CHAPTER XIII.

[353]See The Traditional Text, pp. 51-52.

[354]St. Mark vi. 33. See The Traditional Text, p. 80.

[355]iii. 3 e: 4 b and c: 442 a: 481 b. Note, that the ρ'ησις in which the first three of these quotations occur seems to have been obtained by De la Rue from a Catena on St. Luke in the Mazarine Library (see his Monitum, iii. 1). A large portion of it (viz. from p. 3, line 25, to p. 4, line 29) is ascribed to 'I. Geometra in Proverbia' in the Catena in Luc. of Corderius, p. 217.

[356]ii. 345.

[357]ii. 242.

[358]The Latin isedissereordissere,enarraornarra, both here and in xv. 15.

[359]iv. 254 a.

[360]In St. Matthew xiii. 36 the Peshitto Syriac has [Syriac letters] 'declare to us' and in St. Matthew xv. 15 the very same words, there beingnovarious reading in either of these two passages.The inference is, that the translators had the same Greek word in each place, especially considering that in the only other place where, besides St. Matt. xiii. 36, v. 1., διασαφειν occurs, viz. St. Matt. xviii. 31, they render διεσαφησαν by [Syriac letters]—they made known.Since φραζειν only occurs in St. Matt. xiii. 36 and xv. 15, we cannot generalize about the Peshitto rendering of this verb. Conversely, [Syriac letters] is used as the rendering of other Greek words besides φραζειν, e.g.of επιλυειν, St. Mark iv. 34;of διερμηνευειν, St. Luke xxiv. 27;of διανοιγειν, St. Luke xxiv. 32 and Acts xvii. 3.On the whole I haveno doubt(though it is not susceptible ofproof) that the Peshitto had, in both the places quoted above, φρασον.

[360]In St. Matthew xiii. 36 the Peshitto Syriac has [Syriac letters] 'declare to us' and in St. Matthew xv. 15 the very same words, there beingnovarious reading in either of these two passages.

The inference is, that the translators had the same Greek word in each place, especially considering that in the only other place where, besides St. Matt. xiii. 36, v. 1., διασαφειν occurs, viz. St. Matt. xviii. 31, they render διεσαφησαν by [Syriac letters]—they made known.

Since φραζειν only occurs in St. Matt. xiii. 36 and xv. 15, we cannot generalize about the Peshitto rendering of this verb. Conversely, [Syriac letters] is used as the rendering of other Greek words besides φραζειν, e.g.

of επιλυειν, St. Mark iv. 34;of διερμηνευειν, St. Luke xxiv. 27;of διανοιγειν, St. Luke xxiv. 32 and Acts xvii. 3.

On the whole I haveno doubt(though it is not susceptible ofproof) that the Peshitto had, in both the places quoted above, φρασον.

[361]In St. Mark vii. 3, the translators of the Peshitto render whatever Greek they had before them by [Syriac letters], which means 'eagerly,' 'sedulously'; cf. use of the word for σπουδαιως, St. Luke vii. 4; επιμελως, St Luke xv. 8.The Root means 'to cease'; thence 'to have leisure for a thing': it has nothing to do with 'Fist.' [Rev. G.H. Gwilliam.]

The Root means 'to cease'; thence 'to have leisure for a thing': it has nothing to do with 'Fist.' [Rev. G.H. Gwilliam.]

[362]Harkl. Marg.in loc., and Adler, p. 115.

[363]Viz. a b c e ff2l q.

[364]'Οφειλει ψυχη, εν τω λογω του Κυριου κατακολουθουσα, τον σταυρον αυτου καθ' 'ημεραν αιρειν, 'ως γεγραπται; τουτ' εστιν, 'ετοιμως εχουσα 'υπομενειν δια Χριστον πασαν θλιψιν και πειρασμον, κ.τ.λ. (ii. 326 e). In the same spirit, further on, he exhorts to constancy and patience,—τον επι του Κυριου θανατον εν επιθυμιαι παντοτε προ οφθαλμων εχοντες, και (καθως ειρηται 'υπο του Κυριου) καθ' 'ημεραν τον σταυρον αιροντες, 'ο εστι θανατος (ii. 332 e). It is fair to assume that Ephraem's reference is to St. Luke ix. 23, seeing that he wrote not in Greek but in Syriac, and that in the Peshitto the clause is found only in that place.

[365]Ακουε Λουκα λεγοντος,—i. 281 f. Also, int. iii. 543.

[366]Pp. 221 (text), 222, 227.

