You are on page 1of 210

TRINITY UNIVERSITY

LIBRARY,
.,,S,H

No,..

UNIVERSITY

COURSE

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
PASSAGES OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT

MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY
VARIOUS READINGS.

THE REV, THOMAS SHELDON GREEN,


LATE FELLOW OF CUBIST
S

M.A.
SCHOOL,

COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; HEAD MASTER OF

TIIE

GKAMMAB

ASHBT-DE-LA-ZOUCH.

LONDON:
SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS;
AT THE WAREHOUSE FOK BIBLES,
P8ALTEKS,

NEW TESTAMENTS, CHUKCH SERVICES, 1 BAYER BOOKS, AND CONCORDANCES, IN ANCIENT AND MODERN LANGUAGES;
15,
nOAAAl

PATERNOSTER ROW.
TAOITAI, MIA

MEN 6NHTOIS

A A9ANATOI2IN.

NOV

1984

INTRODUCTION.
Testament have been no more exempt from corrupting influences on their text than other writings of antiquity and hence has arisen the task of the critic to make,
books of the
;

THE

New

by the use of

all

available means, as near an approach as

may

be to purity; a task the importance of which

may

be best rated

by

that of the writings themselves.

This importance, however, has been strangely disregarded


in proof of

which

it is

enough

to point to laboured expositions


difficulties that

of matter undoubtedly spurious, encounters Avith


exist only in corruptions,

and controversial

citations

where the
alter

reading

is

so questionable as to leave only the

unhappy

native of ignorance or disingenuousness.

appears in the circumstance, that calls are being


to time for

The same thing also made from time

new

or revised versions of Scripture without betraying

any consciousness of the necessity of a certain preliminary to such


proceedings, namely, the determination of the text to be repre
sented in such version or revision.

The purpose

of these statements

is

not, however, to introduce

an expression of censure, but rather to specify a circumstance

which might furnish a plea in excuse been thus noticed. This circumstance

for the disregard that has

shall

now

be explained.

critical edition

of the

New

Testament

offers

on

its

pages

INTRODUCTION.
distinct things, the text itself as
critic,

two

of the

or, at least,
it

determined by the judgment furnished with indications of the form

which he thinks

of the authorities ought to take, and a register on which, in each several case, his decision has been made to rest,
of variations in general.

as well as

The

latter

is

presented in

appearance eye text with the cited authorities reasoning connecting the resulting
there are no intimations, except such as

a shape necessarily compressed, and apt to offer to an untrained Of the steps of of intricacy and confusion. an

may be

gathered from

a few prefatory statements of general principles which the critic

has thought proper to adopt


decision

with which, too, an occasional

may have

at least the appearance of inconsistency.

The tendency
interest in the

of these circumstances

is

unfavourable to an
often have issued

important subject, and they


it.

may

in an entire disregard of

The

present attempt has been


this difficulty,

made

in the hope of meeting in

some degree

by

offering

complete discussions of places affected

by such

variations as are

material to the careful reader and the interpreter of the

New
to the
its

Testament.
critic

Not

that any variation


significance,

is

in itself immaterial

each has

its

and

its

consideration

makes

contribution to the perfection of his

art.

The

reader

is

merely

supposed to

be acquainted with the age

and character of the principal MSS., and the notation by which are and with the history of the ancient they conventionally cited,
versions.*

In this place,

accordingly,

it

will be sufficient to

specify the various kinds of corruption to which the text has

been exposed, and afterwards to notice some preliminary points


of importance.
* The necessary information may be found in several quarters, especially in the prefatory matter of various critical editions ; among which Tischen-

dorf s

may be

particularly named.

The MSS. of the Old Latin will be cited according to the notation used by Tischendorf. This title is here employed comprehensively for the
Antehieronymian Latin in both
its

phases, the African

and the

Italic.

Its

INTRODUCTION.

The work of transcription can never be altogether exempt from the corruptions of mere accident, arising from the wander place affected by ings of the eye and the slips of the pen.

various readings should, therefore, be carefully scanned for the


detection of any probable mechanical cause of such
mischief,

anything likely to betray a copyist into unwitting mistakes.


the endless shapes which these might take two kinds
especially mentioned, the interchange of
in form,

Of

may be

words

slightly differing

and omissions of words and clauses by oversight. Another process of corruption is the encroachment on the text

of marginal or interlineary matter, which may, for the sake of


convenience, be comprehended under the term glossarial.
there
is

First,

the gloss properly so called, namely, a term serving to

furnish an explanation or attach a precise interpretation to one


in the text.

These

produce accretion, or

may either become simply intrusive and may be substituted for the genuine reading

and exhibit usurpation. Again, this class embraces supplements of various extent, where the text may have been elliptical or
seemed defective
is,
:

these are a great source of accretion.

There
of
illus

also, other matter coming under this head, in the

way

tration or

comment, ready materials of

accretion.*

It is scarcely

necessary to observe, that the writings of the


importance can hardly be overrated
Peshito, if
tlie
:

New

Testament

its rival

text of this latter were settled

in this respect would be the by the aid of copies of

like antiquity

and value with the imperfect Nitrian MS. of the Gospels.

Whenever the Peshito is cited from this copy, the citation will be dis tinguished by the letter N. The writer is indebted for the means of doing
it

to the kindness of Dr. Tregelles,

whose undaunted

zeal

and unwearied

labours in the cause of sacred criticism are beyond all praise. * Of the corrupting process thus described the reader may furnish himself with abundant illustration, unattended by alarm or prejudice, by comparing the text of some of the more familiar orations of Demos
thenes, as settled

by recent

Philippic

may be named

The criticism, with its previous form. as affording a good specimen in this way.
s

Third

Accretion is not merely a corruption of a writer the finer features of his manner, as much as smoke, touches and colouring of an old master.

dirt,

matter, but disguises and daubing, the

yi

INTRODUCTION.
their

would from

peculiar

character

especially

gather around

them matter of

this kind.

Here

it is

the business of the critic


facts

to exercise discernment

and reasoning on the

which research

in order to discriminate the has in each case brought forward, substance, and the germ amidst from the
incrustation
original

the motley growth that overlies also be the Corruption may must not be what is
possible

it.

work of
left

wilful tamperings

and

out of sight

by the
is

critic.

Whether such a process has been perpetrated on the text of the

New
that

Testament, so as to leave

still

existing traces,
notice.

a question
falsifi

must not be passed over without cation have been boldly launched by

Charges of

ecclesiastical writers

but,

when unattended with specification of particulars in evidence, no more weight than is due to they must be allowed to have and such particulars as have criminations in general
polemical
;

been actually advanced, will on due examination be found to leave at the most but a slender ground for the belief, that much
mischief was effected in that way.
falsify,

Besides,

disposition

to

itself

wherever it might exist, would from the restraining consciousness, that the attempt would be a bootless one. The idea, therefore, of falsification can only
hardly be able to free

be admitted into the realm of criticism under check of such


Least of all should a ready recourse be had to wilful suppression to account for the absence of any
considerations as these.

portion

of text from important documents.

There

is

reason,
serious
:

however, to admit the existence of meddlings of a


kind, in the

less

way

of improvements in

but among a group of rival

grammar and expression readings there can in general be


which bears the stamp
supposition, that copyists

no great

difficulty in distinguishing that


It is also a fair

of such interference.

would make mischief by arbitrary and inconsiderate corrections of imaginary mistakes, and of some, too, which were real.
Lastly, there
is

a particular form of corruption, to

which other

INTRODUCTION.

Vll

volume writings might be occasionally open, but to which the


of the

New

Testament, and more especially the Gospels, was

exposed in a

namely, the process by which passages originally possessing some resemblance in matter
peculiar to
itself,

manner

and language would be brought into a still closer agreement, and which may be properly styled assimilation. By this term,
however,
it is

not intended to imply of necessity an immediate

interference with the text, with the direct purpose of producing

a closer conformity than originally existed.

In undoubted cases

there are circumstances to be observed scarcely compatible with


a deliberate operation of that kind
;

while, on the other hand,

appearances in general
that the matter which,
assimilative effect,

may

be accounted for on the supposition,


into the text,

when introduced
first

had an

was, in the

instance,

simply marginal

or interlinear.

The work
must

to

which the

critic

of the

New

Testament

is

called,

consist to a considerable extent in disentangling the text

from intrusive and usurping matter, having its origin in the margin in detaching accretions, and replacing whatever may
;

have been dislodged by a spurious rival and with leading principle must be especially noticed.
:

this

view one

Corruption of this particular kind must be the work of time,

would be gradual, and its sliding into the text by the agency of reckless, ill- taught, and foolish hands, and through the general propensity of copyists for
because the growth of such matter
itself

amplification,

would be likewise gradual the


:

evil, too,

unchecked

in

its earlier

stages

by due watchfulness

or control,

spreading with the advance of time.


this,

It follows of necessity

would go on from

that the

more ancient documents

will in general exhibit

a greater approach to purity in this particular respect than those

of later date, and, as a practical consequence, that the adverse

testimony of but a few witnesses of high antiquity, in the case

viii

INTRODUCTION.

unsound in certain
of critical hands.

receive the first and of matter of questioned genuineness, must that their text was foremost regard, even though it were certain for instance, in the touches other
respects, as,

Fewness must not discourage a reliance on


an intrusion took place at a particular and there is sufficient proof that such

their testimony, because, if

date point at a remote

mischief was very early at


is

work

such a numerical disparity

of things to precisely the state

be encountered in the body

of surviving documents, where the really ancient must, from the very nature of things, form but a small minority, and even of
these all cannot be expected to

This canon, as

it

have escaped intrusive influence. may be called, does not rest on an unreasoning
is

prepossession in favour of antiquity, but

a logical consequence

from unquestionable premises.


Since in citing the

MSS. which

exhibit a certain reading, a


is

great preponderance of mere

numbers

and may seem


to state fairly

to be a circumstance that cannot lightly

imposing in appearance, be set


it

aside or countervailed

by other

considerations,

will be well

and precisely how much may be concluded from

the circumstance.

Out of the

entire

body of

existing copies, as has already been


;

remarked, those of high antiquity form a very small portion

and, accordingly, any great majority of the whole must be almost


entirely

composed of those of
is

later date.

Whenever,

therefore,

a particular reading

supported by a greatly preponderating

part of the mass in contrast with a group of distinctively ancient


copies, all that can

be at once concluded from

this

bare fact

is,

that the reading in question

had a

settled

currency in later times.

This narrow conclusion


into account from

is all

that in such a case can be taken

MSS.

alone in a discussion of the claims of

a reading;

without any prejudice, however, to arguments for

antiquity and genuineness which


quarters notwithstanding.

may be

derivable from other

INTRODUCTION.
In one particular

IX

way mere numbers would be


its

important

evidence of genuineness, namely, in case there were something


in the character of the reading itself adverse to

acceptance

in the presence of rivals, and, therefore, to that currency

which

those numbers indicate.

Mere numerical

considerations

do not therefore

possess that

prime importance which they might at first sight seem to claim, and which they have too frequently been allowed to exercise.
Instead

of proceeding to detail in this place other guiding

principles, they will

be severally stated as cases occur in discus

sion

where they

will respectively require to

be applied.

That the mass of MSS. appears to

fall

into certain divisions,

grouped by features of resemblance exhibited by their text, has been remarked by independent observers, who at the same time
differed in their views of the precise

number and

character of

the groups.

Such

division cannot therefore be viewed as purely

a thing of fancy.
as almost inevitable

Indeed, some such result must be regarded

from the very nature of things.

Particular
in

readings being established in the text,

by whatever means,

a certain quarter would there maintain a widening currency with


little

or no interference from tendencies of the same kind else


;

and thus there would spring up distinct streams of text, as they may be termed, which would not be obliterated even by a partial commixture in after time. Thus much may well
where
be admitted, but not allowed to stand as a reality so palpable and well-defined as to furnish the groundwork for a formal

scheme of

critical operation.

One

circumstance, however, of this class

may

be ascertained

with tolerable distinctness.


peculiar forms of words

certain portion of

MSS.

exhibit

which marked the

dialect of Alexandria.

These forms are a


to

sufficient
if the

indication that the text belongs


writers

that

quarter.

For,

of the

New

Testament

INTRODUCTION.
is

themselves used them, their elimination from copies

the

work

of transcribers, and would take place wherever the current form

of the language did not acknowledge them


fore,

they would there

be retained only in the quarter where such influence did


exist.
If,

not

on the contrary, they were not originally in the


is

text, their presence

the work, in the

first

instance at least,
identified with

of an Egyptian an Alexandrian

copyist.
critic
;

This

last

must not be

and

it

should be remembered that the

same document may exhibit readings derived from the improve ments of a learned man, and also the vulgarisms and peculiarities
of a scribe.

In a review of authorities special regard will reasonably be paid to antiquity: but this must not be overstrained into a

summary

neglect of

more recent

witnesses, as necessarily offering

nothing worthy of notice.


should not suffer himself to be encumbered by prepossessions or assumptions, nor bind himself to the routine
critic

The

of a mechanical method of If he allows himself to procedure. be thus warped and trammelled, instead of ever maintaining the
free

employment of a watchful, calm, and unfettered mind, he

abandons his duty and mars his work.

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

xn

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

ACTS,
xviii.

17

21

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

TEXT OF THE

NEW

TESTAMENT.

MATTHEW
JEcof ov ere/ce
*
Till she

I.

25.

TOV viov avrrjs rov


\JierJirstborn son X a son].

had brought forth

THE
sion,

variation

which will demand notice in this place, gives occa at the outset, to certain general observations, preliminary

to the consideration not only of the present instance but of others of like complexion.
It is clear,

many

from the nature of the

case, that the intrusion of

glossarial matter into the text must be a gradual process, and, as such, favoured by lapse of time. From this it follows, as

a general principle, that documents of a later age would be more extensively infected Avith such corruption, and that the circum
stances of the

more ancient

are favourable to their purity in this

particular respect. Accordingly, a shorter reading, especially if it be of a kind to call forth glosses, provided it is supported by
tion in

a few authorities of high antiquity, has at once a strong presump its favour though before such presumption is accepted, it
:

should be ascertained that there

is

no reason

either in the

outward

* In order to furnish the ordinary reader of tlie English Bible with, some information of the matters with which the criticism of the original text is

concerned, the Authorised Version of each passage

is

added, having those

portions, the entire omission of which is the point in question, simply included in brackets ; but when the discussion relates to the claims of a
rival reading, a

rendering of that reading preceded by the mark X.

is

inserted within the brackets,

2 1

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

for referring the briefer form to accidental shape of the passage curtailment in transcription, or in its purport for suspecting wilful

reading, a shorter ov ereicev vlov, is exhibited by B, Z, and supported by the one, l Latin in a, b, c, g as well as the Coptic Syriac (N), by the Old and Sahidic versions. Another of the same class of Latin docu
eo>?

suppression. In the present place, instead of the

common
,

ments (y ) adds unigenitum. The remaining mass of authorities have the common form, except that D sec. man. and L omit avrfy. If the text stood originally as it is presented by the few authori
2

ties just cited,

the bare statement furnished

by the words

eo>5

ov

eretcev

dition
fail

to

would leave a blank respecting the subsequent con of the mother of Jesus, which thought or fancy would not Another evangelist, indeed, undoubtedly supplies occupy.
vlov

rbv TrpwroroKov (Lu. ii. 7); but this term, though it might be regarded as looking towards a certain conclusion, that Mary was
the mother of other children,
still

does not absolutely imply so

much and
Under

reading, if original, could hardly escape the application of supplementary glosses, perhaps of opposite tendencies; and, since it is supported by clear testimony, the fuller form must fall under the suspicion of having
origin in the accretion of such matter, especially if, as in the present case, this is at once supplied by a parallel passage.
its

bar the exercise of opinion. these circumstances, the simpler

To append in the margin rov TrpwroroKOv from the other Gospel would be a simple proceeding, but having a ready issue in the
amplification of the text
is itself. The Latin addition unigenitum, the bolder already noticed, expression of an opinion, widely held and stoutly maintained, as may be seen in the comment of Chrysostom.

When these considerations are taken into account, it is unrea sonable to acquiesce confidently in the common and, reading notwithstanding the great preponderance in the amount of the opposing documentary evidence, the few, but ancient, Greek,
:

Syriac, Latin, and other witnesses for the shorter form press strongly for the conclusion, that the longer reading is the result of assimilation, and that the original shape of the clause was

simply

etw<?

ov ereicev vlov.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

MATTHEW
l
G)(ri,

V.

11.

core, OTOLV

oveidlo-co(ni>

vjjLa?

KOU

8ia>-

KOL

e lTToxri

irav iroinqpov

prjfMa Kaff

Blessed are ye, when

men

shall revile you,


evil

you, and

for

my

shall say all sake.

manner of

and persecute against you [falsely ,]

The word
The term

tyevSotMevoi

is

wanting in D, and in
etc.

Z>,

c, d,

l
,

h,

of the Old Latin, Origen, Tertullian, Hilary,

is for altogether a redundance as regards the sense directed in true servants of Christ reproach against enmity to their Master, which is the case rest in cannot truth, and supposed, thus the declaration here made need not be guarded by a formal
;

hypothesis of falsehood in the charges alleged by the introduction of the word in question.

which

is

done

If the combination of this consideration with the direct adverse

evidence, already cited, serves to indicate spuriousness, it is an instance of the effects of an ill-directed officiousness, engaged in

stocking the margin with superfluous expressions of such ideas as were left by the original text to simple implication and sugges tion, and thus furnishing the first step to an eventual encumbrance

of the text

itself

with feeble and impertinent accretions.*

A
is

less

the omission of

important variation, though of a similar complexion, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Coptic, pfjfj,a by B, D,

^Ethiopic, etc.
*

An

indisposition, which, is often manifested, to

admit the reality of this

the actual accretion of marginal matter a disposition to regard omission and curtailment as more likely than amplification is best confronted by opinions of high authorities, such, as the following: "Perhaps
final stage, in

an affected and absurd idea that a marginal note can ever yet I hope you are not so ignorant as not to know that this has actually happened, not merely in hundreds or thousands, but in millions of places. Natura, says Daille, ita comparatum est, ut auctorum probatorum libros plerique omnes amplos quam breves malint; verentes To the scilicet, ne quid sibi desit, quod auctoris vel sit vel esse dicatur.

you think

it

creep into the text

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

MATTHEW
s
r&>

V. 22.

a8e\(f)w

avrov

ciicrj

(TTai Trj Kpl(T6l.

Whosoever

is

angry with

his by-other [without

cause,"]

shall

be in danger of the judgment.

Doubt

is

thrown on the genuineness of

elicf]

a terra

which

the passage by its might seem materially to affect the sense of absence from B, 48, 198, and by the intimations of suspicion in A and several others. Jerome describes the evidence of copies in his time as strongly adverse to its genuineness, and his decision
is

as

from the Vulgate, given accordingly and hence its absence It is also seen both in its current text and the best MSS.
:

A, C, and Z are defective in this place. The grounds for rejecting elicr) as furnished by existing docu ments are numerically slight but the testimony of Jerome, whose
wanting in the
./Ethiopia.
:

information respecting contemporary evidence could not be other wise than correct, most materially alters the state of the case.

The clear statement of an ancient writer respecting the reading of authorities which in his day were themselves styled ancient, claims the first consideration and it is to be regretted that there are but few instances where evidence so peculiar can be cited.
:

The term
officious

in question certainly wears the appearance of an stepping in, by a marginal suggestion at least, to the

rescue of Scripture from a seemingly harsh and startling declara tion; one, however, which will bear a different aspect, when the

passage

is

rightly interpreted without the presence of the disputed

word.
same purpose Bengelius, Non facile pro superfluo aliquid hodie habent complures docti viri (he might have added, omnesque indocti), eademque mente plerique quondam librarii fuere. From this known propensity of transcribers to turn everything into text -which they found written on the margin of their MSS. or between the lines, so many interpolations have
lectio

proceeded, that at present the surest canon of criticism bremor." Person to Travis, Letter VI.

is,

Praeferatur

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

ticular act

Judicial responsibility for homicide, as to whether each par is justifiable or not, is the utmost that is signified by

eW^o? co-rat rfj fcplaei, in the preceding verse; this being a limiting provision added to the summary command of the The appended teaching of Jesus, as decalogue, ov $oz/euo-et9. expressed without the presence of et /c?}, is simply an extension of
this

the words,

similar responsibility
case,

enactment to the act of anger, making it too a matter of of solemn inquisition whether, in each it has arisen from sufficient cause and has not exceeded

due bounds.
This simple view of the passage does not require the aid of any saving term, like el/cr). The assignment of an exaggerated

meaning, however, would be natural enough, and would then


lead to a looking for relief in this particular way. On the other hand, if eltcij be viewed as an original portion of the text, no motive can be assigned for a desire to be rid of it, nor

any mechanical cause,


omission.

specially attaching to

it,

for

an accidental

These considerations, combined with the adverse external evi


dence, at least forbid any reasonable confidence in the genuineness of the word. If it be condemned as spurious, the case is interest
ing, as being an instance of corruption called forth not by ordinary causes but
It is also, as has

having

its

source in a gloss

by

misinterpretation.

been already observed, one of the few instances

where positive patristic testimony introduces the modern critic to a state of documentary evidence very different from that of his

own

day.

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

MATTHEW
rouy t\6poi)s
vfjids,

V. 44.

evAoyetre TOVS /caXcoy iroieire rovs IUO-OVVTO.S


vfjiuv,

KOL irpocrevytorOe KOL SlCOKOVTGOV

virep

TGJV

eTrrj

pea^ovrow

to

Love your enemies, [bless them that curse you,~] [do good them that hate you, ] and pray for them which [despite-

fully use you, and\ persecute you.

The

three clauses,

ev\o<y.

v/*a9,

/ca\w9

u/^a?,

eTrrjp.

/cat,

are wanting in B, 1, 11, etc, in the Syriac (N), and the Coptic; the first in the Vulgate and most copies of the Old Latin ; the second and third in k; the third in the jEthiopic ; and all appear
to

have been unknown to various Greek and Latin Fathers.


This
is

one of the instances where, as regards existing Greek

MSS., the evidence is numerically slender on one side, while there is, at the same time, sufficient indication that a form of the text which is thus slenderly supported at present, was, at least, widely
current in remote times.
a discovery
is

Whenever

there

is

assurance that such

fairly made, reason requires that it should be allowed to have all the force that is due to testimony which is

really ancient.

only remains to observe, that the entire matter of these dis puted clauses is found in exact terms in the parallel place (Luke vi. 27, 28); and hence arises a suspicion of assimilative influence,
It

which combines

in great force with the direct adverse evidence.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

MATTHEW
Eav yap
riva
jJLLcrOov

V. 46, 47.

ayaTrrjaijTe

rovs TOVf a.\(j)OVS

e^ere;
GLV

ov^l KOL ol reXcovai TO avro


VfJLWV

TTOLOVCTL ;

KCU

a.GT7raO"rjCr0

/JLOVOV, TL Trepicrcrov

7roiLT;

ov^i Koi ol TeXwvai,

OVTCO TTOLOVCTL;

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the \_publicans )( heathen] the same? And if ye
salute

your [brethren X friends] only, what do ye more than others ? do not even the [publicans X heathen] so?
e
is

In either place, instead of Te\wvcu different copies have

This circumstance combined with the remark, that either term

too simple and precise to call forth glossarial illustration, so that one might be the offspring of the other, at once gives ground for

a presumption, that the latter word was originally found in one of the two clauses, and that its place was unsettled by the careless ness of transcribers.
first, eOviKoL is very slightly supported, but in the second B, D, Z, and several others, by the Old Latin, the Vulgate, by the Coptic, the ^Ethiopic, etc. It is clear also that Chrysostom

In the

read thus, from a cited passage having a direct bearing on the

term (1 Th. iv. 5). If it be said that eOvtKoL


that, before

is

the

work of some one who

disliked

the bare repetition of the same clause, it is enough to observe such suggestions are allowed to have weight, more evidence is needed than is at present possessed either of the exist

ence of fastidious correctors of the text

itself,

or of a taste for

elegant variety of expression on the part of those themselves in the margin.

who employed

The reading should be edvucoi in the second place. These remarks upon the readings reXwrat and edviicot apply
exactly to the circumstances of another pair in the passage, OVTCO

and TO avro, except that the determination of

their respective

g
places
is

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
not so clear as in the other case.

In the

first,

OVTM?

is

given by D, Z, 33, etc., avro by B, D, M, U, Z,

in the second, TO supported by h, A, etc.; several versions. besides and others,

many

The
L,

variation
S,

M,

interpretative be attached to the literally limited term aSeX^ou?.

aSeX^ov? is well supported by E, K, of an U, J,/, A, etc., but has strongly the appearance comment, indicating the wide meaning rightly to
for
<f)t\ov<;

This latter

too

is

Vulgate,
K. r. X.

the reading of B, D, etc., the Syriac, Coptic, ^Ethiopic, and most copies of the Old Latin.
in all probability stand thus
:

The passage then should


;

Eav

ov-ftl

ical

oi reXwvai, OVTCD Troiovcri; teal eav do-TrdcrrjcrOe

aSeX(/>ou9

vpwv povov,

TI Trepicrabv TroieiTe;

ovw

Kal ol

TTOiovcri;

MATTHEW
e

VI.

1.

TT]V e\TJ/JLO(TVl

rjl>

V/

Trpo&Oev rwv avOpw


Take heed that ye do not your [alms
men.
\ righteousness] before

In this place, instead of

eXerj/jLoa-vvrjv, SiKatocrvvi^v is

exhibited

by B, D, and a few Latin in most of its

others,
copies,

and

by

further supported by the Old the Vulgate, by a special comment


is

of Jerome, and several other patristic authorities. It may be observed, in the first place, that

it

can scarcely

be imagined that this variation has arisen from the accidents of transcription, and accordingly it may be safely assumed that
one reading
It
is

the

artificial issue

of the other.
if

may

also

be remarked, as a general principle, that

a case

be conceived in which each of two rival readings is equally likely to be the glossarial offspring of the other, in such a case the
reading which might happen to be found in only a few copies of the highest antiquity ought to be preferred, because the usurpa-

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


tion of glosses
is

strengthened by mere
If,

favoured, and their occupation extended and lapse of time.

however,

two readings
one

may

shall appear in the present instance, that the not thus equally matched in themselves, but that are reasonably be regarded as the germ-reading, and is at
it

upheld by ancient evidence, this must receive a decided preference a fortiori. Now, on the supposition of eX. being the original reading, there is nothing to provoke a gloss at all; and such a gloss as
SIK. would exhibit the preposterous process of illustrating a term which would be to every reader perfectly ordinary and intelligible, by means of a peculiar usage of Hebrew or Aramaean origin. On the other hand, SIK. in the text would at once present a pecu liarity to a Greek reader, for which an explanatory comment would be readily supplied by the succeeding context, as also by the LXX. (Gen. xxi. 23 Ps. cxi. 8 Is. Ixiii. 7), and the New Testament itself (2 Cor. ix. 9, 10). Reason accordingly requires that Site, should be regarded as the true reading and eX. the
; ;

the same time

usurping

gloss.

but

text is here supported by the great mass of MSS., and C are defective in this place. The evidence of the Syriac is indecisive, since it would give the same rendering jAoji) for either Greek word.

The common

(Jo>i

This instance, though altogether unimportant as regards the meaning of the passage, is in another respect most instructive,
because
presents a scanty amount of testimony but including ancient witnesses, combining with strong internal reasons to ask
it

the judgment of an unbiassed and unfettered criticism against array of numbers.

10

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

MATTHEW
Kai
And
o iroLT7]p crov 6
dirodcocreL

VI. 4,
ez/

6,

18.

/3Ae7r<oz>

rw Kpvirrw avrof
shall

aoi ev TW

(f)avepa).
secret,

thy

Father,

which seeth in

\himself~\

reward

thee [openly].

In the

common

text the form of this clause


first

is

the same in the

three places, except that the

alone has auro?.

The

question

which

arises

on them,

relates to the genuineness of the

words

In the last place they are omitted in B, D, G, K, L, M, S, U, and a considerable number of others, and in many versions on which grounds they may safely be condemned, though supported by the Old Latin in a, b, c, etc.
;

In the
etc.,

place the words are wanting in B, D, Z, 1, 22, 209, the Vulgate, the Old Latin in^, &, the Coptic, etc.
first

with the addition of the Sahidic,

In the second, the authorities to the same etc. In

effect
all

nearly recur, three they are

wanting in the Syriac (N).


These, though not imposing in number, are serious by their weight, and their adverse testimony conspires with the appearance which the words in question undoubtedly wear, of a marginal

supplement presenting to the eye what the mind would naturally KpvTrrm, as giving a append in antithesis to the words ev
TG>

completeness of point to the sentence.

A
is

similar origin may reasonably be assigned to auro?, wanting in B, K, L, U, Z, etc., and is unsupported

which

by the

majority of the versions, as well as by Chrysostom and others. In the third place, instead of an exact verbal repetition of the
clause, B,

D,

1,

22 have ev

rep tcpv^aiy, in

which variation of

term there

may be

circumstance.
is

recognised a correspondence to a change of In the two preceding instances, the case described

almsgiving or prayer-uttering from screened the of others, that is, TO tcpvirrov: simply gaze

that of an act in itself palpable

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


being not discernible, fasting disguise being supposed to be thrown over appearances
in the present, the act

11

and a which

might betoken
such,

it,

the matter

is

more intimately
icpvfytov.

covert, and, as

may

be well termed TO /cpvfaiiov or

MATTHEW
OTL
crov
(TTLV
T?

VI. 13.

(BoKTiXcia KOL
els

rj

dvvafu? KOU

rj

row
and

alwvas
the power,

[For

thine

is

the kingdom,
ever.

and

the glory,

for

Amen].

The question here to be considered relates to the genuineness of a passage omitted by a few authorities, including some of ancient date, but acknowledged by the remaining mass.
omitted in B, D, Z, 1, 17, 118, 130, 209, the Vulgate, the Old Latin in most copies, the Coptic, and by various Greek and Latin Fathers, especially the critics Origen and Jerome.
clause
is

The

Several

MSS. which
its

mentioning
defective.

absence from other copies.

contain the clause, have also a scholium are here A, C, F,

as given in this Gospel,

There are peculiar circumstances affecting the Lord s prayer, which attach in an equal degree to no

tion

other portion of the New Testament. the injunction which ushers it in

By

its

mode

of introduc

at once be especially drawn to it, and for it, as a model summary of prayer. More than this, it soon began not merely to be regarded as a type, but used as a form. Under these circumstances, probabilities are opposed even to the

precise attention would exact recollection secured

accidental omission of a clause in transcription ; and if an instance occurred, there would be immediate detection, and an instant

check to a multiplication of the error. And yet, if the clause be genuine, such an error has from the first possessed the entire Latin

Church, which has never acknowledged the doxology.

12

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

An

early

liturgical

and widely spread use of so brief a form, especially its as a safeguard against a employment, must be regarded

any degree or manner, of any constituent portion. thus in a manner conservative, liturgical influence, though mischievous a have also tendency in a different direction. might If the prayer did not originally conclude with a doxological
suppression, in

But

such an appendage would be naturally attached to it in not put forward as an original portion of it, but as practice which would place it in better keeping with the a feature adding
clause,
;

which it was introduced. From the service-book would soon find its way into the Lectionary, and after wards into the margin and text of continually multiplying copies. It appears then that, from the peculiar circumstances of the
formularies into

the clause

case, there is

an especial
its

the clause with

difficulty in reconciling the genuineness of omission in a few ancient documents, versions,

and Fathers; while the same circumstances suggest a ready mode


This latter array, there in though imposing appearance, ought not to be allowed in this instance to countervail the former, and an acknowledge
of accounting for
its

presence elsewhere.

fore,

ment of genuineness cannot be reasonably demanded. It may be further remarked that, had the simple and
doxological clause,

distinct

now found

in the

common

text, existed from

the

first,

it

would have been


is

as secure
:

from fluctuation of form

and, accordingly, the strange observable on comparing the doxologies exhibited in -the Syriac (N), which has nothing corresponding to teal rj in one of the Old Svvafus, Latin, and in various patristic copy (A)
variety which
passages, is an evidence that the original text of St. Matthew was not their source, but that they are merely the shifting shapes

as the other clauses of the prayer

of an

artificial

appendage.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

13

MATTHEW
f

VII. 14.

OTL

(rrevj]

77

TrvXr), K. r. A.
strait is the gate, etc.

[Because X How~\
Instead of ort, ri

is found in B sec. man., C, E, G, K, L, M, S, and U, V, A, very many others, and is supported by the Syriac, the Old Latin in most copies, the Vulgate, the ^Ethiopic, and

other versions, by several Greek commentators, as also by Jerome and other writers. The common reading is found in B, X, with

of inferior note, in f, ff of the Old Latin, and some copies of the Vulgate, in the Coptic, the Armenian, etc. Thus the amount of external evidence is in favour of rl.

many

The

case,

First,

however, admits of two remarks of some importance. on account of the cr immediately preceding, the o in OTI

might easily be lost by oversight in the transcription of uncial, and therefore earlier, MSS. An accidental origination of rl from
OTt

thus readily admissible. Again, the whole of this discourse


is

is

parallelism,

and in some parts exhibits


once
felt,

its strictest

pervaded by Hebraic form and it


;

must be

that an abrupt interrogation, like rt, without another in parallel, breaks strangely upon the flow of the strain This, however, is a point on which copyists and (vs. 13, 14).
at

Greek and Latin commentators would not be would accept without question the reading TI,

sensitive,
if it

and thus came in their

way by accidental corruption. The common reading ort may

well be retained.

14

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

MATTHEW
[Suffer us to go X Send us]

VIII. 31.

rjjuv direXOelv elf TTJV dyeXrjv

TWV

away

into the

herd of swine.
instead of
eiri-

Here
It
is

certain authorities

have a7r6aTei\ov

^9

at once evident that this variation

cannot be traced to

a purely accidental origin; but each reading shows a slight but distinct modification of the strict meaning of the other.

In such a case as the present attention should in the first place be directed to the parallel passages, which stand thus
:

etf
ls

Tou?

^o/poi"?,

iva et? avrovs

lae\,da>fjiV.

KOI eT
"va

(Mark
ei<?

v. 12,

13), and, irapeicaXeaav avrbv


fcal

67
viii.

Kivov<i

el<re\6elv.

eirirpe-fyev avrois

(Luke

32).

Now

on these

it

may

at once

be remarked, that they do not

suggest any origination of the particular expression airoareiXov r)/j,ds as an intrusive reading, because assimilation would have

imported from the parallel clause in

St.

Mark
:

which

is

there employed, namely,

ire^ov

the precise term but, on the other

hand, a modifying gloss upon aTroo-reiXov rjfAas in the shape of eViV. 77. a7r. is readily furnished from both places. Evidence of a disposition to interfere, at least by glossarial
hints, with the strict language of these passages, and in the direc tion of a less positive form of expression in the petition addressed to Jesus, is found in the readings of D, which, in the former

place, for

Tre^ov

the latter, for iva


iva ei? roi?
^oi/jot"?

aTrekOw^iev has simply a-TreX&o/z.ez and, in ela-e\6elv has the more vague expression
,

eure\.d(i)(TLV.

In the place under consideration

is

defective.

*7/ua9,

These considerations are in favour of the reading aTroa-reiXov and must be allowed to add their weight to the direct evi dence by which it is supported, namely B and some others, the Old

Latin, with the exception of/, A, the Vulgate, Coptic, JEthiopic, and Z are defective. would probably have supplied a reading of the same as in the parallel complexion passages.
etc.

ON THE TEXT OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.

15

MATTHEW
Ov yap
elf

IX. 13.

r]X6ov KaXecrat SiKaLOVf

AA d

MAKE
OVK
I am

II. 17.

r)\6ov KaXecrai SiKalovf

dXXd

d/JLaprcoXovf elf

not come to call the righteous, but sinners [to repentance~\.

LUKE
OVK
ef

V. 32.

eXr]Xv6a KaXeaai 0UUUOVS

dXXa

dfjLaprcoXov?

the state of evidence been decidedly adverse to the genuine ness of the words et9 i^erdvoiav in each of these places, they would

Had

have reasonably been regarded


gloss

inevitably

suggested by

as instances of a supplementarythe clause to which they were

appended.

No suspicion, however, attaches to them in the third place. In the second, they are omitted in A, B, D, K, L, and many In the first, by B, D, others, as well as by the principal versions. both the V, A, etc., by Syriac versions, JEthiopic, Old Latin,
Vulgate,
etc.,

and by Jerome and several other

writers.

From

both these places they must accordingly be discarded. The case is of no great importance as regards the matter in question, but it is in one sense worthy of note, as supplying
a very simple, but no less clear and instructive, instance of the assimilative influence of the text of the several gospels on each
other.

some
third.

This again appears in the minor variations exhibited in copies, namely, the insertion of jap before rfKOov in the

second passage, and the substitution of rjKOov for ekr)\v6a in the

16

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

MATTHEW
OTL
i)crav

IX. 36.

Because they \_fainted X were harassed].


Instead of
e/cXeXv/iei/oi,
<TK,v\iievoi

is

G, K, S, Latin and Vulgate, vexati, certainly represents it, as do probably It is also the reading of Chrysostom and those of other versions.
other writers.
is

and a multitude of

others.

given by B, C, D, E, F, The rendering of the Old

This amount of evidence leaves no doubt that

it

the genuine reading. The other may have arisen from accident in transcription, but

was more probably an interpretative gloss, conveying an approxi mate meaning of the rarer term by one more usual and elegant.

MATTHEW
OepaTreverc,
yelpere,

X.

8.

