CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
II. Assimilation.
§ 1.
There results inevitably from the fourfold structure of the
Gospel,--from the very fact that the story of Redemption is set forth in
four narratives, three of which often ran parallel,--this practical
inconvenience: namely, that sometimes the expressions of one Evangelist
get improperly transferred to another. This is a large and important
subject which calls for great attention, and requires to be separately
handled. The phenomena alluded to, which are similar to some of those
which have been treated in the last chapter, may be comprised under the
special head of Assimilation.
It will I think promote clearness in the ensuing discussion if we
determine to consider separately those instances of Assimilation which
may rather be regarded as deliberate attempts to reconcile one Gospel
with another: indications of a fixed determination to establish harmony
between place and place. I am saying that between ordinary cases of
Assimilation such as occur in every page, and extraordinary instances
where _per fas et nefas_ an enforced Harmony has been established,--
which abound indeed, but are by no means common,--I am disposed to draw
a line.
This whole province is beset with difficulties: and the matter is in
itself wondrously obscure. I do not suppose, in the absence of any
evidence direct or indirect on the subject,--at all events I am not
aware--that at any time has there been one definite authoritative
attempt made by the Universal Church in her corporate capacity to
remodel or revise the Text of the Gospels. An attentive study of the
phenomena leads me, on the contrary, to believe that the several
corruptions of the text were effected at different times, and took their
beginning in widely different ways. I suspect that Accident was the
parent of many; and well meant critical assiduity of more. Zeal for the
Truth is accountable for not a few depravations: and the Church's
Liturgical and Lectionary practice must insensibly have produced others.
Systematic villainy I am persuaded has had no part or lot in the matter.
The decrees of such an one as Origen, if there ever was another like
him, will account for a strange number of aberrations from the Truth:
and if the Diatessaron of Tatian could be recovered[184], I suspect that
we should behold there the germs at least of as many more. But, I repeat
my conviction that, however they may have originated, the causes [are
not to be found in bad principle, but either in infirmities or
influences which actuated scribes unconsciously, or in a want of
understanding as to what is the Church's duty in the transmission from
generation to generation of the sacred deposit committed to her
enlightened care.]
§ 2.
1. When we speak of Assimilation, we do not mean that a writer while
engaged in transcribing one Gospel was so completely beguiled and
overmastered by his recollections of the parallel place in another
Gospel,--that, forsaking the expressions proper to the passage before
him, he unconsciously adopted the language which properly belongs to a
different Evangelist. That to a very limited extent this may have
occasionally taken place, I am not concerned to deny: but it would argue
incredible inattention to what he was professing to copy, on the one
hand,--astonishing familiarity with what he was not professing to copy,
on the other,--that a scribe should have been capable of offending
largely in this way. But in fact a moderate acquaintance with the
subject is enough to convince any thoughtful person that the corruptions
in MSS. which have resulted from accidental Assimilation must needs be
inconsiderable in bulk, as well as few in number. At all events, the
phenomenon referred to, when we speak of 'Assimilation,' is not to be so
accounted for: it must needs be explained in some entirely different
way. Let me make my meaning plain:
(_a_) We shall probably be agreed that when the scribe of Cod. [Symbol:
Aleph], in place of [Greek: basanisai hêmas] (in St. Matt. viii. 29),
writes [Greek: hêmas apolesai],--it may have been his memory which
misled him. He may have been merely thinking of St. Mark i. 24, or of
St. Luke iv. 34.
(_b_) Again, when in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]B we find [Greek: tassomenos]
thrust without warrant into St. Matt. viii. 9, we see that the word has
lost its way from St. Luke vii. 8; and we are prone to suspect that only
by accident has it crept into the parallel narrative of the earlier
Evangelist.
(_c_) In the same way I make no doubt that [Greek: potamô] (St. Matt.
iii. 6) is indebted for its place in [Symbol: Aleph]BC, &c., to the
influence of the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel (i. 5); and I am
only astonished that critics should have been beguiled into adopting so
clear a corruption of the text as part of the genuine Gospel.
(_d_) To be brief:--the insertion by [Symbol: Aleph] of [Greek: adelphe]
(in St. Matt. vii. 4) is confessedly the result of the parallel passage
in St. Luke vi. 42. The same scribe may be thought to have written
[Greek: tô anemô] instead of [Greek: tois anemois] in St. Matt. viii.
26, only because he was so familiar with [Greek: tô anemô] in St. Luke
viii. 24 and in St. Mark iv. 39.--The author of the prototype of
[Symbol: Aleph]BD (with whom by the way are some of the Latin versions)
may have written [Greek: echete] in St. Matt, xvi. 8, only because he
was thinking of the parallel place in St. Mark viii. 17.--[Greek:
Êrxanto aganaktein] (St. Matt. xx. 24) can only have been introduced
into [Symbol: Aleph] from the parallel place in St. Mark x. 41, and
_may_ have been supplied _memoriter_.--St. Luke xix. 21 is clearly not
parallel to St. Matt. xxv. 24; yet it evidently furnished the scribe of
[Symbol: Aleph] with the epithet [Greek: austêros] in place of [Greek:
sklêros].--The substitution by [Symbol: Aleph] of [Greek: hon
parêtounto] in St. Matt. xxvii. 15 for [Greek: hon êthelon] may seem to
be the result of inconvenient familiarity with the parallel place in St.
Mark xv. 6; where, as has been shewn[185], instead of [Greek: honper
êitounto], Symbol: [Aleph]AB viciously exhibit [Greek: hon parêtounto],
which Tischendorf besides Westcott and Hort mistake for the genuine
Gospel. Who will hesitate to admit that, when [Symbol: Aleph]L exhibit
in St. Matt. xix. 16,--instead of the words [Greek: poiêsô hina echô
zôên aiônion],--the formula which is found in the parallel place of St.
