Could doubt be supposed to be entertained in any quarter, it must at all events be borne away by the torrent of Patristic authority which is available on the present occasion:—
In the IInd century,—we have the testimony of (1) Irenæus.[90]
In the IIIrd,—that of (2) Origen[91] in 3 places,—and of (3) the Apostolical Constitutions[92] in 2.
In the IVth,—(4) Eusebius,[93]—(5) Aphraates the Persian,[94]—(6) Titus of Bostra,[95] each twice;—(7) Didymus[96] in 3 places;—(8) Gregory of Nazianzus,[97]—(9) Cyril of Jerusalem,[98]—(10) Epiphanius[99] twice;—(11) Gregory of Nyssa[100] 4 times,—(12) Ephraem Syrus,[101]—(13) Philo bishop of Carpasus,[102]—(14) Chrysostom,[103] in 9 places,—and (15) a nameless preacher at Antioch,[104]—all these, contemporaries (be it remembered) of b and א, are found to bear concurrent testimony in favour of the commonly received text.
In the Vth century,—(16) Cyril of Alexandria,[105] on no less than 14 occasions, vouches for it also;—(17) Theodoret[106] on 4;—(18) Theodotus of Ancyra[107] on 5 (once[108] in a homily preached before the Council of Ephesus on Christmas-day, a.d. 431);—(19) Proclus[109] archbishop of Constantinople;—(20) Paulus[110] bishop of Emesa (in a sermon preached before Cyril of Alexandria on Christmas-day, a.d. 431);—(21) the Eastern bishops[111] at Ephesus collectively, a.d. 431 (an unusually weighty piece of evidence);—and lastly, (22) Basil [pg 044] of Seleucia.[112] Now, let it be remarked that these were contemporaries of codex a.
In the VIth century,—the Patristic witnesses are (23) Cosmas, the voyager,[113] 5 times,—(24) Anastasius Sinaita,[114]—(25) Eulogius[115] archbishop of Alexandria: contemporaries, be it remembered, of codex d.
In the VIIth,—(26) Andreas of Crete[116] twice.
And in the VIIIth,—(27) Cosmas[117] bishop of Maiuma near Gaza,—and his pupil (28) John Damascene,[118]—and (29) Germanus[119] archbishop of Constantinople.
To these 29 illustrious names are to be added unknown writers of uncertain date, but all of considerable antiquity; and some[120] are proved by internal evidence to belong to the IVth or Vth century,—in short, to be of the date of the Fathers whose names 16 of them severally bear, but among whose genuine works their productions are probably not to be reckoned. One of these was anciently mistaken for (30) Gregory Thaumaturgus:[121] a second, for (31) Methodius:[122] a third, for (32) Basil.[123] Three others, with different degrees of reasonableness, have been supposed to be (33, 34, 35) Athanasius.[124] One has passed for (36) Gregory of Nyssa;[125] another for (37) Epiphanius;[126] while no less than eight (38 to 45) have been mistaken for Chrysostom,[127] some of them being certainly his contemporaries. Add (46) one anonymous Father,[128] and (47) the author of the apocryphal [pg 045] Acta Pilati,—and it will be perceived that 18 ancient authorities have been added to the list, every whit as competent to witness what was the text of S. Luke ii. 14 at the time when a b א d were written, as Basil or Athanasius, Epiphanius or Chrysostom themselves.[129] For our present purpose they are Codices of the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries. In this way then, far more than forty-seven ancient witnesses have come back to testify to the men of this generation that the commonly received reading of S. Luke ii. 14 is the true reading, and that the text which the Revisionists are seeking to palm off upon us is a fabrication and a blunder. Will any one be found to maintain that the authority of b and א is appreciable, when confronted by the first 15 contemporary Ecclesiastical Writers above enumerated? or that a can stand against the 7 which follow?
This is not all however. Survey the preceding enumeration geographically, and note that, besides 1 name from Gaul,—at least 2 stand for Constantinople,—while 5 are dotted over Asia Minor:—10 at least represent Antioch; and—6, other parts of Syria:—3 stand for Palestine, and 12 for other Churches of the East:—at least 5 are Alexandrian,—2 are men of Cyprus, and—1 is from Crete. If the articulate voices of so many illustrious Bishops, coming back to us in this way from every part of ancient Christendom and all delivering the same unfaltering message,—if this be not allowed to be decisive on a point of the kind just now before us, then pray let us have it explained to us,—What amount of evidence will men accept as final? It is high time that this were known.... The plain truth is, that a case has [pg 046] been established against א a b d and the Latin version, which amounts to proof that those documents, even when they conspire to yield the self-same evidence, are not to be depended on as witnesses to the text of Scripture. The history of the reading advocated by the Revisionists is briefly this:—It emerges into notice in the IInd century; and in the Vth, disappears from sight entirely.