Chapter XXIII: Appendix: VIII. New Editions of the Peshitto-Syriac and the (2)

217 See Canon Cook’s ingenious argument. Those MSS. are handsome enough
for an imperial order. The objection of my friend, the late
Archdeacon Palmer (Scrivener’s Introduction, I. 119, note), which I
too hastily adopted on other grounds also in my Textual Guide, p.
82, note 1, will not stand, because σωματία cannot mean “collections
[of writings],” but simply, according to the frequent usage of the
word in the early ages of the Church, “vellum manuscripts.” The
difficulty in translating τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά “of three or four
columns in a page” is not insuperable.

218 Scrivener, Vol. II. 269 (4th ed.).

219 Scrivener, Vol. I. 55 (4th ed.).

220 The colophon is given in full by Wilhelm Bousset in a number of the
well-known “Texte und Untersuchungen,” edited by Oscar von Gebhardt
and Adolf Harnack, entitled “Textkritische Studien zum Neuen
Testament,” p. 45. II. Der Kodex Pamphili, 1894, to which my notice
was kindly drawn by Dr. Sanday.

221 Miller’s Scrivener, I. 183-4. By Euthalius, the Deacon, afterwards
Bp. of Sulci.

222 Introduction, p. 267. Dr. Hort controverts the notion that B and א
were written at Alexandria (not Caesarea), which no one now
maintains.

223 By the Dean.

224 See Appendix IV, and Revision Revised, p. 132. Origen, c. Celsum,
Praef. ii. 4; Comment. in John ix. Followed here only by א*.

225 See Last Twelve Verses, pp. 93-99. Also pp. 66, note, 85, 107, 235.

226 Migne, viii. 96 d. Ταῦτα ἐγένετο ἐν Βηθανίᾳ. ὅσα δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων
ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει, ἐν Βηθαβαρᾷ, φησιν; ἡ γὰρ Βηθανία οὐχὶ πέραν τοῦ
Ἰορδάνου, οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐπήμου ἦν; ἀλλ᾽ ἐγγύς που τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων.
This speedily assumed the form of a _scholium_, as follows:—Χρὴ δὲ
γινώσκειν, ὅτι τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν Βηθαβαρᾷ περιέχει; ἡ γὰρ
Βηθανία οὐχὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγγύς που τῶν
Ἱεροσολύμων:—which is quoted by the learned Benedictine editor of
Origen in M. iv. 401 (at top of the left hand column),—evidently
from Coisl. 23, our Evan. 39,—since the words are found in Cramer,
Cat. ii. 191 (line 1-3).

227 Origen, i. 265; coll. 1. 227, 256.

228 Origen, Comment. in John vi.

229 The word is actually transliterated into Syriac letters in the
Peshitto.

230 See The Revision Revised, pp. 358-61.

231 vii. 52.

232 vii. 418.

233 A name by which Origen was known.

234 Imbecillitatem virium mearum sentiens, Origenis Commentarios sum
sequatus. Scripsit ille vir in epistolam Pauli ad Galatas quinque
proprie volumina, et decimum Stromatum suorum librum commatico super
explanatione ejus sermone complevit.—Praefatio, vii. 370.

235 iii. 509-10.

236 686-7.

237 vii. 117-20.

238 vii. 537 seq.

239 I endeavour in the text to make the matter in hand intelligible to
the English reader. But such things can scarcely be explained in
English without more words than the point is worth. Origen
says:—κἀκεῖ μὲν κελεύει τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνακλιθῆναι (Matt. xiv. 19), ἢ
ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τοῦ χόρτου. (καὶ γὰρ ὁ Λουκᾶς (ix. 14) κατακλίνατε
αὐτούς, ἀνέγραψε; καὶ ὁ Μάρκος (vi. 39), ἐπέταξε, φησίν, αὐτοῖς
πάντας ἀνακλῖναι;) ἐνθάδε δὲ οὐ κελεύει, ἀλλὰ παραγγέλλει τῷ ὄχλῳ
ἀνακλιθῆναι. iii. 509 f, 510 a.

240 The only other witnesses are from Evan. 1, 33, and the lost
archetype of 13, 124, 346. The Versions do not distinguish certainly
between κελεύω and παραγγέλλω. Chrysostom, the only Father who
quotes this place, exhibits ἐκέλευσε ... καὶ λαβών (vii. 539 c).

241 Lectio ab omni parte commendatur, et a correctore alienissima: βαψω
και δωσω ab usu est Johannis, sed elegantius videbatur βαψας επιδωσω
vel δωσω.

242 Luke iv. 8.

243 Πρὸς μὲν τὸν Πέτρον εἶπεν; ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ; πρὸς δὲ τὸν
διάβολον. ὕπαγε, Σατανᾶ, χώρις τῆς ὀπίσω μου προσθήκης; τὸ γὰρ ὀπίσω
τοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἶναι ἀγαθόν ἐστι. iii. 540. I believe that Origen is the
sole cause of the perplexity. Commenting on Matt. xvi. 23 υπαγε
οπισω μου Σατανα (the words addressed to Simon Peter), he explains
that they are a rebuke to the Apostle for having for a time at
Satan’s instigation _desisted from following Him_. Comp. (he says)
these words spoken to Peter (υπ. οπ. μου Σ.) with those addressed to
Satan at the temptation _without the_ οπισω μου “for to be _behind
Christ_ is a good thing.” ... I suppose he had before him a MS. of
St. Mat., _without_ the οπισω μου. This gloss is referred to by
Victor of Antioch (173 Cat. Poss., i. 348 Cramer). It is even
repeated by Jerome on Matt. vii. 21 d e: Non ut plerique putant
eâdem Satanas et Apostolus Petrus sententiâ condemnantur. Petro enim
dicitur, “_Vade retro me_, Satana;” id est “Sequere me, qui
contrarius es voluntati meae.” Hic vero audit, “_Vade Satana:_” et
non ei dicitur “_retro me_,” ut subaudiatur, “vade in ignem
aeternum.” _Vade Satana_ (Irenaeus, 775, also Hilary, 620 a). Peter
Alex, has υπαγε Σατανα, γεγραπται γαρ, ap. Routh, Reliqq. iv. 24 (on
p. 55). Audierat diabolus a Domino, _Recede Sathanas, scandalum mihi
es_. Scriptum est, _Dominum Deum tuum adorabis et illi soli
servies_, Tertullian, Scorp. c. 15. Οὐκ εἶπεν Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου; οὐ
γὰρ ὑποστρέψαι οἷός τε; ἀλλά; Ὕπαγε Σατανᾶ, ἐν οἶς ἐπελέξω.—Epist.
ad Philipp. c. xii. Ignat. Interpol. According to some Critics
(Tisch., Treg., W.-Hort) there is _no_ υπαγε οπισω μου Σ. in Lu. iv.
8, and _only_ υπαγε Σ. in Matt. iv. 10, so that υπαγε οπισω μου
Σατανα occurs in _neither_ accounts of the temptation. But I believe
υπαγε οπισω μου Σ. is the correct reading in _both_ places. Justin
M. Tryph. ii. 352. Origen interp. ii. 132 b (Vade retro), so
Ambrose, i. 671; so Jerome, vi. 809 e; redi retro S., Aug. iv. 47 e;
redi post me S., Aug. iii. 842 g. Theodoret, ii. 1608. So Maximus
Taur., Vigil. Tapa. Vade retro S. _ap._ Sabattier. “_Vade post me
Satana._ Et sine dubio ire post Deum servi est.” Et iterum quod ait
ad ilium, “_Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et ipsi soli servies._”
Archelaus et Man. disput. (Routh, Reliqq. v. 120), A.D. 277. St.
Antony the monk, _apud_ Athanas. “_Vita Ant._” i. 824 c d (=
Galland. iv. 647 a). A.D. 300. _Retro vade Satana_, ps.-Tatian
(Lu.), 49. Athanasius, i. 272 d, 537 c, 589 f. Nestorius ap. Marium
Merc. (Galland. viii. 647 c) _Vade retro S._ but only _Vade S._
viii. 631 c. Idatius (A.D. 385) _apud_ Athanas. ii. 605 b. Chrys.
vii. 172 _bis_ (Matt.) J. Damascene, ii. 450. ps.-Chrys. x. 734,
737. Opus Imperf. ap. Chrys. vi. 48 _bis_. Apocryphal Acts, Tisch.
p. 250.

