Chapter XXII: Appendix: VIII. New Editions of the Peshitto-Syriac and the (1)

HARKLEIAN-SYRIAC VERSIONS.

A book representing Dean Burgon’s labours in the province of Sacred Textual Criticism would be incomplete if notice were not taken in it of the influence exercised by him upon the production of editions of the two chief Syriac Versions.

Through his introduction of the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. to the late Philip E. Pusey, a plan was formed for the joint production of an edition of the Peshitto New Testament by these two scholars. On the early and lamented death of Philip Pusey, which occurred in the following year, Mr. Gwilliam succeeded to his labours, being greatly helped by the Dean’s encouragement. He has written on the Syriac Canons of the Gospels; and the nature of his work upon the Peshitto Gospels, now in the press, may be seen on consulting his article on “The Materials for the Criticism of the Peshitto New Testament” in the third volume of Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, pp. 47-104, which indeed seems to be sufficient for the Prolegomena of his edition. A list of his chief authorities was also kindly contributed by him to my Scrivener, and they are enumerated there, vol. II. pp. 12-13. The importance of this work, carried on successively by two such accomplished Syriacists, may be seen from and will illustrate the sixth chapter of this work.

In connexion with the Dean, if not on his suggestion, the late Rev. Henry Deane, B.D., when Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford, began to collect materials for a new and critical edition of the Harkleian. His work was carried on during many years, when ill-health and failing eyesight put a stop to all efforts, and led to his early death—for on leaving New College, after having been Tutor there for five years, I examined him then a boy at the top of Winchester College. Mr. Deane has left the results of his work entered in an interleaved copy of Joseph White’s “Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana”—named, as my readers will observe, from the translator Mar Xenaias or Philoxenus, not from Thomas of Harkel the subsequent editor. A list of the MSS. on which Mr. Deane based his readings was sent by him to me, and inserted in my Scrivener, vol. II. p. 29. Mr. Deane added (in a subsequent letter, dated April 16, 1894):—“My labours on the _Gospels_ shew that the H[arkleian] text is much the same in all MSS. The Acts of the Apostles must be worked up for a future edition by some one who knows the work.” Since his lamented death, putting a stop to any edition by him, his widow has placed his collation just described in the Library of St. John’s College, where by the permission of the Librarian it may be seen, and also used by any one who is recognized as continuing the valuable work of that accomplished member of the College. Is there no capable and learned man who will come forward for the purpose?

GENERAL INDEX.

A.

A or Alexandrian MS., 24, 31, 57, 76, 175, 201, 213 note 2.

א or Sinaitic MS., 2, 24, 31, 32, 49, 57, 174, 219, 235;
six conjugate leaves, 52, 165, 233;
value, B-א, 55, 68-9;
history and character, 153, 160 &c, 233-5;
sceptical character, App. V. 287.

Acacius, 2, 155;
probably the scribe of B, 154.

Acta Philippi, 100-20.

Acta Pilati, 100-20.

Adamantius, copies of, 167.
_See_ Origen.

Alexander Alexandrinus, 100, 113, 119.

Alexandria, school of, 2, 122, 234.

Alexandrians and Egyptians, 113.

Alford, 171.

Ambrose, St., 101-20.

Ammonius, 11, 242.

Amphilochius, St., 101-20.

Anaphora Pilati, 112.

Antioch, early Church at, 123-4.

Antiquity, 29-31.

Aphraates, 103-14, 213 note 4;
witnesses to Peshitto, 130.

Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels, 103-15, 132.

Apollonides, 10.

Apostolic Canons and Constitutions, 100, 103-15, 119.

Apostolic Fathers, 99, 118.

Archelaus, 100, 105-13, 119, 130.

Arius, 110, 111, 114, 121.

Armenian Version, 23, 49, 136.

Asclepiades, 10.

Athanasius, 100, 103-15, 119, 121, 148, 235
note 1, 244.

Athenagoras, 99, 103, 115, 119.

Augustine, St., on Old-Latin Texts, 140-3;
canon of, 61 note, 198.

B.

B or Vatican MS., 2, 24, 31, 32, 49, 57, 174;
number of omissions, 78;
history and character, 153, 160 &c., 233-5;
sceptical character of, App. V. 287;
B and א, their value, 55, 68-89.

Barnabas, St., 104, 107.

Bartolocci, 157.

Basil, St., 97, 101, 107-15, 117, 197, 281-2.

Basilides, 3.

Bengel, 3.

Beratinus, Codex (Φ), 25, 26, 175.

Bethabara or Bethany, 88.

Beza, 3.

Bigg, Dr., 151.

Birch, 157.

Bobiensis (k), 137.

Bohairic Version, 23, 30, 49, 136, 149-50, and _passim_.

Brixianus (f), 137.

Burgon, Dean, Indexes of, Preface, 94;
addition by, to Greek MSS., 21 note 2.

Burkitt, Mr. F. C, 129 note 1.

C.

C or Parisian MS., 24, 31, 51, 57, 76, 175.

Caesarea (Turris Stratonis), library of, 2, 152, 163-5, 225, 274.
_See_ B and א.

Caesarea, School of, 121, 152-8.

Caesarea Philippi, our Lord’s stay at, 124.

Callixtus, 99, 120.

Candidus Arianus, 101, 113, 120.

Canon of the N.T., 10, 13-14, 161, 172;
settlement of the Canon followed by that of the Text, 173.

Celsus, 107.

Chase, Dr. F. H., 144. 176 note.

Chrysostom, St., 31, 161, 197.

Ciasca, Agostino, 132.

Claromontanus (h), 137.

Clemens Alex., 58, 62, 99, 103-15, 117, 121, 148, 149, 150, 234, 241, 246.

Clemens Rom., 105.

Clementines, 99, 105, 109, 111, 119.

Colbertinus (c), 137.

Complutensian edition, 3.

Concilia Carthaginiensia, 100, 108, 119.

Concordia discors, 17, 81-8.

Conflation, 80-1, 206-7, 227-9.

Consent without Concert, 17.

Constans, 163 note 3.

Constantine I, 160, 163 note 3.

Constantinople, Councils of, 173.

Constantius II, 160, 161 note 1.

Context, 61-5.

Continuity, 58-61.

Conybeare, Mr. F. C., 304-5, 307.

Cook, Canon, 163 note 4, 227.

Corbeiensis I, II, (ff1, ff2), 137.

Cornelius, 100, 119.

Corruption, pre-Evangelistic, 146.

Crawford, the Earl of, 129.

Critical copies, 36 note.

Curetonian Version, 31, 91;
date of, 123-34;
origin of text, 144 &c, 182 note 2;
218 note 11, and _passim_.

Curetonian and Peshitto, App. VI. 292.

Cursive MSS., 24, 51, 156-8, 196-223;
in relation to later Uncials, 199-203;
main body of, not a single copy, 223;
copied in part from papyrus, 235;
the first extant, 200.

Cyprian, St., 100, 103-15, 120.

Cyril of Alexandria, St., 31, 119, 247.

Cyril of Jerusalem, St., 101, 103-15, 282.

D.

D or Cod. Bezae, 24, 31, 51, 76, 126, 144, 175-95;
sympathy with Old-Latin MSS., 56.

D and E, Codd. of St. Paul, 54, 231.

Δ, Cod. Sangallensis, in St. Mark, 204.

Damascus, Early Church at, 122-4.

Deane, the late Rev. H., and Harkleian, App. VIII. 309.

Decapolis, 123 note.

Delicate expressions rubbed off in the old Uncials, 190.

Diatessarons, formerly abounded 252.

Didachè, 99, 103, 104.

Didymus, 101, 103-15, 119, 120.

