CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
X. Corruption by the Orthodox.
§ 1.
Another cause why, in very early times, the Text of the Gospels
underwent serious depravation, was mistaken solicitude on the part of
the ancient orthodox for the purity of the Catholic faith. These
persons, like certain of the moderns, Beza for example, evidently did
not think it at all wrong to tamper with the inspired Text. If any
expression seemed to them to have a dangerous tendency, they altered it,
or transplanted it, or removed it bodily from the sacred page. About the
uncritical nature of what they did, they entertained no suspicion: about
the immorality of the proceeding, they evidently did not trouble
themselves at all. On the contrary, the piety of the motive seems to
have been held to constitute a sufficient excuse for any amount of
licence. The copies which had undergone this process of castigation were
even styled 'corrected,'--and doubtless were popularly looked upon as
'the correct copies' [like our 'critical texts']. An illustration of
this is afforded by a circumstance mentioned by Epiphanius.
He states (ii. 36) that the orthodox, out of jealousy for the Lord's
Divinity, eliminated from St. Luke xix. 41 the record that our Saviour
'wept.' We will not pause to inquire what this statement may be worth.
But when the same Father adds,--'In the uncorrected copies ([Greek: en
tois adiorthôtois antigraphois]) is found "He wept,"' Epiphanius is
instructive. Perfectly well aware that the expression is genuine, he
goes on to state that 'Irenaeus quoted it in his work against Heresies,
when he had to confute the error of the Docetae[495].' 'Nevertheless,'
Epiphanius adds, 'the orthodox through fear erased the record.'
So then, the process of 'correction' was a critical process conducted on
utterly erroneous principles by men who knew nothing whatever about
Textual Criticism. Such recensions of the Text proved simply fatal to
the Deposit. To 'correct' was in this and such like cases simply to
'corrupt.'
Codexes B[Symbol: Aleph]D may be regarded as specimens of Codexes which
have once and again passed through the hands of such a corrector or
[Greek: diorthôtês].
St. Luke (ii. 40) records concerning the infant Saviour that 'the child
grew, and waxed strong in spirit.' By repeating the selfsame expression
which already,--viz. in chap. i. 80,--had been applied to the Childhood
of the Forerunner[496], it was clearly the design of the Author of
Scripture to teach that the Word 'made flesh' submitted to the same laws
of growth and increase as every other Son of Adam. The body 'grew,'--the
spiritual part 'waxed strong.' This statement was nevertheless laid hold
of by the enemies of Christianity. How can it be pretended (they asked)
that He was 'perfect God' ([Greek: teleios Theos]), of whom it is
related in respect of His spirit that he 'waxed strong[497]'? The
consequence might have been foreseen. Certain of the orthodox were
ill-advised enough to erase the word [Greek: pneumati] from the copies
of St. Luke ii. 40; and lo, at the end of 1,500 years, four 'corrected'
copies, two Versions, one Greek Father, survive to bear witness to the
ancient fraud. No need to inquire which, what, and who these be.
But because it is [Symbol: Aleph]BDL, Origen[498], and the Latin, the
Egyptian and Lewis which are without the word [Greek: pneumati],
Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and the Revisers jump to the
conclusion that [Greek: pneumati] is a spurious accretion to the Text.
They ought to reverse their proceeding; and recognize in the evidence
one more indication of the untrustworthiness of the witnesses. For,--how
then is it supposed that the word ([Greek: pneumati]) ever obtained its
footing in the Gospel? For all reply we are assured that it has been
imported hither from St. Luke i. 80. But, we rejoin, How does the
existence of the phrase [Greek: ekrataiouto pneumati] in i. 80 explain
its existence in ii. 40, in every known copy of the Gospels except four,
if in these 996 places, suppose, it be an interpolation? This is what
has to be explained. Is it credible that all the remaining uncials, and
every known cursive copy, besides all the lectionaries, should have been
corrupted in this way: and that the truth should survive exclusively at
this time only in the remaining four; viz. in B[Symbol: Aleph],--the
sixth century Cod. D,--and the eighth century Cod. L?
When then, and where did the work of depravation take place? It must
have been before the sixth century, because Leontius of Cyprus[499]
quotes it three times and discusses the expression at length:--before
the fifth, because, besides Cod. A, Cyril[500] Theodoret[501] and
ps.-Caesarius[502] recognize the word:--before the fourth, because
Epiphanius[503], Theodore of Mopsuestia[504], and the Gothic version
have it:--before the third, before nearly all of the second century,
because it is found in the Peshitto. What more plain than that we have
before us one other instance of the injudicious zeal of the orthodox?
one more sample of the infelicity of modern criticism?
§ 2.
Theodotus and his followers fastened on the first part of St. John viii.
40, when they pretended to shew from Scripture that Christ is mere
Man[505]. I am persuaded that the reading 'of My Father[506],'--with
which Origen[507], Epiphanius[508], Athanasius[509], Chrysostom[510],
Cyril Alex.[511], and Theodoret[512] prove to have been acquainted,--was
substituted by some of the orthodox in this place, with the pious
intention of providing a remedy for the heretical teaching of their
opponents. At the present day only six cursive copies are known to
retain this trace of a corruption of Scripture which must date from the
second century.
We now reach a most remarkable instance. It will be remembered that St.
John in his grand preface does not rise to the full height of his
sublime argument until he reaches the eighteenth verse. He had said
(ver. 14) that 'the Word was made flesh,' &c.; a statement which
Valentinus was willing to admit. But, as we have seen, the heresiarch
and his followers denied that 'the Word' is also 'the Son' of God. As if
in order to bar the door against this pretence, St. John announces (ver.
18) that 'the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared him': thus establishing the identity of the Word and the
Only begotten Son. What else could the Valentinians do with so plain a
statement, but seek to deprave it? Accordingly, the very first time St.
John i. 18 is quoted by any of the ancients, it is accompanied by the
statement that the Valentinians in order to prove that the 'only
begotten' is 'the Beginning,' and is 'God,' appeal to the words,--'the
only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father[513],' &c. Inasmuch,
said they, as the Father willed to become known to the worlds, the
Spirit of Gnosis produced the 'only begotten' 'Gnosis,' and therefore
gave birth to 'Gnosis,' that is to 'the Son': in order that by 'the Son'
'the Father' might be made known. While then that 'only begotten Son'
abode 'in the bosom of the Father,' He caused that here upon earth
should be seen, alluding to ver. 14, one 'as the only begotten Son.' In
which, by the way, the reader is requested to note that the author of
the Excerpta Theodoti (a production of the second century) reads St.
John i. 18 as we do.
I have gone into all these strange details,--derived, let it be
remembered, from documents which carry us back to the former half of the
second century,--because in no other way is the singular phenomenon
which attends the text of St. John i. 18 to be explained and accounted
for. Sufficiently plain and easy of transmission as it is, this verse of
Scripture is observed to exhibit perturbations which are even
extraordinary. Irenaeus once writes [Greek: ho] [?] [Greek: monogenês
uios]: once, [Greek: ho] [?] [Greek: monogenês uios Theos]: once,
[Greek: ho monogenês uios Theou][514]: Clemens Alex., [Greek: ho
monogenês uios Theos monos][515]; which must be very nearly the reading
of the Codex from which the text of the Vercelli Copy of the Old Latin
was derived[516]. Eusebius four times writes [Greek: ho monogenês
uios][517]: twice, [Greek: monogenês Theos][518]: and on one occasion
gives his reader the choice of either expression, explaining why both
may stand[519]. Gregory Nyss.[520] and Basil[521], though they recognize
the usual reading of the place, are evidently vastly more familiar with
the reading [Greek: ho monogenês Theos][522]: for Basil adopts the
expression thrice[523], and Gregory nearly thirty-three times as
often[524]. This was also the reading of Cyril Alex.[525], whose usual
phrase however is [Greek: ho monogenês tou Theou logos][526]. Didymus
has only [? cp. context] [Greek: ho monogenês Theos],--for which he once
writes [Greek: ho monogenês Theos logos][527]. Cyril of Jer. seems to
have read [Greek: ho monogenês monos][528].
[I have retained this valuable and suggestive passage in the form in
which the Dean left it. It evidently has not the perfection that attends
some of his papers, and would have been amplified and improved if his
life had been spared. More passages than he noticed, though limited to
the ante-Chrysostom period, are referred to in the companion
volume[529]. The portentous number of mentions by Gregory of Nyssa
escaped me, though I knew that there were several. Such repetitions of a
phrase could only be admitted into my calculation in a restricted and
representative number. Indeed, I often quoted at least on our side less
than the real number of such reiterations occurring in one passage,
because in course of repetition they came to assume for such a purpose a
parrot-like value.
But the most important part of the Dean's paper is found in his account
of the origin of the expression. This inference is strongly confirmed by
the employment of it in the Arian controversy. Arius reads [Greek:
Theos] (_ap._ Epiph. 73--Tischendorf), whilst his opponents read [Greek:
Huios]. So Faustinus seven times (I noted him only thrice), and
Victorinus Afer six (10) times in reply to the Arian Candidus[530]. Also
Athanasius and Hilary of Poictiers four times each, and Ambrose eight
(add Epp. I. xxii. 5). It is curious that with this history admirers of
B and [Symbol: Aleph] should extol their reading over the Traditional
reading on the score of orthodoxy. Heresy had and still retains
associations which cannot be ignored: in this instance some of the
orthodox weakly played into the hands of heretics[531]. None may read
Holy Scripture just as the idea strikes them.]
§ 3.
All are familiar with the received text of 1 Cor. xv. 47:--[Greek: ho
prôtos anthrôpos ek gês choikos; ho deuteros anthrôpos ho Kyrios ex
ouranou]. That this place was so read in the first age is certain: for
so it stands in the Syriac. These early heretics however of whom St.
John speaks, who denied that 'Jesus Christ had come in the flesh[532]'
and who are known to have freely 'taken away from the words' of
Scripture[533], are found to have made themselves busy here. If (they
argued) 'the second man' was indeed 'the Lord-from-Heaven,' how can it
be pretended that Christ took upon Himself human flesh[534]? And to
bring out this contention of theirs more plainly, they did not hesitate
to remove as superfluous the word 'man' in the second clause of the
sentence. There resulted,--'The first man [was] of the earth, earthy:
[Greek: ho deuteros Kyrios ex ouranou][535].' It is thus that
Marcion[536] (A.D. 130) and his followers[537] read the place. But in
this subject-matter extravagance in one direction is ever observed to
beget extravagance in another. I suspect that it was in order to
counteract the ejection by the heretics of [Greek: anthrôpos] in ver.
