The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels / Being the Sequel to The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

The word παλιν, because it stands between the end (τελος) of the lesson for the sixth Thursday and the beginning (αρχη) of the first Friday after Pentecost, got left out [though every one acquainted with Gospel MSS. knows that αρχη and τελος were often inserted in the text]. The second of these two lessons begins with 'ομοια [because παλιν at the beginning of a lesson is not wanted]. Here then is a singular token of the antiquity of the Lectionary System in the Churches of the East: as well as a proof of the untrustworthy character of Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BD. The discovery that they are supported this time by copies of the Old Latin (a c e ff^1.2 g^1.2 k l), Vulgate, Curetonian, Bohairic, Ethiopic, does but further shew that such an amount of evidence in and by itself is wholly insufficient to determine the text of Scripture.

When therefore I see Tischendorf, in the immediately preceding verse (xiii. 43) on the sole authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B and a few Latin copies, omitting the word ακουειν,—and again in the present verse on very similar authority (viz. [Symbol: Aleph]D, Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Curetonian, Lewis, Bohairic, together with five cursives of aberrant character) transposing the order of the words παντα 'οσα εχει πωλει,—I can but reflect on the utterly insecure basis on which the Revisers and the school which they follow would remodel the inspired Text.

It is precisely in this way and for the selfsame reason, that the clause και ελυπηθησαν σφοδρα (St. Matt. xvii. 23) comes to be omitted in K and several other copies. The previous lesson ends at εγερθησεται,—the next lesson begins at προσηλθον.

§ 6.

Indeed, the Ancient Liturgy of the Church has frequently exercised a corrupting influence on the text of Scripture. Having elsewhere considered St. Luke's version of the Lord's Prayer[168], I will in this place discuss the genuineness of the doxology with which the Lord's Prayer concludes in St. Matt. vi. 13[169],—'οτι σου εστιν 'η βασιλεια και 'η δυναμις και 'η δοξα εις τους αιωνας. αμην,—words which for 360 years have been rejected by critical writers as spurious, notwithstanding St. Paul's unmistakable recognition of them in 2 Tim. iv. 18,—which alone, one would have thought, should have sufficed to preserve them from molestation.

The essential note of primitive antiquity at all events these fifteen words enjoy in perfection, being met with in all copies of the Peshitto:—and this is a far weightier consideration than the fact that they are absent from most of the Latin copies. Even of these however four (k f g¹ q) recognize the doxology, which is also found in Cureton's Syriac and the Sahidic version; the Gothic, the Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Harkleian, Palestinian, Erpenius' Arabic, and the Persian of Tawos; as well as in the Διδαχη (with variations); Apostolical Constitutions (iii. 18-vii. 25 with variations); in St. Ambrose (De Sacr. vi. 5. 24), Caesarius (Dial. i. 29). Chrysostom comments on the words without suspicion, and often quotes them (In Orat. Dom., also see Hom. in Matt. xiv. 13): as does Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. iv. 24). See also Opus Imperfectum (Hom. in Matt. xiv), Theophylact on this place, and Euthymius Zigabenus (in Matt. vi. 13 and C. Massal. Anath. 7). And yet their true claim to be accepted as inspired is of course based on the consideration that they are found in ninety-nine out of a hundred of the Greek copies, including Φ and Σ of the end of the fifth and beginning of the sixth centuries. What then is the nature of the adverse evidence with which they have to contend and which is supposed to be fatal to their claims?

Four uncial MSS. ([Symbol: Aleph]BDZ), supported by five cursives of bad character (1, 17 which gives αμην, 118, 130, 209), and, as we have seen, all the Latin copies but four, omit these words; which, it is accordingly assumed, must have found their way surreptitiously into the text of all the other copies in existence. But let me ask,—Is it at all likely, or rather is it any way credible, that in a matter like this, all the MSS. in the world but nine should have become corrupted? No hypothesis is needed to account for one more instance of omission in copies which exhibit a mutilated text in every page. But how will men pretend to explain an interpolation universal as the present; which may be traced as far back as the second century; which has established itself without appreciable variety of reading in all the MSS.; which has therefore found its way from the earliest time into every part of Christendom; is met with in all the Lectionaries, and in all the Greek Liturgies; and has so effectually won the Church's confidence that to this hour it forms part of the public and private devotions of the faithful all over the world?

One and the same reply has been rendered to this inquiry ever since the days of Erasmus. A note in the Complutensian Polyglott (1514) expresses it with sufficient accuracy. 'In the Greek copies, after And deliver us from evil, follows For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. But it is to be noted that in the Greek liturgy, after the choir has said And deliver us from evil, it is the Priest who responds as above: and those words, according to the Greeks, the priest alone may pronounce. This makes it probable that the words in question are no integral part of the Lord's Prayer: but that certain copyists inserted them in error, supposing, from their use in the liturgy, that they formed part of the text.' In other words, they represent that men's ears had grown so fatally familiar with this formula from its habitual use in the liturgy, that at last they assumed it to be part and parcel of the Lord's Prayer. The same statement has been repeated ad nauseam by ten generations of critics for 360 years. The words with which our Saviour closed His pattern prayer are accordingly rejected as an interpolation resulting from the liturgical practice of the primitive Church. And this slipshod account of the matter is universally acquiesced in by learned and unlearned readers alike at the present day.

