xxii. 18, 19, 1

19, 409

INDEX II, OF FATHERS.

Fathers referred to, or else quoted(*), in this volume. For the chief Editions employed, see the note at p. 121.

_Acta Apostt._ (Syriac), 40, 62, 84, 423 _Philippi_, 84 _Pilati_, 45, 62, 84, 423

Alcimus Avit., 213

Ambrosius, 24, 40, 73, 79, 85, 87, 90, 91, 92, 123, 132, 133, 213, 215*, 218, 410, 423

Ammonius, 23, 29, 88*, 89, 91

Amphilochius, 133, 213 [_ed._ Combefis] ps. ----, 85

_Anaphora Pilati_, 62

Anastasius Ant., 213 [_ed._ Migne] Sin., 44, 81, 84, 421 [_ed._ Migne]

Andreas Cret., 23, 44, 84, 421 [_ed._ Combefis]

Anonymous, 43, 100, 102

Antiochus mon., 84, 360 [_ed._ Migne]

Aphraates, 40, 43, 133, 421, 423

_Apostolical_, see “_Constitutiones_.”

Archelaus (with Manes), 84

Arius, 80

Athenagoras, 410

Athanasius, 44, 62, 64, 80, 84, 90, 91, 121, 122, 123, 133, 212, 220, 359 ps. ——, 133, 402, 475

Augustinus, 24, 40, 81, 85, 90, 91, 92, 116*, 123, 132, 133, 213, 356, 360, 410, 423, 500*

Barnabas, 103*, 463*

Basilius M., 44, 79, 84, 91, 102*, 108, 122, 123, 133, 210*, 212, 218, 219, 360, 402, 464* —— Cil., 133 —— Sel., 43, 421

_Breviarium_, 213

Capreolus, 133

Cassianus, 81, 133, 213, 348, 411 [_ed._ 1611]

Cælestinus, 218

Cæsarius, 212, 215* ps. ——, 55, 74, 81

_Catena_ (Cramer’s), 353

Chromatius, 348

_Chronicon Paschale_, 40, 74, 353 [_ed._ Du Fresne]

Chrysostomus, 5, 23, 26, 27, 40, 43, 44, 53, 55, 62*, 71*, 72, 74, 80, 84, 90, 91, 92, 99, 101*, 108, 121, 122, 123, 133, 151*, 152*, 177, 212, 218, 219, 220, 353, 356, 360, 402, 410, 421, 423, 457 ps. ——, 85, 90, 133, 218, 360, 402, 427

Clemens, Alex., 115, 121, 208*, 218, 327, 336*, 410 —— Rom, 38* —— —— (Syriac), 91

_Clementina_, 84

_Concilia_ [_ed._ Labbe et Cossart] _passim._

_Constitutiones Apostolicæ_, 43, 84, 212, 360, 410, 421, 423, 463*

Cosmas Indicopleustes, 44, 63, 133, 421 [_ed._ Montfaucon] —— ep. Maiumæ, 44, 421

_Cramer_, see _Catena_.

Cyprianus, 213, 218, 359

Cyrillus Alex., 5, 23, 43, 55, 62, 79, 80, 84, 86, 89, 90, 96, 102*, 103, 121, 122, 132, 133, 163, 213, 218, 219, 220, 353, 356, 360, 402, 410, 421, 423, 427, 428*, 464-469** —— Hieros, 43, 62, 72, 123, 151*, 177, 421, 470

Damascenus, _see_ “Johannes.”

Damasus, P. 92

_Dialogus_, 208*, 402

Didymus, 5, 40, 43, 80, 101, 122, 123, 133, 212, 219, 348, 402, 421, 423, 427, 456

Diodorus Tars., 101, 458

Dionysius Alex., 163 ps. —— ——, 23, 80, 101, 133, 212, 462* ps. —— —— Areop., 80, 84

_Eastern Bishops at Ephesus collectively_ (A.D. 431), 43, 80, 421

Epiphanius, 40, 43, 44, 74, 79, 80, 90, 96, 116, 122, 123, 133, 212, 360, 402, 421, 423, 427 ps. ——, 427 —— diac. Catan. [A.D. 787], 102, 103, 475

Ephraemus Syrus, 43, 62, 64, 80, 82*, 84, 122, 123, 215*, 348, 360, 421 ps. —— ——, 84, 353, 423

Eulogius, 44, 212, 421

Eusebius Cæs., 5, 23, 40, 43, 62*, 72, 80, 84, 86, 87, 88*, 89, 90, 96, 108, 122, 136, 163, 218, 219, 323-324**, 353, 359, 410, 421, 423 —— His _Canons_, 91

Eustathius, 133, 212

Euthalius, 102, 458, 459-461**

Eutherius, 84, 103, 427

Euthymius Zig., 360, 410, 465, 476* [_ed._ Matthæi]

Facundus, 81, 213

Faustus, 115

Ferrandus, 213, 500*

Fulgentius, 213, 500*

Gaudentius, 24

Gelasius Cyzic., 100, 213, 479

Gennadius, 80, 213

Germanus CP., 44, 122, 421

_Gospel of Nicodemus_, 62

Gregentius, 423

Gregorius Nazianz., 23, 43, 73*, 80, 101*, 121, 134, 421, 457 ps —— ——, 163, 220 —— Nyssen., 23, 40, 43, 44, 84, 87, 89, 101*, 123, 134, 208*, 212, 360, 410, 421, 456, 458 —— Thaum., 44, 45, 102*, 463*

Hegesippus, 84

Hesychius, 84, 163, 423

Hieronymus, 24, 40, 41, 63*, 64*, 73*, 79*, 81, 85, 90, 92, 103*, 108, 123*, 133, 213, 348, 356, 359, 360*, 423, 427

Hilarius, 79, 81, 85, 91, 92, 115, 133, 213, 218, 281, 360, 410

Hippolytus, 62, 64, 80, 84, 102*, 133, 136, 212, 353, 423, 463*

Ignatius, 103*, 463* ps. ——, 84

Johannes Damascenus, 44, 81, 85, 91, 102, 123, 133, 177, 213, 220, 356, 360, 421, 457 —— Thessal., 96, 423

Irenæus, 42, 64*, 80, 84, 122, 132, 212, 220, 353, 356, 359, 409, 420, 423

Isidorus, 23, 74, 123*, 360, 410

Jovius mon., 92

Julian hæret., 80

Julius Africanus, 62*, 64

Justinus Mart., 79, 80, 115, 121, 360, 410, 423 ps. —— ——, 84, 90

Juvencus, 91, 108, 115

Lactantius, 115

Leo ep., 213, 423 —— _ap._ Sabatier, 41

Leontius Byz., 81, 213, 423, 480

Liberatus of Carthage, 471-3

Lucifer Calarit, 133, 360, 410

Macarius Magnes, 40, 62*, 220, 423 [_ed._ 1876]

Macedonius, 470-475**, 102, 103

Malchion, 212

Marcion, 34, 35, 61, 64, 96, 402

Marius Mercator, 133, 213, 423, 468 —— Victorinus, 500*

Martinus P., 421, 473

Maximus, 23, 79, 81, 84 —— Taurin, 91, 133, 213, 219, 220, 360

Methodius, 44, 115, 212 [_ed._ Combefis]

Modestus Hier., 423

Nestorius, 80, 121, 212, 423, 427

Nicetas, 123

Nilus mon., 62, 359, 410

Nonnus, 23, 133, 218, 353

Novatianus, 133, 213

Œcumenius, 102, 348, 476

Origenes, 23, 41, 43, 58, 60, 62*, 63**, 64, 72, 84, 87, 92, 122*, 133, 136, 163, 208*, 212, 219, 220, 348, 353, 356, 359, 360, 402, 410, 421, 427

_Opus imperf._, 85, 91

Pacianus, 410

Palladius, the Arian, 213

Pamphilus Cæs., 177

Papias, 423

_Paschale_, see “_Chronicon._”

Patricius, 423

Paulinus, 81

Paulus Emes., 43, 80, 133, 213, 421

Philastrius, 24, 360

Philo, 43, 421

Photius CP., 81, 123, 360

Porphyrius, 132

Proclus CP., 43, 123

Prosper, 423

Salvianus, 360

Sedulius, 24

Severianus Gabal., 132, 212

Severus Ant., 23, 40, 89, 102*, 133, 213, 348, 360, 458

ps. Tatianus, 80, 84, 122, 123, 402 [_ed._ Moesinger, 1876]

Tertullianus, 62*, 90*, 91, 92, 120, 122, 208*, 213*, 215*, 410, 423

Titus Bostr., 43, 421

Theodoretus, 43, 55, 79, 80, 84, 91, 102, 122, 133, 152*, 213, 218, 219, 220, 336, 356, 360, 410, 421, 456, 458*

Theodorus Herac., 84, 92, 133 —— hæret., 81 —— Mops., 23, 62, 80, 103, 121, 133, 212, 356, 360, 480-482* —— Studita [_ed._ Sirmondi], 475

Theodosius Alex., 81

Theodotus Ancyr., 43, 212, 421 —— Gnosticus, 102*

Theophilus Alex., 212 —— Ant., 410

Theophylactus, 102, 147, 348, 360, 410, 476 [_ed._ Venet. 1755]

Victor Antioch., 23, 40, 66*, 132, 409, 423

Victorinus, 133, 213

Victricius, 218

Vigilius, 133, 348

Vincentius, 423

Zeno, 133

INDEX III, PERSONS, PLACES, AND SUBJECTS.

_General Index of_ Persons, Places, _and_ Subjects _referred to in this Volume. But_ Scriptural References _are to be sought in_ INDEX I.; _and_ Patristic References, _in_ INDEX II. ’New Codices’ _will be found enumerated in the_ APPENDIX.

“A,” _see_ “Alexandrinus.”

א and B: _see_ “B,” _and_ “Antiquity.”

א A B C D, in conflict, 12, 13, 14, 16-7, 30-1, 46-7, 75-8, 94-5, 117, 249, 262, 265, 289, 386

“Abutor”, 146

Acacius, Bp. of Melitene, 178

Accident, 50-6

Æthiopic, _see_ “Version.”

ἀγάπη, 201-2

ἀΐδιος, 207

αἰτεῖν, 191-3

αἰών, 182, 208

αἰώνιος, 207

ἀλάβαστρον, 200-1

Alexander (Dr.), Bp. of Derry, 107-8

“Alexandrian” readings, 271-2, 357

Alexandrinus (cod.) (A), 11-17, 345-347, 431-7

ἀληθινός, 180

Alford (Dean), 381, 456, 498

Allocution, 413-5

Alterations, yet not improvements, 139-143

Ammonius, 29

Amos (in S. Matt, i.), 186

ἀμφίβληστρον, 184

Amphilochius, 210

ἄμφοδον, 182

ἀναβάς, 139

ἀναπεσών, 145

Anastasius (Imp.), 472-3

Ancient Authority, _see_ “Ellicott.”

“Ancoratus”, 427

Andrewes, Bp., 500

Antioch, 385, 391

“Antiochian,” _see_ “Syrian.”

“Antiquity”, 333

ἀντίστητε, 129

Anziani (Dr.), 445, 492

Aorist, 158-60, 162

ἀπελπίζοντες, 146

ἀφιέναι, 193-5

Apolinaris, 456, 458

Apollonides, 323-4

ἀπολύειν, 195

ἀποστολοευαγγέλια, 448

“Apostolus”, 446-8, 476-8, 482, 491. _See the_ APPENDIX.

Aram (in S. Matt. i.), 186

Argument _e silentio_, 469

Armenian, _see_ Version.

Article, the, 164-5

Articles (Three) in the “Quarterly Review,” their history _pref._ ix-xiv

ἄρτος, 179

ἀρχαί, 180

Asaph (in S. Matt. i.), 186-7

Asclepiades, 323-4

“Ask” (αἰτεῖν), 171-3

“Assassins”, 147

Assimilation, 32, 65-69 ——, proofs of, 66

ἀτενίσαντες, 129

“Attraction”, 351-2

αὐληταί, 148

Authority, (ancient) _see_ “Ellicott.”

αὐτός, 165

“B,” _see_ “Vaticanus.”

B and א (codd.), sinister resemblance, 12

B and א, 12, 255-7, 315-20, 333, 357, 361, 365, 408, 410

Bandinel (Dr.), 445

“Baptist” Revisers, 504-5

Baptismal Renunciation, 215

Basil to Amphilochius, 210

Basilides, 29

Beckett, Sir Edmund, 38, 222

Belsheim, Dr. J., 444, 453, 493

Bengel (J. A.), 246, 500

Bentley, Dr. R., 432, 467, 499

Berlin (_see_ “De Boor”), 492, 493

Berriman, Dr. J., 432, 433, 446, 468, 474, 480, 500

Bethesda, 5

Beveridge (Bp.), 351, 500

Beyer (Dr.), 477

Bezæ, cod. (D), 11-7, 77-9, 117, 264-5

Birch (Andreas), 246, 383, 467

Blunders, 149, 150, 180, 181;—172, 176, 177, &c.

Bois (John), 228

“Bondmaid”, 196

“Boon”, 217

“Bowls”, 200

“Branch”, 184

Broughton (Hugh), 513

Bull (Bp.), 212, 500

“C,” _see_ “Ephraemi.”

Caius (A.D. 175) on the Text, 323-4

Cambridge, Codex (D), _see,_ Bezæ. “—— Greek Text”, _Pref._ xxviii

Capper (S. Herbert), Esq., 492

Cappilli (Sig.), 491-2

Carob tree, 181

Castan (M.), 477

Castiglione, 452

Catalogue of Crypta Ferrata, 447

Cedron, 181

Ceriani (Dr.), 381, 452, 477, 491-2-3. _See the_ APPENDIX.

Changes (licentious), 127, 403-7

“Charity”, 201-2

χωρίον, 182

Chronicle of Convocation, 507

“_Church Quarterly_” (1882), _Pref._ xvi

“_Church Quarterly_,” (1883), _Pref._ xvi-xx., xxiv-vii.

Citations, _see_ “Fathers.”

Clemens, Alex., 326-7, 327-31

Codd. B—א—A—C—D, 11-17, 30, 108, 249, 262, 269-71 —— F and G, 438-43 —— Paul 73, 444 —— —— 181, 444-5 —— new, _see the_ APPENDIX.

Collation of MSS., 125, 246-7; with the Received Text, 249-50, 262

Complutensian, 391

“Conflate readings”, 258-65

“Conflation” examined, 258-65, 285

“Congregationalist” Revisers, 504-5

Conjectural emendation, 351-7

Consent of copies (_see_ “Fathers”), 454-5

“_Conversantibus_”, 176

Cook, (Canon), 204-5, 214, 234, 372, 381, 470, 502

Cornelius à Lapide, 473

Corruptions in the N. T., 334-5

Cotelerius, 473

Coxe (Rev. H. O.), 306, 445, 491

Cozza-Luzi (Abbate), 447, 477, 491-2-3, _see the_ APPENDIX.

Cranbrook, Viscount, page v-viii

Creyk (John), 433

“Crib”, 238

Cross, title on, 85-8

_Crux criticorum_, the, 98

Crypta Ferrata, 447, 473-4, 478, 521

“D,” _see_ “Bezæ.”

δαιμόνιον, 179

Darkness, 62-4

Dartige (M.), 493

Dated codices, 292

δέ, 167-8

Deane (Rev. H.), 450, 481, 489

De Boor (Dr. C.), 492-3

Definite, _see_ Article.

Delicate distinction, 402

Demoniacal possession, 206

Denis (M.), 493

Derry (Bp. of), _see_ Alexander.

Design, 56-65

δευτερόπρωτον, 73

“Devil”, 214-6

διά, 170, 173-4, _see_ ὑπό

Dialogue (supposed), 320-8, 328-42

Diatessaron, _see_ “Tatian.”

διδασκαλία, 199

διδάσκαλος, 179

διδαχή, 199

διέρχωμαι, 407

Dionysius Alex., 461-2

Διόσκουροι, 147

Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16 _Pref._ xxi-iv, 424-501

Divination. _See_ “Verifying faculty.”

“Doctrine” extirpated, 199

δοῦλος, 179

δύναμις, 204

Dublin (Abp. of), _see_ Trench.

ἤ interrogative, 168-9

Ebionite Gospel, 116

Ecclesiastical Tradition, 495

Eclipse, 63-5

Editions of Fathers, 121

ἔγνων, 159

Egyptian, _see_ Version.

ειδε for ιδε, 140

εἰκῆ, 359-61

εἰπεῖν, 511-2

εἶς, 183

ἐκλείποντος, 63-5

ἔλαβον, 139

ἑλληνιστί, 149

Ellicott (Bp. of Gloucester), on the “old uncials”, 14-5 —— on the A. V., 112, 368 —— on “Revision” xlii, 112, 124, 126, 226-8, 368 —— on “Marginal Readings”, 136-7 —— on “Textus Receptus”, 383-8, 389-91 —— on 1 Tim. iii. 16, 428-31 —— on 2 Tim. iii. 16, 209 —— on Textual Criticism, 234 —— on “innocent Ignorance”, 349-50 —— on the Greek Text, 369, 509 —— on “Euthalius”, 460-1 —— his jaunty proposal, 216 —— his Pamphlet _Pref._ xx-xxii, 369 _seq._

Ellicott, his critical knowledge, 370, 376, 385, 430, 457, 459-61, 471-2, _Dedication_ p. viii —— his requirement anticipated, 371, 397 —— his method of procedure, 372-4, 419-24, 459-61 —— method of his Reviewer, 375-383, 496-7, 517, _Pref._ xxiv-vii —— appeals to _Modern Opinion_, instead of to _Ancient Authority_, 376-8, 415-6, 438-9, 483-5, 514-5 —— follows Dr. Hort, 391-8, 455, 517-8 —— complains of Injustice, 399, 400-13 —— suggested Allocution, 413-5 —— his defence of the “New Greek Text,” examined 415-9, 419-24

ἐμβατεύων, 140

ἐν, its different renderings, 171-2

ἐν ὀλίγῳ, 151-2

English idiom, 154-5, 158-75

ἐφανερώθη, 427, 468

ἐφιστάναι, 144

Ephraemi cod. (C), 11-17, 325

“Epileptic”, 205-6

ἐπιπεσών, 145

Epiphanius, 427

ἐπιστᾶσα, 144

ἠπόρει [_see_ Scrivener, _ed._ 3, pp. 581-2], 66-9

Errors (plain and clear), 3, 4, 105, 148, 172, 216, 222-3, 228, 348, 400-1, 430, 496, 512

Escher (Dr.), 493

ἐσκοτίσθη, 61

ἔστησαν, 150

“Eternal”, 207

Eternity, 208

Ethiopic, _see_ “Version.”

Eudocia, 465

“Euraquilo”, 176

εὐρεθήσεται, 356

Euripides (papyrus of), 321-2

“Euroclydon”, 176

Euthalius, 429, 460-1

Eutherius, 427

εὐθέως, 153-4

Euthymius Zigabenus. _See_ INDEX II.

“Everlasting”, 207

“Evil One”, 214-6

ἐξελθοῦσαν, 402

ἔξοδος, 184

Exodus, 184

External evidence, 19-20

“F” and “G” (codd.), 257

“Factor of Genealogy”, 256

Farrar, Canon (now Archd.), _Pref._ xv

Fathers, 121, 125-6, _see_ INDEX II.

Fell (Bp.), 432

Field (Dr.), 146, 148, 163, 177, 180, 382

Florence, _see_ “Anziani.”

Flute-players, 148

Forstemann (Dr.), 441, 493

Future sense, 163-4

Gabelentz and Loebe, 452

Gandell (Professor), 184

Gardiani (Sig.), 492

γεγεννημένος, 347

Gelasius of Cyzicus, 479, _see_ INDEX II.

“Genealogical Evidence”, 253

γένεσις and γέννησις, 119-22

γεννηθείς, 347

γένος, 142

Geographical distribution of Patristic Testimony, 45, 134

Gifford (Dr.), 214

γινώσκεις, 149

Gloucester (Bp. of), _see_ “Ellicott.”

γλωσσόκομον, 201

“GOD blessed for ever”!, 211

Gorresio (Sig.), 492

Gospel incident, 194-5 —— (the Ebionite), 116 —— of the Hebrews, 29

Gothic, _see_ Version.

“Græco-Syrian,” _see_ “Syrian.”

“_Great_ priest”, 182

Green, Rev. T. S., 499

Gregory (Dr. C. R.), 477

Gregory Naz., 73

Griesbach (J. J.), 380, 456, 482, 483

Hall, Bp., 500

Hammond (Dr.), 432, 500

Headings of the Chapters, 223, 412

Hellenistic Greek, 182-4, _See_ “Septuagint.”

Henderson (Dr.), 500

Heracleon, 29

Hermophilus, 323-4

Herodotus, 65

Hesychius, 29, 163

Hilary on μύλος ὀνικός, 281

Hincmar, Abp. of Rheims, 472

Hoerning (Dr.), 453

’HOLY GHOST’, 204

Hort, Dr., 37, 135, 182, 211, 248, 394, (_see_ Westcott and Hort). —— hypothesis and system, _see reverse of Title-page_. —— his “Introduction” analyzed, 246-69 —— “strong preference” for codd. B and א, 252, 269-271, 298-305, 307-8, 312-14 —— mistaken estimate of B and א, 315-20 —— divining and verifying faculty, 253, 290, 291, 307-8 —— imaginary history of the Traditional Greek Text, 271-88, 296-8 —— antagonism with Patristic Antiquity, 283-5, 298-300 —— fatal dilemma, 292-3 —— Reiteration, 306 —— ultimate appeal to his own individual mind, 307-8 —— “Art of Conjectural Emendation”, 351-7 —— absurd Textual hypothesis, 293-4 —— intellectual peculiarity, 362 —— method of editing the Greek Text, 363 —— Text of the N. T., 364-5 —— often forsaken by Dr. Westcott, 352

Hug (J. L.), 381

Huish (Alex.), 432

Idiom, _see_ “English.”

ἱερεὺς (ὁ μέγας), 182

Imperfect tense, 161

Incident (unsuspected), 194-5

“Independent” Reviewers, 504-5

“Innocent ignorance” of the Reviewer, 347-9, 411

Inspiration, 208

“Instructions,” _see_ “Revisers.”

Instrumentality (ideas of), 173

Internal Evidence, 253

Interpreters, (modern), 211

“Intrinsic probability”, 251-2

Jacobson (Dr. W.) Bp. of Chester, 37

Jechonias (in Matt. i.), 186

Jerome, 73, 427, 449

“JESUS”, 184

“Joanes”, 181

John (S.) and S. Mark, 185

Jona (son of), 181-2

Josephus, 52

καί, 169-70 —— its force, 209

καὶ πῶς, 170

Kaye (Bp.) on Clemens Al., 336

κέδρων, 181

κενεμβατεύων, 356

κεράτια, 181

Kidron, 181

Kippax (Rev. John), 433

Kishon, 181

κισσῶν, 181

Knowledge of CHRIST not limited, 210

κράξας, 71-2

Lachmann’s Text, 21, 242-3, 246, 270, 380-1

Lagarde (P. A. de), 493 —— _Analecta Syr._, 481

Latin Version, 9

Laubmann (Dr.), 493

Lawrence (Abp.), 380

“Layers of leaves”, 58-61

“Lecythus”, 201

Lee (Archd.) _on Inspiration_, 208, 230, 382

Leontius Byzantinus, 480, _see_ INDEX II.

Liberatus of Carthage, 471-3

Licentious, _see_ “Changes.”

Lightfoot (Dr.) Bp. of Durham, 145, 498, _Pref._ xxxi.

Limitation of our SAVIOUR’s knowledge, 210

Lincoln (Bp. of), _see_ Wordsworth.

λίθος μυλικός, 181

Lloyd (Bp.) ed. of N. T., _Pref._ xvii-ix, 16

LORD’s Prayer, 34-6, 214-6

“Love”, 201-2

Lucian, 29

Luke (Gospel according to S.), 16, 34-5, 75-91, 249, 403-7

“Lunaticus”, 205-6

Macedonius, 103, 470-5, 489

Mai (Card.), 121

Malan (Dr. S. C.), 67, 120, 123, 124, 348, 356, 382, 451, 453-4

Manichæan depravation, 220

“Maranatha”, 180

Marcion, 29, 34-5, 61

Margin, 3-6, 33, 115, 130, 131, 137, 175, 236-7

Marginal References, 223, 412

Marius Mercator, 468

Mark (Gospel according to S.), 30, 262 —— collation of 15 verses, 327-31 —— last Twelve Verses, 36-7, 39-40, 48, 49, 51, _Ded._ vii, _Pref._ xxiii —— and S. John, 185

Martin (Abbé), 382, 446, 474, 477, 478, 492, 528

Martin I. (Pope), 421, 473

Massmann (H. F.), 453

Matranga (Papas Filippo), 477, 492, _see the_ APPENDIX, p. 522-3

Matthæi (C. F.), 246 —— —— Scholia, 348, 380, 427, 434, 465, 468

Matthew (S.) chap. i. (Greek), 119-24, 186 —— —— (English), 156-7, 186

Medial agency, 173

Melita and Melitene, 177-8

Menander, 361

Merivale (Dean), 230

Messina, _see_ “Matranga”: and p. 523

μία, 183

Middleton (Bp.), 165, 209

Milan (_see_ “Ceriani”), 452, 477, 491-2-3

Mill (Dr. John), 245, 383, 432, 437, 472, 500 —— on cod. D, 13 —— (Dr. W. H.), 354

Milligan (Dr.), 39, 48

“Miracle”, 202-4

μνημεῖον, 197-9

Moberly (Dr.) Bp. of Salisbury, 106, 228-9

Modena, _see_ “Cappilli”: and p. 523

Modern Interpreters, 411 —— Opinion, _see_ “Ellicott.”

μονογενὴς Θεύς, 182

Montfaucon, 121

“Moreh”, 180

Morier (Sir Robert), 492

μωρέ, 180

μύλος ὀνικός, 181

Mutilation, 69-93

Mystical interpretation, 185

νάρδου πιστικῆς, 184-5

Nazareth, 184

“Necessity” of Revision, 127, 150, 223, 228

Needless changes, 87-8, 224-5; 97, 224-5, 399, 403-7

νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, 108

Nemesis of superstition, 350

“Netser”, 184

“Neutral” readings, 271-2, 357

“New English Version”, 225-6

“New Greek Text”, 130, 224-5

Newth (Dr.), 37-9, 109, 126, 369, 502

Newton (Sir Isaac), 426, 480, 500

Nilus Rossanensis, 447

Nineteen changes in 34 words, 401

Nominative repeated, 165

“Non-Alexandrian” readings, 357

“Non-Alexandrian Pre-Syrian”, 357

Nonsensical rendering, 218

“Non-Western”, 357-8

Notes in the margin, 175

Numerals in MSS., 52-3

“Number of the Beast”, 135

ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, 133

Occupation (Right of), 199-206

ωδε, 139

“Olivet”, 184

Ollivant (Bp.), 146

Omission, intentional, 69-93

ὄνος, 181

“Or” not meant by ἤ, 168-9

Opinion, (modern) _see_ “Ellicott.”