47, that, early in the second century, the orthodox retaining [Greek:
anthrôpos], judged it expedient to leave out the expression [Greek: ho
Kyrios], which had been so unfairly pressed against them; and were
contented to read,--'the second man [was] from heaven.' A calamitous
exchange, truly. For first, (I), The text thus maimed afforded
countenance to another form of misbelief. And next, (II), It
necessitated a further change in 1 Cor. xv. 47.
(I) It furnished a pretext to those heretics who maintained that Christ
was 'Man' _before_ He came into the World. This heresy came to a head in
the persons of Apolinarius[538] and Photinus; in contending with whom,
Greg. Naz.[539] and Epiphanius[540] are observed to argue with
disadvantage from the mutilated text. Tertullian[541], and Cyprian[542]
after him, knew no other reading but 'secundus homo de Caelo,'--which is
in fact the way this place stands in the Old Latin. And thus, from the
second century downwards, two readings (for the Marcionite text was
speedily forgotten) became current in the Church:--(1) The inspired
language of the Apostle, cited at the outset,--which is retained by all
the known copies, _except nine_; and is vouched for by Basil[543],
Chrysostom[544], Theodotus[545], Eutherius[546], Theodorus Mops.[547],
Damascene[548], Petrus Siculus[549], and Theophylact[550]: and (2) The
corrected (i.e. the maimed) text of the orthodox;--[Greek: ho deuteros;
anthrôpos ex ouranou]: with which, besides the two Gregories[551],
Photinus[552] and Apolinarius the heretics were acquainted; but which at
this day is only known to survive in [Symbol: Aleph]*BCD*EFG and two
cursive copies. Origen[553], and (long after him) Cyril, employed _both_
readings[554].
(II) But then, (as all must see) such a maimed exhibition of the text
was intolerable. The balance of the sentence had been destroyed. Against
[Greek: ho prôtos anthrôpos], St. Paul had set [Greek: ho deuteros
anthrôpos]: against [Greek: ek gês]--[Greek: ex ouranou]: against [Greek:
choikos]--[Greek: ho Kyrios]. Remove [Greek: ho Kyrios], and some
substitute for it must be invented as a counterpoise to [Greek:
choikos]. Taking a hint from what is found in ver. 48, some one
(plausibly enough,) suggested [Greek: epouranios]: and this gloss so
effectually recommended itself to Western Christendom, that having been
adopted by Ambrose[555], by Jerome[556] (and later by Augustine[557],)
it established itself in the Vulgate[558], and is found in all the later
Latin writers[559]. Thus then, _a third_ rival reading enters the
field,--which because it has well-nigh disappeared from Greek MSS., no
longer finds an advocate. Our choice lies therefore between the two
former:--viz. (a) the received, which is the only well-attested reading
of the place: and (b) the maimed text of the Old Latin, which Jerome
deliberately rejected (A.D. 380), and for which he substituted another
even worse attested reading. (Note, that these two Western fabrications
effectually dispose of one another.) It should be added that
Athanasius[560] lends his countenance to all the three readings.
But now, let me ask,--Will any one be disposed, after a careful survey
of the premisses, to accept the verdict of Tischendorf, Tregelles and
the rest, who are for bringing the Church back to the maimed text of
which I began by giving the history and explaining the origin? Let it be
noted that the one question is,--shall [Greek: ho Kyrios] be retained in
the second clause, or not? But there it stood within thirty years of the
death of St. John: and there it stands, at the end of eighteen centuries
in every extant copy (including AKLP) except nine. It has been
excellently witnessed to all down the ages,--viz. By Origen, Hippolytus,
Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodotus, Eutherius, Theodore
Mops., Damascene and others. On what principle would you now reject
it?... With critics who assume that a reading found in [Symbol:
Aleph]BCDEFG must needs be genuine,--it is vain to argue. And yet the
most robust faith ought to be effectually shaken by the discovery that
four, if not five ([Symbol: Aleph]ACFG) of these same MSS., by reading
'we shall all sleep; but we shall not all be changed,' contradict St.
Paul's solemn announcement in ver. 51: while a sixth (D) stands alone in
substituting 'we shall all rise; but we shall not all be changed.'--In
this very verse, C is for introducing [Greek: Adam] into the first
clause of the sentence: FG, for subjoining [Greek: ho ouranios]. When
will men believe that guides like these are to be entertained with
habitual distrust? to be listened to with the greatest caution? to be
followed, for their own sakes,--never?
I have been the fuller on this place, because it affords an instructive
example of what has occasionally befallen the words of Scripture. Very
seldom indeed are we able to handle a text in this way. Only when the
heretics assailed, did the orthodox defend: whereby it came to pass that
a record was preserved of how the text was read by the ancient Father.
The attentive reader will note (_a_) That all the changes which we have
been considering belong to the earliest age of all:--(_b_) That the
corrupt reading is retained by [Symbol: Aleph]BC and their following:
the genuine text, in the great bulk of the copies:--(_c_) That the first
mention of the text is found in the writings of an early heretic:--(_d_)
That [the orthodox introduced a change in the interests, as they
fancied, of truth, but from utter misapprehension of the nature and
authority of the Word of God:--and (_e_) that under the Divine
Providence that change was so effectually thrown out, that decisive
witness is found on the other side].
§ 4.
Closely allied to the foregoing, and constantly referred to in connexion
with it by those Fathers who undertook to refute the heresy of
Apolinarius, is our Lord's declaration to Nicodemus,--'No man hath
ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son
of Man which is in heaven' (St. John iii. 13). Christ 'came down from
heaven' when He became incarnate: and having become incarnate, is said
to have 'ascended up to Heaven,' and 'to be in Heaven,' because 'the Son
of Man,' who was not in heaven before, by virtue of the hypostatical
union was thenceforward evermore 'in heaven.' But the Evangelist's
language was very differently taken by those heretics who systematically
'maimed and misinterpreted that which belongeth to the human nature of
Christ.' Apolinarius, who relied on the present place, is found to have
read it without the final clause ([Greek: ho ôn en tô ouranô]); and
certain of the orthodox (as Greg. Naz., Greg. Nyssa, Epiphanius, while
contending with him,) shew themselves not unwilling to argue from the
text so mutilated. Origen and the author of the Dialogus once, Eusebius
twice, Cyril not fewer than nineteen times, also leave off at the words
'even the Son of Man': from which it is insecurely gathered that those
Fathers disallowed the clause which follows. On the other hand,
thirty-eight Fathers and ten Versions maintain the genuineness of the
words [Greek: ho ôn en tô ouranô][561]. But the decisive circumstance is
that,--besides the Syriac and the Latin copies which all witness to the
existence of the clause,--the whole body of the uncials, four only
excepted ([Symbol: Aleph]BLT^{b}), and every known cursive but one
(33)--are for retaining it.
No thoughtful reader will rise from a discussion like the foregoing
without inferring from the facts which have emerged in the course of it
the exceeding antiquity of depravations of the inspired verity. For let
me not be supposed to have asserted that the present depravation was the
work of Apolinarius. Like the rest, it is probably older by at least 150
years. Apolinarius, in whose person the heresy which bears his name came
to a head, did but inherit the tenets of his predecessors in error; and
these had already in various ways resulted in the corruption of the
deposit.
§ 5[562].
The matter in hand will be conveniently illustrated by inviting the
reader's attention to another famous place. There is a singular consent
among the Critics for eliminating from St. Luke ix. 54-6, twenty-four
words which embody two memorable sayings of the Son of Man. The entire
context is as follows:--'Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come
down from heaven and consume them, (as Elias did)? But he turned, and
rebuked them, (and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.)
(For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save
them.) And they went to another village.' The three bracketed clauses
contain the twenty-four words in dispute.
The first of these clauses ([Greek: hôs kai Hêlias epoiêse]), which
claims to be part of the inquiry of St. John and St. James, Mill
rejected as an obvious interpolation. 'Res ipsa clamat. Quis enim sanus
tam insignia deleverit[563]?' Griesbach retained it as probably
genuine.--The second clause ([Greek: kai eipen, Ouk oidate hoiou
pneumatos este hymeis]) he obelized as probably not genuine:--the third
([Greek: ho gar huios tou anthrôpou ouk êlthe psychas anthrôpôn
apolesai, alla sôsai]) he rejected entirely. Lachmann also retains the
first clause, but rejects the other two. Alford, not without misgiving,
does the same. Westcott and Hort, without any misgiving about the third
clause, are 'morally certain' that the first and second clauses are a
Western interpolation. Tischendorf and Tregelles are thorough. They
agree, and the Revisers of 1881, in rejecting unceremoniously all the
three clauses and exhibiting the place curtly, thus.--[Greek: Kyrie,
theleis eipômen pyr katabênai apo tou ouranou, kai analôsai autous;
strapheis de epetimêsen autois. kai eporeuthêsan dêsan eis heteran
kômên].
Now it may as well be declared at once that Codd. [Symbol:
Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi] l g^{1} Cyr^{luc}[564], two MSS. of the Bohairic (d
3, d 2), the Lewis, and two cursives (71, 157) are literally the only
authority, ancient or modern, for so exhibiting the text [in all its
bare crudeness]. Against them are arrayed the whole body of MSS. uncial
and cursive, including ACD; every known lectionary; all the Latin, the
Syriac (Cur. om. Clause 1), and indeed every other known version:
besides seven good Greek Fathers beginning with Clemens Alex. (A.D.
190), and five Latin Fathers beginning with Tertullian (A.D. 190):
Cyprian's testimony being in fact the voice of the Fourth Council of
Carthage, A.D. 253. If on a survey of this body of evidence any one will
gravely tell me that the preponderance of authority still seems to him
to be in favour of the shorter reason, I can but suggest that the sooner
he communicates to the world the grounds for his opinion, the better.
(1) In the meantime it becomes necessary to consider the disputed
clauses separately, because ancient authorities, rivalling modern
critics, are unable to agree as to which they will reject, which they
will retain. I begin with the second. What persuades so many critics to
omit the precious words [Greek: kai eipen, Ouk oidate hoiou pneumatos
este hymeis], is the discovery that these words are absent from many
uncial MSS.,--[Symbol: Aleph]ABC and nine others; besides, as might have
been confidently anticipated from that fact, also from a fair proportion
of the cursive copies. It is impossible to deny that _prima facie_ such
an amount of evidence against any words of Scripture is exceedingly
weighty. Pseudo-Basil (ii. 271) is found to have read the passage in the
same curt way. Cyril, on the other hand, seems to have read it
differently.
