FOOTNOTES:

[145] [I have retained this passage notwithstanding the objections made in some quarters against similar passages in the companion volume, because I think them neither valid, nor creditable to high intelligence, or to due reverence.]

[146] [The Textual student will remember that besides the Lectionaries of the Gospels mentioned here, of which about 1000 are known, there are some 300 more of the Acts and Epistles, called by the name Apostolos.]

[147] ['It seems also a singular note of antiquity that the Sabbath and the Sunday succeeding it do as it were cohere, and bear one appellation; so that the week takes its name—not from the Sunday with which it commences, but—from the Saturday-and-Sunday with which it concludes.' Twelve Verses, p. 194, where more particulars are given.]

[148] [For the contents of these Tables, see Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 4th edition, vol. i. pp. 80-89.]

[149] See Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 4th edition, vol. i. pp. 56-65.

[150] Twelve Verses, p. 220. The MS. stops in the middle of a sentence.

[151] St. Luke xxii. 43, 44.

[152] In the absence of materials supplied by the Dean upon what was his own special subject, I have thought best to extract the above sentences from the Twelve Last Verses, p. 207. The next illustration is his own, though in my words.

[153] i. 311.

[154] [Greek: eipen ho Kyrios tois heautou mathetais; me tarassestho.]

[155] [Greek: kai eipen tois mathetais autou]. The same Codex (D) also prefixes to St. Luke xvi. 19 the Ecclesiastical formula—[Greek: eipen de kai eteran parabolen].

[156] 'Et ait discipulis suis, non turbetur.'

[157] E.g. the words [Greek: kai legei autois; eirene hymin] have been omitted by Tisch, and rejected by W.-Hort from St. Luke xxiv. 36 on the sole authority of D and five copies of the Old Latin. Again, on the same sorry evidence, the words [Greek: proskynesantes auton] have been omitted or rejected by the same critics from St. Luke xxiv. 52. In both instances the expressions are also branded with doubt in the R. V.

[158] Pp. 78-80.

[159] See Traditional Text, Appendix VII.

[160] Bp. C. Wordsworth. But Alford, Westcott and Hort, doubt it.

[161] Thus Codex [Symbol: Xi] actually interpolates at this place the words—[Greek: ouketi ekeinois elegeto, alla tois mathetais.] Tisch. ad loc.

[162] Cyril Alex, (four times) and the Verona Codex (b), besides L and a few other copies, even append the same familiar words to [Greek: kai pasan malakian] in St. Matt. x. 1.

[163] Investigate Possinus, 345, 346, 348.

[164] It is surprising to find so great an expert as Griesbach in the last year of his life so entirely misunderstanding this subject. See his Comment. Crit. Part ii. p. 190. 'Nec ulla ... debuerint.'

[165] [Greek: tous sozomenous kathemeran en te ekklesia. epi to auto de (TE S' TES DIAKINESIMOU) Petros kai Ioannes, k.t.l.] Addit. 16,184, fol. 152 b.

[166] Bede, Retr. 111. D (add. [Greek: hoi en t. ekkl.]). Brit. Mus. Addit. 16, 184. fol. 152 b. Vulgate.

[167] So the place stands in Evan. 64. The liturgical notes are printed in a smaller type, for distinction.

[168] The Revision Revised, 34-6.

[169] See The Traditional Text, p. 104.

[170] [Greek: alla kai hemas epi tes Eucharistias legontas, 'eis tous aionas ton aionon,' k.t.l.] Contra Haer. lib. i. c. 3.

[171] But the words of Gregory of Nyssa are doubtful. See Scrivener, Introduction, ii. p. 325, note 1.

[172] See my Textual Guide, Appendix V. pp. 131-3 (G. Bell & Sons). I have increased the Dean's list with a few additional authorities.



CHAPTER VII.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

I. Harmonistic Influence.

[It must not be imagined that all the causes of the depravation of the text of Holy Scripture were instinctive, and that mistakes arose solely because scribes were overcome by personal infirmity, or were unconsciously the victims of surrounding circumstances. There was often more design and method in their error. They, or those who directed them, wished sometimes to correct and improve the copy or copies before them. And indeed occasionally they desired to make the Holy Scriptures witness to their own peculiar belief. Or they had their ideas of taste, and did not scruple to alter passages to suit what they fancied was their enlightened judgement.

Thus we can trace a tendency to bring the Four Records into one harmonious narrative, or at least to excise or vary statements in one Gospel which appeared to conflict with parallel statements in another. Or else, some Evangelical Diatessaron, or Harmony, or combined narrative now forgotten, exercised an influence over them, and whether consciously or not,—since it is difficult always to keep designed and unintentional mistakes apart, and we must not be supposed to aim at scientific exactness in the arrangement adopted in this analysis,—induced them to adopt alterations of the pure Text.

We now advance to some instances which will severally and conjointly explain themselves.]

Sec. 1.

Nothing can be more exquisitely precise than St. John's way of describing an incident to which St. Mark (xvi. 9) only refers; viz. our Lord's appearance to Mary Magdalene,—the first of His appearances after His Resurrection. The reason is discoverable for every word the Evangelist uses:—its form and collocation. Both St. Luke (xxiv. 3) and previously St. Mark (xvi. 5) expressly stated that the women who visited the Sepulchre on the first Easter morning, 'after they had entered in' ([Greek: eiselthousai]), saw the Angels. St John explains that at that time Mary was not with them. She had separated herself from their company;—had gone in quest of Simon Peter and 'the other disciple.' When the women, their visit ended, had in turn departed from the Sepulchre, she was left in the garden alone. 'Mary was standing [with her face] towards the sepulchre weeping,—outside[173].'

All this, singular to relate, was completely misunderstood by the critics of the two first centuries. Not only did they identify the incident recorded in St. John xx. 11, 12 with St. Mark xv. 5 and St. Luke xxiv. 3, 4, from which, as we have seen, the first-named Evangelist is careful to distinguish it;—not only did they further identify both places with St. Matt, xxviii. 2, 3[174], from which they are clearly separate;—but they considered themselves at liberty to tamper with the inspired text in order to bring it into harmony with their own convictions. Some of them accordingly altered [Greek: pros to mnemeion] into [Greek: pros to mnemeio] (which is just as ambiguous in Greek as 'at the sepulchre' in English[175]), and [Greek: exo] they boldly erased. It is thus that Codex A exhibits the text. But in fact this depravation must have begun at a very remote period and prevailed to an extraordinary extent: for it disfigures the best copies of the Old Latin, (the Syriac being doubtful): a memorable circumstance truly, and in a high degree suggestive. Codex B, to be sure, reads [Greek: heistekei pros to mnemeio, exo klaiousa],—merely transposing (with many other authorities) the last two words. But then Codex B substitutes [Greek: elthousai] for [Greek: eiselthousai] in St. Mark xvi. 5, in order that the second Evangelist may not seem to contradict St. Matt, xxviii. 2, 3. So that, according to this view of the matter, the Angelic appearance was outside the sepulchre[176]. Codex [Symbol: Aleph], on the contrary, is thorough. Not content with omitting [Greek: exo],—(as in the next verse it leaves out [Greek: duo], in order to prevent St. John xx. 12 from seeming to contradict St. Matt. xxviii. 2, 3, and St. Mark xvi. 5),—it stands alone in reading [Greek: EN to mnemeio]. (C and D are lost here.) When will men learn that these 'old uncials' are ignes fatui,—not beacon lights; and admit that the texts which they exhibit are not only inconsistent but corrupt?

There is no reason for distrusting the received reading of the present place in any particular. True, that most of the uncials and many of the cursives read [Greek: pros to mnemeio]: but so did neither Chrysostom[177] nor Cyril[178] read the place. And if the Evangelist himself had so written, is it credible that a majority of the copies would have forsaken the easier and more obvious, in order to exhibit the less usual and even slightly difficult expression? Many, by writing [Greek: pros to mnemeio], betray themselves; for they retain a sure token that the accusative ought to end the sentence. I am not concerned however just now to discuss these matters of detail. I am only bent on illustrating how fatal to the purity of the Text of the Gospels has been the desire of critics, who did not understand those divine compositions, to bring them into enforced agreement with one another. The sectional system of Eusebius, I suspect, is not so much the cause as the consequence of the ancient and inveterate misapprehensions which prevailed in respect of the history of the Resurrection. It is time however to proceed.

Sec. 2.

Those writers who overlook the corruptions which the text has actually experienced through a mistaken solicitude on the part of ancient critics to reconcile what seemed to them the conflicting statements of different Evangelists, are frequently observed to attribute to this kind of officiousness expressions which are unquestionably portions of the genuine text. Thus, there is a general consensus amongst critics of the destructive school to omit the words [Greek: kai tines syn autais] from St. Luke xxiv. 1. Their only plea is the testimony of [Symbol: Aleph]BCL and certain of the Latin copies,—a conjunction of authorities which, when they stand alone, we have already observed to bear invariably false witness. Indeed, before we proceed to examine the evidence, we discover that those four words of St. Luke are even required in this place. For St. Matthew (xxvii. 61), and St. Mark after him (xv. 47), had distinctly specified two women as witnesses of how and where our Lord's body was laid. Now they were the same women apparently who prepared the spices and ointment and hastened therewith at break of day to the sepulchre. Had we therefore only St. Matthew's Gospel we should have assumed that 'the ointment-bearers,' for so the ancients called them, were but two (St. Matt. xxviii. 1). That they were at least three, even St. Mark shews by adding to their number Salome (xvi. 1). But in fact their company consisted of more than four; as St. Luke explains when he states that it was the same little band of holy women who had accompanied our Saviour out of Galilee (xxiii. 55, cf. viii. 2). In anticipation therefore of what he will have to relate in ver. 10, he says in ver. 1, 'and certain with them.'

