Our Saviour's lament over Jerusalem (“If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace!”) is just one of those delicately articulated passages which are safe to suffer by the process of transmission. Survey St. Luke's words (xix. 42), ?? ????? ?a? s?, ?a? ?e ?? t? ?e?? s?? ta?t?, t? p??? e?????? s??,—and you will perceive at a glance that the vulnerable point in the sentence, so to speak, is ?a? s?, ?a? ?e. In the meanwhile, attested as those words are by the Old Latin300 and by Eusebius301, as well as witnessed to by the whole body of the copies beginning with Cod. A and including the lost original of 13-69-124-346 &c.,—the very order of those words is a thing quite above suspicion. Even Tischendorf admits this. He retains the traditional reading in every respect. Eusebius however twice writes ?a? ?e s?302; once, ?a? s? ?e303; and once he drops ?a? ?e entirely304. Origen drops it 3 times305. Still, there is at least a general consensus among Copies, Versions and Fathers for beginning the sentence with the characteristic words, e? ????? ?a? s?; the phrase being [pg 208] witnessed to by the Latin, the Bohairic, the Gothic, and the Harkleian Versions; by Irenaeus306,—by Origen307,—by ps.-Tatian308,—by Eusebius309,—by Basil the Great310,—by Basil of Seleucia311,—by Cyril312.

What then is found in the three remaining Uncials, for C is defective here? D exhibits e? e???? ?a? s?, e? t? ?e?a ta?t?, ta p??? e?????? s??: being supported only by the Latin of Origen in one place313. Lachmann adopts this reading all the same. Nothing worse, it must be confessed, has happened to it than the omission of ?a? ?e, and of the former s??. But when we turn to B?, we find that they and L, with Origen once314, and the Syriac heading prefixed to Cyril's homilies on St. Luke's Gospel315, exclusively exhibit,—e? e???? e? t? ?e?a ta?t? ?a? s? ta p??? e??????: thus, not only omitting ?a? ?e, together with the first and second s??, but by transposing the words ?a? s?—?? t? ?e?? ta?t?, obliterating from the passage more than half its force and beauty. This maimed and mutilated exhibition of our Lord's words, only because it is found in B?, is adopted by W.-Hort, who are in turn followed by the Revisers316. The Peshitto by the way omits ?a? s?, and transposes the two clauses which remain317. The Curetonian Syriac runs wild, as usual, and the Lewis too318.

Amid all this conflict and confusion, the reader's attention is invited to the instructive fact that the whole body of cursive copies (and all the uncials but four) have retained [pg 209] in this passage all down the ages uninjured every exquisite lineament of the inspired archetype. The truth, I say, is to be found in the cursive copies, not in the licentious B?DL, which as usual stand apart from one another and from A. Only in respect of the first s?? is there a slight prevarication on the part of a very few witnesses319. Note however that it is overborne by the consent of the Syriac, the Old Latin and the Gothic, and further that the testimony of ps.-Tatian is express on this head320. There is therefore nothing to be altered in the traditional text of St. Luke xix. 42, which furnishes an excellent instance of fidelity of transmission, and of an emphatic condemnation of B-?.