§ 1.
No progress is possible in the department of “Textual Criticism” until the
superstition—for we are persuaded that it is nothing less—which at present
prevails concerning certain of “the old uncials” (as they are called) has
been abandoned. By “the old uncials” are generally meant, [1] The
_Vatican_ Codex (B),—and [2] the _Sinaitic_ Codex (א),—which by common
consent are assigned to the fourth century: [3] the _Alexandrian_ (A), and
[4] the _Cod. Ephraemi rescriptus_ (C),—which are given to the fifth
century: and [5] the _Codex Bezae_ (D),—which is claimed for the sixth
century: to which must now be added [6] the _Codex Beratinus_ (Φ), at the
end of the fifth, and [7] the _Codex Rossanensis_ (Σ), at the beginning of
the sixth century. Five of these seven Codexes for some unexplained
reason, although the latest of them (D) is sundered from the great bulk of
the copies, uncial and cursive, by about as many centuries as the earliest
of them (Bא) are sundered from the last of their group, have been invested
with oracular authority and are supposed to be the vehicles of imperial
decrees. It is pretended that what is found in either B or in א or in D,
although unsupported by any other manuscript, may reasonably be claimed to
exhibit the truth of scripture, in defiance of the combined evidence of
all other documents to the contrary. Let a reading be advocated by B and א
in conjunction, and it is assumed as a matter of course that such evidence
must needs outweigh the combined evidence of all other MSS. which can be
named. But when (as often happens) three or four of these “old uncials”
are in accord,—especially if (as is not unfrequently the case) they have
the support of a single ancient version (as the Bohairic),—or a solitary
early Father (as Origen), it seems to be deemed axiomatic that such
evidence must needs carry all before it(71).
I maintain the contradictory proposition, and am prepared to prove it. I
insist that readings so supported are clearly untrustworthy and may be
dismissed as certainly unauthentic.
But let us in this chapter seek to come to some understanding with one
another. My method shall be to ask a plain question which shall bring the
matter to a clear issue. I will then (1) invent the best answers I am able
to that question: and then (2) to the best of my ability—I will dispose of
these answers one by one. If the reader (1) is able to assign a better
answer,—or (2) does not deem my refutation satisfactory,—he has but to
call me publicly to account: and by the rejoinder I shall publicly render
either he, or I, must be content to stand publicly discredited. If I knew
of a fairer way of bringing this by no means recondite matter to a
definite issue, the reader may be well assured I should now adopt
it(72).—My general question is,—Why throughout the Gospels are B and א
accounted so trustworthy, that all but the absolute disposal of every
disputed question about the Text is held to depend upon their evidence?
And I begin by asking of a supposed Biblical Student,—Why throughout the
Gospels should Codex B and א be deemed more deserving of our confidence
than the other Codexes?
_Biblical Student._ Because they are the most ancient of our Codexes.
_Dean Burgon._ This answer evidently seems to you to convey an axiomatic
truth: but not to me. I must trouble you to explain to me why “the most
ancient of our Codexes” must needs be the purest?
_B. S._ I have not said that they “must needs be the purest”: and I
request you will not impute to me anything which I do not actually say.
_The Dean._ Thank you for a most just reproof. Let us only proceed in the
same spirit to the end, and we shall arrive at important results. Kindly
explain yourself therefore in your own way.
_B. S._ I meant to say that because it is a reasonable presumption that
the oldest Codexes will prove the purest, therefore Bא—being the oldest
Codexes of the Gospels—may reasonably be expected to be the best.
_The Dean._ So far happily we are agreed. You mean, I presume, that
inasmuch as it is an admitted principle that the stream is purest at its
source, the antiquity of B and א creates a reasonable presumption in their
favour. Is that what you mean?
_B. S._ Something of the kind, no doubt. You may go on.