From an examination of above fifty ancient oriental liturgies, it is found then that though the utmost variety prevails among them, yet that not one of them exhibits the evangelical formula as it stands in St. Matt. vi. 13; while in some instances the divergences of expression are even extraordinary. Subjoined is what may perhaps be regarded as the typical eucharistic formula, derived from the liturgy which passes as Chrysostom's. Precisely the same form recurs in the office which is called after the name of Basil: and it is essentially reproduced by Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, and pseudo-Caesarius; while something very like it is found to have been in use in more of the Churches of the East.

'For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, now and always and for ever and ever. Amen.'

But as every one sees at a glance, such a formula as the foregoing,—with its ever-varying terminology of praise,—its constant reference to the blessed Trinity,—its habitual νυν και αει,—and its invariable εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων, (which must needs be of very high antiquity, for it is mentioned by Irenaeus[170], and may be as old as 2 Tim. iv. 18 itself;)—the doxology, I say, which formed part of the Church's liturgy, though transcribed 10,000 times, could never by possibility have resulted in the unvarying doxology found in MSS. of St. Matt. vi. 13,—'For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.'

On the other hand, the inference from a careful survey of so many Oriental liturgies is inevitable. The universal prevalence of a doxology of some sort at the end of the Lord's Prayer; the general prefix 'for thine'; the prevailing mention therein of 'the kingdom and the power and the glory'; the invariable reference to Eternity:—all this constitutes a weighty corroboration of the genuineness of the form in St. Matthew. Eked out with a confession of faith in the Trinity, and otherwise amplified as piety or zeal for doctrinal purity suggested, every liturgical formula of the kind is clearly derivable from the form of words in St. Matt. vi. 13. In no conceivable way, on the other hand, could that briefer formula have resulted from the practice of the ancient Church. The thing, I repeat, is simply impossible.

What need to point out in conclusion that the Church's peculiar method of reciting the Lord's Prayer in the public liturgy does notwithstanding supply the obvious and sufficient explanation of all the adverse phenomena of the case? It was the invariable practice from the earliest time for the Choir to break off at the words 'But deliver us from evil.' They never pronounced the doxology. The doxology must for that reason have been omitted by the critical owner of the archetypal copy of St. Matthew from which nine extant Evangelia, Origen, and the Old Latin version originally derived their text. This is the sum of the matter. There can be no simpler solution of the alleged difficulty. That Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose recognize no more of the Lord's Prayer than they found in their Latin copies, cannot create surprise. The wonder would have been if they did.

Much stress has been laid on the silence of certain of the Greek Fathers concerning the doxology although they wrote expressly on the Lord's Prayer; as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa[171], Cyril of Jerusalem, Maximus. Those who have attended most to such subjects will however bear me most ready witness, that it is never safe to draw inferences of the kind proposed from the silence of the ancients. What if they regarded a doxology, wherever found, as hardly a fitting subject for exegetical comment? But however their silence is to be explained, it is at least quite certain that the reason of it is not because their copies of St. Matthew were unfurnished with the doxology. Does any one seriously imagine that in A.D. 650, when Maximus wrote, Evangelia were, in this respect, in a different state from what they are at present?

The sum of what has been offered may be thus briefly stated:—The textual perturbation observable at St. Matt. vi. 13 is indeed due to a liturgical cause, as the critics suppose. But then it is found that not the great bulk of the Evangelia, but only Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BDZ, 1, 17, 118, 130, 209, have been victims of the corrupting influence. As usual, I say, it is the few, not the many copies, which have been led astray. Let the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer be therefore allowed to retain its place in the text without further molestation. Let no profane hands be any more laid on these fifteen precious words of the Lord Jesus Christ.

There yet remains something to be said on the same subject for the edification of studious readers; to whom the succeeding words are specially commended. They are requested to keep their attention sustained, until they have read what immediately follows.

The history of the rejection of these words is in a high degree instructive. It dates from 1514, when the Complutensian editors, whilst admitting that the words were found in their Greek copies, banished them from the text solely in deference to the Latin version. In a marginal annotation they started the hypothesis that the doxology is a liturgical interpolation. But how is that possible, seeing that the doxology is commented on by Chrysostom? 'We presume,' they say, 'that this corruption of the original text must date from an antecedent period.' The same adverse sentence, supported by the same hypothesis, was reaffirmed by Erasmus, and on the same grounds; but in his edition of the N.T. he suffered the doxology to stand. As the years have rolled out, and Codexes DBZ[Symbol: Aleph] have successively come to light, critics have waxed bolder and bolder in giving their verdict. First, Grotius, Hammond, Walton; then Mill and Grabe; next Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach; lastly Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers have denounced the precious words as spurious.

