Apostles,” (says the learned editor of the codex in question, Dr. Scrivener,(47))—

“We find ourselves confronted with a text, the like to which we
have no experience of elsewhere. It is hardly an exaggeration to
assert that codex D reproduces the _Textus receptus_ much in the
same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of
the Old Testament: so wide are the variations in the diction, so
constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative
by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as
genuine by even a semblance of internal probability.”

“_Vix dici potest_” (says Mill) “_quam supra omnem modum licenter se gesserit, ac plane lasciverit Interpolator_.” Though a large portion of the Gospels is missing, in what remains (tested by the same standard) we find 3704 words omitted: no less than 2213 added, and 2121 substituted. The words transposed amount to 3471: and 1772 have been modified: the deflections from the Received Text thus amounting in all to 13,281.—Next to D, the most untrustworthy codex is א, which bears on its front a memorable note of the evil repute under which it has always laboured: viz. it is found that at least _ten_ revisers between the IVth and the XIIth centuries busied themselves with the task of correcting its many and extraordinary perversions of the truth of Scripture.(48)—Next in impurity comes B:—then, the fragmentary codex C: our own A being, beyond all doubt, disfigured by the fewest blemishes of any.

What precedes admits to some extent of further numerical illustration. It is discovered that in the 111 (out of 320) pages of an ordinary copy of the Greek Testament, in which alone these five manuscripts are collectively available for comparison in the Gospels,—the serious deflections of A from the _Textus receptus_ amount in all to only 842: whereas in C they amount to 1798: in B, to 2370: in א, to 3392: in D, to 4697. The readings _peculiar to_ A within the same limits are 133: those peculiar to C are 170. But those of B amount to 197: while א exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar to D (within the same limits), are no fewer than 1829.... We submit that these facts—_which result from merely referring five manuscripts to one and the same common standard_—are by no means calculated to inspire confidence in codices B א C D:—codices, be it remembered, which come to us without a character, without a history, in fact without antecedents of _any_ kind.

But let the learned chairman of the New Testament company of Revisionists (Bp. Ellicott) be heard on this subject. He is characterizing these same “old uncials,” which it is just now the fashion—or rather, the _craze_—to hold up as oracular, and to which his lordship is as devotedly and blindly attached as any of his neighbours:—

“The _simplicity and dignified conciseness_” (he says) “of the
Vatican manuscript (B): the _greater expansiveness_ of our own
Alexandrian (A): the _partially mixed characteristics_ of the
Sinaitic (א): the _paraphrastic tone_ of the _singular_ codex Bezæ
(D), are now brought home to the student.”(49)

Could ingenuity have devised severer satire than such a description of four professing _transcripts_ of a book; and _that_ book, the everlasting Gospel itself?—transcripts, be it observed in passing, on which it is just now the fashion to rely implicitly for the very orthography of proper names,—the spelling of common words,—the minutiæ of grammar. What (we ask) would be thought of four such “_copies_” of Thucydides or of Shakspeare? Imagine it gravely proposed, by the aid of four such conflicting documents, to re-adjust the text of the funeral oration of Pericles, or to re-edit “Hamlet.” _Risum teneatis amici?_ Why, some of the poet’s most familiar lines would cease to be recognizable: _e.g._ A,—“_Toby or not Toby; that is the question_:” B,—“_Tob or not, is the question_:” א,—“_To be a tub, or not to be a tub; the question is that_:” C,—“_The question is, to beat, or not to beat Toby?_”: D (the “singular codex”),—“_The only question is this: to beat that Toby, or to be a tub?_”

And yet—without by any means subscribing to the precise terms in which the judicious Prelate characterizes those _ignes fatui_ which have so persistently and egregiously led his lordship and his colleagues astray—(for indeed one seems rather to be reading a description of four styles of composition, or of as many fashions in ladies’ dress, than of four copies of the Gospel)—we have already furnished indirect proof that his estimate of the codices in question is in the main correct. Further acquaintance with them does but intensify the bad character which he has given them. Let no one suppose that we deny their extraordinary value,—their unrivalled critical interest,—nay, their actual _use_ in helping to settle the truth of Scripture. What we are just now insisting upon is only the _depraved text_ of codices א A B C D,—especially of א B D. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader’s mind the slightest doubt on _this_ part of the subject, we shall be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of the contents of א B, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that א B D are _three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant_:—exhibit _the most shamefully mutilated_ texts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of _fabricated readings_, ancient _blunders_, and _intentional perversions of Truth_,—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of GOD.

But in fact take a single page of any ordinary copy of the Greek Testament,—Bp. Lloyd’s edition, suppose. Turn to page 184. It contains ten verses of S. Luke’s Gospel, ch. viii. 35 to 44. Now, proceed to collate those ten verses. You will make the notable discovery that, within those narrow limits, by codex D alone the text has been depraved 53 times, resulting in no less than 103 corrupt readings, 93 _of which are found only in_ D. The words omitted by D are 40: the words added are 4. Twenty-five words have been substituted for others, and 14 transposed. Variations of case, tense, &c., amount to 16; and the phrase of the Evangelist has been departed from 11 times. Happily, the other four “old uncials” are here available. And it is found that (within the same limits, and referred to the same test,) A exhibits 3 omissions, 2 of which are _peculiar to_ A.—B omits 12 words, 6 of which are _peculiar to_ B: substitutes 3 words: transposes 4: and exhibits 6 lesser changes—2 of them being its own peculiar property.—א has 5 readings (affecting 8 words) _peculiar to itself_. Its omissions are 7: its additions, 2: its substitutions, 4: 2 words are transposed; and it exhibits 4 lesser discrepancies.—C has 7 readings (affecting 15 words) _peculiar to itself_. Its omissions are 4: its additions, 7: its substitutions, 7: its words transposed, 7. It has 2 lesser discrepancies, and it alters the Evangelist’s phrase 4 times.

