§ 1(248).
It is specially remarkable that the Canon of Holy Scripture, which like
the Text had met with opposition, was being settled in the later part of
the century in which these two manuscripts were produced, or at the
beginning of the next. The two questions appear to have met together in
Eusebius. His latitudinarian proclivities seem to have led him in his
celebrated words(249) to lay undue stress upon the objections felt by some
persons to a few of the Books of the New Testament; and cause us therefore
not to wonder that he should also have countenanced those who wished
without reason to leave out portions of the Text. Now the first occasion,
as is well known, when we find all the Books of the New Testament
recognized with authority occurred at the Council of Laodicea in 363 A.D.,
if the passage is genuine(250), which is very doubtful; and the settlement
of the Canon which was thus initiated, and was accomplished by about the
end of the century, was followed, as was natural, by the settlement of the
Text. But inasmuch as the latter involved a large multitude of intricate
questions, and corruption had crept in and had acquired a very firm hold,
it was long before universal acquiescence finally ensued upon the general
acceptance effected in the time of St. Chrysostom. In fact, the Nature of
the Divine Word, and the character of the Written Word, were confirmed
about the same time:—mainly, in the period when the Nicene Creed was
re-asserted at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.; for the Canon of
Holy Scripture was fixed and the Orthodox Text gained a supremacy over the
Origenistic Text about the same time:—and finally, after the Third Council
of Constantinople in 680 A.D., at which the acknowledgement of the Natures
of the Son of Man was placed in a position superior to all heresy; for it
was then that the Traditional Text began in nearly perfect form to be
handed down with scarce any opposition to future ages of the Church.
Besides the multiplicity of points involved, three special causes delayed
the complete settlement of the Text, so far as the attainment was
concerned all over the Church of general accuracy throughout the Gospels,
not to speak of all the New Testament.
1. Origenism, going beyond Origen, continued in force till it was
condemned by the Fifth General Council in 553 A.D., and could hardly have
wholly ended in that year. Besides this, controversies upon fundamental
truths agitated the Church, and implied a sceptical and wayward spirit
which would be ready to sustain alien variations in the written Word, till
the censure passed upon Monothelitism at the Sixth General Council in 680
A.D.
2. The Church was terribly tried by the overthrow of the Roman Empire, and
the irruption of hordes of Barbarians: and consequently Churchmen were
obliged to retire into extreme borders, as they did into Ireland in the
fifth century(251), and to spend their energies in issuing forth from
thence to reconquer countries for the Kingdom of Christ. The resultant
paralysis of Christian effort must have been deplorable. Libraries and
their treasures, as at Caesarea and Alexandria under the hands of
Mahommedans in the seventh century, were utterly destroyed. Rest and
calmness, patient and frequent study and debate, books and other helps to
research, must have been in those days hard to get, and were far from
being in such readiness as to favour general improvement in a subject of
which extreme accuracy is the very breath and life.
3. The Art of Writing on Vellum had hardly passed its youth at the time
when the Text advocated by B and א fell finally into disuse. Punctuation
did but exist in the occasional use of the full stop: breathings or
accents were perhaps hardly found: spelling, both as regards consonants
and vowels, was uncertain and rudimental. So that the Art of transcribing
on vellum even so far as capital letters were concerned, did not arrive at
anything like maturity till about the eighth century.
But it must not be imagined that manuscripts of substantial accuracy did
not exist during this period, though they have not descended to us. The
large number of Uncials and Cursives of later ages must have had a goodly
assemblage of accurate predecessors from which they were copied. It is
probable that the more handsome and less correct copies have come into our
hands, since such would have been not so much used, and might have been in
the possession of the men of higher station whose heathen ancestry had
bequeathed to them less orthodox tendencies, and the material of many
others must have been too perishable to last. Arianism prevailed during
much of the sixth century in Italy, Africa, Burgundy, and Spain. Ruder and
coarser volumes, though more accurate, would be readily surrendered to
destruction, especially if they survived in more cultured descendants.
That a majority of such MSS. existed, whether of a rougher or more
polished sort, both in vellum and papyrus, is proved by citations of
Scripture found in the Authors of the period. But those MSS. which have
been preserved are not so perfect as the others which have come from the
eighth and following centuries.
Thus Codex A, though it exhibits a text more like the Traditional than
either B or א, is far from being a sure guide. Codex C, which was written
later in the fifth century, is only a fragmentary palimpsest, i.e. it was
thought to be of so little value that the books of Ephraem the Syrian were
written over the Greek: it contains not more than two-thirds of the New
Testament, and stands as to the character of its text between A and B.