But how, I shall be asked, would you explain the omission of these words which to yourself seem necessary? And after insisting that one is never bound to explain how the text of any particular passage came to be corrupted, I answer, that these words were originally ejected from the text in order to bring St. Luke's statement into harmony with that of the first Evangelist, who mentions none but Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses. The proof is that four of the same Latin copies which are for the omission of [Greek: kai tines syn autais] are observed to begin St. Luke xxiii. 55 as follows,—[Greek: katakolouthesasai de DUO gynaikes]. The same fabricated reading is found in D. It exists also in the Codex which Eusebius employed when he wrote his Demonstratio Evangelica. Instead therefore of wearying the reader with the evidence, which is simply overwhelming, for letting the text alone, I shall content myself with inviting him to notice that the tables have been unexpectedly turned on our opponents. There is indeed found to have been a corruption of the text hereabouts, and of the words just now under discussion; but it belongs to an exceedingly remote age; and happily the record of it survives at this day only in [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL and certain of the Old Latin copies. Calamitous however it is, that what the Church has long since deliberately refused to part with should, at the end of so many centuries, by Lachmann and Tregelles and Tischendorf, by Alford and Westcott and Hort, be resolutely thrust out of place; and indeed excluded from the Sacred Text by a majority of the Revisers.

[A very interesting instance of such Harmonistic Influence may be found in the substitution of 'wine' ([Greek: oinon]) for vinegar ([Greek: oxos]), respecting which the details are given in the second Appendix to the Traditional Text.]

[Observe yet another instance of harmonizing propensities in the Ancient Church.]

In St. Luke's Gospel iv. 1-13, no less than six copies of the Old Latin versions (b c f g^{1} l q) besides Ambrose (Com. St. Luke, 1340), are observed to transpose the second and third temptations; introducing verses 9-12 between verses 4 and 5; in order to make the history of the Temptation as given by St. Luke correspond with the account given by St. Matthew.

The scribe of the Vercelli Codex (a) was about to do the same thing; but he checked himself when he had got as far as 'the pinnacle of the temple,'—which he seems to have thought as good a scene for the third temptation as 'a high mountain,' and so left it.

Sec. 3.

A favourite, and certainly a plausible, method of accounting for the presence of unauthorized matter in MSS. is to suggest that, in the first instance, it probably existed only in the shape of a marginal gloss, which through the inadvertence of the scribes, in process of time, found its way into the sacred text. That in this way some depravations of Scripture may possibly have arisen, would hardly I presume be doubted. But I suspect that the hypothesis is generally a wholly mistaken one; having been imported into this subject-matter (like many other notions which are quite out of place here), from the region of the Classics,—where (as we know) the phenomenon is even common. Especially is this hypothesis resorted to (I believe) in order to explain those instances of assimilation which are so frequently to be met with in Codd. B and [Symbol: Aleph].

Another favourite way of accounting for instances of assimilation, is by taking for granted that the scribe was thinking of the parallel or the cognate place. And certainly (as before) there is no denying that just as the familiar language of a parallel place in another Gospel presents itself unbidden to the memory of a reader, so may it have struck a copyist also with sufficient vividness to persuade him to write, not the words which he saw before him, but the words which he remembered. All this is certainly possible.

But I strongly incline to the suspicion that this is not by any means the right way to explain the phenomena under discussion. I am of opinion that such depravations of the text were in the first instance intentional. I do not mean that they were introduced with any sinister motive. My meaning is that [there was a desire to remove obscurities, or to reconcile incongruous passages, or generally to improve the style of the authors, and thus to add to the merits of the sacred writings, instead of detracting from them. Such a mode of dealing with the holy deposit evinced no doubt a failure in the part of those who adopted it to understand the nature of the trust committed to the Church, just as similar action at the present day does in the case of such as load the New Testament with 'various readings,' and illustrate it as they imagine with what are really insinuations of doubt, in the way that they prepare an edition of the classics for the purpose of enlarging and sharpening the minds of youthful students. There was intention, and the intention was good: but it was none the less productive of corruption.]

I suspect that if we ever obtain access to a specimen of those connected Gospel narratives called Diatessarons, which are known to have existed anciently in the Church, we shall be furnished with a clue to a problem which at present is shrouded in obscurity,—and concerning the solution of which, with such instruments of criticism as we at present possess, we can do little else but conjecture. I allude to those many occasions on which the oldest documents extant, in narrating some incident which really presents no special difficulty, are observed to diverge into hopeless variety of expression. An example of the thing referred to will best explain my meaning. Take then the incident of our Lord's paying tribute,—set down in St. Matt. xvii. 25, 26.

The received text exhibits,—'And when he [Peter] had entered ([Greek: hote eiselthen]) into the house, Jesus was beforehand with him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom do earthly kings take toll or tribute? of their sons or of strangers?' Here, for [Greek: hote eiselthen], Codex B (but no other uncial) substitutes [Greek: elthonta]: Codex [Symbol: Aleph] (but no other) [Greek: eiselthonta]: Codex D (but no other) [Greek: eiselthonti]: Codex C (but no other) [Greek: hote elthon]: while a fifth lost copy certainly contained [Greek: eiselthonton]; and a sixth, [Greek: elthonton auton]. A very fair specimen this, be it remarked in passing, of the concordia discors which prevails in the most ancient uncial copies[179]. How is all this discrepancy to be accounted for?

The Evangelist proceeds,—'Peter saith unto Him ([Greek: Legei auto ho Petros]), Of strangers.' These four words C retains, but continues—'Now when he had said, Of strangers' ([Greek: Eipontos de autou, apo ton allotrion]);—which unauthorized clause, all but the word [Greek: autou], is found also in [Symbol: Aleph], but in no other uncial. On the other hand, for [Greek: Legei auto ho Petros], [Symbol: Aleph] (alone of uncials) substitutes [Greek: Ho de ephe]: and B (also alone of uncials) substitutes [Greek: Eipontos de],—and then proceeds exactly like the received text: while D merely omits [Greek: ho Petros]. Again I ask,—How is all this discrepancy to be explained[180]?

As already hinted, I suspect that it was occasioned in the first instance by the prevalence of harmonized Gospel narratives. In no more loyal way can I account for the perplexing phenomenon already described, which is of perpetual recurrence in such documents as Codexes B[Symbol: Aleph]D, Cureton's Syriac, and copies of the Old Latin version. It is well known that at a very remote period some eminent persons occupied themselves in constructing such exhibitions of the Evangelical history: and further, that these productions enjoyed great favour, and were in general use. As for their contents,—the notion we form to ourselves of a Diatessaron, is that it aspired to be a weaving of the fourfold Gospel into one continuous narrative: and we suspect that in accomplishing this object, the writer was by no means scrupulous about retaining the precise words of the inspired original. He held himself at liberty, on the contrary, (a) to omit what seemed to himself superfluous clauses: (b) to introduce new incidents: (c) to supply picturesque details: (d) to give a new turn to the expression: (e) to vary the construction at pleasure: (f) even slightly to paraphrase. Compiled after some such fashion as I have been describing, at a time too when the preciousness of the inspired documents seems to have been but imperfectly apprehended,—the works I speak of, recommended by their graphic interest, and sanctioned by a mighty name, must have imposed upon ordinary readers. Incautious owners of Codexes must have transferred without scruple certain unauthorized readings to the margins of their own copies. A calamitous partiality for the fabricated document may have prevailed with some for whom copies were executed. Above all, it is to be inferred that licentious and rash Editors of Scripture,—among whom Origen may be regarded as a prime offender,—must have deliberately introduced into their recensions many an unauthorized gloss, and so given it an extended circulation.

Not that we would imply that permanent mischief has resulted to the Deposit from the vagaries of individuals in the earliest age. The Divine Author of Scripture hath abundantly provided for the safety of His Word written. In the multitude of copies,—in Lectionaries,—in Versions,—in citations by the Fathers, a sufficient safeguard against error hath been erected. But then, of these multitudinous sources of protection we must not be slow to avail ourselves impartially. The prejudice which would erect Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph] into an authority for the text of the New Testament from which there shall be no appeal:—the superstitious reverence which has grown up for one little cluster of authorities, to the disparagement of all other evidence wheresoever found; this, which is for ever landing critics in results which are simply irrational and untenable, must be unconditionally abandoned, if any real progress is to be made in this department of inquiry. But when this has been done, men will begin to open their eyes to the fact that the little handful of documents recently so much in favour, are, on the contrary, the only surviving witnesses to corruptions of the Text which the Church in her corporate capacity has long since deliberately rejected. But to proceed.

[From the Diatessaron of Tatian and similar attempts to harmonize the Gospels, corruption of a serious nature has ensued in some well-known places, such as the transference of the piercing of the Lord's side from St. John xix. 34 to St. Matt. xxvii. 49[181], and the omission of the words 'and of an honeycomb' ([Greek: kai apo tou melissiou keriou][182]).]

Hence also, in Cureton's Syriac[183], the patch-work supplement to St. Matt. xxi. 9: viz.:—[Greek: polloi de] (St. Mark xi. 8) [Greek: exelthon eis hypantesin autou. kai] (St. John xii. 13) [Greek: erxanto ... chairontes ainein ton Theon ... peri pason hon eidon] (St. Luke xix. 37). This self-evident fabrication, 'if it be not a part of the original Aramaic of St. Matthew,' remarks Dr. Cureton, 'would appear to have been supplied from the parallel passages of Luke and John conjointly.' How is it that even a sense of humour did not preserve that eminent scholar from hazarding the conjecture, that such a self-evident deflection of his corrupt Syriac Codex from the course all but universally pursued is a recovery of one more genuine utterance of the Holy Ghost?

FOOTNOTES:

[173] [Greek: Maria de heistekei pros to mnemeion klaiousa exo] (St. John xx. 11). Comp. the expression [Greek: pros to phos] in St. Luke xxii. 56. Note, that the above is not offered as a revised translation; but only to shew unlearned readers what the words of the original exactly mean.

[174] Note, that in the sectional system of Eusebius according to the Greek, the following places are brought together:—

(St. Matt. xxviii) (St. Mark xvi) (St. Luke xxiv) (St. John xx) 1-4. 2-5. 1-4. 1, 11, 12. According to the Syriac:— 3, 4. 5. 3, 4, 5(1/2). 11, 12.

[175] Consider [Greek: ho de Petros heistekei pros te thyra exo] (St. John xviii. 16). Has not this place, by the way, exerted an assimilating influence over St. John xx. 11?