244 See ver. 44.

245 St. John viii. 40; xv. 15.

246 Orig., Euseb., Epiph., both Cyrils, Didymus, Basil, Chrysostom.

247 For the sceptical passages in B and א see Appendix V.

248 By the Editor.

249 Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25) divides the writings of the Church
into three classes:—

1. The Received Books (ὁμολογούμενα), i.e. the Four Gospels, Acts,
the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the
Revelation (?).

2. Doubtful (ἀντιλεγόμενα), i.e. James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude
(cf. ii. 23 _fin._).

3. Spurious (νόθα), Acts of St. Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation
of St. Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, the so-called Διδαχαί, Revelation
of St. John (?).

This division appears to need confirmation, if it is to be taken as
representing the general opinion of the Church of the time.

250 See Westcott, Canon, &c. pp. 431-9.

251 See particularly Haddan’s Remains, pp. 258-294, Scots on the
Continent. The sacrifice of that capable scholar and excellent
churchman at a comparatively early age to the toil which was
unavoidable under want of encouragement of ability and genius has
entailed a loss upon sacred learning which can hardly be
over-estimated.

252 The reader is now in the Dean’s hands. See Mr. Rendel Harris’
ingenious and suggestive “Study of Codex Bezae” in the Cambridge
Texts and Studies, and Dr. Chase’s “The Old Syriac Element in the
Text of Codex Bezae.” But we must demur to the expression “Old
Syriac.”

253 Introduction, p. 149.

254 The same wholesale corruption of the deposit prevails in what
follows, viz. the healing of the paralytic borne of four (v. 17-26),
and the call of St. Matthew (27-34): as well as in respect of the
walk through the cornfields on the Sabbath day (vi. 1-5), and the
healing of the man with the withered hand (6-11). Indeed it is
continued to the end of the call of the Twelve (12-19). The
particulars are too many to insert here.

255 καθως ερεθη δια του προφητου, instead of ὅπως πληρωθῇ διὰ τῶν
προφητῶν.

256 Υμεις δε ζητειτε εκ μικρου αυξησαι, και εκ μειζονος ελαττον ειναι.

257 I.e. a b c d e ff1.2 g1.2 h m n.

258 Scrivener’s Introduction, I. 130 (4th ed.). The reader will
recollect the suggestion given above in Chapter VII that some of
these corruptions may have come from the earliest times before the
four Gospels were written. The interpolation just noticed may very
well have been such a survival.

259 The number of the generations in St. Luke’s Gospel is 18.

260 Num. xxxiii. coll. xxi. 18, 19 and Deut. x. 6, 7.

261 Note, that whereas the Ἰεχονίας of St. Matt. i. 11 is _Jehoiakim_,
and the Ἰεχονίας of ver. 12, _Jehoiachin_,—Cod. D writes them
respectively Ιωακειμ and Ιεχονιας.

262 Cureton’s Syriac is the only known copy of the Gospels in which the
three omitted kings are found in St. Matthew’s Gospel: which, I
suppose, explains why the learned editor of that document flattered
himself that he had therein discovered the lost original of St.
Matthew’s Gospel. Cureton (Pref., p. viii) shews that in other
quarters also (e.g. by Mar Yakub the Persian, usually known as
Aphraates) 63 generations were reckoned from Adam to JESUS
exclusive: _that_ number being obtained by adding 24 of St.
Matthew’s names and 33 of St. Luke’s to the 3 names common to both
Evangelists (viz. David, Salathiel, and Zorobabel); and to these,
adding the 3 omitted kings.

The testimony of MSS. is not altogether uniform in regard to the
number of names in the Genealogy. In the Textus Receptus (including
our SAVIOUR’S name and the name of the Divine AUTHOR of Adam’s
being) the number of the names is 77. So Basil made it; so Greg.
Naz. and his namesake of Nyssa; so Jerome and Augustine.

263 ἡ δὲ Μαρία (D—η) Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία Ἰωσῆ (D Ιακωβου) ἐθεώρουν (D
εθεασαντο) ποῦ (D οπου) τίθεται (D τεθειται). Καὶ διαγενομένου τοῦ
σαββάτου, Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη (D
_omits the foregoing thirteen words_) (D + πορευθεισαι) ἠγόρασαν
ἀρώματα, ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι (D—ελθουσαι) ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν (D αυτ. αλειψ.)
καὶ (D + ερχορται) λίαν (D—λιαν) πρωῒ τῆς (D—της) μιᾶς σαββάτων (D
σαββατου) ἔρχονται (D _see above_) ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον, ἀνατείλαντος (D
ανατελλοντος) τοῦ ἡλίου. καὶ ἕλεγον πρὸς ἑαυτὰς (D εαυτους), Τίς
ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν (D ημιον αποκ.) τὸν λίθον ἐκ (D απο) τῆς θύρας τοῦ
μνημείου? (D + ην γαρ μεγας σφοδρα). Καὶ ἀναβλέψασαι θεωροῦσιν (D
ερχονται και ευρισκουσιν) ὅτι ἀποκεκίλισται ὁ λίθος (D
αποκεκυλισμενον τον λιθον). ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα. (D _see above_.)
καὶ ... εἶδον νεανίσκον (D νεαν. ειδ.) καθήμενον.... καὶ
ἐξεθαμβήθησαν (D εθανβησαν). ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς (D και λεγει αυτοις)
(D + ο αγγελος). Μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε (D φοβεισθαι) (D + τον) Ἰησοῦν
ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν (D—τον Ναζ.) ... ἴδε (D ειδετε) ὁ τόπος (D
εκει τοπον αυτον) ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν. ἀλλ᾽ (D αλλα) ὑπάγετε (D + και)
εἴπατε ... ὅτι (D + ιδου) προάγει (D προαγω) ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν;
ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν (D μη) ὄψεοθε, καθὼς εἶπεν (D ειρηκα) ὑμῖν. St. Mark xv.
47-xvi. 7.

264 So for example at the end of the same passage in St. Luke, the
difficult αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο (ii. 2) becomes αυτη εγενετο
απογραφη πρωτη; ἐπλήσθησαν is changed into the simpler ετελεσθησαν;
φόβος μέγας (ii. 9) after ἐφοβήθησαν into σφοδρα; και (ii. 10) is
inserted before παντὶ τῷ λαῷ.

265 Yet not unfrequently the Greek is unique in its extravagance, e.g.
Acts v. 8; xiii. 14; xxi. 28, 29.

266 Cureton’s Syriac is closely allied to D, and the Lewis Codex less
so.

267 See b c e f ff2 i l q Vulg.

268 So b e g2 Curetonian, Lewis.

269 St. Chrysostom (vii. 84. d), Origen (iii. 902. d _int_.), Victor of
Antioch (335) insert the καί.

270 So too ἀνακειμένους (BCLΔ. 42) for συνανακειμένους (St. Mark vi.
26): omit δὲ (אBC*LΔ. six curs.) in καὶ ἄλλα δὲ πλοῖα (iv. 36):
ἐγείρουσιν (אB*C*ΔΠ. few curs.) for διεγείρουσιν (iv. 38): ἔθηκεν
(אBC2DL. few curs.) for κατέθηκεν (xv. 46): μέγαλα (א*etc 6BD*L) for
μεγαλεῖα (St. Luke i. 49): ἀναπεσών (אcBC*KLXΠ* few curs.) for
ἐπιπεσών (St. John xiii. 25): &c., &c.

271 Owing to differences of idiom in other languages, it is not
represented here in so much as a single ancient Version.

272 “_Est enim_ τοῦ ΓΑΡ _officium inchoare narrationem_.” Hoogeveen, De
Partic. Cf. Prom. Vinct. v. 666. See also St. Luke ix. 44.

273 Dem. Ev. 320 b.

274 ii. 597: 278.

275 i. 1040 b.

276 viii. 314 a: (Eclog.) xii. 694 d.

_ 277 Ap._ Cyril, v2. 28 a.

278 v1. 676 e.

279 30 b (=Gall. xiii. 109 d).

