iii. 1 τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι is omitted by Jerome, because it is not

contained “in exemplaribus Adamantii,” although (as he elsewhere informs us) “et Graeca exemplaria hoc errore confusa sint.” In the other of the two passages Jerome remarks that in some Latin copies of Matt. xxiv. 36 _neque filius_ is added, “quum in Graecis, et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus, hoc non habeatur adscriptum.” Pierius the presbyter of Alexandria, elsewhere called by Jerome “the younger Origen” (Cat. Scriptt. Eccl., i. p. 128), has been deprived by fortune of the honour due to his merit and learning. A contemporary, perhaps the teacher of Pamphilus (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vii. 32) at Caesarea, his copies of Scripture would naturally be preserved with those of Origen in the great Library of that city. Here they were doubtless seen by Jerome when, to his deep joy, he found Origen’s writings copied in Pamphilus’ hand (Cat. Scriptt. Eccl., _ubi supra_), which volumes Acacius and Euzoius, elder contemporaries of Jerome himself, had taken pious care to repair and renew (_ibid._ i. p. 131; ad Marcell. Ep. cxli). It is not therefore wonderful if, employing as they did and setting a high value on precisely the same manuscripts of the N. T., the readings approved by Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome should closely agree.

9. Epiphanius [d. 403], who wrote at about the same period as Jerome, distinguishes in his note on Luke xix. 41 or xxii. 44 (Tom. ii. p. 36) between the uncorrected copies (ἀδιορθώτοις), and those used by the Orthodox(285). Of the function of the “corrector” (διορθωτής) of an ancient manuscript we have spoken several times before: but a system was devised by Professor J. L. Hug of Freyburg (Einleitung, 1808), and maintained, though with some modifications, by J. G. Eichhorn, which assigned to these occasional, and (as they would seem to be) unsystematic labours of the reviser, a foremost place in the criticism of the N. T. Hug conceived that the process of corruption had been going on so rapidly and uniformly from the Apostolic age downwards, that by the middle of the third century the state of the text in the general mass of codices had degenerated into the form exhibited in Codd. D, 1, 13, 69, 124 of the Gospels, the Old Latin and Sahidic (he would now have added the Curetonian Syriac) versions, and to some extent in the Peshitto and in the citations of Clement of Alexandria and of Origen in his early works. To this uncorrected text he gave the name of κοινὴ ἔκδοσις, and that it existed, substantially in the interpolated shape now seen in Cod. D, the Old Latin, and Cureton’s Syriac, as early as the second century, need not be doubted. There is some foundation for this position, but it was marred by Hug’s lack of sobriety of judgement. What we may fairly dispute is that this text ever had extensive circulation or good repute in the Churches whose vernacular language was Greek. This “common edition” Hug supposes to have received three separate emendations in the middle of the third century; one made by Origen in Palestine, which he thinks Jerome adopted and approved; two others by Hesychius and Lucian (a presbyter of Antioch and Martyr), in Egypt and Syria respectively, both which Jerome condemned, and Pope Gelasius (A.D. 492-6) declared to be apocryphal(286). To Origen’s recension he referred such copies as AKM, 42, 106, 114, 116, 253 of the Gospels, the Harkleian Syriac, the quotations of Chrysostom and Theodoret; to Hesychius the Alexandrian codices BCL; to Lucian the Byzantine documents EFGHSV and the mass of later books. The practical effect of this elaborate theory would be to accord to Cod. A a higher place among our authorities than some recent editors have granted it, even than it quite deserves, yet its correspondence with Origen in many characteristic readings would thus be admitted and accounted for (_but see_ p. 226). But in truth Hug’s whole scheme is utterly baseless as regards historical fact, and most insufficiently sustained by internal proof. Jerome’s slight and solitary mention of the copies of Lucian and Hesychius abundantly evinces their narrow circulation and the low esteem in which they were held; and even Eichhorn perceived that there was no evidence whatever to show that Origen had attempted a formal revision of the text. The passages cited above, both from Eusebius and Jerome—and no others are known to bear on the subject—will carry us no further than this:—that these Fathers had access to codices of the N. T. once possessed by Adamantius, and here and there, perhaps, retouched by his hand. The manuscripts copied by Pamphilus were those of Origen’s own works; and while we have full and detailed accounts of what he accomplished for the Greek versions of the Old Testament, no hint has been thrown out by any ancient writer that he carried his pious labour into the criticism of the New. On the contrary, he seems to disclaim the task in a sentence now extant chiefly in the old Latin version of his works, wherein, to a notice of his attempt to remove diversity of reading from codices of the Septuagint by the help of “the other editions” (κριτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσιν, i.e. the versions of Aquila and the rest), he is represented as adding, “In exemplaribus autem Novi Testamenti, hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non putavi” (Origen, Tom. iii. p. 671).

10. Hug’s system of recensions was devised as a corrective to those of Bengel and of Griesbach, which have been adequately discussed in Chapter VII. The veteran Griesbach spent his last effort as a writer in bringing to notice the weak points of Hug’s case, and in claiming him, where he rightly could, as a welcome ally(287). But neither did Hug’s scheme, nor that propounded by Scholz some years later, obtain the general credit and acceptance which had once been conceded to Griesbach’s. It was by this time plainly seen that not only were such theories unsupported by historical testimony (to which indeed the Professor of Halle had been too wise to lay claim), but that they failed to account for more than a part, and that usually a small part, of the phenomena disclosed by minute study of our critical materials. All that can be inferred from searching into the history of the sacred text amounts to no more than this: that extensive variations, arising no doubt from the wide circulation of the New Testament in different regions and among nations of diverse languages, subsisted from the earliest period to which our records extend. Beyond this point our investigations cannot be carried, without indulging in pleasant speculations which may amuse the fancy, but cannot inform the sober judgement. Such is the conclusion to which we are reluctantly brought after examining the principles laid down, as well by the critics we have named above, as by Lachmann, by his disciple Tregelles, and even by the _par nobile_ of Cambridge Doctors, Professor Hort and Bishop (formerly Canon) Westcott, of whose labours we shall speak presently.