Ambrose[181] of Milan [370] attempts to explain the difficult [pg 074] expression, but with indifferent success. Epiphanius[182] of Cyprus [370] does the same;—and so, Isidorus[183] [400] called “Pelusiota” after the place of his residence in Lower Egypt.—Ps.-Cæsarius[184] also volunteers remarks on the word [a.d. 400?].—It is further explained in the Paschal Chronicle,[185]—and by Chrysostom[186] [370] at Antioch.—“Sabbatum secundo-primum” is found in the old Latin, and is retained by the Vulgate. Earlier evidence on the subject does not exist. We venture to assume that a word so attested must at least be entitled to its place in the Gospel. Such a body of first-rate positive IVth-century testimony, coming from every part of ancient Christendom, added to the significant fact that δευτερόπρωτον is found in every codex extant except א b l, and half a dozen cursives of suspicious character, ought surely to be regarded as decisive. That an unintelligible word should have got omitted from a few copies, requires no explanation. Every one who has attended to the matter is aware that the negative evidence of certain of the Versions also is of little weight on such occasions as the present. They are observed constantly to leave out what they either failed quite to understand, or else found untranslateable. On the other hand, it would be inexplicable indeed, that an unique expression like the present should have established itself universally, if it were actually spurious. This is precisely an occasion for calling to mind the precept proclivi scriptioni præstat ardua. Apart from external evidence, it is a thousand times more likely that such a peculiar word as this should be genuine, than the reverse. Tischendorf accordingly retains it, moved by this very consideration.[187] It got excised, however, here and there from manuscripts at a very early date. And, incredible as it may appear, it is a fact, that in consequence of its absence from [pg 075] the mutilated codices above referred to, S. Luke's famous “second-first Sabbath” has been thrust out of his Gospel by our Revisionists.
But indeed, Mutilation has been practised throughout. By codex b (collated with the traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone: by codex א,—3455 words: by codex d,—3704 words.[188]
As interesting a set of instances of this, as are to be anywhere met with, occurs within the compass of the last three chapters of S. Luke's Gospel, from which about 200 words have been either forcibly ejected by our Revisionists, or else served with “notice to quit.” We proceed to specify the chief of these:—
(1) S. Luke xxii. 19, 20. (Account of the Institution of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper,—from “which is given for you” to the end,—32 words.)
(2) ibid. 43, 44. (Our Saviour's Agony in the garden,—26 words.)
(3) xxiii. 17. (The custom of releasing one at the Passover,—8 words.)
(4) ibid. 34. (Our Lord's prayer on behalf of His murderers,—12 words.)
(5) ibid. 38. (The record that the title on the Cross was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew,—7 words.)
(6) xxiv. 1. (“and certain with them,”—4 words.)
(7) ibid. 3. (“of the Lord Jesus,”—3 words.)