CHAPTER II.

[10]2 Kings xxii. 8 = 2 Chron. xxxiv. 15.

[11][This name is used for want of a better. Churchmen are Unitarians as well as Trinitarians. The two names in combination express our Faith. We dare not alienate either of them.]

[12]See The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Burgon and Miller), p. 21, note 1.

[13]See Traditional Text, chapter ii, § 6, p. 33.

[14][Perhaps this point may be cleared by dividing readings into two classes, viz. (1) such as really have strong evidence for their support, and require examination before we can be certain that they are corrupt; and (2) those which afford no doubt as to their being destitute of foundation, and are only interesting as specimens of the modes in which error was sometimes introduced. Evidently, the latter class are not 'various' at all.]

[15][I.e. generally κραβαττον, or else κραβατον, or even κραβακτον; seldom found as κραββαττον, or spelt in the corrupt form κραββατον.]

[16]I am inclined to believe that in the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles, some person or persons of great influence and authority executed a Revision of the N.T. and gave the world the result of such labours in a 'corrected Text.' The guiding principle seems to have been to seek toabridgethe Text, to lop off whatever seemed redundant, or which might in any way be spared, and to eliminate from one Gospel whatever expressions occurred elsewhere in another Gospel. Clauses which slightly obscured the speaker's meaning; or which seemed to hang loose at the end of a sentence; or which introduced a consideration of difficulty:—words which interfered with the easy flow of a sentence:—every thing of this kind such a personage seems to have held himself free to discard. But what is more serious, passages which occasioned some difficulty, as thepericope de adultera; physical perplexity, as the troubling of the water; spiritual revulsion, as the agony in the garden:—all these the reviser or revisers seem to have judged it safest simply to eliminate. It is difficult to understand how any persons in their senses could have so acted by the sacred deposit; but it does not seem improbable that at some very remote period there were found some who did act in some such way. Let it be observed, however, that unlike some critics I do not base my real argument upon what appears to me to be a not unlikely supposition.

[17][Unless it be referred to the two converging streams of corruption, as described in The Traditional Text.]

[It often happens that more causes than one are combined in the origin of the corruption in any one passage. In the following history of a blunder and of the fatal consequences that ensued upon it, only the first step was accidental. But much instruction may be derived from the initial blunder, and though the later stages in the history come under another head, they nevertheless illustrate the effects of early accident, besides throwing light upon parts of the discussion which are yet to come.]

We are sometimes able to trace the origin and progress of accidental depravations of the text: and the study is as instructive as it is interesting. Let me invite attention to what is found in St. John x. 29; where,—instead of, 'My Father, who hath given them [viz. My sheep] to Me, is greater than all,'—Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, are for reading, 'That thing which My (orthe) Father hath given to Me is greater (i.e. is a greater thing) than all.' A vastly different proposition, truly; and, whatever it may mean, wholly inadmissible here, as the context proves. It has been the result of sheer accident moreover,—as I proceed to explain.

St. John certainly wrote the familiar words,—'ο πατηρ μουος δεδωκε μοι, μειζων παντων εστι. But, with the licentiousness [or inaccuracy] which prevailed in the earliest age, some remote copyist is found to have substituted for 'οσ δεδωκε, its grammatical equivalent 'ο δεδωκως. And this proved fatal; for it was only necessary that another scribe should substitute μειζον for μειζων (after the example of such places as St. Matt. xii. 6, 41, 42, &c.), and thus the door had been opened to at least four distinct deflections from the evangelical verity,—which straightway found their way into manuscripts:—(1) ο δεδωκως ... μειζων—of which reading at this day D is the sole representative: (2) ος δεδωκε ... μειζον—which survives only in AX: (3) ο δεδωκε ... μειζων—which is only found in [Symbol: Aleph]L: (4) ο δεδωκε ... μειζον—which is the peculiar property of B. The 1st and 2nd of these sufficiently represent the Evangelist's meaning, though neither of them is what he actually wrote; but the 3rd is untranslatable: while the 4th is nothing else but a desperate attempt to force a meaning into the 3rd, by writing μειζον for μειζων; treating ο not as the article but as the neuter of the relative ος.

