CRITICISM OF SELECT PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
In applying to the revision of the sacred text the diplomatic materials
and critical principles it has been the purpose of the preceding pages to
describe, we have selected the few passages we have room to examine,
chiefly in consideration of their actual importance, occasionally also
with the design of illustrating by pertinent examples the canons of
internal evidence and the laws of Comparative Criticism. It will be
convenient to discuss these passages in the order they occupy in the
volume of the New Testament: that which stands first affords a conspicuous
instance of undue and misplaced _subjectivity_.
First Series. Gospels.
1. MATT. i. 18. Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ... is altered by Tregelles into Τοῦ
δὲ Χριστοῦ, Ἰησοῦ being omitted: Westcott and Hort place Ἰησοῦ between
brackets, and Τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ of Cod. B in the margin: Tischendorf,
who had rejected Ἰησοῦ in his fifth and seventh editions, restored it in
his eighth. Michaelis had objected to the term τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Acts
viii. 37 (see that verse, to be examined below), on the ground that “In
the time of the Apostles the word Christ was never used as the Proper Name
of a Person, but as an epithet expressive of the ministry of Jesus;” and
although Bp. Middleton has abundantly proved his statement incorrect
(Doctrine of the Greek Article, note on Mark ix. 41), and Ἰησοῦς
Χριστός(335), especially in some one of the oblique cases after
prepositions, is very common, yet the precise form ὁ Ἰησοῦς Χριστός occurs
only in these places and in 1 John iv. 3; Apoc. xii. 17, where again the
reading is more than doubtful. Hence, apparently, the determination to
change the common text in St. Matthew, on evidence however slight. Now
Ἰησοῦ is omitted _in no Greek manuscript whatsoever_(336). The Latin
version of Cod. D (_d_) indeed rejects it, the parallel Greek being lost;
but since _d_ sometimes agrees with other Latin copies against its own
Greek, it cannot be deemed quite certain that the Greek rejected it
also(337). Cod. B reads τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, in support of which Lachmann
cites Origen, iii. 965 _d_ in the Latin, but on very precarious grounds,
as Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 189, note †) candidly
admits. Tischendorf quotes Cod. 74 (after Wetstein), the Persic (of the
Polyglott and in manuscript), and Maximus, Dial. de Trinitate, for τοῦ δὲ
ἰησοῦ. The real testimony in favour of τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ consists of the Old
Latin copies _a_ _b_ _c_ _d_ _f_ _ff_1, the Curetonian Syriac (I know not
why Cureton should add “the Peshitto”), the Latin Vulgate, the Frankish
and Anglo-Saxon, Wheelocke’s Persic, and Irenaeus in three places, “who
(after having previously cited the words ‘_Christi autem generatio sic
erat_’) continues ‘Ceterum potuerat dicere Matthaeus, _Jesu vero generatio
sic erat_; sed praevidens Spiritus Sanctus depravatores, et praemuniens
contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthaeum ait: _Christi autem generatio
sic erat_’ (Contra Haeres., lib. iii. 16. 2). This is given in proof that
Jesus and Christ are one and the same Person, and that Jesus cannot be
said to be the receptacle that afterwards received Christ; for _the Christ
was born_” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 188). To this most meagre
list of authorities Scholz adds, “Pseudo-Theophil. in Evang.,” manuscripts
of Theophylact, Augustine, and one or two of little account: but even in
Irenaeus (Harvey, vol. ii. p. 48) τοῦ δὲ _ιυ_ _χυ_ (_tacitè_), as
preserved by Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople [viii], stands over
against the Latin “Christi.”
We do not deny the importance of Irenaeus’ express testimony(338) (a
little impaired though it be by the fanciful distinction which he had
taken up with), had it been supported by something more trustworthy than
the Old Latin versions and their constant associate, the Curetonian
Syriac. On the other hand, all uncial and cursive codices
(אCΣEKLMPSUVZΓΔΠ: ADFGΦ &c. being defective here), the Syriac of the
Peshitto, Harkleian, and Jerusalem (δέ only being omitted, since the
Church Lesson begins here), the Sahidic, Bohairic, Armenian, and Ethiopic
versions, Tatian, Irenaeus, Origen (in the Greek), Eusebius, Didymus,
Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and the younger Cyril, comprise a body of proof,
not to be shaken by subjective notions, or even by Western evidence from
the second century downwards(339).
2. MATT. vi. 13. ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς
τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν. It is right to say that I can no longer regard this
doxology as _certainly_ an integral part of St. Matthew’s Gospel: but
(notwithstanding its rejection by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Westcott and Hort) I am not yet absolutely convinced of its spuriousness
[i.e. upon much less evidence than is now adduced]. It is wanting in the
oldest uncials extant, אBDZ, and since ACP (whose general character would
lead us to look for support to the Received text in such a case) are
unfortunately deficient here, the burden of the defence is thrown on Φ and
Σ and the later uncials EGKLMSUVWfΔΠ (_hiat_ Γ), whereof L is conspicuous
for usually siding with B. Of the cursives only _five_ are known to omit
the clause, l, 17 (_habet_ ἀμήν), 118, 130, 209, but 566 or hscr (and as
it would seem some others) has it obelized in the margin, while the
scholia in certain other copies indicate that it is doubtful: even 33
contains it, 69 being defective, while 157, 225, 418 add to δόξα, τοῦ
πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, but 422 τοῦ _πρσ_ only.
Versions have much influence on such a question, it is therefore important
to notice that it is found in all the four Syriac (Cureton’s omitting καὶ
ἡ δύναμις, and some editions of the Peshitto ἀμήν, which is in _at least_
one manuscript), the Sahidic (omitting καὶ ἡ δόξα), the Ethiopic,
Armenian, Gothic, Slavonic, Georgian, Erpenius’ Arabic, the Persic of the
Polyglott from Pococke’s manuscript, the margin of some Bohairic codices,
the Old Latin _k_ (quoniam est tibi virtus in saecula saeculorum), _f_
_g_1 (omitting _amen_) _q_. The doxology is not found in most Bohairic
(but is in the margin of Hunt. 17 or Bp. Lightfoot’s Cod. 1) and Arabic
manuscripts or editions, in Wheelocke’s Persic, in the Old Latin _a_ _b_
_c_ _ff_1 _g_1 _h_ _l_, in the Vulgate or its satellites the Anglo-Saxon
and Frankish (the Clementine Vulg. and Sax. add _amen_). Its absence from
the Latin avowedly caused the editors of the Complutensian N. T. to pass
it over, though it was found in their Greek copies: the earliest Latin
Fathers naturally did not cite what the Latin codices for the most part do
not contain. Among the Greeks it is met with in Isidore of Pelusium (412),
and in the Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions, probably of the fourth century:
soon afterwards Chrysostom (Hom. in Matt. xix. vol. i. p. 283, Field)
comments upon it without showing the least consciousness that its
authenticity was disputed. The silence of some writers, viz. Tertullian,
Cyprian, Origen, Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Maximus, especially
when expounding the Lord’s Prayer, may be partly accounted for by the fact
of the existence of the shorter form of the Lord’s Prayer as given in St.
Luke without the doxology; or upon the supposition that the doxology was
regarded not so much a portion of the Prayer itself, as a hymn of praise
annexed to it; yet this latter fact would be somewhat unfavourable to its
genuineness, and would be fatal unless we knew the precariousness of any
argument derived from such silence. The Fathers are constantly overlooking
the most obvious citations from Scripture, even where we should expect
them most, although, as we learn from other passages in their writings,
they were perfectly familiar with them. Internal evidence is not unevenly
balanced. It is probable that the doxology was interpolated from the
Liturgies, and the variation of reading renders this all the more likely;
it is just as probable that it was cast out of St. Matthew’s Gospel to
bring it into harmony with St. Luke’s (xi. 4): I cannot concede to Scholz
that it is “in interruption of the context,” for then the whole of ver. 13
would have to be cancelled (a remedy which no one proposes), and not
merely this concluding part of it.
It is vain to dissemble the pressure of the adverse case, though it ought
not to be looked upon as conclusive. The Διδαχή (with variation) and the
Syriac and Sahidic versions bring up the existence of the doxology to the
second century; the Apostolic Constitutions in the third; Ambrose,
Caesarius, Chrysostom, the Opus Imperfectum, Isidore, and perhaps
others(340), attest for it in the fourth; then come the Latin codices(341)
_f_ _g_1 _k_ _q_, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, and lastly Codd.
Φ and Σ of the fifth or sixth century, and the whole flood-tide of Greek
manuscripts from the eighth century downwards, including even L, 33, with
Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus in the eleventh and twelfth. Perhaps
it is not very wise “_quaerere quae habere non possumus_,” yet those who
are persuaded, from the well-ascertained affinities subsisting between
them, that ACP, or at least two out of the three, would have preserved a
reading sanctioned by the Peshitto, by Codd. _f_ _k_, by Chrysostom, and
by nearly all the later documents, may be excused for regarding the
indictment against the last clause of the Lord’s Prayer as hitherto
_unproven_, in Dr. Scrivener’s judgement passed upon much less than the
evidence in favour adduced above; and for supposing the genuineness of the
clause to be proved when the additional evidence is taken into
consideration.
3. MATT. xi. 19. The change of τέκνων of the Received text into ἔργων, as
made by Tischendorf, Tregelles (who retains τέκνων in his margin), by Hort
and Westcott, is quite destructive to the sense, so far as we can
perceive, for Jerome’s exposition (“Sapientia quippe non quaerit vocis
testimonium, sed operum”) could hardly satisfy any one but himself. The
reading ἔργων is supported by אB* (with τέκνων in the margin by the hand
B2), 124, the Peshitto Syriac (apparently; for all the older editions we
know punctuate ܠܒܕܘ (or ܘܕܒܠ) “doers,” not ܠܒܕܘ (or ܘܕܒܠ) “works”), the
Harkleian text (but not its margin), the Bohairic, some copies known to
Jerome, Armenian manuscripts, the Ethiopic (one MS. contains both forms),
and (after the Peshitto Syriac) the Persic of the Polyglott and its
codices. We can hardly question that the origin of the variation arose
from the difficulty on the part of translators and copyists to understand
the Hellenistic use of τέκνων in this place, and modern editors have been
tempted to accept it from a false suspicion that the present passage has
been assimilated to Luke vii. 35, where indeed Cod. א and St. Ambrose have
ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀυτῆς. As we have alleged that Jerome’s explanation
is unsatisfactory in St. Matthew’s Gospel, we subjoin that of Ambrose,
which is certainly no less obscure, on the parallel place of St. Luke:
“Bene _ab omnibus_ quia circa omnes justitia servatur, ut susceptio fiat
fidelium, rejectio perfidorum. Unde plerique Graeci sic habent:
_justificata est sapientia ab omnibus operibus suis_, quod opus justitiae
sit, circa uniuscujusque meritum servare mensuram.” In the face of the
language of these two great Latin Fathers it is remarkable that all other
Latin authorities agree with the Curetonian Syriac and the mass of Greek
manuscripts in upholding τέκνων, which is undoubtedly the only true
reading.
4. MATT. xvi. 2, 3. The whole passage from Ὀψίας ver. 2 to the end of ver.
3 is set within brackets by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, within
double brackets by Westcott and Hort, who holds (Notes, p. 13) that “both
documentary evidence and the impossibility of accounting for omission
prove these words to be no part of the text of Mt.” Yet it might seem
impossible for any one possessed of the slightest tincture of critical
instinct to read them thoughtfully without feeling assured that they were
actually spoken by the Lord on the occasion related in the Received text,
and were omitted by copyists whose climate the natural phenomena described
did not very well suit, the rather as they do not occur in the parallel
text, ch. xii. 38, 39. Under these circumstances, the internal evidence in
favour of the passage being thus clear and irresistible, the witnesses
against it are more likely to damage their own authority than to impair
our confidence in its genuineness. These witnesses are אBVXΓ, 2, 13, 34,
39, 44, 84, 124 _primâ manu_, 157, 180, 194, 258, 301, 511, 575. Cod. 482
has the words, but only in a later hand at the foot of the page
(Nicholson). Of these cursive codices 157 alone is of the first class for
importance, and the verses are explained in the scholia of X (for ver. 3)
and of 39. E and 606 have them with an asterisk; but they are wanting in
the Curetonian Syriac, the Bohairic according to Mill (but not so other
Coptic manuscripts and editions), and the Armenian, as unaltered from the
Latin. Origen passes them over in his commentary, and Jerome, in his
sweeping way, declares “hoc in plerisque codicibus non habetur.” They are
recognized in the Eusebian canons (Tregelles, An Account of the Printed
Text, p. 205).
The united testimony of אB and the Curetonian version suffices to show
that the omission was current as early as the second century, while the
accordance of CD, of all the Latins and the Peshitto, with the mass of
later codices assures us that the words were extant at the same early
date. If any one shall deem this a case best explained by the existence of
two separate recensions of the same work, one containing the disputed
sentences, the other derived from copies in which they had not yet been
inserted, he may find much encouragement for his conjecture by considering
certain passages in the latter part of St. Luke’s Gospel, where the same
sort of omissions, supported by a class of authorities quite different
from those we have to deal with here, occur too often to be merely
accidental.
5. MATT. xix. 17. For Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὁ
Θεός, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and
Hort read Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός. The self-same
words as in the Received text occur in the parallel places Mark x. 18,
Luke xviii. 19 with no variation worth speaking of; a fact which (so far
as it goes) certainly lends some support to the supposition that St.
Matthew’s autograph contained the other reading [?]. Add to this that any
change made from St. Matthew, _supposing the common reading to be true_,
must have been wilfully introduced by one who was offended at the doctrine
of the Divine Son’s inferiority to the Father which it seemed to assert or
imply. Internal evidence, therefore, would be a little in favour of the
alteration approved by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and the rest; and in
discussing external authority, their opponents are much hampered by the
accident that A is defective in this place, while א has recently been
added to the list of its supporters [though more recently Φ and Σ have
come into the opposite balance]. Under these circumstances we might have
been excused from noticing this passage at all, as we are no longer able
to uphold the Received text with the same confidence as before, but that
it seemed dishonest to suppress a case on which Tregelles (An Account of
the Printed Text, pp. 133-8) has laid great stress, and which, when the
drift of the internal evidence is duly allowed for, tells more in his
favour than any other he has alleged, or is likely to be met with
elsewhere(342).
The alternative reading Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ κ.τ.λ. occurs in אBD
(omitting τοῦ and ὁ) L, 1 (omitting ὁ), 22, 604. In 251 both readings are
given, the Received one first, in ver. 17, the other interpolated after
ποίας ver. 18, prefaced by ὁ δὲ ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ. Excepting these seven,
all other extant codices reject it, CEFGHKMSUVΓΔ (Γ omits τί με λέγεις
ἀγαθόν; Δ omits λέγεις, Π is defective here), even Codd. 33, 69. The
versions are more seriously divided. The Peshitto Syriac, the Harkleian
text, the Sahidic (Oxford fragments), the Old Latin _f_ _q_, the Arabic,
&c., make for the common reading; Cureton’s and the Jerusalem Syriac, the
Old Latin _a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_1.2 _l_, the Vulgate (the Anglo-Saxon and
Frankish, of course), Bohairic and Armenian, for that of Lachmann and his
followers. Several present a mixed form: τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ?
οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς: viz. the margin of the Harkleian, the Ethiopic,
and _g_1 _h_ _m_ of the Old Latin. A few (Cureton’s Syriac, _b_ _c_
_ff_1.2 _g_1 _h_ _l_ _m_, Jerome and the Vulgate) add ὁ θεός, as in the
common text; but this is unimportant.
Tregelles presses us hard with the testimony of Origen in favour of the
reading he adopts: ὁ μὲν οὖν Ματθαῖος, ὡς περὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἔργου ἐρωτηθέντος
τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐν τῷ, Τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω? ἀνέγραψεν. Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος καὶ Λουκᾶς
φασὶ τὸν σωτῆρα εἰρηκέναι, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἷς,
ὁ Θεός (Tom. iii. p. 644 _d_). “The reading which is _opposed_ to the
common text,” Tregelles writes, “has the express testimony of Origen in
its favour” (p. 134); “might I not well ask for some _proof_ that the
other reading existed, in the time of Origen, in copies of St. Matthew’s
Gospel?” (p. 137). I may say in answer, that the testimony of Origen
applies indeed to the former part of the variation which Tregelles
maintains (τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ), but not at all to the latter
(εἷς ἐστιν ὁ αγαθός), and that the Peshitto Syriac version of the second,
as also the Sahidic of the third century, uphold the common text, without
any variation in the manuscripts of the former, that we know of. Or if he
asks for the evidence of Fathers to counterbalance that of a Father, we
have Justin Martyr: προσελθόντος αὐτῷ τινὸς καὶ εἰπόντος (words which
show, as Tischendorf observes, that St. Matthew’s is the only Gospel that
can be referred to) Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ
μόνος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα, citing loosely, as is usual with him, but
not ambiguously. Or if half the variation will satisfy, as it was made to
do for Origen, Tregelles’ own note refers us to Irenaeus 92 for τί με
λέγεις ἀγαθόν? εἷς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, and to Eusebius for the other half in the
form above quoted from the Ethiopic, &c. Moreover, since he cites the last
five words of the subjoined extract _as belonging to St. Matthew_,
Tregelles entitles us to employ for our purpose the whole passage, Marcos.
apud Iren. 92, which we might not otherwise have ventured to do; καὶ τῷ
εἰπόντι αὐτῷ Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τὸν ἀληθῶς ἀγαθὸν θεὸν ὡμολογηκέναι, εἰπόντα
Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν? εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Jerome
and Augustine (for the first clause only, though very expressly: de
Consensu Evan. ii. 63) are with the Latin Vulgate, Hilary with the common
Greek text, as are also Optatus, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and the main body of
later Fathers. Thus the great mass of manuscripts, headed by C [followed
by Φ and Σ], is well supported by versions, and even better by
ecclesiastical writers; yet, in virtue of the weight of internal evidence
[?], we dare not hold out unreservedly against the reading of BDL, &c.,
now that Cod. א is found to agree with them, even though subsequent
investigations have brought to light so close a relation between א and B
as to render it impossible, in our opinion, to regard them as independent
witnesses(343).
