The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Part 10

A gross depravation of the Text resulting from this cause, which nevertheless has imposed on several critics, as has been already said, is furnished by the first words of Acts iii. The most ancient witness accessible, namely the Pes.h.i.+tto, confirms the usual reading of the place, which is also the text of the cursives: viz. [Greek: Epi to auto de Petros kai Ioannes k.t.l.] So the Harkleian and Bede. So Codex E.

The four oldest of the six available uncials conspire however in representing the words which immediately precede in the following unintelligible fas.h.i.+on:--[Greek: ho de Kyrios proset.i.thei tous sozomenous kath' hemeran epi to auto. Petros de k.t.l.] How is it to be thought that this strange and vapid presentment of the pa.s.sage had its beginning? It results, I answer, from the ecclesiastical practice of beginning a fresh lection at the name of 'Peter,' prefaced by the usual formula 'In those days.' It is accordingly usual to find the liturgical word [Greek: arche]--indicative of the beginning of a lection,--thrust in between [Greek: epi to auto de] and [Greek: Petros]. At a yet earlier period I suppose some more effectual severance of the text was made in that place, which unhappily misled some early scribe[165]. And so it came to pa.s.s that in the first instance the place stood thus: [Greek: ho de Kyrios proset.i.thei tous sozomenous kath' hemeran te ekklesia epi to auto],--which was plainly intolerable.

What I am saying will commend itself to any unprejudiced reader when it has been stated that Cod. D in this place actually reads as follows:--[Greek: kathemeran epi to auto en te ekklesia. En de tais hemerais tautais Petros k.t.l.]: the scribe with simplicity both giving us the liturgical formula with which it was usual to introduce the Gospel for the Friday after Easter, and permitting us to witness the perplexity with which the evident surplusage of [Greek: te ekklesia epi to auto] occasioned him. He inverts those two expressions and thrusts in a preposition. How obvious it now was to solve the difficulty by getting rid of [Greek: te ekklesia].

It does not help the adverse case to shew that the Vulgate as well as the copy of Cyril of Alexandria are disfigured with the same corrupt reading as [Symbol: Aleph]ABC. It does but prove how early and how widespread is this depravation of the Text. But the indirect proof thus afforded that the actual Lectionary System must needs date from a period long anterior to our oldest Codexes is a far more important as well as a more interesting inference. In the meantime I suspect that it was in Western Christendom that this corruption of the text had its beginning: for proof is not wanting that the expression [Greek: epi to auto] seemed hard to the Latins[166].

Hence too the omission of [Greek: palin] from [Symbol: Aleph]BD (St.

Matt, xiii. 43). A glance at the place in an actual Codex[167] will explain the matter to a novice better than a whole page of writing:--

[Greek: akoueto. telos]

[Greek: palin. arche. eipen o Kurios ten parabolen tauten.]

[Greek: Omoia estin k.t.l.]

The word [Greek: palin], because it stands between the end ([Greek: telos]) of the lesson for the sixth Thursday and the beginning ([Greek: arche]) of the first Friday after Pentecost, got left out [though every one acquainted with Gospel MSS. knows that [Greek: arche] and [Greek: telos] were often inserted in the text]. The second of these two lessons begins with [Greek: h.o.m.oia] [because [Greek: palin] at the beginning of a lesson is not wanted]. Here then is a singular token of the antiquity of the Lectionary System in the Churches of the East: as well as a proof of the untrustworthy character of Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BD. The discovery that they are supported this time by copies of the Old Latin (a c e ff^{1.2} g^{1.2} k l), Vulgate, Curetonian, Bohairic, Ethiopic, does but further shew that such an amount of evidence in and by itself is wholly insufficient to determine the text of Scripture.

When therefore I see Tischendorf, in the immediately preceding verse (xiii. 43) on the sole authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B and a few Latin copies, omitting the word [Greek: akouein],--and again in the present verse on very similar authority (viz. [Symbol: Aleph]D, Old Latin, Vulgate, Pes.h.i.+tto, Curetonian, Lewis, Bohairic, together with five cursives of aberrant character) transposing the order of the words [Greek: panta hosa echei polei],--I can but reflect on the utterly insecure basis on which the Revisers and the school which they follow would remodel the inspired Text.

It is precisely in this way and for the selfsame reason, that the clause [Greek: kai elypethesan sphodra] (St. Matt. xvii. 23) comes to be omitted in K and several other copies. The previous lesson ends at [Greek: egerthesetai],--the next lesson begins at [Greek: proselthon].