_The Dean._ Yes, but it would be a great satisfaction to me to know for
certain, whether you actually do, or actually do not mean what I
suppose:—viz., to apply the principle, _id verum esse quod primum_, I take
you to mean that in B and א we have the nearest approach to the autographs
of the Evangelists, and that therefore in them we have the best evidence
that is at present within reach of what those autographs actually were. I
will now go on as you bid me. And I take leave to point out to you, that
it is high time that we should have the facts of the case definitely
before us, and that we should keep them steadily in view throughout our
subsequent discussion. Now all critics are agreed, that B and א were not
written earlier than about 340, or say before 330 A.D. You will admit
that, I suppose?
_B. S._ I have no reason to doubt it.
_The Dean._ There was therefore an interval of not far short of three
hundred years between the writing of the original autographs and the
copying of the Gospels in B and א(73). Those two oldest Codexes, or the
earliest of them, are thus found to be separated by nearly three centuries
from the original writings,—or to speak more accurately,—by about two
centuries and three-quarters from three of the great autographs, and by
about 250 years from the fourth. Therefore these MSS. cannot be said to be
so closely connected with the original autographs as to be entitled to
decide about disputed passages what they were or were not. Corruption
largely infected the several writings(74), as I shall shew at some length
in some subsequent chapters, during the great interval to which I have
alluded.
_B. S._ But I am surprised to hear you say this. You must surely recollect
that B and א were derived from one and the same archetype, and that that
archetype was produced “in the early part of the second century if not
earlier(75),” and was very close to the autographs, and that they must be
accordingly accurate transcripts of the autographs, and—
_The Dean._ I must really pray you to pause:—you have left facts far
behind, and have mounted into cloudland. I must beg you not to let slip
from your mind, that we start with a fact, so far as it can be
ascertained, viz. the production of B and א, about the middle of the
fourth century. You have advanced from that fact to what is only a
probable opinion, in which however I am agreed with you, viz. that B and א
are derived from one and the same older manuscript. Together therefore, I
pray you will not forget, they only count nearly as one. But as to the age
of that archetype—forgive me for saying, that—unintentionally no doubt but
none the less really—you have taken a most audacious leap. May I ask,
however, whether you can quote any ancient authority for the date which
you have affixed?
_B. S._ I cannot recollect one at the present moment.
_The Dean._ No, nor Dr. Hort either,—for I perceive that you adopt his
speculation. And I utterly deny that there is any probability at all for
such a suggestion:—nay, the chances are greatly, if not decisively,
against the original from which the lines of B and א diverged, being
anything like so old as the second century. These MSS. bear traces of the
Origenistic school, as I shall afterwards shew(76). They have too much
method in their error for it to have arisen in the earliest age: its
systematic character proves it to have been the growth of time. They
evince effects, as I shall demonstrate in due course, of heretical
teaching, Lectionary practice, and regular editing, which no manuscript
could have contracted in the first ages of the Church.
_B. S._ But surely the differences between B and א, which are many, prove
that they were not derived immediately from their common ancestor, but
that some generations elapsed between them. Do you deny that?
_The Dean._ I grant you entirely that there are many differences between
them,—so much the worse for the value of their evidence. But you must not
suffer yourself to be misled by the figure of genealogy upon points where
it presents no parallel. There were in manuscripts no periods of infancy,
childhood, and youth, which must elapse before they could have a progeny.
As soon as a manuscript was completed, and was examined and passed, it
could be copied: and it could be copied, not only once a year, but as
often as copyists could find time to write and complete their copies(77).
You must take also another circumstance into consideration. After the
destruction of manuscripts in the persecution of Diocletian, and when the
learned were pressing from all quarters into the Church, copies must have
been multiplied with great rapidity. There was all the more room for
carelessness, inaccuracy, incompetency, and capricious recension. Several
generations of manuscripts might have been given off in two or three
years.—But indeed all this idea of fixing the date of the common ancestor
of B and א is based upon pure speculation—Textual Science cannot rest her
conclusions upon foundations of sand like that. I must bring you back to
the Rock: I must recall you to facts. B and א were produced in the early
middle, so to speak, of the fourth century. Further than this, we cannot
go, except to say—and this especially is the point to which I must now
request your attention,—that we are in the possession of evidence older
than they are.
