xii. 1-4, where the Peshitto simply translates the Textus Receptus (not

altered by our Revisers), saying that the disciples were hungry “and began to pluck ears of corn and to eat,” the Curetonian amends thus:—“and the disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears of corn, and _break them in their hands_, and eat,” introducing (as it frequently does, e.g. St. Matt. iv. 11, “for a season”; St. Matt. iv. 21, “laying his hand”; St. Matt. v. 12, “your fathers”; St. Matt. v. 47, “what thank have ye?”) words borrowed from St. Luke vi. 1.

But in the next verse of the passage, where the words “on the Sabbath,” are absolutely required in order to make the Pharisees’ question intelligible to the first readers of St. Matthew, “Behold, thy disciples do what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath” (Textus Receptus and Peshitto; not altered by our Revisers), the Curetonian must needs draw on the common knowledge of educated readers by exhibiting the question thus, “Why are thy disciples doing what is not lawful to do?” an abbreviated reading which leaves us ignorant _what_ the action objected to might be; whether to pluck ears in another man’s field, or to rub the grain from them on the Sabbath day? On what possible ground can such emendations as this have the preference of antiquity in their favour?

Again, the shewbread in ver. 4 of this passage is, not as we have it in the Peshitto, “the bread of the table of the Lord,” [Syriac letters], a simple phrase which everyone can understand, but the Old Testament expression, “face-bread,” [Syriac letters], which exhibits the translator’s knowledge of the earlier Scriptures, as do his emendations of the list of names in the first chapter of St. Matthew, and, if I mistake not, his quotations also.

(_b_) Or, to turn to St. Mark xvi. 17-20 (the other passage exhibited by Dr. Scrivener). Both the Peshitto and Curetonian shew their agreement, by the points in which they differ from our received text. “The Lord _Jesus_ then, after He had _commanded_ His disciples, _was exalted_ to heaven and sat on the right hand of GOD”—is the Curetonian phrase. The simpler Peshitto runs thus. “_Jesus_ the Lord then, after He had _spoken with them_, ascended to heaven, and sat on the right hand of GOD.” Both alike introduce the word “Jesus” as do our Revisers: but the two slight touches of improvement in the Curetonian are evident, and belong to that aspect of the matter which finds expression in the Creed, and in the obedience of the Church. Who can doubt which phrase is the later of the two? A similar slight touch appears in the Curetonian addition to ver. 17 of “them that believe _on Me_” instead of simply “them that believe.”

The following points I have myself observed in the collation of a few chapters of St. Matthew from the two versions. Their minuteness itself testifies to the _improved_ character of the Curetonian. In St. Matt. v. 32 we have been accustomed to read, with our Text Received and Revised and with all other authorities, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of _fornication_.” So reads the Peshitto. But whence comes it that the Curetonian Syriac substitutes here _adultery_ for fornication, and thereby sanctions,—not the precept delivered by our Lord, but the _interpretation almost universally placed upon it?_ How is it possible to contend that here the Curetonian Syriac has alone preserved the true reading? Yet either this must be the case, or else we have a deliberate alteration of a most distinct and precise kind, telling us, not what our Lord said, but what He is commonly supposed to have _meant_.

Not less curious is the addition in ver. 41, “Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him two _others_.” Our Lord said “go with him twain,” as all Greek MSS. except D bear witness. The Curetonian and D and some Latin copies say practically “go with him _three_.” Is this again an original reading, or an improvement? It is no accidental change.

But by far the most striking ’improvements’ introduced by the Curetonian MS. are to my mind, those which attest the perpetual virginity of our Lord’s Mother. The alterations of this kind in the first chapter form a group quite unique. Beginning with ver. 18, we read as follows:—

In the Peshitto and our _Greek_ In the Curetonian. Text without any variation. Ver. 16. “Jacob begat Joseph _the “Jacob begat Joseph _to whom was husband of Mary_ of whom was born espoused_ Mary _the virgin_, which Jesus, who is called Messiah.” bare Jesus _the Messiah_.” Ver. 18. “Now the birth of Jesus “The birth of _the Messiah_ was Christ was on this wise (Peshitto, thus.” and Textus Receptus: Revised also, but with some uncertainty).” Ver. 19. “Joseph _her husband_ Ver. 19. “_Joseph_, because he was being a just man,” &c. a righteous man,” &c. [there is no Greek or Latin authority with Cn. here]. Ver. 20. “Fear not to take unto ... “Mary _thine espoused_” (Cn. thee Mary _thy wife_.” seems to be alone here). Ver. 24. “Joseph ... did as the ... “and took _Mary_” (Cn. seems Angel of the Lord had bidden him, alone in omitting “his wife”). and took unto him _his wife_.” Ver. 25. “And knew her not until “And purely dwelt with her until she brought forth [her firstborn] a she bare _the_ son” (Cn. here is son.” not alone except in inserting the article).