6. MATT. xx. 28. The extensive interpolation which follows this verse in
some very ancient documents has been given above (I. 8), in the form
represented in the Curetonian Syriac version. It bears the internal marks
of evident spuriousness, the first sentence consisting of a rhetorical
antithesis as unsuitable as can be imagined to the majestic simplicity of
our Lord’s usual tone, while the sentiment of the rest is manifestly
borrowed from Luke xiv. 8-10, although there is little or no resemblance
in the words. The only extant Greek for the passage is in Codd. Φ and D,
of which D gives the fullest text, as follows: ὑμεις δε ζητειτε; εκ
μεικρου αυξησαι και εκ μειζονος ελαττον ειναι Εισερχομενοι δε και
παρακληθεντες δειπνησαι; μη ανακλεινεσθαι εις τους εξεχοντας τοπους μη
ποτε ενδοξοτερος σου επελθη και προσελθων ο δειπνοκλητωρ ειπη σοι ετι κατω
χωρει; και καταισχυνθηση Εαν δε αναπεσης; εις τον ηττονα τοπον και επελθη
σου ηττων ερει σοι ο δειπνοκλητωρ; συναγε ετι ανω και εσται σοι τουτο
χρησιμον. The codices of the Old Latin version (_a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_1.2
_h_ _n_ and _and._ _em._ of the Vulgate(344)) mostly support the same
addition, though with many variations: _d_, as usual, agrees with none;
_g_2has not the first clause down to εἶναι, while _g_1 _m_ have nothing
else. Besides the Curetonian Syriac, the margin of the Harkleian contains
it in a shape much like _d_, noting that the paragraph is “found in Greek
copies in this place, but in ancient copies only in St. Luke, κεφ. 53”
[ch. xiv. 8, &c.]: Cureton has also seen it in one manuscript of the
Peshitto (Brit. Mus. 14,456), but there too in the margin. Marshall states
that it is contained in four codices of the Anglo-Saxon version, which
proves its wide reception in the West. Of the Fathers, Hilary recognizes
it, as apparently do Juvencus and Pope Leo the Great (A.D. 440-461). It
must have been rejected by Jerome, being entirely absent from the great
mass of Vulgate codices, nor is it in the Old Latin, _f_ _l_ _q_. No other
Greek codex, or version, or ecclesiastical writer, has any knowledge of
the passage: while the whole language of the Greek of Cod. D, especially
in such words as δειπνοκλήτωρ, ἐξέχοντας, ἥττων, χρήσιμος, is so foreign
to the style of St. Matthew’s Gospel, that it seems rather to have been
rendered from the Latin(345), although in the midst of so much variation
it is hard to say from what copy. Cureton too testifies that the Syriac of
the version named from him must have been made quite independently of that
in the margins of the Harkleian and Peshitto.
No one has hitherto ventured to regard this paragraph as genuine, however
perplexing it may be to decide at what period or even in what language it
originated. The wide divergences between the witnesses must always dismiss
it from serious consideration. Its chief critical use must be to show that
the united testimony of the Old Latin, of the Curetonian Syriac, and of
Cod. D, are quite insufficient in themselves to prove any more than that
the reading they exhibit is ancient: certainly as ancient as the second
century.
7. MATT. xxi. 28-31. This passage, so transparently clear in the common
text, stands thus in the edition of Tregelles: (28) Τί δὲ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ?
ἄνθρωπος εἶχεν τέκνα δύο, καὶ προσελθὼν τῷ πρώτῳ εἶπεν, Τέκνον, ὕπαγε
σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι. (29) ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Οὐ θέλω;
ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν. (30) προσελθὼν δὲ τῷ δευτέρῳ εἶπεν
ὡσαύτως. ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Ἐγώ, κύριε; καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν. (31) τίς ἐκ
τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός? λέγουσιν, Ὁ ὕστερος. The above is
indeed a brilliant exemplification of Bengel’s Canon, “Proclivi orationi
praestat ardua.” Lachmann in 1842 had given the same reading, with a few
slight and unimportant exceptions. The question is proposed which of the
two sons did their father’s will; the reply is ὁ ὕστερος, the one that
promised and then failed! Lachmann in 1850 (N. T., vol. ii. Praef. p. 5)
remarks that had he been sure that πρῶτος (ver. 31) was the reading of
Cod. C, he should have honoured it, _the only word that makes sense_, with
a place in his margin: “Nihilo minus,” he naïvely adds, “id quod nunc
solum edidi ... ὁ ὕστερος veri similius est altero, quod facile aliquis
correctori adscribat, illud non item;” and we must fairly confess that no
copyist would have sought to introduce a plain absurdity into so beautiful
and simple a parable. “Quid vero,” he goes on to plead, “si id quod veri
similius esse dixi ne intellegi quidem potest?” (a pertinent question
certainly) “CORRIGETUR, SI MODO NECESSE ERIT:” critical conjecture, as
usual, is his panacea. Conjecture, however, is justly held inadmissible by
Tregelles, whose mode of interpretation is a curiosity in its way. “I
believe,” he says, “that ὁ ὕστερος refers not to the order in which the
two sons have been mentioned, but to the previous expression about the
elder son, ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν, _afterwards_ he repented and
went.” “Which of the two did his father’s will! ὁ ὕστερος. _He who
afterwards_ [repented and went]. This answers the charge that the reading
of Lachmann is void of sense” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 107). I
entertain sincere veneration for the character and services of Dr.
Tregelles, but it is only right to assert at once that what stands in his
text is impossible Greek. Even granting that instead of the plain answer
“the first,” our Lord’s adversaries resorted to the harsh and equivocal
reply “he who afterwards,” they would not have said ὁ ὕστερος, but ὁ
ὕστερον, or (the better to point out their reference to ὕστερον in ver.
29) ὁ τὸ ὕστερον.
Why then prefer nonsense, for the mere purpose of carrying out Bengel’s
canon to the extremity? The passage, precisely as it stands in Tregelles’
N. T., _is sanctioned by no critical authority whatsoever_. Cod. B indeed
has ὕστερος (which is here followed by Westcott and Hort), Cod. 4
δεύτερος, Codd. 13, 69, 124, 346 (Abbott’s four), and 238, 262, 556, 604,
perhaps others, ἔσχατος, one or other of which is in the Jerusalem Syriac
and Bohairic, the Ethiopic (two manuscripts), the Armenian and two chief
Arabic versions; but all these authorities (with _tol._ of the Vulgate
_secundâ manu_, as also Isidore, the Pseudo-Athanasius, and John
Damascene), transpose the order of the two sons in vv. 29, 30, so that the
result produces just the same sense as in the Received text. The
suggestion that the clauses were transferred in order to reconcile ὕστερος
or ἔσχατος with the context may be met by the counter-statement that
ὕστερος was just as likely to be substituted for πρῶτος to suit the
inversion of the clauses. Against such inversion (which we do not pretend
to recommend, though Westcott and Hort adopt it) Origen is an early
witness, so that Cod. B and its allies are no doubt wrong: yet as that
Father does not notice any difficulty in ver. 31, the necessary inference
ought to be that he read πρῶτος(346). Hippolytus testifies to ἔσχατος in
ver. 31, but his evidence cannot be used, since he gives no indication in
what order he took the clauses in vv. 29, 30. The indefensible part of
Tregelles’ arrangement is that, allowing the answers of the two sons to
stand as in our common Bibles, he receives ὕστερος in the room of πρῶτος
on evidence that really tells against him. The only true supporters of his
general view are Cod. D αισχατος (i.e. ἔσχατος), the Old Latin copies _a_
_b_ _e_ _ff_1.2 _g_1 _h_ _l_, the best codices of the Vulgate (_am._
_fuld._ _for._ _san._ _tol._ _harl._*), the Anglo-Saxon version, and
Augustine, though not the Clementine edition of the Vulgate. Hilary
perplexes himself by trying to explain the same reading; and Jerome,
although he says “Sciendum est in veris exemplaribus non haberi
_novissimum_ sed _primum_,” has an expedient to account for the former
word(347), which, however (if _am._ _fuld._, &c. may be trusted), he did
not venture to reject when revising the Old Latin. On no true principles
can Cod. D and its Latin allies avail against such a mass of opposing
proof, whereof Codd. אCΦΣLX lead the van. Even the Curetonian Syriac,
which so often favours Cod. D and the Old Latin, is with the _textus
receptus_ here.
8. MATT. xxvii. 35. After βάλλοντες κλῆρον the Received text, but not the
Complutensian edition, has ἵνα πληρωθτῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου,
Διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον
κλῆρον. Internal evidence may be about equal for the omission of the
clause by homoeoteleuton of κλῆρον, and for its interpolation from John
xix. 24, “with just the phrase τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ (or ἀπὸ) τοῦ προφήτου
assimilated to Matthew’s usual form of citation” (Alford, _ad loc._).
External evidence, however, places the spuriousness of the addition beyond
doubt. It is first heard of in citations of Eusebius, and is read in the
Old Latin codices _a_ _b_ _c_ _g_2 (not _g_1) _h_ _q_, the Clementine (not
the Sixtine) Vulgate and even in _am._ _lux._, Harl. 2826, _lind._, in
King’s Libr. 1. D. ix and the margin of 1. E. vi (but not in _fuld._
_for._ _tol._* _em._ _ing._ _jac._ _san._ nor in _f_ _ff_1.2 _g_1 _l_),
the Armenian (whose resemblance to the Vulgate is so suspicious), the
Frankish and Anglo-Saxon, and as a matter of course in the Roman edition
of the Arabic, and in the Persic of the Polyglott. The clause seems to be
found in no manuscript of the Peshitto Syriac, and is consequently absent
from Widmanstadt’s edition and the Antwerp, Paris, and London Polyglotts.
Tremellius first turned the Greek words into Syriac and placed them in the
margin of his book, whence they were most unwisely admitted into the text
of several later editions (but not into Lee’s), without the slightest
authority. They also appear in the text of the Harkleian, but the marginal
note states that ’this passage from the prophet is not in two [“three”
Codd. Assemani] Greek copies, nor in the ancient Syriac.’ All other
versions and Fathers (except Eusebius and the Pseudo-Athanasius), and all
Greek manuscripts reject the clause, except Δ, 1, 17, 58 (_marg._), 69,
118, 124, 262, 300, 503, 550, Evst. 55: Scholz adds “aliis multis,” which
(judging from my own experience) I must take leave to doubt. Besides other
slight changes (αυτοις Δ, κλήρους 69 _secundâ manu_) Codd. Δ, 61, 69, 503
and Eusebius read διά for ὑπό. The present case is one out of many that
show an intimate connexion subsisting between Codd. 61 and 69.
9. Mark vi. 20. καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἐποίει, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουε.
“ ‘Did many things’ Engl. vers. I think it must have occurred to many
readers that this is, to say the least, a very singular expression.” So
writes Mr. Linwood, very truly, for nothing can well be more tame or
unmeaning. His remedy we can say little for. “I think that for πολλὰ
ἐποίει we should read πολλοῦ ἐποίει, i.e. magni faciebat. It is true that
classical usage would require the middle voice, sc. πολλοῦ ἐποιεῖτο. But
this rule is not always observed by the N. T. writers(348)” (Linwood, p.
11). If, instead of resorting to conjecture, he had opened Tischendorf’s
eighth edition, he would have found there a reading, adopted as well by
that editor as by Westcott and Hort, whose felicity, had it been nothing
more than a happy conjecture, he might well have admired. Codd. אBL for
πολλὰ ἐποίει(349) have πολλὰ ἠπόρει “was much perplexed,” which the
Bohairic confirms, only that, in translating, it joins πολλά with ἀκούσας.
This close resemblance between the Bohairic version and Codd. אB
(especially Cod. B) is very apparent throughout the N. T.; a single
example being their united omission of ἰσχυρόν in Matt. xiv. 30 in company
with but one other authority, the great cursive Cod. 33. Hence we do not
hesitate to receive a variation supported by only a few first-rate
authorities, where internal evidence (Canon II, p. 248) pleads so
powerfully in its favour. Although the middle voice is found elsewhere in
the N. T., yet the active in this precise sense may be supported by good
examples, even when used absolutely, as here: e.g. ἄλλος οἱ ἀπορέοντι
ὑπεθήκατο Herod. i. 191: ὁ δ᾽ ἀπορῶν, ὥς φασι, μόλις κατενόησε τὴν
πρόσχωσιν ταύτην τοῦ Ἀχελῴου Thuc. ii. 102.
Another less considerable but interesting variation, occurring just
before, in chap. v. 36, παρακούσας “overhearing” instead of ἀκούσας, may
be deemed probable on the evidence of א*BLΔ and the Latin _e_, which must
have had the reading, though it is mistranslated _neglexit_(350). We
gladly credit the same group (אBCLΔ, 473, Evst. 150, 259) with another
rare compound, κατευλόγει in ch. x. 16, whose intensive force is very
excellent. In ch. xii. 17 a similar compound ἐξεθαύμαζον is too feebly
vouched for by אB alone.
[THIRD EDITION. It is only fair to retain unchanged the note on Mark vi.
20, inasmuch as the “Two Members of the N. T. Company” have exercised
their right of claiming my assent to the change of ἐποίει into ἠπόρει. I
must, however, retract that opinion, for the former reading now appears to
me to afford an excellent sense. Herod gladly heard the Baptist, and _did
many things_ at his exhortation; every thing in fact save the one great
sacrifice which he could not persuade himself to make.]
10. MARK vii. 19. The substitution of καθαρίζων for καθαρίζον, so far from
being the unmeaning itacism it might seem at first sight, is a happy
restoration of the true sense of a passage long obscured by the false
reading. For the long vowel there is the overwhelming evidence of אAB
(_hiat_ C) EFGH LSXΔ, 1, 13, 28, 48, 50, 53, 58, 59 (_me teste_), 61**,
64, 65, 69, 122* 124, 229, 235, 244, 251, 282, 346, 435, 473, 492, 508,
515, 570, 622, Evst. 49, 259, and Erasmus’ first edition: his second reads
ἐκκαθαρίζων, his third καθαρίζον of ΦΣKMUVΓΠ, 547, 558, and perhaps a
majority of the cursives. The reading of D καθαρίζει (καθαρίζειν 61 _primâ
manu_), as also καὶ καθαρίζει of Evst. 222 and the Latin _i_, seem to
favour the termination -ον: _purgans_ of _a_ _b_ _c_ (even _d_) _f_ _ff_2
_g_1.2 _l_? _n_ _q_ and the Vulgate, is of course neutral. The Peshitto
ܕܡܕܒܝܐ (or ܐܝܒܕܡܕ) (qui purgat) refers in gender to the noun immediately
preceding, and would require καθαρίζοντα. Will any one undertake to say
what is meant by the last clause of the verse as it stands in the
Authorized English version, and as it must stand, so long as καθαρίζον is
read? If, on the other hand, we follow Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,
Westcott and Hort, we must take the Lord’s words to end with ἐκπορεύεται,
and regard καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα as the Evangelist’s comment upon
them: “_This he said_, to make all things clean.” Compare Acts x. 15.
This, and none other, seems to have been the meaning assigned to the
passage by the Greek Fathers. It is indeed most simply expressed by
Chrysostom (Hom. II. in Matt. p. 526 A): Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος φησίν, ὅτι καθαρίζων
τὰ βρώματα, ταῦτα ἔλεγεν, where Dr. Field’s elaborate note should be
consulted. He rightly judges that Chrysostom was treading in the steps of
Origen: καὶ μάλιστα ἐπεὶ κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἔλεγε ταῦτα ὁ Σωτήρ, καθαρίζων
πάντα τὰ βρώματα. Hence Gregory Thaumaturgus designates the Lord as ὁ
σωτὴρ ὁ πάντα καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα. I know not how Tischendorf came to
overlook the passage from Chrysostom: Tregelles very seldom uses him. It
is obvious how well the elliptical form of the expression suits this
Evangelist’s style, which is often singularly concise and abrupt, yet
never obscure.
11. MARK xvi. 9-20. In Vol. I. Chap. I, we engaged to defend the
authenticity of this long and important passage, and that without the
slightest misgiving (p. 7). Dean Burgon’s brilliant monograph, “The Last
Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark vindicated against
recent objectors and established” (Oxford and London, 1871), has thrown a
stream of light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous tone of his book
misbecome one who is conscious of having triumphantly maintained a cause
which is very precious to him. We may fairly say that his conclusions have
in no essential point been shaken by the elaborate and very able
counter-plea of Dr. Hort (Notes, pp. 28-51). This whole paragraph is set
apart by itself in the critical editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles.
