§ 7.
Especially have we need to be on our guard against conniving at the ejection of short clauses consisting of from twelve to fourteen letters,—which proves to have been the exact length of a line in the earliest copies. When such omissions leave the sense manifestly imperfect, no evil consequence can result. Critics then either take no notice of the circumstance, or simply remark in passing that the omission has been the result of accident. In this way, ['οι πατερες αυτων, though it is omitted by Cod. B in St. Luke vi. 26, is retained by all the Editors: and the strange reading of Cod. [Symbol: Aleph] in St. John vi. 55, omitting two lines, was corrected on the manuscript in the seventh century, and has met with no assent in modern times].
ΗΓΑΡ
ΣΑΡΞΜΟΥΑΛΗΘΩΣ
[ΕΣΤΙΒΡΩΣΙΣΚΑΙ
ΤΟΑΙΜΑΜΟΥΑΛΗΘΩΣ]
ΕΣΤΙΠΟΣΙΣ
But when, notwithstanding the omission of two or three words, the sense of the context remains unimpaired,—the clause being of independent signification,—then great danger arises lest an attempt should be made through the officiousness of modern Criticism to defraud the Church of a part of her inheritance. Thus [και 'οι συν αυτω (St. Luke viii. 45) is omitted by Westcott and Hort, and is placed in the margin by the Revisers and included in brackets by Tregelles as if the words were of doubtful authority, solely because some scribe omitted a line and was followed by B, a few cursives, the Sahidic, Curetonian, Lewis, and Jerusalem Versions].
When indeed the omission dates from an exceedingly remote period; took place, I mean, in the third, or more likely still in the second century; then the fate of such omitted words may be predicted with certainty. Their doom is sealed. Every copy made from that defective original of necessity reproduced the defects of its prototype: and if (as often happens) some of those copies have descended to our times, they become quoted henceforward as if they were independent witnesses[335]. Nor is this all. Let the taint have been communicated to certain copies of the Old Latin, and we find ourselves confronted with formidable because very venerable foes. And according to the recently approved method of editing the New Testament, the clause is allowed no quarter. It is declared without hesitation to be a spurious accretion to the Text. Take, as an instance of this, the following passage in St. Luke xii. 39. 'If' (says our Lord) 'the master of the house had known in what hour
ΟΚΛΕΠΤΗΣ
ΕΡΧΕΤΑΙ [ΕΓΡΗΓΟΡ
ΗΣΕΝΚΑΙ] ΟΥΚΑΝΑ
ΦΗΚΕΝ
his house to be broken through.' Here, the clause within brackets, which has fallen out for an obvious reason, does not appear in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph] and D. But the omission did not begin with [Symbol: Aleph]. Two copies of the Old Latin are also without the words εγρηγορησεν και,—which are wanting besides in Cureton's Syriac. Tischendorf accordingly omits them. And yet, who sees not that such an amount of evidence as this is wholly insufficient to warrant the ejection of the clause as spurious? What is the 'Science' worth which cannot preserve to the body a healthy limb like this?
[The instances of omission which have now been examined at some length must by no means be regarded as the only specimens of this class of corrupt passages[336]. Many more will occur to the minds of the readers of the present volume and of the earlier volume of this work. In fact, omissions are much more common than Additions, or Transpositions, or Substitutions: and this fact, that omissions, or what seem to be omissions, are apparently so common,—to say nothing of the very strong evidence wherewith they are attested—when taken in conjunction with the natural tendency of copyists to omit words and passages, cannot but confirm the general soundness of the position. How indeed can it possibly be more true to the infirmities of copyists, to the verdict of evidence on the several passages, and to the origin of the New Testament in the infancy of the Church and amidst associations which were not literary, to suppose that a terse production was first produced and afterwards was amplified in a later age with a view to 'lucidity and completeness[337],' rather than that words and clauses and sentences were omitted upon definitely understood principles in a small class of documents by careless or ignorant or prejudiced scribes? The reply to this question must now be left for candid and thoughtful students to determine.]
FOOTNOTES:
[258] It will be observed that these are empirical, not logical, classes. Omissions are found in many of the rest.
[259] Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, chapter v. and Appendix B.
[260] See Dr. Gwynn's remarks in Appendix VII of The Traditional Text, pp. 298-301.
[261] The Revision Revised, pp. 42-45, 422-424: Traditional Text, p. 109, where thirty-eight testimonies are quoted before 400 A.D.
[262] The expression of Jerome, that almost all the Greek MSS. omit this passage, is only a translation of Eusebius. It cannot express his own opinion, for he admitted the twelve verses into the Vulgate, and quoted parts of them twice, i.e. ver. 9, ii. 744-5, ver. 14, i. 327 c.