This last exhibition of the text, which in fact scarcely yields an intelligible meaning and rests upon the minimum of manuscript evidence, would long since have been forgotten, but that, calamitously for the Western Church, its Version of the New Testament Scriptures was executed from MSS. of the same vicious type as Cod. B[18]. Accordingly, all the Latin copies, and therefore all the Latin Fathers[19], translate,—'Pater [meus] quod dedit mihi, majus omnibus est[20].' The Westerns resolutely extracted a meaning from whatever they presumed to be genuine Scripture:and one can but admire the piety which insists on finding sound Divinity in what proves after all to be nothing else but a sorry blunder. What, asks Augustine, was 'the thing, greater than all,' which the Father gave to theSon? To be the Word of the Father (he answers), His only-begotten Son and the brightness of His glory[21]. The Greeks knew better. Basil[22], Chrysostom[23], Cyril on nine occasions[24], Theodoret[25]—as many as quote the place—invariably exhibit thetextus receptusως ... μειζων, which is obviously the true reading and may on no account suffer molestation.

'But,'—I shall perhaps be asked,—'although Patristic and manuscript evidence are wanting for the reading ο δεδωκε μοι ... μειζων,—is it not a significant circumstance that three translations of such high antiquity as the Latin, the Bohairic, and the Gothic, should concur in supporting it? and does it not inspire extraordinary confidence in B to find that B alone of MSS. agrees with them?' To which I answer,—It makes me, on the contrary, more and more distrustful of the Latin, the Bohairic and the Gothic versions to find them exclusively siding with Cod. B on such an occasion as the present. It is obviously not more 'significant' that the Latin, the Bohairic, and the Gothic, should here conspire with—than that the Syriac, the Sahidic, and the Ethiopic, should here combine against B. On the other hand, how utterly insignificant is the testimony of B when opposed to all the uncials, all the cursives, and all the Greek fathers who quote the place. So far from inspiring me with confidence in B, the present indication of the fatal sympathy of that Codex with the corrupt copies from which confessedly many of the Old Latin were executed, confirmsme in my habitual distrust of it. About the true reading of St. John x. 29, there really exists no manner of doubt. As for the 'old uncials' they are (as usual) hopelessly at variance on the subject. In an easy sentence of only 9 words,—which however Tischendorf exhibits in conformity with no known Codex, while Tregelles and Alford blindly follow Cod. B,—they have contrived to invent five 'various readings,' as may be seen at foot[26]. Shall we wonder more at the badness of the Codexes to which we are just now invited to pin our faith; or at the infatuation of our guides?

I do not find that sufficient attention has been paid to grave disturbances of the Text which have resulted from a slight clerical error. While we are enumerating the various causes of Textual depravity, we may not fail to specify this. Once trace a serious Textual disturbance back to (what for convenience may be called) a 'clerical error,' and you are supplied with an effectual answer to a form of inquiry which else is sometimes very perplexing: viz. If the true meaning of this passage be what you suppose, for what conceivable reason should the scribe have misrepresented it in this strange way,—made nonsense, in short, of the place?... I will further remark, that it is always interesting, sometimes instructive, after detecting the remote origin of an ancient blunder, to note what has been its subsequent history and progress.

Some specimens of the thing referred to I have already given in another place. The reader is invited to acquaint himself with the strange process by which the '276 souls' who suffered shipwreck with St. Paul (Acts xxvii. 37), have since dwindled down to 'about 76[27].'—He is furtherrequested to note how 'a certain man' who in the time of St. Paul bore the name of 'Justus' (Acts xviii. 7), has been since transformed into 'Titus,' 'Titus Justus,' and even 'Titius Justus[28].'—But for a far sadder travestie of sacred words, the reader is referred to what has happened in St. Matt. xi. 23 and St. Luke x. 15,—where ourSaviouris made to ask an unmeaning question—instead of being permitted to announce a solemn fact—concerning Capernaum[29].—The newly-discovered ancient name of the Island of Malta,Melitene[30], (for which geographers are indebted to the adventurous spirit of Westcott and Hort), may also be profitably considered in connexion with what is to be the subject of the present chapter. And now to break up fresh ground.

