ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΠΡΩΤΩ
in order to see that the like ending (ΤΩ) in the superior line, fully accounts for the omission of the second line. (b) A proper lesson begins at this place; which by itself would explain the phenomenon. (c) Words which the copyists were at a loss to understand, are often observed to be dropped: and there is no harder word in the Gospels than δευτεροπρωτος. But I repeat,—will you tell us how it is conceivable that [a word nowhere else found, and known to be a crux to commentators and others, should have crept into all the copies except a small handful?]
In reply to all this, I shall of course be told that really I must yield to what is after all the weight of external evidence: that Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BL are not ordinary MSS. but first-class authorities, of sufficient importance to outweigh any number of the later cursive MSS.
My rejoinder is plain:—Not only am I of course willing to yield to external evidence, but it is precisely 'external evidence' which makes me insist on retaining δευτεροπρωτο—απο μελισσιου κηριου—'αρας τον σταυρον—και ανεφερετο εις τον ουρανον—'οταν εκλιπητε—the 14th verse of St. Matthew's xxiiird chapter—and the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel. For my own part, I entirely deny the cogency of the proposed proof, and I have clearly already established the grounds of my refusal. Who then is to be the daysman between us? We are driven back on first principles, in order to ascertain if it may not be possible to meet on some common ground, and by the application of ordinary logical principles of reasoning to clear our view. [As to these we must refer the reader to the first volume of this work. Various cases of omission have been just quoted, and many have been discussed elsewhere. Accordingly, it will not be necessary to exhibit this large class of corruptions at the length which it would otherwise demand. But a few more instances are required, in order that the reader may see in this connexion that many passages at least which the opposing school designate as Interpolations are really genuine, and that students may be placed upon their guard against the source of error that we are discussing.]
§ 4.
And first as to the rejection of an entire verse.
The 44th verse of St. Matt. xxi, consisting of the fifteen words printed at foot[265], is marked as doubtful by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers:—by Tischendorf it is rejected as spurious. We insist that, on the contrary, it is indubitably genuine; reasoning from the antiquity, the variety, the respectability, the largeness, or rather, the general unanimity of its attestation.
For the verse is found in the Old Latin, and in the Vulgate,—in the Peshitto, Curetonian, and Harkleian Syriac,—besides in the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. It is found also in Origen[266],—ps.-Tatian[267]—Aphraates[268],—Chrysostom[269],—Cyril Alex.[270],—the Opus Imperfectum[271],—Jerome[272],—Augustine[273]:—in Codexes B[Symbol: Aleph]CΘΣXZΔΠEFG HKLMSUV,—in short, it is attested by every known Codex except two of bad character, viz.—D, 33; together with five copies of the Old Latin, viz.—a b e ff1 ff2. There have therefore been adduced for the verse in dispute at least five witnesses of the second or third century:—at least eight of the fourth:—at least seven if not eight of the fifth: after which date the testimony in favour of this verse is overwhelming. How could we be justified in opposing to such a mass of first-rate testimony the solitary evidence of Cod. D (concerning which see above, Vol. I. c. viii.) supported only by a single errant Cursive and a little handful of copies of the Old Latin versions, [even although the Lewis Codex has joined this petty band?]
But, says Tischendorf,—the verse is omitted by Origen and by Eusebius,—by Irenaeus and by Lucifer of Cagliari,—as well as by Cyril of Alexandria. I answer, this most insecure of arguments for mutilating the traditional text is plainly inadmissible on the present occasion. The critic refers to the fact that Irenaeus[274], Origen[275], Eusebius[276] and Cyril[277] having quoted 'the parable of the wicked husbandmen' in extenso (viz. from verse 33 to verse 43), leave off at verse 43. Why may they not leave off where the parable leaves off? Why should they quote any further? Verse 44 is nothing to their purpose. And since the Gospel for Monday morning in Holy Week [verses 18-43], in every known copy of the Lectionary actually ends at verse 43,—why should not their quotation of it end at the same verse? But, unfortunately for the critic, Origen and Cyril (as we have seen,—the latter expressly,) elsewhere actually quote the verse in dispute. And how can Tischendorf maintain that Lucifer yields adverse testimony[278]? That Father quotes nothing but verse 43, which is all he requires for his purpose[279]. Why should he have also quoted verse 44, which he does not require? As well might it be maintained that Macarius Egyptius[280] and Philo of Carpasus[281] omit verse 44, because (like Lucifer) they only quote verse 43.