And yet, the entire aspect of the case becomes changed the instant it is
perceived that this disputed clause is recognized by Clemens[565] (A.D.
190); as well as by the Old Latin, by the Peshitto, and by the
Curetonian Syriac: for the fact is thus established that as well in
Eastern as in Western Christendom the words under discussion were
actually recognized as genuine full a hundred and fifty years before the
oldest of the extant uncials came into existence. When it is further
found that (besides Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine,) the Vulgate, the Old
Egyptian, the Harkleian Syriac and the Gothic versions also contain the
words in question; and especially that Chrysostom in four places,
Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril and Theodoret, besides Antiochus, familiarly
quote them, it is evident that the testimony of antiquity in their
favour is even overwhelming. Add that in eight uncial MSS. (beginning
with D) the words in dispute form part of the text of St. Luke, and that
they are recognized by the great mass of the cursive copies,--(only six
out of the twenty which Scrivener has collated being without them,)--and
it is plain that at least five tests of genuineness have been fully
satisfied.
(2) The third clause ([Greek: ho gar huios tou anthrôpou ouk êlthe
psychas anthrôpôn apolesai, alla sôsai]) rests on precisely the same
solid evidence as the second; except that the testimony of Clemens is no
longer available,--but only because his quotation does not extend so
far. Cod. D also omits this third clause; which on the other hand is
upheld by Tertullian, Cyprian and Ambrose. Tischendorf suggests that it
has surreptitiously found its way into the text from St. Luke xix. 10,
or St. Matt, xviii. 11. But this is impossible; simply because what is
found in those two places is essentially different: namely,--[Greek:
êlthe gar ho huios tou anthrôpou zêtêsai kai][566] [Greek: sôsai to
apolôlos].
(3) We are at liberty in the meantime to note how apt an illustration is
here afforded of the amount of consensus which subsists between
documents of the oldest class. This divergence becomes most conspicuous
when we direct our attention to the grounds for omitting the foremost
clause of the three, [Greek: hôs kai Êlias epoiêsen]: for here we make
the notable discovery that the evidence is not only less weighty, but
also different. Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph] are now forsaken by all
their former allies except L[Symbol: Xi] and a single cursive copy.
True, they are supported by the Curetonian Syriac, the Vulgate and two
copies of the Old Latin. But this time they find themselves confronted
by Codexes ACD with thirteen other uncials and the whole body of the
cursives; the Peshitto, Coptic, Gothic, and Harkleian versions; by
Clemens, Jerome, Chrysostom, Cyril and pseudo-Basil. In respect of
antiquity, variety, respectability, numbers, they are therefore
hopelessly outvoted.
Do any inquire, How then has all this contradiction and depravation of
Codexes [Symbol: Aleph]ABC(D) come about? I answer as follows:--
It was a favourite tenet with the Gnostic heretics that the Law and the
Gospel are at variance. In order to establish this, Marcion (in a work
called Antitheses) set passages of the New Testament against passages of
the Old; from the seeming disagreement between which his followers were
taught to infer that the Law and the Gospel cannot have proceeded from
one and the same author[567]. Now here was a place exactly suited to his
purpose. The God of the Old Testament had twice sent down fire from
heaven to consume fifty men. But 'the Son of Man,' said our Saviour,
when invited to do the like, 'came not to destroy men's lives but to
save them.' Accordingly, Tertullian in his fourth book against Marcion,
refuting this teaching, acquaints us that one of Marcion's 'Contrasts'
was Elijah's severity in calling down fire from Heaven,--and the
gentleness of Christ. 'I acknowledge the seventy of the judge,'
Tertullian replies; 'but I recognize the same severity on the part of
Christ towards His Disciples when they proposed to bring down a similar
calamity on a Samaritan village[568].' From all of which it is plain
that within seventy years of the time when the Gospel was published, the
text of St. Luke ix. 54-6 stood very much as at present.
But then it is further discovered that at the same remote period (about
A.D. 130) this place of Scripture was much fastened on by the enemies of
the Gospel. The Manichaean heretics pressed believers with it[569]. The
disciples' appeal to the example of Elijah, and the reproof they
incurred, became inconvenient facts. The consequence might be foreseen.
With commendable solicitude for God's honour, but through mistaken
piety, certain of the orthodox (without suspicion of the evil they were
committing) were so ill-advised as to erase from their copies the
twenty-four words which had been turned to mischievous account as well
as to cause copies to be made of the books so mutilated: and behold, at
the end of 1,700 years, the calamitous result!
Of these three clauses then, which are closely interdependent, and as
Tischendorf admits[570] must all three stand or all three fall together,
the first is found with ACD, the Old Latin, Peshitto, Clement,
Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome,--not with [Symbol: Aleph]B the Vulgate or
Curetonian. The second and third clauses are found with Old Latin,
Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, six Greek and five Latin Fathers,--not
with [Symbol: Aleph]ABCD.
While [Symbol: Aleph] and B are alone in refusing to recognize either
first, second or third clause. And this is a fair sample of that
'singular agreement' which is sometimes said to subsist between 'the
lesser group of witnesses.' Is it not plain on the contrary that at a
very remote period there existed a fierce conflict, and consequent
hopeless divergence of testimony about the present passage; of which
1,700 years[571] have failed to obliterate the traces? Had [Symbol:
Aleph]B been our only ancient guides, it might of course have been
contended that there has been no act of spoliation committed: but seeing
that one half of the missing treasure is found with their allies, ACD,
Clement Alex., Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome,--the other half with their
allies, Old Latin, Harkleian, Clement, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose,
Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Jerome,
Augustine[572],--it is clear that no such pretence can any longer be set
up.
The endeavour to establish agreement among the witnesses by a skilful
distribution or rather dislocation of their evidence, a favourite device
with the Critics, involves a fallacy which in any other subject would be
denied a place. I trust that henceforth St. Luke ix. 54-6 will be left
in undisputed possession of its place in the sacred Text,--to which it
has an undoubted right.
A thoughtful person may still inquire, Can it however be explained
further how it has come to pass that the evidence for omitting the first
clause and the two last is so unequally divided? I answer, the disparity
is due to the influence of the Lectionaries.
Let it be observed then that an ancient Ecclesiastical Lection which
used to begin either at St. Luke ix. 44, or else at verse 49 and to
extend down to the end of verse 56[573], ended thus,--[Greek: hôs kai
Êlias epoiêse; strapheis de epetimêsen autois. kai eporeuthêsan eis
hetepan kômên][574]. It was the Lection for Thursday in the fifth week
of the new year; and as the reader sees, it omitted the two last clauses
exactly as Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]ABC do. Another Ecclesiastical Lection
began at verse 51 and extended down to verse 57, and is found to have
contained the two last clauses[575]. I wish therefore to inquire:--May
it not fairly be presumed that it is the Lectionary practice of the
primitive age which has led to the irregularity in this perturbation of
the sacred Text?
FOOTNOTES:
[495] [Greek: Pros tois dokêsei ton Christon pephênenai legontas].
[496] [Greek: To de paidion êuxane, kai ekrataiouto pneumati].
[497] It is the twenty-fourth and the thirtieth question in the first
Dialogus of pseudo-Caesarius (Gall. vi. 17, 20).
[498] Opp. iii. 953, 954,--with suspicious emphasis.
[499] Ed. Migne, vol. 93, p. 1581 a, b (Novum Auct. i. 700).
[500] When Cyril writes (Scholia, ed. Pusey, vol. vi. 568),--"[Greek: To
de paidion êuxane kai ekrataiouto PNEUMATI, plêroumenon SOPHIA kai
CHARITI." kaitoi kata physin panteleios estin hôs Theos kai ex idion
plêrômatos dianemei tois agiois ta PNEUMATIKA, kai autos estin ê SOPHIA,
kai tês CHARITOS ho dotêr],--it is clear that [Greek: pneumati] must
have stood in Cyril's text. The same is the reading of Cyril's Treatise,
De Incarnatione (Mai, ii. 57): and of his Commentary on St. Luke (ibid.
p. 136). One is surprised at Tischendorf's perverse inference concerning
the last-named place. Cyril had begun by quoting the whole of ver. 40 in
exact conformity with the traditional text (Mai, ii. 136). At the close
of some remarks (found both in Mai and in Cramer's Catena), Cyril
proceeds as follows, according to the latter:--[Greek: ho Euangelistês
epsê "êuxane kai ekrataiouto" KAI TA EXÊS]. Surely this constitutes no
ground for supposing that he did not recognize the word [Greek:
pneumati], but rather that he did. On the other hand, it is undeniable
that in V. P. ii. 138 and 139 (= Concilia iii. 241 d, 244 a), from
Pusey's account of what he found in the MSS. (vii. P. i. 277-8), the
word [Greek: pneumati] must be suspected of being an unauthorized
addition to the text of Cyril's treatise, De Rectâ fide ad Pulcheriam et
Eudociam.
[501] ii. 152: iv. 112: v. 120, 121 (four times).
[502] [Greek: Ei teleios esti Theos ho Christos, pôs ho euangelistês
legei, to de paidion Iêsous êuxane kai ekrataiouto pneumati];--S.
Caesarii, Dialogus I, Quaest. 24 (_ap._ Galland. vi. 17 c). And see
Quaest. 30.
[503] ii. 36 d.
[504] Fragmenta Syriaca, ed. Sachau, p. 53.--The only other Greek
Fathers who quote the place are Euthymius and Theophylact.
[505] [Greek: Hên êkousa para tou Theou]. Epiph. i. 463.
[506] Instead of [Greek: para tou Theou].
[507] i. 410: iv. 294, 534. Elsewhere he defends and employs it.
[508] i. 260, 463: ii. 49.
[509] i. 705.
[510] viii. 365.
[511] (Glaph.) i. 18.
[512] iv. 83, 430. But both Origen (i. 705: iv. 320, 402) and Cyril (iv.
554: v. 758) quote the traditional reading; and Cyril (iv. 549)
distinctly says that the latter is right, and [Greek: para tou patros]
wrong.
[513] Excerpt. Theod. 968.--Heracleon's name is also connected by Origen
with this text. Valentinus (ap. Iren. 100) says, [Greek: on dê kai uion
Monogenê kai Theon keklêken].
[514] Pp. 627, 630, 466.
[515] P. 956.
