Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament and the Ancient Manuscripts Addressed to Those Who Do...

7/27/2019 Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament and the Ancient Manuscripts Addressed to Those Who Do Not Rea

1/260


2/260


3/260


4/260


5/260


6/260


7/260

SIX LECTURESON THE

TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.


8/260

"As man is formed by nature with an incredible appetite forTruth ; so his strongest pleasure, in the enjoyment, arises from theactual communication of it to others. Without this, it would be acold purchase, would abstract, ideal, solitary Truth, and poorly repaythe labour and fatigue of the pursuit."

WARBURTON, Dedication to the Divine Legation.


9/260

SIX LECTURESON THE

TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENTAND

THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS WHICHCONTAIN IT,CHIEFLY ADDRESSED TO THOSE "\YHO DO NOT READ

GREEK.

3 (I3r F. II. SCRIVENER, M.A., LL.D,

RECTOR OF ST. OTRRAKP.

Cambridge: DEIGI1TON, BELL, AND CO.Hontion: GEORGE BELL AND SONS.

1875


10/260

Cambrtorjc :PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A.AT THE UNIVERSITY


11/260

TO

THE BARONESS BURDETT-COUTTSTHE FOLLOWING PAGES

UEING THE SUBSTANCE OF POPULAR LECTURES ON A BRANCHOF SACRED LEARNING

IN WHICH SHE TAKES A LIVELY AND PRACTICAL INTERESTARE RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED

15Y IIEK GRATEFUL FRIEND AND SERVANTTHE AUTHOR.

.Yc.iY/K&iT 2, 187 i.


12/260


13/260

CONTENTS.

LECTURE I.TAGI:PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS AND GENERAL VIEW OP

T1IE SUBJECT ... ... ... ... 11. Study of Textual criticism neither difficult iior unfruitful.

2. Holy Scripture, like all other ancient books, preserved toour times by means of manuscripts, 3. which, in the courseof ages, necessarily came to differ from each other. 4. Extentof these differences roughly estimated. 5. Purpose of thisscience hence inferred. The sacred autographs utterly lost.6. Sources of information open to us for the centuries beforeour oldest extant manuscripts existed, by moans of versionsand ecclesiastical writers. 7. Vast number of known copiesof the New Testament. 8. Necessity for collating them, andmention of certain collators. 9. Modes of discriminating thedate of manuscripts. 10. Shape and material of the oldest ofthem : palimpsest denned. 11. Styles of writing described :uncial distinguished from cursive. 12. How to detect falseor supposititious documents. A visit of adventure to the-Bodleian Library.

LECTURE II.ON THE PRINCIPAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW

TESTAMENT ... ... ... ... 25Mi thod of notation employed for UNCIAL manuscript*.

Codex Vaticanas (13) described : its history, character, date,


14/260

viii CONTENTS.TAGKand collators. Cod. Sinaiticus (X) similarly described. His

tory of Constantino Simonides, who claimed to be the writerof it. Codd. B and N compared, their special excellenciesand defects. Danger of resting on ancient authorities aloneillustrated from Addison, and from examples of tln-ir ownreadings. Cod. Alexaudrinus (A) described, its history, date,character, and collators. Specimens in English (and Greek)of each of the three great codices, B, N and A, with observations.

LECTUKE IIT.ON THE PRINCIPAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NI.W

TESTAMENT: SUBJECT CONTINUED ... ... 00Codex Ephraemi (C), Cod. Bezro (D), Cod. Claromontanus

(D of S. Paul), Cod. Sangermanensis (E of S. Paul), and Cod.Laudianus (E of Acts) described and illustrated by specimensin English (and Greek). The sister manuscripts of S. Paul,Cod. Augiensis (F) and Cod. Boernerianus (G : being Cod. Aof the Gospels) described and compared. Cod. Regius (L) ofthe Gospels, with certain palimpsest and other fragments,briefly noticed (for these see Index I). Their needless dispersion complained of. A few chief CURSIVE manuscriptsdescribed (for these see Index I). The notation adoptedfor them. Remarks on mediicval scribes.

LECTUKE IV.ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS AND OTHER MATERIALS FOR

THE CRITICISM OF THE GREEK TEXT ... ... 8G1. Principal use of ancient versions and ecclesiastical

writers resumed from Lect. i. 6. The case illustrated fromActs xiii. 18. 2. The chief ancient versions introduced witha caution. 3. Peshito Syriac described. 4. Curetouian Syriacwith a specimen. 5. Philoxeuian or Harclean Syriac. 6.Jerusalem Syriac. 7, 8. Egyptian versions, Memphitic andThebaic. 9. Latin versions derive their origin from Africa.


15/260

CONTENTS. ixI M.i:

; inal Wi.-t iuan a inYMtigfctioiu, 10, 11. The Old LatinJlil)lc und its extant manuscripts (for tin-si ,ry of tin Latin Yuk atr ; l:i. its chief manuscripts and1 apal editions. II. Slid -t.notices of the l>nt hie, Armenian,.Kthiopic, (li or-iaii. l i r-ic, Arabic, Slavonic, Frankish, andAii/lo-Saxou versions (for these tee Index I). 15. Criticalad\ untunes and defects of ancient trannlatious of Scripture;l(i. as also of ecclesiastical writers. Suhject illustrated fromMatt. i. 18, 17. and from Luke xv. 21. 18. Great Fatherswhose works are most avuilahle for critical purposes : JustinMartyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, 19. Euso-bius, Jerome and the Latins, Chrysostom and John Damascene in their oldest manuscripts, Cyril of Alexandria andhis Homilies in Syriac. 20. Internal distinguished from external evidence. Subjective impressions, why they must notbe excluded from view. 21. Occasions for the lawful use ofinternal evidence. Five Canons proposed and illustrated byexamples. Cautions requisite in applying them.

LECTURE V.DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANT PASSAOES IX THE HOLY GOSPELS 118

Comparative purity of the sacred text : Bentley s statement. Passages selected for special examination. (1) Matt.v. 22. (2) ib. vi. 13. (3) ib. xi. 19. (4) ib. xvi. 2, 3. (6) ib.xvii. 21. (0) ib. xvii. 20. (7) ib. xix. 16, 17. (8) ib. xxvii.35. (9) Mark vi. 20. (10) ib. vii. 19. (11) ib. ix. 29. (12)ib. xv. 28. (13) ib. xvi. 920. (14) Luke ii. 14. (15) ib.vi. 1. (16) ib. x.42. (17) ib. xi. 2, 4. (18) ib. xiv. 5. (19)16. xxii. 43, 44. (20) ib. xxiii. 34. (21) John i. 18. (22) ib.in. 13. (23) ib. v. 1. (24) ib. v. 3, 4. (25) ib. vii. 8. (26)ib. vii. 53 viii. 11.

LECTURE VI.DISCUSSION OP IMPORTANT PASSAGES IN THE PORTIONS OF

T1IK NKW TESTAMENT WHICH FOLLOW THE GOSPELS . 1G4Explanation. Passages selected for special examination.

(1) Acts xi. 20. (2) 16. xiii. 32, 33, (3) ib. xiii. 33. (4) ib.


16/260

CONTEXTS.PAGE

\\. :JJ. (5) ib. x\i. 7- ( r>) //). \x. 2rt. (7) //;. xxvii. . 17. (8)Bom. v. 1. (9) ifc. xiii. & (Id) ib. xvi. 5. (11) ifc. xvi. 25 27.(12) 1 Cor. xi. 24. (13) ib. xv. 4!>. (, KXKRAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT. 13the seventeenth century, whereof between thirty andforty, being about a third part of the whole, relatoperate but to a limited extent, I doubt not tliat mvpr. e still see three, and in one instance, four columns ona single page, or six and eight on the open leaf. Thispeculiarity, wheresoever it appears, is very striking, andlends to the document which exhibits it a genuine semblance of high antiquity.

Regard should be had also to the material, as well asto the shape of the volume under examination. As ageneral rule, the older the document, the more white,thin, and transparent is the vellum: we shall hereafterhave to notice two or three books whose skins areconspicuous for their delicate beauty. As we comelower down in the scale of time, the fine vellum degenerates, until in the middle ages it is often no betterthan coarse parchment made from sheep s skins. Thenagain, about the ninth century, a rough, brown, unsightly paper, made of cotton rags, and sometimes calledDamascene from the place where it was invented, creptgradually into use. For this, about the twelfth century, linen paper came to be substituted, which wasat once stouter, more white and crisp, than that prepared from cotton : when glazed and well-wrought itis especially elegant, and by an unpractised eye canscarcely be distinguished from vellum.Once more, we may fairly infer the high antiquity

>t a document, if it be what is called a jxilintpsest, thatis, when for th- sake of putting so precious a material

S. L.


34/260

1 8 PRELIMINAllY CONSIDERA TIONSus vellum to the utmost use, the older writing whichit contained has been washed out (a process all themore easy inasmuch as the ancient ink was purelyvegetable, without any metallic base), and later matte,put over it in its room. In course of time the earlierwriting, which had never been entirely obliterated, willcome again to the surface, and can thus be readbeneath the more modern letters, and may be tracedby an attentive and diligent student with more or !>.>facility. Few employments call for so much patience,or task the eyesight and skill of a collator so much a>this, but as it almost always happens that the olderwriting is by far the more valuable, he is pretty sureto find his labour rewarded in the end. In one or twoknown instances this habit of washing out the firstwritten letters has been twice repeated, and to deciphera double palimpsest (as it is then termed) calls for themasterhood of a Tischendorf. When attempts havebeen made to revive the faded characters by means ofsuch washes as prussiate of potash, the experiment hassucceeded for a while, but the palimpsest has too oftenbeen rendered illegible ever after.