I have elsewhere explained what I suspect occasioned the omission of St. Matt. xxi. 44 from a few Western copies of the Gospels[282]. Tischendorf's opinion that this verse is a fabricated imitation of the parallel verse in St. Luke's Gospel[283] (xx. 18) is clearly untenable. Either place has its distinctive type, which either has maintained all down the ages. The single fact that St. Matt. xxi. 44 in the Peshitto version has a sectional number to itself[284] is far too weighty to be set aside on nothing better than suspicion. If a verse so elaborately attested as the present be not genuine, we must abandon all hope of ever attaining to any certainty concerning the Text of Scripture.
In the meantime there emerges from the treatment which St. Matt. xxi. 44 has experienced at the hands of Tischendorf, the discovery that, in the estimation of Tischendorf, Cod. D [is a document of so much importance as occasionally to outweigh almost by itself the other copies of all ages and countries in Christendom.]
§ 5.
I am guided to my next example, viz. the text of St. Matt. xv. 8, by the choice deliberately made of that place by Dr. Tregelles in order to establish the peculiar theory of Textual Revision which he advocates so strenuously; and which, ever since the days of Griesbach, has it must be confessed enjoyed the absolute confidence of most of the illustrious editors of the New Testament. This is, in fact, the second example on Tregelles' list. In approaching it, I take leave to point out that that learned critic unintentionally hoodwinks his readers by not setting before them in full the problem which he proposes to discuss. Thoroughly to understand this matter, the student should be reminded that there is found in St. Matt. xv. 8,—and parallel to it in St. Mark vii. 6,—
St. Matt.
'Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, "This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips (εγγιζει μοι 'ο λαος 'ουτος τω στοματι αυτων, και τοις χειλεσι με τιμα), but their heart is far from Me."'
St. Mark.
'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, hypocrites, as it is written, "This people honoureth Me with their lips ('ουτος 'ο λαος τοις χειλεσι με τιμα), but their heart is far from Me."'
The place of Isaiah referred to, viz. ch. xxix. 13, reads as follows in the ordinary editions of the LXX:—και ειπε Κυριος, εγγιζει μοι 'ο λαος 'ουτος εν τω στοματι αυτου, και εν τοις χειλεσιν αυτων τιμωσι με.
Now, about the text of St. Mark in this place no question is raised. Neither is there any various reading worth speaking of in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred in respect of the text in St. Matthew. But when reference is made to the two oldest copies in existence, B and [Symbol: Aleph], we are presented with what, but for the parallel place in St. Mark, would have appeared to us a strangely abbreviated reading. Both MSS. conspire in exhibiting St. Matt. xv. 8, as follows:—'ο λαος 'ουτος τοις χειλεσι με τιμα. So that six words (εγγιζει μοι and τω στοματι αυτων, και) are not recognized by them: in which peculiarity they are countenanced by DLTc, two cursive copies, and the following versions:—Old Latin except f, Vulgate, Curetonian, Lewis, Peshitto, and Bohairic, (Cod. A, the Sahidic and Gothic versions, being imperfect here.) To this evidence, Tischendorf adds a phalanx of Fathers:—Clemens Romanus (A.D. 70), Ptolemaeus the Gnostic (A.D. 150), Clemens Alexandrinus (A.D. 190), Origen in three places (A.D. 210), Eusebius (A.D. 325), Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom: and Alford supplies also Justin Martyr (A.D. 150). The testimony of Didymus (A.D. 350), which has been hitherto overlooked, is express. Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, are naturally found to follow the Latin copies. Such a weight of evidence may not unreasonably inspire Dr. Tregelles with an exceeding amount of confidence. Accordingly he declares 'that this one passage might be relied upon as an important proof that it is the few MSS. and not the many which accord with ancient testimony.' Availing himself of Dr. Scrivener's admission of 'the possibility that the disputed words in the great bulk of the MSS. were inserted from the Septuagint of Isaiah xxix. 13[285],' Dr. Tregelles insists 'that on every true principle of textual criticism, the words must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from the Prophet. This naturally explains their introduction,' (he adds); 'and when once they had gained a footing in the text, it is certain that they would be multiplied by copyists, who almost always preferred to make passages as full and complete as possible' (p. 139). Dr. Tregelles therefore relies upon this one passage,—not so much as a 'proof that it is the few MSS. and not the many which accord with ancient testimony';—for one instance cannot possibly prove that; and that is after all beside the real question;—but, as a proof that we are to regard the text of Codd. B[Symbol: Aleph] in this place as genuine, and the text of all the other Codexes in the world as corrupt.