But (we shall be asked) what amount of _agreement_, in respect of “Various Readings,” is discovered to subsist between these 5 codices? for _that_, after all, is the practical question. We answer,—A has been already shown to stand alone twice: B, 6 times: א, 8 times: C, 15 times; D, 93 times.—We have further to state that A B stand together by themselves once: B א, 4 times: B C, 1: B D, 1: א C, 1: C D, 1.—A א C conspire 1: B א C, 1: B א D, 1: A B א C, _once_ (viz. in reading ἐρώτησεν, which Tischendorf admits to be a corrupt reading): B א C D, also _once_.—The 5 “old uncials” therefore (A B א C D) combine, and again stand apart, with singular impartiality.—Lastly, they are _never once_ found to be in accord in respect of _any single _“various Reading”.—Will any one, after a candid survey of the premisses, deem us unreasonable, if we avow that such a specimen of the _concordia discors_ which everywhere prevails between the oldest uncials, but which especially characterizes א B D, indisposes us greatly to suffer their unsupported authority to determine for us the Text of Scripture?

Let no one at all events obscure the one question at issue, by asking,—“Whether we consider the _Textus Receptus_ infallible?” The merit or demerit of the Received Text has absolutely _nothing whatever to do with the question_. We care nothing about it. _Any_ Text would equally suit our present purpose. _Any_ Text would show the “old uncials” perpetually at discord _among themselves_. To raise an irrelevant discussion, at the outset, concerning the _Textus Receptus_:—to describe the haste with which Erasmus produced the first published edition of the N. T.:—to make sport about the copies which he employed:—all this kind of thing is the proceeding of one who seeks to mislead his readers:—to throw dust into their eyes:—to divert their attention from the problem actually before them:—_not_—(as we confidently expect when we have to do with such writers as these)—the method of a sincere lover of Truth. To proceed, however.

II. and III. Nothing has been said as yet concerning the Text exhibited by the earliest of the VERSIONS and by the most ancient of the FATHERS. But, for the purpose we have just now in hand, neither are such details necessary. We desire to hasten forward. A somewhat fuller review of certain of our oldest available materials might prove even more discouraging. But _that_ would only be because it is impossible, within such narrow limits as the present, to give the reader any idea at all of the wealth of our actual resources; and to convince him of the extent to which the least trustworthy of our guides prove in turn invaluable helps in correcting the exorbitances of their fellows. The practical result in fact of what has been hitherto offered is after all but this, that we have to be on our guard against pinning our faith exclusively on two or three,—least of all on one or two ancient documents; and of adopting _them_ exclusively for our guides. We are shown, in other words, that it is utterly out of the question to rely on any single _set_ or _group_ of authorities, much less on any single document, for the determination of the Text of Scripture. Happily, our MANUSCRIPTS are numerous: most of them are in the main trustworthy: _all_ of them represent far older documents than themselves. Our VERSIONS (two of which are more ancient by a couple of centuries than any sacred codex extant) severally correct and check one another. Lastly, in the writings of a host of FATHERS,—the principal being Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, the Cyrils, Theodoret,—we are provided with contemporaneous evidence which, whenever it can be had, becomes an effectual safeguard against the unsupported decrees of our oldest codices, A B א C D, as well as the occasional vagaries of the Versions. In the writings of Irenæus, Clemens Alex., Origen, Dionysius Alex., Hippolytus, we meet with older evidence still. No more precarious foundation for a reading, in fact, can be named, than the unsupported advocacy of a single Manuscript, or Version, or Father; or even of two or three of these combined.

But indeed the principle involved in the foregoing remarks admits of being far more broadly stated. It even stands to reason that we may safely reject any reading which, out of the whole body of available authorities,—Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers,—finds support nowhere save in one and the same little handful of suspicious documents. For we resolutely maintain, that _external Evidence_ must after all be our best, our only safe guide; and (to come to the point) we refuse to throw in our lot with those who, disregarding the witness of _every other_ known Codex—_every other_ Version—_every other_ available Ecclesiastical Writer,—insist on following the dictates of a little group of authorities, of which nothing whatever is known with so much certainty as that often, when they concur exclusively, it is to mislead. We speak of codices B or א or D; the IXth-century codex L, and such cursives(50) as 13 or 33; a few copies of the old Latin and one of the Egyptian versions: perhaps Origen.—Not theory therefore:—not prejudice:—not conjecture:—not unproved assertion:—not any single codex, and _certainly_ not codex B:—not an imaginary “Antiochene Recension” of another imaginary “Pre-Syrian Text:”—not antecedent fancies about the affinity of documents:—neither “the [purely arbitrary] method of genealogy,”—nor one man’s notions (_which may be reversed by another man’s notions_) of “Transcriptional Probability:”—not “instinctive processes of Criticism,”—least of all “the individual mind,” with its “supposed power of divining the Original Text”—of which no intelligible account can be rendered:—nothing of this sort,—(however specious and plausible it may sound, especially when set forth in confident language; advocated with a great show of unintelligible learning; supported by a formidable array of cabalistic symbols and mysterious contractions; above all when recommended by justly respected names,)—nothing of this sort, we say, must be allowed to determine for us the Text of Scripture. The very proposal should set us on our guard against the _certainty_ of imposition.