_B. S._ But you do not surely mean to tell me that other Uncials have been
discovered which are earlier than these?
_The Dean._ No: not yet: though it is possible, and perhaps probable, that
such MSS. may come to light, not in vellum but in papyrus; for as far as
we know, B and א mark the emergence into prominence of the “Uncial” class
of great manuscripts(78). But though there are in our hands as yet no
older manuscripts, yet we have in the first place various Versions, viz.,
the Peshitto of the second century(79), the group of Latin Versions(80)
which begin from about the same time, the Bohairic and the Thebaic of the
third century, not to speak of the Gothic which was about contemporary
with your friends the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. Next, there are the
numerous Fathers who quoted passages in the earliest ages, and thus
witnessed to the MSS. which they used. To take an illustration, I have
cited upon the last twelve verses of St. Mark’s Gospel no less than twelve
authorities before the end of the third century, that is down to a date
which is nearly half a century before B and א appeared. The general mass
of quotations found in the books of the early Fathers witnesses to what I
say(81). So that there is absolutely no reason to place these two MSS.
upon a pedestal by themselves on the score of supreme antiquity. They are
eclipsed in this respect by many other authorities older than they are.
Such, I must beg you to observe, is the verdict, not of uncertain
speculation, but of stubborn facts.
_B. S._ But if I am not permitted to plead the highest antiquity on behalf
of the evidence of the two oldest Uncials,—
_The Dean._ Stop, I pray you. Do not imagine for a single instant that I
wish to prevent your pleading anything at all that you may fairly plead.
Facts, which refuse to be explained out of existence, not myself, bar your
way. Forgive me, but you must not run your head against a brick wall.
_B. S._ Well then(82), I will meet you at once by asking a question of my
own. Do you deny that B and א are the most precious monuments of their
class in existence?
_The Dean._ So far from denying, I eagerly assert that they are. Were they
offered for sale to-morrow, they would command a fabulous sum. They might
fetch perhaps £100,000. For aught I know or care they may be worth it.
More than one cotton-spinner is worth—or possibly several times as much.
_B. S._ But I did not mean that. I spoke of their importance as
instruments of criticism.
_The Dean._ Again we are happily agreed. Their importance is
unquestionably first-rate. But to come to the point, will you state
plainly, whether you mean to assert that their text is in your judgement
of exceptional purity?
_B. S._ I do.
_The Dean._ At last there we understand one another. I on the contrary
insist, and am prepared to prove, that the text of these two Codexes is
very nearly the foulest in existence. On what, pray, do you rely for your
opinion which proves to be diametrically the reverse of mine(83)?
_B. S._ The best scholars tell me that their text, and especially the text
of B, is of a purer character than any other: and indeed I myself, after
reading B in Mai’s edition, think that it deserves the high praise given
to it.
_The Dean._ My dear friend, I see that you have been taken in by Mai’s
edition, printed at Leipzig, and published in England by Williams &
Norgate and D. Nutt. Let me tell you that it is a most faulty
representation of B. It mixes later hands with the first hand. It abounds
in mistakes. It inserts perpetually passages which are nowhere found in
the copy. In short, people at the time fancied that in the text of the
mysterious manuscript in the Vatican they would find the _verba ipsissima_
of the Gospels: but when Cardinal Mai was set to gratify them, he found
that B would be unreadable unless it were edited with a plentiful
correction of errors. So the world then received at least two recensions
of B mixed up in this edition, whilst B itself remained behind. The world
was generally satisfied, and taken in. But I am sorry that you have shared
in the delusion.
_B. S._ Well, of course I may be wrong: but surely you will respect the
opinion of the great scholars.