Diez, Fried., 143 note.

Diodorus (Tarsus), 101, 120.

Diognetus, Epistle to, 99, 118.

Dionysius Alex., 100, 107, 110, 121, 148, 234.

Doctrine and the Text of N.T., connexion between, 173.

E.

E, Cod. of Gospels. 203.

E of Paul = D of Paul, 54, 231.

Edessa, 134.

Egyptian Versions, 31.

Elzevirs, 3.

Ephraem Syrus, St., 103, 107, 110, 112, 132, 243;
witnesses to Peshitto, 130.

Epiphanius, St., 101, 103-15, 117, 120, 133, 243, 283-4.

Erasmus, 3, 15.

Esaias Abbas, 101, 104. 120.

Ethiopic Version, 23, 49, 51, 136.

Eumenes II, 155.

Eunomius, 101.

Eusebian Canons, 242.

Eusebius (Caesarea), 2, 30, 31, 100, 103-15, 121, 133, 152, 162;
personally favoured the Traditional Text, 100, 121, 153;
probably not the scribe of B, 154;
latitudinarian, 154, 172;
on St. Mark xvi., 55, 58, 109, 242.

Eusebius (Emesa), 107.

Eustathius, 100, 114, 120.

Euthalius (Sulci), 164 note 2.

Evagrius Ponticus, 100, 110, 120.

Evan., 102 = B, 54.

F.

F of St. Paul, like G, 56.

Fathers, 19, 23, 26, 50, 52;
value of quotations by, 57-8, 97-8;
early, witness of, 94-122;
indexes to quotations in, by Dean Burgon, Pref., 94-5.

Faustinus, 101, 114, 120.

Ferrar group, 56, 114, 200, 235-6.

Firmicus Maternus, 100, 108, 119.

G.

G of St. Paul, like F, 56.

Genealogy, 229-37.

Genealogy, the, in St. Luke iii., 181-2.

Giles, Mr. H. A., 156 note.

Gothic Version, 23, 136.

Gregory, Dr. C. R., prolegomena, 160.

Gregory Nas., St., 101, 103-15, 117, 119, 197.

Gregory Nyss., St., 101, 103-15, 117, 120, 249 note, 260.

Gregory Thaumaturgus, St., 100, 110, 119, 130, 152.

Griesbach, 3, 117, 148.

Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., Pref.;
in Studia Biblica, 128, 129 note 1, 241 note;
editor of Peshitto, App. VIII. 308.

Gwynn, Rev. Dr., App. VII. 298-301, 306.

H.

H of St. Paul, 164.

Haddan, A. W., 174 note.

Harkleian Version, 49, 133-4;
new ed., App VIII. 309.

Harnack, Dr., 304-5.

Harris, Mr. J. Rendel, 144 note 1, 176.

Hedybia, 244.

Hegesippus, 99, 111, 118.

Heracleon. 10, 99, 121, 148.

Hermophilus, 10.

Herodotus, 155.

Hesychius, 243.

Hilary, St. (Poictiers), 104-15, 117, 119, 169.

Hill, Rev. J. Hamlyn, 133.

Hippolytus, St., 99, 104-15, 117, 119.

Hort, Dr., 4, 7, 95, 158, 176, 251, 291, and _passim_;
admissions of, 14;
involuntary witness of, 90-4;
inaccurate upon the early Fathers, 117, 121;
fancies of, 129 note 2;
B and א written at Rome, 165;
W.-Hort, 208 note 11;
on the Traditional Text, 221-2, 236;
on Genealogy, 230. _See_ Conflation.

I.

Internal Evidence, 65-7, 214-5.

Interpolations, 81.

Irenaeus, St., 98, 99, 103-15, 117, 119, 284.

Isaias. _See_ Esaias.

Itala, 143.

Ἰωάννης or Ἰωάνης, 87.

J.

Jacobites, 133.

Jacobus Nisibenus, 132.

Jerome, St., on Old-Latin Texts, 140-2, 244.

Jona and Jonah, 87.

Julius (Pope), 100, 120.

Julius Africanus, 100, 112, 121.

Justin Martyr, St., 30, 99, 103-15, 117, 119;
ps. Justin, 108, 111.

Juveneus, 100, 105, 110, 120.

L.

L or Regius, 4, 30, 32, 204.

Lachmann, 4, 90, 158, 225.

Lactantius, 100, 120.

Laodicea, Council of, 172.

Last Twelve Verses, i.e. of St. Mark, 55, 102, 232, App. VII. 298.

Latin MSS., Old, 4, 30, 31, 49, 51, 64, 126;
do not fall strictly into three classes, 136-9;
Wiseman’s theory of, false, 142;
did not come from one stem, 135-46;
influenced by Low-Latin dialects, 135-146;
derived much from Syrian pre-Evangelistic corruption, 144-6.

Lectionaries, 22 and note.

Letters in _Guardian_, Dean Burgon’s, 200 note 3.

Lewis Codex, 131-2, 134 note, 144, 302-3, and _passim_.

Libraries, destruction of, 174.

Library at Caesarea. _See_ Caesarea.

Low-Latin MSS., 122. _See_ Latin MSS.

Lucifer (Cagliari), 101, 103, 104, 114, 120.

M.

Macarius Alexandrinus, 100 note.

Macarius Magnes, 101, 106-12, 120.

Macarius Magnus or Aegyptius, 100, 104, 110, 115, 120.

Mai, Cardinal, editions of B, 75, 159.

Manuscripts, multitude of, 24-7, 19, 21 and note 2;
six classes of, 22 note;
kinds of, 24;
value of,53-6;
in profane authors, 21 note 1.
_See_ Papyrus, Vellum, Uncial, Cursive.

Marcion, 10, 97, 110, 111, 112.

Mariam and Mary, 84-6.

Maries, the, in N. T., 84-6.

Mark, St. _See_ Last Twelve Verses.

Maronite use of the Peshitto, 128.

Maunde Thompson, Sir E., Pref., 155-6, 158.

Melito, 131.

Menander, 10.

Methodius, 100, 106, 110, 117, 119, 131.

Mico, 137.

Migne’s edition of the Fathers, 96.

Mill, 3.

Miller’s Textual Guide, 3 note, 91 note.

Miller’s Scrivener (Plain Introduction, ed. 4), _passim_.

Ministry, our Lord’s, in the North and North-West, 123.

Monacensis (9), 137.

Monophysite use of the Peshitto, 128.

Monothelitism, condemned in 680 A.D., 173.

N.

Nemesius, 101, 120.

Neologian Text, 99, 103.

Nestorian use of Peshitto, 128.

Neutral Text (so-called), 4, 92.

Nicodemus, Gospel of, 107, 257.

Notes of Truth, seven, 29, 40-67.

Novatian, 100, 106, 114.

O.

Omissions, 81, 280-1, 291.

Optatus, 100, 108, 110, 120.

Origen, 2, 10, 31, 50, 51, 58, 100, 104-15, 117, 121, 122, 130, 162, 169,
242, 247, 255 note 6, 272, 280-1, 291;
his great influence, 162;
a Textual Critic, 149-54;
founder of the Caesarean school, 152-3, 162-5;
character, 152;
fancies, 169 note 2;
critical copies, 274-5.

Origenism, condemned in 553 A.D., 173.

Orthodox, the, 264.

P.

Φ. _See_ Beratinus.

Pacianus, 100, 103, 120.

Palatinus (e), 137.

Pamphilus, 2, 100, 115, 121, 152, 163-4.

Paper, first made in China, 156 note.

Papias, 99, 109, 118.

Papyrus MSS., 24, 154-8, 163, 201;
copying from, 2, 175, 235.