The reader has now the hypothesis fully before him by which from the days of Griesbach it has been proposed to account for the discrepancy between 'the few copies' on the one hand, and the whole torrent of manuscript evidence on the other.
Now, as I am writing a book on the principles of Textual Criticism, I must be allowed to set my reader on his guard against all such unsupported dicta as the preceding, though enforced with emphasis and recommended by a deservedly respected name. I venture to think that the exact reverse will be found to be a vast deal nearer the truth: viz. that undoubtedly spurious readings, although they may at one time or other have succeeded in obtaining a footing in MSS., and to some extent may be observed even to have propagated themselves, are yet discovered to die out speedily; seldom indeed to leave any considerable number of descendants. There has always in fact been a process of elimination going on, as well as of self-propagation: a corrective force at work, as well as one of deterioration. How else are we to account for the utter disappearance of the many monstra potius quam variae lectiones which the ancients nevertheless insist were prevalent in their times? It is enough to appeal to a single place in Jerome, in illustration of what I have been saying[286]. To return however from this digression.
We are invited then to believe,—for it is well to know at the outset exactly what is required of us,—that from the fifth century downwards every extant copy of the Gospels except five (DLTc, 33, 124) exhibits a text arbitrarily interpolated in order to bring it into conformity with the Greek version of Isa. xxix. 13. On this wild hypothesis I have the following observations to make:—
1. It is altogether unaccountable, if this be indeed a true account of the matter, how it has come to pass that in no single MS. in the world, so far as I am aware, has this conformity been successfully achieved: for whereas the Septuagintal reading is εγγιζει μοι 'ο λαος ουτος ΕΝ τω στοματι ΑΥΤΟΥ, και ΕΝ τοις χειλεσιν ΑΥΤΩΝ ΤΙΜΩΣΙ με,—the Evangelical Text is observed to differ therefrom in no less than six particulars.
2. Further,—If there really did exist this strange determination on the part of the ancients in general to assimilate the text of St. Matthew to the text of Isaiah, how does it happen that not one of them ever conceived the like design in respect of the parallel place in St. Mark?
3. It naturally follows to inquire,—Why are we to suspect the mass of MSS. of having experienced such wholesale depravation in respect of the text of St. Matthew in this place, while yet we recognize in them such a marked constancy to their own peculiar type; which however, as already explained, is not the text of Isaiah?
4. Further,—I discover in this place a minute illustration of the general fidelity of the ancient copyists: for whereas in St. Matthew it is invariably 'ο λαος ουτος, I observe that in the copies of St. Mark,—except to be sure in (a) Codd. B and D, (b) copies of the Old Latin, (c) the Vulgate, and (d) the Peshitto (all of which are confessedly corrupt in this particular,)—it is invariably ουτος 'ο λαος. But now,—Is it reasonable that the very copies which have been in this way convicted of licentiousness in respect of St. Mark vii. 6 should be permitted to dictate to us against the great heap of copies in respect of their exhibition of St. Matt. xv. 8?
And yet, if the discrepancy between Codd. B and [Symbol: Aleph] and the great bulk of the copies in this place did not originate in the way insisted on by the critics, how is it to be accounted for? Now, on ordinary occasions, we do not feel ourselves called upon to institute any such inquiry,—as indeed very seldom would it be practicable to do. Unbounded licence of transcription, flagrant carelessness, arbitrary interpolations, omissions without number, disfigure those two ancient MSS. in every page. We seldom trouble ourselves to inquire into the history of their obliquities. But the case is of course materially changed when so many of the oldest of the Fathers and all the oldest Versions seem to be at one with Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph]. Let then the student favour me with his undivided attention for a few moments, and I will explain to him how the misapprehension of Griesbach, Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest, has arisen. About the MSS. and the Versions these critics are sufficiently accurate: but they have fatally misapprehended the import of the Patristic evidence; as I proceed to explain.