Attention is therefore invited to a case of attraction in Acts xx. 24. It is but the change of a single letter (λογοΥ for λογοΝ), yet has that minute deflection from the truth led to a complete mangling of the most affecting perhaps of St. Paul's utterances. I refer to the famous words αλλ' ουδενος λογον ποιουμαι, ουδε εχω την ψυχην μου τιμιαν εμαυτω, 'ως τελειωσαι τον δρομον μου μετα χαρας: excellently, because idiomatically, rendered by our Translators of 1611,—'But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy.'

For ουδενος λοΓΟΝ, (the accusative after ποιουμαι), some one having substituted ουδενος λοΓΟΥ,—a reading which survives to this hour in B and C[31],—it became necessary to find something else for the verb to govern. Την ψυχην was at hand, but ουδε εχω stood in the way. Ουδε εχω must therefore go[32]; and go it did,—as B, C, and [Symbol: Aleph] remain toattest. Τιμιαν should have gone also, if the sentence was to be made translatable; but τιμιαν was left behind[33]. The authors of ancient embroilments of the text were sad bunglers. In the meantime, Cod. [Symbol: Aleph] inadvertently retained St. Luke's word, ΛΟΓΟΝ; and because [Symbol: Aleph] here follows B in every other respect, it exhibits a text which is simply unintelligible[34].

Now the second clause of the sentence, viz. the words ουδε εχο την ψυχην μου τιμιαν εμαυτω, may on no account be surrendered. It is indeed beyond the reach of suspicion, being found in Codd. A, D, E, H, L, P, 13, 31,—in fact in every known copy of the Acts, except the discordant [Symbol: Aleph]BC. The clause in question is further witnessed to by the Vulgate[35],—by the Harkleian[36],—by Basil[37],—by Chrysostom[38],—by Cyril[39],—by Euthalius[40],—and by the interpolatorof Ignatius[41]. What are we to think of our guides (Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers) who have nevertheless surrendered the Traditional Text and presented us instead with what Dr. Field,—who is indeed a Master in Israel,—describes as the impossible αλλ' ουδενος λογου ποιουμαι την ψυχην τιμιαν εμαυτω[42]?

The words of the last-named eminent scholar on the reading just cited are so valuable in themselves, and are observed to be so often in point, that they shall find place here:—'Modern Critics,' he says, 'in deference to the authority of the older MSS., and to certain critical canons which prescribe that preference should be given to the shorter and more difficult reading over the longer and easier one, have decided that the T.R. in this passage is to be replaced by that which is contained in those older MSS.

'In regard to the difficulty of this reading, that term seems hardly applicable to the present case. A difficult reading is one which presents something apparently incongruous in the sense, or anomalous in the construction, which an ignorant or half-learned copyist would endeavour, by the use of such critical faculty as he possessed, to remove; but which a true critic is able, by probable explanation, and a comparison of similar cases, to defend against all such fancied improvements. In the reading before us, αλλ' ουδενος λογου ποιουμαι την ψυχην τιμιαν εμαυτω, it is the construction, and not the sense, which is in question; and this is not simply difficult, but impossible. There is really no way of getting over it; it baffles novices and experts alike[43].' When will men believe that a reading vouched for by onlyB[Symbol: Aleph]C is safe to be a fabrication[44]? But at least when Copies and Fathers combine, as here they do, against those three copies, what can justify critics in upholding a text which carries on its face its own condemnation?

We now come to the inattention of those long-since-forgotten Ist or IInd century scribes who, beguiled by the similarity of the letters ΕΝ and ΑΝ (in the expression ΕΝΑΝθρωποις ευδοκια, St. Luke ii. 14), left out the preposition. An unintelligible clause was the consequence, as has been explained above (p. 21): which some one next sought to remedy by adding to ευδοκια the sign of the genitive (Σ). Thus the Old Latin translations were made.

That this is the true history of a blunder which the latest Editors of the New Testament have mistaken for genuine Gospel, is I submit certain[45]. Most Latin copies (except 14[46]) exhibit 'pax hominibus bonae voluntatis,' as well as many Latin Fathers[47]. On the other hand, the preposition ΕΝ isretained in every known Greek copy of St. Luke without exception, while the reading ευδοκιας is absolutely limited to the four uncials AB[Symbol: Aleph]D. The witness of antiquity on this head is thus overwhelming and decisive.