Origen, as a textual critic, 292

ὅς, 165

ὅς and θεός, in MSS., 99-105

ὅτι for ὅτε, 140

“_Otium Norvicense_,” _see_ “Field.”

οὕτως, 145

παιδίσκη, 195-6

πάλιν, 57

Palmer (Archd.), 49, 126

Papyrus, 321-2

παραδῷ, 178

παράκλησις, 190

Paralytic borne of four, 30-3

Paris cod., _see_ “Ephraemi.” ——, _see_ “Wescher,” “Martin.”

Parquoi (M.), 437

Particles (Greek), 166

πᾶσα γραφή, 208-9

πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, 152

πάσχα, τὸ, 353

Paul “17,” “73,” “181”, 443-8 —— (S.), Codd., 493-4 —— New Codd., _see the_ APPENDIX.

Pearson (Bp.), 212, 432, 471, 500

Peckover (Alex.), Esq., 493

Penerino (Sig.), 492

Perfect (English), 158-60 —— (Greek), 163

περίχωρος, 184

Perowne, (Dean), _Pref._ xxx

Perverted sense, 218-9

“_Phaseolus vulgaris_”, 181

Phavorinus, 140

Photius, 467

φιάλη, 200

“Pistic nard”, 184

“Plain and clear,” _see_ “Errors.”

πλεῖστος ὄχλος, 145

Pluperfect sense of Aorist, 162

_Ponderari debent testes_, 455

πονηροῦ, (ἀπὸ τοῦ), 214-6

Possession (Demoniacal), 206

Possession (right of), 199-206

Powles (Rev. R. Cowley), _Pref._ xxviii, 322

“Praxapostolus,” _see_ “Apostolus.”

“Pre-Syrian”, 357-8

“Pre-Syrian Non-Western”, 357

Preface of 1611, 187-91, 198-9 —— 1881, 189

Preponderating evidence, 411, 496

Prepositions, 170-5

“Present” (Greek), sometimes a Future, 163-4 —— sense of “perfect”, 163

Principle of translation, mistaken, 187-96

“Principles of Textual Criticism”, 125-6, 227, 349-50, 374-5, 411

Probability, 497

Proper names in S. Matt. i. 186

“Proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts”, 172

Provision (GOD’s) for the safety of His Word, 8, 9, 338, 494

προέφθασεν, 146

Pronouns, 165

πρώτη, 180

Pulcheria, 465

Pusey (P. E.), 345, 382, 449, 468

Pyramus and Thisbe, 171

Pyramid poised on its apex, 342-5

“_Quarterly Review_”, _Pref._ ix-xiv

_Quia_, 448, 473

_Quod_ (in 1 Tim. iii. 16), 448

Quotations, _see_ “Fathers.”

Randell (Rev. T.), 481, 493

“Ravine”, 181

“Readings,” _see_ “Various.” —— before “Renderings”, 106, 225

Received Text, _see_ “Textus.”

Recension (imaginary), 271-88

Reiche (J. G.), 380-1

Reiteration not Proof, 306-7

Rendering of the same word, 138, 152-4, 187-202

Result of acquaintance with documents, 337

Rettig (H. C. M.), 442

“Revised Version,” _see_ “Revision.”

Revisers exceeded their Instructions:— (1) In respect of the English, 112, 127-30, 155-7, 225-6, 368, 400-3 (2) In respect of the Greek, 57-8, 97, 118-26, 224, 399, 403-6

Revising body (composition of), 504-5

Revision, original Resolution and Rules concerning, 3, 97, 114, 127, 130 —— of 1611, 167, 508-14 —— of 1881, how it was conducted, 37, 117-8, 369 —— unfair in its method, 116, 131-8 —— essentially different from that of 1611, 508-14 —— rests on a foundation of sand, 110, 516 —— incapable of being further revised, 107 —— its case hopeless, 226-7 —— characterized, 238 —— its probable fate, 508-14 —— unfavourable to Orthodoxy, 513 —— interesting specimens, 171, 401

Rhythm in translation, 188

Rieu (Dr.), 453

Right of possession, 199

“Ring of genuineness”, 307, 309-12

Roberts (Dr.), 36, 39-40, 48, 98, 230

Rocchi (Hieromonachus), 447-8, 474, 492, _see the_ APPENDIX.

Rogers, the poet, 162

Romans ix. 5, 210-4

Rome, (_See_ “Cozza Luzi,” “Escher”), 521

Rose, (Rev. W. F.), of Worle, Somersetshire, _Pref._ xxviii

Rouser (Professor), 306

Routh (President), 152, 211, 444, 452, 501

Sachau, 481

S. Andrews (Bp. of), _see_ “Wordsworth.”

Salisbury (Bp. of), _see_ “Moberly.”

Samaria, (woman of), 407-8

Sanday, (Dr.), _Pref._ xvi

Saville (Prof.), 306

Scholium misunderstood, 467, 468

Scholz (Dr.), 246, 380, 445, 456

Scott (Sir Gilbert), 306

Scripture, God’s provision for its safety 8, 9, 338, 494 —— depraved by heretics, 336

Scrivener (Prebendary), 13, 30, 37, 49, 106, 108, 126, 231, 237-8, 243, 246, 317, 381, 405, 431, 474, 477, 493, 502-3, _see back of Title._

Septuagint, 182, 183, 184, 228

“Sepulchre,” the Holy, 198

σημεῖον, 203-4

σικάριοι, 147

Sieber (M.), 493

σίκερα, 180

Sinaiticus, cod. (א), 11-17, 265, 286,,289, 291, 314-5, 325-6, 343-5

Sixteen places, 415-9

Smith (Dr. Vance), 174, 204-5, 503-8, 513, 515

Socinian gloss, 210-4

“_Solvere ambulando_”, 126, 228, xxxi

σπεκουλάτωρ, 147

Spelling of proper names, 186-7

σπλάγχνα, 153

σπυρίς, 171, 180

Stanley (Dean), 135, 507

Stillingfleet (Bp.), 500

στιβάς and στοιβάδες, 58-60

συντρίψασα, 185

συστρεφομένων, 176-7

Syndics of Cambridge Press, xxx-i

Syracuse, 494

Syriac Version, 9

“Syrian,” “Antiochian,” “Græco-Syrian,”—Dr. Hort’s designations of the Traditional Greek Text 257-65, 269 —— its assumed origin, 272-88 —— and history, 290-1 —— characterized, 87, 288-290

τάφος, 298

Tatian (_see_ INDEX II.) 29, 336, 350

“Teaching”, 199

τέκνον, 153, 179

τέλος, 51

Tenses, 157-64, _see_ “Aorist,” “Imperfect,” “Perfect,” “Pluperfect,” “Present.” —— unidiomatically rendered, 402

Test-places (three), 47, 519

Text to be determined by external evidence, 19-20, 45 —— provision for its security, 10 —— (Received), _see_ “Textus Receptus” and “Syrian.”

Texts, _see_ INDEX I.

’Textus Receptus’, 12-3, 17-8, 107, 118 —— (Bp. Ellicott on), 388 —— needs correction 21, 107 —— _see_ “Syrian,” “Traditional.”

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 480, _see_ INDEX II.

Theodotus, the Gnostic, 323-4

Theophilus, Bp. of Antioch, 29

θεόπνευστος, 208-9

Θεός and ὅς in MSS., 99-105, 425-6 —— , not ὅς, to be read in 1 Tim. iii. 16, _Pref._ xxi-iv, 424-501

Thierry (M.), 493

Thirty changes in 38 words, 171

1 Timothy iii. 16. _See_ Θεός

Tischendorf (Dr.) 22-4, 45, 243-4, 246, 270-1, 370, 383, 437-8, 451, 467

Title on the Cross, 85-8

“Titus Justus”, 53-4

“Tomb”, 198

Tradition (Ecclesiastical), 495

Traditional Text departed from 6000 times, 107 —— _see_ “Syrian.” —— meaning of S. Mark xiii. 32, 209-10

“Transcriptional probability”, 251-2

Translators of 1611, 187-91, 207 —— of 1881, mistaken principle of 138, 187-96

Transposition, 93-7

Tregelles (Dr.), 22, 45, 243, 246, 270, 370, 380, 383, 431, 451, 467, 498

Trench (Abp.), xlii, 106, 229

Trinitarian doctrine, 174-5

True Text, (only safe way of ascertaining), 339-42

Tusculum, 446

Tyndale (William), 167, 191, 192

Uncials (depravity of the old), 12-17, 30-5, 46-7, 75-6, 94-5

Uniformity of rendering, 166, 187

“Unitarian” Reviser, intolerable, 503-8

ὑπό and διά, 156

ὑποτύπωσις, 351

Uppström (Andr.), 452

Upsala, 444, _see_ “Belsheim.”

Ussher (Abp.), 432, 469, 500

Valckenaer, 228

Valentinus, 29

Various Readings, 49-50, 56, 65, 130-1

Vaticanus, codex (B), 11-17, 265, 273, 286, 289, 291, 314-5, 325, 342-5, _see_ “B and א.”

Veludo (Sig.), 492

Vercellone (C.), 381

Verifying faculty, 95-6, 109, 253, 290-1, 307-8

Version (Authorized), 112-4 —— (old Latin), 9, 448 —— (Vulgate), 9, 419 —— (Peschito), 9, 449-50 —— (Harkleian), 450 —— (Coptic), 9, 451-2 —— (Sahidic), 9, 451-2 —— (Gothic), 9, 452-3 —— (Armenian), 9, 453 —— (Æthiopic), 9, 453 —— (Georgian), 454 —— (Arabic), 453-4 —— (Slavonian), 454

“Vials”, 200

Von Heinemann (Dr.), 493

Vulgate, _see_ “Version.”

W. (M.), _Pref._ xxviii

Walton (Bp. Brian), 432

Waterland (Dr.), 500

Way (only safe) of ascertaining the True Test, 339-42

Weber (M.), 437

Wescher (M.), 492

“Wesleyan Methodist” Revisers, 504-5

West the painter, 162

Westcott (Dr.), xlii, 124, _see_ “Hort.”

Westcott and Hort (Drs.), 24-9, 33, 49, 51, 72, 83, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 110, 114, 125, 134-5, 177, 239-41, 245, 247, 370, 380, 382, 499, 502, 518-9, _See reverse of Title-page, and Pref._ xi-iv, xxvi-viii, xxxi

“Western,”, 357 —— readings, 271-2 —— and “Syrian”, 361

“Westminster Abbey scandal”, 507

Wetstein (J. J.), 246, 383, 426, 456, 467, 469, 480, 497

Wilberforce (Bp.), 229, 415, 505, 507

Woide (C. G.), 434-7

Wolfii _Anecd. Græca_, 458

Wood (C. F. B.), 183

Word, incarnate and written, 334-5, 390-1

Wordsworth (Dr. Charles), Bp. of S. Andrews, 106, 165, 229-30, 382 —— (Dr. Christopher), Bp. of Lincoln, 37, 112, 147, 184, 226, 368, 382, 400, 502, 505, 513, _Ded._ vi

Wotton (Henry), 433

Xenophon, 149

Young (Patrick), 432 —— (Dr.), of Glasgow, 477

ζώνη, 201

FOOTNOTES

1 Any one who desires to see this charge established, is invited to read from page 399 to page 413 of what follows.

2 Dr. Newth. See pp. 37-9.

3 See pp. 24-9: 97, &c.

4 See below, pp. 1 to 110.

5 This will be found more fully explained from pp. 127 to 130: pp. 154 to 164: also pp. 400 to 403. See also the quotations on pp. 112 and 368.

6 See below, pp. 113 to 232.

7 See below, pp. 235 to 366.

_ 8 Gospel of the Resurrection_, p. viii.

9 Reference is made to a vulgar effusion in the “_Contemporary Review_” for March 1882: from which it chiefly appears that Canon (now Archdeacon) Farrar is unable to forgive S. Mark the Evangelist for having written the 16th verse of his concluding chapter. The Venerable writer is in consequence for ever denouncing those “_last Twelve Verses_.” In March 1882, (pretending to review my Articles in the “Quarterly,”) he says:—“In spite of Dean Burgon’s Essay on the subject, the minds of most scholars are _quite unalterably made up_ on such questions as the authenticity of the last twelve verses of S. Mark.” [_Contemporary Review_, vol. xli. p. 365.] And in the ensuing October,—“If, among _positive results_, any one should set down such facts as that ... Mark xvi. 9-20 ... _formed no part of the original apostolic autograph_ ... He, I say, who should enumerate these points as being _beyond the reach of serious dispute_ ... would be expressing the views which are _regarded as indisputable_ by the vast majority of such recent critics as have established any claim to serious attention.” [_Expositor_, p. 173.]

It may not be without use to the Venerable writer that he should be reminded that critical questions, instead of being disposed of by such language as the foregoing, are not even touched thereby. One is surprised to have to tell a “fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,” so obvious a truth as that by such writing he does but effectually put himself out of court. By proclaiming that his mind is “_quite unalterably made up_” that the end of S. Mark’s Gospel is not authentic, he admits that he is impervious to argument and therefore incapable of understanding proof. It is a mere waste of time to reason with an unfortunate who announces that he is beyond the reach of conviction.

10 No. xxviii., page 436. If any one cares to know what the teaching was which the writer in the “Church Quarterly” was intending to reproduce, he is invited to read from p. 296 to p. 300 of the present volume.

_ 11 Contemporary Review_, (Dec. 1881),—p. 985 seq.

12 Q. R. (No. 304,) p. 313.—The passage referred to will be found below (at p. 14),—slightly modified, in order to protect myself against the risk of _future_ misconception. My Reviewer refers to four other places. He will find that my only object in them all was to prove that codices A B א C D _yield divergent testimony_; and therefore, so habitually _contradict_ one another, as effectually to invalidate their own evidence throughout. This has never been _proved_ before. It can _only_ be proved, in fact, by one who has laboriously collated the codices in question, and submitted to the drudgery of exactly tabulating the result.

13 “Damus tibi in manus Novum Testamentum _idem profecto_, quod ad textum attinet, cum ed. Millianâ,”—are the well known opening words of the “Monitum” prefixed to Lloyd’s N. T.—And Mill, according to Scrivener, [_Introduction_, p. 399,] “only aims at reproducing Stephens’ text of 1550, though in a few places he departs from it, whether by accident or design.” Such places are found to amount in all to _twenty-nine_.

14 See below, pp. 257-8: also p. 390.

_ 15 The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament_, &c.—Macmillan, pp. 79.

16 See below, pp. 369 to 520.

17 Pages 371-2.

_ 18 Pamphlet_, pp. 77: 39, 40, 41.

19 See below, p. 425.

20 Pages 424-501.

21 From January till June 1883.

_ 22 Pamphlet_, p. 76.

_ 23 E.g._ pages 252-268: 269-277: 305-308.

_ 24 E.g._ pages 302-306.

25 Page 354.

26 On that day appeared Dr. Hort’s “_Introduction and Appendix_” to the N. T. as edited by himself and Dr. Westcott.

27 “_Charge_,” published in the _Guardian_, Dec. 20, 1882, p. 1813.

28 Preface to _History of the English Bible_ (p. ix.),—1868.

29 Preface to _Pastoral Epistles_ (p. xiv.),—1861.

_ 30 The Authorized Version of the N. T._ (p. 3),—1858.

_ 31 The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour __JESUS CHRIST__ translated out of the Greek: being the Version set forth __A.D.__ 1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Revised __A.D.__ 1881._ Printed for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881.

_ 32 The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version._ Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.

Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. _The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version._ [Edited by the Ven. Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.

_ 33 On Revision_,—pp. 215-6.

34 Tertullian, _bis._

35 Hieron. _Opp._ ii. 177 c (see the note).

36 Apud Hieron. iii. 121.

37 iv. 617 c (ed. Pusey).

38 P. 272.

39 i. 548 c; viii. 207 a.

40 iv. 205.

41 A reference to the _Journal of Convocation_, for a twelvemonth after the proposal for a Revision of the Authorized Version was seriously entertained, will reveal more than it would be convenient in this place even to allude to.

42 We derive our information from the learned Congregationalist, Dr. Newth,—_Lectures on Bible Revision_ (1881), p. 116.

_ 43 On Revision_, pp. 26-7.

44 Dr. Scrivener’s _Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_, 2nd edition, 1874 (pp. 607), may be confidently recommended to any one who desires to master the outlines of Textual Criticism under the guidance of a judicious, impartial, and thoroughly competent guide. A new and revised edition of this excellent treatise will appear shortly.

45 Studious readers are invited to enquire for Dr. Scrivener’s _Full and exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels (hitherto unexamined), deposited in the British Museum, the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, &c., with a Critical Introduction_. (Pp. lxxiv. and 178.) 1853. The introductory matter deserves very attentive perusal.—With equal confidence we beg to recommend his _Exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, a Græco-Latin Manuscript of S. Paul’s Epistles, deposited in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge; to which is added a full Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, containing various portions of the Greek New Testament, in the Libraries of Cambridge, Parham, Leicester, Oxford, Lambeth, the British Museum, &c. With a Critical Introduction_ (which must also be carefully studied). (Pp. lxxx. and 563.) 1859.—Learned readers can scarcely require to be told of the same learned scholar’s _Novum Testamentum Textûs Stephanici, __A.D.__ 1550. Accedunt variæ Lectiones Editionum Bezæ, Elzeviri, Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, Tregellesii._ Curante F. H. A. Scrivener, A.M., D.C.L., LL.D. [1860.] Editio auctior et emendatior. 1877.—Those who merely wish for a short popular Introduction to the subject may be grateful to be told of Dr. Scrivener’s Six _Lectures on the Text of the N. T. and the Ancient MSS. which contain it, chiefly addressed to those who do not read Greek_. 1875.

46 Scrivener’s _Plain Introduction_,—p. 118.

_ 47 Bezæ Codex Cantabrigiensis: being an exact Copy, in ordinary Type, of the celebrated Uncial Græco-Latin Manuscript of the Four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, written early in the Sixth Century, and presented to the University of Cambridge by Theodore Beza_, A.D. 1581. Edited, with a Critical Introduction, Annotations, and Facsimiles, by Frederick H. Scrivener, M.A., Rector of S. Gerrans, Cornwall. (Pp. lxiv. and 453.) Cambridge, 1864. No one who aspires to a competent acquaintance with Textual Criticism can afford to be without this book.

48 On the subject of codex א we beg (once for all) to refer scholars to Scrivener’s _Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament. To which is prefixed a Critical Introduction._ [1863.] 2nd Edition, revised. (Pp. lxxii. and 163.) 1867.

49 Bishop Ellicott’s _Considerations on Revision_, &c. (1870), p. 40.

50 The epithet “_cursive_,” is used to denote manuscripts written in “running-hand,” of which the oldest known specimens belong to the IXth century. “_Uncial_” manuscripts are those which are written in capital letters. A “_codex_” popularly signifies a _manuscript_. A “version” is _a translation_. A “recension” is _a revision_. (We have been requested to explain these terms.)

_ 51 Considerations on Revision_, p. 30.

52 Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim _perfection_ for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (_e.g._ at page 107) that the _Textus Receptus_ needs correction. We do but insist, (1) That it is an incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely preferable to the “New Greek Text” of the Revisionists. And, (2) That to be improved, the _Textus Receptus_ will have to be revised on entirely different “principles” from those which are just now in fashion. Men must begin by unlearning the _German prejudices_ of the last fifty years; and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of _facts_.

53 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, pp. 342-4.

_ 54 Ut suprà_, p. 46. We prefer to quote the indictment against Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, from the pages of Revisionists.

55 “Ex scriptoribus Græcis _tantisper Origene solo_ usi sumus.”—_Præfatio_, p. xxi.

56 Scrivener’s _Plain Introd._ p. 397.

_ 57 Ut suprà_, p. 48.

_ 58 Ut suprà_, p. 47.

59 Prebendary Scrivener, _ibid._ (ed. 1874), p. 429.

_ 60 Ibid._ p. 470.

_ 61 Ibid._

_ 62 Concilia_, i. 852.

_ 63 Ut suprà_, p. 47.

_ 64 The New Testament in the Original Greek._ The Text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. Cambridge and London, 1881.

65 From the Preface prefixed to the “limited and private issue” of 1870, p. vi.

_ 66 Ut suprà_, p. xv.

_ 67 Ibid._ p. xviii.

_ 68 Ibid._ p. xvi.

_ 69 Ibid._ pp. xviii., xix.

70 [_Note,—that I have thought it best, for many reasons, to retain the ensuing note as it originally appeared; merely restoring [within brackets] those printed portions of it for which there really was no room. The third Article in the present volume will be found to supply an ample exposure of the shallowness of Drs. Westcott and Hort’s Textual Theory._]

While these sheets are passing through the press, a copy of the long-expected volume reaches us. The theory of the respected authors proves to be the shallowest imaginable. It is briefly _this_:—Fastening on the two oldest codices extant (B and א, both of the IVth century), they invent the following hypothesis:—“That the ancestries of those two manuscripts _diverged from a point near the autographs, and never came into contact subsequently_.” [No reason is produced for this opinion.]

Having thus secured two independent witnesses of what was in the sacred autographs, the Editors claim that the _coincidence_ of א and B must “mark those portions of text in which two primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission had not come to differ from each other through independent corruption:” and therefore that, “in the absence of specially strong internal evidence to the contrary,” “the readings of א and B combined _may safely be accepted as genuine_.”

But what is to be done when the same two codices diverge _one from the other_?—In all such cases (we are assured) the readings of any “binary combination” of B are to be preferred; because “on the closest scrutiny,” they generally “have the _ring of genuineness_;” hardly ever “_look suspicious_ after full consideration.” “Even when B stands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.” [We are not told why.]

But, (rejoins the student who, after careful collation of codex B, has arrived at a vastly different estimate of its character,)—What is to be done when internal and external evidence alike condemn a reading of B? How is “_mumpsimus_” for example to be treated?—“_Mumpsimus_” (the Editors solemnly reply) as “the better attested reading”—(by which they mean the reading attested by B,)—we place in our margin. “_Sumpsimus_,” apparently the _right_ reading, we place in the text within ††; in token that it is probably “_a successful ancient conjecture_.”

We smile, and resume:—But how is the fact to be accounted for that the text of Chrysostom and (in the main) of the rest of the IVth-century Fathers, to whom we are so largely indebted for our critical materials, and who must have employed codices fully as old as B and א: how is it, we ask, that the text of all these, including codex A, differs essentially from the text exhibited by codices B and א?—The editors reply,—The text of Chrysostom and the rest, we designate “Syrian,” and assume to have been the result of an “editorial Revision,” which we conjecturally assign to the second half of the IIIrd century. It is the “_Pre-Syrian_” text that we are in search of; and we recognize the object of our search in codex B.

We stare, and smile again. But how then does it come to pass (we rejoin) that the Peschito, or primitive _Syriac_, which is older by full a century and a half than the last-named date, is practically still the same text?—This fatal circumstance (not overlooked by the learned Editors) they encounter with another conjectural assumption. “_A Revision_” (say they) “of the Old Syriac version appears to have taken place early in the IVth century, or sooner; and doubtless in some connexion with the Syrian revision of the Greek text, the readings being to a very great extent coincident.”

And pray, where _is_ “the _Old Syriac_ version” of which you speak?—It is (reply the Editors) our way of designating the fragmentary Syriac MS. commonly known as “Cureton’s.”—Your way (we rejoin) of manipulating facts, and disposing of evidence is certainly the most convenient, as it is the most extraordinary, imaginable: yet is it altogether inadmissible in a grave enquiry like the present. Syriac scholars are of a widely different opinion from yourselves. Do you not perceive that you have been drawing upon your imagination for every one of your facts?

We decline in short on the mere conjectural _ipse dixit_ of these two respected scholars to admit either that the Peschito is a Revision of Cureton’s Syriac Version;—or that it was executed about A.D. 325;—or that the text of Chrysostom and the other principal IVth-century Fathers is the result of an unrecorded “Antiochian Revision” which took place about the year A.D. 275.

[But instead of troubling ourselves with removing the upper story of the visionary structure before us,—which reminds us painfully of a house which we once remember building with playing-cards,—we begin by removing the basement-story, which brings the entire superstructure in an instant to the ground.]

For we decline to admit that the texts exhibited by B א can have “diverged from a point near the sacred autographs, and never come into contact subsequently.” We are able to show, on the contrary, that the readings they jointly embody afford the strongest presumption that the MSS. which contain them are nothing else but specimens of those “corrected,” _i.e._ _corrupted_ copies, which are known to have abounded in the earliest ages of the Church. From the prevalence of identical depravations in either, we infer that they are, on the contrary, derived from the same not very remote depraved original: and therefore, that their coincidence, when they differ from all (or nearly all) other MSS., so far from marking “two primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission” of the inspired autographs, does but mark what was derived from the same corrupt common ancestor; whereby the supposed two independent witnesses to the Evangelic verity become resolved into _a single witness to a fabricated text of the IIIrd century_.

It is impossible in the meantime to withhold from these learned and excellent men (who are infinitely better than their theory) the tribute of our sympathy and concern at the evident perplexity and constant distress to which their own fatal major premiss has reduced them. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. Doubt,—unbelief,—credulity,—general mistrust of _all_ evidence, is the inevitable sequel and penalty. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort solemnly assured their brother Revisionists that “the prevalent assumption, that throughout the N. T. the true text is to be found _somewhere_ among recorded readings, _does not stand the test of experience_;”[P. xxi.] and they are evidently still haunted by the same spectral suspicion. They see a ghost to be exorcised in every dark corner. “The Art of _Conjectural Emendation_” (says Dr. Hort) “depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation founded on knowledge and method.”[_Introd._ p. 71.] Specimens of the writer’s skill in this department abound. _One_ occurs at p. 135 (_App._) where, _in defiance of every known document_, he seeks to evacuate S. Paul’s memorable injunction to Timothy (2 Tim. i. 13) of all its significance. [A fuller exposure of Dr. Hort’s handling of this important text will be found later in the present volume.] May we be allowed to assure the accomplished writer that IN BIBLICAL TEXTUAL CRITICISM, “CONJECTURAL EMENDATION” HAS NO PLACE?