[263] Dr. Dobbin has calculated 330 omissions in St. Matthew, 365 in St. Mark, 439 in St Luke, 357 in St. John, 384 in the Acts, and 681 in the Epistles—3,556 in all as far as Heb. ix. 14, where it terminates. Dublin University Magazine, 1859, p. 620.
[264] Such as in Cod. D after St. Luke vi. 4. 'On the same day He beheld a certain man working on the sabbath, and said unto him, "Man, blessed art thou if thou knowest what thou doest; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law"' (Scrivener's translation, Introduction, p. 8). So also a longer interpolation from the Curetonian after St. Matt. xx. 28. These are condemned by internal evidence as well as external.
[265] και 'ο πεσων επι τον λιθον τουτον συνθλασθησεται; εφ' ον δ' αν πεση, λικμησει αυτον.
[266] iv. 25 d, 343 d.—What proves these two quotations to be from St. Matt. xxi. 44, and not from St. Luke xx. 18, is, that they alike exhibit expressions which are peculiar to the earlier Gospel. The first is introduced by the formula ουδεποτε ανεγνωτε (ver. 42: comp. Orig. ii. 794 c), and both exhibit the expression επι τον λιθον τουτον (ver. 44), not επ' εκεινον τον λιθον. Vainly is it urged on the opposite side, that πας 'ο πεσων belongs to St. Luke,—whereas και 'ο πεσων is the phrase found in St. Matthew's Gospel. Chrysostom (vii. 672) writes πας 'ο πιπτων while professing to quote from St. Matthew; and the author of Cureton's Syriac, who had this reading in his original, does the same.
[267] P. 193.
[268] P. 11.
[269] vii. 672 a [freely quoted as Greg. Naz. in the Catena of Nicetas, p. 669] xii. 27 d.
[270] Ap. Mai, ii. 401 dis.
[271] Ap. Chrys. vi. 171 c.
[272] vii. 171 d.
[273] iii2. 86, 245: v. 500 e, 598 d.
[274] 682-3 (Massuet 277).
[275] iii. 786.
[276] Theoph. 235-6 (= Mai, iv. 122).
[277] ii. 660 a, b, c.
[278] 'Praeterit et Lucifer.'
[279] Ap. Galland. vi. 191 d.
[280] Ibid. vii. 20 c.
[281] Ibid. ix. 768 a.
[282] [I am unable to find any place in the Dean's writings where he has made this explanation. The following note, however, is appended here]:—
With verse 43, the long lesson for the Monday in Holy-week (ver. 18-43) comes to an end.
Verse 44 has a number all to itself (in other words, is sect. 265) in the fifth of the Syrian Canons,—which contains whatever is found exclusively in St. Matthew and St. Luke.
[283] 'Omnino ex Lc. assumpta videntur.'
[284] The section in St. Matthew is numbered 265,—in St. Luke, 274: both being referred to Canon V, in which St. Matthew and St. Luke are exclusively compared.
[285] Vol. i. 13.
[286] Letter to Pope Damasus. See my book on St. Mark, p. 28.
[287] Dial. § 78, ad fin. (p. 272).
[288] Opp. ii. 215 a: v. part ii. 118 c.
[289] See Holmes and Parsons' ed. of the LXX,—vol. iv. in loc.
[290] Opp. pp. 143 and 206. P. 577 is allusive only.
[291] Opp. vii. 158 c: ix. 638 b.
[292] Opp. ii. 1345: iii. 763-4.
[293] § xv:—on which his learned editor (Bp. Jacobson) pertinently remarks,—'Hunc locum Prophetae Clemens exhibuisset sicut a Christo laudatam, S. Marc. vii. 6, si pro απεστιν dedisset απεχει.'
[294] Opp. i. 1502: iii. 1114.
[295] Ap. Epiphanium, Opp. i. 218 d.
[296] Opp. p. 461.
[297] Opp. iii. 492 (a remarkable place): ii. 723: iv. 121.
[298] De Trinitate, p. 242.
[299] Opp. ii. 413 b. [Observe how this evidence leads us to Alexandria.]
[300] Opp. vii. 522 d. The other place, ix. 638 b, is uncertain.
[301] It is uncertain whether Eusebius and Basil quote St. Matthew or Isaiah: but a contemporary of Chrysostom certainly quotes the Gospel,—Chrys. Opp. vi. 425 d (cf. p. 417, line 10).
[302] But Eus.Es 589 τους μ.
[303] I have numbered the clauses for convenience.—It will perhaps facilitate the study of this place, if (on my own responsibility) I subjoin a representation of the same words in Latin:—
(1) Diligite inimicos vestros,
(2) benedicite maledicentes vos,
(3) benefacite odientibus vos,
(4) et orate pro calumniantibus vos,
(5) et persequentibus vos.