The established Septuagintal rendering of Isa. xxix. 13 in the Apostolic age proves to have been this,—Εγγιζει μοι 'ο λαος ουτος τοις χειλεσιν αυτων τιμωσι με: the words εν τω στοματι αυτων, και εν being omitted. This is certain. Justin Martyr[287] and Cyril of Alexandria in two places[288] so quote the passage. Procopius Gazaeus in his Commentary on Origen's Hexapla of Isaiah says expressly that the six words in question were introduced into the text of the Septuagint by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Accordingly they are often observed to be absent from MSS.[289] They are not found, for example, in the Codex Alexandrinus.
But the asyndeton resulting from the suppression of these words was felt to be intolerable. In fact, without a colon point between ουτος and τοις, the result is without meaning. When once the complementary words have been withdrawn, εγγιζει μοι at the beginning of the sentence is worse than superfluous. It fatally encumbers the sense. To drop those two words, after the example of the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel, became thus an obvious proceeding. Accordingly the author of the (so-called) second Epistle of Clemens Romanus (§ 3), professing to quote the place in the prophet Isaiah, exhibits it thus,—'ο λαος ουτος τοις χειλεσι με τιμα. Clemens Alexandrinus certainly does the same thing on at least two occasions[290]. So does Chrysostom[291]. So does Theodoret[292].
Two facts have thus emerged, which entirely change the aspect of the problem: the first, (a) That the words εν τω στοματι αυτων, και εν were anciently absent from the Septuagintal rendering of Isaiah xxix. 13: the second, (b) that the place of Isaiah was freely quoted by the ancients without the initial words εγγιζει μοι.
And after this discovery will any one be so perverse as to deny that on the contrary it must needs be Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph], and not the great bulk of the MSS., which exhibit a text corrupted by the influence of the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah xxix. 13? The precise extent to which the assimilating influence of the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel has been felt by the copyists, I presume not to determine. The essential point is that the omission from St. Matthew xv. 8 of the words Τω στοματι αυτων, και, is certainly due in the first instance to the ascertained Septuagint omission of those very words in Isaiah xxix. 13.
But that the text of St. Mark vii. 6 has exercised an assimilating influence on the quotation from Isaiah is demonstrable. For there can be no doubt that Isaiah's phrase (retained by St. Matthew) is 'ο λαος ουτος,—St. Mark's ουτος 'ο λαος. And yet, when Clemens Romanus quotes Isaiah, he begins—ουτος 'ο λαος[293]; and so twice does Theodoret[294].
The reader is now in a position to judge how much attention is due to Dr. Tregelles' dictum 'that this one passage may be relied upon' in support of the peculiar views he advocates: as well as to his confident claim that the fuller text which is found in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred 'must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from the prophet.' It has been shewn in answer to the learned critic that in the ancient Greek text of the prophet the 'amplification' he speaks of did not exist: it was the abbreviated text which was found there. So that the very converse of the phenomenon he supposes has taken place. Freely accepting his hypothesis that we have here a process of assimilation, occasioned by the Septuagintal text of Isaiah, we differ from him only as to the direction in which that process has manifested itself. He assumes that the bulk of the MSS. have been conformed to the generally received reading of Isaiah xxix. 13. But it has been shewn that, on the contrary, it is the two oldest MSS. which have experienced assimilation. Their prototypes were depraved in this way at an exceedingly remote period.
To state this matter somewhat differently.—In all the extant uncials but five, and in almost every known cursive copy of the Gospels, the words τω στοματι αυτων, και are found to belong to St. Matt. xv. 8. How is the presence of those words to be accounted for? The reply is obvious:—By the fact that they must have existed in the original autograph of the Evangelist. Such however is not the reply of Griesbach and his followers. They insist that beyond all doubt those words must have been imported into the Gospel from Isaiah xxix. But I have shewn that this is impossible; because, at the time spoken of, the words in question had no place in the Greek text of the prophet. And this discovery exactly reverses the problem, and brings out the directly opposite result. For now we discover that we have rather to inquire how is the absence of the words in question from those few MSS. out of the mass to be accounted for? The two oldest Codexes are convicted of exhibiting a text which has been corrupted by the influence of the oldest Septuagint reading of Isaiah xxix. 13.