Codex Q, a fragment of 235 verses, and Codex I of 135, in the same
century, are not large enough to be taken into consideration here. Codexes
Φ and Σ, recently discovered, being products of the end of the fifth or
beginning of the sixth, and containing St. Matthew and St. Mark nearly
complete, are of a general character similar to A, and evince more
advancement in the Art. It is unfortunate indeed that only a fragment of
either of them, though that fragment in either case is pretty complete as
far as it goes, has come into our hands. After them succeeds Codex D, or
Codex Bezae, now in the Cambridge Library, having been bequeathed to the
University by Theodore Beza, whose name it bears. It ends at Acts xxii.
29.
§ 2. Codex D(252).
No one can pretend fully to understand the character of this Codex who has
not been at the pains to collate every word of it with attention. Such an
one will discover that it omits in the Gospels alone no less than 3,704
words; adds to the genuine text 2,213; substitutes 2,121; transposes
3,471, and modifies 1,772. By the time he has made this discovery his
esteem for Cod. D will, it is presumed, have experienced serious
modification. The total of 13,281 deflections from the Received Text is a
formidable objection to explain away. Even Dr. Hort speaks of “the
prodigious amount of error which D contains(253).”
But the intimate acquaintance with the Codex which he has thus acquired
has conducted him to certain other results, which it is of the utmost
importance that we should particularize and explain.
I. And first, this proves to be a text which in one Gospel is often
assimilated to the others. And in fact the assimilation is carried
sometimes so far, that a passage from one Gospel is interpolated into the
parallel passage in another. Indeed the extent to which in Cod. D
interpolations from St. Mark’s Gospel are inserted into the Gospel
according to St. Luke is even astounding. Between verses 14 and 15 of St.
Luke v. thirty-two words are interpolated from the parallel passage in St.
Mark i. 45-ii. 1: and in the 10th verse of the vith chapter twelve words
are introduced from St. Mark ii. 27, 28. In St. Luke iv. 37, ἡ ἀκοή, “the
report,” from St. Mark i. 28, is substituted for ἦχος, “the sound,” which
is read in the other manuscripts. Besides the introduction into St. Luke
i. 64 of ἐλύθη from St. Mark vii. 35, which will be described below, in
St. Luke v. 27 seven words are brought from the parallel passage in St.
Mark ii. 14, and the entire passage is corrupted(254). In giving the
Lord’s Prayer in St. Luke xi. 2, the scribe in fault must needs illustrate
the Lord’s saying by interpolating an inaccurate transcription of the
warning against “vain repetitions” given by Him before in the Sermon on
the Mount. Again, as to interpolation from other sources, grossly enough,
St. Matt. ii. 23 is thrust in at the end of St. Luke ii. 39; that is to
say, the scribe of D, or of some manuscript from which D was copied,
either directly or indirectly, thought fit to explain the carrying of the
Holy Child to Nazareth by the explanation given by St. Matthew, but
quoting from memory wrote “by the prophet” in the singular, instead of “by
the prophets” in the plural(255). Similarly, in St. Luke iv. 31 upon the
mention of the name of Capernaum, D must needs insert from St. Matt. iv.
13, “which is upon the sea-coast within the borders of Zabulon and
Nephthalim” (την παραθαλασσιον (_sic_) εν οριοις Ζαβουλων και Νεφθαλειμ).
Indeed, no adequate idea can be formed of the clumsiness, the coarseness
of these operations, unless some instances are given: but a few more must
suffice.
1. In St. Mark iii. 26, our LORD delivers the single statement, “And if
Satan is risen against himself (ἀνέστε ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν) and is divided (καὶ
μεμέρισται) he cannot stand, but hath an end (ἀλλὰ τέλος ἔχει).” Instead
of this, D exhibits, “And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against
himself: his kingdom cannot stand, but hath the end (ἀλλὰ τὸ τέλος ἔχει).”
Now this is clearly an imitation, not a copy, of the parallel place in St.
Matt. xii. 26, where also a twofold statement is made, as every one may
see. But the reply is also a clumsy one to the question asked in St. Mark,
but not in St. Matthew, “How can Satan cast out Satan?” Learned readers
however will further note that it is St. Matthew’s ἐμερίσθη, where St.
Mark wrote μεμέρισται, which makes the statement possible for him which is
impossible according to the representation given by D of St. Mark.
2. At the end of the parable of the pounds, the scribe of D, or one of
those whom he followed, thinking that the idle servant was let off too
easily, and confusing with this parable the other parable of the
talents,—blind of course to the difference between the punishments
inflicted by a “lord” and those of a new-made king,—inserts the 30th verse
of St. Matt. xxv. at the end of St. Luke xix. 27.