Besides this, it is placed within double brackets by Westcott and Hort,
and followed by the wretched supplement derived from Cod. L (_vide
infra_), annexed as an alternative reading (αλλως). Out of all the great
manuscripts, the two oldest (אB) stand alone in omitting vers. 9-20
altogether(351). Cod. B, however, betrays consciousness on the scribe’s
part that something is left out, inasmuch as after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ ver. 8, a
whole column is left perfectly blank (_the only blank one in the whole
volume_(352)), as well as the rest of the column containing ver. 8, which
is usual in Cod. B at the end of every other book of Scripture. No such
peculiarity attaches to Cod. א. The testimony of L, that close companion
of B, is very suggestive. Immediately after ver. 8 the copyist breaks off;
then in the same hand (for all corrections in this manuscript seem _primâ
manu_: _see_ p. 138), at the top of the next column we read ... φερετε που
και ταυτα+ ... πάντα δὲ τα παρηνγελμενα τοῖς περι τον πετρον συντομωσ
ἐξηγγιλαν+ μετα δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτος ὁ _ισ_, ἁπο ἁνατολησ καὶ ἁχρι δυσεωσ
ἐξαπεστιλεν δι αὐτων το ϊἑρον καὶ ἁφθαρτον κηρυγμα+τησ αἱῶνιου σωτηριασ+
... εστην δε και ταῦτα φερομενα μετα το ἑφοβουντο γαρ+ ... Αναστὰσ δὲ πρωï
πρωτη σαββατου+κ.τ.λ., ver. 9, _ad fin. capit._ (Burgon’s _facsimile_,
facing his p. 113: our _facsimile_ No. 21): as if vv. 9-20 were just as
little to be regarded as the trifling apocryphal supplement(353) which
precedes them. Besides these, the twelve verses are omitted in none but
some old Armenian codices(354) and two of the Ethiopic, _k_ of the Old
Latin, and an Arabic Lectionary [ix] No. 13, examined by Scholz in the
Vatican. The Old Latin Codex _k_ puts in their room a corrupt and careless
version of the subscription in L ending with σωτηρίας (_k_ adding _amen_):
the same subscription being appended to the end of the Gospel in the two
Ethiopic manuscripts, and (with ἀμήν) in the margin of 274 and the
Harkleian. Not unlike is the marginal note in Hunt. 17 or Cod. 1 of the
Bohairic, translated by Bp. Lightfoot above. Of cursive Greek manuscripts
137, 138, which Birch had hastily reported as marking the passage with an
asterisk, each contains the marginal annotation given below, which claims
the passage as genuine, 138 with no asterisk at all, 137 (like 36 and
others) with an ordinary mark of reference from the text to the note,
where (of course) it is repeated(355). Other manuscripts contain marginal
scholia respecting it, of which the following is the substance. Cod. 199
has τέλος(356) after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ and before Ἀναστὰς δέ, and in the same
hand as τέλος we read, ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖται ταῦτα, ἀλλ᾽
ἐνταῦθα καταπαύει. The kindred Codd. 20, 215, 300 (but after ver. 15, not
ver. 8) mark the omission in some (τισί) copies, adding ἐν δὲ τοῖσ
ἀρχαίοις πάντα ἀπαράλειπτα κεῖται, and these had been corrected from
Jerusalem copies (_see_ pp. 161 and note, 193). Cod. 573 has for a
subscription ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν ἐσπουδασμένων κεφαλαίοις
σλζ: where Burgon, going back to St. Matthew’s Gospel (_see_ p. 161, note)
infers that the old Jerusalem copies must have contained our twelve
verses. Codd. 15, 22 conclude at ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, then add in red ink that
in some copies the Evangelist ends here, ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φέρεται,
affixing vers. 9-20. In Codd. 1, 205 (in its duplicate 206 also), 209 is
the same notice, ἄλλοις standing for πολλοῖς in 206, with the additional
assertion that Eusebius “canonized” no further than ver. 8, a statement
which is confirmed by the absence of the Ammonian and Eusebian numerals
beyond that verse in אALSU and at least eleven cursives, with _am. fuld.
ing._ of the Vulgate. It would be no marvel if Eusebius, the author of
this harmonizing system, had consistently acted upon his own rash opinion
respecting the paragraph, an opinion which we shall have to notice
presently, and such action on his part would have added nothing to the
strength of the adverse case. But it does not seem that he really did so.
These numerals appear in most manuscripts, and in all parts of them, with
a good deal of variation which we can easily account for. In the present
instance they are annexed to ver. 9 and the rest of the passage in Codd.
CEKVΠ, and (with some changes) in GHMΓΔΛ and many others: in Cod. 566 the
concluding sections are there (σλδ ver. 11, σλε ver. 12, σλς ver. 14)
without the canons. In their respective margins the annotated codices 12
(of Scholz), 24, 36, 37, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195,
210, 221, 222, 237, 238, 255, 259, 299, 329, 374 (twenty-four in all),
present in substance(357) the same weighty testimony in favour of the
passage: παρὰ πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται (thus far also Cod. 119,
adding only ταῦτα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνταῦθα καταπαύει) ἐν τῷ παρόντι εὐαγγελίῳ, ὡς
νόθα νομίσαντες αὐτὰ εἶναι; ἀλλὰ ἡμεῖς ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν πλείστοις
εὑρόντες αὐτὰ καὶ κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον Μάρκου, ὡς ἔχει ἡ
ἀλήθεια, συντεθείκαμεν καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομένην δεσποτικὴν ἀνάστασιν.
Now this is none other than an extract from Victor of Antioch’s [v]
commentary on St. Mark, which they all annex in full to the sacred text,
and which is expressly assigned to that Father in Codd. 12, 37, 41. Yet
these very twenty-four manuscripts have been cited by critical editors as
adverse to the authenticity of a paragraph which their scribes never
dreamt of calling into question, but had simply copied Victor’s decided
judgement in its favour. His appeal to the famous Palestine codices which
had belonged to Origen and Pamphilus (_see_ p. 55 and note), is found in
twenty-one of them, possibly these documents are akin to the Jerusalem
copies mentioned in Codd. Evan. Λ, 20, 164, 262, 300, &c.
_All_ other codices, e.g. ACD (which is defective from ver. 15, _primâ
manu_) EFwGH (begins ver. 14) KMSUVXΓΔΠ, 33, 69, the Peshitto, Jerusalem
and Curetonian Syriac (which last, by a singular happiness, contains vv.
17-20, though no other part of St. Mark), the Harkleian text, the Sahidic
(only ver. 20 is preserved), the Bohairic and Ethiopic (with the
exceptions already named), the Gothic (to ver. 12), the Vulgate, all
extant Old Latins except _k_ (though _a_ _primâ manu_ and _b_ are
defective), the Georgian, the printed Armenian, its later manuscripts, and
all the lesser versions (Arabic, &c.), agree in maintaining the paragraph.
It is cited, possibly by Papias, unquestionably by Irenaeus (both in Greek
and Latin), by Tertullian, and by Justin Martyr(358) as early as the
second century; by Hippolytus (_see_ Tregelles, An Account of the Printed
Text, p. 252), by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage, by the
Acta Pilati, the Apostolic Constitutions, and apparently by Celsus in the
third; by Aphraates (in a Syriac Homily dated A.D. 337), the Syriac Table
of Canons, Eusebius, Macarius Magnes, Didymus, the Syriac Acts of the
Apostles, Leontius, Ps.-Ephraem, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem(359),
Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, in the fourth; by Leo,
Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch, Patricius, Marius
Mercator, in the fifth; by Hesychius, Gregentius, Prosper, John, abp. of
Thessalonica, and Modestus, in the fifth and sixth(360). Add to this, what
has been so forcibly stated by Burgon (_ubi supra_, p. 205), that in the
Calendar of Greek Church lessons, which existed certainly in the fourth
century, very probably much earlier, the disputed verses were honoured by
being read as a special matins service for Ascension Day (_see_ p. 81),
and as the Gospel for St. Mary Magdalene’s Day, July 22 (p. 89); as well
as by forming the third of the eleven εὐαγγέλια ἀναστάσιμα ἑωθινά, the
preceding part of the chapter forming the second (p. 85): so little were
they suspected as of even doubtful authenticity(361).
The earliest objector to vers. 9-20 we know of was Eusebius (Quaest. ad
Marin.), who tells that they were not ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, but after
ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ that τὰ ἑξῆς are found σπανίως ἔν τισιν, yet not in τὰ
ἀκριβῆ: language which Jerome _twice_ echoes and almost exaggerates by
saying “in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Graeciae libris paene hoc
capitulum fine non habentibus.” A second cause with Eusebius for rejecting
them is μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν
μαρτυρίᾳ(362). The language of Eusebius has been minutely examined by Dean
Burgon, who proves to demonstration that all the subsequent evidence which
has been alleged against the passage, whether of Severus, or Hesychius, or
any other writer down to Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century, is a
mere echo of the doubts and difficulties of Eusebius, if indeed he is not
retailing to us at second-hand one of the fanciful Biblical speculations
of Origen. Jerome’s recklessness in statement has been already noticed
(Vol. II. p. 269); besides that, he is a witness on the other side, both
in his own quotations of the passage and in the Vulgate, for how could he
have inserted the verses there, if he had judged them to be spurious?
With regard to the argument against these twelve verses arising from their
alleged difference in style from the rest of the Gospel, I must say that
the same process might be applied—and has been applied—to prove that St.
Paul was not the writer of the Pastoral Epistles (to say nothing of that
to the Hebrews), St. John of the Apocalypse, Isaiah and Zechariah of
portions of those prophecies that bear their names. Every one used to
literary composition may detect, if he will, such minute variations as
have been made so much of in this case(363), either in his own writings,
or in those of the authors he is most familiar with.
Persons who, like Eusebius, devoted themselves to the pious task of
constructing harmonies of the Gospels, would soon perceive the difficulty
of adjusting the events recorded in vers. 9-20 to the narratives of the
other Evangelists. Alford regards this inconsistency (more apparent than
real, we believe) as “a valuable testimony to the antiquity of the
fragment” (N. T. _ad loc._): we would go further, and claim for the harder
reading the benefit of any critical doubt as to its genuineness (Canon I.
Vol. II. p. 247). The difficulty was both felt and avowed by Eusebius, and
was recited after him by Severus of Antioch or whoever wrote the scholion
attributed to him. Whatever Jerome and the rest may have done, these
assigned the ἀντιλογία, the ἐναντίωσις they thought they perceived, as a
reason (not the first, nor perhaps the chief, but still as a reason) for
supposing that the Gospel ended with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. Yet in the balance of
probabilities, can anything be more unlikely than that St. Mark broke off
so abruptly as this hypothesis would imply, while no ancient writer has
noticed or seemed conscious of any such abruptness(364)? This fact has
driven those who reject the concluding verses to the strangest
fancies;—namely, that, like Thucydides, the Evangelist was cut off before
his work was completed, or even that the last leaf of the original Gospel
was torn away.
We emphatically deny that such wild surmises(365) are called for by the
state of the evidence in this case. All opposition to the authenticity of
the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the
testimony of אB. Let us accord to these the weight which is their due: but
against their verdict we can appeal to a vast body of ecclesiastical
evidence reaching back to the earlier part of the second century(366); to
nearly all the versions; and to all extant manuscripts excepting two, of
which one is doubtful. So powerfully is it vouched for, that many of those
who are reluctant to recognize St. Mark as its author, are content to
regard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired record
originally delivered to the Church(367).
12. LUKE ii. 14. If there be one case more prominent than another in the
criticism of the New Testament, wherein solid reason and pure taste revolt
against the iron yoke of ancient authorities, it is that of the Angelic
Hymn sung at the Nativity. In the common text all is transparently clear:
δοξα εν υψιστοισ θεῳ, Glory to God in the highest,
και επι γησ ειρηνη; And on earth peace:
εν ανθρωποισ ευδοκια. Good will amongst men.
The blessed words are distributed, after the Hebrew fashion, into a stanza
consisting of three members. In the first and second lines heaven and
earth are contrasted; the third refers to both those preceding, and
alleges the efficient cause which has brought God glory and earth peace.
By the addition of a single letter to the end of the last line, by merely
reading εὐδοκίας for εὐδοκία, the rhythmical arrangement is utterly
marred(368), and the simple shepherds are sent away with a message, the
diction of which no scholar has yet construed to his own mind(369). Yet
such is the conclusion of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and
Hort, although Tregelles and the Cambridge fellow-workers allow εὐδοκία a
place in their margins. Of the five great uncials C is unfortunately
defective, but א*AB*D, and no other Greek manuscript whatever, read
εὐδοκίας: yet A is so inconstant in this matter that in the primitive 14th
or Morning Hymn, a cento of Scripture texts, annexed to the Book of
Psalms, its reading is εὐδοκεία (Baber, Cod. Alex., p. 569), and such was
no doubt the form used in Divine service, as appears from the great Zürich
Psalter Od. The rest of the uncials extant (אcB3EGHKLMPSUVΓΔΛΞ, &c.), and
all the cursives follow the common text, which is upheld by the Bohairic,
by the three extant Syriac (the Peshitto most emphatically, the Jerusalem,
and the Harkleian both in the text and Greek margin), by the Armenian and
Ethiopic versions. The Vulgate, as is well known, renders “in hominibus
bonae voluntatis,” and thus did all the forms of the Old Latin, and after
it the Gothic. Hence it follows, as a matter of course, that the Latin
Fathers, such as Hilary and Augustine, and the Latin interpreters of
Irenaeus (who seems really to have omitted ἐν, as do D and a few cursives)
and of the false Athanasius, adopted the reading of their own Bibles.
Origen also, in a passage not now extant in the Greek, is made in Jerome’s
translation of it manifestly to choose the same form. We can only say that
in so doing he is the only Greek who favours εὐδοκίας, and his own text
has εὐδοκία in three several places, though no special stress is laid by
him upon it. But here comes in the evidence of the Greek Fathers—their
virtually unanimous evidence—with an authority from which there is, or
ought to be, no appeal. Dean Burgon (The Revision Revised, pp. 42-46)
affords us a list of forty-seven, all speaking in a manner too plain for
doubt, most of them several times over, twenty-two of them having
flourished before the end of the fifth century, and who must have used
codices at least as old and pure as א or B. They are Irenaeus, of the
second century; the Apostolical Constitutions and Origen three times in
the third; Eusebius, Aphraates the Persian, Titus of Bostra, Didymus,
Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril of Jerusalem (who has been quoted in error on the
wrong side), Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa four times, Ephraem Syrus, Philo
of Carpasus, a nameless preacher at Antioch, and Chrysostom (nine times
over, interpreting also εὐδοκία by καταλλαγή) in the fourth; Cyril of
Alexandria on fourteen occasions, Theodoret on four, Theodotus of Ancyra,
the Patriarch Proclus, Paulus of Emesa, the Eastern Bishops at Ephesus in
431, and Basil of Seleucia in the fifth; Cosmas Indicopleustes, Anastasius
Sinaita, and Eulogius of Alexandria in the sixth; Andreas of Crete in the
seventh; with Cosmas of Maiuma, John Damascene, and Germanus, Archbishop
of Constantinople, in the eighth(370). Such testimony, supported by all
later manuscripts, together with the Bohairic and Syriac versions, cannot
but overpower the transcriptional blunder of some early scribe, who
cannot, however, have lived later than the second century.
To those with whom the evidence of אBD and of the Latins united appears
too mighty to resist, we would fain prefer one request, that in their
efforts to extract some tolerable sense out of εὐδοκίας, they will not
allow themselves to be driven to renderings which the Greek language will
not endure. To spoil the metrical arrangement by forcing the second and
third members of the stanza into one, is in itself a sore injury to the
poetical symmetry of the passage, but from their point of view it cannot
be helped. When they shall come to translate, it will be their endeavour
to be faithful, if grammatical faithfulness be possible in a case so
desperate. “Peace on earth for those that will have it,” as Dean Alford
truly says, is untenable in Greek, as well as in theology: “among men of
good pleasure” is unintelligible to most minds. Professor Milligan (Words
of the New Testament, p. 194) praises as an interesting form “among men of
his good pleasure,” which, not at all unnecessarily, he expounds to
signify “among men whom He hath loved.” Again, “among men in whom He is
well pleased” (compare chap. iii. 22) can be arrived at only through some
process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator
might like to put upon it. The construction adopted by Origen as rendered
by Jerome, _pax enim quam non dat Dominus non est pax bonae voluntatis_,
εὐδοκίας being joined with εἰρήνη, is regarded by Dr. Hort “to deserve
serious attention, if no better interpretation were available” and for the
trajection he compares ch. xix. 38; Heb. xii. 11 (Notes, p. 56). Dr.
Westcott holds that since “ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας is undoubtedly a difficult
phrase, and the antithesis of γῆς and ἀνθρώποις agrees with Rom. viii. 22,
εὐδοκία claims a place in the margin” (_ibid._): no very great concession,
when the general state of the evidence is borne in mind(371).