[516] 'Deum nemo vidit umquam: nisi unicus filius solus, sinum patris
ipse enarravit.'--(Comp. Tertullian:--'Solus filius patrem novit et
sinum patris ipse exposuit' (Prax. c. 8. Cp. c. 21): but he elsewhere
(ibid. c. 15) exhibits the passage in the usual way.) Clemens
writes,--[Greek: tote epopteuseis ton kolpon tou Patrus, hon ho
monoogenês huios Theos monos exêgêsato] (956), and in the Excerpt.
Theod. we find [Greek: outos ton kolpon ton Patros exêgêsato ho Sôtêr]
(969). But this is unintelligible until it is remembered that our Lord
is often spoken of by the Fathers as [Greek: hê dexia tou hypsistou ...
kolpos de tês dexias ho Patêr]. (Greg. Nyss. i. 192.)
[517] Ps. 440 (--[Greek: ho]): Marcell. 165, 179, 273.
[518] Marcell. 334: Theoph. 14.
[519] Marcell. 132. Read on to p. 134.
[520] Opp. ii. 466.
[521] Opp. iii. 23, 358.
[522] Greg. Nyss. Opp. i. 192, 663 ([Greek: Theos pantôs ho monogenês,
ho en tois kolpois ôn tou Patros, outôs eipontos tou Iôannou]). Also ii.
432, 447, 450, 470, 506: always [Greek: en tois kolpois]. Basil, Opp.
iii. 12.
[523] Basil, Opp. iii. 14, 16, 117: and so Eunomius (ibid. i. 623).
[524] Contra Eunom. _I have noted_ ninety-eight places.
[525] Cyril (iv. 104) paraphrases St. John i. 18 thus:--[Greek: autos
gar Theos ôn ho monogenês, en kolpois ôn tou theou kai patros, tautên
pros hêmas epoiêsato tên exêgêsin]. Presently (p. 105), he says that St.
John [Greek: kai "monogenê theon" apokalei ton huion, kai "en kolpois"
einai phêsi tou patros]. But on p. 107 he speaks quite plainly: [Greek:
"ho monogenês," phêsi, "Theos, ho ôn eis ton kolpon tou patros, ekeinos
exêgêsato." epeidê gar ephê "monogenê" kai "Theon," tithêsin euthys, "ho
ôn en tois kolpois tou patros."]--So v. 137, 768. And yet he reads
[Greek: huios] in v. 365, 437: vi. 90.
[526] He uses it seventeen times in his Comm. on Isaiah (ii. 4, 35, 122,
&c.), and actually so reads St. John i. 18 in one place (Opp. vi. 187).
Theodoret once adopts the phrase (Opp. v. 4).
[527] De Trin. 76, 140, 37a:--27.
[528] P. 117.
[529] Traditional Text, p. 113, where the references are given.
[530] Who quoted Arius' words:--'Subsistit ante tempora et aeones
_plenus Deus, unigenitus,_ et immutabilis.' But I cannot yet find
Tischendorf's reference.
[531] The reading [Greek: Huios] is established by unanswerable
evidence.
[532] The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus were the direct precursors
of Apolonius, Photinus, Nestorius, &c., in assailing the Catholic
doctrine of the Incarnation. Their heresy must have been actively at
work when St. John wrote his first (iv. 1, 2, 3) and second (ver. 7)
Epistles.
[533] Rev. xxii. 19.
[534] [Greek: Epipêdôsin hêmin hoi hairetikoi legontes; idou ouk anelabe
sarka ho Christos; ho deut. gar phêsin anthr. ho k. ex ouranou.] Chrys.
iii. 114 b.
[535] [Greek: Tên gar kata sarka gênnêsin tou Christou anelein
boulomenoi, enêllaxan to, ho deuteros anthrôpos; kai epoiêsan, ho
deuteros Kyrios.] Dial. [_ap._ Orig.] i. 868.--Marcion had in fact
already substituted [Greek: Kyrios] for [Greek: anthrôpos] in ver. 45:
('_the last Lord_ became a quickening spirit':) [Tertull. ii. 304]--a
fabricated reading which is also found to have been upheld by Marcion's
followers:--[Greek: ho eschatos Kyrios eis pn. zô.] Dial. _ubi supra_.
[Greek: edei gar autous, ei ge ta euangelia etimôn, mê peritemnein ta
euangelia, mê merê tôn euangeliôn exyphelein, mê hetera prosthênai, mête
logô, mête idia gnômê ta euangelia prosgraphein.... prosgegraphêkasi
goun hosa beboulêntai, kai exypheilanto hosa kekrikasi.] Titus of Bostra
c. Manichaeos (Galland. v. 328).
[536] Tertull. ii. 304, (_Primus homo de humo terrenus, secundus Dominus
de Caelo_).
[537] Dial [Orig. i.] 868, ([Greek: ho deuteros Kyrios ex ouranou]).
[538] [Greek: To de pantôn chalepôtaton en tais ekklêsiastikais
symphorais, hê tôn 'Apolinaristôn esti parrêsia.] Greg. Naz. ii. 167.
[539] ii. 168,--a very interesting place. See also p. 87.
[540] i. 831.
[541] ii. 443, 531.
[542] Pp. 180, 209, 260, 289, 307 (_primus homo de terrae limo_, &c.).
[543] iii. 40.
[544] iii. 114 four times: x. 394, 395. Once (xi. 374) he has [Greek: ho
deut. anthr. ouranios ex ouranou].
[545] iv. 1051.
[546] _Ap._ Thdt. v. 1135.
[547] _Ap._ Galland. viii. 626, 627.
[548] i. 222 (where for [Greek: anthr.] he reads [Greek: Adam]), 563.
Also ii. 120, 346.
[549] 'Adversus Manichaeos,'--_ap._ Mai, iv. 68, 69.
[550] ii. 228:--[Greek: ouch hoti ho anthrôpos, êtoi to anthrôpinon
proslêmma, ex ouranou ên, hôs ho aphrôn Apolinarios elêrei].
[551] Naz. ii. 87 (=Thdt. iv. 62), 168.--Nyss. ii. 11.
[552] _Ap._ Epiphan. i. 830.
[553] 559 (with the Text. Recept.): iv. 302 not.
[554] Hippolytus may not be cited in evidence, being read both ways.
(Cp. ed. Fabr. ii. 30:--ed. Lagarde, 138. 15:--ed. Galland. ii.
483.)--Neither may the expression [Greek: tou deuterou ex ouranou
anthrôpou] in Pet. Alex. (ed. Routh, Rell. Sacr. iv. 48) be safely
pressed.
[555] _Primus homo de terra, terrenus: secundus homo de caelo
caelestis_.--i. 1168, 1363: ii. 265, 975. And so ps.-Ambr. ii. 166, 437.
[556] ii. 298: iv. 930: vii. 296.
[557] The places are given by Sabatier _in loc_.
[558] Only because it is the Vulgate reading, I am persuaded, does this
reading appear in Orig. _interp_. ii. 84, 85: iii. 951: iv. 546.
[559] As Philastrius (_ap._ Galland. vii. 492, 516).--Pacianus (ib.
275).--Marius Mercator (ib. viii. 664).--Capreolus (ib. ix. 493). But
see the end of the next ensuing note.
[560] Vol. i. p. 1275,--[Greek: ho deuteros anthr. ho Kyrios ex ouranou
ouranios]:--on which he remarks, (if indeed it be he), [Greek: idou gar
amphoterôthen ouranios anthrôpos onomazetai]. And lower down,--[Greek:
Kyrios, dia tên mian hypostasin; deut. men anthr., kata tên henômenên
anthrôpotêta. ex ouranou de, kata tên theotêta].--P. 448,--[Greek: ho
deuteros anthr. ex ouranou epouranios].--_Ap._ Montf. ii. 13 (= Galland.
v. 167),--[Greek: ho deut. anthr. ex ouranou].--Note that Maximinus, an
Arian bishop, A.D. 427-8 (_ap._ Augustin. viii. 663) is found to have
possessed a text identical with the first of the preceding:--'Ait ipse
Paulus, _Primus homo Adam de terra terrenus, secundus homo Dominus de
Caelo caelestis_ advenit.'
[561] See Revision Revised, pp. 132-5: and The Traditional Text, p. 114.
[562] This paper is marked as having been written at Chichester in 1877,
and is therefore earlier than the Dean's later series.
[563] Proleg. 418.
[564] The text of St. Luke ix. 51-6 prefixed to Cyril's fifty-sixth
Sermon (p. 353) is the text of B and [Symbol: Aleph],--an important
testimony to what I suppose may be regarded as the Alexandrine _Textus
Receptus_ of this place in the fifth century. But then no one supposes
that Cyril is individually responsible for the headings of his Sermons.
We therefore refer to the body of his discourse; and discover that the
Syriac translator has rendered it (as usual) with exceeding licence. He
has omitted to render some such words as the following which certainly
stood in the original text:--[Greek: eidenai gar chrê, hoti hôs mêpô tês
neas kekratêkotes charitos, all' eti tês proteras echomenoi synêtheias,
touto eipon, pros Êlian aphorôntes ton pyri kataphlexanta dis tous
pentêkonta kai tous êgoumenous autôn], (Cramer's Cat. ii. p. 81. Cf.
Corderii, Cat. p. 263. Also Matthaei. N. T. _in loc._, pp. 333-4.) Now
the man who wrote _that_, must surely have read St. Luke ix. 54, 55 as
we do.
[565] See the fragment (and Potter's note), Opp. p. 1019: also Galland.
ii. 157. First in Hippolyt., Opp. ed. Fabric, ii. 71.
[566] In St. Matt. xviii. 11, the words [Greek: zêtêsai kai] do not
occur.
[567] Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 468. 'Agnosco iudicis severitatem. E
contrario Christi in eandem animadversionem destinantes discipulos super
ilium viculum Samaritarum.' Marc. iv. 23 (see ii. p. 221). He
adds,--'Let Marcion also confess that by the same terribly severe judge
Christ's leniency was foretold;' and he cites in proof Is. xlii. 2 and 1
Kings xix. 12 ('sed in _spiritu_ miti').
[568] Augustine (viii. 111-150, 151-182) writes a book against him. And
he discusses St. Luke ix. 54-5 on p. 139.
Addas Adimantus (a disciple of Manes) was the author of a work of the
same kind. Augustine (viii. 606 c) says of it,--'ubi de utroque
Testamento velut inter se contraria testimonia proferuntur versipelli
dolositate, velut inde ostendatur utrumque ab uno Deo esse non posse,
sed alterum ab altero.' Cerdon was the first to promulgate this
pestilential tenet (605 a). Then Marcion his pupil, then Apelles, and
then Patricius.