11. Another and more comprehensive method ofapproximating to the date of a manuscript is by scrutinizing the style of its writing. The oldest extantcodices of formal works exhibit the whole text incapital or uncial letters, that name being derivedfrom the Latin uncia, an inch, to which size some ofthem come very near. These uncial letters wereoriginally written without stops or even breaks betweenthe words, and look the more strange inasmuch as thewords themselves are divided at the end of the neces-


35/260

j.v/> (;/:y/:r.iL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT. 19sarily narrow lines without much regard to thesyllables which compose them. Let us take for ourexample tin- opening of S. Luke s Gospel, wherein thesentence at first sight hardly looks like English.

and so on. Our earliest extant model of writing ofthis kind has been preserved by means of that awfulcatastrophe which the genius of Lytton-Bulwer hasmade so familiar to us, the burial of the Campaniantown of Herculaneum beneath a stream of lava, A. D.79. The liberality of the kings of Naples (let us speakone good word for a dynasty at any rate not worsethan that which has displaced it) has presented toscholars exact, facsimiles of papyri, which, scorched andshrivelled as they are, and unfortunately comprisingtreatises of small interest in themselves, are the onlyundoubted volumes of the first century which havesurvived the wreck of time. Certain dissertations ofthe Epicurean Philodemus which they contain may beused the more conveniently, inasmuch as he was acontemporary of Cicero, and must have written abouta century before the fatal event. After n\aking dueallowance for the papyrus having shrunk from theheat, these uncials attract the eye for their minutenessas well as for the elegance of their shape. They areauthentic specimens of a fashion which prevailed inthe first century of our era, the letters square, upright,simple, graceful, singularly clear, none being largerthan the rest, or intruding into the margin, without


36/260

20 PRELIifUfARJ CONSIDERATIONSbreatliings or accents, the stops very rare and only asingle point at the utmost, the clauses and sentencesbeing separated from each other either by a very smallspace or not at all. Between these exquisite relicsof the past and the earliest known manuscripts ofScripture little less than three centuries must haveelapsed, yet we find that those Biblical codices whichmost resemble the Herculanean papyri are preciselysuch as for other reasons we should be led to judge themost ancient. In later ages, letters larger than the restcame gradually into use to serve the same purpose asour capitals at the beginning of sentences; subsequently they encroached upon the margin, and grew moreconspicuous for size and illuminations ; then the shapeof the ordinary letters became more and more ornate,the words being separated from each other either bypoints or by blank spaces, as in modern writing. Thenagain, as time went on, punctuation became moreheavy, and quite as complicated as what we nowemploy ; breathings and accents were added,

at firstvery irregularly, afterwards with as much uniformityand correctness as in a printed Greek book ; and atlength, about the ninth century, the letters themselvesbecame no more upright but leaning, like our ownhandwriting, sometimes to the left, more frequentlyto the right. This was the last stage of uncial calligraphy, which, about the beginning of the tenthcentury or a few j ears before, gave way to the cursiveor running hand, which had been employed all alongfor ordinary purposes, and was now deemed not unfitto be introduced into copies of Holy Scripture, eventhose which were most splendidly written on the finest


37/260

.t.v/> peceeneiyfM IN KJc A, i e xro NJ n crroyM N H^ll 6 I O Y, lX N P>|AyTA cTj^> KI o c K AJ 5T A,K^nOM^7earlier than we have ventured to place it. Its uncialsare firm, simple, and elegant; the punctuation consistsmainly

of a single pointover against the middle of the

letters ; the capitals are not much larger than the otherletters, though they sometimes occur in the middle of aline, a practice we have not had to notice before. Thetext has none of the usual divisions into chapters orsections, but is distributed into paragraphs peculiarto this copy, indicated by the initial fetters runningslightly into the margin. In some parts this manuscript is quite fresh, the red ink especially being asbright as if it were new : in others it is barely legible.It has suffered many emendations by numerous hands,some of which have dealt with it very violently. TheAmmonian sections were placed in the margin by ascribe of about the ninth century.The chief interest attached to Codex Beza? arisesfrom the very peculiar character of its Greek text,which departs much further from that of the commoneditions than does that of any other manuscript. Noknown copy contains so many bold and extensive interpolations, either absolutely unsupported, or countenanced only by some Old Latin manuscript or Syriacversion. In the Acts of the Apostles we seem in manyplaces to be reading a kind of running commentary onthe narrative as given by other authorities, rather thanS. Luke s history itself, and some of its additions arevery interesting, from whatever source they were de-rivi-d, though we must not venture to regard them asauthentic. Such, for example, is the touching circumstance preserved by Cod. D and the margin of a lateSyriac version, and by these alone, that Simon Magus,52


88/260

68 THE PRINCIPAL MANUSCPJPTS OF THEafter his earnest request for S. Peter s intercession thathis sin might be forgiven him (Acts viii. 24), ceased notto shed many a bitter tear.

But the most remarkablepassage in this manuscript, in regard to which it standsquite alone, is that which follows Luke vi. 4, on theleaf which is usually kept open at Cambridge for theinspection of visitors. It runs thus :

" On the same day he beheld a certain man working on the saVbath, and said unto him, Man, blessedart thou if thou knowest what thou doest ; but if thouknowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of thelaw."

I was present when this passage was shewn atCambridge to a learned Greek Archimandrite, PhilipposSchulati of Kustandje. He had never heard either ofit or of the manuscript before, but after a moment sthought his comment was ready : " This cannot be :the Lord cursed no man."

CODEX CLAROMONTANUS, or Cod. D of S. Paul sEpistles, now No. 107 in the National Library at Paris,bears a strange resemblance to Cod. D of the Gospelsand Acts in regard to its country, its history, itsdate, genius, and general appearance. This copy alsowas brought to light by Beza, who first mentions it in1582, the year after he had sent its fellow to Cambridge. He had obtained it, he says not how, at theother Clermont near Beauvais, and from him it passedinto the hands of those distinguished scholars, ClaudeDupuy, Councillor of Paris, and his sons Jacques andPierre. Jacques, who was the king s librarian, sold itin 165G to Louis XIV, to form part of the great collection which it still adorns. In 1707 John Aymont, an


89/260

GREEK TESTAMENT: CONTINUED, CDapostate priest, stole 35 of its 533 leaves, of the thinnestand finest vellum known to exist. One leaf, which hedisposed of in Holland, was restored in 1720 by its pos-r Sin>i -h ; the rest were sold to the bibliomanistHarley, Earl of Oxford, Queen Anne s Lord Treasurer,but were sent back to Paris in 1729 by his son, whohad learnt their shameful story. This noble volume,like the other Cod. D, is in two languages, the Greekand Latin being on different pages in parallel lines, theGreek on the left side of the open leaf. It containsall S. Paul s Epistles except a few missing leaves, thatto the Hebrews standing last as in our modern Bibles,rather than as in Codd. KABC (p. 27). Each page iscovered with about 21 lines of uncial writing, the wordsbeing continuous both in Greek and Latin, the letterssquare, regular and beautiful, perhaps a little simplerthan those in Codex Bezae. Our facsimile (No. 7)contains 1 Cor. xiii. 5, G :

ISNOTUNSEEMLYSEEKETHNOTHEROWNISNOTIRRITATEDTHINKETHNOTEVILREJOICETHNOTINWRONGBUTREJOICETHINTRUTH

Here again, but more correctly and clearly than inCodex Bezae, we have an example of what is technicallycalled stichometry, that is, the division of prose sentencesinto lines of about equal length corresponding as nearlyas possible to the sense. This elegant but artificialarrangement, though not unknown in the third andfourth centuries, was first formally applied to S. Paul s


90/260

70 THE PRINCIPAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THEwritings by Euthalius the deacon, A. D. 458. The precious fragment Cod. H of S. Paul, once belonging toCoislin, Bishop of Metz, and now also in the NationalLibrary at Paris, is similarly divided to Cod. D, andthe two must be referred to the same period, the earlypart of the sixth century, a date which will suit wellenough the Latin version in the parallel column, as itdid that of Codex Bezae (p. GG). There are few stopsin this copy, the breathings and accents are by a handtwo or three centuries later. The letters at the beginning of words and sections are plain, and not muchlarger than the rest. The Greek text is far purer thanthat of Cod. Bezae, and inferior in value only to that ofits four great predecessors, Codd. XABC : the Latinversion is more independent of the parallel Greek, andof higher critical worth. This manuscript also wasexcellently edited in 1852 by the indefatigable Tischen-dorf, who found his task all the more difficult by reasonof the changes the text had successively undergoneat the hands of no less than nine different correctors,ancient and modem.

