^{page 379 note 1} For examples of shockingly lax standards of editorial accuracy, see the instances cited by LI.Bebb, J. M., ‘The Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of the Book of the New Testament’, Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, II (Oxford, 1890), 195–240,Google Scholar esp. 198 f.

^{page 379 note 2} Westcott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in the Original Greek; [vol. II], Introduction [and] Appendix, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1896), pp. 202 f.Google Scholar

^{page 380 note 1} On patristic citation of the same passage in different ways, see Suggs, M. Jack, ‘The Use of Patristic Evidence in the Search for the Primitive New Testament Text,’ New Testament Studies, IV (1958), 139–47,CrossRefGoogle Scholar esp. pp. 141 f. Such laxity is not unknown in more modern times; for example, the English divine jeremy Taylor (1613–1667) quotes John iii. 3–5 nine times in his several writings, but never in complete agreement with the English text of 1611, and only twice in agreement with each other (so Ezra, Abbot, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel; External Evidences [Boston, 1880], p. 41).Google Scholar

^{page 380 note 2} Thus, it seldom happens that in brief quotations one can rely upon patristic testimony for καί γάρ, δέ, άλλά, and similar connectives.

^{page 380 note 3} For other discussion of the contribution of patristic citations in the history of New Testament textual criticism, see Caspar, René Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes, II (Leipzig, 1902), 747–53, 906–93,Google Scholar and III (1909), 1345 and 1358–63; Grant, Robert M., ‘The Citation of Patristic Evidence in an Apparatus Criticus’, New Testament Manuscript Studies, ed. by Parvis, M. M. and Wikgren, A. P. (Chicago, 1950), pp. 117–24;Google Scholar and Jean, Duplacy and Jack, Suggs, ‘Les citations grecques et la critique du texte du Nouveau Testament; Le passé, le présent et l'avenir’, La Bible et les Pères Colloque de Strasbourg (Paris, 1971), pp. 187–213.Google Scholar The last mentioned volume also contains discussions concerning biblical quotations made by Latin, Armenian, Coptic, and Syriac writers: namely, H. J. Frede, ‘Bibelzitate bei Kirchenvätern’, pp. 79–96; L. Leloir, ‘La Bible et les Pères dudésert d'après les deux collections arméniennes des Apophtegmes’, pp. 113–34; K. Schüssler, ‘Zitate aus den katholischen Briefen bei den koptischen Kirchenvätern’, pp. 215–28; and M. Black, ‘The Syriac New Testament in Early Patristic Tradition’, pp. 263–78.

^{page 381 note 1} The usual explanation of the presence of ‘Vulgarius’ among the names of ecclesiastical writers is that Erasmus here employs the sobriquet of Theophylact of Bulgaria (in modern Greek beta is pronounced ν). For a different explanation, see Caspar, René Gregory, Textkritik, II, 748Google Scholar n. 1.

^{page 381 note 2} They are included in the Appendix to vol. VI (London, 1657) of Walton's Polyglot.

^{page 383 note 1} For a list of the Fathers (about two hundred in number) and the editions of their works that were indexed by Burgon, see Edward, Miller, A Textual Commentary Upon the Holy Gospels, I (London, 1899), xx–xxiv.Google Scholar The total number of the quotations is givenby Duplacy, , Le Bible et les pères, p. 196.Google Scholar

^{page 383 note 2} For a recent statement concerning the slipping of patristic quotations for the Project, see Jack, Suggs' report in La Bible et les pères, pp. 197–208.Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 1} For the initial announcement of the project, see Benoit, A. and Prigent, P., ‘Les citations de l'Écriture chex les Pères,’ Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses, XL (1966), 161–8;Google Scholar for the status of the project as of 1970, see the brief statement in the Bulletin of the Council on the Study of Religion, II, I (February, 1971), 15 f.