[367]ii. 751 e, 774 e (in Es.)—the proof that these quotations are from St. Luke; that Cyril exhibits αρνησασθω instead of απαρν. (see Tischendorf's note on St. Luke ix. 23). The quotation in i. 40 (Glaph.)maybe from St. Matt. xvi. 24.

[368]Migne, vol. lxxxvi. pp. 256 and 257.

[369]After quoting St. Mark viii. 34,—'aut juxta Lucam,dicebat ad cunctos: Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum; et tollat crucem suam, et sequetur me.'—i. 852 c.This is found in his solution ofXI Quaestiones, 'ad Algasiam,'—free translations probably from the Greek of some earlier Father. Six lines lower down (after quoting words found nowhere in the Gospels), Jerome proceeds:—'Quotidiecredens in Christumtollit crucem suam, et negat seipsum.'

[369]After quoting St. Mark viii. 34,—'aut juxta Lucam,dicebat ad cunctos: Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum; et tollat crucem suam, et sequetur me.'—i. 852 c.

This is found in his solution ofXI Quaestiones, 'ad Algasiam,'—free translations probably from the Greek of some earlier Father. Six lines lower down (after quoting words found nowhere in the Gospels), Jerome proceeds:—'Quotidiecredens in Christumtollit crucem suam, et negat seipsum.'

[370]This spurious clause adorned the lost archetype of Evann. 13, 69, 124, 346 (Ferrar's four); and survives in certain other Evangelia which enjoy a similar repute,—as 1, 33, 72 (with a marginal note of distrust), 131.

[371]They are St. Matt. xvi. 24; St. Mark viii. 34.

[372]i. 597 c (Adorat.)—elsewhere (viz. i. 21 d; 528 c; 580 b; iv. 1058 a; v^(2). 83 c) Cyril quotes the place correctly. Note, that the quotation found in Mai, iii. 126, which Pusey edits (v. 418), in Ep. ad Hebr., is nothing else but an excerpt from the treatise de Adorat. i. 528 c.

[373]In his Commentary on St. Matt. xvi. 24:—Δια παντος του βιου τουτο δει ποιειν. Διηνεκως γαρ, φησι, περιφερε τον θανατον τουτον, και καθ 'ημεραν 'ετοιμος εσο προς σφαγην (vii. 557 b). Again, commenting on ch. xix. 21,—Δει προηγουμενως ακολουθειν τω Χριστω τουτεστι, παντα τα παρ αυτου κελευομενα ποιειν, προς σφγας ειναι 'ετοιμον, και θανατον καθημερινιν (p. 629 e):—words which Chrysostom immediately follows up by quoting ch. xvi. 24 (630 a).

[374]i. 949 b,—'Quotidie(inquit Apostolus)morior propter vestram salutem. Et Dominus, juxta antiqua exemplaria,Nisi quis tulerit crucem suam quotidie, et sequntus fuerit me, non potest meus esse discipulus'—Commenting on St. Matt. x. 38 (vol. vii. p. 65 b), Jerome remarks,—'in alio Evangelio scribitur,—Qui non accipit crucem suam quotidie': but the corresponding place to St. Matt. x. 38, in the sectional system of Eusebius (Greek and Syriac), is St. Luke xiv. 27.

[375]Viz. Evan. 473 (2pe).

[376]ii. 66 c, d.

[377]See above, p.175,note 2.

[378]Proleg. p. cxlvi.

[379]N.T. (1803), i. 368.

[380]Lewis here agrees with Peshitto.

[381]iv. 745.

[382]In Ps. 501.

[383]229 and 236.

[384]vii. 736: xi. 478.

[385]ii. 1209.

[386]269.

[387]577.

[388]i. 881.

[389]Ap.Chrys. vi. 460.

[390]Ap. Greg. Nyss. ii. 258.

[391]Galland. vi. 53.

[392]ii. 346.

[393]ii. 261, 324.

[394]Ap.Greg. Nyss. iii. 429.

[395]i. 132.

[396]The attentive student of the Gospels will recognize with interest how gracefully the third Evangelist St. Luke (ix. 5) has overcome this difficulty.

[397]Augustine, with his accustomed acuteness, points out that St. Mark's narrative shews that after the words of 'Sleep on now and take your rest,' ourLordmust have been silent for a brief space in order to allow His disciples a slight prolongation of the refreshment which his words had already permitted them to enjoy. Presently, He is heard to say,—'It is enough'—(that is, 'Ye have now slept and rested enough'); and adds, 'The hour is come. Behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.' 'Sed quia commemorata non est ipsa interpositio silentii Domini, propterea coartat intellectum, ut in illis verbis alia pronuntiatio requiratur.'—iii2. 106 a, b. The passage in question runs thus:—Καθειδετε το λοιπον και αναπαυεσθε. απεχει; ηλθεν 'η 'ωρα; ιδου, κ.τ.λ.