[176] Hesychius, qu. 51 (apud Cotelerii Eccl. Gr. Mon. iii. 43), explains St. Mark's phrase [Greek: en tois dexiois] as follows:—[Greek: delonoti tou exoterou spelaiou].

[177] viii. 513.

[178] iv. 1079.

[179] Traditional Text, pp. 81-8.

[180] I am tempted to inquire,—By virtue of what verifying faculty do Lachmann and Tregelles on the former occasion adopt the reading of [Symbol: Aleph]; Tischendorf, Alford, W. and Hort, the reading of B? On the second occasion, I venture to ask,—What enabled the Revisers, with Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, to recognize in a reading, which is the peculiar property of B, the genuine language of the Holy Ghost? Is not a superstitious reverence for B and [Symbol: Aleph] betraying for ever people into error?

[181] Revision Revised, p. 33.

[182] Traditional Text, Appendix I, pp. 244-252.

[183] The Lewis MS. is defective here.



CHAPTER VIII.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

II. Assimilation.

Sec. 1.

There results inevitably from the fourfold structure of the Gospel,—from the very fact that the story of Redemption is set forth in four narratives, three of which often ran parallel,—this practical inconvenience: namely, that sometimes the expressions of one Evangelist get improperly transferred to another. This is a large and important subject which calls for great attention, and requires to be separately handled. The phenomena alluded to, which are similar to some of those which have been treated in the last chapter, may be comprised under the special head of Assimilation.

It will I think promote clearness in the ensuing discussion if we determine to consider separately those instances of Assimilation which may rather be regarded as deliberate attempts to reconcile one Gospel with another: indications of a fixed determination to establish harmony between place and place. I am saying that between ordinary cases of Assimilation such as occur in every page, and extraordinary instances where per fas et nefas an enforced Harmony has been established,— which abound indeed, but are by no means common,—I am disposed to draw a line.

This whole province is beset with difficulties: and the matter is in itself wondrously obscure. I do not suppose, in the absence of any evidence direct or indirect on the subject,—at all events I am not aware—that at any time has there been one definite authoritative attempt made by the Universal Church in her corporate capacity to remodel or revise the Text of the Gospels. An attentive study of the phenomena leads me, on the contrary, to believe that the several corruptions of the text were effected at different times, and took their beginning in widely different ways. I suspect that Accident was the parent of many; and well meant critical assiduity of more. Zeal for the Truth is accountable for not a few depravations: and the Church's Liturgical and Lectionary practice must insensibly have produced others. Systematic villainy I am persuaded has had no part or lot in the matter. The decrees of such an one as Origen, if there ever was another like him, will account for a strange number of aberrations from the Truth: and if the Diatessaron of Tatian could be recovered[184], I suspect that we should behold there the germs at least of as many more. But, I repeat my conviction that, however they may have originated, the causes [are not to be found in bad principle, but either in infirmities or influences which actuated scribes unconsciously, or in a want of understanding as to what is the Church's duty in the transmission from generation to generation of the sacred deposit committed to her enlightened care.]

Sec. 2.

1. When we speak of Assimilation, we do not mean that a writer while engaged in transcribing one Gospel was so completely beguiled and overmastered by his recollections of the parallel place in another Gospel,—that, forsaking the expressions proper to the passage before him, he unconsciously adopted the language which properly belongs to a different Evangelist. That to a very limited extent this may have occasionally taken place, I am not concerned to deny: but it would argue incredible inattention to what he was professing to copy, on the one hand,—astonishing familiarity with what he was not professing to copy, on the other,—that a scribe should have been capable of offending largely in this way. But in fact a moderate acquaintance with the subject is enough to convince any thoughtful person that the corruptions in MSS. which have resulted from accidental Assimilation must needs be inconsiderable in bulk, as well as few in number. At all events, the phenomenon referred to, when we speak of 'Assimilation,' is not to be so accounted for: it must needs be explained in some entirely different way. Let me make my meaning plain:

(a) We shall probably be agreed that when the scribe of Cod. [Symbol: Aleph], in place of [Greek: basanisai hemas] (in St. Matt. viii. 29), writes [Greek: hemas apolesai],—it may have been his memory which misled him. He may have been merely thinking of St. Mark i. 24, or of St. Luke iv. 34.

(b) Again, when in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]B we find [Greek: tassomenos] thrust without warrant into St. Matt. viii. 9, we see that the word has lost its way from St. Luke vii. 8; and we are prone to suspect that only by accident has it crept into the parallel narrative of the earlier Evangelist.

(c) In the same way I make no doubt that [Greek: potamo] (St. Matt. iii. 6) is indebted for its place in [Symbol: Aleph]BC, &c., to the influence of the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel (i. 5); and I am only astonished that critics should have been beguiled into adopting so clear a corruption of the text as part of the genuine Gospel.

(d) To be brief:—the insertion by [Symbol: Aleph] of [Greek: adelphe] (in St. Matt. vii. 4) is confessedly the result of the parallel passage in St. Luke vi. 42. The same scribe may be thought to have written [Greek: to anemo] instead of [Greek: tois anemois] in St. Matt. viii. 26, only because he was so familiar with [Greek: to anemo] in St. Luke viii. 24 and in St. Mark iv. 39.—The author of the prototype of [Symbol: Aleph]BD (with whom by the way are some of the Latin versions) may have written [Greek: echete] in St. Matt, xvi. 8, only because he was thinking of the parallel place in St. Mark viii. 17.—[Greek: Erxanto aganaktein] (St. Matt. xx. 24) can only have been introduced into [Symbol: Aleph] from the parallel place in St. Mark x. 41, and may have been supplied memoriter.—St. Luke xix. 21 is clearly not parallel to St. Matt. xxv. 24; yet it evidently furnished the scribe of [Symbol: Aleph] with the epithet [Greek: austeros] in place of [Greek: skleros].—The substitution by [Symbol: Aleph] of [Greek: hon paretounto] in St. Matt. xxvii. 15 for [Greek: hon ethelon] may seem to be the result of inconvenient familiarity with the parallel place in St. Mark xv. 6; where, as has been shewn[185], instead of [Greek: honper eitounto], Symbol: [Aleph]AB viciously exhibit [Greek: hon paretounto], which Tischendorf besides Westcott and Hort mistake for the genuine Gospel. Who will hesitate to admit that, when [Symbol: Aleph]L exhibit in St. Matt. xix. 16,—instead of the words [Greek: poieso hina echo zoen aionion],—the formula which is found in the parallel place of St. Luke xviii. 18, viz. [Greek: poiesas zoen aionion kleronomeso],—those unauthorized words must have been derived from this latter place? Every ordinary reader will be further prone to assume that the scribe who first inserted them into St. Matthew's Gospel did so because, for whatever reason, he was more familiar with the latter formula than with the former.

(e) But I should have been willing to go further. I might have been disposed to admit that when [Symbol: Aleph]DL introduce into St. Matt. x. 12 the clause [Greek: legontes, eirene to oiko touto] (which last four words confessedly belong exclusively to St. Luke x. 5), the author of the depraved original from which [Symbol: Aleph]DL were derived may have been only yielding to the suggestions of an inconveniently good memory:—may have succeeded in convincing himself from what follows in verse 13 that St. Matthew must have written, 'Peace be to this house;' though he found no such words in St. Matthew's text. And so, with the best intentions, he may most probably have inserted them.

(f) Again. When [Symbol: Aleph] and Evan. 61 thrust into St. Matt. ix. 34 (from the parallel place in St. Luke viii. 53) the clause [Greek: eidotes hoti apethanen], it is of course conceivable that the authors of those copies were merely the victims of excessive familiarity with the third Gospel. But then,—although we are ready to make every allowance that we possibly can for memories so singularly constituted, and to imagine a set of inattentive scribes open to inducements to recollect or imagine instead of copying, and possessed of an inconvenient familiarity with one particular Gospel,—it is clear that our complaisance must stop somewhere. Instances of this kind of licence at last breed suspicion. Systematic 'assimilation' cannot be the effect of accident. Considerable interpolations must of course be intentional. The discovery that Cod. D, for example, introduces at the end of St. Luke v. 14 thirty-two words from St. Mark's Gospel (i. 45—ii. 1, [Greek: ho de exelthon] down to [Greek: Kapharnaoum]), opens our eyes. This wholesale importation suggests the inquiry,—How did it come about? We look further, and we find that Cod. D abounds in instances of 'Assimilation' so unmistakably intentional, that this speedily becomes the only question, How may all these depravations of the sacred text be most satisfactorily accounted for? [And the answer is evidently found in the existence of extreme licentiousness in the scribe or scribes responsible for Codex D, being the product of ignorance and carelessness combined with such looseness of principle, as permitted the exercise of direct attempts to improve the sacred Text by the introduction of passages from the three remaining Gospels and by other alterations.]

Sec. 3.

Sometimes indeed the true Text bears witness to itself, as may be seen in the next example.

The little handful of well-known authorities ([Symbol: Aleph]BDL, with a few copies of the Old Latin, and one of the Egyptian Versions[186]), conspire in omitting from St. John xvi. 16 the clause [Greek: hoti ego hypago pros ton Patera]: for which reason Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort omit those six words, and Lachmann puts them into brackets. And yet, let the context be considered. Our Saviour had said (ver. 16),—'A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me, because I go to the Father.' It follows (ver. 17),—'Then said some of His disciples among themselves, What is this that He saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me: and, Because I go to the Father?'—Now, the context here,—the general sequence of words and ideas—in and by itself, creates a high degree of probability that the clause is genuine. It must at all events be permitted to retain its place in the Gospel, unless there is found to exist an overwhelming amount of authority for its exclusion. What then are the facts? All the other uncials, headed by A and I^{b} (both of the fourth century),—every known Cursive—all the Versions, (Latin, Syriac, Gothic, Coptic, &c.)—are for retaining the clause. Add, that Nonnus[187] (A.D. 400) recognizes it: that the texts of Chrysostom[188] and of Cyril[189] do the same; and that both those Fathers (to say nothing of Euthymius and Theophylact) in their Commentaries expressly bear witness to its genuineness:—and, With what shew of reason can it any longer be pretended that some Critics, including the Revisers, are warranted in leaving out the words?... It were to trifle with the reader to pursue this subject further. But how did the words ever come to be omitted? Some early critic, I answer, who was unable to see the exquisite proprieties of the entire passage, thought it desirable to bring ver. 16 into conformity with ver. 19, where our Lord seems at first sight to resyllable the matter. That is all!