[569] Titus Bostr. adv. Manichaeos (_ap._ Galland. v. 329 b), leaving
others to note the correspondences between the New and the Old
Testament, proposes to handle the 'Contrasts': [Greek: pros autas tas
antitheseis tôn logiôn chôrêsômen]. At pp. 339 e, 340 a, b, he confirms
what Tertullian says about the calling down of fire from heaven.
[570] Verba [Greek: hôs kai Ê. epoiêse] cur quis addiderit, planum.
Eidem interpolatori debentur quae verba [Greek: str. de epeti. autois]
excipiunt. Gravissimum est quod testium additamentum [Greek: ho gar
huios], &c. ab eadem manu derivandum est, nec per se solum pro spurio
haberi potest; cohaeret enim cum argumento tum auctoritate arctissime
cum prioribus. (N. T. ed. 1869, p. 544.)
[571] Secundo iam saeculo quin in codicibus omnis haec interpolatio
circumferri consueverit, dubitari nequit. (Ibid.)
[572] The following are the references left by the Dean. I have not had
time or strength to search out those which are left unspecified in this
MS. and the last.
Jerome.--Apostoli in Lege versati ... ulcisci nituntur iniuriam, _et
imitari Eliam_, &c. Dominus, qui non ad iudicandum _venerat_, sed _ad
salvandum_, &c. ... increpat eos _quod non meminerint doctrinae suae et
bonitatis Evangelicae_, &c. (i. 857 b, c, d.)
Cyprian, Synodical Epistle.--'Filius hominis non venit animas hominum
perdere, sed salvare.' p. 98. A.D. 253.
Tatian.--Veni, inquit, animam salvam facere. (Carn. c. 12 et 10: and
Anim. c. 13.)
Augustine gives a long extract from the same letter and thus quotes the
words twice,--x. 76, 482. Cp. ii. 593 a.
[Greek: Kai ho Kyrios pros tous apostolous eipontas en pyri kolasai tous
mê dexamenous autous kata ton Êlian; Ouk oidate phêsi poiou pneumatos
este]. (p. 1019.)
Theodoret, iii. 1119. ([Greek: poiou].)
Epiph. ii. 31. ([Greek: hoiou].)
Basil, ii. 271 (Eth.) quotes the whole place.
Augustine.--Respondit eis Dominus, dicens eos nescire cuius spiritus
filii essent, et quod ipse liberare venisset, non perdere. viii. 139 b.
Cp. iii. (2), 194 b.
Cyril Al.--[Greek: Mêpô tês neas kekratêkotes charitos ... touto eipon,
ton Êlian aphorôntes ton pyri k.t.l.] Cord. Cat. 263 = Cram. Cat. 81.
Also iv. 1017.--By a strange slip of memory, Cyril sets down a reproof
found in St. Matthew: but this is enough to shew that he admits that
_some_ reproof finds record in the Gospel.
Chrys. vii. 567 e: x. 305 d: vii. 346 a: ix. 677 c.
Opus Imp. ap. Chrys. vi. 211, 219.
Didymus.--[Greek: Ouk oidate oiou pneumatos estin ho huios tou
anthrôpou]. De Trin. p. 188.
[573] Evst. 48 (Matthaei's c): Evst. 150 (Harl. 5598).
[574] See Matthaei, N.T. 1786, vol. ii. p. 17.
[575] [I have been unable to discover this Lection.]
APPENDIX I.
PERICOPE DE ADULTERA.
I have purposely reserved for the last the most difficult problem of
all: viz. those twelve famous verses of St. John's Gospel (chap. vii. 53
to viii. 11) which contain the history of 'the woman taken in
adultery,'--the _pericope de adultera_, as it is called. Altogether
indispensable is it that the reader should approach this portion of the
Gospel with the greatest amount of experience and the largest
preparation. Convenient would it be, no doubt, if he could further
divest himself of prejudice; but that is perhaps impossible. Let him at
least endeavour to weigh the evidence which shall now be laid before him
in impartial scales. He must do so perforce, if he would judge rightly:
for the matter to be discussed is confessedly very peculiar: in some
respects, even unique. Let me convince him at once of the truth of what
has been so far spoken.
It is a singular circumstance that at the end of eighteen centuries two
instances, and but two, should exist of a considerable portion of
Scripture left to the mercy, so to speak, of 'Textual Criticism.' Twelve
consecutive Verses in the second Gospel--as many consecutive Verses in
the fourth--are in this predicament. It is singular, I say, that the
Providence which has watched so marvellously over the fortunes of the
Deposit,--the Divine Wisdom which has made such ample provision for its
security all down the ages, should have so ordered the matter, that
these two co-extensive problems have survived to our times to be tests
of human sagacity,--trials of human faithfulness and skill. They present
some striking features of correspondence, but far more of contrast,--as
will presently appear. And yet the most important circumstance of all
cannot be too soon mentioned: viz. that both alike have experienced the
same calamitous treatment at the hands of some critics. By common
consent the most recent editors deny that either set of Verses can have
formed part of the Gospel as it proceeded from the hands of its inspired
author. How mistaken is this opinion of theirs in respect of the 'Last
twelve verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark,' has been already
demonstrated in a separate treatise. I must be content in this place to
deal in a far less ceremonious manner with the hostile verdict of many
critics concerning St. John vii. 53-viii. 11. That I shall be able to
satisfy those persons who profess themselves unconvinced by what was
offered concerning St. Mark's last twelve verses, I am not so simple as
to expect. But I trust that I shall have with me all candid readers who
are capable of weighing evidence impartially, and understanding the
nature of logical proof, when it is fully drawn out before them,--which
indeed is the very qualification that I require of them.
And first, the case of the _pericope de adultera_ requires to be placed
before the reader in its true bearings. For those who have hitherto
discussed it are observed to have ignored certain preliminary
considerations which, once clearly apprehended, are all but decisive of
the point at issue. There is a fundamental obstacle, I mean, in the way
of any attempt to dislodge this portion of the sacred narrative from the
context in which it stands, which they seem to have overlooked. I
proceed to explain.
Sufficient prominence has never yet been given to the fact that in the
present discussion the burden of proof rests entirely with those who
challenge the genuineness of the Pericope under review. In other words,
the question before us is not by any means,--Shall these Twelve Verses
be admitted--or, Must they be refused admission--into the Sacred Text?
That point has been settled long, long ago. St. John's Twelve verses are
in possession. Let those eject them who can. They are known to have
occupied their present position for full seventeen hundred years. There
never was a time--as far as is known--- when they were not _where_,--and
to all intents and purposes _what_--they now are. Is it not evident,
that no merely ordinary method of proof,--no merely common
argument,--will avail to dislodge Twelve such Verses as these?
'Twelve such Verses,' I say. For it is the extent of the subject-matter
which makes the case so formidable. We have here to do with no dubious
clause, concerning which ancient testimony is divided; no seeming gloss,
which is suspected to have overstepped its proper limits, and to have
crept in as from the margin; no importation from another Gospel; no
verse of Scripture which has lost its way; no weak amplification of the
Evangelical meaning; no tasteless appendix, which encumbers the
narrative and almost condemns itself. Nothing of the sort. If it were
some inconsiderable portion of Scripture which it was proposed to get
rid of by shewing that it is disallowed by a vast amount of ancient
evidence, the proceeding would be intelligible. But I take leave to
point out that a highly complex and very important incident--as related
in twelve consecutive verses of the Gospel--cannot be so dealt with.
Squatters on the waste are liable at any moment to be served with a
notice of ejectment: but the owner of a mansion surrounded by broad
acres which his ancestors are known to have owned before the Heptarchy,
may on no account be dispossessed by any such summary process. This--to
speak without a figure--is a connected and very striking portion of the
sacred narrative:--the description of a considerable incident, complete
in itself, full of serious teaching, and of a kind which no one would
have ever dared to invent. Those who would assail it successfully must
come forward with weapons of a very different kind from those usually
employed in textual warfare.
It shall be presently shewn that these Twelve Verses hold their actual
place by a more extraordinary right of tenure than any other twelve
verses which can be named in the Gospel: but it would be premature to
enter upon the proof of that circumstance now. I prefer to invite the
reader's attention, next to the actual texture of the _pericope de
adultera_, by which name (as already explained) the last verse of St.
John vii. together with verses 1-11 of ch. viii. are familiarly
designated. Although external testimony supplies the sole proof of
genuineness, it is nevertheless reasonable to inquire what the verses in
question may have to say for themselves. Do they carry on their front
the tokens of that baseness of origin which their impugners so
confidently seek to fasten upon them? Or do they, on the contrary,
unmistakably bear the impress of Truth?
The first thing which strikes me in them is that the actual narrative
concerning 'the woman taken in adultery' is entirely contained in the
last nine of these verses: being preceded by two short paragraphs of an
entirely different character and complexion. Let these be first produced
and studied:
'and every man went to his own house: but Jesus went to the
Mount of Olives.' 'And again, very early in the morning, He
presented Himself in the Temple; and all the people came unto
Him: and He sat down and taught them.'
Now as every one must see, the former of these two paragraphs is
unmistakably not the beginning but the end of a narrative. It purports
to be the conclusion of something which went before, not to introduce
something which comes after. Without any sort of doubt, it is St. John's
account of what occurred at the close of the debate between certain
members of the Sanhedrin which terminates his history of the last day of
the Feast of Tabernacles. The verse in question marks the conclusion of
the Feast,--implies in short that all is already finished. Remove it,
and the antecedent narrative ends abruptly. Retain it, and all proceeds
methodically; while an affecting contrast is established, which is
recognized to be strictly in the manner of Scripture[576]. Each one had
gone to his home: but the homeless One had repaired to the Mount of
Olives. In other words, the paragraph under discussion is found to be an
integral part of the immediately antecedent narrative: proves to be a
fragment of what is universally admitted to be genuine Scripture. By
consequence, itself must needs be genuine also[577].
It is vain for any one to remind us that these two verses are in the
same predicament as those which follow: are as ill supported by MS.
evidence as the other ten: and must therefore share the same fate as the
rest. The statement is incorrect, to begin with; as shall presently be
shewn. But, what is even better deserving of attention, since
confessedly these twelve verses are either to stand or else to fall
together, it must be candidly admitted that whatever begets a suspicion
that certain of them, at all events, must needs be genuine, throws real
doubt on the justice of the sentence of condemnation which has been
passed in a lump upon all the rest.
I proceed to call attention to another inconvenient circumstance which
some Critics in their eagerness have overlooked.