In other cases the source, the very progress of a blunder,—is discoverable. Thus whereas St. Mark (in xv. 6) certainly wrote 'ενα δεσμιον, ΟΝΠΕΡ ητουντο, the scribe of Δ, who evidently derived his text from an earlier copy in uncial letters is found to have divided the Evangelist's syllables wrongly, and to exhibit in this place ΟΝ.ΠΕΡΗΤΟΥΝΤΟ. The consequence might have been predicted. [Symbol: Aleph]AB transform this into ΟΝ ΠΑΡΗΤΟΥΝΤΟ: which accordingly is the reading adopted by Tischendorf and by Westcott and Hort.

Whenever in fact the final syllable of one word can possibly be mistaken for the first syllable of the next, orvice versa, it is safe sooner or later to have misled somebody. Thus, we are not at all surprised to find St. Mark's 'α παρελαβον (vii. 4) transformed into 'απερ ελαβον, but only by B.

[Another startling instance of the same phenomenon is supplied by the substitution in St. Mark vi. 22 of της θυγατρος αυτου 'Ηρωδιαδος for της θυγατρος αυτης της 'Ηρωδιαδος. Here a first copyist left out της as being a repetition of the last syllable of αυτησ, and afterwards a second attempted to improve the Greek by putting the masculine pronoun for the feminine (ΑΥΤΟΥ for ΑΥΤΗΣ). The consequence was hardly to have been foreseen.]

Strange to say it results in the following monstrous figment:—that the fruit of Herod's incestuous connexion with Herodias had been a daughter, who was also namedHerodias; and that she,—the King's own daughter,—was the immodest one[48]who came in and danced before him, 'his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee,' as they sat at the birthday banquet. Probability, natural feeling, the obvious requirements of the narrative, History itself—, for Josephus expressly informs us that 'Salome,' not 'Herodias,' was the name of Herodias' daughter[49],—all reclaim loudly against such a perversion of the truth. But what ought to be in itself conclusive, what in fact settles the question, is the testimony of the MSS.,—of which only seven ([Symbol: Aleph]BDLΔ with two cursive copies) can be found to exhibit this strange mistake. Accordingly the reading ΑΥΤΟΥ is rejected by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf and Alford. It has nevertheless found favour with Dr. Hort; and it has even been thrust into the margin of the revised Text of our Authorized Version, as a reading having some probability.

This is indeed an instructive instance of the effect of accidental errors—another proof that [Symbol: Aleph]BDL cannot be trusted.

Sufficiently obvious are the steps whereby the present erroneous reading was brought to perfection. The immediate proximity in MSS. of the selfsame combination of letters is observed invariably to result in a various reading. ΑΥΤΗΣΤΗΣ was safe to part with its second ΤΗΣ on the first opportunity, and the definitive article (της) once lost, the substitution of ΑΥΤΟΥ for ΑΥΤΗΣ is just such a mistake as a copyist with ill-directed intelligence would be sure to fall into if he were bestowing sufficient attention on the subject to be aware that the person spoken of in verses 20 and 21 is Herod the King.

[This recurrence of identical or similar syllables near together was a frequent source of error. Copying hasalways a tendency to become mechanical: and when the mind of the copyist sank to sleep in his monotonous toil, as well as if it became too active, the sacred Text suffered more or less, and so even a trifling mistake might be the seed of serious depravation.]

Another interesting and instructive instance of error originating in sheer accident, is supplied by the reading in certain MSS. of St. Mark viii. 1. That the Evangelist wrote παμπολλου οχλου 'the multitude being very great,' is certain. This is the reading of all the uncials but eight, of all the cursives but fifteen. But instead of this, it has been proposed that we should read, 'when there was again a great multitude,' the plain fact being that some ancient scribe mistook, as he easily might, the less usual compound word for what was to himself a far more familiar expression: i.e. he mistook ΠΑΜΠΟΛΛΟΥ for ΠΑΛΙΝ ΠΟΛΛΟΥ.