280 So, in Garnier’s MSS. of Basil ii. 278 a, note. Also in Cyril _apud_
Mai ii. 378.

281 So Mill, _Prolegg._ 1346 and 1363.—Beza says roundly, “_Quod
plerique Graeci codices scriptum habent_ ἢ γὰρ ἐκεινος, _sane non
intelligo; nisi dicam γάρ redundare._”

282 ἠπερ ἐκεῖνος is exhibited by the printed text of Basil ii. 278 a.

283 ὑπὲρ αὐτόν is found in Basil ii. 160 b:—ὑπὲρ ἐκεῖνον, in Dorotheus
(A.D. 596) ap. Galland. xii. 403 d:—ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον, in
Chrysostom iv. 536 a; vi. 142 d—(where one of the Manuscripts
exhibits παρὰ τὸν Φαρισαῖον).—Nilus the Monk has the same reading
(ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον),—i. 280.

284 Accordingly, παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον is found in Origen i. 490 b. So also reads
the author of the scholium in Cramer’s Cat. ii. 133,—which is the
same which Matthaei (_in loc._) quotes out of Evan. 256. And so
Cyril (_ap._ Mai, ii. 180),—παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν Φαρισαῖον.—Euthymius
(A.D. 1116), commenting on the traditional text of Luke xviii. 14
(see Matthaei’s _Praefat._ i. 177), says ΓΑΡ ὅ ἐκεῖνος ἢγουν οὐκ
ἐκεῖνος.

285 The μᾶλλον is obviously added by way of interpretation, or to help
out the meaning. Thus, in Origen (iv. 124 d) we meet with μᾶλλον
αὐτοῦ:—in Chrysostom (i. 151 c), μᾶλλον ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον: and in
Basil Sel. (p. 184 c), μᾶλλον ἢ ὁ Φαρισαῖος.

286 It is found however in ps.-Chrysostom (viii. 119 c):—in Antiochus
Mon. (p. 1102 = ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 1579 c): and in Theophylact
(i. 433 c). At p. 435 b, the last-named writes ἢ ἐκεῖνος, ἀντὶ τοῦ
ΠΑΡ᾽ ὃ ἐκεῖνος.

287 Introduction, p. 135.

288 For all this section except the early part of “4” the Editor is
responsible.

289 See above, p. 61, note.

290 481 of the Gospels: from St. Saba, now at St. Petersburg.

291 The Evangelistaria 118, 192. Scrivener, Introduction, I. pp. 335,
340.

292 Scrivener, I. App. F, p. 398*. Of these, 205 and 209 are probably
from the same original. Burgon, Letters in _Guardian_ to Dr.
Scrivener.

293 I am not of course asserting that any known cursive MS. is an exact
counterpart of one of the oldest extant Uncials. Nor even that every
reading however extraordinary, contained in Codd. BאD, is also to be
met with in one of the few Cursives already specified. But what
then? Neither do any of the oldest Uncials contain all the textual
avouchings discoverable in the same Cursives.

The thing asserted is only this: that, as a rule, every principal
reading discoverable in any of the five or seven oldest Uncials, is
also exhibited in one or more of the Cursives already cited or in
others of them; and that generally when there is consent among the
oldest of the Uncials, there is also consent among about as many of
the same Cursives. So that it is no exaggeration to say that we find
ourselves always concerned with the joint testimony of the same
little handful of Uncial and Cursive documents: and therefore, as
was stated at the outset, if the oldest of the Uncials had never
existed, the readings which they advocate would have been advocated
by MSS. of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth
centuries.

_ 294 Manuscript Evangelia in foreign Libraries_, Letters in the
_Guardian_ from Dean Burgon to Dr. Scrivener, _Guardian_, Jan. 29,
1873. “You will not be dating it too early if you assign it to the
seventh century.”

295 The other uncials which have a tendency to consort with B and א are
of earlier date. Thus T (Codex Borgianus I) of St. Luke and St. John
is of the fourth or fifth century, R of St. Luke (Codex Nitriensis
in the British Museum) is of the end of the sixth, Z of St. Matthew
(Codex Dublinensis), a palimpsest, is of the sixth: Q and P,
fragments like the rest, are respectively of the fifth and sixth.

296 By the Editor.

297 Above, pp. 80-81.

298 Hort, Introduction, p. 135.

299 Chapters V, VI, VII.

300 Vercell.:—_Si scires tu, quamquam in hac tuâ die, quae ad pacem
tuam._ So Amiat. and Aur.:—_Si cognovisses et tu, et quidem in hâc
die tuâ, quae ad pacem tibi._

301 Mai, iv. 129.

302 Ibid., and H. E. iii. 7.

303 Montf. ii. 470.

304 Montf. i. 700.

305 iii. 321; _interp._ 977; iv. 180.

306 i. 220: also the _Vet. interp._, “Si cognovisses et tu.” And so _ap.
Epiph._ i. 254 b.

307 iii. 321, 977.

_ 308 Evan. Conc._ 184, 207.

309 In all 5 places.

_ 310 Mor._ ii. 272 b.

311 205.

_ 312 In Luc._ (Syr.) 686.

_ 313 Int._ iii. 977.

314 iv. 180.

_ 315 In Luc._ (Syr.) 607.

316 In their usual high-handed way, these editors _assume, without note
or comment_, that Bא are to be followed here. The “Revisers” of 1881
_do the same_. Is this to deal honestly with the evidence and with
the English reader?

317 Viz.—εἰ ἔγνως τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην σου, καί γε ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σου ταύτῃ.

318 Viz.—εἰ καὶ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ ἔγνως τὴν εἰρήνην σου.

319 It is omitted by Eus. iv. 129, Basil ii. 272, Cod. A, Evann. 71,
511, Evst. 222, 259. For the second σου still fewer authorities
exhibit σοι, while some few (as Irenaeus) omit it altogether.

320 “_Hanc diem tuam._ Si ergo dies ejus erat, quanto magis et tempus
ejus!” p. 184, and so 207.

321 “Having been wholly unsuccessful [in their fishing], two of them,
seated on the shore, were occupying their time in washing,—and two,
seated in their boat ... were mending—their nets.” (Farrar’s Life of
Christ, i. 241-2.) The footnote appended to this “attempt to combine
_as far as it is possible_ in one continuous narrative” the
“accounts of the Synoptists,” is quite a curiosity.

322 St. Luke v. 5.

323 Ibid., verses 1, 2.

324 St. Matt. iv. 18-St. Mark i. 16.

325 St. Luke v. 3.

326 As in St. Matt, xxvii. 2, 60; St. Luke v. 4; xiii. 16; St. John
xviii. 24; xxi. 15; Acts xii. 17; Heb. iv. 8, &c., &c.

_ 327 lavabant retia_, it. vulg. The one known exception is (1) the Cod.
Rehdigeranus [VII] (Tischendorf).

328 The same pair of authorities are _unique_ in substituting
βαπτίσαντες (for βαπτίζοντες) in St. Matt. xxviii. 19; i.e. the
Apostles were to baptize people first, and make them disciples
afterwards.

329 אC exhibit ἔπλυναν: A (by far the purest of the five “old uncials”)
retains the traditional text.

330 P. 938.

331 So does Aphraates, a contemporary of B and א, p. 392.

332 Gen. xxv. 8, 17; xxxv. 29; xlix. 33. Also Jer. xlii. 17, 22; Lament.
i. 20; Job xiii. 19; Ps. ciii. 30.

333 268, 661.

334 942, 953 (Lat Tr.).

335 162, 338 (Lat. Tr.), 666.

_ 336 ap._ Phot. 791.

337 i. 353.

338 iii. 120.

339 i. 861.

340 280.

341 i. 920; iii. 344; iv. 27; vi. 606.

342 vi. 520.

343 i. 859 b.

344 3. 772.

345 Mai, 2.

346 i. 517.

347 388.

348 In one place of the Syriac version of his Homilies on St. Luke (Luc.
110), the reading is plainly ἵνα ὅταν ἐκλίπητε: but when the Greek
of the same passage is exhibited by Mai (ii. 196, line 28-38) it is
observed to be destitute of the disputed clause. On the other hand,
at p. 512 of the Syriac, the reading is ἐκλίπῃ. But then the entire
quotation is absent from the Greek original (Mai, ii. 349, line 11
from bottom). In Mai, ii. 380, Cyril’s reading is certainly
ἐκλίπητε.