In connection with the Codex Claromontanus weare bound to name another Greek and Latin copy,CODEX SANGERMANENSIS or Cod. E of S. Paul, if onlyto point out its utter uselessness. In the worst d;iysof the first French Revolution the Abbey of S. Germain des Prez by Paris, which had been turned into asaltpetre manufactory, was burnt down, and many of itsbooks were lost in the act of removal. Out of theirnumber Cod. E and two leaves of Cod. H of S. Paul,which we just now referred to, have turned up, togetherwith others, in the Imperial Library at St Petersburg,


91/260

GRKEK TESTAMEXT: COXTIXT I-I>. 71that common receptacle of literary property whichhas m> astray. We may wish the Russians joy of apurchase which is of no value to any one. Cod. E is alarge volume, written in coarse uncial letters f>f aboutthe tenth century, with breathings and accents by thefirst hand, the two languages standing on the samepage, but the Greek still on the left hand. In respectto the Greek column, it is demonstrably nothing but aservile transcript from Cod. D made by a very ignorantscribe after Cod. D had suffered its more violent corrections, which are incorporated with the text of Cod. E inas blundering a fashion as can be conceived. The Latintoo is derived from that of Cod. D, but is a little moremixed with the new or Vulgate Latin, and may beof some service in criticism, whereas the Greek cannotpossibly be of any.Another manuscript in which the prose text of theActs of the Apostles is broken up into stichoinetry wasgiven to the Bodleian Library by its great Chancellorand benefactor, Archbishop Laud It is designatedCod. E of the Acts, which book alone it contains,though with a serious gap of the 73 verses betweench. xxvi. 29 and ch. xxviii. 2G. This copy also is in Greekand Latin, or more properly in Latin and Greek, forhere the two languages are found in parallel columnson the same page (not on different pages as in the twoCodd. D), the Latin in the post of honour on the left,in which particular it is almost unique among Biblicalmanuscripts. It was, therefore, manifestly written inthe West of Europe. An edict of Flavius Pancratius,Duke of Sardinia, which with the Apostles Creed inLatin is annexed to it, shews that it must have been


92/260

72 THE PRINCIPAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THEin that island not earlier than the sixth century. Thevery peculiar readings which he cites from it sufficiently prove that it was in the possession of our Venerable Bc chief critical editors of the Greek Te.-ta-


140/260

120 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANTment from time to time, through no wish to bias y,.urjudgment by the weight of their authority, for in truththe conclusions I would have you come to will often becontrary to theirs, but that you may be aware of theresults arrived at by scholars who have devoh-dstrong natural powers or persevering industry, and inmore than one instance both these qualities, to theillustration of the subject on which we are engaged.The limiting word "without cause" is not found inCodd. tfB, or in two ordinary cursives of the twelfthcentury or later : it was erased from Cod. A by a laterhand. Justin Martyr as usual (p. 110) refers to theverse too loosely to be depended on, but he has no vestigeof "without cause:" the same maybe said of Tertullian.Origen twice cites the passage without it, but makes nocomment; and his follower Jerome, a century later,expressly states that, although found in certain manuscripts, the true copies (which we may suppose to beOrigen s) have it not. Accordingly he proceeds to eraseit from his Vulgate or New Latin translation, althoughevery known manuscript of the Old Latin version, andthe early Latin writers, Cyprian, Hilary and Lucifer,retained it. The only other versions omitting the term,are just those of small account which are ascertained tohave been made or corrected by the Vulgate, namely,the ./Ethiopic, Frankish, Anglo-Saxon, Arabic of thePolyglott, all in this instance distinctly traceable to theinfluence of Origen over Jerome s mind. Augustinealso, who had once dwelt upon it, when late in life hehad come to write his famous book of Retractationes,adopted after Jerome a reading so congenial to histaste. It unfortunately happens that we are here do


141/260

l ASSAGS IN THE HOLY COSPKLX. liMprived of the help, not only of Cod. A (which begins withch. \\v. 0), but also of C: but all other known Greekcodices save the four above-named read "without cause,"comprising D and L, the usual ally of B, the cursives1. 33, and the whole host besides. In questions like thepresent, versions, we know, are of special use (p. 107),but all versions save those named above have the word:the Old Latin, all the four Syriac, the Memphitic (theThcbaic being wanting), the Armenian, the Gothic. Ofthe Fathers, Chrysostom presses the fact that not allanger is prohibited, but what is unseasonable, causeless,in vain. Ireuseus, even Origen once in the Latin (p. Ill),Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, retain the word in theirquotations. Much like this omission is the expungingof "falsely," (ver. 11), which is not in the correspondingplace of S. Luke (ch. vi. 22), by Cod. D and some Latinsonly.

\Ve will not hesitate to say that on the wholeexternal evidence preponderates in favour of the retention of " without cause." It is the earlier, fuller, lessequivocal: internal considerations are possibly more ambiguous. "Griesbach and Meyer," says Dean Alford," hold it to have been expunged from motives of moralrigorism De "VVette to have been inserted to soften theDapparent rigour of the precept," which would bring itunder our first, or Bengel s, canon (p. 114). Differentcritics of the highest rauk, all very competent to judgeif they would but agree in their judgment, come eachto the conclusion which best suits his own temperamentami tone of mind. My esteemed friend, Professor Milli-gan, perhaps a little over-states the matter \\heii heMJI "The precept, if we omit the phrase, is in striking


142/260

122 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANTharmony with the at first sight sharp, extreme, almostparadoxical character of various other precepts of theSermon on the Mount.

"

The common text is best asit stands.(2) MATT. vi. 13 (part). " For thine is the king

dom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."The question here is whether these words formedoriginally a portion of the Lord s Prayer, and consequently of S. Matthew s Gospel, or whether they are anearly addition to it, brought in from the Liturgieswhich from the earliest times were in solemn use in theChurch. It is so far in favour of this doxology that itsabsence from S. Luke s Gospel might lead to its rejectionhere, and it makes nothing against it that it wasmoulded upon such passages as 1 Chr. xxix. 11 ;2 Chr. xx. G ; to which we are not disposed to add withsome the Apocryphal 1 Esdras (or " The Priest," as theGreeks call that book) iv. 59, or the last clause of thePrayer of Manasses, which latter may very well havebeen borrowed from the Gospel. Yet, looking to thedocumentary evidence, it is hard to suppress the growingconviction that modern editors have done right in removing it from the text. Codd NBD and the Dublinpalimpsest Z (p. 76) omit the clause, Codd. AC aredefective here, so. that Cod. L is really the best uncialthat reads it, although Cod. A and all the later sidewith L, as do all cursives (even Cod. 33) except five,whereof Cod. 1 alone is of much account, and another(Cod. 209, at Venice) is little more than a transcript ofB. A few others exhibit the obelus, a mark of possiblespuriousness, set in the margin, and the valuableCod. 157 (p. 82) with two or three more annex to "glory"


143/260

AY TV//; 7/0 z;r GOSPKLS. 123the impossible addition "of Father, Son, and HolyGhost," obviously taken from the Liturgies. Here againis a point on which versions may be used with safety(p. 107), rind the doxology is wanting in the chief OldLatin codkvs a. b. c. ff. g! and others, in the Vulgate(only that Pope Clement s edition ends the Lord sPrayer with "Amen"), and its satellites the Frank ishand Anglo-Saxon. Its absence from the Latin versionscaused the doxology to be unknown in Latin service-books, nor indeed is it found in those portions of ourown Book of Common Prayer which were derivedimmediately from the Latin. It is contained in allfour Syriac versions (Cureton s omitting "and thepower"), in the Thebaic (omitting "and the glory"),in the text of most Memphitic and in the margin ofothers, in the very excellent Old Latin k. (omitting "thekingdom" "and the glory"),/ and others, in the ^Ethiopicand Armenian, here at any rate free from Latin influence, the Gothic, Georgian, Sclavonic, one form of thePersic, and the Arabic of Erpenius. Of the Fathers,Origen in the third century, Cyril of Jerusalem in thefourth, formally expound the Lord s Prayer withoutshewing any knowledge of its existence, while Chryso-stom, a little later than Cyril, comments upon it withoutdisplaying the least consciousness of its doubtful character. It is first met with in the Apostolical Constitutions, a work which, in its existing shape, dates from thefourth century, or possibly a little sooner, and is full ofLiturgical matter. That the doxology, in its place atthe end of the Lord s Prayer, existed as early as thesecond century, is evident from the testimony of theversions, although the variations observed in the Cure-


144/260

124 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANTIonian Syriac, the Thebaic, and Cod. k. may lead us tobelieve that it had not yet received its ultimate form.It can hardly be upheld any longer as a portion of thesacred text.