13. LUKE vi. 1. ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ. Here again Codd. אB
coincide in a reading which cannot be approved, omitting δευτεροπρώτῳ by
way of getting rid of a difficulty, as do both of them in Mark xvi. 9-20,
and א in Matt. xxiii. 35. The very obscurity of the expression, which does
not occur in the parallel Gospels or elsewhere, attests strongly to its
genuineness, if there be any truth at all in canons of internal
evidence(372): not to mention that the expression ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαββάτῳ ver. 6
favours the notion that the previous sabbath had been definitely
indicated. Besides אB, δευτεροπρώτῳ is absent from L, 1, 22, 33, 69 (where
it is inserted in the margin by W. Chark, and should not be noticed, _see_
above), 118, 157, 209. A few (RΓ, 13, 117, 124 _primâ manu_, 235) prefer
δευτέρω πρώτω, which, as the student will perceive, differs from the
common reading only by a familiar itacism. As this verse commences a
Church lesson (that for the seventh day or Sabbath of the third week of
the new year, _see_ Calendar), Evangelistaria _leave out_, as usual, _the
notes of time_; in Evst. 150, 222, 234, 257, 259 (and no doubt in other
such books, certainly in the Jerusalem Syriac), the section thus begins,
Ἐπορεύετο ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς σάββασιν: this however is not, properly speaking,
a various reading at all. Nor ought we to wonder if versions pass over
altogether what their translators could not understand(373), so that we
may easily account for the silence of the Peshitto Syriac, Bohairic, and
Ethiopic, of the Old Latin _b_ _c_ _l_ _q_ _f_ (_secundâ manu_) _q_, and
(if they were worth notice) of the Persic and the Polyglott Arabic, though
both the Roman and Erpenius’ Arabic have δεύτερῳ, and so too the Ethiopic
according to Scholz; _e_ “sabbato mane,” _f_ “sabbato a primo:” the
Harkleian Syriac, which renders the word, notes in the margin its absence
from some copies. Against this list of authorities, few in number, and
doubtful as many of them are, we have to place the Old Latin _a_ _f_*
_ff_2 _g_1.2, all copies of the Vulgate, its ally the Armenian, the Gothic
and Harkleian Syriac translations, the uncial codices ACDEHKMRSUVXΓΔΛΠ,
all cursives except the seven cited above, and the Fathers or scholiasts
who have tried, with whatever success, to explain the term: viz.
Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Isidore of Pelusium, Pseudo-Caesarius, Gregory of
Nazianzus, Jerome(374), Ambrose (all very expressly, as may be seen in
Tischendorf’s note, and in Dean Burgon’s “The Revision Revised,” pp.
73-4), Clement of Alexandria probably, and later writers. Lachmann and
Alford place δευτεροπρώτῳ within brackets, Tregelles rejects it, as does
Tischendorf in his earlier editions, but restores it in his seventh and
eighth, in the latter contrary to Cod. א. Westcott and Hort banish it to
the margin, intimating (if I understand their notation aright) that it
seems to contain distinctive and fresh matter, without deserving a place
in the text even as well as Ἰησοῦ in Matt. i. 18. On reviewing the whole
mass of evidence, internal and external, we submit the present as a clear
instance in which the two oldest copies conspire in a false or highly
improbable reading, and of a signal exemplification of the Canon,
_Proclivi orationi praestat ardua_.
14. LUKE x. 41, 42. Ἑνὸς δέ ἐστι χρεία. This solemn speech of our Divine
Master has shaken many a pulpit, and sanctified many a life. We might be
almost content to estimate Cod. B’s claim to paramount consideration as a
primary authority by the treatment this passage receives from the hand of
its scribe, at least if the judgement were to rest with those who are
willing to admit that a small minority, whereof B happens to form one of
the members, is not necessarily in the right. Westcott and Hort in the
margin of their published edition (1881) reduce the whole sentence between
Μάρθα ver. 41 and Μαρία ver. 42 to the single word θορυβάζῃ, the truer
reading in the place of τυρβάζῃ: in their privately circulated issue dated
ten years earlier they had gone further, placing within double brackets
μεριμνᾷς καί and from περὶ πολλά downwards. They could hardly do less on
the principles they have adopted, while yet they feel constrained to
concede that, though not belonging to the original Gospel, the excluded
words do not, on the other hand, read like the invention of a paraphrast.
They do not indeed: and it is when abstract theories such as modern
critics have devised are subjected to so violent a strain, that we can
best discern their intrinsic weakness, of which indeed these editors have
here shown their consciousness by a change of mind not at all usual with
them. For the grave omission indicated above we have but one class of
authorities, that of the D, _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_2 _i_ _l_, and Ambrose, the
Latins omitting θορυβάζῃ too: while ἑνὸς δέ ἐστι χρεία is not found in _c_
also, and does not appear in Clement. The succeeding γάρ or δέ is of
course left out by all these, and by 262, the Vulgate, Curetonian Syriac,
Armenian, and Jerome. This testimony, almost purely Western, is confirmed
or weakened as the case may be, by the systematic omissions of clauses
towards the end of the Gospel in the same books, of which we spoke in
Chap. X (_see_ p. 299, note).
We confess that we had rather see this grand passage expunged altogether
from the pages of the Gospel than diluted after the wretched fashion
adopted by א and B: ὀλίγων δὲ χρεία ἐστιν ἢ ἑνός; the first hand of א
omitting χρεία in its usual blundering way. This travestie of a speech
which seems to have shocked the timorous by its uncompromising
exclusiveness, much as we saw in the case of Matt. v. 22, is further
supported (with some variation in the order) by L, by the very ancient
second hand of C, by 1, 33, the Bohairic, Ethiopic, the margin of the
Harkleian, by Basil, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria in the Syriac translation
of his commentary(375), and by Origen as cited in a catena: ὀλίγων δὲ ἐστι
χρεία is found in 38, the Jerusalem Syriac, and in the Armenian (ὧδε being
inserted before ἐστιν). This latter reading is less incredible than that
of אBL, notwithstanding the ingenuity of Basil’s comment, ὀλίγων μὲν
δηλονότι τῶν πρὸς παρασκευήν, ἑνὸς δὲ τοῦ σκοποῦ. In this instance, as in
some others, the force of internal evidence suffices to convince the
unprejudiced reader (it has almost convinced Drs. Westcott and Hort, who
have no note on the passage), that the Received text should here remain
unchanged, vouched for as it is by AC*EFGHKMPSUVΓΔΛΠ (Χ and Ξ being
defective), by every cursive except three, by the Peshitto and Cureton’s
Syriac (the latter so often met with in the company of D), by the
Harkleian text, by _f_ _g_1 _g_2? _q_ of the Old Latin, and by the
Vulgate. Chrysostom, Augustine (twice), John Damascene and one or two
others complete the list: even Basil so cites the passage once, so that
his comment may not be intended for anything more than a gloss. No nobler
sermon was ever preached on this fertile text than that of Augustine, De
verbis Domini, in Evan. Luc. xxvii. His Old Latin copies, at any rate,
contained the words “Circa multa es occupata: porro unum est necessarium.
Jam hoc sibi Maria legit.” “Transit labor multitudinis, et remanet caritas
unitatis” is his emphatic comment.
15. LUKE xxii. 17-20. This passage has been made the subject of a most
instructive discussion by Dean Blakesley(376) (d. 1885), whose notion
respecting it deserves more consideration than it would seem to have
received, though it must no doubt be ultimately set aside through the
overpowering weight of hostile authority. He is perplexed by two
difficulties lying on the surface, the fact that the Lord twice took a
cup, before and after the breaking of the bread; and the close resemblance
borne by vv. 19 and 20 to the parallel passage of St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 24,
25. The common mode of accounting for the latter phenomenon seems very
reasonable, namely, that the Evangelist, Paul’s almost constant companion
in travel, copied into his Gospel the very language of the Apostle, so far
as it suited his design. In speaking of the two cups St. Luke stands
alone, and much trouble has been taken to illustrate the use of the
Paschal cup from Maimonides [d. 1206] and other Jewish doctors, all too
modern to be implicitly depended on. Dean Alford indeed (N. T. _ad loc._)
hails “this most important addition to our narrative,” which “amounts, I
believe, to a solemn declaration of the fulfilment of the Passover rite,
in both its usual divisions—the eating of the lamb, and drinking the cup
of thanksgiving.” Thus regarded, the old rite would be concluded and
abrogated in vv. 17, 18; the new rite instituted in vv. 19, 20. To Dean
Blakesley all this appears wholly unsatisfactory, and he resorts for help
to our critical authorities. He first gets rid of the words of ver. 19
after σῶμά μου, and of all ver. 20, and so far his course is sanctioned by
Westcott and Hort, who place the whole passage within their double
brackets, and pronounce it a perverse interpolation from 1 Cor. xi. 24,
25. This much accomplished, the cup is now mentioned but once, but with
this awkward peculiarity, that it precedes the bread in the order of
taking and blessing, which is a downright contradiction of St. Matthew
(xxvi. 26-29) and of St. Mark (xiv. 22-25), as well as of St. Paul. Here
Westcott and Hort refuse to be carried further, and thus leave the remedy
worse than the disease(377), if indeed there be any disease to remedy.
Dean Blakesley boldly places Luke xxii. 19 (ending at σῶμά μου) before
ver. 17, and his work is done: the paragraph thus remodelled is
self-consistent, but it is robbed of everything which has hitherto made it
a distinctive narrative, supplementing as well as confirming those of the
other two Evangelists.
Now for the last step in Dean Blakesley’s process of emendation, the
transposition of ver. 19 before ver. 17, there is no other authority save
_b_ _e_ of the Old Latin and Cureton’s Syriac, the last with this grave
objection in his eyes, that it exhibits the whole of ver. 19, including
that τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν which he would regard as
specially belonging of right, and as most suitable for, St. Paul’s
narrative (Praelectio, p. 16), although Justin Martyr cites the expression
with the prelude οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν
ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἂ καλεῖται, εὐαγγέλια. The later portion of ver. 19 and
the whole of ver. 20, as included in the double brackets of Westcott and
Hort, are absent from Cod. D, and of the Latins from _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_ _i_
_l_, as is ver. 20 from the Curetonian Syriac also: authorities for the
most part the same as we had to deal with in our Chap. X. p. 299, note.
Another, and yet more violent remedy, to provide against the double
mention of the cup, is found in the utter omission of vers. 17, 18 in
Evst. 32 and the _editio princeps_ of the Peshitto Syriac, countenanced by
many manuscripts of the same(378). Thus both the chief Syriac translations
found a difficulty here, though they remedied it in different ways(379).
The scheme of Dean Blakesley is put forth with rare ingenuity(380), and
maintained with a boldness which is best engendered and nourished by
closing the eyes to the strength of the adverse case. We have carefully
enumerated the authorities of every kind which make for him, a slender
roll indeed. When it is stated that the Received text (with only slight
and ordinary variations) is upheld by Codd. אABCEFGHKLM (_hiant_ PR)
SUXVΓΔΛΠ, by all cursives and versions, except those already accounted
for, it will be seen that his view of the passage can never pass beyond
the region of speculation, until the whole system of Biblical Criticism is
revolutionized by means of new discoveries which it seems at present vain
to look for.
16. LUKE xxii. 43, 44. ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ ἐνισχύων αὐτόν.
καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ, ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο; ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ
ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπι τὴν γῆν. It is a positive relief to
know that any lingering doubt which may have hung over the authenticity of
these verses, whose sacred words the devout reader of Scripture could so
ill spare, is completely dissipated by their being contained in Cod.
א(381). The two verses are omitted in ABRT, 124, 561 (in 13 only ὤφθη δὲ
is _primâ manu_), in _f_ of the Old Latin, in at least ten manuscripts of
the Bohairic(382), with some Sahidic and Armenian codices. A, however,
whose inconsistency we had to note when considering ch. ii. 14, affixes to
the latter part of ver. 42 (πλήν), “to which they cannot belong”
(Tregelles), the proper Ammonian and Eusebian numerals for vv. 43-4
(ι)σπγ, and thus shows that its scribe was acquainted with the
passage(383): some Armenian codices leave out only ver. 44, as apparently
does Evan. 559. In Codd. Γ, 123, 344, 512, 569, (440 _secundâ manu_ in
ver. 43) the verses are obelized, and are marked by asterisks in ESVΔΠ,
24, 36, 161, 166, 274, 408: these, however, may very well be, and in some
copies doubtless are, lesson-marks for the guidance of such as read the
divine service (_cf. sequent._). A scholion in Cod. 34 [xi] speaks of its
absence from some copies(384). In all known Evangelistaria and in their
cognate Cod. 69* and its three fellows, the two verses, omitted in this
place, follow Matt. xxvi. 39, as a regular part of the lesson for the
Thursday in Holy Week: in the same place the margin of C (_tertiâ manu_)
contains the passage, C being defective in Luke xxii from ver. 19. In Cod.
547 the two verses stand (in redder ink, with a scholion) not only after
Matt. xxvi. 39, but also in their proper place in St. Luke(385). Thus too
Cod. 346, and the margin of Cod. 13. Codd. LQ place the Ammonian sections
and the number of the Eusebian canons differently from the rest (but this
kind of irregularity very often occurs in manuscripts), and the
Philoxenian margin in one of Adler’s manuscripts (Assem. 2) states that it
is not found “_in Evangeliis apud Alexandrinos_, proptereaque [non?]
posuit eam S. Cyrillus in homilia ...:” the fact being that the verses are
not found in Cyril’s “Homilies on Luke,” published in Syriac at Oxford by
Dean Payne Smith, nor does Athanasius ever allude to them. They are read,
however, in Codd. אDFGHKLMQUXΛ, 1, and all other known cursives, without
any marks of suspicion, in the Peshitto, Curetonian (omitting ἀπ᾽
οὐρανοῦ), Harkleian and Jerusalem Syriac (this last obelized in the
margin), the Ethiopic, in some Sahidic, Bohairic, and Armenian manuscripts
and editions, in the Old Latin _a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_2 _g_1.2 _i_ _l_ _q_,
and the Vulgate. The effect of this great preponderance is enhanced by the
early and express testimony of Fathers. Justin Martyr (Trypho, 103) cites
ἱδρὼς ὡσεὶ θόμβοι as contained ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν ἅ φημι ὑπὸ τῶν
ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων (_see_ Luke i. 3,
Alford) συντετάχθαι. Irenaeus (iii. 222) declares that the Lord ἵδρωσε
θρόμβους αἵματος in the second century. In the third, Hippolytus twice,
Dionysius of Alexandria, and Pseudo-Tatian; in the fourth, Arius,
Eusebius, Athanasius, Ephraem Syrus, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzen,
Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita; in the fifth, Julian
the heretic, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria,
Paulus of Emesa, Gennadius, Theodoret, Bishops at Ephesus in 431; and
later writers such as Pseudo-Caesarius, Theodosius of Alexandria, John
Damascene, Maximus, Theodore the heretic, Leontius of Byzantium,
Anastasius Sinaita, Photius, as well as Hilary, Jerome, Augustine,
Cassian, Paulinus, Facundus(386). Hilary, on the other hand, declares that
the passage is not found “in Graecis et in Latinis codicibus compluribus”
(p. 1062 a, Benedictine edition, 1693), a statement which Jerome, who
leans much on others in such matters, repeats to the echo. Epiphanius,
however, in a passage we have before alluded to (p. 270, note), charges
“the orthodox” with removing ἔκλαυσε in ch. xix. 41, though Irenaeus had
used it against the Docetae, φοβήθέντες καὶ μὴ νοήσαντες αὐτοῦ τὸ τέλος
καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρότατον, καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἵδρωσε, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἱδρὼς
αὐτοῦ ὡς θρόμβοι αἵματος, καὶ ὤφθη ἄγγελος ἐνισχύων αὐτόν: Epiphan. Ancor.
xxxi(387). Davidson states that “the Syrians are censured by Photius, the
Armenians by Nicon [x], Isaac the Catholic, and others, for expunging the
passage” (Bibl. Critic. ii. p. 438).
Of all recent editors, before Westcott and Hort set them within their
double brackets, Lachmann alone had doubted the authenticity of the
verses, and enclosed them within brackets: but for the accidental presence
of the fragment Cod. Q his hard rule—“_mathematica recensendi ratio_” as
Tischendorf terms it—would have forced him to expunge them, unless indeed
he judged (which is probably true) that Cod. A makes as much in their
favour as against them. So far as the language of Epiphanius is concerned,
it does not appear that this passage was rejected by the orthodox as
repugnant to their notions of the Lord’s Divine character, and such may
not have been at all the origin of the variation. We have far more just
cause for tracing the removal of the paragraph from its proper place in
St. Luke to the practice of the Lectionaries, whose principal lessons
(such as those of the Holy Week would be) were certainly settled in the
Greek Church as early as the fourth century (_see_ above, Vol. I. pp.
74-7, and notes). I remark with lively thankfulness that my friend
Professor Milligan does not disturb these precious verses in his “Words of
the New Testament:” and Mr. Hammond concludes that “on the whole there is
no reasonable doubt upon the passage.” Thus Canon Cook is surely justified
in his strong asseveration that “supporting the whole passage we have an
array of authorities which, whether we regard their antiquity or their
character for sound judgement, veracity, and accuracy, are scarcely
paralleled on any occasion” (Revised Version, p. 103).