_The Dean._ Of course I respect deeply the opinion of any great scholars:
but before I adopt it, I must know and approve the grounds of their
opinion. Pray, what in this instance are they?
_B. S._ They say that the text is better and purer than any other.
_The Dean._ And I say that it is nearly the most corrupt known. If they
give no special grounds except the fact that they think so, it is a
conflict of opinion. There is a balance between us. But from this deadlock
I proceed to facts. Take for example, as before, the last twelve verses of
St. Mark. On the one side are alleged B and א,—of which B by the
exhibition of a blank space mutely confesses its omission, and א betrays
that it is double-minded(84); one Old Latin MS. (_k_), two Armenian MSS.,
two Ethiopic, and an Arabic Lectionary; an expression of Eusebius, who
elsewhere quotes the passage, which was copied by Jerome and Severus of
Antioch, saying that the verses were omitted in some copies. L of the
eighth century, and a few Cursives, give a brief, but impossible,
termination. On the other side I have referred to(85) six witnesses of the
second century, six of the third, fifteen of the fourth, nine of the
fifth, eight of the sixth and seventh, all the other Uncials, and all the
other Cursives, including the universal and immemorial Liturgical use.
Here, as you must see, B and א, in faltering tones, and with only an
insignificant following, are met by an array of authorities, which is
triumphantly superior, not only in antiquity, but also in number, variety,
and continuousness. I claim also the superiority as to context, internal
considerations, and in weight too.
_B. S._ But surely weight is the ground of contention between us.
_The Dean._ Certainly, and therefore I do not assume my claim till I
substantiate it. But before I go on to do so, may I ask whether you can
dispute the fact of the four first Notes of Truth being on my side?
_B. S._ No: you are entitled to so much allowance.
_The Dean._ That is a very candid admission, and just what I expected from
you. Now as to Weight. The passage just quoted is only one instance out of
many. More will abound later on in this book: and even then many more must
of necessity remain behind. In point of hard and unmistakable fact, there
is a continual conflict going on all through the Gospels between B and א
and a few adherents of theirs on the one side, and the bulk of the
Authorities on the other, and the nature and weight of these two Codexes
may be inferred from it. They will be found to have been proved over and
over again to be bad witnesses, who were left to survive in their handsome
dresses whilst attention was hardly ever accorded to any services of
theirs. Fifteen centuries, in which the art of copying the Bible was
brought to perfection, and printing invented, have by unceasing rejection
of their claims scaled for ever the condemnation of their character, and
so detracted from their weight.
_B. S._ Still, whilst I acknowledge the justice of much that you have
said, I cannot quite understand how the text of later copies can be really
older than the text of earlier ones.
_The Dean._ You should know that such a thing is quite possible. Copies
much more numerous and much older than B and א live in their surviving
descendants. The pedigree of the Queen is in no wise discredited because
William the Conqueror is not alive. But then further than this. The
difference between the text of B and א on the one side and that which is
generally represented by A and Φ and Σ on the other is not of a kind
depending upon date, but upon recension or dissemination of readings. No
amplification of B and א could by any process of natural development have
issued in the last twelve verses of St. Mark. But it was easy enough for
the scribe of B not to write, and the scribe of א consciously(86) and
deliberately to omit, verses found in the copy before him, if it were
determined that they should severally do so. So with respect to the 2,556
omissions of B. The original text could without any difficulty have been
spoilt by leaving out the words, clauses, and sentences thus omitted: but
something much more than the shortened text of B was absolutely essential
for the production of the longer manuscripts. This is an important point,
and I must say something more upon it.
First then(87), Cod. B is discovered not to contain in the Gospels alone
237 words, 452 clauses, 748 whole sentences, which the later copies are
observed to exhibit in the same places and in the same words. By what
possible hypothesis will such a correspondence of the Copies be accounted
for, if these words, clauses, and sentences are indeed, as is pretended,
nothing else but spurious accretions to the text?