Parisian Codex. _See_ C.

Paul, St., 145.

Peshitto Version, 31, 91, 123;
antiquity of, 125-134, 210, 224;
Peshitto and Curetonian, texts of, App. VI. 292.

Peter (Alexandria), 100, 121, 148.

Peter, Gospel of, 99, 107, 111, 119.

Peter, St., App. VII. 306.

Philastrius, 101, 103, 120.

Phillips, Cod., 129 note.

Philo (Carpasus or Carpasia), 101, 103, 104, 107, 110, 120.

Philoxenian. _See_ Harkleian.

Polycarp, 103.

Pontianus, 99, 120.

Porphyry, 108.

Prior, Dr. Alexander, 156 note.

Pusey, P. E., Pref. and 129.

Q.

Q, Cod., 175.

Quaestiones ex Utroque Testamento, 101, 105-15, 120.

R.

R, Cod. of St. Luke (Cod. Nitriensis), 204 note.

Rabbūla, 133.

Recensions, phantom, 79, 91, 93, 121.

Rehdigeranus (1), 137.

Respectability. _See_ Weight.

Revision Revised, the, 91, 102, _passim_.

Revisers, 208 note 11, 212, 245.

Romance languages, origin of, 143.

Rossanensian Codex. _See_ Σ.

Rulotta, 157.

S.

Σ (Rossanensian), Cod., 25, 76, 175.

Sachau, Dr., 129 note.

Sahidio (Thebaic) Version, 23, 136.

Sangallensia Fragmenta (n), 137.

Sangermanensis I (g2), 137.

Scholz, 4.

Scrivener, Dr, Pref., 5, 32, 135, 227, 231, 233, 272.

Seniores apud Irenaeum, 99, 118.

Serapion, 100, 109, 119.

Sinaitic MS. _See_ א.

Slavonic Version, 136.

Stephen, Rob., 3.

Synodical Letter, 100, 119.

Synodus Antiochena, 100, 105, 113, 119, 130.

Synoptic problem, 146.

Syria, rapid spread of the Church in, 123-4.

Syriac Canons, 109, 254 note.

Syriac Sections, 291.

Syriac Versions, 49, 123-34.

“Syrian,” an audacious nick-name, 91-2.

Syrio-Low-Latin Text, 135-47, 225;
intercommunication between Syria and Italy, 145-6.

T.

T, Cod., 204 note.

Tatian, 97, 103, 110.

Tatian’s Diatessaron, 126, 132-4, 242, 302 note.

Taylor, Rev. Dr., 300.

Tertullian, 99, 104-15, 120.

Testament of Abraham, 99, 104, 119.

Tests of Truth, seven, 24, 40-67.

Textual Criticism, 1-5;
importance of, Pref., 6 note.

Textus Receptus, origin of the name, 3;
character of, 5, 15-16, 30;
imperfect, 5.

Theodoret (Cyrrhus), 133, 134.

Theodoras Heracleensis, 100, 107, 114, 119.

Theodotus, 10, 113, 114.

Theognotus, 100, 121, 148.

Theophilus Antiochenus, 99, 120.

Theophylact, 49 note 1.

Tischendorf, 4, 5 note, 7, 9, 49 note, 98, 99, 136, 158, 160 note 2;
curious reasoning, 169 and note 1, 225.

Titus of Bostra, 101, 104-15, 119.

Tradition, nature of, 196-9, 224.

Traditional Text, character of, 5, 196-9;
founded upon the vast majority of authorities, 13;
relation to the Canon, 13-14, 32, 172-3, 197;
variously attested, 29, 40-7; dates
back to the earliest time, 90-147;
settled first, 173;
finally, 173;
mode of settlement, 198;
continuity of, 224;
history of, 236-7;
incontrovertible as a fact, 236.

U.

Uncials, 24, 51.

Uncials, later, 196-223. _See_ Cursives.

V.

Valentinians, 10, 30, 113.

Valentinus, 260.

Variety, 49-53.

Vatican MS. _See_ B.

Vellum, 154-8, 174.

Vercellensis (a), 137.

Veronensis (b), 137.

Versions, 19, 22, 26, 50, 52;
value of, 56.

Victor of Antioch, 284.

Victorinus (Afer), 101, 105, 108, 113, 114, 120.

Victorinus (Pettau), 101, 108, 109, 119.

Viennensium et Lugdunensium Epistola, 99, 118.

Vincentius, 109.

Vindobonensis (i), 137.

Vulgate, 30, 31, and _passim_.

W.

Waller, Rev. Dr. C. H., Pref., App. VI. 292-7, App. VII. 302.

Weight, 53-8, 77, 226.

Westcott, Bp. of Durham, 4;
on the Canon, 92.

Westcott and Hort, 226, 232.

Western Text, 135-47. _See_ Syrio-Low-Latin.

Wetstein, 3.

White, Rev. H. J., 139, 142.

Wiseman, Cardinal, 135, 143.

Woods, Rev. F. H., 130.

Wright, Dr. W., 129 note 2.

X.

Ξ, Cod. Zacynthius, 204

Ximenes, Cardinal, 3, 236.

Z.

Z, Cod. Dublinensis, 204 note 1.

Zeno, 101, 107, 114, 120.

INDEX II. PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTED ON.

St. Matthew:

i. 2-16 180-2
16, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25 295
18 192-3, 288
25 103, 138, 149, 289
ii. 23 177
iii. 16 288
iv. 11 293
13 177
17-22 211-3
21 293
v. 12 293
22 290
32, 41 294
44 103, 138, 149, 290
47 293
vi. 1 290
6 290
13 104, 138, 149
13, 17, 19 297
vii. 13-4 104, 138, 149
viii. 5-13 219-20
ix. 13 104, 138, 149
x. 8 51-2
42 297
xi. 2 297
2-3 63-4
27 105, 138, 149
xii. 1-4 292
30 288
xiii. 6, 13, 33 297
36 34 n. 2
xiv. 13 297
19 168
xv. 35 168
xvii. 21 62-3, 105, 138, 149, 289
22 55
xviii. 11 106, 138, 149, 290
xix. 16-7 78, 106, 138, 149, 259, 288
xx. 22-3 209-11, 289
28 178
44 289
xxiii. 14 289
38 106, 138, 149
xxiv. 36 288
xxvi. 32 187
34 140
35 140
39 140
71 190-1
xxvii. 34 253-8
46 30
xxviii. 2 107, 138, 149
19 108, 138, 149, 213 n.

St. Mark:

i. 1 166, 279-86, 287
2 108, 138, 149
11 140
14-20 211-13
28 176
45-ii. 1 176
ii. 12 287
13 177
17 104
27-8 176
iii. 16 289
26 177-8
29 289
iv. 1 179-80
12 289
vi. 11 289
22 66
33 80
vii. 35 287
viii. 6 168
7 82 n.
ix. 24 287
29 289
44-6 289
49 289
x. 6 288
17-8 259-78
23-4 213-14
24 289
38 209-11
xi. 26 289
xiii. 32 288
xiv. 22-4 290
28 187
72 187
xv. 23 253-4
28 290
39 80, 290
43 190
46 187
47-xvi. 7 184
xvi. 3, 4, 6 187
xvi. 7 187
9-20 109, 138, 149, 288, 293, 298-307