3. Again, after St. Matt. xx. 28, when the LORD had rebuked the spirit of
ambition in the two sons of Zebedee, and had directed His disciples not to
seek precedence, enforcing the lesson from His own example as shewn in
giving His Life a ransom for many, D inserts the following tasteless
passage: “But ye seek to increase from a little, and from the greater to
be something less(256).” Nor is this enough:—an addition is also made from
St. Luke xiv. 8-10, being the well-known passage about taking the lowest
room at feasts. But this additional interpolation is in style and language
unlike the words of any Gospels, and ends with the vapid piece of
information, “and this shall be useful to thee.” It is remarkable that,
whereas D was alone in former errors, here it becomes a follower in one
part or other of the passage of twelve Old Latin manuscripts(257): and
indeed the Greek in the passage in D is evidently a version of the
Syrio-Low-Latin. The following words, or forms of words or phrases, are
not found in the rest of the N.T.: παρακληθέντες (aor. part. _rogati_ or
_vocati_), ἀνακλίνεσθε (_recumbite_), ἐξέχοντας (_eminentioribus_),
δειπνοκλήτωρ (_invitator caenae_), ἔτι κάτω χώρει (_adhuc infra accede_),
ἥττονα τόπον (_loco inferiori_), ἥττων (_inferior_), σύναγε ἔτι ἄνω
(_collige adhuc superius_). These Latin expressions are taken from one or
other of the twelve Old Latin MSS. Outside of the Latin, the Curetonian is
the sole ally, the Lewis being mutilated, of the flighty Old Uncial under
consideration.
These passages are surely enough to represent to the reader the
interpolations of Codex D, whether arising from assimilation or otherwise.
The description given by the very learned editor of this MS. is in the
following words:—“No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive
interpolations (six hundred, it is said, in the Acts alone), countenanced,
where they are not absolutely unsupported, chiefly by the Old Latin and
the Curetonian version(258).”
II. There are also traces of extreme licentiousness in this copy of the
Gospels which call for distinct notice. Sometimes words or expressions are
substituted: sometimes the sense is changed, and utter confusion
introduced: delicate terms or forms are ignored: and a general corruption
ensues.
I mean for example such expressions as the following, which are all found
in the course of a single verse (St. Mark iv. 1).
St. Mark relates that once when our SAVIOUR was teaching “by the sea-side”
(παρά) there assembled so vast a concourse of persons that “He went into
the ship, and sat in the sea,” all the multitude being “on the land,
towards the sea”: i.e. with their faces turned in the direction of the
ship in which He was sitting. Was a plain story ever better told?
But according to D the facts of the case were quite different. First, it
was our SAVIOUR who was teaching “towards the sea” (πρός). Next, in
consequence of the crowd, He crossed over, and “sat on the other side of
the sea” (πέραν). Lastly, the multitude—followed Him, I suppose; for they
also—“were on the other side of the sea” (πέραν) ... Now I forgive the
scribe for his two transpositions and his ungrammatical substitution of ὁ
λαός for ὄχλος. But I insist that a MS. which circulates incidents after
this fashion cannot be regarded as trustworthy. Verse 2 begins in the same
licentious way. Instead of,—“And He taught them many things (πολλά) in
parables,” we are informed that “He taught them in many parables”
(πολλαῖς). Who will say that we are ever safe with such a guide?
§ 3.
All are aware that the two Evangelical accounts of our LORD’S human
descent exhibit certain distinctive features. St. Matthew distributes the
42 names in “the book of the generations of JESUS CHRIST, the son of
David, the son of Abraham,” into three fourteens; and requires us to
recognize in the Ἰεχονίας of ver. 11 a different person (viz. Jehoiakim)
from the Ἰεχονίας of ver. 12 (viz. Jehoiachin). Moreover, in order to
produce this symmetry of arrangement, he leaves out the names of 3
kings,—Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah: and omits at least 9 generations of
Zorobabel’s descendants(259). The mystical correspondence between the 42
steps in our SAVIOUR’S human descent from Abraham, and the 42 stations of
the Israelites on their way to Canaan(260), has been often remarked upon.
It extends to the fact that the stations also were, historically, far more
than 42. And so much for what is contained in St. Matthew’s Gospel.
St. Luke, who enumerates the 77 steps of his genealogy in backward order,
derives the descent of “JESUS, the son of Joseph” from “Adam, the son of
GOD.” He traces our LORD’S descent from David and again from Zorobabel
through a different line of ancestry from that adopted by St. Matthew. He
introduces a second “Cainan” between Arphaxad and Sala (ver. 35, 36). The
only names which the two tables of descent have in common are these
five,—David, Salathiel, Zorobabel, Joseph, JESUS.
