The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Part 5

In St. John iv. 15, on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B, Tischendorf adopts [Greek: dierchesthai] (in place of the uncompounded verb), a.s.signing as his reason, that 'If St. John had written [Greek: erchesthai], no one would ever have subst.i.tuted [Greek: dierchesthai]

for it.' But to construct the text of Scripture on such considerations, is to build a lighthouse on a quicksand. I could have referred the learned Critic to plenty of places where the thing he speaks of as incredible has been done. The proof that St. John used the uncompounded verb is the fact that it is found in all the copies except our two untrustworthy friends. The explanation of [Greek: DIerchomai] is sufficiently accounted for by the final syllable ([Greek: DE]) of [Greek: mede] which immediately precedes. Similarly but without the same excuse,

St. Mark x. 16 [Greek: eulogei] has become [Greek: kateulogei]

([Symbol: Aleph]BC).

" xii. 17 [Greek: thaumasan] " [Greek: ezethaumasan]

([Symbol: Aleph]B).

" xiv. 40 [Greek: bebaremenoi] " [Greek: katabebaremenoi]

(A[Symbol: Aleph]B).

It is impossible to doubt that [Greek: kai] (in modern critical editions of St. Luke xvii. 37) is indebted for its existence to the same cause.

In the phrase [Greek: ekei synachthesontai hoi aetoi] it might have been predicted that the last syllable of [Greek: ekei] would some day be mistaken for the conjunction. And so it has actually come to pa.s.s.

[Greek: KAI oi aetoi] is met with in many ancient authorities. But [Symbol: Aleph]LB also transposed the clauses, and subst.i.tuted [Greek: episynachthesontai] for [Greek: synachthesontai]. The self-same casualty, viz. [Greek: kai] elicited out of the insertion of [Greek: ekei] and the transposition of the clauses, is discoverable among the Cursives at St. Matt. xxiv. 28,--the parallel place: where by the way the old uncials distinguish themselves by yet graver eccentricities[82].

How can we as judicious critics ever think of disturbing the text of Scripture on evidence so precarious as this?

It is proposed that we should henceforth read St. Matt. xxii. 23 as follows:--'On that day there came to Him Sadducees _saying_ that there is no Resurrection.' A new incident would be in this way introduced into the Gospel narrative: resulting from a novel reading of the pa.s.sage.

Instead of [Greek: hoi legontes], we are invited to read [Greek: legontes], on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]BDMSZP and several of the Cursives, besides Origen, Methodius, Epiphanius. This is a respectable array. There is nevertheless a vast preponderance of numbers in favour of the usual reading, which is also found in the Old Latin copies and in the Vulgate. But surely the discovery that in the parallel Gospels it is--

[Greek: hoitines legousin anastasin me einai] (St. Mark xii. 18) and [Greek: hoi antilegontes anastasin me einai] (St. Luke xx. 27)

may be considered as decisive in a case like the present. Sure I am that it will be so regarded by any one who has paid close attention to the method of the Evangelists. Add that the origin of the mistake is seen, the instant the words are inspected as they must have stood in an uncial copy:

[Greek: SADDOUKAIOIOILEGONTES]

and really nothing more requires to be said. The second [Greek: OI] was safe to be dropped in a collocation of letters like that. It might also have been antic.i.p.ated, that there would be found copyists to be confused by the antecedent [Greek: KAI]. Accordingly the Pes.h.i.+tto, Lewis, and Curetonian render the place 'et dicentes;' shewing that they mistook [Greek: KAI OI LEGONTES] for a separate phrase.

-- 4.

The termination [Greek: TO] (in certain tenses of the verb), when followed by the neuter article, naturally leads to confusion; sometimes to uncertainty. In St. John v. 4 for instance, where we read in our copies [Greek: kai etara.s.se to hydor], but so many MSS. read [Greek: etara.s.seto], that it becomes a perplexing question which reading to follow. The sense in either case is excellent: the only difference being whether the Evangelist actually says that the Angel 'troubled' the water, or leaves it to be inferred from the circ.u.mstance that after the Angel had descended, straightway the water 'was troubled.'

The question becomes less difficult of decision when (as in St. Luke vii. 21) we have to decide between two expressions [Greek: echarisato blepein] (which is the reading of [Symbol: Aleph]*ABDEG and 11 other uncials) and [Greek: echarisato to blepein] which is only supported by [Symbol: Aleph]^{b}ELVA. The bulk of the Cursives faithfully maintain the former reading, and merge the article in the verb.

Akin to the foregoing are all those instances,--and they are literally without number--, where the proximity of a like ending has been the fruitful cause of error. Let me explain: for this is a matter which cannot be too thoroughly apprehended.