ST. LUKE:

i. 26 187
28 109, 138, 149, 289
41 187
60 187
64 176-7
65, 70, 71 174, 185
ii. 2 188 n.
14 110, 138, 149
39 177
iii. 23-38 180-2
iv. 4 289
5 289
8 289
31 177
37 176
v. 1-11 211-13
3 186
14-15 176
27 177
vi. 1 293
10 176
vii. 18 64
35 177
ix. 55-6 289
x. 12 176
25 140
41-2 110, 138, 149
xi. 2 177
2-4 84, 290
4 166
xiv. 8-10 178
22 191
xvi. 9 215-6
xvii. 2 194-5
19 289
24 289
xviii. 14 189, 193-4
18-19 259-78
xix. 25 189
27 178
37 65
42 217-9
xxi. 25 140
xxii. 43-4 110, 138, 149, 290
44 80
64 290
xxiii. 34 111, 138, 149, 290
38 111, 138, 150, 290
42 288
45 112, 138, 150
xxiv. 3 287
13 66
40 112, 139, 150
41-3 239-52
42 112, 139, 150, 290
46 288
51 288

ST. JOHN:

i. 3-4 113, 139, 150
9 140
18 113-4, 139, 150
27 166
28 88, 166
43 87
iii. 6 297
13 114, 139, 150, 288
31 288
v. 3-4 80, 82, 289
15 290
vi. 47 287
51 289
69 287
viii. 35 288
38-9 170-1
59 288
ix. 35 288
36 191
x. 14 115, 139, 150
xiv. 14 287
xvi. 6 288
xvii. 24 115, 139, 150
xix. 20-1 290
25 85 n. 3
29 253-4
xxi. 5-13 241-4
23 287
25 115, 139, 150

ACTS:

xvi. 7 288
xx. 28 287
xxiv. 23 146

ROMANS:

xiv. 10 288

1 COR.:

xi. 2-4 290
xvi. 47 288

2 COR.:

iii. 3 65

GAL.:

iii. 1 166-7

EPH.:

i. 1 166
v. 20 227-8

COL.:

ii. 10 288

1 TIM.:

iii. 16 288

HEB.:

iv. 2 48-9

2 PET.:

i. 1 288

REV.:

i. 5 290

FOOTNOTES

1 See Jerome, Epist. 34 (Migne, xxii. p. 448). Cod. V. of Philo has
the following inscription:—Εὐζόϊος ἐπίσκοπος ἐν σωματίοις
ἀνενέωσατο, i.e. transcribed on vellum from papyrus. Leopold Cohn’s
edition of Philo, De Opiticiis Mundi, Vratislaw, 1889.

2 See my Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp.
7-37. George Bell and Sons, 1886.

3 For an estimate of Tischendorf’s great labour, see an article on
Tischendorf’s Greek Testament in the Quarterly Review for July,
1895.

4 Dr. Hort’s theory, which is generally held to supply the
philosophical explanation of the tenets maintained in the school of
critics who support B and א as pre-eminently the sources of the
correct text, may be studied in his Introduction. It is also
explained and controverted in my Textual Guide, pp. 38-59; and has
been powerfully criticized by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised,
Article III, or in No. 306 of the Quarterly Review, without reply.

5 Quarterly Review, July 1895, “Tischendorf’s Greek Testament.”

6 See Preface.

7 It is remarkable, that in quarters where we should have looked for
more scientific procedure the importance of the Textual Criticism of
the New Testament is underrated, upon a plea that theological
doctrine may be established upon passages other than those of which
the text has been impugned by the destructive school. Yet (_a_) in
all cases consideration of the text of an author must perforce
precede consideration of inferences from the text—Lower Criticism
must be the groundwork of Higher Criticism; (_b_) confirmatory
passages cannot be thrown aside in face of attacks upon doctrine of
every possible character; (_c_) Holy Scripture is too unique and
precious to admit of the study of the several words of it being
interesting rather than important; (_d_) many of the passages which
Modern Criticism would erase or suspect—such as the last Twelve
Verses of St. Mark, the first Word from the Cross, and the thrilling
description of the depth of the Agony, besides numerous others—are
valuable in the extreme; and, (_e_) generally speaking, it is
impossible to pronounce, especially amidst the thought and life
seething everywhere round us, what part of Holy Scripture is not, or
may not prove to be, of the highest importance as well as
interest.—E. M.

8 See below, Vol. II. throughout, and a remarkable passage quoted from
Caius or Gaius by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised (Quarterly
Review, No. 306), pp. 323-324.

9 St. John xiv. 26.

10 St. John xvi. 13.

11 Rev. John Oxlee’s sermon on Luke xxii. 28-30 (1821), p. 91 (Three
Sermons on the power, origin, and succession of the Christian
Hierarchy, and especially that of the Church of England).

12 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 92.

13 Ibid. p. 142.

14 Scrivener, Plain Introduction, ed. 4, Vol. I. pp. 75-76.

15 Of course this trenchant passage refers only to the principles of
the school found to fail. A school may leave fruits of research of a
most valuable kind, and yet be utterly in error as to the inferences
involved in such and other facts. Dean Burgon amply admitted this.
The following extract from one of the many detached papers left by
the author is appended as possessing both illustrative and personal
interest:—

“Familiar as all such details as the present must of necessity prove
to those who have made Textual Criticism their study, they may on no
account be withheld. I am not addressing learned persons only. I
propose, before I lay down my pen, to make educated persons,
wherever they may be found, partakers of my own profound conviction
that for the most part certainty is attainable on this
subject-matter; but that the decrees of the popular school—at the
head of which stand many of the great critics of Christendom—are
utterly mistaken. Founded, as I venture to think, on entirely false
premisses, their conclusions almost invariably are altogether wrong.
And this I hold to be demonstrable; and I propose in the ensuing
pages to establish the fact. If I do not succeed, I shall pay the
penalty for my presumption and my folly. But if I succeed—and I wish
to have jurists and persons skilled in the law of evidence, or at
least thoughtful and unprejudiced persons, wherever they are to be
found, and no others, for my judges,—if I establish my position, I
say, let my father and my mother’s son be kindly remembered by the
Church of Christ when he has departed hence.”

16 There are, however, in existence, about 200 MSS. of the Iliad and
Odyssey of Homer, and about 150 of Virgil. But in the case of many
books the existing authorities are but scanty. Thus there are not
many more than thirty of Aeschylus, and they are all said by W.
Dindorf to be derived from one of the eleventh century: only a few
of Demosthenes, of which the oldest are of the tenth or eleventh
century: only one authority for the first six books of the Annals of
Tacitus (see also Madvig’s Introduction): only one of the
Clementines: only one of the Didachè, &c. See Gow’s Companion to
School Classics, Macmillan & Co. 1888.

17 “I had already assisted my friend Prebendary Scrivener in greatly
enlarging Scholz’s list. We had, in fact, raised the enumeration of
‘Evangelia’ [copies of Gospels] to 621: of ‘Acts and Catholic
Epistles’ to 239: of ‘Paul’ to 281: of ‘Apocalypse’ to 108: of
‘Evangelistaria’ [Lectionary copies of Gospels] to 299: of the book
called ‘Apostolos’ [Lectionary copies of Acts and Epistles] to
81—making a total of 1629. But at the end of a protracted and
somewhat laborious correspondence with the custodians of not a few
great continental libraries, I am able to state that our available
‘Evangelia’ amount to at least 739: our ‘Acts and Cath. Epp.’ to
261: our ‘Paul’ to 338: our ‘Apoc.’ to 122: our ‘Evst.’ to 415: our
copies of the ‘Apostolos’ to 128—making a total of 2003. This shews
an increase of three hundred and seventy-four.” Revision Revised, p.
521. But since the publication of Dr. Gregory’s Prolegomena, and of
the fourth edition of Dr. Scrivener’s Plain Introduction to the
Criticism of the New Testament, after Dean Burgon’s death, the list
has been largely increased. In the fourth edition of the
Introduction (Appendix F, p. 397) the total number under the six
classes of “Evangelia,” “Acts and Catholic Epistles,” “St. Paul,”
“Apocalypse,” “Evangelistaria,” and “Apostolos,” has reached (about)
3,829, and may be reckoned when all have come in at over 4,000. The
separate MSS. (some in the reckoning just given being counted more
than once) are already over 3,000.