Luke xviii. 18, viz. [Greek: poiêsas zôên aiônion klêronomêsô],--those
unauthorized words must have been derived from this latter place? Every
ordinary reader will be further prone to assume that the scribe who
first inserted them into St. Matthew's Gospel did so because, for
whatever reason, he was more familiar with the latter formula than with
the former.
(_e_) But I should have been willing to go further. I might have been
disposed to admit that when [Symbol: Aleph]DL introduce into St. Matt.
x. 12 the clause [Greek: legontes, eirênê tô oikô toutô] (which last
four words confessedly belong exclusively to St. Luke x. 5), the author
of the depraved original from which [Symbol: Aleph]DL were derived may
have been only yielding to the suggestions of an inconveniently good
memory:--may have succeeded in convincing himself from what follows in
verse 13 that St. Matthew must have written, 'Peace be to this house;'
though he found no such words in St. Matthew's text. And so, with the
best intentions, he may most probably have inserted them.
(_f_) Again. When [Symbol: Aleph] and Evan. 61 thrust into St. Matt. ix.
34 (from the parallel place in St. Luke viii. 53) the clause [Greek:
eidotes hoti apethanen], it is of course conceivable that the authors of
those copies were merely the victims of excessive familiarity with the
third Gospel. But then,--although we are ready to make every allowance
that we possibly can for memories so singularly constituted, and to
imagine a set of inattentive scribes open to inducements to recollect or
imagine instead of copying, and possessed of an inconvenient familiarity
with one particular Gospel,--it is clear that our complaisance must stop
somewhere. Instances of this kind of licence at last breed suspicion.
Systematic 'assimilation' cannot be the effect of accident. Considerable
interpolations must of course be intentional. The discovery that Cod. D,
for example, introduces at the end of St. Luke v. 14 thirty-two words
from St. Mark's Gospel (i. 45--ii. 1, [Greek: ho de exelthôn] down to
[Greek: Kapharnaoum]), opens our eyes. This wholesale importation
suggests the inquiry,--How did it come about? We look further, and we
find that Cod. D abounds in instances of 'Assimilation' so unmistakably
intentional, that this speedily becomes the only question, How may all
these depravations of the sacred text be most satisfactorily accounted
for? [And the answer is evidently found in the existence of extreme
licentiousness in the scribe or scribes responsible for Codex D, being
the product of ignorance and carelessness combined with such looseness
of principle, as permitted the exercise of direct attempts to improve
the sacred Text by the introduction of passages from the three remaining
Gospels and by other alterations.]
§ 3.
Sometimes indeed the true Text bears witness to itself, as may be seen
in the next example.
The little handful of well-known authorities ([Symbol: Aleph]BDL, with a
few copies of the Old Latin, and one of the Egyptian Versions[186]),
conspire in omitting from St. John xvi. 16 the clause [Greek: hoti egô
hypagô pros ton Patera]: for which reason Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Alford, Westcott and Hort omit those six words, and Lachmann puts them
into brackets. And yet, let the context be considered. Our Saviour had
said (ver. 16),--'A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a
little while, and ye shall see Me, because I go to the Father.' It
follows (ver. 17),--'Then said some of His disciples among themselves,
What is this that He saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see
Me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me: and, _Because I go
to the_ Father?'--Now, the context here,--the general sequence of words
and ideas--in and by itself, creates a high degree of probability that
the clause is genuine. It must at all events be permitted to retain its
place in the Gospel, unless there is found to exist an overwhelming
amount of authority for its exclusion. What then are the facts? All the
other uncials, headed by A and I^{b} (_both_ of the fourth
century),--every known Cursive--all the Versions, (Latin, Syriac,
Gothic, Coptic, &c.)--are for retaining the clause. Add, that
Nonnus[187] (A.D. 400) recognizes it: that the texts of Chrysostom[188]
and of Cyril[189] do the same; and that both those Fathers (to say
nothing of Euthymius and Theophylact) in their Commentaries expressly
bear witness to its genuineness:--and, With what shew of reason can it
any longer be pretended that some Critics, including the Revisers, are
warranted in leaving out the words?... It were to trifle with the reader
to pursue this subject further. But how did the words ever come to be
omitted? Some early critic, I answer, who was unable to see the
exquisite proprieties of the entire passage, thought it desirable to
bring ver. 16 into conformity with ver. 19, where our Lord seems at
first sight to resyllable the matter. That is all!
Let it be observed--and then I will dismiss the matter--that the
selfsame thing has happened in the next verse but one (ver. 18), as
Tischendorf candidly acknowledges. The [Greek: touto ti hestin] of the
Evangelist has been tastelessly assimilated by BDLY to the [Greek: ti
estin touto] which went immediately before.
§ 4.
Were I invited to point to a beautifully described incident in the
Gospel, I should find it difficult to lay my finger on anything more apt
for my purpose than the transaction described in St. John xiii. 21-25.
It belongs to the closing scene of our Saviour's Ministry. 'Verily,
verily, I say unto you,' (the words were spoken at the Last Supper),
'one of you will betray Me. The disciples therefore looked one at
another, wondering of whom He spake. Now there was reclining in the
bosom of Jesus ([Greek: ên de anakeimenos en tô kolpô tou 'I.]) one of
His disciples whom Jesus loved. To him therefore Simon Peter motioneth
to inquire who it may be concerning whom He speaketh. He then, just
sinking on the breast of Jesus ([Greek: epipesôn de ekeinos houtôs epi
to stêthos tou 'I.]) [i.e. otherwise keeping his position, see above, p.