349 Eus.mare 330, -ps 251 (—πᾶσαν).

350 Cyrhr 270.

351 e, _inducet vobis veritatem omnem:_ m, _disseret vobis omnem
veritatem_.

_ 352 docebit vos omnem veritatem_ (ii. 301).

353 Cod. _am._ (which exhibits _docebit vos in omnem_, &c.) clearly
confuses two distinct types.

354 א om. πάσῃ.

355 Cyr. Alex. iv. 347; v. 369, 593.

356 D, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς ὁδηγήσει ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ.

357 So Cod. b, _deducet vos in veritate omni_. Cod. c, _docebit vos in
veritate omni_.

358 Did. 278, 446, 388 (προσ), 443 (—την).

359 Epiph. i. 898; ii. 78.

360 Bas. iii. 42 (προσ): and so Evan. 249. Codd. of Cyril Alex. (ἐπί).

361 Chrys. viii. 527: also 460, 461 (—την).

362 Theod.ant 541, _ap._ Wegn.

363 Cyr. Alex.txt iv. 923: v. 628.

364 Thdt. iii. 15 (ἐκεῖ. ος ὑμ. ὁδ.).

365 Tert. i. 762, 765, 884; ii. 11, 21. Hil. 805, 959. Jer. ii. 140.
141. There are many lesser variants:—“(diriget vos Tert. i. 884,
deducet vos Tert. ii. 21, Vercell. vos deducet; i. 762 vos ducet:
Hil. 805, vos diriget) in omnem veritatem.” Some few (as D, Tert. i.
762; ii. 21. Cod. a, Did. 388. Thdrt. iii. 15) prefix ἐκεῖνος.

366 Pet. Alex. _ap._ Routh, p. 9.

367 Did. 55.

368 Orig. i. 387, 388.

369 Cyr. Alex. iv. 925, 986.

370 εἰς τὴν ἁλήθ. πᾶσαν L., Tr., W.-H.: ἐν τῇ ἁληθ. πάσῃ T.

371 Introduction, p. 135. The rest of his judgement is unfounded in
fact. Constant and careful study combined with subtle appreciation
will not reveal “feebleness” or “impoverishment” either in “sense”
or “force.”

372 These are the Dean’s words to the end of the paragraph.

373 Revised Version, &c., pp. 205-218.

374 Introduction, i. 292-93.

375 Ephes. v. 30.

376 718 (Mass. 294), Gr. and Lat.

_ 377 In loc._ ed. Swete, Gr. and Lat.

378 i. 95, 267.

379 iii. 215 b, 216 a; viii. 272 c; xi. 147 a b c d.

_ 380 Ap._ Cramer, vi. 205, 208.

381 iii. 434.

382 (A.D. 560), 1004 a, 1007 a.

383 ii. 190 e.

384 Rufinus (iii. 61 c) translates,—“quia membra sumus corporis ejus,
_et reliqua_.” What else can this refer to but the very words in
dispute?

_ 385 Ap._ Galland. iii. 688 c:—ὅθεν ὁ Ἀπόστολος εὐθυβόλως εἰς Χριστὸν
ἀνηκόντισε τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἀδάμ; οὕτως γὰρ ἂν μάλιστα ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν αὐτοῦ
καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν συμφωνήσει γεγονέναι. And lower down
(e, and 689 a):—ὅπως αὐξηθῶσιν οἱ ἐν αὐτῷ οἰκοδομηθέντες ἅπαντες, οἱ
γεγεννημένοι διὰ τοῦ λουτροῦ, ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν καὶ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός,
τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς ἁγιωσύνης αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῆς δόξης προσειληφότες;
ὀστᾶ γὰρ καὶ σάρκα Σοφίας ὁ λέγων εἶναι σύνεσιν καὶ ἀρετήν, ὀρθότατα
λέγει. From this it is plain that Methodius read Ephes. v. 30 as we
do; although he had before quoted it (iii. 614 b) _without_ the
clause in dispute. Those who give their minds to these studies are
soon made aware that it is never safe to infer from the silence of a
Father that he disallowed the words he omits,—especially if those
words are in their nature parenthetical, or supplementary, or not
absolutely required for the sense. Let a short clause be beside his
immediate purpose, and a Father is as likely as not to omit it. This
subject has been discussed elsewhere: but it is apt to the matter
now in hand that I should point out that Augustine _twice_ (iv. 297
c, 1438 c) closes his quotation of the present place abruptly:
“Apostolo dicente, _Quoniam membra sumus corporis ejus_.” And yet,
elsewhere (iii. 794), he gives the words in full.

It is idle therefore to urge on the opposite side, as if there were
anything in it, the anonymous commentator on St. Luke in Cramer’s
Cat. p. 88.

386 i. 1310 b. Also Ambrosiaster, ii. 248 d.

_ 387 Ap._ Galland. vii. 262 e (A.D. 372).

388 Ibid. 314 c.

389 Mai, iii. 140.

390 vii. 659 b.

391 See above, end of note 2.

392 Concil. iv. 50 b.

393 Hort, Introduction, p. 40.

394 Ibid. p. 46.

395 Miller’s Scrivener, Introduction, I. p. 177.

396 Introduction, I. Appendix F, p. 398*.

397 Introduction, II. 337, note 1. And for Dean Burgon’s latest opinion
on the date of א see above, pp. 46, 52, 162. The present MS., which
I have been obliged to abridge in order to avoid repetition of much
that has been already said, was one of the Dean’s latest
productions. See Appendix VII.

398 Since Dean Burgon’s death, there has been reason to identify this
set of readings with the Syrio-Low-Latin Text, the first origin of
which I have traced to the earliest times before the Gospels were
written—by St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and of course St.
John.

399 So with St. Athanasius in his earlier days. See above, p. 119, note
2.

400 Miller’s Scrivener, Introduction, I. 138.

401 pp. 2, 155.

402 Hort, Introduction, p. 2.

403 Hort, Introduction, p. 7.

404 Quarterly Review, No. 363, July, 1895.

405 St. John xxi. 9-13.

406 In Studia Biblica et Eccles. II. vi. (G. H. Gwilliam), published two
years after the Dean’s death, will be found a full description of
this form of sections.

407 As far as we know at present about Tatian’s Diatessaron, he kept
these occurrences distinct.—ED.

408 “Origenes, quum in caeteris libris omnes vicerit, in Cantico
Canticorum ipse se vicit.”—Hieron. Opp. iii. 499; i. 525.

409 After quoting Luke xxiv. 41, 42 _in extenso_, he proceeds,—βλέπεις
πῶς πεπλήρωται τό; Ἔφαγον ἄρτον μου μετὰ μέλιτος μου (p. 210 b): and
καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀναστασιν ἕλεγεν, Ἔφαγον τὸν ἄρτον μετὰ μέλιτος μου.
ἔδωκαν γὰρ αὐτῷ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου (p. 341 a).

410 Ἄρτος γίνεται, οὐκέτι ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἐσθιόμενος ... ἀλλ᾽ ὄψον ἑαυτῷ τὸ
μέλι ποιούμενος. And, ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν προφανεὶς τοῖς μαθηταῖς
ἄρτος ἐστί, τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδυνόμενος,—i. 624 a b. See more
concerning this quotation below, p. 249 note.

411 Epiph. i. 143.

412 Ephr. Syr. ii. 48 e.

413 Or whoever else was the author of the first Homily of the
Resurrection, wrongly ascribed to Gregory Nyss. (iii. 382-99).
Hesychius was probably the author of the second Homily. (Last Twelve
Verses, &c., pp. 57-9.) Both are _compilations_ however, into which
precious passages of much older Fathers have been unscrupulously
interwoven,—to the infinite perplexity of every attentive reader.

_ 414 Apud_ Greg. Nyss. iii. 399 d.

415 Epiph. i. 652 d.

416 In Joanne legimus quod piscantibus Apostolis, in littore steterit,
et partem assi piscis, favumque comederit, quae verae resurrectionis
indicia sunt. In Jerusalem autem nihil horum fecisse
narratur.—Hieron. i. 825 a.