(3) MATTH. xi. 19. " But wisdom is justified of herchildren:" "of," as one scarcely needs say, being herethe archaic English for "by," the clause intimates thatDivine wisdom is justified, or acquiesced in, by thosewho are nurtured therein. Now this whole

passage,from

ver. 2 downwards, so closely resembles Luke vii. 18 35,both in matter and in language, that we may be quitesure that the two Evangelists are relating the same holydiscourse, delivered by the Lord under the self-samecircumstances. No more exact parallel can be conceivedto exist between two writers, who probably derivedtheir information from the same source, whether oral ordocumentary, without having seen each the other s Gospel. Hence, in the midst of so much similarity throughout, it is inconceivable that the closing words of eachnarrative should for the first time be entirely unlike,and give quite a different sense, if indeed it can be saidof one of them that it affords any satisfactory sense atall. Yet for "children," which all retain in S. Luke,Tischendorf and Tregelles, Westcott arid Hort, wouldhere read "works." One has no wish to deny thegeneral tendency of scribes to assimilate the very expressions of the several Evangelists, and, as a rule, thistendency ought to be fully allowed for; but on thepresent occasion such a consideration can have no plan-:verbal variation is one thing, complete divergency ofmeaning is another. The Lord must have said either"children" or "works" (the two words do not differ


145/260

PASSAGES L\ TIH-; HOLY GOSPELS. 125much in the Greek), lie cannot have employed bothterms in the same hre.-ith. This was so plainly seenby the scribe of Cod. Sinaiticus that, with a bold con-ucy which we noted in him in regard to another passage (p. 49), he adopts "works" in S. Luke also, wherelie is countenanced by no authority save S. Ambrose,who alleges that "most Greeks so have it." In S.Matthew, while the external testimony is insufficientagainst the weight of internal evidence, yet is by nomeans insignificant in itself: the combination of thePeshito and Memphitic versions would alone entitlewhat they vouch for to grave attention. We find"works" in Codd. KB (but B has been subsequentlyaltered) 124 (yet not its two fellows, Codd. 13. 34G ;Cod. 69 being here deficient : see p. 82), some Greekscholia or notes, manuscripts known to Jerome, in thePeshito and text of the Philoxenian Syriac, the Mem-phitic, certain Armenian codices, the ./Ethiopia (someforms of which present us with the two readings united),and in the Persic of the Polyglott, which is derivedfrom the Peshito. In defence of " children " are citedCodd. CDLA and all other uncials and cursives (including 1. 33), Cureton s Syriac and the margin of thePhiloxenian, all the Latin versions Old and New, Origenand Clirysostom.

Those who defend the variation "works" naturallypress into their service Bengel s canon (p. 114), that theharder ivadin^ is to be preferred to the easier; butlhisis just an instance in which the interests of commonsense compel us to set bounds to its operation. A resortto the forced explanation of referring the expression" works " to the life of Jesus or the life of John, where-


146/260

126 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANTby wisdom is or was justified, commended, vindicated,can satisfy no one who has not made up his mindbeforehand that the common reading is unquestionablyfalse.

(4) MATT. xvi. 2, 3. It is not hard to see why theseverses, the first clause of ver. 2 excepted, have beentreated as doubtful by the most recent editors of theNew Testament. The words run, with a slight variation from our Authorized version, "When it is evening,ye say, It will be fair weather : for the heaven is red.And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day :for the heaven is red and lowring. Ye know howto discern the face of the heaven ; but can ye notdiscern the signs of the times ?" The exclamation " yehypocrites" of the common text, is undoubtedlyspurious. Once before, in ch. xii. 38 40, the samerequest had been made by gainsayers, "Shew us a signfrom heaven," and the answer rendered was the samein substance as in this passage, save that the sentenceswe have quoted are not found in the earlier place :hence the temptation to pass them by on the part ofcopyists, whose climate moreover the natural phenomenadescribed therein did not veiy well suit. Yet it reallyseems impossible for any one possessed of the slightesttincture of critical instinct to read the verses thoughtfully, without feeling sure that they were actuallyspoken by the Lord ; so that, internal evidence intheir favour being clear and well-nigh irresistible, theopposing witnesses rather damage their own authoritythan impair our confidence in our conclusion. Thesewitnesses, however, are in themselves considerableCodd. NB and three other late but ordinarily good uncials


147/260

/ ASSACES IN Till: 1IOL7 GOSPELS. 127(one other uncial marking the whole with an asterisk),that excellent cursive 157, two of Ferrar s group (13.124: see

p. 82, note) and some eleven others: theverses are noticed, however, in the commentary annexedto two copies which omit them. Of the versions, theCuretonian and the Armenian (before it was corruptedfrom the Latin) reject the passage, and (as it wouldseem from Mill) some codices of the Memphitic.Origen does not comment upon it, while Jerome, in hissweeping way, alleges that it is not contained in mostmanuscripts. All other authorities side with the common text, which Jerome in his Vulgate does notventure to tamper with. Eusebius acknowledges theverses, inasmuch as he adapted to them his system ofcanons and sectional divisions of this Gospel : herightly makes them parallel with Luke xii. 54 5G.

Examples of this kind of which we shall hereaftermeet with not a few, where testimony, which on thewhole cannot possibly be admitted, is both weightyin itself and comes to us from several sources apparentlyIndependent of each other suggest the suspicion thattin Holy Gospels, like other works both in ancientand modern times, may have circulated in more thanone edition, the earlier wanting some passages whichthe sacred writers inserted in the later. Sufficientattention has hardly been paid to a supposition whichwould account for discrepancies otherwise very perplexing; and it is evident that transcripts might havebeen made from the first issue which, being propagated:.n distant lands, would always keep up the differencebetween the several recen>ions, each as it came fromthe author s hand. Some such process as this may be


148/260

128 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANTseen by comparing the song of David in 2 Sam. xxii.with Ps. xviii., the historical book obviously exhibitingan early draft of the more finished composition in thePsalm.

(5) MATT. xvii. 21. "Howbeit this kind goeth notout but by prayer and fasting." We have here astriking exemplification of the second rule laid down inour last lecture (p. 115), there being reason to thinkthat this verse is but an accretion, taken, with someslight variation, from the parallel place, Mark ix. 29.Otherwise the omission is not imperatively demandedby the state of the evidence, although that is ancientand drawn from various quarters. It consists of Codd.tf (by the first hand) B. 33, the Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac, the Thebaic and one or more copies of theMemphitic known through Mill, e. and ff. 1 of the OldLatin, both of high value, some forms of the ^Ethiopic,and Eusebius, as seen from his arrangement of hiscanon in S. Mark. We are attaching great force tointernal probabilities when we allow such a scanty rollto outweigh the far more numerous and equally variedauthorities that uphold the verse, namely Codd. N (byan early second hand) CDL, all other uncials, everycursive save one, the Peshito and Philoxenian Svriac,the Memphitic in most copies, the Armenian, all otherforms of the Old and Vulgate Latin, followed by theLatin Fathers Hilary, Ambrose, and Augustine, byOrigen among the Greeks and Chrysostom in hiscommentary very distinctly.

(6) In the preceding verse occurs another doubtfulquestion, in reference to which we have to choosebetween "Because of your little faith, the gen tier,


149/260

PASSAGES AV THE HOLY GOSPELS. 1>intriuMcully perhaps the more likely reading, and"Dccaiise of your faithlessness" or "unbelief," the moreemphatic term. In the Greek, of course, the two wordsare much alike, and in point of moral feeling the variation much reminds us of ch. v. 22 (p. 119), only thatthe chief witnesses for the stronger form in that placelu-n> advocate what might seem to be the weaker."Little faith" is the reading of Codd. tf B. 1. 22 (thevaluable cursive, Paris 72), 33, the three here extant ofFerrar s group (13. 124. 34G: see p. 82, note), of Cureton sSyriac, both Egyptian, the Armenian and ./Ethiopiaversions, of Origen, Chrysostom (very expressly, but inone manuscript only), John Damescene in his oldest copy(p. 112), but among the Latins of Hilary alone. All therest, Codd. CDL, the host of later uncials and cursives,the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Latins and oneArmenian copy after them, maintain the commontext. On the one hand it may be urged that "faithlessness" was suggested by the epithet "faithless" inver. 17, on the other that although "little faith" occursnowhere else as a noun in the New Testament, yetthe epithet "O thou" or "ye of little faith" had beenalready met with in this Gospel four times over. Thechoice is delicate, and the difference small.

(7) Of a widely different character is the gravediscrepancy of our authorities in Matt. xix. 17, Avhichruns in our Authorized Bible "Why callest thou megood ? there is none good but one, that is God," whichprecisely corresponds with the wording of the twoparallel places, Mark x. 18; Luke xviii. 19. In all thethree "Why callest thou me good?" has a distinct re-

to the address " Good Master" in the precedingS.L. 9


150/260

130 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANTverse. But in S. Matthew the adjective "good" before"Master" is more than doubtful, while he stands alonein representing the question to be "what good thing.shall I do?", the other two simply putting the inquiry"what shall I do?" This divergency in the versebefore prepares the mind for the larger one in ver. 17,"Why askest thou me of that which is good? Onethere is who is good :" the discussion of which variousreading is the more important, inasmuch as the alteration cannot be accidental. On the one part or theother it must have been made designedly for obviousreasons; and I am the more called upon to lay beforeyou the state of the case as clearly as I can, becauseI once strove hard to vindicate the common Greek text,and can now do so no longer.