60], saith unto Him, Lord, who is it?'
The Greek is exquisite. At first, St. John has been simply 'reclining
([Greek: anakeimenos]) in the bosom' of his Divine Master: that is, his
place at the Supper is the next adjoining His,--for the phrase really
means little more. But the proximity is of course excessive, as the
sequel shews. Understanding from St. Peter's gesture what is required of
him, St. John merely sinks back, and having thus let his head fall
([Greek: epipesôn]) on (or close to) His Master's chest ([Greek: epi to
stêthos]), he says softly,--'Lord, who is it?' ... The moment is perhaps
the most memorable in the Evangelist's life: the position, one of
unutterable privilege. Time, place, posture, action,--all settle so deep
into his soul, that when, in his old age, he would identify himself, he
describes himself as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved; who also at the
Supper' (that memorable Supper!) 'lay ([Greek: anepesen][190]) on Jesus'
breast,' (literally, 'upon His chest,'--[Greek: epi to stêthos autou]),
and said, 'Lord, who is it that is to betray Thee?' (ch. xxi. 20)....
Yes, and the Church was not slow to take the beautiful hint. His
language so kindled her imagination that the early Fathers learned to
speak of St. John the Divine, as [Greek: ho epistêthios],--'the
(recliner) on the chest[191].'
Now, every delicate discriminating touch in this sublime picture is
faithfully retained throughout by the cursive copies in the proportion
of about eighty to one. The great bulk of the MSS., as usual, uncial and
cursive alike, establish the undoubted text of the Evangelist, which is
here the Received Text. Thus, a vast majority of the MSS., with [Symbol:
Aleph]AD at their head, read [Greek: epipesôn] in St. John xiii. 25.
Chrysostom[192] and probably Cyril[193] confirm the same reading. So
also Nonnus[194]. Not so B and C with four other uncials and about
twenty cursives (the vicious Evan. 33 being at their head), besides
Origen[195] in two places and apparently Theodorus of Mopsuestia[196].
These by mischievously assimilating the place in ch. xiii to the later
place in ch. xxi in which such affecting reference is made to it,
hopelessly obscure the Evangelist's meaning. For they substitute [Greek:
anapesôn oun ekeinos k.t.l.] It is exactly as when children, by way of
improving the sketch of a great Master, go over his matchless outlines
with a clumsy pencil of their own.
That this is the true history of the substitution of [Greek: anapesôn]
in St. John xiii. 25 for the less obvious [Greek: epipesôn] is certain.
Origen, who was probably the author of all the mischief, twice sets the
two places side by side and elaborately compares them; in the course of
which operation, by the way, he betrays the viciousness of the text
which he himself employed. But what further helps to explain how easily
[Greek: anapesôn] might usurp the place of [Greek: epipesôn][197], is
the discovery just noticed, that the ancients from the earliest period
were in the habit of identifying St. John, as St. John had identified
himself, by calling him '_the one that lay_ ([Greek: ho anapesôn]) _upon
the Lord's chest_.' The expression, derived from St. John xxi. 20, is
employed by Irenaeus[198] (A.D. 178) and by Polycrates[199] (Bp. of
Ephesus A.D. 196); by Origen[200] and by Ephraim Syrus[201]: by
Epiphanius[202] and by Palladius[203]: by Gregory of Nazianzus[204] and
by his namesake of Nyssa[205]: by pseudo-Eusebius[206], by
pseudo-Caesarius[207], and by pseudo-Chrysostom[208]. The only wonder
is, that in spite of such influences all the MSS. in the world except
about twenty-six have retained the true reading.
Instructive in the meantime it is to note the fate which this word has
experienced at the hands of some Critics. Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, have all in turn bowed to the
authority of Cod. B and Origen. Bishop Lightfoot mistranslates[209] and
contends on the same side. Alford informs us that [Greek: epipesôn] has
surreptitiously crept in 'from St. Luke xv. 20': (why should it? how
could it?) '[Greek: anapesôn] not seeming appropriate.' Whereas, on the
contrary, [Greek: anapesôn] is the invariable and obvious
expression,--[Greek: epipesôn] the unusual, and, till it has been
explained, the unintelligible word. Tischendorf,--who had read [Greek:
epipesôn] in 1848 and [Greek: anapesôn] in 1859,--in 1869 reverts to his
first opinion; advocating with parental partiality what he had since met
with in Cod. [Symbol: Aleph]. Is then the truth of Scripture aptly
represented by that fitful beacon-light somewhere on the French
coast,--now visible, now eclipsed, now visible again,--which benighted
travellers amuse themselves by watching from the deck of the Calais
packet?
It would be time to pass on. But because in this department of study men
are observed never to abandon a position until they are fairly shelled
out and left without a pretext for remaining, I proceed to shew that
[Greek: anapesôn] (for [Greek: epipesôn]) is only one corrupt reading
out of many others hereabouts. The proof of this statement follows.