417 Not from Eusebius’ Qu. ad Marinum apparently. Compare however
Jerome, i. 824 d with Eusebius (_ap._ Mai), iv. 295 (cap. x).

418 See Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 51-6.

419 i. 444 b.

420 P. 172.

421 iv. 1108 c.

422 Athanas. i. 644: καὶ φαγὼν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν, ΛΑΒΩΝ ΤΑ ΕΠΙΛΟΙΠΑ ἀπέδωκεν
αὐτοῖς. This passage reappears in the fragmentary Commentary
published by Mai (ii. 582), divested only of the words καὶ ἀπὸ μελ.
κηρ.—The characteristic words (in capitals) do not appear in
Epiphanius (i. 143 c), who merely says καὶ ἔδωκε τοῖς
μαθηταῖς,—confusing the place in St. Luke with the place in St.
John.

423 Aug. iii. P. 2, 143 (A.D. 400); viii. 472 (A.D. 404).

424 To the 9 specified by Tisch.—(Evann. 13, 42, 88 (τα περισσευματα),
130 (το επαναλειφθεν), 161, 300, 346, 400, 507),—add Evan. 33, in
which the words καὶ τὰ ἐπίλοιπα ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς have been overlooked
by Tregelles.

425 Πρὸς τούτοις οὐδὲ τραγημάτων κηρίων ἀμοίρους περιορατέον τοὺς
δειπνοῦντας κατὰ Λόγον.—p. 174.

426 i. 384.

427 iii. 477.

_ 428 Apud_ Mai, iv. 294, 295 _bis_.

429 “Ibi τὸ κηρίον praeterire non poterat [_sc._ Origenes] si in
exemplis suis additamentum reperisset.” (From Tischendorf’s note on
Luke xxiv. 42.)

430 iv. 1108 b c.

431 Κατεδήδοκε γὰρ τὸ προκομισθὲν ἰχθύδιον, ἤτοι τὸ εξ αὐτοῦ
μέρος.—Ibid. d. Similarly in the fragments of Cyril’s Commentary on
St. Luke, he is observed to refer to the incident of the piece of
broiled fish exclusively. (Mai, ii. 442, 443, which reappears in P.
Smith, p. 730.)

432 iii. P. i. p. 51. For the honeycomb, see iii. P. ii. p. 143 a: viii.
472 d.

433 i. 215.

434 “_Favos_ post fella gustavit.”—De Coronâ, c. 14 (i. p. 455).

435 ii. 444 a.

436 i. 384; iii. 477.

437 Opp. iii. 932-85: with which comp. Galland. xiv. Append. 83-90 and
91-109.

438 Cat. (1628), p. 622. Cordier translates from “Venet. 494” (our
“Evan. 466”).

439 What follows is obtained (June 28, 1884) by favour of Sig. Veludo,
the learned librarian of St. Mark’s, from the Catena on St. Luke’s
Gospel at Venice (cod. 494 = our Evan. 466), which Cordier (in 1628)
translated into Latin. The Latin of this particular passage is to be
seen at p. 622 of his badly imagined and well-nigh useless work. The
first part of it (συνέφαγε ... ἐναπογράψονται) is occasionally found
as a scholium, e.g. in Cod. Marc. Venet. 27 (our Evan. 210), and is
already known to scholars from Matthaei’s N. T. (note on Luc. xxiv.
42). The rest of the passage (which now appears for the first time)
I exhibit for the reader’s convenience parallel with a passage of
Gregory of Nyssa’s Christian Homily on Canticles. If the author of
what is found in the second column is not quoting what is found in
the first, it is at least certain that both have resorted to, and
are here quoting from the same lost original:—

Συνέφαγεν δὲ καὶ τῷ ὀπτῷ ἰχθύῳ (sic) τὸ κηρίον τοῦ μέλιτος; δηλῶν ὡς
οἱ πυρωθέντες διὰ τῆς θείας ἐνανθρωπήσεως καὶ μετασχόντες αὐτοῦ τῆς
θεότητος, ὡς μέλι μετ᾽ ἐπιθυμίας τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ παραδέξονται;
κηρῷ ὤσπερ τοὺς νόμους ἐναπογράψαντες; ὅτι ὁ μὲν τοῦ πάσχα

[Transcriber’s Note: The following two paragraphs were side-by-side
columns in the original.]

ἄρτος ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἠσθίετο καὶ ὁ νόμος διεκελεύτο;
πρὸς γὰρ τὸ παρὸν ἡ πικρία;
ὁ δὲ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἄρτος τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδύνετο;
ὄψον γὰρ ἑαυτοῖς τὸ μέλι ποιησόμεθα, ὅταν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ κηρῷ ὁ καρπὸς
τῆς ἀρετῆς καταγλυκαίνει τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια.
ANON. _apud Corderium_ (fol. 58): see above.

... ἄρτος ... οὐκέτι ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἐσθιόμενος, ὡς ὁ νόμος
διακελεύεται;
πρὸς γὰρ τὸ παρόν ἐστιν ἡ πικρίς;
(... ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦ κυρίου προσφανεὶς τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἄρτος
ἐστί, τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδυνόμενος.)
ἀλλ᾽ ὄψον ἑαυτῷ τὸ μέλι ποιούμενος, ὅταν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ ὁ καρπὸς
τῆς ἀρετῆς καταγλυκαίνῃ τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια.
GREG. NYSS. in Cant. (Opp. i. a); the sentence in brackets being
transposed.

Quite evident is it that, besides Gregory of Nyssa, HESYCHIUS (or
whoever else was the author of the first Homily on the Resurrection)
had the same original before him when he wrote as follows:—ἀλλ᾽
ἐπειδὴ ὁ πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα σῖτος ὁ ἄζυμος, ὄψον τὴν πικρίδα ἔχει, ἴδωμεν
τίνι ἡδόσματι ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἄρτος ἡδύνεται. ὁρᾶς τοῦ Πέτρου
ἁλιεύοντος ἐν ταῖς χεροὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἄρτον καὶ κηρίον μέλιτος νόησον
τί σοι ἡ πικρία τοῦ βίου κατασκευάζεται. οὐκοῦν ἀναστάντες καὶ ἡμεῖς
ἐκ τῆς τῶν λόγων ἀλείας, ἤδη τῷ ἄρτῳ προσδράμωμεν, ὂν καταγλυκαίνει
τὸ κηρίον τῆς ἀγαθῆς ἐλπίδος. (_ap_. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 399 c d.)

440 So Matthaei: “Haec interpretatio sapit ingenium Origenis.” (N.T.
iii. 498.)

441 Καὶ ἔφαγε κηρίον καὶ ἰχθύν,—ii. 240. From the fragment De
Resurrectione preserved by John Damascene,—ii. 762a.

442 See above, note 1, p. 247.

443 See above, note 1, p. 248.

444 i. 644 (see above, p. 244, n. 7).

445 i. 624 (see above, p. 242, n. 3).

446 pp. 210, 431 (see above, p. 243).

447 i. 652 d (see above, p. 247).

448 i. 825 a; ii. 444 a.

449 See above, note 1, p. 245.

450 iv. 1108.

_ 451 Apud_ Galland. ix. 633.

452 Varim. i. 56.

_ 453 Apud_ Greg. Nyss. iii. 399.

454 See above, p. 248, note 6.

455 “The words could hardly have been an interpolation.” (Alford, _in
loc_).

456 Scrivener’s Introd. II. p. 358.

457 It is well known that Dean Burgon considered B, א, and D to be bad
manuscripts. When I wrote my Textual Guide, he was angry with me for
not following him in this. Before his death, the logic of facts
convinced me that he was right and I was wrong. We came together
upon independent investigation. I find that those MSS. in disputed
passages are almost always wrong—mainly, if not entirely, the
authors of our confusion. What worse could be said of them? And
nothing less will agree with the facts from our point of view.
Compromise on this point which might be amiable shrinks upon inquiry
before a vast array of facts.—E. M.

458 Compare Epiphanius (i. 143 c) _ut supra_ (Haer. xxx. c. 19) with
Irenaeus (iii. c. ii, § 9): “Hi vero qui sunt a Valentino ... in
tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum
est _Veritatis Evangelium_ titulent.”