Let it be observed—and then I will dismiss the matter—that the selfsame thing has happened in the next verse but one (ver. 18), as Tischendorf candidly acknowledges. The [Greek: touto ti hestin] of the Evangelist has been tastelessly assimilated by BDLY to the [Greek: ti estin touto] which went immediately before.

Sec. 4.

Were I invited to point to a beautifully described incident in the Gospel, I should find it difficult to lay my finger on anything more apt for my purpose than the transaction described in St. John xiii. 21-25. It belongs to the closing scene of our Saviour's Ministry. 'Verily, verily, I say unto you,' (the words were spoken at the Last Supper), 'one of you will betray Me. The disciples therefore looked one at another, wondering of whom He spake. Now there was reclining in the bosom of Jesus ([Greek: en de anakeimenos en to kolpo tou 'I.]) one of His disciples whom Jesus loved. To him therefore Simon Peter motioneth to inquire who it may be concerning whom He speaketh. He then, just sinking on the breast of Jesus ([Greek: epipeson de ekeinos houtos epi to stethos tou 'I.]) [i.e. otherwise keeping his position, see above, p. 60], saith unto Him, Lord, who is it?'

The Greek is exquisite. At first, St. John has been simply 'reclining ([Greek: anakeimenos]) in the bosom' of his Divine Master: that is, his place at the Supper is the next adjoining His,—for the phrase really means little more. But the proximity is of course excessive, as the sequel shews. Understanding from St. Peter's gesture what is required of him, St. John merely sinks back, and having thus let his head fall ([Greek: epipeson]) on (or close to) His Master's chest ([Greek: epi to stethos]), he says softly,—'Lord, who is it?' ... The moment is perhaps the most memorable in the Evangelist's life: the position, one of unutterable privilege. Time, place, posture, action,—all settle so deep into his soul, that when, in his old age, he would identify himself, he describes himself as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved; who also at the Supper' (that memorable Supper!) 'lay ([Greek: anepesen][190]) on Jesus' breast,' (literally, 'upon His chest,'—[Greek: epi to stethos autou]), and said, 'Lord, who is it that is to betray Thee?' (ch. xxi. 20).... Yes, and the Church was not slow to take the beautiful hint. His language so kindled her imagination that the early Fathers learned to speak of St. John the Divine, as [Greek: ho epistethios],—'the (recliner) on the chest[191].'

Now, every delicate discriminating touch in this sublime picture is faithfully retained throughout by the cursive copies in the proportion of about eighty to one. The great bulk of the MSS., as usual, uncial and cursive alike, establish the undoubted text of the Evangelist, which is here the Received Text. Thus, a vast majority of the MSS., with [Symbol: Aleph]AD at their head, read [Greek: epipeson] in St. John xiii. 25. Chrysostom[192] and probably Cyril[193] confirm the same reading. So also Nonnus[194]. Not so B and C with four other uncials and about twenty cursives (the vicious Evan. 33 being at their head), besides Origen[195] in two places and apparently Theodorus of Mopsuestia[196]. These by mischievously assimilating the place in ch. xiii to the later place in ch. xxi in which such affecting reference is made to it, hopelessly obscure the Evangelist's meaning. For they substitute [Greek: anapeson oun ekeinos k.t.l.] It is exactly as when children, by way of improving the sketch of a great Master, go over his matchless outlines with a clumsy pencil of their own.

That this is the true history of the substitution of [Greek: anapeson] in St. John xiii. 25 for the less obvious [Greek: epipeson] is certain. Origen, who was probably the author of all the mischief, twice sets the two places side by side and elaborately compares them; in the course of which operation, by the way, he betrays the viciousness of the text which he himself employed. But what further helps to explain how easily [Greek: anapeson] might usurp the place of [Greek: epipeson][197], is the discovery just noticed, that the ancients from the earliest period were in the habit of identifying St. John, as St. John had identified himself, by calling him 'the one that lay ([Greek: ho anapeson]) upon the Lord's chest.' The expression, derived from St. John xxi. 20, is employed by Irenaeus[198] (A.D. 178) and by Polycrates[199] (Bp. of Ephesus A.D. 196); by Origen[200] and by Ephraim Syrus[201]: by Epiphanius[202] and by Palladius[203]: by Gregory of Nazianzus[204] and by his namesake of Nyssa[205]: by pseudo-Eusebius[206], by pseudo-Caesarius[207], and by pseudo-Chrysostom[208]. The only wonder is, that in spite of such influences all the MSS. in the world except about twenty-six have retained the true reading.

Instructive in the meantime it is to note the fate which this word has experienced at the hands of some Critics. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, have all in turn bowed to the authority of Cod. B and Origen. Bishop Lightfoot mistranslates[209] and contends on the same side. Alford informs us that [Greek: epipeson] has surreptitiously crept in 'from St. Luke xv. 20': (why should it? how could it?) '[Greek: anapeson] not seeming appropriate.' Whereas, on the contrary, [Greek: anapeson] is the invariable and obvious expression,—[Greek: epipeson] the unusual, and, till it has been explained, the unintelligible word. Tischendorf,—who had read [Greek: epipeson] in 1848 and [Greek: anapeson] in 1859,—in 1869 reverts to his first opinion; advocating with parental partiality what he had since met with in Cod. [Symbol: Aleph]. Is then the truth of Scripture aptly represented by that fitful beacon-light somewhere on the French coast,—now visible, now eclipsed, now visible again,—which benighted travellers amuse themselves by watching from the deck of the Calais packet?

It would be time to pass on. But because in this department of study men are observed never to abandon a position until they are fairly shelled out and left without a pretext for remaining, I proceed to shew that [Greek: anapeson] (for [Greek: epipeson]) is only one corrupt reading out of many others hereabouts. The proof of this statement follows. Might it not have been expected that the old uncials' ([Symbol: Aleph]ABCD) would exhibit the entire context of such a passage as the present with tolerable accuracy? The reader is invited to attend to the results of collation:—

xiii. 21.-[Greek: o] [Symbol: Aleph]B: [Greek: umin lego] tr. B.

xiii. 22.-[Greek: oun] BC: + [Greek: oi Ioudaioi] [Symbol: Aleph]: [Greek: aporountei] D.

xiii. 23.-[Greek: de] B: + [Greek: ek] [Symbol: Aleph]ABCD:-[Greek: o] B: + [Greek: kai] D.

xiii. 24. (for [Greek: pythesthai tis an eie] + [Greek: outos] D) [Greek: kai legei auto, eipe tis estin] BC: (for [Greek: legei]) [Greek: elegen] [Symbol: Aleph]: + [Greek: kai legei auto eipe tis estin peri ou legei] [Symbol: Aleph].

xiii. 25. (for [Greek: epipeson]) [Greek: anapeson] BC:-[Greek: de] BC: (for [Greek: de]) [Greek: oun] [Symbol: Aleph]D; -[Greek: outos] [Symbol: Aleph]AD.

xiii. 26. + [Greek: oun] BC: + [Greek: auto] D:—[Greek: o] B: + [Greek: kai legei] [Symbol: Aleph]BD: + [Greek: an] D: (for [Greek: bapsas]) [Greek: embapsas] AD: [Greek: bapso ... kai doso auto] BC: + [Greek: psomou] (after [Greek: psomion]) C: (for [Greek: embapsas]) [Greek: bapsas] D: (for [Greek: kai embapsas]) [Greek: bapsas oun] [Symbol: Aleph]BC: -[Greek: to] B: + [Greek: lambanei kai] BC: [Greek: Iskariotou] [Symbol: Aleph]BC: [Greek: apo Karyotou] D.

xiii. 27.-[Greek: tote] [Symbol: Aleph]:-[Greek: meta to psomion tote] D: (for [Greek: legei oun]) [Greek: kai legei] D:-[Greek: o] B.

In these seven verses therefore, (which present no special difficulty to a transcriber,) the Codexes in question are found to exhibit at least thirty-five varieties,—for twenty-eight of which (jointly or singly) B is responsible: [Symbol: Aleph] for twenty-two: C for twenty-one: D for nineteen: A for three. It is found that twenty-three words have been added to the text: fifteen substituted: fourteen taken away; and the construction has been four times changed. One case there has been of senseless transposition. Simon, the father of Judas, (not Judas the traitor), is declared by [Symbol: Aleph]BCD to have been called 'Iscariot.' Even this is not all. What St. John relates concerning himself is hopelessly obscured; and a speech is put into St. Peter's mouth which he certainly never uttered. It is not too much to say that every delicate lineament has vanished from the picture. What are we to think of guides like [Symbol: Aleph]BCD, which are proved to be utterly untrustworthy?

Sec. 5.

The first two verses of St. Mark's Gospel have fared badly. Easy of transcription and presenting no special difficulty, they ought to have come down to us undisfigured by any serious variety of reading. On the contrary. Owing to entirely different causes, either verse has experienced calamitous treatment. I have elsewhere[210] proved that the clause [Greek: huiou tou Theou] in verse 1 is beyond suspicion. Its removal from certain copies of the Gospel was originally due to heretical influence. But because Origen gave currency to the text so mutilated, it re-appears mechanically in several Fathers who are intent only on reproducing a certain argument of Origen's against the Manichees in which the mutilated text occurs. The same Origen is responsible to some extent, and in the same way, for the frequent introduction of 'Isaiah's' name into verse 21—whereas 'in the prophets' is what St. Mark certainly wrote; but the appearance of 'Isaiah' there in the first instance was due to quite a different cause. In the meantime, it is witnessed to by the Latin, Syriac[211], Gothic, and Egyptian versions, as well as by [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta], and (according to Tischendorf) by nearly twenty-five cursives; besides the following ancient writers: Irenaeus, Origen, Porphyry, Titus, Basil, Serapion, Epiphanius, Severianus, Victor, Eusebius, Victorinus, Jerome, Augustine. I proceed to shew that this imposing array of authorities for reading [Greek: en to Esaia to prophete] instead of [Greek: en tois prophetais] in St. Mark i. 2, which has certainly imposed upon every recent editor and critic[212],—has been either overestimated or else misunderstood.