Might it not have been expected that the old uncials' ([Symbol:
Aleph]ABCD) would exhibit the entire context of such a passage as the
present with tolerable accuracy? The reader is invited to attend to the
results of collation:--
xiii. 21.-[Greek: o] [Symbol: Aleph]B: [Greek: umin legô] _tr._
B.
xiii. 22.-[Greek: oun] BC: + [Greek: oi Ioudaioi] [Symbol:
Aleph]: [Greek: aporountei] D.
xiii. 23.-[Greek: de] B: + [Greek: ek] [Symbol:
Aleph]ABCD:-[Greek: o] B: + [Greek: kai] D.
xiii. 24. (_for_ [Greek: pythesthai tis an eiê] + [Greek: outos]
D) [Greek: kai legei autô, eipe tis estin] BC: (_for_ [Greek:
legei]) [Greek: elegen] [Symbol: Aleph]: + [Greek: kai legei
autô eipe tis estin peri ou legei] [Symbol: Aleph].
xiii. 25. (_for_ [Greek: epipesôn]) [Greek: anapesôn] BC:-[Greek: de]
BC: (_for_ [Greek: de]) [Greek: oun] [Symbol: Aleph]D; -[Greek:
outos] [Symbol: Aleph]AD.
xiii. 26. + [Greek: oun] BC: + [Greek: autô] D:--[Greek: o] B: +
[Greek: kai legei] [Symbol: Aleph]BD: + [Greek: an] D: (_for_
[Greek: bapsas]) [Greek: embapsas] AD: [Greek: bapsô ... kai
dôsô autô] BC: + [Greek: psômou] (_after_ [Greek: psômion]) C:
(_for_ [Greek: embapsas]) [Greek: bapsas] D: (_for_ [Greek: kai
embapsas]) [Greek: bapsas oun] [Symbol: Aleph]BC: -[Greek: to]
B: + [Greek: lambanei kai] BC: [Greek: Iskariôtou] [Symbol:
Aleph]BC: [Greek: apo Karyôtou] D.
xiii. 27.-[Greek: tote] [Symbol: Aleph]:-[Greek: meta to psômion
tote] D: (_for_ [Greek: legei oun]) [Greek: kai legei]
D:-[Greek: o] B.
In these seven verses therefore, (which present no special difficulty to
a transcriber,) the Codexes in question are found to exhibit at least
thirty-five varieties,--for twenty-eight of which (jointly or singly) B
is responsible: [Symbol: Aleph] for twenty-two: C for twenty-one: D for
nineteen: A for three. It is found that twenty-three words have been
added to the text: fifteen substituted: fourteen taken away; and the
construction has been four times changed. One case there has been of
senseless transposition. Simon, the father of Judas, (not Judas the
traitor), is declared by [Symbol: Aleph]BCD to have been called
'Iscariot.' Even this is not all. What St. John relates concerning
himself is hopelessly obscured; and a speech is put into St. Peter's
mouth which he certainly never uttered. It is not too much to say that
every delicate lineament has vanished from the picture. What are we to
think of guides like [Symbol: Aleph]BCD, which are proved to be utterly
untrustworthy?
§ 5.
The first two verses of St. Mark's Gospel have fared badly. Easy of
transcription and presenting no special difficulty, they ought to have
come down to us undisfigured by any serious variety of reading. On the
contrary. Owing to entirely different causes, either verse has
experienced calamitous treatment. I have elsewhere[210] proved that the
clause [Greek: huiou tou Theou] in verse 1 is beyond suspicion. Its
removal from certain copies of the Gospel was originally due to
heretical influence. But because Origen gave currency to the text so
mutilated, it re-appears mechanically in several Fathers who are intent
only on reproducing a certain argument of Origen's against the Manichees
in which the mutilated text occurs. The same Origen is responsible to
some extent, and in the same way, for the frequent introduction of
'Isaiah's' name into verse 21--whereas 'in the prophets' is what St.
Mark certainly wrote; but the appearance of 'Isaiah' there in the first
instance was due to quite a different cause. In the meantime, it is
witnessed to by the Latin, Syriac[211], Gothic, and Egyptian versions,
as well as by [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta], and (according to
Tischendorf) by nearly twenty-five cursives; besides the following
ancient writers: Irenaeus, Origen, Porphyry, Titus, Basil, Serapion,
Epiphanius, Severianus, Victor, Eusebius, Victorinus, Jerome, Augustine.
I proceed to shew that this imposing array of authorities for reading
[Greek: en tô Êsaia tô prophêtê] instead of [Greek: en tois prophêtais]
in St. Mark i. 2, which has certainly imposed upon every recent editor
and critic[212],--has been either overestimated or else misunderstood.
1. The testimony of the oldest versions, when attention is paid to their
contents, is discovered to be of inferior moment in minuter matters of
this nature. Thus, copies of the Old Latin version thrust Isaiah's name
into St. Matt. i. 22, and Zechariah's name into xxi. 4: as well as
thrust out Jeremiah's name from xxvii. 9:--the first, with Curetonian,
Lewis, Harkleian, Palestinian, and D,--the second, with Chrysostom and
Hilary,--the third, with the Peshitto. The Latin and the Syriac further
substitute [Greek: tou prophêtou] for [Greek: tôn prophêtôn] in St.
Matt. ii. 23,--through misapprehension of the Evangelist's meaning. What
is to be thought of Cod. [Symbol: Aleph] for introducing the name of
'Isaiah' into St. Matt. xiii. 35,--where it clearly cannot stand, the
quotation being confessedly from Ps. lxxviii. 2; but where nevertheless
Porphyry[213], Eusebius[214], and pseudo-Jerome[215] certainly found it
in many ancient copies?
2. Next, for the testimony of the Uncial Codexes [Symbol:
Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta]:--If any one will be at the pains to tabulate
the 900[216] new 'readings' adopted by Tischendorf in editing St. Mark's
Gospel, he will discover that for 450, or just half of them,--all the
450, as I believe, being corruptions of the text,--[Symbol: Aleph]BL are
responsible: and further, that their responsibility is shared on about
200 occasions by D: on about 265 by C: on about 350 by [Delta][217]. At
some very remote period therefore there must have grown up a vicious
general reading of this Gospel which remains in the few bad copies: but
of which the largest traces (and very discreditable traces they are) at
present survive in [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL[Symbol: Delta]. After this
discovery the avowal will not be thought extraordinary that I regard
with unmingled suspicion readings which are exclusively vouched for by
five of the same Codexes: e.g. by [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta].