Such a collection of words as the following two instances exhibit will shew my meaning.

In the expression [Greek: estheta lampran anepempsen] (St. Luke xxiii.

11), we are not surprised to find the first syllable of the verb ([Greek: an]) absorbed by the last syllable of the immediately preceding [Greek: lampran]. Accordingly, [Symbol: Aleph]LR supported by one copy of the Old Latin and a single cursive MS. concur in displaying [Greek: epempsen] in this place.

The letters [Greek: NAIKoNAIKAI] in the expression (St. Luke xxiii. 27) [Greek: gynaikon hai kai] were safe to produce confusion. The first of these three words could of course take care of itself. (Though D, with some of the Versions, make it into [Greek: gynaikes].) Not so however what follows. ABCDLX and the Old Latin (except c) drop the [Greek: kai]: [Symbol: Aleph] and C drop the [Greek: ai]. The truth rests with the fourteen remaining uncials and with the cursives.

Thus also the reading [Greek: en ole te Galilaia] (B) in St. Matt. iv.

23, (adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort and the Revisers,) is due simply to the reduplication on the part of some inattentive scribe of the last two letters of the immediately preceding word,--[Greek: periegen]. The received reading of the place is the correct one,--[Greek: kai periegen holen ten Galilaian ho Iesous], because the first five words are so exhibited in all the Copies except B[Symbol: Aleph]C; and those three MSS. are observed to differ as usual from one another,--which ought to be deemed fatal to their evidence.

Thus,

B reads [Greek: kai periegen en holei tei Galilaiai].

[Symbol: Aleph] " [Greek: kai periegen ho _is_ en tei Galilaiai].

C " [Greek: kai periegen ho _is_ en hole tei Galilaiai].

But--(I shall be asked)--what about the position of the Sacred Name? How comes it to pa.s.s that [Greek: ho Iesous], which comes after [Greek: Galilaian] in almost every other known copy, should come after [Greek: periegen] in three of these venerable authorities (in D as well as in [Symbol: Aleph] and C), and in the Latin, Pes.h.i.+tto, Lewis, and Harkleian? Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott and Hort and the Revisers at all events (who simply follow B in leaving out [Greek: ho Iesous]

altogether) will not ask me this question: but a thoughtful inquirer is sure to ask it.

The phrase (I reply) is derived by [Symbol: Aleph]CD from the twin place in St. Matthew (ix. 35) which in all the MSS. begins [Greek: kai periegen ho _is_]. So familiar had this order of the words become, that the scribe of [Symbol: Aleph], (a circ.u.mstance by the way of which Tischendorf takes no notice,) has even introduced the expression into St. Mark vi. 6,--the parallel place in the second Gospel,--where [Greek: ho _is_] clearly has no business. I enter into these minute details because only in this way is the subject before us to be thoroughly understood. This is another instance where 'the Old Uncials' shew their text to be corrupt; so for a.s.surance in respect of accuracy of detail we must resort to the Cursive Copies.

-- 5.

The introduction of [Greek: apo] in the place of [Greek: hagioi] made by the 'Revisers' into the Greek Text of 2 Peter i. 21,--derives its origin from the same prolific source. (1) some very ancient scribe mistook the first four letters of [Greek: agioi] for [Greek: apo]. It was but the mistaking of [Greek: AGIO] for [Greek: APO]. At the end of 1700 years, the only Copies which witness to this deformity are BP with four cursives,--in opposition to [Symbol: Aleph]AKL and the whole body of the cursives, the Vulgate[83] and the Harkleian. Euthalius knew nothing of it[84]. Obvious it was, next, for some one in perplexity,--(2) to introduce both readings ([Greek: apo] and [Greek: hagioi]) into the text. Accordingly [Greek: apo Theou hagioi] is found in C, two cursives, and Didymus[85]. Then, (3), another variant crops up, (viz. [Greek: hypo] for [Greek: apo]--but only because [Greek: hypo] went immediately before); of which fresh blunder ([Greek: hypo Theou hagioi]) Theophylact is the sole patron[86]. The consequence of all this might have been foreseen: (4) it came to pa.s.s that from a few Codexes, both [Greek: apo]

and [Greek: agioi] were left out,--which accounts for the reading of certain copies of the Old Latin[87]. Unaware how the blunder began, Tischendorf and his followers claim '(2)', '(3)', and '(4)', as proofs that '(1)' is the right reading: and, by consequence, instead of '_holy_ men of G.o.d spake,' require us to read 'men spake _from_ G.o.d,' which is wooden and vapid. Is it not clear that a reading attested by only BP and four cursive copies must stand self-condemned?