The reader will bear in mind that--contending, as I do, that the entire
Pericope under discussion is genuine Scripture which has been forcibly
wrenched away from its lawful context,--I began by examining the upper
extremity, with a view to ascertaining whether it bore any traces of
being a fractured edge. The result is just what might have been
anticipated. The first two of the verses which it is the fashion to
brand with ignominy were found to carry on their front clear evidence
that they are genuine Scripture. How then about the other extremity?
Note, that in the oracular Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph] immediate
transition is made from the words 'out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,'
in ch. vii. 5a, to the words 'Again therefore Jesus spake unto them,
saying,' in ch. viii. 12. And we are invited by all the adverse Critics
alike to believe that so the place stood in the inspired autograph of
the Evangelist.
But the thing is incredible. Look back at what is contained between ch.
vii. 37 and 5a, and note--(_a_) That two hostile parties crowded the
Temple courts (ver. 40-42): (_b_) That some were for laying violent
hands on our Lord (ver. 44): (_c_) That the Sanhedrin, being assembled
in debate, were reproaching their servants for not having brought Him
prisoner, and disputing one against another[578] (ver. 45-52). How can
the Evangelist have proceeded,--'Again therefore Jesus spake unto them,
saying, I am the light of the world'? What is it supposed then that St.
John meant when he wrote such words?
But on the contrary, survey the context in any ordinary copy of the New
Testament, and his meaning is perfectly clear. The last great day of the
Feast of Tabernacles is ended. It is the morrow and 'very early in the
morning.' The Holy One has 'again presented Himself in the Temple' where
on the previous night He so narrowly escaped violence at the hands of
His enemies, and He teaches the people. While thus engaged,--the time,
the place, His own occupation suggesting thoughts of peace and holiness
and love,--a rabble rout, headed by the Scribes and Pharisees, enter on
the foulest of errands; and we all remember with how little success.
Such an interruption need not have occupied much time. The Woman's
accusers having departed, our Saviour resumes His discourse which had
been broken off. 'Again therefore' it is said in ver. 12, with clear and
frequent reference to what had preceded in ver. 2--'Jesus spake unto
them, saying, I am the light of the world.' And had not that saying of
His reference as well to the thick cloud of moral darkness which His
words, a few moments before, had succeeded in dispelling, as to the orb
of glory which already flooded the Temple Court with the effulgence of
its rising,--His own visible emblem and image in the Heavens?... I
protest that with the incident of 'the woman taken in adultery,'--so
introduced, so dismissed,--all is lucid and coherent: without those
connecting links, the story is scarcely intelligible. These twelve
disputed verses, so far from 'fatally interrupting the course of St.
John's Gospel, if retained in the text[579],' prove to be even necessary
for the logical coherency of the entire context in which they stand.
But even that is not all. On close and careful inspection, the
mysterious texture of the narrative, no less than its 'edifying and
eminently Christian' character, vindicates for the _Pericope de
adultera_ a right to its place in the Gospel. Let me endeavour to
explain what seems to be its spiritual significancy: in other words, to
interpret the transaction.
The Scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to our Saviour on a charge of
adultery. The sin prevailed to such an extent among the Jews that the
Divine enactments concerning one so accused had long since fallen into
practical oblivion. On the present occasion our Lord is observed to
revive His own ancient ordinance after a hitherto unheard of fashion.
The trial by the bitter water, or water of conviction[580], was a
species of ordeal, intended for the vindication of innocence, the
conviction of guilt. But according to the traditional belief the test
proved inefficacious, unless the husband was himself innocent of the
crime whereof he accused his wife.
Let the provisions of the law, contained in Num. v. 16 to 24, be now
considered. The accused Woman having been brought near, and set before
the Lord, the priest took 'holy water in an earthen vessel,' and put 'of
the dust of the floor of the tabernacle into the water.' Then, with the
bitter water that causeth the curse in his hand, he charged the woman by
an oath. Next, he wrote the curses in a book and blotted them out with
the bitter water; causing the woman to drink the bitter water that
causeth the curse. Whereupon if she were guilty, she fell under a
terrible penalty,--her body testifying visibly to her sin. If she was
innocent, nothing followed.
And now, who sees not that the Holy One dealt with His hypocritical
assailants, as if they had been the accused parties? Into the presence
of incarnate Jehovah verily they had been brought: and perhaps when He
stooped down and wrote upon the ground, it was a bitter sentence against
the adulterer and adulteress which He wrote. We have but to assume some
connexion between the curse which He thus traced 'in the dust of the
floor of the tabernacle' and the words which He uttered with His lips,
and He may with truth be declared to have 'taken of the dust and put in
on the water,' and 'caused them to drink of the bitter water which
causeth the curse.' For when, by His Holy Spirit, our great High Priest
in His human flesh addressed these adulterers,--what did He but present
them with living water[581] 'in an earthen vessel[582]'? Did He not
further charge them with an oath of cursing, saying, 'If ye have not
gone aside to uncleanness, be ye free from this bitter water: but if ye
be defiled'--On being presented with which alternative, did they not,
self-convicted, go out one by one? And what else was this but their own
acquittal of the sinful woman, for whose condemnation they shewed
themselves so impatient? Surely it was 'the water of conviction'
([Greek: to hydôr tou elegmou]) as it is six times called, which _they_
had been compelled to drink; whereupon, 'convicted ([Greek:
elegchomenoi]) by their own conscience,' as St. John relates, they had
pronounced the other's acquittal. Finally, note that by Himself
declining to 'condemn' the accused woman, our Lord also did in effect
blot out those curses which He had already written against her in the
dust,--when He made the floor of the sanctuary His 'book.'
Whatever may be thought of the foregoing exposition--and I am not
concerned to defend it in every detail,--on turning to the opposite
contention, we are struck with the slender amount of actual proof with
which the assailants of this passage seem to be furnished. Their
evidence is mostly negative--a proceeding which is constantly observed
to attend a bad cause: and they are prone to make up for the feebleness
of their facts by the strength of their assertions. But my experience,
as one who has given a considerable amount of attention to such
subjects, tells me that the narrative before us carries on its front the
impress of Divine origin. I venture to think that it vindicates for
itself a high, unearthly meaning. It seems to me that it cannot be the
work of a fabricator. The more I study it, the more I am impressed with
its Divinity. And in what goes before I have been trying to make the
reader a partaker of my own conviction.
To come now to particulars, we may readily see from its very texture
that it must needs have been woven in a heavenly loom. Only too obvious
is the remark that the very subject-matter of the chief transaction
recorded in these twelve verses, would be sufficient in and by itself to
preclude the suspicion that these twelve verses are a spurious addition
to the genuine Gospel. And then we note how entirely in St. John's
manner is the little explanatory clause in ver. 6,--'This they said,
tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him[583].' We are struck
besides by the prominence given in verses 6 and 8 to the act of
writing,--allusions to which, are met with in every work of the last
Evangelist[584]. It does not of course escape us how utterly beyond the
reach of a Western interpolator would have been the insertion of the
article so faithfully retained to this hour before [Greek: lithon] in
ver. 7. On completing our survey, as to the assertions that the
_pericope de adultera_ 'has no right to a place in the text of the four
Gospels,'--is 'clearly a Western interpolation, though not Western of
the earliest type[585],' (whatever _that_ may mean), and so forth,--we
can but suspect that the authors very imperfectly realize the difficulty
of the problem with which they have to deal. Dr. Hort finally assures us
that 'no accompanying marks would prevent' this portion of Scripture
'from fatally interrupting the course of St. John's Gospel if retained
in the text': and when they relegate it accordingly to a blank page at
the end of the Gospels within 'double brackets,' in order 'to shew its
inferior authority';--we can but read and wonder at the want of
perception, not to speak of the coolness, which they display. _Quousque
tandem?_
But it is time to turn from such considerations as the foregoing, and to
inquire for the direct testimony, which is assumed by recent Editors and
Critics to be fatal to these twelve verses. Tischendorf pronounces it
'absolutely certain that this narrative was not written by St.
John[586].' One, vastly his superior in judgement (Dr. Scrivener)
declares that 'on all intelligent principles of mere Criticism, the
passage must needs be abandoned[587].' Tregelles is 'fully satisfied
that this narrative is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel[588].'
Alford shuts it up in brackets, and like Tregelles puts it into his
footnotes. Westcott and Hort, harsher than any of their predecessors,
will not, as we have seen, allow it to appear even at the foot of the
page. To reproduce all that has been written in disparagement of this
precious portion of God's written Word would be a joyless and an
unprofitable task. According to Green, 'the genuineness of the passage
cannot be maintained[589].' Hammond is of opinion that 'it would be more
satisfactory to separate it from its present context, and place it by
itself as an appendix to the Gospel[590].' A yet more recent critic
'sums up,' that 'the external evidence must be held fatal to the
genuineness of the passage[591].' The opinions of Bishops Wordsworth,
Ellicott, and Lightfoot, shall be respectfully commented upon by-and-by.
In the meantime, I venture to join issue with every one of these learned
persons. I contend that on all intelligent principles of sound Criticism
the passage before us must be maintained to be genuine Scripture; and
that without a particle of doubt I cannot even admit that 'it has been
transmitted to us under circumstances widely different from those
connected with any other passage of Scripture whatever[592].' I contend
that it has been transmitted in precisely the same way as all the rest
of Scripture, and therefore exhibits the same notes of genuineness as
any other twelve verses of the same Gospel which can be named: but--like
countless other places--it is found for whatever reason to have given
offence in certain quarters: and in consequence has experienced very ill
usage at the hands of the ancients and of the moderns also:--but
especially of the latter. In other words, these twelve verses exhibit
the required notes of genuineness _less conspicuously_ than any other
twelve consecutive verses in the same Gospel. But that is all. The one
only question to be decided is the following:--On a review of the whole
of the evidence,--is it more reasonable to stigmatize these twelve
verses as a spurious accretion to the Gospel? Or to admit that they must
needs be accounted to be genuine?... I shall shew that they are at this
hour supported by a weight of testimony which is absolutely
overwhelming. I read with satisfaction that my own convictions were
shared by Mill, Matthaei, Adler, Scholz, Vercellone. I have also the
learned Ceriani on my side. I should have been just as confident had I
stood alone:--such is the imperative strength of the evidence.
To begin then. Tischendorf--(who may be taken as a fair sample of the
assailants of this passage)--commences by stating roundly that the
Pericope is omitted by [Symbol: Aleph]ABCLTX[Symbol: Delta], and about
seventy cursives. I will say at once, that no sincere inquirer after
truth could so state the evidence. It is in fact not a true statement. A
and C are hereabout defective. No longer possible therefore is it to
know with certainty what they either did, or did not, contain. But this
is not merely all. I proceed to offer a few words concerning Cod. A.