18 Evan. 481 is dated A.D. 835; Evan. S. is dated A.D. 949.

19 Or, as some think, at the end of the second century.

20 ACΣ (Φ in St. Matt.) with fourteen other uncials, most cursives,
four Old Latin, Gothic, St. Irenaeus, &c. &c.

21 See Vol. II.

22 All such questions are best understood by observing an illustration.
In St. Matt. xiii. 36, the disciples say to our Lord, “Explain to us
(φράσον ἡμῖν) the parable of the tares.” The cursives (and late
uncials) are all agreed in this reading. Why then do Lachmann and
Tregelles (not Tischendorf) exhibit διασάφησον? Only because they
find διασάφησον in B. Had they known that the first reading of א
exhibited that reading also, they would have been more confident
than ever. But what pretence can there be for assuming that the
Traditional reading of all the copies is untrustworthy in this
place? The plea of antiquity at all events cannot be urged, for
Origen reads φράσον four times. The Versions do not help us. What
else is διασάφησον but a transparent Gloss? Διασάφησον (elucidate)
explains φράσον, but φράσον (tell) does not explain διασάφησον.

23 Plain Introduction, I. 277. 4th edition.

24 It is very remarkable that the sum of Eusebius’ own evidence is
largely against those uncials. Yet it seems most probable that he
had B and א executed from the ἀκριβῆ or “critical” copies of Origen.
See below, Chapter IX.

25 Viz. 996 verses out of 3,780.

26 Miller’s Scrivener (4th edition), Vol. I. Appendix F. p. 397. 1326 +
73 + 980 = 2379.

27 Scrivener’s Introduction, Ed. iv (1894), Vol. II. pp. 264-265.

28 But see Miller’s edition of Scrivener’s Introduction, I. 397. App.
F, where the numbers as _now_ known are given as 73, 1326, 980
respectively.

29 Account of the Printed Text, p. 138.

30 This general position will be elucidated in Chapters IX and XI.

31 So also the Georgian and Sclavonic versions (the late Dr. Malan).

32 The Traditional view of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews
is here maintained as superior both in authority and evidence to any
other.

33 א, 31, 41, 114.

34 Tischendorf wrongly adduces Irenaeus. Read to the end of III. c. 19,
§ 1.

35 Ap. Galland. vii. 178.

36 xii. 64 c, 65 b. Καὶ ὅρα τι θαυμαστῶς; οὐκ εἶπεν, οὐ συνεφώνησαν,
ἀλλ᾽, οὐ συνεκράθησαν. See by all means Cramer’s Cat. p. 451.

37 Ap. Cramer, Cat. p. 177. Οὐ γὰρ ἦσαν κατὰ τὴν πίστιν τοῖς
ἐπαγγελθεῖσι συνημμένοι; ὄθεν οὔτως ἀναγνωστέον, “μὴ
συγκεκερασμένους τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσι.”

38 vi. 15 d. Ἄρα γὰρ ἔμελλον κατὰ τὸν ἴσον τρόπον συνανακιρνᾶσθαι τε
ἀλλήλοις, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ οἶνος ὕδατι, κ.τ.λ. After this, it
becomes of little moment that the same Cyril should elsewhere (i.
394) read συγκεκραμένος ἐν πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασι.

39 iii. 566. After quoting the place, Thdrt. proceeds, Τί γὰρ ὤνησεν ἡ
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπαγγελία τοὺς ... μὴ ... οἷον τοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγοις
ἀνακραθέντας.

40 ii. 234.

_ 41 Ap_. Oecum.

42 ii. 670.

43 From Dr. Malan, who informs me that the Bohairic and Ethiopic
exhibit “_their heart_ was not mixed with”: which represents the
same reading.

44 So Theophylactus (ii. 670), who (with all the more trustworthy
authorities) writes συγκεκραμένους. For this sense of the verb, see
Liddell and Scott’s Lex., and especially the instances in Wetstein.

45 Yet Tischendorf says, “Dubitare nequeo quin lectio Sinaitica hujus
loci mentem scriptoris recte reddat atque omnium sit verissima.”

46 See below, Chapter XI, where the character and authority of Cursive
Manuscripts are considered.

47 The evidence on the passage is as follows:—For the insertion:—

א* etc. BC*ΦΣDPΔ, 1, 13, 33, 108, 157, 346, and about ten more. Old
Latin (except f), Vulgate, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Hilary, Cyril Alex.
(2), Chrysostom (2).

Against:—

EFGKLMSUVXΓΠ. The rest of the Cursives, Peshitto (Pusey and Gwilliam
found it in no copies), Sahidic, Eusebius, Basil, Jerome,
Chrysostom, _in loc._, Juvencus. Compare Revision Revised, p. 108,
note.

48 By the Editor. See Miller’s Scrivener, Introduction (4th ed.), Vol.
I. p. 96, note 1, and below, Chapter IX.

49 Miller’s Scrivener, I. p. 176.

50 Ibid. p. 208.

51 Tregelles’ Printed Text, &c., p. 247.

52 Tischendorf, N. T., p. 322.

53 Tischendorf and Alford.

54 Burgon’s Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 38-69; also p. 267.

55 Ad Marinum. Ibid. p. 265.

56 Ibid. pp. 235-6.

57 Miller’s Scrivener, I. p. 181.

58 Ferrar and Abbott’s Collation of Four Important Manuscripts, Abbè
Martin, _Quatre MSS. importants_, J. Rendel Harris, On the Origin of
the Ferrar Group (C. J. Clay and Sons), 1893. Miller’s Scrivener, I.
p. 398, App. F.

59 See below, Chapter X. Also Mr. Rendel Harris’ “Study of Codex Bezae”
in the Cambridge Texts and Studies.

60 Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, p. 21, &c.; Revision Revised, p.
297.

61 See more upon this point in Chapters V, XI. Compare St. Augustine’s
Canon: “Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed
semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate Apostolica traditum
rectissime creditur.” C. Donatist. iv. 24.

62 See Revision Revised, pp. 91, 206, and below, Chapter V.

63 καθ᾽ ἰδίαν, ἐδυνήθημεν, τριημέρᾳ, ἀναστήσεται.

64 μετάβα ἔνθεν.

65 συστρεφομένων, ὀλιγοπιστίαν; omission of Ἰησοῦς, λέγει.

66 ὁ ἐρχόμενος, for which D absurdly substitutes ὁ ἐργαζόμενος, “he
that worketh.”

67 So, as it seems, the Lewis, but the column is defective.

68 Viz. Ver. 20, ἀπέστειλεν for ἀπέσταλκεν, אB; ἕτερον for ἄλλον,
אDLXΞ. Ver. 22, omit ὅτι, אBLXΞ; insert καὶ before κωφοί, אBDFΓΔ*Λ;
insert καὶ before πτωχοί, אFX. Ver. 23, ὂς ἂν for ὂς ἐάν, אD. Ver.
24, τοῖς ὄχλοις for πρὸς τοὺς ὄχλους, אD and eight others; ἐξήλθατε
for ἐξεληλύθατε, אABDLΞ. Ver. 25, ἐξήλθατε for ἐξεληλύθατε, אABDLΞ.
Ver. 26, ἐξήλθατε for ἐξεληλύθατε, אBDLΞ. Ver. 28, insert ἀμὴν
before λέγω, אLX; omit προφήτης, אBKLMX. Ver. 30, omit εἰς ἑαυτούς,
אD. Ver. 32, ἂ λέγει for λέγοντες, א*B. See Tischendorf, eighth
edition, _in loco_. The _Concordia discors_ will be noticed.

