“How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the Kingdom of Heaven,” exclaimed our Lord on a memorable occasion. The disciples were amazed. Replying to their thoughts,—“Children,” He added, “how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the Kingdom of God.” (St. Mark x. 23, 24). Those familiar words, vouched for by 16 uncials and all the cursives, are quite above suspicion. But in fact all the Versions support them likewise. There is really no pretext for disturbing what is so well attested, not to say so precious. Yet Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort eject t??? pep????ta? ?p? t??? ???as?? from the text, on the sole ground that the clause in question is omitted by ?B?, one copy of the Italic (k), and one copy of the Bohairic. Aware that such a proceeding requires an apology,—“I think it unsafe,” says Tischendorf, “to forsake in this place the very ancient authorities which I am accustomed to follow”: i.e. Codexes ? and B. But of what nature is this argument? Does the critic mean that he must stick to antiquity? If this be his meaning, then let him be reminded that Clemens330, a more ancient authority than ?B by 150 years,—not to say the Latin and the Syriac Versions, which are more ancient still,—recognizes the words in question331. Does however the learned critic mean no more than this,—That it is with him a fundamental principle of Textual Criticism to uphold at all [pg 214] hazards the authority of B and ?? He cannot mean that; as I proceed to explain.

For the strangest circumstance is behind. Immediately after he has thus (in ver. 24) proclaimed the supremacy of ?B, Tischendorf is constrained to reject the combined evidence of ?BC?. In ver. 26 those 4 copies advocate the absurd reading ?????te? p??? ????? ?a? t?? d??ata? s????a?; whereas it was evidently to themselves (p??? ?a?t???) that the disciples said it. Aware that this time the “antiquissimae quas sequi solet auctoritates” stand self-condemned, instead of ingenuously avowing the fact, Tischendorf grounds his rejection of p??? a?t?? on the consideration that “Mark never uses the expression ?e?e?? p??? a?t??.” Just as if the text of one place in the Gospel is to be determined by the practice of the same Evangelist in another place,—and not by its own proper evidence; which in the present instance is (the reader may be sure) simply overwhelming!

Westcott and Hort erroneously suppose that all the copies but four,—all the versions but one (the Bohairic),—may be in error: but that B-?, C, and Cod. ? which is curious in St. Mark, must needs be in the right.