71 Scrivener, _Introduction_, p. 453.—Stunica, it will be remembered, was the chief editor of the Complutensian, or _first printed_ edition of the New Testament, (1514).

72 προσέφορον αὐτῷ,—S. Matt. ix. 2.

73 Scrivener, _Plain Introd_. p. 472.

74 The words omitted are therefore the following 22:—ἡμῶν, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ... γενηθήτω τὸ θελημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ... ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.

_ 75 Companion to the Revised Version_, p. 61.

_ 76 The last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark, vindicated against recent critical Objectors and established_, by the Rev. J. W. Burgon,—pp. 334, published by Parker, Oxford, 1871.

77 As Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Chr. Wordsworth,—the learned Bishops of Chester and Lincoln. It is right to state that Bp. Ellicott “_considers the passage doubtful_.” (_On Revision_, p. 36.) Dr. Scrivener (it is well known) differs entirely from Bp. Ellicott on this important point.

_ 78 Lectures on Bible Revision_, pp. 119-20.

79 τὰς ἀληθεῖς ῥήσεις Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου.—Clemens Rom., c. 45.

_ 80 Should the Revised New Testament be authorized?_—p. 42.

_ 81 Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered,_—by Canon Cook,—pp. 221-2.

82 At p. 34 of his pamphlet in reply to the first two of the present Articles.

_ 83 On Revision_, pp. 30 and 49.

_ 84 Words of the N. T._ p. 193.

_ 85 Companion to the Revised Version_, p. 63.

_ 86 Ibid._ p. 62.

87 Viz. Eusebius,—Macarius Magnes,—Aphraates,—Didymus,—the Syriac _Acts of the App._,—Epiphanius,—Ambrose,—Chrysostom,—Jerome,—Augustine. It happens that the disputation of Macarius Magnes (A.D. 300-350) with a heathen philosopher, which has recently come to light, contains an elaborate discussion of S. Mark xvi. 17, 18. Add the curious story related by the author of the _Paschal Chronicle_ (A.D. 628) concerning Leontius, Bishop of Antioch (A.D. 348),—p. 289. This has been hitherto overlooked.

88 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 515.

89 Tisch. specifies 7 Latin copies. Origen (iii. 946 _f._), Jerome (vii. 282), and Leo (ap. Sabatier) are the only patristic quotations discoverable.

90 i. 459

91 i. 374; ii. 714; iv. 15.

92 vii. 47; viii. 13.

_ 93 Dem. Ev._ pp. 163, 342.

94 i. 180, 385.

95 In loc. Also _in Luc._ xix. 29 (_Cat. Ox._ 141).

_ 96 De Trin._ p. 84; Cord. _Cat. in Ps._ ii. 450, 745.

97 i. 845,—which is reproduced in the _Paschal Chronicle_, p. 374.

98 P. 180; cf. p. 162.

99 i. 154, 1047.

100 i. 355, 696, 6; 97 iii. 346.

101 Gr. iii. 434.

102 Ap. Galland. ix. 754.

103 i. 587; ii. 453, 454; vi. 393; vii. 311, 674; viii. 85; xi. 347. Also _Cat. in Ps._ iii. 139.

104 Ap. Chrys. vi. 424; cf. p. 417.

_ 105 In Luc._ pp. 12, 16, 502 ( = Mai, ii. 128). Also Mai, ii. 343, _Hom. de Incarn._ p. 109. _Opp._ ii. 593; v.1 681, 30, 128, 380, 402, 154; vi. 398. Maii, iii.2 286.

106 i. 290, 1298; ii. 18; iii. 480.

107 Ap. Galland. ix. 446, 476. _Concil._ iii. 1001, 1023.

_ 108 Concil._ iii. 1002.

109 Ap. Galland. ix. 629.

_ 110 Concil._ iii. 1095.

_ 111 Concil._ iii. 829 = Cyr. _Opp._ vi. 159.

_ 112 Nov. Auctar._ i. 596.

113 Montf. ii. 152, 160, 247, 269.

_ 114 Hexaem._ ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 899.

115 Ap. Galland. xii. 308.

116 Ed. Combefis, 14, 54; ap. Galland. xiii. 100, 123.

117 Ap. Galland. xiii. 235.

118 ii. 836.

119 Ap. Galland. xiii. 212.

_ 120 E.g._ Chrys. _Opp._ viii.; _Append._ 214.

121 P. 6 D.

122 Ap. Galland. iii. 809.

123 ii. 602.

124 ii. 101, 122, 407.

125 iii. 447.

126 ii. 298.

127 ii. 804; iii. 783; v. 638, 670, 788; viii. 214, 285; x. 754, 821.

128 Cord. _Cat. in Ps._ ii. 960.

129 Of the ninety-two places above quoted, Tischendorf knew of only _eleven_, Tregelles adduces only _six_.—Neither critic seems to have been aware that “Gregory Thaum.” is not the author of the citation they ascribe to him. And why does Tischendorf quote as Basil’s what _is known_ not to have been his?

130 But then, note that C is only available for comparison down to the end of ver. 5. In the 9 verses which have been lost, who shall say how many more eccentricities would have been discoverable?

_ 131 Companion to the Revised Version_, pp. 62, 63. _Words of the N. T._ p. 193.

_ 132 Words of the N. T._ p. 193.

133 Drs. Westcott and Hort (consistently enough) put them _on the self-same footing_ with the evidently spurious ending found in L.

134 True, that a separate volume of Greek Text has been put forth, showing every change which has been either actually accepted, or else suggested for future possible acceptance. But (in the words of the accomplished editor), “the _Revisers are not responsible for its publication_.” Moreover, (and this is the chief point,) it is a sealed book to all but Scholars.

It were unhandsome, however, to take leave of the learned labours of Prebendary Scrivener and Archdeacon Palmer, without a few words of sympathy and admiration. Their volumes (mentioned at the beginning of the present Article) are all that was to have been expected from the exquisite scholarship of their respective editors, and will be of abiding interest and value. _Both_ volumes should be in the hands of every scholar, for neither of them supersedes the other. Dr. Scrivener has (with rare ability and immense labour) set before the Church, _for the first time, the Greek Text which was followed by the Revisers of 1611_, viz. Beza’s N. T. of 1598, supplemented in above 190 places from other sources; every one of which the editor traces out in his _Appendix_, pp. 648-56. At the foot of each page, he shows what changes have been introduced into the Text by the Revisers of 1881.—Dr. Palmer, taking the _Text of Stephens_ (1550) as his basis, presents us with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the “Authorized Version,” and relegates the displaced Readings (of 1611) to the foot of each page.—We cordially congratulate them both, and thank them for the good service they have rendered.

135 The number is not excessive. There were about 600 persons aboard the ship in which Josephus traversed the same waters. (_Life_, c. III.)

136 ii. 61 and 83.

137 Isaiah xiv. 15.

138 S. Matthew xxi. 1-3. S. Mark xi. 1-6. S. Luke xix. 29-34.

139 א D L read—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε: C*,—αὐτον ΠΑΛΙΝ ἀποστελλει ὡδε: B,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ αὐτον ὡδε: Δ,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε: yscr—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ.

140 iii. 722, 740.

141 iii. 737, iv. 181.

142 S. Matt. xxi. 8.

143 Exod. x. 21-23.

144 S. Matth. xxvii. 45; S. Mark xv. 33; S. Lu. xxiii. 44.

145 Ap. Epiphan. i. 317 and 347.

_ 146 Intenebricatus est sol_—a: _obscuratus est sol_—b: _tenebricavit sol_—c.

147 Ap. Routh, _Opusc._ i. 79.

148 i. 90, 913; ap. Epiph. i. 1006.

_ 149 Syr._ ii. 48. So also _Evan. Conc._ pp. 245, 256, 257.

150 Mai, _Scriptt. Vett._ vi. 64.

151 i. 305.

152 Ap. Mai, ii. 436; iii. 395. Also _Luc._ 722.

153 i. 288, 417.

154 P. 233.

155 Ed. by Wright, p. 16.

156 “Sol mediâ die _tenebricavit_.” _Adv. Jud._ c. xiii.

157 iii. 922-4. Read the whole of cap. 134. See also ap. Galland. xiv. 82, append., which by the way deserves to be compared with Chrys. vii. 825 a.

158 ἀλλ᾽ ἦν σκότος θεοποίητον, διότι τὸν Κύριον συνέβη παθεῖν.—Routh, ii. 298.

159 εἶτ᾽ ἐξαίφνης κατενεχθὲν ψηλαφητὸν σκότος, ἡλίου τὴν οἰκείαν αὐγὴν ἀποκρύψαντος, p. 29.

160 ὅτι γὰρ οὐκ ἠν ἔκλειψις [sc. τὸ σκότος ἐκεῖνο] οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ. τρεῖς γὰρ ὥρας παρέμεινιν; ἡ δὲ ἔκλειψις ἐν μιᾷ καιροῦ γίνεται ῥοπῇ.—vii. 825 a.

161 i. 414, 415; iii. 56.

162 Ap. Mai, iv. 206. But further on he says: αὐτίκα γοῦν ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει οὐχ ἥλιος μόνον ἐσκότασεν κ.τ.λ.—Cyril of Jerusalem (pp. 57, 146, 199, 201, 202) and Cosmas (ap. Montf. ii. 177 _bis_) were apparently acquainted with the same reading, but neither of them actually quotes Luke xxiii. 45.

163 “In quibusdam exemplaribus non habetur _tenebræ factæ sunt, et obscuratus est sol_: sed ita, _tenebræ factæ sunt super omnem terram, sole deficiente_. Et forsitan ausus est aliquis quasi manifestius aliquid dicere volens, pro, _et obscuratus est sol_, ponere _deficiente sole_, existimans quod non aliter potuissent fieri tenebræ, nisi sole deficiente. Puto autem magis quod insidiatores ecclesiæ Christi mutaverunt hoc verbum, quoniam _tenebræ factæ sunt sole deficiente_, ut verisimiliter evangelia argui possint secundum adinventiones volentium arguere illa.” (iii. 923 f. a.)

164 vii. 235. “_Qui scripserunt contra Evangelia_, suspicantur deliquium solis,” &c.

165 This rests on little more than conjecture. Tisch. _Cod. Ephr. Syr._ p. 327.

166 Ἐκλείποντος is only found besides in eleven lectionaries.

167 The Thebaic represents “the sun _setting_;” which, (like the mention of “_eclipse_,”) is only another _interpretation_ of the darkness,—derived from Jer. xv. 9 or Amos viii. 9 (“_occidit_ sol meridie”). Compare Irenæus iv. 33. 12, (p. 273,) who says that these two prophecies found fulfilment in “eum _occasum_ solis qui, crucifixo eo, fuit ab horâ sextâ.” He alludes to the same places in iv. 34. 3 (p. 275). So does Jerome (on Matt. xxvii. 45),—“Et hoc factum reor, ut compleatur prophetia,” and then he quotes Amos and Jeremiah; finely adding (from some ancient source),—“Videturque mihi clarissimum lumen mundi, hoc est luminare majus, retraxisse radios suos, ne aut pendentem videret Dominum; aut impii blasphemantes suâ luce fruerentur.”

168 Our old friend of Halicarnassus (vii. 37), speaking of an eclipse which happened B.C. 481, remarks: ὁ ἥλιος ἐκλιπὼν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἕδρην.

169 For it will be perceived that our Revisionists have adopted the reading vouched for _only by codex_ B. What c* once read is as uncertain as it is unimportant.

170 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 60.

_ 171 On the Revised Version_, p. 14.

172 πολλὰ κατὰ γνώμην αὐτοῦ διεπράττετο, as (probably) Victor of Antioch (_Cat._ p. 128), explains the place. He cites some one else (p. 129) who exhibits ἠπόρει; and who explains it of Herod’s difficulty _about getting rid of Herodias_.

173 καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν, will have been the reading of that lost venerable codex of the Gospels which is chiefly represented at this day by Evann. 13-69-124-346,—as explained by Professor Abbott in his Introduction to Prof. Ferrar’s _Collation of four important MSS._, etc. (Dublin 1877). The same reading is also found in Evann. 28 : 122 : 541 : 572, and Evst. 196.

Different must have been the reading of that other venerable exemplar which supplied the Latin Church with its earliest Text. But of this let the reader judge:—“_Et cum audisset illum multa facere, libenter_,” &c. (c: also “Codex Aureus” and γ, both at Stockholm): “_et audito eo quod multa faciebat, et libenter_,” &c. (g2 q): “_et audiens illum quia multa faciebat, et libenter_,” &c. (b). The Anglo-Saxon, (“_and he heard that he many wonders wrought, and he gladly heard him_”) approaches nearest to the last two.

The Peschito Syriac (which is without variety of reading here) in strictness exhibits:—“_And many things he was hearing [from] him and doing; and gladly he was hearing him._” But this, by competent Syriac scholars, is considered to represent,—καὶ πολλὰ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ, ἐποίει; καὶ ἡδέως ἤκουεν αὐτοῦ.—Cod. Δ is peculiar in exhibiting καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλά, ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν,—omitting ἐποίει, καί.—The Coptic also renders, “_et audiebat multa ab eo, et anxio erat corde_.” From all this, it becomes clear that the actual _intention_ of the blundering author of the text exhibited by א B L was, to connect πολλά, _not_ with ἠπόρει, but with ἀκούσας. So the Arabian version: but not the Gothic, Armenian, Sclavonic, or Georgian,—as Dr. S. C. Malan informs the Reviewer.

174 Note, that tokens abound of a determination anciently to assimilate the Gospels hereabouts. Thus, because the first half of Luke ix. 10 (ϟα / η) and the whole of Mk. vi. 30 (ξα / η) are bracketed together by Eusebius, the former place in codex A is found brought into conformity with the latter by the unauthorized insertion of the clause καὶ ὅσα ἐδίδαξαν.—The parallelism of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Lu. ix. 10 is the reason why D exhibits in the latter place ἀν- (instead of ὑπ)εχώρησε.—In like manner, in Lu. ix. 10, codex A exhibits εἰς ἔρημον τόπον, instead of εἰς τόπον ἔρημον; only because ἔρημον τόπον is the order of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Mk. vi. 32.—So again, codex א, in the same verse of S. Luke, entirely omits the final clause πόλεως καλουμένης Βηθσαῖδά, only in order to assimilate its text to that of the two earlier Gospels.—But there is no need to look beyond the limits of S. Mark vi. 14-16, for proofs of Assimilation. Instead of ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη (in ver. 14), B and א exhibit ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν—only because those words are found in Lu. ix. 7. A substitutes ἀνέστη (for ἠγέρθη)—only because that word is found in Lu. ix. 8. For ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν, C substitutes ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν—only because S. Matth. so writes in ch. xiv. 2. D inserts καὶ ἔβαλεν εἰς φυλακήν into ver. 17—only because of Mtt. xiv. 3 and Lu. iii. 20. In א B L Δ, βαπτίζοντος (for βαπτιστοῦ) stands in ver. 24—only by Assimilation with ver. 14. (L is for assimilating ver. 25 likewise), Κ Δ Π, the Syr., and copies of the old Latin, transpose ἐνεργοῦσιν αἱ δυνάμεις (in ver. 14)—only because those words are transposed in Mtt. xiv. 2.... If facts like these do not open men’s eyes to the danger of following the fashionable guides, it is to be feared that nothing ever will. The foulest blot of all remains to be noticed. Will it be believed that in ver. 22, codices א B D L Δ conspire in representing the dancer (whose name is _known_ to have been “Salome”) as _another _“Herodias”—_Herod’s own daughter_? This gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of history—a reading as preposterous as it is revolting, and therefore rejected hitherto by _all_ the editors and _all_ the critics—finds undoubting favour with Drs. Westcott and Hort. Calamitous to relate, _it also disfigures the margin of our Revised Version of S. Mark_ vi. 22, _in consequence_.

_ 175 i.e._ “_And_” is omitted by B L Δ: “_immediately_” by א C: “_with tears_” by א A B C L Δ: “_Lord_” by א A B C D L.—In S. Mark vi. 16—(viz. “But when Herod heard thereof, he said [This is] John whom I beheaded. He is risen [from the dead],”)—the five words in brackets are omitted by our Revisers on the authority of א B (D) L Δ. But א D further omit Ἰωάννην: C D omit ὁ: א B D L omit ὅτι. To enumerate and explain the effects of all the barbarous Mutilations which the Gospels alone have sustained at the hands of א, of B, and of D—_would fill many volumes like the present_.

176 Chrysostom, vii. 825.

_ 177 On the Creed_, Art. iv. “Dead:” about half-way through.

178 The Coptic represents ὅτι ἐξέπνευσε.

179 Namely, of ἘΝ τῇ Βας. σου, which is the reading of _every known copy but two_; besides Origen, Eusebius, Cyril Jer., Chrysostom, &c. Only B L read ΕἸΣ,—which Westcott and Hort adopt.

180 i. 261.

181 i. 936, 1363.

182 i. 158.

183 P. 301.

184 Ap. Galland. vi. 53.

185 P. 396.

186 vii. 431.

187 “Ut ab additamenti ratione alienum est, ita cur omiserint in promptu est.”

188 But then, 25 (out of 320) pages of D are lost: D’s omissions in the Gospels may therefore be estimated at 4000. Codex A does not admit of comparison, the first 24 chapters of S. Matthew having perished; but, from examining the way it exhibits the other three Gospels, it is found that 650 would about represent the number of words omitted from its text.—The discrepancy between the texts of B א D, thus _for the first time brought distinctly into notice_, let it be distinctly borne in mind, is a matter wholly irrespective of the merits or demerits of the Textus Receptus,—which, for convenience only, is adopted as a standard: not, of course, of _Excellence_ but only of _Comparison_.

189 Viz. the 1st, the 7th to 12th inclusive, and the 15th.

190 Concerning “the _singular codex_ D,”—as Bp. Ellicott phrases it,—see back, pages 14 and 15.

191 Bp. Ellicott _On Revision_,—p. 42. Concerning the value of the last-named authority, it is a satisfaction to enjoy the deliberate testimony of the Chairman of the Revisionist body. See below, p. 85.

192 i. 156.

193 ii. 254.

194 i. 344

195 iv. 220, 1218.

_ 196 In Luc._ 664 (Mai, iv. 1105).

197 ii. 653.

198 “In Lucâ legimus _duos calices_, quibus discipulis propinavit,” vii. 216.

199 Τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον; τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον, ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον.

200 P. 1062.

201 ii. 747.

202 i. 1516. See below, p. 82.

203 Abbott’s _Collation of four important Manuscripts_, &c., 1877.

204 ii. 354.

205 Pp. 543 and 681 ( = ed. Mass. 219 and 277).

_ 206 Contra Noet._ c. 18; also ap. Theodoret iv. 132-3.

207 Ap. Galland. xix.; _Append._ 116, 117.

_ 208 Evan. Conc._ pp. 55, 235.

209 Ap. Epiph. i. 742, 785.

210 It is § 283 in his sectional system.

211 P. 1121.

212 ii. 43; v. 392; vi. 604. Also _Evan. Conc._ 235. And see below, p. 82.

213 Pp. 394, 402.

214 i. 551.

215 [i. 742, 785;] ii. 36, 42.

216 v. 263; vii. 791; viii. 377.

217 ii. 39.

218 Ap. Theod. Mops.

219 In loc. bis; ap. Galland. xii. 693; and Mai, _Scriptt. Vett._ vi. 306.

_ 220 Concilia_, iii. 327 a.

221 Ap. Mai, iii. 389.

_ 222 Concilia_, iii. 1101 d.

223 Schol. 34.

224 i. 692; iv. 271, 429; v. 23. _Conc._ iii. 907 e.

_ 225 Concilia_, iii. 740 d.

226 Ap. Galland. vi. 16, 17, 19.

227 Ap. Cosmam, ii. 331.

228 i. 544.

229 In Dionys. ii. 18, 30.

230 Ap. Galland. xii. 693.

_ 231 Ibid._ 688.

232 Pp. 108, 1028, 1048.

_ 233 Epist._ 138

234 P. 1061.

235 ii. 747.

236 iv. 901, 902, 1013, 1564.

237 P. 373.

238 Ap. Galland. ix. 40.

_ 239 Ibid._ xi. 693.

240 Let their own account of the matter be heard:—“The documentary evidence clearly designates [these verses] as _an early Western interpolation_, adopted in eclectic texts.”—“They can only be _a fragment from the Traditions_, written or oral, which were for a while at least _locally current_:”—an “evangelic Tradition,” therefore, “_rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second century_.”

241 Consider the places referred to in Epiphanius.

242 The Editors shall speak for themselves concerning this, the first of the “Seven last Words:”—“We cannot doubt that _it comes from an extraneous source_:”—“need not have belonged originally _to the book in which it is now included_:”—is “_a Western interpolation_.”

Dr. Hort,—unconscious apparently that he is _at the bar_, not _on the bench_,—passes sentence (in his usual imperial style)—“Text, Western and Syrian” (p. 67).—But then, (1st) It happens that our LORD’S intercession on behalf of His murderers is attested by upwards of forty Patristic witnesses _from every part of ancient Christendom_: while, (2ndly) On the contrary, the places in which it is _not found_ are certain copies of the old Latin, and codex D, which is supposed to be our great “Western” witness.

243 Dr. Hort’s _N. T._ vol. ii. _Note_, p. 68.

244 Ap. Eus. _Hist. Eccl._ ii. 23.

245 P. 521 and ... [Mass. 210 and 277.]

246 Ed. Lagarde, p. 65 _line_ 3.

247 ii. 188. _Hær._ iii. 18 p. 5.

248 Ap. Gall. iii. 38, 127.

_ 249 Ibid._ ii. 714. (_Hom._ xi. 20.)

_ 250 Evan. Conc._ 275.

251 Ap. Routh, v. 161.

252 He places the verses in _Can._ x.

253 i. 1120.

254 iii. 289.

_ 255 Cat. in Ps._ iii. 219.

256 i. 290.

257 15 times.

258 ii. 48, 321, 428; ii. (_syr._) 233.

_ 259 Evan. Conc._ 117, 256.

260 i. 607.

261 Pp. 232, 286.

262 P. 85.

263 Pp. 11, 16. Dr. Wright assigns them to the IVth century.

_ 264 Eph._ c. x.

265 ii. 166, 168, 226.

266 6 times.

267 Ap. Mai, ii. 197 ( = Cramer 52); iii. 392.—Dr. Hort’s strenuous pleading for the authority of Cyril on this occasion (who however is plainly against him) is amusing. So is his claim to have the cursive “82” on his side. He is certainly reduced to terrible straits throughout his ingenious volume. Yet are we scarcely prepared to find an upright and honourable man contending so hotly, and almost on any pretext, for the support of those very Fathers which, when they are against him, (as, 99 times out of 100, they are,) he treats with utter contumely. He is observed to put up with any ally, however insignificant, who even _seems_ to be on his side.

268 Ap. Theod. v. 1152.

269 Pp. 423, 457.

_ 270 Cat. in Ps._ i. 768; ii. 663.

271 Pp. 1109, 1134.

272 i. 374.

273 P. 93.

274 ii. 67, 747.

275 i. 814; ii. 819; v. 735.

276 P. 88.

277 Ap. Chrys. vi. 191.

278 11 times.

279 P. 782 f.

280 12 times.

281 More than 60 times.

282 Ap. Cypr. (ed. Baluze), &c. &c.

_ 283 On Revision_,—p. 42 _note_. See above, p. 78 _note_.

_ 284 Eclog. Proph._ p. 89.

_ 285 In Luc._ 435 and 718.

286 See pages 93 to 97.

287 i. 1528.

288 So Sedulius Paschalis, ap. Galland. ix. 595.

289 iii. 2.

290 Euseb. _Ecl. Proph._ p. 89: Greg. Nyss. i. 570.—These last two places have hitherto escaped observation.

291 See above, pp. 49-50, note 2.

292 Viz., thus:—ἦν δὲ καὶ ἐπιγραφὴ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων οὗτος.

293 Dean Alford, _in loc._

294 ὁ Λουκᾶς μιᾷ λέγει τῶν σαββάτων ὄρθρου βαθέος φέρειν ἀρώματα γυναῖκας ΔΎΟ τὰς ἀκολουθησάσας ἀυτῷ, αἵ τινες ἦσαν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας συνακολουθήσασαι, ὅτε ἔθαπτον αὐτὸν ἐλθοῦσαι ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα; αἵτινες ΔΎΟ, κ.τ.λ.,—_ad Marinum_, ap. Mai, iv. 266.

295 Ps. i. 79.

_ 296 Dem._ 492.

297 Ap. Mai, iv. 287, 293.

298 i. 364.

299 Ap. Mai, ii. 439.

300 Ap. Galland. xi. 224.

_ 301 Cat. in Joann._ p. 453.

302 Ps.-Chrys. viii. 161-2. Johannes Thessal. ap. Galland. xiii. 189.

303 Ap. Mai, iv. 293 _bis_; 294 _diserte_.

304 i. 506, 1541.

305 iii. 91.

306 iv. 1108, and _Luc._ 728 ( = Mai, ii. 441).

307 iii.2 142; viii. 472.

308 So Tertullian:—“_Manus et pedes suos inspiciendos offert_” (_Carn._ c. 5). “_Inspectui eorum manus et pedes suos offert_” (_Marc._ iv. c. 43). Also Jerome i. 712.

_ 309 De Resur._ 240 (quoted by J. Damascene, ii. 762).

310 Ap. Mai, iv. 294.

311 i. 906, quoted by Epiph. i. 1003.

312 Ap. Theodoret, iv. 141.

313 i. 49.

314 i. 510; ii. 408, 418; iii. 91.

315 iv. 1108; vi. 23 (_Trin._). Ap. Mai, ii. 442 _ter._

316 iv. 272.

_ 317 Cat. in Joan._ 462, 3.

318 i. 303.

319 See above, pp. 78 and 85.

320 iii. 579.

321 ii. 114 (ed. 1698).

322 ii. 9, 362, 622.

323 ii. 309; iv. 30; v. 531; vii. 581.

324 vi. 79.

_ 325 Ep._ i. (ap. Gall. i. p. xii.)

326 ii. 464.

_ 327 Text_, pp. 565 and 571.

_ 328 Append._ p. 14.

329 We depend for our Versions on Dr. S. C. Malan: pp. 31, 44.

330 ii. 147. _Conc._ v. 675.

331 Cord. _Cat._ i. 376.

332 vii. 599, 600 _diserte_.

333 Ap. Photium, p. 644.

334 Three times.

335 i. 663, 1461, ii. 1137.

336 Pp. 367, 699.

337 vii. 139.

338 Ap. Galland. vi. 324.

339 iii. P. i. 760.

