APPENDIX (A).

On the importance of attending to Patristic Citations of Scripture.The correct Text of S. LUKE ii. 14, established.

(Referred to at p. 22.)

IN Chapter III. the importance of attending to Patristic citations of Scripture has been largely insisted upon. The controverted reading of S. Luke ii. 14 supplies an apt illustration of the position there maintained, viz. that this subject has not hitherto engaged nearly as much attention as it deserves.

I. Instead of ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, (which is the reading of the "Textus receptus,") Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford present us with ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας. Their authority for this reading is the consentient testimony of THE FOUR OLDEST MSS. WHICH CONTAIN S. Luke ii. 14 (viz. B, N, A, D): THE LATIN VERSIONS generally ("in hominibus bonae runtatis "); and THE GOTHIC. Against these are to be set, COD. A (in the Hymn at the end of the Psalms); ALL THE OTHER UNCIALS; together with EVERY KNOWN CURSIVE MS.; and EVERY OTHER ANCIENT VERSION in existence.

So far, the evidence of mere Antiquity may be supposed to preponderate in favour of evdoxías: though no judicious Critic, it is thought, should hesitate in deciding in favour of evdoxía, even upon the evidence already adduced. The advocates of the popular Theory ask,-But why should the four oldest MSS., together with the Latin and the Gothic Versions, conspire in reading evdoxías, if evdoría be right? That question shall be resolved by-and-by. Let them in the mean time tell us, if they can,-How is it credible that, in such a matter as this, every other MS. and every other Version in the world should read εὐδοκία, if εὐδοκία be wrong ? But the evidence of Antiquity has not yet been nearly cited. I proceed to set it forth in detail.

S

3/

258

Testimony of Early Fathers to

[APP.

It is found then, that whereas evdoxías is read by none, evdokia is read by all the following Fathers :

(1) ORIGEN, in three places of his writings, [i. 374 D: ii. 714 B: iv. 15 B,-A.D. 240.]

(2) The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS, twice, [vii. 47: viii. 12 ad fin.,-IIIrd cent.]

(3) METHODIUS, [Galland. iii. 809 B,—A.D. 290.]

(4) EUSEBIUS, twice, [Dem. Ev. 163 c: 342 B,-A.D. 320.] (5) APHRAATES THE PERSIAN, (for whose name [suprà, pp. 26-7] that of 'Jacobus of Nisibis' has been erroneously substituted), twice, [i. 180 and 385,-A.D. 337.]

(6) TITUS OF BOSTRA, twice, [in loc., but especially in S. Luc. xix. 29 (Cramer, ii. 141, line 20),—A.D. 350.]

(7) GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, [i. 845 c,-A.D. 360.]

(8) CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, [A.D. 370], as will be found explained below.

(9) EPIPHANIUS, [i. 154 D,-A.D. 375.]

(10) CHRYSOSTOM, four times, [vii. 311 B: 674 c: viii. 85 c: xi. 374 в expressly,-A.D. 400.]

(11) CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, in three places, [Comm. on S. Luke, pp. 12 and 16. Also Opp. ii. 593 A: vi. 398 c,

A.D. 420.]

(12) THEODORET, [in Coloss. i. 20,—A.D. 430.]

(13) THEODOTUS OF ANCYRA, [Galland. x. 446 B,-A.D. 430.] (14) PROCLUS, Abp. of Constantinople, [Gall. x. 529 a,— A.D. 434.]

To which may be added the evidence of

(15) COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES, four times repeated, [Coll. Nov. PP., (Montfaucon,) ii. 152 A, 160 D, 247 E, 269 c,A.D. 535.]

(16) EULOGIUS, Abp. of Alexandria, [Gall. xii. 308 E,— A.D. 581.]

(17) ANDREAS of Crete, twice, [Gall. xiii. 100 p, 123 c, -A.D. 635.]

Now, when it is considered that these seventeen Fathers of the Church all concur in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn as our own Textus Receptus exhibits it,—(viz. év ȧvėρóπois evdoxía,)-who does not see that the four oldest uncial autho

Pseudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pseudo-Basil, Patricius, and Marius Mercator, are designedly omitted in this enumeration.

A.]

the true Reading of S. Luke ii. 14.

259

rities for evdoxías are hopelessly outvoted by authorities yet older than themselves? Here is, to all intents and purposes, a record of what was once found in two Codices of the iiird century; in nine of the ivth; in three of the vth ;— added to the testimony of the two Syriac, the Egyptian, the Ethiopic, and the Armenian versions. In this instance therefore the evidence of Antiquity is even overwhelming.

Most decisive of all, perhaps, is the fact this was the form in which the Churches of the East preserved the Angelic Hymn in their private, as well as their solemn public Devotions. Take it, from a document of the vth century :

AOEA EN TVICTOIC OEW

ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙ ΓΗΣ ΕΙΡΗΝΗ

ΕΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΙΣ ΕΥΔΟΚΙΑ .