-- 6.

Indeed, the Ancient Liturgy of the Church has frequently exercised a corrupting influence on the text of Scripture. Having elsewhere considered St. Luke's version of the Lord's Prayer[168], I will in this place discuss the genuineness of the doxology with which the Lord's Prayer concludes in St. Matt. vi. 13[169],--[Greek: hoti sou estin he basileia kai he dynamis kai he doxa eis tous aionas. amen],--words which for 360 years have been rejected by critical writers as spurious, notwithstanding St. Paul's unmistakable recognition of them in 2 Tim.

iv. 18,--which alone, one would have thought, should have sufficed to preserve them from molestation.

The essential note of primitive antiquity at all events these fifteen words enjoy in perfection, being met with in all copies of the Pes.h.i.+tto:--and this is a far weightier consideration than the fact that they are absent from most of the Latin copies. Even of these however four (k f g^{1} q) recognize the doxology, which is also found in Cureton's Syriac and the Sahidic version; the Gothic, the Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Harkleian, Palestinian, Erpenius' Arabic, and the Persian of Tawos; as well as in the [Greek: Didache] (with variations); Apostolical Const.i.tutions (iii. 18-vii. 25 with variations); in St. Ambrose (De Sacr. vi. 5. 24), Caesarius (Dial. i.

29). Chrysostom comments on the words without suspicion, and often quotes them (In Orat. Dom., also see Hom. in Matt. xiv. 13): as does Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. iv. 24). See also Opus Imperfectum (Hom. in Matt. xiv), Theophylact on this place, and Euthymius Zigabenus (in Matt.

vi. 13 and C. Ma.s.sal. Anath. 7). And yet their true claim to be accepted as inspired is of course based on the consideration that they are found in ninety-nine out of a hundred of the Greek copies, including [Symbol: Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma] of the end of the fifth and beginning of the sixth centuries. What then is the nature of the adverse evidence with which they have to contend and which is supposed to be fatal to their claims?

Four uncial MSS. ([Symbol: Aleph]BDZ), supported by five cursives of bad character (1, 17 which gives [Greek: amen], 118, 130, 209), and, as we have seen, all the Latin copies but four, omit these words; which, it is accordingly a.s.sumed, must have found their way surrept.i.tiously into the text of all the other copies in existence. But let me ask,--Is it at all likely, or rather is it any way credible, that in a matter like this, all the MSS. in the world but nine should have become corrupted? No hypothesis is needed to account for one more instance of omission in copies which exhibit a mutilated text in every page. But how will men pretend to explain an interpolation universal as the present; which may be traced as far back as the second century; which has established itself without appreciable variety of reading in all the MSS.; which has therefore found its way from the earliest time into every part of Christendom; is met with in all the Lectionaries, and in all the Greek Liturgies; and has so effectually won the Church's confidence that to this hour it forms part of the public and private devotions of the faithful all over the world?

One and the same reply has been rendered to this inquiry ever since the days of Erasmus. A note in the Complutensian Polyglott (1514) expresses it with sufficient accuracy. 'In the Greek copies, after _And deliver us from evil_, follows _For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever_. But it is to be noted that in the Greek liturgy, after the choir has said _And deliver us from evil_, it is the Priest who responds as above: and those words, according to the Greeks, the priest alone may p.r.o.nounce. This makes it probable that the words in question are no integral part of the Lord's Prayer: but that certain copyists inserted them in error, supposing, from their use in the liturgy, that they formed part of the text.' In other words, they represent that men's ears had grown so fatally familiar with this formula from its habitual use in the liturgy, that at last they a.s.sumed it to be part and parcel of the Lord's Prayer. The same statement has been repeated ad nauseam by ten generations of critics for 360 years. The words with which our Saviour closed His pattern prayer are accordingly rejected as an interpolation resulting from the liturgical practice of the primitive Church. And this slipshod account of the matter is universally acquiesced in by learned and unlearned readers alike at the present day.

From an examination of above fifty ancient oriental liturgies, it is found then that though the utmost variety prevails among them, yet that _not one_ of them exhibits the evangelical formula as it stands in St.

Matt. vi. 13; while in some instances the divergences of expression are even extraordinary. Subjoined is what may perhaps be regarded as the typical eucharistic formula, derived from the liturgy which pa.s.ses as Chrysostom's. Precisely the same form recurs in the office which is called after the name of Basil: and it is essentially reproduced by Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, and pseudo-Caesarius; while something very like it is found to have been in use in more of the Churches of the East.