Xeirpovf

8a.L/jiovia e/c/3a

Heal

the sick, cleanse the lepers, [raise the dead^] cast out devils.

The important clause veKpovs eyeipere is omitted by C ter. man. E, F, K, L, M, S, U, V, and a considerable number besides, by of the Old Latin, the Sahidic, and other versions, Eusebius,
Athanasius,
etc.

This array of adverse evidence is too great to be so far over borne by whatever can be cited on the opposite side, as to allow
of any confidence in the genuineness of the clause. It is found, in and some others, the Vulgate, the B, C, D, P, J, however, Old Latin, and other versions and writers, and thus has the

advantage in the general antiquity of its documents. Omission might have arisen by accidental oversight from the

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


similar ending of the words ve/cpovs and \7rpovs. important to remark, that B, C, D, and other of

17
it is

But
its

more

authorities,
;

place

it

after depcnrevere

P, A,

etc.,

after e/c/SaXXere

and the

Latin in the Codex Forojuliensis before dcrOevovvras, and thus together with the common text exhibit four different situations.
It is impossible to discard

the impression, that this shifting of

place, wherever

it

occurs, betokens a marginal appendage slipped

into the text

by different pens at different points, according to chance or the fancy of the copyist. The clause in question would be readily suggested by a passage presently occurring (xi. 5).
Instead of imagining a suppression prompted
to regard the Apostles as depositaries of
sition to invest

them with

it

by an unwillingness power so great, a dispo may be supposed with much more

reason.

MATTHEW XL
s 8vo rwv
r

2.

^.a6r]Twv avrov.

He

sent [two

of his

disciples X

word by

his disciples^.

Instead of Suo, Sia

is

given by B, C, D, P, Z, A,
c, ^, jf, k,

etc.,

supported

by

either Syriac, the

Armenian, and Gothic,

as also in effect

by

the Old Latin, which in a, &, representative of Sta jjuadriTwv.


If the choice between the

The
is

has discipulos as a free evidence for the common

reading consists of the great majority of authorities.

two

to be determined

by the

anti

quity of the
is

MSS.

cited for each respectively, the preponderance

as

much

in favour of 8id, as

mere number would be

for &vo.

the same time, the reading of the less ancient body of copies is found to be itself possessed of high antiquity, as having been and thus having acquired an Established cur quoted by Origen,

At

In this case, as elsewhere, the right to be rency before his time. ancient is not styled solely possessed by the reading of the most
ancient existing copies.

18

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
The remaining
consideration,

and perhaps the decisive one, is in the parallel place (Luke vii. 19) without this, that Svo is found where a variation is scarcely conceiv any variation, and, in fact, and the appending of this word, interlinear or marginal, able the less if Sia p. were original, would serve as a comment fixing of Matthew, and in this way would readily come
;

precise language various to he taken by copyists for a correction or a preferable of Bvo in It is probable, therefore, that the presence reading. is due to this place, though of early date and wide currency,

usurpation.

MATTHEW
H\6ev yap
[For
the

XVIII.

11.

o vio? TOV avOpairov crwcraL ro


is

a
lost.~]

Son of man

come

to

save that which was

of this entire question is raised respecting the genuineness verse by its absence from B, L, 1, 13, 33, from e, ff, of the Old Latin, the Coptic, Sahidic, Syriac Hieros., Origen, the Eusebian Here A, C, Z, are defective. That Canons, Jerome, Juvenalis.
its

place,
its

however, in the text

is

of some antiquity at least,

is

seen

from

Thus

Latin. presence in the Syriac (N), and copies of the Old It will therefore be there is a fair conflict of evidence.

in the necessary to see whether other considerations claim a place


investigation. If the disputed verse be put out of sight, there

might seem an

abruptness in the introduction of the succeeding context, and, at first, a want of connectedness between the preceding and suc

ceeding matter.

appearance would could be found, which might furnish something towards an easier transition, -or at least serve as a suitable preliminary to matter

If the verse were originally wanting, such an lead to the suggestion of a supplement, if such

which wore an
effect

air of abruptness.
;

of the clause in question

and

it

This would certainly be the might be said that it was

readily supplied from

Luke

xix. 10.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


But
entire:
this

19

way

of accounting for

its

origin

is

at

once open to the

objection, that, if it

in this

would have been taken do insert the words ^rrjcrat Kal several MSS. for, though the of those which the best and number greater place, yet
were
so borrowed, it

contain the verse, omit them.

The

case

is

marked by some degree of


;

perplexity.

On

the one

hand it is impossible to resist grave suspicion, arising from the silence of a few ancient authorities and on the other, there must
be a recognition of an antiquity possessed by that form of the text

which the great majority of existing copies present, and also of the difficulty, already noticed, which attends the supposition of an insertion of the clause from another Gospel.

remark which has been before made

that a reading

not supported by

may MSS.

be

may be repeated here, to ascertained be ancient, which is fairly which are now especially styled ancient.

MATTHEW
aiwvLov;

XIX.

16, 17.

dyaOe, ri dyaOov
6 8e ehrev aura)
fi
[J.r)

iroL-qcra)

iva.

Ti
Oeos.

fie

Aeyew

ovdelf dyaflo?

elf 6

\_Good~\ Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, \Why callest thou

me good?
[there
one].
is

X Wliy askest thou me about that which is good?~\ none good but one, that is God X the good Being is

e is omitted by B, D, L, etc., and the omission is supported most of the Old Latin, by the -ZEthiopic, and by Origen: by copies it is thus rendered at least very suspicious. This, however, is a point of little moment in itself; but it gains importance by its

connexion with another variation immediately following, one of the most marked in the whole text of the Xew Testament, and,
in all its circumstances, one of the

most perplexing.

20

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
Instead of the double clause rl pe \eyeis
.
. .

0eo?, there

is

ex

hibited, ri pe epwra? Trepl TOV ayaOov;

et<?

etrrlv 6 aryaQos,

by B,

and supported by other authorities, the (om. TOV, 6), L, 1, 22, are the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Coptic, which of principal the ^Ethiopic for the first clause, the Armenian, and Origen, or 6 Trar^p, which how 6 though some of these would add @eo9 intrusive ever are merely glosses.

The

first

clause, as containing the

more important

variation,

will require separate remarks. In the first place, neither form can be regarded as derived from the other, even by any accidental process.

stood regard to the suggestion, that the passage originally of as in the common text, and that an accidental omission ayaOe

With

rendered the subsequent question apparently unmeaning, and thus to this it may led to the arbitrary substitution of another clause
;

be replied, that such a


to the true

state of things

would of itself have

at

once

remedy in the simple replacement of the pointed the ready aid of the parallel places. even without missing word, It is also a ready suggestion, that the clause in question was
from the
devised as an escape from a theological embarrassment arising common reading but this is at once open to the remark,
:

that in the

two

parallel places there is


offer

no evidence of a

like

Besides, to attempt, though they of mind such deliberate a calm charges tamperings, though often

the same provocation.

thrown

out, will perhaps appear to

be made more readily than

considerately, and to be more easily Another case may be imagined

advanced than

justified.

on the supposition that the

common

text

is

here the true one.


d<yade,

to the epithet

Besides the exception taken the clause in question gives the purport
;

therefore the clause,

of another which might very naturally have been added and it be was a note said, might merely marginal

suggesting such an additional interrogation, and giving greater symmetry and completeness to the dialogue the drift of which, with this imaginary supplement, would stand thus callest
; :

Why

thou

me

good but God: and why askest thou that which is respecting good, with the perfect law of that
is

me good? no

one

good Being already before thee ? Such a suggestive note might certainly have been made, and, being made, might easily have

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

21

crept into the text; but, in that case, it would have been found side by side with the other question, there being no reason why it should This supplant it, since the two are quite compatible.
difficulty

must be removed before such an account of the origin


to the second clause,
it is

of the clause can be entertained.

With regard

that even if the various reading in the

first,

important to remark, which has just

been considered, could be readily imagined to be a wilful fabri cation, no reason can be assigned for altering the second at the

same time,
form,

especially with a

mere change of form, and

into a

too, less explicit in its


efc ecrrlv

developed form,

The less expression than the other. 6 wyaOos, has thus an internal mark of

genuineness, and in that a plea for the genuineness of the whole. The question may now revert to the claim of the entire varia
tion to be accepted as genuine. The positive evidence is found in the antiquity of the authorities which support it and this,
;

again, finds indirect but strong support in the difficulties which, as has been seen, attach to the several ways of spurious origination

which may be imagined.

On

the other hand, if

its

genuineness be fairly admitted, there

would come forth a startling instance of the effect of assimilation on the text of the Gospels, in the extensive elimination of a characteristic passage from the current text, as evidenced by the bulk of existing documents and the facts of patristic usage.
Still

such a consideration ought not to be admitted as a bar to


as follows: AtSda-Ka\e, TI cuyaQov

the positive evidence, which tends to exhibit the true form of the

whole passage
%a>r)v

Trotr/o-o)

iva

alfovtov; 6 Se elirev avra., ri

pe epwras

Trepl

rov aryaOov;

ecrrlv 6

22

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

MATTHEW
Avvacrde
TTLelv

XX.

22, 23.
//e AAo)
;

TO Trorrjptov o eyw
ey<i)

KOL TO fiaTTTKr/JLa o

/3a7rr/b/xcu, fiairTLcr6r)vai

KCU Xeyci avToif TO \eyov(riv avTM 8vva^e6a. KCU TO /3a7rricr/m b iroTrjpLov JJLOV Triecrde,
y

fiairTicrO-qo-ecrOe- K. T. A.

Are ye
to be

able to drink of the cup that

I shall

drink

of,

[and

They Ye shall drink indeed of


baptism that

with ?] baptized with the baptism that I am baptized unto he saith We And are able. unto them, him, say

my

cup,

and

be baptized icith the

I am

baptized with, etc.

This passage in the common text corresponds in form, though with slight verbal differences, with the parallel place (Mark x. 38 But here the 40), which is affected by no variation. clause teal TO ... /3a7rria-d., both in the question and answer, is wanting in B, D, L, Z, 1, 22, the Vulgate, the Old Latin in most
copies, the Syriac (N), the Coptic, Sahidic, ^Etliiopic, etc.

There can be no reasonable doubt that these ancient authorities


exhibit the true, in the shorter, form of the passage, and that the common reading presents a clear instance of assimilative intrusion.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

23

MATTHEW
"AvOpwiros
eivre,

XXI.

2831.
KOL irpoo-eXOwv

e/^e TCKWX, 8vo,

TW
tv

TCKVOV,

rw
ra>

dfJLTreXwvi /JLOV

vTraye, a-rjiJLtpov epya^ov 6 8e aTroKpidel? eiirev, ov


/ecu

varepov 8e ^.ra^.\r)6els airriX0.

Bevrepcp ehrev wcravTW 6 8e airoKpLdels eiirev, K TWV Svo TL? ej/co, Kvpif, KOL OVK aTrfjXQe.
7rolr)(r

TO OeXy/jLa TOV Trarpos ;

Xeyovtriv

A
and

certain

man had

two sons
to

and

lie

came

to the first,

said, Son,

go work

day

swered and said, 1 will not ;


went.

He an vineyard. but afterward he repented, and


in

my

And

he came

to the second,

and said

likewise.

And

Whether of he answered and said, /go, sir ; and went not. them twain did the will ofhis father? They say unto him,
Thefirst.
*** The variations on this passage are too complicated to be expressed by marks. They consist mainly in the substitution for the word in the reply, of terms having an opposite meaning to it, first," accompanied in some cases by an inverted order of the answers of
"

the sons.

This passage,
original one,
is

the form here presented be supposed to be the just of a kind to escape the growth of various
if
it

readings, except,
sort
;

might

be, of the

most

trifling

and accidental

one of those where, in the clearness and sim both of the whole and of its several terms, there is nothing plicity
because
it is

to
it

is

provoke any gloss, emendation, or conjecture. If, therefore, found, on the contrary, to be affected by remarkable and

perplexing variations, there might arise a presumption that this To entertain such a presumption, shape is not the original one.

however, would be unfavourable to the free and

full investigation

of a question of considerable difficulty. Accordingly, it will be best to dismiss it, and at once to state the variations as they are
exhibited by the principal authorities.

24

DEVELOPED CKITICISM
The reading erepw
for

Sevrepw

is

be regarded as the true one, but question which arises on the passage.

strongly supported, and may is immaterial to the main

The For

facts

which principally claim attention are the following. with an inverted order of the Trpwro? B has va-repof
Sei/repo?,
;

answers of the two sons.

In the same place 4 has all with the inverted order

and

13, 69,

have

ecr^a-ros,

common

order.

"Ea-^aro<?

exhibits ecr^aro? with the has also some patristic support, besides

while

that of ancient Latin copies, the time of Jerome.

some

still

existing, others prior to

Though mere numbers of


favour of the

authorities are

overwhelmingly in

of the passage, yet variations so and thus peculiar supported fairly challenge at least a careful
consideration.

common form

Two

causes of unsettlement are in this case conceivable

either

the passage might have exhibited originally some embarrassing or such peculiarity, which would provoke to hasty tampering
;

peculiarity might, on the contrary, have been produced by some purely accidental disarrangement of form, which further led to wilful interference. The only accidental disarrangement to which
it is

exposed, seems to be a transposition, in transcription, of the answers of the two sons.

Now,

if the

original

exhibited in the

common

form be supposed to be that which is text, and such displacement to have


its

accidentally arisen in transcription, and have found would then have copies, a marked

way

into

discrepancy

presented

itself;

and the remedy, whether suggested in the margin or thrust upon the text, would naturally be directed to the term 7rpcoro9, and would be at once furnished by the numeral simple Seurepo?. But, with this at hand, recourse would not be had to varepos, which
is
is

never used to express a mere place in numerical succession, never a bare numeral; and
of,
still less,

if possible,

would eo-^aro?
it is

be thought
place

can hardly, there fore, be conceived that either of these readings could be produced by any circumstances from Trpwro?. It may be remarked, how
It

when

because, though only two things are concerned.

a kind of numeral,

out of

ever, that Seure/309

is

a natural gloss

upon

uo-repo? or e

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

25

Thus far, then, there is reason for further considering the fact of the existence of these latter readings. If the passage be supposed originally to have had varepos, with
the same order of the answers as in the

common

text,

varepof

would be allowed to pass as a mere equivalent of Bevrepos, because no other very obvious meaning offered; and a perplexity would thus present itself. From this there would be two ways of escape, either by placing the answers in the order in which, as has been
seen, they stand in several copies, or

by the

arbitrary substitution

of TrpwTo?.
It appears, then,

from what has preceded, that there

is

great

imagining a process by which varepo^ or eo-^aro? could be evolved from TT/OWTO?, while a case is quite conceivable
difficulty in

in

which the
It

latter

might take the place of

either of the former.

remains to be inquired, what amount of difficulty really attends that shape of the passage which has vorepo? or eV^aro?, with the common order of the answers whether it admits of any
;

other construction than that which was adopted by Jerome, namely, that the reply of the Jews was a wilfully perverse one. The answer of the second son is liable to be hastily regarded as
necessarily a piece of cool hypocrisy, but it is quite as much the language of a sincerity inconsiderate and transient, feeble and
fruitless

by its mencement of

levity.

In that case the

first

son was, at the

com

the business, varepos, in the rear, behindhand, with respect to the other, for he had not advanced as far as well meant and the same remark applies to the stronger term profession
:

It may be said that neither term is so simple a mode eo")(aTos. of expressing this idea as might be imagined; but either term may be viewed as a near rather than a clear rendering of some

derivative of the root

which would express backwardness of position, whether that position were real or only apparent.* Such, then, are the claims for attention possessed by these two
"1)"|J$>

kindred readings
or the other.

Sevrepos being dismissed as a gloss


is

upon one

If either

to

would

incline

to the stronger

be regarded as genuine, probability term ecr^aro?. This latter also


for the existence of 7T/3wro9 less

furnishes a
*
is

means of accounting

The solution which makes 6 vo-repos equivalent to 6 va-repov /nera/xeXr^e/s, more ingenious in conception than admissible by the laws of language.

26

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
It

violent than that of arbitrary substitution.

might have been

such a passage as a marginal comment on ca^aro?, suggested by was originally who he that and this xx. 16 of implying, Gospel, another. in was eventually TT/JWTO? eo-%aro5 in one sense,

MATTHEW
Oval
vjjuv,

XXIII.

14.

ypa^/mrets KOLL (frapuraLOL, VTTOKpiTOl, OTL KareaOiere ra$ oi/aW TUV yr)pa>v, KOL Trpotyao-et 8ia TOVTO Xfj^eade Trepicrfj,a.Kpa 7rpo<Tev)(6iJLevoi

[Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows houses, and for a pretence make long prayer :
therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.^

The genuineness
It is

of this entire verse

is

a matter of question.

D, L, Z, 1, 33, 118, 203, 209, 346, in the Codex Amiatinus and other important copies of the Vulgate being also omitted by Jerome himself in a, e, ff g of the Old
wanting in B,
l l
, ,

Latin, and probably the Eusebian canons. These are the main facts that impeach the genuineness of the passage, together with the circumstance that its matter, though not its grammatical form, is derivable from two parallel places

(Mark

xii.

40;

Luke xx.
.

the portion OTI

47), and also the shifting position of Kpifjua; since in the MSS. which are its best
.
. .

ela-eXOetv, support, it is found to precede the words on /cXetere a circumstance which favours the suspicion of intrusion from the margin, as if one copyist had let in at one point of the text, and

another at another, a supplement which a glossarist had framed from the parallel places.

On

the other

hand

it

may

be argued, that on account of the


.

recurrence of the

a clause so commencing words oval vjuv introduced might readily be lost in transcription by oversight. If, however, there is ground for hesitation in condemning the
.
.

verse as spurious, still it cannot be regarded with confidence as in the face of ancient evidence. genuine important

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

27

MATTHEW
8c ycfjiowriv e

XXIII.

25.

apirayr^s KCU aKpacrlas.


\_excess \ injustice],

Within they are full of extortion and

Upon

d/cpacrlas

there

are

the

variations

glance at these terms at once shews that the variation is due to interpretative glosses and the group may accordingly be
;

scanned with respect to the probability which


presents of being the germ of the others. With regard to the three first variations
it

each

reading

may

be observed,

that since they are terms of kindred meaning, each might well be a gloss upon either of the others, while the fourth is quite
distinct from them in signification; but that all four are too clear and simple in their meaning to require or tempt a gloss at all, if found in the text. On the other hand, aicpavia is in itself a term of various signi
fication. It

may

either

signify

the

condition of one

who

is

aKpartfs in the more ordinary sense, that is, in respect of lustful indulgence, in which case it would be explained by d/caOapala; or that of one who is dfcparr]? epSov9 (Aristot. Eth. Nic. 7, 4),

then

In this place and, in consequence, aSitcos, Troz^po?, TrXeoz/e/CT^?. it is a term which, in the text, might that a/cpacr/a? appears
well be prolific of glosses and so eventually of various readings. It may be remarked too, that at the other occurrence of the word

(1 Cor. vii. 5),

where the context

restricts
is

the sense, there

is

no

none upon the more precise term Trowrjplas in the parallel place (Luke xi. 39). Upon external evidence the issue is between dtcpacrias and For the d8i/aa5, the authorities for the others being slight.
variation; and, again, that there

former there are cited B, D, L,


latter C,

,J, 1,

13, 33, 69, etc.:

for the
fact,

E, F, G, H, K, S, and a large number of others; in the great majority of MSS.

Yet, notwithstanding this disparity of numbers and the weight of some of the authorities for aSwaa?, as just cited, the importance of the opposing documents and internal considerations sanction the

28

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
the original reading, and aSi/aa<? its one which the parallel Trovripias and the association
is

conclusion that atcpacrias


interpretation
:

with

dpTrcvyfjs

would shew

to be correct.

is in this instance unimportant, because a translator with aicpao-tas before him, would give such a rendering as would convey his own view of the sense in which the term was

The evidence of versions

used.

MATTHEW XXV.
rj

13.

6 vios TOV

dvOpaxrov

\_Wherein the son of man cometh~\.

The absence of
as also

this clause from A, B, C, D, L, X, and others, from both Syriac versions, the Old Latin, the Coptic,

Sahidic,
it as

^iEthiopic,

etc.,

is

a sufficient
It is

undoubtedly spurious.

ground for condemning an intrusive supplement.

MATTHEW
Aafiwv
6
Irjcrov?

XXVI.

26.

TOV aprov KOL


it

v\oyr)<ra$

e/cAa<re.

Jesus took bread, and [blessed

% gave thanks~\,

and brake

it.

The

great majority of

MSS., including A, E, F, H, K, M,

S,

supported by B, D, L, Z, and some others. The case is evidently one where versions must be cited with caution but both the Vulgate and
;

U, V, read

ev^apca-rtja-a^ for evXe^o-a?.

The

latter is

Syriac give a different rendering in this and the following verse, where eu%apto-T?)cra9 is unquestioned, and thus are distinctly

evidence for evKwyrjcras.

might be urged that eu^. was the original reading, and was changed into euX. by the influence of the parallel place (Mark xiv. 22), where eu\. is undoubted. On this it may be remarked,
It

that there

is

another parallel (Luke xvii. 19) on which a precisely

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


similar
all
;

29

argument might be grounded in favour of ev\. and thus argument from assimilation is in a manner neutralised.
is

When
in

Mark

the general similarity of the present passage with that considered, it is more probable that the resemblance

originally included the term in question, than that there was a accidental change, too, of eiiX. into process of assimilation. is either from the succeeding verse conceivable, ev%. readily

An

through the wandering eye of a copyist, or rather through inad


vertence of mind, favoured by the free convertibility of the two familiar terms. That they were so convertible, will be evident

on a review of the following passages: Mat.

xiv. 19; xv. 36;

Mark vi. 41; John vi. 11;

viii. 6,

7; xiv. 22, 23;

Luke

xxii. 17, 19; xxiv.

30;
for

Cor. x. 16; xi. 24. Notwithstanding the preponderating


1

amount of evidence

eir^aptcrT^cra?, that which supports the rival reading is sufficiently important to render the case open to the influence of other con siderations. These favour the probability that the common read
is the true one, thus placing the passage in original agreement with the parallel in Mark. Tov before aprov is omitted in B, C, D, G, L, Z, and others but it should be retained even in the face of this weighty forbid

ing

Its accidental omission is possible enough, while a chance ding. intrusion can hardly be conceived, and there can have been no

motive for a wilful insertion, but rather the contrary.

In

fact,

the influence of the parallel places would favour the absence of the article, and its presence might be viewed as a difficulty. Its
use,

however,
is

and

loaf"

is the same as in another place (Luke xxiv. 30), the strict expression of a simple circumstance, that of the singly placed before the master of the feast. Though the
"

presence of the article thus serves to a more precise and lively description, yet its absence in the parallel places is in no way remarkable, since the anarthrous term answers all the purposes

of the narrative.

The general principle on text should be here sustained,

which the reading of the common is this; that readings which present

a form of which either the significance is not obvious, as in the present instance, or the usage is not ordinary, possess in that very

circumstance a token of genuineness.

30

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

MATTHEW
TOVTO yap ecrn TO alpd
For
this is

XXVI.
TO

28.

/JLOV

rrjy Kaivrjs

my

blood of the [new] testament.

MAKE
TOVTO
(TTl

XIV.
TO

24.

TO
is

CLLJJLOL

fjLOV

TTJS KCLlvfj? 8ia0r)Kr}?.

This

my

blood of the [new~\ testament.

shorter reading, TO al^d pov TT}? SiaOrfKr)?, is found in both these places. In the former this is the reading of B, L, Z, 33, in the latter of B, C, D, L, etc., k of the Old Latin, and 102;

the Coptic. Though this evidence is slender in are certain considerations which come to its aid.

amount, there

An

accidental

omission of

tcatvijs

by

oversight in transcription, if the


is

word were

originally in the text,

certainly possible

from the

triple recur

rence of the two final letters; but, all circumstances considered, cannot be regarded as very The improbability, how probable. ever, is very great that such accidental omission, in itself by no

happened
ment.

means probable, should have befallen both places: and, had it in one, this would not have affected the other, since

assimilative influence acts in the

way

of addition, not of abridge


to the shorter read

On

the other hand, the addition of

tcaivf)<;

under the shape of a in the first marginal suggestion instance, would be a most likely occurrence, because the epithet would in this place be naturally and rightly associated in the mind with Butd^icr^ to say nothing of positive xxii. suggestion from the parallel place
at least

ing, if that

were the original form,

(Luke

20).

the whole, there is great probability that the shorter is the true one in both reading places, and the true exponent of the language actually employed on the occasion: while the narrative of St. Luke, as well as its counterpart in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, must be regarded as conveying the

Upon

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


;

31

purport rather than the verbal form which is clearly the case in the more simple and less figurative language of the clause, orov fiaa-CKela rov @eov e\0r), compared with the corresponding rj
e&>9

portions of the other narratives. This leads to the further remark, that in the absence of /caivi)? the language of Jesus appears less

communicative and explicit, and, as such, approaches nearer to the reserved and figurative style of various communications to the
Apostles previous to his passion. It will be seen that an important portion of the preceding reasoning is derived entirely from a joint view of both the places
in question,

and thus that one main step towards a conclusion would have been lost by a separate consideration of each.
This circumstance furnishes a peculiar indication of the insuf
ficiency of any mere routine process applied mechanically to each several instance, instead of a free employment of such special
aids to investigation as various cases

may happen

to offer.

MATTHEW
>

XXVII.

34.

avrw

TTLelv oi^os ytiera

x^7?

They gave him [vinegar

X wine] to drink, mingled with gall.

As a rival reading to 0^09, olvov is given by B, D, K, L, and a few others, supported by the Vulgate, by most copies of the Old Latin, by the Coptic, Sahidic, -^Ethiopia, Armenian, etc.

On

the other hand, 0^09

except

C and

Z,

is found in the remaining mass of MSS., which are defective in this place.
;

antiquity of witnesses preponderates for olvov yet antiquity of existence as a reading is also undoubted in the case of 0^09.

The

Each might readily originate in the other. The common reading might have been merely a gloss upon olvov, suggestive that the liquor might also be termed 0^09, or rightly or not directly identifying it with that which was afterwards adminis tered. But still olvov does not seem very provocative of such a comment.

32

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
Again,

olvov would be at once being supposed original, from the parallel place as a gloss or emendation, supplied, either cannot but two rival suspicion

S&

of (Mark xv. 23): and,


attach in the
tives in
first

readings,

solely discrepancy with the expression /^ %oX% p,e^bein" at once reconcileable of to allowed signify any ingredient since o7^ may be

which places two gospel narra for the apparent verbal concord; and this is done by olvov, and oo? olvov, words wpvpviapkvov the in lies
instance to that

^vov,

a strongly bitter or acrid flavour. instance presents, In such a conflict of evidence as the present the imputation deserve would a positive decision either way rather to seems The last mentioned consideration of rashness.
in favour of the give a preponderance

common

text.

MATTHEW
"Iva

XXVII.
VTTO

35.

TrXrjpooQf}
TO.

TO

pyOtv
JJLOV

SifJLpi(ravTO
LfjiaTLcrfjioi

l^ana

eavrois,

rov 7rpo(j)r)Tov /cat eiri TOV

IJLOV

efSaXov K\ripov.

That

phet,

it might be fulfilled ivhich was spoken by the pro They parted my garments among them, and upon my
lots.~\

vesture did they cast

wanting in all the uncial MSS. except A, and many others, and in the most important versions except the Armenian, and is unknown to Origen, Chrysostom, and various
This passage
is

other writers.

There
it

is

no ground whatever
It is a

for hesitation in

condemning
the

as spurious.

clear case of assimilative intrusion,

matter being derived from the parallel place (John xix. 24). the be thus Though quarter may certainly indicated from which
the application of the Old Testament citation was borrowed, it ought to be remarked that the introductory words are changed, the quotation being here fitted with St. Matthew s formula, Iva K. r. \. This has the appearance of direct 7r\r)p(i)6fi, interpolation.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

33

MATTHEW

XXVIII.

9.

e7TOpvovro ctTTayyeiat ros fJLarjrou? avrov.

[And
This clause
of other

as they went to

tell his disciplesJ]

is

wanting in B, D, and a considerable number


is

MSS. (Z
and
is

defective), in the

Vulgate,

in all copies

of the Old Latin except f,

in the Syriac, Coptic,

Armenian,

and

others,

omitted by Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, and


its

Augustine.

Notwithstanding the amount of testimony in


ing
It

favour, includ

and

C, this adverse evidence, containing so

much

that

is

ancient,

must bear strongly against the genuineness of the clause. might have been a supplement, originally in the form of a scholium, to a narrative which without it appears disjointed, and
as
its suggestion. the same time there must be taken into account the possi bility of the loss of the clause, if genuine, by oversight in tran scription, on account of its ending being the same with that of

such would lead to

At

the preceding one

marked

instance, in fact, of 6f^oiore\evrov.


&><?

But, again, one copy has only others no more than ox? eiropevovro

eV. a?r 07764 Acw,

and two

and these can hardly be

viewed

from oversight, but, since they may be presumed to be transcriptions from older MSS., are rather tokens
as curtailments

of a gradual growth of supplementary matter, that spuriousness of the whole.

is,

of the

peculiar interest attaches to the consideration of this passage, because, if the words in question are rejected, the time and place of the meeting with the women are left indeterminate ;

and a statement is removed, namely, that they encountered Jesus on their return from the sepulchre, which is a main source
of difficulty in reconciling the different narratives of the resur
rection.

34

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

A
on

this circumstance,

plea for the genuineness of the clause might be grounded by alleging that it points to a motive for

it, and thus accounting for its absence from MSS. and But before this consideration can be admitted within the pale of legitimate criticism, evidence must be furnished, that a practice of making summary riddance of difficult or obnoxious matter is something more than a creature of imagination or an

expunging
versions.

allegation of party warfare.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

35

MARK

I.

2.

tv rols 7rpo(f)r]Tais.

As

it.

is

written [in the prophets X in Isaiah the prophet].

On

the

common
T&>

reading eV rofc
T&>

7rpo<?frat9

there

is

the marked

Trpo^ry, for which there are cited B, D (om. ro3 before H.), L, A, and many others, the Peshito, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Coptic, etc., as well as Irenaeus, and
variation eV

Hcrata
f

various other writers.

Readings that serve to obviate difficulties and peculiarities are on that very account open to strong suspicion. Tamperings, if to their existence be admitted, and glosses would be framed
not to generate, awkwardness and perplexity. This must instance. be to the general principle present applied The citation in this place prefixes to certain words of Isaiah
relieve,

others

which cannot be referred

prediction expressly applied by with another which the latter adopted as belonging to himself With this combination the introductory words (Jno. i. 23).

that prophet, combining a Jesus to the Baptist (Mat. xi. 10),


to

common reading are in harmony, and would not ( accordingly provoke such a gloss or emendation as v TW H. and call up an appearance of inconsistency which did not Trp.,
according to the
exist before.

ro>

On

this

ground, in addition to

its

positive evidence

already stated, the latter claims decision in its favour.

One MS. has simply ev ro3 Trpo^r^, and the question might be asked, whether this can be the original reading. The question is not must decisions since critical altogether unreasonable; but,
be supported by a certain amount of evidence, receive an answer in the affirmative.
it

cannot critically

36

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

MAKE
/3a7mo>ta

I.

4.

*Iwavvr]S fiairTifav tv

rfj

cpr^a

/cat

^eravoias

elf

a(j)to-iv

dfj.ap-

TLtoV.

John did baptize

in the wilderness,

and preach

the baptism

of repentance for the remission of sins*

Another form of
v ev
is

this sentence is as follows,

eyevero
article before

rfj

epr/fjup

X. Kypvacrajv, K. r.

The

of articles

is

found in B, L, J, 33 (C is habitual with D); while B, 33, 73, 102, omit


defective

and the absence


/cal

before Krjpvcrcrwv, the presence of with that of the previous article.

which

is

scarcely compatible

From the very nature of the question as far as it relates to 6, no aid can be obtained from the versions nor, in fact, do the Greek Fathers furnish any evidence on the point.
;

The preponderance,
MSS.,
text.
It is
is

therefore, of testimony, thus confined to

enormous in numerical amount in favour of the

common

remark the correctness of language reading for with the article prefixed /3a7rbecomes a mere distinctive appellation or title, and the pre TI&V dicate is found in the words ev X. This rfj Krjpva-a-wv, K. r.
exhibited
necessary, however, to by the rival
;

epr;yu,&>

is

just as it should be
s

for the

words of Isaiah found a fulfilment

not in John

baptising, but in the


locality.

work and purport of his preach


this as the following:

ment and

its

According to

meaning might be put in such a shape came [in accordance with such

form of the sentence, its There

prophecies] John the baptiser preaching in the wilderness, etc. If this reading be not the true one, it is either a purely arbitrary improvement from the hand of an observant and ingenious critic,
In this and some other places where no marks are attached to the English Version, a translation of the passage, exhibiting the variation, is included in the body of the article.
*

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


or
it

37

must be supposed that Kal was lost in some transcript by accident, and the resulting awkwardness was critically remedied by prefixing o to ftaTrri&v. But upon this there arises the
question, whether there are grounds for admitting that critical hands ever exercised themselves in such operations of extreme It is far more easy nicety upon the text of the New Testament.
to take refuge in such a

view than

to prove its truth.

MARK
TL
ecrTL

I.

27.

TOVTO ;

ris

IT)

SiSa^r]

77

KaLvri

avrr],

on

KOLT

c^owriav KOL rols

Trvev/JLao-i, K. r. X.

What

is this? what new doctrine is this? for with commandeth he even the unclean spirits, etc. authority

thing

It will

passage at length,

be necessary to give the principal variations of with their authorities.

this

TL earn rovro ; SiSa^f) rj Kaivrj KCUT e^ovcriav Kal .... B. TL e. r.; StBa^rj Kawr) KOT e^ovcrlav teal .... L, 33, 102. TL e. T. ; SiSa^r) /caivr) avrTj KOTT e%ova~iav Kal .... 1, 118, etc.
TY<?

rj

BiSa-xf) e/ceivr)

rj

Kaivrj avrrj

r/

e^ovala^

on

Kal ....

D.

one of more than ordinary perplexity may perhaps be found by a careful atten tion to the various points offered by the whole.
is
;

The appearance thus presented


still

a clue

The

clause,

8tSa^

f)

Kaivr/

Kar

e^ovcriav,

given by B,

is

not

Greek form, admissible meaning. But


a legitimate

ings

rj

Kawrj and

eKeivrj,

conveyance of the only it must be remarked, that of the read which are found together in D, each
at least for the

might readily spring by accident from the


peculiarly appropriate to a comment And further, if eKetvtj present instance.
is

other.

Again,
as

cKeivrj

made

aside,

in the
after

were original and


77

wards

lost

by

accidental transformation into

Kawrj or Kaivr),

an appearance of incompleteness without a demonstrative word would lead to the intrusion of avrrj and an account is thus
;

3g

DEVELOPED CKITICISM
its

as also of afforded for the existence of that reading,

shifting
^ f

position

in various copies.
least a probability that

These considerations indicate at


is

e/ceiz/7j

if a hint be taken from D, 8tSa % ^ eWw; efrvvla. efrvaiav, or, these and At all events, the choice appears to lie between one of

original,

-and that the clause should stand SiSajch

e/celvr)

Kar

Kar egovffiav, the reading of L. One thing may StSaxv KaaJj of variation be regarded as certain, that so remarkable an amount
has

and elliptical clause. grown from some abrupt The clause ri ean rovro; is not free from suspicion on account
its

of

Old absence from D, and three evangelistaria, from the Latin with the exception of two copies, from several important

ones of the Vulgate, the ^Ethiopic, etc., and with this circum term stance must be combined the remark, that the preceding rather lead would not it, absolutely requiring o-y&reiv, though to the expectation of an interrogative form of speech, and would such a form and not its disap accordingly favour the intrusion jof
pearance.
It is, therefore, possible that the succeeding clause, of the three forms mentioned above, is the only one under
Trvevftaa-i.
still

genuine portion preceding the words KOI rot?

With regard

to this clause itself there

is

another con

ceivable case, namely, that its original shape was simply SiSa^r; Kar egovaiav, that e/ceivr) was the first intrusion, and that the
accidental change of this into
17

Kaivrj
is

subsequent entrance of
Kaivrj is

avrrj.

This

made an opening for the suggested by the fact that


is

wanting in 123, 235, and that the omission


:

supported

by the important Latin MSS. b, c, ff. According to this view Here is a teaching with the purport would be as follows
authority.
It

He commands

even the unclean

spirits,

etc.

may be remarked here, that in various passages of this Gospel the expression, especially in recording the language of
speakers, assumes a more abrupt and pointed form according to the reading of certain authorities. In favour of such readings
a

presumption

at

once arises from the unquestionable

fact,

that

the tendency of external influences, whether in the shape of direct critical meddlings or indirect intrusions, is not to bestow pecu
liarities

or striking points of style on an author, but rather to


as

smooth down such

may

already exist.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

39

MARK
Ti ovrof
ovrco

II.

7.

\a\el

/3Xao-(f)r)[jLia?.

Why

doth this

man

thus speak blasphemies ?

tion,

This passage is noticed not as affected by any important varia but merely as affording a plain illustration of the last remark.

Instead of the simple clause of the

common
is

text, another form,

more abrupt and keen in expression, supported by the Vulgate and most
namely, r/9
If
it
ot>ro9

found in B, D, L, and

copies of the

Old Latin,
is

ovrco \a\ei;

(3Xaa-(fyr)/j,el.

Who

this that

speaks in this manner?

