§ 4.

And first as to the rejection of an entire verse.

The 44th verse of St. Matt. xxi, consisting of the fifteen words printed at foot [265], is marked as doubtful by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers:—by Tischendorf it is rejected as spurious. We insist that, on the contrary, it is indubitably genuine; reasoning from the antiquity, the variety, the respectability, the largeness, or rather, the general unanimity of its attestation.

For the verse is found in the Old Latin, and in the Vulgate,—in the Peshitto, Curetonian, and Harkleian Syriac,—besides in the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. It is found also in Origen [266],—ps.-Tatian [267]—Aphraates [268],—Chrysostom [269],—Cyril Alex.[270],—the Opus Imperfectum [271],—Jerome [272],—Augustine [273]:—in Codexes B[Symbol: Aleph]CΘΣXZΔΠEFG HKLMSUV,—in short, it is attested by every known Codex except two of bad character, viz.—D, 33; together with five copies of the Old Latin, viz.—a b e ff¹ ff². There have therefore been adduced for the verse in dispute at least five witnesses of the second or third century:—at least eight of the fourth:—at least seven if not eight of the fifth: after which date the testimony in favour of this verse is overwhelming. How could we be justified in opposing to such a mass of first-rate testimony the solitary evidence of Cod. D (concerning which see above, Vol. I. c. viii.) supported only by a single errant Cursive and a little handful of copies of the Old Latin versions, [even although the Lewis Codex has joined this petty band?]

But, says Tischendorf,—the verse is omitted by Origen and by Eusebius,—by Irenaeus and by Lucifer of Cagliari,—as well as by Cyril of Alexandria. I answer, this most insecure of arguments for mutilating the traditional text is plainly inadmissible on the present occasion. The critic refers to the fact that Irenaeus [274], Origen [275], Eusebius [276] and Cyril [277] having quoted 'the parable of the wicked husbandmen' in extenso (viz. from verse 33 to verse 43), leave off at verse 43. Why may they not leave off where the parable leaves off? Why should they quote any further? Verse 44 is nothing to their purpose. And since the Gospel for Monday morning in Holy Week [verses 18-43], in every known copy of the Lectionary actually ends at verse 43,—why should not their quotation of it end at the same verse? But, unfortunately for the critic, Origen and Cyril (as we have seen,—the latter expressly,) elsewhere actually quote the verse in dispute. And how can Tischendorf maintain that Lucifer yields adverse testimony [278]? That Father quotes nothing but verse 43, which is all he requires for his purpose [279]. Why should he have also quoted verse 44, which he does not require? As well might it be maintained that Macarius Egyptius [280] and Philo of Carpasus [281] omit verse 44, because (like Lucifer) they only quote verse 43.

I have elsewhere explained what I suspect occasioned the omission of St. Matt. xxi. 44 from a few Western copies of the Gospels [282]. Tischendorf's opinion that this verse is a fabricated imitation of the parallel verse in St. Luke's Gospel [283] (xx. 18) is clearly untenable. Either place has its distinctive type, which either has maintained all down the ages. The single fact that St. Matt. xxi. 44 in the Peshitto version has a sectional number to itself [284] is far too weighty to be set aside on nothing better than suspicion. If a verse so elaborately attested as the present be not genuine, we must abandon all hope of ever attaining to any certainty concerning the Text of Scripture.

In the meantime there emerges from the treatment which St. Matt. xxi. 44 has experienced at the hands of Tischendorf, the discovery that, in the estimation of Tischendorf, Cod. D [is a document of so much importance as occasionally to outweigh almost by itself the other copies of all ages and countries in Christendom.]