I freely admit that it is in a high degree remarkable that five ancient Versions, and all the following early writers,—Ptolemaeus[295], Clemens Alexandrinus[296], Origen[297], Didymus[298], Cyril[299], Chrysostom[300], and possibly three others of like antiquity[301],—should all quote St. Matthew in this place from a faulty text. But this does but prove at how extremely remote a period the corruption must have begun. It probably dates from the first century. Especially does it seem to shew how distrustful we should be of our oldest authorities when, as here, they are plainly at variance with the whole torrent of manuscript authority. This is indeed no ordinary case. There are elements of distrust here, such as are not commonly encountered.
§ 6.
What I have been saying is aptly illustrated by a place in our Lord's Sermon on the Mount: viz. St. Matt. v. 44; which in almost every MS. in existence stands as follows:
On the other hand, it is not to be denied that there exists an appreciable body of evidence for exhibiting the passage in a shorter form. The fact that Origen six times[304] reads the place thus:
και προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των διωκοντων 'υμας.
(which amounts to a rejection of the second, third, and fourth clauses;)—and that he is supported therein by B[Symbol: Aleph], (besides a few cursives) the Curetonian, the Lewis, several Old Latin MSS., and the Bohairic[305], seems to critics of a certain school a circumstance fatal to the credit of those clauses. They are aware that Cyprian[306], and they are welcome to the information that Tertullian[307] once and Theodoret once[308] [besides Irenaeus[309], Eusebius[310], and Gregory of Nyssa[311]] exhibit the place in the same way. So does the author of the Dialogus contra Marcionitas[312],—whom however I take to be Origen. Griesbach, on far slenderer evidence, was for obelizing all the three clauses. But Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf and the Revisers reject them entirely. I am persuaded that they are grievously mistaken in so doing, and that the received text represents what St. Matthew actually wrote. It is the text of all the uncials but two, of all the cursives but six or seven; and this alone ought to be decisive. But it is besides the reading of the Peshitto, the Harkleian, and the Gothic; as well as of three copies of the Old Latin.
Let us however inquire more curiously for the evidence of Versions and Fathers on this subject; remembering that the point in dispute is nothing else but the genuineness of clauses 2, 3, 4. And here, at starting, we make the notable discovery that Origen, whose practice was relied on for retaining none but the first and the fifth clauses,—himself twice[313] quotes the first clause in connexion with the fourth: while Theodoret, on two occasions[314], connects with clause 1 what he evidently means for clause 2; and Tertullian once if not twice connects closely clauses 1, 2; and once, clauses 1, 2, 5[315]. From which it is plain that neither Origen nor Theodoret, least of all Tertullian, can be held to disallow the clauses in question. They recognize them on the contrary, which is simply a fatal circumstance, and effectively disposes of their supposed hostile evidence.
But in fact the Western Church yields unfaltering testimony. Besides the three copies of the Old Latin which exhibit all the five clauses, the Vulgate retains the first, third, fifth and fourth. Augustine[316] quotes consecutively clauses 1, 3, 5: Ambrose[317] clauses 1, 3, 4, 5—1, 4, 5: Hilary[318], clauses 1, 4, 5, and (apparently) 2, 4, 5: Lucifer[319], clauses 1, 2, 3 (apparently), 5: pseudo-Epiphanius[320] connects clauses 1, 3,—1, 3, 5: and Pacian[321], clauses 5, 2. Next we have to ascertain what is the testimony of the Greek Fathers.
And first we turn to Chrysostom[322] who (besides quoting the fourth clause from St. Matthew's Gospel by itself five times) quotes consecutively clauses 1, 3—iii. 167; 1, 4—iv. 619; 2, 4—v. 436; 4, 3—ii. 340, v. 56, xii. 654; 4, 5—ii. 258, iii. 341; 1, 2, 4—iv. 267; 1, 3, 4, 5—xii. 425; thus recognizing them all.
Gregory Nyss.[323] quotes connectedly clauses 3, 4, 5.
Eusebius[324], clauses 4, 5—2, 4, 5—1, 3, 4, 5.
The Apostolic Constitutions[325] (third century), clauses 1, 3, 4, 5 (having immediately before quoted clause 2,)—also clauses 2, 4, 1.
Clemens Alex.[326] (A.D. 192), clauses 1, 2, 4.