'_For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory_, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, now and always and _for ever_ and ever. _Amen_.'

But as every one sees at a glance, such a formula as the foregoing,--with its ever-varying terminology of praise,--its constant reference to the blessed Trinity,--its habitual [Greek: nun kai aei],--and its invariable [Greek: eis tous aionas ton aionon], (which must needs be of very high antiquity, for it is mentioned by Irenaeus[170], and may be as old as 2 Tim. iv. 18 itself;)--the doxology, I say, which formed part of the Church's liturgy, though transcribed 10,000 times, could never by possibility have resulted in the unvarying doxology found in MSS. of St. Matt. vi. 13,--'_For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen._'

On the other hand, the inference from a careful survey of so many Oriental liturgies is inevitable. The universal prevalence of a doxology of some sort at the end of the Lord's Prayer; the general prefix 'for thine'; the prevailing mention therein of 'the kingdom and the power and the glory'; the invariable reference to Eternity:--all this const.i.tutes a weighty corroboration of the genuineness of the form in St. Matthew.

Eked out with a confession of faith in the Trinity, and otherwise amplified as piety or zeal for doctrinal purity suggested, every liturgical formula of the kind is clearly derivable from the form of words in St. Matt. vi. 13. In no conceivable way, on the other hand, could that briefer formula have resulted from the practice of the ancient Church. The thing, I repeat, is simply impossible.

What need to point out in conclusion that the Church's peculiar method of reciting the Lord's Prayer in the public liturgy does notwithstanding supply the obvious and sufficient explanation of all the adverse phenomena of the case? It was the invariable practice from the earliest time for the Choir to break off at the words 'But deliver us from evil.'

They never p.r.o.nounced the doxology. The doxology must for that reason have been omitted by the critical owner of the archetypal copy of St.

Matthew from which nine extant Evangelia, Origen, and the Old Latin version originally derived their text. This is the sum of the matter.

There can be no simpler solution of the alleged difficulty. That Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose recognize no more of the Lord's Prayer than they found in their Latin copies, cannot create surprise. The wonder would have been if they did.

Much stress has been laid on the silence of certain of the Greek Fathers concerning the doxology although they wrote expressly on the Lord's Prayer; as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa[171], Cyril of Jerusalem, Maximus.

Those who have attended most to such subjects will however bear me most ready witness, that it is never safe to draw inferences of the kind proposed from the silence of the ancients. What if they regarded a doxology, wherever found, as hardly a fitting subject for exegetical comment? But however their silence is to be explained, it is at least quite certain that the reason of it is not because their copies of St.

Matthew were unfurnished with the doxology. Does any one seriously imagine that in A.D. 650, when Maximus wrote, Evangelia were, in this respect, in a different state from what they are at present?

The sum of what has been offered may be thus briefly stated:--The textual perturbation observable at St. Matt. vi. 13 is indeed due to a liturgical cause, as the critics suppose. But then it is found that not the great bulk of the Evangelia, but only Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BDZ, 1, 17, 118, 130, 209, have been victims of the corrupting influence. As usual, I say, it is the few, not the many copies, which have been led astray. Let the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer be therefore allowed to retain its place in the text without further molestation. Let no profane hands be any more laid on these fifteen precious words of the Lord Jesus Christ.

There yet remains something to be said on the same subject for the edification of studious readers; to whom the succeeding words are specially commended. They are requested to keep their attention sustained, until they have read what immediately follows.

The history of the rejection of these words is in a high degree instructive. It dates from 1514, when the Complutensian editors, whilst admitting that the words were found in their Greek copies, banished them from the text solely in deference to the Latin version. In a marginal annotation they started the hypothesis that the doxology is a liturgical interpolation. But how is that possible, seeing that the doxology is commented on by Chrysostom? 'We presume,' they say, 'that this corruption of the original text must date from an antecedent period.'

The same adverse sentence, supported by the same hypothesis, was reaffirmed by Erasmus, and on the same grounds; but in his edition of the N.T. he suffered the doxology to stand. As the years have rolled out, and Codexes DBZ[Symbol: Aleph] have successively come to light, critics have waxed bolder and bolder in giving their verdict. First, Grotius, Hammond, Walton; then Mill and Grabe; next Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach; lastly Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers have denounced the precious words as spurious.

But how does it appear that tract of time has strengthened the case against the doxology? Since 1514, scholars have become acquainted with the Pes.h.i.+tto version; which by its emphatic verdict, effectually disposes of the evidence borne by all but three of the Old Latin copies.