This blunder must date from the second century, for 'iterum' is met with in the Old Latin as well as in the Vulgate, the Gothic, the Bohairic, and some other versions. On the other hand, it is against 'every true principle of Textual Criticism' (as Dr. Tregelles would say), that the more difficult expression should be abandoned for the easier, when forty-nine out of every fifty MSS. are observed to uphold it; when the oldest version of all, the Syriac, is on the same side; when the source of the mistake is patent; and when the rarer word is observed to be in St. Mark's peculiar manner. There could be in fact no hesitation on this subject, if the opposition had not been headed by those notorious false witnesses [Symbol: Aleph]BDL, which it is just now the fashion to uphold at all hazards. They happen to be supported on this occasion by GMNΔ andfifteen cursives: while two other cursives look both ways and exhibit παλιν παμπολλου.

In St Mark vii. 14, παλιν was similarly misread by some copyists for παντα, and has been preserved by [Symbol: Aleph]BDLΔ (ΠΑΛΙΝ for ΠΑΝΤΑ) against thirteen uncials, all the cursives, the Peshitto and Armenian.

So again in St. John xiii. 37. A reads δυνασαι μοι by an evident slip of the pen for δυναμαι σοι. And in xix. 31 μεγαλΗ Η Ημερα has become μεγαλη 'ημερα in [Symbol: Aleph]AEΓ and some cursive copies.

FOOTNOTES:

[18]See the passages quoted in Scrivener's Introduction, II. 270-2, 4th ed.

[19]Tertull. (Prax. c. 22): Ambr. (ii. 576, 607, 689bis): Hilary (930bis, 1089): Jerome (v. 208): Augustin (iii^2. 615): Maximinus, an Arian bishop (ap. Aug. viii. 651).

[20]Pater (orPater meus) quod dedit mihi (ormihi dedit), majus omnibus est (ormajus est omnibus:oromnibus majus est).

[21]iii^2. 615. He begins, 'Quid dedit Filio Pater majus omnibus? Ut ipsi ille esset unigenitus Filius.'

[22]i. 236.

[23]viii. 363bis.

[24]i. 188: ii. 567: iii. 792: iv. 666 (ed. Pusey): v^1. 326, 577, 578:ap.Mai ii. 13: iii. 336.

[25]v. 1065 (=DialMacedap.Athanas. ii. 555).

[26]Viz. + μου ABD:—μου [Symbol: Aleph] | ος A: ο B[Symbol: Aleph]D | δεδωκεν B[Symbol: Aleph]A: δεδωκωσ | μειζων [Symbol: Aleph]D: μειζον AB | μειζ. παντων εστιν A: παντων μειζ. εστιν B[Symbol: Aleph]D.

[27]The Revision Revised, p. 51-3.

[28]The Revision Revised, p. 53-4.

[29]Ibid. p. 51-6.

[30]Ibid. p. 177-8.

[31]Also in Ammonius the presbyter,A.D.458—see Cramer's Cat. p. 334-5,last line. Λογου is read besides in the cursives Act. 36, 96, 105.

[32]I look for an approving word from learned Dr. Field, who wrote in 1875—'The real obstacle to our acquiescing in the reading of the T.R. is, that if the words ουδε εχω had once formed a part of the original text, there is no possibility of accounting for the subsequent omission of them.' The same remark, but considerably toned down, is found in his delightful Otium Norvicense, P. iii, p. 84.

[33]B and C read—αλλ' ουδενος λογου ποιουμαι την ψυχην εμαυτω: which is exactly what Lucifer Calarit. represents,—'sed pro nihilo aestimo animam meam caram esse mihi' (Galland. vi. 241).

[34][Symbol: Aleph] reads—αλλ' ουδενος λογον ποιουμαι την ψυχην τιμιαν εμαυτω 'ως τελειωσω τον δρομον μου.

[35]'Sed nihil horum(τουτων is found in many Greek Codd.)vereor, nee facio animam meam pretiosiorem quam me.' So, theCod. Amiat.It is evident then that when Ambrose (ii. 1040) writes 'nec facio animam meam cariorem mihi,' he is quoting the latter of these two clauses. Augustine (iii1. 516), when he cites the place thus, 'Non enim facto animam meam preliosiorem quam me'; and elsewhere (iv. 268) 'pretiosam mihi'; also Origen (interp.iv. 628 c), 'sed ego non facto cariorem animam meam mihi'; and even the Coptic, 'sed anima mea, dico, non est pretiosa mihi in aliquo verbo':—these evidently summarize the place, by making a sentence out of what survives of the second clause. The Latin of D exhibits 'Sed nihil horum cura est mihi: neque habeo ipsam animam caram mihi.'