^{page 384 note 2} For discussions of such possibilities, see the contributions to two international colloquia, one held at Strasbourg, 1–3 October 1969, the other held at Rome, 4 November 1969 (Cf. the brief report by Jean, Duplacy, Biblica, LI [1970], 156.)Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 3} Muncey, R. W., The New Testament of St Ambrose (Texts and Studies, n. s. IV; Cambridge, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, was reviewed adversely by Duplacy, J. in Recherches de science religieuse, XLVII (1959) 391–400;Google ScholarLundström, S. in Gnomon, XXXII (1960), 640 ff.Google Scholar; Willis, G. G. in Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. X (1960), 172–6;Google ScholarWikgren, A. in Journal of Religion, XL (1960), 316 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boismard, M.-E. in Revue Bibique, LXVII (1960), 136 f.Google Scholar; Ian, Moir in Scottish Journal of Theology, XIV (1961), 100 f.Google Scholar; van der Nat, P. G. in Vigiliae Christianae, XVI (1962), 55 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and by the present writer in Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXIX (1961), 186 f.Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 4} William, Sanday and Turner, C. H., Nouun Testamentum Sancti Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis (Old-Latin Biblical Texts, VII; Oxford, 1923).Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 5} Michael, Mees, Die Zitate aus dem Neuen Testamentum bei Clemens von Alexandrien (Quaderni di ‘Vetera Christianorum’, 2; Università di Bari, 1970).Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 6} Gérassime, Zaphiris, Le texte de l' Evangile selon saint Matthieu d'après les citations de Clement d' Alexandrie comparées aux citations des Pèes et des Théologiens grecs du II^e au XV^e siècle (Gembloux, [1970]).Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 7} Cf.Duplacy's, ‘Appel pour un relevé général des citations patristiques de la Bible grecque,’ Novum Testamentum, XIII (1971), 236 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Vigiliae Christianae, XXIV (1970), 239 f.Google Scholar Père Duplacy's address, to which information of such studies can be sent, is 9 Boulevard Voltaire, 21 Dijon (Côte d'or), France.

^{page 385 note 1} Op. cit. § 190. Whether it really was Lucian who was responsible for the production of that form of New Testament text which Westcott and Hort called Syrian (and which others have called Antiochian, or Byzantine, or Koine, or Ecclesiastical), it remains a fact that this text was finally disclosed to be secondary through the evidence furnished by the Church Fathers, for none of the ante-Nicene writers, as Hort pointed out, seem to be aware of the kind of conflated readings so characteristic of the later type of text.

^{page 385 note 2} Hug, J. L., Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 3te Aufl. (Tübingen, 1826),Google Scholar § 37.

^{page 385 note 3} Wilhelm, Bousset, Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament (Leipzig, 1894), pp. 74–100.Google Scholar In reality the so-called ‘Hesychian’ text antedates by many years the date usually assigned to Bishop Hesychius; see Kenyon, F. G., ‘Hesychius and the Text of the New Testament’, Mémorial Lagrange, ed. by L.-H., Vincent (Paris, 1940), pp. 245–50.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 4} Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels, A Study of Origins (London, 1924), pp. 53 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 5} Kirsopp, Lake, The Influence of Textual Criticism on the Criticism of the New Testament (Oxford, 1904), pp. 6 f.Google Scholar Two years later, in his review-article of B. Weiss's edition of the Gospels, Lake made a more specific proposal. ‘May I suggest’, he wrote, ‘that the time has come for a new kind of edition of the text of the Gospels? It is not probable that we shall ever do very much if we content ourselves with publishing texts, of which, as is the case with Dr Weiss's edition, the chief value is that they represent the opinions of a great scholar. What is needed is an edition in which the oldest forms of the text in different localities are arranged in parallel columns, each column having its own apparatus criticus. Such an edition would have the Old Syriac, Old Latin, and the Alexandrian texts arranged side by side, and perhaps the Latin and the Syriac would be retranslated into Greek. The number of columns would vary in different places, and the details would not be easy to arrange, yet I do not see any insuperable difficulty’ (American Journal of Theology, VII [1903], 256).Google Scholar

Those who are acquainted with the three volumes of Hansell's, E. H.Novum Testamentum Graecum antiquissimorun codicum textus in ordine parallelo dispositi (Oxford, 1864)Google Scholar will know how convenient it is to be able to consult the continuous text of codices A, B, C, and D arranged in parallel columns.

^{page 386 note 1} Evangelium secundum Matthaeum cum variae lectionis delectu (Leipzig, 1901),Google Scholar and Evangelium secundum Iohannem cum variae lectionis delectu (Leipzig, 1902).Google Scholar Blass's edition of the Gospel of Luke (Leipzig, 1897) attempted to provide the text of the postulated earlier form of that gospel.

^{page 386 note 2} Hibbert Journal, I (1902–1903), 96–113.Google Scholar Conybeare elaborated his argument for the originality of the non-Trinitarian baptismal formula in an article in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, II (1901), 275–88.Google Scholar In 1904 Kirsopp Lake adopted Conybeare's conclusion in his inaugural lecture at Leiden (see above, p. 385 n. 5).