17. LUKE xxiii. 34. We soon light upon another passage wherein the
Procrustean laws of certain eminent editors are irreconcileably at
variance with their own Christian feeling and critical instinct. No holy
passage has been brought into disrepute on much slighter grounds than this
speech of the Lord upon the cross: the words from Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς down to
ποιοῦσιν are set within brackets by Lachmann, within double brackets by
Westcott and Hort. They are omitted by only BD*, 38, 435, among the
manuscripts: by E they are marked with an asterisk (comp. Matt. xvi. 2, 3;
ch. xxii. 43,44); of א Tischendorf speaks more cautiously than in the case
of ch. xxii. 43, 44, “A [a reviser] (ut videtur) uncos apposuit, sed
rursus deleti sunt,” and we saw there how little cause there was for
assigning the previous omission to אa. In D the clause is inserted, with
the proper (Ammonian) section (τκ or 320), in a hand which cannot be
earlier than the ninth century (_see_ Scrivener’s Codex Bezae, facsimile
11, and Introd. p. xxvii). To this scanty list of authorities for the
omission we can only add _a_ _b_ of the Old Latin, the Latin of Cod. D,
the Sahidic version, two copies of the Bohairic(388), and a passage in
Arethas of the sixth century. Eusebius assigned the section to his tenth
table or canon, as it has no parallel in the other three Gospels. The
passage is contained without a vestige of suspicion in אACFGHK (even L) M
(_hiat_ P) QSUVΓΔΛΠ, all other cursives (including 1, 33, 69), _c_ _e_ _f_
_ff_2 _l_, the Vulgate, all four Syriac versions, all Bohairic codices
except the aforenamed two, the Armenian and Ethiopic. The Patristic
authorities for it are (as might be anticipated) express, varied, and
numerous:—such as Irenaeus and Origen in their Latin versions, the dying
words of St. James the Just as cited in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., lib. ii.
cap. 23, after Hegesippus, ἐπὶ τῆς πρώτης τῶν ἀποστόλων γενόμενος διαδοχῆς
(Eus.), Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitutions twice, the Clementine
Homilies, Ps.-Tatian, Archelaus with Manes, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory
of Nyssa, Theodorus of Heraclea, Basil, Ephraem Syrus, Ps.-Ephraem,
Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita, Acta Pilati, Syriac Acts of the Apostles,
Ps.-Ignatius, Ps.-Justin, Cyril of Alexandria, Eutherius, Anastasius
Sinaita, Hesychius, Antiochus Monachus, Andreas of Crete, Ps.-Chrysostom,
Ps.-Amphilochius, Opus Imperfectum, Chrysostom often (sometimes loosely
enough _more suo_), Hilary, Ambrose eleven times, Jerome twelve times,
Augustine more than sixty times, Theodoret, and John Damascene.
Tischendorf adds—_valeant quantum_—(but only a fraction of this evidence
was known to Tischendorf), the apocryphal Acta Pilati(389). It is almost
incredible that acute and learned men should be able to set aside such a
_silva_ of witness of every kind, chiefly because D is considered
especially weighty in its omissions, and B has to be held up, in practice
if not in profession, as virtually almost impeccable. Vain indeed is the
apology, “Few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to
the truth of what they record than this first of the Words from the Cross;
but it need not therefore have belonged originally to the book in which it
is now included. We cannot doubt that it comes from an extraneous source”
(Hort, Notes, p. 68). Nor can we on our part doubt that the system which
entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned.
18. JOHN i. 18. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός... This
passage exhibits in a few ancient documents of high consideration the
remarkable variation θεός for υἱός, which however, according to the form
of writing universal in the oldest codices (_see_ Vol. I. pp. 15, 50),
would require but the change of a single letter, _ΥΣ_ or _ΘΣ_. In behalf
of _ΘΣ_ stand Codd. אBC _primâ manu_, and L (all wanting the article
before μονογενής, and א omitting the ὁ ὤν that follows), 33 alone among
cursive manuscripts (but prefixing ὁ to μονογενής, as does a later hand of
א), of the versions the Peshitto (not often found in such company), and
the margin of the Harkleian (whose affinity with Cod. L is very decided),
the Ethiopic, and a host of Fathers, some expressly (e.g. Clement of
Alexandria, Didymus “de Trinitate,” Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, &c.),
others by apparent reference (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa). The Egyptian
versions may have read either θεός or θεοῦ, more probably the latter, as
Prebendary Malan translates for the Bohairic(390), the Sahidic being here
lost. Their testimonies are elaborately set forth by Tregelles, who
strenuously maintains θεός as the true reading, and thinks it much that
Arius, though “opposed to the dogma taught,” upholds μονογενὴς θεός. It
may be that the term suits that heretic’s system better than it does the
Catholic doctrine: it certainly does not confute it. For the received
reading υἱός we can allege AC (_tertiâ manu_) EFGHKMSUVXΔΛΠ (D and the
other uncials being defective), every cursive manuscript except 33
(including Tregelles’ allies 1, 69), all the Latin versions, the
Curetonian, Harkleian, and Jerusalem Syriac, the Georgian and Slavonic,
the Armenian and Platt’s Ethiopic, the Anglo-Saxon and Arabic. The array
of Fathers is less imposing, but includes Athanasius (often), Chrysostom,
and the Latin writers down from Tertullian. Origen, Eusebius, and some
others have both readings. Cyril of Jerusalem quotes without υἱός or
θεός,—ὃν ἀνθρώπων μὲν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν; ὁ μονογενὴς δὲ μόνος ἐξηγήσατο. C.
7, l. 27, p. 107, ed. Oxon., Pereira.
Tregelles, who seldom notices internal probabilities in his critical
notes, here pleads that an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον like μονογενὴς θεός(391) might
easily be changed by copyists into the more familiar ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός from
John iii. 16; 18; i John iv. 9, and he would therefore apply Bengel’s
Canon (I. _see_ p. 247). Alford’s remark, however, is very sound: “We
should be introducing great harshness into the sentence, and a new and [to
us moderns] strange term into Scripture, by adopting θεός: a consequence
which ought to have no weight whatever where authority is overpowering,
but may fairly be weighed where this is not so. The ‘praestat procliviori
ardua’ finds in this case a legitimate limit” (N. T., note on John i. 18).
Every one indeed must feel θεός to be untrue, even though for the sake of
consistency he may be forced to uphold it. Westcott and Hort set μονογενὴς
θεός in the text, but concede to ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός a place in their margin.
Those who will resort to “ancient evidence exclusively” for the recension
of the text may well be perplexed in dealing with this passage. The oldest
manuscripts, versions, and writers are hopelessly divided, so that we can
well understand how some critics (not very unreasonably, perhaps, yet
without a shadow of authority worth notice) have come to suspect both θεός
and υἱός to be _accretions_ or spurious additions to μονογενής. If the
principles advocated in Vol. II. Ch. X be true, the present is just such a
case as calls for the interposition of the more recent uncial and cursive
codices; and when we find that they all, with the single exception of Cod.
33, defend the reading ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, we feel safe in concluding that
for once Codd. אBC and the Peshitto do not approach the autograph of St.
John so nearly as Cod. A, the Harkleian Syriac, and Old Latin
versions(392).
19. JOHN iii. 13. Westcott and Hort remove from the text to the margin the
weighty and doubtless difficult, but on that account only the more
certainly genuine, words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. Tischendorf rejected them (as
indeed does Professor Milligan) in his “Synopsis Evangelica,” 1864, but
afterwards repented of his decision. The authorities for omission are אBL
(which read μονογενὴς θεός in ch. i. 18) Tb [vi], 33 alone among
manuscripts. CDF are defective here: but the clause is contained in
AEGHKMSUVΓΔΛΠ, and in all cursives save one, A* and one Evangelistarium
(44) omitting ὤν. No versions can be cited against the clause except one
manuscript of the Bohairic: it appears in every one else, including the
Latin, the four Syriac, the Ethiopic, the Georgian, and the Armenian.
There is really no Patristic evidence to set up against it, for it amounts
to nothing that the words are not found in the Armenian versions of
Ephraem’s Exposition of Tatian’s Harmony (_see_ Vol. I. p. 59, note 2);
that Eusebius might have cited them twice and did not; that Cyril of
Alexandria, who alleges them once, passed over them once; that Origen also
(in the Latin translation) neglected them once, inasmuch as he quotes them
twice, once very expressly. Hippolytus [220] is the prime witness in their
behalf, for he draws the theological inference from the passage
(ἀποσταλεὶς ἵνα δείξῃ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ γῆς ὄντα εἶναι καὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ), wherein he
is followed in two places by Hilary and by Epiphanius. To these add
Dionysius of Alexandria [iii], Novatian [iii], Aphraates the Persian,
Didymus, Lucifer, Athanasius, Basil, besides Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine,
and by John Damascene (thrice), by Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, and
Theodoret each four times,—indeed, as Dean Burgon has shown(393), more
than fifty passages from thirty-eight ecclesiastical writers; and we then
have a _consensus_ of versions and ecclesiastical writers from every part
of the Christian world, joining Cod. A and the later manuscripts in
convicting אBL, &c., or the common sources from which they were derived,
of the deliberate suppression of one of the most mysterious, yet one of
the most glorious, glimpses afforded to us in Scripture of the nature of
the Saviour, on the side of His Proper Divinity.
20. JOHN V. 3, 4. ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν. ἄγγελος γὰρ κατὰ
καιρὸν κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ, καὶ ἐτάρασσε τὸ ὕδωρ; ὁ οὖν πρῶτος
ἐμβὰς μετὰ τὴν ταραχὴν τοῦ ὕδατος, ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατείχετο
νοσήματι. This passage is expunged by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,
Westcott and Hort, obelized (=) by Griesbach, but retained by Scholz and
Lachmann. The evidence against it is certainly very considerable: Codd.
אBC*D, 33, 157, 314, but D, 33 contain ἐκδεχομένων ... κίνησιν, which
_alone_ A*L, 18 omit. It may be observed that in this part of St. John A
and L are much together against N, and against B yet more. The words from
ἄγγελος γάρ to νοσήματι are noted with asterisks or obeli (employed
without much discrimination) in SΛ, 8, 11?, 14 (ἄγγελος ... ὕδωρ being
left out), 21, 24, 32, 36, 145, 161, 166, 230, 262, 269, 299, 348, 408,
507, 512, 575, 606, and Armenian manuscripts. The Harkleian margin marks
from ἄγγελος to ὕδωρ with an asterisk, the remainder of the verse with
obeli. The whole passage is given, although with that extreme variation in
the reading which so often indicates grounds for suspicion(394), in
EFGHIKMUVΓΔΠ (with an asterisk throughout), and all known cursives not
enumerated above(395): of these Cod. I [vi] is of the greatest weight.
Cod. A contains the whole passage, but down to κίνησιν _secundâ manu_;
Cod. C also the whole, _tertiâ manu_. Of the versions, Cureton’s Syriac,
the Sahidic, Schwartze’s Bohairic(396), some Armenian manuscripts, _f_ _l_
_q_ of the Old Latin, _san. harl._* and two others of the Vulgate (_vid._
Griesbach) are for omission; the Roman edition of the Ethiopic leaves out
what the Harkleian margin obelizes, but the Peshitto and Jerusalem Syriac,
all Latin copies not aforenamed, Wilkins’ Bohairic, and Armenian editions
are for retaining the disputed words. Tertullian clearly recognizes them
(“piscinam Bethsaidam angelus interveniens commovebat,” _de Baptismo_, 5),
as do Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Ambrose (twice), Theophylact, and
Euthymius. Nonnus [v] does not touch it in his metrical paraphrase.
The first clause (ἐκδεχ ... κίνησιν) can hardly stand in Dr. Scrivener’s
opinion, in spite of the versions which support it, as DI are the oldest
manuscript witnesses in its favour, and it bears much of the appearance of
a gloss brought in from the margin. The succeeding verse is harder to deal
with(397); but for the countenance of the versions and the testimony of
Tertullian, Cod. A could never resist the joint authority of אBCD,
illustrated as they are by the marks of suspicion set in so many later
copies. Yet if ver. 4 be indeed but an “_insertion to complete that
implied in the narrative with reference to the popular belief_” (Alford,
_ad loc._), it is much more in the manner of Cod. D and the Curetonian
Syriac, than of Cod. A and the Latin versions; and since these last two
are not very often found in unison, and together with the Peshitto,
opposed to the other primary documents, it is not very rash to say that
when such a conjunction does occur, it proves that the reading was early,
widely diffused, and extensively received. Yet, after all, if the passage
as it stands in our common text can be maintained as genuine at all, it
must be, we apprehend, on the principle suggested above, Vol. I. Chap. I.
§ 11, p. 18. The chief difficulty, of course, consists in the fact that so
many copies are still without the addition, if assumed to be made by the
Evangelist himself: nor will this supposition very well account for the
wide variations subsisting between the manuscripts which do contain the
supplement, both here and in chh. vii. 53-viii. 11(398).
21. JOHN vii. 8. This passage has provoked the “bark” of Porphyry the
philosopher, by common consent the most acute and formidable adversary our
faith encountered in ancient times [d. 304]. “Iturum se negavit,” as
Jerome represents Porphyry’s objection, “et fecit quod prius negaverat:
latrat Porphyrius, inconstantiae et mutationis accusat.” Yet in the common
text, which Lachmann, Westcott and Hort, apparently with Professor
Milligan, join in approving, ἐγὼ οὔπω ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην,
there is no vestige of levity of purpose on the Lord’s part, but rather a
gentle intimation that what He would not do then, He would do hereafter.
It is plain therefore that Porphyry the foe, and Jerome the defender of
the faith, both found in their copies οὐκ, not οὔπω, and this is the
reading of Tischendorf and Tregelles: Hort and Westcott set it in their
margin. Thus too Epiphanius and Chrysostom in the fourth century, Cyril in
the fifth, each of them feeling the difficulty of the passage, and meeting
it in his own way. For οὐκ we have the support of א (AC _hiant_) DKMΠ, 17
_secundâ manu_, 389: add 507, 570, being Scrivener’s pw (two excellent
cursives, often found together in vouching for good readings), 558, Evst.
234, the Latin _a_ _b_ _c_ _e_ _ff_2 _l_ _secundâ manu_, Cureton’s Syriac,
the Bohairic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions(399), a minority of the
whole doubtless, yet a goodly band, gathered from east and west alike. In
this case no hesitation would have been felt in adopting a reading, not
only the harder in itself, but the only one that will explain the history
of the passage, had not the palpable and wilful emendation οὔπω been
upheld by B: _ignoscitur isti_, even when it resorts to a subterfuge which
in any other manuscript would be put aside with scorn. The change,
however, from the end of the third century downwards, was very generally
and widely diffused. Besides B and its faithful allies LT, οὔπω is read in
EFGHSUVXΓΔΛ, in all cursives not cited above, in _f_ _g_ _q_, in some
Vulgate codices (but in none of the best), the Sahidic, Gothic, and three
other Syriac versions, the Harkleian also in its Greek margin. Basil is
alleged for the same reading, doubtless not expressly, like the Fathers
named above. It is seldom that we can trace so clearly the date and origin
of an important corruption which could not be accidental, and it is well
to know that no extant authorities, however venerable, are quite exempt
from the influence of dishonest zeal.
22. JOHN vii. 53-viii. 11. On no other grounds than those just intimated
when discussing ch. v. 3, 4 can this celebrated and important paragraph,
the _pericope adulterae_ as it is called, be regarded as a portion of St.
John’s Gospel. It is absent from too many excellent copies not to have
been wanting in some of the very earliest; while the arguments in its
favour, internal even more than external, are so powerful, that we can
scarcely be brought to think it an unauthorized appendage to the writings
of one, who in another of his inspired books deprecated so solemnly the
adding to or taking away from the blessed testimony he was commissioned to
bear (Apoc. xxii. 18, 19). If ch. xx. 30, 31 show signs of having been the
original end of this Gospel, and ch. xxi be a later supplement by the
Apostle’s own hand, which I think with Dean Alford is evidently the case,
why should not St. John have inserted in this second edition both the
amplification in ch. v. 3, 4, and this most edifying and eminently
Christian narrative? The appended chapter (xxi) would thus be added at
once to all copies of the Gospels then in circulation, though a portion of
them might well overlook the minuter change in ch. v. 3, 4, or, from
obvious though mistaken motives, might hesitate to receive for general use
or public reading the history of the woman taken in adultery.
It must be in this way, if at all, that we can assign to the Evangelist
chh. vii. 53-viii. 11; on all intelligent principles of mere criticism the
passage must needs be abandoned: and such is the conclusion arrived at by
all the critical editors. It is entirely omitted (ch. viii. 12 following
continuously to ch. vii. 52) in the uncial Codd. אA(400)BCT (all very old
authorities) LX(401)Δ, but LΔ leave a void space (like B’s in Mark xvi.
9-20) too small to contain the verses (though any space would suffice to
intimate the consciousness of some omission), before which Δ* began to
write ch. viii. 12 after ch. vii. 52.