Athenagoras[327] (A.D. 177), clauses 1, 2, 5.
Theophilus[328] (A.D. 168), clauses 1, 4.
While Justin M.[329] (A.D. 140) having paraphrased clause 1, connects therewith clauses 2 and 4.
And Polycarp[330] (A.D. 108) apparently connects clauses 4 and 5.
Didache[331] (A.D. 100?) quotes 2, 4, 5 and combines 1 and 3 (pp. 5, 6).
In the face of all this evidence, no one it is presumed will any more be found to dispute the genuineness of the generally received reading in St. Matt. v. 44. All must see that if the text familiarly known in the age immediately after that of the Apostles had been indeed the bald, curt thing which the critics imagine, viz.
και προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των διωκοντων 'υμας,—
by no possibility could the men of that age in referring to St. Matt. v. 44 have freely mentioned 'blessing those who curse,—doing good to those who hate,—and praying for those who despitefully use.' Since there are but two alternative readings of the passage,—one longer, one briefer,—every clear acknowledgement of a single disputed clause in the larger reading necessarily carries with it all the rest.
This result of 'comparative criticism' is therefore respectfully recommended to the notice of the learned. If it be not decisive of the point at issue to find such a torrent of primitive testimony at one with the bulk of the Uncials and Cursives extant, it is clear that there can be no Science of Textual Criticism. The Law of Evidence must be held to be inoperative in this subject-matter. Nothing deserving of the name of 'proof' will ever be attainable in this department of investigation.
But if men admit that the ordinarily received text of St. Matt. v. 44 has been clearly established, then let the legitimate results of the foregoing discussion be loyally recognized. The unique value of Manuscripts in declaring the exact text of Scripture—the conspicuous inadequacy of Patristic evidence by themselves,—have been made apparent: and yet it has been shewn that Patristic quotations are abundantly sufficient for their proper purpose,—which is, to enable us to decide between conflicting readings. One more indication has been obtained of the corruptness of the text which Origen employed,—concerning which he is so strangely communicative,—and of which B[Symbol: Aleph] are the chief surviving examples; and the probability has been strengthened that when these are the sole, or even the principal witnesses, for any particular reading, that reading will prove to be corrupt.
Mill was of opinion, (and of course his opinion finds favour with Griesbach, Tischendorf, and the rest,) that these three clauses have been imported hither from St. Luke vi. 27, 28. But, besides that this is mere unsupported conjecture, how comes it then to pass that the order of the second and third clauses in St. Matthew's Gospel is the reverse of the order in St. Luke's? No. I believe that there has been excision here: for I hold with Griesbach that it cannot have been the result of accident[332] .
[I take this opportunity to reply to a reviewer in the Guardian newspaper, who thought that he had reduced the authorities quoted from before A.D. 400 on page 103 of The Traditional Text to two on our side against seven, or rather six[333], on the other. Let me first say that on this perilous field I am not surprised at being obliged to re-judge or withdraw some authorities. I admit that in the middle of a long catena of passages, I did not lay sufficient stress, as I now find, upon the parallel passage in St. Luke vi. 27, 28. After fresh examination, I withdraw entirely Clemens Alex., Paed. i. 8,—Philo of Carpasus, I. 7,—Ambrose, De Abrahamo ii. 30, Ps. cxviii. 12. 51, and the two referred to Athanasius. Also I do not quote Origen, Cels. viii. 41,—Eusebius in Ps. iii.,—Apost. Const. vii. 4,—Greg. Nyss., In S. Stephanum, because they may be regarded as doubtful, although for reasons which I proceed to give they appear to witness in favour of our contention. It is necessary to add some remarks before dealing with the rest of the passages.]
[1. It must be borne in mind, that this is a question both negative and positive:—negative on the side of our opponents, with all the difficulties involved in establishing a negative conclusion as to the non-existence in St. Matthew's Gospel of clauses 2, 3, and 5,—and positive for us, in the establishment of those clauses as part of the genuine text in the passage which we are considering. If we can so establish the clauses, or indeed any one of them, the case against us fails: but unless we can establish all, we have not proved everything that we seek to demonstrate. Our first object is to make the adverse position untenable: when we have done that, we fortify our own. Therefore both the Dean and myself have drawn attention to the fact that our authorities are summoned as witnesses to the early existence in each case of 'some of the clauses,' if they do not depose to all of them. We are quite aware of the reply: but we have with us the advantage of positive as against negative evidence. This advantage especially rules in such an instance as the present, because alien circumstances govern the quotation, and regulate particularly the length of it. Such quotation is always liable to shortening, whether by leaving out intermediate clauses, or by sudden curtailment in the midst of the passage. Therefore, actual citation of separate clauses, being undesigned and fortuitous, is much more valuable than omission arising from what cause soever.]