But how does it appear that tract of time has strengthened the case against the doxology? Since 1514, scholars have become acquainted with the Peshitto version; which by its emphatic verdict, effectually disposes of the evidence borne by all but three of the Old Latin copies. The Διδαχη of the first or second century, the Sahidic version of the third century, the Apostolic Constitutions (2), follow on the same side. Next, in the fourth century come Chrysostom, Ambrose, ps.-Caesarius, the Gothic version. After that Isidore, the Ethiopic, Cureton's Syriac. The Harkleian, Armenian, Georgian, and other versions, with Chrysostom (2), the Opus Imperfectum, Theophylact, and Euthymius (2), bring up the rear[172]. Does any one really suppose that two Codexes of the fourth century (B[Symbol: Aleph]), which are even notorious for their many omissions and general accuracy, are any adequate set-off against such an amount of ancient evidence? L and 33, generally the firm allies of BD and the Vulgate, forsake them at St. Matt. vi. 13: and dispose effectually of the adverse testimony of D and Z, which are also balanced by Φ and Σ. But at this juncture the case for rejecting the doxology breaks down: and when it is discovered that every other uncial and every other cursive in existence may be appealed to in its support, and that the story of its liturgical origin proves to be a myth,—what must be the verdict of an impartial mind on a survey of the entire evidence?

The whole matter may be conveniently restated thus:—Liturgical use has indeed been the cause of a depravation of the text at St. Matt. vi. 13; but it proves on inquiry to be the very few MSS.,—not the very many,—which have been depraved.

Nor is any one at liberty to appeal to a yet earlier period than is attainable by existing liturgical evidence; and to suggest that then the doxology used by the priest may have been the same with that which is found in the ordinary text of St. Matthew's Gospel. This may have been the case or it may not. Meanwhile, the hypothesis, which fell to the ground when the statement on which it rested was disproved, is not now to be built up again on a mere conjecture. But if the fact could be ascertained,—and I am not at all concerned to deny that such a thing is possible,—I should regard it only as confirmatory of the genuineness of the doxology. For why should the liturgical employment of the last fifteen words of the Lord's Prayer be thought to cast discredit on their genuineness? In the meantime, the undoubted fact, that for an indefinitely remote period the Lord's Prayer was not publicly recited by the people further than 'But deliver us from evil,'—a doxology of some sort being invariably added, but pronounced by the priest alone,—this clearly ascertained fact is fully sufficient to account for a phenomenon so ordinary [found indeed so commonly throughout St. Matthew, to say nothing of occurrences in the other Gospels] as really not to require particular explanation, viz. the omission of the last half of St. Matthew vi. 13 from Codexes [Symbol: Aleph]BDZ.

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER VII.

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

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

§ 1.

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

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

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

§ 2.

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

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

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

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

In St. Luke's Gospel iv. 1-13, no less than six copies of the Old Latin versions (b c f g¹ l q) besides Ambrose (Com. St. Luke, 1340), are observed to transpose the second and third temptations; introducing verses 9-12 between verses 4 and 5; in order to make the history of the Temptation as given by St. Luke correspond with the account given by St. Matthew.

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

§ 3.

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

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

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

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

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

The Evangelist proceeds,—'Peter saith unto Him (Λεγει αυτω 'ο Πετρος), Of strangers.' These four words C retains, but continues—'Now when he had said, Of strangers' (Ειποντος δε αυτου, απο των αλλοτριων);—which unauthorized clause, all but the word αυτου, is found also in [Symbol: Aleph], but in no other uncial. On the other hand, for Λεγει αυτω 'ο Πετρος, [Symbol: Aleph] (alone of uncials) substitutes 'ο δε εφη: and B (also alone of uncials) substitutes Ειποντος δε,—and then proceeds exactly like the received text: while D merely omits 'ο Πετρος. Again I ask,—How is all this discrepancy to be explained[180]?

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

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

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

Hence also, in Cureton's Syriac[183], the patch-work supplement to St. Matt. xxi. 9: viz.:—πολλοι δε (St. Mark xi. 8) εξηλθον εις 'υπαντησιν αυτου. και (St. John xii. 13) ηρξαντο ... χαιροντες αινειν τον Θεον ... περι πασων 'ων ειδον (St. Luke xix. 37). This self-evident fabrication, 'if it be not a part of the original Aramaic of St. Matthew,' remarks Dr. Cureton, 'would appear to have been supplied from the parallel passages of Luke and John conjointly.' How is it that even a sense of humour did not preserve that eminent scholar from hazarding the conjecture, that such a self-evident deflection of his corrupt Syriac Codex from the course all but universally pursued is a recovery of one more genuine utterance of the Holy Ghost?

FOOTNOTES: