CHAPTER IV.

[50]P. 232.

[51]Ap.Orig. i. 827.

[52]Ambrose i. 659, 1473, 1491:—places which shew how insecure would be an inference drawn from i. 543 and 665.

[53]Hieron. v. 966; vi. 969.

[54]Ap.Mai ii. 516, 520.

[55]i. 370.

[56]P. 12.

[57]ii. 169.

[58]ii. 142.

[59]i. 715, 720; ii. 662 (bis) 764; vii. 779.

[60]v2. 149 (luc. text, 524).

Corrupt readings have occasionally resulted from the ancient practice of writing Scripture in the uncial character, without accents, punctuation, or indeed any division of the text. Especially are they found in places where there is something unusual in the structure of the sentence.

St. John iv. 35-6 (λευκαι εισι προς θερισμον ηδη) has suffered in this way,—owing to the unusual position of ηδη. Certain of the scribes who imagined that ηδη might belong to ver. 36, rejected the και as superfluous; though no Father is known to have been guilty of such a solecism. Others, aware that ηδη can only belong to ver. 35, were not unwilling to part with the copula at the beginning of ver. 36. A few, considering both words of doubtful authority, retained neither[61]. In this way it has come to pass that there are four ways of exhibiting this place:—(a) προς θερισμον ηδη. Και 'ο θεριζων:—(b) προς θερισμον. Ηδη 'ο θ.:—(c) προς θερισμον ηδη. 'ο θεριζων:—(d) προς θερισμον. 'ο θεριζων, κ.τ.λ.

The only point of importance however is the position of ηδη: which is claimed for ver. 35 by the great mass of the copies: as well as by Origen[62], Eusebius[63], Chrysostom[64], Cyril[65], the Vulgate, Jerome of course, and the Syriac. The Italic copies are hopelessly divided here[66]: and Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BMΠ do not help us. But ηδη is claimed for ver. 36 by CDEL, 33, and by the Curetonian and Lewis (= και ηδη 'ο θεριζων): while Codex A is singular in beginning ver. 36, ηδη και,—which shews that some early copyist, with the correct text before him, adopted a vicious punctuation. For there can be no manner of doubt that the commonly received text and the usual punctuation is the true one: as, on a careful review of the evidence, every unprejudiced reader will allow. But recent critics are for leaving out και (with [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL): while Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Tregelles (marg.), are for putting the full stop after προς θερισμον and (with ACDL) making ηδη begin the next sentence,—which (as Alford finds out) is clearly inadmissible.

Sometimes this affects the translation. Thus, the Revisers propose in the parable of the prodigal son,—'And I perishherewith hunger!' But why 'here?' Because I answer, whereas in the earliest copies of St. Luke the words stood thus,—ΕΓΩΔΕΛΙΜΩΑΠΟΛΛΥΜΑΙ, some careless scribe after writing ΕΓΩΔΕ, reduplicated the three last letters (ΩΔΕ): he mistook them for an independent word.Accordingly in the Codex Bezae, in R and U and about ten cursives, we encounter εγω δε ωδε. The inventive faculty having thus done its work it remained to superadd 'transposition,' as was done by [Symbol: Aleph]BL. From εγω δε ωδε λιμω, the sentence has now developed into εγω δε λιμω ωδε: which approves itself to Griesbach and Schultz, to Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles, to Alfoid and Westcott and Hort, and to the Revisers. A very ancient blunder, certainly, εγω δε ωδε is: for it is found in the Latin[67]and the Syriac translations. It must therefore date from the second century. But it is a blunder notwithstanding: a blunder against which 16 uncials and the whole body of the cursives bear emphatic witness[68]. Having detected its origin, we have next to trace its progress.

The inventors of ωδε or other scribes quickly saw that this word requires a correlative in the earlier part of the sentence. Accordingly, the same primitive authorities which advocate 'here,' are observed also to advocate, above, 'in my Father's house.' No extant Greek copy is known to contain the bracketed words in the sentence [εν τω οικω] του πατρος μου: but such copies must have existed in the second century. The Peshitto, the Cureton and Lewis recognize the three words in question; as well as copies of the Latin with which Jerome[69], Augustine[70]and Cassian[71]were acquainted. The phrase 'in domo patris mei' has accordingly established itself in the Vulgate. But surely we of the Church of England who have been hitherto spared this second blunder, may reasonably (at the end of 1700 years) refuse to take the first downward step. OurLordintended no contrast whatever between twolocalities—but between two parties. The comfortable estate of the hired servants He set against the abject misery of the Son: not the house wherein the servants dwelt, and the spot where the poor prodigal was standing when he came to a better mind.—These are many words; but I know not how to be briefer. And,—what is worthy of discussion, if not the utterances of 'the Word made flesh?'