_ 340 Text_, p. 572.

_ 341 Append._ p. 14.

342 ἔτι δὲ ἀπιστούντων αὐτῷ, καὶ θαυμαζόντων ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς.

343 Viz. from ch. xix. 7 to xx. 46.

344 We take leave to point out that, however favourable the estimate Drs. Westcott and Hort may have personally formed of the value and importance of the Vatican Codex (B), nothing can excuse their summary handling, not to say their contemptuous disregard, of all evidence adverse to that of their own favourite guide. They _pass by_ whatever makes against the reading they adopt, with the oracular announcement that the rival reading is “_Syrian_,” “_Western_,” “_Western and Syrian_,” as the case may be.

But we respectfully submit that “_Syrian_,” “_Western_,” “_Western and Syrian_,” as Critical expressions, are absolutely without meaning, as well as without use to a student in this difficult department of sacred Science. They supply no information. They are never supported by a particle of intelligible evidence. They are often demonstrably wrong, and _always_ unreasonable. They are _Dictation_, not _Criticism_. When at last it is discovered that they do but signify that certain words _are not found in codex_ B,—they are perceived to be the veriest _foolishness_ also.

Progress is impossible while this method is permitted to prevail. If these distinguished Professors have enjoyed a Revelation as to what the Evangelists actually wrote, they would do well to acquaint the world with the fact at the earliest possible moment. If, on the contrary, they are merely relying on their own inner consciousness for the power of divining the truth of Scripture at a glance,—they must be prepared to find their decrees treated with the contumely which is due to imposture, of whatever kind.

345 Marcion (Epiph. i. 317);—Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266);—Epiphanius (i. 348);—Cyril (Mai, ii. 438);—John Thessal. (Galland. xiii. 188).

346 [The discussion of this text has been left very nearly as it originally stood,—the rather, because the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16 will be found fully discussed at the end of the present volume. See _Index of Texts_.]

_ 347 Companion to the Revised Version_, &c., by Alex. Roberts, D.D. (2nd edit.), pp. 66-8.

348 Of this, any one may convince himself by merely inspecting the 2 pages of codex A which are exposed to view at the British Museum.

349 For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading (17, 73, 181), the second proves (on enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an abridgment of Œcumenius, who certainly read Θεός; and the last is non-existent.

_ 350 Concilia_, ii. 217 c.

351 viii. 214 b.

352 A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude of proofs that CHRIST is GOD, Gregory says:—Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαῤῥήδῃν βοᾷ; ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι. ii. 693.

353 Τοῦτο ἡμῖν τὸ μέγα μυστήριον ... ὁ ἐνανθρωπήσας δι᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ πτωχεύσας Θεός, ἵνα ἀναστήσῃ τὴν σάρκα. (i. 215 a.)—Τί τὸ μέγα μυστήριον?... Θεὸς ἄνθρωπος γίνεται. (i. 685 b.)

_ 354 De Trin._ p. 83—where the testimony is express.

355 Θεὸς γὰρ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.—_Concilia_, i. 853 d.

356 Cramer’s _Cat. in Rom._ p. 124.

357 One quotation may suffice:—Τὸ δὲ Θεὸν ὄντα, ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνεσχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ... τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἐκπλήξεως γέμον. ὂ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγεν; καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστέριον; ποῖον μέγα; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί; καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ Θεός, κ.τ.λ. i. 497. = Galland. xiv. 141.

358 The following may suffice:—μέγα γὰρ τότε τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς ὢν καὶ ὁ Λόγος; ἐδικαιώθη δὲ καὶ ἐν πνεύματι. v. p. ii.; p. 154 c d.—In a newly-recovered treatise of Cyril, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is quoted at length with Θεός, followed by a remark on the ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθεὶς Θεός. This at least is decisive. The place has been hitherto overlooked.

359 i. 92; iii. 657; iv. 19, 23.

360 Apud Athanasium, _Opp._ ii. 33, where see Garnier’s prefatory note.

361 Καθ᾽ ὂ γὰρ ὑπῆρχε Θεὸς [sc. ὁ Χριστὸς] τοῦτον ᾔτει τὸν νομοθέτην δοθῆναι πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι ... τοιγαροῦν καὶ δεξάμενα τὰ ἔθνη τὸν νομοθέτην, τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα Θεόν. Cramer’s _Cat._ iii. 69. The quotation is from the lost work of Severus against Julian of Halicarnassus.

362 Galland. xii. 152 e, 153 e, with the notes both of Garnier and Gallandius.

363 i. 313; ii. 263.

364 Ap. Athanas. i. 706.

365 iii. 401-2.

366 Ap. Phot. 230.

_ 367 Contra Hær. Noet._ c. 17.

368 Ap. Clem. Al. 973.

369 Cap. xii.

_ 370 Ad Eph._ c. 19, 7; _ad Magn._ c. 8.

371 See Scrivener’s _Plain Introd._ pp. 555-6, and Berriman’s _Dissertation_, pp. 229-263. Also the end of this volume.

372 i. 887 c.

373 ii. 74 b.

374 See above, p. 98.

375 As, that stupid fabrication, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; (in S. Matth. xix. 17):—the new incidents and sayings proposed for adoption, as in S. Mark i. 27 (in the Synagogue of Capernaum): in S. John xiii. 21-6 (at the last supper): in S. Luke xxiv. 17 (on the way to Emmaus):—the many proposed omissions, as in S. Matth. vi. 13 (the Doxology): in xvi. 2, 3 (the signs of the weather): in S. Mark ix. 44 & 46 (the words of woe): in S. John v. 3, 4 (the Angel troubling the pool), &c. &c. &c.

376 It cannot be too plainly or too often stated that learned Prebendary Scrivener is _wholly guiltless_ of the many spurious “Readings” with which a majority of his co-Revisionists have corrupted the Word of GOD. He pleaded faithfully,—but he pleaded in vain.—It is right also to state that the scholarlike Bp. of S. Andrews (Dr. Charles Wordsworth) has fully purged himself of the suspicion of complicity, by his printed (not published) remonstrances with his colleagues.—The excellent Bp. of Salisbury (Dr. Moberly) attended only 121 of their 407 meetings; and that judicious scholar, the Abp. of Dublin (Dr. Trench) only 63. The reader will find more on this subject at the close of Art. II.,—pp. 228-30.

377 Eusebius,—Basil,—Chrysostom (_in loc._),—Jerome,—Juvencus,—omit the words. P. E. Pusey found them in _no_ Syriac copy. But the conclusive evidence is supplied by the Manuscripts; not more than 1 out of 20 of which contain this clause.

378 “Revised Text” of S. Luke vi. 48.

379 “Authorized Version,” supported by A C D and 12 other uncials, the whole body of the cursives, the Syriac, Latin, and Gothic versions.

380 “Revised Text” of S. Luke v. 39.

381 “Authorized Version,” supported by A C and 14 other uncials, the whole body of the cursives, and _all_ the versions except the Peschito and the Coptic.

_ 382 Address at Lincoln Diocesan Conference_,—p. 16.

_ 383 On Revision_,—p. 99.

_ 384 Dial._ capp. 88 and 103 (pp. 306, 310, 352).

385 P. 113.

386 Ap. Galland. iii. 719, c d.

387 iv. 15 (ap. Gall. iv. 296 b).

388 42 b, 961 e, 1094 a.

389 Ap. Galland. iv. 605 (ver. 365-6).

390 Ap. Aug. viii. 423 e.

391 “Vox illa Patris, quæ super baptizatum facta est _Ego hodie genui te_,” (_Enchirid._ c. 49 [_Opp._ vi. 215 a]):—

“Illud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa voce sonuisse quod in Psalmo scriptum est, _Filius meus es tu: ego hodie genui te_, quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus Græcis non inveniri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus confirmari possit, quid aliud quam utrumque intelligendum est quolibet verborum ordine de cælo sonuisse?” (_De Cons. Ev._ ii. c. 14 [_Opp._ iii. P. ii. 46 d e]). Augustine seems to allude to what is found to have existed in the _Ebionite Gospel_.

392 Epiphanius (i. 138 b) quotes the passage which contains the statement.

393 Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως—οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς: also—ἀνθρώπων.

394 For my information on this subject, I am entirely indebted to one who is always liberal in communicating the lore of which he is perhaps the sole living depositary in England,—the Rev. Dr. S. C. Malan. See his _Seven Chapters of the Revision of 1881, revised_,—p. 3. But especially should the reader be referred to Dr. Malan’s learned dissertation on this very subject in his _Select Readings in Westcott and Hort’s Gr. Text of S. Matth._,—pp. 1 to 22.

395 So Dr. Malan in his _Select Readings_ (see above note 1),—pp. 15, 17, 19.

396 “Liber _genituræ_ Jesu Christi filii David, filii Abraham” ... “Gradatim ordo deducitur ad Christi _nativitatem_.”—_De Carne Christi_, c. 22.

397 A friendly critic complains that we do not specify which editions of the Fathers we quote. Our reply is—This [was] a Review, not a Treatise. We are _constrained_ to omit such details. Briefly, we always quote _the best Edition_. Critical readers can experience _no_ difficulty in verifying our references. A few details shall however be added: Justin (_Otto_): Irenæus (_Stieren_): Clemens Al. (_Potter_): Tertullian (_Oehler_): Cyprian (_Baluze_): Eusebius (_Gaisford_): Athanas. (1698): Greg. Nyss. (1638): Epiphan. (1622): Didymus (1769): Ephraem Syr. (1732): Jerome (_Vallarsi_): Nilus (1668-73): Chrysostom (_Montfaucon_): Cyril (_Aubert_): Isidorus (1638): Theodoret (_Schulze_): Maximus (1675): John Damascene (_Lequien_): Photius (1653). Most of the others (as Origen, Greg. Nazianz., Basil, Cyril of Jer., Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine), are quoted from the Benedictine editions. When we say “Mai,” we always mean his _Nova Biblioth. PP._ 1852-71. By “Montfaucon,” we mean the _Nov. Coll. PP._ 1707. It is necessity that makes us so brief.

_ 398 Concilia_, iii. 521 a to d.

399 i.2 340.

400 P. 889 line 37 (γένησιν).

401 i. 943 c.

402 i. 735.

403 v.1 363, 676.

_ 404 Concil._ iii. 325 ( = Cyril v.2 28 a).

405 vii. 48; viii. 314.

406 In Matth. ii. 16.

407 Ps.-Athanas. ii. 306 and 700: ps.-Chrysost. xii. 694.

408 P. 470.

409 Gall. ix. 215.

_ 410 Trin._ 188.

411 i. 250 b.

412 i. 426 a (γένησις).

413 Διαφέρει γένεσις καὶ γέννησις; γένεσις μὲν γάρ ἐστι παρὰ Θεοῦ πρώτη πλάσις, γέννησις δὲ ἡ ἐκ καταδίκης τοῦ θανάτου διὰ τὴν παράβασιν ἐξ ἀλλήλων διαδοχή.—Galland. xiv. _Append._ pp. 73, 74.

414 [dated 22 May A.D. 359] ap. Athan. i. 721 d.

415 i. 722 c.

416 P. 20 of the newly-recovered _Diatessaron_, translated from the Armenian. The Exposition is claimed for Ephraem Syrus.

417 Dr. Malan, _Seven Chapters of the Revision, revised_, p. 7.

418 See below, note 13.

419 See p. 122, note 11.

420 i. 938, 952. Also ps.-Athan. ii. 409, excellently.

_ 421 Trin._ 349.

422 P. 116.

423 i. 392; ii. 599, 600.

424 ii. 229.

425 See p. 122, note 11.

426 i. 426, 1049 (5 times), 1052-3.

427 vii. 76.

428 Galland. ix. 636.

429 P. 6 (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς: which is also the reading of Syrev and of the Sahidic. The Memphitic version represents τὸν υἱόν.)

430 i. 276.

431 Gal. xiii. 662.

_ 432 In Cat._

433 ii. 462.

434 “_Ex hoc loco quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios filios habuisse Mariam, dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi qui habeat et fratres_” (vii. 14). He refers to his treatise against Helvidius, ii. 210.

_ 435 Preface to Pastoral Epistles_,—more fully quoted facing p. 1.

436 The Preface (quoted above facing p. 1,) is dated 3rd Nov. 1868.

_ 437 Lectures on Biblical Revision_, (1881) pp. 116 seqq. See above, pp. 37-9.

_ 438 On Revision_, pp. 30 and 49.

_ 439 The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST, translated out of the Greek: being the Version set forth_ A.D. _1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Revised_ A.D. _1881_. Printed for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881.

_The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version._ Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.

Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. _The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version._ [Edited by the Ven. Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.

_The New Testament in the Original Greek._ The Text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. Cambridge and London, 1881.

440 Malan’s _Gospel of S. John translated from the Eleven oldest Versions_.

441 Int. ii. 72; iv. 622 dis.

_ 442 C. Noet._ § 4.

443 i. 1275.

_ 444 Trin._ 363.

445 Ap. Gall. v. 67.

446 i. 282.

447 i. 486.

_ 448 Ep. ad Paul. Sam. Concil._ i. 872 e; 889 e.

449 Ap. Galland. iv. 563.

450 vii. 546; viii. 153, 154, 277.

451 iii. 570; iv. 226, 1049, 1153.

452 iv. 150 (text); vi. 30, 169. Mai, ii. 69.

_ 453 Concilia_, iii. 1102 d.

454 Quoted by Leontius (Gall. xii. 693).

_ 455 In Cat._ Cord. 96.

_ 456 Ibid._ p. 94.

_ 457 Cat. in Ps._ ii. 323 and 343.

458 Ap. Photium, p. 281.

459 Montf. ii. 286.

460 i. 288, 559, 567.

461 Ps.-Athan. ii. 464. Another, 625. Another, 630. Ps.-Epiphan. ii. 287.

462 i. 863, 903, 1428.

463 Gall. iii. 296.

464 32 dis.; 514; 1045 dis.

465 Gall. vi. 192.

466 iv. 679.

467 Ap. Athan. ii. 646.

468 Gall. v. 124.

_ 469 Ibid._ iii. 628, 675.

_ 470 Ibid._ ix. 367.

_ 471 Ibid._ ix. 493.

472 Let the Reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts of the several VERSIONS above enumerated, and mentally assign each FATHER to his own approximate locality: then let him bear in mind that 995 out of 1000 of the extant MANUSCRIPTS agree with those Fathers and Versions; and let him further recognize that those MSS. (executed at different dates in different countries) must severally represent independent remote originals, inasmuch as _no two of them are found to be quite alike_.—Next, let him consider that, _in all the Churches of the East_, these words from the earliest period were read as _part of the Gospel for the Thursday in Easter week_.—This done, let him decide whether it is reasonable that two worshippers of codex B—A.D. 1881—should attempt to thrust all this mass of ancient evidence clean out of sight by their peremptory sentence of exclusion,—“WESTERN AND SYRIAN.”

Drs. Westcott and Hort inform us that “_the character of the attestation_ marks” the clause (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ), “as a WESTERN GLOSS.” But the “attestation” for retaining that clause—(_a_) Comes demonstrably from every quarter of ancient Christendom:—(_b_) Is more ancient (by 200 years) than the evidence for omitting it:—(_c_) Is more numerous, in the proportion of 99 to 1:—(_d_) In point of respectability, stands absolutely alone. For since we have _proved_ that Origen and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, Ambrose and Jerome, _recognize_ the words in dispute, of what possible Textual significancy can it be if presently (_because it is sufficient for their purpose_) the same Fathers are observed to quote S. John iii. 13 _no further than down to the words _“Son of Man”? No person, (least of all a professed Critic,) who adds to his learning a few grains of common sense and a little candour, can be misled by such a circumstance. Origen, Eusebius, Proclus, Ephraim Syrus, Jerome, Marius, when they are only insisting on the doctrinal significancy of the earlier words, naturally end their quotation at this place. The two Gregories (Naz. [ii. 87, 168]: Nyss. [Galland. vi. 522]), writing against the Apolinarian heresy, of course quoted the verse no further than Apolinaris himself was accustomed (for his heresy) to adduce it.... About the _internal_ evidence for the clause, nothing has been said; but _this_ is simply overwhelming. We make our appeal to _Catholic Antiquity_; and are content to rest our cause on _External Evidence_;—on COPIES, on VERSIONS, on FATHERS.

473 Pp. 798, 799.

474 iii. 414.

_ 475 Ant._ c. 50; _Consum._ c. 28.

_ 476 Hist. Eccl._ v. 8.

477 Ἐμβατεῦσαι;—Ἐπιβῆναι τὰ ἔνδον ἐξερευνῆσαι ἣ σκοπῆσαι. Phavorinus, quoted by Brüder.

478 Viz. S. Luke iv. 39: Acts x. 17: xi. 11: xxii. 20.

479 S. Luke ii. 9 (where “_came upon_” is better than “_stood by_ them,” and should have been left): xxiv. 4: Acts xii. 7: xxii. 13: xxiii. 11.

480 S. Luke xx. 1: xxi. 34 (last Day): Acts iv. 1: vi. 12: xvii. 5 (“assault”): xxiii. 27: xxviii. 2 (a rain-storm,—which, by the way, suggests for τὸν ἐφεστῶτα a different rendering from “_the present_”).

481 S. Luke ii. 38.

482 S. Luke x. 40.

483 Cf. ch. xi. 20. So in Latin, _Illa plurima sacrificia_. (Cic. _De Fin._ 2. 20. 63.)

484 “The context” (says learned Dr. Field) “is too strong for philological quibbles.” The words “_can by no possibility bear any other meaning_.”—_Otium Norvicense_, p. 40.

485 Στρατιώτης ὂς πρὸς τὸ φονεύειν τέτακται,—Theophylact, i. 201 e. Boys quotes Seneca _De Irá_:—_Tunc centurio supplicio præpositus condere gladium_ speculatorem _jussit_.

486 Trench, _Study of Words_, p. 106.

_ 487 Otium Norvicense_, pars tertia, 1881, pp. 155.

488 Compare Xenophon (_Cyrop._ vii. 6. 8), τοὺς Συριστὶ ἐπισταμένους. The _plena locutio_ is found in Nehem. xiii. 24,—οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτῶν ἥμισυ λαλοῦντες Ἁζωτιστί, καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐπιγινώσκοντες λαλεῖν Ἰουδαιστί (quoted by Wetstein).

489 Cf. Acts i. 23; xvii. 31. The Latin is “_statuerunt_” or “_constituerunt_.” The Revisionists give “appointed” in the second of these places, and “put forward” in the first. In both,—What becomes of their uniformity?

490 P. 279.

491 καὶ τὸν δικαστὴν εἷλεν ὁ τέως κατάδικος εἶναι νομιζόμενος καὶ τὴν νίκην αὐτὸς ὁ χειρωθεὶς ὁμολογεῖ λαμπρᾷ τῇ φωνῇ παρόντων ἁπάντων λέγων, ἐν ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. x. 307 b. (= xii. 433 a).

492 ἐν ὀλίγῳ; τουτέστι παρὰ μικρόν. ix. 391 a.

493 καὶ τὸν δικάζοντα μικροῦ μεταπεῖσαι, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον λέγειν, ἐν ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. ii. 516 d.

494 iii. 399 d.

495 v. 930 (παρ᾽ ὀλίγον).

496 MS. Note in his copy of the N. T.

497 And the Revisionists: for see Rom. xi. 4.

498 Yet even here they cannot abstain from putting in the margin the peculiarly infelicitous alternative,—“_Why didst thou forsake Me?_”

499 As in Rom. vi. 2: ix. 13. 1 Cor. i. 27: vi. 20: ix. 11. Ephes. iv. 20, &c. &c.

500 Comp. S. Matth. viii. 1, 5, 23, 28; ix. 27, 28; xxi. 23.

501 Ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς.

502 ii. 155.

503 Routh, _Rell_. iii. 226 _ad calc._

504 Ap. Mai, iv. 266.

505 ii. 1324.

506 ii. 380.

507 Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 403.

508 So also Heb. xi. 17, 28. And see the Revision of S. James i. 11.

509 Comp. ἀφίεμεν in S. Lu. xi. 4. In the case of certain Greek verbs, the _preterite_ in form is invariably _present_ in signification. See Dr. Field’s delightful _Otium Norvicense_, p. 65.

510 See above, pp. 98-106. Also _infra_, towards the end.

511 As in S. Matth. xi. 11 and 2 Tim. iv. 17, where δέ is rendered “notwithstanding:”—Phil. i. 24 and Heb. xii. 11, where it is “nevertheless.”

_ 512 Eight_ times in succession in 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, δέ is not represented in the A. V. The ancients _felt_ so keenly what Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the A. V. ventured to exhibit, that as often as not they leave out the δέ,—in which our Revisionists twice follow them. The reader of taste is invited to note the precious result of inserting “and,” as the Revisionists have done six times, where according to the genius of the English language it is not wanted at all.

513 38 times in the Genealogy, S. Matth. i.

514 Rom. xiv. 4: xv. 20.

515 Rom. ix. 22.

516 1 Cor. xii. 27.

517 Gal. ii. 4.

518 Act xxvii. 26.

519 Rom. iii. 22.

520 Ephes. iv. 1.

521 2 Cor. v. 8.

522 S. Mark xv. 31.

523 S. Mark vi. 29.

524 1 Cor. x. 1.

525 S. Matth. vi. 30.

526 S. John xx. 4.

527 2 Cor. i. 23.

528 2 Cor. vii. 13.

529 2 Cor. ii. 12.

530 2 Pet. iii. 13.

531 S. Matth. ii. 22.

532 1 Cor. xii. 20.

533 1 S. John i. 3.

534 S. Matth. xxv. 39.

535 Acts viii. 3.

536 Rom. xii. 6.

537 S. Matth. vi. 29.

538 As in S. Matth. vii. 9: xii. 29: xx. 15. Rom. iii. 29.

539 S. Matth. xx. 15: xxvi. 53. Rom. iii. 29: vi. 3: vii. 1.

540 S. John xvi. 32.

541 S. Luke xix. 23.

542 2 Cor. xiii. 1.

543 S. Luke xii. 2.

544 S. Luke xviii. 7.

545 S Luke xiv. 21.

546 1 S. John ii. 27.

547 1 S. John i. 2.

548 S. Mark ix. 39.

549 Acts xxiii. 3.

550 Consider S. Matth. iii. 16,—ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος: and ver. 6,—ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ.

551 ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συνανεστράφη.

552 Galland. iv. 6 b _bis_.

553 P. 279.

554 ix. 400.

555 ii. 707.

556 The circumstance is noticed and explained in the same way by Dr. Field in his delightful _Otium Norvicense_.

_ 557 Concilia_, iv. 79 e.

558 Thus Cyril addresses one of his Epistles to Acacius Bp. of Melitene,—_Concilia_, iii. 1111.

559 See Dr. Field’s delightful _Otium Norvicense_ (Pars tertia), 1881, pp. 1-4 and 110, 111. This masterly contribution to Sacred Criticism ought to be in the hands of every student of Scripture.

560 See Hesychius, and the notes on the place.

_ 561 Notes designed to illustrate some expressions in the Gk. Test. by a reference to the_ LXX., &c. By C. F. B. Wood, Præcentor of Llandaff,—Rivingtons, 1882, (pp. 21,)—p. 17:—an admirable performance, only far too brief.

562 Μὴ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ῥῆμα?

563 Οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ πᾶν ῥῆμα.

564 [Pointed out to me by Professor Gandell,—whose exquisite familiarity with Scripture is only equalled by his readiness to communicate his knowledge to others.]

565 μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς and ἐνταφιασμός,—S. Mark xiv. 3 and 8: S. John xii. 3 and 7. Hear Origen (apud Hieron. iii. 517):—“Non de nardo propositum est nunc Spiritui Sancto dicere, neque de hoc quod oculis intuemur, Evangelista scribit, unguento; sed _de nardo spirituali_.” And so Jerome himself, vii. 212.

566 Ps. xxxiii. 18 (ἐγγὺς Κύριος τοῖς συντετριμμένοις τὴν καρδίαν): Is. lvii. 15.

567 Consider Ignatius, _ad Ephes._ c. xvii. Also, the exquisite remark of Theod. Heracl. in Cramer’s _Cat._

568 We prefer that readers should be reminded, by the varied form, of the _Greek_ original. In the extreme case (Acts vii. 45: Hebr. iv. 8), is it not far more edifying that attention should be in this way directed to the identity of the names “_Joshua_” and “_Jesus_,” than that the latter word should be entirely obliterated by the former;—and this, only for the sake of unmistakeably proclaiming, (what yet must needs be perfectly manifest, viz.) that “_Joshua_” is the personage spoken of?

569 So, in S. Luke xxiii. 25, and Acts iii. 14: xiii. 28,—still following Tyndale.

570 Acts xii. 20.

571 Eph. iii. 13.

572 For, as the story plainly shows (2 Sam. vii. 2, 3; 1 Chron. xvii. 1, 2), it was only “_in his heart_” to build GOD an house (1 Kings viii. 17, 18). Hence Cranmer’s “_he would fain_” have done so.

573 Acts xvi. 29.

574 Col. i. 9.

575 S. Matth. xiv. 15, 22, 23 (= S. Mark vi. 36, 45, [and note the substitution of ἀποταξάμενος in ver. 46]: S. Luke ix. 12): and xv. 32, 39 (= S. Mark viii. 9).

576 S. Matt. xiii. 36: and S. Mark iv. 36.

577 Acts xii. 13.

578 Acts xvi. 16.

579 Verses 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31.

580 Twice he calls it μνῆμα.

581 Ch. xxvii. 61, 64, 66; xxviii. 1.

582 Except in 2 Tim. iii. 16,—where πρὸς διδασκαλίαν is rendered _ad docendum_.

583 Except in Rom. xii. 7,—where ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ is rendered “_on teaching_.”

584 Except in Rom. xvi. 17, where they render it “_doctrine_.”

585 And yet, since upwards of 50 times we are molested with a marginal note to inform us that διδάσκαλος means “_Teacher_”—διδασκαλία (rather than διδαχή) might have claimed to be rendered “_teaching_.”

586 Viz. Rom. xii. 7: 1 Tim. iv. 13, 16: v. 17: 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16.—Rom. xv. 4.

587 Eight times in Rev. xvi.

588 S. Matth. xxvi. 7. S. Mark xiv. 3. S. Luke vii. 37.

589 γλωσσόκομον. Consider the LXX. of 2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11.

590 ζώνας.

_ 591 E.g._ S. Matth. xxvi. 48. S. Luke ii. 12.

592 Δύναμις is rendered “miracle” in the R. V. about half-a-dozen times.

