CHAPTER IX.

APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS AND PRINCIPLES TO THE CRITICISM OF SELECT PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

IN applying to the revision of the sacred text the diplomatic materials and critical principles it has been the purpose of the preceding pages to describe; we have selected the few passages we have room to examine, chiefly in consideration of their actual importance, occasionally also with the design of illustrating by pertinent examples the canons of internal evidence and the laws of Comparative Criticism. It will be convenient to discuss these passages in the order they occupy in the volume of the New Testament: that which stands first affords a conspicuous instance of undue and misplaced subjectivity on the part of Tischendorf and Tregelles.

(1). MATTH. i. 18. Toi bè ’Intou Xprotor... is altered by these editors into Τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ, Ἰησοῦ being omitted. Michaelis had objected to the term τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Act. viii. 37 (see the verse examined below), on the ground that "In the time of the Apostles the word Christ was never used as the Proper Name of a Person, but as an epithet expressive of the ministry of Jesus;" and although Bp. Middleton has abundantly proved his statement incorrect (Doctrine of the Greek Article, note on Mark ix. 41), and 'Inooûs Xpiorós, especially in some one of the oblique cases after prepositions, is very common, yet the precise form ὁ Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς occurs only in these places and in 1 John iv. 3; Apoc. xii. 17, where again the reading is unsettled. Hence, apparently, the determination to change the common text in St Matthew, on evidence however slight. Now

'Inooû is omitted in no Greek manuscript whatever1. The Latin version of Cod. D (d) indeed rejects it, the parallel Greek being lost; but since d sometimes agrees with other Latin copies against its own Greek, it cannot be deemed quite certain that the Greek rejected it also. Cod. B reads Toû dè Xpiσтoû 'Inσoû, in support of which Lachmann cites Origen, III. 965 d in the Latin, but on very precarious grounds, as Tregelles (Account of Printed Text, p. 189, note †) candidly admits. Tischendorf quotes Cod. 74 (after Wetstein), the Persic (of the Polyglott and in manuscript), and Maximus Dial. de Trinitate for Toû dè iŋooû. The real testimony in favour of τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ consists of the Old Latin copies a. b. c. d.f.ff1, the Curetonian Syriac (I know not why Cureton should add "the Peshito"), the Latin Vulgate, the Frankish and Anglo-Saxon, Wheelocke's Persic, and Irenaeus in three places, "who (after having previously cited the words Christi autem generatio sic erat') continues 'Ceterum potuerat dicere Matthaeus, Jesu vero generatio sic erat; sed praevidens Spiritus Sanctus depravatores, et praemuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthaeum ait: Christi autem generatio sic erat' (C. H. Lib. 11. 16. 2). This is given in proof that Jesus and Christ are one and the same person, and that Jesus cannot be said to be the receptacle that afterwards received Christ; for the Christ was born" (Account of Printed Text, p. 188). To this most meagre list of authorities Scholz adds, "Pseudo-Theophil. in Evang.," manuscripts of Theophylact, Augustine, and one or two of little account: but even in Irenaeus (Harvey, Vol. II. p. 48) Toû dè i xu (tacitè) stands over against the Latin "Christi."

We do not deny the importance of Irenaeus' express testimony, had it been supported by something more trustworthy than the Old Latin versions and their constant associate, the Curetonian Syriac. On the other hand, all uncial and cursive codices (NCEKLMPSUVZA: ADFG &c. being defective here), the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Thebaic, Memphitic, Armenian, and Æthiopic versions, Origen (in the Greek) and Eusebius, comprise a body of proof, not to be shaken by subjective notions or even by Western evidence from the second century downwards.

1 I know not why Tischendorf cites Cod. 71 (gser) for the omission of 'Iŋσoû. Neither Traheron nor I note that variation,

(2). ΜΑΤΤΗ. vi. 13: ὅτι σου ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. αμήν (see p. 8). It is right to say that I can no longer regard this doxology as certainly an integral part of St Matthew's Gospel: but I am just as little convinced of its spuriousness. It is wanting in the oldest uncials extant, NBDZ, and since ACP (whose general character would lead us to look for support to the Received text in such a case) are unfortunately deficient here, the burden of the defence is thrown on the later uncials EGKLMSUVA, whereof L is conspicuous for usually siding with B. Of the cursives only five are known to omit the clause, 1.17 (habet åμýv). 118. 130. 209, but her (and as it it would seem some others) has it obelized in the margin, while the scholia in certain other copies indicate that it is doubtful: even 33 contains it, 69 being defective: 157. 225 add to dóğa, τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. Versions have much influence on such a question, it is therefore important to notice that it is found in all the four Syriac (Cureton's omitting καὶ ἡ δύναμις, and some editions of the Peshito ἀμήν, which is in at least one manuscript), the Thebaic (omitting kκaì ǹ dóέa), the Æthiopic, Armenian, Gothic, Slavonic, Georgian, Erpenius' Arabic, the Persic of the Polyglott from Pococke's manuscript, the margin of some Memphitic codices, the Old Latin k (quoniam est tibi virtus in saecula saeculorum) f. g1 (?). The doxology is not found in most Memphitic and Arabic manuscripts or editions, in Wheelocke's Persic, in the Old Latin a. b. c. ff1. h. l., in the Vulgate or its satellites the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish (the Clementine Vulg. and Sax. add amen). Its absence from the Latin avowedly caused the editors of the Complutensian N. T. to pass it over (see p. 349 note), though it was found in their Greek copies: the earliest Latin Fathers naturally did not cite what the Latin codices for the most part do not contain. Among the Greeks it is met with in Isidore of Pelusium (412), and in the Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions, probably of the fourth century: soon afterwards Chrysostom (Hom. in Matth. xix. Vol. 1. p. 283, Field) comments upon it without showing the least consciousness that its authenticity was disputed. The silence of earlier writers, as Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem, especially when expounding the Lord's Prayer, may be partly accounted for on the supposition that the doxology was regarded not so much a portion of the prayer