1. The testimony of the oldest versions, when attention is paid to their contents, is discovered to be of inferior moment in minuter matters of this nature. Thus, copies of the Old Latin version thrust Isaiah's name into St. Matt. i. 22, and Zechariah's name into xxi. 4: as well as thrust out Jeremiah's name from xxvii. 9:—the first, with Curetonian, Lewis, Harkleian, Palestinian, and D,—the second, with Chrysostom and Hilary,—the third, with the Peshitto. The Latin and the Syriac further substitute [Greek: tou prophetou] for [Greek: ton propheton] in St. Matt. ii. 23,—through misapprehension of the Evangelist's meaning. What is to be thought of Cod. [Symbol: Aleph] for introducing the name of 'Isaiah' into St. Matt. xiii. 35,—where it clearly cannot stand, the quotation being confessedly from Ps. lxxviii. 2; but where nevertheless Porphyry[213], Eusebius[214], and pseudo-Jerome[215] certainly found it in many ancient copies?

2. Next, for the testimony of the Uncial Codexes [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta]:—If any one will be at the pains to tabulate the 900[216] new 'readings' adopted by Tischendorf in editing St. Mark's Gospel, he will discover that for 450, or just half of them,—all the 450, as I believe, being corruptions of the text,—[Symbol: Aleph]BL are responsible: and further, that their responsibility is shared on about 200 occasions by D: on about 265 by C: on about 350 by [Delta][217]. At some very remote period therefore there must have grown up a vicious general reading of this Gospel which remains in the few bad copies: but of which the largest traces (and very discreditable traces they are) at present survive in [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL[Symbol: Delta]. After this discovery the avowal will not be thought extraordinary that I regard with unmingled suspicion readings which are exclusively vouched for by five of the same Codexes: e.g. by [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta].

3. The cursive copies which exhibit 'Isaiah' in place of 'the prophet.' reckoned by Tischendorf at 'nearly twenty-five,' are probably less than fifteen[218], and those, almost all of suspicious character. High time it is that the inevitable consequence of an appeal to such evidence were better understood.

4. From Tischendorf's list of thirteen Fathers, serious deductions have to be made. Irenaeus and Victor of Antioch are clearly with the Textus Receptus. Serapion, Titus, Basil do but borrow from Origen; and, with his argument, reproduce his corrupt text of St. Mark i. 2. The last-named Father however saves his reputation by leaving out the quotation from Malachi; so, passing directly from the mention of Isaiah to the actual words of that prophet. Epiphanius (and Jerome too on one occasion[219]) does the same thing. Victorinus and Augustine, being Latin writers, merely quote the Latin version ('sicut scriptum est in Isaia propheta'), which is without variety of reading. There remain Origen (the faulty character of whose Codexes has been remarked upon already), Porphyry[220] the heretic (who wrote a book to convict the Evangelists of mis-statements[221], and who is therefore scarcely a trustworthy witness), Eusebius, Jerome and Severianus. Of these, Eusebius[222] and Jerome[223] deliver it as their opinion that the name of 'Isaiah' had obtained admission into the text through the inadvertency of copyists. Is it reasonable, on the slender residuum of evidence, to insist that St. Mark has ascribed to Isaiah words confessedly written by Malachi? 'The fact,' writes a recent editor in the true spirit of modern criticism, 'will not fail to be observed by the careful and honest student of the Gospels.' But what if 'the fact' should prove to be 'a fiction' only? And (I venture to ask) would not 'carefulness' be better employed in scrutinizing the adverse testimony? 'honesty' in admitting that on grounds precarious as the present no indictment against an Evangelist can be seriously maintained? This proposal to revive a blunder which the Church in her corporate capacity has from the first refused to sanction (for the Evangelistaria know nothing of it) carries in fact on its front its own sufficient condemnation. Why, in the face of all the copies in the world (except a little handful of suspicious character), will men insist on imputing to an inspired writer a foolish mis-statement, instead of frankly admitting that the text must needs have been corrupted in that little handful of copies through the officiousness of incompetent criticism?

And do any inquire,—How then did this perversion of the truth arise? In the easiest way possible, I answer. Refer to the Eusebian tables, and note that the foremost of his sectional parallels is as follows:—

St. Matt. [Greek: e] (i.e. iii. 3). St. Mark. [Greek: b] (i.e. i. 3). St. Luke. [Greek: z] (i.e. iii. 3-6). St. John. [Greek: i] (i.e. i. 23)[224].

Now, since the name of Isaiah occurs in the first, the third and the fourth of these places in connexion with the quotation from Is. xl. 3, what more obvious than that some critic with harmonistic proclivities should have insisted on supplying the second also, i.e. the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel, with the name of the evangelical prophet, elsewhere so familiarly connected with the passage quoted? This is nothing else in short but an ordinary instance of Assimilation, so unskilfully effected however as to betray itself. It might have been passed by with fewer words, for the fraud is indeed transparent, but that it has so largely imposed upon learned men, and established itself so firmly in books. Let me hope that we shall not hear it advocated any more.

Regarded as an instrument of criticism, Assimilation requires to be very delicately as well as very skilfully handled. If it is to be applied to determining the text of Scripture, it must be employed, I take leave to say, in a very different spirit from what is met with in Dr. Tischendorf's notes, or it will only mislead. Is a word—a clause—a sentence—omitted by his favourite authorities [Symbol: Aleph]BDL? It is enough if that learned critic finds nearly the same word,—a very similar clause,—a sentence of the same general import,—in an account of the same occurrence by another Evangelist, for him straightway to insist that the sentence, the clause, the word, has been imported into the commonly received Text from such parallel place; and to reject it accordingly.

But, as the thoughtful reader must see, this is not allowable, except under peculiar circumstances. For first, whatever a priori improbability might be supposed to attach to the existence of identical expressions in two Evangelical records of the same transaction, is effectually disposed of by the discovery that very often identity of expression actually does occur. And (2), the only condition which could warrant the belief that there has been assimilation, is observed to be invariably away from Dr. Tischendorf's instances.—viz. a sufficient number of respectable attesting witnesses: it being a fundamental principle in the law of Evidence, that the very few are rather to be suspected than the many. But further (3), if there be some marked diversity of expression discoverable in the two parallel places; and if that diversity has been carefully maintained all down the ages in either place;—then it may be regarded as certain, on the contrary, that there has not been assimilation; but that this is only one more instance of two Evangelists saying similar things or the same thing in slightly different language. Take for example the following case:—Whereas St. Matt. (xxiv. 15) speaks of 'the abomination of desolation [Greek: to rhethen DIA Daniel tou prophetou], standing ([Greek: hestos]) in the holy place'; St. Mark (xiii. 14) speaks of it as '[Greek: to rhethen UPO Daniel tou prophetou] standing ([Greek: hestos]) where it ought not.' Now, because [Symbol: Aleph]BDL with copies of the Italic, the Vulgate, and the Egyptian versions omit from St. Mark's Gospel the six words written above in Greek, Tischendorf and his school are for expunging those six words from St. Mark's text, on the plea that they are probably an importation from St. Matthew. But the little note of variety which the Holy Spirit has set on the place in the second Gospel (indicated above in capital letters) suggests that these learned men are mistaken. Accordingly, the other fourteen uncials and all the cursives,—besides the Peshitto, Harkleian, and copies of the Old Latin—a much more weighty body of evidence—are certainly right in retaining the words in St. Mark xiii. 14.

Take two more instances of misuse in criticism of Assimilation.

St. Matthew (xii. 10), and St. Luke in the parallel place of his Gospel (xiv. 3), describe our Lord as asking,—'Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?' Tischendorf finding that his favourite authorities in this latter place continue the sentence with the words 'or not?' assumes that those two words must have fallen out of the great bulk of the copies of St. Luke, which, according to him, have here assimilated their phraseology to that of St. Matthew. But the hypothesis is clearly inadmissible,—though it is admitted by most modern critics. Do not these learned persons see that the supposition is just as lawful, and the probability infinitely greater, that it is on the contrary the few copies which have here undergone the process of assimilation; and that the type to which they have been conformed, is to be found in St. Matt. xxii. 17; St. Mark xii. 14; St. Luke xx. 22?

It is in fact surprising how often a familiar place of Scripture has exerted this kind of assimilating influence over a little handful of copies. Thus, some critics are happily agreed in rejecting the proposal of [Symbol: Aleph]BDLR, (backed scantily by their usual retinue of evidence) to substitute for [Greek: gemisai ten koilian autou apo], in St. Luke xv. 16, the words [Greek: chortasthenai ek]. But editors have omitted to point out that the words [Greek: epethymei chortasthenai], introduced in defiance of the best authorities into the parable of Lazarus (xvi. 20), have simply been transplanted thither out of the parable of the prodigal son.

The reader has now been presented with several examples of Assimilation. Tischendorf, who habitually overlooks the phenomenon where it seems to be sufficiently conspicuous, is observed constantly to discover cases of Assimilation where none exist. This is in fact his habitual way of accounting for not a few of the omissions in Cod. [Symbol: Aleph]. And because he has deservedly enjoyed a great reputation, it becomes the more necessary to set the reader on his guard against receiving such statements without a thorough examination of the evidence on which they rest.

Sec. 6.

The value—may I not say, the use?—of these delicate differences of detail becomes apparent whenever the genuineness of the text is called in question. Take an example. The following fifteen words are deliberately excluded from St. Mark's Gospel (vi. 11) by some critics on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL[Symbol: Delta],—a most suspicious company, and three cursives; besides a few copies of the Old Latin, including the Vulgate:—[Greek: amen lego hymin, anektoteron estai Sodomois e Gomorrois en hemerai kriseos, he te polei ekeine]. It is pretended that this is nothing else but an importation from the parallel place of St. Matthew's Gospel (x. 15). But that is impossible: for, as the reader sees at a glance, a delicate but decisive note of discrimination has been set on the two places. St. Mark writes, [Greek: SodomOIS E GomorrOIS]: St. Matthew, [Greek: GE SodomON KAI GomorrON]. And this threefold, or rather fourfold, diversity of expression has existed from the beginning; for it has been faithfully retained all down the ages: it exists to this hour in every known copy of the Gospel,— except of course those nine which omit the sentence altogether. There can be therefore no doubt about its genuineness. The critics of the modern school (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort) seek in vain to put upon us a mutilated text by omitting those fifteen words. The two places are clearly independent of each other.