[398]Those who saw this, explain the word amiss. Note the Scholion (Anon. Vat.) in Possinus, p. 321:—απεχει, τουτεστι, πεπληρωται, τελος εχει το κατ' εμε. Last Twelve Verses, p. 226, note.

[399]I retract unreservedly what I offered on this subject in a former work (Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 225, 226). I was misled by one who seldom indeed misleads,—the learned editor of the Codex Bezae (in loco).

[400]So Peshitto. Lewis,venit hora, appropinquat finis. Harkleian,adest consummatio, venit hora.

[401]απεχει. Vg.sufficit. + το τελος, 13, 69, 124, 2pe, cscr, 47, 54, 56, 61, 184, 346, 348, 439. d, q,sufficit finis et hora. f,adest finis, venit hora. c, ff2,adest enim consummatio, et(ff2venit)hora. a,consummatus est finis, advenit hora. It is certain that one formidable source of danger to the sacred text has been its occasional obscurity. This has resulted,—(1) sometimes in the omission of words: Δευτεροπρωτον. (2) Sometimes in substitution, as πυγμηι. (3) Sometimes in the insertion of unauthorized matter: thus, το τελος, as above.

[402]iii. 105: iv. 913. So also iv. 614.

[403]vi. 283.

[404]i. 307.

[405]viii. 392.

[406]iv. 696.

[407]Cramer's Cat.in loc.

[408]1063.

[409]E.g. ver. 1. All the three officiously insert 'ο Ιησους, in order to prevent people from imagining that Lazarus raised Lazarus from the dead; ver. 4, D gives the gloss, απο Καρυωτου for Ισκαριωτης; ver. 13, spells thus,—'ωσσανα; besides constant inaccuracies, in which it is followed by none. [Symbol: Aleph] omits nineteen words in the first thirty-two verses of the chapter, besides adding eight and making other alterations. B is far from being accurate.

[410]'Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of My burying' (Alford). But howcouldshe keep it after she had poured it all out?—'Suffer her to have kept it against the day of My preparation unto burial' (McClellan). But 'ινα τηρηση could hardly mean that: and the day of His ενταφιασμος had not yet arrived.

[411]Consider ii. 11 and xi. 40: St. Luke xiii. 17: Heb. i. 3.

[412]Consider v. 36 and iv. 34.

[413]Consider St. John xix. 30. Cf. St. Luke xxii. 37.

[414]Lewis, 'and the work I have perfected': Harkleian, 'because the work,' &c., 'because' being obelized.

[415]The Bohairic and Ethiopic are hostile.

[416]i. 245 (= Constt. App. viii. 1;ap.Galland. iii. 199).

[417]P. 419.

[418]Mcell p. 157.

[419]i. 534.

[420]ii. 196, 238: iii. 39.

[421]v. 256: viii. 475bis.

[422]iii. 542: iv. 954: v1. 599, 601, 614: v2. 152.—In the following places Cyril shews himself acquainted with the other reading,—iv. 879: v1. 167, 366: vi. 124.

[423]Polyc. frg. v (ed. Jacobson).

[424]Ps.-Ignat. 328.

[425]Ap.Gall. iii. 215.

[426]P. 285.

[427]ii. 545.

[428]Pp. 510, 816, 1008. Butopere constummato, pp. 812, 815.—Jerome also once (iv. 563) hasopere completo.

[429]Ap.Gall. v. 135.

[430]P. 367.

[431]Ap.Gall. iii. 308.

[432]Ap.Aug. viii. 622.

[433]iii2. 761: viii. 640.

[434]v. 1166.

[435]Ibid. 1165 g, 1166 a.

[436]Though the Bohairic, Gothic, Vulgate, and Ethiopic versions are disfigured in the same way, and the Lewis reads 'is.'

[437]Theoph. 216 note: 'ως κινδυνευειν αυτα βυθισθηναι.

[438]Cod. Amiat.

[439]g,—at Stockholm.

[440]Stephanus De Urbibus in voc. Βεροια.