itself, as a hymn of praise annexed to it; yet this fact is so far unfavourable to its genuineness, and would be fatal unless we knew the precariousness of any argument derived from such silence. The Fathers are constantly overlooking the most obvious citations from Scripture, even where we should expect them most, although, as we learn from other passages in their writings, they were perfectly familiar with them. Internal evidence is not unevenly balanced. It is probable that the doxology was interpolated from the Liturgies, and the variation of reading renders this all the more likely; it is just as probable that it was cast out of St Matthew's Gospel to bring it into harmony with St Luke's (xi. 4): I cannot concede to Scholz and Alford that it is "in interruption of the context," for then the whole of v. 13 would have to be cancelled (a remedy which no one proposes), and not merely this concluding part of it.

It is vain to dissemble the pressure of the adverse case, though it ought not to be looked upon as conclusive. The Syriac and Thebaic versions bring up the existence of the doxology to the second century; Isidore, Chrysostom and perhaps others1 attest for it in the fourth; then come the Latin codices f. k, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, and lastly the whole flood-tide of Greek manuscripts from the eighth century downwards, including even L. 33. Perhaps it is not very wise quaerere quae habere non possumus," yet those who are persuaded, from the well-ascertained affinities subsisting between them, that ACP, or at least two out of the three, would have preserved a reading sanctioned by the Peshito, by Cod. ƒ, by Chrysostom, and nearly all the later documents, may be excused for regarding the indictment against the last clause of the Lord's Prayer as hitherto unproven.

66

(3). MATTH. xix. 17 (see p. 16). For Tí μe λéyeis åyaðóv; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tis

1 Why should Gregory Nyssen (371) be classed among the opponents of the clause, whereas Griesbach honestly states, “suam expositionem his quidem verbis concludit : χάριτι χριστοῦ, ὅτι αὐτοῦ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα ἅμα τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν”? He adds indeed, “sed pro parte sacri textûs neutiquam haec habuisse videtur;" and justly: they were rather a loose paraphrase of the sentence before him. Euthymius Zigabenus, who calls the doxology τὸ παρὰ τῶν θείων φωστήρων καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καθηγητῶν προστεθὲν ἀκροτελεύτιον ἐπιφώνημα, lived in the twelfth century, and must be estimated accordingly.

chendorf, Tregelles and Alford read Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγα θοῦ; εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός. The self-same words as in the Received text occur in the parallel places Mark x. 18, Luke xviii. 19 with no variation worth speaking of; a fact which (so far as it goes) certainly lends support to the supposition that St Matthew's autograph contained the other reading: see p. 11 (9). Add to this that any change made from St Matthew, supposing the common reading to be true, must have been wilfully introduced by one who was offended at the doctrine of the Divine Son's inferiority to the Father which it seemed to assert or imply. Internal evidence, therefore, would be in favour of the alteration approved by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and the rest; and in discussing external authority, their opponents are much hampered by the accident that not more than three first-class uncials can be cited in this place, A being defective and as yet unknown, though one is disposed to think, partly from its general character, partly from Tischendorf's silence in the Notitia Cod. Sinaitici, that it does not uphold his view of the question. Under these circumstances we might have been excused from noticing this passage until the evidence of shall be ascertained, but that it seemed dishonest to suppress a case on which Tregelles (Account of Printed Text, pp. 133—8) has laid great stress, and which, when the drift of the internal evidence is duly allowed for, tells more in his favour than any other he has yet alleged, or is likely to meet with elsewhere.

The alternative reading Τί με έρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ κ.τ.λ. occurs in BD (omitting Toû and 6) L. 1 (omitting ô). 22. In 251 both readings are given, the received one first, in v. 17, the other interpolated after Tolas v. 18, prefaced by ó dè inooûs eiπev avr. Excepting these six all other extant codices reject it, CEFGHKMSUVA (omitting λéyeis), even 33. 69. The versions are more seriously divided. The Peshito Syriac, the Philoxenian text, the Thebaic (Oxford fragments), the Old Latin ƒ, the Arabic, &c. make for the common reading; Cureton's and the Jerusalem Syriac, the Old Latin a. b. c. e. ff1.2. l, the Vulgate (the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish, of course), Memphitic and Armenian for that of Lachmann, &c. Several present a mixed form: τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ un eis: viz. the margin of the Philoxenian, the Ethiopic, and g'. h. m of the Old Latin. A few (Cureton's Syriac, b. c. ff2. g1.