He
is

be said that this

blasphemes. the arbitrary alteration of a critic in


is

the

way

there in the

of improvement, the question arises in reply, what common form to instigate a critic s interference?

MARK

III. 29.

eoTif aicoviov
Is in danger of eternal [damnation % guilt].

The common reading


documents.
28, 33,

Kpla-ews

is

exhibited by the mass of

On the other hand, a^aprrj yu-aro? is given by B, while C perhaps, D, 13, 69, 346, have dpaprtas one
:

L, or

other of which readings is represented in the copies of the Old Latin except f, the Vulgate, Coptic, Armenian, etc.

The evidence is sufficient to prove on the part of KpfoeeaQ an established currency of no recent date, while antiquity of existing It remains, testimonies is in favour of dfj,apr^paro<; or ajJMpT&K.
therefore, to see

what

features of the case

would point
on very

to one as

being the glossarial offspring of the other.

The remaining
authority,

variation

o\ao-eo>9,

rests

trifling

and

its

birthplace was manifestly the margin.

40

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
The
expression

auovfov a^aprr/^aro^

is

peculiar,

ing some

force in its peculiarity. special


is

By

the

though possess word tpdprnpa

nomore
ingly,

than a single faulty act; and, accord properly signified combined with it in this its strict not be auoviov could

the Evangelist wrote a^aprr,p,aro^, he If, therefore, meaning. used it to signify a condition of guilt, a sense which, though in the case of this term peculiar and striking, is not unfrequently borne by d^apria; and, accordingly, this latter term might the simplest interpretation of apaprr) paras as readily occur as

here employed, and would thus be the readiest gloss, as exhibiting The remaining readings, Kpia-ews the slightest deviation of form.

and

*oXacrc&>9,

would do the same thing more broadly and boldly.


a^apTijparo<i

These considerations point to

as the true reading.

MARK

IV. 24.

ai TrpocrTeOrjo-erat VJMV rois OLKOVOVCTL.

\_And unto you that hear shall more be givenJ\


is wanting in D, G (114 also omitting KOI and in irp. v.), important copies of the Old Latin and Vulgate. The words rois O.K. are omitted also by B, C, L, A, etc., and

This entire clause

several versions.

They may

at

once be discarded as an
;

artificial

and not very judicious supplement

while the Latin variation

credentibus* evidently of like origin, is more appropriate. It is not so easy to arrive at a decision on the remaining

and

more important words KOL


stances,
notice.

irp.

v.-

but there are various circum


that

besides the omissions

already mentioned,

require

The Armenian represents them as following d/covere, while two MSS., 13 and 69, also place them there, and then repeat them as
they stand in the
irp.
v.

common
is

text.

These

MSS.

also

have KOI
viii.

rot?

cue.

after axovere in the parallel place

(Lu.

18).

Besides, jrpoa-redijo-ercu

the reading of

for So^crerat,

which

MS.

also has a similar substitution, TrpovriOercu, in the parallel

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTA3IENT.


place (Lu. xix. 26), the glossarial nature of
It

41

which reading is clear be remarked, moreover, that though TrpooTeenough. may at once furnished as a gloss on Sodija-erai, by be would OrjcreTat,

the words in question, if these were originally a part of the text, and its existence as such, which may be concluded by its having

supplanted the original word in D, might accordingly be viewed as evidence of their genuineness yet, on the other hand, Trpoo-re;

OtjcreTat is

of

itself

too obvious an interpretation to need sugges

tion from

any quarter; and, if once introduced in this way, might the germ of the clause teal Trpoa-redija-erai v\uv. be The readily clause might indeed have been lost by homceoteleuton, but this
will hardly account for the shifting of place already noticed.

MARK
O
5e
(TOLL

IX. 23.
el

TO /ncrouy eiirev avrco* *


Travra dvvara
ro>

dvvacrai

iricrTevovrL.
believe,

Jesus said unto him, If thou canst


possible to

all things

are

him that

believeth.

question between Bvvaaai, and &vvr), being one of a mere However, B, variety of inflexion, is in itself of little moment.

The

D, A, have the
case also with

also in the preceding verse. does not exhibit the article TO, as D, characteristically,
latter,

and

is

the

K, M, U, and others

admitted as an impeachment of its sidered that its presence is otherwise unaccountable.

but this can hardly be genuineness, when it is con


:

Its

employ

in this place has been explained as an intimation on the part of the Evangelist, that the expression to which it is prefixed, el Svvao-ac Trto-reva-at,, was habitual in such cases with Jesus ; and

ment

no doubt the writer might readily fall supposed fact were present to his mind.
All this
It
is,

into such a usage, if the

rests

upon the assumption


in B,

however, wanting

is genuine. the Old Latin pr. man., L, A,

that TTLcrreva-at

42
in k, the Coptic,

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
Armenian, ^Ethiopic, etc. If on this authority word were expunged the passage would stand thus, 6 Se
TO el Svvr)
Trdvra, K.
T. A.

the

J^croi}? eiTrev avT(0,

In this case the

article

may

be regarded as prefixed simply on the principle of

to indicate that the expression, previous mention, and as serving el Si/vy, is merely a repetition of the preceding speaker s own words (v. 22), cited to him by Jesus in reply, with a tone of

demur
It

or exception.

must be admitted that TrLarevcrcu might be lost by accident from sameness of ending with Swacrat though two of the authori On the other hand, if the word ties for its omission have ^vvrj. was not original, a notion of an ellipsis after Svvy would readily
;

borrowing of a supplement from TnarevovTL. Without the word in question, the sense of the passage may be expressed thus Jesus said to him, [sayest thou to me,] If
lead to the
:

thou art able?

All things are possible for the believer.

MARK
TT]v

IX. 43, 44.

ycevvav, ety TO irvp TO ao-fiecrTov, OTTOV O.VTWV ov TcXevTa, KOL TO o-KcaXrjg irvp ov o-fievInto

VVTO.I.
hell,

[into the fire

that never shall be

[where their

worm dwth

quenched;]

not,

and

the fire is not

quenched].

common text the passage included in vs. 43-48 consists three strains or stanzas cast with so near a correspondence, that the whole originally borne this mechanically regular form, could have strongly tended to prevent the loss of a mere clause by accident in transcription; though the oversight of an entire
ion would not be unlikely from similarity of commencement he words Kal edv as is actually the case with the second few unimportant copies. If, therefore, this regularity of hape is not exhibited by important authorities, it may be con,

In the

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


eluded that the present form of the text
interpolation or accretion. The clause OTTOV .... a^evvvrai in the
is

43

due

to assimilative

first

in B, C, L, J, 1, 28, 118, 251, 255, the


;

instance is wanting Old Latin in k, the

and to this adverse evidence may be Coptic, and Armenian added the remark, that had the common form of the passage been original, and the eye of a transcriber wandered from the first OTTOV
to the second or third,
still

his

copy would have exhibited the

first portion entire, with the loss of one or both of the others. Doubt attaches also to the words ei? TO TT. TO. acr. on account of

their absence

copies of the

from L, A, the Syriac, etc., while D, supported by Old Latin, has OTTOV earlv TO IT. TO acr., and F reads

simply TOU irvpos. In the second portion the same authorities for the omission of the clause OTTOV .... o-/3. are cited as before, except that 255
omits the whole
in B, C, L,
;

while the other,


1,

et?
b,

TO
k,

TT.

TO

acr.,

is

wanting

A,

28, 118, 251,

the Coptic, Armenian,

The words TOU Trvpos following yeevvav on its third Syriac, etc. occurrence (v. 47) are wanting in B, D, L, A, 1, 28, 118, 209,
and
the
versions.

The

clause OTTOU .... crfievvvTai

may be
TO
TT.

safely discarded
acr.

first

and second

places,

and

els

TO

from from the second.

also,

Great doubt must necessarily attach to the latter in the first place from the amount of variation which occurs there, and its

glossarial appearance.

44

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

MARK XL
r)

10.

epxofJ-wrj

fiacriXeia

ev

Kvpiov TOV irarpos rjpwv


the

Ja/3/<5.

that cometh Blessed be the kingdom of our father David,


[in

name of the.

Lord"}:

Hosanna
to the

in the highest.

The amount of evidence adverse


is

words eV ovbpcuri Kvpiov


all

sufficient to put their spuriousness

beyond

doubt.

They

have evidently been introduced from the preceding parallel clause. is noticed because it resembles the one which has been The
place
in exhibiting, in the common text, the result just discussed, of a process which may be termed self-assimilation, by the intru sion of a further uniformity upon an already existing parallelism.

MARK XL
El
de
vfj.els

26.

OVK a0/ere, ovSe o Trarrjp


i

v^wv

6 eV

roty ovpavols a(J)r)O

ra Tra/jaTrreo^ara

VJJLWV.
is

[But if ye do not forgive,

neither will

your Father which

in heaven forgive

your

trespasses.~\

The genuineness
account of
2
<7

k,

/,

of this entire verse is called in question on absence from B, L, S, A, and a few others, from of the Old Latin, the Coptic, and Armenian.
its

The importance of

this adverse

evidence, though narrow in

amount, cannot be denied: still its force is weakened by the veryobvious possibility of an accidental loss by oversight in transcrip tion, on account of the close ra recurring irapaTrr^ara vp&v. Again, if on the one hand, it may be said that the verse is a spurious intrusion from the parallel vi. on
the other,
it is

place (Mat. 15), important to observe, that undoubted cases of

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

45

assimilation generally exhibit a simple transfer of exact words, or nearly so ; whereas in the present instance the form of expres

sion

Several copies proceed to make an assimilative addition of two entire verses (Mat. vii. unquestionable but are introduced without alteration. 7, 8), they
is

considerably varied.

The

clause itself

is

copies omitting rot?,


insert vfiiv after

affected by some fluctuation of form some and others the words 6 ev r. o., while others
;

a^aei.
is

On

the whole, however, there

expunging the verse as spurious, though unaffected by reasonable suspicion.

hardly sufficient ground for it cannot be viewed as

MAKE XL
eav

32.

\aov.

But

if we shall say

Of men;

they feared the people.

In this place, as in others already noticed in this Gospel, influences have been at work on the text to smooth down what

would otherwise
well supported

ordinary cast of expression.

possess a lively abruptness of manner, Thus, a certain number of

to

an

MSS.,

by

versions, exhibit this process in its full result

by reading
form

<f)o/3ov/j,eda,

as in the parallel place in

and thus giving the sentence the same Matthew (xxi. 26). The same

process is seen partially in the common text, if edv be spurious. On the removal of this word the form will stand thus, a\\a

dvdpoiTTwv ; e(f)o{3ovvro TOV Xaw, with the lively deliberative expression eiTrw^ev instead of the hypothetical edv But, would it be well to say, From men? eiTra)/j,6v. They
i7T(i)/j,ev,

feared the people. The word in question

and many

wanting in A, B, C, E, F, G, H, L, S, presence may most readily be referred to the influence of the preceding clause, and is an instance of
is

others.

Its

4(5

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
To
a suggestion that edv
it

self-assimilation.

was removed from

may be replied, that the text by way of critical improvement, an as absence its view improvement, yet though a critic might
there
is

really

nothing in

It may be noticed and probably manifest gloss, as being a more strictly correct term, derived from the parallel place.

alteration. presence to provoke rbv o^Xoz/, a read C and B even that


its

MARK
OTO.V Se
id-rjTe

XIII. 14.

TO (SSeXvy/JLa rrj9 eprjfjLwo-eo)? TO X. prjdev VTTO Aaviri\ TOV 7rpo(f)rjTOV, AC. T.


shall see the abomination

But when ye

of desolation, \spoken

of by Daniel

the prophet^] etc.

The common

text here exhibits a

correspondence with the

parallel place (Mat. xxiv. 15), except in having VTTO instead of Sid which latter however, is also read in this place in several
;

MSS.
ness of

Accordingly, facts tending to raise a doubt of the genuine any portion would be countenanced by the possibility
clause TO p.
v.

of assimilative influence.

The

A.

r. TT. is

wanting in B, D, L, the copies

of the Old Latin except two, the Vulgate, Coptic, etc. If the Evangelist wrote no more than TO /38. r?}9 e., he

employed

an expression which might seem to many readers in after time to need some additional specification a need readily met by append ing the words supplied by the
;

parallel place.

It is also difficult to discern any motive for suppression, or any cause for accidental omission of the clause in question. The only plea that can be urged in its favour, must rest upon the fewness of the adverse authorities. Its can

genuineness

hardly be defended.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

47

MAKE
See

XIV.

24.

MATTHEW

XXVI.

28.

MARK
Havrts

XIV.

27.

<TK.av$a\ia-0r)o-O-6e

e/xot

ei>

rrj

VVKTL

ravrrj.

All ye shall be offended [because of me

this night].

r. are wanting in B, C pr. m., D, G, and of the Old Latin; while other copies H, L, S, V, X, A, etc., ff of this latter, with several MSS., omit the words eV 777 v. T., and, again, other MSS., with important copies of the Vulgate, omit

The words

eV

e.

eV

rfj v.

ev

e/iot.

The
is

brief expression Trdvres

ove.,

with

its

abrupt pointedness,
in so

quite in accordance with the style

which

many

places

marks the
fail

colloquial parts of this Gospel, and, as such, would not

to provoke glossarial amplification. However, the adverse evidence alone is sufficient to mark the whole of the words in question as spurious. They are an assimi lative accretion from the parallel place (Mat. xxvi. 31).

48

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

MAEK
AXr)0o)? ef avrwv
T
N
\

XIV.
K.OLL
c

70.

ci,

yap FaXiXaLOs

KOLL

XaXia

crov o
;

Surely thou art one of them

for

tliou

art a Galilaan, [and

thy speech agreetli thereto.]

In one of the parallel places (Mat. 73) appended to the charge against Peter is, Kal yap 77 \a\td crov Bfj\6v ere in the other (Lu. xxii. 59) it takes the form, KOL jap

xxvi.

the reason

ecmv and it should be remarked that they are virtually equivalent, each involving the other for an appeal to Peter s dialect could only be made by way of proof that he was a Galilaean, and thus there would be no need to express the implied conclusion and, again, the direct allegation of his being a Galilean could only rest
:

on

his dialect, and, accordingly, there

would be no need of an
;

actual statement of the Still, both might be expressed ground. and this is actually shown in the common text in the present

but with an evident awkwardness, which is in strong con with the short and lively manner of recording conversations, which has been already remarked as a characteristic of this
place,
trast

In one MS. the matter Evangelist. inverted order of the two members,
P. el: but this transposition The words Kal rj \. cr.
others,
is
6.

somewhat mended by an namely, KOI r) \. cr. b Kal yap


is

of itself suspicious. are wanting in B, C, D, L,


a, c,jf,

and
k,

and have nothing answering to them in the Old Latin, and the Vulgate, while the
8f)\.6v ere Trotet

l
,

of

JEthiopic represents

instead of ouoid&i. This evidence, thus giving its

considerations, should leave little or no in question are an intrusion of an officious

weighty confirmation to other doubt that the words


supplement.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

49

MAKE
KOLL
7rXrjpa>0r)

XV.
rj

28.

rj

ypatyrj

AeyoiKTd
which

KOL

[And

the scripture

was

fulfilled,

saith,

And

he was

numbered with
This entire verse
is

the transgressors^]

wanting in A, B, C, D, X, and a con siderable number of others, as also in k of the Old Latin, and
in the Sahidic.

But little weight is due to the adverse argument, that it is not the practice of this Evangelist, while recording circumstances, to note fulfilments of prophecy; while, on the other hand, acci
dental omission can only be regarded as simply possible. The direct evidence, however, against the genuineness of the
is very weighty, and can scarcely leave any doubt that an intrusion, though of an early date, since it is recognised by Origen and the Eusebian canons. If spurious, it cannot be actually termed an instance of assimilation, because, though the

passage
it is

application of the prophecy is recorded elsewhere (Lu. xxii. 37), yet the occasion and manner are altogether different from the But in that application, made prospectively by Jesus present.
himself,

may be

seen the cause of

its

intrusive appearance in

another place.

MAKK
The
siderable extent

XVI. 9-20.

criticism of the text of the

New

Testament

is

to a con

engaged on matter of which the genuineness is but which is questioned, very fragmentary in shape, ranging from In the present instance, how a single word to a single clause.
ever,

an entire paragraph is the subject of discussion, the question being, whether it forms a part of the original Gospel, or is a
subsequent supplement by another hand.

50
It

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

his cannot be imagined that the Evangelist formally brought words the with verse the of end the eighth narrative to a close at the passage in question is spurious, therefore, If, yap. tyopovvro or its conclusion perished, either the Gospel was never completed, If such to transcription. by some peculiar accident, previous an at furnished was a early were reaUy the case, supplement Irenaeus as a portion for the nineteenth verse is cited by

period,

of this Gospel (User.

iii.

11).

If the question were to be decided by a mere enumeration of MSS. the evidence would be overwhelming in favour of the

But this summary method would authenticity of the passage. to a correct view of the real material ignore various points most
state of the case.

alone exhibits a bare termination at the eighth verse.

L,

after that verse,

the words

<f>eperat

adds the following supplement, prefacing it with TTOV /cat ravra, a form of expression sufficiently
is

intimating that the matter


8e
TO,

not vouched for as genuine

irdvra

//.era

TraprjyyeXpeva rots irepl TOV Tlerpov crwro/io)? e^ijy<yei\av. Se ravra /cat auro? o JT/crofc O-TTO dvaTO\rj<f Kal ayjpi Sucretog

avrwv TO lepbv Kal afyQaprov /c^pvyfjta r?}? alwviov This supplement is also found in 274, and the margin of the later Syriac. L next subjoins the passage in question, with a prefatory clause of the same import as the former: eariv Se /cat
e^aTreo-retXe Si
cr&>T77pia<?.

Tavra
of this

^>epop,eva

MS.

is

The evidence, therefore, //.era TO efyoftovvro yap. in fact adverse. It may also be remarked, that the

author of the supplement preserved in it was either unacquainted with the present termination of the Gospel, or, deeming it spurious,

Certain thought himself at liberty to furnish one of his own. of the also both conclusions. copies ^Ethiopia give In two MSS. the passage is marked with asterisks, and a con
siderable

number

exhibit

it

as

excluded from the Eusebian and

Ammonian

divisions.

The present is one of the places where something can be ascer tained respecting the state of in remote times. This infor copies
mation
partly supplied by the scholia in several MSS., whose statements taken together are sufficient evidence of some varying amount of uncertainty attaching to the passage at the date of their composition.
is

ON THE TEXT OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.


Tho language, however,

51

of several ecclesiastical writers not only

carries the evidence higher,

but

is sufficiently explicit.

Eusebius

says that the accurate copies (ra aKpiftfj

TWV
;

dvTtypdfjxav) close

dvrvypd<f>oi<i)

the Gospel with the words, efoflovvro yap and, again, that this is the termination in nearly all the copies (cr^eSoz/ ev aTracn rot? and one or other of these statements is also made ;
several writers besides, but especially

by

by the

critic

Jerome,

who affirms that the paragraph is wanting in nearly all the Greek MSS. (omnibus Grcscice libris pene). Now, if it were even certain that these statements describe the evidence of MSS. only so far
as
it fell

under the observation of the individuals,

still

they show

a condition of that evidence very different from that which exists at the present day. circumstance has been thus ascertained

A
;

which materially affects the present question, if it be not rather the most material of all and not only so, but it has an important bearing upon the criticism of the New Testament in general, because it shows that documentary testimony as a whole has been liable to fluctuation, a fact which must be taken in abatement of the force of mere numerical preponderance at the present day in any particular instance a circumstance on which so much
;

stress

has frequently been


passage
is

laid.

The
nian,

supported by the versions, except the

Arme

and the Old Latin in a single copy (), which exhibits a termination of similar purport with that contained in L and 272
Patristic authorities are divided, Irenasus

already cited.

and Tatian being the

only positive witnesses before the third century. The portion is of sufficient length to admit of being tried on internal grounds, as exhibiting similarity or discrepancy of style

and language with the rest of the Gospel. It certainly contains a considerable proportion, relatively to its limited extent, of words and expressions occurring now for the first time in this Gospel ;
but on several of these
it

would be unreasonable
:

to insist, as being

others are material, as the following. Instead of TrpaiTT) cra{3(3dTov, v. 9, the term for the first day of the week is just before, v. 2, as also in every other place (Mat.

terms uncalled for elsewhere

xxviii. 1;

Lu. xxiv. 1; Jno. xx. 19; Ac. xx. 7;


//,/

Cor. xvi. 2),

the peculiar Hebraism

aa

52

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
The employment of diro,
v. 9, is

not only at variance with the term is e/c with reference to the practice of this Evangelist, whose because is especially remarkable, ejection of unclean spirits, but Matthew a contrast on this point with St. St. Mark himself
presents

and
xii.
is

St.

Luke,

who always employ


Lu.
viii. 2,

the former preposition with the

exception of one passage (Lu.

iv.

35) where both occur (Mat.


Qedopai,

not elsewhere, though employed by (vs. 11, 14) but It is remarkable, that so common a term the other Evangelists. as the simple verb Tropevoftai, is unknown to the rest of the
Gospel, but occurs three times in this portion (vs. 10, 12, 15). With respect to the matter it may be observed, that the clause
d<f>

43; used twice

xvii. 18;

29, 33, 35, 38; xi. 24).

979 eic@e(3\riKet,

eTrra Sai/juovia is oddly

appended

for the first

time to the

name

of

Mary Magdalene

after a threefold

mention

within the compass of a few verses. There appears, too, through out the passage a defect of easy coherence, the natural result of a compression of borrowed materials.
It now remains to observe, that, if some difficulty attends the idea of the Gospel being left unfinished when so near its com pletion, the same is also the case with the supposition, that the

passage,

though genuine, was designedly suppressed by some who were unable to reconcile all its contents with the statements of
the other evangelists because such a supposition includes the highly improbable circumstance of such persons being blind to
;

the fact, that an entire suppression was impossible and a partial one of no avail and, further, because such an object would have
;

been more easily and safely pursued by means of some slight alteration than by the more violent a process, too, to the process
;

adoption of which other places offered an equal temptation but show no traces of the attempt.

Whatever judgment may be formed respecting the passage, the investigation is certainly important and interesting, both on account of the matter in question, and the peculiar features of the
evidence.
there

But even if it were necessary to reject it as spurious, would be no historical loss, because, with the exception of
itself
all

one clause,

the contents are

of a suspicious complexion, KCLV .... derivable from the New Testament.


to be

(SXd-^rrj,

One important remark remains

made.

That the passage

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


was found in copies
been observed.
at a

53

very early date

is clear, as

has already

were a spurious addition, the natural result of early intrusion would be, that the evidence descending to modern times would embrace an adverse portion sufficiently
If then
it

seen,

distinct in significance but narrow in extent. This, as has been is the actual state of things; which, therefore, points unmis

On such a suppo takably in the direction of a spurious origin. of the the in the current text until sition, too, prevalence passage it reached the extent which is visible at the present day, must have exhibited stages in advance with advancing time, and the
glimpse obtained through Jerome and others shows that such was
actually the case.

Thus does the hypothesis of very body of facts in evidence.

early interpolation satisfy the

54

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

LUKE

IV.

5.

KOLL a.vaya.ywv OLVTOV 6 SidfloXo? K. T. A.

elf

opos v

And the

devil,

taking him up into an high mountain,

etc.

The words 6 8idfio\o? are wanting in B, D, L, etc., e of the Old Latin, the Coptic, Sahidic, and Armenian versions; as also et? 6 po? Ttyr)\6v in B, L, the Coptic, the Anglo-Saxon, and several important MSS. both of the Old and Hieronymian Latin.

With regard to the latter words, it might be urged that their removal leaves language so incomplete and unmeaning as could But this peculiar hardly have proceeded from the Evangelist.
appearance, when rightly viewed, is really a strong evidence of the genuineness of the shorter expression. clear and lively impression of localities and details on the

mind of

apt to betray him into an artless use of language imperfectly adapted, on the score of particularity, to persons differently circumstanced. Of this every-day life furnishes
a narrator
is

constant proof, and there are several striking instances in the

Gospel narratives. One is at once supplied by a term which has just preceded, is rj ep?7/io?, which, as it comes from the writer, vague enough.

Matthew s term avrj^dr], and other external considerations, This being the sufficiently show that it was an upland tract.
St.

becomes clear, for, in that case, the second temptation requires no change of scene, but simply the con ducting of Jesus to some point overtopping the elevated district, a proceeding which finds a sufficient expression in the bare term
case,
all

at once

dvcvyayvv,
situation

when once
is

the subsisting the already upland locality present to the mind though a cautious and studied
;

might have been more explicit. The effect of the words 6 Sta/SoXo? et? opo? ir^\6v more strongly a in the which would
writer
step narrative,
to a

is

to

mark

correspond broadly marked and independent stage in the entire transac-

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

55

tion. But if there was no such demarcation present to the mind of the writer, he would be naturally led to express the simple and ready sequence of the second stage of the temptation by language

such as the text exhibits

when disencumbered

of the words in

question. In St. Matthew s account, on the contrary, such demar cation is strongly made by the insertion of the temptation which
is

here the third in order, and hence the necessity with

him of

corresponding language.

The ancient evidence, cited above, authorises a reduction of the text to that form whicji, when rightly scanned, thus bears
intrinsic

marks of genuineness.

In
is

this

way

not only

is

intrusive matter removed, but there

restored to view a delicate indication of the true order

and
lost.

connection of events,

which was otherwise

overlaid

and

this aid no decision can be made on the discrepancy between the two Evangelists but in this light St. Luke appears and St. Matthew may be to have given the real succession

Without

regarded as having adopted the other arrangement for the purpose of placing the most imposing temptation at the conclusion. Other debatable matter occurs in the common text of the
present passage.

The

clause,

aAA,

eVt Travrl p^f^an 0eov,

is

and the Sahidic, while a number of copies, the supported by Coptic and ^Ethiopic, insert the words eicrroThe whole must be viewed as very Sia crro^aro^. pevoftevq)
wanting in B, L,

The clause, irrraye OTTUTO) pov crcnava, is wanting in and several others, in nearly all the versions, Origen, B, D, L, etc. It must be discarded as an undoubted assimilation. The passage (vs. 3 8) when reduced would stand thus: And
doubtful.

the devil said to him, etc. And Jesus answered him, It is written And conducting him that man shall not live on bread alone.

upwards he shewed him,


It is written,

etc.

And

in reply to

him Jesus

said,

Thou

shalt worship, etc.

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

LUKE
<5e

VI.

1.

ev 0-a33arw foureOTreoro),

AC.

r. X.

And

it

came

to

pass on [the second sabbath after the first \ a sabbath,~\ etc.

The word

SevTepoTrpwra),

which has

so

much taxed the learning


its

is want and has no ing in B, L, 1, 22, 33, 69, pr. man., 118, 157, 209, representative in 5, c, e^f sec. man., of the Old Latin, the Peshito,

and ingenuity of commentators to determine

meaning,

^Ethiopic, Coptic, etc.


It

was a

might be argued against this adverse evidence, that there disposition or at least no unwillingness on the part of tran
and
translators to

scribers

make riddance

of a difficult or unintelli

But gible term, and hence its absence from existing documents. it should be remembered, that, if the word be a and reality origi nally in the text, its meaning, since in that case it must have
been borrowed from something in the Jewish calendar, would have been traditionally known from the first, and the presumed
difficulty
Still, if

would hardly have

existed.

the spuriousness of the

word

is

to be maintained,
;

some

cause must be and suggested for its introduction into the text here it is important to observe the existence of two other readings, This would point to an origination Seurepw Trpwrw and Seurepw. of the strange term in a fusion of two words

marginal

TT/WTW

and

o-a^/Sarw, expressive of certain relative positions in time ascribed to that particular day in the view of the respective That the narrative is such as to glossarists.

Seurepa), which might dages to the bare term

be at

first

distinct glossarial

appen

provoke speculation and give rise to difference of view, is evident from its want of precision in marks of and also from discre

time, pancy, since the event which is presently described as occurring on another sabbath, appears clearly in St. Matthew s account, and apparently in that of St. Mark, as taking place on the same.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

57

difficulty presented by a particular reading affords in general a presumption in favour of its genuineness but this rule must not be pressed when the difficulty rests with a word which may, as in
;

the present case, be resolved into a mere figment, the offspring of accident.

LUKE
Oval
VfJLLV

VI. 26.
clTTCOCTl

OTOLV

KCtXwS

VfJLOLS

TTaVTCf

Ol

Woe

unto you when [alT\

men

shall speak well of you !

Havre? is wanting in D, F, L, S, V, A, and a considerable number of others, and has nothing answering to it in the Syriac, It is supported by A, B, E, K, M, P, Vulgate, -^Ethiopic, etc. Q, U, X, etc, the Old Latin, three principal MSS. of the Hieronymian Latin, and other versions, Irenseus, Chrysostom, etc. The evidence is fairly conflicting, as being completely mingled,
for neither side

can appropriate antiquity or a particular


is

class

of

authorities

but the decision

practically unimportant, for the

expression ol avOpwrrot, signifies, in virtue of the article, people in the bulk the world and, therefore, the addition of irdvre<? is of little or no moment. The word may well have been originally
a marginal addition for the purpose of making the sense doubly safe but, in that case, its currency as a part of the text was of
;

early date.

58

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

LUKE XL
vow

2-4.

Ilarcp THLWV, o ev rot? ovpavols,


eX0TQ>

dyiao-flrjTca

TO

rj

fiacriXeia

vow
eir

O-QV toy

ev

ovpavw KOU

yevq0v}T& TO TOV rry

yy

didov rjiuv TO Kaff rjfAtapTOV r)n.tov TOV tiriovcnQv pav KOI a0ey rjjjuv ray dfjiapTia? rjfjicov, KOL yap
avTol
d(J)i/jLi>

TravTi 6(f)ei\ovTL
Treipao-fjiov,

veyKy? ?;/xay ely TOV irovripov.


\_Our~]

rj^wv K.a.1 fj,rj eiaedXXa pvaai r^as diro

Father [which art in heaven, ] Hallowed be thy


come.
[

name.

Thy kingdom

Thy will

be done, as in heaven,

Give us day by day our daily bread. And one that is forgive us our sins ; for we also forgive every
so in earth ].

indebted to
deliver us

us.

And
evil].

lead us

not into temptation;

[but

from

In discussing the genuineness of the doxology, Mat. vi. 13, it was shown that the Lord s Prayer, as there recited, possessed in its own peculiar circumstances an intrinsic safeguard against the
disappearance of a genuine portion of its text from of current copies. And this must be also true of

any number
its

record in

another Gospel. Yet, if the common form of the present passage be the true one, this has actually befallen it in three several places, consisting

each of an entire clause.

The

in B, L, 1, 22, 33, 57, 130,

W&v
1,

the

Vulgate,

etc.,

wanting 346 of which, also, L alone has and the fact is also noticed in the
first,

6 ev rot? ovpavols, is

scholia of certain

MSS.; the second,

jevrjO^rca

....

7775,

in B, L,

22, 130, 346, the Syriac (N),^ of the the Armenian, etc.; the third, a\\a ....
57, 130, If the
etc.,

Old Latin, the Vulgate,


irovypov, in B, L, 1, 22,

great, neither

by accident is very can the absence of these clauses be assigned to wilfulness on account of awkward from the other Evandiscrepancy

the Vulgate, the Armenian, etc. improbability of a triple omission

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


gelist; for

59

they show, on the contrary, an exact resemblance, in contrast with the partial variations of the remaining part. But if the form in was shorter than one in given Gospel originally
in the

another, this is, of all such parallels, the one where influence way of assimilative accretion on the briefer recital would

be most certainly and powerfully exercised. The conclusion to be drawn is, that the Lord

Prayer as given

in this Gospel can only be allowed to stand in the abridged form in which it was read

by Origen.

Hdrep, dyiaadrJTO) TO ovo/id


aprov
r)/jia)v
T<x9

crov

eXOerca

r\

{SaatXela crov

rbv
a<e<?

rbv eiriovcnov SiSou THMV rb KO.& r/fjiepav /cal ical yap avrol dcfrlepev iravri bfyeiKovri dfAaprias
f)fiu>v,

/cal

fj,rj

elcreve<yKr)<;

rjfj,d<;

et? ireipacrfjLov.

why was not the assimilation completed by the addition of the doxology ? it is enough to reply, that that spurious clause had not obtained a fixed form or a general currency at a
If
it

be asked,

be used in that way, together with the matter from borrowed the other Gospel. genuine it is the fuller form of that Gospel that would be Besides,
sufficiently early period to

influence

adopted for liturgical usage, and on it alone would liturgical The absence of such an appendage in this operate.
is

place

rather an argument that the shorter form

is

here original,

because, being less full, it would not be preferred for private or public use, and, accordingly, would not attract to itself an arti ficial complement devised for that use alone.

The
crdrw

clause, eXderco TO dyiov irvev^d crov

e<>

r]pa<$

teal /caOapi-

which Gregory Nyssene and Maximus say proceeded from this Evangelist instead of the words \0erco rj (Baa-ikeia trov, is clearly an expository scholium on this latter. It is as old at least as Tertullian, and must have met with that favour at the hands of transcribers which was so liberally bestowed on amplified
?5/u,a9,

forms.

60

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

LUKE XL
*

48.

OTL avroi

fJiev

aireKTeivav avrov?, v^tls Se oiKodoOLVTtoV TO,


fJLl>1]/JLLa.

fJLLT

For

they indeed killed them,

and ye

build [their sepulchres}.

The genuineness of the words avrwv ra fjuvrj/j,eta is a matter of question. On their removal the sentence undoubtedly presents at the
first

ness

Still that view an appearance of unusual abruptness. abrupt but unusual is is not of a sort, really produced by a process

frequently adopted in keen or stern language, namely, a sup pression of the objects of verbs, when they have been previously mentioned or may be readily understood, the effect of which is a dry and cutting manner of address. Examples of this usage

may be
found,

seen 1 Kings xxi. 19; Besides the reading of the


avT<t)v

James

iv. 2.

common

text the following also are

ra

avrwv, this last This fivefold shifting of shape is sufficient to impair a con fidence in the genuineness of the words in question. They are
alone>

yu-z^/iara, avrwv rou9 ra^oy?, and TOU? ra<ot9 being also placed in some copies before olKoSof^eire.

altogether omitted in B, D, L,

and by the Old Latin in


its

a, b,

i, /,

while e has the words vos autem gloriamini. It appears, then, that the shorter reading has in
a significance and propriety of its

abruptness

own, but

at the

same time

genuine, be strongly provocative of a supplementary glossarial origin is strongly indicated by the shifting shape of the matter itself, and is further evidenced

would,

if

gloss; and that a

directly

by

its

absence from authorities few indeed but weighty.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

61

LUKE
Tivos
vfjiwv

XIV.

5.

bvos

TJ

/3ov? ety (frpeap efjnrecreLTai, K. r. \.

Which of you

shall have

an [ass X son] or an ox fallen a pit, etc.


is

into

The common reading


by the Old Latin in
./Ethiopic,

ovo?

all

found in K, L, X, etc, supported copies but two, the Vulgate, Coptic,

and Armenian.

The reading

is

therefore an ancient

one.

But ww5 is the reading of A, B, E, G, H, M, S, U, V, A (A and U prefixing the article), and a great number besides, and
represented in both Syriac versions, e and the Sahidic, etc.
is

/of the Old

Latin,

The
fail

expression produced

by

this latter reading

could hardly

to be generally viewed as strange. But this circumstance would rather add force to the testimony of its wide prevalence

in the mass of

MSS.

It

must, however, be further remarked

quite destroys the reasoning a fortiori from the brute creation to a human subject a mode which is prominently

upon

it,

that

it

used on other similar occasions


but,

(xiii.

15, 16; Mat. xii. 11, 12)


stress

more than

this, it actually

throws the

of the argument

by supposing a case where the motive for a formal breach of sabbath strictness is as valid as can well be
on the wrong
side,

conceived, namely, the overpowering law of natural affection. These considerations are at least a bar to a summary rejection

of the

common

reading, even in the face of a preponderating mass

of documentary evidence. IIp6/3aTov is the reading of

alone.

Should

this

be regarded

as the bold remedy of some one knew nothing of 6Vo? ?

who was

staggered

by

vio?

and

Mill conjectured
a place.

045,

word

little

likely to be found in such

62

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

LUKE
Iva, OTOLV

XVI.

9.

A. K\L7rr)Te, Se^covTCU, K. r.
it

That, [when ye fail X when


you,

shall fail, ] they

may

receive

etc.

for reading eKkiir^re or e/cXetV^Te the of and the evidence the difference practically immaterial, confusion of i and generality of MSS., on account of the habitual

In support of the
is

common

equally so

there are cited E, F, G,

H, K, M, P,

S,

U, V, A,

and many
or e/cXewn;

others,
is

the Vulgate, etc.

The

rival reading e/eTuTr?;

supported by A, B, D, L, X, and others, the Old


man., the Coptic, jiEthiopic, Armenian, etc.

Latin in

a, e, I pr.

Evidence thus strongly ranged on either side would forbid


a positive decision. If the words, fugati fueritis, in Irenseus are to be taken as testimony in favour of the common reading, its antiquity is established though on this point the existing docu
;

ments which oppose

it

have the advantage.

There

is

nothing

in the nature of the variation that points to any other than a purely accidental origination ; and on consideration what

of accident in this case, bable that the shorter form was the
effect

be the

it

might would appear more pro

the contrary.
bear, since

On

/ia/i/i<wm<?

offspring of the longer, than the other hand, the sense which e /cXtV^ would must be its subject, agrees with the other
is

single occurrence of the

whole the balance


text.

in this Gospel (xxii. 32). perhaps rather in favour of the

word

On the common

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

63

LUKE
TCKVOV,
ev
rfj
fJLvr^crOrjTi

XVI.