If hesitation to accept the foregoing verdict lingers in any quarter, it ought to be dispelled by a glance at the context in [Symbol: Aleph]BL. What else but the instinct of a trained understanding is it to survey the neighbourhood of a place like the present? Accordingly, we discover that in ver. 16, for γεμισαι την κοιλιαν αυτου απο, [Symbol: Aleph]BDLR present us with χορτασθηναι εκ: and in ver. 22, the prodigal, on very nearly the same authority ([Symbol: Aleph]BDUX), is made to say to his father,—Ποιησον με 'ως 'ενα των μισθιων σου:

Which certainly he did not say[72]. Moreover, [Symbol: Aleph]BLX and the Old Latin are for thrusting in ταχυ (D ταχεως) after εξενεγκατε. Are not these one and all confessedly fabricated readings? the infelicitous attempts of some well-meaning critic to improve upon the inspired original?

From the fact that three words in St. John v. 44 were in the oldest MSS. written thus,—ΜΟΝΟΥΘΥΟΥ (i.e. μονου Θεου ου), the middle word (θεου) got omitted from some very early copies; whereby the sentence is made to run thus in English,—'And seek not the honour which cometh from the only One.' It is so that Origen[73], Eusebius[74], Didymus[75], besides the two best copies of the Old Latin, exhibit the place. As to Greek MSS., the error survives only in B at the present day, the preserver of an Alexandrian error.

St. Luke explains (Acts xxvii. 14) that it was the 'typhonic wind called Euroclydon' which caused the ship in which St. Paul and he sailed past Crete to incur the 'harm and loss' so graphically described in the last chapter but one of the Acts. That wind is mentioned nowhere but in this one place. Its name however is sufficiently intelligible; being compounded of Ευρος, the 'south-east wind,' and κλυδων, 'a tempest:' a compound which happily survives intact in the Peshitto version. The Syriac translator, not knowing what the word meant, copied what he saw,—'the blast' (he says) 'of the tempest[76], which [blast] is called Tophonikos Euroklidon.' Not so the licentious scribes of the West. They insisted on extracting out of the actual 'Euroclydon,' the imaginary name 'Euro-aquilo,' which accordingly stands to this day in the Vulgate. (Not that Jerome himself so read the name of the wind, or he would hardly have explained 'Eurielion' or 'Euriclion' to mean 'commiscens, sive deorsum ducens[77].') Of this feat of theirs, Codexes [Symbol: Aleph] and A (in which ΕΥΡΟΚΛΥΔΩΝ has been perverted into ΕΥΡΑΚΥΛΩΝ) are at this daythe sole surviving Greek witnesses. Well may the evidence for 'Euro-aquilo' be scanty! The fabricated word collapses the instant it is examined. Nautical men point out that it is 'inconsistent in its construction with the principles on which the names of the intermediate or compound winds are framed:'—

'Euronotusis so called as intervening immediately betweenEurusandNotus, and as partaking, as was thought, of the qualities of both. The same holds true ofLibonotus, as being interposed betweenLibsandNotus. Both these compound winds lie in the same quarter or quadrant of the circle with the winds of which they are composed, andno other wind intervenes. ButEurusandAquiloare at 90° distance from one another; or according to some writers, at 105°; the former lying in the south-east quarter, and the latter in the north-east: and two winds, one of which is the East cardinal point, intervene, as Caecias and Subsolanus[78].'

Further, why should the wind be designated by an impossibleLatinname? The ship was 'a ship of Alexandria' (ver. 6). The sailors were Greeks. What business has 'Aquilo' here? Next, if the wind did bear the name of 'Euro-aquilo,' why is it introduced in this marked way (ανεμος τυφωνικος, 'ο καλουμενος) as if it were a kind of curiosity? Such a name would utterly miss the point, which is the violence of the wind as expressed in the term Euroclydon. But above all, if St. Luke wrote ΕΥΡΑΚ-, how has it come to pass that every copyist but three has written ΕΥΡΟΚ-? The testimony of B is memorable. The original scribe wrote ΕΥΡΑΚΥΔΩΝ[79]: thesecunda mantishas corrected this into ΕΥΡΥΚΛΥΔΩΝ,—which is also the reading of Euthalius[80]. The essential circumstance is, thatnotΥΛΩΝ but ΥΔΩΝ has all along been the last half of the word in Codex B[81].