Secondly, the same Codex throughout the Gospels exhibits 394 times words
in a certain order, which however is not the order advocated by the great
bulk of the Copies. In consequence of what subtle influence will it be
pretended, that all over the world for a thousand years the scribes were
universally induced to deflect from the authentic collocation of the same
inspired words, and always to deflect in precisely the same way?
But Cod. B also contains 937 Gospel words, of which by common consent the
great bulk of the Cursive Copies know nothing. Will it be pretended that
in any part of the Church for seven hundred years copyists of Evangelia
entered into a grand conspiracy to thrust out of every fresh copy of the
Gospel self-same words in the self-same places(88)?
You will see therefore that B, and so א, since the same arguments concern
one as the other, must have been derived from the Traditional Text, and
not the Traditional Text from those two Codexes.
_B. S._ You forget that Recensions were made at Edessa or Nisibis and
Antioch which issued in the Syrian Texts, and that that was the manner in
which the change which you find so difficult to understand was brought
about.
_The Dean._ Excuse me, I forget no such thing; and for a very good reason,
because such Recensions never occurred. Why, there is not a trace of them
in history: it is a mere dream of Dr. Hort: they must be “phantom
recensions,” as Dr. Scrivener terms them. The Church of the time was not
so unconscious of such matters as Dr. Hort imagines. Supposing for a
moment that such Recensions, took place, they must have been either merely
local occurrences, in which case after a controversy on which history is
silent they would have been inevitably rejected by the other Churches in
Christendom; or they must have been general operations of the Universal
Church, and then inasmuch as they would have been sealed with the
concurrence of fifteen centuries, I can hardly conceive greater
condemnations of B and א. Besides, how could a text which has been in fact
Universal be “Syrian”? We are on _terra firma_, let me remind you, not in
the clouds. The undisputed action of fifteen centuries is not to be set
aside by a nickname.
_B. S._ But there is another way of describing the process of change which
may have occurred in the reverse direction to that which you advocate.
Expressions which had been introduced in different groups of readings were
combined by “Conflation” into a more diffuse and weaker passage. Thus in
St. Mark vi. 33, the two clauses καὶ προῆλθον αὐτούς, καὶ συνῆλθον αὐτοῦ,
are made into one conflate passage, of which the last clause is “otiose”
after συνέδραμον ἐκεῖ occurring immediately before(89).
_The Dean._ Excuse me, but I entirely disagree with you. The whole passage
appears to me to savour of the simplicity of early narratives. Take for
example the well-known words in Gen. xii. 5, “and they went forth to go
into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came(90).” A
clumsy criticism, bereft of any fine appreciation of times and habits
unlike the present, might I suppose attempt to remove the latter clause
from that place as being “otiose.” But besides, your explanation entirely
breaks down when it is applied to other instances. How could conflation,
or mixture, account for occurrence of the last cry in St. Mark xv. 39, or
of vv. 43-44 in St. Luke xxii describing the Agony and Bloody Sweat, or of
the first Word from the Cross in St. Luke xxiii. 34, or of the descending
angel and the working of the cure in St. John v. 3-4, or of St. Peter’s
visit to the sepulchre in St. Luke xxiv. 12, or what would be the foisting
of verses or passages of different lengths into the numerous and similar
places that I might easily adduce? If these were all transcribed from some
previous text into which they had been interpolated, they would only
thrust the difficulty further back. How did they come there? The clipped
text of B and א—so to call it—could not have been the source of them. If
they were interpolated by scribes or revisers, the interpolations are so
good that, at least in many cases, they must have shared inspiration with
the Evangelists. Contrast, for example, the real interpolations of D and
the Curetonian. It is at the least demonstrated that that hypothesis
requires another source of the Traditional Text, and this is the argument
now insisted on. On the contrary, if you will discard your reverse
process, and for “Conflation” will substitute “Omission” through
carelessness, or ignorance of Greek, or misplaced assiduity, or heretical
bias, or through some of the other causes which I shall explain later on,
all will be as plain and easy as possible. Do you not see that? No
explanation can stand which does not account for all the instances
existing. Conflation or mixture is utterly incapable of meeting the larger
number of cases. But you will find before this treatise is ended that
various methods will be described herein with care, and traced in their
actual operation, under which debased texts of various kinds were produced
from the Traditional Text.