25.

OTL aireXafies crv

farj aovy KOL

ra dyaOa crov Aa^apos O/JLOLCOS ra KCCKCC.


Lazarus
evil things.

Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime reeeivedst thy good


things,

and

likewise

The pronoun
others,

and
b,

is

of emphasis crv is wanting in D, G, H, and many not represented in the Vulgate, the Old Latin

except

the Peshito, Coptic, Sahidic, ^Ethiopic, Armenian, and Slavonic. It is also omitted by many places it after crov.

Fathers.
S,

It is supported,
etc.

however, by

apparently, E, F, K,

M,

U, V, X, J,

Notwithstanding this conflict of evidence, there need be no


hesitation in regarding the word as intrusive, as a hasty and illjudged addition made for the sake of marking by words an oppo
sition

between the two persons, which really existed, but the expression of which is out of place and mischievous, as standing
in the way,

and thus weakening the force, of the emphatic point of the sentence, centered in the single term aTreXa/Se?. That is the circumstance of a in full in xo either (a point receipt kaftelv)
case, of

good and

ill

respectively.

The adoption of
authorised
are well

the lively

&>Se,

instead of 6 Se,

is

by an overwhelming mass of authority.


least

Critical

abundantly hands
slight,

employed in removing corruptions,

however

which may in the

degree impair the force and beauty

of this wonderful parable. Son, remember that thou hast received thy good things in thy lifetime, and Lazarus in like manner his ills : but now is he thus

comforted, while thou art tormented.

64

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

LUKE
Mrj X^P LV *X
Doth he thank
L

XVII.

9.

r(

8vty

OTI
KCiv<p
*-""

71-0/770-6

ra

avrcp; ov
were commanded him ?

that servant because he did the things that

I trow

not.

to his
a,
e,

The words, ov SOA-W, in which Jesus here appears to reply own question, are wanting in B, L, X, 1, 28, 118, 131, 157,
of the Old Latin, the Coptic, ^Ethiopic, Armenian. may be remarked, that since the tone and drift of the
,

It

these words question are fully marked by the prefixed particle ^77 are in fact unnecessary ; that this abates the likelihood of their

having proceeded from the writer, but at the same time would be no bar to the officiousness of glossarists, whose propensity was
rather to overdo

and

to

make

assurance doubly sure.

There are good grounds


it is

for

expunging

trceivay

and avrw

and

probable that the Evangelist simply wrote, fj,rj "xapiv ej^et ro3 Sov\w OTI eTTOirjcre ra Biara^devTa ; ovrw Kal u//,et?, K. T. X. Is
to the servant because
etc.

he thankful

he performed his commands

Likewise ye too,

LUKE
Avo

XVII.

36.
elf

ecrovrcu ev rco ayput, o KCLI 6 erepos

7rapa\r)(J)0rjo-T(U

a^eOrjcrerai..

[Two men
This verse

shall be in the field-, the one shall be taken,


the other
left.~\

and

supported by D, U, and many others, by the Old Latin, except that i places it before v. 35, e has nothing answering l to the words Kal 6 er. a^., and o altogether omits it, by the Vulgate, Syriac, Armenian, etc. On the other hand, it is in all the uncial
is

wanting

MSS., except

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

65

the two just cited, and in a considerable number besides, as also in the Coptic, JEthiopic, Gothic, etc. It is quite possible that the passage may have been lost by
oversight on account of the homoeoteleuton but, independently of external evidence, it is far more likely, from the strong tendency to assimilation everywhere manifested, that it was an artificial
;

matter from the parallel place (Mat. xxiv. 40, 41), and conformed in its expression to the immediate con With this probability there combines, as has been already text.
addition, deriving
its

an overbearing preponderance of the most important MSS., With respect to its principal the versions being nearly balanced. it should always be remembered, that its marked D, supporter
seen,

way of interpolation renders its testimony feeble in a case like the present, though it gives special force to its
character in the

evidence whenever

it is

given on the negative

side.

LUKE
One
of the

XXII.

43, 44.

of the most curious questions with which the criticism

New

Testament

is

concerned relates to this passage, more

especially because its absence from copies ascribed to wilful tampering arising from

was long ago

directly

indeed,

cannot well

dogmatic motives, and, be assigned to any other cause if it be


recognised in the dialogue with Trypho,
to

genuine. In the

first

place,

it is

by

Irenaeus

and Hippolytus, not


its

mention

later writers,

and

currency in the text at a remote period is at once fairly established, whether it was rightfully a part of it or not.
thus the fact of

The statement of

Hilary, that

in Latinis codicibus complurimis, is strong,

important, if reliance Jerome s authority expression of accurate personal observation. on such a point is unimpeachable, and his expression, though differently cast, is equally strong to the same effect with the 6

was wanting et in Greeds et and would be most could certainly be placed on it as the
it

66
preceding, noting

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

its occurrence in quibusdam exemplaribus tarn Greeds quam Latinis. The charges advanced by Photius and of wilful Kicon, against the Syrians and Armenians respectively, to pass as evidence of the simple allowed be suppression, may circumstance of the absence of the passage from current copies

in those parts of Christendom and the same may be said of other More than this cannot be granted to them, similar statements.
:

when
it is

it

is

remembered that polemical accusations were made in


as in others

those times

without assurance of their truth, and,


it.

to be feared, with little concern about

be necessary documents.
It will

now

to pass to the evidence of existing

in A, B, 124, in the Sahidic, altogether wanting and one of the Coptic. In 69 in one copy (/) of the Old Latin, it finds its place after Mat. xxvi. 39; and the same is the case in
is

The passage

after v. 20.

some Evangelistaria, with a previous insertion of John xiii. 3 7 In 13 the transcriber appears, for some reason or
(o<j>drj

other, to have checked his pen after the words Se, leaving the rest to be supplied in the margin by a later hand wishing, perhaps, to intimate thereby the occurrence of such a passage at that place, but, at the same time, its spuriousness or doubtful
;

character.

It is

marked with

asterisks or obeli in

E,

S,

Y, J,
it

24, 36, 123, 161, 166, 274, 344.

The Ammonian and Eusebian notation


in L, but
it

is

not attached to

has the latter in

A
On
and

M,

etc.

scholium in 34 notes that some copies did not contain ra


the other hand, the passage
is

found in the mass of

MSS.

versions.

On a review of what has preceded, it must be observed that, while the passage was read in the text by very early writers, the language of Jerome, to the effect that it was found only in quibus dam exemplaribus, would imply a decided preponderance in his time of evidence a state of matters which
documentary
against
it,

could not have been a There are, also, thing of sudden growth. other clear indications of an absence from current copies to some extent or other.

Of

existing documents a few ancient authorities are directly

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


adverse,

67

and some others

offer

unfavourable testimony of a slighter


side
is

kind, but the preponderance on the other

great.

of accounting for its absence thus much may be safely said, that certain dogmatic notions would tend to an inclination to make riddance of it. Epiphanius does not shrink from affirming

By way

hands.

that such an operation had been actually performed by orthodox But if, in further argument for its genuineness, the ques
tion be asked,

from what spurious source such matter could have


;

such a suggested diffi be met to those narratives of various culty may by pointing in the life and actions of Jesus which soon became passages and furnished materials for the memoirs alluded to by current,
this Evangelist (I, 1).

been borrowed and intruded on the text

That the place had not escaped intrusive corruption, appears from the words of Epiphanius, to the effect that even the term K\av(T was read in unsound copies.
If
it

would be a bold
critic

one on which no

step to pronounce the passage spurious still a due appears to have ventured
it

regard to evidence will not allow

to stand clear of doubt.

LUKE
Kai
7TpiKaXv\lfai>T?

XXII.

64.

avrov, ervTrrov avrov TO TrpoaavTQVj XeyovTts,


K. r. X.

Kca

7rr)p(OTCoi>

And when

they

had

blindfolded him, they [struck


etc.

him on

the

face, and] asked him, saying,

This account as
details, in

it

stands in the
it is

common

text

is

complete in

which respect

in contrast with those of the

two

preceding Evangelists, the former of which makes no mention of the blindfolding, and the latter none of the prophetic answer
required.

But doubt
7rp6<To)7rov

is

raised respecting the

words ervirrov avrov TO

Kal, the

removal of which would leave the circum-

68

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

from the question, rk stance expressed by them to be gathered term the Sepovres be viewed 6 iraurax o-e, unless preceding
<TTIV

as

is not an unlikely one, is clear the parallel places. in noticed Besides, from the facts already cause accidental it is not easy to detect anything that might of the disputed omission; and the existence of another shape avrov TO Trpoa-unrov and elsewhere, namely, Trepix. clause in

conveying it. That such a form of the text

eTVTTTOV avrov

The
ff,
i,

circumstance. /ecu, is a suspicious Avords in question are wanting in B, K, L, M, and b, of the Old Latin. They can hardly be viewed as genuine.

c,

LUKE

XXIII.

34.

O
[

I-rjaovs

eXeye

Ilarep, a(f)s avroif ov yap


TL TTOLOVCTL.

Then said

Jesus, Father, forgive them

for they know not

what they

doJ]

Whatever may be the unwillingness


words
as

to

view these memorable


necessary to state
others, the

open

to the slightest doubt,

still it is

the evidence which has that tendency. The passage is wanting in B, pr. man.,

and two

Old Latin in

a, b, d, a copy of the Coptic, and the Sahidic. There is also some variation in its form, Kvpios being the reading of Q, elirev of A, K, M, etc., and Trdrep being wanting in A. This evidence is sufficient at once to establish the fact of its

(iii. 20) very words of the prayer. It must at the same time be admitted that there is nothing in the outward shape to point to the probability of an accidental

absence from copies, to some extent or other, in ancient times. That it was also found in the text at an early period is equally clear from the circumstance, that Irenjeus in one place (iii. 18) has a distinct reference to it, and in another cites the

oversight; and yet, if the passage be genuine, its absence from

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

69

copies could have arisen only from accident, for there is nothing in its purport to excite a dogmatic inclination to its suppression. It is clear that the passage cannot have grown from the context

nor from any parallel place if, therefore, it were certain that it is spurious, it might be reasonably viewed as having originally noted a traditional, but true, circumstance, being thus well fitted
;

to obtain

an early and firm footing in the text

itself.

LUKE XXIV.
Trj St
7rl
fJLLa

1.

rwv

craft/SaTaus

TO fj.vrj[jLa (ftepowrai rives crvv avrai?.

opOpov fiaOeos rj\6ov rjToifJLacrav apw^ara^ Kai

Now

upon

the first

day of

the week, very early in the

morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices


tvhich they

had prepared, [and

certain others with them~\.

The
L,
etc.,

last clause, teal

.... avrals,
all

the Old Latin in

is wanting in B, C pr. man., copies except f, the Vulgate, Coptic,

.^Ethiopia, Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius,

The words

certainly

and Augustine. wear the appearance of an officious addition,

intended to help the Evangelist to exact consistency; for, if those women alone brought the spices who had witnessed the burial

on the preceding evening, which is the strict meaning of this when the clause is withdrawn, their number was very small Mark xv. 47), and, therefore, at variance with (Mat. xxvii. 61
verse
;

the larger
(v. 10).

company implied in the words The words in question come

teal

al \onral avv avrals

to the rescue

from

this

immaterial inconsistency, which involves nothing more than a very simple looseness of language, and they thus encounter a suspicion of a meddling appendage.

There need not be much scruple in rejecting the clause. The word apwfMira is also wanting in D, in several copies of the Old Latin, and the Sahidic.

70

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

LUKE XXIV.

12.

8e Ilerpos

KOL 7rapaKV\l/as
a.7rr)X0e trpo?

avaaras cSpa/*i> eirl TO /SAeVet ra oOovia K^i^eva

/jLova- /cat

lavrov Oavfidfatv TO ytyovos.

and ran unto the sepulchre: and stoop linen clothes laid by themselves, and the beheld he ing down, in himself at that which had come to departed, wondering
{Then
arose Peter,
passJ]

This entire verse

is

wanting in D, in

a, b,

e, I

of the Old Latin,

and

The Jerusalem not recognised by the Eusebian canons. in the margin. Syriac puts it This range of adverse evidence is certainly narrow but it
is
;

should be added, that in the ancient copies which contain the passage, A, B, and others, there are several variations of form,

which

The

are often the shiftings of a spurious growth. passage rather interrupts the thread of the narrative.
is

The

transaction

the same as that described

John xx. 3

10, but

dissimilarity

and discrepancy exclude the idea of the passage

having been directly borrowed from thence. This independence of matter and words might be urged as an argument for its
but the force of such argument could only be genuineness derived from the assumption, that mutual influence of the Gospels is the sole source of intrusion. On the contrary, it is quite possi
;

ble that the passage might be a marginal addition, which the fourth Gospel had never reached, and

made by hands
noting a piece

of tradition.

In

this instance there is occasion to recur to the

remark, that

in a case of very early intrusion the natural issue of things would that be, documents there among the more ancient of

surviving

would occur adverse testimony


in

distinct in expression

but narrow

compass.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

71

LUKE XXIV.
KOLL
dve<pepeTO

51.

ei?

rov ovpavov*

\_And carried up into heaven .]

is omitted by only, but the omission is supported Latin in the Old a, b, e,ff, I. by The clause too is one which might well have been wanting in the original narrative, but, in that case, could hardly fail to be Hence it cannot be free from supplemented in the margin.

This clause

suspicion.

There are other similar instances where


especially Acts
xvii. 18; xviii. 3.

thus stands alone,

72

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

JOHN
KaL

I.

16.

K TOV TrXrjpoj/JLaros avrov

rjfJLCis

Travrts eXa-

\And

X For] of his fulness have all


this verse is

we

received.

The connexion of
teal
a\i]deia<s

with the clause


plainly linked

(v. 14), to

which

it is

by the expres

sion rov TrXrjpcopaTos; and, whether teal or the various reading OTI be taken as its opening particle, it contains the argument in

proof of the proposition involved in those preceding words, drawn from the experience of the persons emphatically signified by the term ^//.et?, in the circumstance of their own derived endowments.
This connection is locally severed by interposing the statement of the Baptist s testimony to the surpassing dignity of his successor. of a similar structure from this writer occurs passage

proceeding

in his First 4, where the fourth verse contains the Epistle, v. 1 logical proof of the proposition laid down in the first clause of the
first verse, and is introduced by ort, after a digression made in the two In this there must be recognised intervening verses. an argument in favour of the variation on in the present place, drawn from the author s practice elsewhere.

various reading is found in B, C pr. man., D, L, X, 33, supported by a, b, e,ff, of the Old Latin, the Coptic, ^Ethiopic,

The

Armenian, and several Fathers. Without a careful noting of the true structure of the present passage, ort, if in the text, would wear a somewhat strange
appearance, so that Kai might be carelessly suggested and adopted. It does not, indeed, destroy the real connexion of the passage, and, as such, would not provoke any interpretation or substitution, such for instance as OTI- but at the same time it fails to that

bring

connexion from the

fairly into view,

and in

all

probability did not proceed

Evangelist.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

73

JOHN

I.

18.

fjiovoyeitrj? vios,

AC.
a>*>,

r. A.
is, etc.

The only
Here instead of

begotten \_Son X God], which

t/to?

there

is

encountered the remarkable varia


,

tion 0eo9, supported by B, C pr. man L, 33, the Syriac, Coptic, These last, however, would -/Ethiopia, and various Fathers.

probably be more disposed to give currency to so marked an expression, if it came in their way, than to scrutinise its claims to

What was the reading followed by Irenseus, Clement, and Origen, must be left an open question. The testimony of Theodotus and Arius in favour of Oeos might appear peculiarly strong on account of their respective dogmatic But it must be remembered with respect to the former, views.
reception.
that,

this

though his scheme was simply humanitarian in one aspect, term was in perfect harmony with its Gnostic conceptions
subtleties (Clem. Alex.

and

latter it

may

Op. p. 968). With respect to the be remarked, that, if he found no bar to his creed in

the term fiovoyevr)?, neither would $eo9 stand in his way. The of at once that this Theodotus shows evidence, however, reading

was current

at

an early period.
text, besides the

The common

mass of MSS., has the weighty

support of the Nitrian Syriac Text, the Old Latin, and Vulgate. The variation m TOV deov clearly exhibits an accretion upon
o<?

v/09,

and

is

thus an evidence in favour of

it.

The

other, u/o?

important as serving to point to an origination of 0e6$ as a deductive gloss upon the expression 6 /jLovoyevrjs 1*169, becoming
0eo9, is

afterwards an accretion.
It is possible that the
Vevrjs,

Evangelist wrote no more than 6 JJLOVOof which form there are some traces. The preponderance,

however, of evidence, supported by the preceding considerations, without requires that the common reading should be retained,

impeachment of the antiquity of few authorities which support it.

its rival,

and the weight of the

74

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

JOHN
Tavra

I.

28.

ev JBrj0a(3apa eyevero irepav rov

lopftavov.

These things were done in \Bethabara X Bethany] beyond Jordan.

The reading Bydafiapa


69,

and many

imcial

MSS.
rest, as

man., K, U, 22, 33, while Brjdavla is found in all the other that contain the passage, and the great majority
is

given by

sec.

others,

well as in nearly all the versions, and is the reading of Heracleon, Chrysostom, and other writers. Origen confesses that this latter was the reading of nearly all

of the

the copies; from which it appears that the aspect of the evidence has not been changed materially down to the present time. Not
withstanding, he expresses his conviction in favour of the other reading, denying with the authority of a local investigator the existence of a Bethany on the Jordan. This argument cannot

but carry weight, whatever may be thought of others which are appended to it (Comm. in Johan. p. 130, ed. Huet.). Jerome is

on the same

and possesses a like authority as being per with the country. sonally acquainted These considerations forbid an utter discarding of the common
side,

reading, notwithstanding the preponderance of the opposing evidence. It may also be remarked, that ByOaftapa cannot have

been an arbitrary alteration derived from the Septuagint, which The question, represents rna iva by BaiOrjpd or BaiOfiypd. however, is rather curious than important.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

75

JOHN
ovv ^rrjcns
fJLTOL
IoV$OLl(>V

III. 25.

e/c

rwv

fJLaOrirwv

Icoavvov

7T6/H KOidapiCrfJLOV.
disciples

Then

there arose

and

\the

a question between some of Johns Jews % a Jew~\ about purifying.


lov&alov
is

Instead of JouSatW,

M,

U, V, A, and a large body of Syriac versions, and various Fathers.


S,

given by A, B, E, F, K, L, others, supported by both

In support of the
69,
etc.,

common reading there are cited G, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Coptic, JEthiopic,
origin can

H,

1, 13,

etc.,

and

Origen. No other

well

be conceived
;

for

this

variation

than accident in transcription and preference must, therefore, be simply given to that reading in favour of which the evidence
preponderates, namely, lovSalov versions lies on the other side.
;

though the weight of the

In this place Bentley and Markland were each independently led by the succeeding context to conjecture I^aoO, taking, how
lyo-ov to stand for //.era rwv ^aOrjrwv J^croO, an requiring for its justification instances more closely perti nent than those which were actually cited for that purpose (Mat.
ever,
yu-era

ellipsis

John v. 36 2 Cor. vi. 16). Conjectural ingenuity, however happy its feats have occasionally been in other quarters, has made but a sorry adventure on the New Testament; and to this the present instance is no exception.
xxiv. 51
; ;

The appeal of John s disciples to their master was probably caused by their having learnt incidentally, through the Jewish disputant, some particulars of the doings and success of Jesus.

76

JOHN

V.

3, 4.

Ev

ravraif KCLTKLTO TrXrjOos TroXv r&v ao~6ev

KaTtfiaivev 6 ovv v8cop.

VOVVTWV, Tv(j)Xc*i>, x^w"? np& 9 Mexpfuifmf rrjv TOV VOOLTOS KLvr](nv. ayyeXos yap Kara Kaipov ev KoXvpfirjOpa, KOL erapaaae TO
rrj

irpwTO?

tafias ^fJLtTO.
o>

Tr)v

rapa^rjv

rov vSaTO?,

v-yirj?

eyivtTO,

SrjTTOTe

a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, For the moving of the water. halt, withered, [waiting for the into season certain an angel went down at a pool, and
In
these lay

troubled the water

of

the.

whosoever then first after the troubling water stepped in, was made whole of whatsoever
:

disease he had.~\

The question which arises on this passage, relates to the genu ineness of the portion e/cSe^ofjievcav .... voa-rj/juari. If an entire passage or clause is exhibited by different authorities
with considerable variations of form, and presents, as a whole, a changeable and unsettled appearance, such a circumstance can be
reasonably referred to only one cause, and lead to only one conclusion, namely, that the portion of text in question, even if not one existing copy wants it, is a mere concretion of
entirely

spurious matter. In the present instance, the clause in pr. man., L, 18; and the

succeeding portion, 0^776X09 .... in also marked with an asterisk in S, voa^art, D, 33, /, /, being and many others. The clause o ovv is obelised in vo<r^ari the later Syriac; and the three, Kara icaipov, ev -rfj ico\v^r)0pa, $ voa-^an, have nothing answering to them in a, b,ff, of
. .
.

/cSe^.

tcivrja-iv, is

wanting

the Old Latin, etc.

Thus far alone the appearances are such as to which has been just supposed, and are, therefore
clusion attached to
it,

realise the case

open to the con without the aid of further reasons. That

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


conclusion

77

is, however, especially strengthened by the fact, that the entire passage in question is wanting in B, C pr. man., 157, 314,

the Sahidic, and copies of the Coptic, and has nothing cor responding to it in the metrical paraphrase of Nonnus.
It will

wears,
that

now be when the

proper to look at the aspect which the narrative


disputed portion
is

omitted.

The

first

thing

must

strike a reader, is the absence of

any assigned reason

for the gathering of the sick folk

quently, implication supplies the answer of the impotent

around the pool, until, subse some information on the point, in man (v. 7); whose words intimate

thus much,
others,

arose

that the presence of himself, and, therefore, of the from a belief in a healing virtue immediately

Now following upon a certain occasional stirring of the water. this is certainly not the form which the narrative would take at
the hands of a careful and practised historian; but it is natural enough in an inartificial account, and would be one of several
instances occurring in the Gospels, where the language is uncon sciously made to reflect the writer s familiarity with localities and scenes, rather than framed to meet the absence of that condition

on the part of the general reader, a circumstance, however, which is a vivid evidence of the artless truthfulness of an eye
witness.

If such were the original form of the text, there was a

more

than ordinary opening for marginal supplements. The clause, e/cS is form that such a the Kivr](Tiv, supplement simplest could well take, since it expresses no more than what is barely

On this becoming, suggested by the succeeding context (v. 7). entire of the the text, passage would take the by intrusion, part
shape in which
fj,an,
it is

seen in D.

The

clause, ayyeX^os

....

VO<TIJ-

which it appears addition of both together would produce the common reading of the passage. That such has been the actual process, there are strong reasons
in

supplies something more circumstantial. rence to the text would give it the form under

Its separate ad-

A, L.

The eventual

for

concluding from the documentary evidence,

even without

regard to these internal considerations,

which

with the

facts

of the

MSS.

It

may be

so curiously tally remarked, too, that the

supposition that the

two

clauses are independent glossarial supple-

78
raents,
is

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

while one has supported by the circumstance, that, hand. It should different a other in the betrays rapa^tjv, Kcvrjaiv can be causes mechanical no that also be observed, discerned, which would lead to the accidental omission of the whole or part
of the disputed portion.

The
safely

eK^e^o^evwv .... voo-tffjiaTi, may then from the text and if the resulting shape of be removed
entire

portion,

the narrative be somewhat peculiar, this peculiarity, when rightly clear viewed, is an evidence of the genuineness of the form.

impression of scenes and circumstances, tends, if a narrator is artless, to an unwitting scantiness of descriptive and explanatory
detail for those

who

require

it.

Perhaps an instance of this


"

is

by very probable reading eoprij (v. 1); being that which was particularly present to the mind of the writer, as the one to which the preceding account of well
supplied
"

the

rj

the

feast

remembered events had


is

just brought him.

In that case,

rj

probably Pentecost.

JOHN
Kai
And

V.

16.

dta TOVTO eSicoKOV ol

lovSouoi TOV

KCU e^fjTovv avrov diroKTeivai, on, K. T. A.


therefore did the

Jews persecute Jesus, [and sought


etc.

to

slay him,~\ because,


It

may

be remarked of narrative writers,

method be an unstudied one, that they frequently do not express, in their proper place, with full particularity, circumstances which presently clearly appear from the Here succeeding context. officiousness would readily step in with a supplement for such
oversight or defect.

especially if their

An

illustration

of this would be furnished

by the present
for the
I.
Air.

passage, if the clause KOI

....

airoicreivcu
e

were removed;
a. ol

following words, S

TOVTO obv pa\\ov

imply

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

79

term

previous circumstance, which may be involved in the general eSlw/cov, but is not precisely expressed.

The

clause in question
all

is

wanting in B, C, D, L, 33, 69,

etc.;

the Old Latin in

copies except f, the Vulgate, Coptic, of the Nonnus, etc. nian, paraphrase
It

Arme

may

fairly

be regarded as a supplement, originating in the


just described.

way which has been

JOHN
IScov OTI TrXoiapiov
o eveftrjcrav ol

VI. 22.
i)v

aXXo OVK
fjLaflrjTal

eKel

el fArj

ei>

elf

avrov,

K. r. X.

The people

saio that there teas none other boat there, save


etc.

[that one wherein his disciples were entered X one~\,

This case
the clause

is

precisely of the
.

same kind

as the last, as respects

aurou, and admits of the same conclusion, the clause being wanting in A, B, L, etc., and a considerable number of versions.
et? o
. .
.

JOHN
w
I go
The simple negative
and three
others.

VII.

8.

OVTTCO dvafiaivco elf rrjv eoprrjv

ravrrji>.

not [yet] unto this feast.


instead of OUTTW,
is

ou/c,

This slender amount of

given by D, K, M, MS. evidence is,

however, strongly supported by the Old Latin in nearly all the copies, the Vulgate, Coptic, ^Ethiopic, etc., and by various
ecclesiastical writers.

present is an instance calling for the exercise of that and simple important rule in criticism, that, in a conflict of

The

80

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

and smooth, and evidence, a reading which makes all clear, attention by difficulty or consistent, which does not challenge has less claim for acceptance than one of the opposite peculiarity, in the present passage, Now the intention character.
expressed
as it stands in the

common

text, is in

complete accordance with

the subsequent proceeding (vs. 10, 14): on the contrary, with the absolute negative, it has an appearance, at least, of inconsistency;
so

much
The

so, that

Porphyry, according to Jerome, drew from

it

an

attack

upon

the character of Jesus.

incongruity, however, disappears

when

it

is

considered,

that attendance at a festival


associated companies,

was made with form and publicity, in

and often by anticipation of the exact time


o>9

and accordingly, one who made the journey ev (xi. 55); did and not to the appeared TT}? eoprrjs pea-ovcnr;, go up KpVTTTw,
feast

There

according to the established acceptance of the term. is no need to regard OVTTW as a wilful alteration:
likely to

it

is

more

have been originally a marginal suggestion, just as

Chrysostom interprets by the modifying additions, apri,


VfJiWV.

JOHN
Eptvvi]crov
real
t

VII. 52.

5e,

on

Trpo^rrjs CK

TYJS

Xaia? OVK
Search and look: for out of Galilee [ariseth X there has no arisen] prophet

Both ejr/yeprai, there is the variation eyeipeTai. readings are strongly supported; fyfoeprcu by E, G, L, M, S, X, 1, and many others, as well as the margin of the later Syriac;
ejelperai
as also

On

the

word

by B, D, K, the margin of S, T, A, and some others, by the principal versions, including those which express a

future.

Origen also appears to have read the same. The pre ponderance on the score of the antiquity of the testimonies is in
favour of the
latter.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

81

If attention be directed to the readings themselves, it must be that it involves a observed, that eyrjyeprai has this peculiarity,

statement of at least doubtful truth, though not the

less likely,

on

that account, to be put forward controversially. The reasoning intended to be associated with the statement would be, that, as
Galilee

had been no cradle of prophets,

it

was

least

of

all

likely to

send forth the Messiah.

This peculiarity attending the reading tyfyepTtu, would not tend to procure it a preference in case of a free choice between the two, nor would it be a comment of improvement or inter

Such considerations should pretation on eryeipercu. in hesitation produce discarding the common text.

at

least

JOHN
The
entire passage,

VII. 53.

VIII. 11.

question which arises respecting the spuriousness of this is one of special interest, not only from its import

on account of singular points involved in the evidence. first place, there must be noted the circumstance of its It is placed by one MS. after vii. 36 of this shifting position. Gospel, at the end of it by at least ten, and at the end of Luke xxi. by four. Though none of these MSS. are of high on this antiquity, yet particular point their evidence is not on account. that Now the several copyists that respec impaired first to the tively gave passage these various positions, must have
ance, but

In the

encountered
give
it it

it

in

some detached

state,

which

left

them

free to

But

a location according to the judgment or fancy of each. is not easy to conceive a genuine portion of the Gospel
it

narrative thus set adrift, to find a fresh lodgment as Next, there is a remarkable variation of shape.

may.
distinct

One

alone; and in the phase or cast of the passage is exhibited by other copies that contain it, the text fluctuates more broadly than
to the extent of various readings, ordinarily so called, to indicate the existence of two other shapes.

and seems

The passage

is

visibly

wanting in B, L, T, X, J, and more


7

82
than
fifty others,
its

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
besides lectionaries ;

and though

and C are
is

here defective,
ascertainable

absence from them

in their complete state

by

strict

of matter in their pages. it with marks of suspicion. passage more than sixty stigmatise It is wanting in a,/, etc., of the Old Latin, in the Sahidic, the
Gothic, and the best authorities of the Coptic, Armenian,

amount calculation, based on the uniform the contain Of the mass of MSS. which

and

recognition be said of Tertullian, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyril, Basil, The paraphrase of Nonnus has nothing answering and others.
ledge,

both Syriac versions. The commentaries of Origen and Chrysostom evince no know of this section: and the same or, at least, no

may
to

it.

Though
its its

the

judgment of Jerome
from

is
is

in favour of

it,

and

hence

place in the Vulgate, yet this

admission of

absence

many

accompanied with an copies: and to the same

purport are the scholia in various MSS. In the face of evidence thus varied and significant, the genu It may be regarded ineness of the passage cannot be maintained.

having been originally a detached narrative, founded on a real and one of a probably numerous class that obtained more or less currency. Such a view agrees well with an air of
as

transaction,

strangeness, that, apart from the miraculous,

is

not observable in

the other Gospel narratives.


look, as designed for effect.

The

cast of the story has

an

artificial

ancient and

In this case, as elsewhere, recourse has been freely had, both in modern times, to the suggestion of wilful suppression.

respect to the likelihood of such a proceeding, opinions may that such a supposition vary; but one thing at least is certain, will not serve, in the case of the present passage, to account for

With

two principal facts of adverse evidence, namely, place and shape.


It

its

shiftings of

may

be well to note the entire coherence of the narrative on

the removal of this section.

The

scene has been transferred,

and

with

the dispute about Galilee, from the populace to the conclave (vs. 45 no This, 52). however, implies suspension of the discourse of Jesus with those about and the broken him;
it also

report of the really unbroken discourse is at once the digression by the words 7rd\iv ovv, K. r. \,

resumed

after

OX THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

83

JOHN
Kcu
ea*>

VIII. 16.

Kpivto

de

eyo>,

TJ

Kpicns

rj

eyu,?}

aXr)6r)$

(TTtl>,

OTi, K. T. A.
is

And yet

if Ijudge,

my judgment
is

true: for,

etc.

Here, instead of aX?;^?, ak^Qivr) 33, and Origen in one place.

given by B, D, L, T, X,

The reading supported by

these important authorities gives a

sense better suited to the context, which may be thus expressed: I judge no one. Yes (/cat .... Se), and if I were to exercise judgment, the judgment that I exercise, is a genuine one
(uXTjOivrj}

not an
etc.

idle, ineffective process,

because,
truthfulness

^AX^dri^,

unworthy of the name which would convey the idea of

and uprightness, is an epithet far less to the purpose in the present place, as involving a less direct and forcible anti thesis to the statement, It probably crept ov icpivw ovSeva. in under the influence of the context (vs. 13, 14, 17). A\ijdivij
ey&>

the reading of sprung in the same


is

and may be regarded as having way from the word in the present passage.
in v. 14,

JOHN
*

VIII. 38.
TIM Trarpi JJLOV, XaXco.

Eyu>

fwpaKa Trapa
b

KCU

ovv

copaKare

Trapa

TCD

Trarpi

I speak that which I have seen icith my Father do that which ye have seen with your father.
The following
Origen:
670)
is

and ye

a ewpaica irapa

the form in which this passage was read by ovv a ical vrarpt, AaXco.
TO>

v(j,ei<$

jrapa rov Trarpo?,

Troielre.

A comparison

of these

two

g4

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

forms at once leads to the remark, that, in the latter, the same the terms irarpi, and rov person is necessarily signified by of the pronouns, addition the in the former, by Trarpos, while, contrasted. but distinct not only directly By two are
TO>

presented,
t>/*et9,

Jews (v. 31): Origen understands the believing he which applies to them, and from the expression ol e eTao/iewt, construction on the it would seem that he put an interrogative
the term

Are you too then perThe what things you have heard from the Father? other construction which the words will bear, is an imperative thus I for one, and the meaning of the passage may be given I with the have seen Father. which am speaking things my part Do you too then perform what things you have heard from the
last clause, so that

the sense would be,

formino-

Father, whether by my mouth or otherwise. not be restricted, as is done by Origen.

The

address need

The pronoun /Ltot, is omitted by B, C, L, X, various versions, and Cyril: vpuv, by B, L, etc.: the jEthiopic, Sahidic, and
Cyril.

B, C,

The reading r^Kovcrare Trapa TOV irarpos, is supported by K, L, X, 1, 13, 33, 69, etc., the Coptic, Sahidic, ^Ethiopic,

Armenian, Gothic, and the margin of the later Syriac, by Cyril and Chrysostom. The immaterial variation, a, in both places,
rests
If,

upon similar authority. on these grounds, this


be considered that the

latter
first

form be regarded

as genuine, it

may

would be an appending of vpwv

step in the way of deviation in the margin, under the influ

ence of the succeeding context (vs. 41, 44), and thus producing a discrimination of Trarpbs from The other principal varia TrarpL tion is the effect of self-assimilation.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

85

JOHN
de

VIII. 59.

eKpvfif] KCU ^ri\6ev K rou lepov, O(DV 8ia fjL(rov avTcov, KCU Traprjytv OVTCO?.

But

Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, \_going through the midst of them, and so passed by~\.

The entire clause, Bte\da>v .... o{/TW9, is wanting in B, D, the Old Latin except f, the Vulgate, Sahidic, etc. Variations of form are also exhibited both by MSS. and Versions. It is an incongruous appendage, derived from Luke iv. 30.

JOHN

X. 38.
6

Iva yvtore Kai TrKTTevcnjTe on eV


K. r. X.

eyuot

Trarrjp,

That ye may know, and

believe, that the

Father

is

in me, etc.

and four

Instead of jncrrevcrrire, yivwa/cijTe is the reading of B, L, X, others, supported by the Coptic, Sahidic, and Armenian,

Athanasius, Theodoret, and Hilary. On the adoption of the latter reading the sense of the passage Even if ye believe not me, believe the might be given thus:

works, that ye may mark gather that the Father is in

their nature

me and
is

and significance, I in the Father.

and

It is clear that Tna-reva-^re

would be a ready gloss on


not conceivable.

fytvaxTKijTC

but an opposite origination


is

The second verb

wanting in D, and a, b, c, e, ff, I of the Old Latin. This absence, however, may have been caused by the similarity of its near neighbour ^z/wre otherwise it must have been viewed as
:

doubtful.

86

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

JOHN XL
ovv TOV \i0ov ov
Then they
took
r]v

41.

away

the stone [from the place

where the

dead was

laid~\.

The
have
also,

clause ov

xetfievos is

wanting in B,

C pr.

man., D, L, X,

and three

others, as also in the principal versions, and it seems to been unknown to Origen and Chrysostom. In the authorities,
it, it appears with some variations of shape. once be regarded as spurious, and as an instructive

which contain

It

may

at

instance of the propensity to append supplementary matter, ever the text left even the slightest opening.

wher

JOHN

XII.

7.

TOV
fjLOV TTrjpr)Kl>

aVTO.

Let her alone

against the

day of
this.

my

burying hath she kept

Another form of
fiov rr)p^arj avro;

this

passage

is,

which, in the

strict sense

a$69 avrty a/a efc rrjv TJ. of the words,

T. eV.

offers

this
of.
it

it forbids interference with the execution which had already been visibly executed. To this design would be sufficient to that it is more than

incongruity, that

reply,

nothing

a laxity of colloquial language, of readily furnish examples. But it

which every-day speech would


is

common with
^

this writer,

the

rather an instance of a usage employment of a clause of this

grammatical form without any reference to its proper meaning of design, but simply to express a circumstance in the abstract vi. (iv. 34 29). Accordingly, the sense of the passage under form might be thus Let alone do not censure freely given:
;

-her reservation of the unguent With the common all


reading

against
is

my

burial rites.
its

smooth, and

purport cor-

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


responds with the parallel places.
this latter rests
etc.,

87

On

to the claims of its rival, the features of

on good

authorities.

ground it must yield which are peculiar, if only These are B, D, K, L, Q, X,


this

the Old Latin except f, the Vulgate,


etc.