It may be seen that the key of the whole positionis the epithet "good" before "Master" in ver. 16, for ifthis be genuine, the only pertinent answer is containedin the Received text. Now this first "good" is omittedin Codd. KBDL and in four cursives, two of thembeing very excellent (1. 22), in three chief copies ofthe Old Latin (a. e. ff1.}, in the ^Ethiopic, in Origentwice, and of the early Latin in Hilary also. Regardbeing had to its presence in the other Gospels, theuncials alone would suffice to justify its omission,by virtue of Canon II. (p. 115). The new and nowmost appropriate form of the answer "Why askestthou me of that which is good ? One there is whois good," is vouched for by the same great uncialsCodd. tfBDL, by 1. 22., and to some extent by anothercursive, and by versions far more numerous and important than those which only omit the first "good"


151/260

rADAGES LV THE HOLY GOSPELS. 131in vcr. 1(1, namely by Cureton s and the JerusalemSyriac, by tho Memphitic and Armenian, by the OldLatin a. b. c. e. ff

1. jf

9. g

l. and others, by the New orVulgate Latin, after Jerome, with the Frankish and

Anglo-Saxon in its wake. A few of these versionsadd -tln.it is God" at the end, while the PhiloxenianSyriac, the ^Ethiopic, Codd. g1 . m. and others of the OldLatin, take the first clause from the amended, the secondfrom the Received text : " Why askest thou me ofthat which is good? There is none good but one,that is God." The evidence of Origen also, on whichgreat stress has been deservedly laid, avails for the firstof the two clauses, not at all for the second. "NowMatthew," he says, "wrote on the supposition that theSaviour was asked about a good work in the question,What good shall I do? But Mark and Luke statethat the Saviour said, Why callest thou me good?tJtere is none good but One, that is God." Nothingcan be more explicit, so far as the question extends" Why askest thou me of that which is good ? " Thusfar also goes Augustine, who, like Origen, expresslydiscriminates the language of the Evangelists.We cannot refuse to admit a complex readingwhich is consistently upheld by considerations sopowerful, yet the case for the Received text evennow looks strong, consisting as it does of Cod. C andall uncials except the aforesaid four, of Codd. 33. GO(which commences with Matt, xviii. 15), all cursivesbut two, of the Peshito Syriac and Thebaic versions,and of Fathers ancient as Justin Martyr (in spite ofhis looseness in citation), and IrenaDiis in the secondcentury, of Hilary, Optatus, and Ambrose against all92


152/260

132 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTAXTtheir own Latin copies except two (/ however, beingone), of Eusebius, Chrysostom, and a host of laterecclesiastical writers.

(8) The next passage to which your notice willbe directed is very easily dealt with : in fact, it ismentioned chiefly to shew on what slight groundsa gloss will sometimes find its way into the text andcontinue there. In Matt, xxvii. 35, after the Evangelist s words "And they crucified him, and partedhis garments, casting lots : " is added in our commonBibles a clause not belonging to this Gospel, butborrowed from John xix. 24, with just one expressionassimilated to S. Matthew s usual manner, "That itmight be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,They parted my garments among them, and upon myvesture did they cast lots (Ps. xxii. 18)." Uncial authority the passage has absolutely none before Cod. A ofthe ninth century (p. 74). Since Erasmus found it in hisCod. 1 (p. 80), it crept into his, the first published edition of the New Testament : it is not found in the greatComplutensian Polyglott of Cardinal Ximenes, whichwas printed in 1514, but did not appear before 1522,too late to have the influence it well deserved overthe Greek text then issuing from the press in variousforms. Besides Codd. A. 1, nine other cursives (Ferrar sG9. 124 being among them) have been alleged in itssupport, though with some small variations of reading.Of the Fathers Eusebius cites it in this Gospel nearlyalone. Its main support rests on certain forms ofthe Latin, a. b. c. (f. &c., Pope Clement s Vulgateafter the great Codex Amiatinus, but not Pope Sixtus*or the majority of the Vulgate manuscripts. The


153/260


154/260

134 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANTlike this. But four of our best authorities here exhibita reading which, once heard, can hardly fail of immediate acceptance : instinct in such cases takingthe lead of reasoning. The Greek for "he did" isepoiei (eVotet) : in its place Codd. NBC and theMemphitic version have cporei (rj-n-opei) "he wasperplexed," a word dissimilar neither to the eye northe ear. I say "to the ear" in case any one may think,which I do not, that ancient manuscripts were transcribed rather from dictation than by the immediateact of copying: of the slovenly practice of dictation Ican discern no considerable traces. Fewas our authorities here are, they are many enough and good enoughfor our purpose, when the sense so powerfully recommends them ; for the passage now reads admirably :"when he heard him, he was much perplexed, andheard him gladly," a lively picture indeed of theinward struggle of conscience in a bad man s mind,enslaved by sinful indulgence, yet not void of admiration for what was pure and noble. The Greek wordrendered "much" (vroXXa) is so used in five otherplaces in this Gospel (ch. iii. 12; v. 10, 23, 38; ix. 26).

(10) MARK vii. 19. "Because it entereth not intohis heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into thedraught, purging all meats." Here again we have averse which affords, in its last clause, no satisfactorymeaning. What is it that "purgeth all meats" ? TheGreek participle, being in the neuter gender, canbe in concord with none of the nouns in the verse,but must be referred to that which entereth into aman from without in the preceding verse: yet howthat can in any way be said to "purge all meats" it


155/260

PASSAGES LV THE HOLY GOSPELS. 135is not at all easy to determine. In this dilemma wehave but to turn to the various readings annexed tocritical editions to see our way clear at once. Wethere discover that the participle is not neuter at all,but masculine, the difference between the forms beingonly the substitution of the long omega (. 346) and a large number of others, aswell as of Erasmus in his first two editions ; while theneuter has far less support. The Latin versions arenecessarily neutral, the Peshito Syriac falsely refersthe participle to the noun immediately preceding.The masculine participle has the Divine Speaker forits subject, and is not a part of the Lord s discourse,but a brief passing comment of S. Mark himself, "Thishe said, pronouncing all things clean," much in thesame way as the writer interposes in ch. iii. 30 "Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." Thussimply and expressively the Greek Fathers, such asOrigen and Chrysostom, understood the sense, andit is strange that their exposition should have beenlost sight of, illustrated as it is by Acts x. 15 "What.God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

(11) MARK ix. 29. "This kind can come forth hynothing, save by prayer and fasting." In discussing theparallel place, Matt. xvii. 21, we assented to the opinionof recent critics that the verse was interpolated fromthe present passage : we must resist their wish to expunge from this verse the concluding words "and facing." The evidence on which, internal considerations


156/260

13G DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANTinducing us, we were content to act in the former &was far from considerable : in this instance it is evenweaker, being Codd. N (by the first hand) B, the Latin/;., and the silent help of Clement of Alexandria: literallynothing more. It is indeed true that in two places inthe New Testament (Acts x. 30 ; 1 Cor. vii. 5) "fasting"has been joined on to "prayer" in the common text,whereas it is not recognized by the best authorities, butthe case against the word " fasting" is much stronger inthem than here. The genuineness of both terms inActs xiii. 2, 3 ; xiv. 23, has never been disputed, andwe cannot deny too earnestly an unjust charge occasionally brought against the copyists of our Greek manuscripts, that they accommodated the text before themto the ascetic practices of their own times.

(12) MARK xv. 28. "And the scripture was fulfilled,which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors." Just as the clause from Ps. xxii. 18 has beenwrongly transferred from its proper place in John xix. 24to Matt, xxvii. 35 (p. 132), so must we confess that thepresent citation from Isai. liii. 12 has been brought intoS. Mark s text from Luke xxii. 37. Appeals to the OldTestament Scriptures are not much in this Evangelist smanner, and the tendency to enlargement from otherGospels would alone render the passage suspicious (p.115). The verse is wanting in Codd. KABCD, inanother good uncial, while in A and one other it isalleged to be marked as doubtful by means of an obelusor asterisk. As many as 25 cursives are said to makefor omission, as well as about 20 Church lesson-books,some of them being uncials (but see p. 77). Of theversions, only the Thebaic and the Old Latin k. reject it,


157/260

AV THE HOLY GOSPELS. 137"but it seems doubtful whether Eusebius acknowledgedvcr. 28 in arranging liis canon. The mass of the lateruncials (including Codd. LP), the most and best cursives,and almost all the versions retain the verse: internalconsiderations, however, are somewhat adverse to it,and, that being the case, the united testimony of theii\v chief uncials is simply irresistible.

(13) MARK xvi. 9 20. We have now reached themost important passage in the New Testament uponwhich the researches of modern criticism have tendedto throw a doubt, and we rejoice in the assurance that, themore closely it is scrutinized, the more manifestly it willbe seen to form a genuine portion of the second Gospel.The paragraph is not found at all in Codd. NB, the twooldest of all, but in the case of B with the suggestivepeculiarity of the vacant column described in a formerlecture (p. 57) l , which leads Mr Burgon of Oriel not veryunreasonably to claim Cod. B as a witness in favour ofthose twelve verses, whose existence its scribe wasplainly aware of, if he had them not in the archetypebefore him. The case of Cod. L, B s close ally, must bestated at length, and I may say in passing that I trustthat no one will think his pains thrown away upon thiswhole most interesting discussion. At the end of ver. 8the copyist breaks off with the words "for they wereafraid," on the last line but one of a column. Then at

1"\Yi> prefer to lay no stress on Tischendorfs opinion that the leaves

containing Mark xvi. in X anil B were written by the same scribe, yetbesides the similarity of handwriting, on which no one would like to

i too confidently, there are other circumstances, apparently nn-notici il by Tischendorf, which corroborate his judgment. In that caseCodd. KB would for this passage make but one witness, not two.