[36]Dr. Field says that it may be thus Graecized—αλλ' ουδενα λογον ποιουμαι, ουδε λελογισται μοι ψυχη τι τιμιον.

[37]ii. 296 e,—exactly as the T.R.

[38]Exactly as the T.R., except that he writes την ψυχην without μου (ix. 332). So again, further on (334 b), ουκ εχω τιμιαν την εμαυτου ψυχην. This latter place is quoted in Cramer's Cat. 334.

[39]Ap.Mai ii. 336 εδει και της ζωης καταφρονειν 'υπερ του τελειωσαι τον δρομον, ουδε την ψυχην εφη ποιειωσαι τιμιαν 'εαυτω.

[40]λογον εχω, ουδε ποιουμαι την ψυχην τιμιαν εμαυτω, ωστε κ.τ.λ. (ap.Galland. x. 222).

[41]αλλ' ουδενος λογον ποιουμαι των δεινων, ουδε εχω την ψυχην τιμιαν εμαυτω. Epist. ad Tars. c. 1 (Dressel, p. 255).

[42]The whole of Dr. Field's learned annotation deserves to be carefully read and pondered. I speak of it especially in the shape in which it originally appeared, viz. in 1875.

[43]Ibid. p. 2 and 3.

[44]Surprising it is how largely the text of this place has suffered at the hands of Copyists and Translators. In A and D, the words ποιουμαι and εχω have been made to change places. The latter Codex introduces μοι after εχω,—for εμαυτω writes εμαυτου,—and exhibits του τελειωσαι without 'ως. C writes 'ως το τελειωσαι. [Symbol: Aleph]B alone of Codexes present us with τελειωσω for τελειωσαι, and are followed by Westcott and Hortalone of Editors. The Peshitto ('sed mihi nihili aestimatur anima mea'), the Sahidic ('sed non facto animam meam in ullâ re'), and the Aethiopic ('sed non reputo animam meam nihil quidquam'), get rid of τιμιαν as well as of ουδε εχω. So much diversity of text, and in such primitive witnesses, while it points to a remote period as the date of the blunder to which attention is called in the text, testifies eloquently to the utter perplexity which that blunder occasioned from the first.

[45]Another example of the same phenomenon, (viz. the absorption of ΕΝ by the first syllable of ΑΝθρωποις) is to be seen in Acts iv. 12,—where however the error has led to no mischievous results.

[46]For those which insertin(14), and those which reject it (25), see Wordsworth's edition of the Vulgate on this passage.

[47]Of Fathers:—Ambrose i. 1298—Hieronymus i. 4482, 693, 876: ii. 213: iv. 34, 92: v. 147: vi. 638: vii. 241, 251, 283,—Augustine 34 times,—Optatus (Galland. v. 472, 457),—Gaudentius Brix. (ap.Sabat.),—Chromatius Ag. (Gall. viii. 337),—Orosius (ib.ix. 134), Marius M. (ib.viii. 672), Maximus Taur. (ib.ix. 355),—Sedulius (ib.575),—Leo M. (ap.Sabat.),—Mamertus Claudianus (Gall. x. 431),—Vigilius Taps. (ap.Sabat.),—Zacchaeus (Gall. ix. 241),—Caesarius Arel. (ib.xi. 11),—ps.-Ambros. ii. 394, 396,—Hormisdas P. (Conc. iv. 1494, 1496),—52 Bps. at 8th Council of Toledo (Conc. vi. 395), &c., &c.

[48]See Wetstein on this place.

[49]Antiqq. i. 99, xviii. 5. 4.