459 See above, p. 243.

460 There is reason for thinking that the omission was an Alexandrian
reading. Egyptian asceticism would be alien to so sweet a food as
honeycomb. See above, p. 150. The Lewis Cod. omits the words. But it
may be remembered that it restricts St. John Baptist’s food to
locusts “and the honey of the mountain.”—E. M.

461 Ἐσμυρμισμένον οἶνον, Mark xv. 23.

462 Ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον, Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37).

463 Πλήσαντες σπόγγον ὄξους, καὶ ὑσσώπῳ περιθέντες, John xix. 29.

464 Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37).

465 Καὶ εἰθέως δραμὰν εἰς ἐξ αὐτῶν, Matt. xxvii. 48 (= Mark xv. 36).

466 Not so the author of the Syriac Canons. Like Eusebius, he identifies
(1) Matt. xxvii. 34 with Mark xv. 23; and (2) Matt. xxvii. 48 with
Mark xv. 36 and Luke xxiii. 36; but unlike Eusebius, he makes John
xix. 29 parallel with these last three.

467 The former,—pp. 286-7: the latter,—p. 197. The Cod. Fuld.
ingeniously—“Et dederunt ei vinum murratum bibere cum felle mixtum”
(Ranke, p. 154).

468 Evann. 1, 22, 33, 63, 69, 73, 114, 122, 209, 222, 253, 507, 513.

469 §7.

470 Pp. 526, 681 (Mass. 212, 277).

471 De Spect. written A.D. 198 (see Clinton, App. p. 413), c. xxx.-i. p.
62.

472 “ ‘Et dederunt ei bibero _acetum_ et fel.’ Pro eo quod dulci suo
vino eos laetificarat, _acetum_ ei porrexerunt; pro felle autem
magna ejus miseratio amaritudinem gentium dulcem fecit.” Evan. Conc.
p. 245.

473 Celsus τὸ ὄξος καὶ τὴν χολὴν ὀνειδίζει τῷ Ἰησοῦ,—writes Origen (i.
416 c d e), quoting the blasphemous language of his opponent and
refuting it, but accepting the reference to the Gospel record. This
he does twice, remarking on the second occasion (i. 703 b c) that
such as Celsus are for ever offering to JESUS “gall and _vinegar_.”
(These passages are unknown to many critics because they were
overlooked by Griesbach.)—Elsewhere Origen twice (iii. 920 d e, 921
b) recognizes the same incident, on the second occasion contrasting
the record in Matt. xxvii. 34 with that in Mark xv. 23 in a way
which shews that he accounted the places parallel:—“Et hoc
considera, quod secundum Matthaeum quidem Jesus accipiens _acetum
cum felle permixtum_ gustavit, et noluit bibere: secundum Marcum
autem, cum daretur et _myrrhatum vinum_, non accepit.”—iii. 921 b.

474 Lib. i. 374 and viii. 303 (assigned by Alexander to the age of
Antoninus Pius), _ap._ Galland. i. 346 a, 395 c. The line (εἰς δὲ τὸ
βρῶμα χολήν, καὶ εἰς δίψαν ὄξος ἔδωκαν) is also found in
Montfaucon’s Appendix (Palaeogr. 246). Sibyll. lib. i. 374, Gall. i.
346 a εἰς δὲ τὸ βρῶμα χολήν, καὶ εἰς πότον ὄξος ἄκρατον; ibid. viii.
303, 395 c ... πιεῖν ὄξος ἔδωκαν; quoted by Lactantius, lib. iv. c.
18, A.D. 320, Gall. iv. 300 a ... εἰς δίψαν ὄξος ἔδωκαν, which is
the way the line is quoted from the Sibyl in Montfaucon’s Appendix
(Pal. Graec. 246). Lactantius a little earlier (Gall. iv. 299 b) had
said,—“Dederunt ei cibum fellis, et miscuerunt ei aceti potionem.”

475 Referring to the miracle at Cana, where (viz. in p. 55) the
statement is repeated. Evan. Conc. p. 245. See above, note 5.

_ 476 Apud_ Montf. ii. 63; Corderii, Cat in Luc. p. 599.

477 The Tractatus [ii. 305 b] at the end of the Quaestt. ad Antiochum
(Ath. ii. 301-6), which is certainly of the date of Athanasius, and
which the editor pronounces to be not unworthy of him (Praefat. II.
viii-ix).

478 Opusc. ed. Augusti, p. 16.

479 Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 393.

480 Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 409.

481 Οὐ σπογγιὰ χολῇ τε καὶ ὄξει διάβροχος, οἵαν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τῷ εὐεργέτῃ
τὴν φιλοτησίαν ἐνδεικνύμενοι διὰ τοῦ καλάμου προτείνουσι.—i. 624 b
(where it should be noted that the contents of verses 34 and 48 (in
Matt. xxvii) are confused).

482 i. 481 a, 538 d, 675 b. More plainly in p. 612 e,—μιᾶς τῆς χολῆς,
ἑνὸς ὄξους, δι᾽ ὧν τὴν πικρὰν γεῦσιν ἐθεραπεύθημεν (= Cat. Nic. p.
788).

483 ii. 48 c, 284 a.

484 Lib. iv. c. 18. See above, last page, note 7.

485 vii. 236 c d, quoted next page.

486 “Refertur etiam quod aceto potatus sit, vel vino myrrhato, quod est
amarius felle.” Rufinus, in Symb. § 26.

487 vii. 819 a b (= Cat. Nic. p. 792). See also a remarkable passage
ascribed to Chrys. in the Catena of Nicetas, pp. 371-2.

488 “Jesus _de felle una cum aceto_ amaritudinis libavit.” (Hom.
translated by Aucher from the Armenian.—Venice. 1827, p. 435).

_ 489 Apud_ Mai, N. Bibl. PP. iii. 455.

_ 490 Apud_ Mai, ii. 66; iii. 42. Is this the same place which is quoted
in Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410?

_ 491 Apud_ Galland. v. 332.

492 Or Acta Pilati, pp. 262, 286.

493 P. 85.

494 P. 16.

495 Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410.

496 p. 87.

497 x. 829.

498 ii. 84, 178.

499 Cramer, Cat. i. 235.

500 i. 228, 549.

501 vii. 236 c d.

502 St. John i. 1-3, 14; xx. 31.

503 1 St. John ii. 18, 22, 23; iv. 1, 2, 3, 15; v. 10, 11, 12, 20; 2 St.
John ver. 7, 9, 10. So St. Jude ver. 4.

504 So Athanasius excellently:—ὁ θεὸς συναριθμήσας ἑαυτὸν μετὰ τῶν
ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὴν σάρκα αὐτοῦ τοῦτο εἶπε, καὶ πρὸς τὸν νοῦν τοῦ
προσελθόντος αὐτῷ; ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἄνθρωπον αὐτὸν ἐνόμιζε μόνον καὶ οὐ
θεόν, καὶ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν νοῦν ἡ ἀπόκρισις. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἄνθρωπον,
φησί νομίζεις με καὶ οὐ θεόν, μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀγαθός;
οὐ γὰρ διαφέρει [is not an attribute or adornment of] ἀνθρωπίνη
φύσει τὸ ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ θεῷ.—i. 875 a. So Macarius Magnes, p. 13.—See
also below, note 2, p. 262.

505 So, excellently Cyril Alex. V. 310 d, Suicer’s Thesaurus; see
Pearson on the Creed, on St. Matt. xix. 17.

506 So Marcion (_ap._ Epiph.),—εἶπέ τισ πρὸς αὐτόν; διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τί
ποιήσος ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; ὁ δέ, μή με λέγετε ἀγαθόν, εἶς
ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ [i. 339 a]. Note, that it was thus
Marcion exhibited St. Luke xviii. 18, 19. See Hippol. Phil. 254,—Τί
με λέγετε ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός.

507 So Arius (_ap._ Epiphanium),—εἶτα πάλιν φησὶ ὁ μανιώδης Ἀρείος, πῶς
εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς ὁ Θεός. ὡς
αὐτοῦ ἀργουμένον τὴν ἀγαθότητα [i. 742 b].—From this, Arius inferred
a separate essence:—καὶ ἀφώρισεν ἑαυτὸν ἐντεῦθεν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς
οὐσίας τε καὶ ὑποστάσεως. τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἐστι γελοιῶδες [i. 780 c].—Note,
that this shews how St. Luke’s Gospel was quoted by the Arians.