593 Acts iv. 16, 22.—On the other hand, “sign” was allowed to represent σημεῖον repeatedly in the A. V., as in S. Matth. xii. 38, &c., and the parallel places: S. Mark xvi. 17, 20: S. John xx. 30.

594 Canon Cook’s _Revised Version of the first three Gospels considered_, &c.—p. 26: an admirable performance,—unanswered, because _unanswerable_.

595 Dr. Vance Smith’s _Revised Texts and Margins_,—p. 45.

596 S. Matth. xvii. 15: S. Mk. ix. 18, 20, 22, 26: S. Lu. ix. 39, 42.

597 Consider our LORD’S solemn words in Mtt. xvii. 21,—“_But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting_,”—12 words left out by the R. V., though witnessed to by _all the Copies but_ 3: by the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian Versions: and by the following Fathers:—(1) Origen, (2) Tertullian, (3) the Syriac Clement, (4) the Syriac _Canons of Eusebius_, (5) Athanasius, (6) Basil, (7) Ambrose, (8) Juvencus, (9) Chrysostom, (10) _Opus imp._, (11) Hilary, (12) Augustine, (13) J. Damascene, and others. Then (it will be asked), why have the Revisionists left them out? Because (we answer) they have been misled by B and א, Cureton’s Syriac and the Sahidic,—as untrustworthy a quaternion of witnesses to the text of Scripture as could be named.

598 The word is only not banished entirely from the N. T. It occurs twice (viz. in Rom. i. 20, and Jude ver. 6), but only as the rendering of ἀῖδιος.

599 S. Matth. xxv. 46.

600 Clemens Al. (p. 71) says:—τὰσ γραφὰς ὁ Ἀπόστολος Θεοπνεύστους καλεῖ, ὠφελίμους οὔσας. Tertullian,—_Legimus omnem Scripturam ædificationi habilem, divinitus inspirari._ Origen (ii. 443),—πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος οὖσα ὠφελιμός ἐστι. Gregory Nyss. (ii. 605),—πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος λέγεται. Dial. (ap. Orig. i. 808),—πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος λέγεται παρὰ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου. So Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, &c.

601 See Archdeacon Lee _on Inspiration_, pp. 261-3, reading his notes.

602 S. John xvi. 15.

603 Study by all means Basil’s letter to Amphilochius, (vol. iii. p. 360 to 362.)—Ἔστιν οὖν ὁ νοῦς ὁ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ τοιοῦτος; Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ ὥρας, οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὔτε οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἄν ὁ Υἱὸς ἔγνω, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατέρ; ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτῷ ὑπῆρχε δεδομένη ἡ γνῶσις ... τουτέστιν, ἡ αἰτία τοῦ εἰδέναι τὸν Υἱὸν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός; καὶ ἀβίαστός ἐστι τῷ εὐγνωμόνως ἀκούοντι ἡ ἐξήγησις αὕτη. ἐπειδὴ οὐ πρόσκειται τὸ μόνος; ὡς καὶ παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ.—(p. 362 c.) Basil says of this interpretation—ἂ τοίνυν ἐκ παιδὸς παρὰ τῶν πατέρων ἠκούσαμεν.

_ 604 Notes_, p. 109.

_ 605 Celebre effugium_, (as Dr. Routh calls it,) _quod ex falsâ verborum constructione Critici quidam hæreticis pararunt._ _Reliqq._ iii. 322-3.

606 C alone has a point between ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων and Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τους αἰῶνας. But this is an entirely different thing from what is noted in the margin.

607 MS. communication from the Rev. S. C. Malan.

608 i. 506.

_ 609 Opusc._ i. 52, 58; _Phil._ 339.

610 iv. 612.

611 Routh, _Reliqq. Sac._ iii. 292, and 287. (_Concil._ i. 845 b. c.)

_ 612 Concilia_, i. 873 d: 876 a.

613 vi. c. 26.

614 i. 414, 415, 429, 617, 684, 908.

615 i. 282. And in _Cat._ 317.

_ 616 Trin._ 21, 29, 327, 392. Mai, vii. 303.

617 ii. 596 a, (quoted by the Emp. Justinian [_Concil._ v. 697] and the _Chronicon Paschale_, 355), 693, 697; iii. 287. Galland. vi. 575.

618 i. 481, 487, 894, 978; ii. 74.

619 Ap. Cyril (ed. Pusey), v. 534.

620 Ap. Gall. iii. 805.

621 Ap. Gall. iv. 576.

622 Ap. Phot. col. 761, 853.

623 Ap. Gall. vi. 8, 9, 80.

624 Ap. Gall. vii. 618, and ap. Hieron. i. 560.

_ 625 Concilia_, iii. 522 e ( = iv. 297 d = ap. Gall. viii. 667). Also, _Concilia_ (Harduin), i. 1413 a.

626 Ap. Gall. ix. 474.

627 Ap. Gall. ix. 690, 691 ( = _Concil._ iii. 1230, 1231).

_ 628 Homilia_ (Arm.), p. 165 and 249.

629 i. 464, 483; vi. 534; vii. 51; viii. 191; ix. 604, 653; x. 172.

630 v.1 20, 503, 765, 792; v.2 58, 105, 118, 148; vi. 328. Ap. Mai, ii. 70, 86, 96, 104; iii. 84 _in Luc._ 26.

_ 631 Concilia_, iii. 1099 b.

632 i. 103; ii. 1355; iii. 215, 470; iv. 17, 433, 1148, 1264, 1295, 1309; v. 67, 1093.

633 Cramer’s _Cat._ 160.

_ 634 Ibid. in Act._ 40.

635 P. 166.

_ 636 Concilia_, ii. 195.

637 Ap. Gall. xii. 251.

638 Ap. Gall. xii. 682.

639 ii. 64.

640 i. 557; ii. 35, 88.

641 Prax. 13, 15—“Christum autem et ipse Deum cognominavit, _Quorum patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in ævum_.”

642 P. 287.

643 Ap. Gall. iii. 296, 313.

644 i. 1470; ii. 457, 546, 609, 790.

_ 645 Concilia_, ii. 982 c.

646 78, 155, 393, 850, 970, 1125, 1232.

647 i. 870, 872.

648 Ap. Gall. viii. 157.

649 Ap. Gall. vii. 589, 590.

650 Ap. Gall. viii. 627.

651 709, 711.

652 Ap. Gall. x. 722.

653 Ap. Gall. xi. 233, 237.

_ 654 Concilia_, iii. 1364, 1382.

655 Ap. Gall. 352, 357.

_ 656 Ibid._ 674.

657 ii. 16, 215, 413.

658 i. 839; v. 769; xii. 421.

659 Those of our readers who wish to pursue this subject further may consult with advantage Dr. Gifford’s learned note on the passage in the _Speaker’s Commentary_. Dr. Gifford justly remarks that “it is the natural and simple construction, which every Greek scholar would adopt without hesitation, if no question of doctrine were involved.”

660 Note, that this has been the language of the Church from the beginning. Thus Tertullian,—“Aquam adituri ... contestamur nos renuntiare diabolo, _et pompæ et angelis ejus_” (i. 421): and Ambrose,—“Quando te interrogavit, Abrenuntias diabolo _et operibus ejus_, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio. Abrenuntias _sæculo et voluptatibus ejus_, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio” (ii. 350 c): and Ephraem Syrus,—Ἀποτάσσομαι τῷ Σατανᾷ καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ (ii. 195 and iii. 399). And Cæsarius of Arles,—“Abrenuntias diabolo, _pompis et operibus ejus_ ... Abrenuntio” (Galland. xi. 18 e).

661 2 Tim. iv. 18.

662 S. John xvii. 24.

663 P. 140.

664 Marcell. p. 192.

_ 665 In loc. diserte._

_ 666 Eth._ ii. 297.

667 viii. 485.

_ 668 Text_, iv. 1003; _Comm._ 1007, which are _two distinct authorities_, as learned readers of Cyril are aware.

_ 669 Concilia_, iii. 356 d.

670 iv. 450.

671 Pp. 235, 321.

672 i. 412; ii. 566, 649.

673 Pp. 1017, 1033.

674 Victricius ap. Gall. viii. 230. Also ps.-Chrys. v. 680.

675 iii. 966 _dis._

_ 676 Dem._ 92.

677 i. 319.

_ 678 Trin._ 190.

679 v. 1039, 1069.

680 ii. 460.

681 v. 615.

682 ii. 584. Cyril read the place both ways:—v.2 156, and _in Luc._ p. 52.

683 i. 720.

684 ii. 381; iii. 962; iv. 601.

685 Ap. Galland. vii. 183.

686 Ap. Montf. ii. 67.

687 iii. 333; v. 444; x. 498, 620; xii. 329.

688 ii. 77; iii. 349.

689 ii. 252.

690 “Deseruimus fere quos sequi solemus codices.”

691 P. 38 ( = Gall. vii. 26).

692 i. 298, 613.

693 viii. 351, 352.

694 iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.

695 i. 748; iv. 274, 550.

_ 696 In Dionys. Ar._ ii. 192.

697 As these sheets are passing through the press, we have received a book by Sir Edmund Beckett, entitled, _Should the Revised New Testament be Authorized?_ In four Chapters, the author discusses with characteristic vigour, first, the principles and method of the Revisers, and then the Gospel of S. Matthew, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, as fair samples of their work, with a union of sound sense, forensic skill, and scholarship more skilful than to deserve his cautious disclaimer. Amidst details open, of course, to discussion, abundant proofs are set forth, in a most telling style, that the plea of “necessity” and “faithfulness” utterly fails, in justification of a mass of alterations, which, in point of English composition, carry their condemnation on their face, and, to sum up the great distinction between the two Versions, illustrate “the difference between working by _discretion_ and by _rules_—by which no great thing was ever done or ever will be.” Sir Edmund Beckett is very happy in his exposure of the abuse of the famous canon of preferring the stranger reading to the more obvious, as if copyists never made stupid blunders or perpetrated wilful absurdities. The work deserves the notice of all English readers.

698 It has been objected by certain of the Revisionists that it is not fair to say that “they were appointed to do one thing, and have done another.” We are glad of this opportunity to explain.

That _some_ corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware: and had those _necessary_ changes been made, we should only have had words of commendation and thanks to offer. But it is found that by Dr. Hort’s eager advocacy two-thirds of the Revisionists have made a vast number of _perfectly needless changes_:—(1) Changes which _are incapable of being represented in a Translation_: as ἐμοῦ for μου,—πάντες for ἅπαντες,—ὅτε for ὁπότε. Again, since γέννησις, at least as much as γένεσις, means “_birth_,” _why_ γένεσις in S. Matth. i. 18? Why, also, inform us that instead of ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ πεφυτευμένην, they prefer πεφυτευμένην ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ? and instead of καρπὸν ζητῶν,—ζητῶν καρπόν? Now this they have done _throughout_,—at least 341 times in S. Luke alone. But (what is far worse), (2) They suggest in the margin changes which yet they _do not adopt_. These numerous changes are, _by their own confession_, not “necessary:” and yet they are of a most serious character. In fact, it is of these we chiefly complain.—But, indeed (3), _How many_ of their _other_ alterations of the Text will the Revisionists undertake to defend publicly on the plea of “_Necessity_”?

[A vast deal more will be found on this subject towards the close of the present volume. In the meantime, see above, pages 87-88.]

699 “We meet in every page” (says Dr. Wordsworth, the learned Bishop of Lincoln,) “with small changes which are vexatious, teasing, and irritating; even the more so because they are small (as small insects sting most sharply), _which seem almost to be made merely for the sake of change_.”—p. 25.

_ 700 On the Revision of the English Version_, &c. (1870), p. 99.

701 Bp. Ellicott, _Diocesan Progress_, Jan. 1882,—p. 19.

702 Bp. Ellicott, _On Revision_,—p. 49.

703 “_Qui_ LXX _interpretes non legit, aut minus legit accurate, is sciat se non adeo idoneum, qui Scripta Evangelica Apostolica de Græco in Latinum, aut alium aliquem sermonem transferat, ut ut in aliis Græcis scriptoribus multum diuque fuerit versatus_.” (John Bois, 1619.)—“_Græcum N. T. contextum rite intellecturo nihil est utilius quam diligenter versasse Alexandrinam antiqui Fœderis interpretationem_, E QUÂ UNÂ PLUS PETI POTERIT AUXILII, QUAM EX VETERIBUS SCRIPTORIBUS GRÆCIS SIMUL SUMTIS. _Centena reperientur in N. T. nusquam obvia in scriptis Græcorum veterum, sed frequentata in Alexandrinâ versione._” (Valcknaer, 1715-85.)

_ 704 On the Authorized Version_,—p. 3.

_ 705 Preface_, p. xiv.

_ 706 Quarterly Review_, No. 304.

_ 707 Quarterly Review_, No. 305.

708 At the head of the present Article, as it originally appeared, will be found enumerated Dr. Scrivener’s principal works. It shall but be said of them, that they are wholly unrivalled, or rather unapproached, in their particular department. Himself an exact and elegant Scholar,—a most patient and accurate observer of Textual phenomena, as well as an interesting and judicious expositor of their significance and value;—guarded in his statements, temperate in his language, fair and impartial (even kind) to all who come in his way:—Dr. Scrivener is the very best teacher and guide to whom a beginner can resort, who desires to be led by the hand, as it were, through the intricate mazes of Textual Criticism. His _Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the use of Biblical Students_, (of which a third edition is now in the press,) is perforce the most generally useful, because the most comprehensive, of his works; but we strenuously recommend the three prefatory chapters of his _Full and Exact Collation of about twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Gospels_ [pp. lxxiv. and 178,—1853], and the two prefatory chapters of his _Exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis_, &c., to which is added a full Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, [pp. lxxx. and 563,—1859,] to the attention of students. His Collation of _Codex Bezæ_ (D) is perhaps the greatest of his works: but whatever he has done, he has done best. It is instructive to compare his collation of Cod. א with Tischendorf’s. No reader of the Greek Testament can afford to be without his reprint of Stephens’ ed. of 1550: and English readers are reminded that Dr. Scrivener’s is the only _classical_ edition of the English Bible,—_The Cambridge Paragraph Bible_, &c., 1870-3. His Preface or “Introduction” (pp. ix.-cxx.) passes praise. Ordinary English readers should enquire for his _Six Lectures on the Text of the N. T._, &c., 1875,—which is in fact an attempt to popularize the _Plain Introduction_. The reader is referred to note 1 at the foot of page 243.

709 “Agmen ducit Carolus Lachmannus (_N. T. Berolini_ 1842-50), ingenii viribus et elegantiâ doctrinæ haud pluribus impar; editor N. T. audacior quam limatior: cujus textum, a recepto longè decedentem, tantopere judicibus quibusdam subtilioribus placuisse jamdudum miramur: quippe qui, abjectâ tot cæterorum codicum Græcorum ope, perpaucis antiquissimis (nec iis integris, nec per eum satis accuratè collatis) innixus, libros sacros ad sæculi post Christum quarti normam restituisse sibi videatur; versionum porrò (cujuslibet codicis ætatem facilè superantium) Syriacæ atque Ægyptiacarum contemptor, neutrius linguæ peritus; Latinarum contrà nimius fautor, præ Bentleio ipso Bentleianus.”—Scrivener’s Preface to _Nov. Test, textûs Stephanici_, &c. See above, p. 238, _note_.

710 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 429.

711 N. T. Part II. p. 2.

712 No one who attends ever so little to the subject can require to be assured that “_The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the variations adopted in the Revised Version_,” edited by Dr. Scrivener for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1881, does not by any means represent his own views. The learned Prebendary merely edited the decisions of the two-thirds majority of the Revisionists,—_which were not his own_.

713 Those who have never tried the experiment, can have no idea of the strain on the attention which such works as those enumerated in p. 238 (_note_) occasion. At the same time, it cannot be too clearly understood that it is chiefly by the multiplication of _exact_ collations of MSS. that an abiding foundation will some day be laid on which to build up the _Science_ of Textual Criticism. We may safely keep our “_Theories_” back till we have collated our MSS.,—re-edited our Versions,—indexed our Fathers. They will be abundantly in time _then_.

_ 714 Introduction_, p. 18.

715 See lower part of page 17. Also note at p. 75 and middle of p. 262.

716 P. 13, cf. p. viii.

717 They are as follows:—

[1st] S. Mark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion the multitude, when they beheld our SAVIOUR and His Disciples departing in order to cross over unto the other side of the lake, ran on foot thither,—(α) “_and outwent them_—(β) _and came together unto Him_” (_i.e._ on His stepping out of the boat: not, as Dr. Hort strangely imagines [p. 99], on His emerging from the scene of His “retirement” in “some sequestered nook”).

Now here, A substitutes συνέδραμον [_sic_] for συνῆλθον.—א B with the Coptic and the Vulg. omit clause (β).—D omits clause (α), but substitutes “_there_” (αὐτοῦ) for “_unto Him_” in clause (β),—exhibits therefore a fabricated text.—The Syriac condenses the two clauses thus:—“_got there before Him_.”—L, Δ, 69, and 4 or 5 of the old Latin copies, read diversely from all the rest and from one another. The present is, in fact, one of those many places in S. Mark’s Gospel where all is contradiction in those depraved witnesses which Lachmann made it his business to bring into fashion. Of _Confusion_ there is plenty. “Conflation”—as the Reader sees—there is none.

[2nd] In S. Mark viii. 26, our SAVIOUR (after restoring sight to the blind man of Bethsaida) is related to have said,—(α) “_Neither enter into the village_”—(β) “_nor tell it to any one_—(γ) _in the village_.” (And let it be noted that the trustworthiness of this way of exhibiting the text is vouched for by A C N Δ and 12 other uncials: by the whole body of the cursives: by the Peschito and Harklensian, the Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions: and by the only Father who quotes the place—Victor of Antioch. [Cramer’s _Cat._ p. 345, lines 3 and 8.])

But it is found that the “two false witnesses” (א B) omit clauses (β) and (γ), retaining only clause (α). One of these two however (א), aware that under such circumstances μηδέ is intolerable, [Dr. Hort, on the contrary, (only because he finds it in B,) considers μηδέ “_simple and vigorous_” as well as “unique” and “peculiar” (p. 100).] substitutes μή. As for D and the Vulg., they substitute and paraphrase, importing from Matt. ix. 6 (or Mk. ii. 11), “_Depart unto thine house_.” D proceeds,—“_and tell it to no one_ [μηδενὶ εἴπῃς, from Matth. viii. 4,] _in the village_.” Six copies of the old Latin (b f ff-2 g-1-2 l), with the Vulgate, exhibit the following paraphrase of the entire place:—“_Depart unto thine house, and if thou enterest into the village, tell it to no one._” The same reading exactly is found in Evan. 13-69-346: 28, 61, 473, and i, (except that 28, 61, 346 exhibit “_say nothing_ [from Mk. i. 44] _to no one_.”) All six however add at the end,—“_not even in the village_.” Evan. 124 and a stand alone in exhibiting,—“_Depart unto thine house; and enter not into the village; neither tell it to any one_,”—to which 124 [not a] adds,—“_in the village_.”... _Why_ all this contradiction and confusion is now to be called “Conflation,”—and what “clear evidence” is to be elicited therefrom that “Syrian” are posterior alike to “Western” and to “neutral” readings,—passes our powers of comprehension.

We shall be content to hasten forward when we have further informed our Readers that while Lachmann and Tregelles abide by the Received Text in this place; Tischendorf, _alone of Editors_, adopts the reading of א (μη εις την κωμην εισελθης): while Westcott and Hort, _alone of Editors_, adopt the reading of B (μηδε εις την κωμην εισελθης),—so ending the sentence. What else however but calamitous is it to find that Westcott and Hort have persuaded their fellow Revisers to adopt the same mutilated exhibition of the Sacred Text? The consequence is, that henceforth,—instead of “_Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town_,”—we are invited to read, “_Do not even enter into the village_.”

[3rd] In S. Mk. ix. 38,—S. John, speaking of one who cast out devils in CHRIST’S Name, says—(α) “_who followeth not us, and we forbad him_—(β) _because he followeth not us_.”

Here, א B C L Δ the Syriac, Coptic, and Æthiopic, omit clause (α), retaining (β). D with the old Latin and the Vulg. omit clause (β), but retain (α).—Both clauses are found in A N with 11 other uncials and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Gothic, and the only Father who quotes the place,—Basil [ii. 252].—Why should the pretence be set up that there has been “Conflation” here? Two Omissions do not make one Conflation.

[4th] In Mk. ix. 49,—our SAVIOUR says,—“_For_ (α) _every one shall be salted with fire_—_and_ (β) _every sacrifice shall be salted with salt_.”

Here, clause (α) is omitted by D and a few copies of the old Latin; clause (β) by א B L Δ.

But such an ordinary circumstance as the omission of half-a-dozen words by Cod. D is so nearly without textual significancy, as scarcely to merit commemoration. And do Drs. Westcott and Hort really propose to build their huge and unwieldy hypothesis on so flimsy a circumstance as the concurrence in error of א B L Δ,—especially in S. Mark’s Gospel, which those codices exhibit more unfaithfully than any other codices that can be named? Against them, are to be set on the present occasion A C D N with 12 other uncials and the whole body of the cursives: the Ital. and Vulgate; both Syriac; the Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions; besides the only Father who quotes the place,—Victor of Antioch. [Also “Anon.” p. 206: and see Cramer’s _Cat._ p. 368.]

[5th] S. Luke (ix. 10) relates how, on a certain occasion, our SAVIOUR “_withdrew to a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida_:” which S. Luke expresses in six words: viz. [1] εἰς [2] τόπον [3] ἔρημον [4] πόλεως [5] καλουμένης [6] Βηθσαϊδά: of which six words,—

(_a_)—א and Syrcu retain but three,—1, 2, 3.

(_b_)—The Peschito retains but four,—1, 2, 3, 6.

(_c_)—B L X Ξ D and the 2 Egyptian versions retain other four,—1, 4, 5, 6: but for πόλεως καλουμένης D exhibits κώμην λεγομένην.

(_d_)—The old Latin and Vulg. retain five,—1, 2, 3, 5, 6: but for “_qui_ (or _quod_) _vocabatur_,” the Vulg. _b_ and _c_ exhibit “_qui_ (or _quod_) est.”

(_e_)—3 cursives retain other five, viz. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6: while,

(_f_)—A C Δ E, with 9 more uncials and the great bulk of the cursives,—the Harklensian, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions,—retain _all the six words_.

In view of which facts, it probably never occurred to any one before to suggest that the best attested reading of all is the result of “conflation,” _i.e._ of _spurious mixture_. Note, that א and D have, this time, changed sides.

[6th] S. Luke (xi. 54) speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees as (α) “_lying in wait for Him_,” (β) _seeking_ (γ) _to catch something out of His mouth_ (δ) “_that they might accuse Him_.” This is the reading of 14 uncials headed by A C, and of the whole body of the cursives: the reading of the Vulgate also and of the Syriac. What is to be said against it?

It is found that א B L with the Coptic and Æthiopic Versions omit clauses (β) and (δ), but retain clauses (α) and (γ).—Cod. D, in conjunction with Cureton’s Syriac and the old Latin, retains clause (β), and _paraphrases all the rest of the sentence_. How then can it be pretended that there has been any “Conflation” here?

In the meantime, how unreasonable is the excision from the Revised Text of clauses (β) and (δ)—(ζητοῦντες ... ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτόν)—which are attested by A C D and 12 other uncials, together with the whole body of the cursives; by all the Syriac and by all the Latin copies!... Are we then to understand that א B, and the Coptic Version, outweigh every other authority which can be named?

[7th] The “rich fool” in the parable (S. Lu. xii. 18), speaks of (α) πάντα τὰ γενήματά μου, καὶ (β) τὰ ἀγαθά μου. (So A Q and 13 other uncials, besides the whole body of the cursives; the Vulgate, Basil, and Cyril.)

But א D (with the old Latin and Cureton’s Syriac [which however drops the πάντα]), retaining clause (α), omit clause (β).—On the other hand, B T, (with the Egyptian Versions, the Syriac, the Armenian, and Æthiopic,) retaining clause (β), substitute τὸν σῖτον (a gloss) for τὰ γενήματα in clause (α). Lachmann, Tisch., and Alford, accordingly retain the traditional text in this place. So does Tregelles, and so do Westcott and Hort,—only substituting τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα. Confessedly therefore there has been no “Syrian conflation” _here_: for all that has happened has been _the substitution_ by B of τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα; and the omission of 4 words by א D. This instance must therefore have been an oversight.—Only once more.

[8th] S. Luke’s Gospel ends (xxiv. 53) with the record that the Apostles were continually in the Temple, “(α) _praising and_ (β) _blessing _GOD.” Such is the reading of 13 uncials headed by A and every known cursive: a few copies of the old Lat., the Vulg., Syraic, Philox., Æthiopic, and Armenian Versions. But it is found that א B C omit clause (α): while D and seven copies of the old Latin omit clause (β).

And this completes the evidence for “Conflation.” We have displayed it thus minutely, lest we should be suspected of unfairness towards the esteemed writers on _the only occasion_ which they have attempted argumentative proof. Their theory has at last _forced them_ to make an appeal to Scripture, and to produce some actual specimens of their meaning. After ransacking the Gospels for 30 years, they have at last fastened upon _eight_: of which (as we have seen), several have really no business to be cited,—as not fulfilling the necessary conditions of the problem. To prevent cavil however, let _all but one_, the [7th], pass unchallenged.

718 The Reader is referred to pp. 17, 75, 249.

_ 719 E.g._ pp. 115, 116, 117, 118, &c.

720 Referred to below, p. 296.

721 See above, pages 257 (bottom) and 258 (top).

722 See above, pp. 37 to 38.

_ 723 Ibid._ p. 39.

724 To speak with entire accuracy, Drs. Westcott and Hort require us to believe that the Authors of the [imaginary] Syrian Revisions of A.D. 250 and A.D. 350, interpolated the genuine Text of the Gospels, with between 2877 (B) and 3455 (א) spurious words; mutilated the genuine Text in respect of between 536 (B) and 839 (א) words:—substituted for as many genuine words, between 935 (B) and 1114 (א) uninspired words:—licentiously transposed between 2098 (B) and 2299 (א):—and in respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c., altered without authority between 1132 (*B*) and 1265 (א) words.

725 Quoted by Canon Cook, _Revised Version Considered_,—p. 202.

_ 726 i.e._ say from A.D. 90 to A.D. 250-350.