The Corruptions of the Sacred Text which we have been hitherto considering, however diverse the causes from which they may have resulted, have yet all agreed in this: viz. that they have all been of a lawful nature. My meaning is, that apparently, at no stage of the business has there beenmala fidesin any quarter. We are prepared to make the utmost allowance for careless, even for licentious transcription; and we can invent excuses for the mistaken zeal, the officiousness if men prefer to call it so, which has occasionally not scrupled to adopt conjectural emendations of the Text. To be brief, so long as an honest reason is discoverable for a corrupt reading, we gladly adopt the plea. It has been shewn with sufficient clearness, I trust, in the course of the foregoing chapters, that the number of distinct causes to which various readings may reasonably be attributed is even extraordinary.

But there remains after all an alarmingly large assortment of textual perturbations which absolutely refuse to fall under any of the heads of classification already enumerated. They are not to be accounted for on any ordinary principle. And this residuum of cases it is,which occasions our present embarrassment. They are in truth so exceedingly numerous; they are often so very considerable; they are, as a rule, so very licentious; they transgress to such an extent all regulations; they usurp so persistently the office of truth and faithfulness, that we really know not what to think about them. Sometimes we are presented with gross interpolations,—apocryphal stories: more often with systematic lacerations of the text, or transformations as from an angel of light.

We are constrained to inquire, How all this can possibly have come about? Have there even been persons who made it their business of set purpose to corrupt the [sacred deposit of Holy Scripture entrusted to the Church for the perpetual illumination of all ages till the Lord should come?]

At this stage of the inquiry, we are reminded that it is even notorious that in the earliest age of all, the New Testament Scriptures were subjected to such influences. In the age which immediately succeeded the Apostolic there were heretical teachers not a few, who finding their tenets refuted by the plain Word ofGodbent themselves against the written Word with all their power. From seeking to evacuate its teaching, it was but a single step to seeking to falsify its testimony. Profane literature has never been exposed to such hostility. I make the remark in order also to remind the reader of one more point of [dissimilarity between the two classes of writings. The inestimable value of the New Testament entailed greater dangers, as well as secured superior safeguards. Strange, that a later age should try to discard the latter].

It is found therefore that Satan could not even wait for the grave to close over St. John. 'Many' there were already who taught thatChristhad not come in the flesh. Gnosticism was in the world already. St. Pauldenounces it by name[441], and significantly condemns the wild fancies of its professors, their dangerous speculations as well as their absurd figments. Thus he predicts and condemns[442]their pestilential teaching in respect of meats and drinks and concerning matrimony. In his Epistle to Timothy[443]he relates that Hymeneus and Philetus taught that the Resurrection was past already. What wonder if a flood of impious teaching broke loose on the Church when the last of the Apostles had been gathered in, and another generation of men had arisen, and the age of Miracles was found to be departing if it had not already departed, and the loftiest boast which any could make was that they had known those who had [seen and heard the Apostles of the Lord].

The 'grievous wolves' whose assaults St. Paul predicted as imminent, and against which he warned the heads of the Ephesian Church[444], did not long 'spare the flock.' Already, while St. John was yet alive, had the Nicolaitans developed their teaching at Ephesus[445]and in the neighbouring Church of Pergamos[446]. Our risenLordin glory announced to His servant John that in the latter city Satan had established his dwelling-place[447]. Nay, while those awful words were being spoken to the Seer of Patmos, the men were already born who first dared to lay their impious hands on the Gospel ofChrist.

No sooner do we find ourselves out of Apostolic times and among monuments of the primitive age than we are made aware that the sacred text must have been exposed at that very early period to disturbing influences which, on no ordinary principles, can be explained. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria,—among theFathers: some Old Latin MSS.[448]the Bohairic and Sahidic, and coming later on, the Curetonian and Lewis,—among the Versions: of the copies Codd. B and [Symbol: Aleph]: and above all, coming later down still, Cod. D:—these venerable monuments of a primitive age occasionally present us with deformities which it is worse than useless to extenuate,—quite impossible to overlook. Unauthorized appendixes,—tasteless and stupid amplifications,—plain perversions of the meaning of the Evangelists,—wholly gratuitous assimilations of one Gospel to another,—the unprovoked omission of passages of profound interest and not unfrequently of high doctrinal import:—How are such phenomena as these to be accounted for? Again, in one quarter, we light upon a systematic mutilation of the text so extraordinary that it is as if some one had amused himself by running his pen through every clause which was not absolutely necessary to the intelligibleness of what remained. In another quarter we encounter the thrusting in of fabulous stories and apocryphal sayings which disfigure as well as encumber the text.—How will any one explain all this?

