Luke 18:19

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God, [ Ti (G5101) me (G3165) legeis (G3004) agathon (G18); oudeis (G3762) agathos (G18), ei-mee (G1508) heis (G1520) ho (G3588) Theos (G2316). So Mark 10:18; and so in the Received Text of Matthew 19:17, with trifling variation. But all recent critical editors-Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles-give the text of Matthew 19:17 thus - Ti (G5101) me (G3165) erootas (G2065) peri (G4012) tou (G3588) agathou (G18); heis (G1520) estin (G1510) ho (G3588) agathos (G18): 'Why askest thou me concerning what is Good? One is the Good One:' Alford adopts this into his text; DeWette and Meyer approve of it; and Olshausen thinks it admits of no doubt that this is the genuine reading. In spite of this, we venture to think that nothing but such overwhelming evidence in its behalf as it certainly does not possess would entitle it even to favourable consideration.

And this for two reasons: First, It makes our Lord's reply to this sincere and anxious inquirer incredibly inept. The man's question was, "Good Master, what good thing shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Our Lord answers by asking him why he questioned Him regarding what was good-according to this reading. Is it likely our Lord would so answer him? especially as He presently tells him the thing he really wanted to know. But the conclusion of our Lord's reply, according to this reading, crowns its absurdity in our judgment: 'One is the Good One.' If this has any connection at all with what goes before, it must mean that the man had no need to inquire what was the good which men were to do, because One was the Good Being! But if there be no connection here, there is as little in what follows. And looking at this reading of our Lord's reply to a sincere and anxious inquirer after eternal life, nothing could persuade us that our Lord did utter it-in the absence, at least, of overpowering evidence from ancient manuscripts and versions.

But secondly, Since no one pretends that this is the reading of Mark and Luke, and since their account of our Lord's reply, while it gives a clear and pregnant answer to the man's question, differs totally from the sense of this special reading of Matthew, is it not a strong argument against this reading that it yields no proper sense at all, while the received reading gives the clear sense of the other two Gospels? We are well aware of the tendency of early transcribers to assimilate the readings of one Gospel to those of another, especially of two others which agree together; and we could give that consideration some weight here if the evidence otherwise were in favour of the special reading. Nor do we forget that, other things being equal, the more special a reading is the more probably is it the right one. But other things are not equal here, but far from it. It only remains, then, that we advert to the external evidence on the subject.

Only one manuscript of the oldest date-the celebrated Code Vaticanus (B) - was thought to have this reading; but the recently discovered Sinaiticus manuscript ('aleph (')), we now know, has it too. Two others (D and L) have it, together with three of the cursive or more recent manuscripts. Two of the Syriac versions, nearly all copies of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate, and the Memphitic or Lower-Egyptian, have it. Origen, in the third century, has the first part of it at least; and Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine in the fourth century. Such is the evidence for this unnatural reading. Now, how stands the evidence on the other side? The only other manuscript of oldest date and greatest authority (A) is defective here; but the manuscripts with which it usually agrees have the Received Text. The next weightiest manuscript has it-the Codex Ephraemi rescriptus

(C) - and with it all other known manuscripts of the Gospels, except those above referred to.

An overwhelming number; and in weight, surely counterbalancing those above-mentioned. It is found in the oldest and most venerable of all the Syriac versions, the 'Peshito,' and in the text of the most critical one, the 'Philoxenian' or 'Harclean;' though the other reading is inserted in the margin. And it is found in the Thebaic or Upper-Egyptian version, which is thought to have claims to great antiquity. Of the Fathers, it is found in Irenaeus, and substantially in Justin Martyr, both of the second century, besides most of the later Fathers. On a review of the whole case, we hesitate not to say, that while the weight of external evidence appears to us to be clearly in favour of the Received Text, the internal evidence, arising from the inept character which the other reading gives to our Lord's reply, is decisive against it. We have been the more full in our statement upon this passage, because, while we hold that the true text of the New Testament must in every case be determined by the whole evidence which we possess, this passage affords a good example of the tendency of critics to be carried away, in opposition to their own principles, in favour of startling readings, and of the necessity, in such cases-even though one should stand almost alone-of expressing the result of the entire evidence in terms as strong as that evidence warrants. Scrivener ("Criticism of the New Testament") vindicates the Received Text, though with no reference to the inept character which the other one stamps upon our Lord's reply, and admitting too much in favour of the other reading from its harshness, and the tendency to assimilation. The only able critic who speaks out upon the 'absurdity' of this various reading is Fritzsche.]

Our Lord's response consists, first, of a hint by the way, founded on the appellation, "Good Master;" and next, of a direct reply to the inquiry itself. "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but One, [that is], God." Did our Lord mean by this to teach that God only ought to be called "good?" Impossible: for that had been to contradict all Scripture teaching and His own too. "A good man showeth favour and lendeth" (Psalms 112:5); "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good things" (Matthew 12:35); "Well done, good and faithful servant" Matthew 25:21); "Barnabas was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 11:24). Unless, therefore, we are to ascribe captiousness to our Lord, He could have had but one object-to teach this youth, on the one hand, that He declined to be classed along with other "good" people and "good masters;" and on the other hand, by reminding him that the only other sort of goodness, namely, supreme goodness, belonged to God alone, to leave him to draw the startling inference-that that was the goodness which belonged to Him. Unless this object is seen in the background of our Lord's words, nothing worthy of Him can be made out of this first part of His reply. But this hint once given, our Lord at once passes from it to the proper subject of the youth's inquiry.