We deem it even axiomatic, that, in every case of doubt or difficulty—supposed or real—our critical method must be the same: namely, after patiently collecting _all_ the available evidence, then, without partiality or prejudice, to adjudicate between the conflicting authorities, and loyally to accept that verdict for which there is clearly the preponderating evidence. _The best supported Reading_, in other words, must always be held to be _the true Reading_: and nothing may be rejected from the commonly received Text, except on evidence which shall _clearly_ outweigh the evidence for retaining it. We are glad to know that, so far at least, we once had Bp. Ellicott with us. He announced (in 1870) that the best way of proceeding with the work of Revision is, “_to make the Textus Receptus the standard_,—departing from it _only when_ critical or grammatical considerations _show that it is clearly necessary_.”(51) We ourselves mean no more. Whenever the evidence is about evenly balanced, few it is hoped will deny that the Text which has been “in possession” for three centuries and a half, and which rests on infinitely better manuscript evidence than that of any ancient work which can be named,—should, for every reason, be let alone.(52)

But, (we shall perhaps be asked,) has any critical Editor of the N. T. seriously taught the reverse of all this? Yes indeed, we answer. Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,—the most recent and most famous of modern editors,—have all three adopted a directly opposite theory of textual revision. With the first-named, fifty years ago (1831), virtually originated the principle of recurring exclusively to a few ancient documents to the exclusion of the many. “LACHMANN’S text seldom rests on more than four Greek codices, very often on three, not unfrequently on two, _sometimes on only one_.”(53) Bishop Ellicott speaks of it as “a text composed _on the narrowest and most exclusive principles_.”(54) Of the Greek Fathers (Lachmann says) he employed _only Origen_.(55) Paying extraordinary deference to the Latin Version, he entirely disregarded the coëval Syriac translation. The result of such a system must needs prove satisfactory to no one except its author.

Lachmann’s leading fallacy has perforce proved fatal to the value of the text put forth by DR. TREGELLES. Of the scrupulous accuracy, the indefatigable industry, the pious zeal of that estimable and devoted scholar, we speak not. All honour to his memory! As a specimen of conscientious labour, his edition of the N. T. (1857-72) passes praise, and will _never_ lose its value. But it has only to be stated, that Tregelles effectually persuaded himself that “_eighty-nine ninetieths_” of our extant manuscripts and other authorities may safely be rejected and lost sight of when we come to amend the text and try to restore it to its primitive purity,(56)—to make it plain that in Textual Criticism he must needs be regarded as an untrustworthy teacher. _Why_ he should have condescended to employ no patristic authority later than Eusebius [fl. A.D. 320], he does not explain. “His critical principles,” (says Bishop Ellicott,) “especially his general principles of estimating and regarding modern manuscripts, are now perhaps justly called in question.”(57)

“The case of DR. TISCHENDORF” (proceeds Bp. Ellicott) “is still more easily disposed of. _Which_ of this most inconstant Critic’s texts are we to select? Surely not the last, in which an exaggerated preference for a single Manuscript which he has had the good fortune to discover, has betrayed him into an almost child-like infirmity of critical judgment. Surely also not his seventh edition, which ... exhibits all the instability which a comparatively recent recognition of the authority of cursive manuscripts might be supposed likely to introduce.”(58) With Dr. Tischendorf,—(whom one vastly his superior in learning, accuracy, and judgment, has generously styled “the first Biblical Critic in Europe”(59))—“_the evidence of codex_ א, supported or even unsupported by one or two other authorities of any description, is sufficient to outweigh any other witnesses,—whether Manuscripts, Versions, or ecclesiastical Writers.”(60) We need say no more. Until the foregoing charge has been disproved, Dr. Tischendorf’s last edition of the N. T., however precious as a vast storehouse of materials for criticism,—however admirable as a specimen of unwearied labour, critical learning, and first-rate ability,—must be admitted to be an utterly unsatisfactory exhibition of the inspired Text. It has been ascertained that his discovery of codex א caused his 8th edition (1865-72) to differ from his 7th in no less than 3505 places,—“to the scandal of the science of Comparative Criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for discernment and consistency.”(61) But, in fact, what is to be thought of a Critic who,—because the last verse of S. John’s Gospel, in א, seemed to himself to be _written with a different pen_ from the rest,—has actually _omitted that verse_ (xxi. 25) entirely, in defiance of _every known Copy, every known Version_, and the explicit testimony of _a host of Fathers_? Such are Origen (in 11 places),—Eusebius (in 3),—Gregory Nyss. (in 2),—Gregory Nazian.,—ps.-Dionys. Alex.,(62)—Nonnus,—Chrysostom (in 6 places),—Theodoras Mops. (in 2),—Isidorus,—Cyril Alex. (in 2),—Victor Ant.,—Ammonius,—Severus,—Maximus,—Andreas Cretensis,—Ambrose,—Gaudentius,—Philastrius,— Sedulius,—Jerome,—Augustine (in 6 places). That Tischendorf was a critic of amazing research, singular shrewdness, indefatigable industry; and that he enjoyed an unrivalled familiarity with ancient documents; no fair person will deny. But (in the words of Bishop Ellicott,(63) whom we quote so perseveringly for a reason not hard to divine,) his “great inconstancy,”—his “natural want of sobriety of critical judgment,”—and his “unreasonable deference to the readings found in his own codex Sinaiticus;”—to which should be added “_the utter absence in him of any intelligible fixed critical principles_;”—all this makes Tischendorf one of the worst of guides to the true Text of Scripture.