Coptic, JEthiopic,

Armenian,

without hesitation

The common form of the passage may therefore be rejected it betrays a hand busied in removing slight
;

deviations from correctness and consistency,

and belongs

to a class

which may be

distinctively termed readings of

rectification.

JOHN
Nevei ovv
TOVTO>

XIII. 24.

Si/mow Uerpo? TrvGeo-Qai r/y av eir) Trepl ov Xeyet.


should be of whom he spake.

Simon Peter

therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask

ivho

it

Another form of
accident,
is
o.

this passage,
v. o. T.

which cannot have


H.

arisen

by

the following:
\.

IT. /cat Xeyet avrat, Elire

rk

eanv

TT.

To him then Simon Peter beckons and

says to

him, Tell us

who it is about whom he is The language here put into the mouth
is

speaking. of Peter assumes that the

person addressed
tion,

already in possession of the required informa

an assumption which the previous circumstances, so far as are detailed, do not justify, and which the sequel shows to they have been wrong. Still it might have rested on some slight cir
cumstance which
is

not recorded; and, in any case,

its

hastiness

is

only in keeping with lively and eager conversation, and especially with the character of the speaker. The formal incongruity, how ever, thus appearing on the face of the narrative would be quite

enough to catch the observation and excite the interference of those whose solicitude it was, at least in the margin, to rectify every the most slightly incongruous feature of the original text, and to append a supplement to every the slightest opening for
such an operation.

gg

DEVELOPED CEITICISM
In contrast with the appearance presented by the various read

of the ing is the considerate congruity av etrj jrepl ov \eyei.

common

text, TruOecrdai

TI<?

The

case

is

of the same complexion as the last

and, as in that

in favour of the various reading, instance, in order to a decision to cite weighty authorities it is they are B, C, L,

only necessary

Old Latin, the Vulgate, JEthiopic, X, and several citations by Origen. The rendering interroga, found in some copies of the Old Latin, betrays a feeling of the peculiarity which marks the various reading, and is thus an indirect evidence
33, several copies of the
in favour of that reading,
text.

and

also of the origin of the

common

lost

In the next verse a slight but lively feature of the narrative is by the absence of ovrax; which must be restored on the
;

authority of B, C, E, F, G,
clause will stand,
Ii](Tov, K. r. X.

H, L, M, X, A,
e/ceivos

etc.,

so that the
a-rfjOos

avaTrecrobv
is

OVTCOS

7rl

rb

rov

The usage

Gospel (iv. 6), and is Mid. p. 553, 3 Phil. p. 122.

the same as in another place of this best explained by a reference to Demosth.

JOHN
KCU OV
LCy

XVI.
fJL

16.

0C0pLTe

KOL TToXiV {JLLKpOV KCU

OTL lyco vTrayco irpos TOV Trarepa.

little

while,

ivhile,

and ye shall not see me : and again, a little and ye shall see me, [because I go to the Father}.

The The
ceded

Latin in

to be looked for: but since


(vs.

irarepa is wanting in B, D, L, the Old the Coptic, and Sahidic. succeeding context (v. 17) shows that such a clause ought
a, b, e,ff,

clause Sri

two of that kind have already pre

10), its absence in this place from a few ancient authorities would seem to indicate an instance of that readiness in
5,

the

furnishing

which the

of supplements and producing uniformities,

of

traces are so

numerous.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

89

JOHN
Udrep ayi,
ovy
5eiSft)Acay
rj/j,rji>

XVII.

11, 12.

rrjprjcrov

avrovs ev

rc3 OVO\JLCLTL crou


rjfjieis.

[JLOI,

Iva WCTLV tv

Kadws

ore

fjiT avTCov v rw /coer/ito, eyco fTrjpovv avrov? ev TW ovo^LarL crow ovs dedcoKa? fJLOi,

Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom While thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name:
those that thou aavest

me I have

kept.

The

clause Tijprjcrov .... /iot presents a form, as respects the

presence of avrou?, at variance not only with pure Greek usage but also with that of the writers of the New Testament, notwith

standing certain peculiarities in their use of auro?; and if there were no positive grounds for questioning the reading of any part of the clause, it would be necessary at least to recognise a per This necessity, however, is at once removed, plexing peculiarity.

not by any variation afiecting aurow, but by the simple restora tion of the clause to a correct form in the substitution of for ou?,
u>

a reading supported by an overbearing confluence of authorities. In behalf of it there are cited A, B, C, E, G, H, K, L, M, S, Y, A, and a considerable number besides, while D, U, X, and others

exhibit
o

o,
<u

which
so

is

merely an instance of the interchange of

and

prevalent

among MSS.

The amount

of direct

evidence

such as to put the reading reasonable still it doubt, and on this point nothing more need be said may be remarked, that it cannot well be urged that is only an arbi trary riddance of an anomalous usage, since an intention of that
is

& beyond
&>

all
:

kind would have found a readier remedy by expunging avrov?. The support for ofc is mainly found in D, sec. man., the Latin, as exhibited in the Vulgate text and several of its ancient docu
ments, and, among the Fathers, Epiphanius, Athanasius, tine, and Leo.

Augus

The same

variation

is

again exhibited, at the next occurrence

90

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

of the expression ofc SeSaiKas (v. 12), by B, C, L, and a few But not only is even this evidence others of less importance.

an unlikely cited compared with the body previously is this but circumstance if both readings were genuine evidently
feeble

Such a step a case to invite a venture on arbitrary assimilation. would further require the insertion of /cat before e$v\a%a and this companion reading is actually presented by the same group which seems to betray a close of documents
;

companionship

kindred.

The
it

insertion of Kal before

9/^9

is

well supported

by B, M,

S,

U, Y, and several

others, as well as Latin authorities;

though

possibly be the emphasis. On the other hand,

may

an

artificial

addition of a scarcely necessary words ev Koa-pw are omitted


ra>

by B, C, D, L, and several versions and Fathers, and have


the appearance of a gloss. The preceding considerations

also all

would lead

to the following read

ing of the passage.


ovo^curL crov oS Se&w/ea? aot, Ildrep ayie, rripr\aov avTOVs ev ore Kal iva O)(TIV ev KaOcos rj^v per avrwv, T^tet?. errfpovv
r>

eya>

e^uXa^a, K. T. X. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast bestowed on me, that they may be one just as we too are. When I was
avrovs ev
TO) ovo/Jbarl croir
01)9

SeSw/ca?

/xot,

with them,

was keeping them in thy name.

Those

whom

thou

hast given me, I have guarded, etc. similar question to the preceding arises at v. 24,

where the

variation 6 for ofo is found, resting mainly on the authority of B, D; a reading which adds force and spirit to the passage, but

does not accord with the style of the Evangelist.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

91

JOHN
TTCLVTtS

XVII.

21.

(OCTl,

KOL0O)?

(TV,

V (TOL

IvCL

KOL aVTol
;

V rJLLV

(>(TIV .

That they

all

may

be one

as thou, Father, art in me,

and I

in thee, that they

may

also be \one\ in us.

The repeated word


nothing answering to
Sahidic,

ez>

is

wanting in B,
b,
c, e

it

in a,

C pr. man., D, and has of the Old Latin, in the


word might
as fol

and Armenian.
it

On

the one side

may be

truly said, that the

have been readily overlooked in transcription, especially

lowing

rjjjblv.

On

the other, the effect of

its

removal should be noted.

This

effect is to set in clear distinctness

two things

one, a state barely

expressed by a simple term (eV); the other, a representation of that state under a different aspect, in its internal and essential
condition.
I

pray

that all
I in thee,

may

be one

that, just as thou,

Father, art in

even they too may be in us. The word in question interferes with the distinct arrangement which has been just noted, and is probably an officious intrusion.

me and

92

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

ACTS
Aafieiv

I.

25.

TOV

KXffpov

TTJS

SiOKOvias

Tovrqs

KOL

That he may take [part X

the post]

of

this ministry

and

apostleship.

Instead of K\rjpov, TOTTOV is the reading of A, B, (TOTTOV TOI/), the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, etc.

C pr.

man.,

The common reading has certainly the appearance of a gloss, borrowed from the expression, TOV tcXfjpov T?}9 Sia/covta? TavT???, immediately preceding (v. 17), and resulting in a reading of
assimilation, as well as

sions (viii. 21; xxvi. 18).

producing a resemblance to other expres On the other hand, with regard to


nothing in the reading
itself,

the

common

text, there is

nor

is
it.

there any external influence, to lead to so

much

as a gloss

upon

The

question

is

not without

various reading is adopted, it of the language applied to Judas, ^9 jrape^rf Tropevdfjvai et? TOV TOTTOV TOV iStov; for, as the term TOTTOV is here used, in the
d<f>

importance, because, if the furnishes at once an interpretation


its

instance, to signify position of personal condition, it must be taken in the same sense in the second ; and thus the resulting
first

meaning

will be, that the traitor s forfeiture

had made him pass

(Tropev6fjvat) to that

which, in respect of his true character, had been all along his rightful and appropriate place (TOV TOTTOV TOV totov}, namely, without the apostolic pale.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

93

ACTS
OTl OpKO)

II.

30.

K KapTTOV TTJS 6<r(f)vos avrov TO Kara crapKa dvacrTrjcretv TOV Xpicrrov Kadio-ai evr! TOV Opovov avTOv.
a)fJLOCTl>

OLVTW O OtOS

Knowing
of
the fruit

that

God had sworn


sit

with an oath

to

him, that

raise

of up Christ to

his loins, according to the

fash, he would

on his throne.

sec.

TO K. a. r. Xpiarov are wanting in A, B, C, the man., Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, Syriac, .ZEthiopic, Arme and various ecclesiastical writers. nian,
<r.

The words

strongly the appearance of a gloss, giving a precise interpretation of the general terms under which the promise was originally conveyed, simply cited in that shape by the Apostle
(2 Sam.
vii.

They have

11, 12; 1 Chron. xvii. 10

copies, too, exhibit only the

words

avacrrrja-etv

12; Ps. Ixxxix. 4). TOV Xpicrrov.

Some

The
one
;

shorter reading, thus supported,

may

be taken as the true


:

would be as follows Being then a prophet, and knowing that God had solemnly sworn that he would seat his offspring on his throne, he spoke in foresight
so that the sense of the passage

concerning the resurrection of Christ, that he was not

left, etc.

ACTS
Kcu
And
aTTOcrreiXr)

III. 20.

rov 7rpOKeK.r)pvyiJievov vjuv Irj(TOvv


Xpicrrov.

he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was \_preached X appointed"^ unto you.

of A, B, C, D, E, and a considerable

Instead of Trpo/ceKijpvy/Aevov, TrpoKe^eipiafjievov is the reading number of others, supported


various versions and writers.

by

94

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

The common reading may be regarded as a gloss upon the following context, Moxr^ pev yap, Xeipurpevov, suggested by K T \. a mistaken view of connexion which also led to the
.
.

at a point commences and of where a new ground (v. 22). appeal argument The reading which is so strongly supported by external evi idea of a person dence, conveys the more forcible and complete

intrusion of the undoubtedly spurious particle yap,

both before appointed for an advent of visitation, and also ever the time should be ripe ready to execute that function, whenever
for the event.

ACTS
yap
For of a
After
a\r)6eia<f,

IV. 27.
eiri

ejr

a\r)6eias

TOV ayiov

crov

Irjcrovv, K. T. X.

truth, against thy holy child Jesus, etc.

(TroXet

the addition ev ry TroXet ravrrj is found in B, D, E, and more than twenty others, supported by the unanimous voice of versions, and a considerable number of
<TOV),

ecclesiastical
city, etc.

writers.

For truly there were gathered in

this

might seem a piece of inconsistency, or an instance of pre judice in favour of mere antiquity, to call for the admission of
It

matter into the text on the evidence of those very authorities which are continually invoked for the contrary purpose. con

sideration,

however,

is

at

hand

authorities

must

prevail.

show that here too the ancient The practice of stichometry* was
to
<rri%oi,

attended
rainrj,

by this evil, that entire would be liable to be overlooked

such as eV

777

TroXet

in transcription, especially
sense,

when, as in the present case, one was not material to the and several successive ones began with the same letter.
*

The

Some account of

this
ii.

method may be seen

in

Davidson

Biblical

Criticism, Vol. II. chap.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


custom of recording the number of the book would no doubt act as a safeguard,
crri^oi at the
if

95

end of

only that machinery


:

were constantly and accurately employed by copyists but omis sions arising from this particular cause would be transferred with out chance of detection into transcripts where the stichometrical arrangement was not retained.

When,
into a err

therefore, a
is
t%o<?,

assigned to this text on evidence which ascends higher than the date of sticho metrical influence and thus a peculiar exception will be admitted
;

group of words which would be thrown wanting in later copies, its absence must be particular cause, and it must be replaced in the

to that general principle of criticism, shorter reading claims a preference.

according to which the

ACTS
e

VI.

8.

TrXrjprjs

7naTea>?

KOU (^a/news*, K. r. A.

And

Stephen, full vf \_faitk \grace~\

and power,

etc.

is the reading of A, B, D, On Tricrreo)? the variation and more than twenty others, supported by the Vulgate, Coptic, while E has Sahidic, Armenian, etc., and various writers
^apm><?

On this evidence mon reading having

the variation claims the preference, the

com

an interpretation of it, that the the miracles were wrought grace by which purporting
probably been
faith.

at first

was that of vigorous

96

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

ACTS
i>fJLiv

VII. 37.

dvao-Trjcrei
vfJiwv coy

Kvpios

d8e\(j)a>v

efj,e-

K o Oeo$ avrov aKOvo-taOe.


Vfj.au>

A prophet shall
The

[the

your brethren,
last clause is

Lord your] God raise up unto you of like unto me; [him shall ye hear].

and more than thirty wanting in A, B, H, It is thus rendered at least doubtful, etc. when assimilative influence is taken into account; from especially which also must have arisen K. 6. 6. v. for the simple form 6 0eo?.
others, the Sahidic,

ACTS
Ovros e&Tiv
This
rj

VIII. 10.

BvvafJLLS
is

TOV Oeov

77

man
77

the great power

of God.

A fuller expression,
may be
The
in the

Kakovpevr)

fj,eyd\.rj, is

found in A, B, C,

D, E, and nine others, the Vulgate, Coptic, JEthiopic, Armenian, etc., and especially Irenasus, so far at least as the Latin translation
variation

accepted as evidence. is not immaterial


text,

for the words, as

they stand

might be no more than an exclamation of excessive wonder, but, by the insertion of the word in question, they express an identification of Simon with an individual energy of which the idea was previously present to the minds of the eov speakers, and its designation was specifically rj Svva/M? TOV
i]

common

The (so styled) great power of God. This identity was also formally assumed by Simon according to the statement of eou rrjv Origen, e^xzcr/cey avrbv elvai Swa/ui> Ka\ov/Aevr)v fjt,jd\rjv (c. Cels. vi. p. 282); while the term itself
peyaXr)
appears to have been a primary one of his scheme of philosophy.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

97

It might be fairly suggested that KaXovpivrj was originally a gloss, explaining in this way the definiteness of the expression but the general character of marginal matter, TI Svva/Ais rj peyaXij
;

as far as it is
artificial

brought into view, is of a far less refined and The word, too, might easily have character than this.

been

lost

by 6^oiore\evTov.

ACTS
e

VIII. 37.
t

<&

iXnriros

TricrTeveis
elire

0X779 rrjs

^ea-TLv.

airoKpiOeis 8e

inoTCVG) TOV

vlov rov

Oeov

elvcu,

TOV Irjaovi XpicrTov.


If thou
believest

[And
tliou

Philip said,

with all thine heart,


said,

moyest. Jesus Christ is the Son of God.~\

And

he answered

and

believe

that

is wanting in A, B, C, G, H, and more than the Codex Amiatinus of the Hieronymian Latin sixty others, pr. man., the Peshito, Coptic, Sahidic, ^Ethiopic, etc.

This entire verse

The passage also exhibits that mark of spuriousness, shiftings of shape. Thus, for instance, its best authority E, instead of e^ecrriv has crwOija-rj, and for TTICTTCVCO Xpia-rov, reads Tnareva)
. . .

et9

TOV

X. TOV vL TOV &.


is

The whole

undoubtedly an

artificial

unstudied brevity of the narrative had unconditional administration of the rite.

left

supplement, where the the appearance of an

98

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

ACTS
*O
de

IX.

5,

6.

Kvpios

elirev

eyco

d^i

lya-ovs ov (TV

Sl.a>Kl?-

(TK\J]pOV (TOL TTpOf KWTpa XaKTL^LV. re Kal Qa^wv elire- Kvpie, ri /ue QeXfi?

TptTTOLTJ-

Kal o Kvpioy irpos

avrov
Jesus,

avacrTT]6L, K.

r.\.
:

And
is

the

Lord

said,

I am

whom

thou persecutest

And he hard for thee to hick against the pricks. [it what wilt thou have and Lord, said, astonished, trembling
me
to

do 9

And

the

Lord

said unto him, ] etc.

When

it is

considered that this transaction


it

is

thrice narrated

strange, unless the three narra tives had originally been cast in close verbal agreement, had there been no traces of mutual influence.

in this book,

would have been

For the

entire portion crK\^p6v


;

Trpo? avrov not

one existing

Greek MS. can be cited


the clause a-Khypov ....
verse, being evidently

Aa/mety

though E, 180, and the Peshito, add at the end of the preceding

an assimilative accretion from the parallel The authorities for the common text are little place (xxvi. 14). more than the ordinary Vulgate and the JEthiopic. In place of the portion in question must be substituted, in
accordance with the mass of authorities, simply the connecting particle d\\d.

A, B, C, and
L7rev.

five others,

with the Vulgate, omit the words


after

A, C, E, and three others, with the Peshito,


etc.,

Coptic,

JEthiopic,

append

I^croO?

the

assimilation

6 vafopaios (xxii. 8).

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

99

ACTS
Ovrof gevi^ETOU Trapd
<TTLV

X.

6.

TLVL

OLKLa Trapa

6aXa<T(Ta.v

^lyiwvi (3vpo~ei ovrof XaX^aei croi ri


<a

ae

8ei
is

He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house the sea side : he shall tell tliee ivhat thou oughtest to do.
v. 32.

by

OLKLO, Siifjiwvos (Svpcrecos Trapa Ovrof 1-evifieTOU OaXacraav os TrapaytvofJievos XaXrjo-ei croi.
ei>

He

is
;

sea side

lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner, by the who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.

In the former of these parallel places the entire clause ouro9 is wanting in A, B, C, E, G, and many others, and the versions in general. The strongest support is found in the
-

^Ethiopia and the common text of the Vulgate, though it is wanting in the Codex Amiatinus and other important copies of
the
latter.

It is clearly spurious.
latter,

wanting in A, B, and seven others, the Vulgate, Coptic, and JEthiopic but it has the support of C, D, E, G, H, and the remaining majority of MSS. and versions, as also Chrysostom and Theophylact. In this con
In the
the clause 05 ...
croi,

is

flict it

must be attended with doubt.

is

In the third parallel place (xi. 13, 14), the corresponding clause not affected by any variation.

100

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

ACTS
"Avdpes

X.

19.

rpel?

r)TOvcri ere.
thee.

Three] men seek

There are some peculiar circumstances relating to the reading


rpeif.

Its authorities are

A, C, E,

etc.,

the Vulgate, Peshito, the

margin of the later Syriac.

The word
fifty

is altogether wanting in D, G, the Armenian, the later Syriac, others,

H, and more than


etc.,

as well as in

several writers,

including Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem, and

in the Apostolical Constitutions.

This

is

sufficient to raise

grave

doubts at least of the genuineness of the word, especially since it would be so obvious a supplement from the preceding context,
as also

Thus

from the subsequent statement of the number (xi. 11). far the case is only one of a very numerous class but
;

there exists besides a circumstance


discussion.

which must enter

into the

alone.

The term

I&ou avSpes Svo ^rouvre? ae, is the reading of B Svo at once challenges remark, and calls up

several observations.
first place, Svo is not really incompatible with the pre context for, though Cornelius despatched three persons, ceding the two domestics alone may be viewed as the bearers of the yet
;

In the

communication, the trusty soldier being merely a protective escort. All this, however, by no means helps forward an attempt to account for the existence of the word for it must be at once
;

seen, that in case of the bare reading avSpes


text, the

being found in the ready supplement would not be Svo, but rpefc supplied from two places and still less likely is the suggestion of Svo
;

upon T/36t9, which latter would call for neither explanation nor improvement on account of any real or seeming inconsistency. Under these circumstances a question at least will steal in,
whether the solitary but high authority
the "true

At reading. that Tpefc is either an


upon
Svo.

all

events there

is

B may have preserved much to favour the idea,

arbitrary supplement, or a corrective gloss

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

101

ACTS XL
Efartv 8e
fJLOL

12.

TO

irvevfJia

crvveXOelv avrois

And

the Spirit bade

me go with them

[nothing doubting],

The words

/ArjSev Biafepivo/Aevov

are wanting in D,
later
;

and have

fj,TjSev Syriac or the difference immaterial, [ArjSev Sia/cplvavra Siafcpivovra, being is the reading of A, B, and some others.

nothing answering

to

them

in the

while

The slender amount of evidence for the simple spuriousness of the words in question is enforced by the appearance, which they present, of an assimilative accretion from the parallel place
(x. 30).

the other hand, it may be urged in support of the genuine ness of the rival reading above mentioned, that it cannot be
bears

On

resolved into a supplement borrowed from that place, since it a different meaning, namely, making no difference

between Jew and Gentile.


Besides, SiaKpivo/jievov might have been a borrowed, though erroneous, gloss on SiaKpivovra but the converse process is hardly conceivable.
;

The

case

is

a perplexing one, but


text.

its

bearing seems on the

whole adverse to the common

102

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

ACTS
Se TLves e

XI. 20.

avrtov avSpts
elf

Kvirpwi KCU
cXa-

oirives eXOovres

Ai>TLO\eiap

Xovv

Trpof rovf EXXrjVHTTas.

And

which, tvhen they were come

some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, to Antioch, spake unto the

[Grecians X Greeks ^.

The common reading .EXX^wo-ra? is supported by B apparently, sec. man., E, G, H, and the mass of MSS., A and D pr. man. alone exhibiting "EXX^ra?, which appears, too, to have been read

by Eusebius, Cassiodorus, and

others.

This overwhelming numerical preponderance of external evi dence is fairly overbalanced by an internal consideration of sin
gular force, namely, the positive absurdity of the common reading for the distinctive term from EX\,v)viaTai is Eftpaioi, (vi. 1), not
;

lovSaioi (v. 19); and the persons who are here represented as taking a marked step by addressing the Gospel message in a new
quarter,

were themselves
variation
tr

EX\.r)Vicrrai.

E\\rjva?, with its narrow amount of exter nal support, must be at once Cypriot and Cyrenean adopted. Jews were qualified, as being EXX^i/tcrrat, to address themselves
to those

Thus the

who were
/cat,

strictly

E\\ijves.

A, B, and a few
emphatic

others, supported

so that the reading

by the Vulgate, prefix an would be e XaXow KOI 777)09 TOJ)?

The
the

first

which

restored reading is most important, as bringing into view decisive effort towards raising the Gentile church, of little more than the foundation stone had been laid in

Cornelius.

ON THE TEXT OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.

103

ACTS
Kcu
And
to?

XIII. 18.

TecrcrapaKovTaerri yjpovov e GLVTOVS ev rfj

about the time of forty years \_suffered he their ners \ nourished them] in the icilderness.

man

The
form,
others,

striking variation as regards meaning,

though

slight in

erpo(J3o(f)6pf}crv, is

given by A,

and

man., D, G, H, apparently, and the remaining mass, being represented also in the Vulgate, and written in the margin of the later Syriac; it is also found in
sec.

common

represented reading is that of

is

by most of the

pr. man., E, and seven while the versions


;

Origen, Chrysostom, and other writers. The evidence is thus fairly conflicting, though that of the versions alone is strongly in favour of the variation.

most probable that a variation so slight in form had its mere accident, and therefore decisive aid is not to be It may, however, be expected from internal considerations. remarked that rpoTrofopecv, being found in one of the Greek
It is
rise in

scraps of Cicero s epistles (Att. xiii. 29), may be regarded as a term of familiar currency, while rpo<j)o(f>opelv is certainly rare,

and may even be a coinage of Jewish Greek a copyist would The readily slip from the latter into the former. too of not harmonise with does peculiar meaning rpoiro^opelv
:

therefore

the tone of the narrative, in which there is nothing objurgatory, and which sets forth the positive favours of divine interposition.

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

ACTS
Ka\

XIII. 19, 20.

KaOtXcov eOinj eVra ev yfj Xavaav *areKal yuera avrols TTJV yr\v OLVTWV. K\r)po$orr](Tev ravra ws ereo-i rtTpaKOO-iois KOLL irevrrjKOVTa edw-

KV

KpLTOLS,

K. T. A.

he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Chanaan, he divided their land to them by lot. And after that, he gave unto them judges, about the space of four

And when

hundred andfifty years.


This passage has been remarkable for its contribution to the chronological difficulties that beset the present text of Scripture.
err. T. would naturally be taken of the clause expresses the period included between the settle ment of the tribes and the administration of Samuel a reckoning exhibiting a certain accordance with an incidental mention of time in the Book of Judges (xi. 26), but quite irreconcilable with

The view
TT., is

that

&>?

Kal

that

it

one positive date given in the First Book of Kings (vi. 1), and still more so with conclusions involved in genealogical and other
It might, however, be viewed as parenthetically the time embraced by the events previously mentioned intimating from the settlement of the tribes up to the period signi (ravra),

recorded

facts.

fied in the

would in

this

words ee\earo rou9 Trarepa? rifjiwv. The difficulty view be lessened on account of the vagueness of the

epoch implied in those words, but the construction is awkward. This awkwardness, however, would be removed, and this meaning necessarily borne by the clause, if it stood at the end of the pre
ceding verse
;

a position in which

it

actually appears in

A, B, C,

and

six others, the Coptic,

and Armenian.

It might be objected to this evidence, that there has been a wilful shifting of the clause; but a concern about the matter, if such there more were, would rather have led to a

remedy

marked and complete.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

105

ACTS
/cat e

XIII. 33.

TW
is

ajJicp

TU>

evTp(p ye-ypanrrai.

As

it

also

written in the [second %jirst] psalm.

In this place the reading of the


etc.,

common
TO>

text
;

is

Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Ambrose


others,

found in E, G, while A, B, C,

and some

have

ev r.

-fy.

767.

8.,

and others. ment, ev r. 8. i/r., is given in of themselves suspicious. Ev Trpcorw tyaXfjufp is the reading of D alone, but supported by the testimony of Origen, Tertullian, Hilary, Jerome, and other writers. This is a case where internal considerations abundantly com
TU>

and another arrange These shiftings are

pensate for scantiness of external evidence; since accidental origi nation of the various reading is not conceivable, and its peculiarity is such as to exclude the idea of an artificial one, even in the

margin.
It

The

variation

may

be adopted without hesitation.

would

follow then that an arrangement or

numbering of the

made would be from


reckoning that which
to the book, or in

Psalms once had currency, according to which the citation here the first Psalm but whether by a fusion
;

of those which ordinarily appear as the


is

first

and second, or by

now numbered

first,

as a detached preface

any other way, this is not the place to inquire. There are traces of the simple reading ev ^aA/toS which
TU>

may
term

exhibit a

summary

avoidance of the difficulty attending the

106

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

ACTS XV.
Kvpios
o

17,

18.

air

ravra iravra. aiwvos eari rw Otw iravra ra epya avrov.


iroi&v

Saith the Lord,

who

doeth all these things.

Known

unto

God

are all his works from the beginning of the world.


text
is

The common

here supported by E, G,

H,

etc.,

the later

and others; Syriac, the Apostolical Constitutions, Chrysostom, reads yvwa-rbv air at. T& Kvpiw TO epyov avrov, as does while

D
ra>

with the addition of eariv after

at.,

and with

this agree the

the omission of Vulgate, the margin of the later Syriac with shorter K and Irenasus according to the Latin translation.
,

form, Xey. K. 6 IT. ravia yvaxrra air atwz^o?, is given by B, C, and more than ten others, the Sahidic, and Coptic. This is again varied in a few copies as follows, Xey. K. 6 TT. r. a eanv avrut
<yv.

cm

with which the ^Ethiopia agrees. The appearance of these and other variations
at.,

is

of a kind to

throw a suspicion on all that is found after raura; and there In is no difficulty in assigning an origin for additional matter. the original prophecy the reference of ravra is clear enough,
namely, to those impending visitations of divine wrath which were the immediate subject of the prophet s communication but, looking at the citation as it here stands detached from its context,
;

a reader

would be led

to refer the
it

term to the events described


to explain

in the passage itself; and, as in what God

might seem necessary

way

(TTOIWV) things in the way of

might speak of himself as actually doing which belonged to a distant futurity, comments

explanation would readily arise, of forms at present embodied in the text of various air copies, namely, fyavepa a ea-ri K. r. X. apxfc eVrt, K. r. \. yvwarov e crrt, K. T. X., and so forth.
<yap

<yva)<TTa,

The choice
air at.,

lies

Saith the

between two forms, namely, Lord who makes these


TT.

X.

K.

TT.

r.
<yv.

things

known from
is

all

time;
things.

and

X.

K. 6

T.,

Saith the

Lord who

doing these

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

107

ACTS XV.
ray
7rpiT[jLi>(r0ai

24.

/cat
rr]peti>

fyvyas vfjL&v, Aej/oj/resTOP VOJJLOV, ois ov

Subverting your souls, \_saying,

Ye must

be circumcised,

and keep

the

law

:] to

whom

ive

gave no such commandment.

The clause \eyovres . vopov is wanting in A, B, D, 13, etc., the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, and ^Ethiopic versions, the Aposto
.

lical Constitutions,

Athanasius, Epiphanius, and others..

With

this direct evidence of spuriousness there

combines the

appearance, which the clause undoubtedly wears, of an explana tory comment on the preceding words.

ACTS XV.

33.

AireXvOrjO av per eiprjwrjs OLTTO TOVS OLTTOCTTOXOVS.

TU>V

dSeXfiunr Trpo?

They were

let

go

in peace

from

the

brethren [unto the

apostles x those that sent them].

Instead of TOT)? aTroo-roAoi"?, which has the support of E, G, H, both Syriac versions, etc., row aTroa-TetXavra? avrovs is the reading of A, B, C, D, and many others, the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, and

^Ethiopic versions,
to the

etc.

It is possible that these latter

common

words were a marginal appendage and afterwards reading, supplanted it but a far
;

more likely process is that of writing row? a/TrocrroXov? as a gloss; and since the amount of external evidence is on the whole also
in favour of the various reading,
it

should therefore be preferred.

108

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

ACTS XV.
"ESo^t

34.

8e

TW
it

JEJ/Aa en-ifieivai avToi).


to

[Notwithstanding,

pleased Silas

abide there

still.

This verse exhibits a considerable amount of variation,

man. Trpo? avrovs, besides which having pr. man. at/row, sec. while D, as also the common text ourot9 and avrodt, are found of the Vulgate, has the additional clause povos Se louSa? eVo;

pevOrj,

which

is

also

found elsewhere.
:

but the entire verse, This might seem somewhat suspicious common in the found C, Vulgate, and the Sahidic, is though and about in A, B, E, G, H, fifty others, the Latin wanting
in the Codices Amiatinus
.ZEthiopic, etc.

and Demidovianus, the Coptic, the

undoubtedly spurious, being an officious appen dage directly expressing what is at once concluded from the succeeding context, namely, that Silas, though with his colleague
is

The passage

Judas he had received his formal leave of the Antiochene church


in his official capacity, still continued on the spot, tion took place between Paul and Barnabas.
till

the separa

ACTS XVI.
Kai
But

7.

OVK eiao-ev OLVTOVS TO


-\-

the Spirit

of Jesus

suffered them not*

To

this clause there is the addition Irjaov in

A, B, C

sec.

man.,

D, E, and seven others, the Vulgate, Coptic, ^Ethiopic, Armenian, and both Syriac versions, Cyril, Jerome, and others. The omis
sion
is

phylact,

supported by G, H, the Sahidic, and (Ecumenius.

etc.,

Chrysostom, Theo-

The marks + + include an addition

to the

common text.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


The evidence
TO
Trvevfut,

109

for the addition

is

strong

still

the bare term


;

would be of a kind to provoke an appendage C, with the Codex Demidovianus, reads Kvptov.

and

ACTS
rw

XVIII.

5.

Trifev/JLart

HavXoy.

Paul was pressed

in the spirit.

variation, \6ya) for vrvevftaTt, is given by A, B, D, the versions in general, Basil, Theodoret, and others. E, G, etc., The common reading is found in H, etc., the Armenian, the

marked

margin of the later Syriac, Theophylact, and CEcumenius. The weight of external evidence -is clearly in favour of the The words rc3 Trvev^an may have been originally variation.
a comment, attached to o-we/^ero for the purpose of intimating
that the term was to be taken in a mental sense.

But on the arrival from Macedonia of both Silas and Timowas closely engaged with the word, while testifying, etc. that is, by the time of their arrival the Apostle was in full
theus, Paul
;

effort.

ACTS XVIIL
L

17.

de iravres ol

EXXrjvts ^(
K. r. A.

TOV
Then
[all the

apyi<TVvaya>yov,

Greeks X they

alf] took

Sosthenes, the chief

ruler of the synagogue.

The words
Coptic,
etc.

ol "E\\r)V$

are

wanting in A, B, the Vulgate,

The adverse evidence

is

thus narrow in amount but significant,

HO
and
is

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
indirectly supported

have have arisen could which only lovScuot or ol lavSaioi, a reading as an explanatory appendage to the bare term Trdvres. to see what motive the Greeks could have had It is not

by the

fact that several copies

easy

for

maltreatment of the Jews on this occasion, however

much

to indulge a scornful merriment they might have been disposed at their expense but by the absence of the words in question the
;

transaction

(cnlrecr#e

once cleared up. In this way it would appear the Jews, mortified at the rebuff they had of body same time interpreting the proconsul s words at the but received, as giving them a certain licence, proceeded to avroi)
is

at

that the

beat a principal apostate to the new doctrine a measure viewed by Gallio with the same unconcern as the previous appeal to his Thus Sosthenes appears as a Christian magisterial authority. identified with the associate and companion convert, to be readily
;

of the Apostle church.

when he wrote

his first epistle to the Corinthian

ACTS

XVIIl.

21.

aTrera^aro avrols eLTrcov del

(JL

iravraiS rrjv

eoprrjv rr]v ep^ofjievrjv TTOLrjcraL ely lepoo-oXv/Jia.

But bade them

this

farewell, saying, I must by all feast that cometh in Jerusalem.

means keep

The entire clause Set ... lepoaoKv^a is wanting in A, B, E, and nine others, the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, ^Ethiopic, and Armenian versions; its main authorities being D, G, H, and both
Syriac versions. Besides the omission,
other
variations,

similarly

supported,
:

would give

to

the

entire

passage

the

following form
ty/.a<?

a\\a

aTTora^dfjievof Kal eiirdov, ird\iv dvatcdfji^a} ?rpo9

rov &eov

0eXovTO?, dvr) %9r) dirb TT}? Efyeaov. saying, I will return to you again if

But

after
will,

taking leave, and

God

he

set sail

from

Ephesus.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


The
sistency

Ill

reader of the Acts must often have noticed the incon

between the importance which the Apostle s language,

according to the
to Jerusalem,

common
its

text, here attaches to his

intended

visit

where

insignificance in the subsequent narrative, the entire transaction is left to be gathered by implication
(v. 22).

and

from the necessary meaning of the word avaftds

ACTS XX.

28.

v TT]V iK.K\r)crLav rov Oeov, K. r. X.

To feed
The
variations
.,

the

church [of

God

X of the LordJ]

upon rov eov are the following, rov Kvplov, and TOV XpiaTov. TOV 0. Kal K., TOV K. ., glance at this group at once shows that it has grown from the margin, whatever may have been the original germ.
TOV K.
/cal

The

last

mentioned variation

rests

almost solely on the Peshito,

found once in Origen, twice in Theodoret, and in three being of Athanasius. It may thus be disposed of at once, and copies be as a may regarded gloss which might have been appended
also
it

eov or Kvpiov; but, when once interlinear or marginal, could hardly have been substituted by a transcriber for the former, though it might have been readily for the latter.
either to

The

three

which precede

different shapes

though the

first

it, may be classed together, as only of a concretion of the text and the margin ; of them, TOV K. teal has really the greatest .,

numerical amount of external evidence in

its

favour of

all

the

man., G, H, and more than a hundred readings, namely, for the remaining two of the the evidence while others, etc.,
ter.

three
eov

is

quite immaterial.

Thus the

discussion finally lies between

and Kvpiov.

In support of the former there are cited B, and about twenty others, the Vulgate undoubtedly, and the later Syriac, Epiphanius, Ambrose, CEcumenius, and other writers.

The

latter is the

reading of A,

pr. mail.,

D, E, (the two

112
latter also in their

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

Old Latin), and fourteen others, the Coptic, Irenaeus Sahidic, Armenian, and the margin of the later Syriac,

as represented in the Latin translation, Eusebius, the Apostolical Constitutions, Lucifer, Augustine, and others.

in one place Chrysostom cannot be decisively cited, though without but reference with is Kvplov, quoted (Eph. iv. 12) the text must also left in matter be the and to the word in the comment
;

uncertainty with respect to Athanasius and Theophylact. It will be at once seen that the common text, though possessed of very considerable support, is met by a preponderance of evi

dence on the side of the rival reading, on the several grounds of

MSS.,
It

versions,

and

writers.
that, according to

remains to

make one important remark;

the

common

reading, the passage bears strongly

upon more than


this

one great dogmatic controversy, and, accordingly, had

form

possessed established currency in the age of those disputes, its employment as a dogmatic weapon ought to be of no unfrequent

is

occurrence in the writings of that age evidently the case.