Woide, the learned and accurate[593] editor of the Codex Alexandrinus,
remarked (in 1785)--'Historia adulterae _videtur_ in hoc codice
defuisse.' But this modest inference of his, subsequent Critics have
represented as an ascertained fact, Tischendorf announces it as
'certissimum.' Let me be allowed to investigate the problem for myself.
Woide's calculation,--(which has passed unchallenged for nearly a
hundred years, and on the strength of which it is now-a-days assumed
that Cod. A must have exactly resembled Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]B in
_omitting_ the _pericope de adultera_,)--was far too roughly made to be
of any critical use[594].
Two leaves of Cod. A have been here lost: viz. from the word [Greek:
katabainôn] in vi. 50 to the word [Greek: legeis] in viii. 52: a
_lacuna_ (as I find by counting the letters in a copy of the ordinary
text) of as nearly as possible 8,805 letters,--allowing for
contractions, and of course not reckoning St. John vii. 53 to viii. 11.
Now, in order to estimate fairly how many letters the two lost leaves
actually contained, I have inquired for the sums of the letters on the
leaf immediately preceding, and also on the leaf immediately succeeding
the hiatus; and I find them to be respectively 4,337 and 4,303:
together, 8,640 letters. But this, it will be seen, is insufficient by
165 letters, or eight lines, for the assumed contents of these two
missing leaves. Are we then to suppose that one leaf exhibited somewhere
a blank space equivalent to eight lines? Impossible, I answer. There
existed, on the contrary, a considerable redundancy of matter in at
least the second of those two lost leaves. This is proved by the
circumstance that the first column on the next ensuing leaf exhibits the
unique phenomenon of being encumbered, at its summit, by two very long
lines (containing together fifty-eight letters), for which evidently no
room could be found on the page which immediately preceded. But why
should there have been any redundancy of matter at all? Something
extraordinary must have produced it. What if the _Pericope de adultera_,
without being actually inserted in full, was recognized by Cod. A? What
if the scribe had proceeded as far as the fourth word of St. John viii.
3, and then had suddenly checked himself? We cannot tell what appearance
St. John vii. 53-viii. 11 presented in Codex A, simply because the
entire leaf which should have contained it is lost. Enough however has
been said already to prove that it is incorrect and unfair to throw
[Symbol: Aleph]AB into one and the same category,--with a
'certissimum,'--as Tischendorf does.
As for L and [Symbol: Delta], they exhibit a vacant space after St. John
vii. 52,--which testifies to the consciousness of the copyists that they
were leaving out something. These are therefore witnesses _for_,--not
witnesses _against_,--the passage under discussion.--X being a
Commentary on the Gospel as it was read in Church, of course leaves the
passage out.--The only uncial MSS. therefore which _simply_ leave out
the pericope, are the three following--[Symbol: Aleph]BT: and the degree
of attention to which such an amount of evidence is entitled, has been
already proved to be wondrous small. We cannot forget moreover that the
two former of these copies enjoy the unenviable distinction of standing
alone on a memorable occasion:--they _alone_ exhibit St. Mark's Gospel
mutilated in respect of its twelve concluding verses.
But I shall be reminded that about seventy MSS. of later date are
without the _pericope de adultera_: that the first Greek Father who
quotes the pericope is Euthymius in the twelfth century: that
Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Nonnus, Cosmas, Theophylact, knew
nothing of it: and that it is not contained in the Syriac, the Gothic,
or the Egyptian versions. Concerning every one of which statements I
remark over again that no sincere lover of Truth, supposing him to
understand the matter about which he is disputing, could so exhibit the
evidence for this particular problem. First, because so to state it is
to misrepresent the entire case. Next, because some of the articles of
indictment are only half true:--in fact are _untrue_. But chiefly,
because in the foregoing enumeration certain considerations are actually
suppressed which, had they been fairly stated, would have been found to
reverse the issue. Let me now be permitted to conduct this inquiry in my
own way.
The first thing to be done is to enable the reader clearly to understand
what the problem before him actually is. Twelve verses then, which, as a
matter of fact, are found dovetailed into a certain context of St.
John's Gospel, the Critics insist must now be dislodged. But do the
Critics in question prove that they must? For unless they do, there is
no help for it but the _pericope de adultera_ must be left where it is.
I proceed to shew first, that it is impossible, on any rational
principle to dislodge these twelve verses from their actual
context.--Next, I shall point out that the facts adduced in evidence and
relied on by the assailants of the passage, do not by any means prove
the point they are intended to prove; but admit of a sufficient and
satisfactory explanation.--Thirdly, it shall be shewn that the said
explanation carries with it, and implies, a weight of testimony in
support of the twelve verses in dispute, which is absolutely
overwhelming.--Lastly, the positive evidence in favour of these twelve
verses shall be proved to outweigh largely the negative evidence, which
is relied upon by those who contend for their removal. To some people I
may seem to express myself with too much confidence. Let it then be said
once for all, that my confidence is inspired by the strength of the
arguments which are now to be unfolded. When the Author of Holy
Scripture supplies such proofs of His intentions, I cannot do otherwise
than rest implicit confidence in them.
Now I begin by establishing as my first proposition that,
(1) _These twelve verses occupied precisely the same position which they
now occupy from the earliest period to which evidence concerning the
Gospels reaches._
And this, because it is a mere matter of fact, is sufficiently
established by reference to the ancient Latin version of St. John's
Gospel. We are thus carried back to the second century of our era:
beyond which, testimony does not reach. The pericope is observed to
stand _in situ_ in Codd. b c e ff^{2} g h j. Jerome (A.D. 385), after a
careful survey of older Greek copies, did not hesitate to retain it in
the Vulgate. It is freely referred to and commented on by himself[595]
in Palestine: while Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes it at least nine
times[596]; as well as Augustine in North Africa (396) about twice as
often[597]. It is quoted besides by Pacian[598], in the north of Spain
(370),--by Faustus[599] the African (400),--by Rufinus[600] at Aquileia
(400),--by Chrysologus[601] at Ravenna (433),--by Sedulius[602] a Scot
(434). The unknown authors of two famous treatises[603] written at the
same period, largely quote this portion of the narrative. It is referred
to by Victorius or Victorinus (457),--by Vigilius of Tapsus[604] (484)
in North Africa,--by Gelasius[605], bp. of Rome (492),--by
Cassiodorus[606] in Southern Italy,--by Gregory the Great[607], and by
other Fathers of the Western Church.
To this it is idle to object that the authors cited all wrote in Latin.
For the purpose in hand their evidence is every bit as conclusive as if
they had written in Greek,--from which language no one doubts that they
derived their knowledge, through a translation. But in fact we are not
left to Latin authorities. [Out of thirty-eight copies of the Bohairic
version the _pericope de adultera_ is read in fifteen, but in three
forms which will be printed in the Oxford edition. In the remaining
twenty-three, it is left out.] How is it intelligible that this passage
is thus found in nearly half the copies--except on the hypothesis that
they formed an integral part of the Memphitic version? They might have
been easily omitted: but how could they have been inserted?
Once more. The Ethiopic version (fifth century),--the Palestinian Syriac
(which is referred to the fifth century),--the Georgian (probably fifth
or sixth century),--to say nothing of the Slavonic, Arabic and Persian
versions, which are of later date,--all contain the portion of narrative
in dispute. The Armenian version also (fourth-fifth century) originally
contained it; though it survives at present in only a few copies. Add
that it is found in Cod. D, and it will be seen that in all parts of
ancient Christendom this portion of Scripture was familiarly known in
early times.
But even this is not all. Jerome, who was familiar with Greek MSS. (and
who handled none of later date than B and [Symbol: Aleph]), expressly
relates (380) that the _pericope de adultera_ 'is found in many copies
both Greek and Latin[608].' He calls attention to the fact that what is
rendered 'sine peccato' is [Greek: anamartêtos] in the Greek: and lets
fall an exegetical remark which shews that he was familiar with copies
which exhibited (in ver. 8) [Greek: egraphan enos ekastou autôn tas
amartias],--a reading which survives to this day in one uncial (U) and
at least eighteen cursive copies of the fourth Gospel[609]. Whence is
it--let me ask in passing--that so many Critics fail to see that
_positive_ testimony like the foregoing far outweighs the adverse
_negative_ testimony of [Symbol: Aleph]BT,--aye, and of AC to boot if
they were producible on this point? How comes it to pass that the two
Codexes, [Symbol: Aleph] and B, have obtained such a mastery--rather
exercise such a tyranny--over the imagination of many Critics as quite
to overpower their practical judgement? We have at all events
established our first proposition: viz. that from the earliest period to
which testimony reaches, the incident of 'the woman taken in adultery'
occupied its present place in St. John's Gospel. The Critics eagerly
remind us that in four cursive copies (13, 69, 124, 346), the verses in
question are found tacked on to the end of St. Luke xxi. But have they
then forgotten that 'these four Codexes are derived from a common
archetype,' and therefore represent one and the same ancient and, I may
add, corrupt copy? The same Critics are reminded that in the same four
Codexes [commonly called the Ferrar Group] 'the agony and bloody sweat'
(St. Luke xxii. 43, 44) is found thrust into St. Matthew's Gospel
between ch. xxvi. 39 and 40. Such licentiousness on the part of a
solitary exemplar of the Gospels no more affects the proper place of
these or of those verses than the superfluous digits of a certain man of
Gath avail to disturb the induction that to either hand of a human being
appertain but five fingers, and to either foot but five toes.
It must be admitted then that as far back as testimony reaches the
passage under discussion stood where it now stands in St. John's Gospel.
And this is my first position. But indeed, to be candid, hardly any one
has seriously called that fact in question. No, nor do any (except Dr.
Hort[610]) doubt that the passage is also of the remotest antiquity.
Adverse Critics do but insist that however ancient, it must needs be of
spurious origin: or else that it is an afterthought of the
Evangelist:--concerning both which imaginations we shall have a few
words to offer by-and-by.
It clearly follows,--indeed it may be said with truth that it only
remains,--to inquire what may have led to its so frequent exclusion from
the sacred Text? For really the difficulty has already resolved itself
into that.