The last to enter the field are DRS. WESTCOTT and HORT, whose beautifully-printed edition of “the New Testament in the original Greek”(64) was published _within five days_ of the “Revised Authorized Version” itself; a “confidential” copy of their work having been already entrusted to every member of the New Test. company of Revisionists to guide them in their labours,—under pledge that they should neither show nor communicate its contents to any one else.—The learned Editors candidly avow, that they “have deliberately chosen on the whole to rely for documentary evidence on the stores accumulated by their predecessors, and to confine themselves to their proper work of editing the text itself.”(65) Nothing therefore has to be enquired after, except the critical principles on which they have proceeded. And, after assuring us that “the study of Grouping is the foundation of all enduring Criticism,”(66) they produce their secret: viz. That in “every one of our witnesses” _except codex_ B, the “corruptions are innumerable;”(67) and that, in the Gospels, the one “group of witnesses” _of _“incomparable value”, is codex B in “combination with another primary Greek manuscript, as א B, B L, B C, B T, B D, B Ξ, A B, B Z, B 33, and in S. Mark B Δ.”(68) This is “Textual Criticism made easy,” certainly. Well aware of the preposterous results to which such a major premiss must inevitably lead, we are not surprised to find a plea straightway put in for “_instinctive processes of Criticism_” of which _the foundation _“needs perpetual correction and recorrection”. But our confidence fairly gives way when, in the same breath, the accomplished Editors proceed as follows:—“But _we are obliged to come to the individual mind_ at last; and canons of Criticism are useful only as warnings against _natural illusions_, and aids to circumspect consideration, not as absolute rules to prescribe the final decision. It is true that no _individual mind_ can ever work with perfect uniformity, or free itself completely from _its own idiosyncrasies_. Yet a clear sense of the danger of _unconscious caprice_ may do much towards excluding it. We trust also that the present Text has escaped some risks of this kind by being the joint production of two Editors of different habits of mind”(69) ... A somewhat insecure safeguard surely! May we be permitted without offence to point out that the “idiosyncrasies” of an “individual mind” (to which we learn with astonishment “we are obliged to come at last”) are probably the very worst foundation possible on which to build the recension of an inspired writing? With regret we record our conviction, that these accomplished scholars have succeeded in producing a Text vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists than any which has appeared since the invention of printing. When full Prolegomena have been furnished we shall know more about the matter;(70) but to judge from the Remarks (in pp. 541-62) which the learned Editors (Revisionists themselves) have subjoined to their elegantly-printed volume, it is to be feared that the fabric will be found to rest too exclusively on vague assumption and unproved hypothesis. In other words, a painful apprehension is created that their edition of “The New Testament in the original Greek” will be found to partake inconveniently of the nature of a work of the Imagination. As codex א proved fatal to Dr. Tischendorf, so is codex B evidently the rock on which Drs. Westcott and Hort have split. Did it ever occur to those learned men to enquire how the Septuagint Version of the _Old_ Testament has fared at the hands of codex B? They are respectfully invited to address themselves to this very damaging enquiry.

But surely (rejoins the intelligent Reader, coming fresh to these studies), the oldest extant Manuscripts (B א A C D) _must_ exhibit the purest text! Is it not so?

It _ought_ to be so, no doubt (we answer); but it certainly _need not_ be the case.

We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Hesychius in Egypt, “revised” the text of the N. T. Unfortunately, they did their work in an age when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in turn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment of _monstra_ into the sacred writings. Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of whom we know there were very many in the primitive age,—some of whose productions, we further know, were freely multiplied in every quarter of ancient Christendom:—add, the fabricated Gospels which anciently abounded; notably the _Gospel of the Hebrews_, about which Jerome is so communicative, and which (he says) he had translated into Greek and Latin:—lastly, freely grant that here and there, with well-meant assiduity, the orthodox themselves may have sought to prop up truths which the early heretics (Basilides, A.D. 134, Valentinus, A.D. 140, with his disciple Heracleon, Marcion, A.D. 150, and the rest,) most perseveringly assailed;—and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not a few of the codices of primitive Christendom must have exhibited Texts which were even scandalously corrupt. “It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,” writes the most learned of the Revisionist body,

“that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever
been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was
composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150] and the African Fathers, and the
whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far
inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or
Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus
Receptus.”(71)

And what else are codices א B C D but _specimens_—_in vastly_ _different degrees_—_of the class thus characterized_ by Prebendary Scrivener? Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservation _solely_ to the circumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy?

Only by singling out some definite portion of the Gospels, and attending closely to the handling it has experienced at the hands of A א B C D,—to the last four of which it is just now the fashion to bow down as to an oracular voice from which there shall be no appeal,—can the student become aware of the hopelessness of any attempt to construct the Text of the N. T. out of the materials which those codices exclusively supply. Let us this time take S. Mark’s account of the healing of “the paralytic borne of four” (ch. ii. 1-12),—and confront their exhibition of it, with that of the commonly received Text. In the course of those 12 verses, (not reckoning 4 blunders and certain peculiarities of spelling,) there will be found to be 60 variations of reading,—of which 55 are nothing else but depravations of the text, the result of inattention or licentiousness. Westcott and Hort adopt 23 of these:—(18, in which א B conspire to vouch for a reading: 2, where א is unsupported by B: 2, where B is unsupported by א: 1, where C D are supported by neither א nor B). Now, in the present instance, the “five old uncials” _cannot be_ the depositories of a tradition,—whether Western or Eastern,—because they render inconsistent testimony _in every verse_. It must further be admitted, (for this is really not a question of opinion, but a plain matter of fact,) that it is unreasonable to place confidence in such documents. What would be thought in a Court of Law of five witnesses, called up 47 times for examination, who should be observed to bear contradictory testimony _every time_?