_B. S._ I see that there is much probability in what you say: but I retain
still some lingering doubt.
_The Dean._ That doubt, I think, will be removed by the next point which I
will now endeavour to elucidate. You must know that there is no agreement
amongst the allies, except so far as the denial of truth is concerned. As
soon as the battle is over, they at once turn their arms against one
another. Now it is a phenomenon full of suggestion, that such a _Concordia
discors_ is conspicuous amongst B and א and their associates. Indeed these
two Codexes are individually at variance with themselves, since each of
them has undergone later correction, and in fact no less than eleven hands
from first to last have been at work on א, which has been corrected and
re-corrected backwards and forwards like the faulty document that it is.
This by the way, but as to the continual quarrels of these
dissentients(91), which are patent when an attempt is made to ascertain
how far they agree amongst themselves, I must request your attention to a
few points and passages(92).
§ 2. St. John v. 4.
When it is abruptly stated that אBCD—four out of “the five old
uncials”—omit from the text of St. John’s Gospel the account of the angel
descending into the pool and troubling the water,—it is straightway
supposed that the genuineness of St. John v. 4 must be surrendered. But
this is not at all the way to settle questions of this kind. Let the
witnesses be called in afresh and examined.
Now I submit that since these four witnesses omitting A, (besides a
multitude of lesser discrepancies,) are unable to agree among themselves
whether “there was at Jerusalem a sheep-_pool_” (א), or “a pool at the
sheep-_gate_”: whether it was “surnamed” (BC), or “named” (D), or neither
(א):—which appellation, out of thirty which have been proposed for this
pool, they will adopt,—seeing that C is for “_Bethesda_”; B for
“_Bethsaida_”; א for “_Bethzatha_”; D for “_Belzetha_”:—whether or no the
crowd was great, of which they all know nothing,—and whether some were
“paralytics,”—a fact which was evidently revealed only to D:—to say
nothing of the vagaries of construction discoverable in verses 11 and
12:—when, you see, at last these four witnesses conspire to suppress the
fact that an Angel went down into the pool to trouble the water;—this
concord of theirs derives suggestive illustration from their conspicuous
discord. Since, I say, there is so much discrepancy hereabouts in B and א
and their two associates on this occasion, nothing short of unanimity in
respect of the thirty-two contested words—five in verse 3, and
twenty-seven in verse 4—would free their evidence from suspicion. But here
we make the notable discovery that only three of them omit all the words
in question, and that the second Corrector of C replaces them in that
manuscript. D retains the first five, and surrenders the last
twenty-seven: in this step D is contradicted by another of the “Old
Uncials,” A, whose first reading retains the last twenty-seven, and
surrenders the first five. Even their satellite L forsakes them, except so
far as to follow the first hand of A. Only five Cursives have been led
astray, and they exhibit strikingly this _Concordia discors_. One (157)
follows the extreme members of the loving company throughout. Two (18,
314) imitate A and L: and two more (33, 134) have the advantage of D for
their leader. When witnesses prevaricate so hopelessly, how far can you
believe them?
Now—to turn for a moment to the other side—this is a matter on which the
translations and such Fathers as quote the passage are able to render just
as good evidence as the Greek copies: and it is found that the Peshitto,
most of the Old Latin, as well as the Vulgate and the Jerusalem, with
Tertullian, Ammonius, Hilary, Ephraem the Syrian, Ambrose (two), Didymus,
Chrysostom (eight), Nilus (four), Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria (five),
Augustine (two), and Theodorus Studita, besides the rest of the
Uncials(93), and the Cursives(94), with the slight exception already
mentioned, are opposed to the Old Uncials(95).