Let me however at the risk of repeating what has been already said dispose at once of an uneasy suspicion which is pretty sure to suggest itself to a person of intelligence after reading what goes before. If the most primitive witnesses to our hand are indeed discovered to bear false witness to the text of Scripture,—whither are we to betake ourselves for the Truth? And what security can we hope ever to enjoy that any given exhibition of the text of Scripture is the true one? Are we then to be told that in this subject-matter the maxim 'id verius quod prius' does not hold? that the stream instead of getting purer as we approach the fountain head, on the contrary grows more and more corrupt?

Nothing of the sort, I answer. The direct reverse is the case. Our appeal is always made to antiquity; and it is nothing else but a truism to assert that the oldest reading is also the best. A very few words will make this matter clear; because a very few words will suffice to explain a circumstance already adverted to which it is necessary to keep always before the eyes of the reader.

The characteristic note, the one distinguishing feature, of all the monstrous and palpable perversions of the text of Scripture just now under consideration is this:—that they are never vouched for by the oldest documents generally, but only by a few of them,—two, three, or more of the oldest documents being observed as a rule to yield conflicting testimony, (which in this subject-matter is in fact contradictory). In this way the oldest witnesses nearly always refute one another, and indeed dispose of one another's evidence almost as often as that evidence is untrustworthy. And now I may resume and proceed.

I say then that it is an adequate, as well as a singularly satisfactory explanation of the greater part of those gross depravations of Scripture which admit of no legitimate excuse, to attribute them, however remotely, to those licentious free-handlers of the text who are declared by their contemporaries to have falsified, mutilated, interpolated, and in whatever other way to have corrupted the Gospel; whose blasphemous productions of necessity must once have obtained a very wide circulation: and indeed will never want some to recommend and uphold them. What with those who like Basilides and his followers invented a Gospel of their own:—what with those who with the Ebionites and the Valentinians interpolated and otherwise perverted one of the four Gospels until it suited their own purposes:—what with those who like Marcion shamefully maimed and mutilated the inspired text:—there must have been a large mass of corruptionfestering in the Church throughout the immediate post-Apostolic age. But even this is not all. There were those who like Tatian constructed Diatessarons, or attempts to weave the fourfold narrative into one,—'Lives ofChrist,' so to speak;—and productions of this class were multiplied to an extraordinary extent, and as we certainly know, not only found their way into the remotest corners of the Church, but established themselves there. And will any one affect surprise if occasionally a curious scholar of those days was imposed upon by the confident assurance that by no means were those many sources of light to be indiscriminately rejected, but that there must be some truth in what they advanced? In a singularly uncritical age, the seductive simplicity of one reading,—the interesting fullness of another,—the plausibility of a thirds—was quite sure to recommend its acceptance amongst those many eclectic recensions which were constructed by long since forgotten Critics, from which the most depraved and worthless of our existing texts and versions have been derived. Emphatically condemned by Ecclesiastical authority, and hopelessly outvoted by the universal voice of Christendom, buried under fifteen centuries, the corruptions I speak of survive at the present day chiefly in that little handful of copies which, calamitous to relate, the school of Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles look upon as oracular: and in conformity with which many scholars are for refashioning the Evangelical text under the mistaken title of 'Old Readings.' And now to proceed with my argument.

Numerous as were the heresies of the first two or three centuries of the Christian era, they almost all agreed in this;—that they involved a denial of the eternal Godheadof theSonof Man: denied that He is essentially very and eternalGod. This fundamental heresy found itself hopelessly confuted by the whole tenor of the Gospel, which nevertheless it assailed with restless ingenuity: and many are the traces alike of its impotence and of its malice which have survived to our own times. It is a memorable circumstance that it is precisely those very texts which relate either to the eternal generation of theSon,—to His Incarnation,—or to the circumstances of His Nativity,—which have suffered most severely, and retain to this hour traces of having been in various ways tampered with. I do not say that Heretics were the only offenders here. I am inclined to suspect that the orthodox were as much to blame as the impugners of the Truth. But it was at least with a pious motive that the latter tampered with the Deposit. They did but imitate the example set them by the assailing party. It is indeed the calamitous consequence of extravagances in one direction that they are observed ever to beget excesses in the opposite quarter. Accordingly the piety of the primitive age did not think it wrong to fortify the Truth by the insertion, suppression, or substitution of a few words in any place from which danger was apprehended. In this way, I am persuaded, many an unwarrantable 'reading' is to be explained. I do not mean that 'marginal glosses have frequently found their way into the text':—that points to a wholly improbable account of the matter. I mean, that expressions which seemed to countenance heretical notions, or at least which had been made a bad use of by evil men, were deliberately falsified. But I must not further anticipate the substance of the next chapter.