But Cod. D—(from which the first chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel has long
since disappeared)—in St. Luke iii. exhibits a purely fabricated table of
descent. To put one name for another,—as when A writes “Shem” instead of
Seth: to misspell a name until it ceases to be recognizable,—as when א
writes “Balls” for Boaz: to turn one name into two by cutting it in
half,—as where א writes “Admin” _and_ “Adam” instead of Aminadab: or
again, in defiance of authority, to leave a name out,—as when A omits
Mainan and Pharez; or to put a name in,—as when Verona Lat. (b) inserts
“Joaram” after Aram:—with all such instances of licence the “old Uncials”
have made us abundantly familiar. But we are not prepared to find that in
place of the first 18 names which follow those of “JESUS” and “Joseph” in
St. Luke’s genealogy (viz. Heli to Rhesa inclusive), D introduces the 9
immediate ancestors of Joseph (viz. Abiud to Jacob) as enumerated by St.
Matthew,—thus abbreviating St. Luke’s genealogy by 9 names.
Next,—“Zorobabel” and “Salathiel” being common to both genealogies,—in
place of the 20 names found in St. Luke between Salathiel and David (viz.
Neri to Nathan inclusive), Cod. D presents us with the 15 royal
descendants of David enumerated by St. Matthew (viz. Solomon to
Jehoiachin(261) inclusive);—infelicitously inventing an imaginary
generation, by styling Jehoiakim “the son of Eliakim,”—being not aware
that “Jehoiakim” and “Eliakim” are one and the same person: and, in
defiance of the first Evangelist, supplying the names of the 3 kings
omitted by St. Matthew (i. 8), viz. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Only 34
names follow in Cod. D; the second “Cainan” being omitted. In this way,
the number of St. Luke’s names is reduced from 77 to 66. A more flagrant
instance of that licentious handling of the deposit which was a common
phenomenon in Western Christendom is seldom to be met with(262). This
particular fabrication is happily the peculiar property of Cod. D; and we
are tempted to ask, whether it assists in recommending that singular
monument of injudicious and arbitrary textual revision to the favour of
one of the modern schools of Critics.
§ 4.
We repeat that the ill treatment which the deposit has experienced at the
hands of those who fabricated the text of Cod. D is only to be understood
by those who will be at the pains to study its readings throughout.
Constantly to substitute the wrong word for the right one; or at all
events to introduce a less significant expression: on countless occasions
to mar the details of some precious incident; and to obscure the purpose
of the Evangelist by tastelessly and senselessly disturbing the inspired
text,—_this_ will be found to be the rule with Cod. D throughout. As
another example added to those already cited:—In St. Luke xxii, D omits
verse 20, containing the Institution of the Cup, evidently from a wish to
correct the sacred account by removing the second mention of the Cup from
the record of the third Evangelist.
St. Mark (xv. 43) informs us that, on the afternoon of the first Good
Friday, Joseph of Arimathaea “taking courage _went in_ (εἰσῆλθε) to Pilate
and requested to have the _body_ (σῶμα) of Jesus”: that “Pilate wondered
(ἐθαύμασεν) [at hearing] that He _was dead_ (τέθνηκε) already: and sending
for the centurion [who had presided at the Crucifixion] inquired of him if
[JESUS] had been dead long?” (εἰ πάλαι ἀπέθανε.)
But the author of Cod. D, besides substituting “_went_” (ἦλθεν) for “went
_in_,”—“_corpse_” (πτῶμα) for “body” (which by the way he repeats in ver.
45),—and a sentiment of “continuous wonder” (ἐθαύμαζεν) for the fact of
astonishment which Joseph’s request inspired,—having also substituted the
prosaic τεθνήκει for the graphic τέθνηκε of the Evangelist,—represents
Pilate as inquiring of the centurion “if [indeed JESUS] was dead already?”
(εἰ ἤδη τεθνήκει; _si jam mortuus esset?_), whereby not only is all the
refinement of the original lost, but the facts of the case also are
seriously misrepresented. For Pilate did not doubt Joseph’s tidings. He
only wondered at them. And his inquiry was made not with a view to testing
the veracity of his informant, but for the satisfaction of his own
curiosity as to the time when his Victim had expired.
