THE PATRISTIC GOSPELS

THE

PATRISTIC GOSPELS

AN ENGLISH VERSION OF THE

HOLY GOSPELS AS THEY EXISTED IN THE
SECOND CENTURY

COLLATED FROM 120 OF THE GREEK AND LATIN FATHers, from THE SECOND TO THE
TENTH CENTURY; THE 26 OLD LATIN (ITALIC) VERSIONS OF THE SECOND CENTURY;
THE VULGATE; 24 GREEK UNCIALS AND SOME CURSIVES; THE SYRIAC, EGYPTIAN,
AND OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS

AND CORRECTED BY COMPARING ALL THE CRITICAL GREEK TEXTS FROM STEPHANUS
(A.D. 1550) TO WESTCOTT AND HORT, 1881; ALL THE ENGLISH VERSIONS FROM WICLIF
(FOURTEENTH CENTURY) TO THE AMERICAN BAPTIST VERSION OF 1883; AS WELL AS
EVERY COMMENTATOR, ENGLISH AND FOREIGN, WHO HAS EVER SUGgested a

EXPLANATORY PREFACE.

IN first considering the matter of producing a correct version of the Gospels, two points struck me forcibly. First, That up to the present time no authorities earlier than the fourth century had been used in the text, although possibly referred to in footnotes.

In the A V. A was principally employed, along with the "Textus Receptus": the Revisers of 1881 used (practically) only & B D L, the two latter being respectively of the sixth and eighth centuries.

The second point was that the writings of the Fathers of the second century (and downwards) were simply crammed with quotations from the MS. Gospels of their time, many of which were certainly written before the close of the first century, and were more probably correct than the only two MSS. now extant of so late as the fourth-a period when, as all the higher critics agree, the principal corruptions of the text took place.

In addition to these Fathers, there are also existent. twenty-seven Old Latin (Italic) Versions of the second century, all varying considerably from each other (as do the Greek MSS.), and from which S. Jerome compiled, A.D. 383, his Latin Vulgate.

I have called the work "The Patristic Gospels," because, in the first instance, they were founded upon quotations from the Fathers; but compared with and corrected by means of all the authorities since their time. The system on which I have worked is, in some respects, exactly the converse of those followed by my predecessors. Still, all work must be judged by its results; and I think that the valuable and novel results obtained will entirely justify my method of procedure.

Of course I recognise (and agree with) the classification system adopted by Dr. Hort, as follows:

Group a-The uncials N Σ, and the mass of later uncials E F K M SU II, and cursives; with considerable support from A C and the Peshitto.

Group B.-Smaller in number, but eminent in point of antiquity— NB LTE, with occasional support from P Q R X Z; and, in St. Mark, A.

Group 8.-D D' E2 F2 G3, some of the cursives, viz., 28, 235, 473, 604; the Old Syriac and Old Latin Versions; and sometimes the Sahidic. Also a fourth, Group y, not found wholly in any one MS.; but to be discerned when some members of that group (notably & CL X, 33, and the Bohairic) differ from the other members headed by B.

How then are we to judge between these rival families? By the evidence of the Fathers. The key to Hort's whole theory is in the proposition that no reading strictly belonging to Group a is found in any Father before Chrysostom (A.D. 397). The By types are found pre-eminently in Origen, and to a great extent in Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius; the type in all the Fathers before the end of the