158/260

138 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANTthe top of the next column, but in the same hand (ofthe eighth century be it remembered) the followingnote occurs : "And this also is somewhere extant :And they briefly announced all that was bidden themto Peter and his company. And after this also Jesushimself from the east even to the west sent forththrough them the holy and incorruptible proclamationof eternal salvation. And this also is extant after forthey were afraid: " then follow ver. 9 20 in their usualform. The scribe knew of two separate endings ofS. Mark s Gospel, and lacked the critical skill required todiscern the true from the false. The Old Latin k. also,so often the associate of Codd. KB, sets in the room ofthe last twelve verses a loose translation of the notegiven in Cod. L, as also do two ^Ethiopic manuscripts.Besides the aforenamed, ver. 9 20 are omitted in someold Armenian codices and an Arabic Church lesson-book of the ninth century ; and L s note is found inthe margin of one cursive of the tenth century (Cod.274), of one Memphitic copy, and of the PhiloxenianSyriac.

The proofs of the genuineness of ver. 9 20 seemquite overwhelming. They are contained in Codd. ACD(which last is defective from ver. 15), in all otheruncials, in all cursives without exception ; in the Syriac,in the Curetonian (which, by a singular happiness,contains ver. 17 20, though no other portion ofS. Mark), the Peshito, the Jerusalem, and Philoxeniantext, in the Thebaic (ver. 20 alone being preserved),the Memphitic, all the Old Latin except k. ( but a. bythe first hand and b. e. are defective), the Vulgate, theGothic (to ver. 12), the Georgian and lesser versions,


159/260

PASSAGES IN THE HOLY GOSPELS. 139even the ^Ethiopic and Armenian 1 with the exceptionsstated above. Of ancient writers, the paragraph wasknown possibly to Papias, probably to Justin Martyr,ivrtainly to Irenaeus in the second century; to Hippo-lytus and apparently to Celsus in the third ; to thePersian sage Aphraates (in a Syriac Homily datedA.D. 337), to Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ambrose,Augustine, Chrysostom, in the fourth. Add to this thefact of which Mr Burgon has made such excellent use,that in the Calendar of Church lessons, which existedunquestionably in the fourth century, very probablymuch earlier, the passage formed part of a special service for so high a feast as Ascension Day, and was used onother occasions in the ordinary course of Divine service.

Unless Eusebius is retailing at second-hand theviews of Origen, whom he much imitated, we meet withthe earliest hint of doubt thrown on the paragraph in atreatise of his, first published by Cardinal Mai, in 1847,his " Questions to Marinus." He is busily engaged inhis attempt to harmonize the Synoptic Gospels, a studywhich gave rise to his system of canons we have spokenof so often. Like every one else who has made theattempt, he found the enterprise full of difficulties,although they, as the critics often tell us, only make thegenuineness of a passage the more sure (p. 114). He isperplexed how to reconcile the time of the Resurrectionas described in Matt, xxviii. 1 with what is stated in-Mark xvi. 9. His solution is two-fold : the second we

1 But we ought to add that some Armenian codices which containthe paragraph have the subscription " Gospel after Mark" at the endi if VIT. 8 as well as of ver. 20, as though they (like Cod. L) recognizeda double ending to the book.


160/260

140 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANTneed not concern ourselves with ; it is a curious deviceof punctuation invented for those who might rejecthis first, which, in Eusebius own language, runs asfollows :

" He who is for getting rid of the section which speaketh of thia[i.e. ver. 9] would say that it is not met with in all the copies ofS. Mark s Gospel: the accurate copies, at any rate, circumscribe theend of S. Mark s history in the words of the young man who wasBeen by the women and said unto them, Fear not, ye seek Jesus ofNazareth, and so on : to which he adds and when they heard it theyfled, neither told they any thing to any man, for they were afraid.For at this point, in nearly all the copies of S. Mark s Gospel, the endis circumscribed. What follows, being met with rarely in some, butnot in all, would he superfluous, especially if it contained a contradiction to the testimony of the other Evangelists. This one wouldsay if he deprecated and would entirely get rid of a superfluousquestion."

Just so : the short way with objectors to the variation of this passage from the other Gospels would be todeny the genuineness of the paragraph, which Eusebiushardly chooses to do himself, though most of the copiesknown to him Codd. KB might very well be amongthem did not contain the disputed verses. Jerome,as usual, repeats and almost exaggerates his predecessor s statement, although he did not venture to actupon it when revising the Latin Vulgate. Air Burgonabundantly demonstrates that all the subsequent evidence which has been collected against the verses,whether bearing the name of Severus of Antioch, ofHesychius, or any other, down to Euthymius Zigabenusin the twelfth century, is a mere echo of Eusebius,deriving all knowledge of the matter from him.

Directly opposed to his statements are those ofVictor of Autioch, who in the fifth century wrote a


161/260

PASSAGES I.V THE HOLT GOSPELS. 141commentary on S. M.irk s Gospel, which fills the amplemargins of not a few of the cursive manuscripts. Hetoo, like Eusebius, found many copies in which thetwelve verses were wanting. This set him upon lookinginto the matter, and he fairly tells us the result : " butsince we found them in most of the accurate copies andin the Palestine copy of S. Mark s Gospel," we haveused them, as the truth required. This Palestine copyto which Victor refers is probably of the same characterwith the ancient Jerusalem copies to which certainother scribes appeal in their margins in defence of thesuit-same paragraph. Now it is a sad token of theheedlessness with which important subjects of sacredcriticism have sometimes been handled, that those verymanuscripts of this Gospel they are no less thantwenty-four in all which contain in their several margins Victor s decided judgment in favour of the genuineness of ver. 9 20, have, for this very reason and no other,been cited by one editor after another as adverse to them.

It is absolutely impossible that S. Mark s Gospelcan have ended abruptly with the words " for they wereafraid." Mr Kelly puts this very well when he asks" Can any one, who knows the character of the Lordand of His ministry, conceive for an instant that weshould be left with nothing but a message baulkedili rough the alarm of women?" Accordingly, certaintheologians, who feel unable to conclude that S. Markwrote the passage, are willing to concede that it wasappended to his unfinished work in primitive times,and that it is rightly entitled to be regarded as Canonical. These writers urge against us a certain differenceof style subsisting between the twelve verses and the


162/260

142 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANTrest of S. Mark s Gospel, a difference, we are persuaded,more apparent than real, and from which no safe conclusion can be drawn within so small a compass. ThisEvangelist s pregnant brevity is conspicuous enough inthem, and, for the rest, nothing can well be more precarious than objections grounded on minutiae of thiskind. Professor Broadus of South Carolina, for instance, has established quite a strong case in favour ofthe identity of authorship by reason of the similarityof the phraseology, and Mr Burgon, to whose splendidmonograph on the subject we thankfully recur for thelast time, justifies in full detail his deliberate convictionthat the supposed adverse argument drawn from peculiarities of language "breaks down hopelessly undersevere analysis."

I fear that some of those I am trying to interest inthese studies have found the foregoing discussion rathertedious and dry, although I have aimed throughout tolimit my view to the broad issues of the question, overlooking, as much as possible, many an interesting by-point which seemed less relevant to the main topic ofour examination. I venture, however, to hope that Ihave carried those who have followed me throughout tothe conclusion announced from the first, that the lasttwelve verses of this second Gospel are, beyond alldoubt or misgiving, an original and genuine portion ofthe Evangelist s divine work.

(14) LUKE ii. 14. It is well known to those wholove ecclesiastical music, that the first clause of theAngelic Hymn appears in a different form in theRoman Mass-book and in the English CommunionService. The cause of this variation is that the


163/260

AV THE HOLY GOSPELS. 143former follows the Vulgate Latin version of the NewTestament, the latter the Received text of the Greek.This, the common text, is transparently clear.

Glory to God in the highest,And on earth peace :Good will among men.The words are distributed, after the Hebrew fashion,

into a stanza consisting of three members. In thefirst and second heaven and earth are contrasted ;the third refers to both the preceding, and allegesthe efficient cause which has brought to God glory andon earth peace. By the addition of a single letter(c, sigma) to the end of the last line, so as to turnthe Greek word rendered "good will" from the nominative into the genitive case, the rhythmical arrangement is sorely marred, and the simple shepherds sentaway with a message, whose diction no scholar has yetconstrued to his mind. Let us look to the evidenceupon which rests a change so slight in itself, so momentous in its results. Of the five great uncials C isdefective here, but the sigma indicating the genitiveis found in Codd. NABD, and in no other Greekmanuscript whatsoever. Of these, however, K and Bhave been corrected by later hands, D is muchassociated with the Latin version, in every form ofwhich the genitive occurs, and the testimony of Amay be cited on both sides, inasmuch as in the primitive 14th or Morning Hymn, a cento of Scripture texts,annexed to the Book of Psalms, it actually reads thenominative, and such was no doubt the form used inDivine Service by the early Greek Church. The


164/260

U4 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANTGothic version and the Latin Fathers Hilary andAugustine, the translator of Irenreus and the rest,naturally follow the Latin translations, and Jeromemanifestly adopts the same form when rendering fromOrigen a passage not extant in the Greek. Origen sown text, in three several places, has the nominative,although no special stress is laid upon it by him. Forthe common text we allege Cod. L and all other uncialsas yet unnamed, including Cod. H (xi) of Tregolles, apalimpsest fragment of S. Luke which often favoursB 1, all cursives of every kind, the three Syriac versionshere extant, and that most explicitly, with the Armenianand ^Ethiopic. Here too comes in the evidence ofthe Greek Fathers their virtually unanimous evidence,from which, in a matter of this kind, there ought to beno appeal. Of Origen we have already spoken : butthe Apostolical Constitutions and Methodius, at theend of the third century or early in the fourth; Euse-bius, Aphraates the Persian, Titus of Bostra, GregoryNazianzen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius and Chry-sostom throughout the fourth ; Cyril of Alexandriain three places, other authorities less weighty becauseless ancient, all maintain the text as we find it inthe ordinary Greek copies.