Add to these, as omitting the paragraph, the cursives 3, 12, 21, 22, 33,
36, 44, 49, 63 (_teste_ Abbott), 72, 87, 95, 96, 97, 106, 108, 123, 131,
134, 139, 143, 149, 157, 168, 169, 181, 186, 194, 195, 210, 213, 228, 249,
250, 253, 255, 261, 269, 314, 331, 388, 392, 401, 416, 453, 473 (with an
explanatory note), 486, 510, 550, 559, 561, 582 (in ver. 12 πάλαι for
πάλιν): it is absent in the first, added by a second hand in 9, 15, 105,
179, 232, 284, 353, 509, 625: while ch. viii. 3-11 is wanting in 77, 242,
324 (sixty-two cursive copies). The passage is noted by an asterisk or
obelus or other mark in Codd. MS, 4, 8, 14, 18, 24, 34 (with an
explanatory note), 35, 83, 109, 125, 141, 148 (_secundâ manu_), 156, 161,
166, 167, 178, 179, 189, 196, 198, 201, 202, 219, 226, 230, 231 (_secundâ
manu_), 241, 246, 271, 274, 277, 284?, 285, 338, 348, 360, 361, 363, 376,
391 (_secundâ manu_), 394, 407, 408, 413 (a row of commas), 422, 436, 518
(_secundâ manu_), 534, 542, 549, 568, 575, 600. There are thus noted vers.
2-11 in E, 606: vers. 3-11 in Π (_hiat_ ver. 6), 128, 137, 147: vers. 4-11
in 212 (with unique rubrical directions) and 355: with explanatory scholia
appended in 164, 215, 262(402) (sixty-one cursives). Speaking generally,
copies which contain a commentary omit the paragraph, but Codd. 59-66,
503, 526, 536 are exceptions to this practice. Scholz, who has taken
unusual pains in the examination of this question, enumerates 290
cursives, others since his time forty-one more, which contain the
paragraph with no trace of suspicion, as do the uncials DF (_partly
defective_) GHKUΓ (with a hiatus after στήσαντες αὐτήν ver. 3): to which
add Cod. 736 (_see addenda_) and the recovered Cod. 64, for which Mill on
ver. 2 cited Cod. 63 in error. Cod. 145 has it only _secundâ manu_, with a
note that from ch. viii. 3 τοῦτο τὸ κεφάλαιον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀντιγράφοις οὐ
κεῖται. The obelized Cod. 422 at the same place has in the margin by a
more recent hand ἐν τήσιν ἀντιγράφης οὕτως. Codd. 1, 19, 20, 129, 135,
207(403), 215, 301, 347, 478, 604, 629, Evst. 86 contain the whole
_pericope_ at the end of the Gospel. Of these, Cod. 1 in a scholium pleads
its absence ὡς ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν ἀντιγράφοις, and from the commentaries of
Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodore of Mopsuestia; while 135,
301 confess they found it ἐν ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις: Codd. 20, 215, 559 are
obelized at the end of the section, and have a scholium which runs in the
text τὰ ὠβελισμένα, κείμενα δὲ εἰς τὸ τέλος, ἐκ τῶνδε ὧδε τὴν ἀκολουθίαν
ἔχει, and on the back of the last leaf of both copies τὸ ὑπέρβατον τὸ
ὄπισθεν ζητούμενον. In Codd. 37, 102, 105, ch. viii. 3-11 alone is put at
the end of the Gospel, which is all that 259 supplies, though its omission
in the text begins at ch. vii. 53. Cod. 237, on the contrary, omits only
from ch. viii. 3, but at the end inserts the whole passage from ch. vii.
53: in Cod. 478, ch. vii. 53-viii. 2 stands _primâ manu_ with an asterisk,
the rest later. Cod. 225 sets chh. vii. 53-viii. 11 after ch. vii. 36; in
Cod. 115, ch. viii. 12 is inserted between ch. vii. 52 and 53, and
repeated again in its proper place. Finally, Codd. 13, 69, 124, 346 (being
Abbott’s group), and 556 give the whole passage at the end of Luke xxi,
the order being apparently suggested from comparing Luke xxi. 37 with John
viii. 1; and ὤρθριζε Luke xxi. 38 with ὄρθρου John viii. 2(404). In the
Lectionaries, as we have had occasion to state before (Vol. I. p. 81,
note), this section was never read as a part of the lesson for Pentecost
(John vii. 37-viii. 12), but was reserved for the festivals of such saints
as Theodora Sept. 18, or Pelagia Oct. 8 (_see_ Vol. I. p. 87, notes 2 and
3), as also in Codd. 547, 604, and in many Service-books, whose Menology
was not very full (e.g. 150, 189, 257, 259), it would thus be omitted
altogether. Accordingly, in that remarkable Lectionary, the Jerusalem
Syriac, the lesson for Pentecost ends at ch. viii. 2, the other verses
(3-11) being assigned to St. Euphemia’s day (Sept. 16).
Of the other versions, the paragraph is entirely omitted in the true
Peshitto (being however inserted in printed books with the circumstances
before stated under that version), in Cureton’s Syriac, and in the
Harkleian; though it appears in the Codex Barsalibaei, from which White
appended it to the end of St. John: a Syriac note in this copy states that
it does not belong to the Philoxenian, but was translated in A.D. 622 by
Maras, Bishop of Amida. Maras, however, lived about A.D. 520, and a
fragment of a very different version of the section, bearing his name, is
cited by Assemani (Biblioth. Orient, ii. 53) from the _writings_ of
Barsalibi himself (Cod. Clem.-Vat. Syr. 16). Ridley’s text bears much
resemblance to that of de Dieu, as does a fourth version of ch. vii.
53-viii. 11 found by Adler (N. T. Version. Syr., p. 57) in a Paris codex,
with the marginal annotation that this “σύνταξις” is not in all the
copies, but was interpreted into Syriac by the Abbot Mar Paulus. Of the
other versions it is not found in the Sahidic, or in some of Wilkins’ and
all Schwartze’s Bohairic copies(405), in the Gothic, Zohrab’s Armenian
from six ancient codices (but five very recent ones and Uscan’s edition
contain it), or in _a_ _f_ _l_ (text) _q_ of the Old Latin. In _b_ the
whole text from ch. vii. 44 to viii. 12 has been wilfully erased, but the
passage is found in _c_ _e_ (we have given them at large, pp. 362-3),
_ff_2 _g_ _j_ _l_ (margin), the Vulgate (even _am. fuld. for. san._),
Ethiopic, Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Persic (but in a Vatican codex placed in
ch. x), and Arabic.
Of the Fathers, Euthymius [xii], the first among the Greeks to mention the
paragraph in its proper place, declares that παρὰ τοῖς ἀκριβέσιν
ἀντιγράφοις ἢ οὐχ εὕρηται ἢ ὠβέλισται; διὸ φαίνονται παρέγγραπτα καὶ
προσθήκη. The Apostolic Constitutions [iii or iv] had plainly alluded to
it, and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. _fin._) had described from Papias,
and as contained in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the story of a woman ἐπὶ
πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις διαβληθείσης ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου, but did not at all regard
it as Scripture. Codd. KM too are the earliest which raise the number of
τίτλοι or larger κεφάλαια in St. John from 18 to 19, by interpolating κεφ.
ι´ περὶ τῆς μοιχαλίδος, which soon found admittance into the mass of
copies: e.g. Evan. 482.
Among the Latins, as being in their old version, the narrative was more
generally received for St. John’s. Jerome testifies that it was found in
his time “in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus;” Ambrose cites it,
and Augustine (de adult. conjugiis, lib. ii. c. 7) complains that
“nonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius inimici verae fidei,” removed it from
their codices, “_credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus
suis_(406).”
When to all these sources of doubt, and to so many hostile authorities, is
added the fact that in no portion of the N. T. do the variations of
manuscripts (of D beyond all the rest) and of other documents bear any
sort of proportion, whether in number or extent, to those in these twelve
verses (of which statement full evidence may be seen in any collection of
various readings)(407), we cannot help admitting that if this section be
indeed the composition of St. John, it has been transmitted to us under
circumstances widely different from those connected with any other genuine
passage of Scripture whatever(408).
Second Series. Acts.
23. Acts viii. 37. Εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος, Εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας,
ἔξεστιν. Ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε, Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν
Χριστόν(409). We cannot safely question the spuriousness of this verse,
which all the critical editors condemn, and which seems to have been
received from the margin, where the formula Πιστεύω κ.τ.λ. had been
placed, extracted from some Church Ordinal: yet this is just the portion
cited by Irenaeus, both in Greek(410) and Latin; so early had the words
found a place in the sacred text. It is contained in no manuscripts except
E (D, which might perhaps be expected to favour it, being here defective),
4 (_secundâ manu_), 13, 15, 18?, 27, 29, 36, 60, 69, 97, 100, 105, 106,
107, 163, 227, Apost. 5, 13 once; and in the margin, 14, 25 &c., in Cod.
186 alone out of Scrivener’s thirteen: manuscripts of good character, but
quite inadequate to prove the authenticity of the verse, even though they
did not differ considerably in the actual readings they exhibit, which is
always in itself a ground of reasonable suspicion (_see_ pp. 361, 368,
374)(411). Here again, as in Matt. xxvii. 35, Gutbier and Schaaf
interpolated in their Peshitto texts the passage as translated into Syriac
and placed within brackets by Elias Hutter: the Harkleian also exhibits
it, but marked with an asterisk. It is found in the Old Latin _g_ and _m_
although in an abridged form, in the Vulgate (both printed and _demid.
tol._, but not in _am._ _primâ manu_, _fuld._ &c.), and in the satellites
of the Vulgate, the Armenian, Polyglott Arabic, and Slavonic. Bede,
however, who used Cod. E, knew _Latin_ copies in which the verse was
wanting: yet it was known to Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Pacian, &c. among
the Latins, to Œcumenius and Theophylact (twice quoted) among the Greeks.
Erasmus seems to have inserted the verse by a comparison of the later hand
of Cod. 4 with the Vulgate(412); it is not in the Complutensian edition.
This passage affords us a curious instance of an _addition_ well received
in the Western Church from the second century downwards (_see_ p. 164),
and afterwards making some way among the later Greek codices and writers.
24. ACTS xi. 20. We are here in a manner forced by the sense to adopt,
with Griesbach, Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,
the reading Ἕλληνας in the room of Ἑλληνιστάς of the Received text,
retained by Westcott and Hort(413). Immediately after the call of the
Gentiles to the privileges of the Gospel was acknowledged and acquiesced
in at Jerusalem (ver. 18), we read that some of those who had been
scattered abroad years ago went about preaching the word to Jews only
(ver. 19). In this there was nothing new: there had been Ἑλληνισταί
“Greek-speaking Jews” among the brethren long since (ch. vi. 1), and to
say that they were again preached to was not at all strange: the marvel is
contained in ver. 20. “But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and
Cyrene, which, when they came to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also” (καὶ
πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας: καί intimating the additional information), and that
with such success in converting these heathen Greeks, that Gentile
Christians first obtained at Antioch the name, no longer of Nazarenes (ch.
xxiv. 5), but of Christians (ver. 26). The meaning being thus evident, we
look to the authorities which uphold it, and these are few, confessedly
insufficient if the sense left us any choice, but recommended to us, as
the matter stands, by their intrinsic excellence: they are AD* (the latter
without καί, which is, however, otherwise abundantly attested to) Cod.
184, one of the best of the cursives, but not its kindred 221, the
Peshitto Syriac, the Armenian, perhaps the Ethiopic. The Vulgate,
Bohairic, Sahidic, and Harkleian Syriac draw no distinction between
Ἕλληνες and Ἑλληνισταί: the Peshitto unquestionably does, since it renders
“Greek disciples” in ch. vi. 1, “those Jews who knew Greek” (an excellent
definition) in ch. ix. 29, but “Greeks” here. Eusebius clearly reads
Ἕλληνας, as does Chrysostom in his exposition (not in his text), all the
more surely because he is perplexed how to expound it: his words are
echoed by Œcumenius and in both commentaries of Theophylact, only that
they substitute Ἑλληνιστάς for Ἕλληνας in repeating his words διὰ τὸ μὴ
εἰδέναι ἑβραïστί, Ἕλληνας ἐκάλουν: they both have Ἑλληνιστάς in the text.
Thus for once B is associated with E, with a later hand of D (of the
seventh or eighth century), with the later uncials HLP and all cursives
except one, in maintaining a variation demonstrably false. C is defective
here, and the first hand of א, which presents us with the wonderful
εὐαγγελιστάς, makes so far in favour of B; but אc corrects that error into
Ἕλληνας.
25. ACTS xiii. 18. We have here as nice a balance between conflicting
readings (differing only by a single letter) as we find anywhere in the N.
T. The case is stated in the margin to our Authorized version of the
Bible, more minutely than is its wont, though modern printers have
unwarrantably left out the reference to 2 Macc. vii. 27 in copies not
containing the Apocrypha(414). For ἐτροποφόρησεν “suffered he their
manners” of Tregelles, of Westcott and Hort, are cited אB, the very
ancient second hand of C, D (in the Greek), HLP, 61 with almost all other
cursives and the catenas: for the alternative ἐτροφοφόρησεν “fed them like
a nurse” of Lachmann and Tischendorf (Tregelles placing it in his margin)
we find ACE, 13, 24* (not 24** with Tischendorf), 68, 78* (margin), 93,
100, 105, 142, _d_ against its own Greek and the Vulgate jointly. Versions
are in such a case of special weight, but unfortunately they too are
somewhat divided. For π we find the Vulgate and a Greek note set in the
Harkleian margin, for φ the Peshitto and Harkleian Syriac, both Egyptian,
the Armenian, and both Ethiopic, with Erpenius’ Arabic: the Arabic of the
Polyglott gives both renderings. Thus the majority of the versions incline
one way, the oldest and most numerous manuscripts the other. It is useless
to cite Greek writers, except they show from the context which word they
favour. The form with φ was doubtless read in the Apostolic Constitutions,
and twice in Cyril of Alexandria, and that word is supported as well by 2
Macc. vii. 27, as by the other text cited in the margin of the Authorized
English Bible, Deut. i. 31, to which the Apostle’s reference is so
manifest, that we cannot but regard it as nearly decisive which expression
he used. Although in Deuteronomy also Greek copies vary a little between π
and φ, yet both A and B(415) read the latter, indeed the Hebrew נשא, _pace
Hortii_, would admit of nothing else. For π Origen is express, both in his
Greek commentary (not his text) and Latin version, but then he seems to
employ it even in Deut. i. 31, where it cannot be correct. Chrysostom and
Theophylact give no certain sound. Wetstein seasonably illustrates ἐτροπ.
from Rom. ix. 22. Internal evidence certainly points to ἐτροφοφόρησεν,
which on the whole may be deemed preferable. The Apostle is anxious to
please his Jewish hearers by enumerating the mercies their nation had
received from the Divine favour. God had chosen them, exalted them in
Egypt, brought them out with a high hand, fed them in the wilderness, and
given them the land of Promise. It would hardly have suited his purpose to
have interposed, by way of parenthesis, in the midst of his detail of
benefits received, the unwelcome suggestion of their obstinate ingratitude
and of God’s long forbearance.
26. ACTS xiii. 32. Here for τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῶν ἡμῖν Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Westcott and Hort read τοῖς τέκνοις ἡμῶν. As well from the fact
that it is much the harder form (_see_ Canon I), as from the state of the
external evidence, they could not act otherwise. In defence of ἡμῶν we
have אABC*D, but apparently no cursives, the Vulgate version, Hilary,
Ambrose, Bede (with the variant ὑμῶν in _tol._ and elsewhere), and both
Ethiopic. We cannot resist the five great uncials when for once they are
in harmony. The Received text is supported by the third hand of C, by
EHLP, by all the cursives, by the two Syriac and Armenian versions, the
catenae, Chrysostom and Theophylact. The Sahidic omits ἡμῖν, the Bohairic
both pronouns. To take up ἡμῖν without αὐτῶν, the reading of a solitary
cursive of the eleventh century, Cod. 76, would approach the limits of
mere conjecture, yet every one can see how well it would account for all
other variations. “The text, which alone has any adequate authority, and
of which all or nearly all the readings are manifest corrections, gives
only an improbable sense. It can hardly be doubted that ἡμῶν is a
primitive corruption of ἡμῖν, τοὺς πατέρας and τοῖς τέκνοις being alike
absolute. The suggestion is due to Bornemann, who cites x. 41 in
illustration” (Hort, Notes, p. 95). _Optimè._
27. ACTS xiii. 33. The variation πρώτῳ for δευτέρῳ of the Received text
commended itself to Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,
merely from its apparent difficulty; yet there is no manuscript authority
for it except D, _g_, and “quidam codices” known to Bede. Origen and
Hilary indeed mention the variation, but they explain at the same time the
cause, as do Eusebius and others. Tertullian and Cyprian also quote the
words as from the first Psalm, and the arrangement of the two Psalms
sometimes together, sometimes separate, is as old as Justin Martyr’s time.
Under these circumstances Westcott and Hort are surely fully justified in
abiding by the common reading, against which there is no other evidence
than what has been named above.