[2. The reviewer says that 'all four clauses are read by both texts,' i.e. in St. Matthew and St. Luke, and appears to have been unaware as regards the present purpose of the existence of the fifth clause, or half-clause, in St. Matthew. Yet the words—'υπερ ... των διωκοντων 'υμας are a very label, telling incontestibly the origin of many of the quotations. Sentences so distinguished with St. Matthew's label cannot have come from St. Luke's Gospel. The reviewer has often gone wrong here. The 'υπερ—instead of the περι after [Symbol: Aleph]BLΞ in St. Luke—should be to our opponents a sign betraying the origin, though when it stands by itself—as in Eusebius, In Ps. iii.—I do not press the passage.]
[3. Nor again does the reviewer seem to have noticed the effects of the context in shewing to which source a quotation is to be referred. It is a common custom for Fathers to quote v. 45 in St. Matthew, which is hardly conceivable if they had St. Luke vi. 27, 28 before them, or even if they were quoting from memory. Other points in the context of greater or less importance are often found in the sentence or sentences preceding or following the words quoted, and are decisive of the reference.]
[The references as corrected are given in the note[334]. It will be seen by any one who compares the verifications with the reviewer's list, how his failure to observe the points just explained has led him astray. The effect upon the list given in The Traditional Text will be that before the era of St. Chrysostom twenty-five testimonies are given in favour of the Traditional Text of St. Matt. v. 44, and adding Tertullian from the Dean nine against it. And the totals on page 102, lines 2 and 3 will be 522 and 171 respectively.]
§ 7.
Especially have we need to be on our guard against conniving at the ejection of short clauses consisting of from twelve to fourteen letters,—which proves to have been the exact length of a line in the earliest copies. When such omissions leave the sense manifestly imperfect, no evil consequence can result. Critics then either take no notice of the circumstance, or simply remark in passing that the omission has been the result of accident. In this way, ['οι πατερες αυτων, though it is omitted by Cod. B in St. Luke vi. 26, is retained by all the Editors: and the strange reading of Cod. [Symbol: Aleph] in St. John vi. 55, omitting two lines, was corrected on the manuscript in the seventh century, and has met with no assent in modern times].
ΣΑΡΞΜΟΥΑΛΗΘΩΣ
[ΕΣΤΙΒΡΩΣΙΣΚΑΙ
ΤΟΑΙΜΑΜΟΥΑΛΗΘΩΣ]
ΕΣΤΙΠΟΣΙΣ
But when, notwithstanding the omission of two or three words, the sense of the context remains unimpaired,—the clause being of independent signification,—then great danger arises lest an attempt should be made through the officiousness of modern Criticism to defraud the Church of a part of her inheritance. Thus [και 'οι συν αυτω (St. Luke viii. 45) is omitted by Westcott and Hort, and is placed in the margin by the Revisers and included in brackets by Tregelles as if the words were of doubtful authority, solely because some scribe omitted a line and was followed by B, a few cursives, the Sahidic, Curetonian, Lewis, and Jerusalem Versions].
When indeed the omission dates from an exceedingly remote period; took place, I mean, in the third, or more likely still in the second century; then the fate of such omitted words may be predicted with certainty. Their doom is sealed. Every copy made from that defective original of necessity reproduced the defects of its prototype: and if (as often happens) some of those copies have descended to our times, they become quoted henceforward as if they were independent witnesses[335]. Nor is this all. Let the taint have been communicated to certain copies of the Old Latin, and we find ourselves confronted with formidable because very venerable foes. And according to the recently approved method of editing the New Testament, the clause is allowed no quarter. It is declared without hesitation to be a spurious accretion to the Text. Take, as an instance of this, the following passage in St. Luke xii. 39. 'If' (says our Lord) 'the master of the house had known in what hour