But the whole of the problem does not by any means lie on the surface. All that _appears_ is that the five oldest uncials are not trustworthy witnesses; which singly, in the course of 12 verses separate themselves from their fellows 33 times: viz. A, twice;—א, 5 times;—B, 6 times;—C, thrice;—D, 17 times: and which also enter into the 11 following combinations with one another in opposition to the ordinary Text:—A C, twice;—א B, 10 times;—א D, once;—C D, 3 times;—א B C, once;—א B D, 5 times;—א C D, once;—B C D, once;—A א C D, once;—A B C D, once;—A א B C D, once. (Note, that on this last occasion, which is the _only_ time when they all 5 agree, _they are certainly all 5 wrong_.) But this, as was observed before, lies on the surface. On closer critical inspection, it is further discovered that their testimony betrays the baseness of their origin by its intrinsic worthlessness. Thus, in Mk. ii, 1, the delicate precision of the announcement ἠκούσθη ὅτι ΕἸΣ ΟἾΚΟΝ ἘΣΤΙ (that “_He has gone in_”), disappears from א B D:—as well as (in ver. 2) the circumstance that it became the signal for many “_immediately_” (א B) to assemble about the door.—In ver. 4, S. Mark explains his predecessor’s concise statement that the paralytic was “brought to” our SAVIOUR,(72) by remarking that the thing was “_impossible_” by the ordinary method of approach. Accordingly, his account of the expedient resorted to by the bearers fills one entire verse (ver. 4) of his Gospel. In the mean time, א B by exhibiting (in S. Mark ii. 3,) “bringing unto Him one sick of the palsy” (φέροντες πρὸς αὐτὸν παραλυτικόν,—which is but a senseless transposition of πρὸς αὐτόν, παραλυτικὸν φέροντες), do their best to obliterate the exquisite significance of the second Evangelist’s method.—In the next verse, the perplexity of the bearers, who, because they could not “_come nigh_ Him” (προσεγγίσαι αὐτῷ), unroofed the house, is lost in א B,—whose προσενέγκαι has been obtained either from Matt. ix. 2, or else from Luke v. 18, 19 (εἰσενεγκεῖν, εἰσενέγκωσιν). “The bed WHERE WAS the paralytic” (τὸν κράββατον ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ ὁ παραλυτικός), in imitation of “the roof WHERE WAS” Jesus (τὴν στέγην ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ [ὁ Ἰησοῦς], which had immediately preceded), is just one of those tasteless depravations, for which א B, and especially D, are conspicuous among manuscripts.—In the last verse, the _instantaneous rising_ of the paralytic, noticed by S. Mark (ἠγέρθη εὐθέως), and insisted upon by S. Luke (“_and immediately he rose up_ before them,”—καὶ παραχρῆμα ἀναστὰς ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν), is obliterated by shifting εὐθέως in א B and C to a place where εὐθέως is not wanted, and where its significancy disappears.

Other instances of Assimilation are conspicuous. All must see that, in ver. 5, καὶ ἰδών (א B C) is derived from Matt. ix. 2 and Luke v. 20: as well as that “Son, _be of good cheer_” (C) is imported hither from Matt. ix. 2. “_My_ son,” on the other hand (א), is a mere effort of the imagination. In the same verse, σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι (א B D) is either from Matt. ix. 5 (_sic_); or else from ver. 9, lower down in S. Mark’s narrative. Λέγοντες, in ver. 6 (D), is from S. Luke v. 21. Ὕπαγε (א) in ver. 9, and ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου (D), are clearly importations from ver 11. The strange confusion in ver. 7,—“_Because this man thus speaketh, he blasphemeth_” (B),—and “_Why doth this man thus speak? He blasphemeth_” (א D),—is due solely to Mtt. ix. 3:—while the appendix proposed by א as a substitute for “We never saw it on this fashion” (οὐδέποτε οὕτως εἴδομεν), in ver 12 (viz. “It was never so seen in Israel,” οὐδέποτε οὕτως ἐφάνη ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ), has been transplanted hither from S. Matt. ix. 33.

We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of א B C D hereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting that _heretical_ depravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena. _That_ (we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and fabricators of Gospels have universally perished. From the slender relics of their iniquitous performances which have survived to our time, we are sometimes able to lay our finger on a foul blot and to say, “_This_ came from Tatian’s Diatessaron; and _that_ from Marcion’s mutilated recension of the Gospel according to S. Luke.” The piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side, transplanted by codices א B C from S. John xix. 34 into S. Matt, xxvii. 49, is an instance of the former,—which it may reasonably create astonishment to find that Drs. Westcott and Hort (_alone among Editors_) have nevertheless admitted into their text, as equally trustworthy with the last 12 verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. But it occasions a stronger sentiment than surprise to discover that this, “the gravest interpolation yet laid to the charge of B,”—this “sentence which neither they nor any other competent scholar can possibly believe that the Evangelist ever wrote,”(73)—has been actually foisted into the margin of _the Revised Version_ of S. Matthew xxvii. 49. Were not the Revisionists aware that such a disfigurement must prove fatal to their work? _For whose_ benefit is the information volunteered that “many ancient authorities” are thus grossly interpolated?

An instructive specimen of depravation follows, which can be traced to Marcion’s mutilated recension of S. Luke’s Gospel. We venture to entreat the favour of the reader’s sustained attention to the license with which the LORD’S Prayer as given in S. Luke’s Gospel (xi. 2-4), is exhibited by codices א A B C D. For every reason one would have expected that so precious a formula would have been found enshrined in the “old uncials” in peculiar safety; handled by copyists of the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries with peculiar reverence. Let us ascertain exactly what has befallen it:—

(_a_) D introduces the LORD’S Prayer by interpolating the following paraphrase of S. Matt. vi. 7:—“_Use not vain repetitions as the rest: for some suppose that they shall be heard by their much speaking. But when ye pray_” ... After which portentous exordium,

(_b_) B א omit the 5 words, “_Our_” “_which art in heaven_,” Then,

(_c_) D omits the article (τό) before “name:” and supplements the first petition with the words “upon us” (ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς). It must needs also transpose the words “_Thy Kingdom_” (ἡ βασιλεία σου).

(_d_) B in turn omits the third petition,—“_Thy will be done, as in heaven, also on the earth;_” which 11 words א retains, but adds “_so_” before “_also_,” and omits the article (τῆς); finding for once an ally in A C D.

(_e_) א D for δίδου write δός (from Matt.).

(_f_) א omits the article (τό) before “_day by day._” And,

(_g_) D, instead of the 3 last-named words, writes “_this day_” (from Matt.): substitutes “_debts_” (τὰ ὀφειλήματα) for “_sins_” (τὰ ἁμαρτήματα,—also from Matt.): and in place of “_for [we] ourselves_” (καὶ γὰρ αὐτοί) writes “_as also we_” (ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς, again from Matt.).—But,

(_h_) א shows its sympathy with D by accepting two-thirds of this last blunder: exhibiting “_as also [we] ourselves_” (ὡς καὶ αὐτοί).

(_i_) D consistently reads “_our debtors_” (τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν) in place of “_every one that is indebted to us_” (παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν).—Finally,

(_j_) B א omit the last petition,—“_but deliver us from evil_” (ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ)—unsupported by A C or D. Of lesser discrepancies we decline to take account.

So then, these five “first-class authorities” are found to throw themselves into _six different combinations_ in their departures from S. Luke’s way of exhibiting the LORD’S Prayer,—which, among them, they contrive to falsify in respect of no less than 45 words; and yet _they are never able to agree among themselves as to any single various reading:_ while _only once_ are more than two of them observed to stand together,—viz. in the unauthorized omission of the article. In respect of 32 (out of the 45) words, _they bear in turn solitary evidence_. What need to declare that it is _certainly false_ in every instance? Such however is the infatuation of the Critics, that the vagaries of Bare all taken for gospel. Besides omitting the 11 words which B omits jointly with א, Drs. Westcott and Hort erase from the Book of Life those other 11 precious words which are omitted by B only. And in this way it comes to pass that the mutilated condition to which the scalpel of Marcion the heretic reduced the LORD’S Prayer some 1730 years ago,(74) (for the mischief can all be traced back to _him!_), is palmed off on the Church of England by the Revisionists as the work of the HOLY GHOST!

(A) We may now proceed with our examination of their work, beginning—as Dr. Roberts (one of the Revisionists) does, when explaining the method and results of their labours—with what we hold to be the gravest blot of all, viz. the marks of serious suspicion which we find set against the last Twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. Well may the learned Presbyterian anticipate that—

“The reader will be struck by the appearance which this long
paragraph presents in the Revised Version. Although inserted, it
is marked off by a considerable space from the rest of the Gospel.
A note is also placed in the margin containing a brief explanation
of this.”(75)

A _very_ brief “explanation” certainly: for the note _explains_ nothing. Allusion is made to the following words—

“The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities,
omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a
different ending to the Gospel.”

But now,—For the use of _whom_ has this piece of information been volunteered? Not for learned readers certainly: it being familiarly known to all, that codices B and א _alone of manuscripts_ (to their own effectual condemnation) omit these 12 verses. But then scholars know something more about the matter. They also know that these 12 verses have been made the subject of a separate treatise extending to upwards of 300 pages,—which treatise has now been before the world for a full decade of years, and for the best of reasons has never yet been answered. Its object, stated on its title-page, was to vindicate against recent critical objectors, and to establish “the last Twelve Verses” of S. Mark’s Gospel.(76) Moreover, competent judges at once admitted that the author had succeeded in doing what he undertook to do.(77) _Can_ it then be right (we respectfully enquire) still to insinuate into unlearned minds distrust of twelve consecutive verses of the everlasting Gospel, which yet have been demonstrated to be as trustworthy as any other verses which can be named?

The question arises,—But how did it come to pass that such evil counsels were allowed to prevail in the Jerusalem Chamber? Light has been thrown on the subject by two of the New Test. company. And first by the learned Congregationalist, Dr. Newth, who has been at the pains to describe the method which was pursued on every occasion. The practice (he informs us) was as follows. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, as chairman, asks—

“Whether any _Textual_ Changes are proposed? The evidence for and
against is briefly stated, and the proposal considered. The duty
of stating this evidence is by tacit consent devolved upon (_sic_)
two members of the Company, who from their previous studies are
specially entitled to speak with authority upon such
questions,—Dr. Scrivener and _Dr. Hort_,—and who come prepared to
enumerate particularly the authorities on either side. Dr.
Scrivener opens up the matter by stating the facts of the case,
and by giving his judgment on the bearings of the evidence. Dr.
Hort follows, and mentions any additional matters that may call
for notice; and, if differing from Dr. Scrivener’s estimate of the
weight of the evidence, gives his reasons and states his own view.
After discussion, the vote of the Company is taken, and the
proposed Reading accepted or rejected. _The Text being thus
settled_, the Chairman asks for proposals on the Rendering.”(78)

And thus, the men who were appointed to improve _the English Translation_ are exhibited to us remodelling _the original Greek_. At a moment’s notice, as if by intuition,—by an act which can only be described as the exercise of instinct,—these eminent Divines undertake to decide which shall be deemed the genuine utterances of the HOLY GHOST,(79)—which _not_. Each is called upon to give his vote, and he gives it. “_The Text being thus settled_” they proceed to do the only thing they were originally appointed to do; viz. to try their hands at improving our Authorized Version. But we venture respectfully to suggest, that by no such “rough and ready” process is that most delicate and difficult of all critical problems—the truth of Scripture—to be “settled.”

Sir Edmund Beckett remarks that if the description above given “of the process by which the Revisionists ‘settled’ the Greek alterations, is not a kind of joke, it is quite enough to ‘settle’ this Revised Greek Testament in a very different sense.”(80) And so, in truth, it clearly is.—“Such a proceeding appeared to me so strange,” (writes the learned and judicious Editor of the _Speaker’s Commentary_,) “that I fully expected that the account would be corrected, or that some explanation would be given which might remove the very unpleasant impression.”(81) We have since heard on the best authority, _that_ namely of Bishop Ellicott himself,(82) that Dr. Newth’s account of the method of “settling” the text of the N. T., pursued in the Jerusalem Chamber, is correct.

But in fact, it proves to have been, from the very first, a definite part of the Programme. The chairman of the Revisionist body, Bishop Ellicott,—when he had “to consider the practical question,”—whether “(1), to construct a critical Text first: or (2), to use preferentially, though not exclusively, some current Text: or (3), _simply to proceed onward_ with the work of Revision, whether of Text or Translation, making the current _Textus Receptus_ the standard, and departing from it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly necessary,—in fact, _solvere ambulando_;” announces, at the end of 19 pages,—“We are driven then to the third alternative.”(83)

We naturally cast about for some evidence that the members of the New Testament company possess that mastery of the subject which alone could justify one of their number (Dr. Milligan) in asserting roundly that these 12 verses are “_not from the pen of S. Mark himself_;”(84) and another (Dr. Roberts) in maintaining that “the passage is _not the immediate production of S. Mark_.”(85) Dr. Roberts assures us that—

“Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of
Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers, especially Greeks,
testify that these verses were not written by S. Mark, or not
found in the best copies.”(86)

Will the learned writer permit us to assure him in return that he is entirely mistaken? He is requested to believe that Gregory of Nyssa says nothing of the sort—_says __ nothing at all_ concerning these verses: that Victor of Antioch vouches emphatically for their _genuineness_: that Severus does but copy, while Jerome does but translate, a few random expressions of Eusebius: and that Eusebius himself _nowhere_ “testifies that these verses were not written by S. Mark.” So far from it, Eusebius actually _quotes the verses_, quotes them as _genuine_. Dr. Roberts is further assured that there are _no_ “other writers” whether Greek or Latin, who insinuate doubt concerning these verses. On the contrary, besides _both_ the Latin and _all_ the Syriac—besides the Gothic and the _two_ Egyptian versions—there exist four authorities of the IInd century;—as many of the IIIrd;—five of the Vth;—four of the VIth;—as many of the VIIth;—together with _at least ten_ of the IVth(87) (_contemporaries therefore of codices_ B _and_ א);—which actually _recognize_ the verses in question. Now, when to _every known Manuscript but two_ of bad character, besides _every ancient Version, some one-and-thirty Fathers_ have been added, 18 of whom must have used copies at least as old as either B or א,—Dr. Roberts is assured that an amount of external authority has been accumulated which is simply overwhelming in discussions of this nature.

But the significance of a single feature of the Lectionary, of which up to this point nothing has been said, is alone sufficient to determine the controversy. We refer to the fact that _in every part of Eastern Christendom_ these same 12 verses—neither more nor less—have been from the earliest recorded period, and still are, a _proper lesson both for the Easter season and for Ascension Day_.

We pass on.

(B) A more grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture is scarcely to be found than occurs in the proposed revised exhibition of S. Luke ii. 14, in the Greek and English alike; for indeed not only is the proposed Greek text (ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας) impossible, but the English of the Revisionists (“_peace among men in whom he is well pleased_”) “can be arrived at” (as one of themselves has justly remarked) “only through some process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator might like to put upon it.”(88) More than that: the harmony of the exquisite three-part hymn, which the Angels sang on the night of the Nativity, becomes hopelessly marred, and its structural symmetry destroyed, by the welding of the second and third members of the sentence into one. Singular to relate, the addition of _a single final letter_ (ς) has done all this mischief. Quite as singular is it that we should be able at the end of upwards of 1700 years to discover what occasioned its calamitous insertion. From the archetypal copy, by the aid of which the old Latin translation was made, (for the Latin copies _all_ read “_pax hominibus bonæ voluntatis_,”) the preposition ἐν was evidently away,—absorbed apparently by the ἀν which immediately follows. In order therefore to make a sentence of some sort out of words which, without ἐν, are simply unintelligible, εὐδοκία was turned into εὐδοκίας. It is accordingly a significant circumstance that, whereas there exists _no_ Greek copy of the Gospels which _omits_ the ἐν, there is scarcely a Latin exhibition of the place to be found which contains it.(89) To return however to the genuine clause,—“Good-will towards men” (ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία).

Absolutely decisive of the true reading of the passage—irrespectively of internal considerations—ought to be the consideration that it is vouched for _by every known copy_ of the Gospels of whatever sort, excepting only א A B D: the first and third of which, however, were anciently corrected and brought into conformity with the Received Text; while the second (A) is observed to be so inconstant in its testimony, that in the primitive “Morning-hymn” (given in another page of the same codex, and containing a quotation of S. Luke ii. 14), the correct reading of the place is found. D’s complicity in error is the less important, because of the ascertained sympathy between that codex and the Latin. In the meantime the two Syriac Versions are a full set-off against the Latin copies; while the hostile evidence of the Gothic (which this time sides with the Latin) is more than neutralized by the unexpected desertion of the Coptic version from the opposite camp. The Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, Slavonic and Arabian versions, are besides all with the Received Text. It therefore comes to this:—We are invited to make our election between every other copy of the Gospels,—every known Lectionary,—and (not least of all) the ascertained ecclesiastical usage of the Eastern Church from the beginning,—on the one hand: and the testimony of four Codices without a history or a character, which concur in upholding a patent mistake, on the other. Will any one hesitate as to which of these two parties has the stronger claim on his allegiance?

Could doubt be supposed to be entertained in any quarter, it must at all events be borne away by the torrent of Patristic authority which is available on the present occasion:—

In the IInd century,—we have the testimony of (1) Irenæus.(90)

In the IIIrd,—that of (2) Origen(91) in 3 places,—and of (3) the _Apostolical Constitutions_(92) in 2.

In the IVth,—(4) Eusebius,(93)—(5) Aphraates the Persian,(94)—(6) Titus of Bostra,(95) each twice;—(7) Didymus(96) in 3 places;—(8) Gregory of Nazianzus,(97)—(9) Cyril of Jerusalem,(98)—(10) Epiphanius(99) twice;—(11) Gregory of Nyssa(100) 4 times,—(12) Ephraem Syrus,(101)—(13) Philo bishop of Carpasus,(102)—(14) Chrysostom,(103) in 9 places,—and (15) a nameless preacher at Antioch,(104)—all these, _contemporaries (be it remembered) of_ B _and_ א, are found to bear concurrent testimony in favour of the commonly received text.

In the Vth century,—(16) Cyril of Alexandria,(105) on no less than 14 occasions, vouches for it also;—(17) Theodoret(106) on 4;—(18) Theodotus of Ancyra(107) on 5 (once(108) in a homily preached before the Council of Ephesus on Christmas-day, A.D. 431);—(19) Proclus(109) archbishop of Constantinople;—(20) Paulus(110) bishop of Emesa (in a sermon preached before Cyril of Alexandria on Christmas-day, A.D. 431);—(21) the Eastern bishops(111) at Ephesus collectively, A.D. 431 (an unusually weighty piece of evidence);—and lastly, (22) Basil of Seleucia.(112) Now, let it be remarked that _these were contemporaries of codex_ A.

In the VIth century,—the Patristic witnesses are (23) Cosmas, the voyager,(113) 5 times,—(24) Anastasius Sinaita,(114)—(25) Eulogius(115) archbishop of Alexandria: _contemporaries, be it remembered, of codex_ D.

In the VIIth,—(26) Andreas of Crete(116) twice.

And in the VIIIth,—(27) Cosmas(117) bishop of Maiuma near Gaza,—and his pupil (28) John Damascene,(118)—and (29) Germanus(119) archbishop of Constantinople.

To these 29 illustrious names are to be added unknown writers of uncertain date, but _all_ of considerable antiquity; and some(120) are proved by internal evidence to belong to the IVth or Vth century,—in short, to be of the date of the Fathers whose names 16 of them severally bear, but among whose genuine works their productions are probably _not_ to be reckoned. One of these was anciently mistaken for (30) Gregory Thaumaturgus:(121) a second, for (31) Methodius:(122) a third, for (32) Basil.(123) Three others, with different degrees of reasonableness, have been supposed to be (33, 34, 35) Athanasius.(124) One has passed for (36) Gregory of Nyssa;(125) another for (37) Epiphanius;(126) while no less than eight (38 to 45) have been mistaken for Chrysostom,(127) some of them being certainly his contemporaries. Add (46) one anonymous Father,(128) and (47) the author of the apocryphal _Acta Pilati_,—and it will be perceived that 18 ancient authorities have been added to the list, every whit as competent to witness what was the text of S. Luke ii. 14 at the time when A B א D were written, as Basil or Athanasius, Epiphanius or Chrysostom themselves.(129) _For our present purpose_ they are _Codices_ of the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries. In this way then, far more than _forty-seven_ ancient witnesses have come back to testify to the men of this generation that the commonly received reading of S. Luke ii. 14 is _the true reading_, and that the text which the Revisionists are seeking to palm off upon us is _a fabrication and a blunder_. Will any one be found to maintain that the authority of B and א is appreciable, when confronted by the first 15 _contemporary Ecclesiastical Writers_ above enumerated? or that A can stand against the 7 which follow?