Now it must not be supposed that I have fastened unfairly on an
exceptional verse and a half (St. Mark xv. half of v. 43 and all v. 44) of
the second Gospel. The reader is requested to refer to the note(263),
where he will find set down a collation of _eight consecutive verses_ in
the selfsame context: viz. St. Mark xv. 47 to xvi. 7 inclusive; after an
attentive survey of which he will not be disposed to deny that only by
courtesy can such an exhibition of the original verity as Cod. D be called
“a copy” at all. Had the genuine text been _copied_ over and over again
till the crack of doom, the result could never have been this. There are
in fact but 117 words to be transcribed: and of these no less than 67—much
more than half—have been either omitted (21), or else added (11);
substituted (10), or else transposed (11); depraved (12, as by writing
ανατελλοντος for ἀνατείλαντος), or actually blundered (2, as by writing
ερχονται ημιον for ἔρχονται ἡμῖν). Three times the construction has been
altered,—once indeed very seriously, for the Angel at the sepulchre is
made to personate Christ. Lastly, five of the corrupt readings are the
result of Assimilation. Whereas the evangelist wrote καὶ ἀναβλέψασαι
θεωροῦσιν ὅτι ἀποκεκύλισται ὁ λίθος, what else but a licentious paraphrase
is the following,—ερχονται και ευρισκουσιν αποκεκυλισμενον τον λιθον? This
is in fact a fabricated, not an honestly transcribed text: and it cannot
be too clearly understood that such a text (more or less fabricated, I
mean) is exhibited by Codexes BאD throughout.
§ 5.
It is remarkable that whenever the construction is somewhat harsh or
obscure, D and the Latin copies are observed freely to transpose,—to
supply,—and even slightly to paraphrase,—in order to bring out the
presumed meaning of the original. An example is furnished by St. Luke i.
65, where the Evangelist, having related that Zacharias wrote—“His name is
John,” adds,—“and all wondered. And his mouth was opened immediately, and
his tongue, and he spake praising GOD.” The meaning of course is that his
tongue “was loosed.” Accordingly D actually supplies ἐλύθη,—the Latin
copies, “resoluta est.” But D does more. Presuming that what occasioned
the “wonder” was not so much what Zacharias wrote on the tablet as the
restored gift of speech, it puts that clause first,—ingeniously
transposing the first two words (παραχρημα και); the result of which is
the following sentence:—“And immediately his tongue was loosed; and all
wondered. And his mouth was opened, and he spake praising GOD”.... In the
next verse it is related that “fear came upon all who dwelt round about
them.” But the order of the words in the original being unusual (καὶ
ἐγένετο ἐπὶ πάντας φόβος τοὺς περιοικοῦντας αὐτούς), D and the Latin
copies transpose them: (indeed the three Syriac do the same): but D b c
gratuitously introduce an epithet,—και εγενετο φοβος μεγας επι παντας τους
περιοικουντας αυτον.... In ver. 70, the expression τῶν ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος προφητῶν
αὐτοῦ appearing harsh was (by transposing the words) altered into this,
which is the easy and more obvious order: προφητων αυτον των απ᾽
αιωνος.... So again in ver. 71: the phrase σωτηρίαν ἐξ ἐχθρῶν seeming
obscure, the words ἐκ χειρός (which follow) were by D substituted for ἐξ.
The result (σωτηρίαν ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν ἡμῶν [compare ver. 74], καὶ πάντων
τῶν μισούντων ἡμᾶς) is certainly easier reading: but—like every other
change found in the same context—it labours under the fatal condemnation
of being an unauthorized human gloss.
The phenomenon however which perplexes me most in Cod. D is that it
abounds in fabricated readings which have nothing whatever to recommend
them. Not contented with St. Luke’s expression “to thrust out _a little_
(ὀλίγον) from the land” (v. 3), the scribe writes οσον οσον. In ver. 5,
instead of “I will let down the net” (χαλάσω τὸ δίκτυον) he makes St.
Peter reply, “I will not neglect to obey” (ου μη παρακουσομαι). So, for
“and when they had this done,” he writes “and when they had straightway
let down the nets”: and immediately after, instead of διερρήγνυτο δὲ τὸ
δίκτυον αὐτῶν we are presented with ωστε τα δικτυα ρησσεσθαι. It is very
difficult to account for this, except on an hypothesis which I confess
recommends itself to me more and more: viz. that there were in circulation
in some places during the earliest ages of the Church Evangelical
paraphrases, or at least free exhibitions of the chief Gospel
incidents,—to which the critics resorted; and from which the less
judicious did not hesitate to borrow expressions and even occasionally to
extract short passages. Such loose representations of passages must have
prevailed both in Syria, and in the West where Greek was not so well
understood, and where translators into the vernacular Latin expressed
themselves with less precision, whilst they attempted also to explain the
passages translated.
