Theophilus[328] (A.D. 168), clauses 1, 4.
While Justin M.[329] (A.D. 140) having paraphrased clause 1, connects therewith clauses 2 and 4.
And Polycarp[330] (A.D. 108) apparently connects clauses 4 and 5.
Didache[331] (A.D. 100?) quotes 2, 4, 5 and combines 1 and 3 (pp. 5, 6).
In the face of all this evidence, no one it is presumed will any more be found to dispute the genuineness of the generally received reading in St. Matt. v. 44. All must see that if the text familiarly known in the age immediately after that of the Apostles had been indeed the bald, curt thing which the critics imagine, viz.
αγαπατε τους εχθρους 'υμων,
και προσευχεσθε 'υπερ των διωκοντων 'υμας,—
by no possibility could the men of that age in referring to St. Matt. v. 44 have freely mentioned 'blessing those who curse,—doing good to those who hate,—and praying for those who despitefully use.' Since there are but two alternative readings of the passage,—one longer, one briefer,—every clear acknowledgement of a single disputed clause in the larger reading necessarily carries with it all the rest.
This result of 'comparative criticism' is therefore respectfully recommended to the notice of the learned. If it be not decisive of the point at issue to find such a torrent of primitive testimony at one with the bulk of the Uncials and Cursives extant, it is clear that there can be no Science of Textual Criticism. The Law of Evidence must be held to be inoperative in this subject-matter. Nothing deserving of the name of 'proof' will ever be attainable in this department of investigation.
But if men admit that the ordinarily received text of St. Matt. v. 44 has been clearly established, then let the legitimate results of the foregoing discussion be loyally recognized. The unique value of Manuscripts in declaring the exact text of Scripture—the conspicuous inadequacy of Patristic evidence by themselves,—have been made apparent: and yet it has been shewn that Patristic quotations are abundantly sufficient for their proper purpose,—which is, to enable us to decide between conflicting readings. One more indication has been obtained of the corruptness of the text which Origen employed,—concerning which he is so strangely communicative,—and of which B[Symbol: Aleph] are the chief surviving examples; and the probability has been strengthened that when these are the sole, or even the principal witnesses, for any particular reading, that reading will prove to be corrupt.
Mill was of opinion, (and of course his opinion finds favour with Griesbach, Tischendorf, and the rest,) that these three clauses have been imported hither from St. Luke vi. 27, 28. But, besides that this is mere unsupported conjecture, how comes it then to pass that the order of the second and third clauses in St. Matthew's Gospel is the reverse of the order in St. Luke's? No. I believe that there has been excision here: for I hold with Griesbach that it cannot have been the result of accident[332] .