727 See above, p. 269.

728 “If,” says Dr. Hort, “an editor were for any purpose to make it his aim to restore as completely as possible the New Testament of Antioch in A.D. 350, he could not help taking the approximate consent of the cursives as equivalent to _a primary documentary witness_. And he would not be the less justified in so doing for being unable to say precisely by what historical agencies THE ONE ANTIOCHIAN ORIGINAL”—[note the fallacy!]—“_was multiplied into the cursive hosts of the later ages_.”—Pp. 143-4.

729 Preface to the “limited and private issue” of 1870, p. xviii.: reprinted in the _Introduction_ (1881), p. 66.

_ 730 Ibid._

731 P. 65 (§ 84). In the Table of Contents (p. xi.), “_Personal instincts_” are substituted for “_Personal discernment_.”

_ 732 The Revisers and the Greek Text_,—p. 19.

_ 733 Introduction_,—p. xiii.

_ 734 Notes_, p. 22.

_ 735 Notes_, p. 88.

_ 736 Notes_,—p. 51.

737 Scrivener’s _Plain Introduction_,—pp. 507-8.

738 Scrivener’s “_Introduction_,” pp. 513-4.

739 In S. MATTH. i. 25,—the omission of “_her first-born_:”—in vi. 13, the omission of the _Doxology_:—in xii. 47, the omission of _the whole verse_:—in xvi. 2, 3, the omission of our LORD’S memorable words concerning the _signs of the weather_:—in xvii. 21, the omission of the mysterious statement, “_But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting_:”—in xviii. 11, the omission of the precious words “_For the Son of man came to save that which was lost_.”

In S. MARK xvi. 9-20, the omission of the “_last Twelve Verses_,”—(“the contents of which are _not such as could have been invented_ by any scribe or editor of the Gospel,”—W. and H. p. 57). All admit that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is an impossible ending.

In S. LUKE vi. 1, the suppression of the unique δευτεροπρώτῳ; (“the very obscurity of the expression attesting strongly to its genuineness,”—Scrivener, p. 516, and so W. and H. p. 58):—ix. 54-56, the omitted _rebuke to the_ “_disciples James and John_:”—in x. 41, 42, the omitted _words concerning Martha and Mary_:—in xxii. 43, 44, the omission of the _Agony in the Garden_,—(which nevertheless, “_it would be impossible to regard_ as a product of the inventiveness of scribes,”—W. and H. p. 67):—in xxiii. 17, a memorable clause omitted:—in xxiii. 34, the omission of our Lord’s _prayer for His murderers_,—(concerning which Westcott and Hort remark that “_few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this_”—p. 68):—in xxiii. 38, the statement that the Inscription on the Cross was “_in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew_:”—in xxiv. 12, _the visit of S. Peter to the Sepulchre_. Bishop Lightfoot remarks concerning S. Luke ix. 56: xxii. 43, 44: and xxiii. 34,—“_It seems impossible to believe that these incidents are other than authentic_,”—(p. 28.)

In S. JOHN iii. 13, the solemn clause “_which is in heaven_:”—in v. 3, 4, the omitted incident of _the troubling of the pool_:—in vii. 53 to viii. 11, _the narrative concerning the woman taken in adultery_ omitted,—concerning which Drs. W. and H. remark that “_the argument which has always told most in its favour in modern times is its own internal character_. The story itself has justly seemed _to vouch for its own substantial truth_, and the words in which it is clothed to harmonize with those of other Gospel narratives”—(p. 87). Bishop Lightfoot remarks that “_the narrative bears on its face the highest credentials of authentic history_”—(p. 28).

740 To some extent, even the unlearned Reader may easily convince himself of this, by examining the rejected “alternative” Readings in the margin of the “Revised Version.” The “Many” and the “Some ancient authorities,” there spoken of, _almost invariably include_—sometimes _denote_—codd. B א, one or both of them. These constitute the merest fraction of the entire amount of corrupt readings exhibited by B א; but they will give English readers some notion of the problem just now under consideration.

Besides the details already supplied [see above, pages 16 and 17:—30 and 31:—46 and 47:—75:—249:—262:—289:—316 to 319] concerning B and א,—(the result of laborious collation,)—some particulars shall now be added. The piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side, thrust in after Matt. xxvii. 49:—the eclipse of the sun when the moon was full, in Lu. xxiii. 45:—the monstrous figment concerning Herod’s daughter, thrust into Mk. vi. 22:—the precious clauses omitted in Matt. i. 25 and xviii. 11:—in Lu. ix. 54-6, and in Jo. iii. 13:—the wretched glosses in Lu. vi. 48: x. 42: xv. 21: Jo. x. 14 and Mk. vi. 20:—the substitution of οινον (for οξος) in Matt. xxvii. 34,—of Θεος (for υιος) in Jo. i. 18,—of ανθρωπου (for Θεου) in ix. 35,—of οὑ (for ῷ) in Rom. iv. 8:—the geographical blunder in Mk. vii. 31: in Lu. iv. 44:—the omission in Matt. xii. 47,—and of two important verses in Matt. xvi. 2, 3:—of ιδια in Acts i. 19:—of εγειραι και in iii. 6;—and of δευτεροπρωτω in Lu. vi. 1:—the two spurious clauses in Mk. iii. 14, 16:—the obvious blunders in Jo. ix. 4 and 11:—in Acts xii. 25—besides the impossible reading in 1 Cor. xiii. 3,—make up a heavy indictment against B and א jointly—which are here found in company with just a very few disreputable allies. Add, the plain error at Lu. ii. 14:—the gloss at Mk. v. 36:—the mere fabrication at Matt. xix. 17:—the omissions at Matt. vi. 13: Jo. v. 3, 4.

B (in company with others, but apart from א) by exhibiting βαπτισαντες in Matt. xxviii. 19:—ὡδε των in Mk. ix. 1:—“seventy-_two_,” in Lu. x. 1:—the blunder in Lu. xvi. 12:—and the grievous omissions in Lu. xxii. 43, 44 (CHRIST’S Agony in the Garden),—and xxiii. 34 (His prayer for His murderers),—enjoys unenviable distinction.—B, singly, is remarkable for an obvious blunder in Matt. xxi. 31:—Lu. xxi. 24:—Jo. xviii. 5:—Acts x. 19—and xvii. 28:—xxvii. 37:—not to mention the insertion of δεδομενον in Jo. vii. 39.

א (in company with others, but apart from B) is conspicuous for its sorry interpolation of Matt. viii. 13:—its substitution of εστιν (for ην) in S. John i. 4:—its geographical blunder in S. Luke xxiv. 13:—its textual blunder at 1 Pet. i. 23.—א, singly, is remarkable for its sorry paraphrase in Jo. ii. 3:—its addition to i. 34:—its omissions in Matt. xxiii. 35:—Mk. i. 1:—Jo. ix. 38:—its insertion of Ησαιου in Matt. xiii. 35:—its geographical blunders in Mk. i. 28:—Lu. i. 26:—Acts viii. 5:—besides the blunders in Jo. vi. 51—and xiii. 10:—1 Tim. iii. 16:—Acts xxv. 13:—and the clearly fabricated narrative of Jo. xiii. 24. Add the fabricated text at Mk. xiv. 30, 68, 72; of which the object was “so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter’s denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed twice.”

741 Characteristic, and fatal beyond anything that can be named are, (1) The _exclusive_ omission by B and א of Mark xvi. 9-20:—(2) The omission of εν Εφεσῳ, from Ephes. i. 1:—(3) The blunder, αποσκιασματος, in James i. 17:—(4) The nonsensical συστρεφομενων in Matt. xvii. 22:—(5) That “vile error,” (as Scrivener calls it,) περιελοντες, in Acts xxviii. 13:—(6) The impossible order of words in Lu. xxiii. 32; and (7) The extraordinary order in Acts i. 5:—(8) The omission of the last clause of the LORD’S prayer, in Lu. xi. 4; and (9) Of that solemn verse, Matt. xvii. 21; and (10) Of ισχυρον in Matt. xiv. 30:—(11) The substitution of εργων (for τεκνων) in Matt. xi. 29:—(12) Of ελιγμα (for μιγμα) in Jo. xix. 39,—and (13) of ην τεθειμενος (for ετεθη) in John xix. 41. Then, (14) The thrusting of Χριστος into Matt. xvi. 21,—and (15) Of ὁ Θεος into vi. 8:—besides (16) So minute a peculiarity as Βεεζεβουλ in Matt. x. 35: xii. 24, 27: Lu. xi. 15, 18, 19. (17) Add, the gloss at Matt. xvii. 20, and (18) The omissions at Matt. v. 22: xvii. 21.—It must be admitted that such peculiar blemishes, taken collectively, constitute a proof of affinity of origin,—community of descent from one and the same disreputable ancestor. But space fails us.

The Reader will be interested to learn that although, in the Gospels, B combines exclusively with A, but 11 times; and with C, but 38 times: with D, it combines exclusively 141 times, and with א, 239 times: (viz. in Matt. 121,—in Mk. 26,—in Lu. 51,—in Jo. 41 times).

Contrast it with A:—which combines exclusively with D, 21 times: with א 13 times: with B, 11 times: with C, 4 times.

742 The Reviewer speaks from actual inspection of both documents. They are essentially dissimilar. The learned Ceriani assured the Reviewer (in 1872) that whereas the Vatican Codex must certainly have been written _in Italy_,—the birthplace of the Sinaitic was [_not_ Egypt, but] _either Palestine or Syria_. Thus, considerations of time and place effectually dispose of Tischendorf’s preposterous notion that the Scribe of Codex B wrote _six leaves_ of א: an imagination which solely resulted from the anxiety of the Critic to secure for his own cod. א the same antiquity which is claimed for the vaunted cod. B.

This opinion of Dr. Tischendorf’s rests on the same fanciful basis as his notion that _the last verse_ of S. John’s Gospel in א was not written by the same hand which wrote the rest of the Gospel. There is _no manner of difference_: though of course it is possible that the scribe took a new pen, preliminary to writing that last verse, and executing the curious and delicate ornament which follows. Concerning S. Jo. xxi. 25, see above, pp. 23-4.

743 Tischendorf’s narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript (“_When were our Gospels written?_”), [1866,] p. 23.

744 “Papyrus Inédit de la Bibliothèque de M. Ambroise Firmin-Didot. Nouveaux fragments d’Euripide et d’autres Poètes Grecs, publiés par M. Henri Weil. (Extrait des _Monumens Grecs publiés par l’Association pour l’encouragement des Etudes Grecques en France_. Année 1879.)” Pp. 36.

745 The rest of the passage may not be without interest to classical readers:—“Ce n’est pas à dire qu’elle soit tout à fait sans intérêt, sans importance: pour la constitution du texte. Elle nous apprend que, au vers 5, ἀρίστων, pour ἀριστέων (correction de Wakefield) était déjà l’ancienne vulgate; et que les vers 11 et 12, s’ils sont altérés, comme l’assurent quelques éditeurs d’Euripide, l’étaient déjà dans l’antiquité.

“L’homme ... était aussi ignorant que négligent. Je le prends pour un Egyptien n’ayant qu’une connoissance très imparfaite de la langue grecque, et ne possédant aucune notion ni sur l’orthographe, ni sur les règles les plus élémentaires du trimètre iambique. Le plus singulier est qu’il commence sa copie au milieu d’un vers et qu’il la finisse de même. Il oublie des lettres nécessaires, il en ajoute de parasites, il les met les unes pour les autres, il tronque les mots ou il les altère, au point de détruire quelquefois la suite de la construction et le sens du passage.” A faithful copy of the verses in minuscule characters is subjoined for the gratification of Scholars. We have but divided the words and inserted capital letters:—

“ανδρων αριστων οι δε πανχρυσον δερος Πελεια μετηλθον ου γαρ τον δεσπονα εμην Μηδια πυργους γης επλευσε Ειολκιας ερωτι θυμωδ εγπλαγις Ιανοσονος οτ αν κτανει πισας Πελειαδας κουρας πατερα κατοικη τηνδε γην Κορινθιαν συν ανδρι και τεκνοισιν ανδανοισα μεν φυγη πολιτων ων αφηκετο χθονος.”

An excellent scholar (R. C. P.) remarks,—“The fragment must have been written from dictation (of small parts, as it seems to me); and by an illiterate scribe. It is just such a result as one might expect from a half-educated reader enunciating Milton for a half-educated writer.”

746 See p. 324 _note_ 1.—Photius [cod. 48] says that “Gaius” was a presbyter of Rome, and ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπος. See Routh’s _Reliqq._ ii. 125.

747 Eusebius, _Hist. Ecol._ v. 28 (ap. Routh’s _Reliqq._ ii. 132-4).

748 Tregelles, Part ii. p. 2.

749 Scrivener’s prefatory _Introduction_,—p. xix.

_ 750 Ibid._ p. iii.

_ 751 On Revision_,—p. 47.

752 Singular to relate, S. Mark x. 17 to 31 _exactly_ fills two columns of cod. א. (See Tischendorf’s reprint, 4to, p. 24*.)

753 Clemens Al. (ed. Potter),—pp. 937-8.... Note, how Clemens begins § v. (p. 938, line 30). This will be found noticed below, viz. at p. 336, note 3.

754 “This Text” (say the Editors) “is _an attempt to reproduce at once the autograph Text_.”—_Introduction_, p. xxviii.

755 Westcott and Hort’s _Introduction_, pp. 112-3.

756 Besides,—All but L. conspire 5 times. All but T. 3 times. All but Tr. 1 time. Then,—T. Tr. WH. combine 2 times T. WH. RT. 1 time Tr. WH. RT. 1 time L. Tr. WH. 1 time Then,—L. T. stand by themselves 1 time L. Tr. 1 time T. WH. 1 time Lastly,—L. stands alone 4 times. Total: 21.

_ 757 Twice_ he agrees with all 5: viz. omitting ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν in ver. 21; and in omitting ῆ γυναῖκα (in ver. 29):—_Once_ he agrees with only Lachmann: viz. in transposing ταῦτα πάντα (in ver. 20).

758 On the remaining 5 occasions (17 + 3 + 5 = 25), Clemens exhibits peculiar readings of his own,—sides with _no one_.

_ 759 Q. R._ p. 360.

760 Article xx. § 1.

761 Εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—S. John xvi. 13.

762 Theodoret, _Opp._ iv. 208.—Comp. Clinton, _F. R._ ii. _Appendix_, p. 473.

763 The reader is invited to enquire for Bp. Kaye (of Lincoln)’s _Account of the writings of Clement of Alexandria_,—and to read the vith and viiith chapters.

764 Ταῦτα μὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται. (§ v.),—p. 938.

765 Alford’s N. T. vol. i. proleg. p. 92.

766 See p. 197 (§ 269): and p. 201 (§ 275-9):—and p. 205 (§ 280).

_ 767 Preface_ (1870), p. xv.

768 See above, pp. 79 to 85.

769 Pp. 359-60.

770 P. 210 to p. 287. See the Contents, pp. xxiii.-xxviii.

771 Pp. 91-119 and pp. 133-146.

772 “I perceived _a large and wide basket_ full of old parchments; and the librarian told me that two heaps like this had been already _committed to the flames._ What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers,” &c.—(_Narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript,_ p. 23.)

773 τὴν παρακαταθήκην.—1 Tim. vi. 20.

774 [While this sheet is passing through the press, I find among my papers a note (written in 1876) by the learned, loved, and lamented Editor of Cyril,—Philip E. Pusey,—with whom I used to be in constant communication:—“It is not obvious to me, looking at the subject from outside, why B C L, constituting a class of MSS. allied to each other, and therefore nearly = 1-½ MSS., are to be held to be superior to A. It is still less obvious to me why —— showing up (as he does) very many grave faults of B, should yet consider B superior in character to A.”]

_ 775 Introduction_, p. 567.

776 Let the following places be considered: S. Jo. i. 13; iii. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8; 1 Jo. ii. 29; iii. 9 _bis_, iv. 7; v. 1 _bis_, 4, 18 _bis_. _Why_ is it to be supposed that on this last occasion THE ETERNAL SON should be intended?

777 A*, B, 105.

778 The paraphrase is interesting. The Vulgate, Jerome [ii. 321, 691], Cassian [p. 409],—“_Sed generatio Dei conservat eum_:” Chromatius [Gall. viii. 347], and Vigilius Taps. [ap. Athanas. ii. 646],—“_Quia (quoniam) nativitas Dei custodit (servat) illum._” In a letter of 5 Bishops to Innocentius I. (A.D. 410) [Galland. viii. 598 b], it is,—“_Nativitas quæ ex Deo est._” Such a rendering (viz. “_his having been born of_ GOD”) amounts to an _interpretation_ of the place.

779 From the Rev. S. C. Malan, D.D.

780 iv. 326 b c.

781 Gall. viii. 347,—of which the Greek is to be seen in Cramer’s _Cat._ pp. 143-4. Many portions of the lost Text of this Father, (the present passage included [p. 231]) are to be found in the Scholia published by C. F. Matthæi [N. T. xi. 181 to 245-7].

782 i. 94, 97.

783 In _Cat._ p. 124, repeated p. 144.

784 iii. 433 c.

785 ii. 601 d.

786 By putting a small uncial Ε above the Α.

_ 787 Diocesan Progress_, Jan. 1882.—[pp. 20] p. 19.

_ 788 Introduction_, p. 283. _Notes_, pp. 3, 22, and _passim_.

789 Sermons, vol. i. 132,—(“_A form of sound words to be used by Ministers._”)

790 Quoted by ps.-Ephraem _Evan. Conc._ p. 135 l. 2:—Nonnus:—Chrys. viii. 248:—Cyril iv. 269 e, 270 a, 273:—Cramer’s _Cat._ p. 242 l. 25 (which is _not_ from Chrys.):—_Chron. Paschale_ 217 a (_diserte_).—Recognized by Melito (A.D. 170):—Irenæus (A.D. 177):—Hippolytus (A.D. 190):—Origen:—Eusebius:—Apollinarius Laod., &c.

791 This is the _true_ reason of the eagerness which has been displayed in certain quarters to find ὅς, (not Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16:—just as nothing else but a determination that CHRIST shall not be spoken of as ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, has occasioned the supposed doubt as to the construction of Rom. ix. 5,—in which we rejoice to find that Dr. Westcott refuses to concur with Dr. Hort.

792 See Dr. W. H. Mill’s _University Sermons_ (1845),—pp. 301-2 and 305:—a volume which should be found in every clergyman’s library.

793 Rev. xxii. 18, 19.

794 ἀφανισθήσονται.

795 This happens not unfrequently in codices of the type of א and B. A famous instance occurs at Col. ii. 18, (ἂ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων,—“_prying into the things he hath not seen_”); where א* A B D* and a little handful of suspicious documents leave out the “_not_.” Our Editors, rather than recognize this blunder (so obvious and ordinary!), are for conjecturing Α ΕΟΡΑΚΕΝ ΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ into ΑΕΡΑ ΚΕΝΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ; which (if it means anything at all) may as well mean,—“proceeding on an airy foundation to offer an empty conjecture.” Dismissing that conjecture as worthless, we have to set off the whole mass of the copies—against some 6 or 7:—Irenæus (i. 847), Theodoras Mops, (in _loc_.), Chrys. (xi. 372), Theodoret (iii. 489, 490), John Damascene (ii. 211)—against no Fathers at all (for Origen once has μή [iv. 665]; once, has it not [iii. 63]; and once is doubtful [i. 583]). Jerome and Augustine both take notice of the diversity of reading, _but only to reject it_.—The Syriac versions, the Vulgate, Gothic, Georgian, Sclavonic, Æthiopic, Arabic and Armenian—(we owe the information, as usual, to Dr. Malan)—are to be set against the suspicious Coptic. All these then are with the Traditional Text: which cannot seriously be suspected of error.

796 εὑρεθήσεται.

797 Augustin, vii. 595.

798 ii. 467: iii. 865:—ii. 707: iii. 800:—ii. 901. _In Luc_. pp. 428, 654.

799 ii. 347.

800 Preface to “Provisional issue,” p. xxi.

_ 801 Introduction_, p. 210.

_ 802 Ibid_. p. 276.

803 Apud Mai, vi. 105.

_ 804 Opp._ vii. 543. Comp. 369.

805 Ap. Cramer, _Cat._ vi. 187.

806 So, Nilus, i. 270.

_ 807 Interp._ 595: 607.

_ 808 Dem. Evan._ p. 444.

809 P. 306.

_ 810 Epist. ad Zen._ iii. 1. 78. Note, that our learned Cave considered this to be a _genuine_ work of Justin M. (A.D. 150).

_ 811 Cantic._ (an early work) _interp._ iii. 39,—though elsewhere (i. 112, 181 [?]: ii. 305 _int._ [but _not_ ii. 419]) he is for leaving out εἰκῆ.

812 Gall. iii. 72 and 161.

813 ii. 89 b and e (partly quoted in the _Cat._ of Nicetas) _expressly_: 265.

814 i. 818 _expressly_.

815 ii. 312 (preserved in Jerome’s Latin translation, i. 240).

816 i. 132; iii. 442.

817 472, 634.

818 Ap. Chrys.

819 iii. 768: _apud Mai_, ii. 6 and iii. 268.

820 i. 48, 664; iv. 946.

821 Cramer’s _Cat._ viii. 12, line 14.

822 128, 625.

823 Gall. vi. 181.

824 Gall. x. 14.

825 Gall. vii. 509.

826 i. 27, written when he was 42; and ii. 733, 739, written when he was 84.

827 vii. 26,—“_Radendum est ergo_ sine causâ.” And so, at p. 636.

828 1064.

829 ii. 261.

830 ii. 592.

_ 831 Amphilochia_, (Athens, 1858,)—p. 317. Also in _Cat._

_ 832 Apophthegm. PP._ [ap. Cotel. _Eccl. Gr. Mon._ i. 622].

833 S. Matth. xv. 14.

_ 834 Gospel of the Resurrection_,—p. vii.

_ 835 Introduction_, pp. 300-2.

_ 836 Ibid._ p. 299.

_ 837 Appendix_, p. 66.

838 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 432.

_ 839 On Revision_,—p. 99.

_ 840 Speech in Convocation_, Feb. 1870, (p. 83.)

_ 841 On Revision_,—p. 205.

_ 842 Address to Lincoln Diocesan Conference_,—p. 25.

_ 843 Ibid._,—p. 27.

_ 844 Considerations on Revision_,—p. 44. The Preface is dated 23rd May, 1870. The Revisers met on the 22nd of June.

We learn from Dr. Newth’s _Lectures on Bible Revision_ (1881), that,—“As the general Rules under which the Revision was to be carried out had been carefully prepared, no need existed for any lengthened discussion of preliminary arrangements, and the Company upon its first meeting was able to enter at once upon its work” (p. 118) ... “The portion prescribed for the first session was Matt. i. to iv.” (p. 119) ... “The question of the spelling of proper names ... being settled, the Company proceeded to the actual details of the Revision, and in a surprisingly short time settled down to an established method of procedure.”—“All proposals made at the first Revision were decided by simple majorities” (p. 122) ... “_The questions which concerned the Greek Text were decided for the most part at the First Revision._” (Bp. Ellicott’s _Pamphlet_, p. 34.)

_ 845 The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, by two Members of the New Testament Company_,—1882. Macmillan, pp. 79, price two shillings and sixpence.

846 “To these two articles—so far, at least, as they are concerned with the Greek Text adopted by the Revisers—our Essay is intended for an answer.”—p. 79.

847 See above, pages 235 to 366.

848 Article III.,—see last note.

_ 849 Pamphlet_, p. 79.

_ 850 The Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered in its bearings upon the record of our __LORD’S__ Words and of incidents in His Life_,—(1882. pp. 250. Murray,)—p. 232. Canon Cook’s temperate and very interesting volume will be found simply unanswerable.

851 P. 40.

_ 852 Ibid._

853 As at p. 4, and p. 12, and p. 13, and p. 19, and p. 40.

854 See above, pp. 348-350.

855 P. 40.

856 P. 40.

857 P. 77.

858 P. 41, and so at p. 77.

859 P. 41.

860 P. 5.

861 P. 3.

862 P. 77.

_ 863 On Revision_, pp. 47-8.

864 Scrivener’s _Introduction_,—p. 423.

_ 865 Ibid._ p. 421.

866 “Non tantum totius Antiquitatis altum de tali opere suscepto silentium,—sed etiam frequentes Patrum, usque ad quartum seculum viventium, de textu N. T. liberius tractato, impuneque corrupto, deque summâ Codicum dissonantiâ querelæ, nec non ipsæ corruptiones inde a primis temporibus continuo propagatæ,—satis sunt documento, neminem opus tam arduum, scrupulorum plenum, atque invidiæ et calumniis obnoxium, aggressum fuisse; etiamsi doctiorum Patrum de singulis locis disputationes ostendant, eos non prorsus rudes in rebus criticis fuisse.”—_Codd. MSS. N. T. Græcorum &c. nova descriptio, et cum textu vulgo recepto Collatio, &c._ 4to. Gottingæ, 1847. (p. 4.)

867 He proceeds:—“Hucusque nemini contigit, nec in posterum, puto, continget, monumentorum nostrorum, tanquam totidem testium singulorum, ingens agmen ad tres quatuorve, e quibus omnium testimonium pendeat, testes referre; aut e testium grege innumero aliquot duces auctoresque secernere, quorum testimonium tam plenum, certum firmumque sit, ut sine damno ceterorum testimonio careamus.”—_Ibid._ (p. 19.)

_ 868 Commentarius Criticus in N. T._ (in his Preface to the Ep. to the Hebrews). We are indebted to Canon Cook for calling attention to this. See by all means his _Revised Text of the first three Gospels_,—pp. 4-8.

869 It requires to be stated, that, (as explained by the Abbé to the present writer,) the “Post-scriptum” of his Fascic. IV., (viz. from p. 234 to p. 236,) is a _jeu d’esprit_ only,—intended to enliven a dry subject, and to entertain his pupils.

870 It seems to have escaped Bishop Ellicott’s notice, (and yet the fact well deserves commemoration) that the claims of Tischendorf and Tregelles on the Church’s gratitude, are not by any means founded on _the Texts_ which they severally put forth. As in the case of Mill, Wetstein and Birch, their merit is that they _patiently accumulated evidence_. “Tischendorf’s reputation as a Biblical scholar rests less on his critical editions of the N. T., than on the texts of the chief uncial authorities which in rapid succession he gave to the world.” (Scrivener’s _Introduction_,—p. 427.)

871 P. 12.

872 P. 13.

873 See above, pp. 12: 30-3: 34-5: 46-7: 75: 94-6: 249: 262: 289: 319.

874 P. 40.

875 P. 19.

876 P. 4.

877 Acts xix. 35.

_ 878 Suprà_, pp. 339-41.