This notion, viz. that it is within the province of a Copyist to interpret
the original before him, clearly lies at the root of many a so-called
“various reading.”
Thus for the difficult ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε (in St. Mark xiv. 72), “when he
thought thereon” (i.e. “when in self-abandonment he flung himself upon the
thought”), “he wept,” D exhibits καὶ ἤρξατο κλαίειν, “and he began to
weep,” a much easier and a very natural expression, only that it is not
the right one, and does not express all that the true words convey. Hence
also the transposition by D and some Old Latin MSS. of the clause ἦν γὰρ
μέγας σφόδρα “for it was very great” from xvi. 4, where it seems to be out
of place, to ver. 3 where it seems to be necessary. Eusebius is observed
to have employed a MS. similarly corrupt.
Hence again the frequent unauthorized insertion of a nominative case to
determine the sense: e.g. ὁ ἄγγελος “the angel,” xvi. 6, ὁ δὲ Ἰωσήφ
“Joseph,” xv. 46, or the substitution of the name intended for the
pronoun,—as της Ελισαβεδ (sic) for αὐτῆς in St. Luke i. 41.
Hence in xvi. 7, instead of, “He goeth before you into Galilee, there
shall ye see Him as He said unto you,”—D exhibits,—“Behold, I go before
you into Galilee, there shall ye see Me, as I told you.” As if it had been
thought allowable to recall in this place the fact that our SAVIOUR had
once (St. Matt. xxvi. 32, St. Mark xiv. 28) spoken these words in His own
person.
And in no other way can I explain D’s vapid substitution, made as if from
habit, of “a Galilean city” for “a city of Galilee, named Nazareth” in St.
Luke i. 26.
Hence the frequent insertion of a wholly manufactured clause in order to
impart a little more clearness to the story—as of the words τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ
“his name” (after κληθήσεται “shall be called”)—into St. Luke i. 60.
These passages afford expressions of a feature in this Manuscript to which
we must again invite particular attention. It reveals to close observation
frequent indications of an attempt, not to supply a faithful
representation of the very words of Holy Scripture and nothing more than
those words, but to interpret, to illustrate,—in a word,—to be a Targum.
Of course, such a design or tendency is absolutely fatal to the accuracy
of a transcriber. Yet the habit is too strongly marked upon the pages of
Codex D to admit of any doubt whether it existed or not(264).
In speaking of the character of a MS. one is often constrained to
distinguish between the readings and the scribe. The readings may be
clearly fabricated: but there may be evidence that the copyist was an
accurate and painstaking person. On the other hand, obviously the scribe
may have been a considerable blunderer, and yet it may be clear that he
was furnished with an admirable archetype. In the case of D we are
presented with the alarming concurrence of a fabricated archetype and
either a blundering scribe, or a course of blundering scribes.
But then further,—One is often obliged (if one would be accurate) to
distinguish between the penman who actually produced the MS., and the
critical reader for whom he toiled. It would really seem however as if the
actual transcriber of D, or the transcribers of the ancestors of D, had
invented some of those monstrous readings as they went on. The Latin
version which is found in this MS. exactly reflects, as a rule, the Greek
on the opposite page: but sometimes it bears witness to the admitted truth
of Scripture, while the Greek goes off _in alia omnia_(265).
§ 6.
It will of course be asked,—But why may not D be in every respect an exact
copy,—line for line, word for word, letter for letter,—of some earlier
archetype? To establish the reverse of _this_, so as to put the result
beyond the reach of controversy, is impossible. The question depends upon
reasons purely critical, and is not of primary importance. For all
practical purposes, it is still Codex D of which we speak. When I name
“Codex D” I mean of course nothing else but Codex D according to
Scrivener’s reprint of the text. And if it be a true hypothesis that the
actual Codex D is nothing else but the transcript of another Codex
strictly identical with itself, then it is clearly a matter of small
importance of which of the two I speak. When “Codex D” is cited, it is the
contents of Codex D which are meant, and no other thing.
And upon this point it may be observed, that D is chiefly remarkable as
being the only Greek Codex(266) which exhibits the highly corrupt text
found in some of the Old Latin manuscripts, and may be taken as a survival
from the second century.
The genius of this family of copies is found to have been—
1. To substitute one expression for another, and generally to paraphrase.
2. To remove difficulties, and where a difficult expression presented
itself, to introduce a conjectural emendation of the text. For example,
the passage already noticed about the Publican going down to his house
“justified rather than the other” is altered into “justified more than
that Pharisee” (μαλλον παρ᾽ εκεινον τον Φαρισαιον. St. Luke xviii.