69 The explanation given by the majority of the Revisers has only their
English Translation to recommend it, “in tables that are hearts of
flesh” for ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις. In the Traditional reading
(_a_) πλαξὶ σαρκίναις answers to πλαξὶ λιθίναις; and therefore
σαρκίναις would agree with πλαξὶ, not with καρδίαις. (_b_) The
opposition between λιθίναις and καρδίαις σαρκίναις would be weak
indeed, the latter being a mere appendage in apposition to πλαξί,
and would therefore be a blot in St. Paul’s nervous passage. (_c_)
The apposition is harsh, ill-balanced (contrast St. Mark viii. 8),
and unlike Greek: Dr. Hort is driven to suppose πλαξί to be a
“primitive interpolation.” The faultiness of a majority of the
Uncials is corrected by Cursives, Versions, Fathers.

70 “Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspecta merito habetur,
quae orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifeste prae ceteris favet.” N.T.
Prolegomena, I. p. lxvi.

71 See Hort’s Introduction, pp. 210-270.

72 I have retained this challenge though it has been rendered nugatory
by the Dean’s lamented death, in order to exhibit his absolute
sincerity and fearlessness.—E. M.

73 Here the Dean’s MS. ceases, and the Editor is responsible for what
follows. The MS. was marked in pencil, “Very rough—but worth
carrying on.”

74 See a passage from Caius quoted in The Revision Revised, p. 323.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 28.

75 Hort, Introduction, p. 223.

76 See Appendix V, and below, Chapter IX.

77 As a specimen of how quickly a Cursive copy could be written by an
accomplished copyist, we may note the following entry from Dean
Burgon’s Letters in the Guardian to Dr. Scrivener, in a letter dated
Jan. 29, 1873. “Note further, that there is ... another copy of the
O.T. in one volume ... at the end of which is stated that Nicodemus
ὁ ξένος, the scribe, began his task on the 8th of June and finished
it on the 15th of July, A.D. 1334, working very hard—as he must have
done indeed.”

78 See below, Chapter VIII. § 2.

79 See Chapter VI.

80 See Chapter VII.

81 See next Chapter.

82 Another fragment found in the Dean’s papers is introduced here.

83 Here the fragment ends.

84 See Dr. Gwynn’s remarks which are quoted below, Appendix VII.

85 The Revision Revised, p. 423. Add a few more; see Appendix VII.

86 Dr. Gwynn, Appendix VII.

87 Another MS. comes in here.

88 The MS. ceases.

89 Hort, Introduction, pp. 95-99.

90 ו-צאו ללכת ארצה בנען ויבאו ארצה בנען׃

91 An instance is afforded in St. Mark viii. 7, where “the Five Old
Uncials” exhibit the passage thus:

A. και ταυτα ευλογησας ειπεν παρατεθηναι και αυτα.
א*. και ευλογησας αυτα παρεθηκεν.
א1. και ευλογησας ειπεν και ταυτα παρατιθεναι.
B. ευλογησας αυτα ειπεν και ταυτα παρατιθεναι.
C. και ευλογησας αυτα ειπεν και ταυτα παραθετε.
D. και ευχαριστησας ειπεν και αυτους εκελευσεν παρατιθεναι.

Lachmann, and Tischendorf (1859) follow A; Alford, and Tischendorf
(1869) follow א; Tregelles and Westcott, and Hort adopt B. They
happen to be all wrong, and the Textus Receptus right. The only word
they all agree in is the initial καί.

92 After this the MSS. recommence.

93 SΠ mark the place with asterisks, and Λ with an obelus.

94 In twelve, asterisks: in two, obeli.

95 The MS., which has not been perfect, here ceases.

96 In the Syriac _one_ form appears to be used for _all_ the _Marys_
([Syriac characters] Mar-yam, also sometimes, but not always, spelt
in the _Jerusalem Syriac_ [Syriaic characters] = Mar-yaam), also for
_Miriam_ in the O. T., for _Mariamne_ the wife of Herod, and others;
in fact, wherever it is intended to represent a Hebrew female name.
At Rom. xvi. 6, the Peshitto has [Syriaic characters] = Μαρία
obviously as a translation of the Greek form in the text which was
followed. (See Thesaurus Syriacus, Payne Smith, coll. 2225, 2226.)

In Syriac literature [Syriac characters] = Maria occurs from time to
time as the name of some Saint or Martyr—e.g. in a volume of Acta
Mart. described by Wright in Cat. Syr. MSS. in B. M. p. 1081, and
which appears to be a fifth-century MS.

On the hypothesis that Hebrew-Aramaic was spoken in Palestine
(_pace_ Drs. Abbot and Roberts), I do not doubt that _only one_ form
(cf. Pearson, Creed, Art. iii. and notes) of the name was in use,
“Maryam,” a vulgarized form of “Miriam”; but it may well be that
Greek Christians kept the Hebrew form Μαριαμ for the Virgin, while
they adopted a more Greek-looking word for the other women. This
fine distinction has been lost in the _corrupt_ Uncials, while
observed in the _correct_ Uncials and Cursives, which is all that
the Dean’s argument requires.—(G. H. G.)

97 The MSS. continue here.

98 LXX.

99 St. John xix. 25. As the passage is _syndeton_, the omission of the
καί which would be necessary if Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ were different
from ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αἰτοῦ could not be justified. Compare,
e.g., the construction in the mention of four in St. Mark xiii. 3.
In disregarding the usage requiring exclusively either _syndeton_ or
_asyndeton_, even scholars are guided unconsciously by their
_English_ experience.—(ED.)

100 The genitive Μαρ᾽ας is used in the Textus Receptus in Matt. i. 16,
18; ii. 11; Mark vi. 3; Luke i. 41. Μαριάμ is used in the
Nominative, Matt. xiii. 55; Luke i. 27, 34, 39, 46, 56; ii. 5, 19.
In the Vocative, Luke i. 30. The Accusative, Matt. i. 20; Luke ii.
16. Dative, Luke ii. 5; Acts i. 14. Μαριάμ occurs for another Mary
in the Textus Receptus, Rom. xvi. 6.

101 Serapion, Bp. of Thmuis (on a mouth of the Nile) A.D. 340 (_ap._
Galland. v. 60 a).

102 Basil, i. 240 d.

103 Epiphanius, i. 435 c.

104 Chrysostom, iii. 120 d e; vii. 180 a, 547 e _quat._; viii. 112 a c
(nine times).

105 Asterius, p. 128 b.

106 Basil Opp. (i. Append.) i. 500 e (cf. p. 377 Monitum).

107 Cyril, iv. 131 c.

108 A gives Ιωνα; א, Ιωαννης; C and D are silent. Obvious it is that the
revised text of St. John i. 43 and of xxi. 15, 16, 17,—must stand or
fall together. In this latter place the Vulgate forsakes us, and אB
are joined by C and D. On the other hand, Cyril (iv. 1117),—Basil
(ii. 298),—Chrysostom (viii. 525 c d),—Theodoret (ii. 426),—Jo.
Damascene (ii. 510 e),—and Eulogius ([A.D. 580.] _ap._ Photium, p.
1612), come to our air. Not that we require it.