[304] Opp. iv. 324 bis, 329 bis, 351. Gall. xiv. App. 106.
[305] 'A large majority, all but five, omit it. Some add it in the margin.' Traditional Text, p. 149.
[306] Opp. p. 79, cf. 146.
[307] Scap. c. 1.
[308] Opp. iv. 946.
[309] Haer. III. xviii. 5.
[310] Dem. Evan. xiii. 7.
[311] In Bapt. Christ.
[312] Orig. Opp. i. 812.
[313] Opp. i. 768: iv. 353.
[314] Opp. i. 827: ii. 399.
[315] Spect. c. 16: (Anim. c. 35): Pat. c. 6.
[316] [In Ep. Joh. IV. Tract, ix. 3 (1, 3 (ver. 45 &c.)); In Ps. cxxxviii. 37 (1, 3); Serm. XV. 8 (1, 3, 5); Serm. LXII. in loc. (1, 3, 4, 5).]
[317] In Ps. xxxviii. 2.
[318] Opp. pp. 303, 297.
[319] Pro S. Athanas. ii.
[320] Ps. cxviii. 10. 16; 9. 9.
[321] Ep. ii.
[322] Opp. iii. 167: iv. 619: v. 436:—ii. 340: v. 56: xii. 654:—ii. 258: iii. 41:—iv. 267: xii. 425.
[323] Opp. iii. 379.
[324] Praep. 654: Ps. 137, 699: Es. 589.
[325] Pp. 3. 198.
[326] Opp. p. 605 and 307.
[327] Leg. pro Christian. 11.
[328] Ad Autolycum, iii. 14.
[329] Opp. i. 40.
[330] Ad Philipp. c. 12.
[331] § 1.
[332] Theodoret once (iv. 946) gives the verse as Tischendorf gives it: but on two other occasions (i. 827: ii. 399) the same Theodoret exhibits the second member of the sentence thus,—ευλογειτε τους διωκοντας 'υμας (so pseud.-Athan. ii. 95), which shews how little stress is to be laid on such evidence as the first-named place furnishes.
Origen also (iv. 324 bis, 329 bis, 351) repeatedly gives the place as Tischendorf gives it—but on one occasion, which it will be observed is fatal to his evidence (i. 768), he gives the second member thus,—iv. 353:
και προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των επηρεαζοντων 'υμας..·. 1. 4.
Next observe how Clemens Al. (605) handles the same place:—
αγαπατε τους εχθρους 'υμων, ευλογειτε τους καταρωμενους 'υμας, και προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των επηρεαζυντων 'υμιν, και τα 'ομοια..·. 1, 2, 4.—3, 5.
Justin M. (i. 40) quoting the same place from memory (and with exceeding licence), yet is observed to recognize in part both the clauses which labour under suspicion:.·. 1, 2, 4.—3, 5.
ευχεσθε 'υπερ των εχθρων 'υμων και αγαπατε τους μισουντας 'υμας, which roughly represents και ευλογειτε τους καταρωμενους 'υμιν και ευχεσθε 'υπερ των επηρεαζοντων 'υμας.
The clause which hitherto lacks support is that which regards τους μισουντας 'υμας. But the required help is supplied by Irenaeus (i. 521), who (loosely enough) quotes the place thus,—
Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro eis, qui vos oderunt. .·. 1 (made up of 3, 4).—2, 5.
And yet more by the most venerable witness of all, Polycarp, who writes:—ad Philipp. c. 12:—
Orate pro persequentibus et odientibus vos..·. 4, 5.—1, 2, 3.
I have examined [Didaché] Justin, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Hippolytus, Cyril Al., Greg. Naz., Basil, Athan., Didymus, Cyril Hier., Chrys., Greg. Nyss., Epiph., Theod., Clemens.
And the following are the results:—
Didaché. Ευλογειτε τους καταρωμενους 'υμιν, και προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των εχθρων 'υμων, νηστευετε 'υπερ των διωκοντων 'υμας ... 'υμεις δε αγαπατε τους μισουντας 'υμας..·. 2, 3, 4, 5.
Aphraates, Dem. ii. The Latin Translation runs:—Diligite inimicos vestros, benedicite ei qui vobis maledicit, orate pro eis qui vos vexunt et persequuntur.
Eusebius Prae 654..·. 2, 4, 5, omitting 1, 3.
Eusebius Ps 699..·. 4, 5, omitting 1, 2, 3.
Eusebius Es 589..·. 1, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2.
Clemens Al. 605..·. 1, 2, 4, omitting 3, 5.
