Part 3 (1/2)

(_a_) D introduces the LORD'S Prayer by interpolating the following paraphrase of S. Matt. vi. 7:-”_Use not vain repet.i.tions as the rest: for some suppose that they shall be heard by their much speaking. But when ye pray_” ... After which portentous exordium,

(_b_) B ? omit the 5 words, ”_Our_” ”_which art in heaven_,” Then,

(_c_) D omits the article (t?) before ”name:” and supplements the first pet.i.tion with the words ”upon us” (?f? ???). It must needs also transpose the words ”_Thy Kingdom_” (? as??e?a s??).

(_d_) B in turn omits the third pet.i.tion,-”_Thy will be done, as in heaven, also on the earth;_” which 11 words ? retains, but adds ”_so_”

before ”_also_,” and omits the article (t??); finding for once an ally in A C D.

(_e_) ? D for d?d?? write d?? (from Matt.).

(_f_) ? omits the article (t?) before ”_day by day._” And,

(_g_) D, instead of the 3 last-named words, writes ”_this day_” (from Matt.): subst.i.tutes ”_debts_” (t? ?fe???ata) for ”_sins_” (t?

?a?t?ata,-also from Matt.): and in place of ”_for [we] ourselves_” (?a?

??? a?t??) writes ”_as also we_” (?? ?a? ?e??, again from Matt.).-But,

(_h_) ? shows its sympathy with D by accepting two-thirds of this last blunder: exhibiting ”_as also [we] ourselves_” (?? ?a? a?t??).

(_i_) D consistently reads ”_our debtors_” (t??? ?fe???ta?? ???) in place of ”_every one that is indebted to us_” (pa?t? ?fe????t? ???).-Finally,

(_j_) B ? omit the last pet.i.tion,-”_but deliver us from evil_” (???? ??sa?

??? ?p? t?? p??????)-unsupported by A C or D. Of lesser discrepancies we decline to take account.

So then, these five ”first-cla.s.s authorities” are found to throw themselves into _six different combinations_ in their departures from S.

Luke's way of exhibiting the LORD'S Prayer,-which, among them, they contrive to falsify in respect of no less than 45 words; and yet _they are never able to agree among themselves as to any single various reading:_ while _only once_ are more than two of them observed to stand together,-viz. in the unauthorized omission of the article. In respect of 32 (out of the 45) words, _they bear in turn solitary evidence_. What need to declare that it is _certainly false_ in every instance? Such however is the infatuation of the Critics, that the vagaries of Bare all taken for gospel. Besides omitting the 11 words which B omits jointly with ?, Drs.

Westcott and Hort erase from the Book of Life those other 11 precious words which are omitted by B only. And in this way it comes to pa.s.s that the mutilated condition to which the scalpel of Marcion the heretic reduced the LORD'S Prayer some 1730 years ago,(74) (for the mischief can all be traced back to _him!_), is palmed off on the Church of England by the Revisionists as the work of the HOLY GHOST!

(A) We may now proceed with our examination of their work, beginning-as Dr. Roberts (one of the Revisionists) does, when explaining the method and results of their labours-with what we hold to be the gravest blot of all, viz. the marks of serious suspicion which we find set against the last Twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel. Well may the learned Presbyterian antic.i.p.ate that-

”The reader will be struck by the appearance which this long paragraph presents in the Revised Version. Although inserted, it is marked off by a considerable s.p.a.ce from the rest of the Gospel.

A note is also placed in the margin containing a brief explanation of this.”(75)

A _very_ brief ”explanation” certainly: for the note _explains_ nothing.

Allusion is made to the following words-

”The two oldest Greek ma.n.u.scripts, and some other authorities, omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.”

But now,-For the use of _whom_ has this piece of information been volunteered? Not for learned readers certainly: it being familiarly known to all, that codices B and ? _alone of ma.n.u.scripts_ (to their own effectual condemnation) omit these 12 verses. But then scholars know something more about the matter. They also know that these 12 verses have been made the subject of a separate treatise extending to upwards of 300 pages,-which treatise has now been before the world for a full decade of years, and for the best of reasons has never yet been answered. Its object, stated on its t.i.tle-page, was to vindicate against recent critical objectors, and to establish ”the last Twelve Verses” of S. Mark's Gospel.(76) Moreover, competent judges at once admitted that the author had succeeded in doing what he undertook to do.(77) _Can_ it then be right (we respectfully enquire) still to insinuate into unlearned minds distrust of twelve consecutive verses of the everlasting Gospel, which yet have been demonstrated to be as trustworthy as any other verses which can be named?

The question arises,-But how did it come to pa.s.s that such evil counsels were allowed to prevail in the Jerusalem Chamber? Light has been thrown on the subject by two of the New Test. company. And first by the learned Congregationalist, Dr. Newth, who has been at the pains to describe the method which was pursued on every occasion. The practice (he informs us) was as follows. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, as chairman, asks-

”Whether any _Textual_ Changes are proposed? The evidence for and against is briefly stated, and the proposal considered. The duty of stating this evidence is by tacit consent devolved upon (_sic_) two members of the Company, who from their previous studies are specially ent.i.tled to speak with authority upon such questions,-Dr. Scrivener and _Dr. Hort_,-and who come prepared to enumerate particularly the authorities on either side. Dr.

Scrivener opens up the matter by stating the facts of the case, and by giving his judgment on the bearings of the evidence. Dr.

Hort follows, and mentions any additional matters that may call for notice; and, if differing from Dr. Scrivener's estimate of the weight of the evidence, gives his reasons and states his own view.