If the genitive were taken, it would of course benecessary to extract from it some tolerable sense, anendeavour which has hitherto met with small success.

1 Called Cod. Zacynthius, as brought from Zante in 1821 into thelibrary of the British and Foreign Bible Society. It has around thotext a copious commentary or catena, and although not earlier thanthe eighth century, exhibits the Vatican chapters (see p. 28) in itsmargin. It contains 342 verses down to Luke xi. 33, and was editedby Tregelles in 1S61.


165/260

7.V 777 /; HOLY GOSPELS. 145as Hebrew poetry it would then consist of

only two very unequal ineinlHTs:Glory to God in the highest,And on earth peace among men of good pleasure.God s glory is in the highest places, peace amongthem in whom He is well pleased; or, as the Vulgatejt. sts, "among those disposed to receive it," a limita

tion of the grace of the Gospel, which, as Dean Altordjustly remarks, is as untenable in Greek as in theology.Yet what else than this the genitive can mean it ishard indeed to say.

(15) LUKE vi. 1. The phrase "second sabbathafter the first " has perplexed every commentator, andbeing one which occurs nowhere else, will probablynever be satisfactorily explained. Since the seasonis early harvest, no conjecture is more probable thanthat it was the sabbath immediately after the firstor great Paschal sabbath, on the morrow after whichday was waved the sheaf of the first-fruits (Lev. xxiii.10, 11) : thus corresponding to our Saturday in Easterwrck. The expression "on another sabbath " (ver. 6)seems to favour the notion that the previous onehad been definitely indicated, and here, at any rate,Bengal s canon may find a fit place, which declares thata reading is not the less probable because it is difficult.The epithet "second after the first," however, is whollyomitted in Codd. tfBL 1. 22. 33. G9. 118. 157. 209(see p. 122). Two of the usual associates of Cod. G9,namely 13. 124, together with Codd. BT and a fewothers, c .xhiliit a form differing from that of theReceived text only by a familiar itacism. Since thisverse commences an ecclesiastical lesson, all Church

s. L. 10


166/260

146 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANTLectionaries (the Jerusalem Syriac among them) omitthe note of time, as they usually do in such cases.Nor ought we to wonder if some versions, according totheir wont, pass over altogether an expression whichtheir translators could not understand. Hence itsabsence from the Peshito Syriac and Mcmphitic (theThebaic is not extant), the Old Latin b. c. and two orthree other copies, from both Persic, and some forms.of the ^Ethiopic and Arabic. How such a term couldhave got into the text unless it were genuine hasbaffled and must baffle conjecture. We retain itwithout hesitation on the evidence of Codd. ACD,of all other uncials and cursives not named before,the best Old Latin codices (a.f. ff2. rs, while Augustine expressly affirms that inthis Kvangelist the Lord s Prayer embraced but fivepi-tit ions, in S. Matthew seven. The mass of copiesand versions must yield in a case like this.

(IS) LUKE xiv. 5. "Which of you shall have anass or an ox fallen into a pit...?" For "ass" of theReceived text, a vast array of imposing authoritiessubstitutes "son," which in Greek is not very unlikeit in form, and thus renders the Lord s question anexample of bathos that is so tasteless as to be almostludicrous, "Which of you shall have a son or an ox?";not, be it observed, "a son, nay even an ox," for theoriginal will bear no .such means of evasion. Thereference in the common text is, of course, to Ex. xxi.33, the order of the words being changed from whatstands there and in Ex. xxiii. 4, ch. xiii. 15 of thisGospel, because the argument here rises from the lessesteemed animal to one more valuable. It is instructiveto observe how hopelessly authorities of all ages anddegrees of importance are divided on a point aboutwhich it might be thought that common sense wouldforbid even a moment s hesitation. For "son" maybe alleged Codd. AB united (p. 55), ten lesser uncials,no less than 125 cursives cited by name (our y has"your son:" see p. 83), against Codd. NL (the usualallies of B), three other uncials, quite as many cursivesas on the other side, and those of the best (1. 33, c.).Cureton s Syriac and one cursive combine both readings "sun or ox or ass"; one form of the Arabic withanother cursive have "ox" only; one of Mr Burgon sVenice cursives has "sou or ass," without "ox." C lin prrlia]K (lie majority of Mempliitic, in someami Armenian

o>i>ies. Cod. A, however, by affixingto tin- i-nd of ver. 42, to which they cannot possiblybelong, the proper Ammonian section and Euscbiancanon (see pp. 127, 128, 153), shews that its scribe wasacquainted with the passage. It is read in all otheruncials and cursives, Codd. NDLQ 1 being the chief,in all the four Syriac versions (Cureton s omitting" from heaven "), in the Old Latin a. b. c. e. ff*. y\ g*.and others, the Vulgate and ^Ethiopic, in some Mem-phitic, Thebaic, and Armenian manuscripts. It hasbeen said that these verses are rejected in Cod. &$ bya hand so ancient as to be little less authoritative thanthat of the first scribe, and certainly Tischendorfslanguage lends some countenance to the notion. Ipossess, however, through Mr Burgon s kindness, aphotograph of the whole page, which exhibits rude slightcurves at the beginning and end of the passage only,and points nearly invisible throughout, both as likelyto have been scrawled fifty years since as fourteenhundred.

In thepresent

case we are able to form such areasonable judgment on the origin of the variation, as isseldom in our power. Cod. C9, the kinsman of 13. 124namc-d above (p. 82), transfers the two verses from theirproper place so as to follow Matt. xxvi. 39, and theyare thus found in the margin of Cod. C, set there by alater hand, C itself being defective in this place. Nowwhen we look into Church Lectionaries, we discover thatthis is tin- position the two verses occupy in eveiy oneof them. They form a regular part of the late servicefor the Thursday in Holy Week (Matt. xxvi. 21 xxvii.2),


172/260

152 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTA XTand there, not elsewhere in lesson -books of the Gospels,do they occur: these lessons, be it remembered, werecertainly settled in or before the fourth century.Hence it arises that in ordinary manuscripts adaptedto liturgical use, as are so many of the later uncialsand cursives, asterisks (*), or obeli ( ~ ), whose use waspretty much the same, were set in the margin to indicate the practice of passing them over in public reading.A scholion in the margin of one cursive states thatsome copies have them not, but pleads good authorityin their behalf: one manuscript of the Philoxenianalleges in the margin that Gospels circulated at Alexandria did not contain them, the fact being that theyare not found in Cyril s Homilies in Syriac, nor doesAthanasius refer to them. Yet the evidence of theFathers is early and express in their favour : namely,Justin Martyr (with rare precision) and Irenceus inthe second century, Hippolytus and Dionysius of Alexandria in the third, Didymus and Epiphanius, GregoryNazianzen and Chrysostom in the fourth, Theodoreta little later. Hilary, on the other hand, in the fourthcentury, declared that the passage is wanting in verymany codices Greek and Latin, an assertion whichJerome, as usual, repeats to the echo.

(20) LUKE xxiii. 34. "Then said Jesus, Father,forgive them, for they know not what they do." Noholy passage has been called into question on muchslighter grounds than this one, so fraught with religiousi eeling, and approving itself to every true criticalinstinct. It is omitted by Codd. BD and two notvery important cursives : one late uncial marks itwith an asterisk. Hero aain Cod. N seems to have


173/260

.V /.\ Till: HOLY GOSPELS. 153been touelied by a recent hand, even more slightlythan in eh. xxii. 4:>, 44: on the other side, the clause\\;is brought into D by a writer of about the ninthcentury. To this scanty list against its genuinenessmust be added the two Old Latin copies a. b. (thoughdoubtless the best of all), the Thebaic version, andt\\ Memphitic manuscripts examined by CanonLightfoot; eleven others exhibit the clause in theirtext, two more in the margin. All other manuscripts,uncials and cursives, have the passage without avestige of suspicion : Codd. NACLQ. 1. 33. C9 andthe rest, the four Syriac versions, the Old Latin codicesc. e. f. ff\ &c., the Vulgate, Armenian and ^Ethiopictranslations. As might have been anticipated, Patristicauthorities in its favour are express, varied, andnumerous : such are the dying words of S. James theJust, reported by Eusebius after Hegesippus "wholived," he says, "in the first succession to the Apostles";Irenaius and Origen in their Latin versions; the Apostolic Constitutions twice, the Clementine Homilies,Chrysostom often, Hilary, Theodoret, John Damascene:it is also recognised in the canons of Eusebius. Thedifficulty really is to know how Cod. B and any Egyptian version came to omit the words; for as to Cod. Dand certain Latins, there is quite a forest of shortclauses not contained in them, in the last chapter ofthis Gospel, of the same kind as that noted in ch. x. 41,42 (p. 14-7 , as if they had followed some early recension\\heiein such additions were not yet inserted ; an hypothesis (for it can be called no more) which we hazardedbefore when speaking of .Matt. xvi. 2, .] (p. 127).