The absolute omission from the Curetonian Syriac of all mention of Joseph as Mary’s _husband_, or of Mary as his _wife_ is very remarkable. The last verse of the chapter has suffered in other authorities by the loss of the word “firstborn,” probably owing to a feeling of objection to the inference drawn from it by the Helvidians. It seems to have been forgotten (1) that the fact of our Lord’s being a “firstborn” in the Levitical sense is proved by St. Luke from the presentation in the temple (see Neh. x. 36); and (2) that His being called a “firstborn” in no way implies that his mother had other children after him. But putting this entirely aside, the feeling in favour of Mary’s perpetual virginity on the mind of the translator of the Curetonian Syriac was so strong as to draw him to _four distinct and separate omissions_, in which he stands unsupported by any authority, of the word “husband” in two places, and in two others of the word “wife.”

I do not see how any one can deny that here we have emendations of the most deliberate and peculiar kind. Nor is there any family of earlier readings which contains them, or to which they can be referred. The fact that the Curetonian text has some readings in common with the so-called _western_ family of text (e.g. the transposition of the beatitudes in Matt. v. 4, 5) is not sufficient to justify us in accounting for such vagaries as this. It is indeed a “Western” superstition which has exalted the Virgin Mary into a sphere beyond the level of all that rejoice in God her Saviour. But the question here suggested is whether this way of regarding the matter is truly _ancient_; and whether the MS. of an ancient version which exhibits such singular phenomena on its first page is worthy to be set above the common version which is palpably its basis. In the first sentence of the Preface Dr. Cureton states that it was obtained from a Syrian Monastery _dedicated to St. Mary Deipara_. I cannot but wonder whether it never occurred to him that the _cultus_ of the Deipara, and the taste which it indicates, may partly explain why a MS. of a certain character and bias was ultimately domiciled there. [See note at the end of this Chapter.]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Shall I be thought very disrespectful if I say that the study which I have been able to devote to Dr. Cureton’s book has impressed me with a profound distrust of his scholarship? “She shall _bare_ for thee a son,” says he on the first page of his translation;—which is not merely bald and literal, but absolutely un-English in many places.

In Matt. vi. in the first verse we have _alms_ and in the third and fourth _righteousness_. An explanation.

In ver. 13 the Cn. has the _doxology_, but with _power omitted_, the Peshitto _not_.

In ver. 17. Cn. _wash thy face_ and _anoint thy head_ instead of our text.

In ver. 19. Cn. leaves out βρῶσις “rust” and puts in “where _falleth_ the moth.”

In x. 42. The _discipleship_ instead of _disciple_.

In xi. 2. Of _Jesus_ instead of _Christ_.

In xiii. 6. Parable of Sower, a _Targum_-like alteration.

ver. 13 a _most important Targum_.

ver. 33 a _wise woman took and hid in meal_.

xiv. 13 leaves out “by ship,” and says “on foot,” where the Peshitto has “on dry land,” an odd change, of an opposite kind to some that I have mentioned.

In St. John iii. 6, Cn. has: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, _because of flesh it is born;_ and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, _because God is a spirit, and of God it is born_.” And in ver. 8: “So is every one that is born _of water and_ of the Spirit.” This is a _Targum_-like expansion: possibly anti-Arian. See Tischendorf’s Gr. Test. _in loco_. All the above changes look like deliberate emendations of the text.

[It is curious that the Lewis Codex and the Curetonian both break off from the Traditional account of the Virgin-birth, but in opposite directions. The Lewis Codex makes Joseph our Lord’s actual Father: the Curetonian treats the question as described above. That there were two streams of teaching on this subject, which specially characterized the fifth century, is well known: the one exaggerating the Nestorian division of the two Natures, the other tending in a Eutychian direction. That _two fifth-century MSS. should illustrate these deviations_ is but natural; and their survival not a little remarkable.]

APPENDIX VII. THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL.

It would be a manifest defect, if a book upon Textual Criticism passing under the name of Dean Burgon were to go forth without some reference to the present state of the controversy on the subject, which first made him famous as a Textual critic.

His argument has been strengthened since he wrote in the following ways:—

1. It will be remembered that the omission of the verses has been rested mainly upon their being left out by B and א, of which circumstance the error is mutely confessed in B by the occurrence of a blank space, amply sufficient to contain the verses, the column in question being the only vacant one in the whole manuscript. It has been generally taken for granted, that there is nothing in א to denote any consciousness on the part of the scribe that something was omitted. But a closer examination of the facts will shew that the contrary is the truth. For—

i. The page of א on which St. Mark ends is the _recto_ of leaf 29, being the second of a pair of leaves (28 and 29), forming a single sheet (containing St. Mark xiv. 54-xvi. 8, St. Luke i. 1-56), which Tischendorf has shewn to have been written not by the scribe of the body of the New Testament in this MS., but by one of his colleagues who wrote part of the Old Testament and acted as _diorthota_ or corrector of the New Testament—and who is further identified by the same great authority as the scribe of B. This person appears to have cancelled the sheet originally written by the scribe of א, and to have substituted for it the sheet as we now have it, written by himself. A correction so extensive and laborious can only have been made for the purpose of introducing some important textual change, too large to be effected by deletion, interlineation, or marginal note. Thus we are led not only to infer that the testimony of א is here not independent of that of B, but to suspect that this sheet may have been thus cancelled and rewritten in order to conform its contents to those of the corresponding part of B.