In St. John iv. 15, on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B, Tischendorf adopts διερχεσθαι (in place of the uncompounded verb), assigning as his reason, that 'If St. John had written ερχεσθαι, no one would ever have substituted διερχεσθαι 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 ΔΙερχωμαι is sufficiently accounted for by the final syllable (ΔΕ) of μηδε which immediately precedes. Similarly but without the same excuse,

St. Mark x. 16 ευλογει has become κατευλογει ([Symbol: Aleph]BC).St. Mark xii. 17 θαυμασαν has become εζεθαυμασαν ([Symbol: Aleph]B).St. Mark xiv. 40 βεβαρημενοι has become καταβεβαρημενοι (A[Symbol: Aleph]B).

It is impossible to doubt that και (in modern critical editions of St. Luke xvii. 37) is indebted for its existence to the same cause. In the phrase εκει συναχθησονται 'οι αετοι it might have been predicted that the last syllable of εκει would some day be mistaken for the conjunction. And soit has actually come to pass. ΚΑΙ οι αετοι is met with in many ancient authorities. But [Symbol: Aleph]LB also transposed the clauses, and substituted επισυναχθησονται for συναχθησονται. The self-same casualty, viz. και elicited out of the insertion of εκει 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 Sadduceessayingthat there is no Resurrection.' A new incident would be in this way introduced into the Gospel narrative: resulting from a novel reading of the passage. Instead of 'οι λεγοντες, we are invited to read λεγοντες, 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—

'οιτινες λεγουσιν αναστασιν μη ειναι (St. Mark xii. 18) and'οι αντιλεγοντες αναστασιν μη ειναι (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:

ΣΑΔΔΟΥΚΑΙΟΙΟΙΛΕΓΟΝΤΕΣ

and really nothing more requires to be said. The second ΟΙ was safe to be dropped in a collocation of letters likethat. It might also have been anticipated, that there would be found copyists to be confused by the antecedent ΚΑΙ. Accordingly the Peshitto, Lewis, and Curetonian render the place 'et dicentes;' shewing that they mistook ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΛΕΓΟΝΤΕΣ for a separate phrase.

The termination ΤΟ (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 και εταρασσε το 'υδωρ, but so many MSS. read εταρασσετο, 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 circumstance 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 εχαρισατο βλεπειν (which is the reading of [Symbol: Aleph]*ABDEG and 11 other uncials) and εχαρισατο το βλεπειν which is only supported by [Symbol: Aleph]bELVA. 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 εσθητα λαμπραν ανεπεμψεν (St. Luke xxiii. 11), we are not surprised to find the first syllable ofthe verb (αν) absorbed by the last syllable of the immediately preceding λαμπραν. Accordingly, [Symbol: Aleph]LR supported by one copy of the Old Latin and a single cursive MS. concur in displaying επεμψεν in this place.

The letters ΝΑΙΚΩΝΑΙΚΑΙ in the expression (St. Luke xxiii. 27) γυναικων 'αι και 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 γυναικες.) Not so however what follows. ABCDLX and the Old Latin (except c) drop the και: [Symbol: Aleph] and C drop the αι. The truth rests with the fourteen remaining uncials and with the cursives.

Thus also the reading εν ολη τη Γαλιλαια (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,—περιηγεν. The received reading of the place is the correct one,—και περιηγεν 'ολην την Γαλιλαιαν 'ο Ιησους, 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 και περιηγεν εν 'οληι τηι Γαλιλαιαι.[Symbol: Aleph] reads και περιηγεν 'οιςεν τηι Γαλιλαιαι.C reads και περιηγεν 'οιςεν 'ολη τηι Γαλιλαιαι.

But—(I shall be asked)—what about the position of the Sacred Name? How comes it to pass that 'ο Ιησους, which comes after Γαλιλαιαν in almost every other known copy, should come after περιηγεν in three of these venerable authorities (in D as well as in [Symbol: Aleph] and C), and in the Latin, Peshitto, Lewis, and Harkleian? Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott and Hort and the Revisers at all events (who simply follow B in leaving out 'ο Ιησους 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 και περιηγεν 'οις. So familiar had this order of the words become, that the scribe of [Symbol: Aleph], (a circumstance 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 'ο ις 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 assurance in respect of accuracy of detail we must resort to the Cursive Copies.