Let me next remind you of a remarkable instance of this inconsistency
which I have already described in my book on The Revision Revised (pp.
34-36). “The five Old Uncials” (אABCD) falsify the Lord’s Prayer as given
by St. Luke in no less than forty-five words. But so little do they agree
among themselves, that they throw themselves into six different
combinations in their departures from the Traditional Text; and yet they
are never able to agree among themselves as to one single various reading:
while only once are more than two of them observed to stand together, and
their grand point of union is no less than an omission of the article.
Such is their eccentric tendency, that in respect of thirty-two out of the
whole forty-five words they bear in turn solitary evidence.
§ 3.
I should weary you, my dear student, if I were to take you through all the
evidence which I could amass upon this disagreement with one another,—this
_Concordia discors_. But I would invite your attention for a moment to a
few points which being specimens may indicate the continued divisions upon
Orthography which subsist between the Old Uncials and their frequent
errors. And first(96), how do they write the “Mary’s” of the Gospels, of
whom in strictness there are but three?
“The Mother of JESUS(97),” as most of us are aware, was not “Mary” (Μαρία)
at all; but “_Mariam_” (Μαριάμ),—a name strictly identical with that of
the sister of Moses(98). We call her “Mary” only because the Latins
_invariably_ write her name “Maria.” So complete an obliteration of the
distinction between the name of the blessed Virgin—and _that_ of (1) her
sister, Mary the wife of Clopas(99), of (2) Mary Magdalene, and of (3)
Mary the sister of Lazarus, may be deplored, but it is too late to remedy
the mischief by full 1800 years. The question before us is not that; but
only—how far the distinction between “_Mariam_” and “_Maria_” has been
maintained by the Greek copies?
Now, as for the cursives, with the memorable exception of Evann. 1 and
33,—which latter, because it is disfigured by more serious blunders than
any other copy written in the cursive character, Tregelles by a _mauvaise
plaisanterie_ designates as “the queen of the cursives,”—it may be said at
once that they are admirably faithful. Judging from the practice of fifty
or sixty which have been minutely examined with this view, the traces of
irregularity are so rare that the phenomenon scarcely deserves notice. Not
so the old uncials. Cod. B, on the first occasion where a blunder is
possible(100) (viz. in St. Matt. i. 20), exhibits Μαρία instead of
Μαριάμ:—so does Cod. C in xiii. 55,—Cod. D in St. Luke i. 30, 39, 56: ii.
5, 16, 34,—Codd. CD in St. Luke by אBC, in St. Matt. i. 34, 38, 46,—Codd.
BאD, in ii. 19.
On the other hand, the Virgin’s sister (Μαρία), is twice written Μαριόμ:
viz. by C, in St. Matt xxvii. 56; and by א, in St. John xix. 25:—while
Mary Magdalene is written Μαριάμ by “the five old uncials” no less than
eleven times: viz. by C, in St. Matt. xxvii. 56,—by א, in St. Luke xxiv.
10, St. John xix. 25, xx. 11,—by A, in St. Luke viii. 2,—by אA, in St.
John xx. 1,—by אC, in St. Matt. xxviii. 1,—by אB, in St. John xx. 16 and
18,—by BC, in St. Mark xv. 40,—by אBC, in St. Matt. xxvii. 61.
Lastly, Mary (Μαρία) the sister of Lazarus, is called Μαριάμ by Cod. B in
St. Luke x. 42: St. John xi. 2: xii. 3;—by BC, in St. Luke xi. 32;—by אC,
in St. Luke x. 39.—I submit that such specimens of licentiousness or
inattention are little calculated to conciliate confidence in Codd. BאCD.
It is found that B goes wrong nine times: D, ten (exclusively in respect
of the Virgin Mary): C, eleven: א, twelve.—Evan. 33 goes wrong thirteen
times: 1, nineteen times.—A, the least corrupt, goes wrong only twice.