508 E.g. ps.-Tatian, Evan. Conc. 173, 174.—Ambrose, ii. 473 e-476
d.—Gregory Naz. i. 549.—Didymus, Trin. 50-3.—Basil, i. 291
c.—Epiphanius, i. 780-1.—Macarius Magnes, 12-14.—Theodoret, v.
930-2.—Augustine is very eloquent on the subject.

509 ii. 689. See the summary of contents at p. 281.

510 Thus, Valentinus (_ap._ Clem. Alex.),—εἶς δέ ἐστιν ἀγαθός, οὖ
παρουσία ἡ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ φανέρωσις ... ὁ μόνος ἀγαθὸς Πατήρ [Strom.
ii. 409].—Heracleon (_ap._ Orig.),—ὁ γὰρ πέμψας αὐτὸν Πατήρ, ...
οὗτος καὶ μόνος ἀγαθός, καὶ μείζων τοῦ πεμφθέντος [iv. 139
b].—Ptolemaeus to Flora (_ap._ Epiphanium),—καὶ εἰ ὁ τέλειος Θεὸς
ἀγαθός ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἔστιν; ἕνα γὰρ μόνον
εἴναι ἀγαθὸν Θεόν, τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Πατέρα, ὁ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν ἀπεφῄνατο, ὂν
αὐτὸς ἐφανέρωσεν [i. 221 c].—The Marcosian gloss was,—εἶς ἐστὶν
ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [_ap._ Irenaeum, p. 92].—The
Naassenes substituted,—εἶς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς, ὂς ἀνατελεῖ τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ. [_ap._ Hippolyt.
Philosoph. 102].—Marcion introduced the same gloss even into St.
Luke’s Gospel,—εἶς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ [_ap._ Epiphan. i.
339 d, and comp. 315 c].

511 Εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς ουρανοῖς—Tryph. c. 101 [vol.
ii. 344].

512 “_Unus tantum_” (ait) “_est bonus, Pater qui in coelis est_.”—Evan.
Conc. p. 173 and on p. 169,—“_Unus tantum_” (ait) “_est bonus_”: ast
post haec non tacuit, sed adjecit “_Pater_.”

513 Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν; ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς εἶς ἐστιν (_ap._ Galland. ii. 752
d). And so at p. 759 a and d, adding—ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
This reference will be found vindicated below: in note 8, p. 269.

514 For the places in Clemens Alex. see below, note 3, p. 263.—The
places in Origen are at least six:—Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς
ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός ὁ Πατήρ [i. 223 c, 279 a, 586 a; iv. 41 d:
and the last nine words, iv. 65 d, 147 a].—For the places in
ps.-Tatian, see below, note 2, p. 263.—The place in the _Dialogus_
is found _ap._ Orig. i. 804 b:—λέγοντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς
εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Πατήρ—words assigned to Megethius the heretic.

515 Didymus,—οὐκ εἶπεν μὲν οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Πατήρ; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδεὶς
ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός [p. 51].—And Ambrose,—“Circumspectione
coelesti non dixit, _Nemo bonus nisi unus Pater_, sed _Nemo bonus
nisi unus Deus_” [ii. 474 b].—And Chrysostom,—ἐπήγαγεν, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ
Θεός. καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατήρ μου, ἵνα μάθῃς ὅτι οὐκ ἐξεκάλυψεν
ἑαυτὸν τῷ νεανίσκῳ [vii. 628 b: quoted by Victor, Ant. in Cat. p.
220].—And Theodoret (wrongly ascribed to Maximus, ii. 392, 396),—Οὐκ
εἴρηται, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Πατήρ. ἀλλ᾽, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ
μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός [v. p. 931]. Epiphanius [see the references above, in
note 1, p. 261] expressly mentions that this unauthorized addition
(to Luke xviii. 18) was the work of the heretic Marcion.

516 “Dicendo autem ‘_Quid me vocas bonum_,’ opinionem eius qui
interrogaverat suo responso refutavit, _quia iste putabat Christum
de hâc terrâ et sicut unum ex magistris Israelitarum
esse_,”—ps.-Tatian, Evan. Conc. p. 174.—“Dives per adulationem
honoravit Filium ... _sicut homines sociis suis grata nomina dare
volunt_.” Ibid. p. 168.

517 Apol. i. c. 16 [i. 42],—quoted below in note 2, p. 265.

518 “Cui respondit, ‘_Non est aliquis bonus_,’ ut tu putasti, ‘_nisi
tantum unus Deus Pater_’ ... ‘_Nemo_’ (sit) ‘_bonus, nisi tantum
unus, Pater qui est in coelis_’ [Evan. Conc. p. 169]. ‘_Non est
bonus, nisi tantum unus_’ [Ibid.]. ‘_Non est bonus, nisi tantum unus
qui est in coelis_’ [p. 170]. ‘_Non est bonus nisi tantum unus_’ ”
[p. 173].

519 Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁπηνίκα διαρρήδην λέγει; Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ ὁ
Πατήρ μου, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [p. 141]. And overleaf,—ἀλλὰ καὶ
οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατὴρ αὐτοῦ [p. 142]. Tischendorf admits the
reference.

520 i. 315 b. The quotation is given below, in note 7, p. 269.

521 Praep. Evan. 542 b; Ps. 426 d; _ap._ Mai, iv. 101.

522 Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός (p. 12).

523 ii. 242 e and 279 e. (See also i. 291 e and iii. 361 a.)

524 vii. 628 b,—οὐ γὰρ εἶπε, τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐκ εἱμὶ ἀγαθός; ἀλλ᾽,
οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός ... εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ θεός. See also vii. 329.

525 i. 875 a. The quotation is proved to be from St. Matt. xix. (17-21)
by all that follows.

526 ii. 691 d; 694 b c. See below, note 10, p. 267.

527 Trin. 50, 51.

528 “_Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus_”:—iv. 383 c; v. 488 b; viii. 770 d, 772
b.

529 v. P. i. 310 d, and 346 a (= 672 b).

530 v. 931-3. Note that Ambrose, Didymus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, all
four hang together in this place, which is plain from the remark
that is common to all four, quoted above in note 1, last page. There
is nothing to shew from which Gospel Nilus (ii. 362) quotes the
words οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶ; ὁ Θεός.

531 p. 1028, unequivocally.

_ 532 Ap._ Chrys. vi. 137 d, 138 b.

533 Besides these positive testimonies, the passage is quoted frequently
as it is given in St. Mark and St. Luke, _but with no special
reference_. Surely some of these must refer to St. Matthew?

534 For other instances of this indiscreet zeal, see Vol. II.

535 BאDL. 1, 22, 479, Evst. 5.

536 Καὶ προσελθόντος αὐτῷ τινος καὶ εἰπόντος; Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ,
ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων; Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὰ
πάντα.—Apol. I. c. 16 [vol. i. p. 42]. And so in Tryph. c. 101 [vol.
ii. p. 344],—λέγοντος αὐτῷ τινος; Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ; κ.τ.λ.

537 “_Ad iudicem dives venit, donis dulcis linguae eum capturus._” (The
reference, therefore, is to St. Matthew’s Gospel: which is further
proved by the quotation lower down of the latter part of ver. 17:
also by the inquiry,—“_Quid adhuc mihi deest?_”) “Ille dives bonum
eum vocavit.”_ _“Dives Dominum ‘Magistrum bonum’ vocaverat sicut
unum ex bonis magistris.”—Evan. Conc. 168, 169.

_ 538 Ap._ Irenaeum,—p. 92. See below, note 2, p. 267.

_ 539 Ap._ Hippolytum, Philosoph. 102. See below, note 3, p. 267.

540 Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν (_ap._ Galland. ii. 759 d: comp. 752 b). For the
reference, and its indication, see below, note 8, p. 269.

541 Comment. in Matt. xv. (in loc).

542 i. 875 a,—clearly a quotation from memory of St. Matt. xix. 17, 18,
19, 20, 21.