No one who finds the syllable ΟΙ recurring six times over in about as many words,—e.g. και εγενετο, 'ως απηλθον ... ΟΙ αγγελΟΙ, και ΟΙ ανθρωπΟΙ ΟΙ πΟΙμενες ειπον,—is surprised to learn that MSS. of a certain type exhibit serious perturbation in that place. Accordingly, BLΞ leave out the words και 'οι ανθρωποι; and in that mutilated form the modern critical editors are contented to exhibit St. Luke ii. 15. One would have supposed that Tischendorf's eyes would have been opened when he noticed that in his own Codex ([Symbol: Aleph]) one word more ('οι) is dropped,—whereby nonsense is made of the passage (viz. 'οι αγγελοι ποιμενες). Self-evident it is that a line with a 'like ending' has been omitted by the copyist of some very early codex of St. Luke's Gospel; which either read,—

ΟΙ ΑΓΓΕΛΟΙ[ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΑΝΟΙ ΟΙ]ΠΟΙΜΕΝΕΣ

or else

ΟΙ ΑΓΓΕΛΟΙ[ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΑΝΟΙ]ΟΙ ΠΟΙΜΕΝΕΣ

Another such place is found in St. John vi. 11. TheEvangelist certainly described the act of ourSaviouron a famous occasion in the well-known words,—και ευχαριστησας

διεδωκετοις [μαθηταις,οι δε μαθηταιτοις] ανακειμενοις.

The one sufficient proof that St. John did so write, being the testimony of the MSS. Moreover, we are expressly assured by St. Matthew (xiv. 19), St. Mark (vi. 41), and St. Luke (ix. 16), that ourSaviour'sact was performed in this way. It is clear however that some scribe has suffered his eye to wander from τοις in l. 2 to τοις in l. 4,—whereby St. John is made to say that ourSaviourhimself distributed to the 5000. The blunder is a very ancient one; for it has crept into the Syriac, Bohairic, and Gothic versions, besides many copies of the Old Latin; and has established itself in the Vulgate. Moreover some good Fathers (beginning with Origen) so quote the place. But such evidence is unavailing to support [Symbol: Aleph]ABLΠ, the early reading of [Symbol: Aleph] being also contradicted by the fourth hand in the seventh century against the great cloud of witnesses,—beginning with D and including twelve other uncials, beside the body of the cursives, the Ethiopic and two copies of the Old Latin, as well as Cyril Alex.

Indeed, there does not exist a source of error which has proved more fatal to the transcribers of MSS. than the proximity of identical, or nearly identical, combinations of letters. And because these are generally met with in the final syllables of words, the error referred to is familiarly known by a Greek name which denotes 'likeness of ending' (Homoeoteleuton). The eye of a scribe on reverting from his copy to the original before him is of necessity apt sometimes to alight on the same word, or what looks like the same word, a little lower down.The consequence is obvious. All that should have come in between gets omitted, or sometimes duplicated.

It is obvious, that however inconvenient it may prove to find oneself in this way defrauded of five, ten, twenty, perhaps thirty words, no very serious consequence for the most part ensues. Nevertheless, the result is often sheer nonsense. When this is the case, it is loyally admitted by all. A single example may stand for a hundred. [In St. John vi. 55, that most careless of careless transcripts, the Sinaitic [Symbol: Aleph], omits on a most sacred subject seven words, and the result hardly admits of being characterized. Let the reader judge for himself. The passage stands thus:—'η γαρ σαρξ μου αληθως εστι βρωσις, και το 'αιμα μου αληθως εστι ποσις. The transcriber of [Symbol: Aleph] by a very easy mistake let his eye pass from one αληθως to another, and characteristically enough the various correctors allowed the error to remain till it was removed in the seventh century, though the error issued in nothing less than 'My Flesh is drink indeed.' Could that MS. have undergone the test of frequent use?]