3. The cursive copies which exhibit 'Isaiah' in place of 'the prophet.'
reckoned by Tischendorf at 'nearly twenty-five,' are probably less than
fifteen[218], and those, almost all of suspicious character. High time
it is that the inevitable consequence of an appeal to such evidence were
better understood.
4. From Tischendorf's list of thirteen Fathers, serious deductions have
to be made. Irenaeus and Victor of Antioch are clearly with the Textus
Receptus. Serapion, Titus, Basil do but borrow from Origen; and, with
his argument, reproduce his corrupt text of St. Mark i. 2. The
last-named Father however saves his reputation by leaving out the
quotation from Malachi; so, passing directly from the mention of Isaiah
to the actual words of that prophet. Epiphanius (and Jerome too on one
occasion[219]) does the same thing. Victorinus and Augustine, being
Latin writers, merely quote the Latin version ('sicut scriptum est in
Isaiâ propheta'), which is without variety of reading. There remain
Origen (the faulty character of whose Codexes has been remarked upon
already), Porphyry[220] the heretic (who wrote a book to convict the
Evangelists of mis-statements[221], and who is therefore scarcely a
trustworthy witness), Eusebius, Jerome and Severianus. Of these,
Eusebius[222] and Jerome[223] deliver it as their opinion that the name
of 'Isaiah' had obtained admission into the text through the
inadvertency of copyists. Is it reasonable, on the slender residuum of
evidence, to insist that St. Mark has ascribed to Isaiah words
confessedly written by Malachi? 'The fact,' writes a recent editor in
the true spirit of modern criticism, 'will not fail to be observed by
the careful and honest student of the Gospels.' But what if 'the fact'
should prove to be 'a fiction' only? And (I venture to ask) would not
'carefulness' be better employed in scrutinizing the adverse testimony?
'honesty' in admitting that on grounds precarious as the present no
indictment against an Evangelist can be seriously maintained? This
proposal to revive a blunder which the Church in her corporate capacity
has from the first refused to sanction (for the Evangelistaria know
nothing of it) carries in fact on its front its own sufficient
condemnation. Why, in the face of all the copies in the world (except a
little handful of suspicious character), will men insist on imputing to
an inspired writer a foolish mis-statement, instead of frankly admitting
that the text must needs have been corrupted in that little handful of
copies through the officiousness of incompetent criticism?
And do any inquire,--How then did this perversion of the truth arise? In
the easiest way possible, I answer. Refer to the Eusebian tables, and
note that the foremost of his sectional parallels is as follows:--
St. Matt. [Greek: ê] (i.e. iii. 3).
St. Mark. [Greek: b] (i.e. i. 3).
St. Luke. [Greek: z] (i.e. iii. 3-6).
St. John. [Greek: i] (i.e. i. 23)[224].
Now, since the name of Isaiah occurs in the first, the third and the
fourth of these places in connexion with the quotation from Is. xl. 3,
_what_ more obvious than that some critic with harmonistic proclivities
should have insisted on supplying _the second also_, i.e. the parallel
place in St. Mark's Gospel, with the name of the evangelical prophet,
elsewhere so familiarly connected with the passage quoted? This is
nothing else in short but an ordinary instance of Assimilation, so
unskilfully effected however as to betray itself. It might have been
passed by with fewer words, for the fraud is indeed transparent, but
that it has so largely imposed upon learned men, and established itself
so firmly in books. Let me hope that we shall not hear it advocated any
more.
Regarded as an instrument of criticism, Assimilation requires to be very
delicately as well as very skilfully handled. If it is to be applied to
determining the text of Scripture, it must be employed, I take leave to
say, in a very different spirit from what is met with in Dr.
Tischendorf's notes, or it will only mislead. Is a word--a clause--a
sentence--omitted by his favourite authorities [Symbol: Aleph]BDL? It is
enough if that learned critic finds nearly the same word,--a very
similar clause,--a sentence of the same general import,--in an account
of the same occurrence by another Evangelist, for him straightway to
insist that the sentence, the clause, the word, has been imported into
the commonly received Text from such parallel place; and to reject it
accordingly.
But, as the thoughtful reader must see, this is not allowable, except
under peculiar circumstances. For first, whatever _a priori_
improbability might be supposed to attach to the existence of identical
expressions in two Evangelical records of the same transaction, is
effectually disposed of by the discovery that very often identity of
expression actually does occur. And (2), the only condition which could
warrant the belief that there has been assimilation, is observed to be
invariably away from Dr. Tischendorf's instances.--viz. a sufficient
number of respectable attesting witnesses: it being a fundamental
principle in the law of Evidence, that the very few are rather to be
suspected than the many. But further (3), if there be some marked
diversity of expression discoverable in the two parallel places; and if
that diversity has been carefully maintained all down the ages in either
place;--then it may be regarded as certain, on the contrary, that there
has not been assimilation; but that this is only one more instance of
two Evangelists saying similar things or the same thing in slightly
different language. Take for example the following case:--Whereas St.
Matt. (xxiv. 15) speaks of 'the abomination of desolation [Greek: to
rhêthen DIA Daniêl tou prophêtou], standing ([Greek: hestôs]) in the
holy place'; St. Mark (xiii. 14) speaks of it as '[Greek: to rhêthen UPO
Daniêl tou prophêtou] standing ([Greek: hestos]) where it ought not.'