28. ACTS xv. 34. ἔδοξε δὲ τῷ Σίλᾳ ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτοῦ. This verse is omitted
by אABEGHP, and of the cursives by 31, 61 of the first rank, by 24, 91,
184, 185, 188, 189, 221, and full fifty others. Erasmus inserted it in his
editions from the margin of Cod. 4. It is wanting in the Peshitto (only
that Tremellius and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the
text), in the Bohairic, Polyglott Arabic, Slavonic, the best manuscripts
of the Latin Vulgate (_am. fuld. demid._, &c.), and by Chrysostom and
Theophylact in at least one copy. In C it runs εδοξεν δε τω σιλα επιμειναι
αυτους, which is followed by many cursives: some of which, however, have
αὐτοῦ, two αὐτοῖς, 42, 57, 69, 182, 186, 187, 219 αὐτόθι, with the
Complutensian Polyglott. The common text is found in the Sahidic,
Tremellius’ Syriac, in the Harkleian with an asterisk, also in Erpenius’
Arabic, Theophylact, and Œcumenius. In D we read εδοξε δε τω σειλεα
επιμειναι [προς _secundâ manu_] αυτους (sustinere eos _d_) μονος δε ιουδας
επορευθη, which Lachmann cites in Latin as extant _in this form_ only in
one Vienna Codex (for which see his N. T., Proleg. vol. i. p. xxix): thus
too _tol._, the Armenian (not that of Venice), and the printed Slavonic.
The common Vulgate, Cassiodorus and Hutter’s Syriac add “Jerusalem,” so
that the Clementine Latin stands thus: “Visum est autem Silae ibi
remanere; Judas autem solus abiit Jerusalem.” The Ethiopic is rendered “Et
perseveravit Paulus manens,” to which Platt’s copies add ’ibi.’
No doubt this verse is an unauthorized addition, self-condemned indeed by
its numerous variations (_see_ p. 361). One can almost trace its growth,
and in the shape presented by the Received text it must have been (as Mill
conjectures) a marginal gloss, designed to explain how (notwithstanding
the terms of ver. 33) Silas was at hand in ver. 40, conveniently for St.
Paul to choose him as a companion in travel.
29. ACTS xvi. 7. After πνεῦμα at the end of this verse Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort most rightly add Ἰησοῦ. The
evidence in its favour is overwhelming, and it is not easy to conjecture
how it ever fell out of the text: compare Rom. viii. 9. It is wanting only
in HLP and the mass of the cursives, even in Codd. 184, 221: Codd. 182,
219 omit the whole clause from καὶ οὐκ εἴασεν, nor does Ἰησοῦ appear in
the Sahidic version, or in three Armenian manuscripts, nor is it
recognized by Chrysostom or Theophylact. Ἰησοῦ is read by אABC**DE, 13,
15, 31, 33, 36, 61 (_primâ manu_), 73, Apost. 40: but Cod. 105 and a few
others have τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. The versions are all but unanimous for the
addition, being all the known Latin except _demid._, the Bohairic, both
Syriac, both Ethiopic, and three manuscripts of the Armenian: two more of
its codices with one edition read χριστου, six (with Epiphanius) τὸ ἅγιον
in its room, while _demid._ has κυρίου with the first hand of C. The
catenae exhibit Ἰησοῦ in spite of Chrysostom, as do Didymus, Cyril of
Alexandria, and the false Athanasius both in Greek and Latin.
30. ACTS xx. 28. τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου
αἵματος. This reading of the Received text, though different from that of
the majority of copies, is pretty sure to be correct: it has been adopted
by Alford (who once rejected θεοῦ for κυρίου), and by Westcott and Hort:
Tregelles places it in his margin, though, with Lachmann and Tischendorf,
he has κυρίου in the text. _ΘΥ_ is upheld by אB (the latter now for
certain), 4, 22, 23, 25, 37, 46, 65, 66*(?), 68, 84, 89, 154, 162, Apost.
12, and _ex silentio_, on which one can lay but little stress, by Codd. 7,
12, 16, 39, 56, 64, together with 184 and 186, codices not now in England.
“Dei” is read by all known manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate except
the Complutensian, which was probably altered to suit the parallel Greek.
From the Vulgate this form was taken by Erasmus, and after him by
Tyndale’s and later English versions. Lee’s edition of the Peshitto has
θεου, from three codices (the Travancore, a Vatican Lectionary of Adler
[xi], and one at the Bodleian), and so has the Harkleian text. Τοῦ κυρίου
(differing but by one letter, _see_ our Plates v. No. 13; x. No. 25) is in
AC*DE (and therefore in _d_, _e_), 13, 15, 18, 36 (_text_), 40, 69, 73,
81, 95*, 130, 156, 163, 180, 182, 219, Apost. 58, some catenae, the
Harkleian _margin_, the Sahidic, Bohairic, Armenian, and possibly also the
Roman Ethiopic, though there the same word is said to represent both _θυ_
and _κυ_. Platt’s Ethiopic, all editions of the Peshitto except Lee’s, and
Erpenius’ Arabic, have τοῦ χριστοῦ, with Origen once, Theodoret twice, and
four copies of Athanasius: the Old Latin _m_ reads ’Jesu Christi.’ Other
variations, too weakly supported to be worth further notice, are τοῦ
κυρίου θεοῦ 3, 95**, the Polyglott Arabic; τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου 47; and the
Georgian τοῦ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ. The great mass of later manuscripts give τοῦ
κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ, viz. C (_tertiâ manu_), HLP, 24, 31, 111, 183, 185, 187,
188, 189, 221, 224, and more than one hundred other cursives, including
probably every one not particularized above. This is the reading of the
Complutensian editors, both in the Greek and Latin, and of some modern
critics who would fain take a safe and middle course; but is countenanced
by the reading of no version except the Slavonic, and by no ecclesiastical
writer before Theophylact. It is plainly but a device for reconciling the
two principal readings; yet from the non-repetition of the article and
from the general turn of the sentence it asserts the Divinity of the
Saviour almost as unequivocally as θεοῦ could do alone. Our choice
evidently lies between κυρίου and θεοῦ, which are pretty equally supported
by manuscripts and versions: Patristic testimony, however, may slightly
incline to the latter. Foremost comes that bold expression of Ignatius
[A.D. 107] ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι θεοῦ (ad Ephes. i), which the old
Latin version renders “Christi Dei,” and the later interpolator softens
into χριστοῦ: so again (ad Roman. vi), τοῦ πάθους τοῦ θεοῦ μου. It may be
true that Ignatius “does not adopt it [the first passage] as a quotation”
(Davidson _ad loc._), yet nothing short of Scriptural authority could have
given such early vogue to a term so startling as αἷμα θεοῦ, which is also
employed by Tertullian (ad uxorem, ii. 3) and Clement of Alexandria (Quis
dives, 34). The elder Basil, Epiphanius (_twice_), Cyril of Alexandria
(_twice_), Ibas (in the Greek only), Ambrose, Caelestine, Fulgentius,
Primasius, Cassiodorus, &c., not to mention writers so recent as Œcumenius
and Theophylact, expressly support the same word. Manuscripts of
Athanasius vary between θεοῦ, κυρίου, and χριστοῦ, but his evidence would
be regarded as hostile to the Received text, inasmuch as he states (as
alleged by Wetstein) that οὐδαμοῦ δὲ αἷμα θεοῦ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς παραδεδώκασιν αἱ
γραφαί; Ἀρειανῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα τολμήματα (contra Apollinar.): only that for
καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς (_which even Tischendorf cites in his seventh edition_), the
correct reading is δίχα σαρκός or διὰ σαρκός, a citation fatal to any such
inference. In Chrysostom too the readings fluctuate, and some (e.g.
Tregelles) have questioned whether the Homilies on the Acts, wherein he
has θεοῦ, are of his composition. In behalf of κυρίου are cited the Latin
version of Irenaeus, Lucifer of Cagliari, Augustine, Jerome, Ammonius,
Eusebius, Didymus, Chrysostom (whence Theophylact), possibly Theodoret,
and the Apostolic Constitutions, while the exact expression _sanguis Dei_
was censured by Origen and others. It has been urged, however, and not
without some show of reason (Nolan, Integrity of Greek Vulgate, p. 517,
note 135), that the course of Irenaeus’ argument proves that θεοῦ was used
in his lost Greek text. After all, internal evidence—subjective feeling if
it must be so called—will decide the critic’s choice where authorities are
so much divided as here. It seems reasonable to say that the whole mass of
witnesses for τοῦ κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ vouches for the existence of θεοῦ in the
earliest codices, the commonplace κυρίου being the rather received from
other quarters, as it tends to point more distinctly to the Divine Person
indicated in the passage. If this view be accepted, the preponderance in
favour of θεοῦ, _undoubtedly the harder form_, is very marked, and when
the consideration suggested above from Dean Alford is added, there will
remain little room for hesitation. It has been pleaded on both sides of
the question, and appears little relevant to the case of either, that St.
Paul employs in ten places the expression ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ, but never
once ἐκκλησία τοῦ κυρίου or τοῦ χριστοῦ.
It is right to mention that, in the place of τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, the more
emphatic form τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου ought to be adopted from אA (_see_
Plate v. No. 13) BCDE, 31, 182, 184 (Sanderson), with some twenty other
cursives, Didymus, &c.; while τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος is only in HLP, the
majority of cursives, Athanasius, Chrysostom, &c. We must, however,
protest strongly against the interpretation put upon τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου
by Mr. Darby in his “New Translation,” “the blood of his own,” “le sang de
son propre [fils],” as being no less unwarrantable, though more
reverential, than that of Wakefield, which Bp. Middleton (Doctrine of the
Greek Article, pp. 293-5) condemns so justly. Nor can we do less than
repudiate unreservedly Dr. Hort’s expedient (Notes, p. 99), who would
render “through the blood that was His own,” i.e. as being His Son’s.
Indeed he has so little faith in it that he is constrained to say “It is
however true that this general sense, if indicated, is not sufficiently
expressed in the text as it stands.”
31. ACTS xxvii. 16. Καῦδα, the form which Erasmus noted as that of Cod. B,
is adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, in preference to
Κλαῦδα of Tischendorf and the Received text. Putting _Kura_ of the
Peshitto, _Keda_ of Pell Platt’s Ethiopic, out of the question, we note
that אc, the Vulgate and Latins (Jerome has _Cauden_, Cassiodorus Gaudem),
followed by the Roman edition of the Ethiopic, alone omit the λ. In the
first century Pomponius Mela wrote _Cauda_, the other Pliny _Gaudos_, and
Suidas speaks of _Caudo_ as an island near Crete: it is now called Gozo,
and is not to be confounded with the island of Gaulus near Malta, now
bearing the same name. The λ is inserted by Ptolemy, the celebrated
geographer of the second century, and by later writers: it is found in
א*AHLP, in all known cursives (with a like variation in the termination as
in the other form), the Bohairic, the later Syriac both in its text and in
Greek letters in its margin, the Armenian, and Erpenius’, or the only
trustworthy form of the Arabic. Chrysostom and Bede have the same reading,
which must surely be retained unless the union of Cod. B with the Latins
is to prevail against all other evidence put together.
32. ACTS xxvii. 37. In the place of διακόσιαι ἑβδομήκοντα ἕξ Westcott and
Hort have received into their text ὡς ἑβδομήκοντα ἕξ, placing the common
reading in the margin. Their form is supported by Cod. B and the Sahidic
version only, and was plainly resorted to by those who were slow to
believe that a corn ship, presumably heavily laden (vers. 6, 18), would
contain so many souls. There is a slight variation in the other
authorities, as is usual where numbers are concerned, from the ancient
practice of representing them by letters, whereof many traces are yet
remaining throughout Codex Sarravianus of the Septuagint, dating from the
end of the fourth century, and in our present copies (Cod. D in Acts xiii.
18; 20; xix. 9) of the New Testament: even in this place Cod. 61 has σοϛ.
Hence A reads πέντε for ἕξ, 31 omits ἕξ entirely, one Bohairic copy has
the incredible number of 876 (ωοϛ), another 176 (ροϛ). The Ethiopic is
reported by Tregelles to read ὡς διακόσιαι ἕξ, but that in the Polyglott
favours the common text; Epiphanius comes nearest to B (ὡς ἑβδομήκοντα),
“libere” adds Tischendorf. For the more specific number assigned by B ὡς
is not so well suited.
In ordinary cases the common reading would be abided by without
hesitation, upheld as it is by אCHLP, by all cursives, virtually by A, 31,
completely by the Latin, both Syriac, the Armenian, and most copies of the
Bohairic. It is obvious also that the writer wishes to impress upon us the
fact that out of so large a party all were saved, and seventy-six would be
a small number indeed. Josephus was wrecked in the Adriatic with 600 on
board (Josephus’ Life, c. 3: see Whiston’s note)(416). It is right,
however, to point out that, on the possible supposition that numeral
letters, not words, were employed in St. Luke’s autograph, the difference
between B and the Received text would consist of the insertion or the
contrary of the letter ω: whether in fact it be assumed that the
Evangelist wrote ωσοϛ or σοϛ, “about 76” or “276.” Surely it is more
likely that ω was inserted than omitted.
In ver. 39 the first hand of B, this time favoured by C, and supported by
the Bohairic, Armenian, and (in Tregelles) the Ethiopic versions, has
another curious variation, also promoted into the text by Westcott and
Hort, ἐκσῶσαι for the common ἐξῶσαι, which they banish into the margin.
This change also is very minute, being simply the resolution of _xi_ into
the two consonants for which it stands, and the reading very ingenious,
unless indeed it be regarded as a mistake made _ex ore dictantis_ (_see_
p. 10), which with Madvig as cited by Mr. Hammond (Outlines of Textual
Criticism, first edition, p. 13, note) we regard as a slovenly plan, such
as one would be loth to impute hastily to the scribes of so noble a copy
as Cod. B. Here, however, as ever, internal evidence being equiponderant,
we must decide by the weight of documentary proof, and adopt ἐξῶσαι with
אAHLP, all cursives (including 61), the Latin and Syriac versions.
Third Series. St. Paul.
33. ROM. v. 1. Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.
Here, as in 2 Cor. iii. 3, we find the chief uncials supporting a reading
which is manifestly unsuitable to the context, although, since it does not
absolutely destroy the sense, it does not (nor indeed does that other
passage) lack strenuous defenders. Codd. אB for ἔχομεν have _primâ manu_
ἔχωμεν, and though some doubt has been thrown on the primitive reading of
B, yet Mai and Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 156) are
eyewitnesses to the fact, which is now settled: Tischendorf in 1866
referred ἔχομεν to the third hand of B, Codd. ACDEKL, not less than thirty
cursives, including 104, 244, 257 and the remarkable copies 17, 37, also
read ἔχωμεν, as do _d_ _e_ _f_ _g_, the Vulgate (“habeamus”), the Peshitto
Syriac (ܢܚܘܐ ܠܢ ܫܠܡܐ or ܐܡܠܫ ܢܠ ܐܘܚܢ), Bohairic, Ethiopic (in both forms),
and Arabic. Chrysostom too supports this view, and so apparently
Tertullian (“monet justificatos ex fide Christi ... pacem ad Deum
habere”). The case for ἔχομεν is much weaker in itself: Codd. אaB3FG (in
spite of the contrary testimony of _f_ _g_, their respective Latin
versions) P, perhaps the majority of the cursive manuscripts (29, 30, 47,
221, 260, 265, &c.), Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril (once), and the Slavonic.
The later Syriac might seem to combine both readings (ܢܗܘܐ ܐܬ ܠܢ ܠܘܐ ܐܠܗܐ
ܫܝܢܐ or ܐܢܝܫ ܐܗܠܐ ܐܘܠ ܢܠ ܬܐ ܐܘܗܢ): White translates “habemus,” but has no
note on the passage(417). Had the scales been equally poised, no one would
hesitate to prefer ἔχομεν, for the closer the context is examined the
clearer it will appear that _inference_ not _exhortation_ is the Apostle’s
purpose: hence those who most regard “ancient evidence” (Tischendorf and
Tregelles, Westcott and Hort; Lachmann could not make up his mind) have
struggled long before they would admit ἔχωμεν into the text. The “Five
Clergymen” who in or about 1858 benefited the English Church by revising
its Authorized version of this Epistle, even though they render “_let us
have peace with God_,” are constrained to say, “An overwhelming weight of
authority has necessitated a change, which at the first sight seems to
impair the logical force of the Apostle’s argument. No consideration,
however, of this kind can be allowed to interfere with the faithful
exhibition of the true text, as far as it can be ascertained; and no doubt
the real Word of God, thus faithfully exhibited, will vindicate its own
meaning, and need no help from man’s shortsighted preference” (Preface, p.
vii). Every one must honour the reverential temper in which these eminent
men approached their delicate task; yet, if their sentiments be true,
where is the place for internal evidence at all? A more “overwhelming
weight” of manuscript authority upholds καρδίαις in 2 Cor. iii. 3: shall
we place it in the text, “leaving the real Word of God to vindicate its
own meaning”? Ought we to assume that the reading found in the few most
ancient codices—not, in the case of Rom. v. 1, in the majority of the
whole collection—must _of necessity_ be the “real Word of God, faithfully
exhibited”? I see no cause to reply in the affirmative, nor do Meyer and
Dr. Field(418).
We conclude, therefore, that this is a case for the application of the
_paradiplomatical_ canon (VII): that the itacism ω for ο, so familiar to
all collators of Greek manuscripts(419), crept into some very early copy,
from which it was propagated among our most venerable codices, even those
from which the earliest versions were made:—that this is one out of a
small number of well-ascertained cases in which the united testimonies of
the best authorities conspire in giving a worse reading than that
preserved by later and, on the whole, quite inferior copies.