Indeed, in the present instance,

whereas the contrary


fact

no

in

evidence more

strongly challenges attention, than that a reading of so marked a polemical significance does not emerge clearly into view on the page of ecclesiastical literature before the age of Epiphanius,
Cyril of Alexandria, and Ambrose.

ACTS XXI.
del TrXrjflo?

22.

<TvveX0iv 9

aKOvcrovTai yap

on

The multitude must needs come

together that thou art come.

for they

will hear

OTI,

In the place of this passage a shorter form, irdvrw^ aKovaovrai e\tf\vOas, is found in B, C pr. man., and five others, in the

Coptic, Sahidic, the later Syriac,


-flSthiopic,

and Armenian.

The common

and substantially in the Peshito, text is given by A, C

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


sec.

113

man., D, E, G, H, the Vulgate,

etc.,

but with some variations.

It has,

however, been in

all

probability amplified

by the

intrusion

of a marginal clause, Set 7rX7?0o9 o-vve\0elv, so many of which were framed to make expression of ideas which would necessarily or readily rise to the mind from the bare text, unfurnished with

such gloss or augmentation.


also supplied

by

Clear instances of this process are the variations occurring xxii. 20; xxiv. 23, 26;
is

xxv. 16.

According then to the variation, the passage They will certainly hear that thou art come.

thus reduced:

ACTS XXI.
Kpivavres
/JLijdev

25.

TOLOVTOV

rriptiv

avrov?

el

JJLTJ

avrov? TO re

i8a>Xo0vTov,

K. r. A.

Concluded [that they observe no such thing, save only] that


they keep themselves from things offered to idols,
etc.

This case, respecting the genuineness of the words


et
IJLTJ,

fj,r)Sev

....

resembles the

The

the Vulgate,

last, open to a similar conclusion. words in question are wanting in A, B, and three others, Peshito, Coptic, Sahidic, and ^Ethiopia versions.
is

and

They

are found, however, in C,

but with some variations,


riousness.

D, E, G, H, the later Syriac, etc., which are themselves tokens of spu-

114

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

ACTS
Ol Se
crvv
IfjLol

XXII.
fj.ev

9.

ovres TO

(pcos

eOeaa-avro KOU
K. r. A.

rr/i>

de

(f)(Dvr)v,

And

saw indeed the light, \and were they that were with me heard not the voice, etc. but they afraid ;]

This case, again,

words Kal

e/A<f)o/3oi

The of a precisely similar complexion. and seven in are B, H, A, ejevovro wanting


is

others, the Vulgate, Peshito, Coptic,

Armenian,
later

etc.

They

are

found in D, E, G, the Sahidic, the weight of evidence is against them.

Syriac,

etc.;

but the

ACTS
El
If a

XXIII.

9.

8e TrvevfJia e\a\r)crev avTcp

r)

ayyeXos*,

fjifj

6eo-

spirit or

an angel hath spoken


against God~\.

to

him,

[let

us not fight

clause, yu-r) Oeopa^M/^ev, is wanting in A, B, C and three others, the Vulgate, Coptic, JEthiopic, pr. man., E, and later Armenian, Syriac. The clause is clearly a supplement and the scholiast who framed it has not shown a nice judgment, for the speakers, having no partizanship for the prisoner, would not be likely to commit themselves to language so marked as fjur) Oeoi^a^Mf^ev

The concluding

while the aposiopesis of the writer gives a representation as true as it is lively. The supplement exhibited by the Peshito, ]lio

IjOlO O1O A*] and consistent.

What [harm]

is

there in that?

is

more cautious
evidence, if

Its existence, too, supplies indirect

such were required, of the spuriousness of the clause in question.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

115

ACTS XXIV.
Ov
KCU
KpaTr)(ra/Jii>

6,

7,

8.

KCU

Kara TOV

r]BeXr)craiJLev Kpiveiv. TraptXOwv 8e Avcrias 6 yiXiapyos fiera TroXXfj? /3la? e/c rwv xeipco

6cu

aTrrjyaye, KeXevcra? rovs Karrf-yopovs CTTL cr Trap ov $vvr)O"ri) K. T. X.

avrov

Whom we
law.

took,

[and would have judged according

to

our

the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with Command great violence took him aioay out of our hands.

But

ing his accusers to come unto thee:~\ by examining of whom,


etc,

The question which arises here, concerns the genuineness of the entire portion ical Kara .... eVl ere. In the first place, the whole is found under a distinct phase
of expression in some copies, and with considerable variations in others circumstances in themselves indicative of spurious

growth.

The matter in question, however, is entirely wanting in A, B, G, H, and about forty others, the Codices Amiatinus and Toletanus of the Hieronymian Latin, the Coptic, Sahidic, etc., its
main support being E, and both Syriac
grounds
it

versions.

On

these

may

be discarded without hesitation.

116

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

ACTS. XXIV.

18.

ov evpov /JL r]yvL(T^ivov ev iepcp, yuera o%Xov ovde /zera Oopvfiov, TLVZS UTTO TTJS Acrlas lovSaioi ov? edei eTrl aov Trapelvai, K. r. A.
oly
ro>

Ev

Whereupon
the temple,

certain

Jews from Asia found me purified


nor with tumult:
thee, etc.

in

neither with multitude^

who

ought

to

have been here before

The

particle Be

must be inserted

after rives

on the authority

of A, C, E, and a considerable

number

besides, the Vulgate,

Coptic, Sahidic, the later Syriac, etc. This slight addition materially alters the form of the passage, and brings out an abrupt and disjointed shape which bears the
It will stand thus: ev impress of reality. Se UTTO Acrlas lovSaloi ou? e Sa .... TT/JO?
1
ot<?

e/jue

>)

0opv/3ou, rives avrol, K. r. \:

occasion they found me purified in the temple: but certain Asiatic Jews persons that ought to have been here, etc.,

On which

menced with the words

or let these here themselves say, etc. The statement com Se is at once broken off and never rive?

resumed, the speaker following the train of his sudden digression.

ACTS XXVII.
TV(f)(t)l>LKO$

14.

tempestuous wind called [Eurocly don X Euroaquilo\.

The common reading, Evpo/cXvScw or Evpo/cXvSwv, is that of the great It is, however, majority of copies, including G and H. of the internally suspicious, because the formation and
meaning word are not very intelligible. Evpa/cvXwv, the reading of and B pr. man., though in itself still more unaccountable, has

A
its

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


form at once cleared up, and
its

117

claim for adoption established,

by means of its representative in the Vulgate, Euroaquilo. The strange shapes, evpafcrjXfov, evrpa/cfacw, evpa,K\v&ov, a knowledge of which is acquired through the Sahidic, Coptic, and
later Syriac respectively,
latter,

may be regarded as perversions of this with those who, unlike the Latin translator, readily arising
others,

had no means of unriddling the true form. Evpv/c\v8a)v, found in B sec. man. and two

though

unobjectionable in form, rests upon too slight authority to acquire a particular claim to consideration.

preference

Evpaitvkwv, wliich simply Grecises Euroaquilo, demands the among the various shapes of the name.

ACTS XXVIII.
Kca ravra avrov
\And when
he

29.

eiTrovTO?,

aTrrfXOov ol

lovdaioi,

had said

these words, the

Jews departed, and

had great reasoning among


This entire verse
is

themselves^]

wanting in A, B, E, 13, 40, 68, the Codices Amiatinus and Demidovianus, k, and other Latin authorities, the Peshito, Coptic, etc. its principal witnesses being G, H, and the
;

jlEthiopic.

There can hardly be a doubt that it is a spurious incumbrance, idly repeating what has been distinctly told already (v. 25).

118

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

ROMANS
Ov yap
For
OL

II.

13.

Ota, aAX

ol TTOL^TOLL

aKpoarai TOV TOV

VO/JLOV VOJJLOV

SiKaiot irapa

not the hearers of [the] law are just before God, but the doers of [the] law shall be justified.

In the writings of St. Paul the term 6 vopos can signify only the Mosaic law, except there be cases where the article has been mention or implication. prefixed purely on account of previous

On

law in particular

the other hand, there are places where, though the Mosaic must have been present to the mind of the
;

and it might be Apostle, yet the word i/6/io? is anarthrous rule of the thence concluded, that the converse just given is not
true,

but that the

article

has been occasionally omitted by a very

natural license.

indeed possible but it would be an unworthy treat ment of the writer to dismiss the matter in a way so summary

This

is

and incurious, and to consign at once to license what designed and significant.
It is

may be

more reasonable

of a practice not

uncommon,

to recognise in these places an instance especially in pointed and antithetical

language, a practice of giving a more general, and by that means more striking, turn of expression to a limited proposition by the substitution of anarthrous terms for the definite. Such a process

can hardly
vo/j,o)

fail

aTreOavov (Gal.

to be recognised in the words, eyeo 8ia vo^iov ii. died to law that is, law, 19), Through
<yap

the condemnatory operation of law, experienced in the case of the Law, cut me off from any reliance on law for justification. Equally
clear
is

article in

the antithetical effect produced another place, el yap etc VO/AOV


iii.

by the absence of the


rj

K\ijpovofi,la, ov/ceri e

6^0776X10,9 (Gal.

18); and there

is

a peculiar forcibleness in

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

119

the general range given by the same means to the proposition, e epyatv VO/AOV ov SiKaiwdrfa-erai Tracra (rapt; (ii. 16).

The passage
clauses,

in question is reduced to such a

to certain authorities

which omit the

article before vo/nov in

form according both

namely, A, B, D pr. man., G, etc.: and their reading must be at once accepted, when it is considered that there would

same conclusion must


of TO) before

be a strong disposition to supplement a seeming omission. The also be adopted with regard to the omission
vofta), ver.

17.

These passages, and others to which the preceding observations For it is not the hearers of law apply, may be thus exhibited
:

that are just in the estimation of God, but the doers of law shall But if thou art styled a Jew and art resting on be justified

law .... thou then that makest a boast in law, through breach of the Law dishonourest thou God? .... For circumcision is an
advantage, if thou performest law, but if thou art a transgressor of law, thy circumcision has become uncircumcision The
natural uncircumcision, in case of
its discharging the Law, shall a sentence on thee who, though in possession of a written bring form [of enactment] and bearing the badge of circumcision, art

a transgressor of law. In these and other passages there is sufficient illustration of an intensity of expression, acquired by discarding the article, far more in character with the writer than a license of usage which,
if

recourse be had to

it,

must be allowed

to

have been used in a

way

altogether capricious.

120

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

ROMANS
a
ovv

III. 28.

8iKatovor0ai

Triarft

avOpayrrov

Therefore X For] we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
is

Instead of the particle ovv, wliicli


C,

supported by

apparently,
besides,

ter.

man.,

perhaps, J, K, and a great number

by both Syriac
CEcumcnius,
G, and nine
etc.,

versions,

Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact,

The

the variation yap is given by A, pr. man., F, others, the Coptic, the Latin versions, and Fathers. resulting difference of meaning is, that, with the former

reading, the statement appears as a logical deduction from the preceding matter, while, with the latter, there is an appeal to it
as a point already established or admitted.

This latter
justification is

is

quite in accordance with the context; for, that

%&>pi9

epyow

VO/AOV,

concluded

(vs. 20, 21), as also

the actual means of

has been just before formally its attainment

(vs. 21, 22).

Thus, in the conflict of evidence, the probability of the various reading yap.

is

on the side

ROMANS
Ti ovv
epov/jLcv

IV.

1.

Afipaafji TOP Trarepa

r^av

fvprj-

Kara
What
shall

we then say

that

Abraham, our father as per

taining to the flesh, hath found?

no more than a difference of order in the words, and of these

A considerable portion of the body of various readings exhibits


are altogether

some

immaterial, and others simply offer some

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


slight variety of point or emphasis.

121

The present one, however, concerns the construction and meaning of the sentence. As it stands in the common text, the immediate connexion of
the words
KCITCI,

adp/ca
if

collocation.

But

according to the laws of this latter be placed before A/3pad/m, the


is

with

evprjtcevai,

former most readily link with Trarepa. This arrangement is exhibited by A, C, D, F, G, and a few others, several versions, Eusebius, Cyril, etc.; the common one

B (for aught that has been noted to the contrary), J, K, and the remaining mass of MSS., both Syriac versions, and several commentators. Chrysostom, in his comment, connects the words
by
Kara adp/ca with Trarepa, which shews that either, while reading as in the common text, he took the liberty of interpreting as if it had been rov TT. 77. ev. TOV K. cr., or that he had before him a
different collocation.

There would be a ready, though mistaken, tendency to fall into this connexion of the words, and hence would also arise
nexion
a disposition to arrange the sentence so as to exhibit such con This consideration serves to abate the force of directly.
It may well the evidence against the order of the common text. and the interpretation of the passage should be be retained
:

strictly

conformed to

it.

ROMANS
AiK.ai(>6evTs

V.

I.

ovv

K Trio-Tews

eiprjvrjv

rov Oebv 8ia TOV Kvpiov rj^wv Irjaov XpicrTov.


Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with through our Lord Jesus Christ.

God

The question which arises on this passage, respects the claims of the variation e^wpev. It is supported by A, B, C, D, J, K, and several others; while e^o/uey rests upon E, F, G, and a large
number besides. Thus far the evidence for e^w^ev is considerable. But this is a case where the testimony of MSS. must be received

122

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
if

not with abatement, on account of that inter others of like kind, affects in change of o and w which, with still, no exception can different degrees many existing copies of B, on account of its evidence to the be taken on this

with caution,

ground

a character which may also general orthographical correctness, be claimed, in the main, for the entire group. It is in such an instance that patristic testimony and that of versions acquire a
special importance.

The Old Latin and the Vulgate support e%<a/uei/, and many Latin writers, as might be expected, range on the same side. The This is also the reading of the Greek commentators. evidence of Chrysostom is important, because, while he deals
with rival interpretations of the place, a proceeding which the adoption of e%o/tev would render unnecessary, he betrays no con
It is, therefore, not unreason sciousness of conflicting readings. able to conclude, that e%&>/uez/ stood in the text of the passage as it was current in the ecclesiastical region with which the great

commentator was connected. It must be admitted, then, that


for, at least, a favourable attention.

this

reading has strong claims

It is by no means unlikely that it has encountered tacit dis favour in more recent times, because its adoption would produce a singular, if not a difficult, expression a circumstance which
;

cannot be denied, but which, according to not to be an adverse one.

critical rules,

ought

Chrysostom discusses the passage at length, but the main points of his observations are the Tl eartv, elprjvijv e^w/iez/; following. uve9 pev (fracriv on [JLTJ &iacrra(ndcra>fjiev <j)i\oveiKovvre? rov VO/JLOV
elcrayayetv e^oi Be 8o/cet Trepl TroXtreta? r^lv \OITTOV SiaXeyeaQai,.

.... elp^vrjv fytopeir TOirreart, py/ceri ajJbaprdvwpev, /i^Se ra irporepa eTravepxcofAeOa rovro ydp eart iro\efiov
rov
eov.

777309

e)(eiv 777309

To

the same effect Theodoret:


<f)v\drreiv

Trpoo-ijtcei

Se u/ia9 rrjv

elpqvtjv. According to words in question contain an exhortation to the maintenance, by practical holiness, of peace with God, already founded in justification through faith an interpretation which the words may fairly bear. It may, however, be observed that they seem to find their best their illustration, as

Trpov rov

eov ryeyevfifievrjv

these commentators the

regards

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

123

precise meaning, in the passage, ravra \e\d\rjKa vjuv fra eV e/uot xvi. 33); and that, in general, the expression elprjvijv e^re (John

e^eiv

elp.,

strictly represents the object as a

matter of positive

enjoyment and possession, as distinguished from the ordinary Hence the words ayeiv elp., which expresses a bare condition. rendered: be obtained Having, then, justification from may
faith,
let

us have [conscious] peace towards


Christ.

God through our

Lord Jesus

KOMANS
Mr] ovv /3a(n\veTO)
rcofjiaTi
77

VI.

12.

dfjiaprla

ev

TW

elf

TO viraKOVCLV avrfj kv rals em-

OVJJLLOUS

avrov.
sin therefore reign in
it

Let not

your mortal body, [that ye

should obey

in the lusts thereof~\.

On
inr.

the clause

et<?

TO .... avrov there are two variations;

et<?

TO

Tais eV. avrov,

which

six others, supported

by

the reading of A, B, the Vulgate, the Latin


is

C pr. man., and sec. man. of D,

the Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, ./Ethiopia, Armenian, Origen, many Latin writers, etc., and et? TO VTT. avrfj, found in with its Latin

version pr. man., E, F,

with

its

Latin,

Irenaeus, Tertullian,

and Victor Tununensis. These facts suggest at least the question, whether the Apostle wrote no more than et? TO inraKovetv, so that the variations

would exhibit two independent accretions, both of early origina tion, by the fusion of which the common text has been produced. Such a form is actually exhibited by 178, the Latin of E, Ambrose, and Faustinus. This slender amount of evidence, how
acquires considerable accession of force from the peculiar complexion of the facts previously noted, and, so supported, leaves, at least, serious doubt attaching to the whole, notwith
ever,

standing the evidence in favour of the portion Tat? avrov.

124

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

ROMANS
Nvvi
8e KaTr)pyr)0
r]/uLi>
>

VII.

6.

OLTTO

TOV
/

z/o/iou,
f\

airoOavov-

T
l>

TOS

C)

But now we

are delivered

from

the law, that being

dead

wherein we were held.

In behalf of the reading airoQavwros it might be pleaded, that the sense produced by it exhibits an exact correspondence with
the case just cited in illustration, namely, that believers have been set free from the hold of the Law by the death of the same, just
as a wife is freed

from the conjugal

tie

by the demise of her

husband.

But

this circumstance

ought rather to bring the read

Besides, the ing under the suspicion of artificial rectification. Law is nowhere described by the Apostle as dead; and, accord his ingly, he has already been obliged to deal rather loosely with

own

illustration in the words, v/iefc edavarcodr)T rca VO/JUM (v. 4). Recourse must therefore be had to the variation airoOavovres, supported by A, C, J, (the reading of B must be regarded as

unknown), and more than sixty

others, the Latin of the


-<Ethiopic,

Codex

Amiatinus, both Syriac versions, the Coptic, nian, etc., and many Greek and Latin Fathers.

Arme

The

sense

would then

be,

death-parting, from the

Law,

in

But now we have been rid, by a whose grasp we once were.


it

The reading TOV OavaTov, though


port of D, E, F, G, the Vulgate,
etc.,

has the considerable sup


as a case

must be regarded

of usurpation

having been originally a gloss appended to TOV

vopov, which dislodged the

word

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

125

ROMANS
-p
\
<\V

VII. 14,
/
>

But I am
1

carnal.

CORINTHIANS
cos*

III,

1.

OVK
I

rjSvvq&rjv XaXrjcrai v^uv

TTvevfJLariKOis

AA

could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto


carnal.

These passages are considered together, because the same question arises upon both in the existence of the same variation. In the former, a-dp/ctvos is the reading of A, B, C, D, E, F, G,

and many others J, K, being the principal authorities for the common text. In the latter, crapKivoif is found in A, B, C
;
pr>

ter. man., E, reading in In this case the evidence of versions is F, G, J, etc, particular and that of writers uncertain. nothing, mainly Though the difference of form is only in the termination, the

man.,

D pr.

man.,

etc.;

the

common

resulting difference of meaning is not unimportant, being prima Thus rily that between constituent matter and subject matter.

word of deeper signification, and, in its secondary must indicate some inner and deep seated quality, as con trasted with active principle and occupation, signified by words of the same form as crap/a/co?. Thus the Apostle terms the Corinthians aapKiKol (v. 3), in reference to their low and narrow rivalries and cliques. It is true
adpfcwos
is

use,

is the <rdpicivoi reading of D, F, G; but it may be once rejected as the offspring of assimilation. In the next instance (v. 4), avdparn-oi, should be read on the authority of A,

that here too


at

B, C, D, E, F, G, the Vulgate, Coptic, -^Ethiopic, etc. On the other hand, when speaking of himself as a sample of humanity in contrast with the abstract model of morality pro-

126

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

the Apostle might well term himself crdppounded in the Law, virb rr)V a^apriav, a thing of flesh, sold under
KIVOS, Trejrpapevos sin;

and the Corinthians as vdpiavoi, creatures of flesh, reference to the state in which the Gospel found them.

with

ROMANS

VIII.

1.

apa vvv KaraKpi/jLa TOL? ev Xpicrrw Kara orapKa TrepnraTOvcnv aXXa Kara T)
There

is,

therefore,

now no condemnation

to

them which

are in Christ Jesus, [who walk not after the Jlesh, but after
the Spirit],

The entire clause fjurj Trvevpa is wanting in B, C, pr. man., F, G, and a few others, the Coptic, Sahidic, and JEthiopic The first member alone is found versions, and several Fathers.
.
.

in

A,

sec.

man., the Vulgate, Syriac,


writers.

etc.,

Chrysostom, Basil,

in D ter. man., E, and CEcumenius. J, K, etc., Theodoret, Theophylact, These facts clearly point to the whole as an expository com ment on the words rot? / X. I., consisting in the first instance

and various Latin

The whole appears

of the

first

member

alone,

and receiving in course of time the

addition of the second.

ON*

THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

127

ROMANS

VIII. 11.
e/c

eyetpas TOP

Xpurrov

Oirqra crco/mra VJJLCOI CLVTOV Trvev^aros ev v\uv.

TO.

vtKputv o)07roir}a i dia TOV CVOLKOVVTOS

He

that raised

up Christ from

the

dead shall also quicken


of~\

your mortal bodies \ly \ for the sake


dwelleth in you.

his

Spirit that

variation,

merely grammatical in form but not unimportant

in effect, here claims attention, namely, Sia TO CVOIKOVV avrov


is the reading of B, D, E, F, G, J, K, and the of great majority copies, and is represented in the Vulgate, Syriac, and Sahidic. Of Fathers there are cited in support of it, Irenrcus,

The

variation

Origen, Tertullian, Theodoret, Theophylact, CEcumenius, etc. The comment of Chrysostom is based upon it, though he is also
cited twice for the other reading. The common text rests upon

Coptic, -ZEthiopic, later Syriac,

A, C, and thirteen others, the and Sclavonic the cited Fathers


;

being Clement, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Basil, Epiphanius, Didymus, and Augustine It is at once seen that ancient evidence is found on both sides
.

and

whatever was the period at which the place was first The prepon affected by variation, it was at no recent date.
thus,

derance, however, of existing testimony


reading,

is

in favour of the various

question has a dogmatic complexion, and, as such, is especially noted in the Dialogue between a Macedonian and an

The

Orthodox Disputant; according to the latter of whom the reading which now appears in the common text, was at that time found
in all the ancient copies
;

a statement which, being polemical,


requisite in such

must be taken with the caution and abatement


cases.

of variation on this place is clearly of early date, and, as such, ascends beyond the time of actual dogmatic conflict on
rise

The

128

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
:

so that, though it can hardly have the point on which it bears it would be unreasonable to refer accidental from causes, sprung
it

dogmatic origination. Still a feeling, not absolutely controversial, may be readily imagined which would favour
to positive
foster the

reading of the present common text, because it the subject of the expression in the more elevated and represents prominent position of direct agency and operation, instead of one

and

disposition would be called forth affected (v. 37) by a variation of the same in the rival 8t,a TOV a^airrja-avro^ and Sia form, namely, readings

of indirect causation.

The same

on another passage

rov dycnrija-avTa; the latter of which is supported the Vulgate, Sclavonic, and many Latin Fathers.

by D, E, F, G,

Whatever be the decision on


under discussion the preference evoitcovv avrov

is

this parallel instance, in the place claimed for the variation Sia TO

ROMANS
>

XI.

6.

El Se x aP iri OVKCTI ef tpywv, eTret 77 ovKTL yiverai x/^s" ^ Se ef epycov, ovKeri


7TL TO

ecrrl

tOV

OVK6TL

(TTiv

if by grace, then is it no more of works : otherwise grace is no more grace. \Eut if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work].

And

The genuineness of the entire portion matter of question.


It is
^

el

Be

epyov

is

found in B, J, and the general mass of copies, in both


etc.

Syriac versions,

It

appears,

too,

in the

present text of

Chrysostom and Theodoret, but without any notice in the com mentary, in Theophylact, and CEcumenius.
^

final

hand, On^the ep7 ov, the first member el and the latter, eVel --->S.,

other

besides that
Se-

B
,

has

----

%py ov

% 9 instead of the x dp^ is wanting in three


one
;

circumstances not

unattended by suspicion.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


The whole
is

129

omitted by A, C, D, E, F, G, 47, the Vulgate,

Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, and ^Ethiopic, cenus, and the bulk of the Latins.

by Johannes Damas-

The clause itself has an officious appearance, presenting merely the converse of the preceding proposition, without any bearing upon the context or addition to the force of the passage. Its
genuineness cannot be maintained.

ROMANS
Tw

XII. 11.

Kvplcp SovXevovre?.
Lord
X the opportunity^.

Serving [the

here supported by A, B, ter. man., E, J, and the remaining mass of MSS., by the versions in general, and a great number of Greek and Latin writers. But /caipq)
text
is

The common

the reading of pr. man., F, G, 5, and appears to have been Latin copies. in various represented
is

variation of reading has all the appearance of having The great excess, however, of evidence originated in accident. in favour of the common text must suffer abatement from the

The

consideration, that the various reading may itself be viewed as ancient that it gives a sense less simple and obvious than its
;

rival,
it

but one at
easily

least as well suited to the context;

and that

have been changed by a an abbreviated form of Kvpiw.

might

slip in transcription into

10

130

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

KOMANS
typovwv rrjv rj^epav
fypovcov
rrjv
YjfJLepav

XIV.

6.

Kvpiw Kvpiw ov

(frpovel,
(j)poi>c

KCU 6

fj,rj

o eorOiwv

KvpLCp

O-0ll, K. T. A.

He
and

that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; to the. Lord he doth not [he that regardeth not the day,
it].

regard

He

that eateth, eateth to the Lord, etc.

The

entire clause 6 ^77

....

(frpovel

is

wanting in A, B, C pr.

man., D, E, F, G, 23, 57, 67


^Ethiopia, as also

sec.

man., the Vulgate, Coptic,

Jerome, and other Latin writers. It is found, in C ter. however, man., J, and the mass of MSS., in both Syriac and various Greek writers. versions, Here is a conflict mainly between antiquity and numbers. In
aid of the latter there comes in the consideration, that oversight in transcription would here be favoured by similarity of ending
in

two consecutive

clauses.
it it is important to observe that, had would have included the introduc

But, on the other hand, such omission taken place,

tory particle icai: whereas, while the authorities for the omission read real 6 eadiwv, in many of those which contain it. the next clause commences without the conjunction, as in the common
text.

interlinear
spires

This appearance would result from the slipping in of an supplement between teat and 6 eadLwv, and thus con

with the ancient evidence against the genuineness of the


of such a

clause.

The supplementing

member would be

readily sug

gested by the shape of the succeeding context, to give a symme trical completeness to the entire passage, a symmetry of which the

Apostle was not studious.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

131

CORINTHIANS
See

III.

1,

4.

ROMANS

VII.

14.

CORINTHIANS

III.

13.

J^Kao~TOv TO epyov OTTOIOV

<TTLV

TO irvp

8oKLfjLao~et.

The fire

shall try every

man s work of what

sort

it is.

The fuller reading, TO rrrvp avrb, is found in A, B, C, and seven others, the Sahidic, Origen in one place, and other writers. The addition, thus supported by ancient authority, is not im
It implies that the agent, described as vrvp, will not a discharge merely preliminary process waiting completion by another hand, but will do its work of proof thoroughly. Every one s several work shall the fire of itself put to proof, of what

material.

sort

it is.

CORINTHIANS
ei>

V.

1.

Tropveia TJTLS ovSe

roty tOvecnv oj
as

Such fornication as

is

not so
is

much

named among

the Gentiles.

The verb
six others,

wanting in A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and the Vulgate, Coptic, JEthiopic, Armenian, Origen,


ovof^d^erai

Tertullian, Lucifer, etc.


It is

an

officious

appendage, apparently suggested by the pre


:

ceding d/coverai ; so that the sense is simply as occurs not even among the Gentiles.

Such fornication

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

CORINTHIANS
rov Oeov ev
,
cf

VI. 20.

&T

8r>

raj o-copari
I
>

TO) TrvevjJiaTL V/JLWV,

anva

eari rov t/eou.


spirit,

v^v r\

KOL ev

Therefore glorify

God

in your body, [and in your which are God s].

The words
pr. man.,

KOI eV

ro>

TTV. v. a. e. T.

0. are wanting in A, B,

pr. man.,

Coptic, Basmuric, ^Ethiopic, They are found in C ter. man., J, K, both Syriac versions, etc.,

E, F, G, and five others, the Vulgate, and a large number of writers.

and (Ecumenius, but must, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, hesitation. without discarded be They are a notwithstanding,
feeble

to which they have appendage to the nervous language

become adherent.

CORINTHIANS
avrjp
TTJV

VII.

3.

Ty

yvvaiKi

ofaiXopevrjv CVVOLOLV diro-

SidoTco.

Let the husband render unto the wife [due benevolence X her
Instead of ryv o$.
ei;.,

due~\.

the simpler reading of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and six others, and is represented in the Vulgate, Coptic, Basmuric, ^Ethiopia, and Armenian, and read by Clement, Origen, etc., and the Latin Fathers.
rrjv o^eiXtjv is

The reading of

the

common

text

which

is

found in J, both

Syriac versions, etc., Theodoret, Theophylact, and CEcumenius, is too a gloss to stand for a moment against the weight

palpably of opposing evidence. Another similar reading was, rrjv o<^ei\o^,evr]v TI/JL^V for not only does Chrysostom quote this form in the seventh Homily on
;

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

133

Matthew (p. 117), but the succeeding exposition rests unmis At the place under consideration, takably on the term nptjv. too, the present text exhibits the same citation, followed by the words ri Se earns f) ofaiXopevri TI^T] but the comment not only
:

exhibits the

true

reading bfaikrjv, but

is

explanatory of that

precise term and no other. There qan be no doubt, then, respect ing the form under which the text was really cited by the com
it seems as if assimilative corruption the This is instructive, as had emanated from other homily. shewing that there can be no absolute reliance, for critical pur poses, upon bare citations of passages as they stand in the present
;

mentator in this instance and

text of ecclesiastical writers.

COKINTHIANS
rfj

VII.

5.

Iva cr\oXa^r)T

tnjOTCta KCU

rrj

That ye may give yourselves

to \_fasting and~\

prayer.

777 vya-rela Kal are wanting in A, B, C, D, E, F, G, the Vulgate, and other versions, Clement, Origen, etc., and the Latins in general. They are found in J, both Syriac versions,

The words

etc.,

etc.,

the

comment

of Theodoret, the present text of Chrysostom,

and Theophylact, but without notice in the commentary.

They
an

are undoubtedly a spurious accretion, the suggestion of

ascetic spirit.

134

DEVELOPED CKITICISM

CORINTHIANS

IX. 10. KOL


o

eXTTidi

60e/Aet 6 aporpL&v dporptav,

rrjy eXTriSos

avrov

fjf%tv eV

\7ridi.

He

that ploweth should plow in hope ; and he that thresheth be partaker of his hope. [in hope] should

In the

latter clause the

words eV

e Xvr/Si are

wanting in

pr. man., F, G; so that, according to this form, the sense of the For our sake no doubt was it written, to the would be

passage

purport that the plower ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to partake in [the matter of] his hope. By this means the two parties are represented respectively in their true positions, the one
expectant, the other passed from expectation into possession. But there is another distinct form of the clause, namely, Kal 6

a\owv eV
Armenian,

e\7r/8t

three others,

rov /^ere^eiv. This is given by A, B, C, and both by Syriac versions, the Sahidic, Basmuric,
Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, and Augustine
it.
:

etc.,

the

Vulgate, too, seems to represent

the score of authorities this has the stronger claim: but the resulting meaning cannot be reconciled with the observation just

On

made without

assigning to the term eir e\7riSi in the second place a stronger signification that of assurance than it has in the first. The enactment of the law secured for the treading ox,

not bare hope, but freedom of participation. The amount of variation on both clauses is so considerable, that it cannot be viewed without perplexity and misgiving with regard
to the real

form and purport of the sentence.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

135

CORINTHIANS

IX. 20.

V7TO VOfJiOV CO? V7TO VOfJLOV, IvCL

TOVf V7TO

VOfJiOV

To them

that are under the law, as under the law, that

might gain them that are under the law.

An

entire clause, prj

wv auro?

inrb vopov, is inserted before iva

These are A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and many by the others, Vulgate, Sahidic, the later Syriac, Armenian, and The omission occurs in Gothic, Cyril, Chrysostom, and others.
certain authorities.

K,

etc.,

On

the Peshito Syriac, the Coptic, Origen, Theodoret, etc. account of the recurring termination virb v6(4ov, an acci

dental omission

would be a
is

likely occurrence, especially in sticholoss

metrical practice. It of the entire portion

from the same cause that J exhibits a


VTTO VOJMOV

rot<?

....

/cepS^o-rw.

This consideration places the ancient authorities, in the present and some other instances, in a position the opposite of that which

they so frequently occupy, rendering them trusty witnesses to the genuineness of the longer reading. On the restoration of the clause, the sense of the entire passage
that I

would stand thus And I made myself to the Jews as a Jew, might win Jews: to those under law as one under law not being actually under law that I might win those under
:

law.

136

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

COKINTHIANS
vfjias

X.

1.

Ov

OeXco Se

ayvoeiv, K. r. \.
would not that ye should be
etc.

[Moreover, \ For] brethren,

ignorant,

Instead of the particle &e, yap is the reading of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc., and a great number of versions and Fathers: Se being found in J, K, both Syriac versions, etc., Chrysostom, Theodoret,

and

others.

The

restoration of
;

<ydp,

unimportant

because

it

thus abundantly authorised, is not places the succeeding context in the

proper position of matter of logical enforcement, drawn from past events, to the solemn lesson just before laid down (ix. 24 27).

CORINTHIANS
r)

X. 28.

Tov yap Kvpiov


[For

777

Kca TO

TrXrjpco/jLa

the earth is the

Lord s, and

the fulness

thereof. ~\

The
F, G,

repetition of this clause does not occur in

H pr.

A, B, C, D, E, man., and twelve others, the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic,


it

Sahidic, etc.

In addition to this decisive evidence,


its

may

be remarked, that

receives the comments of though Chrysostom, Theodoret, CEcumenius, and Theophylact, is alto gether idle and irrelevant to the immediate context. It is found in H sec. the man., J, K, the later
it

presence in this place,

Syriac,

Gothic,

etc.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

137

CORINTHIANS XL
etTre,
o~a>fjLa

24.

Koi
(TT\

Aa/3eT, 0ayere
TO vjrep VJJLWV

TOVTO

TO

K\O>IJLVOV.

He

brake

it,

and

said, \_Take, eat:~^ this is


is

my

body, which

[broken] for you.

question on this passage relates to the words, which are wanting in A, B, C pr. man., D, E, F, G, and (fidyeTe, the Latin of the Codex Amiatinus, and others, the many others,
first

The

Coptic, Sahidic, etc.

They

are found in

ter.

man., J, K, both

Syriac versions, the


salem, Chrysostom,

common

and

text of the Vulgate, Cyril of Jeru others. There need not be any hesitation

in discarding them as an assimilative accretion from the parallel place (Mat. xxvi. 26).

A similar question affects the word K\m/juevov,


in

which

is

wanting

A, B, C pr. man.,
and

nasius,
ter.

17, 67 sec. man., Cyril of Alexandria, AthaIt is read, however, in C ter. man., Fulgentius.

man., E, F, G, J, K, both Syriac versions, the Gothic, etc., Chrysostom, Theodoret, Johannes Damascenus, (Ecumenius, and

Theophylact.

ground for considerable doubt though not an by appearance of assimilation. But it must be further remarked, that D pr. man. has dpvTTTo/Aevov; and that the Coptic,
far there is
;

Thus

enforced

Sahidic,

and Armenian, either represent SiBopevov, or


in the original
;

so supply

an

ellipsis

the Vulgate. ing TO vTrep VJJLWV as genuine; the abrupt appearance of which supplies, besides, an internal argument in its favour, because it

appearance presented by These facts serve further to point to the bare read

as

is

also the

would be provocative of supplements, such as /c\ct)/jivov and OpvTTTOftevov, which, though not borrowed from a parallel place, are sufficiently suggested by the preceding term eic\acre.

138

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

CORINTHIANS XL

29.
KpifJLa e
cra>/xa

*O
(T0it

irivcov -yap ecrOiwv KCU

ava^iws
TO

KCU

Trivet,

JJLTJ

SiaKpivcov

TOV

Kvpiov.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord s
body.