The men who first systematically depraved the text of Scripture, were as we now must know the heresiarchs Basilides (fl. 134), Valentinus (fl. 140), and Marcion (fl. 150): three names which Origen is observed almostinvariably to enumerate together. Basilides[449]and Valentinus[450]are even said to have written Gospels of their own. Such a statement is not to be severely pressed: but the general fact is established by the notices, and those are exceedingly abundant, which the writers against Heresies have cited and left on record. All that is intended by such statements is that these old heretics retained, altered, transposed, just so much as they pleased of the fourfold Gospel: and further, that they imported whatever additional matter they saw fit:—not that they rejected the inspired text entirely, and substituted something of their own invention in its place[451]. And though, in the case of Valentinus, it has been contended, apparently with reason, that he probably did not individually go to the same length as Basilides,—who, as well in respect of St. Paul's Epistles as of the four Gospels, was evidently a grievous offender[452],—yet, since it is clear that his principal followers, who were also his contemporaries, put forth a composition which they were pleased to style the 'Gospel of Truth[453],' it is idle to dispute as to the limit of therashness and impiety of the individual author of the heresy. Let it be further stated, as no slight confirmation of the view already hazarded as to the probable contents of the (so-called) Gospels of Basilides and of Valentinus, that one particular Gospel is related to have been preferred before the rest and specially adopted by certain schools of ancient Heretics. Thus, a strangely mutilated and depraved text of St. Matthew's Gospel is related to have found especial favour with the Ebionites[454], with whom the Corinthians are associated by Epiphanius: though Irenaeus seems to say that it was St. Mark's Gospel which was adopted by the heretical followers of Cerinthus. Marcion's deliberate choice of St. Luke's Gospel is sufficiently well known. The Valentinians appropriated to themselves St. John[455]. Heracleon, the most distinguished disciple of this school, is deliberately censured by Origen for having corrupted the text of the fourth Evangelist in many places[456]. A considerable portion of his Commentary on St. John has been preserved to us: and a very strange production it is found to have been.

Concerning Marcion, who is a far more conspicuous personage, it will be necessary to speak more particularly. He has left a mark on the text of Scripture of which traces are distinctly recognizable at the present day[457]. A great deal more is known about him than about any other individual of his school. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus wrote against him: besides Origen and Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian in the West[458], and Epiphanius in the East, elaborately refuted his teaching, and give us large information as to his method of handling Scripture.

Another writer of this remote time who, as I am prone to think, must have exercised sensible influence on the text of Scripture was Ammonius of Alexandria.

But Tatian beyond every other early writer of antiquity [appears to me to have caused alterations in the Sacred Text.]

It is obviously no answer to anything that has gone before to insist that the Evangelium of Marcion (for instance), so far as it is recognizable by the notices of it given by Epiphanius, can very rarely indeed be shewn to have resembled any extant MS. of the Gospels. Let it be even freely granted that many of the charges brought against it by Epiphanius with so much warmth, collapse when closely examined and severely sifted. It is to be remembered that Marcion's Gospel was known to be an heretical production: one of the many creations of the Gnostic age,—it must have been universally execrated and abhorred by faithful men. Besides this lacerated text of St. Luke's Gospel, there was an Ebionite recension ofSt. Matthew: a Cerinthian exhibition of St. Mark: a Valentinian perversion of St. John. And we are but insisting that the effect of so many corruptions of the Truth, industriously propagated within far less than 100 years of the date of the inspired verities themselves, must needs have made itself sensibly felt. Add the notorious fact, that in the second and third centuries after the Christian era the text of the Gospels is found to have been grossly corrupted even in orthodox quarters,—and that traces of these gross corruptions are discoverable in certain circles to the present hour,—and it seems impossible not to connect the two phenomena together. The wonder rather is that, at the end of so many centuries, we are able distinctly to recognize any evidence whatever.

The proneness of these early Heretics severally to adopt one of the four Gospels for their own, explains why there is no consistency observable in the corruptions they introduced into the text. It also explains the bringing into one Gospel of things which of right clearly belong to another—as in St. Mark iii. 14 ους και αποστολους ωνομασεν.

I do not propose (as will presently appear) in this way to explain any considerable number of the actual corruptions of the text: but in no other way is it possible to account for such systematic mutilations as are found in Cod. B,—such monstrous additions as are found in Cod. D,—such gross perturbations as are continually met with in one or more, but never in all, of the earliest Codexes extant, as well as in the oldest Versions and Fathers.