Another excellent specimen of this cla.s.s of error is furnished by Heb.

vii. 1. Instead of [Greek: Ho synantesas Abraam]--said of Melchizedek,--[Symbol: Aleph]ABD exhibit [Greek: OS]. The whole body of the copies, headed by CLP, are against them[88],--besides Chrysostom[89], Theodoret[90], Damascene[91]. It is needless to do more than state how this reading arose. The initial letter of [Greek: synantesas] has been reduplicated through careless transcription: [Greek: OSSYN]--instead of [Greek: OSYN]--. That is all. But the instructive feature of the case is that it is in the four oldest of the uncials that this palpable blunder is found.

-- 6.

I have reserved for the last a specimen which is second to none in suggestiveness. 'Whom will ye that I release unto you?' asked Pilate on a memorable occasion[92]: and we all remember how his enquiry proceeds.

But the discovery is made that, in an early age there existed copies of the Gospel which proceeded thus,--'Jesus [who is called[93]] Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?' Origen so quotes the place, but 'In many copies,' he proceeds, 'mention is not made that Barabbas was also called Jesus: and those copies may perhaps be right,--else would the name of Jesus belong to one of the wicked,--of which no instance occurs in any part of the Bible: nor is it fitting that the name of Jesus should like Judas have been borne by saint and sinner alike. I think,' Origen adds, 'something of this sort must have been an interpolation of the heretics[94].' From this we are clearly intended to infer that 'Jesus Barabbas' was the prevailing reading of St. Matt. xxvii. 17 in the time of Origen, a circ.u.mstance which--besides that a mult.i.tude of copies existed as well as those of Origen--for the best of reasons, we take leave to p.r.o.nounce incredible[95].

The sum of the matter is probably this:--Some inattentive second century copyist [probably a Western Translator into Syriac who was an indifferent Greek scholar] mistook the final syllable of '_unto you_'

([Greek: UMIN]) for the word '_Jesus_' ([Greek: IN]): in other words, carelessly reduplicated the last two letters of [Greek: UMIN],--from which, strange to say, results the form of inquiry noticed at the outset. Origen caught sight of the extravagance, and condemned it though he fancied it to be prevalent, and the thing slept for 1500 years. Then about just fifty years ago Drs. Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles began to construct that 'fabric of Textual Criticism' which has been the cause of the present treatise [though indeed Tischendorf does not adopt the suggestion of those few aberrant cursives which is supported by no surviving uncial, and in fact advocates the very origin of the mischief which has been just described]. But, as every one must see, 'such things as these are not 'readings' at all, nor even the work of 'the heretics;'

but simply transcriptional mistakes. How Dr. Hort, admitting the blunder, yet pleads that 'this remarkable reading is attractive by the new and interesting fact which it seems to attest, and by the ant.i.thetic force which it seems to add to the question in ver. 17,' [is more than we can understand. To us the expression seems most repulsive. No 'ant.i.thetic force' can outweigh our dislike to the idea that Barabbas was our Saviour's namesake! We prefer Origen's account, though he mistook the cause, to that of the modern critic.]

FOOTNOTES:

[61] It is clearly unsafe to draw any inference from the mere omission of [Greek: ede] in ver. 35, by those Fathers who do not shew how they would have began ver. 36--as Eusebius (see below, note 2), Theodoret (i.

1398: ii. 233), and Hilary (78. 443. 941. 1041).

[62] i. 219: iii. 158: iv. 248, 250 _bis_, 251 _bis_, 252, 253, 255 _bis_, 256, 257. Also iv. 440 note, which = cat^{ox} iv. 21.

[63] _dem._ 440. But not _in cs._ 426: _theoph._ 262, 275.

[64] vii. 488, 662: ix. 32.

[65] i. 397. 98. (Palladius) 611: iii. 57. So also in iv. 199, [Greek: etoimos ede pros to pisteuein].

[66] Ambrose, ii. 279, has '_Et qui met.i.t_.' Iren.^{int} subst.i.tutes '_nam_' for '_et_,' and omits '_jam_.' Jerome 9 times introduces '_jam_'

before '_albae sunt_.' So Aug. (iii.^2 417): but elsewhere (iv. 639: v.

531) he omits the word altogether.

[67] 'Hic' is not recognized in Ambrose. _Append._ ii. 367.

[68] The Fathers render us very little help here. Ps.-Chrys. twice (viii. 34: x. 838) has [Greek: ego de ode]: once (viii. 153) not. John Damascene (ii. 579) is without the [Greek: ode].

[69] i. 76: vi. 16 (_not_ vi. 484).

[70] iii.^{2} 259 (_not_ v. 511).

[71] p. 405.