It does but remain to point out that the exclusion of these fifteen words from the text of St. Mark, has merely resulted from the influence of the parallel place in St. Luke's Gospel (ix. 5),—where nothing whatever is found[225] corresponding with St. Matt. x. 5—St. Mark vi. 11. The process of Assimilation therefore has been actively at work here, although not in the way which some critics suppose. It has resulted, not in the insertion of the words in dispute in the case of the very many copies; but on the contrary in their omission from the very few. And thus, one more brand is set on [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL[Symbol: Delta] and their Latin allies,—which will be found never to conspire together exclusively except to mislead.

Sec. 7.

Because a certain clause (e.g. [Greek: kai he lalia sou homoiazei] in St. Mark xiv. 70) is absent from Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort entirely eject these five precious words from St. Mark's Gospel, Griesbach having already voted them 'probably spurious.' When it has been added that many copies of the Old Latin also, together with the Vulgate and the Egyptian versions, besides Eusebius, ignore their existence, the present writer scarcely expects to be listened to if he insists that the words are perfectly genuine notwithstanding. The thing is certain however, and the Revisers are to blame for having surrendered five precious words of genuine Scripture, as I am going to shew.

1. Now, even if the whole of the case were already before the reader, although to some there might seem to exist a prima facie probability that the clause is spurious, yet even so,—it would not be difficult to convince a thoughtful man that the reverse must be nearer the truth. For let the parallel places in the first two Gospels be set down side by side:—

St. Matt. xxvi. 73. St. Mark xiv. 70.

(1) [Greek: Alethos kai su] (1) [Greek: Alethos] (2) [Greek: ex auton ei.] (2) [Greek: ex auton ei.] (3) [Greek: kai gar] (3) [Greek: kai gar Galilaios ei,] (4) [Greek: he lalia sou delon se poiei] (4) [Greek: kai he lalia sou homoiazei.]

What more clear than that the later Evangelist is explaining what his predecessor meant by 'thy speech bewrayeth thee' [or else is giving an independent account of the same transaction derived from the common source]? To St. Matthew,—a Jew addressing Jews,—it seemed superfluous to state that it was the peculiar accent of Galilee which betrayed Simon Peter. To St. Mark,—or rather to the readers whom St. Mark specially addressed,—the point was by no means so obvious. Accordingly, he paraphrases,—'for thou art a Galilean and thy speech correspondeth.' Let me be shewn that all down the ages, in ninety-nine copies out of every hundred, this peculiar diversity of expression has been faithfully retained, and instead of assenting to the proposal to suppress St. Mark's (fourth) explanatory clause with its unique verb [Greek: homoiazei], I straightway betake myself to the far more pertinent inquiry,—What is the state of the text hereabouts? What, in fact, the context? This at least is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.

1. And first, I discover that Cod. D, in concert with several copies of the Old Latin (a b c ff^{2} h q, &c.), only removes clause (4) from its proper place in St. Mark's Gospel, in order to thrust it into the parallel place in St. Matthew,—where it supplants the [Greek: he lalia sou delon se poiei] of the earlier Evangelist; and where it clearly has no business to be.

Indeed the object of D is found to have been to assimilate St. Matthew's Gospel to St. Mark,—for D also omits [Greek: kai su] in clause (1).

2. The Ethiopic version, on the contrary, is for assimilating St. Mark to St. Matthew, for it transfers the same clause (4) as it stands in St. Matthew's Gospel ([Greek: kai he lalia sou delon se poiei]) to St. Mark.

3. Evan. 33 (which, because it exhibits an ancient text of a type like B, has been styled [with grim irony] 'the Queen of the Cursives') is more brilliant here than usual; exhibiting St. Mark's clause (4) thus,—[Greek: kai gar he lalia sou delon se homoiazei].

4. In C (and the Harkleian) the process of Assimilation is as conspicuous as in D, for St. Mark's third clause (3) is imported bodily into St. Matthew's Gospel. C further omits from St. Mark clause (4).

5. In the Vercelli Codex (a) however, the converse process is conspicuous. St. Mark's Gospel has been assimilated to St. Matthew's by the unauthorized insertion into clause (1) of [Greek: kai su] (which by the way is also found in M), and (in concert with the Gothic and Evann. 73, 131, 142*) by the entire suppression of clause (3).

6. Cod. L goes beyond all. [True to the craze of omission], it further obliterates as well from St. Matthew's Gospel as from St. Mark's all trace of clause (4).

7. [Symbol: Aleph] and B alone of Codexes, though in agreement with the Vulgate and the Egyptian version, do but eliminate the final clause (4) of St. Mark's Gospel. But note, lastly, that—

8. Cod. A, together with the Syriac versions, the Gothic, and the whole body of the cursives, recognizes none of these irregularities: but exhibits the commonly received text with entire fidelity.

On a survey of the premisses, will any candid person seriously contend that [Greek: kai he lalia sou homiazei] is no part of the genuine text of St. Mark xiv. 70? The words are found in what are virtually the most ancient authorities extant: the Syriac versions (besides the Gothic and Cod. A), the Old Latin (besides Cod. D)—retain them;—those in their usual place,—these, in their unusual. Idle it clearly is in the face of such evidence to pretend that St. Mark cannot have written the words in question[226]. It is too late to insist that a man cannot have lost his watch when his watch is proved to have been in his own pocket at eight in the morning, and is found in another man's pocket at nine. As for C and L, their handling of the Text hereabouts clearly disqualifies them from being cited in evidence. They are condemned under the note of Context. Adverse testimony is borne by B and [Symbol: Aleph]: and by them only. They omit the words in dispute,—the ordinary habit of theirs, and most easily accounted for. But how is the punctual insertion of the words in every other known copy to be explained? In the meantime, it remains to be stated,—and with this I shall take leave of the discussion,—that hereabouts 'we have a set of passages which bear clear marks of wilful and critical correction, thoroughly carried out in Cod. [Symbol: Aleph], and only partially in Cod. B and some of its compeers; the object being so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter's denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the fact, vouched for by St. Mark only, that the cock crowed twice[227].' That incident shall be treated of separately. Can those principles stand, which in the face of the foregoing statement, and the evidence which preceded it, justify the disturbance of the text in St. Mark xiv. 70?

[We now pass on to a kindred cause of adulteration of the text of the New Testament.]

FOOTNOTES:

[184] This paper bears the date 1877: but I have thought best to keep the words with this caution to the reader.

[185] Above, p. 32.

[186] The alleged evidence of Origen (iv. 453) is nil; the sum of it being that he takes no notice whatever of the forty words between [Greek: opsesthe me] (in ver. 16), and [Greek: touto ti estin] (in ver. 18).

[187] Nonnus,—[Greek: hixomai eis gennetera].

[188] viii. 465 a and c.

[189] iv. 932 and 933 c.

[190] = [Greek: ana-keimenos + epi-peson]. [Used not to suggest over-familiarity (?).]

[191] Beginning with Anatolius Laodicenus, A.D. 270 (ap. Galland. iii. 548). Cf. Routh, Rell. i. 42.

[192] [Greek: Ouk anakeitai monon, alla kai to stethei epipiptei] (Opp. viii. 423 a).—[Greek: Ti de kai epipiptei to stethei] (ibid. d). Note that the passage ascribed to 'Apolinarius' in Cord. Cat. p. 342 (which includes the second of these two references) is in reality part of Chrysostom's Commentary on St. John (ubi supra, c d).

[193] Cord. Cat. p. 341. But it is only in the [Greek: keimenon] (or text) that the verb is found,—Opp. iv. 735.

[194] [Greek: ho de thrasys oxei palmo stethesin achrantoisi peson perilemenos aner].

[195] iv. 437 c: 440 d.

[196] Ibid. p. 342.

[197] Even Chrysostom, who certainly read the place as we do, is observed twice to glide into the more ordinary expression, viz. xiii. 423, line 13 from the bottom, and p. 424, line 18 from the top.

[198] [Greek: ho epi to stethos autou anapeson] (iii. 1, Sec. 1).

[199] [Greek: ho epi to stethos tou Kyriou anapeson] (ap. Euseb. iii. 31).

[200] [Greek: Ti dei peri tou anapesontos epi to stethos legein tou 'Iesou] (ibid. vi. 25. Opp. iv. 95).

[201] [Greek: ho epi to stethei tou phlogos anapeson] (Opp. ii. 49 a. Cf. 133 c).

[202] (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 1062: ii. 8.

[203] [Greek: tou eis to tes sophias stethos pistos epanapesontos] (ap. Chrys, xiii. 55).

[204] [Greek: ho epi to stethos tou Iesou anapauetai] (Opp. i. 591).

[205] (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 488.

[206] Wright's Apocryphal Acts (fourth century), translated from the Syriac, p. 3.

[207] (Fourth or fifth century) ap. Galland. vi. 132.

[208] Ap. Chrys. viii. 296.

[209] On a fresh Revision, &c., p. 73.—'[Greek: Anapiptein], (which occurs eleven times in the N.T.), when said of guests ([Greek: anakeimenoi]) at a repast, denotes nothing whatever but the preliminary act of each in taking his place at the table; being the Greek equivalent for our "sitting down" to dinner. So far only does it signify "change of posture." The notion of "falling backward" quite disappears in the notion of "reclining" or "lying down."'—In St. John xxi. 20, the language of the Evangelist is the very mirror of his thought; which evidently passed directly from the moment when he assumed his place at the table ([Greek: anepesen]), to that later moment when ([Greek: epi to stethos autou]) he interrogated his Divine Master concerning Judas. It is a general description of an incident,—for the details of which we have to refer to the circumstantial and authoritative narrative which went before.

[210] Traditional Text, Appendix IV.

[211] Pesh. and Harkl.: Cur. and Lew. are defective.

[212] Thus Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Green, Scrivener, M^{c}Clellan, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers.