The introduction of απο in the place of 'αγιοι 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 αγιοι for απο. It was but the mistaking of ΑΓΙΟ for ΑΠΟ. 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 (απο and 'αγιοι) into the text. Accordingly απο Θεου 'αγιοι is found in C, two cursives, and Didymus[85]. Then, (3), another variant crops up, (viz. 'υπο for απο—but only because 'υπο went immediately before); of which fresh blunder ('υπο Θεου 'αγιοι) Theophylact is the sole patron[86]. The consequence of all this might have been foreseen: (4) it came to pass that from a few Codexes, both απο and αγιοι were left out,—which accounts for the reading ofcertain 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 'holymen of God spake,' require us to read 'men spakefromGod,' 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 class of error is furnished by Heb. vii. 1. Instead of 'Ο συναντησας Αβρααμ—said of Melchizedek,—[Symbol: Aleph]ABD exhibit ΟΣ. 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 συναντησας has been reduplicated through careless transcription: ΟΣΣΥΝ—instead of ΟΣΥΝ—. 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.

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, orJesuswho is calledChrist?'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 circumstance which—besides that a multitude of copies existed as well as those of Origen—for the best of reasons, we take leave to pronounce 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' (ΥΜΙΝ) for the word 'Jesus' (ΙΝ): in other words, carelessly reduplicated the last two letters of ΥΜΙΝ,—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 1500years. 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 antithetic 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 'antithetic force' can outweigh our dislike to the idea that Barabbas was ourSaviour'snamesake! 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 ηδη 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, 250bis, 251bis, 252, 253, 255bis, 256, 257. Also iv. 440 note, which = catoxiv. 21.

[63]dem.440. But notin cs.426:theoph.262, 275.

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

[65]i. 397. 98. (Palladius) 611: iii. 57. So also in iv. 199, ετοιμος ηδη προς το πιστευειν.

[66]Ambrose, ii. 279, has 'Et qui metit.' Iren.intsubstitutes '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 εγω δε ωδε: once (viii. 153) not. John Damascene (ii. 579) is without the ωδε.

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

[70]iii.2259 (notv. 511).

[71]p. 405.

[72][The prodigal was prepared to say this; but his father's kindness stopped him:—a feature in the account which the Codexes in question ignore.]

[73]iii. 687. But in i. 228 and 259 he recognizes θεου.

[74]Ap.Mai vii. 135.

[75]Praep. xiii. 6,—μονου του 'ενος (vol. ii. 294).

[76]Same word occurs in St. Mark iv. 37.

[77]iii. 101.

[78]Falconer's Dissertation on St. Paul's Voyage, pp. 16 and 12.

[79]Let the learned Vercellone be heard on behalf of Codex B: 'Antequam manum de tabulâ amoveamus, e re fore videtur, si, ipso codice Vaticano inspecto, duos injectos scrupulos eximamus. Cl. Tischendorfius in nuperrimâ suâ editione scribit (Proleg. p. cclxxv), Maium ad Act. xxvii. 14, codici Vaticano tribuisse a primâ manu ευρακλυδων; nos vero ευρακυδων; atque subjungit, "utrumque, ut videtur, male." At, quidquid "videri" possit, certum nobis exploratumque est Vaticanum codicem primo habuisse ευρακυδων, prout expressum fuit tum in tabella quâ Maius Birchianas lectiones notavit, tum in alterâ quâ nos errata corrigenda recensuimus.'—Præfatio to Mai's 2nd ed. of the Cod. Vaticanus, 1859 (8vo), p. v. § vi. [Any one may now see this in the photographed copy.]

[80]Ap.Galland. x. 225.

[81]Remark that some vicious sections evidently owed their origin to the copyistknowing more of Latin than of Greek.True, that the compounds euronotus euroauster exist in Latin.That is the reason whythe Latin translator (not understanding the word) rendered itEuroaquilo: instead of writingEuraquilo.I have no doubt that it was some Latin copyist who began the mischief. Like the man who wrote επ' αυτω τω φορω for επ' αυτοφωρω.Readings of EuroclydonΕΥΡΑΚΥΔΩΝ B (sic)ΕΥΡΑΚΥΛΩΝ [Symbol: Aleph]AΕΥΡΑΚΗΛΩΝΕΥΤΡΑΚΗΛΩΝΕΥΡΑΚΛΗΔΩΝ Peshitto.ΕΥΡΑΚΥΚΛΩΝEuroaquilo Vulg.ΕΥΡΟΚΛΥΔΩΝ HLPΕΥΡΑΚΛΥΔΩΝ Syr. Harkl.ΕΥΡΥΚΛΥΔΩΝ B2 man.

[81]Remark that some vicious sections evidently owed their origin to the copyistknowing more of Latin than of Greek.

True, that the compounds euronotus euroauster exist in Latin.That is the reason whythe Latin translator (not understanding the word) rendered itEuroaquilo: instead of writingEuraquilo.

I have no doubt that it was some Latin copyist who began the mischief. Like the man who wrote επ' αυτω τω φορω for επ' αυτοφωρω.

Readings of Euroclydon

ΕΥΡΑΚΥΔΩΝ B (sic)ΕΥΡΑΚΥΛΩΝ [Symbol: Aleph]AΕΥΡΑΚΗΛΩΝΕΥΤΡΑΚΗΛΩΝΕΥΡΑΚΛΗΔΩΝ Peshitto.ΕΥΡΑΚΥΚΛΩΝEuroaquilo Vulg.ΕΥΡΟΚΛΥΔΩΝ HLPΕΥΡΑΚΛΥΔΩΝ Syr. Harkl.ΕΥΡΥΚΛΥΔΩΝ B2 man.

[82]Οπου (ου [Symbol: Aleph]) γαρ (—γαρ [Symbol: Aleph]BDL) εαν (αν D) το πτωμα (σωμα [Symbol: Aleph]).

[83]Sancti Dei homines.

[84]Ap.Galland. x. 236 a.

[85]Trin. 234.

[86]iii. 389.

[87]'Locuti sunt homines D.'

[88]Their only supporters seem to be K [i.e. Paul 117 (Matthaei's §)], 17, 59 [published in full by Cramer, vii. 202], 137 [Reiche, p. 60]. Why does Tischendorf quote besides E of Paul, which is nothing else but a copy of D of Paul?

[89]Chrys. xii. 120 b, 121 a.

[90]Theodoret, iii. 584.

[91]J. Damascene, ii. 240 c.

[92]St. Matt. xxvii. 17.

[93]Cf. 'ο λεγομενος Βαραββας. St. Mark xv. 7.

[94]Int.iii. 918 c d.

[95]On the two other occasions when Origen quotes St. Matt. xxvii. 17 (i. 316 a and ii. 245 a) nothing is said about 'Jesus Barabbas.'—Alluding to the place, he elsewhere (iii. 853 d) merely says that 'Secundum quosdam Barabbas dicebatur et Jesus.'—The author of a well-known scholion, ascribed to Anastasius, Bp. of Antioch, but query, for see Migne, vol. lxxxix. p. 1352 b c (= Galland. xii. 253 c), and 1604 a, declares that he had found the same statement 'in very early copies.' The scholion in question is first cited by Birch (Varr. Lectt. p. 110) from the following MSS.:—S, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 146, 181, 186, 195, 197, 199 or 200, 209, 210, 221, 222: to which Scholz adds 41, 237, 238, 253, 259, 299: Tischendorf adds 1, 118. In Gallandius (Bibl. P. P. xiv. 81 d e,Append.), the scholion may be seen more fully given than by Birch,—from whom Tregelles and Tischendorf copy it. Theophylact (p. 156 a) must have seen the place as quoted by Gallandius. The only evidence, so far as I can find, for reading 'JesusBarabbas' (in St. Matt. xxvii. 16, 17) are five disreputable Evangelia 1, 118, 209, 241, 299,—the Armenian Version, the Jerusalem Syriac, [and the Sinai Syriac]; (see Adler, pp. 172-3).

[It has been already shewn in the First Volume that the Art of Transcription on vellum did not reach perfection till after the lapse of many centuries in the life of the Church. Even in the minute elements of writing much uncertainty prevailed during a great number of successive ages. It by no means followed that, if a scribe possessed a correct auricular knowledge of the Text, he would therefore exhibit it correctly on parchment. Copies were largely disfigured with misspelt words. And vowels especially were interchanged; accordingly, such change became in many instances the cause of corruption, and is known in Textual Criticism under the name 'Itacism.']

It may seem to a casual reader that in what follows undue attention is being paid to minute particulars. But it constantly happens,—and this is a sufficient answer to the supposed objection,—that, from exceedingly minute and seemingly trivial mistakes, there result sometimes considerable and indeed serious misrepresentations of theSpirit'smeaning. New incidents:—unheard-of statements:—facts as yet unknown to readers of Scripture:—perversionsof ourLord'sDivine sayings:—such phenomena are observed to follow upon the omission of the article,—the insertion of an expletive,—the change of a single letter. Thus παλιν, thrust in where it has no business, makes it appear that ourSaviourpromised to return the ass on which He rode in triumph into Jerusalem[96]. By writing ω for ο, many critics have transferred some words from the lips ofChristto those of His Evangelist, and made Him say what He never could have dreamed of saying[97]. By subjoining ς to a word in a place which it has no right to fill, the harmony of the heavenly choir has been marred effectually, and a sentence produced which defies translation[98]. By omitting τω and Κυριε, the repenting malefactor is made to say, 'Jesus! remember me, when Thou comest in Thy kingdom[99].'

Speaking of ourSaviour'striumphal entry into Jerusalem, which took place 'the day after' 'they made Him a supper' and Lazarus 'which had been dead, whom He raised from the dead,' 'sat at the table with Him' (St. John xii. 1, 2), St. John says that 'the multitude which had been with HimwhenHe called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised Him from the dead bare testimony' (St. John xii. 17). The meaning of this is best understood by a reference to St. Luke xix. 37, 38, where it is explained that it was the sight of so many acts of Divine Power, the chiefest of all being the raising of Lazarus, which moved the crowds to yield the memorable testimony recorded by St. Luke in ver. 38,—by St. John in ver. 13[100]. But Tischendorf and Lachmann, who on the authority of D and four later uncials read 'οτι instead of 'οτε, import into the Gospel quite another meaning. According to their way of exhibiting the text,St. John is made to say that 'the multitude which was withJesus, testifiedthatHe called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead': which is not only an entirely different statement, but also the introduction of a highly improbable circumstance. That many copies of the Old Latin (not of the Vulgate) recognize 'οτι, besides the Peshitto and the two Egyptian versions, is not denied. This is in fact only one more proof of the insufficiency of such collective testimony. [Symbol: Aleph]AB with the rest of the uncials and, what is of more importance,the whole body of the cursives, exhibit 'οτε,—which, as every one must see, is certainly what St. John wrote in this place. Tischendorf's assertion that the prolixity of the expression εφωνησεν εκ του μνημειου και ηγειρεν αυτον εκ νεκρων is inconsistent with 'οτε[101],—may surprise, but will never convince any one who is even moderately acquainted with St. John's peculiar manner.

The same mistake—of 'οτι for 'οτε—is met with at ver. 41 of the same chapter. 'These things said Isaiahbecausehe saw His glory' (St. John xii. 41). And why not 'whenhe saw His glory'? which is what the Evangelist wrote according to the strongest attestation. True, that eleven manuscripts (beginning with [Symbol: Aleph]ABL) and the Egyptian versions exhibit 'οτι: also Nonnus, who lived in the Thebaid (A.D.410): but all other MSS., the Latin, Peshitto, Gothic, Ethiopic, Georgian, and one Egyptian version:—Origen[102],—Eusebius in four places[103],—Basil[104],—Gregory of Nyssa twice[105],—Didymus three times[106],—Chrysostom twice[107],—Severianus of Gabala[108];—these twelve Versions and Fathers constitute a body of ancient evidence which is overwhelming. Cyrilthree times reads 'οτι[109], three times 'οτε[110],—and once 'ηνικα[111], which proves at least how he understood the place.

[A suggestive example[112]of the corruption introduced by a petty Itacism may be found in Rev. i. 5, where the beautiful expression which has found its way into so many tender passages relating to Christian devotion, 'Who hathwashed[113]us from our sins in His own blood' (A.V.), is replaced in many critical editions (R.V.) by, 'Who hathloosed[114]us from our sins by His blood.' In early times a purist scribe, who had a dislike of anything that savoured of provincial retention of Aeolian or Dorian pronunciations, wrote from unconscious bias υ for ου, transcribing λυσαντι for λουσαντι (unless he were not Greek scholar enough to understand the difference): and he was followed by others, especially such as, whether from their own prejudices or owing to sympathy with the scruples of other people, but at all events under the influence of a slavish literalism, hesitated about a passage as to which they did not rise to the spiritual height of the precious meaning really conveyed therein. Accordingly the three uncials, which of those that give the Apocalypse date nearest to the period of corruption, adopt υ, followed by nine cursives, the Harkleian Syriac, and the Armenian versions. On the other side,two uncials—viz. B2of the eighth century and P of the ninth—the Vulgate, Bohairic, and Ethiopic, write λουσαντι and—what is most important—all the other cursives except the handful just mentioned, so far as examination has yet gone, form a barrier which forbids intrusion.]

[An instance where an error from an Itacism has crept into the Textus Receptus may be seen in St. Luke xvi. 25. Some scribes needlessly changed 'ωδε into 'οδε, misinterpreting the letter which served often for both the long and the short ο, and thereby cast out some illustrative meaning, since Abraham meant to lay stress upon the enjoyment 'in his bosom' of comfort by Lazarus. The unanimity of the uncials, a majority of the cursives, the witness of the versions, that of the Fathers quote the place being uncertain, are sufficient to prove that 'ωδε is the genuine word.]

[Again, in St. John xiii. 25, 'ουτως has dropped out of many copies and so out of the Received Text because by an Itacism it was written ουτος in many manuscripts. Therefore εκεινος ουτος was thought to be a clear mistake, and the weaker word was accordingly omitted. No doubt Latins and others who did not understand Greek well considered also that 'ουτως was redundant, and this was the cause of its being omitted in the Vulgate. But really 'ουτως, being sufficiently authenticated[115], is exactly in consonance with Greek usage and St. John's style[116], and adds considerably to the graphic character of the sacred narrative. St. John was reclining (ανακειμενος) on his left arm over the bosom of the robe (εν τωι κολπωι) of theSaviour. When St. Peter beckoned to him he turned his head for the moment and sank (επιπεσων, not αναπεσων which has the testimony only of B and about twenty-five uncials, [Symbol: Aleph] and Cbeing divided against themselves) on the breast of the Lord, being still in the general posture in which he was ('ουτωσ[117]), and asked Him in a whisper 'Lord, who is it?']

[Another case of confusion between ω and ο may be seen in St. Luke xv. 24, 32, where απολωλως has gained so strong a hold that it is found in the Received Text for απολωλος, which last being the better attested appears to be the right reading[118]. But the instance which requires the most attention is καθαριζον in St. Mark vii. 19, and all the more because inThe Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, the alteration into καθαριζων is advocated as being 'no part of the Divine discourse, but the Evangelist's inspired comment on theSaviour'swords[119].' Such a question must be decided strictly by the testimony, not upon internal evidence—which in fact is in this case absolutely decisive neither way, for people must not be led by the attractive view opened by καθαριζων, and καθαριζον bears a very intelligible meaning. When we find that the uncial evidence is divided, there being eight against the change (ΦΣKMUVΓΠ), and eleven for it ([Symbol: Aleph]ABEFGHLSXΔ);—that not much is advanced by the versions, though the Peshitto, the LewisCodex, the Harkleian (?), the Gothic, the Old Latin[120], the Vulgate, favour καθαριζον;—nor by the Fathers:—since Aphraates[121], Augustine (?)[122], and Novatian[123]are contradicted by Origen[124], Theophylact[125], and Gregory Thaumaturgus[126], we discover that we have not so far made much way towards a satisfactory conclusion. The only decided element of judgement, so far as present enquiries have reached, since suspicion is always aroused by the conjunction of [Symbol: Aleph]AB, is supplied by the cursives which with a large majority witness to the received reading. It is not therefore safe to alter it till a much larger examination of existing evidence is made than is now possible. If difficulty is felt in the meaning given by καθαριζον,—and that there is such difficulty cannot candidly be denied,—this is balanced by the grammatical difficulty introduced by καθαριζων, which would be made to agree in the same clause with a verb separated from it by thirty-five parenthetic words, including two interrogations and the closing sentence. Those people who form their judgement from the Revised Version should bear in mind that the Revisers, in order to make intelligible sense, were obliged to introduce three fresh English words that have nothing to correspond to them in the Greek; being a repetition of what the mind of the reader would hardly bear in memory. Let any reader who doubts this leave out the words in italics and try the effect for himself.The fact is that to make this reading satisfactory, another alteration is required. Καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα ought either to be transferred to the 20th verse or to the beginning of the 18th. Then all would be clear enough, though destitute of a balance of authority: as it is now proposed to read, the passage would have absolutely no parallel in the simple and transparent sentences of St. Mark. We must therefore be guided by the balance of evidence, and that is turned by the cursive testimony.]