And on this head, it is idle to affect perplexity. In the earliest age
of all,--the age which was familiar with the universal decay of heathen
virtue, but which had not yet witnessed the power of the Gospel to
fashion society afresh, and to build up domestic life on a new and more
enduring basis;--at a time when the greatest laxity of morals prevailed,
and the enemies of the Gospel were known to be on the look out for
grounds of cavil against Christianity and its Author;--what wonder if
some were found to remove the _pericope de adultera_ from their copies,
lest it should be pleaded in extenuation of breaches of the seventh
commandment? The very subject-matter, I say, of St. John viii. 3-11
would sufficiently account for the occasional omission of those nine
verses. Moral considerations abundantly explain what is found to have
here and there happened. But in fact this is not a mere conjecture of my
own. It is the reason assigned by Augustine for the erasure of these
twelve verses from many copies of the Gospel[611]. Ambrose, a quarter of
a century earlier, had clearly intimated that danger was popularly
apprehended from this quarter[612]: while Nicon, five centuries later,
states plainly that the mischievous tendency of the narrative was the
cause why it had been expunged from the Armenian version[613].
Accordingly, just a few Greek copies are still to be found mutilated in
respect of those nine verses only. But in fact the indications are not a
few that all the twelve verses under discussion did not by any means
labour under the same degree of disrepute. The first three (as I shewed
at the outset) clearly belong to a different category from the last
nine,--a circumstance which has been too much overlooked.
The Church in the meantime for an obvious reason had made choice of St.
John vii. 37-viii. 12--the greater part of which is clearly descriptive
of what happened at the Feast of Tabernacles--for her Pentecostal
lesson: and judged it expedient, besides omitting as inappropriate to
the occasion the incident of the woman taken in adultery, to ignore also
the three preceding verses;--making the severance begin, in fact, as far
back as the end of ch. vii. 52. The reason for this is plain. In this
way the allusion to a certain departure at night, and return early next
morning (St. John vii. 53: viii. 1), was avoided, which entirely marred
the effect of the lection as the history of a day of great and special
solemnity,--'the great day of the Feast.' And thus it happens that the
gospel for the day of Pentecost was made to proceed directly from
'Search and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,' in ch. vii.
52,--to 'Then spake Jesus unto them, saying, I am the light of the
world,' in ch. viii. 12; with which it ends. In other words, an omission
which owed its beginning to a moral scruple was eventually extended for
a liturgical consideration; and resulted in severing twelve verses of
St. John's Gospel--ch. vii. 53 to viii. 11--from their lawful context.
We may now proceed to the consideration of my second proposition, which
is
(2) _That by the very construction of her Lectionary, the Church in her
corporate capacity and official character has solemnly recognised the
narrative in question as an integral part of St. John's Gospel, and as
standing in its traditional place, from an exceedingly remote time_.
Take into your hands at random the first MS. copy of St. John's Gospel
which presents itself, and turn to the place in question. Nay, I will
instance _all_ the four Evangelia which I call mine,--all the seventeen
which belong to Lord Zouch,--all the thirty-nine which Baroness
Burdett-Coutts imported from Epirus in 1870-2. Now all these
copies--(and nearly each of them represents a different line of
ancestry)--are found to contain the verses in question. How did the
verses ever get there?
But the most extraordinary circumstance of the case is behind. Some out
of the Evangelia referred to are observed to have been prepared for
ecclesiastical use: in other words, are so rubricated throughout as to
shew where, every separate lection had its 'beginning' ([Greek: archê]),
and where its 'end' ([Greek: telos]). And some of these lections are
made up of disjointed portions of the Gospel. Thus, the lection for
Whitsunday is found to have extended from St. John vii. 37 to St. John
viii. 12; beginning at the words [Greek: tê eschatê hêmera tê megalê],
and ending--[Greek: to phôs tês zôês]: but _over-leaping_ the twelve
verses now under discussion: viz. vii. 53 to viii. 11. Accordingly, the
word 'over-leap' ([Greek: hyperba]) is written in _all_ the copies after
vii. 52,--whereby the reader, having read on to the end of that verse,
was directed to skip all that followed down to the words [Greek: kai
mêketi hamartane] in ch. viii. 11: after which he found himself
instructed to 'recommence' ([Greek: arxai]). Again I ask (and this time
does not the riddle admit of only one solution?),--When and how does the
reader suppose that the narrative of 'the woman taken in adultery' first
found its way into the _middle of the lesson for Pentecost_? I pause for
an answer: I shall perforce be told that it never 'found its way' into
the lection at all: but having once crept into St. John's Gospel,
however that may have been effected, and established itself there, it
left those ancient men who devised the Church's Lectionary without
choice. They could but direct its omission, and employ for that purpose
the established liturgical formula in all similar cases.
But first,--How is it that those who would reject the narrative are not
struck by the essential foolishness of supposing that twelve fabricated
verses, purporting to be an integral part of the fourth Gospel, can have
so firmly established themselves in every part of Christendom from the
second century downwards, that they have long since become simply
ineradicable? Did the Church then, _pro hac vice_, abdicate her function
of being 'a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ'? Was she all of a sudden
forsaken by the inspiring Spirit, who, as she was promised, should
'guide her into all Truth'? And has she been all down the ages guided
into the grievous error of imputing to the disciple whom Jesus loved a
narrative of which he knew nothing? For, as I remarked at the outset,
this is not merely an assimilated expression, or an unauthorized
nominative, or a weakly-supported clause, or any such trifling thing.
Although be it remarked in passing, I am not aware of a single such
trifling excrescence which we are not able at once to detect and to
remove. In other words, this is not at all a question, like the rest,
about the genuine text of a passage. Our inquiry is of an essentially
different kind, viz. Are these twelve consecutive verses Scripture at
all, or not? Divine or human? Which? They claim by their very structure
and contents to be an integral part of the Gospel. And such a serious
accession to the Deposit, I insist, can neither have 'crept into' the
Text, nor have 'crept out' of it. The thing is unexampled,--is
unapproached,--is impossible.
Above all,--(the reader is entreated to give the subject his sustained
attention),--Is it not perceived that the admission involved in the
hypothesis before us is fatal to any rational pretence that the passage
is of spurious origin? We have got back in thought at least to the third
or fourth century of our era. We are among the Fathers and Doctors of
the Eastern Church in conference assembled: and they are determining
what shall be the Gospel for the great Festival of Pentecost. 'It shall
begin' (say they) 'at the thirty-seventh verse of St. John vii, and
conclude with the twelfth verse of St. John viii. But so much of it as
relates to the breaking up of the Sanhedrin,--to the withdrawal of our
Lord to the Mount of Olives,--and to His return next morning to the
Temple,--had better not be read. It disturbs the unity of the narrative.
So also had the incident of the woman taken in adultery better not be
read. It is inappropriate to the Pentecostal Festival.' The Authors of
the great Oriental Liturgy therefore admit that they find the disputed
verses in their copies: and thus they vouch for their genuineness. For
none will doubt that, had they regarded them as a spurious accretion to
the inspired page, they would have said so plainly. Nor can it be denied
that if in their corporate capacity they had disallowed these twelve
verses, such an authoritative condemnation would most certainly have
resulted in the perpetual exclusion from the Sacred Text of the part of
these verses which was actually adopted as a Lection. What stronger
testimony on the contrary can be imagined to the genuineness of any
given portion of the everlasting Gospel than that it should have been
canonized or recognized as part of Inspired Scripture by the collective
wisdom of the Church in the third or fourth century?
And no one may regard it as a suspicious circumstance that the present
Pentecostal lection has been thus maimed and mutilated in respect of
twelve of its verses. There is nothing at all extraordinary in the
treatment which St. John vii. 37-viii. 12 has here experienced. The
phenomenon is even of perpetual recurrence in the Lectionary of the
East,--as will be found explained below[614].
Permit me to suppose that, between the Treasury and Whitehall, the
remote descendant of some Saxon thane occupied a small tenement and
garden which stood in the very middle of the ample highway. Suppose
further, the property thereabouts being Government property, that the
road on either side of this estate had been measured a hundred times,
and jealously watched, ever since Westminster became Westminster. Well,
an act of Parliament might no doubt compel the supposed proprietor of
this singular estate to surrender his patrimony; but I submit that no
government lawyer would ever think of setting up the plea that the owner
of that peculiar strip of land was an impostor. The man might have no
title-deeds to produce, to be sure; but counsel for the defendant would
plead that neither did he require any. 'This man's title' (counsel would
say) 'is--occupation for a thousand years. His evidences are--the
allowance of the State throughout that long interval. Every procession
to St. Stephen's--every procession to the Abbey--has swept by
defendant's property--on this side of it and on that,--since the days of
Edward the Confessor. And if my client refuses to quit the soil, I defy
you--except by violence--to get rid of him.'
In this way then it is that the testimony borne to these verses by the
Lectionary of the East proves to be of the most opportune and convincing
character. The careful provision made for passing by the twelve verses
in dispute:--the minute directions which fence those twelve verses off
on this side and on that, directions issued we may be sure by the
highest Ecclesiastical authority, because recognized in every part of
the ancient Church,--not only establish them effectually in their
rightful place, but (what is at least of equal importance) fully explain
the adverse phenomena which are ostentatiously paraded by adverse
critics; and which, until the clue has been supplied, are calculated to
mislead the judgement.
For now, for the first time, it becomes abundantly plain why Chrysostom
and Cyril, in publicly commenting on St. John's Gospel, pass straight
from ch. vii. 52 to ch. viii. 12. Of course they do. Why should
they,--how could they,--comment on what was not publicly read before the
congregation? The same thing is related (in a well-known 'scholium') to
have been done by Apolinarius and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Origen also,
for aught I care,--though the adverse critics have no right to claim
him, seeing that his commentary on all that part of St. John's Gospel is
lost;--but Origen's name, as I was saying, for aught I care, may be
added to those who did the same thing. A triumphant refutation of the
proposed inference from the silence of these many Fathers is furnished
by the single fact that Theophylact must also be added to their number.
Theophylact, I say, ignores the _pericope de adultera_--passes it by, I
mean,--exactly as do Chrysostom and Cyril. But will any one pretend that
Theophylact,--writing in A.D. 1077,--did not know of St. John vii.
53-viii. 11? Why, in nineteen out of every twenty copies within his
reach, the whole of those twelve verses must have been to be found.
The proposed inference from the silence of certain of the Fathers is
therefore invalid. The argument _e silentio_--always an insecure
argument,--proves inapplicable in this particular case. When the
antecedent facts have been once explained, all the subsequent phenomena
become intelligible. But a more effectual and satisfactory reply to the
difficulty occasioned by the general silence of the Fathers, remains to
be offered.