[213] In pseudo-Jerome's Brev. in Psalm., Opp. vii. (ad calc.) 198.

[214] Mont. i. 462.

[215] Ubi supra.

[216] Omitting trifling variants.

[217] [Symbol: Aleph]BL are exclusively responsible on 45 occasions: +C (i.e. [Symbol: Aleph]BCL), on 27: +D, on 35: +[Symbol: Delta], on 73: +CD, on 19: +C[Symbol: Delta], on 118: +D[Symbol: Delta] (i.e. [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta]), on 42: +CD[Symbol: Delta], on 66.

[218] In the text of Evan. 72 the reading in dispute is not found: 205, 206 are duplicates of 209: and 222, 255 are only fragments. There remain 1, 22, 33, 61, 63, 115, 131, 151, 152, 161, 184, 209, 253, 372, 391:—of which the six at Rome require to be re-examined.

[219] v. 10.

[220] Ap. Hieron. vii. 17.

[221] 'Evangelistas arguere falsitatis, hoc impiorum est, Celsi, Porphyrii, Juliani.' Hieron. i. 311.

[222] [Greek: grapheos toinun esti sphalma]. Quoted (from the lost work of Eusebius ad Marinum) in Victor of Ant.'s Catena, ed. Cramer, p. 267. (See Simon, iii. 89; Mai, iv. 299; Matthaei's N.T. ii. 20, &c.)

[223] 'Nos autem nomen Isaiae putamus additum Scriptorum vitio, quod et in aliis locis probare possumus.' vii. 17 (I suspect he got it from Eusebius).

[224] See Studia Biblica, ii. p. 249. Syrian Form of Ammonian sections and Eusebian Canons by Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. Mr. Gwilliam gives St. Luke iii. 4-6, according to the Syrian form.

[225] Compare St. Mark vi. 7-13 with St. Luke ix. 1-6.

[226] Schulz,—'et [Greek: lalia] et [Greek: omoiazei] aliena a Marco.' Tischendorf—'omnino e Matthaeo fluxit: ipsum [Greek: omoiazei] glossatoris est.' This is foolishness,—not criticism.

[227] Scrivener's Full Collation of the Cod. Sin., &c., 2nd ed., p. xlvii.



CHAPTER IX.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

III. Attraction.

Sec. 1.

There exist not a few corrupt Readings,—and they have imposed largely on many critics,—which, strange to relate, have arisen from nothing else but the proneness of words standing side by side in a sentence to be attracted into a likeness of ending,—whether in respect of grammatical form or of sound; whereby sometimes the sense is made to suffer grievously,—sometimes entirely to disappear. Let this be called the error of Attraction. The phenomena of 'Assimilation' are entirely distinct. A somewhat gross instance, which however has imposed on learned critics, is furnished by the Revised Text and Version of St. John vi. 71 and xiii. 26.

'Judas Iscariot' is a combination of appellatives with which every Christian ear is even awfully familiar. The expression [Greek: Ioudas Iskariotes] is found in St. Matt. x. 4 and xxvi. 14: in St. Mark iii. 19 and xiv. 10: in St. Luke vi. 16, and in xxii. 31 with the express statement added that Judas was so 'surnamed.' So far happily we are all agreed. St. John's invariable practice is to designate the traitor, whom he names four times, as 'Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon;'—jealous doubtless for the honour of his brother Apostle, 'Jude ([Greek: Ioudas]) the brother of James[228]': and resolved that there shall be no mistake about the traitor's identity. Who does not at once recall the Evangelist's striking parenthesis in St. John xiv. 22,—'Judas (not Iscariot)'? Accordingly, in St. John xiii. 2 the Revisers present us with 'Judas Iscariot, Simon's son': and even in St. John xii. 4 they are content to read 'Judas Iscariot.' But in the two places of St. John's Gospel which remain to be noticed, viz. vi. 71 and xiii. 26, instead of 'Judas Iscariot the son of Simon' the Revisers require us henceforth to read, 'Judas the son of Simon Iscariot.' And why? Only, I answer, because—in place of [Greek: Ioudan Simonos IskarioTEN] (in vi. 71) and [Greek: Iouda Simonos IskarioTE] (in xiii. 26)—a little handful of copies substitute on both occasions [Greek: IskarioTOU]. Need I go on? Nothing else has evidently happened but that, through the oscitancy of some very early scribe, the [Greek: IskarioTEN], [Greek: IskarioTE], have been attracted into concord with the immediately preceding genitive [Greek: SImoNOS] ... So transparent a blunder would have scarcely deserved a passing remark at our hands had it been suffered to remain,—where such betises are the rule and not the exception,—viz. in the columns of Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph]. But strange to say, not only have the Revisers adopted this corrupt reading in the two passages already mentioned, but they have not let so much as a hint fall that any alteration whatsoever has been made by them in the inspired Text.

Sec. 2.

Another and a far graver case of 'Attraction' is found in Acts xx. 24. St. Paul, in his address to the elders of Ephesus, refers to the discouragements he has had to encounter. 'But none of these things move me,' he grandly exclaims, 'neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy.' The Greek for this begins [Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai]: where some second or third century copyist (misled by the preceding genitive) in place of [Greek: logoN] writes [Greek: logoU]; with what calamitous consequence, has been found largely explained elsewhere[229]. Happily, the error survives only in Codd. B and C: and their character is already known by the readers of this book and the Companion Volume. So much has been elsewhere offered on this subject that I shall say no more about it here: but proceed to present my reader with another and more famous instance of attraction.

St. Paul in a certain place (2 Cor. iii. 3) tells the Corinthians, in allusion to the language of Exodus xxxi. 12, xxxiv. 1, that they are an epistle not written on 'stony tables ([Greek: en plaxi lithinais]),' but on 'fleshy tables of the heart ([Greek: en plaxi kardias sarkinais]).' The one proper proof that this is what St. Paul actually wrote, is not only (1) That the Copies largely preponderate in favour of so exhibiting the place: but (2) That the Versions, with the single exception of 'that abject slave of manuscripts the Philoxenian [or Harkleian] Syriac,' are all on the same side: and lastly (3) That the Fathers are as nearly as possible unanimous. Let the evidence for [Greek: kardias] (unknown to Tischendorf and the rest) be produced in detail:—

In the second century, Irenaeus[230],—the Old Latin,—the Peshitto.

In the third century, Origen seven times[231],—the Coptic version.

In the fourth century, the Dialogus[232],—Didymus[233],—Basil[234],—Gregory Nyss.[235],—Marcus the Monk[236],—Chrysostom in two places[237],—Nilus[238],—the Vulgate,—and the Gothic versions.

In the fifth century, Cyril[239],—Isidorus[240],—Theodoret[241],—the Armenian—and the Ethiopic versions.

In the seventh century, Victor, Bp. of Carthage addressing Theodorus P.[242]

In the eighth century, J. Damascene[243] ... Besides, of the Latins, Hilary[244],—Ambrose[245],—Optatus[246],—Jerome[247],— Tichonius[248],—Augustine thirteen times[249],—Fulgentius[250], and others[251] ... If this be not overwhelming evidence, may I be told what is[252]?

But then it so happens that—attracted by the two datives between which [Greek: kardias] stands, and tempted by the consequent jingle, a surprising number of copies are found to exhibit the 'perfectly absurd' and 'wholly unnatural reading[253],' [Greek: plaxi kardiAIS sarkinAIS]. And because (as might have been expected from their character) A[254]B[Symbol: Aleph]CD[255] are all five of the number,—Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, one and all adopt and advocate the awkward blunder[256]. [Greek: Kardiais] is also adopted by the Revisers of 1881 without so much as a hint let fall in the margin that the evidence is overwhelmingly against themselves and in favour of the traditional Text of the Authorized Version[257].

FOOTNOTES:

[228] St. Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13; St. Jude 1.

[229] Above, pp. 28-31.

[230] 753 int.

[231] ii. 843 c. Also int ii. 96, 303; iv. 419, 489, 529, 558.

[232] Ap. Orig. i. 866 a,—interesting and emphatic testimony.

[233] Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 272.

[234] i. 161 e. Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 844.

[235] i. 682 ([Greek: ouk en plaxi lithinais ... all' en to tes kardias pyxio]).

[236] Galland. viii. 40 b.

[237] vii. 2: x. 475.

[238] i. 29.

[239] i. 8: ii. 504: v^{2}. 65. (Aubert prints [Greek: kardias sarkines]. The published Concilia (iii. 140) exhibits [Greek: kardias sarkinais]. Pusey, finding in one of his MSS. [Greek: all' en plaxi kardias lithinais] (sic), prints [Greek: kardias sarkinais].) Ap. Mai, iii. 89, 90.

[240] 299.

[241] iii. 302.

[242] Concil. vi. 154.

[243] ii. 129.

[244] 344.

[245] i. 762: ii. 668, 1380.

[246] Galland. v. 505.

[247] vi. 609.

[248] Galland. viii. 742 dis.

[249] i. 672: ii. 49: iii^{1}. 472, 560: iv. 1302: v. 743-4: viii. 311: x. 98, 101, 104, 107, 110.

[250] Galland. xi. 248.

[251] Ps.-Ambrose, ii. 176.

[252] Yet strange to say, Tischendorf claims the support of Didymus and Theodoret for [Greek: kardiais], on the ground that in the course of their expository remarks they contrast [Greek: kardiai sarkinai] (or [Greek: logikai]) with [Greek: plakes lithinai]: as if it were not the word [Greek: plaxi] which alone occasions difficulty. Again, Tischendorf enumerates Cod. E (Paul) among his authorities. Had he then forgotten that E is 'nothing better than a transcript of Cod. D (Claromontanus), made by some ignorant person'? that 'the Greek is manifestly worthless, and that it should long since have been removed from the list of authorities'? [Scrivener's Introd., 4th edit., i. 177. See also Traditional Text, p. 65, and note. Tischendorf is frequently inaccurate in his references to the fathers.]

[253] Scrivener's Introd. ii. 254.

[254] A in the Epistles differs from A in the Gospels.

[255] Besides GLP and the following cursives,—29, 30, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 55, 74, 104, 106, 109, 112, 113, 115, 137, 219, 221, 238, 252, 255, 257, 262, 277.