109 “_Araba_” (instead of “_abara_”) is a word which must have exercised
so powerful and seductive an influence over ancient Eastern
scribes,—(having been for _thirty-four centuries_ the established
designation of the sterile Wady, which extends from the Southern
extremity of the Dead Sea to the North of the Arabian Gulf)—that the
only wonder is it did not find its way into Evangelia. See Gesenius
on ערבה (Ἄραβα in the LXX of Deut. ii. 8, &c. So in the Revised O.
T.).

110 The MSS. have ceased.

111 See Appendix V.

112 See Preface.

113 This chapter and the next three have been supplied entirely by the
Editor.

114 See also Miller’s Textual Guide, chapter IV. No answer has been made
to the Dean’s strictures.

115 See Dr. Scrivener’s incisive criticism of Dr. Hort’s theory,
Introduction, edit. 4, ii. 284-296.

116 The Revision Revised, pp. 323-324, 334.

117 Yet Marcion and Tatian may fairly be adduced as witnesses upon
individual readings.

118 E.g. “Many of the verses which he [Origen] quotes in different
places shew discrepancies of text that cannot be accounted for
either by looseness of citation or by corruption of the MSS. of his
writings.” Hort, Introduction, p. 113. See also the whole passage,
pp. 113-4.

119 See Hort. Introduction, p. 160. The most useful part of Irenaeus’
works in this respect is found in the Latin Translation, which is of
the fourth century.

120 Or Magnus, or Major, which names were applied to him to distinguish
him from his brother who was called Alexandrinus, and to whom some
of his works have been sometimes attributed. Macarius Magnus or
Aegyptius was a considerable writer, as may be understood from the
fact that he occupies nearly 1000 pages in Migne’s Series. His
memory is still, I am informed, preserved in Egypt. But in some
fields of scholarship at the present day he has met with strange
neglect.

121 The names of many Fathers are omitted in this list, because I could
not find any witness on one side or the other in their writings.
Also Syriac writings are not here included.

122 See The Revision Revised, p. 123.

123 The Revision Revised, p. 92.

124 I have mentioned here only cases where the passage is quoted
professedly from St. Matthew. The passage as given in St. Mark x.
17-18, and in St. Luke xviii. 18-19, is frequently quoted without
reference to any one of the Gospels. Surely some of these quotations
must be meant for St. Matthew.

125 For the reff. see below, Appendix II.

126 Compare The Revision Revised, pp. 162-3.

127 For reff. see Vol. II. viii. For Mark i. 1, Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, see
Appendix IV.

128 The Revision Revised, pp. 423-440. Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-51.
The latitudinarian Eusebius on the same passage witnesses on both
sides.

129 The Revision Revised, pp. 420-1; Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-3.

130 The Revision Revised, pp. 79-82. The Dean alleges more than forty
witnesses in all. What are quoted here, as in the other instances,
are only the Fathers before St. Chrysostom.

131 Ibid. pp. 82-5.

132 The Revision Revised, pp. 61-65.

133 Ibid. pp. 90-1.

134 See below, Appendix I.

135 Many of the Fathers quote only as far as οὐδὲ ἕν. But that was
evidently a convenient quotation of a stock character in
controversy, just as πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο was even more commonly.
St Epiphanius often quotes thus, but remarks (Haer. II. (lxix.) 56,
Ancor. lxxv.), that the passage goes on to ὁ γέγονεν.

136 See The Revision Revised, p. 133.

137 Ibid. pp. 220-1.

138 Tischendorf quotes these on the wrong side.

139 The Revision Revised, pp. 217-8.

140 Ibid. pp. 23-4. See also an article in Hermathena, Vol. VIII., No.
XIX., 1893, written by the Rev. Dr. Gwynn with his characteristic
acuteness and ingenuity.

141 Hort, Introduction, pp. 128, 127.

142 Ibid. p. 113.

143 It may perhaps be questioned whether Justin should be classed here:
but the character of his witness, as on Matt. v. 44, ix. 13, and
Luke xxii. 43-44, is more on the Traditional side, though the
numbers are against that.

144 Athanasius in his “Orationes IV contra Arianos” used Alexandrian
texts. See IV.

145 According to Pliny (N. II. v. 18), the towns of Decapolis were: 1.
Scythopolis the chief, not far from Tiberias (Joseph. B. J. III. ix.
7); 2. Philadelphia; 3. Raphanae; 4. Gadara; 5. Hippos; 6. Dios; 7.
Pella; 8. Gerasa; 9. Canatha (Otopos, Joseph.); 10. Damascus. This
area does not coincide with that which is sometimes now marked in
maps and is part of Galilee and Samaria. But the Gospel notion of
Decapolis, is of a country east of Galilee, lying near to the Lake,
starting from the south-east, and stretching on towards the
mountains into the north. It was different from Galilee (Matt. iv.
25), was mainly on the east of the sea of Tiberias (Mark v. 20,
Eusebius and Jerome OS2. pp. 251, 89—“around Pella and
Basanitis,”—Epiphanius Haer. i. 123), extended also to the west
(Mark vii. 31), was reckoned in Syria (Josephus, passim, “Decapolis
of Syria”), and was generally after the time of Pompey under the
jurisdiction of the Governor of Syria. The Encyclopaedia Britannica
describes it well as “situated, with the exception of a small
portion, on the eastern side of the Upper Jordan and the sea of
Tiberias.” Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, to which I am indebted
for much of the evidence given above, is inconsistent. The
population was in a measure Greek.

146 Εἰς τὰς κώμας Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου. What a condensed account of
His sojourn in various “towns”!

147 See Ancient Syriac Documents relative to the Earliest Establishment
of Christianity in Edessa and the neighbouring countries, &c. edited
by W. Cureton, D.D., with a Preface by the late Dr. Wright, 1864.

148 Cureton’s Preface to “An Antient Recension, &c.”

149 Philip E. Pusey held that there was a revision of the Peshitto in
the eighth century, but that it was confined to grammatical
peculiarities. This would on general grounds be not impossible,
because the art of copying was perfected by about that time.

150 See Appendix VI.

151 This position is demonstrated in full in an article in the Church
Quarterly Review for April, 1895, on “The Text of the Syriac
Gospels,” pp. 123-5.

152 The Text of the Syriac Gospels, pp. 113-4: also Church Times, Jan.
11, 1895. This position is established in both places.

153 Yet some people appear to think, that the worse a text is the more
reason there is to suppose that it was close to the Autograph
Original. Verily this is evolution run wild.

154 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed., “Syriac Literature,” by Dr. W.
Wright, now published separately under the same title.

155 Dr. Scrivener, Introduction (4th Edition), II. 7.

156 See also Miller’s Edition of Scrivener’s Introduction (4th), II. 12.

157 Another very ancient MS. of the Peshitto Gospels is the Cod.
Philipp. 1388, in the Royal Library, Berlin (in Miller’s Scrivener
the name is spelt PHILLIPPS). Dr. Sachau ascribes it to the fifth,
or the beginning of the sixth century, thus making it older than the
Vatican Tetraevangelicum, No. 3, in Miller’s Scrivener, II. 12. A
full description will be found in Sachau’s Catalogue of the Syr.
MSS. in the Berlin Library.

The second was collated by Drs. Guidi and Ugolini, the third, in St.
John, by Dr. Sachau. The readings of the second and third are in the
possession of Mr. Gwilliam, who informs me that all three support
the Peshitto text, and are free from all traces of any pre-Peshitto
text, such as according to Dr. Hort and Mr. Burkitt the Curetonian
and Lewis MSS. contain. Thus every fresh accession of evidence tends
always to establish the text of the Peshitto Version more securely
in the position it has always held until quite recent years.