§ 4.
Another specimen of a blunder in Codexes BאL33 is afforded by their
handling of our LORD’S words,—“Thou art Simon the son of Jona.” That this
is the true reading of St. John i. 43 is sufficiently established by the
fact that it is the reading of all the Codexes, uncial and cursive
alike,—excepting always the four vicious specimens specified above. Add to
the main body of the Codexes the Vulgate, Peshitto and Harkleian Syriac,
the Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic versions:—besides several
of the Fathers, such as
Serapion(101),—Basil(102),—Epiphanius(103),—Chrysostom(104),—Asterius(105),—and
another (unknown) writer of the fourth century(106):—with Cyril(107) of
the fifth,—and a body of evidence has been adduced, which alike in respect
of its antiquity, its number, its variety, and its respectability, casts
such witnesses as B-א entirely into the shade. When it is further
remembered that we have preserved to us in St. Matt. xvi. 17 our Saviour’s
designation of Simon’s patronymic in the vernacular of Palestine, “Simon
Bar-jona,” which no manuscript has ventured to disturb, what else but
irrational is the contention of the modern School that for “Jona” in St.
John i. 42, we are to read “John”? The plain fact evidently is that some
second-century critic supposed that “Jonah” and “John” are identical: and
of his weak imagination the only surviving witnesses at the end of 1700
years are three uncials and one cursive copy,—a few copies of the Old
Latin (which fluctuate between “Johannis,” “Johanna,” and “Johna”),—the
Bohairic Version, and Nonnus. And yet, on the strength of this slender
minority, the Revisers exhibit in their text, “Simon the son of John,”—and
in their margin volunteer the information that the Greek word is
“Joanes,”—which is simply not the fact: Ιωανης being the reading of _no_
Greek manuscript in the world except Cod. B(108).
Again, in the margin of St. John i. 28 we are informed that instead of
Bethany—the undoubted reading of the place,—some ancient authorities read
“Betharabah.” Why, there is not a single ancient Codex,—not a single
ancient Father,—not a single ancient Version,—which so reads the
place(109).
§ 5.
_B. S._ But(110), while I grant you that this general disagreement between
B and א and the other old Uncials which for a time join in their dissent
from the Traditional Text causes the gravest suspicion that they are in
error, yet it appears to me that these points of orthography are too small
to be of any real importance.
_The Dean._ If the instances just given were only exceptions, I should
agree with you. On the contrary, they indicate the prevailing character of
the MSS. B and א are covered all over with blots(111),—א even more so than
B. How they could ever have gained the characters which have been given
them, is passing strange. But even great scholars are human, and have
their prejudices and other weaknesses; and their disciples follow them
everywhere as submissively as sheep. To say nothing of many great scholars
who have never explored this field, if men of ordinary acquirements in
scholarship would only emancipate themselves and judge with their own
eyes, they would soon see the truth of what I say.
_B. S._ I should assent to all that you have told me, if I could only have
before me a sufficient number of instances to form a sound induction,
always provided that they agree with these which you have quoted. Those
which you have just given are enough as specimens: but forgive me when I
say that, as a Biblical Student, I think I ought to form my opinions upon
strong, deep, and wide foundations of facts.
_The Dean._ So far from requiring forgiveness from me, you deserve all
praise. My leading principle is to build solely upon facts,—upon real, not
fancied facts,—not upon a few favourite facts, but upon all that are
connected with the question under consideration. And if it had been
permitted me to carry out in its integrity the plan which I laid down for
myself(112),—that however has been withheld under the good Providence of
Almighty GOD.—Nevertheless I think that you will discover in the sequel
enough to justify amply all the words that I have used. You will, I
perceive, agree with me in this,—That whichever side of the contention is
the most comprehensive, and rests upon the soundest and widest induction
of facts,—that side, and that side alone, will stand.