14)(267).
3. To omit what might seem to be superfluous. Thus the verse, “Lord, he
hath ten pounds” (St. Luke xix. 25) is simply left out(268).
Enough has been surely said to prove amply that the text of Codex D is
utterly untrustworthy. Indeed, the habit of interpolation found in it, the
constant tendency to explain rather than to report, the licentiousness
exhibited throughout, and the isolation in which this MS. is found, except
in cases where some of the Low-Latin Versions and Cureton’s Syriac, and
perhaps the Lewis, bear it company, render the text found in it the
foulest in existence. What then is to be thought of those critics who upon
the exclusive authority of this unstable offender and of a few of the
Italic copies occasionally allied with it, endeavour to introduce changes
in face of the opposition of all other authorities? And since their
ability is unquestioned, must we not seek for the causes of their singular
action in the theory to which they are devoted?
§ 7.
Before we take leave of the Old Uncials, it will be well to invite
attention to a characteristic feature in them, which is just what the
reader would expect who has attended to all that has been said, and which
adds confirmation to the doctrine here propounded.
The clumsy and tasteless character of some at least of the Old Uncials has
come already under observation. This was in great measure produced by
constantly rubbing off delicate expressions which add both to the meaning
and the symmetry of the Sacred Record. We proceed to give a few examples,
not to prove our position, since it must surely be evident enough to the
eyes of any accomplished scholar, but as specimens, and only specimens, of
the loss which the Inspired Word would sustain if the Old Uncials were to
be followed. Space will not admit of a full discussion of this matter.
An interesting refinement of expression, which has been hopelessly
obscured through the proclivity of אBD to fall into error, is found in St.
Matt. xxvi. 71. The Evangelist describing the second of St. Peter’s
denials notes that the damsel who saw him said to the bystanders, “This
man _too_ (καὶ) was with Jesus of Nazareth.” The three MSS. just mentioned
omit the καὶ. No other MS., Uncial or Cursive, follows them. They have
only the support of the unstable Sahidic(269). The loss inflicted is
patent: comment is needless.
Another instance, where poverty of meaning would be the obvious result if
the acceptance by some critics of the lead of the same trio of Uncials
were endorsed, may be found in the description of what the shepherds did
when they had seen the Holy Child in the manger. Instead of “they made
known abroad” (διεγνώρισαν), we should simply have “they made known”
(ἐγνώρισαν). We are inclined to say, “Why this clipping and pruning to the
manifest disadvantage of the sacred deposit.” Only the satellite L and Ξ
and six Cursives with a single passage from Eusebius are on the same side.
The rest in overwhelming majority condemn such rudeness(270).
§ 8.
The undoubtedly genuine expression καὶ τίς ἐστι, Κυριε (which is the
traditional reading of St. John ix. 36), loses its characteristic ΚΑΙ in
Cod. א*AL,—though it retains it in the rest of the uncials and in all the
cursives. The καί is found in the Complutensian,—because the editors
followed their copies: it is not found in the Textus Receptus only because
Erasmus did not as in cases before mentioned follow his. The same
refinement of expression recurs in the Traditional Text of ch. xiv. 22
(Κύριε, ΚΑῚ τί γέγονεν), and experienced precisely the same fate at the
hands of the two earliest editors of the printed Greek Text. It is also
again faithfully upheld in its integrity by the whole body of the
cursives,—always excepting “33”. But (as before) in uncials of bad
character, as BDL (even by AEX) the καί is omitted,—for which insufficient
reason it has been omitted by the Revisers likewise,—notwithstanding the
fact that it is maintained in all the other uncials. As is manifest in
most of these instances, the Versions, being made into languages with
other idioms than Greek, can bear no witness; and also that these delicate
embellishments would be often brushed off in quotations, as well as by
scribes and so-called correctors.
We have not far to look for other instances of this. St. Matthew (i. 18)
begins his narrative,—μνηστευθείσης ΓᾺΡ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ.
Now, as readers of Greek are aware, the little untranslated (because
untranslateable) word exhibited in capitals(271) stands with peculiar
idiomatic force and propriety immediately after the first word of such a
sentence as the foregoing, being employed in compliance with strictly
classical usage(272): and though it might easily come to be omitted
through the carelessness or the licentiousness of copyists, yet it could
not by any possibility have universally established itself in copies of
the Gospel—as it has done—had it been an unauthorized accretion to the
text. We find it recognized in St. Matt. i. 18 by Eusebius(273), by
Basil(274), by Epiphanius(275), by Chrysostom(276), by Nestorius(277), by
Cyril(278), by Andreas Cret.(279): which is even extraordinary; for the
γάρ is not at all required for purposes of quotation. But the essential
circumstance as usual is, that γάρ is found besides in the whole body of
the manuscripts. The only uncials in fact which omit the idiomatic
particle are four of older date, viz. BאC*Z.