The interesting feature of all the above-named MSS. is the
uniformity of their testimony to the text of the Peshitto. Take for
example the evidence of No. 10 in Miller’s Scrivener, II. 13, No. 3,
in Miller’s Scrivener, II. 12, and Cod. Philipp. 1388. The first was
collated by P. E. Pusey, and the results are published in Studia
Biblica, vol. i, “A fifth century MS.”

158 Dr. W. Wright’s article in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Dr. Hort could
not have been aware of this fact when he spoke of “the almost total
extinction of Old Syriac MSS.”: or else he lamented a disappearance
of what never appeared.

159 p. 107.

160 See Patrologia Syriaca, Graffin, P. I. vol. ii. Paris, 1895.

161 See in St. Matt. alone (out of many instances) v. 22 (the
translation of εἰκῆ), ix. 13 (of εἰς μετάνοιαν), xi. 23 (“which art
exalted”), xx. 16 (of πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσι κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί),
xxvi. 42 (ποτήριον), 28 (καινῆς); besides St. Luke ii. 14 (εὐδοκία),
xxiii. 45 (ἐσκοτίσθη), John iii. 13 (though “from heaven”), xxi. 25
(the verse).

162 Doctrine of Addai, xxxv. 15-17.

163 H. E. iv. 29.

164 Haer. xlvi. 1.

165 Canons.

166 Haer. i. 20.

167 The Earliest Life of Christ, Appendix VIII.

168 The MS. is mutilated at the beginning of the other three Gospels.

169 It appears almost, if not quite, certain that this is the true
meaning. Payne Smith’s Thesaurus Syriacus, coll. 3303-4.

170 The Lewis Codex was in part destroyed, as not being worth keeping,
while the leaves which escaped that fate were used for other
writing. Perhaps others were treated in similar fashion, which would
help to account for the fact mentioned in note 2, p. 129.

171 Plain Introduction, II. 43-44.

172 Essays on Various Subjects, i. Two Letters on some parts of the
controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, pp. 23, &c. The arguments are
more ingenious than powerful. Africa, e.g., had no monopoly of
Low-Latin.

173 The numerator in these fractions denotes the number of times
throughout the Gospels when the text of the MS. in question agrees
in the selected passages with the Textus Receptus: the denominator,
when it witnesses to the Neologian Text.

174 Once in k by _comperire_ probably a slip for _corripere_. Old Latin
Texts, III. pp. xxiv-xxv.

175 “Tot sunt paene (exemplaria), quot codices,” Jerome, Epistola ad
Damascum. “Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas,” “interpretum
numerositas,” “nullo modo numerari possunt,” De Doctrina Christiana,
ii. 16, 21.

176 De Doctr. Christ. ii. 16.

177 Scrivener’s Plain Introduction, II. 44, note 1.

178 See Diez, Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen, as well as
Introduction to the Grammar of the Romance Languages, translated by
C. B. Cayley. Also Abel Hovelacque, The Science of Language, English
Translation, pp. 227-9. “The Grammar of Frederick Diez, first
published some forty years ago, has once for all disposed of those
Iberian, Keltic, and other theories, which nevertheless crop up from
time to time.” Ibid. p. 229. Brachet, Grammar of the French
Language, pp. 3-5; Whitney, Language and the Study of Language, pp.
165, &c., &c.

179 “Syro-Latin” is doubtless an exact translation of “Syro-Latinus”:
but as we do not say “Syran” but “Syrian,” it is not idiomatic
English.

180 This is purely my own opinion. Dean Burgon followed Townson in
supposing that the Synoptic Evangelists in some cases saw one
another’s books.

181 Isaiah xxxv. 8, 9.

182 Introduction, pp. 127, &c.

183 Probably Alexandrian reading.

184 Probably Alexandrian reading.

185 Probably Alexandrian reading.

186 Probably Alexandrian reading.

187 Probably Alexandrian reading.

188 Probably Alexandrian reading.

189 Probably Alexandrian reading.

190 Probably Alexandrian reading.

191 Probably Alexandrian reading.

192 In Matt. xv. 14, quoted and translated by Dr. Bigg in his Bampton
Lectures on The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 123.

193 Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, p. 236, and note z.

194 Above, p. 100.

195 Hort, Introduction, p. 143.

196 Eusebius suggested the Homoean theory, but his own position, so far
as he had a position, is best indicated as above.

197 Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 35. Plin.
at. Hist. xiii. 11.

198 τὰ βιβλία, μάλιστα τὰς μεμβράνας, 2 Tim. iv. 13.

199 Palaeography, p. 36.

200 See above, p. 2.

201 Palaeography, pp. 27-34. Paper was first made in China by a man
named Ts’ai Lun, who lived about A.D. 90. He is said to have used
the bark of a tree; probably Broussonetia papyrifera, Vent. from
which a coarse kind of paper is still made in northern China. The
better kinds of modern Chinese paper are made from the bamboo, which
is soaked and pounded to a pulp. See Die Erfindung des Papiers in
China, von Friedrich Hirth. Published in Vol. I. of the _T’oung Pao_
(April, 1890). S. J. Brille: Leide. (Kindly communicated by Mr. H.
A. Giles, H. B. M. Consul at Ningpo, author of “A Chinese-English
Dictionary.” &c., through my friend Dr. Alexander Prior of Park
Terrace, N. W., and Halse House, near Taunton.)

202 ... “the science of palaeography, which now stands on quite a
different footing from what it had twenty, or even ten, years ago.
Instead of beginning practically in the fourth century of our era,
with the earliest of the great vellum codices of the Bible, it now
begins in the third century before Christ....” Church Quarterly
Review for October, 1894, p. 104.

203 ... “it is abundantly clear that the textual tradition at about the
beginning of the Christian era is substantially identical with that
of the tenth or eleventh century manuscripts, on which our present
texts of the classics are based. Setting minor differences aside,
the papyri, with a very few exceptions, represent the same texts as
the vellum manuscripts of a thousand years later.” Church Quarterly,
pp. 98, 99. What is here represented as unquestionably the case as
regards Classical manuscripts is indeed more than what I claim for
manuscripts of the New Testament. The Cursives were in great measure
successors of papyri.

204 Introduction, p. 16. He began it in the year 1853, and as it appears
chiefly upon Lachmann’s foundation.

205 By the Editor.

206 Tischendorf’s fourteen brief days’ work is a marvel of accuracy, but
must not be expected to be free from all errors. Thus he wrongly
gives Ευρακυλων instead of Ευρακυδων, as Vercellone pointed out in
his Preface to the octavo ed. of Mai in 1859, and as may be seen in
the photographic copy of B.

207 Cf. Scrivener’s Introduction, (4th ed.) II. 283.

208 See Kuenen and Cobet’s Edition of the Vatican B, Introduction.

209 Gregory’s Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s 8th Ed. of New Testament, (I)
p. 286.

210 See Appendix V.

211 Constantine died in 337, and Constantius II reigned till 360.

212 In his Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp. 291-4, Dean Burgon argued
that a lapse of about half a century divided the date of א from that
of B. But it seems that afterwards he surrendered the opinion which
he embraced on the first appearance of א in favour of the conclusion
adopted by Tischendorf and Scrivener and other experts, in
consequence of their identifying the writing of the six conjugate
leaves of א with that of the scribe of B. See above, pp. 46, 52.

213 The Revision Revised, p. 292.

214 The above passage, including the last paragraph, is from the pen of
the Dean.

215 See above, Introduction, p. 2.

216 It is remarkable that Constantine in his Semi-Arian days applied to
Eusebius, whilst the orthodox Constans sent a similar order
afterwards to Athanasius. Apol. ad Const. § 4 (Montfaucon, Vita
Athan. p. xxxvii), _ap._ Wordsworth’s Church History, Vol. II. p.
45.