879 P. 13.

880 Bp. Ellicott, _On Revision_, &c.—p. 30.

881 P. 15.

882 P. 16.

883 P. 17.

884 P. 18.

885 P. 19.

886 P. 19.

887 P. 20.

888 P. 21.

889 Pp. 23-4.

_ 890 Supra_, pp. 258-266.

891 Pp. 25-7.

892 See _Art._ III.,—viz. from p. 235 to p. 366.

893 You refer to such places as pp. 87-8 and 224, where see the Notes.

_ 894 Chronicle of Convocation_, Feb. 1870, p. 83.

895 See above, p. 368.

896 The clause (“and sayest thou, Who touched me?”) is witnessed to by A C D P R X Γ Δ Λ Ξ Π and _every other known uncial except three of bad character: by every known cursive but four_:—by the Old Latin and Vulgate: by all the four Syriac: by the Gothic and the Æthiopic Versions; as well as by ps.-Tatian (_Evan. Concord_, p. 77) and Chrysostom (vii. 359 a). It cannot be pretended that the words are derived from S. Mark’s Gospel (as Tischendorf coarsely imagined);—for the sufficient reason that _the words are not found there_. In S. Mark (v. 31) it is,—καὶ λέγεις, Τίς μου ἥψατο; in S. Luke (viii. 45), καὶ λέγεις, Τίς ὁ ἁψάμενός μου. Moreover, this delicate distinction has been maintained all down the ages.

897 Page 154 to p. 164.

898 You will perhaps remind me that you do not read ἐξελθοῦσαν. I am aware that you have tacitly substituted ἐξεληλυθυῖαν,—which is only supported by _four_ manuscripts of bad character: being disallowed by _eighteen uncials_, (with A C D at their head,) and _every known cursive but one_; besides the following Fathers:—Marcion (Epiph. i. 313 a, 327 a.) (A.D. 150),—Origen (iii. 466 e.),—the author of _the Dialogus_ (Orig. i. 853 d.) (A.D. 325),—Epiphanius (i. 327 b.),—Didymus (pp. 124, 413.), in two places,—Basil (iii. 8 c.),—Chrysostom (vii. 532 a.),—Cyril (Opp. vi. 99 e. Mai, ii. 226.) in two places,—ps.-Athanasius (ii. 14 c.) (A.D. 400),—ps.-Chrysostom (xiii. 212 e f.).... Is it tolerable that the Sacred Text should be put to wrongs after this fashion, by a body of men who are avowedly (for see page 369) unskilled in Textual Criticism, and who were appointed only to revise the authorized _English Version_?

899 This I make the actual sum, after deducting for marginal notes and variations in stops.

900 I mean such changes as ἠγέρθη for ἐγήγερται (ix. 7),—φέρετε for ἐνένκαντες (xv. 23), &c. These are generally the result of a change of construction.

901 MS. communication from my friend, the Editor

902 I desire to keep out of sight the _critical impropriety_ of such corrections of the text. And yet, it is worth stating that א B L are _the only witnesses discoverable_ for the former, and _almost the only_ witnesses to be found for the latter of these two utterly unmeaning changes.

903 Characteristic of these two false-witnesses is it, that they are not able to convey even _this_ short message correctly. In reporting the two words ἔρχωμαι ἐνθάδε, they contrive to make two blunders. B substitutes διέρχομαι for διέρχωμαι: א, ὦδε for ἐνθάδε,—which latter eccentricity Tischendorf (characteristically) does not allude to in his note ... “These be thy gods, O Israel!”

904 Rev. xxii. 19.

905 iv. 28, c. 1 (p. 655 = Mass. 265). Note that the reference is _not_ to S. Matt. x. 15.

906 P. 123.

907 Viz. vi. 7-13.

908 i. 199 and 200.

_ 909 In loc._

910 See above, pp. 347-9.

911 See above, pp. 79-85.

912 See above, pp. 409-411.

913 See above, p. 399.

914 Bp. Ellicott _on Revision_, p. 30.

915 The Bp. attended _only one meeting_ of the Revisers. (Newth, p. 125.)

916 Page 4.

917 See above, pp. 41 to 47.

918 Pages 17, 18.

919 See above, p. 37, note 1.

920 Pages 98-106.

921 Pages 64-76.

922 The exceptions are not worth noticing _here_.

923 N. T. ed. 2da. 1807, iii. 442-3.

924 i. 887 c.

925 Called _Ancoratus_, written in Pamphylia, A.D. 373. The extract in _Adv. Hær._ extends from p. 887 to p. 899 (= _Ancor._ ii. 67-79).

926 ii. 74 b. Note, that to begin the quotation at the word ἐφανερώθη was a frequent practice with the ancients, especially when enough had been said already to make it plain that it was of the SON they were speaking, or when it would have been nothing to the purpose to begin with Θεός. Thus Origen, iv. 465 c:—Didymus on 1 John _apud_ Galland. vi. 301 a:—Nestorius, _apud_ Cyril, vi. 103 e:—ps-Chrysost. x. 763 c, 764 c:—and the Latin of Cyril v.1 785. So indeed ps-Epiphanius, ii. 307 c.

927 i. 894 c.

_ 928 Apud_ Theodoret, v. 719.

929 iv. 622 a,—_qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu_.

_ 930 De incarn. Unig._ v. part i. 680 d e = _De rectâ fide_, v. part ii. b c.

_ 931 Ibid._ 681 a = _ibid._ 6 d e.

932 Page 98.

933 Note at the end of Bishop Ellicott’s Commentary on 1 Timothy.

934 Berriman’s MS. Note in the British Museum copy of his _Dissertation_,—p. 154. Another annotated copy is in the Bodleian.

935 “Certe quidem in exemplari Alexandrino nostro, linea illa transversa quam loquor, adeo exilis ac plane evanida est, ut primo intuitu haud dubitarim ipse scriptum _ΟΣ_, quod proinde in variantes lectiones conjeceram.... Verum postea perlustrato attentius loco, lineolæ, quæ primam aciem fugerat, ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa deprehendi, præsertim ad partem sinistram, quæ peripheriam literæ pertingit,” &c.—_In loco._

_ 936 Clem. Rom._ ed. Wotton, p. 27.

937 Berriman, pp. 154-5.

_ 938 Ibid._ (_MS. Note._) Berriman adds other important testimony, p. 156.

_ 939 Dissertation_, p. 156. Berriman refers to the fact that some one in recent times, with a view apparently to establish the actual reading of the place, has clumsily thickened the superior stroke with common black ink, and introduced a rude dot into the middle of the θ. There has been no attempt at fraud. Such a line and such a dot could deceive no one.

940 “Quanquam lineola, quæ Θεός compendiose scriptum ab ὅς distinguitur, sublesta videtur nonnullis.”—N. T. p. 710.

941 Griesbach in 1785 makes the same report:—“Manibus hominum inepte curiosorum ea folii pars quæ dictum controversum continet, adeo detrita est, ut nemo mortalium hodie certi quidquam discernere possit ... Non oculos tantum sed digitos etiam adhibuisse videntur, ut primitivam illius loci lectionem eruerent et velut exsculperent.” (_Symb. Crit._ i. p. x.) The MS. was evidently in precisely the same state when the Rev. J. C. Velthusen (_Observations on Various Subjects_, pp. 74-87) inspected it in 1773.

942 As C. F. Matthæi [N. T. m. xi. _Præfat._ pp. lii.-iii.] remarks:—“_cum de Divinitate_ CHRISTI _agitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur_.” Woide instances it as an example of the force of prejudice, that Wetstein “apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ adscripsisse, _quia eam abesse volebat_.” [_Præfat._ p. xxxi.]

943 “Patet, ut alia mittamus, e consensu Versionum,” &c.—ii. 149.

944 Woide, _ibid._

_ 945 Supra_, p. 100.

_ 946 Introduction_, p. 553.

_ 947 Introd._ p. 553.

948 Any one desirous of understanding this question fully, should (besides Berriman’s admirable _Dissertation_) read Woide’s _Præfatio_ to his edition of Codex A, pp. xxx. to xxxii. (§ 87).—“Erunt fortasse quidam” (he writes in conclusion) “qui suspicabuntur, nonnullos hanc lineolam diametralem in medio Θ vidisse, quoniam eam videre volebant. Nec negari potest præsumptarum opinionum esse vim permagnam. Sed idem, etiam Wetstenio, nec immerito, objici potest, eam apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ adscripsisse, quia eam abesse volebat. Et eruditissimis placere aliquando, quæ vitiosa sunt, scio: sed omnia testimonia, omnemque historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere non licet: nec mirum est nos ea nunc non discernere, quæ, antequam nos Codicem vidissemus, evanuerant.”

_ 949 Prolegomena_ to his ed. of Cod. C,—pp. 39-42.

950 “Ος habet codex C, ut puto; nam lineola illa tenuis, quæ ex Ο facit Θ, non apparet.” (_In loc._) And so Griesbach, _Symb. Crit._ i. p. viii. (1785).

951 “Quotiescunque locum inspiciebam (inspexi autem per hoc biennium sæpissime) mihi prorsus apparebat.” “Quam [lineolam] miror hucusque omnium oculos fugisse.” [_Prolegg._ p. 41].... Equidem miror sane.

952 Page 75.

953 Pages 64, 69, 71, 75.—Some have pointed out that opposite _ΟΣ_ in F—above _ΟΣ_ in G,—is written “quod.” Yes, but not “_qui_.” The Latin version is independent of the Greek. In S. Mark xi. 8, above ΑΓΡΩΝ is written “_arboribus_;” and in 1 Tim. iv. 10, ΑΓΩΝΙΖΟΜΕΘΑ is translated by F “_maledicimur_,”—by G, “_exprobramur vel maledicimur_.”

_ 954 Introduction to_ Cod. Augiensis, p. xxviij.

_ 955 E.g._ Out of ΟΜΕΝΤΟΙΣΤΕΡΕΟΣ [2 Tim. ii. 19], they both make Ο · μεν · το · ισ · τεραιος. For ὑγιαίνωσιν [Tit. i. 13], both write υγει · ενωσειν:—for καινὴ κτίσις [2 Cor. v. 17] both give και · νηκτισις:—for ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες [1 Tim. iii. 10], both exhibit ανευ · κλητοιον · εχοντες (“nullum crimen habentes”):—for ὡς γάγγραινα νομὴν ἕξει [2 Tim. ii. 17], both exhibit ως · γανγρα · ινα · (F G) νομηνεξει, (G, who writes above the words “_sicut cancer ut serpat_”).

956 He must be held responsible for ὝΠΟΚΡΙΣΙ in place of ὑποκρίσει [1 Tim. iv. 2]: ΑΣΤΙΖΟΜΕΝΟΣ instead of λογιζόμενος [2 Cor. v. 19]: ΠΡΙΧΟΤΗΤΙ instead of πραότητι [2 Tim. ii. 25]. And he was the author of ΓΕΡΜΑΝΕ in Phil. iv. 3: as well as of Ο δε πνευμα in 1 Tim. iv. 1.

But the scribes of F and G also were curiously innocent of Greek. G suggests that γυναιξειν (in 1 Tim. ii. 10) may be “infinitivus”—(of course from γυναίκω).

_ 957 Introduction_, p. 155.

958 Thirteen times between Rom. i. 7 and xiii. 1.

_ 959 E.g._ Gal. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 55; 2 Cor. vi. 11 (_ο_ς and _ο_). Those who have Matthæi’s reprint of G at hand are invited to refer to the last line of fol. 91: (1 Tim. vi. 20) where Ὦ Τιμόθεε is exhibited thus:—_Ο_ Ὦ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΕ.

960 Col. ii. 22, 23: iii. 2.

961 As 1 Tim. iii. 1: iv. 14: vi. 15. Consider the practice of F in 1 Thess. i. 9 (_Ο_; ΠΟΙΑΝ): in 2 Cor. viii. 11, 14 (_Ο_; ΠΩΣ).

962 Rarest of all are instances of this mark over the Latin “e”: but we meet with “_spē_” (Col. i. 23): “_sē_” (ii. 18): _rēpēntes_ (2 Tim. iii. 6), &c. So, in the Greek, ἡ or ᾗ written _Η_ are most unusual.—A few instances are found of “u” with this appendage, as “_domūs_” (1 Tim. v. 13): “_spiritū_” (1 Cor. iv. 21), &c.

963 This information is obtained from a photograph of the page procured from Dresden through the kindness of the librarian, Counsellor Dr. Forstemann.

964 See Rettig’s _Prolegg._ pp. xxiv.-v.

965 “You will perceive that I have now succeeded in identifying every Evangelium hitherto spoken of as existing in Florence, with the exception of Evan 365 [Act. 145, Paul 181] (Laurent vi. 36), &c., which is said to ‘contain also the Psalms.’ I assure you no such Codex exists in the Laurentian Library; no, nor ever did exist there. Dr. Anziani devoted full an hour to the enquiry, allowing me [for I was very incredulous] to see the process whereby he convinced himself that Scholz is in error. It was just such an intelligent and exhaustive process as Coxe of the Bodleian, or dear old Dr. Bandinel before him, would have gone through under similar circumstances. Pray strike that Codex off your list; and with it ‘Acts 145’ and ‘Paul 181.’ I need hardly say that Bandini’s Catalogue knows nothing of it. It annoys me to be obliged to add that I cannot even find out the history of Scholz’s mistake.”—_Guardian_, August 27, 1873.

966 “_Whose_ word on such matters is entitled to most credit,—the word of the Reviewer, or the word of the most famous manuscript collators of this century?... Those who have had occasion to seek in public libraries for manuscripts which are not famous for antiquity or beauty or completeness (_sic_), know that the answer ‘_non est inventus_’ is no conclusive reason for believing that the object of their quest has not been seen and collated in former years by those who profess to have actually seen and collated it. That 181 ‘is non-existent’ must be considered unproven.”—Bp. Ellicott’s _Pamphlet_, p. 72.

967 The learned Abbé Martin, who has obligingly inspected for me the 18 copies of the “Praxapostolus” in the Paris library, reports as follows concerning “Apost. 12” ( = Reg. 375),—“A very foul MS. of small value, I believe: but a curious specimen of bad Occidental scholarship. It was copied for the monks of S. Denys, and exhibits many Latin words; having been apparently revised on the Latin. The lection is assigned to Σαββάτῳ λ᾽ (not λδ᾽) in this codex.”

968 “_Codices Cryptenses seu Abbatiæ Cryptæ Ferratæ in Tusculano, digesti et illustrati cura et studio_ D. Antonii Rocchi, Hieromonachi Basiliani Bibliothecæ custodis,”—_Tusculani_, fol. 1882.—I have received 424 pages (1 May, 1883).

969 Not a few of the Basilian Codices have been transferred to the Vatican.

970 In an APPENDIX to the present volume, I will give fuller information. I am still (3rd May, 1883) awaiting replies to my troublesome interrogatories addressed to the heads of not a few continental libraries.

971 Rufinus, namely (_fl._ A.D. 395). _Opp._ iv. 465

972 MS. letter to myself, August 11, 1879.

973 MS. letter from the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John’s College, Oxford.

974 See above, page 429.

975 Page 71. And so p. 65 and 69.

976 MS. letter to myself.

977 See above, page 429.

_ 978 Ulfilas. Veteris et Novi Test. Versionis Goth. fragmenta quæ supersunt_, &c. 4to. 1843.

979 “Si tamen Uppström ‘_obscurum_’ dixit, non ‘_incertum_,’ fides illi adhiberi potest, quia diligentissime apices omnes investigabat; me enim præsente in aula codicem tractabat.”—(Private letter to myself.)

Ceriani proceeds,—“Quæris quomodo componatur cum textu 1 Tim. iii. 16, nota 54 _Proleg._ Gabelentz Gothicam versionem legens Θεός. Putarem ex loco Castillionæi in notis ad Philip. ii. 6, locutos fuisse doctos illos Germanos, oblitos illius Routh præcepti ‘_Let me recommend to you the practice of always verifying your references, sir_.’ ”

The reader will be interested to be informed that Castiglione, the former editor of the codex, was in favour of “GOD” in 1835, and of “_soei_” (_quæ_ [ = ὅ], to agree with “_runa_,” _i.e._ “mystery,” which is feminine in Gothic) in 1839. Gabelentz, in 1843, ventured to print “_saei_” = ὅς. “Et ‘saei’ legit etiam diligentissimus Andreas Uppström nuperus codicis Ambrosiani investigator et editor, in opere _Codicis Gothici Ambrosiani sive Epist. Pauli, &c._ Holmiæ et Lipsiæ, 1868.”

980 Stuttgard, 1857.

981 Of the department of Oriental MSS. in the Brit. Mus., who derives his text from “the three Museum MSS. which contain the Arabic Version of the Epistles: viz. _Harl._ 5474 (dated A.D. 1332):—_Oriental_ 1328 (Xth cent.):—_Arundel Orient._ 19 (dated A.D. 1616).”—Walton’s Polyglott, he says, exhibits “a garbled version, quite distinct from the genuine Arabic: viz. ‘_These glories commemorate them in the greatness of the mystery of fair piety. _GOD_ appeared in the flesh_,’ ” &c.

982 See above, pp. 271 to 294.

983 i. 387 a: 551 a: 663 a _bis_.—ii. 430 a: 536 c: 581 c: 594 a, 595 b (these two, of the 2nd pagination): 693 d [ = ii. 265, ed. 1615, from which Tisch. quotes it. The place may be seen in full, _supra_, p. 101.]—iii. 39 b _bis_: 67 a b.—_Ap. Galland._ vi. 518 c: 519 d: 520 b: 526 d: 532 a: 562 b: 566 d: 571 a. All but five of these places, I believe, exhibit ὁ Θεός,—which seems to have been the reading of this Father. The article is seldom seen in MSS. Only four instances of it,—(they will be found distinctly specified below, page 493, _note_ 1),—are known to exist. More places must have been overlooked.

Note, that Griesbach only mentions Gregory of Nyssa (whose name Tregelles omits entirely) to remark that he is not to be cited for Θεός; seeing that, according to him, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is to be read thus:—τὸ μυστήριον ἐν σαρκὶ ἐφανερώθη. Griesbach borrowed that quotation and that blunder from Wetstein; to be blindly followed in turn by Scholz and Alford. And yet, the words in question are _not the words of Gregory Nyss. at all_; but of Apolinaris, against whom Gregory is writing,—as Gregory himself explains. [_Antirrh. adv. Apol._ apud Galland. vi. 522 d.]

_ 984 De Trin._ p. 83. The testimony is express.

985 i. 92: iii. 657.-iv. 19, 23.

986 i. 313:—ii. 263.

987 i. 497 c d e.—viii. 85 e: 86 a.—xi. 605 f: 606 a b d e.—(The first of these places occurs in the Homily _de Beato Philogonio_, which Matthæi in the main [viz. from p. 497, line 20, to the end] edited from an independent source [_Lectt. Mosqq._ 1779]. Gallandius [xiv. _Append._ 141-4] reprints Matthæi’s labours).—Concerning this place of Chrysostom (_vide suprà_, p. 101), Bp. Ellicott says (p. 66),—“The passage which he [the Quarterly Reviewer] does allege, deserves to be placed before our readers in full, as an illustration of the precarious character of patristic evidence. If this passage attests the reading θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16, does it not also attest the reading ὁ θεός in Heb. ii. 16, where no copyist or translator has introduced it?”... I can but say, in reply,—“No, certainly not.” May I be permitted to add, that it is to me simply unintelligible how Bp. Ellicott can show himself so _planè hospes_ in this department of sacred Science as to be capable of gravely asking such a very foolish question?

988 i. 215 a: 685 b. The places may be seen quoted _suprà_, p. 101.

989 The place is quoted in Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 59.

_ 990 Antirrheticus_, ap. Galland. vi. 517-77.

991 The full title was,—Ἀπόδειξις περὶ τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως τῆς καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου. _Ibid._ 518 b, c: 519 a.

992 Apolinaris did not deny that CHRIST was very GOD. His heresy (like that of Arius) turned upon the nature of the conjunction of the Godhead with the Manhood. Hear Theodoret:—Α. Θεὸς Λόγος σαρκὶ ἑνωθεὶς ἄνθρωπον ἀπετέλεσεν Θεόν. Ο. Τοῦτο οὖν λέγεις θείαν ἐμψυχίαν? Α. Καὶ πάνυ. Ο. Ἀντὶ ψυχῆς οὖν ὁ Λόγος? Α. Ναί. _Dial._ vi. _adv. Apol._ (_Opp._ v. 1080 = Athanas. ii. 525 d.)

993 Cramer’s _Cat. in Actus_, iii. 69. It is also met with in the Catena on the Acts which J. C. Wolf published in his _Anecdota Græca_, iii. 137-8. The place is quoted above, p. 102.

994 Cramer’s _Cat. in Rom._ p. 124.

995 P. 67.

996 P. 65.

997 P. 65.

998 See above, p. 429.

999 Bentley, Scholz, Tischendorf, Alford and others adduce “_Euthalius_.”

_ 1000 Concilia_, i. 849-893. The place is quoted below in note 3.

1001 “Verum ex illis verbis illud tantum inferri debet false eam epistolam Dionysio Alexandrino attribui: non autem scriptum non fuisse ab aliquo ex Episcopis qui Synodis adversus Paulum Antiochenum celebratis interfuerant. Innumeris enim exemplis constat indubitatæ antiquitatis Epistolas ex Scriptorum errore falsos titulos præferre.”—(Pagi ad A.D. 264, apud Mansi, _Concil._ i. 1039.)

1002 εἶς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ὁ ῶν ἐν τῷ Πατρι συναΐδιος λόγος, ἕν αὐτοῦ πρόσωπον, ἀόρατος Θεός, καὶ ὁρατὸς γενόμενος; ΘΕῸΣ ΓᾺΡ ἘΦΑΝΕΡΏΘΗ ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός, ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθεὶς ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου—_Concilia_, i. 853 a.

1003 Cap. xi.

_ 1004 Ad Ephes._ c. 19: c. 7. _Ad Magnes._ c. 8.

1005 Cap. xii.

_ 1006 Contra Hæresim Noeti_, c. xvii. (Routh’s _Opuscula_, i. 76.) Read the antecedent chapters.

_ 1007 Dialog._ ii. ’_Inconfusus._’—_Opp._ iv. 132.

1008 Cod. 230,—p. 845, line 40.

1009 vii. 26, _ap. Galland_. iii. 182 a.

1010 iii. 401-2, _Epist._ 261 ( = 65). A quotation from Gal. iv. 4 follows.

1011 μαθήσεται γὰρ ὅτι φύσει μὲν καὶ ἀληθείᾳ Θεός ἐστιν ὁ Ἐμμανουήλ, θεοτόκος δὲ δι᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ ἡ τεκοῦσα παρθένος.—Vol. v. Part ii. 48 e.

1012 καὶ οὔτι που φαμὲν ὅτι καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Θεὸς ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς γεγονώς.—_Opp._ V. Part 2, p. 124 c d. (= _Concilia_, iii. 221 c d.)

1013 N. T. vol. xi. _Præfat._ p. xli.

1014 διὰ τοῦ ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθέντος Θεοῦ.—_De Incarnatione Domini_, Mai, _Nov. PP. Bibliotheca_, ii. 68.

1015 Earlier in the same Treatise, Cyril thus grandly paraphrases 1 Tim. iii. 16:—τότε δὴ τότε τὸ μέγα καὶ ἄῤῥητον γίνεται τῆς οἰκονομίας μυστήριον; αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ δημιουργὸς ἁπάσης τῆς κτίσεως, ὁ ἀχώρητος, ὁ ἀπερίγραπτος, ὁ ἀναλλοίωτος, ἡ πηγὴ τῆς ζωῆς, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ φωτὸς φῶς, ἡ ζῶσα τοῦ Πατρὸς εἰκών, τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν φύσιν ἀναλαμβάνει.—_Ibid._ p. 37.

1016 P. 153 d. (= _Concilia_, iii. 264 c d.)

_ 1017 Ibid_, d e.

1018 εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἕνα τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ἄνθρωπον ἁπλῶς, καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ μᾶλλον Θεὸν ἐνηνθρωπηκότα διεκήρυξαν οἰ μαθηταί κ.τ.λ. Presently,—μέγα γὰρ τότε τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐστὶ μυστήριον, πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος. p. 154 a b c.—In a subsequent page,—ὅ γε μὴν ἐνανθρωπήσας Θεός, καίτοι νομισθεὶς οὐδὲν ἕτερον εἶναι πλὴν ὅτι μόνον ἄνθρωπος ... ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, τετίμηται δὲ καὶ ὡς Υἱὸς ἀληθῶς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός ... Θεὸς εἶναι πεπιστευμένος.—_Ibid._ p. 170 d e.

1019 Ἀναθεματισμὸς β᾽.—Εἴ τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ σαρκὶ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἡνῶσθαι τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγον, ἕνα τε εἶναι Χριστὸν μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός, τὸν αὐτὸν δηλονότι Θεόν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.—vi. 148 a.

_ 1020 Ibid._ b, c, down to 149 a. (= _Concilia_, iii. 815 b-e.)

1021 Preserved by Œcumenius in his _Catena_, 1631, ii. 228.

1022 Ellis, p. 67.

1023 In loc.

_ 1024 Variæ Lect._ ii. 232. He enumerates ten MSS. in which he found it,—but he only quotes down to ἐφανερώθη.

1025 In loc.

1026 P. 227 _note_.

1027 Pointed out long since by Matthæi, _N. T._ vol. xi. _Præfat._ p. xlviii. Also in his ed. of 1807,—iii. 443-4. “Nec ideo laudatus est, ut doceret Cyrillum loco Θεός legisse ὅς, sed ideo, ne quis si Deum factum legeret hominem, humanis peccatis etiam obnoxium esse crederet.”

1028 See Berriman’s _Dissertation_, p. 189.—(MS. note of the Author.)

1029 Not from the 2nd article of his _Explanatio xii. capitum_, as Tischendorf supposes.

1030 See how P. E. Pusey characterizes the “Scholia,” in his _Preface_ to vol. vi. of his edition,—pp. xii. xiii.

1031 Cyril’s Greek, (to judge from Mercator’s Latin,) must have run somewhat as follows:—Ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος ὁμολογουμένως μέγα φησὶν εἶναι τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον. Καὶ ὄντως οὔτως ἔξει; ἐφανερώθη γὰρ ἐν σαρκί, Θεὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος.