Here the genuineness of the word ava^ims is questioned. The word itself, which might seem at first sight so material to the
for without it sense of the passage, is in fact altogether needless the meaning would stand thus, the participial clause being hypo thetical For he that eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment
;
:

makes no distinction of the Lord s body. the way proposition is the same with that which has just preceded (ver. 27), the clause pJrj Kvpiov in this place in the in identical with the term ava%iw<s being purport single
to himself, if he

In this

former, and, in fact, serving to fix the meaning of that term. This identity might have been pointed out by appending ava^iws
as a
fuller

marginal note to the clause, as is seen more clearly in the form which Chrysostorn read, ava^iws TOV Kvpiov. Or have been an officious marginal supplement of an ava^io)<f may
;

purely imaginary, as has been already shewn be no more than an instance of assimilative influence.
ellipsis

or

it

may

The evidence
sisting

for the

of

ter.

word in question is considerable, con man., D, E, F, G, J, K, and a large number

besides,

C pr.

with many versions and writers. It is wanting in A, B, man., 17, the Sahidic, and ^Ethiopic. It appears, then, that the word is not necessary to the sense ;

that an intrusion into the text

may

be readily accounted for; that

there

no evident cause tending to an accidental or designed omission and that the adverse evidence, though scanty, proceeds
is
;

from witnesses of the highest antiquity. The testimony of these must be at once accepted, as pure from an early and widely prevalent accretion.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


The words TOV Kvplov
either side being nearly the

139

are also questioned, tlie evidence on same as in the case of ; and,


ava%i<a<$

though the point


decision.

is

less

material,

it

must be

left to

the same

Thus

KOI TTIVWV

the original words may be concluded to be 6 yap Kpijjia eavrat eadlei KOI -Trivet,, Siafcplvwv TO
:

CORINTHIANS
acofj-a yuou,
\to be

XIII.

3.

EO.V Trapadco TO
Though I give my body

tva Kav0r](ra)fJLaL

burned x that

I might

vaunt].

text, /cavOtfo-w/jiai, is that of C, while is found in D, E, F, G, J, and many K, etc., Kavdijao/jiai others. But these two, the difference between which is a point of mere grammar and in other respects quite immaterial, may be

The reading of the common

viewed
aa)[j,ai,,

by

as combining in common rivalry against another, Kavyf}the reading of A, B, 17, and the -/Ethiopic, and favoured Jerome, who, however, admits a conflict of evidence.

and,

The variation has at once the appearance of accidental when it is considered that, in the presence of a rival,

origin

Kav6rj-

would be viewed with disfavour on account of its anoma lous grammatical form, even the undoubted antiquity of that rival, and the importance of the few existing witnesses in its favour, must -not be allowed to procure for it a place in the text.
a-(i)/j,ai

140

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

COEINTHIANS XV.

49.

KaOws

(f)op(rafJLei>

rrjv elKova rov ^oucou, (f)opeKOU TTJV elKova rov eirovpaviov.


ice shall also

As we have

borne the image of the earthy, bear the image of the heavenly.

The common reading ^opeaofiev has


collations rightly

for its authorities

B,

if

the

omit to notice any variation, 17, and a number of others, both Syriac versions, the ^Ethiopia, and Armenian but <f)opeo-(0/nev is the reading of A, C, D, E, F, G, J, K, and a great majority besides, and represented in the Vulgate, Coptic,
:

Gothic, and Slavonic. The array of MSS.


tion
:

is thus decidedly on the side of the varia but there must be taken into account the circumstance,

that in

some documents the confusion between the two vowels

in question is so extensive as to nullify, and in others sufficient Still to impair, their testimony on such a point as the present.

the most important are free from this impeachment, and are only open to the possibility of a too faithful transmission of errors
already arisen from that particular cause. sions appears fairly balanced.

The evidence

of ver

Patristic testimony will here be important, wherever it can be clearly ascertained. The Latin Fathers, especially Tertullian, range with the Vulgate in favour of the variation. Theodotus,

according to the present text, has (popea-ca/jiev ; but there is no decisive indication of his actual reading supplied by his application
of the passage nor can Origen be cited either way, because the current text varies. The evidence of Chrysostom, however, is
;

unmistakable, as shewn by the interpretation, apiara 7rpd!~(i)/j,ev, which he puts upon the clause, and by the subsequent observation, ei Se r)v 6 \6yos, ov Trapa/cXr/crew eSeiro TO Trpajfia. Trepl
<uo-e&>9

Theodoret ranges as distinctly on the other side; but his


pointed words, TrpoppyTiKws ov Trapatvert/cw?, imply the existence of a rival view. Theophylact and CEcumenius would interpret

ON THE TEXT OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.


v to the

141

Chrysostom, but condemn the reading and the interpretation with it. With regard to the interpretation itself, it may be remarked
effect as

same

that

it is

with the

drift

hardly a ready and simple one, and certainly ill assorts of the writer, who is here occupied not with moral

inculcation, but

high teachings of the future destinies of man. is so far consistent that he however, Chrysostom, puts a moral
entire context.

meaning upon the


If then,

on the grounds already specified, ^opeawfjuev were as recognised having proceeded from the Apostle, there must be

an accompanying recognition of a marked peculiarity of language, though not confined to this place, but one which has already

On this principle the sense challenged attention (Rom. v. 1). of the passage might be given thus The first man is from earth As is the earthy, such earthy, the second man is from heaven.
:

too are the earthy ones, and as

is

heavenly. let us wear too

And

as

we have worn

the heavenly, such too are the the likeness of the earthy one,
is
s

let

us count ourselves as destined wearers of

And this the likeness of the heavenly one. cannot inherit flesh and blood God that brethren,
The words
glossarial

what

I aver,

kingdom, etc. have here been 47) passed over as a on of D the accretion, B, C, authority pr. man., E, F,
6 tcvpios (ver.
sec.

G, 17, 67

man., the Vulgate, Coptic,

etc.

CORINTHIANS XV.

51.

ov

Koi/JLr)6r)o-ofJL0a, Travres Se

a ev aro/xw,

AC.

r. A.
in.

We

shall not all sleep, but

we

shall all be changed,

moment.

There are two variations on this place calling for remark, not merely by their form and purport, but from the circumstance that they possessed currency in early times before the age of Jerome.

The

first

is

Trdwres pev Koi/nrjOrjcro/AeOa, ov Travre? Be a\\., the

142

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
//,ev,

reading of C and of F, G, with the insertion of ovv after ov Trdvres. as also of 17, with the further variation
dX>C

The
etc.

reading of

is

confused, but

may

be allowed to range with these.

It is also supported

by the JEthiopic and Armenian, Jerome,

The second
in

is

vravre? avaa-rrja-of^eda, ov Trdvres Se aXX., found

D pr.
On

man., the Vulgate, and


it is first

many

Latin writers.

these

most important to remark, that though their


clause
is so different,

verbal form in the


is

the same; a sure

mark of

artificial

yet their entire drift Both are origination.

framed to square with the presumption, that the only change occurring among the risen dead would be into a state of glorifi
cation.

The reading of
in

the

common

text,
ter.

with the omission of

fjuev

man., E, J, K, and the great mass besides, of both Syriac versions, the Coptic and Gothic, with many writers. It may be retained without any hesitation.
copies,
is

some

that of B,

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

COEINTHIANS

I.

20.

Ocrai

yap eirayyekiaL Oeov,


V ai)TW TO
promises of

ev

avrw TO

vai, /cat

d[JL7]l>.

For

all the

God

in

X wherefore through him

him are yea, [and too is\ Amen.

in

him

Sib /col Si avrov is the reading Instead of the words ical ev of A, B, C, F, G, and seven others, supported by various versions
avr<a,

and Fathers. These authorities would

at once claim

especial

regard,

and

perhaps something more, but for the appearance which the a mark, as it were, of its birth reading too plainly wears the appearance of being no more than an inferential scholium,

usurping the place of the words to which it was appended, to the effect that, because TO afj,tjv is found in Christ, therefore (816)
that through him (Si avrov) the solemn in response to offered prayer or praise.
it
is

Amen

is

given

process,

That such an appendage is no coinage of fancy but a real is seen from the comment of Theodoret who, after
;

rightly explaining the Apostle s language, as signifying a realisa tion of promises to man on the part of God by means of his Son, adds inferentially, ov Srj %dpiv /cal Si avrov rbv T^? evj^apicnias

avrw

Trpoa-fyepofjuev V/JLVOV,

and more

to the

same

effect.

other reading, /cal Si avrov, found in evidently the same purport and origin.

The

pr. man., has

144

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

CORINTHIANS
tavrovs

III.

1.

9a

TraXiv

crvvicrTaveiv
AC.

el

JJUTJ

Ypr)ofJLl>,

toy TLVZSy

T.

X.

Do

we begin again

to

commend
some,

ourselves? or need we, as

etc.

Instead of the
J, K,
etc.,

common
is

reading
fj

et /AT),

found in A,

B apparently,

the variation

fir] is

given by C, D, E, F, G, and

generally represented in the versions. variation, however slight in form, like the present, is not immaterial if it bestows life and freshness on a passage, especially

many

others,

and

an epistolary one. In its new combination, the particle ^77 marks an interrogation made in a tone of ironical insinuation. The
passage

may

Xprj&fjiev,

K.

ourselves.
letters to

therefore stand thus: a/3%. IT. e. avvia-rdvetv. rj fj,rj are beginning again to recommend T. X. Or is it that we stand in need of recommendatory

We

The interrogation should by all you or from you? means be withdrawn from the first clause, there being in it an
allusion to the language just preceding.

CORINTHIANS
ov
trvfufrcpei K. T. X.

XII.

1.

Srj

[JLOI,

eXevcrofJLOLL

yap,

It

is

not

expedient for

me
come,

doubtless
etc.

to

glory.

will

Instead of the particle 877, Set is the reading of B, D ter. man., E, F, G, J, and about twenty others, both Syriac versions, the Gothic, etc., while the Vulgate and Latin writers represent et K.
Set.

The

authorities for the

common

reading are K, and a con-

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


siderable

145

number

besides,

the

Coptic,

-ZEthiopic,

Chrysostom,

Athanasius, Theodoret, CEcumenius, etc., while- Se is given by pr. man., 114, the Sclavonic version, and Theophylact.
Besides
this,

the

most material point, on the particle yap

there are the variations 8e, found in F, G, and three others, and expressed in the Vulgate and Coptic; and Se /cal, in B, 213; while B, F, G. 17, 67 sec. man., also read crvptyepov p,ev, thus

producing a nice symmetry, especially with respect to the par ticles, which cannot escape a suspicion of artificial origin.

The preceding

facts

and considerations, with the addition that

man., with the Syriac, and Gothic, omits IJLOI, would favour the following form of the passage: Kav^dadat 8ei ov crv^epei it is no Boast I must e\ev(ro{j,ai yap, K. r. \. advantage [I
say this] for I shall proceed to visions and revelations of the Lord.

D pr.

11

146

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

GALATIANS
9

III.

1.

/2 avorjTOi FaXaTai,
jJLr)

ris
oly

v^d? efiacrKavev
*

rrj

aX7]0ia
(rovf

7rL0ecr0ai

KOLT

o^OaXfJLOVS

It]-

Xpio-ros Trpoeypdfir) ev v\uv ecrravpw^evo^.

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, \that ye should not obey the truth, ~\ before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified [among you] ?
The
clause
rfj

d\.
etc.,

prj. TT. is

pr. man., F, G, other Fathers.

The

pr. man., E wanting in A, B, various versions, Jerome, Cyril, and many ter. authorities which support it are C,

man.,

sec.

man., J, K,

etc.,

the

common

text of the Vulgate,

the JEthiopic, etc.


lative

There need not be any hesitation in rejecting it as an assimi supplement derived from a similar passage (v. 7).

Great doubt, also, is thrown upon the words ev V/MV, by their absence from A, B, C, and ten others, the Latin of the Codices

Amiatinus and Toletanus, the Syriac, etc. They are supported, however, by D, E, F, G, J, K, and many others, the common text and some copies of the Vulgate, the later Syriac, the Gothic,
etc.

It

is

at

once seen that antiquity of evidence

is

against

them.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

147

GALATIANS
El
Se via?,
/cat K\tjpovofJLO?

IV.

7.

Oeov dia Xpicrrov.


God
through Christ].
is

And

if a son, then

an

heir [of

Instead of the words 0.

B.

X., 8ia

eov

the reading of A,

pr. man., 17, of the Vulgate, Coptic, Clement, Athanasius, Sia Qeov of F, : while from Basil, Cyril, and other Fathers

B,

versions

and other sources evidence

is

derived of the existence


eov Sia

of other forms, as Bta Xpcarov, @eov, @eov Xpiarov, This fluctuation of shape throws doubt Trvev/naros.

on the

It is quite possible that the Apostle genuineness of the whole. wrote no more than /cat K\r)pov6/j,os, a form which has been noted

in

one MS., 178.

GALATIANS
KOLL TOV
TreLpacrfJLOV /JLOV

IV.

14.

TOV ev

rfj

aapKi

fj,ov

OVK

e^ovOevrjcraTe.

And my

temptation which was in


reading, rov
TT.

my flesli

ye despised
of

not.

The common

/AOV TOV, is that

ter.

man.,

E, J, K, and a great majority besides, the later Syriac, etc., Chrysostom, Theodoret, Damascenus, and CEcumenius. But a marked variation, rov TT. vfjiwv ev r. a: pov, is found in A, B, C sec. man. (vpcov rov), D pr. man., F, G, 17, 39, 67 sec. man., the Vulgate, Coptic, Cyril, and the Latin Fathers. If the question lay entirely between these two readings, the preference would be claimed by the latter, both on account of the greater antiquity of its authorities, and because its meaning is less The meaning would be The trial that you simple and obvious. had in my flesh, that is, those personal circumstances of mine
:

148

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
trial

which were a source of

and

difficulty in the

way

of your

mission. reception of my But it must also be noted that another form, rov ireipao-pbv TOV eV r. a. /JLOV, appears in C pr. man., seemingly, and nine others, From this it is possible that the Syriac, Armenian, Gothic, etc.

both the others sprung, by simply appending a pronoun indicating of the condition expressed by the term the
subject

GALATIANS
Tfj

V.
i

1.

eXcvdepia ovv

17

Xpicrros

Stand fast therefore

in the liberty

wherewith Christ hath

made us free.
material effect would be produced upon this passage by the absence of the relative $, since the clause would then become an independent sentence, and one which could only be understood

by recognising in it the representation of a particular intensive Hebraism by means of a Dative. But it is important to observe,
that in other instances of this peculiar usage the Dative throus.
is

anar

wanting in A, B, C, D pr. man., and eight others, the Coptic, etc.; but it should be remarked that, of these, A, B, D, together with E, F, G, and others, place ^yua?

The word

in question

is

before

position.

X/KO-TO?, which may accordingly be taken as its true But that position would favour an accidental oversight
letter
;

of

17

on account of the recurrence of the same

and

this

consideration weakens the force of the evidence for the omission

of that word.

There
ter.

are, therefore,

good grounds

for retaining
text,

it.

The

position of the particle ovv in the

common

which

it

has also in

man., J, K, etc., sufficiently indicates a specific of the arrangement passage, by which a period commences with
-777

the words

e\.

But the

particle

is

placed after anJKere in A,

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


B,

149

pr. man., F, G, and some others, in some copies of the Vulgate, the Coptic, Gothic, etc.; according to which arrange
sense would stand thus Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a bondmaid but of the free woman, by the freedom

ment the

us. Stand firm then, etc. of the spite, however, strong testimony for this position of the particle, the question will suggest itself, whether in either

with which Christ has freed


In

its presence is not artificial, noting respectively two different opinions about the order of the sentence and its entire absence from and E, from the Vulgate, the later Syriac, Jerome, etc.,

case

would favour an answer in the affirmative. The effect of this would be to revive uncertainty respecting the arrangement of
the passage.

The reading of F and G, y e X., represented also in the Vulgate and Gothic, presents a form not likely to have proceeded from It may have been an attempt to remedy the absence the writer.
of the following relative, already noticed.

EPHESIANS
Tis
TJ

III.

9.

KOivcavia

TOV

fjLVcrrrjpiov
AC.

TOV

(JLl>OV,

T. X.
etc.

What

is

the fellowship

of the mystery, which,

Instead of icoiv&vla, olKovofiia is the reading of the mass of authorities, the common text being found only in a very few

unimportant MSS.; having arisen probably from a mere error in transcription, since its meaning is less simple and easy than
that afforded

What is the stewardship [specially by the other has been from all time hidden of which the secret me] The words Bia Ifjcrov Xpiarov in God, who created all things. must be discarded, as being wanting in A, B, C, D pr. man., G, etc., and a considerable number of versions and Fathers.
:

vested in

150

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

EPHESIANS
TOVTO yap
For
ecrre
this

V.

5.

yiv(>crK.QVTts.

ye know.

TOVTO jap care ryiva)o~KovTe<$ is the reading of A, B, pr. man., F, G, and about thirty others, the principal versions, Clement, the chief Cyprian, and many other Greek and Latin Fathers
:

authorities for the


later Syriac,

common

text being

ter.

man., E, J, K, the

The evidence

Theodoret, Johannes Damascenus, and Theophylact. is thus clear in favour of the variation and the
;

expression must be viewed as the representative of a common intensive Hebraism For this you know assuredly.
:

EPHESIANS
ras
apxa?>

VI.

12.

Trpof ray l^buertay, Trpof TOV? TOV (TKOTOVS TOV CUWVOS TOVTOV. KOO-fAOKpCLTOpaS

Against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.

The words TOV ai&vos

are

wanting in A, B,

D pr.

man., F, G,

17, 67 sec. man., 80, the principal versions,

Tertullian, Cyprian, and many They are a mere gloss, of no higher of such intrusive matter. Our

Clement, Origen, other Greek and Latin Fathers.

stamp than the generality


is

struggle

against the prince

doms, the powers, the world-sovereigns of


ness.

this [realm of]

dark

ON THE TEXT OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.

151

PHILIPPIANS

III.

16.

Tw

avrw (TTOiev
the

KOLVOVL

TO avro

Let us walk [by

same

rule, let us

mind

the

same thing

uniformty~\.

The

latter clause, TO av.

is
</?.,

placed

first

by D, E, F, G, the

The word KOVQVI is also found in Vulgate, the Gothic, etc. various positions. This is sufficient, especially since means of assimilative supplements were at hand (Gal. vi. 16; Phi. ii. 2;
iv.

2 Cor. xiii. 11), to throw suspicion on the of the passage; the principal authorities for which are J, K, the later Syriac, Chrysostom, and Theodoret. The existence of a shorter form, simply ro5 avrw aroi^fiv,
2; Ro. xii. 16;

common form

accords with this suspicion a form exhibited by A, B, 17, 67 sec. man., the Coptic, Sahidic, -(Ethiopia, Augustine, Hilary, etc.
;

This abrupt form may reasonably be regarded as the nucleus around which, as is usual in such cases, accretion has gathered.

152

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

COLOSSIANS
Ka\
And
CTTt
Kap7TO(j)OpOV[JLl>Ol>

I.

6.

Ka6(>S

KOLL

V VfMV.

Iringeth forth fruit

and

receives increase,

as

it

doth also in you.


additional words KOI av^avo^evov are found in A, B, C, man., E pr. man., F, G, J, and about thirty others, the The principal authority bulk of the versions, and many Fathers.

The

D pr.

for their omission

is

K.

They must be added without hesitation to the text, and their absence from copies referred to oversight caused by similarity of termination in the two participles, aided perhaps by stichometrical arrangement.

(See on Acts

iv.

27.)

COLOSSIANS

I.

14.

Ev w
In

%ofjii>

rrfv

afrroXvTpwcnv dia rov avrov.


redemption [throuah his
blood~\.

whom we have

The words Sia r. al. avrov are wanting in all the uncial MSS., and the great majority of the rest, are not represented in the Latin of the Codex Anaiatinus, the Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, etc., and appear to have been unknown to the of the
generality
Fathers.

Their character

is

at once evident.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

153

COLOSSIANS
Els
To
eiriyvKHTiv TOV
[JLV<TTr}plov

II. 2.

TOV Oeov

KGLL

Trarpos

KCU TOV XpiO~TOV.


the

acknowledgment of the mystery of God, [and of the


Father, and of Christ^.

The
words

question on this place


fcal IT. teal r.

respects the genuineness of the

X.
variation affecting the matter that
is

The bare amount of

found

following Qeov, is such as to press strongly for the spuriousness of every particle, previous to any particular inspection of its
internal character.

On the word Trarpos it is enough simply to observe, that it eov. The reading 6 eari would be a ready appendage to D followed man., pr. by Augustine and XpicrTos, given by is from its in the and nearly represented -<iEthiopic, Vigilius, on derived an form unmistakable /jLva-rrjpiov, very gloss probably
from
1 Ti.
iii.

17, while TOV ev Xpia-rq), found in 17,

is

another

These could not have been of precisely the same purport. to in its the text present form ; and thus their very appended Such a gloss might further existence is an evidence against it.
but this would rather have taken the simpler form Xpta-rov eov, as is seen in the frequent rivalry of these two spring from
;

terms occurring in the body of various readings. Here, then, are materials from the accretion and concretion of which an origin
is

furnished for the other various shapes of the disputed portion, namely, simply Xpiarov, the reading of B and Hilary; Trarpos rov Xpicrrov, of A, C, etc., and some versions; Trarpos /col TOV

Xpicrrov, of other which is found in

MSS. and
ter.

versions;

and the common


etc.

text,

man,, E, J, K,

thus far sufficient ground for discarding the whole, and reducing the text to the form in which it actually appears in 37, 67 sec. man., 71, 81 pr. man., 116.
is

There

154

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

COLOSSIANS
*

II.

18.

/U

Intruding into those things which he hath not seen.

remarkable circumstance, affecting the form and meaning of

this clause, is the omission of the negative ptj

by no

less authorities

than A, B,

pr. man., as well as three others, Tertullian,


Its occasional

and

the Coptic version.

absence from copies was also

known to Augustine. The resulting meaning

of the clause would be

Plodding the

ground of things which he has seen, that is, busied upon the lower sphere of things visible and material e^jBa-revtav thus receiving a signification an instance of which occurs 2 Mac. ii. 30.
:

the

The common reading is MSS. in general, both

that of C,

ter. man., E, J, K, and Syriac versions, the Vulgate, Gothic,

etc.,

Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others.

question resolves itself into this, whether the reading, thus exhibited by a few ancient authorities, is the result of the
accidental omission of a small particle a case far from impos sible; or whether, on the other hand, the negative is an artificial

The

seeming inconsistency with the preceding words TWV The latter view may seem to be rf) Oprjcnceia ayyeXcav. favoured by the fact that F and G read ov/c, which might be another form of the same interference but it may also be as a on variation the other negative. regarded ready

remedy

for a

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

155

THESSALONIANS
rTrtoi ev

II.

7-

fJLcrq>

But
Instead of

ice

were

\_gentle \ child-like]

among

you.

JJTTIOI, vrfmoL is given by B, C pr. man., D pr. man., and F, G, many others, and is supported by the Old Latin, and Vulgate, Coptic, Clement, Origen, Cyril, etc. It is at once clear that either reading might have had an accidental origin from the other, and both with nearly equal

likelihood.

common text there are cited A, C sec. man., man., E, J, K, with a great majority besides, both Syriac versions, the Sahidic, Chrysostom, Theodoret, etc.
In favour of the
ter.

The term vrymos may seem


this place

to

wear a strange appearance in

; perhaps to be hardly intelligible. But it will bear examination ; and if the Apostle says, made ourselves viJTrioi

We

language may be taken to mean, that, notwith among you, their divine illumination and high commission, they had standing
his

adopted a demeanour among their converts as unassuming and


simple as mere children. If the various reading be adopted, as being the more difficult and figurative term, and possessed of a preponderance of ancient testimony, a period must be put at the end of the clause to detach
it

from the succeeding context, which introduces a change of

metaphor.

156

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

TIMOTHY

I.

4.

Alnves
Which

fyjTrjo-ei?

Oeov

Trape^ovcri fjLaXXov rrjv ev TTiVret.

77

minister questions, rather than godly edifying which


is in

faith.

The term
its
is

oi/coSopiav appears to rest solely

on

ter.

man., but

of that MS., and equivalent owcoSo/^v is the original reading and the margin in the Peshito, Gothic, expressed Vulgate, of the later Syriac, and it appears also to have been read by it is therefore ancient. Irenaeus, as it is by various Latin Fathers
:

But when placed by the


so far has
its

side of its rival oiKovo^iav,

it

has

at once the appearance of affording a readier signification,

and

claim weakened.

The

latter, too, is

the unvarying

reading of the bulk of the MSS., and must accordingly be Inasmuch as they give adopted; so that the sense would be:
rise

to debatings rather than

steward- service

of

God done

in

faith.

TIMOTHY
/Jir)

III. 3.

rj

Trapoivov,
to

TrXrjKTrjv,

fjitj

ala")(pOKp8rj.

Not given

wine, no striker, [not greedy ofjilthy lucre].

The presence of

the words

yu,?)

ala^poKep^rj in the

common

text of this passage, the authority for which is quite insignificant, must be noted as an instance of assimilative influence, operating

wherever there

is

an opening.

The words

in question

might

be readily suggested by the succeeding context (ver. 8), but they are directly supplied from the parallel place (Tit. i. 7).

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

157

TIMOTHY

III.

16.

Ka\
And
On

ofjio\0"yov[jLi>a>?

/ue ya etrrt ro rrjf evaefielas Oeof efyavepwOrj ev (rapid, K. r. X.


is

without controversy, great

the mystery

of godliness :

[God
the
o
;

who

X which] was manifest


@eo<?

in the flesh, etc.

common

05 and

only by a grammatical in a shade, range together joint rivalry of the other reading.
differ

reading but these, since they

there are the

two

variations

The mechanical
and
that, too,

forms

oc

eo?, connection, however, is between 05 and of close approximation, under their respective and ec so that each might be readily evolved from
;

the other, whether

by accident or design. The common reading is that of the great bulk

of

MSS., the

most important, however, being D ter. man., J, K. Of versions, it is represented only in the Arabic of the Polyglot and the
Sclavonic, neither of

which
it

of the text

so that

may

is of any weight in the criticism be regarded as finding no support

in this department of evidence. The severe mechanical scrutiny to

which the older MSS. which


B, E, H, being defec

contain the passage have been subjected


tive
it

leaves, at length,

no doubt man.

as to their real reading; so that

may

be safely stated, that

A pr.
o.

man.,

pr. man., F, G, 17,

73, 181, have 05,

and

D pr.

pronominal rendering is also found in every version except the two already named, that is, in the Latin of the Greek-Latin MSS., the Vulgate, both Syriac versions, the Coptic, Sahidic,
jiEthiopic,
is

Armenian, and Gothic

in

all,

in fact,

whose evidence

of any account.

The testimony of MSS. is thus in respect of antiquity decidedly adverse to the common text while that of versions is, to all
;

intents

and purposes, entirely one sided. In these two depart ments, then, there is no direct evidence still extant, of an early currency of that form of the passage.
In places like the present, having a marked dogmatic
signifi-

158

DEVELOPED CEITICISM

but cance, the enquiry is especially drawn to patristic testimony ; on account of that significance it must be cited warily, because the propensity of copyists to conform the citations made by their authors from the New Testament to the current text with which
in such cases, come par they were themselves familiar, would,
ticularly into play.

The following Greek

writers have distinct references to the

in such terms as are incompatible with the passage, but couched of Alexandria as reading of the common text, namely, Clement

by (Ecumenius, Origen, Theodotus, Epiphanius, Gregory Nyssene, Basil, Nestorius, and Cyril of Alexandria. From the last mentioned writer it may be well to give one quotation, since
@eo9 has crept into the current text of his works
TO
yiieya
rr)s
:

cited

/JLTJ

etSore? ....
09
e<a-

evcre/Seia?

/jivcrTijpiov,

rovreart, Xpiarbv,

vepwdrj,

K. r. X.

that

is

Christ,

Not knowing the great mystery of who was manifested, etc.

godliness,

Those passages must, in the next place, be put altogether aside, the only connection of which with the present place is, that they are expressions of the same dogmatic sentiment as is conveyed

by the common form of the text, namely, Godhead manifested in flesh. Such have been cited from Ignatius, Hippolytus, and
the Apostolical Constitutions. But there are others which undoubtedly deal with the present passage, but on which the question arises, whether they were
written with the reading 0eo9 actually before the authors, or

merely under the influence of the dogmatic view just mentioned, assumed as an established truth and vividly impressed upon their minds. Of this kind is Theodoret s explanation of the term
fjbvaTrjpiov,

rrjv

<j>v(7iv,

namely, @eo9 yap wv KOL Seov v/09, Kal aoparov ej(wv 877X09 aTracnv evavOpwirrjcras eyevero. aafyws Be 77/1019
eSt Sa^ev, ev crap/a
<yap

Ta9 Bvo

<f)ixrei$

rrjv

Oeiav

ecfrij

(fravepcoOfjvat

For being God and Son of God, and having his nature fyvaiv. an invisible one, he became clearly visible by putting on man hood. And distinctly has he taught us the two natures, for he
said

that the divine nature


also, is

was manifested in
s

flesh.

same kind,

the statement of Christ


:

unity of person

Of the made

by Dionysius of Alexandria

ev

KOI oparos yevo/Aevos, 0eo9 yap efyavepwOri ev

avrov TrpocrwTrov, doparos 0eo9 His person crapicl.

ON THE TEXT OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.


is

159
manifested

one, invisible

God become

also visible, for

God was

Certain expressions of Gregory Nyssene must necessarily be referred to the latter case, unless, as is by no means unlikely, his text has been corrupted.
in flesh.

With

regard to the

comment of Chrysostom on

this place, the


;

but a want present text of his works certainly exhibits @eo9 of clearness and coherence might well countenance a suspicion that here, too, there had been tampering. This suspicion is

reduced to a certainty, by the good service which a Catena has rendered in embalming the comment in its pure form, a form
incompatible with a knowledge or adoption of the reading @eo9 on the part of the great commentator.

The later writers Johannes Damascenus, CEcumenius, and Theophylact, undoubtedly agree with the common text. With the exception of a preference for 09 on the part of
Jerome, the reading of the entire Latin Church
is

quod.

On

the

field,

then, of patristic testimony, the evidence, in

respect both of numbers and antiquity, strongly preponderates against the common text, even if Dionysius and Theodoret

should be counted

among

its

supporters.

question may score of positive evidence

The main

now be
;

considered as settled on the

but

if this
still

were not

decisive, there

met, namely, how it is that a passage, so pointedly dogmatic as the common reading would make it, is not constantly employed in those writings

would be an important enquiry

to be

where

its

service
is

would be

so signal.

For

instance,

no such

To appearance presented by this only one answer can be given, especially when it is con sidered, that controversialists were not wont to leave any matter which could be pressed into their service, inclusum in tabulis,
the genuine text of Athanasius.

tanquam gladium

in vagina reconditum.

With

may be

regard to the remaining question between 09 and o, it stated that they are respectively supported by the Gothic

and Latin versions, the others affording no certain evidence of a more precise kind than their representation of a pronominal It may also be remarked, that grammatical formality term. would tend to evolve o from 09, while the assignment of a per sonal signification to the term fMvaTijpiov, which was the prevail-

160

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

The evidence of the opposite effect. ing view, would favour MSS., as has been seen, is on the side of 09. And to that ancient view the sense would be:
According
confessedly great
is

him], who [mystery


etc.

the mystery of godliness [in the person of notwithstanding] was manifested in flesh,

it

If the rejection of the common reading of this passage robs of a ready dogmatic handle, it at the same time leaves unim
its

paired

deep dogmatic significance.

TIMOTHY
TWV

IV. 12.

*AX\a
But

TVTTOS yivov
ei>

TncrrcSf, ev

Aoyw,

ez/

dva-

(TTpof^riy
be ihou

ayairri) ev TrvevfJuiTt, K. r. X.
the believers, in word, in con

an example of

versation, in charity, \in spirit], etc.

The words

ev Trvev/^art, are

about ten others, as well as


principal authorities being J, They are certainly spurious.

wanting in A, C, D, F, G, and many versions and Fathers, their

K, and some

late

commentators.

TIMOTHY

VI.

5.

A(f)l(TTa.(rO CC7TO

TWV

TOLOVTCOV.

From

such withdraw thyself.

This clause, though found in J, K, both Syriac versions, many writers, etc., is wanting in A, ~D pr. man., F, G, 17, 67 sec. man., 93, the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, ^Ethiopic, Gothic,

Greek

etc.;

and thus the force of evidence preponderates against

its

genuineness.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

161

TIMOTHY

VI.

19.

Iva.

7riXd(Ba>i>Tai

Trj?

aiawlov
life

That they may lay hold on

\eternal

X that which

is

really life].
is the reading of A, D pr. man., and the versions in general, and man., F, G, many others, and Latin Fathers. Greek many The common reading, which is found in D ter. man., E sec.

Instead of auovlov,

6Wo>9

E pr.

man., J, K, etc., is evidently a usurping gloss, which weakens One copy, by reading the antithetic point of the sentence. alwviov 0^x0)9, exhibits it as simply intrusive.

TIMOTHY

IV.

1.

ovv eyw ZVWTTIOV TOV Oeov KOLL rov Kvpiov Irjaov Xpiarov TOV /ieAAo^roy KpLveiv ftavras /ecu veitpovs Kara TTJV kirifyaveLav avrov
KOU rrjv
{3ao-i\iai>

avrov.

I charge
Christ,

thee therefore before God, and the

Lord Jesus
his

ivho shall

judge

the

quick

and

the

dead at

appearing and his kingdom.

The words ovv


from A, C,
Fathers, as

eyco

may

at

once be expunged as being absent

may

pr. man., F, G, J, etc., and many versions also TOV Kvpiov on similar grounds.

and

The important
which
is

question arises on the reading icai for Kara,

found in A, C, D pr. man., F, G, 17, 67 sec. man., the Latin of the Codex Amiatinus and others, the Coptic, Cyril, etc.
12

162

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

at once challenges special attention, reading so supported and this is further enforced if it presents difficulty or peculiarity. form which had obtained a currency such as is here indicated, must have been at least intelligible and the question at once

The passage in this the sense to be assigned to it? I solemnly avouch, before God and shape might be rendered Christ Jesus who is to be judge of quick and dead, both his
arises,

what

is

an interpretation which appearing and his kingdom;


as admissible

is

recognised

meaning deprives the by Chrysostom. of all apparent connexion with the entire context, which passage and it further involves is occupied with very different matters, an inconsistency, because the Apostle is made to end with pro a doctrine which he had just assumed by testing the truth of
this

But

implication in the words rov p.

tc.

K. v.

The words
in direct

eTnfydveiav and

/3ao-i\e{av,

however,

may

still

be

government by SiapapTuponai, though in a different sense, namely, as objects of adjuration, but such as would not admit of a continuation of the construction with evcomov. The
tion

whole would thus be an adjuration prefatory to a practical injunc of which an instance has already occurred in the former
;

Epistle (v. 21). Christ Jesus who

I
is

make
to be
:

earnest adjuration, before

God and
by
his

judge of quick and dead, both appearing and his kingdom publish the word, etc.

TIMOTHY
o

IV.

14.

cpr]

avra>

Kvpios Kara ra cpya avrov.


reward] him according
to his

The Lord [reward X

will

works.

An
C,

apparently significant variation, aTroSwaei,


pr. man.,
its

is

given by A,

Vulgate in

pr. man., F, G, and about fifteen others, the current text, etc.; the common

reading being

ON THE TEXT OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.


that of

163

D ter. man., E sec. man., J, K, and many others, the Latin of the Codices Amiatinus and Toletanus, Jerome, etc. The force of the evidence in favour of the variation suffers

abatement from the consideration, that it at once clears the Apostle from all appearance of revengeful imprecation, a circum stance which might suggest or foster it. Those commentators, as Theodoret and therefore, Theophylact, who abide by the

common

reading but do not view


right.

it

as absolutely imprecatory,

were probably

TITUS
*

II.

7.

Ev

rfj

8i8acTKaXia

d8ia(f)0opiai>.

In doctrine shewing uncorruptness.


afyOopiav, is given by A, C, D pr. man., From this afyOovlav, and about man., K, 17, Ejor. forty others. which is found in F and G, has to all appearance sprung by accident, and, in this view, is indirectly an evidence for it.

A slightly varied form,

The common
sec.

reading,

man., J, etc., may the signification of afyOopiav more pointedly and to the same source may be referred ar/veiav, added by C and others, and
;

which is supported by D ter. man., E be regarded as originally a gloss, marking

dipdapcrlav after cref^voTrjra,

by

ter.

man., J, K,

etc.

164

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

PHILEMON

7.

Xapw

yap e^o^ev

TroXhrjv, K. r. A.
consolation, etc.

For we have great joy and

in this place is that of J, K, and a very of MSS., while A, C, D, E, F, G, and some great majority

The common reading


have ^apdv.

others,

first sight variation, being thus slight in form, might at as is usual of mere issue the to be be taken accident, attended,

The

in such cases, with


It
is

some

difficulty of decision.

that Theophylact and important, however, to observe other Greek commentators read %apiv, giving at the same time in this place of which use there Xfipdv as the exponent of its use
:

is

another instance (2 Cor. i. 15); where also Chrysostom writes, Se evravda ^apav \yei. "Xfipiv This use of %aptv, which might be expressed by the terms satisfaction, is unusual, not being absolutely the gratification,

same with
it

its

occasional

employment

to

convey the idea of grati


p.

fication of physical origin (Plato

Gorg.

462); but, as being

such, imparts to the reading a mark of genuineness, suggests a ready origin for the variation in the way of
pretative gloss.

and

also

an inter

The
of

fact

%apti>

of the currency of the above mentioned explanation neutralises the evidence of versions, which would other

wise favour yapav; because yaudium of the Latin, for instance, may as well have represented ^dpiv so interpreted, as ^apav.

In the conflict of external evidence x aP iV ^ as thus a distinct claim on the ground, that it exhibits a peculiarity of usage in contrast with so ordinary a term as ^apdv and, though it
:

might have sprung from this latter by accident, it would hardly, even in that case, have maintained its ground, and obtained that wide currency which appears from existing documents. In this case mere numerical amount of MSS. is important, because it
prevails, in spite of

an internal peculiarity of usage, and the con of another reading of existence temporaneous ordinary complexion.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

165

HEBREWS
Kai
KaT<rTrj(ra?