34. 1 COR. xi. 24. I am as unwilling as Mr. C. Forster could have been to
strike out from the Received text “a word which (if genuine) THE LORD GOD
HAD SPOKEN!” (A new Plea for the Three Heavenly Witnesses, Preface, p.
xvii), but I cannot censure Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, or Westcott
and Hort, or Dean Blakesley for deciding on the state of the evidence, as
now generally taken, that it is not genuine. Yet it is with great
satisfaction that I find Bp. Chr. Wordsworth able to retain κλώμενον, and
to save the solemn clause τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν from being “bald and impressive
without the participle.” Mr. Forster’s argument in behalf of κλώμενον,
that it refers to ch. x. 16, τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, has a double edge, and
might be employed to indicate the source from which the word crept in
here. It is more to the purpose to urge with Bp. Wordsworth that early
scribes were offended by the apparent inconsistency of the term with John
xix. 36, and because there is nothing like it in the narratives of the
three earlier Evangelists. If we decide to retain κλώμενον, it must be in
opposition to the four chief manuscripts אABC, though אC insert it by the
third hand of each. Cod. D, like its namesake of the Gospels and Acts, is
somewhat inclined to paraphrases, and has θρυπτόμενον(420) by the first
hand, κλώμενον by the second. Only two cursives here side with the great
uncials (17, and the valuable second hand of 67), as do Zohrab’s Armenian,
Cyril of Alexandria and Fulgentius in the fifth century, and Theodoret’s
report of Athanasius. The word κλώμενον is found in EFGKLP, all other
cursives, the Latin versions of DE (_quod frangitur_), with Ambrosiaster:
G and the interlinear Latin of F, which, as has been already shown under
that MS., is taken from G, prefer _quod frangetur_, with both Syriac, the
Gothic, and the Armenian of Uscan. The Latin Vulgate has _tradetur_ (but
_traditur_ in _harl._2, even in the parallel column of F and against its
Greek, and so Cyprian); the Bohairic renders _traditur_; but the Sahidic
and Ethiopic _datur_, after the διδόμενον of Zacagni’s Euthalius, derived
from Luke xxii. 19. Theodoret himself knew of both forms. The main
strength of κλώμενον rests on Patristic evidence. Mr. Forster has added to
our previous store the “conclusive testimony” of Basil (Forster, p. xxvi)
and of Athanasius himself (_ibid._ p. xvii), which is better than
Theodoret’s report at second hand; and thus too Chrysostom in three
places, one manuscript of Euthalius, John Damascene, the Patriarch
Germanus (A.D. 715, _ibid._ p. xix), Œcumenius and Theophylact. Mr.
Forster is perfectly justified also in pressing the evidence of the
Primitive Liturgies, in all of which κλώμενον occurs in the most sacred
words of Institution (_ibid._ pp. xx, xxi). Whatsoever change these
services have received in the course of ages, they have probably been
little altered since the fourth century, and very well established must
the word have then been to have found a place in them all. On the whole,
therefore, we submit this important text as a proof that the united
readings of אABC are sometimes at variance, not only with the more modern
codices united, but with the text of the oldest versions and most
illustrious Fathers. We confess, however, that in ver. 29 ἀναξίως (compare
ver. 27) and τοῦ _κύ_ look too much like glosses to be maintained
confidently against the evidence of א*ABC*, 17, (67**) and some
manuscripts of the Ethiopic.
35. 1 COR. xiii. 3. ἐὰν παραδῶ τὸ σῶμά μου ἵνα καυθήσωμαι, “though I give
my body to be burned.” Here we find the undoubtedly false reading
καυχήσωμαι in the three chief codices אAB and in 17, adopted by Drs.
Westcott and Hort(421), and it is said to have been favoured by Lachmann
in 1831, by Tregelles in 1873 (A. W. Tyler, Bibl. Sacra, 1873, p. 502).
Jerome testifies that in his time “apud Graecos ipsos ipsa exemplaria esse
diversa,” and preferred καυχήσωμαι (though all copies of the Latin have
_ut ardeam_ or _ut ardeat_), which is said to be countenanced by the Roman
Ethiopic: the case of the Bohairic is stated by Bp. Lightfoot (Chap.
IV)(422). Tischendorf cites Ephraem (ii. 112) for καυχήσομαι. This
variation, which involves the change of but one letter, is worth notice,
as showing that the best uncial MSS. are not always to be depended upon,
and sometimes are “blemished with errors” (Wordsworth, N. T., _ad loc._).
As a parallel use, Theodotion’s version of Dan. iii. 8 (παρέδωκαν τὰ
σώματα αὐτῶν εἰς πῦρ) is very pertinent: and for the punishment of burning
alive, as practised in those times, consult (if it be thought needful)
Joseph., Antiq. xvii. 6, 4 (Hort). Καυχήσωμαι may have obtained the more
credit, inasmuch as each of the other principal readings, namely
Tischendorf’s καυθήσομαι (DEFGL, 44, 47, 71, 80, 104, 113**, 253**, 254,
255, 257, 260, 265, with nine of Matthaei’s, and some others: καθήσομαι
244) and καυθήσωμαι (CK, 29, 37, and many others, Chrysostom, Theodoret,
&c.) of Lachmann and Tregelles, are anomalous, the former in respect to
mood, the latter to tense. The important cursive 73 has καυθήσεται with
some Latin copies: Codd. 1, 108*, Basil (perhaps Cyprian) adopt καυθῇ: the
Syriac (ܕܢܐܘܕ or ܕܘܐܢܕ), and I suppose the Arabic, will suit either of
these last. Evidence seems to preponderate on the side of καυθήσομαι, but
in the case of these itacisms manuscripts are very fallacious we know.
Such a subjunctive future as καυθήσωμαι, however, I should have been
disposed to question, had it not passed muster with much better scholars
than I am: but to illustrate it, as Tregelles does (An Account of the
Printed Text, p. 117, note), from ἵνα δώσῃ Apoc. viii. 3, is to accomplish
little, since δώσηι is the reading of אAC, 1 (although Erasmus has δώσῃ
with BP, 6, 7, 91, 98, and the Complutensian), 13, 28, 29, 30, 37, 40, 48,
68, 87, 94, 95, 96 (δωσι 8, 26, 27: δω 14), together with the best copies
of Andreas, and is justly approved by Lachmann and Tischendorf, nay even
by Tregelles himself in his second revision (1872). It seems most likely
that in both places ἵνα, the particle of design, is followed by the
_indicative_ future, as (with Meyer and Bp. Ellicott) I think to be
clearly the case in Eph. vi. 3. In John xvii. 3 even Tregelles adopts ἵνα
γινώσκουσιν(423).
36. 1 COR. xv. 51. We have now come to a passage which has perplexed
Biblical students from St. Jerome’s time, and has exercised the keen
judgement of Bp. Pearson in his Exposition of the seventh article of the
Apostles’ Creed. There is but little doubt that the Received text, as
rendered in our English versions, is the true reading: (a) Πάντες μὲν οὐ
κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα. Some of the leading authorities
omit μέν, a few put δέ or γάρ in its place, but, with this trifling
exception, the clause stands thus in B, the third hand of D, and
consequently in EKLP, 37, 47, 265, and indeed nearly all the cursives, as
in some manuscripts known to Jerome, and has the support of Theodore of
Heraclea and Apollinarius: and so the two Syriac, the Bohairic (the
Sahidic not being extant), the Gothic, and one edition of the Ethiopic
version. For the same form may be cited Ephraem the Syrian, Caesarius,
Gregory of Nyssa, and Chrysostom (often) in the fourth century; Theodoret
and Euthalius in the fifth century; Andreas of Caesarea in the sixth; John
Damascene in the eighth. A modification of this main and true reading (b)
Οὐ πάντες κοιμησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα is supported only by Origen
and some copies known to Jerome: it is only a clearer way of bringing out
the foregoing sense. The next form also hardly enters into competition,
(c) Πάντες [μὲν] ἀναστησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγήσομεθα: it is supported
by the first hand of D, by the Vulgate (whose manuscripts vary between
_resurgimus_ and _resurgemus_, while _m_ omits the negative), by
Tertullian and Hilary. Even the Latin versions of EF maintain it against
their own Greek, while Jerome and Augustine note it as a point wherein the
Latin copies diverge from the Greek. A fourth variation is due to Cod. A
alone, (d) Οἱ πάντες μὲν κοιμησόμεθα, οἱ πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα, the
second οι being altered by the first hand, and ου by the same or a very
early hand super-added after οἱ πάντες δέ: but this is only a correction
of transcriptional error. The real variation consists in the transfer of
the negative from the first clause to the second, (e) Πάντες [μὲν]
κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα of אC(F)G, 17, and apparently of
A also by intention. This last is discussed by Jerome, who alleges in its
favour Didymus and Acacius of Caesarea; it appears also in Origen, Cyril
of Alexandria, and in copies known to Pelagius and Maximus, but their
testimony fluctuates. In its favour are quoted the Armenian and one form
of the Ethiopic, but all the Latin prefer (c) except the interlinear
version of G, and the rendering set above the Vulgate text of F, which is
assimilated to the latter. The Complutensian margin in a special note
chronicles one other change, Πάντες μὲν οὖν κοιμηθησόμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντες
ἀλλαγησόμεθα, but this is bye-work. “The objection made in ancient times
to the Received reading was, that the _wicked_ would not be changed,
namely, glorified; but St. Paul is here speaking only of the resurrection
of the Just” (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth): compare 1 Thess. iv. 14-17. Thus Cod.
B and the cursives for once unite to convict of falsehood a change which
men were pleased to devise in order to evade a difficulty of their own
making.
37. EPH. v. 14. It is instructive to observe how a reading, pretty widely
diffused in the fourth century, though not obtaining much acceptance even
at that period, has almost entirely disappeared from extant codices. In
the place of ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ χριστός the first hand of D, followed of
course by E (Sangermanensis) and the Latin versions of both, exhibits an
interesting variant ἐπιψαύσεις τοῦ χριστοῦ, _continges Christum_. Jerome
had heard of it in the form ἐπιψαύσει, id est _continget te Christus_, but
refused to vouch for it, as do Chrysostom and Theodoret, though they treat
it with somewhat more consideration. The Latin interpreter of Origen
(against his own Greek twice, and the Latin once), with Victorinus and the
writer cited as Ambrosiaster, adopt it as genuine. Augustine (on Psalm
iii) has _et continget te_ once, but once elsewhere the common reading.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, in the Latin version of his Commentary on St.
Paul’s Epistles, recently edited by Dr. Swete from two manuscripts, one at
Amiens (Cod. 68) brought from Corbey [x], a second from Cuza, now
Harleian. 3063 [ix], after translating _inluminabit tibi Christus_, goes
on to say “alii _continget te Christus_ legerunt; habet autem nullam
sequentiam” (Swete, vol. i. p. 180). The variation of D* is surely too
curious to be lost sight of altogether. “The two imperatives [ἔγειρε and
ἀνάστα] doubtless suggested that the following future would be in the
second person, the required σ stood next after ἐπιφαύσει, easily read as
ἐπιψαύσει, and then the rest would follow accordingly.” Hort, Notes, p.
125. Such are the harmless recreations of a critical genius.
38. PHIL. ii. 1. εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, εἴ τινα σπλάγχνα. For τινα, to
the critic’s great perplexity, τις is found in אABCD EFGKLP, that is, in
_all_ the uncials extant at this place. As regards the cursives nearly the
same must be said. Of the seventeen collated by Scrivener, eleven read τις
(29, 30, 252, 254, 255, 257, 258, 260, 265, 266, 277), and six τι (31,
104, 221, 244, 253, 256). Mill enumerates sixteen others that give τις,
one (40) that has τι: Griesbach reckons forty-five in favour of τις, eight
(including Cod. 4) for τι, to which Scholz adds a few more (18, 46, 72,
74). Thus _am. fuld. tol._ of the Vulgate render _si quid viscera_, for
the more usual _si qua viscera_. One cursive (109) and a manuscript of
Theodoret have τε. Basil, Chrysostom (in manuscript) and others read τις,
as do the Complutensian, the Aldine (1518), Erasmus’ first four, and R.
Stephen’s first two editions. In fact it may be stated that no manuscript
whatever has been cited for τινα, which is not therefore likely to be
found in many. Theodore of Mopsuestia alone, in his Latin version
published by Dr. Swete (vol. i. p. 214), has _si qua et viscera_ against
the Vulgate. In spite of what was said above with regard to far weaker
cases, it is impossible to blame editors for putting τις into the text
here before σπλάνχνα: to have acted otherwise (as Tischendorf fairly
observes) would have been “_grammatici quam editoris partes agere_.” Yet
we may believe the reading to be as false as it is intolerable, and to
afford us another proof of the early and (as the cursives show) the
well-nigh universal corruption of our copies in some minute particulars.
Of course Clement and later Fathers give τινα, indeed it is surprising
that any cite otherwise; but, _in the absence of definite documentary
proof_, this can hardly be regarded as genuine. Probably St. Paul wrote τι
(the reading of about nineteen cursives), which would readily be corrupted
into τις, by reason of the σ following (ΤΙΣΠΛΑΓΧΝΑ), and the τις which had
just preceded. See also Moulton’s “Winer,” p. 661, and note 3.
39. COL. ii. 2. τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ, “of the
mystery of God the Father, and of Christ.” The reading of B (approved by
Lachmann, by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, by Tregelles, Westcott and
Hort, Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, and Bp. Ellicott), τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ
χριστοῦ (“ita cod. nihil interponens inter θεοῦ et χριστοῦ,” Mai, 2nd
ed.(424)), has “every appearance of being the original reading, and that
from which the many perplexing variations have arisen” (Canon II). At
present it stands in great need of confirmation, since Hilary (de Trin.
ix) alone supports it (but καὶ χριστοῦ Cyril), though the Scriptural
character of the expression is upheld by the language of ch. i. 27 just
preceding, and by the Received text in 1 Tim. iii. 16. Some, who feel a
difficulty in understanding how χριστοῦ was removed from the text, if it
ever had a place there, conceive that the verse should end with θεοῦ, all
additions, including χριστοῦ the simplest, being _accretions_ to the
genuine passage. These alleged accretions are τοῦ θεοῦ ὅ ἐστι χριστός,
manifestly an expansion of χριστοῦ and derived from ch. i. 27; τοῦ θεοῦ
πατρὸς τοῦ χριστοῦ: τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ, the final form of
the Received text. Now, of these four readings, τοῦ θεοῦ the shortest,
and, according to Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf in his seventh edition,
Alford, and Dr. Green, the true one, is found only in the late uncial P,
and in a few, though confessedly good, cursives: 37, 71, 80*, 116 (καὶ
θεοῦ 23), and the important second hand of 67; witnesses too few and
feeble, unless we consent to put our third Canon of internal evidence to a
rather violent use. Of the longer readings, ὅ ἐστιν χριστός is favoured by
D (though obelized by the second hand, which thus would read only τοῦ
θεοῦ), _d_ _e_ (whose parallel Greek speaks differently), by Augustine and
Vigilius of Thapsus, but apparently by no cursives. The form best vouched
for appears to be that of א*AC, 4, of the Sahidic according to one of the
readings of Griesbach, and of an Arabic codex of Tischendorf, τοῦ θεοῦ
πατρὸς τοῦ (א* omits τοῦ) χριστοῦ. To these words “_ihu_” is simply added
by _f_ (FG, _g_ are unfortunately lost here) and by other manuscripts of
the Vulgate (_am. fuld._, &c.), though the Clementine edition has “Dei
patris et Christi Jesu,” the Complutensian in the Latin “dei et patris et
C.J.” With the Clementine Vulgate agree the Bohairic, and (omitting ἰησοῦ)
the Peshitto Syriac, Arabic, 47, 73, Chrysostom; while 41, 115, 213, 221,
253* (τοῦ θ. καὶ π. τοῦ χ.), so far strengthen the case of אAC. The
Received text is found in (apparently) the great mass of cursives, in D
(_tertiâ manu_), EKL, the Harkleian Syriac (but the καί after πατρός
marked with one of Harkel’s asterisks), Theodoret, John Damascene and
others. The minor variations, τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν χριστῷ of Clement and
Ambrosiaster, τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐν χριστῷ of 17, uphold D*, as may the Ethiopic
(“domini quod de Christo”): to the reading of Cod. 17 Zohrab’s or the
Venice Armenian (A.D. 1789) simply adds “Jesu.” We also find “dei Christi
Jesu patris et domini” in _tol._, “dei patris et domini nostri Christi” in
_demid._, “dei patris in Christo Jesu” in Uscan’s Armenian; but these
deserve not attention. Theodore of Mopsuestia (Swete, vol. i. p. 283), has
_mysterii Dei Patris et Christi_, which need not imply the omission of καί
before πατρός.
On reviewing the whole mass of conflicting evidence, we may unhesitatingly
reject the shortest form τοῦ θεοῦ, some of whose maintainers do not
usually found their text on cursive manuscripts almost exclusively. We
would gladly adopt τοῦ θεοῦ χριστοῦ, so powerfully do internal
considerations plead in its favour, were it but a little better supported:
the important doctrine which it declares, Scriptural and Catholic as that
is, will naturally make us only the more cautious in receiving it
unreservedly. Yet the more we think over this reading, the more it grows
upon us, as the source from which all the rest are derived. At present,
perhaps, τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ χριστοῦ may be looked upon as the most
strongly attested, but in the presence of so many opposing probabilities,
a very small weight might suffice to turn the critical scale.