Now, because [Symbol: Aleph]BDL with copies of the Italic, the Vulgate,
and the Egyptian versions omit from St. Mark's Gospel the six words
written above in Greek, Tischendorf and his school are for expunging
those six words from St. Mark's text, on the plea that they are probably
an importation from St. Matthew. But the little note of variety which
the Holy Spirit has set on the place in the second Gospel (indicated
above in capital letters) suggests that these learned men are mistaken.
Accordingly, the other fourteen uncials and all the cursives,--besides
the Peshitto, Harkleian, and copies of the Old Latin--a much more
weighty body of evidence--are certainly right in retaining the words in
St. Mark xiii. 14.
Take two more instances of misuse in criticism of Assimilation.
St. Matthew (xii. 10), and St. Luke in the parallel place of his Gospel
(xiv. 3), describe our Lord as asking,--'Is it lawful to heal on the
sabbath day?' Tischendorf finding that his favourite authorities in this
latter place continue the sentence with the words 'or _not_?' assumes
that those two words must have fallen out of the great bulk of the
copies of St. Luke, which, according to him, have here assimilated their
phraseology to that of St. Matthew. But the hypothesis is clearly
inadmissible,--though it is admitted by most modern critics. Do not
these learned persons see that the supposition is just as lawful, and
the probability infinitely greater, that it is on the contrary the few
copies which have here undergone the process of assimilation; and that
the type to which they have been conformed, is to be found in St. Matt.
xxii. 17; St. Mark xii. 14; St. Luke xx. 22?
It is in fact surprising how often a familiar place of Scripture has
exerted this kind of assimilating influence over a little handful of
copies. Thus, some critics are happily agreed in rejecting the proposal
of [Symbol: Aleph]BDLR, (backed scantily by their usual retinue of
evidence) to substitute for [Greek: gemisai tên koilian autou apo], in
St. Luke xv. 16, the words [Greek: chortasthênai ek]. But editors have
omitted to point out that the words [Greek: epethymei chortasthênai],
introduced in defiance of the best authorities into the parable of
Lazarus (xvi. 20), have simply been transplanted thither out of the
parable of the prodigal son.
The reader has now been presented with several examples of Assimilation.
Tischendorf, who habitually overlooks the phenomenon where it seems to
be sufficiently conspicuous, is observed constantly to discover cases of
Assimilation where none exist. This is in fact his habitual way of
accounting for not a few of the omissions in Cod. [Symbol: Aleph]. And
because he has deservedly enjoyed a great reputation, it becomes the
more necessary to set the reader on his guard against receiving such
statements without a thorough examination of the evidence on which they
rest.
§ 6.
The value--may I not say, the use?--of these delicate differences of
detail becomes apparent whenever the genuineness of the text is called
in question. Take an example. The following fifteen words are
deliberately excluded from St. Mark's Gospel (vi. 11) by some critics on
the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL[Symbol: Delta],--a most suspicious
company, and three cursives; besides a few copies of the Old Latin,
including the Vulgate:--[Greek: amên legô hymin, anektoteron estai
Sodomois ê Gomorrois en hêmerai kriseôs, hê tê polei ekeinê]. It is
pretended that this is nothing else but an importation from the parallel
place of St. Matthew's Gospel (x. 15). But that is impossible: for, as
the reader sees at a glance, a delicate but decisive note of
discrimination has been set on the two places. St. Mark writes, [Greek:
SodomOIS Ê GomorrOIS]: St. Matthew, [Greek: GÊ SodomÔN KAI GomorrÔN].
And this threefold, or rather fourfold, diversity of expression has
existed from the beginning; for it has been faithfully retained all down
the ages: it exists to this hour in every known copy of the Gospel,--
except of course those nine which omit the sentence altogether. There
can be therefore no doubt about its genuineness. The critics of the
modern school (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and
Hort) seek in vain to put upon us a mutilated text by omitting those
fifteen words. The two places are clearly independent of each other.
It does but remain to point out that the exclusion of these fifteen
words from the text of St. Mark, has merely resulted from the influence
of the parallel place in St. Luke's Gospel (ix. 5),--where nothing
whatever is found[225] corresponding with St. Matt. x. 5--St. Mark vi.
11. The process of Assimilation therefore has been actively at work
here, although not in the way which some critics suppose. It has
resulted, not in the insertion of the words in dispute in the case of
the very many copies; but on the contrary in their omission from the
very few. And thus, one more brand is set on [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL[Symbol:
Delta] and their Latin allies,--which will be found _never_ to conspire
together exclusively except to mislead.
§ 7.
Because a certain clause (e.g. [Greek: kai hê lalia sou homoiazei] in
St. Mark xiv. 70) is absent from Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort entirely eject these
five precious words from St. Mark's Gospel, Griesbach having already
voted them 'probably spurious.' When it has been added that many copies
of the Old Latin also, together with the Vulgate and the Egyptian
versions, besides Eusebius, ignore their existence, the present writer
scarcely expects to be listened to if he insists that the words are
perfectly genuine notwithstanding. The thing is certain however, and the
Revisers are to blame for having surrendered five precious words of
genuine Scripture, as I am going to shew.
1. Now, even if the whole of the case were already before the reader,
although to some there might seem to exist a _prima facie_ probability
that the clause is spurious, yet even so,--it would not be difficult to
convince a thoughtful man that the reverse must be nearer the truth. For
let the parallel places in the first two Gospels be set down side by
side:--
St. Matt. xxvi. 73. St. Mark xiv. 70.