II. 7.

avrov

7rl

ra epya TWV
works of thy hands J]

crov.

[And

didst set

him over

the

This entire clause, though retained in A, C,


etc.,

D
ter.

pr. man., E,

and various

versions,

is

wanting in B,

man., J, K,

and a great majority

marked with
In
that
its

besides, probably suspicion in the later Syriac.

also in the Peshito,

and

it is important to remark, the citation, but is not required for presence completes the application here made of the passage from the Psalm. Accor

this conflict of

weighty authorities

dingly,

it

becomes

at

once suspected of

artificial

introduction,

probably as a marginal appendage in the first instance, and can hardly be viewed as a genuine part of the Epistle.

similar process

may

(xii.

be recognised in the clause rj 20), which is certainly an interpolation.

HEBREWS
Of ov Kara
Who
is

VII. 16.

VOJJLOV kvroXrjs (rapKiKij?

yeyovtv.

made, not after the law of a carnal commandment.

Here crapKivv}^ is the reading of A, B, C pr. man., D pr. man., J, and a considerable number besides, as well as of various Fathers: and on this authority it may be at once placed in the
text.

The

case

is

precisely- similar to one

which has been already

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
discussed

remark applicable fore be made to that place, with the additional


the variation expresses to the present instance in particular, that and transitoriness, in oppo more directly and strongly mortality Kara Svvaptv &w}5 aKarakinov. sition to the antithetical clause,

(Rom.

vii.

14;

Cor.

iii.

1),

and reference may there

HEBREWS
Elye
Then
fjiev

IX.

1.

ovv

/cat

rj

TTpcorrj

(rKTjvrj

Xarpeias.
verily

the first

covenant

had

also

ordinances of

divine service.

in amount and authority for the word atcyvri is so trifling but the case character as to be of no real account whatever

The

worthy of notice, as showing that incongruity with the context and consequent absurdity were no bar to a place in the margin
is

and subsequent intrusion into the text

itself.

HEBREWS
ai

X. 34.

yap

TOLS

e&iJLo? /aou
in

For ye had compassion of [me

my

bonds \ the prisoners^.

On
etc.,

the expression rot? Seoyzofc pov there

is

the

marked
sec.

varia

tion rot? 8eoyuot9, exhibited

by A,

D pr.

man., 67

man., 73,

number of Greek and Latin


simply rots

the Vulgate, Coptic, both Syriac versions, and a considerable Fathers. The principal authorities for the common text are ter. man., E, J, K. Origen has

8e<r//,ot9 ;

and the old Latin rendering

vinculis

eorum

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

167

seems to have sprung from the same bare reading by an arbitrary supplement of the pronoun, a reading which may be regarded as ecryu.tW by error in transcription. having itself sprung from
TO<?

The same
dage,
Epistle.

reading, too,

would

under an impression

readily receive ftov as an appen of the Pauline authorship of the

HEBKEWS XL
IloppcoOev

13.

avra?

iSovrc?

KOI

dcnrao a/jLei

OL

KCU

Having

seen them afar off, \_and were persuaded

of them,]

and embraced them.

The words

real

Treia-Oevres

rest

upon the
as a gloss

slightest

possible

ground, and have evidently sprung

from d

HEBREWS
Ov yap
For ye are
Trpoo-eXrjXvQare
KeK.aVjJLei>(>

XII. 18.

^Aa0o>/x,eW

opei

TTVply K. T. A.

not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, etc.
this place, namely, of the term opei, and represented in the important Latin

A remarkable omission in
is

seen in

A, C,

17, 47,

authorities,

the Codices Amiatinus, Demidovianus, Harleianus,

and Toletanus, the Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, -^Ethiopic, etc. For ye have According to this omission the sense would be not approached to a fire palpable and blazing, and to gloom, and darkness, and storm, etc.
:

168

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

HEBREWS
KOL

XIII.

9.

Be

not carried [about x aside] with divers

and strange

doctrines.

The common
-n-apafepeaee
is

text

is

here mainly supported

by

J,

K,

etc.

but

the reading of

A, C, D, and a great

number

besides, the Vulgate, Coptic, etc., without hesitation. be

and many Fathers, and must


traced the influence of another

accepted

In the

common

reading

may be
iv. 14).

place of like import (Eph. case occurs precisely similar

Jude

12.

JAMES

I.

19.

pov ayaTT^ro/, eara)


,

Tray

AC.

r. A.
let

Wherefore,

my

beloved brethren,

every

man

be, etc.

The form and meaning of


by two
variations ;
tcrre,

this sentence are considerably affected

with the addition of Se, the reading of B, C, 73, 83, represented also by the Old Latin in^f, the Vulgate, Coptic, Armenian, the margin of the later Syriac, etc., while
B, C, 81, at the same time have
Vulgate, Coptic,
etc.,

GO-TO) Se,

supported by ff, the

and A, 13, KCU ea-rco. The common text rests mainly on G, J, and a number of others. In accordance with the above mentioned ancient authorities the passage would stand thus ecrrco fcrre, /JLOV aryaTT rjTol.
:
d8eX</>oi

Be

K. T. X.

Ye know

it,

beloved brethren

but

let

every

man

be quick

for hearing, etc.

And

so the Vulgate.

ON THE TEXT OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.

169

JAMES
6

II.

5.

Oeos e^eXe^aro TOV? TTTCO^OVS rov


TOVTOV,
K. T. \.
etc.

Hath
In the
to
first

not

God

chosen the poor of this world,


is

place,

TOVTOV

omitted by

sec.

man., G, J,

and a considerable number


it

besides,

and

lias

nothing answering
T<U

in various versions

tf6oy/,ft),

which
is

is

while the later Syriac expresses ev also found in some copies, and the Vulgate ev
;

TOVTQ) TO)

KOCTfAO).

All this

TO) KOGfjLm, furnished

the sense
are poor

up by the entrance of the simple reading by A pr. man., B, C; according to which of the passage is Did not God choose out those that
cleared
:

by

worldly condition, rich ones in faith, etc.

JAMES
Acif^ov
JJLOL

II.

18.

TT)v
<roi

TT KTTLV

crov

e*c

TWV epycov
Tflcmv

orov.
JJLOV.

Kayo) dei^ca

IK

TWV epycov
by

jj,ov rr]V

Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew

thee

my faith

my

works.

On the authority of A, B, O, and many others, as well as the versions in general, %&>p/9 should be substituted in the former clause for e /c, which is the reading of G, and a few others; and, at the same time, the latter crov, though found in C, G, etc.,
should be omitted, as being wanting in A, B, and four others, the Old Latin in ff, the Vulgate, Coptic. Sahidic, and both as also the corresponding fjuov, with B, C, ff, Syriac versions
;

etc.

But some one

will say,

Thou

hast faith

and I have works.

[if thou canst] thy faith apart from its works, and I will shew thee from my works the faith that actuates them.

Shew me

170

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

JAMES
/
ft

III. 3.
\ \
f

loov, T(DV iTnrcov rovs ^O\LVOVS

ei?

ra aro^ara

Behold, we put

bits in the horses

mouths.

The

authority for the particle ISov

is

quite insignificant

but

is the reading tSe, which may be taken as an equivalent to it, It is unlikely, however, that the of C and about forty others. about writer would have immediately varied his form to ISov

motive or resulting

without any which in the following place there is no doubt effect and with this observation there con spires the fact, that el 8e is the reading of A, B, G, J, and about
;

twenty others, and


Vulgate, Coptic,
etc.

is

represented in the Old Latin in ff^ the

This must accordingly be adopted. the sentence, as expressed by this form, is simple and easy, leaving iSov to be introductory to a more If any imposing similitude in illustration, in the next verse.

The connexion of

one does not

trip in

word, here

is

also the entire

body. mouths, that they may be obedient to us,


entire body.

And

if

we put
etc.

a perfect man, able to bridle the horses bits into their

we sway

also their

Lo, the ships too,

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

171

JAMES
ovSefJLia
77-1777)

III.

12.

O.XVKOV KOU
vScop.

y\VKV
and fresh.

So can no fountain both

yield salt water

in

This clause takes the shorter form, ovre aXvKov <y\vKv A, B, C, 83, etc., the Old Latin in^f, the Vulgate, etc.

TT.

v.,

text which is given by G, J, the later Syriac, has the etc., appearance of having sprung from a desire to round off the sentence in precise correspondence with its commencement in the preceding verse or it may have been an artificial remedy for the embarrassment arising from an accidental substitution in transcription of ovrws for ovre.
;

The common

Does the spring vent from the same opening the sweet and
the bitter
?

a vine

figs ?

my brethren, a fig tree produce olives, or nor [No] yet can brackish water produce sweet.
Can,

JAMES
Els ecmv
There
is

IV. 12.

6 voi*o0eTr)$.

one lawgiver

and judge.
A, B, and about and various

The words
writers.

/col

Kpir^

are found added in

forty others, as well as in the versions in general,

Their omission was probably accidental, caused by a (See on recurring termination, aided perhaps by stichometry. Acts iv. 27).

172

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

PETER

I.

22, 23.

Td?
TOV,

-(^v)(df

V/JLCOI>

yyvLKores ev

rrj

vTraKofj

? Sia Trvev^aros elf

d
0tAa<5eA0/ai>

KaOapas KapSias

dXXrjXov?
e/c

(KTevaJ?,

dvayeyevvrjiJievoi OVK

dXX

did Xoyov fftWo? d(f)0dpTOv,


els

cnropas ([)6apTrj? Oeov KCU

TOV

the truth Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the love unto the brethren, see of unfeigned \through Spirit]

that ye love one another with [a pure~] heart fervently : being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth \_for ever].

The compass
tioned matter.

of this passage includes three instances of ques First, the words Bta TrvevfiaTos are wanting in

C, 13, 27, 73, and are not represented in the Vulgate, in the Coptic, jEthiopic, Armenian, and both Syriac versions face of which ancient evidence their genuineness cannot be main

A, B,

Again, icadapds is also wanting in A, B, and is thus rendered doubtful but an omission might have arisen from the
tained.
:

consecutive similar endings. The final words et? TOV alwva, though supported by G, J, etc., several versions, Theophylact, and CEcumenius, are wanting in

A, B, C, etc., the Codex Demidovianus, and other Latin copies, the Coptic, Armenian, and later Syriac, Cyril, and Jerome. This strong evidence, combined with the appearance which the
words wear, of an assimilative supplement from the succeeding context (ver. 25), hardly leaves a doubt that they are spurious. It may be also noticed that the common reading dv6pa>7rov,
an instructive instance of a process many places, by which the citations have been brought into agreement with the text of the Septuagint. In this
in the next verse,
affords

to be traced in

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


case the variation
airrr)<;

173

is placed beyond all doubt, as being the of A, B, C, G, J, etc., the Vulgate, Coptic, ^Ethiopic, reading both Syriac versions, etc.

PETER
avro)

II.

2.

Iva ev

That ye may grow thereby

to salvation.

J, and

After au^T/^re the words et9 o-wr^piav are added in A, B, C, more than fifty others, besides the versions in general,
etc.

Clement, Cyril,
sarial

The words by themselves might be viewed


;

as possibly a glos-

appendage, and this possibility would have if the evidence were but the confluence conflicting demands for them an unhesitating admission into withstanding leaving their absence from G and
;

some weight
of authorities the text not
others to be

referred to accidental oversight, probably in transcription from a stichometrical copy.

PETER

III. 8.

Ilavres

ofJLCxppoves;

o-vfjaraOeisy

(piXaSeX<f)oi,

ev-

Be ye

all of one mind, having compassion one of another ; as brethren, be pitiful, [be courteous X lowly-minded].

In the place of the term give TaTreivcxfrpoves, which


Coptic, Armenian, etc.

(j>i\6(f>pov<-s,

A, B, C, and many

others,

is

also represented in the Latin of the

Codices Amiatinus and Demidovianus, both Syriac versions, the

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

others,

G and combination of the two readings is exhibited by it and the the common text of might Vulgate; and
by

be suggested, that this fuller form, being original, had given rise in transcription, to the other two by an oversight of either term
caused by the similar endings. but there can be This is certainly possible
;
<f)i\6cf>poves

little

doubt that

was originally an interlinear gloss on in some copies usurping, in others simply becoming

evcnrXarfxyot,,

intrusive.

PETER

III.

15.

Kvpwv
But

Se

TOV

Otbv
Lord

ayiaa-OLTe
VfJitoV.

ev TOLLS

sanctify the

God X

Christ] in your hearts.

The common
while Xpiarov
expressed also

text here rests


is

upon G,

J,

and

later authorities

given instead of @eov"by A, B, C, 7, 13, etc., in the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, both

Syriac versions, etc. If this evidence needed any further support, it would be fur nished by the circumstance, that the variation gives a striking instance of that tacit adaptation of the language of the Old Testa

ment

to present spiritualities, which of this Epistle.

is

a strong characteristic

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

175

PETER
rj

III. 20.

Ore aira^ e^ede^ero


When

TOV Oeov

[once the longsuffering of

God

waited \ the longsuffer-

ing of

God

teas waiting out],

In place of the not very intelligible reading still less so, avraf eSe^ero, the former resting on no the latter on a a mass of evidence authority, trifling amount

and another

of every kind at once establishes the clear and appropriate term

PETER

III. 21.

*f2i KOA,

rjfjia?

avTirvirov vvv

cra>ei

/3a7mcr/>ia.

The

like figure

whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us.

Instead of o5, which is very slightly supported, o is given by Such a corruption the great mass of authorities of every kind. would be likely to arise, both on account of the composition

and the readier grammatical construction of the entire clause that results from it. The effect produced on the sense by the restoration of the true
of the
avrirvTrov,

word

reading
fashion,

is

now

not very material. Which [element], in answering saves us too, namely, baptism.

176

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

PETER

IV.

14.

El

bveiSea-Ot

bvofJLari

Xpicrrov,

OTI TO Trjf 86^-ijf KOL TO TOV Oeov TTvevfJLa e(j) avairaveTai- Kara pev OLVTOV? /3Aao-<?7/*emw,

Kara

8e

If ye
ye
;

be reproached
the Spirit

for

name of and of God of glory


for
the

Christ,
resteth

happy are upon you :


is

[on their part he


glorified~\.

is evil

spoken

of,

but on your part he

are added after first place, the words KOI Sum/ieco? others but more than and A, they are omitted twenty-five in B apparently, G, J, and many others, and are not acknow ledged by the Latin in the Codices Amiatinus and Luxoviensis,

In the

in

the Syriac, Clement, Tertullian, Cyril, etc. The word &wa/ie&>9 has certainly the appearance of a gloss, indicating the sense to be attached in this place to the expression

and with this agrees the circumstance, that several versions which represent the word, as the Sahidic, ^Ethiopia, and later Syriac, put it in connexion with @eoO. Under all these circumstances, the claim of the words in
TO
r.

&.

irv.\

question to a place in the text cannot be regarded as established. The more important question affects the genuineness of the
latter portion of
It is

the passage, namely, Kara pev .... So^d^erai. omitted in A, B, and about twenty others, the Vulgate,

Coptic, JEthiopic, Armenian,


its

and

also

by

Tertullian and others

principal supporters being G, J, the Latin in the Codices Harleianus and Toletanus, the Sahidic, and later Syriac, the last,

however, marking it with an asterisk. The evidence is thus decidedly adverse.


is

Its

appearance, too,

mere comment, feebly repeating the circumstances in the words immediately preceding implied and, as such, ill with the strain of the context and of the according vigorous
that of a
;

entire Epistle.

ON THE TEXT OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.

PETEE
rjjjias

I.

3.

Tov KaXecravTO?

8ia 8o^r}f KOI aperrjf.

Of him

that hath called us [to glory

and

virtue \ by his

own

glory and

excellence^.

the reading of A, C, and a con besides, supported by the Vulgate, the evidence of other versions being somewhat indistinct ; while on the other

Here, IBla

Sof^y

KOI apery

is

siderable

number

side are

B apparently, G, J, etc. Variation in this place has probably arisen from mere accident.
fact,

In

the

common

omission of the
gible result to

first letter

reading might have had its origin in an in the word ISta, leaving an unintelli

remedy. something palpably wrong are a possible source of various read ings, which has not been sufficiently noticed.

which the next copyist might apply a mistaken Erroneous attempts on the part of transcribers to rectify

But

still

the cause

may have been from

the

first artificial,
;

two readings is substantially the same in which view the preference would be claimed by the common text, because its expression is the less simple and explicit of the
for the purport of the

two.

A case admitting of similar observations

is

furnished by another

variation presently occurring, namely, ^eXX^crw (ver. 12), found in A, B, C, etc., and supported by the Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, etc.; evidence with which internal considerations

combine

to claim a decision in

its

favour.

13

178

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

PETER

II.

2.

KOLL TroAAoi

caKO\ov6r)<Tova-LV

CLVTWV

TOLL?

UTTCO-

And many

shall follow [their pernicious


tonnesses],

ways

\ their

wan-

The common reading avrcoXe/at? appears to rest solely on an but the variation aae\insignificant amount of MS. authority;
has the general support of MSS. number, as well as that of all the versions.
yeutis

both in weight and

remarkable and in itself per while the various reading has an overwhelming weight of testimony, the other seems to bear a mark of genuineness in the very strangeness of the term. All,

Thus

far there is presented the

plexing circumstance,

that,

however,

is

cleared

has obviously sprung, whether

up by the context, from which the word by simple accident or assimilation.

2
/Cat
fJLOJ/JLOl,

PETER

II.

13.

VTpV(f)Wl>Tf

V TOU? aTTa

Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves [with


their

own

deceiving s \ in their love-feasts ], while they feast

with you.

JUDE
Ovroi
elcriv

12.

ev rals ayonraLS vfJiwv cnrLXade?, avv-

These are spots in your feasts of charity, ichen they feast with you, feeding themselves without
fear.

The similarity of language in the entire contexts to which these passages belong is remarkable; and if they at the same time

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

179

originally differed in some particular expression, a mutually assimilative influence on this point would be reasonably looked

on account of their general approximation. Such a point afforded in the respective terms anrdTats and ayaTrcus, with the additional circumstance of an approach between the words
for,
is

in their outward shape.

In accordance with such expectation, ayaTrais is the reading, sec. man., but first passage, of apparently proceeding from the copyist himself, B, the Vulgate, the Peshito, the margin
in the

of the later Syriac, the Sahidic, etc. while the common reading is that of the MSS. in general, the Coptic, the later Syriac, etc.
;

Again, in the other place, avrarat? is found in A, C, and three It is, however, unintelligible and, if it be not the result of pure accident, can be due only to the influence of the parallel
others.
;

place.

port
to

There, indeed, the various reading has considerable sup but, since the existence of variation may be best referred

an original difference at this point, the

common

reading should

be retained, since in the

latter passage ar^airai^ is unquestionable.

The

facts

of the case are, however, curious and instructive

in a critical light.

PETER

II.

18.

AeXed^ovcrtv ev eTTiOvjJiiais crap/coy, fv acreAye/at? rovs OVTCO? aTTo^vyovTa?, K. T. A.


Tliey allure through the lusts of the fash, through wantonness, those that were clean escaped.

much

In the
is

first

place, the authority for the preposition before acreXso insignificant that it may be at once discarded; the

resulting expression being that of


others, the Sahidic, etc.

A, B, C, G,
ao-eA/yeia?

J,

and many

There
uncial

is,

however, a variation,

and though no

MS. is cited for it, it is given by about twenty others, The resultincluding several of the most important of the class.

180

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

strong the part of copyists to generate or spread them. More important, however, is a variation affecting the word The two words are so widely remote in oXi/y9. OVTCOS,

ev eindv^a^ crap/cos acreX/ye/a?, ing form would be a Hebraism, By lusts of wanton flesh. (Compare Eom. viii. 3 signifying, Marked Hebraisms have a for a similar grammatical form.) internal claim, because there could be no tendency on

namely,

meaning
to oXi/you,

unless the rare term

6X/7&>9

almost

that the variation

were taken as equivalent must be referred to pure

and the decision must be simply by documentary For the variation there are cited A, B, and seven most of the versions, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, others, on the other side, C, G, J, and others, the Armenian, etc.
accident,

evidence.

etc. few copies read which, in the an way of purer usage, is thus being merely improvement an indirect evidence for oXtryw?. This reading must be adopted, and also aTrofavyovras, on similar grounds so that the expression

Theophylact, CEcumenius,

oX<ryoi>,

would
little

be,

TOW

0X470)9 aTrofavyovras,

Those that are gone a

way

in escaping.

PETER

III. 3.

67T

(T^aTOV TWV
last

There shall come in the

days

bitter

scoffers.

B, C, and
Cyril,

Before e/jmaiKTai the words ev e^Traiy/^ovy are inserted in A, many others, the versions in general, Chrysostom,

and the Latin

writers,

thus producing a Hebraic form

of intensiveness.

This evidence would require their admission, even without the further consideration, that copyists, as has been already remarked, were not given to Hebraising, and there is no parallel place to exert an assimilative influence in this instance.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

181

JOHN
on

II.

18.

Ka6a>s

rjKovo-are

6 avTiypicrTOs ep^erai.

As ye

have heard that

an

antichrist shall come.

The expression 6 dvri%p UTTOS must here signify, in virtue of the prefixed article, only an individual, or, at least, a personified power, to whom the term dz/Ti^ptcn-os would be applicable in
a special way, in distinction from the many that might also in manner be so termed. But this usage must not be confounded with another which occurs presently (ver. 22), where the expres a
sions o tyeua-rt]*;

and

6 avrixpurros, as

is

seen from the appended

definitions, are generic terms significative of classes. But in this place the article, though found in A, G, J, etc.,

and read by Theophylact and (Ecumenius, is wanting in B, C, and three others, and is twice omitted by Origen. Even if the adverse evidence were less weighty, its presence would be attended with suspicion, because its introduction into the text would be favoured both by the influence of other
passages of the Epistle, and an individual antichrist.

by

prevailing opinions respecting

JOHN

II. 23.

lias 6 apvovfjitvos rov vlov ov8e rov Trarepa

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father he that confesses the Son has the Father also.

-j-

question here relates to an additional clause, 6 6fjt,o\oywv rov vlov Kal rov Trarepa fyei. It might be remarked upon it, that it might well have been

The

182

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

to the preceding one; and a marginal complementary appendage be without weight, if there were this consideration would not
also

evidence against weighty external


is

it.

But there

of a contrary ten another internal consideration

would that the clause, if genuine, dency, namely, in to transcription, on oversight no ordinary degree exposed in same the ending to the extent account of the recurrence of
of three words.

have been

The

of direct evidence in its favour consists

A, B, C, and more
Clement,
Origen,

than thirty others, the versions in general,

etc. Athanasius, the Cyrils, Vigilius, Pelagius, into the text admitted be clause the these may On grounds

without hesitation.

JOHN

IV.

3.

Kal
And

irav irvev^a o pr)

bpoXoyel TOV
K. T. A.

Irjcrovv tv

crapKL eXrjXvOora,

every spirit that confesseth not [that Jesus

Christ

is

come

in the flesh \ Jesus], etc.

The

final

words

ev

<r.

e A.

are omitted

by A, B, 27, 29, the

Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, Irenseus, Cyril, Lucifer, etc. from It might be said that they were accidentally overlooked
similarity to a preceding clause
ficient for that effect.
;

but their proximity

is

not suf

On

the contrary, they would be an appen

dage readily furnished for an expression wearing an appearance


of incompleteness. Indirect adverse evidence, if such were needed, is furnished by the existence in ancient copies, mentioned by Socrates, of the reading o Xvet in the place of o /LO) 6fio\oyet, which is also
represented in the Vulgate, and the Latin translation of Irenseus, and traceable in other quarters. It furnishes this evidence,

because

it is

clearly

an interpretative

gloss,

and one which could

not have been called forth by the fulness and explicitness of the

ON THE TEXT OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.


common
o
6.

183

but must have been put upon the bare reading fjirj Viewing, in accordance with the context, the non-confession of Jesus as signifying a non-acknowledgement of
text,

rbv

I.

his proper manhood, the glossarist represents it by the term \vei, as virtually doing away with the individual, since nothing is then
left

but a Docetic etSwXov.

Lucifer seems to have regarded this


destruit.

as its purport,

from his rendering qui

JOHN

V.

7,

8.

On
01

Tpels

io~\v ol

naprvpovvres
ayiov

ei>

TO*

ovpavw,
KCU OVTOL

7raTr)p, o Aoyoy, KOL TO

Trvevfjia,

KOU rpels elcriv ol fjLaprvpovvTCs TTf yrjy Trvev/Jia Koi TO vdcop KCLL TO ai/*a, KCU ol v elaiv. TO elf Tpels
elo~L.

Tpeif ev

ev

TO

For

there

are

three

that bear record [in heaven,

the

Father, the JVord, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth~\, the
Spirit,

and

the water,

and

the blood:

and

these three agree

in one.

To write the history of the controversy respecting the Heavenly Witnesses, as the question is termed, would of itself require a volume. It might be thence inferred, that the conflicting evi
dence was so nearly balanced that, in order to a decision, it required the nicest adjustment and the utmost delicacy of critical
skill.

How

far

such an inference would be from the actual truth,

may be best seen from the following citation. In short, if this verse be really genuine, notwithstanding its absence from all the visible Greek MSS. except two one of
"

which awkwardly

from the Latin, and the other transcribes it from a printed book notwithstanding its absence from all the versions except the Vulgate, and even from
translates the verse
;

many

of the best and oldest

MSS.

of the Vulgate;

notwith-

184

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

and dead silence of all the Greek writers down standing the deep down to the middle to the thirteenth, and most of the Latins it be of the eighth century; if, in spite of all these objections, of Scripture whatsoever can be proved still genuine, no part Porson to Travis, Letter XII. or either spurious genuine." altered since this statement is but case the of The state
slightly

was made.
increased to
other,

The two MSS. mentioned may now be regarded as tinder some guise or five, containing the passage
accession of like

by an

either

in this deriving their matter from the Vulgate or a printed copy. It is not too much to say that, if a critic could be supposed to be debarred from all documentary evidence on either side in

stamp with themselves, that is in the text or margin, place, whether

the present case, except those few and the only version that has

MSS. which
it,

exhibit the verse,

namely,

the

common

text

of the Vulgate, the circumstances which even thus would come under his notice, would form a sufficient ground for its condem
nation as a spurious accretion. It was no doubt the dogmatic

aspect

of the passage that

rendered the
to give

strife

keen and

lasting,

and thus served in the end

advancement to sound
its

criticism.

eagerness of

defenders,

it

appears to

But if it sharpened the have had a contrary effect


of material consideration.

on their

sensibility to certain points

two may be mentioned in particular. First, the fact that the very applicability of the words in question to dogmatic
these,

Of

purposes gives overwhelming force to the argument derived from the silence of a host of ecclesiastical writers. Secondly, the
strange appearance presented by the passage, of a testification the most solemn made in a quarter where it must be altogether
needless.

This was remarked by Newton though sagacity like was not needed to make the discovery. Something of the same kind must have been felt also by the contriver of the
;

his

In fact, the reading OTTO rov ovpavov, found in one copy. spurious matter introduces something far less in accordance with
the spirit of Scripture than with the epic machinery of Paradise
Lost.

The advocates of genuineness relied also on the plea of an intimate connexion and adhesion of the consequent questioned

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


portion to the context
;

185

and the assumed difficulty of detachment seem to viewed as an oracular intimation, that have been might the attempt was being made by presumptuous hands.
their side the close

Their opponents, however, were equally at liberty to plead on and smooth coherence which is the real con
its

sequence of
to notice.

removal

and

this it

may

not be uninstructive

After a pointed mention of the Water and the Blood, as serving for material tokens touching the true personal nature of the Saviour, the function of giving forth direct actual testimony

then assigned by the Apostle to the Spirit. The three are next personified into witnesses giving testimony (ot paprvpovvre^, and this numerical discrepancy with the preceding statement of
is

the existence of a single witness, is again rectified by the affirma tion, that the three merge in a virtual identity with the single one previously mentioned. And the Spirit is that which testi
fies,

because the Spirit

is

the truth.

For the

testifiers are three,

the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and the three amount to the one.

There are other circumstances, besides the amount of con troversy, which render the present question remarkable.

The

critic

from time to time discards matter from the current

text without hesitation, as having undoubtedly crept in from the margin; but the process of transit, though undoubted, is not
its steps: but in the present instance the whole is patent, from the first germ in an early prescriptive interpretation of the witnesses really mentioned as mystically signifying three divine persons, down to a final lodgment in the written text near

traceable in

the close of the age of

MSS.

Another important feature of the question is, that extending beyond its immediate subject, it most seriously affected the more general one of the evidence on which any matter is to be accepted and those who, with more honesty than skill, pro as Scripture fessed to come to the rescue of a genuine portion of it, were in
:

reality the

unwitting foes of the integrity of Holy Writ.

186

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

JOHN

V.

13.

Tavra
OVOfJLa

eyponlra
C

TOV

viuv rols ~ I ~ .Tk VLOV TOV CteOV,

iricrrevovariv
"
<*

elf
/-

TO
V

>*~

IVCL

eLOrjre

OTi

{(>r]V

elf ro ovo^a rov e\ere aitoviov, KCU tva Trio-revere VLOV rov Oeov.

These things have

name of
eternal

the

life,

I written unto you [that believe on the Son of God{] that ye may know that ye have and that ye may believe on the name of the Son

of God.

According to this form of the passage, the Apostle declares his he at the object to be the production of belief in those same time addresses as believers : this is not artlessness but absur

whom

dity.

entire clause, however, rot? .... Qeov is wanting in A, and and B, eight others, as well as all the principal versions the same authorities, with the exception of B, which has rot?
;

The

mcrTevovo-iv, read ol Trio-revoine? in the place of the words /cal Iva Tna-TeinjTe ; so that the resulting meaning is : These things

have I written to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, who believe on the name of the Son of God.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

187

JUDE
Kai
And
rov
fjiovov

4.

deo-TTOTrjv

Oeov KOL Kvpiov XpL&rov a


Christ.

T/j

denying the only Lord God,

and our Lord Jesus

is wanting in A, B, C, and more than twenty the others, majority of the versions, Epiphanius, Chrysostom,

The word @eov

Cyril, Lucifer, etc.; its main supporters being G, J, and both The sense resulting from the omission is : Syriac versions.

Denying our only master and

lord, Jesus Christ.

JUDE
KOLL ovs
fJLi>

22.

eAee?re diaKptvofjievoi, ovs 8e ev


e/c

(f)o(3a>

o"<0ere,

rov Trvpos

And

of some have compassion, making a difference: and


others save with fear, pulling

them out of the fire.

very important variation, affecting this entire passage, is given by A, B, and a number of others, various versions, etc.,
07)5 fj,ev eXey^ere SiaKpivojAevovs, 01)9 Se aca^ere IK And some refute Trvpbf apTrd^ovres, ou? Be eXeetre eV ^>o/3&). when they are disputing, but others save, snatching them out

namely, Kal

of

fire,

An

and others compassionate in fear. abbreviated form of the latter portion of the passage

is

given by C, and represented in both Syriac

versions, namely, 0^9

188
Be a.
is its
etc IT.

DEVELOPED CRITICISM
dp. ev

and
<f)6/3q>:

it is

original shape.

The word

eXeetre
first

by no means unlikely that this might have either sprung


clause, or

by accident from eXey^ere

in the

have been origi

nally a note expressing the spirit of the second, eventually the foundation of a third.

becoming

itself

Other shiftings of shape add to the uncertainty and perplexity of the entire question.

JUDE
8e
8vva/uii>q)

24.

(f)v\aga

Now

unto him that

is

able to keep \j/ou X them\

from falling.

Instead of

t//*a9,

avrovs

is

thirty others, Cyril,


is

GEcumenius,

the reading of B, J, and about etc.; while the common text

supported by C, G, etc., the versions in general, and the Latin Fathers and and another have ^a?.
;

In favour of the variation

it

may be

said, that it is
it

would be looked

for

but, on the other hand,

not what might have been

a marginal addition to vyu,a9, intimating by emphasis a contrast on the part of the persons signified by that word with others

The versions, too, throw the balance of previously described. evidence on the side of the common reading.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

189

REVELATION

II.

20.

On
It is well

eay TTJV

yvva.lK.oi

Te^a/S^A,

>c.

r. A.

Because thou sufferest [that

woman
first

X thy wife] Jezebel, etc.

known

that for the

published edition of the

New

Testament only one MS. of the Apocalypse was used, and that an imperfect one, its chasms being supplied by translation into Greek from the Vulgate. The common text exhibits these
portions in only a partially amended form, and the whole is It was signally unhappy in respect of the purity of its source.

accordingly beyond the compass and design of this work to discuss it at length, though every kind of corruption and disguise
that infects the

common

text of the

New

Testament in general

might be amply illustrated from this book alone. Thus only a few passages are noticed, where the effect of the various reading

upon

meaning is important. produced in the present instance by the addition of crov to ryvvai/ca, by which means the female here styled Jezebel is represented as the wife of the Angel of the Church of Thyatira. The addition is sanctioned by A, B of the Apocalypse, and more than thirty others, the Syriac version, Cyprian, and the
This
effect is

their

commentators Andreas, Arethas, and Primasius, though not by


the Vulgate, Tertullian,

Ep iphanius,

Victor Tununensis,

etc.

190

DEVELOPED CRITICISM

REVELATION
tv TOLS yfjLepaiS rrj?

X.

7.

(frcovrj?

TOV

ayyeAof, orav ^XXrj o-aXirifav TOV Oeov. fj,vo~Tr]pioi>


But
in the

/cat

TeXearOr)

TO

days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he

shall begin to sound, the mystery


finished.

of

God

[should be \ was~\

Instead of TeXea-Ofj, a reading

which

is

intrinsically

unattended

with

difficulty,

e reXeo-^
;

more, with the Coptic B,


etc.,

given by A, C, and about thirty while the common reading is that of


is

etc.,

and the Vulgate, ^Ethiopic, Armenian, Arethas and Primasius, represent rekea-O^a-erai. supported by The weight of evidence is thus in favour of the variation,
;

and Andreas

whatever questions of grammar or interpretation

may

be raised

upon

it.

REVELATION
Kca Oavn-acrovTOii .... ^AeTTOfres- TO
KCUTTtp edTLV.
ol

XVII.

8.

KaTOiKOvvTe?
r\v^

eirl

Trjy

6r)plov OTI

KCU OVK cart,

And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, .... when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and \jjet is X shall be present],
glance at the strange and enigmatical appearance of this passage would readily provoke a conjecture, KOI irapkvnv, the actual reading of some copies, which would give good Greek and good sense, if the clause on, K. r. \. be connected with pkeirovres but there is another according to which the marks of time in the
:

clause are made with relation to the speaker, namely, Trdpeo-rai, found in A, B, and many others, Hippolytus, Andreas, Arethas,

Primasius,

etc.

evidence which requires

its

adoption.

ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

191

REVELATION
ol TTOiovvrts

XXII.

14.

ray ez/roXay avrov.


)(

Blessed are they that [do his commandments

wash

their

garments clean].
in this place is that of B, and the gene of the rality copies, Coptic, Syriac, etc., Tertullian, Cyprian, Tichonius, Andreas, and Arethas: but A, 7, 38, have the remark able variation ol TrKvvovres orcA-a? avrwv, supported by the
ra<?

The common reading

Vulgate and JEthiopic, Primasius and Fulgentius. This latter evidence, though less in amount than the preceding, is important; but is, at the same time, open to one consideration in abatement, namely, that the various reading might have been derived from
another place (vii. 14), while nation of the common text.
it is

not easy to imagine an origi

These discussions on the text of the

New

Testament are

not put forward as affording an entire treatment of the subject. Enough, however, will have been done, by a selection of such
instances as are either material in themselves or instructive in

respect of their facts and processes, both to shew the importance of the work of criticism, and to evince the soundness of its opera

and, notwithstanding occasional perplexity, the general certainty of its results.


tions,

Especially
versions,

should

it

be noted, that ancient copies, ancient

and the

citations

by ancient

writers,

when

these are

continually range together in mutual more than and, this, such conspiring testimony is ever support; the a finding confirmatory response from the readings themselves,
clearly
ascertainable,

192

DEVELOPED CRITICISM, ETC.

exhibit. inner voice, so to say, of the forms of text which they that to no less is observe, it On the other hand, important be termed cannot date whose versions masses of recent MSS.,
ancient, as the Arabic

commentators, as found in company.

and Sclavonic, and the latest of Greek (Ecumenius and Theophylact, are continually

The

requirements Codex Vaticanus (B), the prime trustworthy collation of the cannot be disguised, in spite of document which of importance
the watching and jealousy that environ it; and, secondly, means, if ever they can be found, for restoring to its ancient form the entire text of the Syriac version. These means may
all

materials of criticism are at present ample, though These are a thorough are still unsatisfied.

two and

the former task, in the course of be in reality unattainable later or be sooner must events, accomplished. common text it may be remarked, Lastly, with regard to the that at the time when it was declared to be in possession of
:

universal currency and acceptance, there existed as yet no pub lished form materially different from it, and thus its position was not an exclusive prevalence won from opposing claimants, but

The vantage ground, thus merely a freedom from rivalry. would further be accident, gained by strengthened by advance
of time, and fenced

by

jealousy, listlessness,

and the

fear of unset-

Such is the real amount of prerogative tlement and change. the common text, one altogether unworthy to bar possessed by the advance of sound and enlightened criticism.

2325
,67

GR E A couRSE OF DEVELOPED

CRITICISM
117405