This same particle (γάρ) has led to an extraordinary amount of confusion
in another place, where its idiomatic propriety has evidently been neither
felt nor understood,—viz. in St. Luke xviii. 14. “This man” (says our
LORD) “went down to his house justified rather than” (ἢ γάρ) “the other.”
Scholars recognize here an exquisitely idiomatic expression, which in fact
obtains so universally in the Traditional Text that its genuineness is
altogether above suspicion. It is vouched for by 16 uncials headed by A,
and by the cursives in the proportion of 500 to 1. The Complutensian has
it, of course: and so would the Textus Receptus have it, if Erasmus had
followed his MS.: but “_praefero_” (he says) “_quod est usitatius apud
probos autores_.” Uncongenial as the expression is to the other languages
of antiquity, ἢ γάρ is faithfully retained in the Gothic and in the
Harkleian Version(280). Partly however, because it is of very rare
occurrence and was therefore not understood(281), and partly because when
written in uncials it easily got perverted into something else, the
expression has met with a strange fate. ΗΓΑΡ is found to have suggested,
or else to have been mistaken for, both ΗπΕΡ(282) and ΥΠΕΡ(283). The
prevailing expedient however was, to get rid of the Η—to turn ΓΑΡ into
ΠΑΡ,—and, for ἐκεῖνος to write ἐκεῖνον(284). The uncials which exhibit
this strange corruption of the text are exclusively that quaternion which
have already come so often before us,—viz. BאDL. But D improves upon the
blunder of its predecessors by writing, like a Targum, μᾶλλον ΓΑΡ᾽
αἰκεῖνον (sic), and by adding (with the Old Latin and the Peshitto) τὸν
Φαρισαῖον,—an exhibition of the text which (it is needless to say) is
perfectly unique(285).
And how has the place fared at the hands of some Textual critics? Lachmann
and Tregelles (forsaken by Tischendorf) of course follow Codd. BאDL. The
Revisers (with Dr. Hort)—not liking to follow BאDL, and unable to adopt
the Traditional Text, suffer the reading of the Textus Receptus (ἢ
ἐκεῖνος) to stand,—though a solitary cursive (Evan. 1) is all the
manuscript authority that can be adduced in its favour. In effect, ἢ
ἐκεῖνος may be said to be without manuscript authority(286).
The point to be noticed in all this is, that the true reading of St. Luke
xviii. 14 has been faithfully retained by the MSS. in all countries and
all down the ages, not only by the whole body of the cursives, but by
every uncial in existence except four. And those four are BאDL.
But really the occasions are without number when minute words have dropped
out of אB and their allies,—and yet have been faithfully retained, all
through the centuries, by the later Uncials and despised Cursive copies.
In St. John xvii. 2, for instance, we read—δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα ΚΑῚ ὁ
υἱός ΣΟΥ δοξάσῃ σέ: where καί is omitted by אABCD: and σου (after ὁ υἱός)
by אBC. Some critics will of course insist that, on the contrary, both
words are spurious accretions to the text of the cursives; and they must
say so, if they will. But does it not sensibly impair their confidence in
א to find that it, and it only, exhibits λελάληκεν (for ἐλάλησεν) in ver.
1,—δώσω αὐτῷ (for δώσῃ αὐτοῖς) in ver. 2, while אB are peculiar in writing
Ἰησοῦς without the article in ver. 1?
Enough has surely been said to exhibit and illustrate this rude
characteristic of the few Old Copies which out of the vast number of their
contemporaries are all that we now possess. The existence of this
characteristic is indubitable and undoubted: it is in a measure
acknowledged by Dr. Hort in words on which we shall remark in the ensuing
chapter(287). Our readers should observe that the “rubbing off” process
has by no means been confined to particles like καί and γάρ, but has
extended to tenses, other forms of words, and in fact to all kinds of
delicacies of expression. The results have been found all through the
Gospels: sacred and refined meaning, such as accomplished scholars will
appreciate in a moment, has been pared off and cast away. If people would
only examine B, א and D in their bare unpresentableness, they would see
the loss which those MSS. have sustained, as compared with the Text
supported by the overwhelming mass of authorities: and they would refuse
to put their trust any longer in such imperfect, rudimentary, and
ill-trained guides.