The plan of Tatian's Diatessaron will account for a great deal. He indulges in frigid glosses, as when about the wine at the feast of Cana in Galilee he reads that the servants knew 'because they had drawn the water'; or in tasteless and stupid amplifications, as in the going back of the Centurion to his house. I suspect that the τι με ερωτας περι του αγαθου,'Why do you ask me about that which is good?' is to be referred to some of these tamperers with the Divine Word.

These professors of 'Gnosticism' held no consistent theory. The two leading problems on which they exercised their perverse ingenuity are found to have been (1) the origin of Matter, and (2) the origin of Evil.

(1) They taught that the world's artificer ('the Word') was Himself a creature of 'the Father[459].' Encountered on the threshold of the Gospel by the plain declaration that, 'In the beginning was theWord: and theWordwas withGod: and theWordwasGod': and presently, 'All things were made by Him';—they were much exercised. The expedients to which they had recourse were certainly extraordinary. That 'Beginning' (said Valentinus) was the first thing which 'theFather' created: which He called 'Only begottenSon,' and also 'God': and in whom he implanted the germ of all things. Seminally, that is, whatsoever subsequently came into being was in Him. 'The Word' (he said) was a product of this first-created thing. And 'All things were made by Him,' because in 'the Word' was the entire essence of all the subsequent worlds (Aeons), to which he assigned forms[460]. From which it is plain that, according to Valentinus, 'theWord' was distinct from 'theSon'; who was not the world's Creator. Both alike, however, he acknowledged to be 'God[461]': but only, as we have seen already, using the term in an inferior sense.

Heracleon, commenting on St. John i. 3, insists that 'all things' can but signify this perishable world and the things that are therein: not essences of a loftier nature. Accordingly, after the words 'and without Him was not anything made,' he ventures to interpolate this clause,—'of the things that are in the world and in the creation[462].' True, that the Evangelist had declared with unmistakable emphasis, 'and without Him was not anything' (literally, 'was not even one thing') 'made that was made.' But instead of 'not even one thing,' the Valentinian Gnostics appear to have written 'nothing[463]'; and the concluding clause 'that was made,' because he found it simply unmanageable, Valentinus boldly severed from its context, making it the beginning of a fresh sentence. With the Gnostics, ver. 4 is found to have begun thus,—'What was made in Him was life.'

Of the change of ουδε 'εν into ουδεν[464]traces survive in many of the Fathers[465]: but [Symbol: Aleph] and D are the only Uncial MSS. which are known to retain that corrupt reading.—The uncouth sentence which follows ('ο γεγονεν εν αυτω ζωη ην), singularto relate, was generally tolerated, became established in many quarters, and meets us still at every step. It was evidently put forward so perseveringly by the Gnostics, with whom it was a kind of article of the faith, that the orthodox at last became too familiar with it. Epiphanius, though he condemns it, once employs it[466]. Occurring first in a fragment of Valentinus[467]: next, in the Commentary of Heracleon[468]: after that, in the pages of Theodotus the Gnostic (A.D.192)[469]: then, in an exposure by Hippolytus of the tenets of the Naäseni[470], (a subsection of the same school);—the baseness of its origin at least is undeniable. But inasmuch as the words may be made to bear a loyal interpretation, the heretical construction of St. John i. 3 was endured by the Church for full 200 years. Clemens Alex, is observed thrice to adopt it[471]: Origen[472]and Eusebius[473]fall into it repeatedly. It is found in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]CD: apparently in Cod. A, where it fills one line exactly. Cyril comments largely on it[474]. But as fresh heresies arose which the depraved text seemed to favour, the Church bestirred herself and remonstrated. It suited the Arians and the Macedonians[475], who insisted that theHoly Ghostis a creature. The former were refuted by Epiphanius, who points out that the sense is not complete until you have read the words 'ο γεγονεν. A fresh sentence (he says) begins at Εν αυτω ζωη ην[476]. Chrysostom deals with the latter. 'Let us beware of putting the full stop' (he says) 'at the words ουδε 'εν,—as do the heretics. In order to make out that theSpiritis a creature, they read 'ο γεγονεν εν αυτω ζωη ην: by which means the Evangelist's meaning becomes unintelligible[477].'

But in the meantime, Valentinus, whose example was followed by Theodotus and by at least two of the Gnostic sects against whom Hippolytus wrote, had gone further. The better to conceal St. John's purpose, the heresiarch falsified the inspired text. In the place of, 'What was made in Him, was life,' he substituted 'What was made in Him,islife.' Origen had seen copies so depraved, and judged the reading not altogether improbable. Clement, on a single occasion, even adopted it. It was the approved reading of the Old Latin versions,—a memorable indication, by the way, of a quarter from which the Old Latin derived their texts,—which explains why it is found in Cyprian, Hilary, and Augustine; and why Ambrose has so elaborately vindicated its sufficiency. It also appears in the Sahidic and in Cureton's Syriac; but not in the Peshitto, nor in the Vulgate. [Nor in the Bohairic] In the meantime, the only Greek Codexes which retain this singular trace of the Gnostic period at the present day, are Codexes [Symbol: Aleph] and D.