543 Adv. Eunom. i. 291 e,—ἀγαθὲ διδάσκαλε, ἀκούσας. Again in ii. 242 c,
and 279 e, expressly. See also iii. 361 a.

544 Καθὼς ἀπεκρίνατο τῷ προσελθόντι καὶ εἰπόντι, Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τί
ποιήσω ἵνα ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχω;—Catech. 299.

545 iii. 296 d (certainly from St. Matthew).

546 Προσῄει θωπεύων τῇ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ προσηγορίᾳ τὸ Κύριον ... Διδάσκαλον
ἀγαθὸν ὀνομάζων.—Contr. Eunom. ii. 692 b. Also πρὸς τὸν νεάνισκον
ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸν προσαγορεύσαντα; Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; (_ap._ Mai, iv.
12).

547 Ὁ νεανίσκος ἐκεῖνος ... προσελθὰν διελέγετο φάσκων; Διδάσκαλε
ἀγαθέ,—p. 12.

548 vii. 628 b.

549 lib. iii. 503.

550 994 c.

_ 551 Ap._ Sabatier.

552 vii. 147-8.

553 iii.1 761 d; iii.2 82 d [ibi enim et _bonum_ nominavit]; iv. 1279 g;
v. 196 g.

_ 554 Ap._ Sabatier.

555 v. P. i. 346 a (= 672 b),—προσέρχεταί τις ἐν τοῖς εὐανγελίοις, καὶ
φησί ... Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ.

556 Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;—v. 931. See note 1, p. 262.

_ 557 Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut vitam aeternam
possideam?_—(_ap._ Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 138 b).

558 Λέγοντος αὐτῷ τινός, Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, ἀπεκρίνατο; Τί με λέγεις
ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [Tryph. c.
101, vol. ii. 344]. And see the place (Apol. i. 16) quoted above,
note 2, p. 265.

559 Marcosians (_ap._ Irenaeum),—Καὶ τῷ εἰπόντι αὐτῷ, Διδάσκαλέ ἀγαθέ,
τὸν ἀληθῶς ἀγαθὸν Θεὸν ὡμολογηκέναι εἰπόντα, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;
εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [p. 92]. No one who
studies the question will affect to doubt that this quotation and
the next are from St. Matthew’s Gospel.

560 The Naassenes (_ap._ Hippolytum),—Τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος λεγόμενον; Τί
με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθος, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς,
ὄς ἀνατελεῖ τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους, καὶ βρἐχει ἐπὶ
ὁσίους καὶ ἀμαρτωλούς [Philosoph. 102]. See the remark in the former
note 5, p. 265.

561 See below, note 8, p. 269.

562 “_Cur vocas me bonum_, quum in eo quod a me discere vis, iustus
sim?”—Evan. Conc. p. 168. And so in pp. 173, 174. See above, note 3,
p. 265.

563 This is in fact a double testimony, for the difficulty had been
raised by the heathen philosopher whom Macarius is refuting. Τί με
λέγεις ἀγαθόν;—pp. 12 and 13 (ed. 1876). See above, note 6, p. 263.

564 i. 875 a. See last page, note 9.

565 ii. 279 e.

_ 566 Quid me vocas bonum?_—703.

567 ii. 692 d. Also _ap._ Mai, iv. 7, 12 (πρὸς τὸν νεάνισκον).

568 vii 628 b. The place is quoted in note 1, p. 262.

569 v.1 346 a (προσέρχεταί τις ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις κ.τ.λ.) = p. 672 b.

570 v. 931,—which clearly is a reproduction of the place of Chrysostom
(vii. 628 b) referred to in the last note but one. Read the whole
page.

_ 571 Ap._ Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 138 b.

572 Καὶ ἰδού, εἶς προσελθὼν εἶπεν αὐτῷ; Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω, ἵνα
σχῶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον (but at the end of eight lines, Origen exhibits
(like the five authorities specified in note 8, next page) ἵνα ζωὴν
αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω?) ... Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ (but τοῦ six lines
lower down) ἀγαθοῦ? εἶς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός.—in Matt. iii. 664ab. And so
p. 665c. Cf. 666b.

573 See above, note 2, p. 261.

574 See above, note 2, p. 261.

575 See above, note 2, p. 261.

576 a e ff1 omit _bone_; b c f ff2 g1-2 h-q Vulg. insert it; a b c e
ff1. 2 g1 h l Vulg. write _de bono_, f q _bonum_; a b c ff1. 2 1
Vulg. write _unus_; f g1 h m q _nemo_.

577 See above, p. 149.

578 This wild performance is unique in its testimony (see below, p.
277). Cureton renders the text thus:—“Why askest thou me concerning
good? for One is good, GOD.” And Mrs. Lewis thus:—“Why askest thou
me concerning the good? for One is the good one.”

579 Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ Θεός.—i.
315b.

580 Αὐτὸς ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν τῷ εἰπόντι Φαρισαίῳ, Τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον
κληρονομήσω? πρῶτον ἔφη, Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν. ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς εἶς ἐστιν,
ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (_ap._ Galland. ii. 759 d e).—Note, the
reference is certainly to St. Matthew’s Gospel, as all that follows
proves: the inquiry in ver. 16 (by assimilation from Luke xviii. 18)
being similarly exhibited in א, L,—Irenaeus, Int. p. 241; Orig. iii.
664b; Cyril, Alex. v.1 310d; Basil, ii. 279e; and Chrysostom, iii.
182; vii. 627-8; viii. 234.

581 Eusebius—Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ
Θεός,—Praep. Evan. 542b.—The last seven words are also found in Ps.
(ed. Montf.) 426d; and _ap._ Mai, iv. 101.

582 Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσας, ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; ὁ δέ εἶπεν
αὐτῷ, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός.
(Note, that all but the last seven words exactly = א, L, and Basil,
ii. 279e.)—V.1 310d.—But elsewhere (also quoting St. Matthew) Cyril
exhibits—διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ ... τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ
μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός.—Ibid. p. 346a (= p. 672b).

583 Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός.—p.
1028.

_ 584 Magister, quid boni faciam, ut habeam vitam aeternam_. _Cui
Dominus, Quid me vocas bonum_ (703):—_Unus enim bonus est, ait_
Dominus (489). But elsewhere, _Magister bone, quid boni faciam_
(994c).

_ 585 Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut habeam vitam aeternam? Qui dicit
ei, Quid me interrogas de bono? Unus est bonus Deus?_ .—vii. 147-8.

586 For “_bone_,” see above, note 12, p. 266: for “_nemo_,” &c, see note
12, p. 263.

587 1 Sam. xiv. 20.

588 p. 299.

589 Epiphanius [i. 339d], and Hippolytus [Phil. 254], shew that Marcion
so read Luke xviii. 19.—Epiphanius [i. 742 b] quotes Arius. See the
words above, in notes 3, 4, p. 260.

590 Six Lectures on the Text (1875),—p. 130.

591 Plain Introduction (ed. 4), II. p. 329.

592 Matt. xix. 20 = Mark x. 20 = Luke xviii. 21.

593 iii. 669 cd.

594 Πρόσχες οὖν εἰ δυνάμεθα πρὸς τὴν προκειμένην ζήτησιν ... οὕτως
ἀπαντῆσαι, ὅτι μήποτε τό; ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλουσίον σου ὡς ἑαυτόν.
ὑπονοεῖσθαι δυναται, ὡς οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐνταῦθα παρειλῆφθαι,
ἀλλ᾽ ὑπό τινος τὴν ἀκρίβειαν μὴ νοήσαντος τῶν λεγομένων,
προστεθεῖσθαι.—iii. 670 a b.

595 Καὶ εὶ μὲν μὴ καὶ περὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφωνία ἦν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν
ἀντιγράφων ὤστε πάντα τὰ κατὰ Ματθαîον μὴ συνᾴδειν ἀλλήλοις, ὁμοίως
δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ εὐαγγέλια, κ.τ.λ.—iii. 671 b.

596 Νυνὶ δέ δηλονότι πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ
ῥᾳθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς τῆς
διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομὲνων, εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν
τῇ διορθώσει προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων.—iii. 671 c.

597 See above, pp. 152-4.

598 W.-Hort, p. 287.

599 So Cureton renders St. Luke xviii. 19.