(1) [Greek: Alêthôs kai su] (1) [Greek: Alêthôs]
(2) [Greek: ex autôn ei·] (2) [Greek: ex autôn ei·]
(3) [Greek: kai gar] (3) [Greek: kai gar Galilaios ei,]
(4) [Greek: hê lalia sou dêlon se poiei]
(4) [Greek: kai hê lalia sou homoiazei.]
What more clear than that the later Evangelist is explaining what his
predecessor meant by 'thy speech bewrayeth thee' [or else is giving an
independent account of the same transaction derived from the common
source]? To St. Matthew,--a Jew addressing Jews,--it seemed superfluous
to state that it was the peculiar accent of Galilee which betrayed Simon
Peter. To St. Mark,--or rather to the readers whom St. Mark specially
addressed,--the point was by no means so obvious. Accordingly, he
paraphrases,--'for thou art a Galilean and thy speech correspondeth.'
Let me be shewn that all down the ages, in ninety-nine copies out of
every hundred, this peculiar diversity of expression has been faithfully
retained, and instead of assenting to the proposal to suppress St.
Mark's (fourth) explanatory clause with its unique verb [Greek:
homoiazei], I straightway betake myself to the far more pertinent
inquiry,--What is the state of the text hereabouts? What, in fact, the
context? This at least is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.
1. And first, I discover that Cod. D, in concert with several copies of
the Old Latin (a b c ff^{2} h q, &c.), only removes clause (4) from its
proper place in St. Mark's Gospel, in order to thrust it into the
parallel place in St. Matthew,--where it supplants the [Greek: hê lalia
sou dêlon se poiei] of the earlier Evangelist; and where it clearly has
no business to be.
Indeed the object of D is found to have been to assimilate St. Matthew's
Gospel to St. Mark,--for D also omits [Greek: kai su] in clause (1).
2. The Ethiopic version, on the contrary, is for assimilating St. Mark
to St. Matthew, for it transfers the same clause (4) as it stands in St.
Matthew's Gospel ([Greek: kai hê lalia sou dêlon se poiei]) to St. Mark.
3. Evan. 33 (which, because it exhibits an ancient text of a type like
B, has been styled [with grim irony] 'the Queen of the Cursives') is
more brilliant here than usual; exhibiting St. Mark's clause (4)
thus,--[Greek: kai gar hê lalia sou dêlon se homoiazei].
4. In C (and the Harkleian) the process of Assimilation is as
conspicuous as in D, for St. Mark's third clause (3) is imported bodily
into St. Matthew's Gospel. C further omits from St. Mark clause (4).
5. In the Vercelli Codex (a) however, the converse process is
conspicuous. St. Mark's Gospel has been assimilated to St. Matthew's by
the unauthorized insertion into clause (1) of [Greek: kai su] (which by
the way is also found in M), and (in concert with the Gothic and Evann.
73, 131, 142*) by the entire suppression of clause (3).
6. Cod. L goes beyond all. [True to the craze of omission], it further
obliterates as well from St. Matthew's Gospel as from St. Mark's all
trace of clause (4).
7. [Symbol: Aleph] and B alone of Codexes, though in agreement with the
Vulgate and the Egyptian version, do but eliminate the final clause (4)
of St. Mark's Gospel. But note, lastly, that--
8. Cod. A, together with the Syriac versions, the Gothic, and the whole
body of the cursives, recognizes none of these irregularities: but
exhibits the commonly received text with entire fidelity.
On a survey of the premisses, will any candid person seriously contend
that [Greek: kai hê lalia sou homiazei] is no part of the genuine text
of St. Mark xiv. 70? The words are found in what are virtually the most
ancient authorities extant: the Syriac versions (besides the Gothic and
Cod. A), the Old Latin (besides Cod. D)--retain them;--those in their
usual place,--these, in their unusual. Idle it clearly is in the face of
such evidence to pretend that St. Mark cannot have written the words in
question[226]. It is too late to insist that a man cannot have lost his
watch when his watch is proved to have been in his own pocket at eight
in the morning, and is found in another man's pocket at nine. As for C
and L, their handling of the Text hereabouts clearly disqualifies them
from being cited in evidence. They are condemned under the note of
Context. Adverse testimony is borne by B and [Symbol: Aleph]: and by
them only. They omit the words in dispute,--the ordinary habit of
theirs, and most easily accounted for. But how is the punctual insertion
of the words in every other known copy to be explained? In the meantime,
it remains to be stated,--and with this I shall take leave of the
discussion,--that hereabouts 'we have a set of passages which bear clear
marks of wilful and critical correction, thoroughly carried out in Cod.
[Symbol: Aleph], and only partially in Cod. B and some of its compeers;
the object being so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter's denials
with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the fact, vouched
for by St. Mark only, that the cock crowed twice[227].' _That_ incident
shall be treated of separately. Can those principles stand, which in the
face of the foregoing statement, and the evidence which preceded it,
justify the disturbance of the text in St. Mark xiv. 70?
[We now pass on to a kindred cause of adulteration of
the text of the New Testament.]
FOOTNOTES:
[184] This paper bears the date 1877: but I have thought best to keep
the words with this caution to the reader.
[185] Above, p. 32.
[186] The alleged evidence of Origen (iv. 453) is _nil_; the sum of it
being that he takes no notice whatever of the forty words between
[Greek: opsesthe me] (in ver. 16), and [Greek: touto ti estin] (in ver.
18).
[187] Nonnus,--[Greek: hixomai eis gennêtêra].
[188] viii. 465 a and c.
[189] iv. 932 and 933 c.