The [Greek: Didache] of the first or second century, the Sahidic version of the third century, the Apostolic Const.i.tutions (2), follow on the same side. Next, in the fourth century come Chrysostom, Ambrose, ps.-Caesarius, the Gothic version. After that Isidore, the Ethiopic, Cureton's Syriac. The Harkleian, Armenian, Georgian, and other versions, with Chrysostom (2), the Opus Imperfectum, Theophylact, and Euthymius (2), bring up the rear[172]. Does any one really suppose that two Codexes of the fourth century (B[Symbol: Aleph]), which are even notorious for their many omissions and general accuracy, are any adequate set-off against such an amount of ancient evidence? L and 33, generally the firm allies of BD and the Vulgate, forsake them at St.

Matt. vi. 13: and dispose effectually of the adverse testimony of D and Z, which are also balanced by [Symbol: Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma]. But at this juncture the case for rejecting the doxology breaks down: and when it is discovered that every other uncial and every other cursive in existence may be appealed to in its support, and that the story of its liturgical origin proves to be a myth,--what must be the verdict of an impartial mind on a survey of the entire evidence?

The whole matter may be conveniently restated thus:--Liturgical use has indeed been the cause of a depravation of the text at St. Matt. vi. 13; but it proves on inquiry to be the very few MSS.,--not the very many,--which have been depraved.

Nor is any one at liberty to appeal to a yet earlier period than is attainable by existing liturgical evidence; and to suggest that then the doxology used by the priest may have been the same with that which is found in the ordinary text of St. Matthew's Gospel. This may have been the case or it may not. Meanwhile, the hypothesis, which fell to the ground when the statement on which it rested was disproved, is not now to be built up again on a mere conjecture. But if the fact could be ascertained,--and I am not at all concerned to deny that such a thing is possible,--I should regard it only as confirmatory of the genuineness of the doxology. For why should the liturgical employment of the last fifteen words of the Lord's Prayer be thought to cast discredit on their genuineness? In the meantime, the undoubted fact, that for an indefinitely remote period the Lord's Prayer was not publicly recited by the people further than 'But deliver us from evil,'--a doxology of some sort being invariably added, but p.r.o.nounced by the priest alone,--this clearly ascertained fact is fully sufficient to account for a phenomenon so ordinary [found indeed so commonly throughout St. Matthew, to say nothing of occurrences in the other Gospels] as really not to require particular explanation, viz. the omission of the last half of St.

Matthew vi. 13 from Codexes [Symbol: Aleph]BDZ.

FOOTNOTES:

[145] [I have retained this pa.s.sage notwithstanding the objections made in some quarters against similar pa.s.sages in the companion volume, because I think them neither valid, nor creditable to high intelligence, or to due reverence.]

[146] [The Textual student will remember that besides the Lectionaries of the Gospels mentioned here, of which about 1000 are known, there are some 300 more of the Acts and Epistles, called by the name Apostolos.]

[147] ['It seems also a singular note of antiquity that the Sabbath and the Sunday succeeding it do as it were cohere, and bear one appellation; so that the week takes its name--_not_ from the Sunday with which it commences, but--from the Sat.u.r.day-and-Sunday with which it concludes.'

Twelve Verses, p. 194, where more particulars are given.]

[148] [For the contents of these Tables, see Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 4th edition, vol. i. pp. 80-89.]

[149] See Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 4th edition, vol. i. pp.

56-65.

[150] Twelve Verses, p. 220. The MS. stops in the middle of a sentence.

[151] St. Luke xxii. 43, 44.

[152] In the absence of materials supplied by the Dean upon what was his own special subject, I have thought best to extract the above sentences from the Twelve Last Verses, p. 207. The next ill.u.s.tration is his own, though in my words.

[153] i. 311.

[154] [Greek: eipen ho Kyrios tois heautou mathetais; me tara.s.sestho.]

[155] [Greek: kai eipen tois mathetais autou]. The same Codex (D) also prefixes to St. Luke xvi. 19 the Ecclesiastical formula--[Greek: eipen de kai eteran parabolen].

[156] '_Et ait discipulis suis, non turbetur_.'

[157] E.g. the words [Greek: kai legei autois; eirene hymin] have been omitted by Tisch, and rejected by W.-Hort from St. Luke xxiv. 36 _on the sole authority_ of D and five copies of the Old Latin. Again, on the same sorry evidence, the words [Greek: proskynesantes auton] have been omitted or rejected by the same critics from St. Luke xxiv. 52. In both instances the expressions are also branded with doubt in the R. V.