Another minute but interesting indication of the accuracy and fidelity with which the cursive copies were made, is supplied by the constancy with which they witness to the preposition εν (not the numeral'εν) in St. Mark iv. 8. OurLordsays that the seed which 'fell into the good ground' 'yielded by (εν) thirty, and by (εν) sixty, and by (εν) an hundred.' Tischendorf notes that besides all the uncials which are furnished with accents and breathings (viz. EFGHKMUVΠ) 'nearly 100 cursives' exhibit εν here and in ver. 20. But this is to misrepresent the case. All the cursives may be declared to exhibit εν, e.g. all Matthaei's and all Scrivener's. I have myself with this object examined a large number of Evangelia, and found εν in all. The Basle MS. from which Erasmus derived his text[127]exhibits εν,—though he printed 'εν out of respect for the Vulgate. The Complutensian having 'εν, the reading of the Textus Receptus follows in consequence: but the Traditional reading has been shewn to be εν,—which is doubtless intended by ΕΝ in Cod. A.

Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]CΔ (two ever licentious and Δ similarly so throughout St. Mark) substitute for the preposition εν the preposition εις,—(a sufficient proof to me that they understand ΕΝ to represent εν, not 'εν): and are followed by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the Revisers. As for the charteredlibertine B (and its servile henchman L), for the first εν (but not for the second and third) it substitutes the preposition ΕΙΣ: while, in ver. 20, it retains the first εν, but omits the other two. In all these vagaries Cod. B is followed by Westcott and Hort[128].

St. Paul[129]in his Epistle to Titus [ii. 5] directs that young women shall be 'keepers at home,' οικουρους. So, (with five exceptions,) every known Codex[130], including the corrected [Symbol: Aleph] and D,—HKLP; besides 17, 37, 47. So also Clemens Alex.[131](A.D.180),—Theodore of Mopsuestia[132],—Basil[133],—Chrysostom[134]—Theodoret[135],—Damascene[136]. So again the Old Latin (domum custodientes[137]),—the Vulgate (domus curam habentes[138]),—and Jerome (habentes domus diligentiam[139]): and so the Peshitto and the Harkleian versions,—besides the Bohairic. There evidently can be no doubt whatever about such a reading so supported. To be οικουρος was held to be a woman's chiefest praise[140]: καλλιστον εργον γυνη οικουρος, writes Clemens Alex.[141]; assigning to the wife οικουρια as her proper province[142]. On the contrary, 'gadding about from house to house' is what the Apostle, writing to Timothy[143], expressly condemns. But of course the decisive consideration is not the support derived from internal evidence; but the plain fact that antiquity, variety, respectability, numbers, continuity of attestation, are all in favour of the Traditional reading.

Notwithstanding this, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, because they find οικουργους in [Symbol: Aleph]*ACD*F-G, are for thrusting that 'barbarous and scarcely intelligible' word, if it be not even a non-existent[144], into Titus ii. 5. The Revised Version in consequence exhibits 'workers at home'—which Dr. Field may well call an 'unnecessary and most tasteless innovation.' But it is insufficiently attested as well, besides being a plain perversion of the Apostle's teaching. [And the error must have arisen from carelessness and ignorance, probably in the West where Greek was not properly understood.]

So again, in the cry of the demoniacs, τι 'ημιν και σοι, Ιησου, 'υιε του Θεου; (St. Matt. viii. 29) the name Ιησου is omitted by B[Symbol: Aleph].

The reason is plain the instant an ancient MS. is inspected:— ΚΑΙΣΟΙΙΥΥΙΕΤΟΥΘΥ:—the recurrence of the same letters caused too great a strain to scribes, and the omission of two of them was the result of ordinary human infirmity.

Indeed, to this same source are to be attributed an extraordinary number of so-called 'various readings'; but which in reality, as has already been shewn, are nothing else but a collection of mistakes,—the surviving tokens that anciently, as now, copying clerks left out words; whether misled by the fatal proximity of a like ending, or by the speedy recurrence of the like letters, or by some other phenomenon with which most men's acquaintance with books have long since made them familiar.

FOOTNOTES:

Back to Index Next