But the text of this Hymn, as a Liturgical document, at a yet earlier period is unequivocally established by the combined testimony of the Apostolical Constitutions (already quoted,) and of Chrysostom, who says expressly :—Evxapioτοῦντες λέγομεν, Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη, ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία. [Opp. xi. 347 Β.] Now this incontestably proves that the Church's established way of reciting the Angelic Hymn in the ivth century was in conformity with the reading of the Textus Receptus. And this fact infinitely outweighs the evidence of any extant MSS. which can be named for it is the consentient evidence of hundreds,-or rather of thousands of copies of the Gospels of a date anterior to A.D. 400, which have long since perished.

To insist upon this, however, is not at all my present purpose. About the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14, (which is not the reading of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,) there is clearly no longer any room for doubt. It is perhaps one of the best established readings in the whole compass of the New Testament. My sole object is to call attention to the two following facts :

(1) That the four oldest Codices which contain S. Luke ii. 14 (B, N, A, D, A.D. 320-520), and two of the oldest Versions, conspire in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn incorrectly. (2) That we are indebted to fourteen of the Fathers (A.D. • Codex A, ὕμνος ἑωθινός at the end of the Psalms.

260

The Evidence of Irenæus, of Origen,

[APP.

240-434), and to the rest of the ancient Versions, for the true reading of that memorable place of Scripture.

II. Against all this, it is urged (by Tischendorf) that,— 1. IRENEUS sides with the oldest uncials.-Now, the Greek of the place referred to is lost. A Latin translation is all that survives. According to that evidence, Irenæus, having quoted the place in conformity with the Vulgate reading (iii. c. x. § 41,-"Gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis,") presently adds,-"In eo quod dicunt, Gloria in altissimis DEO et in terra pax, eum qui sit altissimorum, hoc est, supercaelestium factor et eorum, quae super terram omnium conditor, his sermonibus glorificaverunt; qui suo plasmati, hoc est hominibus suam benignitatem salutis de caelo misit." (ed. Stieren, i. 459).-But it must suffice to point out (1) that these words really prove nothing and (2) that it would be very unsafe to build upon them, even if they did; since (3) it is plain that the Latin translator exhibits the place in the Latin form most familiar to himself: (consider his substitution of "excelsis" for "altissimis.")

2. Next, ORIGEN is claimed on the same side, on the strength of the following passage in (Jerome's version of) his lost Homilies on S. Luke :-"Si scriptum esset, Super terram pax, et hucusque esset finita sententia, recte quaestio nasceretur. Nunc vero in eo quod additum est, hoc est, quod post pacem dicitur, In hominibus bonae voluntatis, solvit quaestionem. Pax enim quam non dat Dominus super terram, non est pax bonae voluntatis." (Opp. iii. p. 946.) "From this," (says Tischendorf, who is followed by Tregelles,) "it is plain that Origen regarded cvdoxías as the true reading; not evdoxía-which is now thrice found in his Greek writings."-But,

Is one here more struck with the unfairness of the Critic, or with the feebleness of his reasoning? For,-(to say nothing of the insecurity of building on a Latin Translation °,

The old Latin Interpreter of Origen's Commentary on S. Matthew seems to have found in Origen's text a quotation from S. Luke ii. 14 which is not represented in the extant Greek text of Origen. Here also we are presented with "hominibus bonae voluntatis." (Opp. iii. 537 c). We can say nothing to such second-hand evidence.

A.]

and of Cyril, not different.

εὐδοκίας

261

especially in such a matter as the present,)-How can testimony like this be considered to outweigh the three distinct places in the original writings of this Father, where he reads not evdokias but evdoxía? Again. Why is a doubt insinuated concerning the trustworthiness of those three places, (“ ut nunc reperitur,") where there really is no doubt? How is Truth ever to be attained if investigations like the present are to be conducted in the spirit of an eager partisan, instead of with the calm gravity of an impartial judge?

But I may as well state plainly that the context of the passage above quoted shews that Tischendorf's proposed inference is inadmissible. Origen is supposing some one to ask the following question :-" Since Angels on the night when CHRIST was born proclaimed on earth Peace,'-why does our SAVIOUR say, 'I am not come to send Peace upon earth, but a sword?.... Consider," (he proceeds) "whether the answer may not be this:"-and then comes the extract given above. Origen, (to express oneself with colloquial truthfulness,) is at his old tricks. He is evidently acquainted with the reading evdoxías: and because it enables him to offer (what appears to him) an ingenious solution of a certain problem, he adopts it for the nonce: his proposal to take the words eipývn evdoxías together, being simply preposterous, as no one ever knew better than Origen himselfd

3. Lastly, CYRIL OF JERUSALEM is invariably cited by the latest Critics as favouring the reading εὐδοκίας. Those learned persons have evidently overlooked the candid acknowledgment of De Touttée, Cyril's editor, (p. 180, cf. bottom of p. 162,) that though the MSS. of Cyril exhibit Eudoxía, yet in his editorial capacity he had ventured to print εὐδοκίας. This therefore is one more Patristic attestation to the trustworthiness of the Textus Receptus in respect of S. Luke ii. 14, which has been hitherto unaccountably lost sight of by Critics. (May I, without offence, remind Editors of Scripture that instead of copying, they ought in every instance to verify their references ?)

d Consider his exactly similar method concerning Eph. i. 1. (Suprà, pp. 96–99.)