[ALL the Corruption in the Sacred Text may be classed under four heads, viz. Omission, Transposition, Substitution, and Addition. We are entirely aware that, in the arrangement adopted in this Volume for purposes of convenience, Scientific Method has been neglected. The inevitable result must be that passages are capable of being classed under more heads than one. But Logical exactness is of less practical value than a complete and suitable treatment of the corrupted passages that actually occur in the four Gospels.
It seems therefore needless to supply with a scrupulousness that might bore our readers a disquisition upon Substitution which has not forced itself into a place amongst Dean Burgon's papers, although it is found in a fragmentary plan of this part of the treatise. Substituted forms or words or phrases, such as OC (hos) for th?c? (Theos) heporei for epoiei (St. Mark vi.20), or euk oidate dokimazein for dokimazete (St. Luke xii.56), have their own special causes of substitution, and are naturally and best considered under the cause which in each case gave them birth.
Yet the class of Substitutions is a large one, if Modifications, as they well may be, are added to it . It will be readily concluded that some substitutions are serious, some of less importance, and many trivial. Of the more important class, the reading of hamartematos for kriseos (St. Mark iii.29) which the Revisers have adopted in compliance with 'BLD and three Cursives, is a specimen. It is true that D reads hamartias supported by the first corrector of C, and three of the Ferrar group (13, 69, 346) and that the change adopted is supported by the Old Latin versions except f, the Vulgate, Bohairic, Armenian, Gothic, Lewis, and Saxon. But the opposition which favours kriseos is made up of A, C under the first reading and the second correction, PhS and eleven other Uncials, the great bulk of the Cursives, f, Peshitto, and Harkleian, and is superior in strength. The internal evidence is also in favour of the Traditional reading, both as regards the usage of e'nocho's, and the natural meaning given by kriseos. Hamarte'matos has clearly crept in from ver.28. Other instances of Substitution may be found in the well-known St. Luke xxiii.45 (tou eli'ou eklipo'ntos), St. Matt. xi.27 (bou'letai apokalu'psai), St. Matt. xxvii.34 (oinon for oxos), St. Mark i.2 (Esai'a for tois prophetais), St. John i.18 (ho Monogenes Theos being a substitution made by heretics for ho Monogenes Huios), St. Mark vii.31 (dia` Sidonos for kai Sidonos). These instances may perhaps suffice: many more may suggest themselves to intelligent readers. Though most are trivial, their cumulative force is extremely formidable. Many of these changes arose from various causes which are described in many other places in this book.]