^{page 386 note 3} The patristic testimony which Conybeare adduced in support of his arguments concerning the original text of these three passages has been reassessed by a variety of scholars and today few textual critics are impressed by the cogency of his arguments; on the original text of the Matthean baptismal formula see, or example, Chase, F. H. in Journal of Theological Studies, VI (1904–1905), 481–512;Google Scholar on Matt. xix. 17 and parallels, Warfield, B. B. in Princeton Theological Review, XII (1914), 222–8Google Scholar (reprinted in his volume Christology and Criticism [New York, 1929], pp. 140–5)Google Scholar; and on Matt. i. 16 Burkitt, F. C. in Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, II (Cambridge, 1904), 258–66.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 1} Cf. Gordon, D. Fee, ‘The Text of the Jerusalem Bible: a Critique of the Use of Patristic Citations in New Testament Textual Criticism,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, XC (1971), 163–73.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 2} ‘A propos de Jean V, 39. Essai de critique textuelle’, Revue Biblique, LV (1948), 5–34;Google Scholar cf. also Boismard, in L'Évangile de Jean; Études et problèmes (Brussels, 1958), pp. 51 f.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 1} Revue Biblique LVII (1950), 388–408.Google Scholar

^{page 389 note 1} It should be pointed out, however, that elsewhere Origen, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Cyri quote v. 12 with the disputed phrase, τοīς пιστεύουσιν είς τό őνομα αύτοũ.

^{page 390 note 1} The singular number has been preferred by a variety of scholars, including Resch, A., Blass, F., Loisy, A., Zahn, Th., Seeberg, R., Burney, C. F., Büchsel, F., Dupont, J., Braun, F. M., Mollat, D., and, most recently, Galot, J. in a monograph entitled Etre né de Dieu, Jean I, 13 (Rome, 1969).Google Scholar It is amazing that nowhere in Galot's discussion does he think it worthwhile to discuss or even to set forth the manuscript testimony supporting the traditional form of the text. Among recent commentators who prefer the plural are Barrett, , Bultmann, Lightfoot, R. H., Schnackenburg, , Wikenhauser, , and Raymond, E.Brown, ; cf. also Houssiau, A., ‘Le milieu théologique de la leçon έρενν$$$θη (Jo. I, 13)’, Sacra pagina, II (Gembloux, 1959), 170–89,Google Scholar who argues that the singular number emerged in an anti-Ebionite milieu, whereas a gnostic tendency, leading from the singular to the plural, cannot be proved.

^{page 391 note 1} In most of the patristic references the wording is in the sequence which Boismard prefers, in a few cases, however, the allusion begins μοναì пολλαì…

^{page 391 note 2} Revue Biblique, LVIII (1951), 161–8.Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 3} Ibid. p. 164, quoting from Lagrange, M.-J., Critique textuelle (Paris, 1935).Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 4} ‘“Dans le sein du Père” (Jo. I, 18)’, Revue Biblique, LIX (1952), 23–39.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 1} Boismard, M.-E., ‘Saint Luc et la rédaction du quatrième évangile,’ Revue Biblique, LXIX (1962), 185–211.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 2} Revue Biblique, LX (1953), 347–71.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 3} Ibid. p. 345.

^{page 393 note 1} Chrysostom, Hom. in Joan. lxiv. 3 (Migne, Patrologia graeca, LIX, 358); Augustine, Serm. x. i (Patrologia Latina, XXXVIII, 97); and Cyril of Alexandria, Com. in Joan. xi. 48 (P.G. LXXIV, 68).

^{page 393 note 2} Ibid. p. 358.

^{page 394 note 1} Revue Biblique, LXIV (1957), 363–98.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 1} For lists of the kinds of alterations that were introduced into the text, see, for example, Wright, Leon E., Alterations of the Words of Jesus as Quoted in the Literature of the Second Century (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1952), pp. 15–71,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Metzger, , The Text of the New Testament, its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1968), pp. 196 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 2} For examples of alterations introduced into Greek manuscripts for the sake of style, see Kilpatrick, G. D., ‘Atticism and the Text of the New Testament’, in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze; Festschrift für Prof. Josef Schmid (Regemsburg, 1963), 125–37;Google Scholar‘The Greek New Testament Text of Today and the Textus Receptus’, in The New Testament in Historical and Contemporary Perspective; Essays in Memory of G. H. C. Macgregor, ed. by Hugh Anderson and William Barclay (Oxford, 1965), pp. 189–208;Google Scholar and ‘Style and Text in the Greek New Testament’, In Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, ed. by B. L. Daniels and M. J. Suggs (Salt Lake City, 1967), pp. 153–60.Google Scholar For examples of such alterations in Latin Fathers, see Memorli, A. F., ‘Ritmo e testi biblici negli scrittori latini cristiani di prosa d'arte,’ Aecum, XXVIII (1954), 419–44.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 1} Streeter, , The Four Gospels, p. 131.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 2} Comm. in Ioan. i, 4 (6); i, 8 (10); i, 9 (11); i, 21 (23); and xix, 2.