[We may now take some more instances to shew the effects of the operations of Heretics.]

The good Shepherd in a certain place (St. John x. 14, 15) says concerning Himself—'I know My sheep and am known of Mine, even as theFatherknoweth Me and I know theFather': by which words He hints at a mysterious knowledge as subsisting between Himself and those that are His. And yet it is worth observing that whereas He describes the knowledge which subsists between theFatherand theSonin language which implies that it is strictly identical on either side, He is careful to distinguish between the knowledge which subsists between the creature and theCreatorby slightly varying the expression,—thus leaving it to be inferred that it is not, neither indeed can be, on either side the same.Godknoweth us with a perfect knowledge. Our so-called 'knowledge' ofGodis a thing different not only in degree, but in kind[478]. Hence the peculiar form which the sentence assumes[479]:—γινωσκω τα εμα, και γινωσκομαι 'υπο των εμων. And this delicate diversity of phrase has been faithfully retained all down the ages, being witnessed to at this hour by every MS. in existence except four now well known to us: viz. [Symbol: Aleph]BDL. The Syriac also retains it,—as does Macarius[480], Gregory Naz.[481], Chrysostom[482], Cyril[483], Theodoret[484], Maximus[485]. It is a point which really admits of no rational doubt: for does any one suppose that if St. John had written 'Mine own know Me,' 996 MSS. out of 1000 at the end of 1,800 years would exhibit, 'I am known of Mine'?

But in fact it is discovered that these words of ourLordexperienced depravation at the hands of the Manichaeanheretics. Besides inverting the clauses, (and so making it appear that such knowledge begins on the side of Man.) Manes (A.D.261) obliterated the peculiarity above indicated. Quoting from his own fabricated Gospel, he acquaints us with the form in which these words were exhibited in that mischievous production: viz. γινωσκει με τα εμα, και γινωσκω τα εμα. This we learn from Epiphanius and from Basil[486]. Cyril, in a paper where he makes clear reference to the same heretical Gospel, insists that the order of knowledge must needs be the reverse of what the heretics pretended[487].—But then, it is found that certain of the orthodox contented themselves with merely reversing the clauses, and so restoring the true order of the spiritual process discussed—regardless of the exquisite refinement of expression to which attention was called at the outset. Copies must once have abounded which represented ourLordas saying, 'I know My own and My own know Me, even as theFatherknoweth Me and I know theFather'; for it is the order of the Old Latin, Bohairic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Lewis, Georgian, Slavonic, and Gothic, though not of the Peshitto, Harkleian, and Armenian; and Eusebius[488], Nonnus, and even Basil[489]so read the place. But no token of this clearly corrupt reading survives in any known copy of theGospels,—except [Symbol: Aleph]BDL. Will it be believed that nevertheless all the recent Editors of Scripture since Lachmann insist on obliterating this refinement of language, and going back to the reading which the Church has long since deliberately rejected,—to the manifest injury of the deposit? 'Many words about a trifle,'—some will be found to say. Yes, to denyGod'struth is a very facile proceeding. Its rehabilitation always requires many words. I request only that the affinity between [Symbol: Aleph]BDL and the Latin copies which universally exhibit this disfigurement[490], may be carefully noted. [Strange to say, the true reading receives no notice from Westcott and Hort, or the Revisers[491]].

The question of Matrimony was one of those on which the early heretics freely dogmatized. Saturninus[492](A.D.120) and his followers taught that marriage was a production of Hell.

We are not surprised after this to find that those places in the Gospel which bear on the relation between man and wife exhibit traces of perturbation. I am not asserting that the heretics themselves depraved the text. I do but state two plain facts: viz. (1) That whereas in the second century certain heretical tenets on the subject of Marriage prevailed largely, and those who advocated as well as those who opposed such teaching relied chiefly on the Gospel for their proofs: (2) It is accordingly found that not only does the phenomenon of 'various readings' prevail in thoseplaces of the Gospel which bear most nearly on the disputed points, but the 'readings' are exactly of that suspicious kind which would naturally result from a tampering with the text by men who had to maintain, or else to combat, opinions of a certain class. I proceed to establish what I have been saying by some actual examples[493].

Back to Index Next