[256] That I may not be accused of suppressing what is to be said on the other side, let it be here added that the sum of the adverse evidence (besides the testimony of many MSS.) is the Harkleian version:—the doubtful testimony of Eusebius (for, though Valerius reads [Greek: kardias], the MSS. largely preponderate which read [Greek: kardiais] in H. E. Mart. Pal. cxiii. Sec. 6. See Burton's ed. p. 637):—Cyril in one place, as explained above:—and lastly, a quotation from Chrysostom on the Maccabees, given in Cramer's Catena, vii. 595 ([Greek: en plaxi kardiais sarkinais]), which reappears at the end of eight lines without the word [Greek: plaxi].

[257] [The papers on Assimilation and Attraction were left by the Dean in the same portfolio. No doubt he would have separated them, if he had lived to complete his work, and amplified his treatment of the latter, for the materials under that head were scanty.—For 2 Cor. iii. 3, see also a note of my own to p. 65 of The Traditional Text.]



CHAPTER X.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

IV. Omission.

[We have now to consider the largest of all classes of corrupt variations from the genuine Text[258]—the omission of words and clauses and sentences,—a truly fertile province of inquiry. Omissions are much in favour with a particular school of critics; though a habit of admitting them whether in ancient or modern times cannot but be symptomatic of a tendency to scepticism.]

Sec. 1.

Omissions are often treated as 'Various Readings.' Yet only by an Hibernian licence can words omitted be so reckoned: for in truth the very essence of the matter is that on such occasions nothing is read. It is to the case of words omitted however that this chapter is to be exclusively devoted. And it will be borne in mind that I speak now of those words alone where the words are observed to exist in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred, so to speak;—being away only from that hundredth copy.

Now it becomes evident, as soon as attention has been called to the circumstance, that such a phenomenon requires separate treatment. Words so omitted labour prima facie under a disadvantage which is all their own. My meaning will be best illustrated if I may be allowed to adduce and briefly discuss a few examples. And I will begin with a crucial case;—the most conspicuous doubtless within the whole compass of the New Testament. I mean the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel; which verses are either bracketed off, or else entirely severed from the rest of the Gospel, by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and others.

The warrant of those critics for dealing thus unceremoniously with a portion of the sacred deposit is the fact that whereas Eusebius, for the statement rests solely with him, declares that anciently many copies were without the verses in question, our two oldest extant MSS. conspire in omitting them. But, I reply, the latter circumstance does not conduct to the inference that those verses are spurious. It only proves that the statement of Eusebius was correct. The Father cited did not, as is evident from his words[259], himself doubt the genuineness of the verses in question; but admitted them to be genuine. [He quotes two opinions;—the opinion of an advocate who questions their genuineness, and an opposing opinion which he evidently considers the better of the two, since he rests upon the latter and casts a slur upon the former as being an off-hand expedient; besides that he quotes several words out of the twelve verses, and argues at great length upon the second hypothesis.

On the other hand, one and that the least faulty of the two MSS. witnessing for the omission confesses mutely its error by leaving a vacant space where the omitted verses should have come in; whilst the other was apparently copied from an exemplar containing the verses[260]. And all the other copies insert them, except L and a few cursives which propose a manifestly spurious substitute for the verses,—together with all the versions, except one Old Latin (k), the Lewis Codex, two Armenian MSS. and an Arabic Lectionary,—besides more than ninety testimonies in their favour from more than 'forty-four' ancient witnesses[261];—such is the evidence which weighs down the conflicting testimony over and over and over again. Beyond all this, the cause of the error is patent. Some scribe mistook the [Greek: Telos] occurring at the end of an Ecclesiastical Lection at the close of chapter xvi. 8 for the 'End' of St. Mark's Gospel[262].

That is the simple truth: and the question will now be asked by an intelligent reader, 'If such is the balance of evidence, how is it that learned critics still doubt the genuineness of those verses?'

To this question there can be but one answer, viz. 'Because those critics are blinded by invincible prejudice in favour of two unsafe guides, and on behalf of Omission.'

We have already seen enough of the character of those guides, and are now anxious to learn what there can be in omissions which render them so acceptable to minds of the present day. And we can imagine nothing except the halo which has gathered round the detection of spurious passages in modern times, and has extended to a supposed detection of passages which in fact are not spurious. Some people appear to feel delight if they can prove any charge against people who claim to be orthodox; others without any such feeling delight in superior criticism; and the flavour of scepticism especially commends itself to the taste of many. To the votaries of such criticism, omissions of passages which they style 'interpolations,' offer temptingly spacious hunting-fields.

Yet the experience of copyists would pronounce that Omission is the besetting fault of transcribers. It is so easy under the influence of the desire of accomplishing a task, or at least of anxiety for making progress, to pass over a word, a line, or even more lines than one. As has been explained before, the eye readily moves from one ending to a similar ending with a surprising tendency to pursue the course which would lighten labour instead of increasing it. The cumulative result of such abridgement by omission on the part of successive scribes may be easily imagined, and in fact is just what is presented in Codex B[263]. Besides these considerations, the passages which are omitted, and which we claim to be genuine, bear in themselves the character belonging to the rest of the Gospels, indeed—in Dr. Hort's expressive phrase—'have the true ring of genuineness.' They are not like some which some critics of the same school would fain force upon us[264]. But beyond all,—and this is the real source and ground of attestation,—they enjoy superior evidence from copies, generally beyond comparison with the opposing testimony, from Versions, and from Fathers.]

Sec. 2.

The fact seems to be all but overlooked that a very much larger amount of proof than usual is required at the hands of those who would persuade us to cancel words which have been hitherto by all persons,—in all ages,—in all countries,—regarded as inspired Scripture. They have (1) to account for the fact of those words' existence: and next (2), to demonstrate that they have no right to their place in the sacred page. The discovery that from a few copies they are away, clearly has very little to do with the question. We may be able to account for the omission from those few copies: and the instant we have done this, the negative evidence—the argument e silentio—has been effectually disposed of. A very different task—a far graver responsibility—is imposed upon the adverse party, as may be easily shewn. [They must establish many modes of accounting for many classes and groups of evidence. Broad and sweeping measures are now out of date. The burden of proof lies with them.]

Sec. 3.

The force of what I am saying will be best understood if a few actual specimens of omission may be adduced, and individually considered. And first, let us take the case of an omitted word. In St. Luke vi. 1 [Greek: deuteroproto] is omitted from some MSS. Westcott and Hort and the Revisers accordingly exhibit the text of that place as follows:—[Greek: Egeneto de en sabbato diaporeuesthai auton dia sporimon].

Now I desire to be informed how it is credible that so very difficult and peculiar a word as this,—for indeed the expression has never yet been satisfactorily explained,—should have found its way into every known Evangelium except [Symbol: Aleph]BL and a few cursives, if it be spurious? How it came to be here and there omitted, is intelligible enough. (a) One has but to glance at the Cod. [Symbol: Aleph],

[Greek: TO EN SABBATO] [Greek: DEUTEROPROTO]

in order to see that the like ending ([Greek: TO]) in the superior line, fully accounts for the omission of the second line. (b) A proper lesson begins at this place; which by itself would explain the phenomenon. (c) Words which the copyists were at a loss to understand, are often observed to be dropped: and there is no harder word in the Gospels than [Greek: deuteroprotos]. But I repeat,—will you tell us how it is conceivable that [a word nowhere else found, and known to be a crux to commentators and others, should have crept into all the copies except a small handful?]

In reply to all this, I shall of course be told that really I must yield to what is after all the weight of external evidence: that Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BL are not ordinary MSS. but first-class authorities, of sufficient importance to outweigh any number of the later cursive MSS.

My rejoinder is plain:—Not only am I of course willing to yield to external evidence, but it is precisely 'external evidence' which makes me insist on retaining [Greek: deuteroproto—apo melissiou keriou—haras ton stauron—kai anephereto eis ton ouranon—hotan eklipete]—the 14th verse of St. Matthew's xxiiird chapter—and the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel. For my own part, I entirely deny the cogency of the proposed proof, and I have clearly already established the grounds of my refusal. Who then is to be the daysman between us? We are driven back on first principles, in order to ascertain if it may not be possible to meet on some common ground, and by the application of ordinary logical principles of reasoning to clear our view. [As to these we must refer the reader to the first volume of this work. Various cases of omission have been just quoted, and many have been discussed elsewhere. Accordingly, it will not be necessary to exhibit this large class of corruptions at the length which it would otherwise demand. But a few more instances are required, in order that the reader may see in this connexion that many passages at least which the opposing school designate as Interpolations are really genuine, and that students may be placed upon their guard against the source of error that we are discussing.]

Sec. 4.

And first as to the rejection of an entire verse.

The 44th verse of St. Matt. xxi, consisting of the fifteen words printed at foot[265], is marked as doubtful by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers:—by Tischendorf it is rejected as spurious. We insist that, on the contrary, it is indubitably genuine; reasoning from the antiquity, the variety, the respectability, the largeness, or rather, the general unanimity of its attestation.

For the verse is found in the Old Latin, and in the Vulgate,—in the Peshitto, Curetonian, and Harkleian Syriac,—besides in the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. It is found also in Origen[266],— ps.-Tatian[267]—Aphraates[268],—Chrysostom[269],—Cyril Alex.[270],— the Opus Imperfectum[271],—Jerome[272],—Augustine[273]:—in Codexes B[Symbol: Aleph]C[Symbol: Theta][Symbol: Sigma]XZ[Symbol: Delta][Symbol: Pi]EFG HKLMSUV,—in short, it is attested by every known Codex except two of bad character, viz.—D, 33; together with five copies of the Old Latin, viz.—a b e ff^{1} ff^{2}. There have therefore been adduced for the verse in dispute at least five witnesses of the second or third century:—at least eight of the fourth:—at least seven if not eight of the fifth: after which date the testimony in favour of this verse is overwhelming. How could we be justified in opposing to such a mass of first-rate testimony the solitary evidence of Cod. D (concerning which see above, Vol. I. c. viii.) supported only by a single errant Cursive and a little handful of copies of the Old Latin versions, [even although the Lewis Codex has joined this petty band?]