[190] = [Greek: ana-keimenos + epi-pesôn]. [Used not to suggest
over-familiarity (?).]
[191] Beginning with Anatolius Laodicenus, A.D. 270 (_ap._ Galland. iii.
548). Cf. Routh, Rell. i. 42.
[192] [Greek: Ouk anakeitai monon, alla kai tô stêthei epipiptei] (Opp.
viii. 423 a).--[Greek: Ti de kai epipiptei tô stêthei] (ibid. d). Note
that the passage ascribed to 'Apolinarius' in Cord. Cat. p. 342 (which
includes the second of these two references) is in reality part of
Chrysostom's Commentary on St. John (ubi supra, c d).
[193] Cord. Cat. p. 341. But it is only in the [Greek: keimenon] (or
text) that the verb is found,--Opp. iv. 735.
[194] [Greek: ho de thrasys oxei palmô | stêthesin achrantoisi pesôn
perilêmenos anêr].
[195] iv. 437 c: 440 d.
[196] Ibid. p. 342.
[197] Even Chrysostom, who certainly read the place as we do, is
observed twice to glide into the more ordinary expression, viz. xiii.
423, line 13 from the bottom, and p. 424, line 18 from the top.
[198] [Greek: ho epi to stêthos autou anapesôn] (iii. 1, § 1).
[199] [Greek: ho epi to stêthos tou Kyriou anapesôn] (_ap._ Euseb. iii.
31).
[200] [Greek: Ti dei peri tou anapesontos epi to stêthos legein tou
'Iêsou] (ibid. vi. 25. Opp. iv. 95).
[201] [Greek: ho epi tô stêthei tou phlogos anapesôn] (Opp. ii. 49 a.
Cf. 133 c).
[202] (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 1062: ii. 8.
[203] [Greek: tou eis to tês sophias stêthos pistôs epanapesontos]
(_ap._ Chrys, xiii. 55).
[204] [Greek: ho epi to stêthos tou Iêsou anapauetai] (Opp. i. 591).
[205] (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 488.
[206] Wright's Apocryphal Acts (fourth century), translated from the
Syriac, p. 3.
[207] (Fourth or fifth century) _ap._ Galland. vi. 132.
[208] _Ap._ Chrys. viii. 296.
[209] On a fresh Revision, &c., p. 73.--'[Greek: Anapiptein], (which
occurs eleven times in the N.T.), when said of guests ([Greek:
anakeimenoi]) at a repast, denotes nothing whatever but the preliminary
act of each in taking his place at the table; being the Greek equivalent
for our "_sitting down_" to dinner. So far only does it signify "change
of posture." The notion of "falling _backward_" quite disappears in the
notion of "reclining" or "lying down."'--In St. John xxi. 20, the
language of the Evangelist is the very mirror of his thought; which
evidently passed directly from the moment when he assumed his place at
the table ([Greek: anepesen]), to that later moment when ([Greek: epi to
stêthos autou]) he interrogated his Divine Master concerning Judas. It
is a _general_ description of an incident,--for the details of which we
have to refer to the circumstantial and authoritative narrative which
went before.
[210] Traditional Text, Appendix IV.
[211] Pesh. and Harkl.: Cur. and Lew. are defective.
[212] Thus Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,
Wordsworth, Green, Scrivener, M^{c}Clellan, Westcott and Hort, and the
Revisers.
[213] In pseudo-Jerome's Brev. in Psalm., Opp. vii. (ad calc.) 198.
[214] Mont. i. 462.
[215] Ubi supra.
[216] Omitting trifling variants.
[217] [Symbol: Aleph]BL are _exclusively_ responsible on 45 occasions:
+C (i.e. [Symbol: Aleph]BCL), on 27: +D, on 35: +[Symbol: Delta], on 73:
+CD, on 19: +C[Symbol: Delta], on 118: +D[Symbol: Delta] (i.e. [Symbol:
Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta]), on 42: +CD[Symbol: Delta], on 66.
[218] In the text of Evan. 72 the reading in dispute is _not_ found:
205, 206 are duplicates of 209: and 222, 255 are only fragments. There
remain 1, 22, 33, 61, 63, 115, 131, 151, 152, 161, 184, 209, 253, 372,
391:--of which the six at Rome require to be re-examined.
[219] v. 10.
[220] _Ap._ Hieron. vii. 17.
[221] 'Evangelistas arguere falsitatis, hoc impiorum est, Celsi,
Porphyrii, Juliani.' Hieron. i. 311.
[222] [Greek: grapheôs toinun esti sphalma]. Quoted (from the lost work
of Eusebius ad Marinum) in Victor of Ant.'s Catena, ed. Cramer, p. 267.
(See Simon, iii. 89; Mai, iv. 299; Matthaei's N.T. ii. 20, &c.)
[223] 'Nos autem nomen Isaiae putamus _additum Scriptorum vitio_, quod
et in aliis locis probare possumus.' vii. 17 (I suspect he got it from
Eusebius).
[224] See Studia Biblica, ii. p. 249. Syrian Form of Ammonian sections
and Eusebian Canons by Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. Mr. Gwilliam gives St.
Luke iii. 4-6, according to the Syrian form.
[225] Compare St. Mark vi. 7-13 with St. Luke ix. 1-6.
[226] Schulz,--'et [Greek: lalia] et [Greek: omoiazei] aliena a Marco.'
Tischendorf--'omnino e Matthaeo fluxit: ipsum [Greek: omoiazei]
glossatoris est.' This is foolishness,--not criticism.
[227] Scrivener's Full Collation of the Cod. Sin., &c., 2nd ed., p.
xlvii.