Greg. Nyss. iii. 379..·. 3, 4, 5, omitting 1, 2.
Vulg. Diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos, et orate pro persequentibus et calumniantibus vos..·. 1, 3, 5, 4, omitting 2.
Hilary, 297. Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac persequentibus vos..·. 2, 4, 5, omitting the first and third.
Hilary, 303. Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac persequentibus vos..·. 1, 4, 5, omitting the second and third. Cf. 128.
Cyprian, 79 (cf. 146). Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro his qui vos persequuntur..·. 1, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4.
Tertullian. Diligite (enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit,) et orate pro maledicentibus vos—which apparently is meant for a quotation of 1, 2. .·. 1, 2, omitting 3, 4, 5.
Tertullian. Diligite (enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit,) et maledicentibus benedicite, et orate pro persecutoribus vestris—which is a quotation of 1, 2, 5. .·. 1, 2, 5, omitting 3, 4.
Tertullian. Diligere inimicos, et orare pro eis qui vos persequuntur. .·. 1, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4.
Tertullian. Inimicos diligi, maledicentes benedici..·. 1, 2, omitting 3, 4, 5.
Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite iis qui oderunt vos: orate pro calumniantibus et persequentibus vos..·. 1, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2.
Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros, orate pro calumniantibus et persequentibus vos..·. 1, 4, 5, omitting 2, 3.
Augustine. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite his qui vos oderunt: et orate pro eis qui vos persequuntur..·. 1, 3, 5, omitting 2, 4.
'Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac persequentibus vos.' Hilary, 297.
Cyril Al. twice (i. 270: ii. 807) quotes the place thus,—
ευ ποιειτε τους εχθρους 'υμων, και προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των επηρεαζοντων 'υμας.
Chrys. (iii. 355) says
αυτος γαρ ειπεν, ευχεσθε 'υπερ των εχθρων ['υμων]
and repeats the quotation at iii. 340 and xii. 453.
So Tertull. (Apol. c. 31), pro inimicis deum orare, et persecutoribus nostris bone precari..·. 1, 5.
If the lost Greek of Irenaeus (i. 521) were recovered, we should probably find
αγαπατε τους εχθρους 'υμων, και προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των μισουντων 'υμας:
and of Polycarp (ad Philipp. c. 12),
προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των διωκοντων και μισουντων 'υμας.
[333] Dialogus Adamantii is not adducible within my limits, because 'it is in all probability the production of a later age.' My number was eight.
[334] Observe that 5 = 'υπερ ... των διωκοντων.
For—
Didache (§ 1), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4, 5.
Polycarp (xii), 3 (2), 5.
Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 15, 3 (2), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5? 'υπερ των εχθρων (=διωκοντων?), but the passage more like St. Luke, the context more like St. Matt., ver. 45.
Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christian. 11), 1, 2 (3). 5. ver. 45.
Tertullian (De Patient, vi), 1, 2 (3), 5, pt. ver. 45. Add Apol. c. 31. 1, 5.
Theophilus Ant. (Ad Autolycum iii. 14), 1, 4 (4), 'υπερ and ver. 46.
Clemens Alex. (Strom, iv. 14), 1, 2 (3), 4 (4), pt. ver. 45; (Strom, vii. 14), favours St. Matt.
Origen (De Orat. i), 1, 4 (4), 'υπερ and in the middle of two quotations from St. Matthew; (Cels. viii. 45), 1, 4 (4) 'υπερ and all ver. 45.
Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xiii. 7), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, all ver. 45; (Comment, in Is. 66), 1, 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, also ver. 45; (In Ps. cviii), 4, 5.
Apost. Const, (i. 2), 1, 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, 'υπερ and ver. 45.
Greg. Naz. (Orat. iv. 124), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, 'υπερευχεσθαι.
Greg. Nyss. (In Bapt. Christi), 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, 'υπερ, ver. 45.
Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii) omits 4 (4), but quotes ver. 44 ... end of chapter.
Pacianus (Epist. ii), 2 (3), 5.
Hilary (Tract, in Ps. cxviii. 9. 9), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5; (ibid. 10. 16), 1, 4 (4), 5. (The reviewer omits 'ac persequentibus vos' in both cases.)
Ambrose (In Ps. xxxviii. 2), 1, 3, 4, 5; (In Ps. xxxviii. 10), 1, 4 (4), 5.
Aphraates (Dem. ii), 1, 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, εθνικοι.
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (p. 89), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4 (4), ver. 45.
Number = 25.
[335] See Traditional Text, p. 55.
[336] For one of the two most important omissions in the New Testament, viz. the Pericope de Adultera, see Appendix I. See also Appendix II.
[337] Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 134.