But it requires very little familiarity with the subject to be aware that occasions must inevitably be even of frequent occurrence when the result is calamitous, and even perplexing, in the extreme. The writings of Apostles and Evangelists, the Discourses of our DivineLordHimself, abound in short formulae; and the intervening matter on such occasions is constantly an integral sentence, which occasionally may be discovered from its context without evident injury to the general meaning of the place. Thus [ver. 14 in St. Matt, xxiii. was omitted in an early age, owing to the recurrence of ουαι 'υμιν at the beginning, by some copyists, and the error was repeated in the Old Latin versions. It passed to Egypt, as some of the Bohairic copies, the Sahidic, and Origen testify. The Vulgate is not quite consistent: and of course [Symbol: Aleph]BDLZ,a concord of bad witnesses especially in St. Matthew, follow suit, in company with the Armenian, the Lewis, and five or more cursives, enough to make the more emphatic the condemnation by the main body of them. Besides the verdict of the cursives, thirteen uncials (as against five) including Φ and Σ, the Peshitto, Harkleian, Ethiopic, Arabian, some MSS. of the Vulgate, with Origen (iii. 838 (only in Lat.)); Chrysostom (vii. 707 (bis); ix. 755); Opus Imperf. 185 (bis); 186 (bis); John Damascene (ii. 517); Theophylact (i. 124); Hilary (89; 725); Jerome (iv. 276; v. 52; vi. 138: vii. 185)].

Worst of all, it will sometimes of necessity happen that such an omission took place at an exceedingly remote period; (for there have been careless scribes in every age:) and in consequence the error is pretty sure to have propagated itself widely. It is observed to exist (suppose) in several of the known copies; and if,—as very often is the case,—it is discoverable in two or more of the 'old uncials,' all hope of its easy extirpation is at an end. Instead of being loyally recognized as a blunder,—which it clearly is,—it is forthwith charged upon the Apostle or Evangelist as the case may be. In other words, it is taken for granted that the clause in dispute can have had no place in the sacred autograph. It is henceforth treated as an unauthorized accretion to the text. Quite idle henceforth becomes the appeal to the ninety-nine copies out of a hundred which contain the missing words. I proceed to give an instance of my meaning.

OurSaviour, having declared (St. Matt. xix. 9) that whosoever putteth away his wife ει μη επι πορνεια, και γαμηση αλλην, μοιχαται,—adds και 'ο απολελυμενην γαμησας μοιχαται. Those five words are not found in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]DLS, nor in several copies of the Old Latin nor in some copies of the Bohairic, and the Sahidic. Tischendorf and Tregelles accordingly reject them.

And yet it is perfectly certain that the words are genuine. Those thirty-one letters probably formed three lines in the oldest copies of all. Hence they are observed to exist in the Syriac (Peshitto, Harkleian and Jerusalem), the Vulgate, some copies of the Old Latin, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic, besides at least seventeen uncials (including BΦΣ), and the vast majority of the cursives. So that there can be no question of the genuineness of the clause.

A somewhat graver instance of omission resulting from precisely the same cause meets us a little further on in the same Gospel. The threefold recurrence of των in the expression ΤΩΝ ψιχιων ΤΩΝ πιπτονΤΩΝ (St. Luke xvi. 21), has (naturally enough) resulted in the dropping of the words ψιχιων των out of some copies. Unhappily the sense is not destroyed by the omission. We are not surprised therefore to discover that the words are wanting in—[Symbol: Aleph]BL: or to find that [Symbol: Aleph]BL are supported here by copies of the Old Latin, and (as usual) by the Egyptian versions, nor by Clemens Alex.[50]and the author of the Dialogus[51]. Jerome, on the other hand, condemns the Latin reading, and the Syriac Versions are observed to approve of Jerome's verdict, as well as the Gothic. But what settles the question is the fact that every known Greek MS., except those three, witnesses against the omission: besides Ambrose[52], Jerome[53], Eusebius[54]Alex., Gregory[55]Naz., Asterius[56], Basil[57], Ephraim[58]Syr., Chrysostom[59], and Cyril[60]of Alexandria. Perplexing it is notwithstanding to discover, and distressing to have to record, that all the recent Editors of the Gospels are more or less agreed inabolishing 'the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table.'

[The foregoing instances afford specimens of the influence of accidental causes upon the transmission from age to age of the Text of the Gospels. Before the sense of the exact expressions of the Written Word was impressed upon the mind of the Church,—when the Canon was not definitely acknowledged, and the halo of antiquity had not yet gathered round writings which had been recently composed,—severe accuracy was not to be expected. Errors would be sure to arise, especially from accident, and early ancestors would be certain to have a numerous progeny; besides that evil would increase, and slight deviations would give rise in the course of natural development to serious and perplexing corruptions.

In the next chapter, other kinds of accidental causes will come under consideration.]

FOOTNOTES:

Back to Index Next