^{page 396 note 3} Tasker, R. V. G., ‘The Text of the Fourth Gospel used by Origen in his Commentary on John,’ Journal of Theological Studies, XXXVII (1936), 149.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 4} Comm. in Ioan. xxvii, 9 (8), καί τ⋯ειρημένω ύπό το⋯ κυρίου πρός τήν Μάρθαν λέγοντος έγω ειμ ή άνάστασιις καί ή ζωή. The text of Origen's Commentary here is firm, Preuschen listing no variant reading among the four manuscripts on which his edition rests.

^{page 397 note 1} According to Jerome (De vir. ill. 53), Cyprian ‘was accustomed never to pass a day without reading Tertullian, and he frequently said to his secretary, Hand me the master, meaning by this Tertullian’.

^{page 397 note 2} For example, in his answer to Minervius and Alexander, two monks of Toulouse who had sent Jerome a series of questions concerning the meaning of I Cor. xv. 51, he replies, ‘Being pressed for time, I have presented you with the opinions of all the Commentators (for the most part, translating their very words) in order both to get rid of your question to put you possession of ancient authorities on the subject’ (Ep. 119).

^{page 397 note 3} Such is no doubt the conclusion that must be drawn from following. Eusebius’ letter to a certain Marinus, who had raised several questions concerning the reconciling of the accounts of the resurrection in Matthew and Mark, finds a remarkable parallel in Jerome's letter to Hedibia (Ep. 120), a pious lady of Gaul, who, it is made to appear, had asked Jerome the same three questions on Matthew and Mark, and in the same sequence! For the Greek and Latin texts set out in parallel fashion, see Burgon, John W., The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark (Oxford and London, 1871), pp. 54 f.Google Scholar (= American ed., 1959, pp. 132 f.).

^{page 398 note 1} So Johannes Quasten, Patrology; III, The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature (Westminster, Maryland, 1960), p. 470.Google Scholar According to Quasten about nine hundred sermons (600 still in manuscript) are falsely attributed to Chrysostom.

^{page 398 note 2} For examples of Chrysostom's negligence in citing scriptural passages, see Field's, F. comments in his edition of Chrysostom's Homiliae in Matthaeum, iii (Oxford, 1839), 117B, 275C, 315C, 357C.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 3} For an analysis of such evidence from Origen, see the present writer's article, ‘Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Redings in New Testament Manuscripts’, in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, edited by J. Neville Berdsall and W. Thomson (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1963), pp. 78–95.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 1} Op. cit. § 124. Hort continues with the following caution: ‘But this superior certitude must not be confounded with higher authority: the relative excellence or the historical position of the text employed by a Father has nothing to do with the relative adequacy of our means of ascertaining what his text actually was. Moreover in the statements themselves the contemporary existence of the several variants mentioned is often all that can be safely accepted: reliance on what they tell us beyond this bare fact must depend on the estimate which we are able to form of the opportunities, critical care, and impartiality of the respective writers.’

^{page 399 note 2} See Caspar, René Gregory, Das Freer-Logion (Leipzig, 1908)Google Scholar, and Eugen, Helzle, ‘Die Schluß des Markusevangeliums (Mk 16, 9–20) und das Freer-Logion (Mk 16, 14W), ihre Tendenzen und ihr gegenseitiges Verhälthis. Eine wortexegetische Untersuchung’, Phil. Diss. Tübingen, 1969Google Scholar (cf. Theologische Lilteraturzeitung, LXXXV [1960],Google Scholar cols. 470–2).

^{page 399 note 3} Contra Pelatianos ii. 15.

^{page 399 note 4} Cf. Laistner, M. L. W., ‘The Latin Versions of Acts Known to the Venerable Bede,’ Harvard Theological Review, XXX (1937), 37–50,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Exposition Actuum Apostoiorum et Retractatio, ed. by M. L. W. Laistner (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1939), pp. xxxvii sqq.Google Scholar