(21) JOHN i. IS. / The only begotten Sou, which


174/260

134 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANTis in the bosom of the Father." Instead of " the onlybegotten Sou" Tregelles, with Westcott and Hort,ventures to set in the text what Lachmann had longsince placed in his margin, the startling novelty "Godonly begotten," an expression whose doctrinal importance is obvious, and which it will require much proofbefore we can persuade ourselves to accept it asgenuine. The testimony in its behalf is at first sightvery imposing, being Codd. KBC (by the first hand)L. 33, Cod. tf also omitting "which is"; of the versionsthe Peshito and margin of the Philoxenian, the Roman^Ethiopic, and a host of Fathers, some expressly, asClement of Alexandria in the second century, Didymusand Epiphanius in the fourth ; others by apparentreference, as Gregory of Nyssa. Of the Coptic versions,the Thebaic is defective here, the Memphitic readingwhat may either be "God " or " of God," probably thelatter. The heretic Arius also upholds " God only begotten," which circumstance does not help to reconcileus to a term that reverential minds instinctively shrinkfrom. For the Received text, since Cod. D is herewanting, can be produced among manuscripts Cod. Aand the thirteen other uncials not yet enumerated, allcursives except 33, the Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac,with the Philoxenian text, every copy of the Latin, theGeorgian and Slavonic, the Armenian and one formof the ^thiopic, the Anglo-Saxon and Arabic. Of theGreeks Athanasius repeatedly and Chrysostom, allLatins from Tertullian downwards, make for "Son."Origen and Eusebius might be cited on both sides.

"The only begotten Son" is a term familiar to S.John (ch. iii. 16, 18; 1 John iv. 9); the alternative,


175/260

/ AWAGES AV THE HOLY GOSPELS. 155which one hardly likes to utter with the voice, occursabsolutely nowhere else. Bengel s canon (p. 114) mightthen-ton- sviu applicable, and lead us to choose theharder expression, but that it is a rule which must haveits limit somewhere, and has found it here. Everyone must feel the new reading to be false, even thoughfor the sake of consistency he may be forced to uphold it. We are bound by no such stern law, and notethe present as a case wherein Cod. A and the massof copies, well supported by versions, afford us a purertext than Codd. NBCL 33.

(22) JOHN iii. 13. "The Son of man, which is inheaven." Here again we have nearly the same manuscript evidence as in the preceding passage supportingthe novel reading, for removing from the text theweighty clause "which is in heaven," this being themost mysterious, yet one of the most glorious glimpsesafforded to us in Scripture of the nature of the Re-(leenier on the side of His proper Divinity. Codd. CDan- here lacking to us, but Codd. NBC. 33 omit thewords, supported by a small fragment of the sixthcentury, now at St Petersburg, called by the criticsTb. Of the versions only the ^Ethiopia and one Mem-phi tic manuscript are on this side. There is reallyno Patristic evidence to set up against the clause,for it can matter nothing that Eusebius might havecited it and did not. Silence in such a case is of littleor no weight, as may appear from the circumstancethat Cyril of Alexandria, who alleges the words once,pass.-s them over once: Origen also (in the Latin)neglects them once, but quotes them twice, once v. TVexpressly. "Which is in heaven" appears in Cod. A


176/260


177/260

PACKAGES AV THE HOLY GOSPELS. ir7cursives Codd. 1. 33 and full fifty-four others, with the

ir and Thebaic versions, which alone of tlit-ircm be employed in regard to the article, since tin-Coptic language has both the definite and indefinitein use. Irenams (in the Latin) insists on this beingthe second passover, but so does Cod. A (which reads"of unleavened bread" for "of the Jews") and anotherauthority, although they omit the article. It is wantingin Codd. ABD and seven other uncials, in Cod. 69and pretty many other cursives. Of the Fathers,Cyril of Alexandria varies, Origen looks doubtful,Chrysostom and Cyril once understand the feast asthe Pentecost, and so would not read the article. Withsome hesitation we shall incline to take "the feast"as on the whole the more likely reading.

(24) JOHN v. 3, 4. The last clause of vcr. 3"waiting for the moving of the water" and the wholeof ver. 4 are omitted, not without considerable reason,by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort. Codd.NBC (by the first hand) 157 and another cursive rejectthe whole; Cod. A (by the first hand) L and one recentcursive pass over the last clause of ver. 3, which certainly wears the semblance of a gloss: Codd. D. 33do not contain ver. 4, and this alone is called intosuspicion by means of asterisks or obeli (employedwithout much discrimination) in two uncials, nineteencursives, the margin of the Philoxeuian, and Armenianmanuscripts. One other uncial has an asterisk inthe margin throughout, but the passage is containedin C (by the third hand), in twelve uncials, (Cod. I,a fragment taken by Tischendorf to St Petersburg, alonebeing as old as the sixth century), and all known


178/260

158 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANTcursives not before referred to, but all with that extreme variation in details which experience shews tobe itself a symptom unfavourable to genuineness. Theversions are not so unequally divided. The passageis absent from Cureton s Syriac, the Thebaic, thirteenof Canon Lightfoot s Memphitic manuscripts (threeothers, however, contain it in the text, two in themargin), from some Armenian codices,/, and others ofthe Old Latin and a few of the Vulgate. The Roman-^Ethiopic leaves out as much as the Philoxenianmargin obelizes. The Peshito and Jerusalem Syriac,with the Philoxenian text, acknowledge the verses infull, as do nearly all the Latins. Tertullian, in particular, plainly speaks of the angel s interposition to stirthe pool of Bethsaida (as it is in Cod. B, the Latin c.,and the Vulgate) ; Ambrose twice quotes the place : itwas known to Didymus, to Chrysostom and Cyril, toEuthymius and Theophylact in later times. Nonnus,.however, who made a metrical paraphrase of theGospel history jn the fifth century, does not touch anincident so well calculated to adorn his poem. Thelast clause of ver. 3 stands on a different footing fromver. 4, which Dean Alford regarded as "an insertion tocomplete what the narrative implied with reference tothe popular belief." It is evident that the passagewas known early, widely diffused, and extensivelyreceived : but it is well-nigh impossible, in the face ofhostile evidence so ancient and varied, to regard it as agenuine portion of S. John s Gospel.

(25) JOHX vii. 8. " I go not up yet unto thisfeast." " Yet " is omitted by the critical editors Tischen-dorf and Tregejles, though Westcott. and Hort are


179/260

X THE HOLY UOSPELS. 139sufficiently satisfied with it to retain it in the text,placing the simple "not" in their margin. Thelatter reading must surely be the true one. Thispassage, as is well known, was one of several whichprovoked the "bark" of Porphyry, the most acuteadversary encountered by Christianity in early times[d. o()4]. " He said he would not go, yet did what hesaid he would not do:" thus Jerome represents Porphyry s objection to the conduct of our Lord, whoon this ground is impeached of levity and fickleness.It is manifest, therefore, that both Porphyry the foeand Jerome the champion of our faith, must have read"not" in their copies: "not yet" would rather bea gentle intimation that what He would not do then,He would do hereafter. Accordingly we find " not " inCodd. XD, in four other uncial copies and three orfour cursives, Codd. AC being both defective here : totill-so add Cureton s Syriac, the Memphitic, the bestcodices of the Old Latin (a. b. c. e. ff*., &c.), and Vul-gate, the Armenian and ^Ethiopic, the Georgian andSlavonic, Anglo-Saxon and Persic. Thus also Epi-phanius and Chrysostom in the fourth century, Cyrilin the fifth, each of them feeling the difficulty, and

ting it in his own way. No hesitation would havebeen felt in adopting a reading, at once the harder initself, and the only one that will suit the circumstancesof the case, had not the wilful and palpable correctionnot yet" bci-ii upheld by Codd. BLT (seep. 150, note),the mass of later uncials, all cursives save four, by the

Peshito Syriac and the Arabic of Erpenius, which evenin the Gospels is much moulded on it, by the Jerusalemand Philoxenian Syriac both text and margin, the


180/260

100 DISCUSSION OF IMPORTAXTThcbaic, Gothic, a few Old Latin codices (as /), andsome of the Vulgate. Basil cites the same reading,but not, as it would seem, expressly. It is seldom thatwe can trace so clearly as in this instance the dateand origin of an important corruption, which could nothave arisen accidentally, but was rather the work ofinjudicious, if not of dishonest, zeal.

(20) JOHN" vii. 53 viii. 11. The last passagewhich time will permit us to examine in the Gospelsis the celebrated paragraph concerning the adulteress,which has been interposed between ch. vii. 52 andch. viii. 12. We may broadly assert that modern criticshave come to a unanimous, or almost unanimous, conclusion, first, that it does not belong to the place whereit is usually read ; secondly, that it is no idle fable, novulgar forgery, but a genuine apostolic or primitiverecord of what actually took place. The state of theevidence is so utterly unlike what we have found orshall find elsewhere in the New Testament, that noother verdict than this can well be pronounced. Aswe saw in the text last considered, Codd. AC are defective just here, but by estimating the vacant roomleft by the lost leaves of each, it is quite certain thatso long a passage as this one of twelve

Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament and the Ancient Manuscripts Addressed to Those Who Do...

Documents

Transcript of Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament and the Ancient Manuscripts Addressed to Those Who Do...