_ 1032 Opp._ vol. v. P. i. p. 785 d.—The original scholium (of which the extant Greek proves to be only a garbled fragment, [see Pusey’s ed. vi. p. 520,]) abounds in expressions which imply, (if they do not require,) that Θεός went before: _e.g._ ___quasi Deus homo factus:____—____erant ergo gentes in mundo sine Deo, cum absque Christo essent:____—____Deus enim erat incarnatus:____—____in humanitate tamen Deus remansit: Deus enim Verbum, carne assumptâ, non deposuit quod erat; intelligitur tamen idem Deus simul et homo,___ &c.

1033 P. 67.

_ 1034 Opp._ vi. 327.

1035 ii. 852.

1036 Matthæi, N. T. xi. _Præfat._ pp. lii.-iii.

1037 Vol. V. P. ii. pp. 55-180.

1038 “How is the Godhead of Christ proved?” (asks Ussher in his _Body of Divinity_, ed. 1653, p. 161). And he adduces out of the N. T. only Jo. i. 1, xx. 28; Rom. ix. 5; 1 Jo. v. 20.—He _had_ quoted 1 Tim. iii. 16 in p. 160 (with Rom. ix. 5) to prove the union of the two natures.

1039 Burgon’s _Last Twelve Verses_, &c., p. 195 and note. See Canon Cook on this subject,—pp. 146-7.

_ 1040 Suprà_, p. 102.

1041 Pp. 68-9.

_ 1042 Proleg. in N. T._,—§ 1013.

_ 1043 Opp._ (ed. 1645) ii. 447.

_ 1044 Concilia_, v. 772 a. I quote from Garnier’s ed. of the _Breviarium_, reprinted by Gallandius, xii. 1532.

1045 iv. 465 c.

_ 1046 Concilia_, vi. 28 e [= iii. 645 c (ed. Harduin)].

1047 “Ex sequentibus colligo quædam exemplaria tempore Anastasii et Macedonii habuisse ὅς Θεός; ut, mutatione factâ ὅς in ὡς, intelligeretur _ut esset Deus_.” (Cotelerii, _Eccl. Gr. Mon._ iii. 663)—“Q. d. Ut hic homo, qui dicitur Jesus, esset et dici posset Deus,” &c. (Cornelius, _in loc._ He declares absolutely “olim legerunt ... ὅς Θεός.”)—All this was noticed long since by Berriman, pp. 243-4.

1048 “Apost. 83,” is “_Crypta-Ferrat._ A. β. iv.” described in the APPENDIX. I owe the information to the learned librarian of Crypta Ferrata, the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. It is a pleasure to transcribe the letter which conveyed information which the writer knew would be acceptable to me:—“Clme Rme Domine. Quod erat in votis, plures loci illius Paulini non modo in nostris codd. lectiones, sed et in his ipsis variationes, adsequutus es. Modo ego operi meo finem imponam, descriptis prope sexcentis et quinquaginta quinque vel codicibus vel MSS. Tres autem, quos primum nunc notatos tibi exhibeo, pertinent ad Liturgicorum ordinem. Jam felici omine tuas prosoquere elucubrationes, cautus tantum ne studio et labore nimio valetudinem tuam defatiges. Vale. De Tusculano, xi. kal. Maias, an. R. S. MDCCCLXXXIII. ANTONIUS ROCCHI, Hieromonachus Basilianus.”

For “Paul 282,” (a bilingual MS. at Paris, known as “Arménien 9,”) I am indebted to the Abbé Martin, who describes it in his _Introduction à la Critique Textuelle du N. T._, 1883,—pp. 660-1. See APPENDIX.

1049 Prebendary Scrivener (p. 555) ably closes the list. Any one desirous of mastering the entire literature of the subject should study the Rev. John Berriman’s interesting and exhaustive _Dissertation_,—pp. 229-263.

1050 The reader is invited to read what Berriman, (who was engaged on his “_Dissertation_” while Bp. Butler was writing the “Advertisement” prefixed to his “_Analogy_” [1736],) has written on this part of the subject,—pp. 120-9, 173-198, 231-240, 259-60, 262, &c.

1051 Apud Athanasium, _Opp_. ii. 33; and see Garnier’s introductory Note.

1052 “Audi Paulum magnâ voce clamantem: _Deus manifestatus est in carne_ [down to] _assumptus est in gloriâ_. O magni doctoris affatum! _Deus_, inquit, _manifestatus est in carne_,” &c.—_Concilia_, vii. p. 618 e.

1053 Theodori Studitæ, _Epistt_. lib. ii. 36, and 156. (Sirmondi’s _Opera Varia_, vol. v. pp. 349 e and 498 b,—Venet. 1728.)

1054 Paul 113, (Matthæi’s a) contains two Scholia which witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη:—Paul 115, (Matthæi’s d) also contains two Scholia.—Paul 118, (Matthæi’s h).—Paul 123, (Matthæi’s n). See Matthæi’s N. T. vol. xi. _Præfat._ pp. xlii.-iii.

1055 ii. 228 a.

1056 ii. 569 e: 570 a.

_ 1057 Panoplia_,—Tergobyst, 1710, fol. ρκγ᾽. p. 2, col. 1.

1058 Σαββάτῳ πρὸ τῶν φώτων.

1059 But in Apost. 12 (Reg. 375) it is the lection for the 30th (λ᾽) Saturday.—In Apost. 33 (Reg. 382), for the 31st (λα᾽).—In Apost. 26 (Reg. 320), the lection for the 34th Saturday begins at 1 Tim. vi. 11.—Apostt. 26 and 27 (Regg. 320-1) are said to have a peculiar order of lessons.

1060 For convenience, many codices are reckoned under this head (viz. of “Apostolus”) which are rather Ἀπόστολο-εὐαγγέλια. Many again which are but fragmentary, or contain only a very few lessons from the Epistles: such are Apostt. 97 to 103. See the APPENDIX.

1061 No. 21, 28, 31 are said to be Gospel lessons (“Evstt.”). No. 29, 35 and 36 are Euchologia; “the two latter probably Melchite, for the codices exhibit some Arabic words” (Abbé Martin). No. 43 and 48 must be erased. No. 70 and 81 are identical with 52 (B. M. _Addit._ 32051).

1062 Viz. Apost. 1: 3: 6: 9 & 10 (which are Menologies with a few Gospel lections): 15: 16: 17: 19: 20: 24: 26: 27: 32: 37: 39: 44: 47: 50: 53: 55: 56: 59: 60: 61: 63: 64: 66: 67: 68: 71: 72: 73: 75: 76: 78: 79: 80: 87: 88: 90.

1063 Viz. Apost. 4 at Florence: 8 at Copenhagen: 40, 41, 42 at Rome: 54 at St. Petersburg: 74 in America.

1064 Viz. Apost. 2 and 52 (Addit. 32051) in the B. Mus., also 69 (Addit. 29714 verified by Dr. C. R. Gregory): 5 at Gottingen: 7 at the Propaganda (verified by Dr. Beyer): 11, 22, 23, 25, 30, 33 at Paris (verified by Abbé Martin): 13, 14, 18 at Moscow: 38, 49 in the Vatican (verified by Signor Cozza-Luzi): 45 at Glasgow (verified by Dr. Young): 46 at Milan (verified by Dr. Ceriani): 51 at Besançon (verified by M. Castan): 57 and 62 at Lambeth, also 65 B-C (all three verified by Scrivener): 58 at Ch. Ch., Oxford: 77 at Moscow: 82 at Messina (verified by Papas Matranga): 84 and 89 at Crypta Ferrata (verified by Hieromonachus Rocchi).

1065 Viz. Apost. 34 (Reg. 383), a XVth-century Codex. The Abbé Martin assures me that this copy exhibits μυστήριον; | θῢ ἐφανερώθη. Note however that the position of the point, as well as the accentuation, proves that nothing else but θς was intended. This is very instructive. What if the same slip of the pen had been found in Cod. B?

1066 Viz. Apost 83 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. iv.)

1067 Viz. Praxapost. 85 and 86 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. vii. which exhibits μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφα | νερώθη ἐν σαρκί; and A. β. viii., which exhibits μυστίριον; ὅς ἐ ... νερώθη | ἐν σαρκύ. [_sic._]). Concerning these codices, see above, pp. 446 to 448.

_ 1068 Concilia_, ii. 217 c ( = ed. Hard. i. 418 b).

1069 He wrote a history of the Council of Nicæa, in which he introduces the discussions of the several Bishops present,—all the product (as Cave thinks) of his own brain.

1070 viii. 214 b.

1071 Cited at the Council of CP. (A.D. 553). [_Concilia_, ed. Labbe et Cossart, v. 447 b c = ed. Harduin, iii. 29 c and 82 e.]

_ 1072 Concilia_, Labbe, v. 449 a, and Harduin, iii. 84 d.

1073 Harduin, iii. 32 d.

1074 A Latin translation of the work of Leontius (_Contra Nestor. et Eutych._), wherein it is stated that the present place was found in _lib._ xiii., may be seen in Gallandius [xii. 660-99: the passage under consideration being given at p. 694 c d]: but Mai (_Script. Vett._ vi. 290-312), having discovered in the Vatican the original text of the excerpts from Theod. Mops., published (from the xiith book of Theod. _de Incarnatione_) the Greek of the passage [vi. 308]. From this source, Migne [_Patr. Gr._ vol. 66, col. 988] seems to have obtained his quotation.

1075 Either as given by Mai, or as represented in the Latin translation of Leontius (obtained from a different codex) by Canisius [_Antiquæ Lectt._, 1601, vol. iv.], from whose work Gallandius simply reprinted it in 1788.

_ 1076 Theodori Mops. Fragmenta Syriaca, vertit_ Ed. Sachau, Lips. 1869,—p. 53.—I am indebted for much zealous help in respect of these Syriac quotations to the Rev. Thomas Randell of Oxford,—who, I venture to predict, will some day make his mark in these studies.

_ 1077 Ibid._ p. 64. The context of the place (which is derived from Lagarde’s _Analecta Syriaca_, p. 102, top,) is as follows: “Deitas enim inhabitans hæc omnia gubernare incepit. Et in hac re etiam gratia Spiritus Sancti adjuvabat ad hunc effectum, ut beatus quoque Apostolus dixit: ‘_Vere grande ... in spiritu_;’ quoniam nos quoque auxilium Spiritûs accepturi sumus ad perfectionem justitiæ.” A further reference to 1 Tim. iii. 16 at page 69, does not help us.

1078 I owe this, and more help than I can express in a foot-note, to my learned friend the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John’s.

1079 Pages 437-43.

1080 See above, p. 444.

1081 See above, pp. 446-8; also the _Appendix_.

1082 See pp. 426-8.

1083 See pp. 480-2.

1084 N. T. 1806 ii. _ad calcem_, p. [25].

1085 Page 76.

1086 See above, pp. 376-8.

1087 Viz. from p. 431 to p. 478.

1088 See above, pp. 462-4.

1089 Viz. Acts iii. 12; 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8; vi. 3, 5, 6; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Tit. i. 1; 2 Pet. i. 3, 6, 7; iii. 11.

1090 From the friend whose help is acknowledged at foot of pp. 450, 481.

1091 Scholz enumerates 8 of these copies: Coxe, 15. But there must exist a vast many more; as, at M. Athos, in the convent of S. Catharine, at Meteora, &c., &c.

1092 In explanation of this statement, the reader is invited to refer to the APPENDIX at the end of the present volume. [Since the foregoing words have been in print I have obtained from Rome tidings of about 34 more copies of S. Paul’s Epistles; raising the present total to 336. The known copies of the book called “_Apostolus_” now amount to 127.]

1093 Viz. Paul 61 (see Scrivener’s _Introduction_, 3rd ed. p. 251): and Paul 181 (see above, at pp. 444-5).

1094 Viz. Paul 248, at Strasburg.

1095 Viz. Paul 8 (see Scrivener’s _Introduction_): 15 (which is not in the University library at Louvain): 50 and 51 (in Scrivener’s _Introduction_): 209 and 210 (which, I find on repeated enquiry, are no longer preserved in the Collegio Romano; nor, since the suppression of the Jesuits, is any one able to tell what has become of them).

1096 Viz. Paul 42: 53: 54: 58 (_Vat._ 165,—from Sig. Cozza-Luzi): 60: 64: 66: 76: 82: 89: 118: 119: 124: 127: 146: 147: 148: 152: 160: 161: 162: 163: 172: 187: 191: 202: 214: 225 (_Milan_ N. 272 _sup._,—from Dr. Ceriani): 259: 263: 271: 275: 284 (_Modena_ II. A. 13,—from Sig. Cappilli [Acts, 195—_see Appendix_]): 286 (_Milan_ E. 2 _inf._—from Dr. Ceriani [_see Appendix_]): 287 (_Milan_ A. 241 _inf._—from Dr. Ceriani [_see Appendix_]): 293 (_Crypta Ferrata_, A. β. vi.—from the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi [_see Appendix_]): 302 (_Berlin, MS. Græc._ 8vo. No. 9.—from Dr. C. de Boor [_see Appendix_]).

1097 Viz. Paul 254 (restored to CP., see Scrivener’s _Introduction_): and Paul 261 (Muralt’s 8: Petrop. xi. 1. 2. 330).

1098 I found the reading of 150 copies of S. Paul’s Epistles at 1 Tim. iii. 16, ascertained ready to my hand,—chiefly the result of the labours of Mill, Kuster, Walker, Berriman, Birch, Matthæi, Scholz, Reiche, and Scrivener. The following 102 I am enabled to contribute to the number,—thanks to the many friendly helpers whose names follow:—

In the VATICAN (Abbate Cozza-Luzi, keeper of the library, whose friendly forwardness and enlightened zeal I cannot sufficiently acknowledge. See the _Appendix_) No. 185, 186, 196, 204, 207, 294, 295, 296, 297.—PROPAGANDA (Dr. Beyer) No. 92.—CRYPTA FERRATA (the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. See the _Appendix_,) No. 290, 291, 292.—VENICE (Sig. Veludo) No. 215.—MILAN (Dr. Ceriani, the most learned and helpful of friends,) No. 173, 174, 175, 176, 223, 288, 289.—FERRARA, (Sig. Gennari) No. 222.—MODENA (Sig. Cappilli) No. 285.—BOLOGNA (Sig. Gardiani) No. 105.—TURIN (Sig. Gorresio) No. 165, 168.—FLORENCE (Dr. Anziani) No. 182, 226, 239.—MESSINA (Papas Filippo Matranga. See the _Appendix_,) No. 216, 283.—PALERMO (Sig. Penerino) No. 217.—The ESCURIAL (S. Herbert Capper, Esq., of the British Legation. He executed a difficult task with rare ability, at the instance of his Excellency, Sir Robert Morier, who is requested to accept this expression of my thanks,) No. 228, 229.—PARIS (M. Wescher, who is as obliging as he is learned in this department,) No. 16, 65, 136, 142, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 164.—(L’Abbé Martin. See the _Appendix_) No. 282. ARSENAL (M. Thierry) No. 130.—S. GENEVIEVE (M. Denis) No. 247.—POICTIERS (M. Dartige) No. 276.—BERLIN (Dr. C. de Boor) No. 220, 298, 299, 300, 301.—DRESDEN (Dr. Forstemann) No. 237.—MUNICH (Dr. Laubmann) No. 55, 125, 126, 128.—GOTTINGEN (Dr. Lagarde) No. 243.—WOLFENBUTTEL (Dr. von Heinemann) No. 74, 241.—BASLE (Mons. Sieber) No. 7.—UPSALA (Dr. Belsheim) No. 273, 274.—LINCOPING (the same) No. 272.—ZURICH (Dr. Escher) No. 56.—Prebendary Scrivener verified for me Paul 252: 253: 255: 256: 257: 258: 260: 264: 265: 277.—Rev. T. Randell, has verified No. 13.—Alex. Peckover, Esq., No. 278.—Personally, I have inspected No. 24: 34: 62: 63: 224: 227: 234: 235: 236: 240: 242: 249: 250: 251: 262: 266: 267: 268: 269: 270: 279: 280: 281.

1099 Viz. Paul 37 (the _Codex Leicest._, 69 of the Gospels):—Paul 85 (Vat. 1136), observed by Abbate Cozza-Luzi:—Paul 93 (Naples 1. B. 12) which is 83 of the Acts,—noticed by Birch:—Paul 175 (Ambros. F. 125 _sup._) at Milan; as I learn from Dr. Ceriani. See above, p. 456 _note_ 1.

1100 Viz. Paul 282,—concerning which, see above, p. 474, note 1.

1101 The present locality of this codex (Evan. 421 = Acts 176 = Paul 218) is unknown. The only Greek codices in the public library of the “Seminario” at Syracuse are an “Evst.” and an “Apost.” (which I number respectively 362 and 113). My authority for Θεός in Paul 218, is Birch [_Proleg._ p. xcviii.], to whom Munter communicated his collations.

1102 For the ensuing codices, see the APPENDIX.

1103 Vat. 2068 (Basil. 107),—which I number “Apost. 115” (see APPENDIX.)

1104 Viz. by 4 uncials (A, K, L, P), + (247 Paul + 31 Apost. = ) 278 cursive manuscripts reading Θεός: + 4 (Paul) reading ὁ Θεός: + 2 (1 Paul, 1 Apost.) reading ὅς Θεός: + 1 (Apost.) reading Θῢ = 289. (See above, pp. 473-4: 478.)

1105 The Harkleian (see pp. 450, 489): the Georgian, and the Slavonic (p. 454).

1106 See above, pp. 487-490,—which is the summary of what will be found more largely delivered from page 455 to page 476.

1107 See above, pp. 448-453: also p. 479.

1108 See above, pp. 479-480.

1109 See above, pp. 452-3.

1110 See above, pp. 482, 483.

1111 See above, page 436, and middle of page 439.

1112 See his long and singular note.

_ 1113 Fresh Revision_, p. 27.

_ 1114 Printed Text_, p. 231.

1115 P. 226.

1116 “_Forte_ μυστήριον; ὁ _χς_ ἐθανατώθη ἐν σαρκί ... ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀποστόλοις.”—Bentleii _Critica Sacra_, p. 67.

_ 1117 Developed Criticism_, p. 160.

1118 Thus Augustine (viii. 828 f.) paraphrases,—“_In carne manifestatus est_ FILIUS DEI.”—And Marius Victorinus, A.D. 390 (ap. Galland. viii. 161),—“_Hoc enim est magnum sacramentum, quod_ DEUS _exanimavit semet ipsum cum esset in_ DEI _formá:_” “_fuit ergo antequam esset in carne, sed manifestatum dixit in carne_.”—And Fulgentius, A.D. 513, thus expands the text (ap. Galland. xi. 232):—“_quia scilicet Verbum quod in principio erat, et apud_ DEUM _erat, et_ DEUS _erat, id est_ DEI _unigenitus Filius_, DEI _virtus et sapientia, per quem et in quo facta sunt omnia, ... idem_ DEUS _unigenitus_,” &c. &c.—And Ferrandus, A.D. 356 (_ibid._ p. 356):—“_ita pro redemtione humani generis humanam naturam credimus suscepisse, ut ille qui Trinitate perfecta_ DEUS _unigenitus permanebat ac permanet, ipse ex Maria fieret primogenitus in multis fratribus_,” &c.

_ 1119 MS. note in his interleaved copy of the N. T._ He adds, “Hæc addenda posui Notis ad S. Hippolytum contra Noetum p. 93, vol. i. _Scriptor. Ecclesiast. Opusculorum._”

1120 Page 29.

1121 P. 29.

1122 P. 30.

_ 1123 Address_, on the Revised Version, p. 10.

1124 See above, pp. 37 to 39.

1125 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 34.

1126 P. 231.

1127 Fifth Rule of the Committee.

1128 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 30.

1129 No fair person will mistake the spirit in which the next ensuing paragraphs (in the Text) are written. But I will add what shall effectually protect me from being misunderstood.

Against the respectability and personal worth of any member of the Revisionist body, let me not be supposed to breathe a syllable. All, (for aught I know to the contrary,) may be men of ability and attainment, as well as of high moral excellence. I will add that, in early life, I numbered several professing Unitarians among my friends. It were base in me to forget how wondrous kind I found them: how much I loved them: how fondly I cherish their memory.

Further. That in order to come at the truth of Scripture, we are bound to seek help at the hands of _any_ who are able to render help,—_who_ ever doubted? If a worshipper of the false prophet,—if a devotee of Buddha,—could contribute anything,—_who_ would hesitate to sue to him for enlightenment? As for Abraham’s descendants,—they are our very brethren.

But it is quite a different thing when Revisionists appointed by the Convocation of the Southern Province, co-opt Separatists and even Unitarians into their body, where they shall determine the sense of Scripture and vote upon its translation on equal terms. Surely, when the Lower House of Convocation accepted the 5th “Resolution” of the Upper House,—viz., that the Revising body “shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong;”—the Synod of Canterbury did not suppose that it was pledging itself to sanction _such_ “co-operation” as is implied by actual _co-optation_!

It should be added that Bp. Wilberforce, (the actual framer of the 5th fundamental Resolution,) has himself informed us that “in framing it, it never occurred to him that it would apply to the admission of any member of the Socinian body.” _Chronicle of Convocation_ (Feb. 1871,) p. 4.

“I am aware,” (says our learned and pious bishop of Lincoln,) “that the ancient Church did not scruple to avail herself of the translation of a renegade Jew, like Aquila; and of Ebionitish heretics, like Symmachus and Theodotion; and that St. Augustine profited by the expository rules of Tychonius the Donatist. But I very much doubt whether the ancient Church would have looked for a large outpouring of a blessing from GOD on a work of translating His Word, where the workmen were not all joined together in a spirit of Christian unity, and in the profession of the true Faith; and in which the opinions of the several translators were to be counted and not weighed; and where everything was to be decided by numerical majorities; and where the votes of an Arius or a Nestorius were to be reckoned as of equal value with those of an Athanasius or a Cyril.” (_Address on the Revised Version_, 1881, pp. 38.)

_ 1130 The Bible and Popular Theology_, by G. Vance Smith, 1871.

_ 1131 An Unitarian Reviser of our Authorized Version, intolerable: an earnest Remonstrance and Petition_,—addressed to yourself by your present correspondent:—Oxford, Parker, 1872, pp. 8.

1132 See letter of “One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.” in _the Times_ of July 11, 1870.

_ 1133 Protest against the Communion of an Unitarian in Westminster Abbey on June_ 22nd, 1870:—Oxford, 1870, pp. 64.

1134 See the _Chronicle of Convocation_ (Feb. 1871), pp. 3-28,—when a Resolution was moved and carried by the Bp. (Wilberforce) of Winchester,—“That it is the judgment of this House that no person who denies the Godhead of our LORD JESUS CHRIST ought to be invited to join either company to which is committed the Revision of the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture: and that it is further the judgment of this House that any such person now on either Company should cease to act therewith.

“And that this Resolution be communicated to the Lower House, and their concurrence requested:”—which was done. See p. 143.

1135 The Reader is invited to refer back to pp. 132-135.

1136 The Reader is requested to refer back to pp. 210-214.

1137 S. Mark x. 21.

1138 S. Luke xxii. 64.

1139 S. Luke xxiii. 38.

1140 S. Luke xxiv. 42.

1141 Εἰπεῖν is “_to command_” in S. Matth. (and S. Luke) iv. 3: in S. Mark v. 43: viii. 7, and in many other places. On the other hand, the Revisers have thrust “_command_” into S. Matth. xx. 21, where “_grant_” had far better have been let alone: and have overlooked other places (as S. Matth. xxii. 24, S. James ii. 11), where “_command_” might perhaps have been introduced with advantage. (I nothing doubt that when the Centurion of Capernaum said to our Lord μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ [Mtt. viii. 8 = Lu. vii. 7], he entreated Him “only to give _the word of command_.”)

We all see, of course, that it was because Δός is rendered “_grant_” in the (very nearly) parallel place to S. Matth. xx. 21 (viz. S. Mark x. 37), that the Revisers thought it incumbent on them to represent Εἰπέ in the earlier Gospel differently; and so they bethought themselves of “_command_.” (Infelicitously enough, as I humbly think. “_Promise_” would evidently have been a preferable substitute: the word in the original (εἰπεῖν) being one of that large family of Greek verbs which vary their shade of signification according to their context.) But it is plainly impracticable to _level up_ after this rigid fashion,—to translate in this mechanical way. Far more is lost than is gained by this straining after an impossible closeness of rendering. The spirit becomes inevitably sacrificed to the letter. All this has been largely remarked upon above, at pp. 187-206.

Take the case before us in illustration. S. James and S. John with their Mother, have evidently agreed together to “_ask a favour_” of their LORD (cf. Mtt. xx. 20, Mk. x. 35). The Mother begins Εἰπέ,—the sons begin, Δός. Why are we to assume that the request is made by the Mother in _a different spirit_ from the sons? Why are we to impose upon her language the imperious sentiment which the very mention of “_command_” unavoidably suggests to an English ear?

A prior, and yet more fatal objection, remains in full force. The Revisers, (I say it for the last time,) were clearly going beyond their prescribed duty when they set about handling the Authorized Version after this merciless fashion. Their business was to correct “_plain and clear errors_,”—_not_ to produce a “New English Version.”

1142 Take the following as a sample, which is one of the Author’s proofs that the “Results of the Revision” are “unfavourable to Orthodoxy:”—“The only instance in the N. T. in which the religious worship or adoration of CHRIST was apparently implied, has been _altered_ by the Revision: ‘_At_ the name of JESUS every knee shall bow,’ [Philipp. ii. 10] is now to be read ‘_in_ the name.’ Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N. T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of JESUS CHRIST.”—_Texts and Margins_,—p. 47.

_ 1143 Supra_, p. 424 to p. 501.

1144 See above, pp. 272-275, pp. 278-281.

1145 See above, p. 275.

1146 See above, pp. 276-7.

1147 See above, pp. 303-305.

1148 See above, p. 304.

1149 See above, pp. 339-42; also pp. 422, 423.

1150 See above, pp. 391-7.

1151 See above, pp. 36-40: 47-9: 422-4.

1152 See above, pp. 41-7: 420-2.

1153 See above, pp. 98-106: 424-501.

1154 Evan. 738 belongs to Oriel College, Oxford, [xii.], small 4to. of 130 foll. slightly _mut._ Evan. 739, Bodl. Greek Miscell. 323 [xiii.], 8vo. _membr._ foll. 183, _mut._ Brought from Ephesus, and obtained for the Bodleian in 1883.

1155 Evst. 415 belongs to Lieut. Bate, [xiii.], _chart._ foll. 219, mutilated throughout. He obtained it in 1878 from a Cyprus villager at Kikos, near Mount Trovodos (_i.e._ Olympus.) It came from a monastery on the mountain.

1156 Apost. 128 will be found described, for the first time, below, at p. 528.